Once again, the Bush administration is engaged in revisionist history. The real truth? Read the article from Think Progress, and Judd.Â
From http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/26/rice-clinton-terrorism/
This morning, in the Fox-owned New York Post, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reacts angrily to President Clinton's criticisms of how the Bush administration approached the terrorist threat during their first eight months in office. (The Post headlines the article "Rice Boils Over Bubba") An excerpt:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.
… "What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.
The 9/11 Commission Report contradicts Rice's claims. On December 4, 1998, for example, the Clinton administration received a President's Daily Brief entitled "Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks." Here's how the Clinton administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
The same day, [Counterterrorism Czar Richard] Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports. [pg. 128-30]
On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President's Daily Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S." Here's how the Bush administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
[President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so.[p. 260]
We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262]
Rice acknowledged that the 9/11 Commission report is the authoratative source on this debate: "I think this is not a very fruitful discussion. We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said."
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 77
Backing up what we already knew :
Clinton stormed out of the Fox studios after his interview. He told aides that if they ever put him in a negative light like that again, they'd be fired.
He knew he looked bad. Chris Wallace asked the tough questions. Wallace even asked Clinton if he wanted to stop and go back and talk about the 'fluff piece' - his Global Warming issue. Clinton refused. He was already hot under the collar and wanted to make his point, no matter how embarrassing it was, on the air.
Clinton looked combative, and he had a right to be so. His horrible reactions to the USS Cole bombing, the African embassy bombings, and the failure to simply say 'Yes' to accepting bin-Laden from the Sudanese................all these were incalculably terrible mistakes. Chris Wallace gave him a chance to stop, but Clinton took hold of the noose and put it around his own neck.
Didn't you think Clinton looked like his head was going to blow off his neck? I mean, this guy just had heart surgery a short while back. Why would he want to raise his blood pressure to stratospheric levels like that?
Apparently I've struck a nerve here with you Leftists. Chris Wallace is a calm guy. If you'd seen any of his other interviews you'd know that. He just asked the questions and let Clinton self-destruct. Clinton, once again, was his own worst enemy.
Oh, and since the Bush administration is the one in power now, they get asked these kinds of questions daily. Do you ever watch the White House press briefings or the briefings from the State Department? If you do, then you already know the answer to your own question.
You know I think Clinton was a Left Wing dupe in Centrist's clothing. He did little in the years leading up to 9/11, thus encouraging the act. He had multiple opportunities to catch bin-Laden, but blew them all. Whether its just ineptitude or lack of preparation, I don't really care................and neither do many Americans. He never looked serious about battling these Arab Muslim extremists.
No wonder he was angry when he left the Fox studios. He stumbled badly on the air, and everyone saw it.
And Clark, personal attacks against me? Isn't that beneath you?
As I've said a million times - this isn't about me. It's about the issues. You and I disagree strongly...............and that's OK.
C.Y.A, and soooooooo much A.
Bret,
tsk, tsk ,tsk, din' your mama teach you not to lie?
Clarke,
He was over on this unsuspecting article that was encouraging people to give to the Dems, posing as a conservative democrat. Actually sounding reasonable, almost, for a change. I'm still waiting for the sky to crack open and this giant hand to reach down and grab grab him by the scruff of his neck.
I do see the absolute difference between Canadian & American Politics. In some ways I thought in the past it would be better if people had to register for their Party. I thought it would not be a bad idea if people had to have a "party card" & to get one, they would have to go to some sort of Political Rally. If they had no Party Card, they could not vote. I thought it was a good idea, until today when I see clearly what happens if you are a "Registered anything".
The fact that in the USA, you are either a "Registered Democrat, or a Registered Republican" gives the people involved the "Us against Them" feeling & I see more & more the fallacy in this scenario.
Often I have "shook my head" at Americans that I saw spouting stuff like "Your a pink assed Liberal" when confronted with obvious facts! When shown proof, they fall back to "Where did you read that" & when told, they revert to "That is a well known Liberal source"! Then simply dismiss the information.
In Canada we don't register for any Party. You can choose to support your party or not, but you don't register. That kind of tells people how you are going to vote before you do. Also in Canada we don't vote for our Prime Minister separately. He becomes Prime Minister if his Party has the most seats elected & he has been voted the head of that Party.
For that reason, when discussing issues, we don't usually take sides. We argue points. We don't generally put blinders on for anything that is information against our Party. The Party does not matter! The issue matters!
Never will you hear in Canada 2 people on opposing sides of Canadians being in Afghanistan calling each other Conservative or Liberal as an insult! Instead you will have them both discussing the issues rationally.
One side will say "We are doing no good in Afghanistan, as all our time & effort, money spent & lives lost go for building schools & roads that the Taliban destroy in 30 seconds! This is a USA idea & a bad one! It's only because those guys South of the Border cannot keep their nose out of anybody else's business that we are even here! I have no idea why NATO is going for this! This is futile!"
On the other side you will get "Look, we have an obligation to NATO & if we do not support it, it might be us next! Then what would you do if we were over run by some Country or Terrorist Organization & NATO did not back us up? Who says war is easy? Certainly there will be setbacks, but people know that Canadians would not be involved for their own selfish interests! We are respected all over the World because we do stand our ground & we do not run from a fight (once we are in it) & I think if you ask the average soldier, he will tell you that he thinks we are making headway!"
Both have different opinions, but the facts can be discussed. No one of them is bull headed about it because they are on the Conservative side... simply because there is no Conservative side. I voted for Harper & did all I could to promote him! I am glad as hell to have a Conservative Government in Parliament! However his stand on Afghanistan I strongly dis agree with! He just attended a "Pro Support our Troops" rally & everyone was wearing red, but for most Canadians, we ask "where did these people come from"?
Yet in the USA... Registered Republicans can actually look at a very intelligent Bill Clinton & call him down as a "Pink Assed Liberal" & insult everything but his intelligence, just because he is a Democrat & never listen to a word he says! People like Bret can look at his interview on Fox & somehow think Clinton looked like the idiot there! Clinton lost his cool! Clinton is wrong! Clinton is a jerk!
Then out comes Rice about this, & they draw a sigh of relief as she spouts that Clinton is mistaken & without a single statement to back up her claim, the Registered Republicans are somehow satisfied that they have all their bases covered!
Never mind that after the 911 attacks Rice came out & said publicly that "They had no idea terrorists would use planes to attack the USA! Who would have known? Who would have suspected it?".
Yet with document after document handed over to the Bush Administration, by the Clinton Administration... they were not only warned... they were TOLD! Al Qaeda is planning an attack on the USA & he is probably going to use Hijacked Jet Airplanes to do it! Right there in black & white! No getting around it! It is there!
So roughly 8 Months after Bush took office, his head girl, Rice comes out & blatantly lies to the American People, then Cheney lies & then Bush lies & puts the entire Country into a war against Iraq when they knew very well that Iraq had nothing to do with it & somehow, people like Bret... just because he is a "Registered Republican" not only believes them, but acts like to think otherwise is a direct attack on his own family!
That is what Canadians find entirely insane about Americans! How can you be so blind & when your back is up the wall scream "Friggin Liberal Propaganda!" They lie not my Party!
Yes your Party Bret. Clinton lied about the blow job yes! See... I admit it! Bush lied to you about Iraq & had his whole team back him & those Bret are the facts!
You finally got one thing right about me - but you used the wrong adjective to describe me. I'm a disappointed Democrat.
I am stunned that none of you even analyze how many elections we've lost since Jimmy Carter. The only reasons we even won with Clinton was because he fooled us twice into thinking he was a Moderate.............and because there were no good Republican challengers those years. Yep, that includes Bush41.
Have any of you noticed that Clinton is all we can point to, since 1980? A long line of Republicans beats our asses every 4 years because they appeal to a much wider audience than we do. As we shift further and further left, our voting audience gets smaller.
Pretty soon we'll be the best damn buggy-whip makers in the world.............but with no customers.
You may not like me, but at least listen to the message.
Ron with his "lefty calling" he really thinks that even a Canadian cannot see that he could not possibly be a Democrat? How could anyone be so blind & so much not support a party who is clearly right here?
Ok now you can let me have it all of ya! :-)
The issue here is not that Clinton did enough, he himself said in the interview he didn't, because he didn't get him. The issue is that the same people that now accuse him of not doing enough, at the time accused him of doing too much, and Bush did much less upon taking office, actually nothing. That's called hypocrisy. Of course, after 911 there was a whole different paradigm. But you can't hold Clinton to that, as Bush has said himself, the whole world changed that day. I don't expect you to agree, as I've seen your partisan posts, but the 911 report supports this. As far as working together, Clinton has held his tongue while being accused of this continually, until ambushed on a program he was supposed to be talking about charity efforts on. I'd say he has used extreme control till now.
As to Clinton being ambushed... So what you are saying is that reporters are only suppose to ask pre-approved questions and not ask questions that might not be comfortable to answer. I liked Clinton as president for the most part. And I like most of what Bush is doing. But what I don't like is all the finger pointing. On both sides of the aisle.
We're we suppose to ignore people having to live inside walls to stay alive. The media only shows us what they want us to see. And most people take it as gospel and question no further. Do you agree or disagree Rod that both Clinton and Bush failed. At the time of the invasion of Iraq both sides saw the same intel and both sides agreed that Iraq was the correct coarse of action. Now many of the Dems won't admit that they made a mistake too. They only want lay blame with Bush. They accepted the information they were given. It was wrong but it was the same information the President had. If Iraq was the wrong way to go what was the correct way.
Oh yea I did vote for Clinton. But right now I think Bush can do the best for me and my family. Next election I'll see who can best do the job.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976802502
Now Bush is a liar & a thief. His Father was not much better, actually the instigator of all of this! Clinton was left holding the bag after what Bush (Sr.) did. He was dealing with some very pissed off people in the Middle East which should be obvious as to why if you look at what is in that link.
