View Full Version : Mmmmm......

04-11-2004, 10:47 PM
This new strategy was developed over the Spring and Summer of 2001, and was approved by the president's senior national security officials on September 4. It was the very first major national security policy directive of the Bush administration -- not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al Qaeda.

<font color="blue"> Why wasnt it ever mentioned before or in her speech if it was so important.</font color>

But by the time that we got to Camp David and began to plan for what we would do in response, what was rolled out on the table was Afghanistan -- a map of Afghanistan.

And I will tell you, that was a daunting enough task to figure out how to avoid some of the pitfalls that great powers had in Afghanistan, mostly recently the Soviet Union and, of course, the British before that.

There was a discussion of Iraq. I think it was raised by Don Rumsfeld. It was pressed a bit by Paul Wolfowitz. <font color="blue"> Now isnt that a coincidence. Pax Americana. </font color> Given that this was a global war on terror, should we look not just at Afghanistan but should we look at doing something against Iraq? There was a discussion of that. <font color="blue"> Why?? There was no evidence that Iraq was involved. </font color>

the president said that he wanted contingency plans against Iraq should Iraq act against our interests. <font color="blue"> Like how? </font color>

There was a kind of concern that they might try and take advantage of us in that period. They were still -- we were still flying no-fly zones. <font color="blue"> had been for the last 10 years </font color> And there was also, he said, in case we find that they were behind 9/11, we should have contingency plans. <font color="blue"> In the light of the recently released memo, no mention of Iraq was made. When 9/11 happened, they knew who was responsible. </font color>

KEAN: So when Mr. Clarke writes that the president pushed him to find a link between Iraq and the attack, is that right? Was the president trying to twist the facts for an Iraqi war, or was he just puzzled about what was behind this attack?

RICE: I don't remember the discussion that Dick Clarke relates. Initially, he said that the president was wandering the situation room -- this is in the book, I gather <font color="blue">As if she and her prep team havent gone over every single accusation in his book. This is a bare-faced lie. </font color> -- looking for something to do, and they had a conversation. Later on, he said that he was pulled aside. So I don't know the context of the discussion. I don't personally remember it. <font color="blue"> How convenient </font color>

But it's not surprising that the president would say, "What about Iraq," given our hostile relationship with Iraq. And I'm quite certain that the president never pushed anybody to twist the facts. <font color="blue">How does she know this?? </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

The difference between Rice and Clarke is that she is loyal to the President and Clarke is loyal to the US.


04-12-2004, 07:52 AM
The difference between Rice and Clarke is that she is loyal to the President and Clarke is loyal to the US. <hr /></blockquote> What a joke. He has lied to the commission and the people of the US on purpose to sell books. You call that loyalty? If Clarke was telling the truth, then Clintons final statment on National security would have mentioned Al Qadea as a possible threat. Instead, it said there were no real imminent threats. Why do you keep ignoring this fact????


04-12-2004, 10:06 AM
When evidence emerged that the importation claim was false, Ms. Rice claimed
that the White House had no knowledge of these doubts. She asserted
unequivocally that no senior White House officials were informed about questions
about the uranium claim prior to its use in the State of the Union address. She
stated that “[t]he intelligence community did not know at that time, or at levels
that got to us . . . that there was serious questions about this report.”49 As she put
it on another occasion:
[H]ad there been even a peep that the agency did not want that sentence in
or that George Tenet did not want that sentence in, that the Director of
Central Intelligence did not want it in, it would have been gone.50
<font color="blue"> Ms. Rice’s claims were simply false. The CIA sent two memos to the National
Security Council — one of which was addressed to Ms. Rice personally —
warning against including the claim in a speech by the President.51 Director of
Central Intelligence George Tenet also “argued personally” to Ms. Rice’s deputy
national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, “that the allegation should not be used”
by the President.52 Further, in the October 2002 NIE provided to top White
House officials, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research had
stated that claims that Iraq sought to acquire uranium in Africa were “highly
dubious.”53 </font color><hr /></blockquote>

