PDA

View Full Version : Planted questions



Drop1
11-10-2007, 01:28 PM
Today,Hillary Clinton admitted she answered,what she knew to be planted questions,on Global warmth...Story in Los Angeles Times. Maybe she wanted that question asked,but I think,a real leader would have used another approach.

pooltchr
11-10-2007, 04:27 PM
Let's face it...Integrity isn't one of her strong assets.
Steve

LWW
11-10-2007, 04:34 PM
The only interview that either Clinton has had which was unscripted was the one where Billy Jeff puked all over himself about Bin Laden on Fox with Chris Matthews.

LWW

wolfdancer
11-10-2007, 05:03 PM
Is there a candidate out there, whose integrity is unquestioned?
Doubt if she's the first one who knew the questions in advance, and had prepared answers. On the other side of the coin, a respected Washington Post journalist, was "demoted" in her seating assignment, for daring to ask GWB the "wrong" questions.
Let's face it...Integrity isn't one of his strong assets, either.

Drop1
11-10-2007, 05:15 PM
Wolf,after all the lies,and smoke and mirrors,Bush has thrown at the American public,all I want is a end to the game playing,and the beginning of an era of transparency.This is not the same world in which Bush became President.

eg8r
11-10-2007, 09:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Today,Hillary Clinton admitted she answered,what she knew to be planted questions,on Global warmth <hr /></blockquote> This is nothing new for a Clinton, but to be honest W does it, and so does every other politician who is talking to a group of people.

eg8r

Drop1
11-10-2007, 10:20 PM
Yeah,like the phone calls Rudy fakes. The problem is,we are in a very high stakes war of world domination,and I want a leader.

Qtec
11-10-2007, 10:27 PM
FEMA held a fake news conference!

Q

pooltchr
11-11-2007, 05:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Is there a candidate out there, whose integrity is unquestioned?
Doubt if she's the first one who knew the questions in advance, and had prepared answers. On the other side of the coin, a respected Washington Post journalist, was "demoted" in her seating assignment, for daring to ask GWB the "wrong" questions.
Let's face it...Integrity isn't one of his strong assets, either. <hr /></blockquote>

Wolf,
Unfortunately, I don't think there is. I have already said I am very unhappy with all the choices both sides have offered up for the presidency.

I have given this subject a little thought, and I think the poor quality of candidates may well be our own fault. Who in their right mind would want to take a job where your entire life will be under a microscope, and every decision you make is going to be ripped apart by the other side? We sit here and second guess everything the president does, yet we aren't the ones that have the facts. The media is just looking for any reason to write a big headline to sell newspapers or more tv advertising. There isn't enough money or power in the world that would make me want the job.
We haven't had what I would consider to be a "leader" in the office since Kennedy. The last 7 have all been disappointments IMO. Put another JFK on the ballot, and I wouldn't care what party he was with, I would support him.
Most presidents won't make a move without considering the political consequences first. Our latest offering at least had the nads to stick to his convictions. Perhaps to a fault, since he doesn't seem to care at all what anyone thinks, or to at least consider other options.

Integrity has given way to appeasement and political correctness. That really sucks!
Steve

Gayle in MD
11-11-2007, 08:21 AM
Bill Clinton was a leader, and he continued to do what was best for this country, in spite of relentless REpublicans attacks agains his policies, which were to focus our agencies on the effort to wipe out bin Laden, and al Qaeda.

Richard Clarke has stated in his book, that Clinton saw before anyone else that terrorism would be our biggest threat of the future, and even warned Bush, when he came in, to make it his top priority.

Unfortunately, Bush W. and Cheney insisted on completely neglecting the pre 9/11 warnings,and gave the message that they were only interested in hearing about Iraq.

Neither Reagan, nor Bush Sr. reacted to the growing terrorist threat in the world, during their administrations, both completely ignoring early terrorist attacks.

Clinton, even in spite of the "Wag the Dog" accusations from Republicans, clearly gave the message to Clarke, and others, that they were not to consider his problems with the Republican attacks against his character, nor the impending actions for their beloved impeachment trial, which serves as a mirro on their barriers, as a political party, in Clinton advancing more efforts to make progress. Clinton had defeated al Qaeda when they attempted to take over Bosnia. Made bin Laden his top priority, advanced homeland security methods for response to any attack, and it was Richard Clarke, who led this country on 9/11, with those very fail safe methods for dealing with an attack on our shores.

Unless one has read Clarke's book, the vast negligence of the Republican Administrations, both before, and after Bill Clinton, could never be understood completely. Republicans, whiole they insist the opposite, are no doubt the worst thing tohappen to American safety, and foreign policy, continuously attack the worng people, and for the wrong reasons, while overlooking the most serious threats to our future safety.

There had been a good leader since Kennedy, in fact, several, and they were all Democrats, and particularly, Bill Clinton.

pooltchr
11-11-2007, 08:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Bill Clinton was a leader, and he continued to do what was best for this country, in spite of relentless REpublicans attacks agains his policies, which were to focus our agencies on the effort to wipe out bin Laden, and al Qaeda.

Richard Clarke has stated in his book, that Clinton saw before anyone else that terrorism would be our biggest threat of the future, and even warned Bush, when he came in, to make it his top priority.

Unfortunately, Bush W. and Cheney insisted on completely neglecting the pre 9/11 warnings,and gave the message that they were only interested in hearing about Iraq.

Neither Reagan, nor Bush Sr. reacted to the growing terrorist threat in the world, during their administrations, both completely ignoring early terrorist attacks.

Clinton, even in spite of the "Wag the Dog" accusations from Republicans, clearly gave the message to Clarke, and others, that they were not to consider his problems with the Republican attacks against his character, nor the impending actions for their beloved impeachment trial, which serves as a mirro on their barriers, as a political party, in Clinton advancing more efforts to make progress. Clinton had defeated al Qaeda when they attempted to take over Bosnia. Made bin Laden his top priority, advanced homeland security methods for response to any attack, and it was Richard Clarke, who led this country on 9/11, with those very fail safe methods for dealing with an attack on our shores.

Unless one has read Clarke's book, the vast negligence of the Republican Administrations, both before, and after Bill Clinton, could never be understood completely. Republicans, whiole they insist the opposite, are no doubt the worst thing tohappen to American safety, and foreign policy, continuously attack the worng people, and for the wrong reasons, while overlooking the most serious threats to our future safety.

There had been a good leader since Kennedy, in fact, several, and they were all Democrats, and particularly, Bill Clinton.

<hr /></blockquote>

I'm amazed that someone so well informed as you tell us you are, could make such an ignorant post.
Steve

bamadog
11-11-2007, 11:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> On the other side of the coin, a respected Washington Post journalist, was "demoted" in her seating assignment, for daring to ask GWB the "wrong" questions.
<hr /></blockquote>

Name her.

Gayle in MD
11-12-2007, 09:53 AM
You prove your own ignorance with that response. The one book you say you have read is the 9/11 investigation. Unfortunately, you missed the part where the Republicans admitted that they didn't want to look for fault finding answers about this administration.

Richard Clarke, served under both Republican, and Democratic presidents. Although his book in far from the only book I have read which is the basis for my opinions, he was on the job, both before, and after the 9/11 attack, and was among those people whom this administration refused to listen to, and also among those who were bashed and attacked by the Bush administration, after he came forward with the facts.

His statements have been supported by many others, who were part of the unprecedented numbers of security, and terrorism experts, who resigned in protest to the lies this administration created to occupy Iraq. All their former corporate interests have been well rewarded during this illegal occupation of a country which was no immediate threat to America, and which had been contained by other methods.

Now, as these same experts warned, the rushed occupation in Iraq, had led to the predicted civil war, which, IIRC, you were among the first to deny the existence of, and refused to accept statements about the civil disorder, which were made by retired military generals.

Now, the entire region is at risk for regional disaster, just as Bush was warned would result. Now, the contracts for Iraq's oil have emerged, which you also denied to be the real goal of the illegal occupation, and no WMD's have ever been found, which you insisted was the reason for the occupation.

So far, most everything you supported, has been proven to be a lie, and including the Neocon predictions of occupying Iraq.

So far, Republicans have proven, to your amazment I'm sure, that when it comes to spending, they are like desperate housewives on crack, set loose in a mall sale.

I'd say, by and large, you're the last person on the forum who has a right to call anyone else, ignorant. I surely wan't ignorant enough to Vote for George Bush, twice! /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

bamadog
11-12-2007, 10:17 AM
Richard Clarke is a disgrace. He's an apologist for Clinton who is trying to burnish his own image by saying how focused he was on terrorism. Well let the facts speak for themselves. They sat on their hands. During the 8 years of the Clinton administration what did they accomplish against Islamo-fascism? Why didn't they take Bin Laden into custody when he was offered to them by Sudan?
If they are so proud of their record against terrorism, what was Sandy Burglar doing in the National Archives?

Bobbyrx
11-12-2007, 10:44 AM
Haven't you critized Bush more than once about allowing the Bin Laden family to fly out of the country after 9/11, suggesting a connection or a more sinister motive???

Drop1
11-12-2007, 02:12 PM
You are making opinions. Let the facts speak, you have a President,that knowingly lied the Country into a war.
Sept.7,2002 President Bush &amp;Prime minister Blair claim a report from the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency showed Iraq six months away from building a nuclear weapon. Bush said,"I don't know what more proof we need."

Bush in his Jan.28,State of the Union speech said Iraq's government had "an advanced nuclear weapons development program,had a design for a nuclear weapon ,and was working five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb

The lie- there was no report from the UN's International
Atomic Energy Agency,after inspectors were withdrawn in 1998. Bush and Blair knew they were lying.

"After three months of intrusive inspection,we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq. Dr.Elbaradei March 7,2002 {Shortly afterwards the U.S. invaded Iraq} Bush knew he was lying. I don't recall Clinton's lie.

eg8r
11-12-2007, 02:37 PM
Whether you want a leader or not all politicians still have plants in crowd.

eg8r

Drop1
11-12-2007, 02:41 PM
That may be true,but it don't make it right.

eg8r
11-12-2007, 02:42 PM
I agree.

Gayle in MD
11-12-2007, 04:09 PM
Yes, I have. That's what he did. In fact, Bush senior had been in a BUSINESS meeting with bin Laden's relatives that very day.

The Bush's have been in business with the bin Laden's for many moons. You didn't know that? So they flew their business cornies out of the country. They didn't arrest them, and try to interrogate them. They didn't torture them to get information from them, either. In law enforcement, who are the first to be interrogated? The perps family?

The image of George Bush sitting in that school room for seven minutes, and then another twelve to fifteen minutes before he left that school, now that was a real show of leadership! LMAO.

Oh, and how bout the gay prostitute guy the white house had planted in the press room, to ask administration friendly questions, for months?

jlw
11-12-2007, 04:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Richard Clarke is a disgrace. He's an apologist for Clinton who is trying to burnish his own image by saying how focused he was on terrorism. Well let the facts speak for themselves. They sat on their hands. During the 8 years of the Clinton administration what did they accomplish against Islamo-fascism? Why didn't they take Bin Laden into custody when he was offered to them by Sudan?
If they are so proud of their record against terrorism, what was Sandy Burglar doing in the National Archives? <hr /></blockquote>
Yes, please, let the facts speak for themselves. Bin Laden was never offered to the US by the Sudanese. That was a false story circulated by Sean Hannnity and dispelled by the 9-11 Commission's report. Never happened.

Gayle in MD
11-12-2007, 05:13 PM
Thank you for posting that. Obviously, some of the right wing posters only know what they hear in sound bytes on Faux News, the fixed news White HOuse propaganda channel. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

bamadog
11-12-2007, 05:20 PM
Are you capable of staying on subject?
My reply was concerning Gayle's assertion that Clinton and Clarke were effective anti-terrorists.
If you would like to discuss the pre-war intelligence reports, start a thread.

Bobbyrx
11-12-2007, 05:27 PM
Was it not Richard Clarke who actually approved the flight?

bamadog
11-12-2007, 05:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote jlw:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Richard Clarke is a disgrace. He's an apologist for Clinton who is trying to burnish his own image by saying how focused he was on terrorism. Well let the facts speak for themselves. They sat on their hands. During the 8 years of the Clinton administration what did they accomplish against Islamo-fascism? Why didn't they take Bin Laden into custody when he was offered to them by Sudan?
If they are so proud of their record against terrorism, what was Sandy Burglar doing in the National Archives? <hr /></blockquote>
Yes, please, let the facts speak for themselves. Bin Laden was never offered to the US by the Sudanese. That was a false story circulated by Sean Hannnity and dispelled by the 9-11 Commission's report. Never happened. <hr /></blockquote>

Did Hannity also invent this recording of Bill Clinton admitting to the offer?

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml

Btw, pages 220-221 of "The Looming Tower", by Lawrence Wright documents the offer.

bamadog
11-12-2007, 05:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bobbyrx:</font><hr> Was it not Richard Clarke who actually approved the flight? <hr /></blockquote>

That's right. The flights were personally approved by Richard Clarke with NO White House consultation.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

Drop1
11-12-2007, 07:19 PM
Like you did with the Chinese aircraft carriers.Just my way of saying thanks. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

jlw
11-12-2007, 08:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr>
Did Hannity also invent this recording of Bill Clinton admitting to the offer?

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml

Btw, pages 220-221 of "The Looming Tower", by Lawrence Wright documents the offer. <hr /></blockquote>

Clinton did not say that Sudan offered Bin Laden to the US. He said that Sudan offered to expel Bin Laden. Clinton tried to get Saudi Arabia to take him, but they did not want him. Read the 9-11 Commission's report. They concluded that there was no reliable evidence of the Sudanese government ever offering Bin Laden to the United States.

Qtec
11-12-2007, 09:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The President and the VP told us they were not aware of the issue at all until it surfaced much later in the media.<hr /></blockquote>

You really believe that?
GW and the VP both refused to give evidence under oath. Why should anyone believe them?

Q

Qtec
11-12-2007, 09:27 PM
Do you EVER check out any of your sources?

[ QUOTE ]
TRANSCRIPT

TIMONTHY ROEMER, COMMISSION MEMBER: There's a great deal of unanimity that the Saudis were not doing everything they could before 9/11 to help us in a host of different areas; 15 of the 19 hijackers came from there. We had trouble tracking some of the financing for terrorist operations. But we still have too many of the madrassas and the teachings of hatred of Christians and Jews and others coming out of some of these madrassas.

