PDA

View Full Version : O My!



Qtec
03-28-2004, 10:27 PM
CR doesnt look too happy!
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/28/rice.testimony/vert.bush.rice.ap.jpg

HaHa

Q

highsea
03-29-2004, 03:01 AM
Hehe, nice one Q.
Pretty frightening, wouldn't want to be in Osama's sandals!
-CM

Qtec
03-29-2004, 08:14 AM
Hey. Highsea, how you doin man.

Glad to see you havent become shark bait. HaHa

Q

Qtec
03-29-2004, 10:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I have nothing to hide, says Rice



Condoleezza Rice has defended her decision not to give public testimony to a congressional commission investigating the 9/11 terror attacks.
Ms Rice - President George Bush's National Security Adviser - said she had "nothing to hide" and was simply following protocol.

The multi-party commission has made repeated calls for Ms Rice to testify.

A Republican commissioner, John Lehman, has called her refusal to appear "a political blunder of the first order".


Correspondents say the issue threatens to become another political embarrassment for the president.
Ms Rice is considered a key witness for the commission, which is looking into policy against the threat from militants before 11 September 2001, and the response afterwards.

Speaking to CBS TV's 60 Minutes, Ms Rice said it was a "long-standing principle that sitting National Security Advisers do not testify before the Congress".

She said she had spent "about four hours" answering the commission's questions in private.

"We have nothing to hide," she said.
<hr /></blockquote>
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39978000/jpg/_39978729_time_b203_ap.jpg

She hides behind 'protocal'. I thought 9/11 changed EVERYTHING.
Seems like she is willing to talk to anybody except the commission. [ under oath]
Q

Wally_in_Cincy
03-29-2004, 10:19 AM
Why should she testify?

What is it that you want to know?

Do you just want to see the Bush administration with their nuts in a vise, even at the risk of national security?

Wally_in_Cincy
03-30-2004, 07:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>.... She hides behind 'protocal'. I thought 9/11 changed EVERYTHING.
Seems like she is willing to talk to anybody except the commission. [ under oath]
Q


<hr /></blockquote>

Well, well, well....

Now we find out that Mr. Richard Clarke claimed the same executive privilege in 1999 that Condi is claiming now.

Isn't that ironic.....

eg8r
03-30-2004, 07:33 AM
I wonder if Q was equally cynical of Clarke back then? I know it does not change anything as everything should be different with Bush in office. Q is a joke. It is quite obvious he does not care about "rules", precedence, or the law. If it helps out his position he mentions it with complete disregard that the people he is defending did the exact same thing.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
03-30-2004, 08:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> ..If it helps out his position he mentions it with complete disregard that the people he is defending did the exact same thing.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Actually he will just change the subject /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>Why should Condi testify? <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>Oh yeah, what about Haliburton... <hr /></blockquote>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Qtec
03-30-2004, 08:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Why should she testify? <font color="blue"> It would be in the interests of National Security. </font color>

What is it that you want to know? <font color="blue"> The TRUTH. </font color>

Do you just want to see the Bush administration with their nuts in a vise, even at the risk of national security? <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> Do you need to ask. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

If they are innocent, why would their nuts be in a vice?

Q

Qtec
03-30-2004, 08:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Now we find out that Mr. Richard Clarke claimed the same executive privilege in 1999 that Condi is claiming now <hr /></blockquote>

So her political reputation is more important than the security of the country.
Isnt the comission all about learning from the mistakes that were made, so as to help prevent another incident.

Te truth will out.

Q

Qtec
03-30-2004, 08:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if Q was equally cynical of Clarke back then? <hr /></blockquote>
You dont get it. Do you.

This isnt about 'Clarke back then'.

Its about C.Rice, NOW.

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
03-30-2004, 08:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> What is it that you want to know?

<font color="blue"> The TRUTH. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH !!

Sorry, couldn't resist /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
03-30-2004, 08:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> .... Isnt the comission all about learning from the mistakes that were made, so as to help prevent another incident.
<hr /></blockquote>

They don't need her to testify in public to find out the truth.

Q, sometimes these "commisions" turn into nothing more than political witch hunts. Somebody probably wants to make her look bad.

Everything is politics in Washington....unfortunately.

eg8r
03-30-2004, 08:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You dont get it. Do you.

This isnt about 'Clarke back then'.

Its about C.Rice, NOW.
<hr /></blockquote> Oh I get it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
03-30-2004, 09:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Why should she testify? <font color="blue">It would be in the interests of National Security. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote> Q, can you please explain how National Security is affected if the 9/11 Commission hears her information in public or private? Would National Security change, positively, one bit if the info was made public?

It is easy to see that you just want to change the rules, precedence or law whenever it will help you out, while completely ignoring the fact that you stand behind the same actions of the guy you defend (if defend is the wrong word, then it is the guy you believe to be telling the truth, after he has flip flopped on quite a few very important points).

eg8r &lt;~~sorry for the long run-on sentence cleverly disguised as a paragraph /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Qtec
03-30-2004, 09:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Q, can you please explain how National Security is affected if the 9/11 Commission hears her information in public or private? Would National Security change, positively, one bit if the info was made public?
<hr /></blockquote>

When she had her little tête à tête she was not under oath and no records were taken!

C.R wants to be President. If she lies on oath its bound to come out sometime, killing any chance of her running for office.
If she tells the truth, it makes the Govt look bad. Very bad.
Especially with an election coming up.

Do you think Al Quaeda took a back burner because GW was already fixated on Iraq?

If this is true, it contradicts everything GW and Co has said.

There is a lot at stake.

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
03-30-2004, 10:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
....Do you think Al Quaeda took a back burner because GW was already fixated on Iraq?....<hr /></blockquote>

You are so misinformed it's ridiculous.

eg8r
03-30-2004, 11:04 AM
You included my question and completely ignored it. Classic Q.

Don't change the subject of National Security to whether or not Rice wants to become President.

eg8r

Kato
03-30-2004, 04:40 PM
[quote=Qtec<font color="blue"> It would be in the interests of National Security. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

Who's national security? The Netherlands? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Sorry, couldn't resist.

For the record, I am not of the opinion that every little thing needs to be discussed or fought in public. Somethings are better left behind closed doors in the interest of National Security.

Kato~~~several semi-coherent sentences cleverly disguished in the form a half broken paragraph /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Sorry Ed, couldn't resist that either.

eg8r
03-30-2004, 07:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Kato~~~several semi-coherent sentences cleverly disguished in the form a half broken paragraph Sorry Ed, couldn't resist that either. <hr /></blockquote> No problem. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
04-02-2004, 10:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> 9/11 panel asks White House for Clinton documents
Felzenberg: 'Should take about a day-and-a-half to figure out'
From Megan Shattuck and Suzanne Malveaux
CNN Washington Bureau





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Story Tools

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The commission investigating the September 11 attacks is trying to determine whether the Bush White House has released all the papers the panel requested from the Clinton administration's records.

Bruce Lindsey, who was President Clinton's deputy White House counsel, expressed concerns about the documents to the White House and the 9/11 commission in February, suggesting that the Bush staff may not have forwarded all the Clinton-era documents requested.<hr /></blockquote>






[ QUOTE ]

Pelosi critical of joint Bush-Cheney appearance before 9/11 panel
Democratic leader: 'It's embarrassing'



WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says it's baffling and embarrassing that President Bush is appearing before the September 11 commission with Vice President Dick Cheney at his side instead of by himself.

"I think it speaks to the lack of confidence that the administration has in the president going forth alone, period," Pelosi, D-California, said Friday. "It's embarrassing to the president of the United States that they won't let him go in without holding the hand of the vice president of the United States."

"I think it reinforces the idea that the president cannot go it alone," she said. "The president should stand tall, walk in the room himself and answer the questions."<hr /></blockquote>




[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> Undelivered Rice speech scrutinized
Democratic senator seeks release of text



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- National security adviser Condoleeza Rice planned to deliver a speech on September 11, 2001, about national security that said nothing about Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda or Islamic fundamentalist groups.

