Uh, oh, Shuxclams and Harvey in the same thread. I'd better check the alignment of the stars. 
-Robert
-Robert
"...There was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," Clarke told reporters in August 2002.
Clarke also said the Bush administration, in its first eight months in office, adopted a "new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda." He said the Bush administration ordered a five-fold increase in money for covert action before Sept. 11, 2001.
And Clarke told reporters that in March 2001 -- months before the 9/11 attacks -- President Bush had directed his staff to "stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem" -- that problem being how to deal with al Qaeda.
On Wednesday, in his testimony before the 9/11 commission, Clarke seemed to contradict what he said at the August 2002 background briefing: "[M]y impression was that fighting terrorism in general and fighting Al Qaeda, in particular, was an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration. Certainly, there was no higher priority," Clarke said on Wednesday.
Clarke also testified on Wednesday that terrorism was "an important issue but not an urgent issue" for the Bush administration.
Shays letter
In a letter to the 9/11 commission on Wednesday, Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) told panel members that "Clarke was part of the problem before Sept. 11 because he took too narrow a view of the terrorism threat."
Shays said that before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, a House panel held twenty hearings and two formal briefings on terrorism -- and Richard Clarke "was of little help in our oversight."
"When he briefed the subcommittee, his answers were both evasive and derisive," Shays said in his March 24, 2004 letter.
Shays noted that "no truly national strategy to combat terrorism was ever produced during Mr. Clarke's tenure."
http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2004/911commissionLetter.pdf
Shays also released a copy of a letter he wrote to Clarke on July 5, 2000, telling Clarke that Shays' subcommittee found the information Clarke had given them "less than useful," and asking him to answer additional questions.
And Shays released a January 22, 2001 letter he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, complaining that Clarke had not answered the subcommittee's questions. "During a briefing to this Subcommittee, Mr. Clarke stated that there is no need for a national strategy," Shays wrote to Rice.
"This Subcommittee, and others, disagree with Mr. Clarke's assessment that U.S. government agencies do not require a planning and preparation document to respond to terrorist attacks," Shays wrote."
Numbers Indicate Media Bias on Richard Clarke Story
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Lets see here, the Republican Party while clinton was in office did everything in their power to over throw the Presaident of the United states.
Now that their boy Bush is in power they are pulling out all the stops to attack each insider taht dares tell the truth about the inner workings
of the Bush Administration, how they pressure all of their 'Loyal' personae to think the Unilateral Government Thought and never question the leader.
Smear Clark, Kerry, O'Neill, Clinton, don't dare reveal what's behind the smoke and mirrors, or you will be punished severly.
If a fraction of the effort that they are putting into their self serving political agenda had been focused on Al Queda, Terrorism, and world
co-operation the event that was 9-11 may never have happened.
God forbid that they would have listened to Clinton and Clarkes views on the terrorism threat from al Queda instead of the "Breaking News"
Monica plays the trombone ! Or anytime along the 8 years that they fought the Clinton Administration on everything that the country tried
to move forward on forward on: health care, prescription drugs, they prevented it from happening - it wasn't their idea, and it didn't benefit
their political cash sources, they could have got those bill enacted with more and better benefits - at a much lower cost.
If instead of bringing their 'We Know Everything - We're starting over at 1992, pre Clinton, and the hatefull division that they foster.
they could have listened to what the hell the experts from the previous 3 Administrations were telling them, instead of focusing on
getting Daddy's revenge, and starting the continous and serial character assassinations - they might have seen the clues that the
sky really was falling, which they chose to ignore, it wasn't on their agenda - but Iraq was.
Even now instead of focusing on the terrorism threat, they are attacking insiders that deal the shocking truth, nearly a dozen of them now
outed from secret cover, exposed to foriegn threats, covering up their own stinking self made political excertment, ridculing foriegn countries
that are unlucky enough to have terrorist attacks leveled at those countries that supported the Bush Agenda, and attacking each and every
potential opponent that dare run as opposition or not agree with thier assessememt. They aren't paying attention now any more than they
were before 9-11. It's pre-emptive payback time for everyone who doesn't kiss collective royal booty.