We need to broaden and deepen this relationship. I will ask you a part A and a part B.

Part A is where do we go in this difficult relationship? And part B is to further look at the difficulty here. You made a decision after 9/11 to, I think -- and I'd like to ask you more about this -- to allow a plane of Saudis to fly out of the country. And when most other planes were grounded, this plane flew from the United States back to Saudi Arabia. I'd like to know why you made that decision, who was on this plane, and if the FBI ever had the opportunity to interview those people.

RICHARD CLARKE: You're absolutely right that the Saudi Arabian government did not cooperate with us significantly in the fight against terrorism prior to 9/11. Indeed, it didn't really cooperate until after bombs blew up in Riyadh.

Now, as to this controversy about the Saudi evacuation aircraft, let me tell you everything I know, which is that in the days following 9/11 -- whether it was on 9/12 or 9/15, I can't tell you -- we were in a constant crisis management meeting that had started the morning of 9/11 and ran for days on end. We were making lots of decisions, but we were coordinating them with all the agencies through the video teleconference procedure.

CLARKE: Someone -- and I wish I could tell you, but I don't know who -- someone brought to that group a proposal that we authorize a request from the Saudi embassy. The Saudi embassy had apparently said that they feared for the lives of Saudi citizens because they thought there would be retribution against Saudis in the United States as it became obvious to Americans that this attack was essentially done by Saudis, and that there were even Saudi citizens in the United States who were part of the bin Laden family, which is a very large family, very large family.

The Saudi embassy therefore asked for these people to be evacuated; the same sort of thing that we do all the time in similar crises, evacuating Americans.

The request came to me and I refused to approve it. I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it -- or not.

I spoke with at that time the number two person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue.

The FBI then approved -- after some period of time, and I can't tell you how long -- approved the flight.

<hr /></blockquote>


web page (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/25/1537227)

Q

Qtec
11-12-2007, 09:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Richard Clarke is a disgrace. He's an apologist for Clinton who is trying to burnish his own image by saying how focused he was on terrorism. Well let the facts speak for themselves. They sat on their hands. During the 8 years of the Clinton administration what did they accomplish against Islamo-fascism? Why didn't they take Bin Laden into custody when he was offered to them by Sudan?
If they are so proud of their record against terrorism, what was Sandy Burglar doing in the National Archives? <hr /></blockquote>

Islamo-Fascism is Newspeak. Under this Govt, the abortion of the English language has continued unabated to the point that a pipe bomb and a Nuke are both WMDs!
You keep going on about Sandy B but you know nothing at all about it. Don't you know that SB took COPIES, not original docs? If you have the right security clearance, you can the read the same docs thart he did because they are ALL still there.

The Taliban were trying to make a deal about OBL byt the US Govt blew them off!

[ QUOTE ]
But Rumsfield Says Arrest Of Rebel Might not Avert Retaliation By America : Afghan Clerics Weigh Handover of bin Laden

By Brian Knowlton
Published: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2001

WASHINGTON: Islamic clerics in Afghanistan considering the fate of Osama bin Laden debated a series of conditions for surrendering him, but the U.S. defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said Tuesday that even the arrest of the man suspected in the devastating terrorist attacks last week might not avert a retaliatory U.S. attack.
"Clearly you begin on a journey with one step, and he would be one step," Mr. Rumsfeld said. But he added, "If bin Laden were not there, the organization would continue doing what it's been doing. So clearly the problem is much bigger than bin Laden."………
……………Even as worldwide shock over the attacks continued to reverberate — along with fear over what might come next — Defense Secretary Rumsfeld brushed aside suggestions from Afghan officials that the United States could strengthen its call for Mr. bin Laden's extradition by offering hard evidence of his involvement in the attacks.
Referring to the terror suspect's main organization, Mr. Rumsfeld told a CBS-TV interviewer: "Bin Laden is one person who is unambiguously a terrorist. The al Qaida network is a broad, multiheaded organization" with a presence in up to 60 countries.
"We certainly can expect that there will continue to be terrorist acts," he added. "They have publicly stated that they intend to do that."
The Taleban information minister, Qudrutullah Jamal, had said that Afghanistan did not rule out a bin Laden role, but that Kabul needed proof.
"Anyone who is responsible for this act, Osama or not, we will not side with him," he was quoted as saying by Reuters.
But Mr. Rumsfeld said it would make no sense to hand over intelligence, which could compromise the sources of information.
He also acknowledged the difficulty of attacking meaningful targets in Afghanistan, "a very poor country" with few "high-value targets" left after years of internal fighting and a decade of war.
One way to attack terrorist networks, he said, is "to drain the swamp they live in." Without offering detail, he said the United States would "use the full spectrum" of its capabilities.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/09/19/terr_ed3__4.php
<hr /></blockquote>

Proving or debating a point means more than parroting RW talking points.

Q

Drop1
11-12-2007, 10:41 PM
Some years back,I had a friend,buying horses from the Royal Saudi family. He told me there were about two thousand members of the Saudi family in the U.S. at that time.

bamadog
11-12-2007, 11:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Like you did with the Chinese aircraft carriers.Just my way of saying thanks. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Not the same thing.
You ran away from the debate after I posted data showing you were wrong. You were also extremely abusive, as that seems to be your style.
OTOH, you and I have never had a debate on the subject you tried to introduce here.

bamadog
11-13-2007, 12:09 AM
Now you are just being disingenuous. The Sudanese offered Bin Laden to the US. Clinton asked the Saudis to take him hoping they would execute or imprison him. When the Saudis refused, Clinton and his lawyers in the FBI decided they didn't have enough evidence for an indictment, so they let him fly out of Sudan to Afghanistan. Given, what you heard on the tape, do you have any doubt that had Clinton said to the Sudanese, we'll take him, that they wouldn't have turned him over? Because, the people with the most intimate knowledge of what took place agree that the offer was made.

"The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States," said Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then.

" In later meetings, the Americans pushed the Sudanese representative to expel Bin Laden. Erwa (Sudanese Minister of Defence) told the agency that it was better for him to stay in Sudan, where the govt. could keep an eye on him; however, he said, IF THE UNITED STATES WANTED TO BRING CHARGES AGAINST BIN LADEN, WE ARE READY TO HAND HIM TO YOU."
from: "The Looming Tower", p. 220

Btw, Did you even listen to the recording of Clinton? He all but admitted that the offer was made but he felt there wasn't enough evidence to hold him.

The fact the the 9/11 commision said they found "no reliable evidence that Bin Laden was offered directly to the US" doesn't mean much. They were a political panel who probably thought the truth was too politically explosive.

Bobbyrx
11-13-2007, 01:09 AM
According to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Clarke gave the final okay for the members of the bin Laden family living in the U.S. to fly to Saudi Arabia on Sept. 14, 2001. Clarke had initially claimed under oath someone in the Bush Administration had asked for the flight and he consulted with the FBI [8]; later He admitted that he alone authorized the flight. He told reporters “I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.”
The FBI denied they had a role in approving the flight for bin Laden's family as alleged by Clarke when FBI spokesman John Iannarelli said: "I can say unequivocally that the FBI had no role in facilitating these flights."

Gayle in MD
11-13-2007, 07:58 AM
Approved the flight? What kind of Repubspeak is that? It was George Bush and Dick Cheney, who initiated the action, period.

Bobbyrx
11-13-2007, 08:12 AM
see above post

Gayle in MD
11-13-2007, 08:44 AM
Where did you get this paragraph?

You surely don't think that flying them out of the country, was Clark's dicision alone, do you? Is this yet another attempt to blame Clarke for what could only be a presidential decision?

Have you read Richard Clarke's book?

Any comments on the subject of this thread? Bush paying journalists for friendly op-eds, planting fake reporters in the White House Press Room?

You can cherry pick all you want. The fact remains, Bush was warned, and he did nothing. then, he invaded a country on lies, that had nothing to do with 9/11. Do you defend that decision?

The attack on 9/11, was the result of actions all the way back to Reagan, and Bush Sr. Clinton is still the ONLY president for whom getting bin Laden, and smashing al Qaeda was the top priority. Clarke worked for all of them, and that is he testimony. In fact, if you read Clark'e book, you'd have a much better understanding of why this Iraq invasion has undermined our fight against terrorists.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
11-13-2007, 08:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You surely don't think that flying them out of the country, was Clark's dicision alone, do you? Is this yet another attempt to blame Clarke for what could only be a presidential decision?
<hr /></blockquote> I have never read Clarke's book so I am looking for a little insight from those that have. The question I have is...how many times does Clarke mention his "faults" in the book? I am NOT referring to when he did what he was told to do because that is expected of all employees. I AM referring to those things he did on his own that he considered a mistake. Now, once you count all those instances up, tell us how many times he blames someone else for what went wrong.

My reasoning for these questions is that no one ever writes a book to show their own faults. What exactly is it about Clarke that makes you think everything in his book is the truth and not some variation on the truth? Is it JUST because he has spoken out against W?

eg8r

SKennedy
11-13-2007, 09:19 AM
Why stop at Reagan? Can't we go back even further? Lincoln?
How about others like General "Black Jack" Pershing? Muslims in that area (Indonesia) will likely never forget the stories about how he dealt with muslim extremism.

bamadog
11-13-2007, 10:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> You keep going on about Sandy B but you know nothing at all about it. Don't you know that SB took COPIES, not original docs? I


Q <hr /></blockquote>

Sorry Q, you are wrong. We do not know what documents Sandy Burglar stole/destroyed, or how many were originals. That is the reason that some officials are pushing to have him polygraphed.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) sent a letter to the Justice Department today asking for former Clinton Administration National Security Advisor Sandy Berger to surrender to the department immediately and that a polygraph test be administered forthwith. In 2005, Mr. Berger pled guilty to the mishandling and destruction of classified national security documents after admitting he entered the National Archives and unlawfully removed them. The documents have never been recovered. As part of the plea deal, Mr. Berger agreed to take a polygraph test to be administered by the Department of Justice, however, two years have passed and he has yet to fulfill his legal obligation.

Gayle in MD
11-13-2007, 10:08 AM
No Ed, it isn't. I didn't set out to find reasons to trash Bush. I came to realize how dishonest, and incompetent he was by watching and listening to him, and also by observing his actions, and policies, and the results.

I've briefly met Richard Clarke, only to shake his hand, and heard his lecture. Of all those on the forefront of the entire birth of al Qaeda, and the terrorist threat, he's the least likely to avoid responsibililty for any of his decisions. He's been there through Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush, until after 9/11. He's not the partisan type, believe me. He's much like guys like O'Neil, the FBI man who was convinced that al Qaeda was going to fly planes into the WTC, the one who was labeled a radical mentally ill nut, and btw, he left the FBI, and took a job as Security Chief, in the WTC, where he died on 9/11.

You may not want to believe this, but there are many, well, I should say there were many, people in our ogvernment who were completely in focus on bin Laden, and al Qaeda. Bill Clinton was one of them. The Bush administration accused Clinton of being overly concerned about al Qaeda. Bush told woodward, he didn't consider al Qaeda an urgent threat before 9/11, and documentation from all National Security Agencies, from many patriotic former government National Security experts, tell the story of Bush's, Rice's and Cheney's refusal to take the pre 9/11 warnings seriously.

Predictions from experts in all agencies, have come to pass, and our country is now at great risk, as al Qaeda grows, and spreads. Pakistan is a place, for examle, where bin Laden is still a hero of the people. What little balance there once was in the Middle East, is now gone, as circumstance continue to degarda there.

Richard Clarke, was in fact the ONLY person in this government to fact the families of the 9/11 victims, and apologize, "Your Government failed you, and I failed you"

Unfortunately, you will never read his book, and therefore, you will never have a complete grasp of just how devastating Bush's policies have been to our country, nor will you ever know how negligent the Bush administration was from day one.

We are not nearly as safe a nation as we were when Richard Clarke, was our counter terrorist Czar. And it is a fact that Republicans, and the right wing conspiracy against Clinton, which did exist, limited Clinton's power to force through some of the efforts he wanted to succeed in implimenting, such as removing the top POS at the FBI, and getting the Congress behind the all out effort he wanted to make to get bin Laden.

It's just too bad that Bush decided to ignore and destroy, everything that had been achieved by the Clinton Administration, when he took office, with only one goal in mind above all, the neocon philosophy, invading Iraq, and removing saddam. All that has happened since, was predicted, and explained to George Bush, and Dick Cheney. They refused to listen to all the reasons why such a campaign was above all, dangerous to the safety of our country, good for our enemies, bad for the Middle East, as a whole, helpful to al Qaeda, Iran, and others of our enemies, most importantly, bound to fail, ultimately. Hence, we are where we are, and you can thank Goerge Bush, Dick Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and above all, the neocons from the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation.

I believe I wrote here, years ago, that I did not think that democracy was something that one country could force upon another, with bombs and guns. I said then, that the desire for democracy, is a wish which must evolve through time, through a growth in the ideals of the citizenry.

When a country is run by a despot, and corruption is a way of life, its citizenry also lives and survives by way of corruption. Removing the leader does not infuse the people with integrity. This is why Iraq cannot be compared to an other campaign we have been involved in, and also why the plan, or lack of one, was so ridiculously unrealiistic from the start. It was a faith based foreign policy, which failed completely to grasp the likely results in advance.

Clarke, explains our national plight in a way that few others could. Although he was smeared by the Bush machine,after he left his post, his actions, and decisions, have been above board, throughout. He stated that there was no point in holding his position if the administration was going to refuse to heed his advice, and also, urgent warnings of an impending attack. He does not work in our government. He had no further ambitions in government, at the time he wrote his book. He wrote his book out of a sense of responsibility, and a desire to warn all of us about this administration, and believe me, if you could ever meet this man, as I have, although only a part of a crowd of listeners during his book tour, you would have no doubt of his genuine love of our country, and concerns for our safety. His resignation was a great loss to our country, indeed, as have been many many others who resigned in protest to the lies told by the Bush Administration, and the dangerous, short sighted policies, and lies, which are still being told to this day.

No, Richard Clarke did not write his book out of partisan purposes, or out of personal self-serving attempts to escape criticism. He wrote it to set the record straight, which he accomplishes completely, with conscience.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
11-13-2007, 10:13 AM
Al qaeda was born, as a result of actions, failures to take action, and other decisions during Reagan's, and HW Bush's administrations. Be sarcastice if you wish, but those are the facts.

