PDA

View Full Version : The truth will out.



Qtec
03-22-2004, 10:41 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Bush attacked on terrorism record
<font color="red"> A former White House security expert has accused President Bush of doing a "terrible job" of tackling terrorism.</font color>
Richard Clarke said Mr Bush ignored warnings of the threat from al-Qaeda before the 11 September 2001 attacks.

US officials denied this, saying the administration had developed an anti-terror strategy before the attacks.

The criticisms came as former US President Jimmy Carter accused the US and UK of going to war in Iraq based on "lies or misinterpretations".



Richard Clarke
In an interview with a British newspaper, he said that Mr Bush's commitment to finish the war against Iraq started by President George Bush senior in 1991 had prevailed over the "better judgement" of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.
"There was no reason for us to become involved in Iraq recently," Mr Carter told the Independent.

"I think that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair probably knew that many of the allegations were based on uncertain intelligence... a decision was made to go to war [then people said] 'Let's find a reason to do so'."

Correspondents say it is very rare for a former US president to criticise an incumbent or a British prime minister
<hr /></blockquote>


Hey eg8r, did I tell you or what. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif



Bush has his own agenda.

Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.

!

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
03-22-2004, 10:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
...Correspondents say it is very rare for a former US president to criticise an incumbent or a British prime minister
<hr /></blockquote>

It was until Clinton and Gore retired.

Rod
03-22-2004, 11:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

Hey eg8r, did I tell you or what. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Bush has his own agenda.

Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.

!

Q <hr /></blockquote>

No Sadam and his henchmen just killed innocent people. Um lets see isn't that what a terrorist does? Don't you think people were terrorized or in terror before they were killed? Slice it or dice it anyway you want but killing is killing.

Just admit (I believe obsession is the word) is your feelings of injustice, poor leader, or what ever you call it towards Bush. You can't help yourself.

Rod

eg8r
03-22-2004, 11:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Hey eg8r, did I tell you or what. <hr /></blockquote> What part of the quoted text did you ever tell me before?

You are quoting about a guy removed from his position and some ex-President who has been negative of Bush since he came to office. Just why do you think these 2 people would be praising him?

eg8r

Qtec
03-22-2004, 11:41 AM
..and Bush and Reagan. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Q

Qtec
03-22-2004, 11:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
No Sadam and his henchmen just killed innocent people. Um lets see isn't that what a terrorist does? Don't you think people were terrorized or in terror before they were killed? Slice it or dice it anyway you want but killing is killing.

<hr /></blockquote>

Is every murder a terrorist action????
There is a difference between terrorism and a homicidal dictator.


[ QUOTE ]
Just admit (I believe obsession is the word) is your feelings of injustice, poor leader, or what ever you call it towards Bush. You can't help yourself.
<hr /></blockquote>

It would help if you made sense Rod.
Q

Wally_in_Cincy
03-22-2004, 11:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> ..and Bush and Reagan. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Wrong. Bush and Reagan never criticized Clinton.

It has been a tradition since Washington for the outgoing President to not criticize his successor. Clinton was the first to do it. What would you expect though from a low-class individual like him.

Rod
03-22-2004, 12:15 PM
No comprehend the english? With you it is always some lame excuse. Go ahead Q, like you always do, find excuses.

Rod

eg8r
03-22-2004, 02:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
There is a difference between terrorism and a homicidal dictator. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, are you being nitpicky? Sure there is a difference, in laymens terms, terrorism is something, and a homicidal dictator is someone. However the two are so closely mingled that the mere reason you decided to point out the difference proves you have no idea what you are talking about.
[ QUOTE ]
It would help if you made sense Rod.
<hr /></blockquote> He made a lot more sense than your subject heading...The truth will out. Will out what????

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
03-22-2004, 02:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
..Is every murder a terrorist action????
There is a difference between terrorism and a homicidal dictator.
<hr /></blockquote>

Maybe Hitler and Saddam were not "terrorists" by definition. Does that mean we should not have stopped their murderous ways?

Wally_in_Cincy
03-22-2004, 02:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]

Richard Clarke said Mr Bush ignored warnings of the threat from al-Qaeda before the 11 September 2001 attacks.

<hr /></blockquote>

This Clarke guy is a disgruntled former employee and a Kerry supporter. He worked for Clinton and was a holdover in the Bush administration. He apparently has a book out saying that if Clinton was still Prez he would have captured Bin Laden. What a joke.

Clinton had Bin Laden on a silver platter more than once and didn't have the cojones to do anything about it.

eg8r
03-22-2004, 02:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe Hitler and Saddam were not "terrorists" by definition. <hr /></blockquote> Ask the Jews if Hitler was not a terrorist.

eg8r

Rod
03-22-2004, 02:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
LOL, are you being nitpicky? Sure there is a difference, in laymens terms, terrorism is something, and a homicidal dictator is someone. However the two are so closely mingled that the mere reason you decided to point out the difference proves you have no idea what you are talking about.
<hr /></blockquote>


eg8r,

I don't think the people of Iraq that have been killed by Sadam or his men really give a dam about Q's view or his being nitpicky. Their families don't either since their dead all the same. Before they were executed I'm sure they went through terror. Oh but Sadam is not a terrorist, because he can just shoot someone and they do or don't know it's comming? Isn't that what a terrorist does too? LOL Is there some kind of warning needed or does it hurt less or feel better or what?

Q Just justifies this in his means to attack Bush. In the end they all need to be put away for good. Well that is, unless Q thinks thats a bad idea too. He'll probably find a way to attack Bush while being nitpicky about their sentence. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Rod

stickman
03-22-2004, 03:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

"I think that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair probably knew that many of the allegations were based on uncertain intelligence... a decision was made to go to war [then people said] 'Let's find a reason to do so'."

<font color="blue">I didn't think it should have been necessary to find a reason. The gulf war ended with a cease-fire agreement. For whatever reason Clinton allowed Saddam to renig on the agreement. If Saddam wasn't a serious threat yet, I'm sure he soon would be have been, if continued to do as he pleased. With years of diplomatic attempts and no results, I think we were well within out rights to resume hostilities. </font color>

Correspondents say it is very rare for a former US president to criticise an incumbent or a British prime minister.

<font color="blue">Bush Sr. had plenty of opportunity to criticise Clinton. Clinton didn't show the same respect for Bush Jr. though, did he? I'm not meaning to put Clinton down. I'm a registered Democrat, but vote the candidates rather than the parties. I sense you have an intense dislike for Bush Jr. or is it just Republicans in general? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif</font color>
Q <hr /></blockquote>

Sid_Vicious
03-22-2004, 05:02 PM
I told myself I wasn't getting into a stonewall match like this but it seems that I was being self misguided. Firstly, the whole reason Bush tried to justify this Iraq invasion was due to the American policy of imminent threat, all circled around the Bush's accusations about WMD from Iraq. Sure Saddam used those weapons long ago, even on his own people once, but unless more is produced beyond what we've been shown so far, "Bush forced a war with skimpy, truth-stretching intelligence at best, on political and personal PUROSE", breaking American law instantly.

Let me start a fresh paragraph on the second point, that being that the so called American public's majority thinking "that it was the right thing to invade Irag, basing much of that emotion over Saddam's tortures and such. Did y'all know that the Jews under Hitler were being massacred and the USA knew long before action? Don't you remember that the Bosnians were too, and both were going on long before the US stepped in to say "Ok I know now and I'll save these people" immediately, or at least ASAP, and "Folks, real people were aimlessly being slaughtered day after day." Tell me is Bush rushing to to stop the massacres of Ugandans or the west Aficans being ethnically cleansed, NOT? It ain't worth GWB's political time for that one. Now remember the "imminent threat" policy...GWB is still guilty without Hitler's help.

Bush went into Iraq on a policy that broke our own code on declaring war, deceived(lying, breaking American law) about the imminent threat at a time when he knew the American public was a complacent and fearful lot of sheep. He has and is killing sons and daughters of American voters with this continued and illegal occupation, and it will not accomplish anything other in the medium and long term but another reason for Muslims to rally against Western invaders. Even after the illegal invasion, the post war plans were and are sad, our girls and boys over there are really in a situation I pity them for, pity them beyond the danger and discomfort, more pity for their dismal President. "Can you imagine the situation with these uprooted Americans, all over an unneeded war?" and this deal is very, very, very VERY far from being over for those soldiers, I don't care what Washington thinks about mid-summer elections, some if not all will stay, and some will be killed, sadly for nothing more than a political based lie.

Bush is guilty of entering into a war against American policy, that of imminent threat. He has cause deaths, and that makes his crimes so dammed far beyond Clinton's BJ and Clinton's shading of the definition of sex, even lying under oath, it is just an abomination, and I am embarrassed to think that this US public has gotten so complacent that it accepts it in the least. Where are our heads people? Heck, OJ Simpson had at least an educated legal team, but many of Bush's real experts were fired or quit cuz Goerge "couldn't be right all the time", and they are now coming out of the woodwork and exposing Bush's failures to the public. Admirable, brave and without purpose in my mind since they are affilliated with the republicans, actually detrimental to their careers.

Bush is still killing our people with the illegal occupation of Iraq. I see no reason to doubt Republicans who Bush fired or whom quit during this fiasco, who are now
spilling the beans on Bush's intentions for Iraq. It's plain that GWB wanted Iraq way before 9-11, and saving Iraqi lives(nor ours) was ever his God-honest reason. Getting Daddy's Job done maybe, and yes his daddy was a fool for not scooping up Saddam when the door was wide open.

Geroge JR. blew smoke up our butts, and we are going to pay for it a long, long, very long time, maybe until eternity, unless we THINK independently and fix this mistake. George is quilty of one of two things, lack of IQ or greed, or both. It was and is an illegal war.

Sid

nAz
03-22-2004, 07:27 PM
Your all Fu@king CraZy!!!

BUsh did not invade iraQ because of Immanent danGer! nOr did he do it because of oiL! he did it because the poor people of iraQ were suffering under that brutal dicKtator! wHy else would he leave bIn lAden and the remnants of Al quida on the loose! i mean they were no More of a threaT to Us.

BTW what is all this i now hear about, Rumsfield suggested invading iraQ instead of aFganastan. because it had moRe Targets?? never mind the fact that the Talaban and Olsama been forgotten was in afganastan!
That can't be true, that would lead one to believe that some in the inner circle had wanted to invade IraQ 9/11.

Naz~~ I got hit with a toilet yesterday here in NYC, I now see the truth!

stickman
03-23-2004, 06:54 AM
I can understand that some might blame Jr. for a poor ecomony, I can see how some might blame him for a poor unemployment record, but I can't blame him for putting an end to Saddam's rule. Illegal war, illegal occupation? That was Saddam's doing, when he invaded Kuwait. At least we agree on one thing, George Sr. should have finished the job when we were there the first time. He should have known that we couldn't rely on a agreement made with a maniac like Saddam. I do believe that Jr. intended to end Saddam's reign before 9/11. Saddam had been thumbing his nose at us over the cease-fire agreement for years. There was considerable effort to force Saddam to comply with the agreement. Did you forget that there was a majority, both Republicans, and Democrats, that voted for the action? (Even the Democratic presidential hopeful) I suspect this might be one of those arguements that we might end up agreeing to disagree with. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
03-23-2004, 09:24 AM
Being that you have said all this before, I still wonder why you are bringing up what happened in the past about Hitler and Bosnians. That was before Bush and a different President was in office making different decisions. Saddam was killing his own people back in the 80's. If we were to follow your logic, we should have just let him continue doing it since we never jumped in and helped the Jews right away. Give it a break, Bush is a different man, and he is taking action. I will skip a little forward.... [ QUOTE ]
Bush went into Iraq on a policy that broke our own code on declaring war, <hr /></blockquote> Do you not remember Congress voting, back in November prior(I believe this is when they voted), to approve the war???? Even Kerry at the time voted yes.