Bush has made the U.S. Government and the way he opperates it and the way it opperates to support him the laughing stock
of the world. Poster Child for the Emperor with no Clothes.
The aren't even
Now that their boy Bush is in power they are pulling out all the stops to attack each insider taht dares tell the truth about the inner workings
of the Bush Administration, how they pressure all of their 'Loyal' personae to think the Unilateral Government Thought and never question the leader.
Smear Clark, Kerry, O'Neill, Clinton, don't dare reveal what's behind the smoke and mirrors, or you will be punished severly.
If a fraction of the effort that they are putting into their self serving political agenda had been focused on Al Queda, Terrorism, and world
co-operation the event that was 9-11 may never have happened.
God forbid that they would have listened to Clinton and Clarkes views on the terrorism threat from al Queda instead of the "Breaking News"
Monica plays the trombone ! Or anytime along the 8 years that they fought the Clinton Administration on everything that the country tried
to move forward on forward on: health care, prescription drugs, they prevented it from happening - it wasn't their idea, and it didn't benefit
their political cash sources, they could have got those bill enacted with more and better benefits - at a much lower cost.
If instead of bringing their 'We Know Everything - We're starting over at 1992, pre Clinton, and the hatefull division that they foster.
they could have listened to what the hell the experts from the previous 3 Administrations were telling them, instead of focusing on
getting Daddy's revenge, and starting the continous and serial character assassinations - they might have seen the clues that the
sky really was falling, which they chose to ignore, it wasn't on their agenda - but Iraq was.
Even now instead of focusing on the terrorism threat, they are attacking insiders that deal the shocking truth, nearly a dozen of them now
outed from secret cover, exposed to foriegn threats, covering up their own stinking self made political excertment, ridculing foriegn countries
that are unlucky enough to have terrorist attacks leveled at those countries that supported the Bush Agenda, and attacking each and every
potential opponent that dare run as opposition or not agree with thier assessememt. They aren't paying attention now any more than they
were before 9-11. It's pre-emptive payback time for everyone who doesn't kiss collective royal booty.
Bush has made the U.S. Government and the way he opperates it and the way it opperates to support him the laughing stock
of the world. Poster Child for the Emperor with no Clothes.
The aren't even
What is that contradicting?
Seems like something taken out of context. Let's see the link and full quote, please. Also, what is this supposed to contradict?
That's your subjective analysis. What is this contradicting?
What is this contradicting? You say it "seemed"? "Seemed" is not contradicting.
Again, what is this supposedly contradicting?
Doesn't mean sh!t.
You said Clarke contradicted himself but you offered no proof.
See, the way you prove someone contradicts themself is to do something like this:
Person: "Quote 1"
Person: "Quote 2"
Where Quote 2 would be contradictory to Quote 1. It's not hard to do. Try again.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
If I were a betting man, I would bet that this is going nowhere. I doubt Clarke's testimony will be declassified, nor am I convinced the Republicans really want it declassified. If his testimony is released, if it becomes available in black and white for all to read, then it can be analyzed and discussed factually. As long as it remains a hidden bogeyman, however, the Bushies can use it to smear Clarke without worrying about the Dems debunking their claims.
The Reps will smear Clarke with innuendo, constantly alluding to that classified testimony that proves Clarke eats babies. "If only we could let you read it for yourself, you would be as outraged as we are." The more they repeat it, the more people come to assume it's true, even though no evidence is ever offered. It is one of George's -- or more accurately, Karl's -- favorite and most effective attacks.