Gayle in Md.

bamadog
11-13-2007, 10:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote jlw:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr>
Did Hannity also invent this recording of Bill Clinton admitting to the offer?

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml

Btw, pages 220-221 of "The Looming Tower", by Lawrence Wright documents the offer. <hr /></blockquote>

Clinton did not say that Sudan offered Bin Laden to the US. He said that Sudan offered to expel Bin Laden. Clinton tried to get Saudi Arabia to take him, but they did not want him. Read the 9-11 Commission's report. They concluded that there was no reliable evidence of the Sudanese government ever offering Bin Laden to the United States. <hr /></blockquote>

(quote Bill Clinton), "So I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him".

In his own words he admits he had the opportunity to arrest Bin Laden in 1996.

eg8r
11-13-2007, 10:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
He does not work in our government. He had no further ambitions in government, at the time he wrote his book. <hr /></blockquote> We will agree to disagree here, but in my opinion his ambition in writing this book was to make money.

[ QUOTE ]
No, Richard Clarke did not write his book out of partisan purposes <hr /></blockquote> I don't believe my posts says anything about Clarke's partisanship, the part about partisanship was pointed to those that accept everything this man says simply because he came out against W.

As far as Clarke was concerned I was just wondering if this book is just another book that points the blame at everyone else. How many times did he write in the book in which he considered himself to blame.

[ QUOTE ]
He wrote it to set the record straight, which he accomplishes completely, with conscience.
<hr /></blockquote> This is not anything that you or anyone else here on the board can verify. You have just chosen to believe it, right wrong or indifferent.

eg8r

Bobbyrx
11-13-2007, 10:48 AM
This quote is from a story by Scott Wheeler CNSNews.com on June 01, 2004,

"Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism official and author of a recent book blasting the Bush administration's handling of intelligence leading up to the terrorist attacks, told The Hill newspaper last week that he gave the go-ahead for two members of the bin Laden family and other Saudi nationals to leave the U.S.

"It didn't get any higher than me," Clarke told The Hill . "I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again."

<font color="red">That's the point. He says that he made the decision and YOU don't even believe him so why should I believe his book. I think it's just another partisan book to make a buck and to remove any blame from himself. I'm sure there is a lot of truth in it, but if you think it's not spun a certain way I think you're fooling yourself. Just like Dick Morris's book on Clinton. I think all these tell all books are self serving </font color>

Qtec
11-13-2007, 10:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
(CBS/AP) The government's former top counterterrorism adviser opened his testimony before the 9/11 commission Wednesday with a dramatic apology to families of the victims of the terror attacks.

"Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you," Richard Clarke said, turning to family members in the audience. <hr /></blockquote>

He apologized, the RW blames Clinton.

As for the flights, Clarke gave the OK but the initial request didn't come from him.

[ QUOTE ]
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about September 13. This is the way Craig Unger wrote about it in the Boston Globe, and now his book: "What may be the single most egregious security lapse related to the attacks: the evacuation of approximately 140 Saudis just two days after 9/11." Let's go back to September 13, 2001: American airspace was locked down, but some people desperately wanted to fly out of the country. That same day Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, long-time friend of the Bush family, dropped by the White House. He and President Bush go onto the Truman balcony for a private conversation. The Saudis themselves say that Prince Bandar was trying to orchestrate the evacuation of scores of Saudis from the United States, despite the lockdown of air travel. There was a flight from Tampa to Lexington. A former Tampa cop, a former FBI agent, were on board providing security. The passengers included three young Saudis. The planes took off from Tampa -- it was the first of eight aircraft that began flying around the country, stopping in at least 12 American cities, carrying 140 passengers out of the country over the next week, 24 of whom were members of the bin Laden family.
Did you talk to President Bush about allowing those Saudi citizens to go home?
PRINCE BANDAR: No.<font color="red"> LIAR </font color>
MR. RUSSERT: You never brought it up?
PRINCE BANDAR: Serious. But see allow me, Tim, my only comment about this -- the book and this quote you just read to me, in French it's hogwash, number one. Number two, 9/11 Commission just declared -- let me read to you what they declared. The 9/11 Commission released a statement that says that the FBI has concluded that nobody -- nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in the attack. The statement also says that the Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to the national security and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country.
Now, the tragedy here, Tim, is that there are people who don't know how to take yes for an answer.
If the 9/11 Commission says this, if I say this, and you still get people coming up with books saying but they smuggled them.
MR. RUSSERT: But, prince, here's the question: This is a photograph of you with the President down at his Crawford Ranch. He brought his family. Elsa Walsh of the New Yorker wrote that you are almost a member of the Bush family -- that was her interpretation of it after doing an enormous amount of research. And 140 Saudis did leave the United States when Americans couldn't fly. The FBI agent, the FBI spokesman, John Iannarelli said: "I can say unequivocally that the FBI had no role facilitating these flights." Jim Thompson, on the 9/11 Commission, asked Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of State, Did you, the State Department, authorize this? "No, sir." I asked the vice president of the United States on this program did he know anything about it: "No, sir." One hundred and forty Saudis leave the country two days after September 11, and nobody knows who gave permission. You don't know anything about it? You didn't ask anyone for permission? You didn't facilitate it in any way? The planes were just allowed to --
PRINCE BANDAR: No, no, no, no -- No, Tim -- no, no, no. This is becoming exotic now. We had those people in the country, and a lot of them were relatives of the bin Laden family going to school, from teenagers through people in college. And we told the FBI that those people are scattered all over America, and with tempers high at that time, rightly so, we were worried that somebody's emotions will hurt them.
MR. RUSSERT: So who did you call for permission?
PRINCE BANDAR: We didn't call for -- we asked them: Is it possible -- the FBI.
MR. RUSSERT: You called the FBI?
PRINCE BANDAR: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: And they gave permission?
PRINCE BANDAR: And the FBI, according to Richard Clarke in his testimony, called him, and he said, "I have no problem if the FBI has no problem." So we gathered them all in here, and then once they were here they left.
Now the other airplanes were for Saudi officials who were here on vacation. And after this disaster took place they all had to go back home to official positions. But it is not true that they were flying when Americans were not flying, Tim. Americans were flying, and the restrictions were lifted. But there were -- I mean, the stoppage was lifted, but there were restrictions. So -- but think about it logically: Do you think -- where are we, in a banana republic? I would pick 140 Saudis, put them in aircraft and smuggle them out and nobody will know? Look, people have to take yes for an answer and read what the 9/11 Commission said on this. <hr /></blockquote>

Anyone who thinks this politically sensitive decison was Clarke,s idea is gaga.

[ QUOTE ]
In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Clarke said: "It is true that members of the bin Laden family were among those who left. We knew that at the time. I can't say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House. <hr /></blockquote>

The decision to allow the Saudis to leave the country was a political one. GW allowed it, not Clarke. Instead of bringing them all in for waterboarding, he gave them preferential treatment.
Thats a fact.

Q

SKennedy
11-13-2007, 10:56 AM
"I believe I wrote here, years ago, that I did not think that democracy was something that one country could force upon another, with bombs and guns. I said then, that the desire for democracy, is a wish which must evolve through time, through a growth in the ideals of the citizenry."

On that issue we do agree. I do not feel comfortable with us imposing our style of government on others if they do not want it. However, freeing people from tyranny is a different matter. But we (U.S.) can't be all things to all people all over the world.

eg8r
11-13-2007, 10:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
He apologized, the RW blames Clinton.

As for the flights, Clarke gave the OK but the initial request didn't come from him. <hr /></blockquote> None of this answers my questions. Typical qtip "avoid questions" response.

eg8r

SKennedy
11-13-2007, 11:00 AM
You are wrong about why these groups spring up!! You place blame on the victims of these groups. This is a fundamental difference between you and I. Regardless, there will always be these types of groups and it has to do with human nature....envy, greed, hatred, etc. Not about what one administration did or didn't do!

SKennedy
11-13-2007, 11:04 AM
One more thing....Terrorism from the midle east did not appear until Reagan was elected President? How do you explain it's existence and the terrorists acts pre-Reagan? I guess it would have to be the fault of Nixon? And what about before that? Hmmmm, guess I was right about Black Jack Pershing.

bamadog
11-13-2007, 11:11 AM
Once again, what you are presenting as fact is your own biased opinion.
It is pretty funny to hear a little Dutch boy lecturing adult American citizens on our own history and current political events.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

Gayle in MD
11-13-2007, 11:20 AM
Since I have met the man, watched his testimony in the investigation, witnessed how he treated the families of the 9/11 victims, and read his book, I think my judgement about his motives might just be closer to the truth, than yours.

Richard Clarke,IMO, was one of the people who could easily have stayed in government, or made a career out of a paid lecture tour, like Giuliani did, exploiting 9/11 for his own benefit. He didn't need to do that. He wrote his book as a service to all of us, but particularly to set the record straight, and provide some warning to all of us about the wrong direction this administration was taking this country. the fact you you refuse to take anyone at all seriously, as regards the negative view about this administration's incompetence, and wrong headed decisions and lies, does not mean that all those former civilian and military people were out to get Bush. You fail to acknowledge that our own16 National Security Agencies, have stated in our own National Security Estimate, information which proves the nay sayers who wrote the book, were absolutely correct in their predictions, and the Bush Neocons, were completely wrong, in theirs. That's a fact, not subject to partisanship, but a conclusion reached by all our own National SEcurity Agencies. JEEEZE, what does it take for people like you to open up your minds? Iraq, is a mess. I suppose you deny that too? Bush F-up up the entire occupation, you deny that, too? Do you think that 75&amp; of the people in this country and our own National Security Estimates, are all wrong, and you and the other 28 % of Bush lovers are right?

Unbelievable!

bamadog
11-13-2007, 11:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bobbyrx:</font><hr> This quote is from a story by Scott Wheeler CNSNews.com on June 01, 2004,

"Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism official and author of a recent book blasting the Bush administration's handling of intelligence leading up to the terrorist attacks, told The Hill newspaper last week that he gave the go-ahead for two members of the bin Laden family and other Saudi nationals to leave the U.S.

"It didn't get any higher than me," Clarke told The Hill . "I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again."

<font color="red">That's the point. He says that he made the decision and YOU don't even believe him so why should I believe his book. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Don't confuse them with the facts, Bobby. You'll only make them mad.

Gayle in MD
11-13-2007, 11:29 AM
His position was the Counter terrorist Czar, not President, or vice President. His career was all about getting bin Laden. He was not the person who would have made that overall decision. I hardly think a man who could have made, (and has made) much more money in the private sector would have wasted his time writing a book, if he was more valuable as a security expert, in the private sector.

You can think whatever you like. I don't read anything any of you people from the right, quote, from your sources, because after years of running you sources down, they always turn out to be members of the right wing BS press group.

Richard Clarke's efforts, were not in the interest of lining his own pockets, nor getting off the hook for his decisions. You, obviously haven't read his book, but you're willing to take supposed quotes, from a right wing tabloid, The Hill, as your only source of information.

One of us is uninformed. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
11-13-2007, 11:33 AM
Tap Tap Tap, and also, we are not responsible for protecting Isreal, IMO, they have what they need to protect themselves.

Qtec
11-13-2007, 11:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Once again, what you are presenting as fact is your own biased opinion.
It is pretty funny to hear a little Dutch boy lecturing adult American citizens on our own history and current political events.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp <hr /></blockquote>

These are ACTUAL words spoken by KNOWN people. These are FACTS....unlike the drivel you serve up.


"Some people say...................


Q

Gayle in MD
11-13-2007, 11:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
We will agree to disagree here, but in my opinion his ambition in writing this book was to make money.

<hr /></blockquote>

And on what do you base this opinion of yours, may I ask?

[ QUOTE ]
This is not anything that you or anyone else here on the board can verify. You have just chosen to believe it, right wrong or indifferent.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I believe the truth is that you choose not to believe it, and without any documentation for your point of view, other than you refuse to believe anything bad about Bush, including our own National Security Estimates of his failed policies.

OTOH, I have Met the man, saw live his testimony in the investigation, and have read everything he has written, taped every interview, and witnessed the accurate predictions he made. You, OTOH, were so well informed about Richard Clarke, YOU thought he was a terrorist!

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
11-13-2007, 11:51 AM
That is where you are wrong about me. I think about them just as you do, as regards the fact that terrorism will always be around, and their disenfranchisment from global economics, is part of their complaint, but to think that our foreign policies have had nothing to do with their recruitment success, is where we don't agree. The policies of the republican administrations, played a huge role in their growth, and their successful attacks on 9/11. The Rep[ublican policies, in fact, played a huge role in the creation of the Taliban, and the power enjoyed by Saddam. We (Reagan's administration) are the ones who propped him up in the first place.

Gayle in MD
11-13-2007, 11:55 AM
Nothing he writes here is accurate. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

bamadog
11-13-2007, 12:19 PM
Is this direct quote from Richard Clarke "drivel"?

This quote is from a story by Scott Wheeler CNSNews.com on June 01, 2004,

"Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism official and author of a recent book blasting the Bush administration's handling of intelligence leading up to the terrorist attacks, told The Hill newspaper last week that he gave the go-ahead for two members of the bin Laden family and other Saudi nationals to leave the U.S.

"It didn't get any higher than me," Clarke told The Hill . "I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again." (Richard Clarke)

bamadog
11-13-2007, 12:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;

<hr /></blockquote>


OTOH, I have Met the man, saw live his testimony in the investigation, and have read everything he has written, taped every interview, and witnessed the accurate predictions he made. You, OTOH, were so well informed about Richard Clarke, YOU thought he was a terrorist!

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Then why weren't you aware that he personally approved the post 9/11 flights by Saudi nationals?

bamadog
11-13-2007, 12:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>

I don't read anything any of you people from the right, quote, from your sources, because after years of running you sources down, they always turn out to be members of the right wing BS press group.


One of us is uninformed. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

<hr /></blockquote>

And yet YOU continue to link your main source The Huffington Post!

wolfdancer
11-13-2007, 12:42 PM
Forget the planted questions bs, one only has to see how GWB stammers when hit with an unexpected question, to realize, she ain't the only offender.
We'll get a real bargain if we elect Hillary....looks like the best deal out there....
We get two Clinton's, for just the price of one!!!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SKennedy
11-13-2007, 12:46 PM
Actually, if we had left Israel alone and let them handle things the way they wanted to, we wouldn't have this mess. Thay would have already had it sorted out long ago.

