Democrats are bitching about Bush not doing what he did after 9-11 before it happened, yet they’re bitching about him doing it after, too!
“clarke had little to say until after that fact. he now sees things could have been done differently. well no shit, sherlock.”
–>Really? Isn’t much of what he has said indicate that he struggled to convey the threat beforehand?
“mistakes are always easy to find after the fact.”
–>They are easy to find, but as our political leaders well know, they are hard to admit! I respect that Clarke at least has said that he could have done more - the Admin. cannot be so honest b/c it’s political suicide.
"You know who I blame for 9/11???
THE MOTHERFUCKING TERRORISTS…"
–>Shit, never thought of that! Kidding, but this DOES go without saying.
I think we should get away from trying to BLAME. I don’t know that blaming is anyone’s primary purpose. I think what happened on 9/11 could happen today - it was such a simply devised plan, I don’t think we could stop it now, either. BLAME isn’t Clarke or the Commissions purpose.
right side up, how many attacks happened under clintons watch? what did he do about it? now, how many attacks happened under bush’s watch? what did he do about it? point made. as to the gun issue. it absolutely has to do with terrorism and the general tone of this thread. i suppose you want to just throw rocks at them and try to understand why they want you and your family dead?
Rice could be a MILF after a couple rounds of hard liquor.
Hmm…
I had the televison on (something I rarely do) while lifting today. I have to state, in all honesty, that I have heard few people in my life who handled themselves better under pressure than Connie Rice did today.
She seemed to give answer that made sense. She delivered them with passion yet profesionally. If I had any doubts about her abilities previous to this hearing they are now gone!
http://therightcoast.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_therightcoast_archive.html#108129116326974946
It depends on the meaning of “urgent”
By Mike Rappaport
If any more were needed to discredit Richard Clarke’s partisan attacks, consider this from the Washington Times
(Hat tip: Ranting Profs):
“The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress – 45,000 words long – makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.”
The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an “urgent” threat, while President Bush’s national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, “ignored” it.
One thing I learned a little bit about today was the bombing of the USS Cole. I hear people here saying “Clinton didn’t do shit when the USS Cole was bombed”
Yes he did. Bush was the one who “did nothing”.
Mid-October 2000: Cole is bombed. Clinton sends troops to the region and investigators to find out who is responsible.
2 weeks later is the election. Bush is appointed. After Bush takes office in January, he calls the warships back from the Gulf, and shuts down the investigation.
If you want to bitch about Presidents doing nothing about the USS Cole, bitch at Bush. He is the one who pulled the plug on the Cole investigation.
Right Side Up
To read about the Taliban-pipeline issue, just go to Google and type in
taliban pipeline deal financial aid
Then take your pick.
This one is good:
Right side up:
“clarke had little to say until after that fact. he now sees things could have been done differently. well no shit, sherlock.”
–>Really? Isn’t much of what he has said indicate that he struggled to convey the threat beforehand?
---------> the only problem is that there is no proof of this, and there is documentation stating otherwise from what I understand. then his book came out…
“mistakes are always easy to find after the fact.”
–>They are easy to find, but as our political leaders well know, they are hard to admit! I respect that Clarke at least has said that he could have done more - the Admin. cannot be so honest b/c it’s political suicide.
----------> You missed my point- everyone is finding sooooo many mistakes now- some of which arent mistakes- but where were they before hand? how come they didnt look into things more? why should the president have done something while they did nothing? what makes the president the man with preminitions?
“Shit, never thought of that! Kidding, but this DOES go without saying.”
->Does it? I really don’t know sometimes. The ferocity and anger in some partisan comments really make me think that some people put less than 100% blame on the terrorists.
Why cant we all see that everyone will not agree with everyone. If bush did things differently, there would no doubt still be a huge voice against what he did. In fact he is single handedly re-defining the Democratic party and they don’t even know it. The anybody anything but bush strategy is changing the democratic party from what it used to be. Truly bush is a more liberal republican president than we have seen in a very long time maybe ever. So the democrats to be better need to be different. Since bush is pretty down the middle on “MOST NOT ALL” issues The dems have to go left of the pres on some issues and right of him on others.
