Richard Clarke "Against All Enemies" Number 1 On Amazon
Beloved Citizen
JTEM
"Beloved Citizen" <beloved...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Sean Hannity? Laughed out of the Top 20.
I hate to say it....
I respect Clarke. I believe Clarke. His background, the
sophomoric smear campaign unleashed by the Bush
campaign-dubbed-administration and all the independent
verification of his claims convinces me that the man is
telling the truth.
But I don't agree with him.
Heck, if I had my way people like him would have been
thrown out on their ass moments after 9/11.
And, oh, by "People like him" I do include the entire Bush
administration.
Clarke is an example of what's wrong with our government,
and why we can never win our war against terrorism.
That's right, we are going to lose. You might want to make a
note of this, in case some day you want to remember who it was
that was the first to tell you.
We are going to lose. We're losing right now, and we will
eventually be defeated.
Why?
Because of people like Clarke... Rumsfeld... Cheney... Bush...
Mueller... the whole rotten bunch.
Here's the deal. I'll tell it to you short & sweet:
Clarke repeated a rather constant theme at the 9/11 hearing, which
was the fear of acting. Clarke himself talked about how many,
many CIA beaurocrats ended promising careers by backing covert
operations that turned out to be somewhat unpopular.
Again, this was a constant theme. I'm using the example of Clarke
but it was by no means limited to him. In fact, the theme was
present in just about all the testimony before the 9/11 commission,
and is quite evident going back many years before. The open
letter from the FBI published by "Time" magazine is another example.
In it, FBI agents were apparently hamstrung at the very idea that
someone might accuse them of being "racist" and practicing "racial
profiling."
Getting back to Clarke now, he actually used the words "Blowing
up in your face" to describe the impact covert activities had on
career CIA officials.
Well, that isn't "Blowing up in your face." You want to know what
"Blowing up in your face" is? It's a suicide bomber on a crowded
bus. *That* is "Blowing up in your face."
We're facing people who strap bombs to themselves and willingly
blow themselves up. We're facing people who spend long months
planning & training just for the opportunity to hijack a plane and
fly themselves into a building. Facing them, populating every branch
of our government, up to & including the "President," is a coward
who shivers at the thought of facing consequences for the actions
he takes in the name of the American people.
Worse, oh, much worse is the fact that we're talking about them
losing their job.
The other side is standing in line, waiting for their chance to go to
prison or be killed, and facing them on our side are a bunch of
ivy-league brats who lose bladder control at the thought of having
to take their chances in the private sector.
The other side will throw away their life for a chance to kill you,
and the people who claim to be protecting you won't act until
the law protects them from any consequences.
Clarke isn't any different. Heck, he's one of them. He thinks like
they think. He talked about those poor, poor beaurocrats as if
facing private-sector employment was a real sacrifice.
No, Clarke, "Flying yourself into a building" is a sacrifice,
not having to find a real job just like everybody else. And,
until we have a CIA... FBI... Pentagon... Whitehouse... until
these places are full with people who know & understand
the difference between a real sacrifice and an minor
inconvenience, we have no hope of ever winning.
None.
We can't win. Not with these people. Not with this administration.
Not with any administration. Not unless we round up all the
cowards and boot them out of Washington... out of office... off the
public dole.
If you're not willing to sacrifice your government job, you have
no business pretending you can stop terrorist are willing to sacrifice
their lives.
Leave. Get out.
Rex the Reaper
> Sean Hannity? Laughed out of the Top 20.
>
So much for Richee Keebler's theory about the book flopping. What a moron.
VRWC Destruction Machine
wrote:
Oh yeah, Clark has a stellar career. Terrorist acts seem to gravitate
towards him on his watch. Besides, his own quotes say he lied during
his book promo on 60 Minutes.
-
There once was a man from Nantucket,
Whose misstatements could fill up a bucket.
Oft the truth he has bent,
Like his "Irish descent."
Of his record he says, "I'll just duck it."
Must be of the man whose middle name is "F*ck It"
JohnAC
"JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ko2dnbUP2cS...@comcast.com...
>
> "Beloved Citizen" <beloved...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Sean Hannity? Laughed out of the Top 20.
>
> I hate to say it....
>
> I respect Clarke. I believe Clarke.
I don't and this is why.
Clarke stated that prior administration treated terrorism as a high priority
and the current one did not. The problem with his statement is if it were
true, why didn't the prior administration really go after al Qaeda? The
common response is that the prior administration wouldn't be able to sell a
war to the people of the US. This isn't true. The administration did go to
war with Bosnia, a country that did nothing to the people of the US and from
what I understand, the administration was going to send in ground troops.
If the administration could go to war in that kind of situation, why
couldn't it go to war with a people who declared war the US? Why couldn't
the prior administration go to war with a people that was attacking the US?
Why couldn't the prior administration go to war with a people that has
killed hundreds of Americans?
It seems to me that Clarke is ticked off because he didn't get the job he
wanted. The prior administration was in office for 8 years and knew about
al Qaeda for half of that period. The current President (I can't say
administration because it took months for many positions to be filled) was
in the White House for a matter of weeks when he held a conference with
Pakistan in preparation of securing a direct root for troops to enter
Afghanistan. If al Qaeda was a top priority for the prior administration,
why didn't they do this basic step to protect the people of the US?
Bradley K. Sherman
JohnAC <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ko2dnbUP2cS...@comcast.com...
>> "Beloved Citizen" <beloved...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> > Sean Hannity? Laughed out of the Top 20.
>> I hate to say it....
>> I respect Clarke. I believe Clarke.
>
>I don't and this is why.
>Clarke stated that prior administration treated terrorism as a high priority
>and the current one did not. The problem with his statement is if it were
>true, why didn't the prior administration really go after al Qaeda? The
They did.
You'd better read this article by a former MIT classmate of Clarke's:
<http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685/>
| I have no doubt that Richard Clarke, the former National
| Security Council official who has launched a broadside
| against President Bush's counterterrorism policies, is
| telling the truth about every single charge. There are
| three reasons for this confidence. ...
--bks
Joe Myers
> > I respect Clarke. I believe Clarke.
>
> I don't and this is why.
> Clarke stated that prior administration treated terrorism as a high
priority
> and the current one did not. The problem with his statement is if it were
> true, why didn't the prior administration really go after al Qaeda? The
> common response is that the prior administration wouldn't be able to sell
a
> war to the people of the US. This isn't true. The administration did go
to
> war with Bosnia, a country that did nothing to the people of the US and
from
> what I understand, the administration was going to send in ground troops.
John, I'm going to address your comments as if you aren't a right-wingnut.
I dunno. It's just a guess. But I think you might be one who's simply been
innoculated with the right-wing virus, not infected by it. You're quoting
the party line, after all. But somehow, I suspect you're not yet frothing
at the mouth. (If I'm mistaken on this point, please disregard.)
The "war" in Bosnia was supported (albeit, often tacitly) by 19 European
democracies of NATO. It was limited (General Wesley Clark -- remember
him? -- lost *no* American lives during the operation). It had what could
have reasonably been deemed as a favorable propaganda effort, since US
military efforts were deployed to protect Muslims.
The history of the Balkans (remember a little ditty called 'World War I'?)
has always held the potential of being a powderkeg in Europe. Clinton's
(and Wes Clark's) masterful performance will live in history as the first,
most important, victory of democracy in the post-Cold War era.
> If the administration could go to war in that kind of situation, why
> couldn't it go to war with a people who declared war the US? Why couldn't
> the prior administration go to war with a people that was attacking the
US?
> Why couldn't the prior administration go to war with a people that has
> killed hundreds of Americans?
You probably have to investigate the hand-in-glove relationship the American
Oil Industry has with the despots who run the Arabian Middle East. Every
effort the Clinton Administration attempted against OPEC-related intities in
the Middle East were met with "Wag the Dog" accusations from a Republican
Congress that was tittilated by the thought of a blow job in the Oval
Office.
Those conservatives sure had their priorities right, right?
> It seems to me that Clarke is ticked off because he didn't get the job he
> wanted.
And *that's* an artful White House spin! Yeah, probably he was. He
probably was ticked off that counter-terrorism didn't seem to be important
during the first 8 months of the Dumbya Administration.
> The prior administration was in office for 8 years and knew about
> al Qaeda for half of that period. The current President (I can't say
> administration because it took months for many positions to be filled) was
> in the White House for a matter of weeks when he held a conference with
> Pakistan in preparation of securing a direct root for troops to enter
> Afghanistan. If al Qaeda was a top priority for the prior administration,
> why didn't they do this basic step to protect the people of the US?
If you'll recall, the Bushites pretty much started off rejecting all things
Clinton. Remember how Secretary of State Albright spent so much time
traveling to Israel to meet with Arafat and Israeli leadership? Funny, now
that you think about it, how things weren't nearly as explosive when Middle
East opponent were sitting down and talking instead of sitting down and
making bombs. Well, the first thing the Bushites did re: Israel was stop
talking.
When you give an oppressed minority no voice, the oppressed minority tends
to try to get your attention.
In other words: BOOOM!!!
Thanks to the Bushites!
No one on this forum can deny that the Bushites' primary international
security concern, prior to 9/11, was Star Wars, the threat of North Korean
missiles, and China's emerging sophistication with space technology.
*That's* why you should read Clarke's book.
It is stunning in its specifics. It is damning in its indictments of the
Bush Administration's cluelessness regarding Al Qaeda, prior to 9/11.
JTEM
"VRWC Destruction Machine" <vr...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Oh yeah, Clark has a stellar career.
He did and he does. 30 years working for the government,
four administrations, and now a best-selling author and
an employee of ABC news.
> Terrorist acts seem to gravitate towards him on his watch.
It's scary to think that people like you survived the dark ages...
> Besides, his own quotes say he lied during his book promo
> on 60 Minutes.
If that's what you need to believe, so be it.
JTEM
"JohnAC" <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > I respect Clarke. I believe Clarke.
> I don't and this is why.
We know why. You have your tongue wedged up Bush's
ass crack.
> Clarke stated that prior administration treated terrorism
> as a high priority and the current one did not.
Not just Clarke, the exact same observation has been reported
by numerous people.
> The problem with his statement is if it were true, why didn't
> the prior administration really go after al Qaeda?
They did.
> The common response is that the prior administration wouldn't
> be able to sell a war to the people of the US.
That's what what anybody associated with the Clinton administration
said. They did mention public opinion, yes, but they also mentioned
congress and international support.
Bush's total disregard for world community is something that will
be damaging U.S. foreign policy for years to come.
> This isn't true.
It most certainly was true.
> The administration did go to war with Bosnia,
No ground troops, not a single service man killed, we had the
full support of our NATO allies and it was over in no time.
Even so, the Republicans in congress were up in arms against
it, filling the media with attack after attack on Clinton.
The Bandit
> Bush's total disregard for world community is something that will
> be damaging U.S. foreign policy for years to come.
Oh? Who joined US troops in parolling the streets of haiti?
Wasn't the same thing said when Clinton was in office?
Clinton took worldwide heat for not doing anything in the Balkens, and he
took worldwide heat when he did do something.
People are always going to be able to find something rise against as a
injustice, but the world keeps spinning......
Splat
JTEM wrote:
> "JohnAC" <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>>>I respect Clarke. I believe Clarke.
>>
>
>
>>The problem with his statement is if it were true, why didn't
>>the prior administration really go after al Qaeda?
>
>
> They did.
But not nearly as much as Clarke wanted them to. He wanted preemption
and to bomb them to bits. And yet the reason he now gives for his
turn-around is Iraq. He disagreed with it and now he sounds exactly like
what we were hearing in the primaries. It makes me wonder how much of
their rhetoric they got through him! He was probably sending notes to
all of them, boosting his ego and the case against Iraq at the same
time. He's pathetic!
>
>
>>The common response is that the prior administration wouldn't
>>be able to sell a war to the people of the US.
>
>
> That's what what anybody associated with the Clinton administration
> said. They did mention public opinion, yes, but they also mentioned
> congress and international support.>
And yet the new President apparently should have gotten on his horse
right away and gone after these bad guys with guns blazing.
>
> Bush's total disregard for world community is something that will
> be damaging U.S. foreign policy for years to come. >
I don't think so. I believe the world is united against terrorism
because of his leadership and determination. Either he's criticized for
being a cowboy and going after those insane terrorists or he's
criticized for being clueless and disengaged. When do we get around to
blaming those 19 SOB's for 9/11 instead of getting caught up in this
endless what-if blame game? The terrorists must be mighty pleased with
themselves watching C-span these days.
Here's a What-If: Imagine 9/11 would have happened during Clinton's
watch. What would the response have been and what would Clarke be saying
now?
VRWC Destruction Machine
wrote:
>
>"VRWC Destruction Machine" <vr...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> Oh yeah, Clark has a stellar career.
>
>He did and he does. 30 years working for the government,
>four administrations, and now a best-selling author and
>an employee of ABC news.
>
He is now known as a fabricator.
>> Terrorist acts seem to gravitate towards him on his watch.
>
>It's scary to think that people like you survived the dark ages...
>
That fact seems to have clouded your mind.
>> Besides, his own quotes say he lied during his book promo
>> on 60 Minutes.
>
>If that's what you need to believe, so be it.
>
You are in so much denial.
VRWC Destruction Machine
wrote:
"Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them
quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was
no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to
the Bush administration."
Richard Clarke, August 2002
America
[...]
>>
>"Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them
>quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was
>no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to
>the Bush administration."
>
>Richard Clarke, August 2002
Clinton had the plans, Bush just didn't want them.
America
>He is now known as a fabricator.
Bush is, anyway ...
JohnAC
"Joe Myers" <monke...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:kFv8c.42481$p%2.3...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> "JohnAC" <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > > I respect Clarke. I believe Clarke.
> >
> > I don't and this is why.
> > Clarke stated that prior administration treated terrorism as a high
> priority
> > and the current one did not. The problem with his statement is if it
were
> > true, why didn't the prior administration really go after al Qaeda? The
> > common response is that the prior administration wouldn't be able to
sell
> a
> > war to the people of the US. This isn't true. The administration did
go
> to
> > war with Bosnia, a country that did nothing to the people of the US and
> from
> > what I understand, the administration was going to send in ground
troops.
>
> John, I'm going to address your comments as if you aren't a right-wingnut.
Thanks.
>
> I dunno. It's just a guess. But I think you might be one who's simply
been
> innoculated with the right-wing virus, not infected by it. You're quoting
> the party line, after all. But somehow, I suspect you're not yet frothing
> at the mouth. (If I'm mistaken on this point, please disregard.)
I don't know about the party line. The statement about sending in ground
troops into Bosnia is hearsay in my opinion but the rest is fact. If you
call that the party line, I guess I am guilty but it would be a good line to
tow (the line in this case = fact).
>
> The "war" in Bosnia was supported (albeit, often tacitly) by 19 European
> democracies of NATO. It was limited (General Wesley Clark -- remember
> him? -- lost *no* American lives during the operation). It had what could
> have reasonably been deemed as a favorable propaganda effort, since US
> military efforts were deployed to protect Muslims.
>
> The history of the Balkans (remember a little ditty called 'World War I'?)
> has always held the potential of being a powderkeg in Europe. Clinton's
> (and Wes Clark's) masterful performance will live in history as the first,
> most important, victory of democracy in the post-Cold War era.
I think you misunderstand what I was saying. If the previous administration
could go to war with Bosnia, then it was able to sell a war to the american
people that didn't directly involve the US. If the previous administration
could do that, why couldn't it sell a war to the American people that on the
basis that it was protecting the american people?
>
> > If the administration could go to war in that kind of situation, why
> > couldn't it go to war with a people who declared war the US? Why
couldn't
> > the prior administration go to war with a people that was attacking the
> US?
> > Why couldn't the prior administration go to war with a people that has
> > killed hundreds of Americans?
>
> You probably have to investigate the hand-in-glove relationship the
American
> Oil Industry has with the despots who run the Arabian Middle East. Every
> effort the Clinton Administration attempted against OPEC-related intities
in
> the Middle East were met with "Wag the Dog" accusations from a Republican
> Congress that was tittilated by the thought of a blow job in the Oval
> Office.
That's very weak on your part and the part of the previous administration,
if that is truly what happened. If the previous administration believed
what it says, that terrorism is a top priority, it was very weak not and
very irresponsible to even attempt to do what it thought was the right thing
to do. What you are telling me is because the previous president was caught
in a lie, he was unable to perform his job.
>
> Those conservatives sure had their priorities right, right?
>
> > It seems to me that Clarke is ticked off because he didn't get the job
he
> > wanted.
>
> And *that's* an artful White House spin! Yeah, probably he was. He
> probably was ticked off that counter-terrorism didn't seem to be important
> during the first 8 months of the Dumbya Administration.
According to Clarke, the administration had stepped up it's efforts from the
previous administration. Clarke said this about a year and a half back and
their is reason to believe this statement;
Members of the current administration back up what Clark stated, but that
isn't good enough for me.
The current president held a conference in March of 2001 with Pakistan
regarding Afghanistan.
Shortly before 9/11, a draft was on the presidents desk for the elimination
of al Qaeda.
It looks to me like the current administration rapidly stepped up the
efforts on terrorism from the previous administration.
>
> > The prior administration was in office for 8 years and knew about
> > al Qaeda for half of that period. The current President (I can't say
> > administration because it took months for many positions to be filled)
was
> > in the White House for a matter of weeks when he held a conference with
> > Pakistan in preparation of securing a direct root for troops to enter
> > Afghanistan. If al Qaeda was a top priority for the prior
administration,
> > why didn't they do this basic step to protect the people of the US?
>
> If you'll recall, the Bushites pretty much started off rejecting all
things
> Clinton. Remember how Secretary of State Albright spent so much time
> traveling to Israel to meet with Arafat and Israeli leadership? Funny,
now
> that you think about it, how things weren't nearly as explosive when
Middle
> East opponent were sitting down and talking instead of sitting down and
> making bombs. Well, the first thing the Bushites did re: Israel was stop
> talking.
Don't you agree that Clinton exposed Arafat when Clinton convinced Sharone
(sp) to give Arafat what he wanted and then Arafat declined the offer?
>
> When you give an oppressed minority no voice, the oppressed minority tends
> to try to get your attention.
No voice? They were given everything they asked for. They chose not to
take it.
>
> In other words: BOOOM!!!
>
> Thanks to the Bushites!
>
> No one on this forum can deny that the Bushites' primary international
> security concern, prior to 9/11, was Star Wars, the threat of North Korean
> missiles, and China's emerging sophistication with space technology.
>
> *That's* why you should read Clarke's book.
This is why you can't trust Clarke.
>
> It is stunning in its specifics. It is damning in its indictments of the
> Bush Administration's cluelessness regarding Al Qaeda, prior to 9/11.
I think Clarke has proved that he is not to be considered a valid source of
information. Have you read Clarke's book? How did you get a copy before it
was available?
>
Joe Myers
> > The "war" in Bosnia was supported (albeit, often tacitly) by 19 European
> > democracies of NATO. It was limited (General Wesley Clark -- remember
> > him? -- lost *no* American lives during the operation). It had what
could
> > have reasonably been deemed as a favorable propaganda effort, since US
> > military efforts were deployed to protect Muslims.
> >
> > The history of the Balkans (remember a little ditty called 'World War
I'?)
> > has always held the potential of being a powderkeg in Europe. Clinton's
> > (and Wes Clark's) masterful performance will live in history as the
first,
> > most important, victory of democracy in the post-Cold War era.
>
> I think you misunderstand what I was saying. If the previous
administration
> could go to war with Bosnia, then it was able to sell a war to the
american
> people that didn't directly involve the US. If the previous
administration
> could do that, why couldn't it sell a war to the American people that on
the
> basis that it was protecting the american people?
Well, the news media and the GOP were more concerned with a blow job in the
Oval Office than they were with international terrorism, for one thing.
Clinton's dick was deemed more important.
But consider this: prior to 9/11 a total of 35 Americans had been victimized
by al Qaeda actions. Richard Clarke was considered by many to be a crank.
And yet, he had the ear of President Clinton. He reccomended actions that
the Pentagon shied away from. He headed up the operations which prevented
Y2K attacks at LAX (and probably other targets).
Read the Greek myth of Cassandra.
That's why.
Had the Republicans been more responsible in their witch-hunts against the
Clintons -- *NONE* of which resulted in criminal action -- the nation would
have been better positioned to face the true threat of international
terrorism. The Gingrichites truely used Weapons of Mass Distraction against
their own people. Remember?
> > Those conservatives sure had their priorities right, right?
> >
> > > It seems to me that Clarke is ticked off because he didn't get the job
> he
> > > wanted.
> >
> > And *that's* an artful White House spin! Yeah, probably he was. He
> > probably was ticked off that counter-terrorism didn't seem to be
important
> > during the first 8 months of the Dumbya Administration.
>
> According to Clarke, the administration had stepped up it's efforts from
the
> previous administration. Clarke said this about a year and a half back
and
> their is reason to believe this statement;
> Members of the current administration back up what Clark stated, but that
> isn't good enough for me.
> The current president held a conference in March of 2001 with Pakistan
> regarding Afghanistan.
> Shortly before 9/11, a draft was on the presidents desk for the
elimination
> of al Qaeda.
> It looks to me like the current administration rapidly stepped up the
> efforts on terrorism from the previous administration.
Clarke first approached the Bushites in January, 2001. His book decries the
Bushites as being obsessed with the last war, the war most of GWB's advisors
had waged in 1991. If you will recall, the first 8 months of the Bush II
administration's public foreign policy statemenst centered on North Korea,
China, Star Wars, etc. Behind the scenes, according to Paul O'Niell and
Dick Clarke, the Bushites' Middle East perspective was skewed toward a war
Bush (the elected one) had *won* nine years earlier.
Clarke lobbied long and hard to get the ear of the President, finally
getting sign-off on a counter-terrorist plan only one week before 9/11.
Given that the tyro President took the entire month of August off that year,
one can reasonably infer that the August *background* briefing Clarke gave
Fox was, at best, an optimistic report of what he expected Bush to approve,
once he got back from a month on the ranch at Crawford, Texas.
It's amazing that the Fox record -- explicitly a "not-for-the record"
document (that's what "background" means) -- would come from the White House
for the sole purpose of discrediting a staffer who was doing the Bush
Administration's bidding.
> > > The prior administration was in office for 8 years and knew about
> > > al Qaeda for half of that period. The current President (I can't say
> > > administration because it took months for many positions to be filled)
> was
> > > in the White House for a matter of weeks when he held a conference
with
> > > Pakistan in preparation of securing a direct root for troops to enter
> > > Afghanistan. If al Qaeda was a top priority for the prior
> administration,
> > > why didn't they do this basic step to protect the people of the US?
> >
> > If you'll recall, the Bushites pretty much started off rejecting all
> things
> > Clinton. Remember how Secretary of State Albright spent so much time
> > traveling to Israel to meet with Arafat and Israeli leadership? Funny,
> now
> > that you think about it, how things weren't nearly as explosive when
> Middle
> > East opponent were sitting down and talking instead of sitting down and
> > making bombs. Well, the first thing the Bushites did re: Israel was
stop
> > talking.
>
> Don't you agree that Clinton exposed Arafat when Clinton convinced Sharone
> (sp) to give Arafat what he wanted and then Arafat declined the offer?
For sure, Arafat screwed the pooch. But Sharon is not without blame.
Madeline Albright writes (quite diplomatically) that during the Lame Duck
months of the Clinton Administration there was a "pox on both your houses"
mentality that tainted the whole process. Sharon, a hard-liner mirror-image
of Arafat, started holding Arafat's PLO responsible for actions he knew full
well were committed by the harder-line Hammas organization. In an attempt
to save face and secure powere, Arafat probably promised more than he could
deliver. The point is -- and all things are relative when talking about the
Israeli/Palestinian issue -- the Clinton Administration was pro-active in
getting opponents to sit down and talk. The Bush Administration chose to
turn their backs on the problem. That led to festering, and enabled Hammas
to gain strength among Arab hardliners.