I appreciate the tap thing coming from you, but it does make me look bad among my fellow conservatives..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SKennedy
11-13-2007, 01:01 PM
You are right on many of these points. Except, we really embolden them and help their recruiting the most when they pull off terrorists acts and then get away with it. They are like bullies. As long as they think they can get away with it, they will not only continue, but escalate their attacks. I was being funny eatlier about Pershing, but the truth of the matter is that he showed them, in no uncertain terms, the consequences of their actions and the price they would have to pay. Result? Problem stopped.
One of my biggest disappointments is that bin Laden is still around!!
And, when our foreign policy consists of propping up leaders of various countries because at that particular moment in time they happen to be an enemy of your enemy, then you've got potential problems waiting to happen. We helped Saddam because of Iran. We even helped Castro! But, you seem to only place blame on Republican administrations, yet they have all done it.
I'm much more concerned about China that Iraq and Iran.

eg8r
11-13-2007, 01:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You can think whatever you like. I don't read anything any of you people from the right, quote, from your sources <hr /></blockquote> Sounds like you have already made the decision to end all debate with anyone who does not side with you.

eg8r

eg8r
11-13-2007, 01:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And on what do you base this opinion of yours, may I ask? <hr /></blockquote> Show me one person that has lived in DC that did not care about making themselves money.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the truth is that you choose not to believe it <hr /></blockquote> We all have many beliefs, looks like we now see two of your beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]
and without any documentation for your point of view <hr /></blockquote> LOL, I am happy that I have read this post after your last post. If you remember you told SKennedy that you don't read anything that the righties post. Why should I waste my time if you are not going to read it.

You also said that of those you did read, when you did research on where the data came from you noticed that it came from a right wing press or bias and you threw it out. The point I am trying to make is that you spend too much time trying to figure out who said what (your bias) that you ignore the actual content.

[ QUOTE ]
OTOH, I have Met the man <hr /></blockquote> Yes, you are right, you shook his hand. Was it his soft shake or twinkle in his eye that caused you to believe every word out of his mouth? Quit bragging about shaking the man's hand, it has no relevance.

[ QUOTE ]
and have read everything he has written <hr /></blockquote> Why don't you clarify this, ambiguous generalities are never worth the time.

[ QUOTE ]
You, OTOH, were so well informed about Richard Clarke, YOU thought he was a terrorist!
<hr /></blockquote> When did I say this? Please provide the link to my actual words so that I don't have to dig through your summaries to find context.

eg8r

SKennedy
11-13-2007, 01:43 PM
Maybe if we shake her hand, smile, and give her a little attention she'd like us too? Just kidding Gayle... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
11-13-2007, 01:52 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Richard Clarke,IMO, was one of the people who could easily have stayed in government, or made a career out of a paid lecture tour, like Giuliani did, exploiting 9/11 for his own benefit <hr /></blockquote> You don't think he has benefitted from 9/11? You bought his book right? He exploited his entire career for that book. At least he got his millions now instead of running around on some lecture tour.

[ QUOTE ]
You fail to acknowledge <hr /></blockquote> I have not failed to acknowledge anything. What I have failed in is placing the same bias view as you have on all that info. Just because we look at things different does not mean I have failed to acknowledge anything. Quit deciding that you have already figured every one out, you are not doing anyone any justice by that.

[ QUOTE ]
the fact you you refuse to take anyone at all seriously <hr /></blockquote> The only person I don't take seriously is qtip and that is because he has already stated that he just likes to ruffle feathers.

[ QUOTE ]
JEEEZE, what does it take for people like you to open up your minds? <hr /></blockquote> What would it take for people like you to open your minds?

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq, is a mess. <hr /></blockquote> It is a mess. Did you ever read a post of mine where I stated that it was running smoothly? Quit putting words in my mouth and quit acting like you have figured everyone out.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that 75&amp; of the people in this country and our own National Security Estimates, are all wrong, and you and the other 28 % of Bush lovers are right?
<hr /></blockquote> Those 75 can't be all wrong but at the same time neither can the 89% who feel congress has gone down the toilet since pelosi got the mic.

eg8r

Drop1
11-13-2007, 02:00 PM
Stay with the thread this time.

bamadog
11-13-2007, 04:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Stay with the thread this time. <hr /></blockquote>

How are those re-enlistment figures coming?
I notice you ran from that thread.

bamadog
11-13-2007, 04:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Forget the planted questions bs, one only has to see how GWB stammers when hit with an unexpected question, to realize, she ain't the only offender.
We'll get a real bargain if we elect Hillary....looks like the best deal out there....
We get two Clinton's, for just the price of one!!!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<hr /></blockquote>

"the only offender" of what? There are at least 2 known instances of Hillary having softball questions planted. Can you show even 1 instance where Bush has done the same? Stammering is not dishonest.

Btw, Hillary's campaign has apparently contacted Wolf Blitzer, who will be moderating the next Dem debate, and warned him not to "pull a Russert".
In other words, the lady would prefer no hard questions.

She wants to be President and Commander in Chief but can't handle hard questions. Go figure.

Drop1
11-13-2007, 07:46 PM
Can't stay with the thread can you. Why not start a new one,maybe "why do they re-enlist"? Start the thread,and I will answer any question you want to propose,in the time,I feel I have the facts. The truth is,re-enlistments are up,and the reason I have concluded,is loyalty to the men,and women,they left behind,and the memories of shared grief,and joy.It is loyalty to one another,and not to this war,or the monetary incentives,or President Bush,but the refusal to desert their honor,and their fellow fighters. That does not mean, the numbers are not manipulated,and parents don't sign so their seventeen year olds,can join the military. Sometimes,the why of a fact,will tell you more than the fact. The definitive answer,is still not in. Do you want to call this running?

bamadog
11-13-2007, 08:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Can't stay with the thread can you. Why not start a new one,maybe "why do they re-enlist"? Start the thread,and I will answer any question you want to propose,in the time,I feel I have the facts. The truth is,re-enlistments are up,and the reason I have concluded,is loyalty to the men,and women,they left behind,and the memories of shared grief,and joy.It is loyalty to one another,and not to this war,or the monetary incentives,or President Bush,but the refusal to desert their honor,and their fellow fighters. That does not mean, the numbers are not manipulated,and parents don't sign so their seventeen year olds,can join the military. Sometimes,the why of a fact,will tell you more than the fact. The definitive answer,is still not in. Do you want to call this running? <hr /></blockquote>

I am encouraged that you admit that re-enlistments are high. We are going to disagree on the reasons however.

Drop1
11-13-2007, 08:38 PM
What are your reasons? A new post please.

eg8r
11-13-2007, 09:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Can you show even 1 instance where Bush has done the same? Stammering is not dishonest. <hr /></blockquote> Acting like you don't believe Bush has his own plants asking questions is dishonest also.

[ QUOTE ]
Btw, Hillary's campaign has apparently contacted Wolf Blitzer, who will be moderating the next Dem debate, and warned him not to "pull a Russert".
In other words, the lady would prefer no hard questions.
<hr /></blockquote> I just think she got her feelings hurt when her buddies on the stage turned on her. Russert allowed it to continue and frankly it was nice to see Hillary squirm again.

eg8r

bamadog
11-13-2007, 09:17 PM
I am just going to repeat what I've been told by enlisted men and Lower ranking officers (Ltns. &amp; Capts.)

They like the Military lifestyle, adventure, camaraderie, etc., they like the pay and benefits especially in a war zone, They are doing things they couldn't do in civilian life, like operating very high tech weapons systems, they feel that every citizen who is able should serve their country, they are personally patriotic. As far as returning to Iraq, I have been told that "this is what I trained so hard for" several times. Some say, "I want to see the job finished" or things like "we're Marines, we go where the action is". Once I start talking to Captains and Majors, I hear things like, "this is an exciting challenge, and we are making a lot of progress." or "I was trained to be a combat leader, and I wouldn't want to do anything else." A young sergeant recently told me that now that he has seen the face of Al Qaeda and their cruelty and fanaticism, he is more convinced than ever that we need to stop them in the Middle East now.
So, to summarize, I would say that they re-enlist for many reasons.
I have only talked to Marines and one former Army tank commander.

bamadog
11-13-2007, 09:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> <hr /></blockquote> Acting like you don't believe Bush has his own plants asking questions is dishonest also.

<hr /></blockquote>
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

How do you know what I believe?

LWW
11-14-2007, 04:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Yes, I have. That's what he did. In fact, Bush senior had been in a BUSINESS meeting with bin Laden's relatives that very day.<hr /></blockquote>
That is a completely warped statement and you know it.

Let the truth show that they were in the same building as they were both members of the Carlyle Group and did not sit together or meet.

LWW

LWW
11-14-2007, 04:19 AM
Dude, here is the quote ... and I used Media Matters for the quote.

Only with Clintonian word parsing is your claim correct:


[ QUOTE ]
CLINTON: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [Al Qaeda]. We got -- well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.<hr /></blockquote>

LWW

LWW
11-14-2007, 04:24 AM
Good point ... the only thing missing is evidence.

LWW

LWW
11-14-2007, 04:26 AM
Gayle you have told us time and again that Clark book and "the Looming Tower" are impeccable sources.

They both contradict you.

LWW

LWW
11-14-2007, 04:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
Richard Clarke,IMO, was one of the people who could easily have stayed in government, or made a career out of a paid lecture tour, like Giuliani did, exploiting 9/11 for his own benefit. He didn't need to do that. He wrote his book as a service to all of us <hr /></blockquote>
That certainly explains why he held out for a $1,000,00.00 up front bonus before he provided this service.

I'm sure you are confident that the payers of said advance had no input to or prior knowledge of the details of the service he would be providing us.

Yer funnee.

LWW

Gayle in MD
11-14-2007, 08:10 AM
Terrorism has always existed. Republican administrations exascerbated Middle East terrorism. Republicans are the ones who have spread weaponry all over the Middle East, originally arming the Taliban, to fight Russia, and still spreading Nukes around. Republicans propped Saddam up in the first place. The enemy of my enemy, is not an effective policy in a refion of cutthroats.

Reagan did nothing when our Marines were slaughtered in their sleep. Reagan sold arms to the Contras, in secret, and lied about it, that was not the Middle East, but still the overall policy of arming groups, who later become our enemies. This is a Republican policy, which has led us to the mess we are in now, and eventually, we will see another cutthroat, operating in Iraq. WE have home grown terrorists
in our own country, and terrorism will always be around, as their will always be cowards in the world, without conscience. Right now, Republicans are using terror for their own campaigns. They used it during the last campaign. They've used 9/11, as a means to BS the American Public, since day one. It's repulsive, and without conscience.


That entire region is mired in radical fundalmentalism. We'd have been far better off had we had a policy of no intervention, and no Nation Building. Same thing with Vietnam. We should have stayed out of it completely, and minded our own business. Liekwise, we've got no business spreading poisons around the world, in war, or in our so called war on drugs, another absurd philosophy, in countries that grow drugs. Spending our money one closing our own borders, and cracking down on drugs entering the US, would have been far more effective. It gets pretty disgusting, watching ones Government subscribe to policies which cause as more harm than they achieve success. Trying to force other countries, third world countries, like those in the Middle East, and elsewhere, to stop growing drugs, is idiotic. It will never work, the growers, themselves, are addicted. It is the only thing they know, and we're not going to change it. I'd love to know the figure, the money we've wasted trying to force them to stop growing drugs. Republicans can see that guns don't kill people, why can't they see that drugs don't either, it the person the makes the choice to abuse them. If we wanted to wipe out the most destructive anti health phenomena in the world, it ought to be a war on obesity. That's what drive health care costs up more than anything else. There is more damage to the health of americans due to the use of chemicals, than all the drugs put together. Chemicals in our food, in the animals we eat, in our water, and air, it's all man made, and its all thanks to corporations that care only about the bottom line, and corrupt politicians that refuse to reign them in from their abusive practices.
If we wanted to launch a war that would do some good, one we could actually win, one that would benefit society, and the world, it should be a war on corporate fascist pigs. Now that one, I'd sign up to fight in, just give me a gun, I'll be there!
Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
11-14-2007, 10:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
How do you know what I believe? <hr /></blockquote> You got me, I don't know what you believe. With that I will re-phrase it...If you honestly don't think Bush (and every other politician) has his own plants asking questions then your are an ignorant moron with your head in the sand.

eg8r

SKennedy
11-14-2007, 10:38 AM
I have spoken to quite a few that want to return to Iraq.

bamadog
11-14-2007, 10:39 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;
How do you know what I believe? <hr /></blockquote> You got me, I don't know what you believe. With that I will re-phrase it...If you honestly don't think Bush (and every other politician) has his own plants asking questions then your are an ignorant moron with your head in the sand.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

There you go. That's about what I expected from you.

eg8r
11-14-2007, 10:41 AM
[ QUOTE ]
There you go. That's about what I expected from you. <hr /></blockquote> Yes and judging the two boards so far, my post to you was dead on. Who let you off lww lap anyway?

eg8r

SKennedy
11-14-2007, 10:44 AM
Yes, Republican administrations have been guilty of some of the things you claim, but so have the democrats. Their hands are bloody too! There is plenty of blame to go around. But what good does that do?

bamadog
11-14-2007, 11:02 AM
Here's an interesting article from someone who says he was on the inside of Clinton's dealings with Bin Laden.


Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize


By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.

The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

*

Gayle in MD
11-14-2007, 01:14 PM
Your answers are too absurd to bother with. You think you can judge the motives of a man, who ate, slept, and drank, getting bin Laden, for years of his life, and then was thrown to the side when he was desperately trying to get this administration to listen to his warnings of 9/11.

I don't think you know anything about Richard Clarke, whom you once proved your ignorance of, when you stated that Bush was correct not to talk to a terrorist. Remember that?

another thing, I don't read any of the documentation from these AZ posters. I mispoke. Also, anything that is reported by Fox, Limbaugh, or Coulter, I consider to be a lie. anything that comes out of George Bush's mouth, Cheney's Rice or Rumsfeld, I never believe.

Richard Clarke, was the ONLY person who was willing to take ANY resposibility regarding the failure of preventing 9/11. That, in spite of the fact, that he did everything he could do to get bush, and Ric3e, to listen to him, including requesting emergency meetings, which were totally ignored by both Rice, and Bush.

BTW, it isn't my responsibility to do your research. You can disagree, but if you wish to prove me wrong, that's your responsibility. You've said what you think about this man, and you obviously don't know a thing about him. Atleast, I have read his book, heard his lecture, taped all his testimony, and interviews. But I'm quite sure your, shall we say, uninformed, automatic emotional responses, are much more on target than any of my studies.

