Why i trust Clarke more than the traitorous Bush Administration

[Phokus]

On CNN's front page:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/911.commission/index.html

Powell: "We wanted to destroy Al Quaeda"

Powell asserts that Condi Rice was drafting a plan to eradicate Al Quaeda the week Bush took office.

Oh really? WHY then did the Bush administration do NOTHING when the intelligence community picked up lots of chatter from Al Quaeda about attacking America several months later? Wouldn't that have been the perfect time to execute your plan and put America on high alert? And Rice won't even testify publicly!!!!!

LIES LIES LIES, how can ANYONE defend this administration?!?!?!

:disgust:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Yap yap yap

CkG

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Yap yap yap

CkG

<sheep noise> BAAAHHHHHHHH, BAAHHHHHHHHH, BAHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Yap yap yap

CkG

<sheep noise> BAAAHHHHHHHH, BAAHHHHHHHHH, BAHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Yep, that seems to be your usual noise.
Either that or "WAAAHHHHHHHH, WAAHHHHHHHHH, WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH"


CkG

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Yap yap yap

CkG

<sheep noise> BAAAHHHHHHHH, BAAHHHHHHHHH, BAHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Yep, that seems to be your usual noise.
Either that or "WAAAHHHHHHHH, WAAHHHHHHHHH, WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH"


CkG

Shut it you traitorous apologist

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Yap yap yap

CkG

<sheep noise> BAAAHHHHHHHH, BAAHHHHHHHHH, BAHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Yep, that seems to be your usual noise.
Either that or "WAAAHHHHHHHH, WAAHHHHHHHHH, WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH"


CkG

Shut it you traitorous apologist

*grabs moonie's mirror*

Look at the mirror and phokus - phokus

*notices moonie is naked behind the mirror and quickly returns his shield to him*

CkG

 

[Romans828]

LIES LIES LIES, how can ANYONE defend this administration?!?!?!

Because their NOT the enemy.............

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Romans828

LIES LIES LIES, how can ANYONE defend this administration?!?!?!

Because their NOT the enemy.............

Right because "The Enemy is Within". Heil to the 4th Reich.

 

[chowderhead]

Q Why shouldn't this be seen as an intelligence failure, that you were unable to predict something happening here?

DR. RICE: Steve, I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile. All of this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking. You take a plane -- people were worried they might blow one up, but they were mostly worried that they might try to take a plane and use it for release of the blind Sheikh or some of their own people.

National Security Advisor Holds Press Briefing 05/16/2002

In an interview on French television on Monday, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt spoke in specific terms about the threat, saying that "on June 13 of this year, we learned of a communique from bin Laden saying he wanted to assassinate George W. Bush and other G8 heads of state during their summit in Italy."

Separately, Mubarak told the French newspaper Le Figaro that Egyptian intelligence services had told the United States about the threat, and that the warning included a reference to "an airplane stuffed with explosives."

Several days before Mubarak's interview, in an appearance on Italian television, Gianfranco Fini, the Italian deputy prime minister, discussed parallels between the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, and warnings his government had received before the Genoa meeting in July. "That is why we closed the airspace above Genoa and installed anti-aircraft missiles," Fini said. Threat to Bush at Genoa summit Egypt warned of plot by bin Laden organization involving plane

No idea Dr. Rice ?

 

[Red Dawn]

Incompetence does not equal traitorous.

 

[tnitsuj]

I don't think it is fair in any way to state that the Bush or Clinton administrations could have predicted the magnitude of the threat they were facing. Thier is critical analysis, and thier is casting blame for the sake of casting blame.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Yap yap yap

CkG

Originally posted by: Phokus
On CNN's front page:

LIES LIES LIES, how can ANYONE defend this administration?!?!?!

:disgust:

Apparently by typing yap yap yap into a keyboard.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Phokus


LIES LIES LIES, how can ANYONE defend this administration?!?!?!

:disgust:

Because its what they're paid to do, its their job.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Powell asserts that Condi Rice was drafting a plan to eradicate Al Quaeda the week Bush took office.

Oh really? WHY then did the Bush administration do NOTHING

if you want the answer why don't you pay attention to the 9/11 commission hearings going on now?

Clinton administration appointees just answered your question:
The intelligence needed in order to raise to the level of 'actionable intelligence' was at a much higher level before 9/11; As a result we had sep11. After sep 11 it was much lower, as a result we've got Iraq w/ no WMDs.

So what you are arguing is that 1.) the level that intelligence has to hit in order to be 'actionable' needed to be higher before 9/11 and 2.) the level of intelligence has become to low now that it's post-9/11;

What your suggesting just doesn't make sense;

or are you not actually suggesting a change, but rather you just feel like pointing fingers at places that life isn't perfect?

 

[0roo0roo]

Powell asserts that Condi Rice was drafting a plan to eradicate Al Quaeda the week Bush took office.

Oh really? WHY then did the Bush administration do NOTHING

its true something like that was said, but what was also true was that was all that was done. a meeting wasn't scheduled until sept 4th 2001, which was by then obviously too late, and still operation ignore in full spin. clarke points out taht a similar situation with the clintons would have revieved immediate attention. ignoring all the warnings, the spiked chatter that reached peaks, all the pleadings by clarke, no progress, no change, it wasn't a priority.

don't think you can reason with magnus kain, notice he has pascals wager in his sig quite sad.

 

[Gaard]

Why i trust Clarke more than the traitorous Bush Administration

"This is not a White House that is interested in analysis, pros and cons, evaluation. They kind of have the conclusions and they want only information that supports the conclusions."

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Phokus

WHY then did the Bush administration do NOTHING when the intelligence community picked up lots of chatter from Al Quaeda about attacking America several months later?

I have some spare time on my hands.

How would one go about researching what the CIA did on any matter
between the time Bush took office and 9/11?

You can only assume the administration did nothing.

The implosion of a radical society of fundamentalists would take decades,
not months.

 

[AEB]

Clarke is should run as Kerry's VP that way they can flip flop together. It doesnt matter who YOU belive more Clarke has already shown that cant be trusted.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Clarke's basic argument is that it was POSSIBLE to do more than what was accomplished in the Clinton and Bush administrations before 9/11. The Clintonites are keeping quiet b/c they know that's true (missed opportunities to knock off bin Laden come to mind). The Bushies, on the otherhand, wail that it's inconceivable to have done anything more or anything differently. Clarke rather unceremoniously crashes that party.

Bush is no traitor but he's no great leader, either . . . hell he's barely mediocre. "Steady leadership during uncertain times" is a euphemism for "keep me in office because I hired a bunch of people that understand what's going on."

 

[0roo0roo]

well not really. if you actually read the book, clinton comes off pretty decently. he did basically most of what clarke asked of him, far far more then the previous two administrations who had far more dead americans due to terrorism on their watches.

bush on the other hand willfully ignored the evidence and advice of clark, even when it was spiking during that summer. anything that clinton was into was like poison to bush apparenlty.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: AEB
Clarke is should run as Kerry's VP that way they can flip flop together. It doesnt matter who YOU belive more Clarke has already shown that cant be trusted.

Denial Denial Denial...

This guy is counter-terrorism czar for the past four presidents, a republican, and he obviously is telling the truth otherwise why would he be attacked so viciously on TV with misleading statements by all the Bush administration.

EVERYTHING this guy has said has been verified by other former National Security advisor Rand Beers, former CIA Senior analyst for 28 years... Ray McGovern, former Treasure Secretary Paul O`Neill.

Warned about 9/11 attack coming...

PITT: There was the August 6 2001 briefing?

McGovern: On August 6, the title of the briefing was, ?Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US,? and that briefing had the word ?Hijacking? in it. That?s all I know about it, but that?s quite enough. In September, Bush had to make a decision. Is it feasible to let go of Tenet, whose agency flubbed the dub on this one? And the answer was no, because Tenet knows too much about what Bush knew, and Bush didn?t know what to do about it. That?s the bottom line for me.

Source

Hard on for Iraq...

Paul O`Neil: ?From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,? says O?Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

?From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,? says Suskind. ?Day one, these things were laid and sealed.?

Source #2

Condelezza memo

Condelizza Refusing to testify publicly... but only willing to speak to media outlets like Fox, looking very flustered, dodging questions, giving dodgy answers...

Speaks for itself.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: AEB
Clarke is should run as Kerry's VP that way they can flip flop together. It doesnt matter who YOU belive more Clarke has already shown that cant be trusted.

Man if JESUS himself came to Us and Was Critical of the Bush Admin, You Yaba's would even attempt to smear and Discredit him just to protect Bush

 

[chowderhead]

In rush to defend White House, Rice trips over own words
This week's testimony and media blitz by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke has returned unwanted attention to his former boss, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
...
At the same time, some of Rice's rebuttals of Clarke's broadside against Bush, which she delivered in a flurry of media interviews and statements rather than in testimony, contradicted other administration officials and her own previous statements.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage contradicted Rice's claim that the White House had a strategy before Sept. 11 for military operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban. The CIA contradicted Rice's earlier assertion that Bush had requested a CIA briefing in the summer of 2001 because of elevated terrorist threats. And Rice's assertion this week that Bush had told her on Sept. 16, 2001, that "Iraq is to the side" appeared to be contradicted by an order signed by Bush on Sept. 17 directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq.

Rice, in turn, has contradicted Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Clarke was "out of the loop" and his intimation that Clarke had been demoted. Rice has also given various conflicting accounts. She criticized Clarke for being the architect of failed Clinton administration policies, but also said she had retained Clarke so the Bush administration could continue to pursue Clinton's terrorism policies. ...

Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed this week that Rice had asked, in her private meetings with the commission, to revise a statement she made publicly that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center ... that they would try to use an airplane as a missile." Rice told the commission that she had misspoken; the commission has received information that prior to Sept. 11, U.S. intelligence agencies, and Clarke, had talked about terrorists using airplanes as missiles.


She is either lying or out of the intelligence loop if she did not receive intel about airplane-based threats before 9-11.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: AEB
Clarke is should run as Kerry's VP that way they can flip flop together. It doesnt matter who YOU belive more Clarke has already shown that cant be trusted.

Man if JESUS himself came to Us and Was Critical of the Bush Admin, You Yaba's would even attempt to smear and Discredit him just to protect Bush

I know right? Whenever someone credible attacks the admin, they take a week off from their busy schedules to make the accuser look like scum - all while focusing more on the credibility of the person than the accuracy of the claims.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

It's funny how CAD tries to defend his party, he types "yap yap yap" and thinks that it somehow passes off for an actual response. What a moron.