As far as truth-stretching evidence, I do not remember you bashing Clinton for bombing Iraq? I did not know you back in the first war, but I am sure you were not bashing Bush senior then either. What amazes me, is that these 3 Presidents have all been making these same decisions with the same evidence. Only until now, while we are canvassing the region are we finding out the intelligence might not have been as perfect, however we do know that he had them, because Saddam ADMITTED it. We also know that he knows where the rest is hiding, because Saddam did not show proof of having destroyed it. This is something the weapons inspectors fail to share (or the liberal media fail to air). It was not the Inspectors jobs to find the weapons, or prove it was there. Saddam admitted to having them, and the Inspectors job was to witness the destruction, or see proof of the destruction.

[ QUOTE ]
He has cause deaths, and that makes his crimes so dammed far beyond Clinton's BJ and Clinton's shading of the definition of sex, even lying under oath, it is just an abomination, and I am embarrassed to think that this US public has gotten so complacent that it accepts it in the least. <hr /></blockquote> Quite honestly, I am happy to say more are embarrassed of your mis-interpretation of the facts. It is a shame, but this is a product of the free speech I cherish.

[ QUOTE ]
I see no reason to doubt Republicans who Bush fired or whom quit during this fiasco, who are now
spilling the beans on Bush's intentions for Iraq. <hr /></blockquote> Which ones are these? I do remember a few people Bush has thankfully removed from office were holdovers from Clinton.

[ QUOTE ]
Getting Daddy's Job done maybe, and yes his daddy was a fool for not scooping up Saddam when the door was wide open.
<hr /></blockquote> Care to comment on recent news about Osama (Bill Clinton's lifeline)?

[ QUOTE ]
Geroge JR. blew smoke up our butts, and we are going to pay for it a long, long, very long time, maybe until eternity, unless we THINK independently and fix this mistake. <hr /></blockquote> Any suggestions? Surely you know that your choices will be Bush, sKerry, or Nader. Personally I hope you vote for Nader (one less vote for sKerry). While you are thinking independently, do you have any ideas of how this change in Presidency might help the current situation WITHOUT creating more problems? Surely you don't think the US-International-policy savior is all bottled up in one person.

eg8r

eg8r
03-23-2004, 09:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
At least we agree on one thing, George Sr. should have finished the job when we were there the first time. He should have known that we couldn't rely on a agreement made with a maniac like Saddam. <hr /></blockquote> Thankfully we all agree that Sr. screwed up not getting Saddam back then. If he did, what would these liberals be talking about right now? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Your last sentence, is the exact reason more UN intervention would do nothing. The man has been lying to the UN for the past 15 or so years.

eg8r

eg8r
03-23-2004, 09:28 AM
What is up with the poor use of capital letters? This is nothing really about poor grammar, as it appears to be blatant. I would just like to know why?

eg8r

nAz
03-23-2004, 11:09 AM
lol just messing around with yall, but now that i know how much you like it,i may do it agaIn /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r
03-23-2004, 11:40 AM
Just thought I would ask. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
03-23-2004, 12:13 PM
'The truth will out' means that the truth will eventually be revealed.

Its standard English.

All i,m saying is that Iraq was invaded not because of WMDs because we know he hasnt got any.
Not because of the war on terrorism because he only terrorised his own people.[ which has never been an issue for any western state].

I believe that a certain faction within the Govt used 9/11 for their own personal agenda.


http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

I think the right thing was done but for the wrong reasons.


Q

nhp
03-23-2004, 01:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
i,m <hr /></blockquote>

What is that? Is that a word? That doesn't make any sense. You don't make any sense. You can't argue against me if you put the wrong punctuation on a word. It ruins your whole argument. So what if I am just avoiding the argument to nitpick your grammar, I can do that, because it makes sense, and you don't.

....Remind you of someone? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
03-23-2004, 02:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think the right thing was done but for the wrong reasons. <hr /></blockquote> The right thing was done, for whatever reason.

eg8r

Steve - Detroit
03-23-2004, 09:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> <hr /></blockquote> The right thing was done, for whatever reason.

eg8r

You don't really believe this,..........do you?

Keith Talent
03-23-2004, 09:51 PM
No matter what this guy says, Q, Saddam was very much in bed with terrorists, paying $25,000 each to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers for the past several years.

What his connection with Al Qaeda might have been is somewhat hazy, but I don't think anyone knows enough to just write off that possibility.

Many nitwits on the left are crying today about the fact that the U.S. didn't rush off to invade Afghanistan to capture ONE MAN, Bin Laden BEFORE 9/11, before there had even been an attack on U.S. soil. Imagine trying to justify THAT war! These are the very people who say we're being a bully with the current anti-terror doctrine of preemption. That doctrine just couldn't fly before 9/11. But afterward? Perfectly logical ... unless your nation is a nontarget, like the Netherlands. Then again, didn't you guys want to stay out of WWII and it found you anyway?

Iraq was absolutely a potential supermarket for terrorists with a leader who had the ways, means and motive to arm them against the U.S. It may now be an even more dangerous place, but that doesn't mean it would have been safer for the U.S. to have ignored the trouble that was brewing there.

Some folks want to give the benefit of the doubt to a dangerous lunatic like Saddam. How about to the civilized world and humanity instead?

Face it, as far as opposition to the U.S. war on Islamic fundamentalist terror (you CAN'T call it that, of course), there's a crowd that can't stand that our Prez goes around saying "nucular" and will slam anything the gov't does. I will surely vote against W in Nov., for a slew of other reasons, but I won't argue with the logic of the Iraq war at the time. Fact is, we'll almost certainly have to do the same thing in Iran.