Go search the archives, and you'll see for yourself where you thought Clarke was a terrorist, in response to my statement that bush refused to talk with him before 9/11, and that Clarke requested an emergency meeting, with the President, before he was sworn in, and didn't get ot meet with him until September 10th 2001. You had an automatic emotional partisan response to that, too,

"I think Bush is right not to talk to terrorists."

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
11-14-2007, 01:20 PM
Well, I don't think that's a fair statement. I never realized myself, until I began to study the Middle East situation with terrorists, how much Republican policies played a role in the rise of al Qaeda, the Taliban, Saddam, and others, much more so than Democratic policies, and you should recall, that the first time we ever heard bin Laden's name, was during Oliver North's testimony on why he spent all that (Taxpayers) money on that expensive security system at his home.

I've done a fair share of reading about it, and that is my conclusion.

Gayle in Md.

bamadog
11-14-2007, 01:27 PM
Exactly HOW were the Republicans responsible for Al Qaeda and the Taliban?

My guess is, you've still not read "The Looming Tower". That is why you continue to spout this nonsense.

SKennedy
11-14-2007, 01:27 PM
Thanks Gayle for letting us know how you form your opinions. You only read information that supports your point of view, otherwise you do not read it? You only listen to those who you agree with? All others are liars? This constitutes your research and is the basis of your opinions? You were correct in a recent post of another thread in which you stated you were not a scientist. However, your means and methods of research are consistent with Al Gore and his cronies.

Gayle in MD
11-14-2007, 02:20 PM
Most of the books I have read were written by people whose political affiliations I am not even aware of. Most of them were career people, in the military, in the National Security field, and respected reporters.

I don't read the links from the AZ posters, but I don't read their posts, period.

I certainly don't think that John Dean is considered to be a liberal, nor do I think that tyler Drumheller, or Gary Brentsen, Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, Valarie Plame, and a list of other authors on my book shelves, are Democrats, or liberals. They were the people who left this administration out of concerns for their methods, and people who believe that this country is heading in the worng direction. Since this administration is famous for censoring even scientific studies, and I watch the daily new from the White House Press Room, and all of Bush's Press conferences, and tape the sundey News shows, every week, including tim russert, who is no doubt, in my mind atleast, a rightie, and even C-Span, leans right, and removed Helen Thomas from her front row seat, to make room for Fox, Steve Scully, being the top guy at both locations, C-Span, and the WH Press Room, and the one who made the decision, I believe there is plenty available from the right, and I generally know what their side of the story is.

It may interest you to know that Joe Wilson, contributed to Bush's campaigns, and that his position as Ambassador, was a Bush appointment, for example.

I'd be willing to bet that none of these righties on here have read the awray of information, from both sides, that I have read.

I used to get on here a type by hand, pages upon pages, to dispell the lies that were being told here, it's all in the archives, but I don't bother with that anymore, and soon, I won't bother posting here at all. I'm quite sure that will make you happy, along with Deeman, and a few others. Then you can have all the opinions locked up, and go on living in Republican heaven.

BTW, my daughter worked at Fox News, for years, in the news room, here in Washington.

Gayle in Md.

SKennedy
11-14-2007, 02:43 PM
"and soon, I won't bother posting here at all. I'm quite sure that will make you happy, along with Deeman, and a few others. Then you can have all the opinions locked up, and go on living in Republican heaven."

Republicans, nor Democrats have anything to do with heaven. And no, for someone to quit posting would not make me happy. And to be surrounded by only those with the same opinions? How boring. In my work, I abhorr a "yes man" and will not tolerate such a person. I expect my employees to question me in order to learn, and if they have doubts about what or why we are doing something. I learn from them, just as they learn from me. But, disagreements can be handled in a respectful manner. Of course, at work I do have the final say....but I do listen to others and I have been proven wrong. When an employee proves me wrong you should see them grin....but my grin is actually bigger. It means I am doing my job to develop and train them and for one of them to take my place.

Would you really want to quit posting because we disagree with you? Did you think you would have converted us all by now? You've got to work harder. Some of us are really hard-headed. But, I hope you keep trying.

Gayle in MD
11-14-2007, 03:14 PM
I think you don't know the history here. I think you have bought into the comments made by certain others, and don't realize how many olive branches I've offered in the past, in the interest of more reasoned debates. I think I post a lot of news articles, and then those who don't like the news, don't post anything but sarcasm, just as Deeman did in the post about Fox.

I said long ago, here, that if they were going to bash me for a different opinion, they could have at it, I can give as good as I get, and I can. Maybe, you should take a bit of time and read a few of the archives. You could start with the thread, "Separation Of Church And State" and then you'd see that some of these self proclimed, above it all, Christians lambs, who claim to be reasoned posters, were actually on the attack from the start, back in the days when I simply stated opinions that went against their grain. Believe me, there are many on here that played their nasty insulting roles with glee. After a while, a gal's gotta do what a gals gotta do, if she's going to state an opinion, any opinion.

As for now, I've waasted way too much of my time on here anyway. I'll be taking a break, and all the best to patriotic Americans. Do what you can for our troops. They need all the help they can get, bacuse George Bush surely isn't doing much for them, I can assure you.

Gayle in Md.
Over and out.

bamadog
11-14-2007, 03:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> .


It may interest you to know that Joe Wilson, contributed to Bush's campaigns, and that his position as Ambassador, was a Bush appointment, for example.



Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

It may interest you to know that Joe Wilson is a proven liar who went to work for the Kerry campaign.

SKennedy
11-14-2007, 04:03 PM
I think I've read enough on here the last 2 months or so to form an opinion. Your post, which Deeman responded to, was not just the "news" and your subsequent opinions. It deteriorated into a rant in which you digressed into your normal discourse against everything..... I thought Deeman's response was appropriate for your post. And, sarcasm does serve a purpose, which is usually to make a point that otherwise may be difficult to make to some people.
Don't make yourself out to be the victim and don't make Deeman out to be the bad guy. I don't buy either one.
I hope you will continue to stand against the onslaught, my barbs included, and not throw in the towel. I suspect you are much stronger and tenacious than that. If not, then I was wrong about you, and I suspect you'd let others that post here and agree with you down if you did quit.

Wally_in_Cincy
11-14-2007, 05:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Since I have met the man, <hr /></blockquote>

Having the dude sign your book at a bookstore hardly qualifies as meeting him.

You're such a name-dropper.

jlw
11-14-2007, 07:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> (quote Bill Clinton), "So I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him".

In his own words he admits he had the opportunity to arrest Bin Laden in 1996. <hr /></blockquote>
Bill Clinton from his 2004 60 Minutes Interview:

“To the best of my knowledge it is not true that we were ever offered him by the Sudanese even though they later claimed it. I think it's total bull. Mr. Absurabi, the head of the Sudanese government was a buddy of Bin Laden's. They were business partners together. There was no way in the wide world this guy who was in business with Bin Laden in Sudan was going to give him up to us.”

From the 9-11 Commission's Report:

“These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a source of controversy. Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.”

I have seen no clear evidence that Sudan ever offered to "give" Bin Laden to the US. And, as you know, all of this discussion is just a red herring anyway meant to take the spotlight off George Bush and his administration's failure to follow up on information they were given about Bin Laden by the Clinton administration. Bill Clinton is not to blame for 9/11. He tried on numerous occasions to get Bin Laden. Those attempts failed, but he DID try.

eg8r
11-14-2007, 07:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You think you can judge the motives of a man, who ate, slept, and drank, getting bin Laden, for years of his life, and then was thrown to the side when he was desperately trying to get this administration to listen to his warnings of 9/11. <hr /></blockquote> Gayle, all I am asking is that you use a little common sense.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you know anything about Richard Clarke, whom you once proved your ignorance of, when you stated that Bush was correct not to talk to a terrorist. Remember that? <hr /></blockquote> I don't which is why I asked you to provide a hyperlink so that I could go read it. I am not interested in reading your biased summaries, I would like to read the entire discussion for context.

[ QUOTE ]
Richard Clarke, was the ONLY person who was willing to take ANY resposibility regarding the failure of preventing 9/11. <hr /></blockquote> He has also cashed in on it. It sure did not take him long to spill his guts to make a few bucks on a book.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, it isn't my responsibility to do your research. <hr /></blockquote> I did not ask for your research, you already brag about it enough.

[ QUOTE ]
You've said what you think about this man, and you obviously don't know a thing about him. Atleast, I have read his book, heard his lecture, taped all his testimony, and interviews. <hr /></blockquote> Don't forget that great story you told us where you shook his hand. All you know about the man is what he has decided to make public. You need to get off your high horse here.

[ QUOTE ]
Go search the archives, and you'll see for yourself where you thought Clarke was a terrorist <hr /></blockquote> I am not interested in chasing down your accusations. If you are man enough to type it at least back it up. Like I said I am interested in context and the entire text not your biased abbreviations.

eg8r

bamadog
11-14-2007, 11:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote jlw:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> (quote Bill Clinton), "So I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him".

In his own words he admits he had the opportunity to arrest Bin Laden in 1996. <hr /></blockquote>
Bill Clinton from his 2004 60 Minutes Interview:

“To the best of my knowledge it is not true that we were ever offered him by the Sudanese even though they later claimed it. I think it's total bull. Mr. Absurabi, the head of the Sudanese government was a buddy of Bin Laden's. They were business partners together. There was no way in the wide world this guy who was in business with Bin Laden in Sudan was going to give him up to us.”

From the 9-11 Commission's Report:

“These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a source of controversy. Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.”

I have seen no clear evidence that Sudan ever offered to "give" Bin Laden to the US. And, as you know, all of this discussion is just a red herring anyway meant to take the spotlight off George Bush and his administration's failure to follow up on information they were given about Bin Laden by the Clinton administration. Bill Clinton is not to blame for 9/11. He tried on numerous occasions to get Bin Laden. Those attempts failed, but he DID try. <hr /></blockquote>


So how do you explain the many people who are in positions to know, who said the offer did take place?

"The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States," said Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then.

"The extent of this effort has been hotly disputed, and a new article in London's Sunday Times cites three times in which the Clinton administration turned down offers from foreign governments to seize bin Laden, all coming after he had been identified as a terrorist who was threatening U.S. interests.
The first instance they cite was Sudan's offer to extradite bin Laden in 1996. The Clinton administration turned them down, saying there wasn't enough evidence to convict him in an American court. Originally this was denied by administration officials, but according to the Times, senior sources from within the administration now confirm it was true. In the January issue of Vanity Fair magazine, former ambassador to Sudan, Timothy Carney, confirmed it, saying it had serious implications regarding the U.S. embassy bombings in 1998, and that "the U.S. lost access to a mine of material on bin Laden and his organization." The Times reports that Clinton later described his turning down Sudan's offer as, "the biggest mistake of my presidency."

And how do you explain these words from Clinton himself?

"So I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him".

If he had no opportunity to get Bin Laden, how could he decide not to "bring him here"?

BTW, the 9/11 commission was a political panel. It's conclusions are fraught with political equivocations.

The evidence is there, you are just too biased to accept it.

Qtec
11-15-2007, 05:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, <hr /></blockquote>

ie, even if OBL was offered he could not take him.
This FACT makes the claim [ BC could have got OBL but refused ] irrelevant.
Q

pooltchr
11-15-2007, 05:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, <hr /></blockquote>

ie, even if OBL was offered he could not take him.
<font color="red"> He says "I DID not bring him here" That tells me he had the option and chose not to act upon it. </font color>
This FACT makes the claim [ BC could have got OBL but refused ] irrelevant. <font color="red"> No, that is the FACT that tells us what actually took place...hardly irrelevant! </font color>
Q <hr /></blockquote>

Steve

Qtec
11-15-2007, 05:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Forget the planted questions bs, one only has to see how GWB stammers when hit with an unexpected question, to realize, she ain't the only offender.
We'll get a real bargain if we elect Hillary....looks like the best deal out there....
We get two Clinton's, for just the price of one!!!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<hr /></blockquote>

"the only offender" of what? There are at least 2 known instances of Hillary having softball questions planted. Can you show even 1 instance where Bush has done the same? Stammering is not dishonest.

Btw, Hillary's campaign has apparently contacted Wolf Blitzer, who will be moderating the next Dem debate, and warned him not to "pull a Russert".
In other words, the lady would prefer no hard questions.

She wants to be President and Commander in Chief but can't handle hard questions. Go figure. <hr /></blockquote>

Remember Jeff Gannon? fake mews reporter (http://mediamatters.org/items/200501260015)
[ QUOTE ]
During President Bush's January 26 White House press conference, Jeff Gannon, Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent for the self-described conservative news outlet Talon News, asked the president the following question:

Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] was talking about soup lines. And [Senator] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you've said you are going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality? <hr /></blockquote>

LOL

[ QUOTE ]
It's this "private life" that may have precipitated Gannon's departure. In the last ten days, Investigative bloggers at World O'Crap, Daily Kos and Eschaton have dug up evidence that implicates Gannon as the owner of web domains hotmilitarystud.com, militaryescorts.com, and militaryescortsm4m.com, which are registered under the same owner as Gannon's home page www.jeffgannon.com. (http://www.jeffgannon.com.) Two of the three web addresses are no longer active. The third, hotmilitarystud.com, requires registration before viewing the content. It now appears that the person registered as the individual owner of these domains, James Dale Guckert of Wilmington, DE, and Jeff Gannon are one in the same.

3:00pm Update: It's become clear that Gannon's real name is James D. Guckert, which raises another question: How does someone operating under a pseudonym gain such close access to the President of the United States? The Congressional Press Galleries, White House Press Office and, perhaps, the Secrete Service do background checks on all credentialed and "day pass" journalists. Somewhere along the line someone inside the White House knew Gannon wasn't Gannon, but they gave him a waiver anyway. Were special favors granted to Gannon that wouldn't have been granted to a real journalist? Congresswoman Louise Slaughter has written the President to learn more. Gannon's was denied credentials to cover Capitol Hill after the Standing Committee of Correspondents raised questions about Talon News' editorial independence. Questions Gannon/Guckert would not answer.
<hr /></blockquote> http://mediacitizen.blogspot.com/2005/02/gannon-quits-after-blogger-inquiry.html

50 Billion dollars for Nat Sec and a fake reporter with a FAKE name [ who gets continually 'waived in' to press conferences] is able to get to within 10 ft of the POTUS !?????????????
How is that possible?
Q

LWW
11-15-2007, 05:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
To the best of my knowledge it is not true that we were ever offered him by the Sudanese even though they later claimed it. <hr /></blockquote>
Clintonian word parsing at it's best, depending on what your definition of is is.