> > When you give an oppressed minority no voice, the oppressed minority
tends
> > to try to get your attention.
>
> No voice? They were given everything they asked for. They chose not to
> take it.
>
> >
> > In other words: BOOOM!!!
> >
> > Thanks to the Bushites!
> >
> > No one on this forum can deny that the Bushites' primary international
> > security concern, prior to 9/11, was Star Wars, the threat of North
Korean
> > missiles, and China's emerging sophistication with space technology.
> >
> > *That's* why you should read Clarke's book.
>
> This is why you can't trust Clarke.
Huh?
> > It is stunning in its specifics. It is damning in its indictments of
the
> > Bush Administration's cluelessness regarding Al Qaeda, prior to 9/11.
>
> I think Clarke has proved that he is not to be considered a valid source
of
> information. Have you read Clarke's book? How did you get a copy before
it
> was available?
I date a librarian.
Adam Marczyk
news:34s5601m8mhfli5uf...@4ax.com...
That doesn't necessarily imply that the Clinton administration had no plan;
it could equally well imply that they did have a plan which they tried to
pass on and the Bush administration didn't consider it.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JTEM
"The Bandit" <no-r...@pissoff.com> wrote
> Oh? Who joined US troops in parolling the streets of haiti?
If Bush didn't actively de-stablize Haiti, than physically remove
the President of Haiti against his will, there would have been
no need for *Any* U.S. troops to patrol the streets of Haiti.
Going all the way back to 2001, Bush launched an economic
blockade on Haiti. Not only did he cut off all the promised
aid, he blocked the world bank from delivering a promised
loan to Haiti. Without the *Promised* resources to turn Haiti's
economy around -- improve living conditions -- social unrest
set in, opening a highway on which backers of the former
facist regime could move in.
Even so, Haiti's President held on. The power of Democracy,
coupled with the memory of what past regimes had done to
the people of Haiti, proved to be too much against mere
bullets. Tired of waiting, and with headlines & fingers begining
to point back to the administration, Bush finally ordered the
coup himself, literally kidnapping the President of Haiti at
gun-point.
> Clinton took worldwide heat for not doing anything in the
> Balkens, and he took worldwide heat when he did do something.
Here in Reality, Clinton went into the Balkens with the full
support of NATO.
He took heat for the Republicans here at home.
JTEM
"VRWC Destruction Machine" <vr...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >He did and he does. 30 years working for the government,
> >four administrations, and now a best-selling author and
> >an employee of ABC news.
> He is now known as a fabricator.
He he isn't. What's more, he's never been known as a fabricator.
In fact, not one living person has so much as entertained such an
idea, before he bad-mouthed *One* of the four Presidents he
worked for.
Another bullshit line you neo-cons came up with, thoug you appear
to have dropped it pretty quickly, is that he's a partisan Democrat.
Remember that one? That was the "God's honest truth, as told by his
prophets in the Whitehouse" only a week ago. But the man is not only
a registered Republican, he was originally hired by Ronald Reagan.
In fact, Clinton is the only Democrat out of the four Presidents that
he worked for.
Heck, at this point I wouldn't be surprised if you numbnuts start
denouncing him as "Gay & Canadian."
You've tried just about ever other smear so far...
> >> Terrorist acts seem to gravitate towards him on his watch.
> >
> >It's scary to think that people like you survived the dark ages...
> That fact seems to have clouded your mind.
Again, it's scary to think that people like you managed to survive
the dark ages.
"The crops failed! There was a drought! This women must be a witch!"
Please seek professional help. Please.
> You are in so much denial.
Speaking of which, you do realize that I began this exchange by
stating that I don't agree with Clarke, and think all the people
like him should be tossed out of the government?
No, of course not!
You have no idea what I said, or why I said it. You certainly haven't
addressed my main point at all. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if you
were even capable of identifying it.
You're that far gone.
Like I said; please seek professional help.
Thanks in advance.
JTEM
"Splat" <sp...@tropicalisland.com> wrote
> >>The problem with his statement is if it were true, why didn't
> >>the prior administration really go after al Qaeda?
> >
> >
> > They did.
> But not nearly as much as Clarke wanted them to.
I agree.
But, going back to my point (which was being so thoroughly
ignored), I don't agree with Clarke. I don't think Clarke was
capable of defeating terrorism any more than Bush or his
cronies.
My point wasn't about Clarke -- I was merely using him as
an example -- my point was about the useless chickenshits
charged with defeating terrorism, the useless chickenshits
who face any enemy willing to sacrifice *Everything* --
including their own lives -- even as the administrations
"officials" cower at the thought of maybe losing their jobs
over a decision.
That was my point.
I believe Clarke, I have no reason to doubt what he's saying,
but the issue with Clarke is that he's part of the problem. He
too sheds tears for all those "promising public careers" lost
to mistakes and unpopular covert actions.
GET REAL!
Terrorist are stepping onto buses and blowing themselves up!
Anyone who thinks that losing their cushy job on the public
dole is a "sacrifice" needs to be fired, and fired damn quick!
Anyone who sympathizes with these people, understands where
they're coming from, needs to be kept as far away from government
as is humanly possible.
This includes Clarke. Yeah, it also includes the entire freaking
Bush administration -- they're all worthless chickenshits -- but
it also includes Clarke.
A "Sarcifice" is investing so much time & money simply for the
opportunity to fly yourself into a building. Having to seek
employment in the private sector is not a "Sacrifice."
If we ever want to pretend we can defeat terrorism, we have no
choice but to get rid of these cowards. We can't win with
cowards. We can't win with FBI agents hamstrung at the thought
of being called racists. We can't win with "officials" who won't
take chances if they think they might have to answer for them
later.
We can't.
Not against an enemy that is willing to do anything.
steve horan
>
> Here's a What-If: Imagine 9/11 would have happened during Clinton's
> watch. What would the response have been and what would Clarke be saying
> now?
It's less likely because, as Clarke testified,
the Clinton administration did successfully
preempt the Millenium rollover plot. Clinton
and Berger had their eyes sharply focused on
OBL and Al Qaida. Clarke was on the Larry King
show last night and he said that Berger would
"shake the trees" everyday in efforts to prevent
any terrorist attacks. The Bush administration
plainly dropped the ball and, after 9/11, they
started juggling two different balls.
But...., if it had happened on Clinton's watch
right-wing talk radio and all the conservative
pundits on cable TV would be all over his ass
blaming him for it - and you know that's true.
Tobi
"steve horan" <steveho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6b178197.04032...@posting.google.com...
Well? After all, it IS largely Clinton's fault...I mean, how many times were
we attacked and he did nothing?
VRWC Destruction Machine
wrote:
>
>"VRWC Destruction Machine" <vr...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> >He did and he does. 30 years working for the government,
>> >four administrations, and now a best-selling author and
>> >an employee of ABC news.
>
>> He is now known as a fabricator.
>
>He he isn't. What's more, he's never been known as a fabricator.
>
The transcript of Clarke's briefing in August 2002 released by the
White House contradicts what he says in his book.
he's a fabricator and an obvious shill for the DNC since Federal
Election Commission (FEC) records shows that his only political
contributions in the last decade have gone to Democrats.
I'll wait for your denial.
>In fact, not one living person has so much as entertained such an
>idea, before he bad-mouthed *One* of the four Presidents he
>worked for.
>
>Another bullshit line you neo-cons came up with, thoug you appear
>to have dropped it pretty quickly, is that he's a partisan Democrat.
>
What bullshit line? You just hurl left wingnut rhetoric.
>Remember that one? That was the "God's honest truth, as told by his
>prophets in the Whitehouse" only a week ago. But the man is not only
>a registered Republican, he was originally hired by Ronald Reagan.
>In fact, Clinton is the only Democrat out of the four Presidents that
>he worked for.
>
He's a registered Republican, but his only political contributions in
the last decade have gone to Democrats.
>Heck, at this point I wouldn't be surprised if you numbnuts start
>denouncing him as "Gay & Canadian."
>
Naw. He's just a closet Democrat and a wannabe Frenchman.
>You've tried just about ever other smear so far...
>
What you call smear is Clarke's own words.
>
>> >> Terrorist acts seem to gravitate towards him on his watch.
>> >
>> >It's scary to think that people like you survived the dark ages...
>
>> That fact seems to have clouded your mind.
>
>Again, it's scary to think that people like you managed to survive
>the dark ages.
>
Your the one living in the past. I live in the 21st century and since
2000, the Democrats have had piss-poor showings in elections 2000 and
2002.
>"The crops failed! There was a drought! This women must be a witch!"
>
>Please seek professional help. Please.
>
>> You are in so much denial.
>
>Speaking of which, you do realize that I began this exchange by
>stating that I don't agree with Clarke, and think all the people
>like him should be tossed out of the government?
>
The only thing I caught was you fawning over Clarke. You proudly
stated, "He did and he does. 30 years working for the government,
four administrations, and now a best-selling author and
an employee of ABC news." Did you get an autograph picture?
>
>No, of course not!
>
>You have no idea what I said, or why I said it. You certainly haven't
>addressed my main point at all. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if you
>were even capable of identifying it.
>
The only point you have is the one you have on the top of your head.
>You're that far gone.
>
>Like I said; please seek professional help.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
You need to catch up with the news.
VRWC Destruction Machine
Clarke said in 2002, Clinton gave no plans. Did the above quote from
Clarke confuse you?
VRWC Destruction Machine
Democrats are banking on Clarke's 9-11 testimony and his book to
corner Bush. The above quote came from transcript documents from a
background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former
counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of
reporters. The exchange with the reporters does not focus entirely on
Bush like his book. In that briefing he is quoted as saying, " I
think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was
passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration."
-
JTEM
"VRWC Destruction Machine" <vr...@hotmail.com> wrote
> The transcript of Clarke's briefing in August 2002 released by the
> White House contradicts what he says in his book.
*Duh*!
He would have been fired if it didn't, you moron:
"I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to
the president of the United States when asked to give a press
backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder
criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect."
-Richard Clarke, at the 911 Commision
> he's a fabricator and an obvious shill for the DNC since Federal
> Election Commission (FEC) records shows that his only political
> contributions in the last decade have gone to Democrats.
Really?
What were they. Amounts & candidates.
Thanks in advance.
> I'll wait for your denial.
Denial? You jackass! You haven't the slightest idea what you were
even responding to! You're so far gone -- so demented by your
partsian politics -- you haven't the slightest I dea what I said, what
my original point was, and what it is you responded to.
You're in other world, sparky.
> He's a registered Republican, but his only political contributions
> in the last decade have gone to Democrats.
So he sopported the one administration that did what he believed
was right.
Because that's all there was. Just Clinton. Gore was part of the
Clinton administration.
But, heck, we don't even know if your claim is true.
Who did he support?
> >Again, it's scary to think that people like you managed to survive
> >the dark ages.
> Your the one living in the past.
Better the past than the fantasy world you call home...
> >Speaking of which, you do realize that I began this exchange by
> >stating that I don't agree with Clarke, and think all the people
> >like him should be tossed out of the government?
> The only thing I caught was you fawning over Clarke.
In other words, you are mentally & emotionally blinded by your
own petty, partisan politics.
JTEM
"VRWC Destruction Machine" <vr...@hotmail.com> wrote
> "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Speaking of which, you do realize that I began this exchange by
> >stating that I don't agree with Clarke, and think all the people
> >like him should be tossed out of the government?
> The only thing I caught was you fawning over Clarke.
In other words, you are mentally & emotionally blinded by your
own petty, partisan politics. I was *Attacking* Clarke, but you as
a paid (and insane) GOP operative saw the name "Clarke" and
immediately set your knee to jerking.
Your brain literally clicked *Off*. Literally. This is what you in
your rush to petty partisanship managed to miss:
(From the original article you responded to)
"Heck, if I had my way people like him [Clarke] would have
been thrown out on their ass moments after 9/11."
"Clarke is an example of what's wrong with our government,
and why we can never win our war against terrorism."
This wasn't a love-letter to Clarke, this was an attack on Clarke
and everyone like him (which, yes, does include the entire Bush
administration, along with most of the CIA & FBI).
JTEM
From the Bush administrations 2001 report on terrorism,
delivered a little less than five months before the 9/11
attacks:
"A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S.
government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly
on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts
of the elephant and not the whole beast."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/
"Last year" would have been 2000 (this report is dated April
of 2001), the final year of the Clinton administration.
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CALLED CLINTON'S
OBESSION WITH BIN LADEN A "MISTAKE"!
The Bush administration confirmed *All* of Richard Clarke's
charges THREE YEARS BEFORE HE MADE THEM.
JohnAC
This is no excuse.
>
> But consider this: prior to 9/11 a total of 35 Americans had been
victimized
> by al Qaeda actions.
You must get your facts right.
> Richard Clarke was considered by many to be a crank.
> And yet, he had the ear of President Clinton. He reccomended actions that
> the Pentagon shied away from. He headed up the operations which prevented
> Y2K attacks at LAX (and probably other targets).
>
> Read the Greek myth of Cassandra.
>
> That's why.
No excuse!
I expected a serious reply.
I think the american people thank Fox News for exposing Clarke for a liar
using his own words. Clarke held a tremendous amount of power and that
isn't a good thing for our country when we don't know who this man is. Fox
News showed America who Clarke is. I am sure every real American knows that
Fox News did the right thing. Without Fox News, the American people may
have taken the word of a man who is a liar. Thank God for Fox News.
JohnAC
news:<4062EEC3...@tropicalisland.com>...
> >
> > Here's a What-If: Imagine 9/11 would have happened during Clinton's
> > watch. What would the response have been and what would Clarke be saying
> > now?
>
> It's less likely
LOL
JTEM
"JohnAC" <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote
> "steve horan" <steveho...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > Splat <sp...@tropicalisland.com> wrote
> > > Here's a What-If: Imagine 9/11 would have happened
> > > during Clinton's watch. What would the response have
> > > been and what would Clarke be saying now?
> >
> > It's less likely
> LOL
Not according to the Bush administration...
4/30/2001
"A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S.
government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly
on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts
of the elephant and not the whole beast."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/
It appears that the Bush administration confirmed everything
Clarke has said, almost exactly three years before he said it!
The Bandit
Something very fishy about the above quote of your's. Think I know why
too, from Washington Post:
As would be expected, Democrats are jumping all over the administration's
anti-terrorism effort. Yesterday, they unearthed an April 30, 2001, CNN
report on the State Department's "Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000," in
which CNN notes that "unlike last year's report," under the Clinton team,
Osama bin Laden's "al Qaeda . . . is mentioned" but there's no picture of
him and no lengthy talk about him and the group.
"A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S. government made
a mistake last year by focusing too tightly on bin Laden and
'personalizing terrorism . . . describing parts of the elephant and not
the whole beast.' "
The senior State Department offical was explaining WHY bin Laden's picture
was removed - because it personalized terrorism too much, meaning it gave
the false impression that terrorism was all about bin Laden.
Ok, I now return you back to you're world of disinformation and
propaganda.
Mr. Obvious
Everything these guys pound in to the keyboard is prefaced with an untyped
" Yeah, but..."
The fear escalates.
yang AthD (h.c)
"VRWC Destruction Machine" <vr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:css46010nqcbrpbgi...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 22:25:43 -0500, "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> Oh yeah, Clark has a stellar career. Terrorist acts seem to gravitate
> towards him on his watch. Besides, his own quotes say he lied during
> his book promo on 60 Minutes.
Yep, another Bush cocksucker pulling shit out of his ass:
"I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to
the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I
should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think
that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect."
-Richard Clarke, at the 911 Commision
But let's look at Bush's "contribution" to the fight against terrorism shall
we?
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report just a
little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no extensive
mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior State
Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in
focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing terrorism.'"
-- CNN, 04/30/2001
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/
The same report, only a year earlier, and this time from the Clinton
administration:
"Afghanistan's Taliban government, while not directly hostile to the United
States, "continues to harbor Osama bin Laden and a host of other terrorists
loosely linked to bin Laden, who directly threaten the United States and
others in the international community," it added."
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/05/01/terrorism.report.02/
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -588 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless
JTEM
"The Bandit" <no-r...@pissoff.com> wrote
> Something very fishy about the above quote of your's.
Cites?
Because you you're claiming isn't what the story says.
Here's the quote (and the cite) again:
"A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S.
government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly
on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts
of the elephant and not the whole beast."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/
"Focusing too tightly on bin Laden."
Again, what you're pretending the stories says just isn't there.
It's not a complaint about a photo, it's a complaint about the
*Focus* being on one man: Osama Bin Laden.
Moron.
America
>Clarke said...
You don't speak for him.
Mark K. Bilbo
<zSu8c.620$LX.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> we saw our hero "JohnAC"
<nos...@yahoo.com>:
>
> "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ko2dnbUP2cS...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Beloved Citizen" <beloved...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> > Sean Hannity? Laughed out of the Top 20.
>>
>> I hate to say it....
>>
>> I respect Clarke. I believe Clarke.
>
> I don't and this is why.
> Clarke stated that prior administration treated terrorism as a high
> priority and the current one did not. The problem with his statement is
> if it were true, why didn't the prior administration really go after al
> Qaeda? The common response is that the prior administration wouldn't be
> able to sell a war to the people of the US. This isn't true. The
> administration did go to war with Bosnia, a country that did nothing to
> the people of the US and from what I understand, the administration was
> going to send in ground troops. If the administration could go to war in
> that kind of situation, why couldn't it go to war with a people who
> declared war the US? Why couldn't the prior administration go to war with
> a people that was attacking the US? Why couldn't the prior administration
> go to war with a people that has killed hundreds of Americans?
> It seems to me that Clarke is ticked off because he didn't get the job he
> wanted. The prior administration was in office for 8 years and knew about
> al Qaeda for half of that period. The current President (I can't say
> administration because it took months for many positions to be filled) was
> in the White House for a matter of weeks when he held a conference with
> Pakistan in preparation of securing a direct root for troops to enter
> Afghanistan. If al Qaeda was a top priority for the prior administration,
> why didn't they do this basic step to protect the people of the US?
Funny thing about Clinton I notice the current bunch doesn't want to
discuss is how the Republicans torpedoed him repeatedly, undermined him at
every turn to the point of impeaching over a stained dress, and rendering
him fairly impotent in his second term.
The people he would have had to convince were the same people that
attacked everything he did *even if it was something they'd support from a
president of their own party. Whether Clinton could have gotten
Congressional and public support for a major policy initiative is
questionable.
It's also debatable whether a "war on terrorism" is the answer. That's
often presented as a forgone conclusion with the only allowed debate being
*how to have a war. But under the present policy, terrorism has gone *up.
Not *down. Even if this is the ultimately correct policy, right now
there's no evidence it's "working."
Whatever Clarke's motivations, I think the administration has some serious
explaining to do. Especially about the "summer of threat" when everybody
(as it's often styled in the hearings) was running around "with their hair
on fire." For *months, reports had "spiked" and stayed at a *very high
level. That wasn't happening on Clinton's watch, it was happening on
Bush's watch.
But it's interesting that Bush went on vacation for a month anyway...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
Mark K. Bilbo
<6b178197.04032...@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
steveho...@yahoo.com (steve horan):
No shit. They impeached the man for stains on a dress. Can you imagine
what they'd be doing now if he'd been in office for 9/11? Maybe just drag
the man out on the White House lawn and shoot him in the head?
Mike Ruskai
>On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:00:15 -0500, America wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 06:46:57 -0800, VRWC Destruction Machine <vr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>>>
>>>"Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them
>>>quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was
>>>no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to
>>>the Bush administration."
>>>
>>>Richard Clarke, August 2002
>>
>>Clinton had the plans, Bush just didn't want them.
>
>Clarke said in 2002, Clinton gave no plans. Did the above quote from
>Clarke confuse you?
You're reading a manifestly political statement as if it were plain
language, and you look like a complete fool as a result.
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
Lord Calvert
>explaining to do. Especially about the "summer of threat" when everybody
>(as it's often styled in the hearings) was running around "with their hair
>on fire." For *months, reports had "spiked" and stayed at a *very high
>level. That wasn't happening on Clinton's watch, it was happening on
>Bush's watch.
And I think it's interesting to realize that during that "Summer of Threat,"
the Bushies gave $43 million to the Taliban at the same time they were trying
to defend themselves during the Salvation Army bribery scandal.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
Splat
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:14:02 -0800 in episode
> <6b178197.04032...@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
> steveho...@yahoo.com (steve horan):
>
>
>>Splat <sp...@tropicalisland.com> wrote in message
>>news:<4062EEC3...@tropicalisland.com>...
>>
>>>Here's a What-If: Imagine 9/11 would have happened during Clinton's
>>>watch. What would the response have been and what would Clarke be saying
>>>now?
>>
>>It's less likely because, as Clarke testified, the Clinton administration
>>did successfully preempt the Millenium rollover plot. Clinton and Berger
>>had their eyes sharply focused on OBL and Al Qaida. Clarke was on the
>>Larry King show last night and he said that Berger would "shake the trees"
>>everyday in efforts to prevent any terrorist attacks. The Bush
>>administration plainly dropped the ball and, after 9/11, they started
>>juggling two different balls.
>>
>>But...., if it had happened on Clinton's watch right-wing talk radio and
>>all the conservative pundits on cable TV would be all over his ass blaming
>>him for it - and you know that's true.
>
>
> No shit. They impeached the man for stains on a dress. Can you imagine
> what they'd be doing now if he'd been in office for 9/11? Maybe just drag
> the man out on the White House lawn and shoot him in the head?
>
Point being his romps in the oval office actually did effect his ability
to lead afterall. His lying under oath and the dress proving that,
wasn't just about sex but the whole episode diminished his
efffectiveness and credibility. If he was afraid to go after terrorists
because of what others might say then what kind of a leader is that???
A People Pleaser.
Splat
I even heard a rumor that the Republicans hired Monica to bring down
Clinton. I happen to think that he made those choices all on his own and
didn't think he would ever get caught. How childish. To think you can do
things like that as POTUS and not pay any consequences. And to expect
the other party to simple smile and say 'oh well' is totally unrealistic!!
Douglas Berry
called by some Splat <sp...@tropicalisland.com> came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism
>Point being his romps in the oval office actually did effect his ability
>to lead afterall. His lying under oath and the dress proving that,
>wasn't just about sex but the whole episode diminished his
>efffectiveness and credibility. If he was afraid to go after terrorists
>because of what others might say then what kind of a leader is that???
He did go after terrorists. And the GOP's right wing were all over
the Sunday talk shows saying his attacks on Afghanistan were an
attempt to distract America from the all-important issue of a
middle-aged man getting a blowjob and playing hide the cigar with an
intern.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/
http://propagandamatrix.com/sept_11_may_taint_clintons_legacy.html
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
Fred Stone
> It's also debatable whether a "war on terrorism" is the answer. That's
> often presented as a forgone conclusion with the only allowed debate being
> *how to have a war. But under the present policy, terrorism has gone *up.
> Not *down. Even if this is the ultimately correct policy, right now
> there's no evidence it's "working."
>
Tell me, in 1943, how much evidence was there that the Allied war effort
in World War II was "working?"
In 1863, how much evidence was there that the Union cause in the War
Between the States was "working?"
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
Fred Stone
> Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:54:25 GMT, a stranger
> called by some Splat <sp...@tropicalisland.com> came forth and told
> this tale in alt.atheism
>
>
>>Point being his romps in the oval office actually did effect his ability
>>to lead afterall. His lying under oath and the dress proving that,
>>wasn't just about sex but the whole episode diminished his
>>efffectiveness and credibility. If he was afraid to go after terrorists
>>because of what others might say then what kind of a leader is that???
>
>
> He did go after terrorists. And the GOP's right wing were all over
> the Sunday talk shows saying his attacks on Afghanistan were an
> attempt to distract America from the all-important issue of a
> middle-aged man getting a blowjob and playing hide the cigar with an
> intern.
>
Given their utter lack of effectiveness, sure.
> http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/
>
> http://propagandamatrix.com/sept_11_may_taint_clintons_legacy.html
>
> --
>
> Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
> Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
>
> Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
> Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
VRWC Destruction Machine
wrote:
>
>"VRWC Destruction Machine" <vr...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> The transcript of Clarke's briefing in August 2002 released by the
>> White House contradicts what he says in his book.
>
>*Duh*!
>
>He would have been fired if it didn't, you moron:
>
Your denial is noted.
>"I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to
>the president of the United States when asked to give a press
>backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder
>criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect."
> -Richard Clarke, at the 911 Commision
>
>> he's a fabricator and an obvious shill for the DNC since Federal
>> Election Commission (FEC) records shows that his only political
>> contributions in the last decade have gone to Democrats.
>
>Really?
>
>What were they. Amounts & candidates.
>
You must have ADD. The post said "political contributions in the last
decade have gone to Democrats".
Denial must be your m.o.
>Thanks in advance.
>
>> I'll wait for your denial.
>
>Denial? You jackass! You haven't the slightest idea what you were
>even responding to! You're so far gone -- so demented by your
>partsian politics -- you haven't the slightest I dea what I said, what
>my original point was, and what it is you responded to.
>
>You're in other world, sparky.
>
>> He's a registered Republican, but his only political contributions
>> in the last decade have gone to Democrats.
>
>So he sopported the one administration that did what he believed
>was right.
>
>Because that's all there was. Just Clinton. Gore was part of the
>Clinton administration.
>
What are you rambling about?
>
But, heck, we don't even know if your claim is true.
>
>Who did he support?
>
>> >Again, it's scary to think that people like you managed to survive
>> >the dark ages.
>
>> Your the one living in the past.
>
>Better the past than the fantasy world you call home...
>
>> >Speaking of which, you do realize that I began this exchange by
>> >stating that I don't agree with Clarke, and think all the people
>> >like him should be tossed out of the government?
>
>> The only thing I caught was you fawning over Clarke.
>
>In other words, you are mentally & emotionally blinded by your
>own petty, partisan politics.
>
You can't even quote what you responding to. Your response is one of a
mental retard.
VRWC Destruction Machine
<eac...@SPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
>"VRWC Destruction Machine" <vr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:css46010nqcbrpbgi...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 22:25:43 -0500, "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> Oh yeah, Clark has a stellar career. Terrorist acts seem to gravitate
>> towards him on his watch. Besides, his own quotes say he lied during
>> his book promo on 60 Minutes.
>
>
>Yep, another Bush cocksucker pulling shit out of his ass:
>
Yeah, shit comes from my ass, but is looks like it comes from your
mouth.
I didn't read the rest of your response since your fist line of your
response was an indication you had nothing intelligible to say.
VRWC Destruction Machine
Did the quote from Clarke confuse you too?
steve horan
> the Clinton administration did successfully
> preempt the Millenium rollover plot. Clinton
> and Berger had their eyes sharply focused on
> OBL and Al Qaida. Clarke was on the Larry King
> show last night and he said that Berger would
> "shake the trees" everyday in efforts to prevent
> any terrorist attacks. The Bush administration
> plainly dropped the ball and, after 9/11, they
> started juggling two different balls.
>
> But...., if it had happened on Clinton's watch
> right-wing talk radio and all the conservative
> pundits on cable TV would be all over his ass
> blaming him for it - and you know that's true.
>
> we attacked and he did nothing?
That's a lie - unless your talking about the Reagan
and Bush I admonistrations?
steve horan
> "steve horan" <steveho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6b178197.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > Splat <sp...@tropicalisland.com> wrote in message
> news:<4062EEC3...@tropicalisland.com>...
> > >
> > > Here's a What-If: Imagine 9/11 would have happened during Clinton's
> > > watch. What would the response have been and what would Clarke be saying
> > > now?
> >
> > It's less likely
>
> LOL
Nice fact-based rebuttal there sport.
steve horan
Well what did they do? Isn't it true that Cheney
headed the anti-terror task force and they didn't
convene a single time prior to 9/11? What did the
Bushg administration do to stop Al Qaida?
Adam Marczyk
news:l067609chg64i0ikh...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:14:14 GMT, "Adam Marczyk"
> <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> VRWC Destruction Machine <vr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:34s5601m8mhfli5uf...@4ax.com...
>>> On 25 Mar 2004 01:25:56 -0500, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <zSu8c.620$LX.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
>>>> JohnAC <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ko2dnbUP2cS...@comcast.com...
>>>>>> "Beloved Citizen" <beloved...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Sean Hannity? Laughed out of the Top 20.
>>>>>> I hate to say it....
>>>>>> I respect Clarke. I believe Clarke.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't and this is why.
>>>>> Clarke stated that prior administration treated terrorism as a high
>>>>> priority and the current one did not. The problem with his statement
>>>>> is if it were true, why didn't the prior administration really go
>>>>> after al Qaeda? The
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You'd better read this article by a former MIT classmate of Clarke's:
>>>>
>>>> <http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685/>
>>>>
>>>>> I have no doubt that Richard Clarke, the former National
>>>>> Security Council official who has launched a broadside
>>>>> against President Bush's counterterrorism policies, is
>>>>> telling the truth about every single charge. There are
>>>>> three reasons for this confidence. ...
>>>>
>>> "Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them
>>> quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was
>>> no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to
>>> the Bush administration."
>>>
>>> Richard Clarke, August 2002
>>
>> plan; it could equally well imply that they did have a plan which they
>> tried to pass on and the Bush administration didn't consider it.
>
> Democrats are banking on Clarke's 9-11 testimony and his book to
> corner Bush. The above quote came from transcript documents from a
> background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former
> counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of
> reporters. The exchange with the reporters does not focus entirely on
> Bush like his book. In that briefing he is quoted as saying, " I
> think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was
> passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration."
Since you repeated your claim without modification, I will repeat my above
answer as well: That doesn't necessarily imply that the Clinton
administration had no plan; it could equally well imply that they did have
a plan which they tried to pass on and the Bush administration didn't
consider it (and, I might add, that is precisely the argument which has
been made by other sources).
--
"The spiritual man.... attacks what he believes | a.a. #2001
to be wrong, though defended by the many, | ebonmuse!hotmail.com
and he is willing to stand for the right | www.ebonmusings.org
against the world." --Robert Green Ingersoll | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Marczyk
news:e1Y8c.1532$Dv2...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>
>> It's also debatable whether a "war on terrorism" is the answer. That's
>> often presented as a forgone conclusion with the only allowed debate
>> being *how to have a war. But under the present policy, terrorism has
>> gone *up. Not *down. Even if this is the ultimately correct policy,
>> right now there's no evidence it's "working."
>>
>
> Tell me, in 1943, how much evidence was there that the Allied war effort
> in World War II was "working?"
>
> In 1863, how much evidence was there that the Union cause in the War
> Between the States was "working?"
Those situations are not in any way comparable. Both the Civil War and
World War 2 were, well, *wars* against a clearly defined enemy with a
clearly defined territory. The battle against terrorism is nothing like
this ("asymmetric warfare", in military jargon). They have no country we
can capture, no single leader we can kill. What constitutes victory against
an enemy like that?
--
Manifest plainness, | a.a. #2001
Embrace simplicity, | http://www.ebonmusings.org
Reduce selfishness, | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
Have few desires. | ICQ: 8777843
--The Tao Te Ching | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Stone
> Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
> news:e1Y8c.1532$Dv2...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's also debatable whether a "war on terrorism" is the answer. That's
>>>often presented as a forgone conclusion with the only allowed debate
>>>being *how to have a war. But under the present policy, terrorism has
>>>gone *up. Not *down. Even if this is the ultimately correct policy,
>>>right now there's no evidence it's "working."
>>>
>>
>>Tell me, in 1943, how much evidence was there that the Allied war effort
>>in World War II was "working?"
>>
>>In 1863, how much evidence was there that the Union cause in the War
>>Between the States was "working?"
>
>
> Those situations are not in any way comparable. Both the Civil War and
> World War 2 were, well, *wars* against a clearly defined enemy with a
> clearly defined territory.
Unresponsive.
> The battle against terrorism is nothing like
> this ("asymmetric warfare", in military jargon). They have no country we
> can capture, no single leader we can kill.
Then why the media obsession with Osama bin Laden? Why the crying about
how we needed to "get" Al Queda instead of invading Iraq?
> What constitutes victory against
> an enemy like that?
>
When they're so thoroughly interdicted that they can't move without
being squashed like the vermin that they are.
steve horan
>
> Point being his romps in the oval office actually did effect his ability
> to lead afterall. His lying under oath and the dress proving that,
> wasn't just about sex but the whole episode diminished his
> efffectiveness and credibility.
Because the GOP were investigating his
consensual sex life in the first place.
This is one more reason that Republicans
are responsible for 9/11.
> If he was afraid to go after terrorists
> because of what others might say then what kind of a leader is that???
> A People Pleaser.
Then using that bizarre logic Bush must be
a great leader because the world, and now
finally the US, are starting to hate his
guts. Imagine this jerkoff making jokes
about looking for WMD's in the oval office
when people are still dying in his BS war.
Unbelievable.
steve horan
It's just talk. That's exactly what the Busheviks did
with Iraq: "they made a mistake last year by focusing too
tightly on Saddam and 'personalizing terrorism ... describing
parts of the elephant and not the whole beast.'" But in
their case they were wrong because Saddam was a tyrant
and not a terrorist but they still roped him into the
terrorist corale.
The fact remains that Bush dropped the ball with respect
to Al Qaida and OBL prior to 9/11.
Fred Stone
> Splat <sp...@tropicalisland.com> wrote in message news:<406444AB...@tropicalisland.com>...
>
>>Point being his romps in the oval office actually did effect his ability
>>to lead afterall. His lying under oath and the dress proving that,
>>wasn't just about sex but the whole episode diminished his
>>efffectiveness and credibility.
>
>
> Because the GOP were investigating his
> consensual sex life in the first place.
> This is one more reason that Republicans
> are responsible for 9/11.
>
As has been pointed out many times, all he had to do was to come clean
in the first place. Oh, that's right, the pandering adulterer was being
a "gentleman" by refusing to admit to his sexual harrassment of women.
>
>>If he was afraid to go after terrorists
>>because of what others might say then what kind of a leader is that???
>>A People Pleaser.
>
>
> Then using that bizarre logic Bush must be
> a great leader because the world, and now
> finally the US, are starting to hate his
> guts. Imagine this jerkoff making jokes
> about looking for WMD's in the oval office
> when people are still dying in his BS war.
Aww, boo hoo, did he make a joke while you're still whining about it?
> Unbelievable.
Mark K. Bilbo
<406444AB...@tropicalisland.com> we saw our hero Splat
<sp...@tropicalisland.com>:
That doesn't even make sense.
Mark K. Bilbo
<YxY8c.2229$lt2...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> we saw our hero Fred
Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>:
> Douglas Berry wrote:
>
>> Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:54:25 GMT, a stranger called
>> by some Splat <sp...@tropicalisland.com> came forth and told this tale
>> in alt.atheism
>>
>>
>>>Point being his romps in the oval office actually did effect his ability
>>>to lead afterall. His lying under oath and the dress proving that,
>>>wasn't just about sex but the whole episode diminished his
>>>efffectiveness and credibility. If he was afraid to go after terrorists
>>>because of what others might say then what kind of a leader is that???
>>
>>
>> He did go after terrorists. And the GOP's right wing were all over the
>> Sunday talk shows saying his attacks on Afghanistan were an attempt to
>> distract America from the all-important issue of a middle-aged man
>> getting a blowjob and playing hide the cigar with an intern.
>>
>>
> Given their utter lack of effectiveness, sure.
At least he didn't attack the wrong country...
Mark K. Bilbo
<e1Y8c.1532$Dv2...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> we saw our hero Fred
Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>:
> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>
>> It's also debatable whether a "war on terrorism" is the answer. That's
>> often presented as a forgone conclusion with the only allowed debate
>> being *how to have a war. But under the present policy, terrorism has
>> gone *up. Not *down. Even if this is the ultimately correct policy,
>> right now there's no evidence it's "working."
>>
>>
> Tell me, in 1943, how much evidence was there that the Allied war effort
> in World War II was "working?"
>
> In 1863, how much evidence was there that the Union cause in the War
> Between the States was "working?"
Having that reading comprehension problem again Fred?
Joe Myers
> Aww, boo hoo, did he make a joke while you're still whining about it?
The problem with Bush is, when he thinks he's serious it's a joke. And when
he makes a joke, it's serious.
Douglas Berry
called by some Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
>> He did go after terrorists. And the GOP's right wing were all over
>> the Sunday talk shows saying his attacks on Afghanistan were an
>> attempt to distract America from the all-important issue of a
>> middle-aged man getting a blowjob and playing hide the cigar with an
>> intern.
>>
>
>Given their utter lack of effectiveness, sure.
He got a lot closer to bin Laden than Bush. And maybe, just maybem if
the GOP had signed on, realizing that al-Qaeda was moving closer to
attacking the US, a good friend of mine would still have a husband
today.
Insterad they chose to play petty politics over a dress.
Douglas Berry
>Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>
>> It's also debatable whether a "war on terrorism" is the answer. That's
>> often presented as a forgone conclusion with the only allowed debate being
>> *how to have a war. But under the present policy, terrorism has gone *up.
>> Not *down. Even if this is the ultimately correct policy, right now
>> there's no evidence it's "working."
>>
>
>Tell me, in 1943, how much evidence was there that the Allied war effort
>in World War II was "working?"
Let's see.. by mid-1943, the Allies had driven the Axis out of Africa,
and invaded Siciliy. Germany was being bombed daily, and on the
Eastern Front the Soviets were advancing. Pretty damn good progress
there. In the Pacific, the island-hopping campign was well under way,
and the Japanese were retreating.
>In 1863, how much evidence was there that the Union cause in the War
>Between the States was "working?"
After Gettysburg, a great deal.
Douglas Berry
called by some Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
>Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>
>> It's also debatable whether a "war on terrorism" is the answer. That's
>> often presented as a forgone conclusion with the only allowed debate being
>> *how to have a war. But under the present policy, terrorism has gone *up.
>> Not *down. Even if this is the ultimately correct policy, right now
>> there's no evidence it's "working."
>>
>
>Tell me, in 1943, how much evidence was there that the Allied war effort
>in World War II was "working?"
Followup. See for yourself:
http://www.foxvalleyhistory.org/WWII/timeline/1943.htm
Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD
the tubes. Richard Clarke basically flushed them yesterday. Go out and
buy his book, and give a copy to all your friends. A more devastating
insider's account of the administration's high crimes and misdemeanors
on Iraq couldn't be written—unless Paul Wolfowitz comes over to our
side. It's a stunning, all-encompassing damnation of the neocon clique
and their Iraq obsession.
George W. a murdering psychopath who lied about why we went to war,
and is an unelected drunk who should be in jail. Hitler was elected,
but Bush was appointed by the United States Supreme Court. Republicans
want to starve kids, kick old people out on the street, make poor
people have to eat dog food to survive, poison the air, land and water
and kill millions of American kids with your imperialist wars.
Shalom,
---Prof. Leland Milton Goldblatt, Ph.D. ®
http://www.prof.faithweb.com
http://drgoldblatt.blogspot.com/
(773) 731-1100
Fred Stone
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 16:06:16 +0000 in episode
> <YxY8c.2229$lt2...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> we saw our hero Fred
> Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>:
>
>
>>Douglas Berry wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:54:25 GMT, a stranger called
>>>by some Splat <sp...@tropicalisland.com> came forth and told this tale
>>>in alt.atheism
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Point being his romps in the oval office actually did effect his ability
>>>>to lead afterall. His lying under oath and the dress proving that,
>>>>wasn't just about sex but the whole episode diminished his
>>>>efffectiveness and credibility. If he was afraid to go after terrorists
>>>>because of what others might say then what kind of a leader is that???
>>>
>>>
>>>He did go after terrorists. And the GOP's right wing were all over the
>>>Sunday talk shows saying his attacks on Afghanistan were an attempt to
>>>distract America from the all-important issue of a middle-aged man
>>>getting a blowjob and playing hide the cigar with an intern.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Given their utter lack of effectiveness, sure.
>
>
> At least he didn't attack the wrong country...
>
Nor did Bush.
Fred Stone
> Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 26 Mar 2004 16:06:16 GMT, a stranger
> called by some Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> came forth and
> told this tale in alt.atheism
>
>
>>>He did go after terrorists. And the GOP's right wing were all over
>>>the Sunday talk shows saying his attacks on Afghanistan were an
>>>attempt to distract America from the all-important issue of a
>>>middle-aged man getting a blowjob and playing hide the cigar with an
>>>intern.
>>>
>>
>>Given their utter lack of effectiveness, sure.
>
>
> He got a lot closer to bin Laden than Bush.
Oh, Bush has got us close enough to take his picture with a Predator
(unfortunately unarmed).
> And maybe, just maybem if
> the GOP had signed on, realizing that al-Qaeda was moving closer to
> attacking the US, a good friend of mine would still have a husband
> today.
>
Didn't you hear, even Clarke had to admit that nothing Bush could have
done would have prevented 9/11.
> Insterad they chose to play petty politics over a dress.
>
Well, if billyboy had 'fessed up when he got caught instead of trying to
lie his way out of it, the whole thing would have evaporated. They
didn't impeach him for adultery, just for lying to a grand jury, remember?
Fred Stone
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:31:22 +0000 in episode
> <e1Y8c.1532$Dv2...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> we saw our hero Fred
> Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>:
>
>
>>Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's also debatable whether a "war on terrorism" is the answer. That's
>>>often presented as a forgone conclusion with the only allowed debate
>>>being *how to have a war. But under the present policy, terrorism has
>>>gone *up. Not *down. Even if this is the ultimately correct policy,
>>>right now there's no evidence it's "working."
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Tell me, in 1943, how much evidence was there that the Allied war effort
>>in World War II was "working?"
>>
>>In 1863, how much evidence was there that the Union cause in the War
>>Between the States was "working?"
>
>
> Having that reading comprehension problem again Fred?
>
Don't you like the answers to my questions, Mark?
Fred Stone
> Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:31:22 GMT, a stranger
> called by some Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> came forth and
> told this tale in alt.atheism
>
>
>>Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's also debatable whether a "war on terrorism" is the answer. That's
>>>often presented as a forgone conclusion with the only allowed debate being
>>>*how to have a war. But under the present policy, terrorism has gone *up.
>>>Not *down. Even if this is the ultimately correct policy, right now
>>>there's no evidence it's "working."
>>>
>>
>>Tell me, in 1943, how much evidence was there that the Allied war effort
>>in World War II was "working?"
>
>
> Let's see.. by mid-1943, the Allies had driven the Axis out of Africa,
> and invaded Siciliy. Germany was being bombed daily, and on the
> Eastern Front the Soviets were advancing. Pretty damn good progress
> there. In the Pacific, the island-hopping campign was well under way,
> and the Japanese were retreating.
>
And let's see, we've bashed the Taliban down to a shadow of its former
self, and Saddam isn't in power any more...
>
>>In 1863, how much evidence was there that the Union cause in the War
>>Between the States was "working?"
>
> After Gettysburg, a great deal.
Libya caved, Iran's hard-liners are having a hard time...
Mark K. Bilbo
<jp49c.2316$Dv2...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> we saw our hero Fred
Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>:
> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 16:06:16 +0000 in episode
>> <YxY8c.2229$lt2...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> we saw our hero
>> Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>:
>>
>>
>>>Douglas Berry wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:54:25 GMT, a stranger
>>>>called by some Splat <sp...@tropicalisland.com> came forth and told
>>>>this tale in alt.atheism
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Point being his romps in the oval office actually did effect his
>>>>>ability to lead afterall. His lying under oath and the dress proving
>>>>>that, wasn't just about sex but the whole episode diminished his
>>>>>efffectiveness and credibility. If he was afraid to go after
>>>>>terrorists because of what others might say then what kind of a leader
>>>>>is that???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He did go after terrorists. And the GOP's right wing were all over the
>>>>Sunday talk shows saying his attacks on Afghanistan were an attempt to
>>>>distract America from the all-important issue of a middle-aged man
>>>>getting a blowjob and playing hide the cigar with an intern.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Given their utter lack of effectiveness, sure.
>>
>>
>> At least he didn't attack the wrong country...
>>
>>
> Nor did Bush.
Yeah. I like the part where David Kay found all those weapons and the
White House released conclusive proof of the connection between Iraq and
Al Queda.
Billions in dollars and hundreds of lives to occupy a country that could
have maybe shouted slogans at us.
Meanwhile, back over in the territories of our allies, bin Laden continues
to plot attacks on US citizens.
Not to mention that little thing about one of our buddies who WAS selling
nukes to other nations. You know, like to North Korea?
Yeah, yeah, yeah Fred, I know in *your little imagination, billions of
terrorists are being rounded up each second. Over here in the real world
however...
Mark K. Bilbo
<Ys49c.2330$Dv2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> we saw our hero
Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>:
> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:31:22 +0000 in episode
>> <e1Y8c.1532$Dv2...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> we saw our hero
>> Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>:
>>
>>
>>>Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's also debatable whether a "war on terrorism" is the answer. That's
>>>>often presented as a forgone conclusion with the only allowed debate
>>>>being *how to have a war. But under the present policy, terrorism has
>>>>gone *up. Not *down. Even if this is the ultimately correct policy,
>>>>right now there's no evidence it's "working."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Tell me, in 1943, how much evidence was there that the Allied war effort
>>>in World War II was "working?"
>>>
>>>In 1863, how much evidence was there that the Union cause in the War
>>>Between the States was "working?"
>>
>>
>> Having that reading comprehension problem again Fred?
>>
>>
> Don't you like the answers to my questions, Mark?
Your "questions" are irrelevant to what I wrote. Which has been pretty
fucking typical of you for some time now.
You can reply to what *I wrote or keep masturbating yourself publicly. I
don't care. Okay?
My point (the one *I wrote) is that people are begging the question. There
isn't any evidence (and you've pretty much conceded that in a weird,
backassed way) the policy is or will work. It should *not be treated as
"the answer" when it cannot be shown to even be *an answer.
JTEM
"steve horan" <steveho...@yahoo.com> wrote
> The Bandit <no-r...@pissoff.com> wrote
> > "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > 4/30/2001
> > > "A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S.
> > > government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly
> > > on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts
> > > of the elephant and not the whole beast."
> > > http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/
> > >
> > > It appears that the Bush administration confirmed everything
> > > Clarke has said, almost exactly three years before he said it!
> > Something very fishy about the above quote of your's. Think I
> > know why too, from Washington Post:
> Well what did they do?
Ignore him. He's lying. Read the quote yourself. You don't have to
take my word on it. It doesn't say what he pretends it says.
Read it. The Bush administration ignored Bin Laden. They called
Clinton's focus on Bin Laden a "mistake."
That was back in 2001, not even five months before the 9/11 attacks.
JTEM
"Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote
> As has been pointed out many times, all he had to do
> was to come clean in the first place.
....and the "Whitewater" investigator -- who spent years
digging into Clinton's personal life in the hopes of finding
*Anything* to pin him on -- would have walked away?
Why was the "Whitewater" investigator even concerning
himself with it? Why were there any questions at all?
You're lying, but this time it's even more transparent than
your usual, troll.
JTEM
"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote
> > In 1863, how much evidence was there that the Union cause
> > in the War Between the States was "working?"
> After Gettysburg, a great deal.
If you want to get technical here, the north was kicking some serious
ass even before Gettysburg.
Sure, Lee was the greatest tactician this country had ever seen up
to that time, and he was more than holding his own in Virginia,
but the south was losing everywhere else.
Gettysburg was a desperate attempt at turning the tide.
Strategically, Virginia simply wasn't as important as the Mississippi
river. That was the life blood of what was then the American "west,"
and its closing was the source of most of the political opposition to
the war in the north. Vicksburg was the last obstacle the north faced
along the Mississippi, and both sides knew it was only a matter of
(a short) time before it fell to siege. Even so, even without that one
hold-out, the south was already cut in two by the north's grip on the
Mississippi.
Douglas Berry
>Douglas Berry wrote:
>
>> He got a lot closer to bin Laden than Bush.
>
>Oh, Bush has got us close enough to take his picture with a Predator
>(unfortunately unarmed).
Where Clinton fired Tomahawks into al-Qaeda base camps. Without
telling an allied country we were going to use their airspace to do
so. That was a risky move.
Had the GOP realized the risk after the embassy bombings and gotten
serious in 1998, things might have been different today.
>> And maybe, just maybe, if
>> the GOP had signed on, realizing that al-Qaeda was moving closer to
>> attacking the US, a good friend of mine would still have a husband
>> today.
>
>Didn't you hear, even Clarke had to admit that nothing Bush could have
>done would have prevented 9/11.
I'm talking about the Ckinton administration.
>> Insterad they chose to play petty politics over a dress.
>
>Well, if billyboy had 'fessed up when he got caught instead of trying to
>lie his way out of it, the whole thing would have evaporated. They
>didn't impeach him for adultery, just for lying to a grand jury, remember?
Fred, honestly.. do you really care about other people's sex lives
that much? I can't think of a single President, other than Carter and
Truman, who didn't cheat on their wives. I don't care. I want a
President who can do the job. If he wants to get a blow job during
the day, fine with me.
Fred Stone
> Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 27 Mar 2004 01:05:27 GMT, a stranger
> called by some Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> came forth and
> told this tale in alt.atheism
>
>
>>Douglas Berry wrote:
>>
>>
>>>He got a lot closer to bin Laden than Bush.
>>
>>Oh, Bush has got us close enough to take his picture with a Predator
>>(unfortunately unarmed).
>
>
> Where Clinton fired Tomahawks into al-Qaeda base camps. Without
> telling an allied country we were going to use their airspace to do
> so. That was a risky move.
>
> Had the GOP realized the risk after the embassy bombings and gotten
> serious in 1998, things might have been different today.
>
Clinton was the Commander-in-chief in 1998, not the GOP. And don't tell
me about how they "distracted" him, that's revisionist bullshit.
>
>>> And maybe, just maybe, if
>>>the GOP had signed on, realizing that al-Qaeda was moving closer to
>>>attacking the US, a good friend of mine would still have a husband
>>>today.
>>
>>Didn't you hear, even Clarke had to admit that nothing Bush could have
>>done would have prevented 9/11.
>
>
> I'm talking about the Ckinton administration.
>
What did the GOP have to do with it? They weren't the C-in-C.
>
>>>Insterad they chose to play petty politics over a dress.
>>
>>Well, if billyboy had 'fessed up when he got caught instead of trying to
>>lie his way out of it, the whole thing would have evaporated. They
>>didn't impeach him for adultery, just for lying to a grand jury, remember?
>
>
> Fred, honestly.. do you really care about other people's sex lives
> that much? I can't think of a single President, other than Carter and
> Truman, who didn't cheat on their wives. I don't care. I want a
> President who can do the job. If he wants to get a blow job during
> the day, fine with me.
I couldn't care less, but then I didn't lie to a Grand Jury about it
either. Clinton could have done his crocodile tears act *before* it all
blew up, but no, he had to lie about it.
VRWC Destruction Machine
<ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
Carke, the Dummycrats new hero, said in the quote Clinton had no plan
on Al Qaeda that was passed. That was Clarke's statement. The
Dummycrats considered Clarke's statements in his book as the smoking
gun to nail Bush because Clarke spends more time slamming Bush than he
does Clinton even though he spent more time in the Clinton
administration and had more terrorist incidents than the Bush
administration. Your argument that Bush didn't consider it doesn't
jive with Clarke's statement didn't pass a plan and the rest of his
statements in his background briefing and Clarke is doing a Kerry by
backtracking on his previous statements, past and present. Was he
lying then or now?
-
There once was a man from Nantucket,
Whose misstatements could fill up a bucket.
Oft the truth he has bent,
Like his "Irish descent."
Of his record he says, "I'll just duck it."
Must be of the man whose middle name is "F*ck It"
Splat
>>
>>>It's also debatable whether a "war on terrorism" is the answer. That's
>>>often presented as a forgone conclusion with the only allowed debate
>>>being *how to have a war. But under the present policy, terrorism has
>>>gone *up. Not *down. Even if this is the ultimately correct policy,
>>>right now there's no evidence it's "working."
>>>
>>
>>Tell me, in 1943, how much evidence was there that the Allied war effort
>>in World War II was "working?"
>>
>>In 1863, how much evidence was there that the Union cause in the War
>>Between the States was "working?"
>
>
> Those situations are not in any way comparable. Both the Civil War and
> World War 2 were, well, *wars* against a clearly defined enemy with a
> clearly defined territory. The battle against terrorism is nothing like
> this ("asymmetric warfare", in military jargon). They have no country we
> can capture, no single leader we can kill. What constitutes victory against
> an enemy like that?
>
I had a few ants appearing here and there in my kitchen. I crushed them
and forgot about them but each day I would see a few more wandering
around so I bought an ant trap. At first they walked around it so I
assumed it wasn't going to work but the next day I had an army of them
trailing back and forth. I was being invaded. But I didn't panic and
just let them think they had found a goldmine. I had to get to their
source even though it meant I had to endure thousands of those little
buggers in my kitchen for three days. On the second day I noticed they
weren't quite as eager to work for their Queen. There were fewer and I
could tell getting tired. On the third day there were none and I haven't
seen any since.
The moral is.......stomping a few at a time (swatting at flies) didn't
do anything at all but declaring war and drawing them out won the
battle. I know it's a lame analogy but a true story. Asking those ants
to please leave made about as much sense as trying to reason with
terrorists.
Eyeball Kid
<gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Come on. Why the argument. The buck stops with George "I didn't feel
the sense of urgency" Bush.
People were virtually screaming in his ear, and he didn't feel a sense
of urgency. Some Commander-in-Chief he is. He plays dress up to get
cheers on an aircraft carrier to celebrate an event that began because
he didn't feel a sense of urgency for preventive action. It is for
people like him that words like "disengenuous" were invented.
E. K.
--
Free humor. Whenever you want. http://www.psmueller.com
"It would be a mistake for the United States Senate to allow any kind of human
cloning to come out of that chamber."季.W. Bush, Wash. D.C., April 10, 2002
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he
makes and we should just support that."- Britany Spears, 9/2003
Colin Day
Fred Stone wrote:
> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>
>> It's also debatable whether a "war on terrorism" is the answer. That's
>> often presented as a forgone conclusion with the only allowed debate
>> being
>> *how to have a war. But under the present policy, terrorism has gone *up.
>> Not *down. Even if this is the ultimately correct policy, right now
>> there's no evidence it's "working."
>>
>
> Tell me, in 1943, how much evidence was there that the Allied war effort
> in World War II was "working?"
The Soviets had compelled the Germans at Stalingrad to surrender. The
Western Allies
had taken over much of North Africa and were preparing to
invade/invading Italy.
In the Pacific, The US had already defeated the Japanese at Midway and
were pushing back
the Japanese.
>
> In 1863, how much evidence was there that the Union cause in the War
> Between the States was "working?"
>
By the end of 1862, the Union had occupied New Orleans and Norfolk, two
of the more
important Confederate ports. Also, the Union had occupied much of
Tennessee and some
of South Carolina's coast, all while keeping Kentucky and Missouri on
the Union side.
Colin Day
Colin Day
Fred Stone wrote:
> Douglas Berry wrote:
>
>> Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:31:22 GMT, a stranger
>> called by some Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> came forth and
>> told this tale in alt.atheism
>>
>>
>>> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's also debatable whether a "war on terrorism" is the answer. That's
>>>> often presented as a forgone conclusion with the only allowed debate
>>>> being
>>>> *how to have a war. But under the present policy, terrorism has gone
>>>> *up.
>>>> Not *down. Even if this is the ultimately correct policy, right now
>>>> there's no evidence it's "working."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Tell me, in 1943, how much evidence was there that the Allied war
>>> effort in World War II was "working?"
>>
>>
>>
>> Let's see.. by mid-1943, the Allies had driven the Axis out of Africa,
>> and invaded Siciliy. Germany was being bombed daily, and on the
>> Eastern Front the Soviets were advancing. Pretty damn good progress
>> there. In the Pacific, the island-hopping campign was well under way,
>> and the Japanese were retreating.
>>
>
> And let's see, we've bashed the Taliban down to a shadow of its former
> self, and Saddam isn't in power any more...
And exactly how much of Afghanistan do we now control?
>
>>
>>> In 1863, how much evidence was there that the Union cause in the War
>>> Between the States was "working?"
>>
>>
>> After Gettysburg, a great deal.
>
>
> Libya caved, Iran's hard-liners are having a hard time...
>
How many Libyans were involved in 9/11
Colin Day aa #1500
Fred Stone
>
>
> Fred Stone wrote:
>
>> Douglas Berry wrote:
>>
>>> Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:31:22 GMT, a stranger
>>> called by some Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> came forth and
>>> told this tale in alt.atheism
>>>
>>>
>>>> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It's also debatable whether a "war on terrorism" is the answer. That's
>>>>> often presented as a forgone conclusion with the only allowed
>>>>> debate being
>>>>> *how to have a war. But under the present policy, terrorism has
>>>>> gone *up.
>>>>> Not *down. Even if this is the ultimately correct policy, right now
>>>>> there's no evidence it's "working."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tell me, in 1943, how much evidence was there that the Allied war
>>>> effort in World War II was "working?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's see.. by mid-1943, the Allies had driven the Axis out of Africa,
>>> and invaded Siciliy. Germany was being bombed daily, and on the
>>> Eastern Front the Soviets were advancing. Pretty damn good progress
>>> there. In the Pacific, the island-hopping campign was well under way,
>>> and the Japanese were retreating.
>>>
>>
>> And let's see, we've bashed the Taliban down to a shadow of its former
>> self, and Saddam isn't in power any more...
>
>
> And exactly how much of Afghanistan do we now control?
>
None of it. The Afghans control it, and their liberal, constitutional
government is fighting the Taliban with our help.
>>
>>>
>>>> In 1863, how much evidence was there that the Union cause in the War
>>>> Between the States was "working?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> After Gettysburg, a great deal.
>>
>>
>>
>> Libya caved, Iran's hard-liners are having a hard time...
>>
>
> How many Libyans were involved in 9/11
>
What difference does that make?
qwerty
"Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Zvl9c.3930$lt2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > And exactly how much of Afghanistan do we now control?
> >
>
> None of it. The Afghans control it, and their liberal, constitutional
> government is fighting the Taliban with our help.
LOL, those Afghan's incontrol include the Taliban right? That "liberal"
Afghan government controls little outside of Kabul. Sheesh, the Afghan
President Karzai has to have U.S. bodyguards to protect himself because
Afghan guards can't be trusted.
Fred Stone
news:dHl9c.15371$N41....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com:
The Taliban has disintegrated into factions; they aren't an organized
force any more. Sheesh, they just fought a major gun battle recently
when one of them assassinated some government minister.
qwerty
You contradict yourself here. They're so disorganize yet they still remain
a real & viable force in Afghanistan.
Tracey.............
President Clinton was the first and only democrat to proclaim "I am
the first black president", yet Democrats seem unwilling to consider a
REAL black presidential contender, the selection process is over, and
John Fing Kerry has been nominated.
No one can deny the fact that the Democart party has been for many years
highly supported by black Americans. Typically, black Americans vote 90
percent of the time, yet the leadership of the democrat party will not
even endorse a black citizen to be the vice president to show how much
they appreciate the many years of support from black communities across
the nation.
Why then won't party officials of the democrat party endorse a black
American for at least the office of the vice president? Are there no
black Americans that could fill that position? Surely democrat leaders
could find a few good men and women to fill that seat in honor of black
Americans! Does it seem rather amazing that the party so ready to use
the term "racist" has no black Americans running for the two top offices
in the country?