Clinton knew what he was up against & why. Bush should have been interested, as it had everything to do with what his Dad left us with & Clinton did come closer to getting Bin Laden than anyone has so far!
Bush knew who the players were! He knew what was going on. He knew what his Dad did back in the 80's with Regan. He knew just how pissed off the region was with the USA! Instead of calming anything down, he had the insane idea that he could take it all over! He has failed miserably!
Finger Pointing? The finger pointing goes directly back to his Dad. Go to the link & see.
First of all it's Ron, not Rod, and I already covered that even Clinton said he didn't do enough, because he did not get him. I'm not saying that reporters should ask just questions that are pre approved, don't put words in my mouth, I have too many of my own, but the purpose of the interview was supposed to be to help divert flack, for the owner of FoxNews, Rupert Murdoch, for him helping Clinton's charity, from the conservative world. When he was endeavouring to help the owner, I doubt it was either expected, or very ethical to try to clobber the guy. I think he was invited under false pretenses, is all I'm saying, but that doesn't matter to me. I just mentioned it in passing, because it turned out pretty good for Clinton. I have no idea what you are referring to on living inside walls to stay alive, sorry. What could Bush have done in 8 months? Well having one meeting, or SOMETHING would have been a start, but he did, as far as the 911 commission could ascertain, absolutely nothing, and I'm pretty sure if he had, he, or someone in his administration, would have mentioned it when asked. Both sides most definitely did NOT see the same intelligence leading up to the war. I'm not sure how you can even still believe that, but I'm too tired tonight to debate that with you, there's way too much ground to cover there. If Iraq was the wrong way to go, what was the right way? Well, personally, I think we should have finished the job in Afghanistan, and gotten Usama and his cadre. Then we should have used the good graces and sympathy of world public opinion we squandered by going into Iraq, and actually taken up some of the many offers to work with us to eliminate terrorism that we got from even Mideastern countries. One of the biggest blunders we made was not doing that. That door closed the day we entered Iraq. JMHO
Yes the middle east was pissed off. Tell me when they haven't been pissed off.
Should we have left Kuwait to Sadam and not gotten envolved? We were asked to help. And then Osama used that as an BS excuse to pick the latest fight with us. He was just looking for anything.
When have we taken over any country?
How is he a thief????
How many times did Clinton fail to get Bin Laden?
How was he to calm things down after 911? Huh? What should we have done after 911???? Tell them not to do that again. What is the right number of times to get attacked before it's ok to fight back.
You are right this started long before 911. That whole region has been set on boil for 50 years or more.
Would we have been better off leaving Sadam in power?? That seems to be what some people think. Yea we might have been able to somewhat deal whith Sadam. But who do you think would have succeded him. His sons? And by most accounts they were more insane than he was.
Just caught your post before heading in to bed. Can't address it all, but go up the page and read Clark Kents post for a record of what Clinton did. Goodnight.
Ok I'll check it out later.
We set up a Free Trade Deal between 3 Countries & it was supposed to evolve towards something similar to the EU. Countries are scrambling trying to get into the EU. Members can travel & work in any Member Country without Passports & be free. It strengthens the economy of these Nations & provides for a higher level of security.
Imagine if we all (Canada, USA & Mexico) only needed to protect on "tiny border" at the bottom of Mexico & we just had to look after the security of our Ports & Airports? Instead of building walls (which don't work) etc, we just made it easier for people from all 3 Countries to travel & work anywhere on the Continent we wanted? That was the end game on Free Trade.
Yet for some reason, protectionist Americans get so uppity about their Soviernty, that they want again to try to do the impossible. Be an island all to themselves!
So Bush came up with this "Guest Worker Program" to at least make it easier to legally work in the USA from any of the three Countries, but he first of all only concentrated on Mexico (which makes no sense) & he tried real hard.
I guess that means he tried to do something "semi right" but even failed at that.
Are you trying to tell me that rather than change to win, you'd rather become the permanent Minority party?