LWW

Qtec
11-15-2007, 05:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Yes, I have. That's what he did. In fact, Bush senior had been in a BUSINESS meeting with bin Laden's relatives that very day.<hr /></blockquote>
That is a completely warped statement and you know it.

Let the truth show that they were in the same building as they were both members of the Carlyle Group and did not sit together or meet.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

On the morning of September 11, 2001 , “in the plush setting of the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Washington, DC, the Carlyle Group was holding its annual international investor conference. Frank Carlucci, James Baker III, David Rubenstein, William Conway, and Dan D’Aniellow were together, along with a host of former world leaders, former defense experts, wealthy Arabs from the Middle East, and major international investors as the terror played out on television. There with them, looking after the investments of his family was Shafiq bin Laden, Osama bin Laden’s estranged half-brother. George Bush Sr. was also at the conference, but Carlyle’s spokesperson says the former president left before the terror attacks, and was on an airplane over the Midwest when flights across the country were grounded on the morning of September 11. In any circumstance, a confluence of such politically complex and globally connected people would have been curious, even newsworthy. But in the context of the terrorist attacks being waged against the United States by a group of Saudi nationals led by Osama bin Laden, the group assembled at the Ritz-Carlton that day was a disconcerting and freakish coincidence.” Dan Briody, The Iron Triangle, John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc., 2003, p. 139-140. See also, Melanie Warner, “What do George Bush, Arthur Levitt, Jim Baker, Dick Darman, and John Major Have in Common? (They all work for the Carlyle Group),” Fortune, March 18, 2002.

Q.........are you saying he was there but he didn't talk to anybody?

He was there, sitting with OBL's half brother.
3 days later, while ordinary Americans were banned from flying, 140 people- maybe not themselves suspect- but with much information about OBL and maybe other useful intel were allowed to leave the country

Q.

Q

Qtec
11-15-2007, 05:50 AM
Read it again. HE DID NOT HAVE THE OPTION!
In those days you needed EVIDENCE before you could throw someone in jail.

Q

LWW
11-15-2007, 06:07 AM
I'm saying it was a business meeting attended by many. I have attended hundreds. There is a fair chance that I have been at a meeting where a Bin Laden attended.

And this proves what exactly?

LWW

DickLeonard
11-15-2007, 08:07 AM
Gayle I am glad your finally taking my advice and stop wasting your time with the CCb. Your time is to Valuable to waste it here. I know that you can handle your self but fighting the same battles over and over is a total waste of your time.

I will miss your posts but it is the right thing to do.
Love Dick

bamadog
11-15-2007, 10:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Read it again. HE DID NOT HAVE THE OPTION!
In those days you needed EVIDENCE before you could throw someone in jail.

Q <hr /></blockquote>
There was plenty of evidence. And the Sudanese were offering much more. Clinton just wanted OBL to go away, which he did, to Afghanistan.

jlw
11-15-2007, 10:05 PM
So you're choosing to take the word of Sudanese officials over American officials as evidence of this offer? You are aware that Sudan is designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism (and was at the time of this supposed offer) are you not?

bamadog
11-15-2007, 11:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote jlw:</font><hr> So you're choosing to take the word of Sudanese officials over American officials as evidence of this offer? You are aware that Sudan is designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism (and was at the time of this supposed offer) are you not? <hr /></blockquote>

I am not citing Sudanese officials. I am citing Lawrence Wright, the Pulitzer Prize winning author of the most complete research done on Bin Laden and the events leading up to 9/11. He went to Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and interviewed the participants including many State Dept.,CIA and FBI Officers.

Since you choose to ignore all the evidence I have cited, including Clinton's own words, let me ask you a simple question.
What evidence would convince YOU that the offer was made?

DickLeonard
11-16-2007, 07:32 AM
Eg8r we have put up with LWW the King of the one liner Post. Now you want proof time date and source. Get lost.I hope I am speaking for Gayle.####

DickLeonard
11-16-2007, 07:34 AM
Bamadog it may interest you that George Bush is a proven liar too.####

eg8r
11-16-2007, 10:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Eg8r we have put up with LWW the King of the one liner Post. Now you want proof time date and source. Get lost.I hope I am speaking for Gayle.#### <hr /></blockquote> Get lost? You are out of your mind. As for speaking for Gayle, you might but she does not need the help.

It is funny that you are bothered with actually having to show proof of what you say.

eg8r

eg8r
11-16-2007, 10:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Bamadog it may interest you that George Bush is a proven liar too.#### <hr /></blockquote> So what, so have you.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-17-2007, 10:02 AM
<font color="red">Here is your post, Ed, where you state that the Terrorist Czar, was a terrorist, LMAO, that Bush, shouldn't have met with. Your comparison of Clinton, and Bush, also, is not a relevant comment, either, nor accurate, since no other President has ever had the opportunity to prevent a terrorist attack, through intelligence warnings from the CIA, and the Alex Unit, and the couunter terrorist Czar, atleast four months in advance.

You also stated, here on this forum, over and over that Valarie Plame was just a secretary. Are you still insisting</font color> eg8r
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 02/18/02
Posts: 7184
Loc: Orlando, FL
Re: House Dems steal a vote! [re: Gayle in MD]
08/08/07 01:18 PM (192.91.172.42) Edit Reply Quote




Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush refused to meet with the terrorist Czar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like the smartest move ever. Why would anyone want to meet with a terrorist Czar unless they had a gun on them and were going to personally kill him. This idea of talking with a terrorist is the stupidest idea ever.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There may be no way of knowing for sure if 9/11 could have been prevented,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL, so when you are defending Clinton, there is no way of knowing if 9/11 could be prevented, however when referencing the same event and W you act like W should have prevented it. You talk out of both sides of your mouth and don't know what the heck you are talking about. You stick you foot in your mouth more than anyone I have ever seen.

eg8r

Post Extras:
Gayle in MD
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 02/20/02
Posts: 5969
Loc: Maryland
Re: Eg thinks Richard Clarke Was a Terrorist... [re: eg8r]
08/08/07 01:39 PM (205.188.117.10) Edit Reply Quote




Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:Gayle in Md.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush refused to meet with the terrorist Czar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Quote] Eg8r
Sounds like the smartest move ever. Why would anyone want to meet with a terrorist Czar unless they had a gun on them and were going to personally kill him. This idea of talking with a terrorist is the stupidest idea ever.

LOL, so when you are defending Clinton, there is no way of knowing if 9/11 could be prevented, however when referencing the same event and W you act like W should have prevented it. Again, you misread my post. That isn'at what I said, but then you so seldom read infoormation not written in RNC Rebonics, why would you have been able to read it correctly? You talk out of both sides of your mouth and don't know what the heck you are talking about. You stick you foot in your mouth more than anyone I have ever seen.



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



Really? Well, I hate to expose your overwhelming ignorance, AGAIN, but just FYI, the terrorist CZAR, was Richard Clarke, not a terrorist. LMAO!!!! You can take your own foot out of you own big mouth, now, and crawl back under your rock.

eg8r
11-18-2007, 02:20 PM
Alrighty now we are getting somewhere. Now before I respond to the actual post, can you please tell me why you cannot follow directions? What was so complicated that you did not understand, "please post the hyperlink"? This same problem is perpetuated every time anyone asks you a question.

I digress... Thank you for providing "some" text to explain what the heck you were talking about. I do remember this post (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=npr&amp;Number=255494&amp;page =&amp;view=&amp;sb=&amp;o=&amp;vc=1) and I will now take a second to dive in to it to see what culminated from it...Before I get to the part where I mis-spoke I saw this quote from you... <font color="red"> "Have a nice day...cheer up, Hillary and Nancy will straighten it all out, LOL. " </font color> Looks like the laugh is on you. Hillary has done nothing for this country since Pelosi took over and we have all already seen the response to Pelosi...11% approval rating. It is funny to watch you and the other 11% squirm.

Now back to the main reason of the post...Here is the post in which I responded to you... [ QUOTE ]
<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;
Really? Well, I hate to expose your overwhelming ignorance, AGAIN, but just FYI, the terrorist CZAR, was Richard Clarke, not a terrorist. LMAO!!!! You can take your own foot out of you own big mouth, now, and crawl back under your rock. <hr /></blockquote> Looks like I definitely screwed that one up. You got me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> You see I was man enough to admit I had made a mistake and I am man enough to admit that I had forgotten about this mistake (which is why we are here). At that point I admitted that I did not know you were talking about Richard Clarke. A little common sense would go a long way for you here but let me spell it out. I was thinking you meant a different person so I was in no way referring to Clarke as a terrorist.

I like that you brought that thread back to my attention it was a funny read once again. You guys have not removed the blinders for quite a long time.

Maybe one day you will be man (woman) enough to admit your mistake about Pelosi. The other 89% of the country sure has.

eg8r

jlw
11-18-2007, 10:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr>I am not citing Sudanese officials. I am citing Lawrence Wright, the Pulitzer Prize winning author of the most complete research done on Bin Laden and the events leading up to 9/11. He went to Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and interviewed the participants including many State Dept.,CIA and FBI Officers.

Since you choose to ignore all the evidence I have cited, including Clinton's own words, let me ask you a simple question.
What evidence would convince YOU that the offer was made? <hr /></blockquote>
There are Pulitzer Prize winning authors who believe that George Bush lied to get us into the Iraq War and lied about WMD's. Do you believe them? Do you believe the CIA and FBI officers who state that the Bush administration pressured them and pushed intelligence officers to make a case for war? Al Gore is a Nobel Prize winner. Do you accept his assertions regarding global warming? How much evidence is enough for YOU?

As for the supposed Sudanese offer, let me repeat what I said before. I have seen no clear evidence that Sudan ever offered to "give" Bin Laden to the US. I'm sure there were arguments about whether we could put him on trial if we got him. But I have seen no definitive proof that the offer was ever actually made.

bamadog
11-18-2007, 10:57 PM
Same old jlw, Just can't seem to muster the courage to answer a simple question, can you? Just throw up some smoke and try to change the subject. If you are not going to debate honestly, why answer my posts?

The looming Tower By Lawrence Wright won the Pulitzer for non fiction. Name the Pulitzer prize winning BOOK that says Bush lied us into the war.

Drop1
11-19-2007, 11:23 AM
What do you want to say,Bush didn't know,we were going into Iraq,on his word,despite no evidence the reasons given,could be supported. Bush chose to ignore,what he was told,and do what his Daddy didn't do.

bamadog
11-19-2007, 12:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> What do you want to say,Bush didn't know,we were going into Iraq,on his word,despite no evidence the reasons given,could be supported. Bush chose to ignore,what he was told,and do what his Daddy didn't do. <hr /></blockquote>

Do yourself a favor, don't pursue this argument. First because you are obviously not familiar with the facts. Second, as soon as someone starts stating the facts, you are going to call them names and run from the argument. We've been down this road before.

Btw, If you want to discuss intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, start a thread. But I doubt you'll get a lot of replies.

Drop1
11-19-2007, 02:20 PM
You are right,and you are wrong. My knowledge leading up to this war,could become a book,on the other hand why make the effort. You tend to think,I'm a Democrat,had you read some of my earlier posts,you would known that is not so. That is one of the great problems with labels.People tend to think,and live in little boxes. One of the posters asked,"whats wrong with this forum". The answer is simple,on average,we get three replies to a post,other than this thread,so we neither inform,nor entertain,in short the forum is boring.And probably a rehash of events leading to the war,in Iraq,as opposed to the war on terrorists,would contribute nothing to abate this condition.

Gayle in MD
11-20-2007, 08:48 AM
From the Preface, of Against All Enemies, by Richard Claarke

[ QUOTE ]
From inside the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon for thirty years, I disdained those who departed government and quickly rushed out to write about it. It seemed somehow inappropriate to expose, as Bismarck put it, "the making of sausage." Yet I became aware after my departure from federal service that much that I thought was well known was actually obscure to many who wanted to know.

I was frequently asked "exactly how did things work on 9/11, what happened?" In looking at the available material, I found that there was no good source, no reelling of that day which history will long mark as a pivot point. Then, as I began to think about teaching graduate students at Georgeown and Harvard, I realized that there was no single inside acount of the flow of recent history that had brought us to September 11, 2001, and the events that followed from it.

As the events of 2003 played out in Iraq, and elsewhere, I grew increasingly concerned that too many of my fellow citizens were being misled. The vast majority of Americans believed, because the Bush administration had implied it, that Saddam Hussein had soething to do with the al Qaeda attacks on America. Many thought that the Bush administration was doing a good job of fighting terrorrism when, actually, the adminisration had squandered the opportunity to eliminate al Qaeda and instead threngthened our enemies by going off on a completely unnecessary tangent, the invasion of Iraq. A new al Qaeda has emerged and is growing stronger, in part because of our own actions and inactions. It is in many ways a tougher opponent than the original threat we faced before Spetember 11 and we are not doing what is necessary to make America safer from that threat.

This is the story, from my perspective, of how al Qaeda developed and attacked the United States on September 11. It is a story of the CIA and FBI, who came late to realize that there was a threat to the United States and who were unable to stop it even after they agreed that the threat was real and significant. It is also the story of four presidents:


Ronald Reagan, who did not retaliate for the murder of 278 United States Marines in Beirut and who violated his own terrorism policy by trading arms for hostages in what came to be called the Iran-Contra scandal;


George H.W. Bush, who did not retaliate for the Libyan murder of 259 passengers on Pan Am 103; who did not have an official counterterrorism policy; and who left Saddam Hussein in place, requiring the United States to leave a large military presence in Saudi Arabia;

Bill Clinton, who identified terrorism as the major post-Cold War threat and acted to improve our counterterrorims capabilities, who (little known to the public) quelled anti-American terrorism by Iraq and Iran and defeated an al Qaeda attempt to dominate Bosnia, but who, weakeened by continued political attack, could not get the CIA, the Pentagon, and the FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the threat;


George W. Bush, who failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaaeda dispiet repeated warnings and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks; and who launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide.


This is unfortunately, also the story of how America was unable to develop a consensus that the threat was significant and was unable to do all that was necessary to deal with a new threat until that threat actually killed thousands of Americans.