A description and excerpts of that undelivered speech were first reported in The Washington Post on Thursday, and the excerpts were confirmed by administration sources.

But the administration disputed suggestions that the speech showed the administration was not focused on terrorism before the deadly attacks.

"What matters is what we were doing on terrorism, not whether there is a speech on terrorism. We were acting on terrorism," National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Rice is scheduled to testify next Thursday before an independent commission investigating the 9/11 attacks, according to a news release from the commission.

Administration sources confirmed the accuracy of leaked excerpts from the prepared text of the speech that were printed in The Washington Post, but would not provide the full text.

Rice was scheduled to deliver the speech at the School of Advance International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, but the plans were scrapped with the 9/11 attacks.

NSC officials said the speech was meant to be a broad look at the administration's efforts to fight terrorism. In it, Rice argued that the United States should build a missile defense system.<hr /></blockquote>

Exactly what you need against suicide bombers, a missile defence system!




Like they say, "there's no smoke without fire". /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

The truth will out.

Q

nAz
04-03-2004, 10:36 PM
Missle defense is impractical however it should make some people rich trying to develop it and may create some jobs and cool spin offs like a Cue with Zero deflection /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
ya the WH was not too concerned with Terrorism before 9/11 i think that is obvious, that is why they wont release the full rice speech they do not want to back any of Clarkes testimony. You know all Dubya has to do is just admit to it and it will all blow over. i mean they did not give a damn about it and neither did the rest of the country. that is One of the major problems with this Admin and a lot of their followers, they will never admit that they are wrong about anything.
"Your either with us or against us"

highsea
04-04-2004, 05:57 AM
nAz, What "full Rice speech" are you referring to?" (Date and time please, the URL if you can find it)

(that was question #1)

Question #2 is this:

Why is missile defense impractical? Is it the cost and difficulty? Should we choose not to defend ourselves against missiles, or you concerned about upsetting the balance of power between the Russians, the Chinese, and us? Pardon me if I'm being a little naive, but it seems to me that if someone can launch a missile at me, and I can knock it out, that would be a reasonable and desirable thing to do. You may say that there is nobody that wants to launch that missile at me, and you may be right. However, North Korea has said to us that they have missiles, (nuclear, BTW) and they are prepared to send them our way. Now this may be smoke and bravado, but are you willing to bet on it?, It makes me want a defense.

Putting a man on the moon was "impractical", but we did it nearly a half a century ago. Was that a waste of time?

Do you really think that Dick Clark is not capitalizing on politics to sell his book? Come on my friend, this is not the first time we have seen this. Do you think Hillary's book was not timed for politics? Newt Gingrich's? Any other of COUNTLESS, I mean COUNTLESS politician's books? Do you really think the WH was unconcerned about terrorism prior to 9/11? Are you saying the Clinton WH had it as a higher priority than the Bush WH? Help me out here.

Did ANYBODY take it seriously before 9/11?

I don't think I have ever seen my country more divided than it is today. That, more than anything,makes me feel like we are losing the war.

So, nAz and nhp, give me the answers. I'm listening.

-CM

highsea
04-04-2004, 06:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> Missle defense is impractical however it should make some people rich trying to develop it and may create some jobs and cool spin offs like a Cue with Zero deflection /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
<hr /></blockquote>

BTW, the "ZDC" (Zero Deflection Cue) has already been perfected by Bob Meucci, Predator and Yak, just to name a few.

I wasn't going to announce this today, but my enormous, gigantic ego just won't be denied. Yes, it's true. After several hours of trial and error, I have sucessfully developed the one and only "Negative Deflection Cue"! Yes, you heard right. Finally, a cue that will correct for all your over-corrections! Now matter how bad you fu*k up your aim, the ball will still go right in, with perfect position every time! I don't want to brag, but really, you don't even have to aim at all! It's true!

Now before you jump to conclusions, I know it sounds too good to be true, and it is. For obvious reasons, I can't go into it in detail, but if you will send me $1.00 and a SASE, I will tell you my amazing secret! Astound your friends! Never lose another Tuesday Night Tournament! Now, I have personally saved over $5.00 in the first week alone! Just think, In one year that's nearly $260.00!

Now I realize that there are going to be some sceptics out there, and I don't blame you, so just to prove that I'm serious, I will donate 1% of your money to Sparky! That's right Sparky! Just think of it! While you are never losing another Tuesday night bar pot, He will be paying off his college debts! No more late night sessions around the hot wax pot!

If this is not enough to convince you, remember that 10% of that money goes to charity! Yes folks, charity! This means that a full 1/10% of every dollar you spend goes to a good cause NO MATTER WHAT! Everyone WINS!!!

-CM ~~~uhh, I hope that wasn't too far off topic.../ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
04-04-2004, 11:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You know all Dubya has to do is just admit to it and it will all blow over. i mean they did not give a damn about it and neither did the rest of the country. that is One of the major problems with this Admin and a lot of their followers, they will never admit that they are wrong about anything.
<hr /></blockquote> What are you talking about? It sounds like you are blaming the current admin for what happened on 9/11. Are you? Would you even dare to say they had even a small part in it? Do you think anything could have been done by the current admin to stop 9/11 before it happened? Do you think the plans for 9/11 might have started during the previous administration and should have been stopped then?

Do you honestly believe the terrorism problem happening around the world is the fault of the current administration? If so, why not shut up when the current administration decides to do something about it. That is more than you can say for Clinton.

eg8r

Qtec
04-04-2004, 11:22 AM
Are you listening? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

The Rice speech has yet to come.

When two countries have Nukes, they cant use them. To do so,it would mean their own destruction.
its called a 'Balance of Power'.
If one country can protect themselves from the others bombs,the balance is gone.
Take this in to consideration with the Govts new policy of pre-emptive action!
Some countries might start to get nervous. Like N.Korea maybe.
I dont know if you have heard,[ floating about on the ocean], but GW invaded Iraq because Saddam was 'a bad man'and he was probably,maybe still thinking about possibly persuing a NW program! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

The world is not safer since GW took office.

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

OK /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Qtec
04-04-2004, 11:33 AM
The admin had their own agenda. They werent interested in what Clarke had to say. Gws plan was just to spend money.ie missile defence. China was the big threat!

If GW had asked for 500 billion to fight terror because of the bombing in Kenya, would he have got it?

No chance.

Lets face it,the WoT only because an issue because of 9/11.

When the attacks happened outside the US nobody gave a damn.

Q

eg8r
04-04-2004, 12:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The admin had their own agenda. <hr /></blockquote> Just answer the question instead of dribbling your own agenda.

eg8r

nAz
04-04-2004, 08:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> nAz, What "full Rice speech" are you referring to?" (Date and time please, the URL if you can find it)


here you go, I am not suprised you do not know about this article Fox news has not metioned it much /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

(that was question #1)
<font color="red">On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.
The speech provides telling insight into the administration's thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40697-2004Mar31.html</font color>

Question #2 is this:

Why is missile defense impractical? Is it the cost and difficulty? Should we choose not to defend ourselves against missiles, or you concerned about upsetting the balance of power between the Russians, the Chinese, and us? Pardon me if I'm being a little naive, but it seems to me that if someone can launch a missile at me, and I can knock it out, that would be a reasonable and desirable thing to do. You may say that there is nobody that wants to launch that missile at me, and you may be right. However, North Korea has said to us that they have missiles, (nuclear, BTW) and they are prepared to send them our way. Now this may be smoke and bravado, but are you willing to bet on it?, It makes me want a defense.

Putting a man on the moon was "impractical", but we did it nearly a half a century ago. Was that a waste of time?

Do you really think that Dick Clark is not capitalizing on politics to sell his book? Come on my friend, this is not the first time we have seen this. Do you think Hillary's book was not timed for politics? Newt Gingrich's? Any other of COUNTLESS, I mean COUNTLESS politician's books? Do you really think the WH was unconcerned about terrorism prior to 9/11? Are you saying the Clinton WH had it as a higher priority than the Bush WH? Help me out here.
Did ANYBODY take it seriously before 9/11?

No i think Clinton was so battered by the"lewinsky drama" that concern for terrorism took a back seat to a Blow job scandal.
but yes i seriously believe that Bush did not have terrorism on his mind before 9/11, i think he was more concerned about Saddam and missile defense when it came to national security.


I don't think I have ever seen my country more divided than it is today. That, more than anything,makes me feel like we are losing the war.
No do not feel this way it is good that the country is debating these issuse, we should all quetioned are gov. and each other. this country will survive and probably come out better in the end I just worried that with the current Admin it may take a decade or two longer. But in the end we are all Americans and in the end (sorry Q) we come first. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

So, nAz and nhp, give me the answers. I'm listening.

-CM <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red"> I do not doubt that a missile can be had and used against us by a "rouge state" or terrorist group I just find it unlikely that it would happen. it would cost too much for a terror group to get their hands on one that would be capable of hitting the US from several thousand miles away, beside those missile that would be Launch are not exactly like a video game, you can not just "push a button" and off it goes. I think they need to be fueled and armed just prior to lunch. Like 9/11 showed the low tech way is the easiest way to hit us.
hmm it would be easier for a country like NK to hit us they supposedly have many of them that can hit the west cost. if they Launch several missile at us no defense shield will be able to stop them all and beside there would not be much left of NK after that as I'm sure they know.[color]
sorry i did not answere all your questions they are all good and deserve a responce but i have to be up at 5 am /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

nAz
04-04-2004, 09:00 PM
"Your either with us or agaist us!" <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 know all Dubya has to do is just admit to it and it will all blow over. i mean they did not give a damn about it and neither did the rest of the country. that is One of the major problems with this Admin and a lot of their followers, they will never admit that they are wrong about anything.
<hr /></blockquote> What are you talking about? It sounds like you are blaming the current admin for what happened on 9/11. Are you? Would you even dare to say they had even a small part in it? Do you think anything could have been done by the current admin to stop 9/11 before it happened? Do you think the plans for 9/11 might have started during the previous administration and should have been stopped then?

Dude lets get something straight if i wanted to say that the Bush and dick had something to do with 9/11 i would just say it.
I just believe what the Major accusation of Clarke are,that they were not terribly concerned about terrorism before 9/11 like EVERYONE else in this country was. and that after he did the right thing of invading Afghanistan he dropped the ball by going after saddam, which after all was his main concern pre 9/11. I think that the speach that Rice was going to deliver helps support Clarke, i'm sure you will not agree with this you will see it in a different "light" like all Bush supporters let me Quote nAz for you... "that is One of the major problems with this Admin and a lot of their followers, they will never admit that they are wrong about anything." /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Do you honestly believe the terrorism problem happening around the world is the fault of the current administration?

Hell no I just think a better man would have done a better job at curving it. maybe by building up a real border between the U.S. Mexico and finishing the job in Afgan before possibly invading Iraq.

"If so, why not shut up when the current administration decides to do something about it."

dude you are starting scare me you sound like that nitwit Hannity /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif.

<font color="brown">"Your either with us or against us!" </font color>

"That is more than you can say for Clinton." I have to ask you when Clinton hit the terror camps and intervened in Bosnia were you one of the millions of republicans that shouted 'Wag the Dog"? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
04-05-2004, 09:18 AM
Monday, April 05, 2004



JERUSALEM — Palestinians might not get a state for many years as a result of Israel's unilateral "disengagement" plan, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said in interviews published Monday, providing more details of his proposal to withdraw from all of the Gaza Strip and four West Bank settlements.

Sharon also said Israel is no longer bound by a pledge to the United States not to harm Yasser Arafat (search), saying the Palestinian leader and the head of Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas, Hassan Nasrallah (search), are potential targets for assassination.

The prime minister gave wide-ranging interviews to the Yediot Ahronot, Maariv and Haaretz dailies, as well as Israel Radio and Israel Army Radio, ahead of the weeklong Jewish holiday of Passover (search) which begins at sundown Monday.

In the Gaza Strip, the bodies of three Palestinians — apparently shot by Israeli forces before dawn — were found near an Israeli settlement. The army said troops had opened fire on three suspicious figures near the border fence with Israel.