Why won't democrats support a black man or woman for the position of VP
since John Kerry has not yet made a selection? There can be only one
answer: Racism.
Tracey Levin
>
>
Douglas Berry
>Douglas Berry wrote:
>> Had the GOP realized the risk after the embassy bombings and gotten
>> serious in 1998, things might have been different today.
>
>Clinton was the Commander-in-chief in 1998, not the GOP. And don't tell
>me about how they "distracted" him, that's revisionist bullshit.
Go look up the War Powers Act, and try to understand American
politics. The GOP was on a witch hunt. They *had* to discredit
Clinton.
>> I'm talking about the Ckinton administration.
>
>What did the GOP have to do with it? They weren't the C-in-C.
It's amazing. When we talk about the good economic times under
Clinton, GOPers immediately point out that there was a Republican
congress.. but when discussing failings, suddenly you'd think that
there was a single GOP within 100 miles of Washington.
Without Congressional support, action against al-Qaeda was dead in the
water. Congress could suspend all sorts of funds, accuse Clinton of
making war without a declaration, all sorts of nastiness.
>> Fred, honestly.. do you really care about other people's sex lives
>> that much? I can't think of a single President, other than Carter and
>> Truman, who didn't cheat on their wives. I don't care. I want a
>> President who can do the job. If he wants to get a blow job during
>> the day, fine with me.
>
>I couldn't care less, but then I didn't lie to a Grand Jury about it
>either. Clinton could have done his crocodile tears act *before* it all
>blew up, but no, he had to lie about it.
The entire thing was a crock. $65 million dollars of our money gone
dopwn the Starr report rathole all to learn that Clinton cheated on
his wife. Not even a simple majority on either article of
impeachment.
Tracey.............
Douglas Berry
>The Taliban has disintegrated into factions; they aren't an organized
>force any more. Sheesh, they just fought a major gun battle recently
>when one of them assassinated some government minister.
Fred, I have friends who are on the ground there right now.
The central government is a joke. They control Kabul, and some major
roads. The tribal lords are the real power block. And the Taliban is
still a very organized, real force in the southern mountains. That's
their traditional stronghold, and they are not only strong, but they
are recruiting!
How did this happen? Bush cut the recommend budget for rebuilding
Afghanistan by 2/3rds to pay for a war that failed to reveal WMD, or
to prove any link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Meanwhile, the
Afghans, seeing a chance, are carving out their strongholds.. *again.*
Fred Stone
news:394c60p9hfe87ik10...@4ax.com:
> Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 27 Mar 2004 16:21:15 GMT, a stranger
> called by some Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> came forth and
> told this tale in alt.atheism
>
>>Douglas Berry wrote:
>
>>> Had the GOP realized the risk after the embassy bombings and gotten
>>> serious in 1998, things might have been different today.
>>
>>Clinton was the Commander-in-chief in 1998, not the GOP. And don't
>>tell me about how they "distracted" him, that's revisionist bullshit.
>
> Go look up the War Powers Act, and try to understand American
> politics. The GOP was on a witch hunt. They *had* to discredit
> Clinton.
>
Hmm, yes, under the War Powers Act, Clinton could order troops into
anywhere and had 90 days to justify it to Congress.
>>> I'm talking about the Ckinton administration.
>>
>>What did the GOP have to do with it? They weren't the C-in-C.
>
> It's amazing. When we talk about the good economic times under
> Clinton, GOPers immediately point out that there was a Republican
> congress.. but when discussing failings, suddenly you'd think that
> there was a single GOP within 100 miles of Washington.
>
> Without Congressional support, action against al-Qaeda was dead in the
> water. Congress could suspend all sorts of funds, accuse Clinton of
> making war without a declaration, all sorts of nastiness.
>
Go read the War Powers Act yourself. 90 days. Clinton didn't need
Congress to approve anything to send troops in if he had so desired.
>>> Fred, honestly.. do you really care about other people's sex lives
>>> that much? I can't think of a single President, other than Carter
>>> and Truman, who didn't cheat on their wives. I don't care. I want a
>>> President who can do the job. If he wants to get a blow job during
>>> the day, fine with me.
>>
>>I couldn't care less, but then I didn't lie to a Grand Jury about it
>>either. Clinton could have done his crocodile tears act *before* it
>>all blew up, but no, he had to lie about it.
>
> The entire thing was a crock. $65 million dollars of our money gone
> dopwn the Starr report rathole all to learn that Clinton cheated on
> his wife.
> Not even a simple majority on either article of
> impeachment.
That still doesn't excuse his lying about it to a Grand Jury.
Polybius
> Why won't democrats support a black man or woman for the position of VP
> since John Kerry has not yet made a selection? There can be only one
> answer: Racism.
>
>
> Tracey Levin
Don't do us any favors kikess...we are already taking a chance with half
Kike O'Kerry...:o))))))))))) This election will come down to whose jews
are the more odious, Bush's jews or Kerry's jews...I say we make the
best of it and compare our kikes with their kikes...naming the kike
might be healthy for America!
>
>>
>>
>
<<"Hü©k Hö§hïmötö@~itszhein.berlin.rr.net/ >>
"Polybius" <Poly...@Mail2World.com> wrote in message
news:qGo9c.1890$YT1...@fe07.usenetserver.com...
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
<<"Hü©k Hö§hïmötö@~itszhein.berlin.rr.net/ >>
"Tracey............." <tracey12_12@yahoo123........> wrote in message
news:nno9c.113633$u_5....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
Can just see it now: Hanoi-Johnny-Jane announcing AL SHARPTON VEEP!
LOL!!!
Joe Myers
[snip]
> Why won't democrats support a black man or woman for the position of VP
> since John Kerry has not yet made a selection? There can be only one
> answer: Racism.
Remember the GOP presidential primary race? One candidate stood head and
shoulders above Bush, Forbes, Bauer, Buchanan, McCain, & Hatch. One
candidate was far more articulate on the issues supposedly important (if we
are to believe the party platform and supposedly principled conservatives )
to Republicans. That candidate was Allen Keyes.
Wonder why the "Party of Lincoln" didn't nominate Keyes for anything?
Fred Stone
> Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:24:19 GMT, a stranger
> called by some Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> came forth and
> told this tale in alt.atheism
>
>>The Taliban has disintegrated into factions; they aren't an organized
>>force any more. Sheesh, they just fought a major gun battle recently
>>when one of them assassinated some government minister.
>
> Fred, I have friends who are on the ground there right now.
>
I'm sure that they can give you their perspective. Of course, they're
where the trouble is, so their view might be a little unrepresentative
of the whole country.
> The central government is a joke. They control Kabul, and some major
> roads. The tribal lords are the real power block.
Of course they are. And many of them have signed on to the new
Constitution. They're still working on that, you know. These things take
time.
> And the Taliban is
> still a very organized, real force in the southern mountains. That's
> their traditional stronghold, and they are not only strong, but they
> are recruiting!
>
But they can't move in force enough to take Kabul back, and a lot of
their support has wandered off.
> How did this happen? Bush cut the recommend budget for rebuilding
> Afghanistan by 2/3rds to pay for a war that failed to reveal WMD, or
> to prove any link between Saddam and al-Qaeda.
We have enough force there to take care of the remnants of Al Queda if
they come onto our side of the Afghan-Pakistan border. And NATO is
involved as well.
> Meanwhile, the
> Afghans, seeing a chance, are carving out their strongholds.. *again.*
>
Shit, I got called a liar a while back for suggesting that "it's their
country" when asked what we'd do if they voted the US out.
Polybius
>>Tracey............. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why won't democrats support a black man or woman for the position of
>
> VP
>
>>>since John Kerry has not yet made a selection? There can be only
>
> one
>
>>>answer: Racism.
>>>
>>>
>>>Tracey Levin
>>
>>Don't do us any favors kikess...we are already taking a chance with
>
> half
>
>>Kike O'Kerry...:o))))))))))) This election will come down to whose
>
> jews
>
>>are the more odious, Bush's jews or Kerry's jews...I say we make the
>>best of it and compare our kikes with their kikes...naming the kike
>>might be healthy for America!
>>
>>
>
> ROTFLOL!!
Glad you liked that...:o)))))))))))
Here's a joke for you to tell:
Question: What's the leading cause of anti-semitism?
Answer: Jews...:o))))))))) LOL
>
>>>>
>>
>
Wexford
> Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
> news:394c60p9hfe87ik10...@4ax.com:
>
> > Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 27 Mar 2004 16:21:15 GMT, a stranger
> > called by some Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> came forth and
> > told this tale in alt.atheism
> >
> >>Douglas Berry wrote:
>
> >>> Had the GOP realized the risk after the embassy bombings and gotten
> >>> serious in 1998, things might have been different today.
> >>
> >>Clinton was the Commander-in-chief in 1998, not the GOP. And don't
> >>tell me about how they "distracted" him, that's revisionist bullshit.
> >
> > Go look up the War Powers Act, and try to understand American
> > politics. The GOP was on a witch hunt. They *had* to discredit
> > Clinton.
> >
>
> Hmm, yes, under the War Powers Act, Clinton could order troops into
> anywhere and had 90 days to justify it to Congress.
How long did it take for the Bushies to ramp up for the Afghanistan
invasion? 90 days is very little time and Clinton had an extremely
hostile congress with which he had to contend. Aside from which,
finding Bin Laden wouldn't have been easy. All the Bushies horses and
all the Bushies men haven't done it yet, have they?
Who gives a flying shit? On a basis of a lie, Bush invaded a country
and committed the public to hundreds of billions of dollars in debit
which he has no plans to pay for. He gave multi-billion dollar
sole-source contracts to a company Chaired by a family friend, a
company that was previously run by his Vice President, and to which
his family has business ties. And he thinks it's funny! He jokes
about it all! Besides, CLINTON ISN'T PRESINDENT ANY MORE. Bush is.
Wexford
Fred Stone
news:f53a27bf.04032...@posting.google.com:
> Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns94B9C15FC...@207.69.154.205>...
>> Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
>> news:394c60p9hfe87ik10...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 27 Mar 2004 16:21:15 GMT, a stranger
>> > called by some Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> came forth and
>> > told this tale in alt.atheism
>> >
>> >>Douglas Berry wrote:
>>
>> >>> Had the GOP realized the risk after the embassy bombings and
>> >>> gotten serious in 1998, things might have been different today.
>> >>
>> >>Clinton was the Commander-in-chief in 1998, not the GOP. And don't
>> >>tell me about how they "distracted" him, that's revisionist
>> >>bullshit.
>> >
>> > Go look up the War Powers Act, and try to understand American
>> > politics. The GOP was on a witch hunt. They *had* to discredit
>> > Clinton.
>> >
>>
>> Hmm, yes, under the War Powers Act, Clinton could order troops into
>> anywhere and had 90 days to justify it to Congress.
>
> How long did it take for the Bushies to ramp up for the Afghanistan
> invasion?
The clock starts when the troops move.
> 90 days is very little time and Clinton had an extremely
> hostile congress with which he had to contend.
The fighting took a couple of weeks. And it's a lot harder for Congress
to pull troops out after they're comitted.
> Aside from which,
> finding Bin Laden wouldn't have been easy. All the Bushies horses and
> all the Bushies men haven't done it yet, have they?
>
Al Queda would have been a lot easier to get in 1993. Or 1994. Or 1995.
Or 1996. Or 1997. Or 1998. Or 1999. Or 2000.
So much for the "GOP Congress kept Clinton too busy to pay attention to
the priorities".
> On a basis of a lie, Bush invaded a country
> and committed the public to hundreds of billions of dollars in debit
> which he has no plans to pay for. He gave multi-billion dollar
> sole-source contracts to a company Chaired by a family friend, a
> company that was previously run by his Vice President, and to which
> his family has business ties. And he thinks it's funny! He jokes
> about it all!
It is funny that the Democrats manage to whine so loudly about something
that they couldn't have done any better in their wildest dreams.
> Besides, CLINTON ISN'T PRESINDENT ANY MORE. Bush is.
>
Who gives a flying shit?
> Wexford
Kate
No, the answer is "because it's Al Sharpton."
Only a bigot would think that all you have to be is black in order to
qualify for an office because a black hasn't made it in yet.