OK, I see what you meant by the wall thing, now. So Saddam wasn't such a great guy. We helped him get there. We have supported worse. None of his cruelty or bad leadership is why we invaded Iraq. We invaded Iraq because he was supposed to have WMDs and working on even worse WMDs, and because he supposedly was connected to Al Qaeda. The closest we could find to WMDs has been around 500 discarded or buried and decaying artillery rounds, many empty, that either had in them traces or the agents of decaying sarin gas or mustard gas. These date back to the Iraq/Iran war, and would be more likely to harm whoever handled them than anyone else. I believe in a third world country like Iraq, burying them was probably the only way to get rid of them. It's pretty evident that they didn't consider them an asset. We probably financed and or supplied them to him in the first place, as we supported him at that time. Much has been made of these in conservative blogs, etc. but not even the Bush administration has made any noise about them, and that should indicate how significant that is-not. Other than this, the cupboard has been pretty bare. No mushroom cloud atomic weapons, yellow cake uranium, biological weapons, or centrifuge tubes, etc. were found. No ongoing programs, no nothing. On that Al Qaeda link, the one connection to that the president and his administration sighted has been thoroughly discredited. It just didn't happen. Even Cheney has quit whipping that dog, last I knew. That means we went in for no reason, that I can see. If you've got something I don't know about, tell me what it is. I don't think we should have gone into Iraq. Saddam was thoroughly trounced by us in the first Gulf War, and the whole world knew he was a little dictator trying to regain a little of his composure by trying to thumb his nose at us up to the point that we were annoyed enough to kick his ass again, and then stopping. It was just fluff. No one took him as a sign of weakness in the US. In point of fact, the first Gulf War gave us the chance to show the world our strength and he did us a service, in a way. If you read the newly available intelligence estimate, at least the part we can see, it shows that Iraq has made us less safe than we were without going in. Yes, it says if we kick ass there, it might help discourage jihadists, but as we are seeing every day, that's a pretty big if, and will take a commitment in men , equipment, and money, that most in the public have not even dreamed of, at this point. In the meantime it is full of warnings, more ominous to me, because these guys knew they were giving their boss bad news, and toned it down a little, I think. Things like jihadists movements growing, expanding geographical areas, likely to see more attacks at home and worldwide, strength increasing, likely to see this trend remaining strong throughout the estimate period.. Obviously this administration didn't dream of it either, and they should of. I knew, and told everyone that would listen, this wasn't going to be the cake walk they advertised before they went in, and it's one of my deepest regrets that I have been proven right. I knew, because every since the Shah of Iran was deposed, I have been interested in the area, the religion, history, and culture, of the mideast. Mostly because of it's mention as the site of the biblical Armageddon. Anyway, with my limited knowledge of the region, I knew we were not going to be seen as liberators, if we went into Iraq. I knew we would spark jihad, not quell it. I knew that if we tried to stay in either Afghanistan or Iraq, we would be fighting a never ending fight, history shows that to be true, unless you are capable of fielding loyal suppressive secret police, etc. like Saddam, you would never hold power. I knew any government we set up would have the taint of the Infidel on it, and a serious handicap to start with. I knew, and I'm sure the president was advised, of all of this, because he had to have consulted experts on the area. I knew, and I cannot understand what he was thinking. I'm not happy to be in opposition to my president. I think the polarization of the political process in this country is one of the worst misfortunes in our times, but it is there because they put it there. The republican political strategy, scripted by Rove and others like him, have pushed us left and right, on purpose. The more stridently the left protests being painted derisively, the more ridiculous and amoral they can make them sound, the more they make them sound ridiculous and amoral, the more objectionable they make them sound to the right. They foster an us and them mentality, and in doing so completely guarantee the unquestioning loyalty of the right. Many on the right, and now, also on the left, now refuse to listen to any argument that doesn't fit their world view. It's not an unfortunate sidelight, it is the main event, and planned strategy, whether you want to believe it or not. Investigate, and you can probably find right wing think tank statements of theoretical strategy that reflect this. I admit to sometimes losing my pragmatism as well. The buttons get pushed, back and forth, and it's a shame.
As far as Bush being to blame for high gas prices, etc. The Bush administration basically let Cheney formulate energy policy. There were meetings with top oil company executives at the time, that we know about. Not the content, but that Cheney met with them. Then he was asked who he consulted with to set this energy policy, and he refused to disclose that information. Subsequently, gas prices sky rocketed. There is no proof that the two are connected, but the secrecy, in this case, has proved to be fuel for that particular fire, and has contributed to the appearance of some kind of an agreement. Therefor, once again, being the most secretive administration in history has not served the president and his administration well. Transparency would serve them much better, on this, and a number of issues they have chosen to be opaque on. Ditto prices going down- seen as a partisan election cycle move, timing is everything. The rest of that stuff, I'll let you and James fight out, because James and I don't necessarily hold the same views on a number of issues, and there are things important to him, that I feel......less important, to be diplomatic about it.