Israeli security forces were on high alert for the holiday, with reinforcements deployed at outdoor markets, malls and synagogues. The military banned all Palestinians from entering Israel to try to ward off attacks. The tight closure is to remain in effect at least until Israel's Independence Day, April 26, officials said.

Sharon said the withdrawal plan is a "deadly blow" to the Palestinians and that he would not coordinate with them — an apparent response to ultra-nationalist critics who have accused him of succumbing to Palestinian violence.

"In the unilateral plan, there is no Palestinian state. This situation could continue for many years," Sharon told Yediot.

The prime minister told Maariv that his plan "will bring their [the Palestinians'] dreams to an end."



Well, that should calm things down a bit!!!!!!


Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

highsea
04-06-2004, 05:58 AM
nAz,
Thanks for clarifying this for me. Stop me if I'm wrong...

You're saying that this fuss is about a (never given) speech by C.R. addressing national security, which was written and scheduled prior to 9/11.

You're suggesting that this speech (that didn't happen, but was gonna) would have not properly addressed the threat of terrorism, rather it would have focused on North Korea and the missile threat, and therefore, the Bush administration is liable, or somehow negligient, by not focusing focusing on the real threat facing our nation. (Islamic Terrorists)

You're intend to use this (non-speech) to show that the Bush WH is incompetent, or unaware of the "real world".

Doesn't this seem like 20/20 hindsight?

How would you have assessed the threats and set the priorities, taking into consideration only what you knew then, and not what you have learned since?

And one more...Now that you know more, how serious is the threat of Terrorism to us, and what should we do to address it?

-Casey

nAz
04-06-2004, 06:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> nAz,
Thanks for clarifying this for me. Stop me if I'm wrong...

You're saying that this fuss is about a (never given) speech by C.R. addressing national security, which was written and scheduled prior to 9/11.

The speech was cancelled because of 9/11 it would have been really stupid to give it afterwards in light of the terrorist attacks, especially when it fails to mention their threat to are security.


You're suggesting that this speech (that wasn't but was gonna) would have not properly addressed the threat of terrorism, rather it would have focused on North Korea and the missile threat, and therefore, the Bush administration is liable, or somehow negligient in focusing on the real threat facing our nation. (Islamic Terrorists)

_No Bush is not liable for what happen that day no one could the way are intelligence network was. now if he had been warn days before that possible strike may hhitus by maybe palneswell then i would say he was partially responsible. what i am saying is that this speech give credence to what Clarke has written in his book, which basically say the the Admin. was not as concerned with terrorist Osama as it was with say Saddam or the NK threat._

You're intend to use this (non-speech) to show that the Bush WH is incompetent, or unaware of the "real world".

Doesn't this seem like 20/20 hindsight?
_In some way yes but at the same time there were specific threat made by Osama a few weeks prior to 9/11 stating sometime to the effect that he will attack the great Satan (us) and rain fire on us. every time he has giving a warning he then attacked, that is why i think the Bush Admin never took terrorism seriously enough prior to 9/11, and all i wish he would do is admit to it, i would not hold it against him._

How would you have assessed the threats and set the priorities, taking into consideration only what you knew then, and not what you have learned since?

_hmm damn goods question but i can not answer that because i am not privy to all the intellence that he had prior to the attack. however i know that i would have been less concerned with Saddam and more concerned with Iran, NK and Osama i had already been before 9/11 and im just some lowly poolplayer /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif_

And one more...Now that you know more, what kind of threat is this Terrorism to us, and what should we do to address it?

_its a threat the will never go away not in my life time anyway. not while this country has any soilders in the middle east and not while the Palestinian people and their land is being occupied.
we have to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. and that will take a total commitment from from us the PLO the isrealies and the U.N. and to do this we should get rid of anyone who stands in the way of this whether it be a Jew a Arab or an American.tomany hot heads on all sides.
as for terrorist in general well we should never back down from it we should gather all are friend allies and strike as a single force where ever it may be if it's in Pakistan we should demand their capture and if it is refused with the help of the rest of the world we could bring them to their knees economically speaking,if that does not work hell I would not be scared to send in the millitary after a true terrorist. and before you go there there was NO link between Saddam and Osama. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif_


-Casey

<hr /></blockquote>

Dude what would you do to deal with it, do you think the Admin is doing a good job? do you feel safer?