Even worse, it is the story of how even after the attacks, America did not eliminate the al Qaeda movement, which morphed into a distributed and elusive threat, how instead we launched the counter productive Iraq fiasco, how the Bush administration politicized counter-terrorism as a way of insuring electoral victories; how critical homeland security vulnerabilities remain; and how little is being done to address the ideological challenge from terrorists distroting Islam into a new ideology of hate.

Chance had placed me inside key parts of the U.S. government throughout a period when a era was ending and another was born. The Cold War that had begun before my birth was ending as I turned forty. As the new era began I started what turned into an unprecedented decade of continuous service at the Whita House, working for the last three presidents.

As the events of 2003 unfolded, I began to feel an obligation to write what I knew for my fellow citizens and for those who may want to examine this period in the future. This book is the fulfillment of that obligation. It is, however, flawed. It is a first-person account, not an academic history. The book, therefore, tells what one participant was, throught, and believed from one perspective. Others who were involved in some of these events will, no doubt, recall them differently. I do not say they are wrong, only that this account is what mt memory reveals to me. I want to apologize in advance to the reader for the frequent use of the first-person singular and the egocentric nature of the story, but it was difficult to avoid those features and still do a first person, participant's account.


The account is also necessarily incomplete. Many events and key participants are not memtioned, others who deserve rich description are only briefly introduced. Great issues such as the need to reform the intelligence community, secure cyberspace, or balance liberty and security are not fully analyzed. There wil be other places for a ore analytical reflection on those and other related issues of technical detail and policy import. Much that is still classified as secret by the U.S. government is omittedin this book. I have ried, whenever possible, to respect the confidences and privacy of those about whom I write. Nonetheless, there are some conversations that must be recalled because the citizenry and history have a justifiable need to know.


I recognize there is a great risk in writing a book such as this that many friends and former addociates who disagree with me will be offended. The Bush White House leadership in particular have a reputation for taking great offense at criticism by former associates, considering it a violation of loyalty. They are also reportedly adenpt at revenge, as my friend Joe Wilson discovered and as former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill now knows. Nonetheless, friends should be able to disagree and, for me, loyalty to the citizens of the United States must take precedence over loyalty to any political machine.


Some will say this account is a justification or apology, a defense of some and an attack on others. It is meant to be factual, not polemical. In a decade of managing national security, many made mistakes, definitely including me. Many important steps were also taken in the decade as the result of the selfless sacrifice of thousands of those who serve the superpower and try daily to keep it on the path of principle and progress. I have tried to be fail in recounting what I kn9ow of both the mistakes and the service. I leave bottom-line assessments of blame and credit to the reader, with a caution that accurate assignments of responsibility are not easily done.


The close reader will note that many names recur throughout the book over a period of not just a decade, but more than two decades. That fact reflects the often unnoticed phenomenon that during the last five presidencies, many of the behind-the-scenes national security midlevel managers have been constant, people such as Charlie Allen, Randy Beers, Wendy Chamberlin, Michaael Sheehan, Robert Gelbard, Elizabeth Verville, Stevem Simon, Lise Gordon-Hagerty, and Roger Cressey. Then things worked it was because they were listened to and allowed to implement their sond advice. Working closely with them were an even less noticed cadre of administrative assistants, such as the stalwart Beverly Roundtree, who has kept me in line and on time for the last fifteen years of our twenty-five year association and friendship.


No one has a thirty year run in national security in Washington, including en years in the White House, without a great deal of help and support. In my case that help has come from Republicans, Democrats, and independents, from Members of Congress, journalists, partners in foreign governments, exraordinary colleagues, mentors and metees, and a long list of very tolerant and long suffering bosses. Since some will not want to be named, I will psare them all specific mention here. They know who they are, and so do I. Many thanks. Thanks too to Bruce Nichls of Free Press and to Len Sherman, without whom I would not have been able to produce a readable book.


In the 1700s a small group of extraordinary Americans created the Constitution that governs this country. In it, they dictated an oath that the President of the United States should swear. Forty-three Americans have done so since. Socres of millions of Americans have sworn a very similar oath upon becoming citizens, or joining the armed forces, becoming FBI agents, CIA officers, or federal bureaucrats.

All of the above-mentioned roups have sworn to protect that very Constitution "against all enemies." In this era of threat and change, we must all renew our pledge to protect that Constitution against the foreign enemies that would inflict terrorism against our nation and its people. That mission should be our first calling, nor unnecessary wars to test personal theories or expiate personal guit or revenge. We must also defend the Constitution against those who would use the terrorist threat to assault the liberties the Constitution enshrines. Those liberties are under assault and, if there is another maj9r, successful terrorist attack in this country there will be further assaults on our rights and civil liberties. Thus, it is essential that we prevent further attacks and that we protect the Constitution....against all enemies.<hr /></blockquote>


<font color="red">Ed,
If you read this post, you will note that Richard Clarke has had the experience, and the inside involvment necessary to know more about what led to the 9/11 attacks, probably more so than anyone else in our government. He is obviously, not a partisan, but a man dedicated to the safety and security of our country, and has been so for many years. If you read his book, you would notice,, above all, that he does not come off as a man with a grudge, but rather, as a man with a mission, who accounts within the pages of his book, the obsticles he faced in trying to defeat al Qaeda, and the incorrect responses to 9/11, which have made our country less safe, chipped away at our Constitution, and rights, and created the great loss of respect for our country, which will continue to play itself out in the years to come, in many ways, which none of us will be happy about. I believe with all my heart, had Americans been less partisan, less apathetic, and more scrutinizing, enough, lets say, to have read this book, that George Bush would never have been re-elected, and that we would not be wasting precious time, money and loss of life, in Iraq, on a mission born of ideology, rather than necessity and safety.

I have typed his entire preface for you. I hope you appreciate it, and that you will learn in reading it, how dedicated this man actually is, and understand that his reasons for writing this book, are far above your insinuations regarding his character, and mission.

Also, I hope that certain others here realize that The Looming Tower, while a well written, and thorough piece of journalism about al Qaeda, and terrorism, it is nonetheless, journalism, and not biographical information from one of the central inside expert/operatives, if not THE central expert/operative, in our fight against al Qaeda, and terrorism, and tge successes, and failures, of that mission. I do not think there is any other book written, which can compare to the inside information and documentation which Mr. Clarke's book offers. Also, no. I do not think that the opportunity to make money by writing a book, was the reason why he felt obligated to document this thorough accounting of our mistakes, and failures, nor is it an effort to assuage or excuse any of his own personal mistakes or failures.

Gayle in Md.
</font color>

Wally_in_Cincy
11-20-2007, 10:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ronald Reagan, who did not retaliate for the murder of 278 United States Marines in Beirut and who violated his own terrorism policy by trading arms for hostages in what came to be called the Iran-Contra scandal;


George H.W. Bush, who did not retaliate for the Libyan murder of 259 passengers on Pan Am 103; who did not have an official counterterrorism policy; and who left Saddam Hussein in place, requiring the United States to leave a large military presence in Saudi Arabia;

Bill Clinton, who identified terrorism as the major post-Cold War threat and acted to improve our counterterrorims capabilities, who (little known to the public) quelled anti-American terrorism by Iraq and Iran and defeated an al Qaeda attempt to dominate Bosnia, but who, weakeened by continued political attack, could not get the CIA, the Pentagon, and the FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the threat;


George W. Bush, who failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaaeda dispiet repeated warnings and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks; and who launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide.
<hr /></blockquote>

You say he's not partisan. But he rips 3 Republicans and makes excuses for Clinton.

How many attacks did Clinton "not retaliate" for?

Are you too blinded by hate to see this?

eg8r
11-20-2007, 12:17 PM
I just want to say one thing before moving forward with my much too long response...I did not mention the money he makes off the book to nullify his intent for writing the book, I am merely saying money is a driving factor for anyone to go through the hassle of having a book written. Once you accept this fact you cannot ignore the difference it makes on the end product.

First off he states he does not like people going out and writing a book after they left a job, but he goes ahead and does that very same thing.

Now, be honest with me, do you really think he would chastise himself for doing this very thing in his own book? Is it not a given that he would need to come up with some explanation that would not be negative towards himself? (I broke this out in its own paragraph so that the questions would not be skipped over).

Moving on...You tell us Clarke is not biased but Clarke shows us he is. Let me show you how he shows his bias since you are ignoring it...
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Clarke:</font><hr> This is the story, from my perspective, of how al Qaeda developed and attacked the United States on September 11. It is a story of the CIA and FBI, who came late to realize that there was a threat to the United States and who were unable to stop it even after they agreed that the threat was real and significant. It is also the story of four presidents:
<hr /></blockquote> Here we go, Clarke is telling us this is his "perspective" he does not say it is fact, or undebatable, he simply tells us that this is his opinion on 4 Presidents. 1st... [ QUOTE ]
Ronald Reagan, who did not retaliate for the murder of 278 United States Marines in Beirut and who violated his own terrorism policy by trading arms for hostages in what came to be called the Iran-Contra scandal;
<hr /></blockquote> Basically he is saying RR did not retaliate and supported terrorism by trading arms for hostages.

2nd... [ QUOTE ]
George H.W. Bush, who did not retaliate for the Libyan murder of 259 passengers on Pan Am 103; who did not have an official counterterrorism policy; and who left Saddam Hussein in place, requiring the United States to leave a large military presence in Saudi Arabia;
<hr /></blockquote> Even worse than RR, HW did not retailate, had no policy and left Saddam in place. He views leaving Saddam in place as bad eventhough everyone at the time said it was not worth it.

3rd... [ QUOTE ]
Bill Clinton, who identified terrorism as the major post-Cold War threat and acted to improve our counterterrorims capabilities, who (little known to the public) quelled anti-American terrorism by Iraq and Iran and defeated an al Qaeda attempt to dominate Bosnia, but who, weakeened by continued political attack, could not get the CIA, the Pentagon, and the FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the threat; <hr /></blockquote> Now we get to BC. This is his buddy, you can tell based on how nicely he writes about it. I don't see anything in here where he says Clinton made a mistake, am I missing something? He blames the ineffectiveness of Clinton on politics. He fails to mention that Clinton did not retaliate after the first WTC bombing. Why point this out for everyone else but not BC?

4th... [ QUOTE ]
George W. Bush, who failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaaeda dispiet repeated warnings and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks; and who launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide.
<hr /></blockquote> His hated enemy, W. He tells us that Bush did not do anything prior to 9/11 even though he was warned. Well, if you are told that there MIGHT be terrorism by planes what would you do to prevent it since you have no idea what they are going to hit? Basically he says W has done everything wrong. Mind you, W did take out Saddam which is bad now, but Clarke made it a negative for daddy bush to leave Saddam.

The very beginning shows you just how dishonest Clarke is with this Preface... [ QUOTE ]
Yet I became aware after my departure from federal service that much that I thought was well known was actually obscure to many who wanted to know.
<hr /></blockquote> You and I both know that Clarke was very aware of what knowledge the public was privy to. He knows what is classified and what is not. He also watched and listened to the same news shows that everyone else watches. Did he just start talking to human beings after he left his job?

[ QUOTE ]
The account is also necessarily incomplete. Many events and key participants are not memtioned... <hr /></blockquote> Right here in this quote he even tells you that what you read is not complete and the whole story, so he is responsibly keeping more info from you. You have no idea what this info is whether it be good for him or damaging, but he is perpetuating the fact that the American people will still not "know" what happened even after his version of the story.

[ QUOTE ]
Some will say this account is a justification or apology, a defense of some and an attack on others. It is meant to be factual, not polemical. <hr /></blockquote> As already pointed out, he decides to withhold facts in his simple Preface to show one President as better for the US against terrorism than the others.

[ QUOTE ]
In a decade of managing national security, many made mistakes, definitely including me. <hr /></blockquote> I asked you this specific question on the board and you ignored it and decided to give me 10 paragraphs of something else to read. Now, the other question of mine that you ignored was, how many times does he mention his mistakes and how many times does he blame someone else?

[ QUOTE ]
The close reader will note that many names recur throughout the book over a period of not just a decade, but more than two decades. That fact reflects the often unnoticed phenomenon that during the last five presidencies, many of the behind-the-scenes national security midlevel managers have been constant <hr /></blockquote> Why did he mention only 4 Presidents at the top of his preface when talking about terrorism and policy but now he wants to bring in the last 5? Why did he specifically skip Carter and his "contribution" against terrorism?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote gayle:</font><hr> If you read this post, you will note that Richard Clarke has had the experience, and the inside involvment necessary to know more about what led to the 9/11 attacks, probably more so than anyone else in our government. <hr /></blockquote> To your point, no kidding, I don't think I have ever said anything different. To Clarke's point, in the beginning of the preface he seems surprised that we did not have access to all the info so he decided to get rich off a book and "almost" tell all.

[ QUOTE ]
He is obviously, not a partisan <hr /></blockquote> I was quite specific in pointing out his partisanship. While it is only a small example, I feel if he shows it in the preface then watch out the rest of the book will probably keep up the pace.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe with all my heart, had Americans been less partisan, less apathetic, and more scrutinizing, enough, lets say, to have read this book, that George Bush would never have been re-elected, <hr /></blockquote> You are probably correct had everyone viewed the book the same way as you have. The thing is that some people are more skeptical and others accept it face value as fact. There is stuff that was admittedly left out and you don't know what that stuff is so no sense in debating whether what you read was the whole story and complete truth or not, Clarke said in his own words it was not.

[ QUOTE ]
I have typed his entire preface for you. <hr /></blockquote> I am most appreciative of this. I know that my response might be perceived as attacking it line but line but my intent is merely to point out one person's perception of another persons typed words. Everyone does not have the ability or time to read his whole book (I do but choose to read Ludlum and Reichs) and watch every time he is on TV, so what we have to go by is what is in the book. Right from the get go he shows partisanship in the way portrays the 4 Presidents and then tells us he cannot tell us everything.

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you appreciate it, and that you will learn in reading it, how dedicated this man actually is, and understand that his reasons for writing this book, are far above your insinuations regarding his character, and mission.
<hr /></blockquote> Again, I appreciate it tremendously. I have no doubt he was dedicated to his job. Many people have many intentions for what they do, and rest assured Clarke will not come out and tell you he did it for the money. I am not saying that was his only intention either, it is just common sense to recognize it was one of the driving reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, no. I do not think that the opportunity to make money by writing a book, was the reason why he felt obligated to document this thorough accounting of our mistakes, and failures, nor is it an effort to assuage or excuse any of his own personal mistakes or failures. <hr /></blockquote> I know it sounds like I am harping on the money, but if this was all true why didn't he donate all the money he received from the book to some charity? None of us can answer that question so I still believe money had something to do with it.

eg8r

jlw
11-20-2007, 06:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Same old jlw, Just can't seem to muster the courage to answer a simple question, can you? Just throw up some smoke and try to change the subject. If you are not going to debate honestly, why answer my posts?