On the run up to Iraq, and whether or not both sides had the same intelligence, I know the proof has been laid out for you before, and if you reject that, there isn't much I can do to convince you. Things such as the Downing Street memo, the 911 commission's report that found CIA and other intelligence had many contradictory reports from various sources, and in each case the worst scenario is the one touted by the Bush administration, etc. When you say, though, that both SIDES had the same intelligence, you are right, with the exception of the Bush administration. All members of congress got the same info, and unfortunately, it was the intelligence already edited by the administration. As far as I am aware, none of the conflicting evaluations were released to them, just the conclusions made by them. Are you aware that ex bush administration officials have come out and said that toppling Saddam from power was discussed from almost day one by Bush and his crew? In addition to other speculation, he wanted Saddam dead for the bungled attempt on his fathers life, surely a valid feeling for him, but his duty was not his own, it was to the best interests of our nation. 911 gave them a golden opportunity to do what they wanted to in the first place, just slant a few reports, tie him into terrorism, and it's a slam dunk. Unfortunately it squandered the good will we had after 911, and opportunities to really rid the world of terrorism were lost, while we went into a war that has dubious value, is a recruiting call for jihadists, and much harm is involved for our sons and daughters, the real victims of this ongoing charade. Now we are there, though, so what do we do? You tell me, but do it informed of the real ramifications of our presence there. Billions and billions more to fight, Mega billions to rebuild, as every time we build something, we might as well paint a bulls eye on it, it's usually bombed before we even get it finished. The cost in lives, for us and the Iraqi people rise every day. It's a disgusting mess with a very dismal future, for us, for our sons and daughters, for them, for our country, our fiscal health, our spirit, and our will. In the meantime, we are witness to a resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, a real world terrorism sponsor. We can lose there too, and it would nullify the last good effect of our "war on terror" should that happen, for they will likely sponsor terrorism again. I often wonder how far down the road to eliminating most terrorism we would be if we had given it a chance. I cannot help but point a finger here, I am sorry.
Politically speaking, everything goes in cycles.
It is almost guaranteed you'll see a Republican leader like Mr. Bush again. Simply review history - they happen all the time. Idealistic, but without more than 50% approval..........that's a slam dunk.
Depending on how it unfolds, since we have shifted our focus to Iraq, Afghanistan is something that started out right, but we left it behind, to some extent. We still have a chance to have some influence there, along with Pakistan, but it remains to be seen how we will end it. We should have, though, got in, rooted out the Taliban, destroyed them completely, along with Al Qaeda, and got the hell out, quickly, in order not to appear as if we were occupying it. Sent over aid to rebuild maybe, I don't know. So much depends on "if we had", there.
We don't disagree as much as you think. I just wish you had all the information. I read your entire post... please read this one. Its not my opinion. It is factual pieces of 2 well known documents. Please look at it.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976802502
Now to comment on the rest... if you looked at the reality of the situation, Afghanistan is not even something Bush was interested in from the beginning. Clarke was astounded when after 911, all the Bush Administration could talk about was Iraq! He had been warning about Al Qaeda for years! So much so, that they were ready to tell him to "SHUT UP ABOUT IT ALREADY" & he became so frustrated that he resigned his post!
The Bush Administration was bound & determined to go into Iraq immediately, but after outrage among anyone that knew better, he finally succumbed to going into Afghanistan "First"! His plan was always Iraq.
It goes back to his Father wanting Iraq to take out Iran & Saddam would not do it! Iran was & is the stumbling block that prevents the USA from control of the entire area! If Saddam was not going to take out Iran, then Both Bush's decided they would take out Saddam. They lied to him. They set him up! They did what they had to do, to get into the position where they could take out Iran if he would not do it!
Bush could care less about Afghanistan or even 911! His plan is to take out Iran & to do that, he needs to have control of a neighboring Country. Iraq is the ticket!
Now certainly he was told this would cause a Civil War. He knew that. For when people are pressuring him to pull out, he knows he can pull on the heart strings of the American people by saying "Look what we will leave them with... if we don't finish the job"? Yet Americans are not ready for what that means.
It means genocide Ron! Killing Millions! Simply because he knows & you know & I know that THEY WILL NOT STOP! They wear no uniforms & you cannot pick out the terrorist!
The only solution therefore is to KILL EM ALL & he is banking on the outrage of the American people being such, that faced with years & years of war, they will stomach a little genocide!
Now Truman said "Those who refuse to learn from History, must repeat it" & that is why I implore you to go to that link & look at the history. This has been in the cards for years.
The thing I am counting on is that the American People will not be conned this much! They will look at the history & they will see what is happening, as plain as their face! They will see how Bush does not care less about Afghanistan & is only there as a token to keep the Americans feeling as they have a motive & right to be fighting people in the Middle East! In the end Bush hopes he will have either done it, or set the path to easily take full US control of the Middle East & make everyone do the USA's bidding in the area!
This is what he see's as a solution. He does not want to announce it openly! It would shock too many Americans! Yet if he does it & does it & then looks at you dead in the eye & says "Look what we will leave them with if we leave! They are dead meat surrounded by all these terrorist nations! We have to stay to protect the region... eventually you Americans will lay down, roll over & say... Ok George!"
It's going to cost Billions & Billions of dollars & Millions of lives... but in the end, the USA will be undeniably the biggest power in the World with all the Oil under their thumb & from that day forward, all they will have to do is threaten!
Then you will feel safer won't you Ron? That is what he wants to be known for, for all of History.
It has not, and will not do any good to argue with you, that is extremely obvious. But yes, I will stay liberal even if we never hold power again, though that is extremely unlikely. I don't want to win, at the expense of holding to what I know to be right in my heart. Ridicule, whatever, won't change the fact that there is right and wrong, and we are presently on a course that's wrong, not just for the world, but for our country. How many constitutional rights have we given up? Who would have believed six years ago that the USA would ever reject the Geneva conventions? Who are we? What do we believe in these days? When have we ever been closer to just letting corporations and the rich run our country? I don't have all the answers, but I have eyes, and I know what I see. The terrorists are winning. Remember the message after 911 about just go on about your life, if we change that, then the terrorists have already won? We have changed.
I just realized above I screwed up on a reference to the 911 commission, that's what happens when you write before you have your coffee, I apologize for the confusion.
I can't find my original link to the info on the congress being misled, but here is a link that lays out much of it. It had to do with the elimination of all dissenting opinions in the unclassified white papers released to all of congress, and the public. Key congressional leaders got more detailed reports of the classified reports, but they were few, and some tried to get the opposing views declassified, so everyone could make a decision based on all of the reports, but failed in that attempt. Not only this, but many of the deleted dissenting opinions came from the sources deemed to be most likely to be right. Such as the airforce on remote controlled airplanes, etc.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/005999.phphttp://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/005999.php
try that again
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/005999.php
Now in the area, we are confronted with either/or. Either you pull out or you kill them all! There is no Middle road & it is not improving. It should be obvious that it never will. The real question is, how far will you Americans follow this President?
Thank you for bringing up my earlier words. They need to be said again :
You finally got one thing right about me - but you used the wrong adjective to describe me. I'm a disappointed Democrat.
I am stunned that none of you even analyze how many elections we've lost since Jimmy Carter. The only reasons we even won with Clinton was because he fooled us twice into thinking he was a Moderate.............and because there were no good Republican challengers those years. Yep, that includes Bush41.
Have any of you noticed that Clinton is all we can point to, since 1980? A long line of Republicans beats our asses every 4 years because they appeal to a much wider audience than we do. As we shift further and further left, our voting audience gets smaller.
Pretty soon we'll be the best damn buggy-whip makers in the world.............but with no customers.
You may not like me, but at least listen to the message.
First I never said I didn't like you. In contrast to you, my brother is a conservative and you ARE middle of the road, and I still love him. I do not, though understand what motivates you to get on here time after time, have someone discredit everything you say, and go on your merry little conservative way like you showed someone the light. It's incomprehensible your ability to let the truth roll off your back like water off a duck, and never get wet. This is why you are in my troll file. Trolling for arguments. It's just what you do, and I accept that. All God's children have a purpose, and yours is to try to give liberals heart attacks. Won't work on me, sorry, I've got your number. But I like you, just fine. Sometimes when I have to answer one of your absurd postings, I figure maybe someone will read it, and see the real light. Thanks for setting them up for me. You're kind of my straight man, in a way, and I appreciate the efforts on my behalf, personally. Thank you.
Oh I know all that, I was half kidding. I just don't have an answer for the whole mid east problem at this point. This is the question all of America is facing right now, and there are no easy answers for us. Once he got us into this mess, it became extremely hard to extract ourselves. I can't believe, or face the fact, that there may not be any answer that doesn't point to the problem being worse than it was before, myself. I keep thinking if we could just put Powell back in charge, but it's probably too late for that, and he'd be an utter fool to accept the job, at this point. I'm reminded of Briar Rabbit and the tar baby from the children's stories. We are well and truly stuck to that tar baby, and I'm not sure anyone can get us extracted from it's embrace. (Yeah, I know that's politically incorrect, no offense meant to anyone). So don't ask me, or try to get me to accept the answers you are peddling. There are too many of our kids over there that's life depends, and too many people over here that's life depends, on the hope of miracles, for me to comment or listen too much on that, at least tonight.
I'll say this about you - at least you try to be somewhat reasonable in your arguments and back your comments up. Sometimes you're unable because the information simply doesn't exist, but at least you try. Others who shall remain nameless, just hurl insults. But that insolent, undocumented name-calling is what I truly enjoy about the Left Wing.
And incidentally, I've always thought of you as MY straight man. Remember Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In? I've always thought of you as my Dan Rowan............but I'll give you the Fickle Finger of Fate award for your entertaining Leftist commentary.
Ron that is a good analogy about the situation.
James There are many times we've been stuck in other countries to provide support to newly forming governments. Germany, Korea, Japan, but does that mean we control those contries. Now I know you might say we influence those governments. When has one country (not just the US) tried to influece other governments. It's the way of the world of politics.
Ron wondering how you feel about Classified documents being leaked to the media.
I am in no way saying that "All Americans" are completely stupid! As a matter of fact, if I wanted to go into business... I would want an American on my side. I know of & have seen your achievements in Japan & South Korea & I know that is why North Korea is so jealous & wanting the USA to talk to them. As far as Germany goes, all ya needed to do was nurse em back to health & they can take it from there. Always the cog that makes Europe turn.
However you do have another side of the population that thinks "We are bigger than you are & better than you & you will just listen to us or else!" Don't try to tell me as good Businessmen, you will not roll right over the weak when you can... to move up the ladder.