BTW when it come to next election i would not vote for Bush not really becuse of the way he handles the terror thingy or of their "can't do anything wrong additude" but more because of the way the economy has been going.

highsea
04-06-2004, 07:57 AM
Well, come on Q, lay out your "plan for peace" for us.

Tell us what we have to do. Please be specific, cause we are a bunch of Dumb F*cks. No decision we make can be trusted. We need the help of our European friends to guide us.

Start with these issues, after we solve them, we can move on to simpler things...

There are a shitload of Arabs that want us dead. They also want a lot of our friends dead, and are actively working towards that end. We have known this for some time, but it took 9/11 to get us really pissed off. Now we ARE really pissed off. Now, the last time we got this pissed off we vaporized a couple of cities in Japan. I hope it doesn't come to that again, but it just may. ( Sorry about the way that sounded, I am NOT threatening Japan here) /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

This is WW3. Iraq is just the beginning, my friend, I fear it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

We have unfinished business in Korea, which has been heating up for the last 10 years or so. Eventually we will have to address it, as we are spending a too much money to maintain a status quo which is increasingly becoming outdated. That money (40,000 troops on the DMZ) could be better spent elsewhere. This was our #1 priority prior to 9/11. I'm not sure if 9/11 was a blessing or a curse for Kim Jong-Il. While it diverted our attention, it also left us on a very short fuse when it comes to bullsh*t artists.

We have somewhere around 150,000 troops based in Western Europe, which we would like to bring home, but we don't want to raise hell with the local economies that have grown dependant on them. They serve no real purpose, as far as our National Defense is considered, and everyone knows so. Americans want out of Western Europe. We just don't know how to tell our "friends" we are done now and want to go home.

The same goes for the South Pacific. We want out of Japan, Okinawa, etc. If we bug out, NK and China have a free lunch. I'm not really sure that is a bad thing, not everything you eat is digestable. We wouldn't suffer, it would be SK and Japan. Should we care?

I hear a lot of grousing here, but no suggestions on how to solve the problems. Do you really think John Kerry is the answer? God, I hope not, cause that guy is a first class worm. (IMHO)

Do you have any realistic solutions to offer?. Should we even f*cking care?

If you don't, that's OK, you can always do what I do. Go bob around in the ocean for awhile and try not to become shark bait. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

-CM

highsea
04-06-2004, 08:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>
_No Bush is not liable for what happen that day no one could the way are intelligence network was. now if he had been warn days before that possible strike may hhitus by maybe palneswell then i would say he was partially responsible. what i am saying is that this speech give credence to what Clarke has written in his book, which basically say the the Admin. was not as concerned with terrorist Osama as it was with say Saddam or the NK threat._
<hr /></blockquote>

nAz, I'm still deciphering the rest of your rebuttal, but I would like to say right now that this sentence should be taken out and shot. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

-CM

Wally_in_Cincy
04-06-2004, 08:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
...the last time we got this pissed off we vaporized a couple of cities in Japan. I hope it doesn't come to that again, but it just may....<hr /></blockquote>

Starting with Fallujah.....

highsea
04-06-2004, 08:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Starting with Fallujah..... <hr /></blockquote>

I think the a$$holes in Fallujah are going to have something to think about real soon.

-CM

eg8r
04-06-2004, 09:33 AM
[ QUOTE ]
but more because of the way the economy has been going. <hr /></blockquote> I am sure the recent numbers of 200+ thousand jobs just scares the crap out of you.

Really, now, just how has the economy been going. Take a look back all the way to when the recession ended? Did it stay stagnate? All major indicators show that the economy is on the way back, and the last indicator is always jobs. Now that seems to be starting to come back. Just what part of the econonmy are you not in the least optimistic about?