Recent statements.
In recent days, Administration officials have made statements that are inconsistent with or contradict previous public statements:

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
“We never said there were stockpiles.”
Interview with Howard Arenstein, CBS Radio (Mar. 16, 2004).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
“Well, you’re the – you and a few other critics are the only people I’ve heard use the phrase ‘immediate threat.’ I didn’t. The president didn’t. And it’s become kind of folklore that that’s – that’s what’s happened."
Face the Nation, CBS (Mar. 14, 2004).

<hr /></blockquote>



04-12-2004, 11:55 AM
Great job Q, I mention Clarke and the failure of Clinton to pass on the information in his final response on National Security and the best you can do is talk about Rice. Care to reply directly to my post, or will you continue to side-step it?


04-12-2004, 06:13 PM
OK. Tell me the info Bill.C failed to pass on.


04-13-2004, 08:22 AM
I have said it a couple times already. You just ignore it and now play dumb. Go read his last statement of National Security, it is only about 45,000 words in length, so I would suggest using control-F and type Al Qaeda. If Clarke was to be believed and Clinton had a very agressive plan for eliminating Al Qadea you should find some of that info in that statment. Go ahead we are all waiting.

I will give you one hint...There is a sentence in those 45,000 words that says, there is no immediate/imminent terrorist threat to the US. Hmmm, I guess he got that wrong, or Clarke has been lying.


04-16-2004, 03:47 PM
I have to say that I have the same strategy, whatever it means /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

04-17-2004, 08:51 AM
Bush Asked for Iraq War Plan in Nov. 2001
Fri Apr 16, 2004 10:00 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush asked his Pentagon chief in November 2001 to draw up a war plan against Iraq, the White House confirmed on Friday.
The admission from the White House about the early timing of a discussion about war strategy came after the administration was questioned about a new book by journalist Bob Woodward.

The revelation is sure to fire up some of Bush's critics who have accused him of being too eager to go to war against Iraq and of diverting resources from the hunt for Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept 11 attacks.

The book, entitled "Plan of Attack," is not due to be released until next week but the Associated Press published some details from it after obtaining an early copy.

The book, according to the Associated Press, reveals that Bush took Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld aside on Nov. 21, 2001, and asked him to come up with a fresh war plan.

That request came less than two months after the United States launched a war on Afghanistan and a year and a half before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Bush cited Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction as the main reason for the invasion, in which almost 700 U.S. troops have died as well as thousands of Iraqi military and civilians. No such weapons, however, have been found.

<font color="red"> Two former officials from his administration, ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, have portrayed the president as fixated on Iraq, even at a time when the administration has insisted Bush was focused squarely on Afghanistan.</font color>
At a news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Friday, the president was asked if the Woodward account about the conversation with Rumsfeld in November 2001 was correct.

Bush said his memory was foggy.

"You know, I can't remember exact dates that far back," he said.

Is this guy lying as well?
How many liars is that now?

Or is your definiton of a liar just anyone who contradicts the present administration?


04-17-2004, 09:33 PM
Ignoring my post?


04-17-2004, 10:27 PM
I,ve already answered it.

"At the outset of the administration, a commission that was chartered by Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, two very different people covering pretty much the political spectrum, put together a terrific panel to study the issue of terrorism and report to the new administration as it began. And you took that briefing, I know".

It was so urgent there was a seperate brief specifically on this subject.

You cant have it both ways. You are suggesting that Al Q wasnt an issue but GW and Co say they were totally on the ball about them at that time.
Now it turns out that GW had his eye on Iraq right from the outset.
"O what a tangled web we weave......to decieve".R.Burns
[ cant remember the full quote....its 6.30 AM]

The truth will out!!!!!!


04-18-2004, 09:02 PM
Mmmmmmm....... arguing politics with people who hate America is wack. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif