Aldaron, why are you wasting time with this idiot? We have more important things to do. I need your help translating this garota's letter.

Catocony, Your last pargraph had me rolling on the floor.

Aldaron, sounded like you were venting at me. Or was it at Riorules?

Kojak, what do YOU get out of the war? What does America get?

Kidcisco.. what happened to that guy?

DJ... It was Riorules. It's always Riorules.

Warning this is kind of windy. Like others on the baord I am good at blowing hot air.

Rio Rules,

It's great what the Islamic culture has done for the world. I lived in Spain for awhile. The Moors ruled there for about 800 years and they were certainly more enlightened than any European culture of the time. They had a very very open culture. They were very tolerant of other religions. In the 1300’s while the Catalans were busy persecuting Jews, the Moors protected them. The Arabs were on the cutting edge of science and medicine. The university in Guadalajara was a wonder. Good people. What happened?

What the fuck have they done for the world in the last 200-300 years? When I look at most of that part of the world, all I see are extremely backward countries that are very intolerant of women, Homosexuals, other races, and other religions. I see societies stuck in 1492 when the Moors were kicked out of Spain. And I have seen it first hand in North Africa.

When I said Western culture, I was generally referring to western political culture. You know the countries where women are treated almost equally. Minorities, while still discriminated against, have a pretty good shot at success. Where you can worship whatever the hell you want, where you have complete freedom of speech, where you can spout lies about politicians without fear of reprisal (look at the far rights attacks on Clinton and the democrat’s attacks on Bush), you can vote however you want. The economic standard of living is high. There is a lot of upward mobility. If you look at the poor in one decade and track them through to the next decade most of them have moved into the middle class. That’s impossible in most countries. The government while corrupt is nowhere near as corrupt as most, where you generally don’t fear the police, etc, etc, etc.

The US has a lot of problems and social ills, but it is still a great place to live. If that were not so how do you explain the desire of half the world to live here? Did you see the pictures today of the Cubans that converted a 51 Buick into a boat, loaded it up, and were stopped 10 miles off the coast? It just happened yesterday? People vote on what cultures they prefer with their feet and their pocketbooks. I guess in the case of these Cubans, things were not so great in their socialist paradise. Criticize the US and its ridiculous pop culture all you want, but you can not argue with its success or its appeal to millions and millions around the world.

Of course for you and the rest of the Moveon.org group, the US is the source of all evil in the world. Which is very ironic, because, assuming you live here, I doubt you would live anywhere else. The US is full of people who hate it, but would never live elsewhere. I always find it ironic to see Muslim immigrant women protesting something the government has done. In their own countries they would not be allowed out in public. Could not drive, could not work, etc, etc. They are obviously enjoying the rights that this country grants them, even though they disdain the country. What’s up with that?

And yes my question was straight and simple. Are the Iraqis better off now or not? Will they be better off in the near future than they would be under Saddam? Yet you refuse to answer, you deviate with the question “whether we had the right to go in there or not?” That can be debated and we may or may not agree. I believe we did. But your answer to the first question would tell me a lot about where your real values lie.

I believe that the last estimates I saw from the UN were that 13,000 Iraqis died in the invasion. The US estimates around 3,600. But let’s use the UN’s “unbiased” number. The UN also said that 50,000 children a year were dying under sanctions, that in spite of the UN’s vaunted “Food for Oil” program. From everything that can be learned now, widespread food and medicine shortages are no longer. However, there are more deaths in bombings and other post war violence. So using the UN’s math removing Saddam is saving some 37,000 lives a year. Let’s say the violence in Iraq is killing 5,000 a year. That still leaves us saving at least 30,000 lives a year. And we are not taking into account the thousands that Saddam was putting into mass graves every year. Since when was saving the lives of thousands of kids, kurds, Shiites, and others a bad thing?

You can argue all you want about international law and whether we have the right or not interfere in others affairs, but I think taking Sadamm out was the right thing. He never should have been left in power the first time and Bush 1 and Cheney and Powell have blood on their hands from the betrayal of the Shiites and Kurds after GWI. Getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do it was just 10 years late. Just like stopping Milosevic was the right thing. Just like removing the Taliban was the right thing. Just like intervening in Rwanda and Liberia would have been the right thing.

I see lots of people all upset about living conditions for people around the world but it usually just depends on their partisanship. Pinochet was evil had to go, Apartheid was evil and had to go, ethnic cleansing in Serbia was evil and had to go. Under Clinton, Saddam was evil and had to go (Clinton made regime change US policy in 1998). But a flake like Bush actually does something about it and it is bad, bad bad. Where is the consistency? A lot of all of this anti –war argument really is about Bush hate and nothing else.

The argument that Bush lied to America about WMD means that Clinton lied to America about WMD. No less an authority than Hillary Clinton recently said “the intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent”. Maybe Bush was ill advised in using WMD as a pretext, but the game was set in motion long before he took office. Ken Pollack one of Clinton’s national security aides writes in his book “The Threatening Storm” that his last memo to the incoming Bush team advised that its choices were "an aggressive policy of regime change" or a "major revamping of the sanctions," that latter being the more "onerous" of the two options.

Everybody believed Saddam had WMD. On the eve of the war Clinton wrote as much in an Op-ed in the “Guardian”. One can honestly disagree with the decision to take out Saddam and invade Iraq, but the “Bush lied” line is just partisan politics. I can generate about 20 quotes from Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Bill Clinton , Al Gore, even Nancy Pelosi, all saying that Saddam HAS WMD.

Furthermore, why on earth would any politician lie about something so crucial knowing that the lie would be discovered? And why would he do it on the eve of an election year? Even someone as stupid as the left wants to make Bush would not do that. He honestly believed, as did most of Washington, that Saddam had WMD. After all Saddam had not accounted for his known weapons had he? David Kay, who now says there were no WMD at the time of the invasion, believed he had weapons. Mr. Kay notes that it was the invasion that allowed his 1400 member team to investigate and come to the conclusion that there were no weapons. Without the invasion, the world would still believe that he had WMD. The whole “Bush lied” argument is a partisan joke.

There are several reasons not to re-elect Bush, but the WMD problem is not one of them. But let me make you happy Rio. If Bush does not pull his head out of his ass and take care of domestic problems and temper his spending, you will have a Kerry or an Edwards for president. Good Karma will return and the universe will be a wonderful place with all tribes living in harmony with mother earth.


Just an afterthought, I wonder who Osama Bin Laden would vote for. Bush or Kerry? I bet I know.


Batster

Very good points Batster.

Batster, I probably shouldn't be reading this thread since I'm here for sex, not politics. But I did read your comments and agree with virtually all of them. It would have been nice to learn the history of what actually did go wrong, from our perspective, with Islamic society. I have some vague memories of the Ottoman Empire and how it affected a large part of the world and created plenty of dry rot that eventually helped lead to WWI. I'm also sure it has a lot to do with fundamentalist religious movements who gain control of societies.

As to the people in this country who depise everything about it, I have always fantasized about somehow rounding them all up and shipping them to one of those enlightened "progressive" West African nations with the understanding that they would be shot on sight if they ever attempted to return to AmeriKa. Maybe Sierra Leone or Cape Verde or Guinea Bissau. Or else cut a deal with the Russians and pay them to reopen the concentration/rehabilation camps in Siberia and fill them with all the bleeding hearts so they can see first hand what a wonderful system once existed for educating malcontents. Either way, let them live in a world where the barbed wire faces inward to prevent people from escaping to evil AmeriKa.

Tight fit,

I have been out of circulation for so long that I have no valuable input on the chica scene. So I end up blowing my scatter brain thoughts around off topic threads. Pretty sad aint it?

Sometimes I cant believe I live only about 2 miles from Adelitas and I dont have diddly to say on the subject. For me to have any fun I have to leave Tijuana. Conozco and I had a fun trip to Guadalajara a few months back. But other than that I have been keeping my nose clean. Playing in TJ is just to close to home.

Batstertherecluse

Batster; I have to agree with you on ALL your points above.

I may have been out of line with my personal attack on Riorules, but I really hope it pushed him over the edge.

batster!
i agree with you that taking out saddam was a good thing ,but the constant misinformation.and all the other bullshit from both bush&blair.seeing bush saying he(saddam)cant be trusted still makes me laugh.if both of them said what was on the line nothing else than anglosaxian interests.if it been democracie ideals.the mayanmar gov.been kicked out and numerous others but that not in american interest,because they do business.1964 i think the years was when tom lherer wrote the song send the marines.that still u.s. number one diplomatic philosophy.i think american has to learn to live with terror threats.in the sense that arabs all over the world think that u.s.a. take an extremely one sided look at the israel-palestinian issue.and looking at the u.n voting in securty council there is an 49-1.the only time u.s. voting against israel and said that also israel was to blame for the situation in that area.was a few weeks before the attack on saddam.only to get the arab nations to look more positive on the attack.since then it"s back to the old stuff.pro israel voting.aslong as that going on i have a hard time seeing the american government and the british.selling the idea that get rid of saddam was for democracy in that area.
iggy sca.p.s. this is not an attack on american citizens.d.s.

Why send US$87,000millions of our money to Iraq? As a grant, not even as a loan. Not to mention the US$1.1billion per week for the war.
http://www.wrybread.com/gammablablog/featured/87billion.shtml

How much did we spend enforcing no-fly zones for 13 years? How much money did the Sept 11th attack cost our economy?

(Message edited by aldaron on February 07, 2004)

We have a morale obligation to rebuild Iraq. Or have you not heard of "Do the right thing"?

Aldaron, why dont you tell us how much no fly zone and 9-11 cost us.

So lets see, Aldaron, 9-11 cost us a lot of money therefore we should give more money on Iraq? Where's your logic?


Roadglide, Do the right thing??? Gimme a break. Let's see you do the right thing. Donate some money to the poor and shit. I think you are saying we have a moral obligation to Halliburton and other companies who continually overcharge us by the tens of millions and never get more then a slap on the wrist when caught.

Dick; As the victors of this conflict we are required by the laws of land warfare to provide for the basic needs of the people of Iraq.

Or would you rather that we just turn our back's on these people and let them fend for themselves?

It cost us a lot more than 87 billion and what it has cost us to fight Iraq. What's the point in asking that question?

The logic is, this is a new world which requires the removal of old threats. We removed Saddam and now we are rebuilding it, just like we did Germany, just like we did Japan, just like we did South Korea..... not giving it away.

Astroglide, that's like saying someone pump a few bullets up your butt and then move in to your house and attend to the basic needs of your wife and kids. BTW, during your operation construction worker did you meet a 6'4" Navy seal called Kidcisco?

Aldaron, that was WW2 and Japan and Germany were aggressors... oh but did someone say we are in WW3?

I have to give George Bush credit for making Iraq safe for the Ayatollahs.

I've read the back and forth on the Iraq war, WMD and whether Bush is a good/bad guy for invading Iraq & can think of some analogies.
The cop who shoots a crime suspect and the cop later in his own defense states "I saw him reaching for a weapon". No weapon is ever found but the cop is exonerated mostly because the crime suspect had a long history of being a bad guy.
Rodney King was savagely beaten and the cops, prior to discovering a videotape of the event existed, state it was self defense, that King would not submit to arrest. Now granted Rodney King was being an asshole that night driving 100mph and endangering everybody, civilian & cop alike, when weaving thru traffic. Rodney King was generally a bad guy with a bad rap sheet (maybe the cops felt he needed a beating). But what the cops said for the record sure sounded defensible. But when you saw the actual videotape and the 50plus baton whacks you get to realize that there is a difference between what is stated for the record and what was really going thru the minds of the cops doing the beating.
I think about Mike Tyson doing time for raping that young black beauty pageant gal in Indiana 10 years ago. Tyson's problem was that he just went ahead and plowed her as soon as he got her alone in a hotel room. The gal might have been the most promiscuous young lass in the whole damn town and ... had Tyson ASKED ... the gal might have said yes to everything. But Tyson didn't ask, he just made up his mind that he had the right to do it, and society judged him for being criminally wrong.
Same 15 minute romp in the sack, but had Tyson ASKED first, and gotten permission, which was entirely possible, society would have judged him far differently.
Now, Saddam Hussein was a very bad guy. The world is better off now that he is gone. The world is a little safer (at least the US world) now that 150,000 US troops are just a stone throw away from Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia and those type terrorist inclined countries.
There has not been anything resembling 9/11 now that the US, instead of being on the other side of the planet and uttering threats that lacked any credibility whatsoever, instead the US is now just a couple hours drive time from those menacing Middle East nations, who dare not do anything to anger the awakened giant, lest they become the next Iraq.
George Bush's problem is not that regime change ousting of Saddam Hussein and all that Iraq represented that was bad ... Bush's problem is not that he done a bad thing.
Bush's problem is that he should have ASKED Congress if they would let him do the Iraq thing for reasons of regime change, getting rid of a bad guy, cleaning up the neighborhood and making tomorrow a safer day for our children.
Had Bush had ASKED for permission for the above reasons, the American people via Congress might have said Yes.
Instead, Bush lied to Congress by stating, fer sure/fer sure, that Weapons of Mass Destruction existed and that we needed to go in.
You know, like if you go to the corner of Baghdad Street and Saddam Boulevard, you will find the factory and the stockpiles of biological/chemical/nuclear stuff that are ready to kill.
Well gee George ... you LIED.
We are still fucking Iraq, but instead of us Americans feeling like suave, sophisticated seducers ... instead ... we Americans are feeling a bit more like, uh, RAPISTS.
I don't want to feel like a rapist.
The people on this chat board know more than anybody that fucking cannot be a crime if there are no victims.
If the fucker is happy with the intimacy & the fuckee is happy with the compensation ... it's a win/win situation. But everybody has to consent.
All you had to do George Dubya Bush, was ASK for permission!!

Rodney, a slightly different view, but all in all, I will agree with it. Booting Saddam: Good. Lying to get the chance to do it: Bad.

If you watched Tim Russert this morning, or just been following things in general, you know where we're headed - the Bushies are going to throw the US Intel community under the bus. Combine that with the "outing" last year of the CIA NOC and I wonder what the relationship between the existing politicos and the intel community will look like in six months.

Even if the intel that was fed to the Bushies is wrong, and from what I've seen from public and non-public sources the intel is correct but the interpretations were wrong, well, you just don't knife the people who are going to do the most good in the "war on terrorism" in the back.

The first thing I said to a friend of mine on 9/11, when I was sitting in an office in Sunnyvale watching the news, was that I hoped that everyone, politicians included, would have the patience to allow the intel community to do their jobs because in the end, defeating terrorism isn't really a public event - the Israeli's have proved that. Blowing shit up on TV is bound to piss off a good portion of people, regardless of the situation. However, slowly choking the finances and support structure (mobility, communications, etc) until the targets come to the surface and can more easily be excised, well, that takes time and money and you don't get to watch it unfold on CNN. Of course, we've taken a more public route, but I believe that the intel community has done an excellent job the past few years, and they were doing an excellent job prior to the last few years. Unfortunately, when information is not available to the masses, you can only see a filtered and one-sided view of it.

why dont call a spade a spade.no proof of saddam supporting the terror deed 9/11.no nuclear weapons no nothing.now bush claims that a lot of countries belived that the iraq could build them.there where only the duo bush and blair who belived it.why cant these to boozos .just come out and say .it was in our countries business interset to get rid of saddam.and stop bullshitting around.but then it will get hard to get reelected i guess.
iggy sca.

Rodney,

I like your analogy to Rodney King. Another analogy is OJ. The reason is that both of these high profile cases had a very large impact on the way the LA police behave today. HUGE impact.

My question is how the lack of WMD in Iraq will impact American intelligence in the future. Most importantly, what does this mean for the Bush doctrine? Is it on hold as we go through this intelligence inquiry? Will the Bush doctrine survive at all?

The lack of WMD in Iraq will impact American policy in the future in that ... both the American people, via their Congress ... and, the world community, when gathering at a hastily scheduled United Nations gathering ... both are going to insist (hopefully) that the next time the US says it needs to conduct a pre-emptive war attack on some country ... both the American and world community will insist on concrete proof instead of some flimsy assumption.
When you assume ... ASSUME ... you make an ASS of U & ME.
Next time Mr President ... no more "trust me, I am a president" stuff.
No more ... they used to be there, so, intuitively speaking, they must still be there.
No more "blind faith" trust in our elected officials.

From now on = show me the photographs.
Provide me with some espionage secret testimony. Tell me exactly, on what street corner, is located the offending contraband.

I was a 6th grader in 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy had aerial spy photographs of Russian ships arriving at the docks in Cuba, Russian sailors unloading missile equipment, new airport runways where a new military installation was erected where none previously existed. We caught the Russians red handed importing weapons technology into Cuba back in 1962 (a clear violation of our Monroe Doctrine, i.e. no foreign arms in the Western Hemisphere) and the whole world was with us when JFK put a naval quarantine around Cuba and told the Soviets we would blow the next Russian ship out of the water if they did not submit to inspection. Krushchev backed down and Castro did what he was told, that is, dismantle those bases.

The American public/world community will, in the future, demand to be shown/offered the irrefutable proof before proceeding to war.

Hopefully

It is amazing that, of all the countries in the world, Iraq was just about the only country that this Pakistani scientist DIDN'T sell nuclear secrets to.

Rodney,

I agree with you that we should have more concrete proof in the future regarding weapons. But if we know the exact street corner, or even if we have an inkling of where they might be, why not do as we had done before? Send in some bombers and bomb the crap out of that location?

That's what I do not understand about the Bush doctrine. If we have more information, then there is no reason to go to war. Even if you are not sure, you can do targeted military strikes and do away with the WMD. This is what Dubya's father did, and Clinton too.

The Bush Doctrine suggests that we preemptively go to war, not do military strikes, with less information/intelligence than if we would have done a military strike. You are suggesting that the Bush Doctrine requires more information to go to war, but I believe that Dubya thinks it should be less.

Rodney,

I really liked your analogies and your different point of view.

I only see one problem. Maybe you are forgetting that Clinton made Regime Change the official US policy in 1998. Also maybe you missed the part where Bush did go to congress and get their approval for use of force to go after Iraq. Congress approved. A whole lot of Democrats approved. Even though some of those who voted in favor are now trying to pretend they didn't.

Long before the war I said that taking out Saddam was a necessary thing and I didn't think that it needed to be based on the WMD issue. But I believed that he had those weapons. I would have bet lots of money that he had them. So I was wrong. As were the Clintonites, governments of a whole shiltoad of countries, The UN( remember Blix wanted more time to find out what happened to the weapons Saddam refused to account for), many of Saddams own government officials( Republican Guard commanders have said that while they did not have WMD, they thought units on their flanks did), and even the anti-war crowd who claimed that one reason to not send in troops was to avoid having them exposed to WMD. I guess they were all lying.

Whats done is done. The interesting part now is to see how both parties try to tweak the facts and the aftermath to their advantage in the elections. As far as dishonesty goes, I see alot more distortion of the truth coming from the left than George Bush's firm belief that Iraq had WMD's.

When somone can show me that the intelligence agencies told Bush before the war that they could account for all of Saddams WMD and that he definitely no longer had them, well than I will say OK Bush lied. They didn't tell him that. They couldn't. Bush assumed Saddam did. Thats not a lie. It's a mistake.

As for targeted military strikes. Not even a week ago I heard with my own ears an interview with Clinton where he commented that in 1998 when he launched cruise missile strikes against suspected WMD locations in Iraq, that they could not know if they were succseful in destroying all the weapons and installations or not. Thats why on the eve of the war, he was writing op-ed pieces in England defending Blairs claims that Saddam had WMD. The only way you can know if they are destroyed or not is going in on the ground and with the host country being cooperative. Iraq was not cooperating with the UN.

I am glad to know that it appears he does not have WMD. But make no mistakes that it was the invasion that allowed us that clarity.

I think the big question now is how do we account for what the UN knows Saddam had. There is still a lot of Anthrax, Ricin, VW, etc that was known to have existed. Was it really destroyed? If not where did it go?

Rumsfeld caught lying.

On CBS's "Face the Nation" on March 14, 2004, United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that he hadn't used the phrase "immediate threat" to describe the situation in Iraq and that President Bush hadn't either.

Thomas Friedman of CBS then presented Rumsfeld with quotes from September 2002 where he did describe the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq as an "immediate threat." Rumsfeld's response was that we may still find that they really were an immediate threat after all.

You can view the video here: http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

Here is a transcript of the broadcast:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_031404.pdf

The FF is from USA TODAY.

Sorry, the link is gone so I just have to C & P the whole article.

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

Former counterterror adviser slams White House, Rumsfeld

WASHINGTON (AP) — Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism coordinator, accuses the Bush administration of failing to recognize the al-Qaeda threat before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and then manipulating America into war with Iraq with dangerous consequences.
Former Bush counterterror adviser Richard Clarke says Bush was stuck on Cold War issues.
By Paul Sakuma, AP file

He accuses Bush of doing "a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, writes in a new book going on sale Monday that Bush and his Cabinet were preoccupied during the early months of his presidency with some of the same Cold War issues that had faced his father's administration.

"It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier," Clarke told CBS for an interview Sunday on its 60 Minutes program.

CBS' corporate parent, Viacom Inc., owns Simon & Schuster, publisher for Clarke's book, Against All Enemies.

Clarke acknowledges that, "there's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too." He said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Jan. 24, 2001, asking "urgently" for a Cabinet-level meeting "to deal with the impending al-Qaeda attack." Months later, in April, Clarke met with deputy cabinet secretaries, and the conversation turned to Iraq.

"I'm sure I'll be criticized for lots of things, and I'm sure they'll launch their dogs on me," Clarke said. "But frankly I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something."

The Associated Press first reported in June 2002 that Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions.

The last of those two meetings occurred Sept. 4 as the security council put finishing touches on a proposed national security policy review for the president. That review was finished Sept. 10 and was awaiting Bush's approval when the first plane struck the World Trade Center.

Almost immediately after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Clarke said the president asked him directly to find whether Iraq was involved in the suicide hijackings.

"Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said, 'Iraq did this,'" said Clarke, who told the president that U.S. intelligence agencies had never found a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

"He came back at me and said, 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection,' and in a very intimidating way," Clarke said.

CBS said it asked Stephen Hadley, Rice's deputy on the national security council, about the incident, and Hadley said: "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."

CBS responded to Hadley that it found two people it did not identify who recounted the incident independently, and one of them witnessed the conversation.

"I stand on what I said," Hadley told CBS, "but the point I think we're missing in this is, of course the president wanted to know if there was any evidence linking Iraq to 9-11."

Clarke also harshly criticizes Bush over his decision to invade Iraq, saying it helped brew a new wave of anti-American sentiment among supporters of Osama bin Laden.

"Bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country.' This is part of his propaganda," Clarke said. "So what did we do after 9/11? We invade ... and occupy an oil-rich Arab country, which was doing nothing to threaten us."

Clarke retired early in 2003 after 30 years in government service. He was among the longest-serving White House staffers, transferred in from the State Department in 1992 to deal with threats from terrorism and narcotics.

Clarke previously led the government's secretive Counterterrorism and Security Group, made up of senior officials from the FBI, CIA, Justice Department and armed services, who met several times each week to discuss foreign threats.

I didn't watch the 60 Minutes Kerry campaign ad last night, but here's what you need to focus on about this Dick.

8 years with Clinton. Absolutely nothing was done about the growing Al Qaeda threat. However, according to Dick, it's all Bush's fault despite being in office for only 8 months. It's so preposterous that it's quite funny. Here's another guy on a book tour and 60 Minutes is helping him sell it. What's even funnier is that some of you guys suspend all of your intelligience and eat it up.

Here is another version of Mr. Clarke's story

WASHINGTON – The White House on Monday intensified its criticism of former anti-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, accusing him of inaccuracies and election-year grandstanding in a book that is sharply critical of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. Clarke "wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff," Vice President Dick Cheney asserted.

Cheney suggested Clarke "may have had a grudge to bear," that he had left the White House after being passed over for a promotion.

On the eve of public hearings by the federal panel reviewing the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Cheney and other top administration officials sought to counter accusations by Clarke that Bush was so pre-occupied with Iraq both before and after those attacks that he failed to effectively confront threats from the al-Qaeda terror network.

Cheney, in a telephone interview with radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, said Clarke "clearly missed a lot of what was going on" during the two years he worked at the Bush White House.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said on CNN, "I really don't know what Richard Clarke's motivations are, but I'll tell you this: Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to."

And the president's press secretary, Scott McClellan, told a White House briefing: "His assertion that there was something we could have done to prevent the Sept. 11th attacks from happening is deeply irresponsible. It's offensive and it's flat-out false."

Clarke resigned his White House job 13 months ago, after holding senior posts under Presidents Clinton and the first President Bush.

In his book, "Against All Enemies," Clarke wrote that the current president "launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."

Cheney said of Clarke's assertions, "I fundamentally disagree with his assessment both of recent history, but also in terms of how to deal with the problem" of global terrorism.

The White House took issue with a conversation Clarke reported he and several other aides had with Bush in the White House Situation Room on Sept. 12, 2001, the day after the terror attacks.

"See if Saddam did this," Bush is quoted by Clarke as saying.

McClellan said Bush "doesn't have any recollection" of such a meeting or conversation.

Furthermore, McClellan said, "there's no record of the president being in the Situation Room on that day that ... you know, when the president is in the Situation Room, we keep track of that."

McClellan and Rice portrayed Clarke as having left the White House after being passed over to be deputy of the new Department of Homeland Security. They also said he boycotted regular meetings held by Rice, and they cited his friendship with Rand Beers, a national security adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

"It's important to keep in context we're in the heat of a presidential campaign and all of a sudden he comes out with a book that he is seeking to promote ... and he is making charges that simply did not happen," McClellan said.

"This is Dick Clarke's American grandstand. He just keeps changing the tune," McClellan added.

Richard Clarke appears credible to me, definitely more so than an administration that changed it's rationale for the war, denied what they said prior to the war, and hides the costs of the war to make it's budget numbers look prettier. (There's also the Medicare scandal and more, but this thread is about the war)

"Over three decades, Clarke, 53, held national security posts at the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, rising to high-level positions in the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush."¹

"Some in the Reagan and both Bush administrations thought his politics leaned a little to the left; some in the Clinton administration feared that, because of his past service, he might be a little too far to the right. But his knowledge of the issues and the system kept his career advancing."¹

"Clarke pushed the CIA to provide him better and more intelligence. He pushed the FBI to log progress on terrorism investigations related to terrorism, even though then-FBI Director Louis J. Freeh was resisting pressure from the Clinton White House."¹

"Clarke's disputes with the White House are notable in part because his muscular national security views allied him often over the years with most of the leading figures advising Bush on terrorism and Iraq. As an assistant secretary of state in 1991, Clarke worked closely with Wolfowitz and then-Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney to marshal the 32-nation coalition that expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Clarke sided with Wolfowitz -- against Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- in a losing argument to extend that war long enough to destroy Iraq's Republican Guard. Later, Clarke was principal author of the hawkish U.S. plan to rid Iraq of its nonconventional weapons under threat of further military force."²

Other high level people have come forward. In case you haven't been following, Clarke isn't the first "former top Bush official" to describe the Bush administration's primary focus of toppling Saddam Hussein. Paul O'Neill, former Treasury Secretary, described this earlier in the year. "One of O'Neill's major accusations was that from its earliest days in office, the Bush administration was looking for ways to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, a contention that has also surfaced in another book by a former insider, Richard Clarke, who served as Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator."³

The attacks on Clarke are no surprise. We must not forget the ongoing investigation of one of the more serious allegations of how this administration appears in attacking those who don't fall in line. Prime example, former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, CIA officer Valerie Plame. "The investigation arose in part out of concerns that Bush administration officials had called reporters to circulate the name of the CIA officer, Valerie Plame, in an attempt to discredit the criticism of the administration's Iraq policy by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV."<sup>4

1</sup>Los Angeles Times: 'No' Not Part of His Vocabulary by Peter Bergen
²Washington Post: Memoir Criticizes Bush 9/11 Response by Barton Gellman
³USA Today: Treasury: O'Neill received 140 classified documents
⁴Newsday.com: Subpoenas for White House by Tom Brune

Most Americans are still in denial, even with the enormous evidence that their president lied to them -- they just can't believe that a US president can be this callous and lie to their faces.

It was the same with Nixon and the Watergate scandal. The Americans just couldn't believe that Nixon can ever lie and cover-up the whole mess. It took them months to get over their denial.

Bush lie: Iraq is an "immediate threat" to the US.
Truth: Iraq is the weakest nation in the Arab world militarily. How could it be a threat to the US, whose military budget is more than half a trillion dollars -- bigger than all the budgets of all other nations combined.

Bush lie: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
Truth: After 12 months of all-out search and investigation, not a single trace of WMD is found in Iraq. Actually, Pakistan sold nuclear technology to all other so-called axis of evil except Iraq.

Bush lie: Saddam has something to do with 9/11.
Truth: Not a sinlge of evidence is given up to now linking Saddam to the bombings in 9/11.

Bush lie: Iraq is harboring Al Qaeda members, even before the invasion.
Truth: Iraq had never harbored Al Qaeda members before the war. But because of the war, there are now Al Qaeda operatives fighting in Iraq.

Etc., etc., etc. ...

Denial, denial, denial...

Bush:

"Iraq is an imminent threat and has WMDs!"

"Okay, they do not have WMDs; but Saddam is evil, and so we need to save Iraqis from this satanic madman, so we have to implement "regime change" in Iraq".

"Well, it's not really regime change. That was Clinton's policy. We actually invaded Iraq to fight terrorism wherever it is."

Etc., etc., etc. ...

Lies, lies, lies...

Riorules,

To say that Bush lied actually implies that Bush has half a brain. He doesn't. He parroted what Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld told him and then told him to say. That's how I look at it. Bush didn't lie - he's too fucking stupid to know what's going on and to actually create a lie. He just passed on a lie from the consiglares who run the show these days.

I think I'll go kick in some more cash to the Kerry campaign...

I saw the interview on 60 Minutes, and I have to admit that Clark gave the impression that he is a disgruntled employee with an an to grind with the Bush administration. All that being true, he is still the country's foremost counter terrorism expert, and he has been for a long time. Why would the country's foremost counter terrorism expert have an ax to grind with the Bush administration? (rhetorical)

Despite the man's obvious biases, there are some stark similarities between his comments and those of David Kay and O'Neil. The similarities have one common theme - the Bush administration's preoccupation with Saddam and Iraq. Their pre occupation existed before 9/11 and was brought to new heights of urgency post 9/11.

More liberal rantings I see...

Riorules... I'm glad you state with absolute certainty all of your bullet points. It's comforting to know you are the keeper of all absolute information. It's also great to know that most of America is in denial... but not you.

You guys kill me with your direct links to sites that support your own opinions, or your posting of some poll that you agree with 8 months before the election. You get all excited. It's very humorous. I could participate once again, but I'll pass this time. I've been drawn into this stuff too many times lately when the bullshit starts getting deep. It's pretty deep in the latest posts above, but I won't bite this time. We are all genuises in our own mind anyway. So much so that we argue over this on a whore mongering website. It's just such a bizarre place to get into such deep topics. Let's all go get laid and shut the fuck up.

(Message edited by aldaron on March 23, 2004)

"Let's all go get laid and shut the fuck up."

Good decision, Aldaron. Maybe the best one you've made in recent memory.

This is a forum in politics for and by board members who are not 24/7 thinking of vaginas, people with a little more sophistication in life.

BTW, for your information, I am not a liberal. I am a socialist.

Your problem is you always want to butt-in anywhere and everywhere you can insert your dick into, even if you dislike the subject matter, for reasons only you can know and understand.

If you do not like discussing politics, then just butt-out. Let members who like to do this, do it in peace.

Obrigado.

THE NEW PENTAGON PAPERS

A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.

The article appears at...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/

Aldaron, why do you dismiss these things as Liberal ranting and Bullshit? Have you heard the conservative rants latley? At least the liberal rants are thought provoking, and interesting,If I hear sean hannity ask the question "who do you think Al Queda wants to win the election?" one more time ,Im gonna lose it .Bottom line is ,republicans are wrong ,about EVERYTHING and 90% of the "democrats" in office are republicans who are pro choice ,so kerry or bush it doesnt matter ,the rich will get richer,the poor poorer its all the same shit. And as far as 90% of America being in denial your figure is off its only about 87% ,Im actually glad I dont agree with 87% of americans ,They are Idiots and none of you americans, my self included are included in that group so dont start bashing me calling me a liberal commie we have all found Nirvana in prostitution so we are all smart. But look around next time your at the mall and ask if you wanna be lumped in with all these mindless freaks ,pulling their credit cards out of their fanny packs to buy sneakers....with fucking lights in the bottom.

http://bushflash.com/animation.html

More conservative denial I see...

Aldaron... I'm glad you state with absolute certainty all of your points. It's comforting to know you are the keeper of all absolute information. It's also great to know that anyone that thinks independantly is just a liberal that hates Bush... but not you.

You kill me with the lack of support to back up your opinions, or your repeating of Bush propaganda to spin him into a better light. You get all angry. It's quite ********, but humorous at least. You could play participate once again,but it would just be more embarassing. You've been drawn into this stuff too many times lately when the bullshit starts getting deep. It's pretty deep in the latest posts above, but you won't offer anything meaningful. You are a genius in your own mind anyway. So much so that you say others think their geniuses when they write things you disagree with. It's just such a bizarre concept to get all angry about. Let's all go get laid and let people post what they think without the insults.