In the primarys all the candidates went through a phase of accusing bush of being weak on medicare and medicade, now he is being critisized for spending too much on them. WTF?
Its all pretty funny. I’m actually digging a bunker in my back yard and gonna stockpile it with grow, water and some other basics. If our country doesn’t pull together in the next few years we will be fucked. and don’t look to the rest of the world to bail us out. I just have this gut feeling that radical islam is going to start spreading like wildfire across the middle east. Pretty soon we may see the al-qaeda Army not just a cell or two.
I am beginning to reconsider my position on if the war in Iraq was the right move also. Not that we can do anything about it now, but we better build up our allies pretty damn good before we leave there. I really think now that people need to free themselves, otherwise they will feel weak and helpless, which then leads to resentment and anger. Shit we took down the super power of the time when we won our independence. With the help of france for shits sake. Granted they would do anything to hurt the brits in those days, but still.
Shit what was I talking about again.
Again…
Why are we so concerned with our own leadership? The problem isn’t the leadership, it’s the terrorists!
Damn!
This thread is still discussing what people should have done at certain events, well folks that shit is over and done with, we need to work towards fixing the problem (terror) and put past behind us.
What good is any of this doing for the Nation? The blame that is getting tossed around is purely conjecture both from the democrats and republicans. While we’re worrying about whew knew what and who did or didn’t do something about it the terrorists are still out there killing our troops and civillians.
We as a Nation can beat this thing, but I feel we all need to focus on the real problem and not allow ourselves to be deflected from the cause by worrying about mistakes that happened in the past.
Man I hate election years…
B.
Does she deadlift though?
Lumpy: and the one sided arugment.
Nothing is going to get learned and done about 9-11 if this one side politics plays on. All these hearing is all about Poltical Theater. Which is sad. Democarts blame the republicans for 9/11 and Repulicans blame the Democrats. What donesn’t both sides just shut the Fuck Up and figure this out so that 9/11 does not happen again.
All, the Democrates are trying to do is get back at the repulicans for what they did to Cilton. Who, did nothing in office but played w/ the interns and lie to the american people.
So, far there has been no terriost attacks on America soil since 9/11.
Here’s a food for thought.
Troops over in Iraq are getting hit everyday it seems to protect us from terriost attacks. If we keep the terriost busy overseas maybe there will be no more attacks on American soil.
On August 6th, when he was on vacation in Crawford Texas, the President got a briefing called “Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within the United States”.
Did George Bush rush back to work, in Washington DC?
No he did not. He stayed on vacation for 2 more weeks, and returned to Washington on August 30.
In fact up until 9-11, George Bush was on vacation for 42 percent of the time he was President. That is a sweet work schedule!
“right side up, how many attacks happened under clintons watch? what did he do about it? now, how many attacks happened under bush’s watch? what did he do about it? point made.”
–>No, I don’t think the point WAS made. What kind of attacks are we talking about here? Domestic attacks? 9/11 occurred under Bush, to answer your question, though I don’t blame him for it. As for what he did about it? Well, the way I remember, he bombed the shit out of the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan, then suddenly decided Iraq posed such a serious threat to the US and the rest of the world that he turned nearly all of our military attention toward invading them, detracting attention from the terrorists actually responsible for 9/11…in a nutshell. I don’t know of any domestic attacks under Clinton, not to say 9/11 couldn’t have.
As per attacks overseas - well, many attacks took place under Clinton, as many are taking place under Bush (have you watched the news lately, Iraq is an ugly place for US troops and it doesn’t show signs of getting prettier).
I think you should say more before declaring your point made, because I don’t get your point.
" as to the gun issue. it absolutely has to do with terrorism and the general tone of this thread. i suppose you want to just throw rocks at them and try to understand why they want you and your family dead?"