The real sad thing there folks, is even if the statements that Clark made are true Bush is using all his political ease to sway right out and away from any harm. Things that really matter aren't being taken care of now. Things like say now that gas prices are hovering at $2.00 and are supposed to go even higher in the future weeks. So maybe instead of the republicans and democrats trying to fight over who said what, they should try and root out the real evil, the oil monopolies. When it comes down to it when prices rise to $2.50 we need to start recalling our senators and congressman, since they are not doing thier job protecting Americans from price gouging. The Bush economy will fall back into a major recession if it isn't nipped in the bud. Yet how incompetent that Bush really is now takes center stage over national priorities?
Lemme see... Who's refused to testify under oath? Oh, yeh, Bush Administration officials... Who's accusing their detractors of lying under oath? Oh, yeh, Bush Administration officials... Whose policies and directions did the alleged perpetrator serve at the time of the alleged false testimony? Oh, yeh, Bush Administration officials...
Whose distortions, deceptions and outright lies are coming back to haunt them? Oh, yeh...
Whose distortions, deceptions and outright lies are coming back to haunt them? Oh, yeh...
Rice wants bash Clarke without going under oath herself. What a coward she is. She won't even put her worthless word against what he is saying.
It also puts into question everything she has been saying, since she won't even repeat it under oath.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
I think we should commend the Bushies for sticking to their principles. Ever since the Clinton incident, they have insisted it is wrong to lie under oath. Rice is merely upholding that principle.
Now if we could only convince them lying is wrong even when one is not under oath.
This election is a done-deal for Kerry. Bush is just giving him too much to run on, and he's really falling fast in the public eye. Bush is gonna need something big to bounce back from this. At least when Clinton lied it wasn't about anything important, a blowjob....
Bowfinger, I know you are basing your conclusion on facts and unbiased knowledge of what Rice would testify to before the commission. I mean it's not like you haven't made assumptions based on no knowledge whatsoever of what she actually would testify about. You wouldn't lie and make up a conclusion such at that based on nothing would you?
I think, Etech, that the Admin's position has been based on lies and misdirection all along, and that it's becoming more obvious as time goes on, other than for the more ardent fanbois. Ms Rice isn't about to swear to any of it under oath- she's extremely intelligent, she'll take the Fifth before opening herself up to criminal prosecution. Hopefully, the Bushies will be out of power before the courts put her in that position.
I'd love to see that one- the National Security Advisor invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege over affairs of National Security...
I'd love to see that one- the National Security Advisor invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege over affairs of National Security...
If the admin has nothing to hide or to lie about then why not have Rice give testimony under oath ? Everything that she says can be classified but under oath so that we know that we are getting the truth one way or another. It's funny how Clintonesque the Bush administration is with it's lies and how worse then Clinton the Bush admin is with it's spending control and giving goverment vast and dangers powers.
I dunno. I think that declassifying his previous testimony can be a good thing either way.
If it proves he was consistent, then we all know that truth according to him.
If it show major inconsistencies then we know he lied and can move on.
Either way its good for the country.
If it proves he was consistent, then we all know that truth according to him.
If it show major inconsistencies then we know he lied and can move on.
Either way its good for the country.
That same standard would apply to getting testimony under oath from Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush-lite, himself. I doubt any of them has the guts to do it.
Originally posted by: conjur
Without a shred of proof??
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
Yes, without a shred of proof. That democratic Waxman site does not and cannot prove that Rice would or has lied. Bowfinger made the assumption that Rice would lie.
Rice cannot be compelled to give public testimony from what I understand. If Clarcke lied it doesnt matter. If I were them Id just pull out the Clinton book on evasive testimony and go to town. Better yet I would use the old Reagan standby. For you youguns thats " I dont recall "
:beer:
Either can Rumsfeld, Cheyney, or Bushwhacko, himself. That doesn't make it right. It certainly should make anyone, especially the honest people who previously supported them, think long and hard about voting for the same administration, again. :disgust:
Yes, it does, but I don't think he did. There's too much corroborating evidence to support his statements and too much bullsh8 being flung by the Bushies, trying to discredit him.
Sure. All that did was get Clinton impeached. I'd go for that for Bush, except that it couldn't happen before the election.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter