PDA

View Full Version : He must really have a lot to hide.



LordNeon
04-05-2004, 04:35 PM
"White House vetting could delay 9/11 report until after election"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/us_attacks_probe_vote

'The chairman of an independent commission looking into US counterterrorism activities prior to the September 11 attacks said he could not guarantee that the panel's report will be released before the November presidential election because of a protracted White House vetting process.

Former Republican New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean said he was "surprised" by the situation, but saw no way around it. '

Crimson-Model
04-05-2004, 04:48 PM
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
Things like this should be released to your media more often...

Dorian
04-05-2004, 04:49 PM
come on Clarke is a nut case . he has been proven to be full of it! he has a book to sell, for petes sake, why do you think all this has come about?

Ryo
04-05-2004, 04:55 PM
Clarke.......................$$$$.

LordNeon
04-05-2004, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Dorian
come on Clarke is a nut case . he has been proven to be full of it! he has a book to sell, for petes sake, why do you think all this has come about?

If the White House had spent as much time fighting terrorism before 9/11 as they do trying to slander Clarke now, maybe things would be different. He's a 30-year veteran of the government and worked under administrations with both parties. What he's saying is what plenty of other people have also stepped forward and said.

supergarr
04-05-2004, 05:20 PM
you should have some o'reilly quotes in your sig too

Ak47
04-05-2004, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by supergarr
you should have some o'reilly quotes in your sig too

why?

ripped_holla
04-05-2004, 07:26 PM
Whenever people delay, whenever people refuse to act in public and out in the open, whenever people seen like they're hiding something...they are.

Namely Bush, Rice, etc. - the whole crew.

BigKazWSM747
04-05-2004, 08:40 PM
I thought the report was expected to be out in June? Is the White House actually stalling enough to put it off for over 3 months?

Juicematic
04-06-2004, 11:07 AM
The Bush administration didn't even want to have a 9/11 commission in the first place. They only formed one after public pressure and negative press.

Kane Fan
04-06-2004, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Crimson-Model
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
Things like this should be released to your media more often...

and your goverment should let Fox news be part of it's media
unless they are afraid your population finding something out

Kane Fan
04-06-2004, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
If the White House had spent as much time fighting terrorism before 9/11 as they do trying to slander Clarke now, maybe things would be different. He's a 30-year veteran of the government and worked under administrations with both parties. What he's saying is what plenty of other people have also stepped forward and said.

and if Clinton had spent as much time fighting terrorism as he did getting his dick sucked and trying to cover it up, the world would be fresh out of terrorists
bottom line, Clinton had longer to deal with Terrorists then Bush did, if blame is on a president it is Clinton
(tho I prefer blaming the people that actually did it, I know in politics that makes me a lunatic but what can I say)

Kane Fan
04-06-2004, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by ripped_holla
Whenever people delay, whenever people refuse to act in public and out in the open, whenever people seen like they're hiding something...they are.

Namely Bush, Rice, etc. - the whole crew.

in that case you'd have to mean every politician, not just Republicans

BuckWyld
04-06-2004, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Kane Fan
and if Clinton had spent as much time fighting terrorism as he did getting his dick sucked and trying to cover it up, the world would be fresh out of terrorists
bottom line, Clinton had longer to deal with Terrorists then Bush did, if blame is on a president it is Clinton
(tho I prefer blaming the people that actually did it, I know in politics that makes me a lunatic but what can I say)

of course, what a standard excuse, anytime anyone says somethign bad about bush, bring up monica.

LordNeon
04-06-2004, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Kane Fan
and if Clinton had spent as much time fighting terrorism as he did getting his dick sucked and trying to cover it up, the world would be fresh out of terrorists
bottom line, Clinton had longer to deal with Terrorists then Bush did, if blame is on a president it is Clinton
(tho I prefer blaming the people that actually did it, I know in politics that makes me a lunatic but what can I say)

Clinton didn't do enough, this is true (partly because Republicans were pummeling him when he did do something, saying he was trying to distract from Monica). But under Clinton they collected lots of intelligence and thwarted lots of attacks, like the one to bomb the LA airport in 2000. Bush & Co. just tossed away a lot of the material Clinton's administration collected - just because it came from Clinton - and were more interested in Iraq. That was serious negligence on Bush's part.

enjoyincubus
04-06-2004, 05:22 PM
i dont understand the lefts logic here. somehow, bush is responsibile for a economy that dropped before he was elected, yet clinton is not responsible for a terrorist attack that happened a few months after clinton left office, even though these attacks where planned while clinton was there. not only this, but dick clarke was the terror czar the entire time. terror czar is a big title, with lots of powers. if he really thought al queda was a threat, why didnt he breif clinton on them, in 93 when they first attacked us.

we were attacked many times while clinton was in office. we were attacked once while bush was coming onto his own. why isnt there a congressional hearing on the failings of the clinton adminstration? they failed many more times than bush did.


this is just a political smoke a mirrors in order to make a scandal out of nothing. the administration shouldnt testify because of this.


the point is, if you wanted the truth, you would look at the whole picture.

enjoyincubus
04-06-2004, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Clinton didn't do enough, this is true (partly because Republicans were pummeling him when he did do something, saying he was trying to distract from Monica). But under Clinton they collected lots of intelligence and thwarted lots of attacks, like the one to bomb the LA airport in 2000. Bush & Co. just tossed away a lot of the material Clinton's administration collected - just because it came from Clinton - and were more interested in Iraq. That was serious negligence on Bush's part.


using your logic we would be able to dismiss bush as well. bush was working alongside a democratic controled congress, and they were refusing to work with him, saying he didnt win.


like i said, before you accuse someone, make sure you are looking at the whole picture.

LordNeon
04-06-2004, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
using your logic we would be able to dismiss bush as well. bush was working alongside a democratic controled congress, and they were refusing to work with him, saying he didnt win.


like i said, before you accuse someone, make sure you are looking at the whole picture.

OK, but when, exactly, did Bush make an move against terror before 9/11 that Democrats stood in the way of?

Clinton dropped a couple of missiles on Afghanistan and was instantly accused of trying to distract the nation from the Monica scandal.

enjoyincubus
04-06-2004, 10:25 PM
did clinton hit anything? no. he hit some old eympty tents. if he really wanted to capture bin laden he would have done alot more than fire a few missiles. but, he wasnt interested in killing bin laden. the sauids offered to turn him over to us before he went into exile. but we didnt take him. now, seriously sit there nd say clinton did ALL HE COULD to destroy terrorists.