–>This thread started about Condi Rice’s testimony - not the 2nd ammendment. But, let me get this straight, you have a gun to shoot at terrorists? When do you suppose this opportunity or need might arrise?! We also might need them for the monsters under our beds.
Further down this side note, why would you prefer EVERYONE to have guns to NO ONE having guns?
“Nothing is going to get learned and done about 9-11 if this one side politics plays on. All these hearing is all about Poltical Theater. Which is sad. Democarts blame the republicans for 9/11 and Repulicans blame the Democrats. What donesn’t both sides just shut the Fuck Up and figure this out so that 9/11 does not happen again.”
–>I still don’t know that we are using blame in the right sense. Perhaps both the Clinton and Bush admin. underestimated the threat to us at home, and more could have been done by both. This is useless to argue about. Like I’ve said before, I think 9/11 could happen again today. More crucial is the blame Dems have for Bush regarding his attack on Iraq. It seems to be unwarranted and not prompted. This attack, I BELIEVE, is what is worthy of blame.
“All, the Democrates are trying to do is get back at the repulicans for what they did to Cilton. Who, did nothing in office but played w/ the interns and lie to the american people.”
–>Republicans spent millions and millions of dollars and impeached Clinton for having an affair. Democrats are angry with Bush for insisting Iraq’s threat was immenent in light of the vast amounts of WMD’s they had, and being completely wrong, thus far. Clinton’s lie was about having sex with someone other than his wife, and Bush’s seems to be about the WMD’s. These are incomparable, and in my view, what Clinton did may say something of his sexual attitudes or even his character, but it says nothing about the type of job he did as Pres. Let’s not forget that one of Clinton’s biggest critics in this regard, Bob Barr, was found to be cheating as well. And didn’t Newt have a few lockeroom stories of his own? If it came to light that Bush cheated on Laura, would you advocate an impeachment? Would you consider his presidency a waste of time?
If Dems wanted to play the game that the Reps did, they’d launch a huge investigation and attempt to impeach Bush for something such as his alleged coke use.
"Here’s a food for thought.
Troops over in Iraq are getting hit everyday it seems to protect us from terriost attacks. If we keep the terriost busy overseas maybe there will be no more attacks on American soil."
–>Too many refined carbs in this food. What are you saying? The recent flurry of attacks is a better alternative to 9/11? I don’t know that any US deaths are better than any others. I just don’t see what idea you’re trying to convey here.
(as I type, 6 more troops reported killed)
What donesn’t both sides just shut the Fuck Up and figure this out so that 9/11 does not happen again.
last time i checked bush was doing something about it. can anyone really doubt that this man will kill every terrorist walking the face of the earth? he is systematically destroying these organizations. we are a here and now country. we want all problems fixed here and now. he was handed a cluster fuck of a mess that many administrations took decades to build. we should have no doubt that if given the appropriate amount of time, or president will get the job done. it scares the shit out of me to think what kerry will do if given the chance. the dems wont vote for kerry because he inspires them. they will vote for kerry because he is not bush.
right side up… i feel my point was indeed made clear. we can play word games all day but we both know i was talking about attacks on americans. and yes clinton did nothing to avenge our fallen countrymen during his 8 years. lobbing cruise missiles into an abandoned camp or bombing an aspirine factory is not combatting terrorism and is not avenging the loss of hundreds of american lives lost on his watch. true bush is having attaks on his watch. this is not news.now what is he doing about those lost american lives lost? he is bringing the fight to the enemy. thank god we have a true leader in the white house.
I bet she knew of 9/11 all along. Bush paid a bunch of redneck hicks to fly the planes
Hahaha, you liberals…
Could you imagine what would have happened if only 3 months into office Bush started making preemptive strikes against Al Qiada? The liberals would have gone completely nuts.
But that’s apparently what liberals are going nuts about him NOT doing.
LOL