Before you do that, could you please maybe describe the economy when Clinton left office? It would be nice for you to be serious when you do this. If you honestly want to blame Bush for the recession (likewise you would have to praise him for pulling us out of the recession), then please paint your pretty picture of the economy that was handed to Bush when Clinton left office. I am sure you will begin with the dot.com bust, and please remember who was in control during that fiasco.

You mention economy, and I just have to question if you even have a good personal definition of what "economy" is?

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
04-06-2004, 10:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>..Really, now, just how has the economy been going....<hr /></blockquote>

If you listen to the major media you would think we're in a depression /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif. But the American people are smart enough to know when the economy is good.

What I wanna know is this. Kerry's going to create 10 million new jobs (he'll tax us into prosperity no doubt) but there's only 8 million unemployed. Who's gonna fill those jobs? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

nAz
04-06-2004, 10:35 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;
but more because of the way the economy has been going. <hr /></blockquote> I am sure the recent numbers of 200+ thousand jobs just scares the crap out of you.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Bahahahahbaha 200+ jos created out what lets be really conservative here uh 5-6 million lost since bUSH took ofice lol.
I think i'm done with this thread lol

err Hi-C how about answering my question sir /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

SPetty
04-06-2004, 11:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>..Really, now, just how has the economy been going....<hr /></blockquote>If you listen to the major media you would think we're in a depression. But the American people are smart enough to know when the economy is good.<hr /></blockquote>Lessee... It costs me damn near $10 a day real money just for gasoline just to get to work and back. (Not being in the defense industry or a government employee) I haven't had a raise in over three years. My job is in very real imminent danger of being moved to India.

I, personally, don't think the economy is good.

eg8r
04-06-2004, 11:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Bahahahahbaha 200+ jos created out what lets be really conservative here uh 5-6 million lost since bUSH took ofice lol.
I think i'm done with this thread lol
<hr /></blockquote> I am glad you were laughing while typing this, as I was equally humored you even took the time.

I do notice you fail to acknowledge the other points in the post, is this because of lack of knowledge, or would you rather your cartoons to speak for you?

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
04-06-2004, 11:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> Lessee... It costs me damn near $10 a day real money just for gasoline just to get to work and back. (Not being in the defense industry or a government employee) I haven't had a raise in over three years. My job is in very real imminent danger of being moved to India.

I, personally, don't think the economy is good. <hr /></blockquote>

so what's your solution?

eg8r
04-06-2004, 11:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Lessee... It costs me damn near $10 a day real money just for gasoline just to get to work and back. (Not being in the defense industry or a government employee) I haven't had a raise in over three years. My job is in very real imminent danger of being moved to India.

I, personally, don't think the economy is good. <hr /></blockquote> Is this your basis of the entire US economy?

eg8r

Iowashark
04-06-2004, 11:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> Lessee... It costs me damn near $10 a day real money just for gasoline just to get to work and back. (Not being in the defense industry or a government employee) I haven't had a raise in over three years. My job is in very real imminent danger of being moved to India.

I, personally, don't think the economy is good. <hr /></blockquote>


And if Kerry is elected it will cost you an additional $10 to get to work....Real Money.

So I agree with SPetty, Kerry needs to be stopped soon or we're all in economical doom.

Wally_in_Cincy
04-06-2004, 11:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> Bahahahahbaha 200+ jos created out what lets be really conservative here uh 5-6 million lost since bUSH took ofice lol.
<hr /></blockquote>

5.6% unemployment means about 3.6% are kicking back on unemployment and not interested in working.

eg8r
04-06-2004, 12:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And if Kerry is elected it will cost you an additional $10 to get to work....Real Money.
<hr /></blockquote> Susan, just who would you rather in office in reference to you gas bill...[ QUOTE ]
The Bush campaign cited as evidence that Kerry would raise gas taxes a 1994 case in which the Boston Globe quoted him as having supported a 50-cent increase in the gas tax. It also said he had supported increases in gasoline taxes 11 times as a senator.
<hr /></blockquote> Or...Bush, whom seems to be the fall guy for current prices. No one has even come close to giving a real reason as to why Bush is the fall guy, I guess just because he is an easy target.

eg8r