Have fun heckling over there on the sidelines of history, Mr. Q. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Keith Talent
03-23-2004, 11:40 PM
Couple of things I wanted to add:

1) I said "You guys" in the Netherlands. Apologies. You're a Scot, yes? So you've become an ex-pat because you must like either smoking pot in cafes or, perhaps, dyeing your hair orange? Hell, what do I know? ... my family's all Celtic and my wife's mother's Scottish. Maybe you just wanted to avoid dying of a heart attack at 55 from too much haggis.

2) More seriously ... I would argue that the U.S., and the rest of the West, really could have made use of Saddam, but either he was mismanaged or just became unmanageable. Certainly, the best the non-Islamic, civilized world could hope for there would be a secular strongman. Who fits the bill better than Saddam himself?

But the guy had major delusions of being Saladin and liked to talk jihad a lot. If he could have acted like Musharraf's or Karzai's big brother, I think he would have been just the guy to keep the Iranian nuts in line.

When you think of the way he acted when he was captured, you could see he was a paper tiger. He loved his comfort, hated confrontation unless it was a pushover ... a weak-minded bully who easily could have been turned to serve the West if he had been given some sort of place at the table.

But it apparently was too late for that, and he had to go.

And that probably had something to do with Bush's vendetta against him ... but it wasn't like Clinton did much constructive over there, either. Perhaps, and this might be a crazy reach, but I've had a couple of beers ... Bush realized that the vendetta had become mutual. That's probably true. And maybe, just maybe, he thought back to another famous presidential vendetta, JFK vs. Castro. And perhaps, reasonably enough, he thought he'd be a chump to just sit back and let Saddam send an Al-Oswaldi after HIM. Sure, that could have been home-grown, but Fidel could have been mixed up in there, too. Or Dubya maybe thinks he was, considering he's a right-winger. Frame any question as an us-or-them and that's about where you get.

And that's about how the U.S. is seeing it right now ... sit back, and they nuke New York (cheers in Washington!) and D.C. (oops, had my victory party before my victory.).

eg8r
03-24-2004, 07:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You don't really believe this,..........do you? <hr /></blockquote> You are not really asking a rhetorical questions...are you?

eg8r

eg8r
03-24-2004, 07:33 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I will surely vote against W in Nov., for a slew of other reasons, but I won't argue with the logic of the Iraq war at the time. <hr /></blockquote> Do I hear a vote for Nader? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Keith Talent
03-24-2004, 09:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> <hr /></blockquote> Do I hear a vote for Nader? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Dream on, Monsieur Ed!

Your guy's going down, and I don't think Nader's going to get as much of the dip$hit vote this time. I DID vote for him last go-round, but only after I knew for certain Gore was going to carry New York easily.

Will have to hold my nose and go with Johnny the K and his cabal.

eg8r
03-24-2004, 10:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Dream on, Monsieur Ed!

Your guy's going down, and I don't think Nader's going to get as much of the dip$hit vote this time. <hr /></blockquote> LOL. This is the excitement of election year. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I would not count out Nader helping the Reps again.

eg8r

Steve - Detroit
03-24-2004, 11:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
You don't really believe this,..........do you? <hr /></blockquote> You are not really asking a rhetorical questions...are you?

I was just surprised by such a statement of blind faith coming from you, that's all.

eg8r
03-24-2004, 12:58 PM
I really believe the right thing was done...Remove Saddam from power. Whether it comes out that he has hidden his WMDs so well that we never find them does not bother me one bit. That seems to be the main issue with the anti-war crowd, all they want to see are WMDs. None of them are looking at the Good that has happened. Take for example a post that we had here earlier...Someone posted all the good things you are not going to see in the media, and all nhp could say was prove it, and I will show you otherwise. He had no intent to acknowledge that good has happened, all he is worried about is the bad. I choose not to look at ONLY the bad. I understand there are very bad things happening, but I totally think they are outweighed by the good.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
03-24-2004, 01:15 PM
and another thing. the people that are the terrorists in iraq are probably not iraqis. iraq's border with iran is quite porous. the terrorists are probably iranians, yemenis, egyptians and such.

Steve - Detroit
03-24-2004, 05:04 PM
I hope you’re right, eg8r, but I believe it’s an extremely premature judgment at this point in time, we’re barely off page one in this chapter.

Looking only at Iraq itself for a measure of the good or bad is, in my opinion, a very narrow view. The worldwide repercussions of our action, both good and bad, will be rolling back at us for years to come.

Qtec
03-24-2004, 10:59 PM
Dont you find it interesting the C.Rice hides behind Exec.privilage in order not to testify?

What does she have to hide?

Q

nAz
03-24-2004, 11:04 PM
dude do you really care what she has to hide? they all do it, now that bipartisan! the truth will out one day my friend /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r
03-24-2004, 11:11 PM
Is it so bad for the Reps to hide behind the rules but it is perfectly fine for the Dems to do the same thing?

I have yet to hear from Clinton about how he so agressively dealt with the 93 WTC bombing, the US embassy bombings, the USS Cole. He never did anything about them. Clinton's pansy boy Richard Clarke was the head, and the best he could say about the USS Cole attack, was...We had an agressive plan, but did not want to get started during the process of a change in presidency. If Clinton really cared about the American people he would have went after Al Qaeda back in 93. Now Condi is being blamed for everything Richard Clarke did not do while he was in office.

Q, I was wondering if you would please discuss you views on how well Richard Clarke and Clinton dealt with Al Qaeda.

eg8r

Qtec
03-25-2004, 07:16 AM
C.Rice should put up or shut up.If she is not going to testify[ and I dont know why she shouldnt because this has everything to do with Homeland Security], she should not make any comments about the testimony of a very well respected [ up until he disagreed with GW of course] member of the security services.

Read this,

http://www.chaosacrossamerica.com/Bills/House107th/HR1292.htm

5) The United States Government does not currently have an adequate strategic sense of the unconventional threats to the United States. Due to the significant conventional military superiority of the United States, future adversaries are unlikely to risk a direct head-to-head military confrontation with the United States, but rather are likely to seek to exploit weaknesses in the domestic preparedness and counterterrorism preparedness of the United States.


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/nie-iraq-wmd.html


If you read the advice from the INR, it directly contradicts the Govt viewpoint.

And now Clarke.

Who is next to blow the whistle.

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
03-25-2004, 07:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Q, I was wondering if you would please discuss you views on how well Richard Clarke and Clinton dealt with Al Qaeda. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">and as usual Qtec changes the subject /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color>



<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> C.Rice should put up or shut up.If she is not going to testify[ and I dont know why she shouldnt because this has everything to do with Homeland Security], she should not make any comments about the testimony of a very well respected [ up until he disagreed with GW of course] member of the security services......<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">I think these hearings should be done in closed session myself. Why give away the secrets of our intelligence-gathering technology /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif </font color>

eg8r
03-25-2004, 10:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And now Clarke.
<hr /></blockquote> While I am not trying to personally attack anyone (I state this because it could be viewed that way, which is not the intention), this statement is complete stupidity. Who do you think put Clark in his position? Who did he work for for 8 years while terrorists were doing whatever they wanted to the US without any repercussions. This fool you drag around in your discussions was in charge of all this stuff for 8 years. Now that he speaks out against Bush you think he is some knowledgeable, credible person. You completely reject/ignore his recent history and actions and believe everything he says because he is not a Bush follower. Your position on this board is not at all to enlighten or bring thoughtful discussion to the board, and this is entirely evidenced by your complete backing of the moron quoted above.

You completely ignored my entire post, and continued with your agenda so this further solidifies my account on your reasoning for participating in any of these threads. What was your answer for the very first question posted? How about the very last one. If you would have answered the last one, it might have made sense for you to post the quote in which I have copied here.

Just where does Clarke get off asking the tough questions on Rice, when he himself did nothing to fix the problem for 8 years.

eg8r

nAz
03-25-2004, 11:08 AM
wow I bet if bush himself came out and said that everything clarke wrote was true eg8r would say that bush was just bush bashing /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

serious do you not think this guy has any credibility? he worked for Regan then Bush SR. and Clinton, maybe he is telling the truth. what is he the 2nd 3rd former hi level WH staffer that has come out against Bush? maybe we can believe the 4th or 5th one.

Your either with us or against us!

eg8r
03-25-2004, 11:38 AM
[ QUOTE ]
serious do you not think this guy has any credibility? he worked for Regan then Bush SR. and Clinton, maybe he is telling the truth. what is he the 2nd 3rd former hi level WH staffer that has come out against Bush? maybe we can believe the 4th or 5th one. <hr /></blockquote> I think you are missing my point...He is not taking any responsibility for his inaction for 8 years under Clinton, but rather passing the blame to Rice. Do you dispute this?

Here is a quote from CNN... [ QUOTE ]
HEMMER: The White House says before they even arrived at the White House the previous administration was obsessed with nothing -- and I want you to look at a picture here that we saw last week from NBC News.

An al Qaeda terrorist training camp outside of Kandahar. They allege at the time why wasn't anything done to take al Qaeda out?

This was August of 2000.

CLARKE: Well, a great deal was done. <font color="red"> Is this admission to failure. It is quite obvious not enough was done. </font color> The administration stopped the al Qaeda attacks in the United States. <font color="blue"> For some reason Clarke is forgetting 7 years prior when the WTC was bombed.</font color>

And around the world at the millennium period and they stopped al Qaeda in Bosnia. <font color="blue"> I can't argue that. </font color> They stopped al Qaeda from blowing up embassies around the world. <font color="blue"> He absolutely fails to mention the embassies they were unable to save and the US embassies that were bombed. </font color> They authorized covert lethal action by the CIA against al Qaeda. <font color="blue"> However, they did not allow the kill of Osama. It was quite evident that it was going to be impossible to waltz in and grab him and take him alive, so all this covert action was not lethal one bit. </font color>

They retaliated with Cruise missile strikes into Afghanistan. <font color="blue"> They missed the first time and was a huge embarrasment on Clinton and the military. Why doesn't he point this out? </font color> They got sanctions on Afghanistan from the United Nations. <font color="blue"> A lot of good that did. Seems the Taliban were still allowing Al Qaeda training, as evidenced post-9/11 intelligence</font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

Here is the web page (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/23/ltm.03.html)

The guy has no credibility because he does not take any responsibilty for his actions.

eg8r

eg8r
03-25-2004, 12:19 PM
Here is another example of Clarke... [ QUOTE ]
Frustrated by what he saw as an inadequate response to terrorism, Clarke sent a memo to Rice one week before the deadly attacks, blasting the Defense Department for not doing enough against al Qaeda and criticizing the CIA for holding up a plan to arm Predator drones.

In that memo -- detailed in a commission staff statement -- Clarke told policy-makers to "imagine a day after hundreds of Americans lay dead at home or abroad after a terrorist attack" and to ask themselves, "What else they could have done?"

<hr /></blockquote> Now ask yourself, if the armed drones did go into effect, would 9/11 still have happened? The idea being that Clark just wants to show he might have been trying to be proactive prior to 9/11, however he does not explain that what he was being proactive about would not have changed the outcome. His actions would have done zero to help those poor people on 9/11, but that is his defense. Would he have fired his armed drones on US soil? What would have happened in an innocent US citized was killed? Who would Clark caste the blame on? His defense is so weak, he is just throwing crap out there.

But then again, Naz is caught up in the fact that he has worked for a Republican in the past. Take a few minutes and try and understand the context of his actions...he was demoted and pissed off. It would help out, Naz, if you would bring to light why you give credibility to this guy, when his recent past shows he has done little in the fight of terrorism as far as Al Qaeda is concerned. He was the head person when the WTC bombing happened, when the US embassies were bombed, when the USS Cole was bombed, etc. What has happened after each of those occasions with respect to Al Qaeda? I think they grew stronger, knowing that the US would not retaliate. They grew so bold that they decided to commit terror again on US soil. The difference this time was the US did not sit by idly.

eg8r

Qtec
03-25-2004, 12:23 PM
Your first question was this,

"What part of the quoted text did you ever tell me before?"