The looming Tower By Lawrence Wright won the Pulitzer for non fiction. Name the Pulitzer prize winning BOOK that says Bush lied us into the war. <hr /></blockquote>
Same old Bamadog. Always demanding to be the one who asks all the questions and critiques all the answers. You have shown no clear evidence of Clinton choosing to let Bin Laden slip through his fingers, so what is there to respond to?

Furthermore, if you read Lawrence Wright's articles and listen to his interviews, you will see that his assessement of Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts is actually not so bad. He acknowledges that Clinton tried to get Bin Laden. You got that, right? Wright says Clinton did try to get Bin Laden. And he also suggests that Clinton's failure to actually get Bin Laden was, to a great extent, caused by conflicts between the FBI and CIA.

On a side note, check out this interesting little quote from Lawrence Wright on the Iraq/Al-Qaeda relationship: "There was no connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq before we went to Iraq in 2003. Now there is. The monster that we were afraid of is the one that we created." No Al-Qaeda in Iraq before we went into Iraq. So how about you answer a question for me. I'd be interested to know. Do you agree with this Pulitzer Prize winning author's assertion that there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the Iraq War?

bamadog
11-20-2007, 07:26 PM
"What is there to reply to?"

How about replying to my questions.

Pretty funny that you impugn my source, Lawrence Wright, when he is saying something you don't want to hear. But, then you quote him to support a view point that you like.

"no clear evidence"?
What a laugh!
I still contend that there is no evidence of the Sudanese offer that you will believe because it damages Clinton and you are too partisan to be objective.

If you are not going to debate honestly (asking AND answering questions) don't waste my time anymore by repeatedly trying to change the subject.

Gayle in MD
11-20-2007, 10:08 PM
Ed,
It's too bad you don't want to read the book. Remember, this was just the preface, the rest of the book fully answers your questions. I think you would come to realize that Clarke wrote this book for reasons far from partisanship, and does not experience himself in any way as Republican, or Democratic in his efforts. I know this is beyond acceptance for any loyal Republican to imagine, but in his view, Clinton did respond, to the threat of terrorism, and his reactions in creating the Alex Unit, and also other checks, both in the form of counter terrorism systems analysis, intelligence operations, and other methods, were responses to the first WTC attack. Our country was in a learning curve, during the nineties, but the main target during the Clinton years, was bin Laden, and al Qaeda, and preventing the global expansion of their ideology, and numbers, which we are now seeing.

As for Saddam, everything is timing. The Gulf War, was the time to remove Saddam, not after al Qaeda had just pulled off a dramatic, destructive, devastating bulls eye attack on our shores, successful in proving that regardless of the power of a mighty nation, he (they) could still cripple it, halt all enterprise, and basically bring things in our country to a complete stop. The fact that he has gotten away with it, and we have not gotten him, makes me furious, and has increased his power in the eyes of those who would follow him. I believe, as does most of the country, that Iraq was a mistake, wrong war, wrong time, wrong place, just as Kerry, and others, said, but more than that, we are far less safe than ever before, and bin Laden's escape from capture, or death, and all those who failed to get him, is the main reason why. REading this book does not give one the sense that Clarke is in any way trying to avoid responsitility, far from it, in fact.

The balance of Clarke's book, does not lend itself to the writing style of an individual who is grinding an axe. One does come away with an appreciation for his dedication to his country, his job, but most of all, his complete addiction to getting bin Laden, and his well founded certainty of the importance of killing bin Laden, and severing his, and al Qaeda's cooperative contacts in Afghanistan, and Pakistan, when we most certainly should have, after 9/11.

To say that the man is partisan, because he gives a better grade, seemingly, in the preface, to Clinton, over the others, would be the response of someone who was himself partisan. Only in the reading of his book, would one come to have an appreciation for his statements in the preface, or an awareness of his true lack of political alliegence to any political party, although, the idea that Clinton simply did a better job in addressing terrorism through his programs and foreign polity decisions, is, I know, unthinkable to the loyal Bushies, if you will, I believe the book gives the broad explanation for why Clarke has that opinion, as well as why we are surely on the wrong path in our distraction with Iraq, at this time, in particular.

Also, Clarke does show respect for, certain decisions of the other presidents, however, one does get a sense of the differences between the four men in their individual approaches. Only Clinton, of the four, was a voracious reader, who would study, and also demand that others around him study, in depth, the available information regarding the issues at hand, terrorism and al Qaeda, included. While that goes to his credit, there are other complimentary references to the others, also.

All in all, Clarke's book is truly the only account from inside the White House, on the day of the attack. While he admits, as we all should realize, that some information cannot be revealed, certain people, for example, in certain positions, never want their names mentioned, his text does not require thier names, as most of his statements are regarding policy, and also his recollections of a moment to moment acounting of the day, the events that led up to it, and the policies which followed, and preceeded, and how they impacted our country. I think that his goal was to provide Americans with an understanding of what is required to bring safety to our country, more than anything else, and what should be changed in our government, in order to avoid another attack. This is not a partisan political book, and while every man wants payment for the hours of his workday, no, I don't think this book was written for financial purposes, rather that he felt the need to write it.



Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
11-20-2007, 10:20 PM
What does he say about the three republicans, that isn't true, Wally? Are you so blinded by your hatred that you refuse to adknowledge the truthfulness of the statements his made about them?

Gayle in Md.

Sid_Vicious
11-21-2007, 12:39 AM
It'd sure be nice to see one response to stated facts. THIS is what is going to squash this country's existence, dumb, self blind folding out of pure partisan, and avoiding the inevitable...sid

Drop1
11-21-2007, 09:19 PM
There were two offers,by the Sudanese,to turn Osama Benladin to U.S.. Clinton turned both offers down,his reason being by what authority do you hold him,and the second offer,was the possible loss of civilian life,after Saudi Arabia,refused to take the hot potato,as did our good friends Pakistan. Around October of 96,Benladin left for Afghanistan,with his wives,children,and about one hundred fifty Taliban,and weapons,on a 747. Everything,can be documented,down to a phone call by Clinton giving the reasons for his lack of action at that time. This is not rocket science./ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Everything is not going to be put on the table,for the benefit of forum readers,for security reasons.

jlw
11-21-2007, 10:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> "What is there to reply to?"

How about replying to my questions.

Pretty funny that you impugn my source, Lawrence Wright, when he is saying something you don't want to hear. But, then you quote him to support a view point that you like.

"no clear evidence"?
What a laugh!
I still contend that there is no evidence of the Sudanese offer that you will believe because it damages Clinton and you are too partisan to be objective.

If you are not going to debate honestly (asking AND answering questions) don't waste my time anymore by repeatedly trying to change the subject. <hr /></blockquote>
First of all, show where I impugned Lawrence Wright as a source. Didn't happen, did it? But you wanted it to happen. So in your mind, it did happen. Just like the Sudan offer. You can infer from what Clinton said that it might have happened, but there's no clear evidence of it happening. So in your mind, it happened.

You're the one who hails Lawrence Wright as a Pulitzer Prize winning writer and an expert on the WOT. This expert on the WOT believes that there was no Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before we invaded. Do you agree with your expert? He also seems to disagree with your assertion that Clinton did basically nothing to get Bin Laden. Are you wrong, or is Lawrence Wright wrong?

bamadog
11-21-2007, 11:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote jlw:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> "What is there to reply to?"

How about replying to my questions.

Pretty funny that you impugn my source, Lawrence Wright, when he is saying something you don't want to hear. But, then you quote him to support a view point that you like.

"no clear evidence"?
What a laugh!
I still contend that there is no evidence of the Sudanese offer that you will believe because it damages Clinton and you are too partisan to be objective.

If you are not going to debate honestly (asking AND answering questions) don't waste my time anymore by repeatedly trying to change the subject. <hr /></blockquote>
First of all, show where I impugned Lawrence Wright as a source. Didn't happen, did it? But you wanted it to happen. So in your mind, it did happen. Just like the Sudan offer. You can infer from what Clinton said that it might have happened, but there's no clear evidence of it happening. So in your mind, it happened.

You're the one who hails Lawrence Wright as a Pulitzer Prize winning writer and an expert on the WOT. This expert on the WOT believes that there was no Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before we invaded. Do you agree with your expert? He also seems to disagree with your assertion that Clinton did basically nothing to get Bin Laden. Are you wrong, or is Lawrence Wright wrong? <hr /></blockquote>

This is your fourth post in a row where you have attempted to change the subject.

You impugned Wright as a source when you said you had seen no clear evidence, this was after I had quoted Wright's book.
For "the Looming Tower", Wright interviewed:
The US Ambassador to Sudan, Carney
Sudanese Defense Minister, Erwa
Head of Sudan's Congress and Religious leader, Turabi
Head or Saudi Intelligence, Prince Turki
Clarke
Berger
O'neill
And MANY other participants in these events from Foreign Intelligence,The CIA, The State Dept., and the FBI.
He presents plenty of clear evidence.You may not agree with his conclusion, but the evidence is there.

So either you accept his scholarship and veracity on this matter, or you don't.

You have also failed to answer my question about Clinton bascically admitting, in an unguarded moment, (in the tape) he had the opportunity to get Bin Laden but turned it down for legal reasons.

The subject is whether Clinton was offered Bin Laden. If you are not going to stay on subject, or answer my questions,
I'm not going to waste any more time on you.

After all, you are the guy who was so misinformed about this matter that you thought it was an invention of Sean Hannity.

Drop1
11-22-2007, 09:04 AM
Clinton was offered Ben Laden twice,and there were no Al-Queda in Iraq when we went in. Al-Queda came in about five to six months,after we entered Iraq.Have a nice Thanksgiving.

LAMas
11-22-2007, 11:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> "...and there were no Al-Queda in Iraq when we went in. Al-Queda came in about five to six months,after we entered Iraq.Have a nice Thanksgiving. " <hr /></blockquote>
11.30am

Al-Qaida in Iraq as early as 2002?




Mark Tran and agencies
Tuesday May 1, 2007
Guardian Unlimited


Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. There were unconfirmed reports yesterday that al-Masri had been killed in a shoot-out. Photograph: AFP/Getty

The al-Qaida in Iraq leader, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, has been killed in a fight between insurgents north of Baghdad, the interior ministry claimed today.
Brigadier General Abdul Kareem Khalaf told Reuters: "We have definite intelligence reports that al-Masri was killed today."




"...Security experts say he became a terrorist in 1982 when he joined Ayman al-Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad. He probably entered Iraq in 2002, before al-Zarqawi, and may have helped establish the first al-Qaida cell in the Baghdad area...."

jlw
11-22-2007, 09:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr>This is your fourth post in a row where you have attempted to change the subject.

You impugned Wright as a source when you said you had seen no clear evidence, this was after I had quoted Wright's book.
For "the Looming Tower", Wright interviewed:
The US Ambassador to Sudan, Carney
Sudanese Defense Minister, Erwa
Head of Sudan's Congress and Religious leader, Turabi
Head or Saudi Intelligence, Prince Turki
Clarke
Berger
O'neill
And MANY other participants in these events from Foreign Intelligence,The CIA, The State Dept., and the FBI.
He presents plenty of clear evidence.You may not agree with his conclusion, but the evidence is there.

So either you accept his scholarship and veracity on this matter, or you don't.

You have also failed to answer my question about Clinton bascically admitting, in an unguarded moment, (in the tape) he had the opportunity to get Bin Laden but turned it down for legal reasons.

The subject is whether Clinton was offered Bin Laden. If you are not going to stay on subject, or answer my questions,
I'm not going to waste any more time on you.

After all, you are the guy who was so misinformed about this matter that you thought it was an invention of Sean Hannity. <hr /></blockquote>No, the subject is Hillary Clinton and planted questions. Look at the title of this thread. But YOU chose to change the subject and use this thread as an opportunity to attack Richard Clarke, Sandy Burger, and Bill Clinton. YOU chose to use this thread on planted questions as yet another opportunity to try to blame 9/11 on Bill Clinton by saying he and his administration sat on their hands and did basically nothing to fight terrorism. But guess what? Your expert disagrees with you. He also disagrees with you regarding the existence of Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the Iraq War. He even disagrees with you with regard to the use of torture and wire taps.

And once again, you have misquoted me. I never said Sean Hannity invented the Sudan/Clinton story. I said he "circulated" the story. I was well aware of the tape before you ever mentioned it You really should try responding to what I've actually written and not what you wish I had written.

bamadog
11-22-2007, 11:44 PM
Stop trying to throw up smoke.
The discussion YOU and I were having was always about the Sudanese offer to Clinton.
And guess what, Lawrence Wright says the offer was made.

But, as usual, you can't answer my questions,
and this is the fifth post in a row in which you tried to change the subject.

So I'm through wasting time with you.

jlw
11-24-2007, 04:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Stop trying to throw up smoke.
The discussion YOU and I were having was always about the Sudanese offer to Clinton.
And guess what, Lawrence Wright says the offer was made.

But, as usual, you can't answer my questions,
and this is the fifth post in a row in which you tried to change the subject.

So I'm through wasting time with you. <hr /></blockquote>So in your opinion, Lawrence Wright is only correct regarding the Sudan offer. And everything else he believes is open for debate. Funny that you hold him out as an expert on Al-Qaeda and the Middle East, but you only agree with him when it fits your needs and political views.

bamadog
11-24-2007, 04:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote jlw:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Stop trying to throw up smoke.
The discussion YOU and I were having was always about the Sudanese offer to Clinton.
And guess what, Lawrence Wright says the offer was made.

But, as usual, you can't answer my questions,
and this is the fifth post in a row in which you tried to change the subject.

So I'm through wasting time with you. <hr /></blockquote>So in your opinion, Lawrence Wright is only correct regarding the Sudan offer. And everything else he believes is open for debate. Funny that you hold him out as an expert on Al-Qaeda and the Middle East, but you only agree with him when it fits your needs and political views. <hr /></blockquote>

No, I never said that.
But I would rather complete one discussion before starting another.
Is that too much to ask?