PDA

View Full Version : It's not just Richard Clarke...



bgzee
04-07-2004, 10:04 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has faced a steady exodus of counterterrorism officials, many disappointed by a preoccupation with Iraq they said undermined the U.S. fight against terrorism


http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/enhancedstory.jsp?floc=FF-RTO-rontz&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20040407%2F1557479792.htm&sc=rontz&photoid=bush200.jpg&maxstories=5&storyterm=counterterrorism&maxphotos=5&phototerm=counterterrorism

enjoyincubus
04-07-2004, 10:22 PM
you are speaking of clarke as if he hasnt been discredited multiple times?

bgzee
04-07-2004, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
you are speaking of clarke as if he hasnt been discredited multiple times?

Wow, you sure did infer a lot from a measley 5 word sentense "It's not just Richard Clarke..."

Pretty sad, that's your best come back? I don't expect any different from those infatuated with the current administration. Of course, you will "discredit" anyone who speaks out against Bush and his policies. You guys are so funny with your newsmax and drudge report links.

enjoyincubus
04-07-2004, 10:55 PM
no, im just soo tired of you liberals and your so called 'tolerance" for other peoples views, when in truth, the last thing you really want in the world is diversity. you want everyone to be just like you, everyone to have your views. i am so fuking tired of you liberals grabbing onto any whim you can in order to discredit someone in which you hate so much you fail to see that all you are doing is exposing yourself for what you are, a hatefull, arrogant , puppet of the DNC. im tired of you saying that all you want is for america to be better, when in real life all you want is for your comrades to be in power. the last thing you want is a strong america, since that would 4 more years of bush. the only question i have for you is why? why do you claim to be tolerant of others when you clearly hate conservatives. why do you claim to be fair when you look down on all of us? why will try to pass of what you know as lies as fact? why will you stand behind a man who has been quoted to saying the administration was doing everything they can just a year ago? why will you attack the president for an economy that dropped before he was even in office, but let clinton go for a terrorist attack that happend about 6 months after he left?

no, this isnt the best i got, after all i wouldnt want to break your meager mind with large words, or *GASP* the facts.

Starsky
04-07-2004, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/enhancedstory.jsp?floc=FF-RTO-rontz&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20040407%2F1557479792.htm&sc=rontz&photoid=bush200.jpg&maxstories=5&storyterm=counterterrorism&maxphotos=5&phototerm=counterterrorism


Did it ever occur to you how many Clinton holdovers were still encrusted in the Bush administration?


The real counterterrorism experts are working now, but I'd bet you feel alot safer with Richard Clarke clones protecting you, right? What a joke.

Ruhanv
04-08-2004, 06:41 AM
You guys are all losing the plot. Many of these "Clinton" experts, including Clarke, served under Bush Sr. and Reagan as well. I am also not sure where Clarke was discredited?

The point of the post was to highlight the fact that there is a large group of White House staff that feel disgruntled with the way Bush is running his anti terrorism campaign. They also confirm AGAIN that he is too focussed on Iraq.

agpetz
04-08-2004, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
no, im just soo tired of you liberals and your so called 'tolerance" for other peoples views, when in truth, the last thing you really want in the world is diversity. you want everyone to be just like you, everyone to have your views. i am so fuking tired of you liberals grabbing onto any whim you can in order to discredit someone in which you hate so much you fail to see that all you are doing is exposing yourself for what you are, a hatefull, arrogant , puppet of the DNC. im tired of you saying that all you want is for america to be better, when in real life all you want is for your comrades to be in power. the last thing you want is a strong america, since that would 4 more years of bush. the only question i have for you is why? why do you claim to be tolerant of others when you clearly hate conservatives. why do you claim to be fair when you look down on all of us? why will try to pass of what you know as lies as fact? why will you stand behind a man who has been quoted to saying the administration was doing everything they can just a year ago? why will you attack the president for an economy that dropped before he was even in office, but let clinton go for a terrorist attack that happend about 6 months after he left?

no, this isnt the best i got, after all i wouldnt want to break your meager mind with large words, or *GASP* the facts.

i totally agree, good post

bgzee
04-08-2004, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
no, im just soo tired of you liberals and your so called 'tolerance" for other peoples views, when in truth, the last thing you really want in the world is diversity. you want everyone to be just like you, everyone to have your views. i am so fuking tired of you liberals grabbing onto any whim you can in order to discredit someone in which you hate so much you fail to see that all you are doing is exposing yourself for what you are, a hatefull, arrogant , puppet of the DNC. im tired of you saying that all you want is for america to be better, when in real life all you want is for your comrades to be in power. the last thing you want is a strong america, since that would 4 more years of bush. the only question i have for you is why? why do you claim to be tolerant of others when you clearly hate conservatives. why do you claim to be fair when you look down on all of us? why will try to pass of what you know as lies as fact? why will you stand behind a man who has been quoted to saying the administration was doing everything they can just a year ago? why will you attack the president for an economy that dropped before he was even in office, but let clinton go for a terrorist attack that happend about 6 months after he left?

no, this isnt the best i got, after all i wouldnt want to break your meager mind with large words, or *GASP* the facts.

Facts? All you've done is claim what I've said are lies, without being able to prove that. The article I posted states FACTS, people are frustrated that Bush is so infatuated with Iraq.


Originally posted by Starsky
Did it ever occur to you how many Clinton holdovers were still encrusted in the Bush administration?


The real counterterrorism experts are working now, but I'd bet you feel alot safer with Richard Clarke clones protecting you, right? What a joke.

Did you even read the article?

"The office has been run by four different people since the attacks, and at least three have held the No. 2 slot."

It's so funny how you guys blindly follow Bush when the truth is right in front of your eyes, and you just refuse to believe it.

Throwback
04-08-2004, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
[B]no, im just soo tired of you liberals and your so called 'tolerance" for other peoples views, when in truth, the last thing you really want in the world is diversity. you want everyone to be just like you, everyone to have your views. i am so fuking tired of you liberals grabbing onto any whim you can in order to discredit someone in which you hate so much you fail to see that all you are doing is exposing yourself for what you are, a hatefull, arrogant , puppet of the DNC. im tired of you saying that all you want is for america to be better, when in real life all you want is for your comrades to be in power. the last thing you want is a strong america, since that would 4 more years of bush.

What do you consider to be a strong America? A country with a declining economy? Is a net job loss of 2 million a sign of a strong country? Is a 5.6% unemployment rate acceptable even though it doesnt account for people that are too discouraged to look for work after months of not finding it, and also the fact that many of the employed are now working part time instead of full time jobs? Is strength shown in using a terrible even as 9/11 as a crutch for attacking Iraq .. when the real threat we had not finished dealing with was still running around in Afghanastan? Is strength passing a huge tax cut, without taking into account what long terms effects a huge national deficit will create? Tax cuts that drew funds from education, healthcare, scientific research, and the environment ...even though all of those things have just as much long term positive effects as creating capital for private investment to boost the stock market?

Drop this Liberals hate America bull**** .... Liberals dont hate america, they simply have a different view of what they think a govt. responsibility is. Yes some Liberals are way too compassionate ... but on the same token some Conservatives are way to concerned with lining their own pockets no matter what the cost to the rest of the country or world. Both sides have their problems, and the correct place to be is somewhere in the middle.


the only question i have for you is why? why do you claim to be tolerant of others when you clearly hate conservatives. Why do you claim to be fair when you look down on all of us?

Speaking only for myself, I don't hate conservatives. Conservative people are typically the better role models, the most fiscally responsible people we have in this country. I do hate neocon ideologs that I feel are running our country.

Hell, i think Bush is an all around good guy, but I do feel he isnt qualified to run our country.


why will try to pass of what you know as lies as fact? why will you stand behind a man who has been quoted to saying the administration was doing everything they can just a year ago? why will you attack the president for an economy that dropped before he was even in office, but let clinton go for a terrorist attack that happend about 6 months after he left?

Richard Clark did not say the administration was doing everything it could do. You have taken what he said out of context. He simply highlighted the positive aspects of what Bush admin had done, and failed to highlight the negative aspects. Are Clarks motives driven out of his desire for personal financial gain? Probably ... that doesnt mean that all of his claims are false. You don't need Clark's statements to realize many of the failings of the Bush administration.

And the attack occurred 9 months after Clinton left office, not 6 months. Almost a full year into Bush II .... how much time does an administration need to be able to accept responsibility? Based on that logic, is Bush I responsible for the 1st bombing of WTC?

kmac12
04-08-2004, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
It's so funny how you guys blindly follow Bush when the truth is right in front of your eyes, and you just refuse to believe it.

You are correct some people have disagreed with the war in Iraq and believe that it is a hindrance on the war on terror.

Wow, this is new information! :rolleyes:

I am sure that there are also an equal number or more of people who do not share this opinion.

Those who are speaking out and being critical are being focused on the most by the media.

Personally, I listen to ****n Powell and his opinions above anyone else in the administration. I respect his opinions and observations.

bgzee
04-08-2004, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by kmac12
You are correct some people have disagreed with the war in Iraq and believe that it is a hindrance on the war on terror.

Wow, this is new information! :rolleyes:

I am sure that there are also an equal number or more of people who do not share this opinion.

Those who are speaking out and being critical are being focused on the most by the media.

Personally, I listen to ****n Powell and his opinions above anyone else in the administration. I respect his opinions and observations.

But the thing is, its not just democrats who are not happy with the way things are happening, its republicans too-- the ones that have enough balls to stand up and say something. Once again, the article states that "The office has been run by four different people since the attacks, and at least three have held the No. 2 slot." Since the attack, meaning Bush and crew hired these people into these positions. We all know he wouldn't put a dem into that position. What is this saying?

****n Powell has done his share of back-tracking too. He has gone back to say that evidence he presented regarding Iraq was flawed (yeah, remember those pictures of "active" facilities??).

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/03/iraq.main/

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 09:25 AM
I have not seen clarke discredited anywhere in the real media.

kmac12
04-08-2004, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Throwback
And the attack occurred 9 months after Clinton left office, not 6 months. Almost a full year into Bush II .... how much time does an administration need to be able to accept responsibility? Based on that logic, is Bush I responsible for the 1st bombing of WTC?

Actually, Jan - Sep 11 is only 8 months AND the recount delayed the administration's move into office. I heard on the news that many of the staff didn't get into their offices until early April.

I wish people would quit trying to point fingers and witch hunt for whose fault 9/11 was. It wasn't Bush or Clinton's fault. It was the terrorists.

bgzee
04-08-2004, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by kmac12
I wish people would quit trying to point fingers and witch hunt for whose fault 9/11 was. It wasn't Bush or Clinton's fault. It was the terrorists.

Amen.

kmac12
04-08-2004, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
But the thing is, its not just democrats who are not happy with the way things are happening, its republicans too-- the ones that have enough balls to stand up and say something. Once again, the article states that "The office has been run by four different people since the attacks, and at least three have held the No. 2 slot." Since the attack, meaning Bush and crew hired these people into these positions. We all know he wouldn't put a dem into that position. What is this saying?

****n Powell has done his share of back-tracking too. He has gone back to say that evidence he presented regarding Iraq was flawed (yeah, remember those pictures of "active" facilities??).

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/03/iraq.main/

You are making an accusation that anyone who agrees with the war in Iraq just do not have enough balls to speak out against it?

You need to realize that many people out there (including me) have the opinion that we are glad that the war happened, that Iraq was freed from the dictator and that the potential threat is gone. That is my opinion. Just because I and other republicans believe that does not mean we dont have the balls to stand up and speak out.

Also, I disagree, I believe Bush would put some Dems in positions if they were qualified. Do you have proof that they are all republicans?

As for Powell, I still respect his opinions and observations even if the intelligence given to him to present to the UN was flawed.

bgzee
04-08-2004, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by kmac12
You are making an accusation that anyone who agrees with the war in Iraq just do not have enough balls to speak out against it?

Thats not at all what I'm saying. First of all, it's not an issue of agreeing with the war, but instead with Bush's handling of terrorism. You don't have to disagree with the war to say that terrorism has taken a back seat to it. My biggest problem with the war is I believe that they should have finished up in Afghanistan before even considering Iraq.



You need to realize that many people out there (including me) have the opinion that we are glad that the war happened, that Iraq was freed from the dictator and that the potential threat is gone. That is my opinion. Just because I and other republicans believe that does not mean we dont have the balls to stand up and speak out.

See above. Also, you or I don't know everything that is going on, as opposed to people who hold these counter-terrorism positions.



Also, I disagree, I believe Bush would put some Dems in positions if they were qualified. Do you have proof that they are all republicans?

Ok, lets be realistic here. No I don't have proof, but I'm making a very safe assumption.



As for Powell, I still respect his opinions and observations even if the intelligence given to him to present to the UN was flawed.

This whole war was sold on flawed intellegence. I agree don't kill the messenger, but someone needs to be held responsible.

kmac12
04-08-2004, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
Thats not at all what I'm saying. First of all, it's not an issue of agreeing with the war, but instead with Bush's handling of terrorism. You don't have to disagree with the war to say that terrorism has taken a back seat to it. My biggest problem with the war is I believe that they should have finished up in Afghanistan before even considering Iraq.

Yes and my opinion is that is has not hindered the war on terror or Bush's handling of the war on terror.

Some prominent people agree and some disagree. Again, the ones who are critical are heard the most since it is sensational.



Ok, lets be realistic here. No I don't have proof, but I'm making a very safe assumption.

I am being realistic. Both Bush and Clinton have and had very diverse administrations. I know for a fact that Bush has hired democrats to positions, but sorry I do not have a link to back it up. I remember hearing this when he was setting up his administration.


This whole war was sold on flawed intellegence. I agree don't kill the messenger, but someone needs to be held responsible.

Held responsible? Like how? Fired?

I think that changes need to be made like the decrease in funding for human intelligence (which the democrats pushed in the 70s) should be increased.

enjoyincubus
04-08-2004, 01:10 PM
"What do you consider to be a strong America? A country with a declining economy? Is a net job loss of 2 million a sign of a strong country? Is a 5.6% unemployment rate acceptable even though it doesnt account for people that are too discouraged to look for work after months of not finding it, and also the fact that many of the employed are now working part time instead of full time jobs?"

in a way, yes. because the economy is dominated by the private sector, the government has no influence on that, democrat or republican. the government cannot create jobs without creating them in the government itself. this is not free enterprise. so yes, i wuld prefer a weaker economy than controlled by the government. but accusing bush of having an impact on the economy is just another example of false accusations in which you seem to be so fond of.

"but on the same token some Conservatives are way to concerned with lining their own pockets no matter what the cost to the rest of the country or world."

nice over generialization there, bud. its always nice to see someone who claims to stand for tolerance and diversity play into such stupid steriotypes. im sure no liberals are out for themselves and themselves only?


"Richard Clark did not say the administration was doing everything it could do. You have taken what he said out of context. He simply highlighted the positive aspects of what Bush admin had done, and failed to highlight the negative aspects. Are Clarks motives driven out of his desire for personal financial gain? Probably ... that doesnt mean that all of his claims are false. You don't need Clark's statements to realize many of the failings of the Bush administration. "

i love nothing more than a good spin doctor doing his thing. like i said, somehow mr. clarke will be excused for contradicting his own testimony. somehow, he will be able to keep his credibility even though he is trying sell a book. you said it yourself hes probably out of financial gain, yet some people here grab on to what he says like its some sort of true revelation. i think it does mean everything he says was false. if he was truely interested in terror, why didnt he stop it during the clinton admin.? if he really thought bush was doing bad why didnt he come out with his story before waiting until an election year?


"And the attack occurred 9 months after Clinton left office, not 6 months. Almost a full year into Bush II .... how much time does an administration need to be able to accept responsibility? Based on that logic, is Bush I responsible for the 1st bombing of WTC?"

bushs didnt officialy get into office until january 21, which would put it at 8 months , but his team didnt get into office until around arpil or may. you mean to tell me everything was in place exactly then? no. bushs team had to put up with clintons lack of cooperation.

once again, though, you entirely dodge the point of my thread. i was saying it is very hypocritical for you to hold bush responsible for a economy that 1. he has no real control over, and 2. fell before he ever got into office, and not hold clinton responsilbe for an attack that happened around 8 months after he left. noone is responsible for either of these. trying to place blame on any one person is irresponsible and an outright lie. stop playing political games.


"You guys are all losing the plot. Many of these "Clinton" experts, including Clarke, served under Bush Sr. and Reagan as well. I am also not sure where Clarke was discredited?"

i guess you dont read the news?

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus


i guess you dont read the news?

what news? I have heard nothing from the real media.

Throwback
04-08-2004, 01:49 PM
"but on the same token some Conservatives are way to concerned with lining their own pockets no matter what the cost to the rest of the country or world."

nice over generialization there, bud. its always nice to see someone who claims to stand for tolerance and diversity play into such stupid steriotypes. im sure no liberals are out for themselves and themselves only?


My point was that bot extremes, Liberals and Conservatives have their overly ideological viewpoints. I was responding to an over generalization and showing I could make an over generalization about the Conservative side as well. You completely missed my point.

LordNeon
04-08-2004, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
Did it ever occur to you how many Clinton holdovers were still encrusted in the Bush administration?



Unfortunately, Starsky doesn't understand WHY there were Clinton holdovers in the Bush administration: Because they couldn't find anyone in their own ranks with enough background and the qualifications. They sure weren't keeping them there out of any bipartisan spirit.

But that was a nice try at right-wing spin there.