That is understandable. Yet this was an all out conn of Saddam turned bad & what is going on now might have been the ticket in the 70's or 80's, but with Global Warming the way it is, it's clearly the wrong direction to go, even if the USA could win in the Middle East, which they cannot. That was my point on genocide. I doubt the USA would want to be accused of that! Since that is the only way to win this war in Iraq, I would have to say that the end game is obvious!
You will be folding up your tent & going home & it is just a question on how many more Americans need to die before you do.
Sorry all if I jump around but my brain works that way.
I don't think that the US is in the business of taking control of countries. Sometimes it's more than enough just trying to control our own, but we do as do others have to be concerned at how other countries are run and how that effects us and push try and make changes that hopefully benifit both countries. We don't always get it right that why our laws are made to be changed when they don't work out the way they were intended to.
I understand what you are saying about stopping the jihadist who blend in with the population. I think that there is another way besides genocide. One way and I don't know if it's possible only time will let us know is for the goverment trying to take hold in Iraq is able to hold it's ground. That being said it WILL NOT succeed if it is not supported. I know that civil war is possible there. However even in the US there is not harmony between all the people of this country. But that doesn't mean that it should be given up on. Sometimes change is a very slow process. In todays world of cell phones ,microwave ovens (where there are people who still want their food nuked faster) people seem to think the kinds of changes being attempted cannot be made overnight. Itakes years to change the thought processes of the dictatorship lifestyle. How some can think that this can be done in the time that they deem appropriate is niave. This is a country that has had decades of being told how and what to think. Now suddenly(yes it sucks that it happens that way sometimes) the people are being told you get to decide how you country is run. And there are the hardliners that think that the way things were is the correct way to rule. Bottom line it change takes time it doesn't happen quickly.
If you go to the article up now about that subject, I have run my motor on that quite a bit already. But I will reiterate it here. It depends on the leak. Leaks like the Plame case put peoples lives at risk. Yes, I know several have said that she was working at the CIA offices, and not really undercover, but the CIA claims she had been careful to preserve her cover, and did do occasional undercover work abroad. If so, then they not only put her at risk they put the lives of every person she had contact with abroad at risk, as an enemy could go back and trace her movements, who she called, etc. I know the NIE is probably on your mind. I have read it, it does nothing but confirm what I believe from just reading the normal news, and visiting a few international websites. The leaked portions appear to only work from info gathered by analysts at the various agencies. As the phrase " a large body of all source reporting" would indicate. The CIA for example has a whole section dedicated to reading foreign and domestic newspapers, magazines, etc. and monitoring websites, TV and radio broadcasts worldwide. The information there is fairly general. There are probably facts in other parts of the NIE that would put agents in danger, but I do not see it in the portion that was leaked. I look upon the leaking of info on a case by case basis, as many times it is men of conscience, and patriots that do it. I'm not saying that's always the case, but in the case of this leak, I think it screamed to be leaked, and I salute whoever did it. Bush has been grinding the "Iraq makes us safer at home" ax for way too long, in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, and in this document, we finally find the truth, it has made us less safe. During Vietnam, damaging info was leaked by Greenberg, I believe, and it helped to tear away the tissue of lies that were being told to the American public about that war. The Watergate leaks, probably the most famous of all, were instrumental in ridding us of a president that went above the constitution and below the conduct of moral men. So my answer is it depends on the content and actual detrimental effect on our national security, all the while balanced against the public's right to know when they are being lied to. But I have to say, as you know, I feel we have been lied to, a lot, by this administration, and my description of who ever leaked this would be whistle blower, not leaker, patriot, not traitor. I'm almost afraid to ask- what do you think about it?
I think that this information was timed to whistleblow when it could do the most damage. And who decided that this patriot was given the athority to release this information. Who gave them the power to decide what and what not to release. I know that as an american citizen it is our right to effect change in our government. That is what elections are for. There is information that has been classified for decades. Should that be released. We elect polititions to do what is right for the country they are elected in part to decide what we should know.
If there is enough cause to impeach the president then it will happen. I think that all administrations lie to the public and if they look at it through their glasses they can justify their reasons for doing it.
I guess I feel that all the information can be harmful in some shape and form. But who should be the ones to decide whats for public consumption.
I don't feel the media are the right ones to decide whats need to know or not. Not when they will hear about a landing and meet the Marines on the beach and anounce their arrival to the opposing forces. I don't feel like the current media can keep a secret even when they know it should.
So Ron whats next.
I kind of have to admit I was pretty sure of your feelings on this because I knew you were an ex marine, and I know there are valid arguments for what you say about affecting troop moral, but in our history, some pretty important things have been changed for the better because of leaks, for instance if it had been left to the politicians, we would have just kept on fighting a never ending war in Indochina, because the politicians wouldn't let the troops win, and their policy of wearing down the Vietcong and North Vietnamese wasn't, and never would have, worked. We could have lost twice, maybe three times the men over there, they didn't care. The bad thing about that war was that misguided people treated troops like they were the problem. I was at Ft. Riley at the time, and saw it myself, and it made me ashamed. It should also be noted that leaks vital to national security have been given to news organizations, and they have held them back, so I wouldn't rag too much on the media. As I said before, we might not have ever known what Nixon was up to, either, were there not leaks. You ask if information classified for decades should be released, and I have to say some of it, most definitely, and Congress agrees, that is why we have the freedom of information act. Now, I'll ask you, are you aware that Bush, right now, has agents from the CIA going through the national archives and reclassifying information that has been released, and even published, for decades? If you have an old stack of papers in your basement, and it has some of that information in it, you are guilty of possessing classified material. Strange but true. I know you are aware that with both houses of congress in Republican hands, and the amount of cronyism rampant today, Bush has no worries on impeachment, and that reference was disingenuous. I will grant you that the timing of the release of the NIE is suspect, but then it's only been out a few months (April? can't remember) and someone might have been waiting to see if Bush would do the right thing and release it himself, and gotten tired of waiting, too. As for elections, and the power they confer upon officeholders, I have to say that this president has continually gone above and beyond normal presidential powers. I said before, my assessment of whether a leak should be prosecuted has to be balanced against the damage it will do to national security, and the public's right to know the truth about policy. The press, as I mentioned before also has to make that assessment, and has, many times decided not to publish something. In this case, I feel the public's right to know what is really going on, in such a serious arena, far outweighs the fairly innocuous national security concerns, and I have to say I, and the press, and the leaker agree. Would it help if I told you on an issue this important, I could care less who was occupying the oval office, my assessment would be the same?
But you are wrong about one thing. What!!!???? Ron Wrong...
Just kidding Ron I'm not an Ex-Marine(bite your tongue I'm smarter than that) LOL I'm Former Army not Ex- Army LOL
But polititions can't fight wars. Tell the military what needs to be done and let them do it. But Polititions have to say Do this but don't do it that way. The boots on the ground are the ones that have the first hand intel on whats going on.
Yes April was the release date of the NIE.
Time will tell.
In reply to you, I would go along with you about the USA not wanting to take over Countries if the situation was not Iraq & the situation of Iran & the fact of the Oil.
If you look at the documents at:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976802502
you will see clearly that this is exactly what the USA was planning with Saddam from the very beginning & they are only doing now, what was planned on for years! Control of the Middle East. Whether they take it over, or put a puppet in charge of it, the USA want's to control the region & that is more than clear!
In this case, & I dare you to refute it, after you read those documents at that link, the USA has had, does have & wants a future control of the region! The people will not stand for it! When your starving & most of your family members are dead or dieing & you cannot even find clean drinking water. When you don't know who will enter your door at any minute & when you see the carnage they see & have seen for years... you eventually come to a breaking point! When that happens... you can see nothing better to do with your life, but to strap on a bunch of bombs & go take out as many of those muther fu*kers as you can, or at least anyone who assists them. In case you did not know who THEM is... its the United States of America who is oppressing you & your Country & is responsible fully for all of this crap!
You're not really using your own article as a source now, are you? That is hilarious!
It just looks suspicious. I wouldn't do it if I were telling you to "look at the source". I would try to aim you to something a little more neutral and unbiased............something that did not have my name attached to it at all.
But I think you're on the way to make this a circular argument. And we've already discussed this all, at length.
What exactly is your question? I'm pretty sure I could add something to your data bank, if I knew what it was that you wanted.
How long do you think it will take for Jerry to make his death ray? I am told 5-10 years but I have a feeling I had better do something before Nov 7th. Any suggestions?
Jerry's death ray?
5-10 years?
Nov. 7th?
I have one suggestion..............explain it to me and maybe I can help you.
Is this some kinda Left Wing code that I should know about? lol
Your South Bronx beautification and self-defense projects are nice and all, but let's get back to the discussion.
Is it that we once liked Saddam, and now we don't, that has you all upset?
Just like Charles Manson, you don't even have to own a gun to be behind the whole situation & be guilty of "War Crimes". Instead of Saddam being on trial, it should be both Bush's for stirring up crap & directing people to do things & then stabbing them in the back saying "It was them not me!"
There is not an intelligent Man in Congress who knows the whole story, Democrat or Republican, that can back up what has been done as you do. That is why they do not discuss the topic! They know the USA is guilty as hell of not only war crimes, but in aiding & abetting criminal & unjustifiable acts which make us all less safe, than we were before.
The idiots who spout "We have not been attacked since 911" are simply not realizing how easy it is to get a nuclear bomb into the USA on a truck through Mexico, or in a container coming into any port in the USA! Never mind the home grown terrorists already inside of your Country just lying in wait!
Meanwhile you spend Billions to feel more secure! It's all a fallacy! The more crap you cause in the Middle East, the more the threat to you increases, as it is continuing to mount... day by day.
Amazing that Rice is still telling the same self-justifying lies to defend the utter failure of the Bush administration.
Please save the idiotic comments by Brett, the pretend-Democrat; they are hysterical.
His prediction of the "permanent minority party" has an unusual application to current events.