My answer[ which was contained in my original post]

"I think that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair probably knew that many of the allegations were based on uncertain intelligence... a decision was made to go to war [then people said] 'Let's find a reason to do so'."

Like I have always said, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the WOT.

Although the Iraqi people are no longer living under fear from Saddam, the terrorist situation has only got worse.

I notice nobody has mentioned the bombing in Spain.

Q

nAz
03-25-2004, 12:23 PM
oh yeah i would agree to some point that in the prior years not enough was done to combat terroist under his watch, but from what i gather his main complain about the Prez. is that he did not do enough to go after Al quida after 9/11 he was too obsessed with Iraq and use 9/11 as a means to get Saddam who i do not care what anyone says was not near as much as a threat to our security as NK, Iran, or Al Quida is.

I would like to have seen him gone as much as anyone but i had rather see those other countries and terroist taken care of first.
I do not feel any safer since we invaded iraq a year ago, do you?

BTW when Clinton did order bombings in Afghanistan and also military action in the former Yugoslavia did not the republicans accuse him of starting this just to deflect attention from that silly Monica "scandal" they went after him with? "Wag the Tail sindrome"
They the Republicans pretty much tied his hand with all that and made it extremely difficult for him to pursue Al Quida. or any other military action.

Wally_in_Cincy
03-25-2004, 12:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> oh yeah i would agree to some point that in the prior years not enough was done to combat terroist under his watch, but from what i gather his main complain about the Prez. is that he did not do enough to go after Al quida after 9/11 he was too obsessed with Iraq....<hr /></blockquote>

nAz,

If you recall the Taliban and most of Al-Quaida were either buried in caves or turned to pink mist by close air support. Was that not enough? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

eg8r
03-25-2004, 12:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
My answer[ which was contained in my original post]

"I think that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair probably knew that many of the allegations were based on uncertain intelligence... a decision was made to go to war [then people said] 'Let's find a reason to do so'."

Like I have always said, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the WOT.
<hr /></blockquote> The problem with this answer is that neither Bush nor Blair have stated they knew prior that the intelligence was uncertain. You are putting words in their mouths in an effort to prove a point that was never there. Clarke said this not Bush. Go back to the drawing board and draw up some other "half-truths" to pawn off.

[ QUOTE ]
I notice nobody has mentioned the bombing in Spain. <hr /></blockquote> What is this about? What does it matter. I can tell you one thing, it is obvious that the people of Spain would rather appease the terrorists instead of remove them. Are you an appeaser?

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
03-25-2004, 12:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
..it is obvious that the people of Spain would rather appease the terrorists instead of remove them. Are you an appeaser?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

the Spaniards are pussies /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

just like the pathetic French

eg8r
03-25-2004, 12:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
oh yeah i would agree to some point that in the prior years not enough was done to combat terroist under his watch, but from what i gather his main complain about the Prez. is that he did not do enough to go after Al quida after 9/11 he was too obsessed with Iraq and use 9/11 as a means to get Saddam who i do not care what anyone says was not near as much as a threat to our security as NK, Iran, or Al Quida is.
<hr /></blockquote> Wasn't Afghanistan dealt with first?

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to have seen him gone as much as anyone but i had rather see those other countries and terroist taken care of first.
I do not feel any safer since we invaded iraq a year ago, do you?
<hr /></blockquote> Sure I do. I feel Iraq was an enabler. There is enough information floating around that Saddam (or his government) kept in close enough contact with the higher-ups in the Al Qaeda that it would not be too far a stretch to believe Saddam may have funnelled illegally acquired money to help fund Al Qaeda. Do you really believe Saddam had absolutely zero contact with Al Qaeda?

[ QUOTE ]
BTW when Clinton did order bombings in Afghanistan and also military action in the former Yugoslavia did not the republicans accuse him of starting this just to deflect attention from that silly Monica "scandal" they went after him with? "Wag the Tail sindrome"
They the Republicans pretty much tied his hand with all that and made it extremely difficult for him to pursue Al Quida. or any other military action.
<hr /></blockquote> The first bombs (cruise missles into Afghanistan missed and it was entirely embarrassing to the US and emboldening to the Al Qaeda). Yugoslavia was not about terrorism, rather it was about genocide (and Michael Savage believes it primarily about the oil pipeline), sure there is still terror in the eyes of the victims, but the action themselves was not based on the same ideals as we are seeing in today's situation. Milosevic was doing the same thing Saddam was doing in Iraq. As far as Clintons hands being tied, where is the proof of this. His hands were not tied that much while he was playing golf and was too busy to make a decision to take out Osama when the opportunity arose.

eg8r

Qtec
03-26-2004, 03:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this answer is that neither Bush nor Blair have stated they knew prior that the intelligence was uncertain. <hr /></blockquote>



Are you sure?

Bureau of Intelligence and Research
The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), drawing on all-source intelligence, provides value-added independent analysis of events to Department policymakers, ensures that intelligence activities support foreign policy and national security purposes; and serves as the focal point in the Department for ensuring policy review of sensitive counterintelligence and law enforcement activities. INR's primary mission is to harness intelligence to serve U.S. diplomacy. The bureau also analyzes geographical and international boundary issues. INR is a member of the U.S. intelligence community.


Their report.

[ QUOTE ]
State/INR Alternative View of Iraq’s Nuclear Program

The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon-related capabilities. The activities we have detected <font color="red"> do not, however,</font color> add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to {p.5} acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence <font color="red">inadequate </font color>to support such a judgment. Lacking <font color="red"> persuasive </font color> evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is <font color="red"> unwilling to speculate </font color>that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it <font color="red"> does not now see happening.</font color> As a result, INR is unable to predict when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.

In INR’s view Iraq’s efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. <font color="red"> INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. The INR considers it far more likely </font color> that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, <font color="red"> that lead INR to conclude that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq’s nuclear weapon program. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

In other words, there is no evidence that Iraq had an active WMD program. Exactly what the weapons inspectors said.

Exactly the opposite from what George and Tony were leading the world to believe.
There was no IMMINENT threat.
There was no connection to Al Quaeda.
So why was the invasion such a priority.
Q

Qtec
03-26-2004, 03:47 AM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I notice nobody has mentioned the bombing in Spain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"What is this about? What does it matter."



Oh I see, the WOT is just so that YOU can feel safe?

Q

eg8r
03-26-2004, 07:07 AM
Q, what happened to the last part of the post? You ignored the question. I mentioned Spain and then asked you very clearly if you are in the same boat as they are. ARE YOU AN APPEASER????

eg8r

eg8r
03-26-2004, 07:19 AM
Once again, you did not answer what I was saying...My reply to your post... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Q:</font><hr> My answer[ which was contained in my original post]

"I think that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair probably knew that many of the allegations were based on uncertain intelligence... a decision was made to go to war [then people said] 'Let's find a reason to do so'."

Like I have always said, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the WOT.
<hr /></blockquote> My reply was... [ QUOTE ]
The problem with this answer is that neither Bush nor Blair have stated they knew prior that the intelligence was uncertain. <hr /></blockquote> So, then you post this crap about someone else giving intelligence. In your first post you tried to make it sound like you KNEW the President knew he had uncertain intelligence. However, no where has the President said this. You are trying to find other people who are saying this, but Bush and Blair have not. So once again I will say, you don't know what you are talking about. You do not know what the President saw, or what he used to make his final decisions. You only see one part and think that is the whole thing. Sorry, but you fail to prove anything.

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, there is no evidence that Iraq had an active WMD program. Exactly what the weapons inspectors said. <font color="blue"> So far...I don't think anyone (in the current administration) is as short-sighted as you, so they are probably still doing their jobs and scouring Iraq, and other known avenues in which the "evidence" could have been hidden or transferred. It sure is good no one relies on you when the going gets tough, you are ready to quit a few months after you fail. </font color>

Exactly the opposite from what George and Tony were leading the world to believe. <font color="blue"> Could be. </font color>
There was no IMMINENT threat. <font color="blue"> No one has any idea what Saddam's next move could have been. His money is spread around quite a bit. He has no problem paying off homicide bombers, I am sure he would not mind sending a little to the family if someone bombs the US. </font color>
There was no connection to Al Quaeda. <font color="blue"> Absolute ignorance. </font color>
So why was the invasion such a priority. <font color="blue"> You must be deaf, dumb and blind for the past 13 years. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

Here is a quote from the Wall Street Journal... [ QUOTE ]
As for Iraq, Clarke has not always sung from the nothing-to-do-with-terrorism hymnal. This is an excerpt from a 1999 Washington Post (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/38284880.html?did=38284880&amp;FMT=ABS) report (link requires payment to view article, but the relevant portions are quoted here):

Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton's decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings.

While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.
<hr /></blockquote> Would you argue Clarke might know a little more than you?

I do not give Clarke any credibility when referring to actions taken by current and past administrations. As far as his facts on what is happening over there, I would venture to guess he knows more than Q, and quite possibly some of this information has not been leaked and Q cannot find it.

eg8r

Qtec
03-26-2004, 09:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Q, what happened to the last part of the post? You ignored the question. I mentioned Spain and then asked you very clearly if you are in the same boat as they are. ARE YOU AN APPEASER????

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Do I prefer peace to war? Yes.

Now answer my question.

Why doesnt it matter when Spanish citizens [ your 3rd biggest ally in Iraq] are victims of terrorism?

Q

Qtec
03-26-2004, 09:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem with this answer is that neither Bush nor Blair have stated they knew prior that the intelligence was uncertain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, then you post this crap about someone else giving intelligence. In your first post you tried to make it sound like you KNEW the President knew he had uncertain intelligence. <font color="red"> Aah hah.Finally. Yes eg8r,thats EXACTLY what I am saying </font color> However, no where has the President said this. <font color="red"> Does this surprise you? </font color> You are trying to find other people who are saying this, <font color="red"> There are plenty of them. </font color> but Bush and Blair have not. <font color="blue"> Wow. Thats it then. End of story. </font color> So once again I will say, you don't know what you are talking about. You do not know what the President saw, or what he used to make his final decisions. <font color="blue">Dont you think that if GW had any overwhelming evidence for the war we would have seen it by now? </font color> You only see one part and think that is the whole thing. Sorry, but you fail to prove anything <hr /></blockquote>

yeah , right.

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
03-26-2004, 11:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
Do I prefer peace to war? Yes.<hr /></blockquote>

So did Neville Chamberlain.

nhp
03-26-2004, 11:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Q, what happened to the last part of the post? You ignored the question. I mentioned Spain and then asked you very clearly if you are in the same boat as they are. ARE YOU AN APPEASER????

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

It is wrong to call Q or Spain appeasers to terrorists. Spain just endured Europe's 9/11. The government made it's decision to withdraw from Iraq to protect the lives of more innocent civilians.

Call them pussies for giving in, but all in all, the value of human life is greater than that of principle.

You really think Bush is brave? When Bush says "Bring it on", he isn't exactly standing in harm's way himself. He never has, as long as he's lived.

nhp
03-26-2004, 11:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You really think Bush is brave? When Bush says "Bring it on", he isn't exactly standing in harm's way himself. He never has, as long as he's lived. <hr /></blockquote>

Scratch that, I forgot he was almost killed by a pretzel.

Qtec
03-26-2004, 11:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Zapatero: Spanish 'not cowards'



MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has pledged not to give in to terrorists, bristling at the notion that the Spanish are "cowards" when it comes to facing terrorism.

"No Spanish government has given into terror and no government will do that," Zapatero told a Socialist Party conference Friday.

He was referring to more than 30 years of terror attacks in Spain at the hands of Basque separatists.

<hr /></blockquote>

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
03-26-2004, 11:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has pledged not to give in to terrorists, bristling at the notion that the Spanish are "cowards" when it comes to facing terrorism. <hr /></blockquote>

If they pull out of Iraq because of the train bombing they are giving in to terrorists.

eg8r
03-26-2004, 12:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It is wrong to call Q or Spain appeasers to terrorists. <hr /></blockquote> Before you decide to answer a question make sure you understood the question. No one ever called Q an appeaser. Don't worry though, he has every chance in the world to answer the question. At which point I would love to hear what you have to say.

eg8r

eg8r
03-26-2004, 12:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It is wrong to call Q or Spain appeasers to terrorists. Spain just endured Europe's 9/11. The government made it's decision to withdraw from Iraq to protect the lives of more innocent civilians.
<hr /></blockquote> It is absolutely CORRECT to call them appeasers. They are appeasing the terrorists. The terrorist were pissed off that the Spanish government were our allies and helping in Iraq. So what did the terrorists do...They terrorized them. At that point, the people of Spain got scared that this could happen again, and decided to agree to the terrorists demands in which they pull the forces out of Iraq. The terrorists have not actually said get out of Iraq or we will bomb you, but that is how the people of Spain interpreted it.

While on less of a scale, this is like doing the bullies homework so that he does not beat you up. Is that the right solution? Listen to you and you would say yes, just as long as you don't get a bruise. It is the wrong solution. The correct one would be to remove the bully, and the way to do that is to stand up and defend yourself, not run away and hide.

Spain is the perfect example of appeasement. In order not to have the terrorist bomb your country, you decide to quit acting out against the terrorist group. This is not the correct solution..The correct solution is to remove the terrorist groups so that they will not bomb you.

[ QUOTE ]
Call them pussies for giving in, but all in all, the value of human life is greater than that of principle.
<hr /></blockquote> If you don't appease them and remove them from the earth, you will have nothing to worry about. The problem is that they would rather not ruffle the terrorists feathers, instead of just remove the terrorists.

[ QUOTE ]
You really think Bush is brave? When Bush says "Bring it on", he isn't exactly standing in harm's way himself. He never has, as long as he's lived. <hr /></blockquote> I am not sure the definition of brave limits itself to standing in harms way.

eg8r

eg8r
03-26-2004, 12:18 PM
Q, are you ignoring the question?????

eg8r

eg8r
03-26-2004, 12:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has pledged not to give in to terrorists, bristling at the notion that the Spanish are "cowards" when it comes to facing terrorism.

"No Spanish government has given into terror and no government will do that," Zapatero told a Socialist Party conference Friday.
<hr /></blockquote> I believe this was the people giving in to the terrorists. By voting this fool into office after being bombed, is the perfect example of a coward. The only reason they voted the guy in is because he stated that he would be removing the soldiers from Iraq. The Spanish people know that this will make the terrorists happy and they will not bomb them any more.

The statement about the government is easy. Since this government is going to do what the terrorists want them to do, the terrorists will not bomb them again, and this government will not have to stand up to them. They are still cowards, and they are APPEASERS!!!!!!!!

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
03-26-2004, 12:23 PM
the scary thing is the terrorists might try the same thing here to influence our election since it succeeded in Spain

but they should know by now it will have the opposite effect in the USA /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r
03-26-2004, 12:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Do I prefer peace to war? Yes.

Now answer my question.
<hr /></blockquote> No, don't ask any questions until you answer mine. It is quite simple and elementary. You answered your own question, that was not the one I asked. You are stepping around the question and I would like a more direct answer (pushy?). It is really a yes or no answer based on the subject of the post in which the question was asked.

eg8r

eg8r
03-26-2004, 12:27 PM
You proved nothing. All you have done is talk about what you know (in your clouded head), not what the President knows. This makes sense as you are not privy to the information, but your attempt to put words in the Presidents mouth is laughable at best.

eg8r

Qtec
03-26-2004, 11:12 PM
Should we give in to terrorism?
Absolutely not.

Am I an appeaser? No.


Now you.

Q

eg8r
03-26-2004, 11:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Why doesnt it matter when Spanish citizens [ your 3rd biggest ally in Iraq] are victims of terrorism?
<hr /></blockquote> I don't think anyone said it did not matter. Instead I think they should have risen up and fought them. Follow the lead in Israel. Go after the cells that are known and remove them. If the people want to roll over dead and make sure not to wake some bully, then from this point on it is their fault. I think the US is doing its share in Afghanistan and Iraq right now to help remove the terrorists and hopefully change the minds of other would be terrorists.

eg8r

Qtec
03-27-2004, 08:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone said it did not matter.<hr /></blockquote>


[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I notice nobody has mentioned the bombing in Spain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is this about? What does it matter. I can tell you one thing, it is obvious that the people of Spain would rather appease the terrorists instead of remove them. Are you an appeaser?

eg8r

<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
03-27-2004, 09:08 AM
Go back and re-read why that was said so that you will understand the context. If you did not on purpose change the subject then you would see why I said, "it doesn't matter". Hello McFly, that is not what this thread was about. Surely you should understand this since it is your thread. Thread is about Bush's terrorist record, am I correct? So, if that is what this is about, then why would you make ridiculous statement about why no one has mentioned Spain. The reason no one mentioned Spain is because they were not part of the original subject matter. If you did not spend so much time changing the subject (generally because you have nothing useful to say anymore on the original subject) then you would not be in this confused state and start misinterpreting the words.

Since you brought up the issue about Clarke blasting Bush, Spain did not matter. Spain did not matter as far as this discussion was concerned. If you fail to understand that, then just say it, but do not take segments from one post and twist them around. You are not a liberal reporter, so I would expect you not to act like one.

eg8r