I think that Clarke has a huge hard on for Bush. Inasmuch as he was also the Anti terrorism big wig for Clinton and he knew Al-Qaueda was so bad, I would like to see him answer the following questions.

1. What did he tell Clinton to do when the Sudan offered Bin Laden on a plate.

2. What did he tell Clinton to do when Sudan offered Bin Laden a second and third time?

2. Why did he not take seriously the Phillipine governments warning about an Al-Qaued airline attack on the US.

3. What was his response to the bombing of the US embassies in Africa? His response to the bombing of the Kohbar towers in Saudia Arabia? Why did he reccomend lobbing a few cruise missles into an Aspirin factory in the Sudan and empty training camps in Afganistan?

If he knew that Al-Qaueda was so dangerous, why did the Clinton government not do more about it? All that shit happened on his watch.

Every one says what a shitty job the Bush admin is doing on terrorism. But what did Calrke and CLinton do about it for 8 years?

Do one of you guys have a good answer? I would like to hear it. I am tired of the partisan bullshit about Bush fucking up on terrorism. This threat was building for years and Clinton and Bush and their mutual pouting terror Czar, Clarke, stood on their dicks and did nothing until it was too late.

Rio Rules,

I agree with quite a few of your points. I thought the Saddam had WMD. But I was not privy to the intle that Bush had. Its obvious that it was exagerated. But I need to ask. Can you show me anywhere where George Bush said " Iraq is an imminent threat".

I recall him saying that it would be irresponsible of him to allow it to become an imminent threat. But I have never actually seen anywhere in print with a date and time that he actually said what you attribute to him.

I am just curious. I don't particulalry care for Bush. But I do like his approach on the terrorism issue. And I find the partisan hate against him to cloud the truth a little. I would appreciate it if you could educate me and show me where he said that.

Now the liberals are getting mad. They are actually showing a backbone. Next they will be carrying signs reading "Aldaron is Hitler".

Actually I was referring more to Riorules rantings more than anything. He is a known anti-American. I could call him names now, but I won't. I know Bulestraveler and I meant no disrespect to him because I know he is a rational person. You other fucks that chimed in can eat me.

I'm not engaging. On the advice of Badseed, I'm ignoring trolls now.

Aldaron do me a solid ,dont lump me in a made-up group ,unless its the "people who think for themselves" group,I dont agree with liberals on everything, and dont agree with conservatives on anything, thats a good policy you have anyone who doesnt agree can eat you ,hey will you be in rio next week ? maybe we can discuss politics over a couple of pussies

Baster1,

Here are some references to "imminent threat". Plenty more can be found by starting your search at google and verifying the quotes on the whitehouse webpage (check the press releases).


Q: Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?

(Whitehouse spokesman)MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all. We said what we said because we meant it. We had the intelligence to report it. Secretary Powell said it. And I may point out to you, as you may know, there is a news conference at Department of Defense today at 2:00 p.m. to discuss one element in this.
May 7 2003 press release. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-7.html#5

When asked about NATOs roll in Iraq, White house spokesman Scott McClellan responded "This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
press release. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210-7.html




(Message edited by happyxhoner on March 24, 2004)

Larry... I may or may not. I still haven't decided if I'm going this weekend or not. My apologies for grouping you in with the liberals and the Bush Haters. They have one purpose on this website... talk politics like a bunch of losers and then attack me because I don't write my dissertation on the subject.

If any of you question my ability to put my thoughts in writing I suggest you look up 1 of my 3 award winning reports. Of course, you guys wouldn't know anything about that would you? You guys keep posting your articles, and keep posting your links to your left-wing websites and I'll keep laughing at you.

Colossus: The Meek, Conscious, Silent Grunt ... go back to being a lurker. And fuck you too.

Riorules... your only purpose on this site is to rant about your socialist, pacifist, pussy philosophies, and to use it for advertisement purposes for your apartment in Rio. For you I say... relax... go take a geritol and a nap.

aldaron...

You still here?

How many goodbyes will you have to make before you actually leave? Tell us, so we will know.

The rest...

Don't worry, I am the only one Aldaron is attacking because I am the only one who is not an American on this thread; like the US not attacking North Korea, or Iran or Pakistan (nations with WMDs) but attacked Iraq because it is the weakest nation on its list. So, even if you agree with me or have posted opinioins critical of the US, its policies or its war in Iraq you are okay with him (unless, llike Colossus, you touch the wrong button and off he goes -- like a mad dog with mouth foaming with hatred in attack mode).

For your info, I do not hate Bush, America or Americans for that matter. I am just critical of its foreign policy, Bush's war-mongering, etc. I have been against violence and wars (any war) since the 60's. (I have an anti-war website for 5 years now).

I want to know if other posters have noticed this problem, too: you join a forum/thread and state your opinion for a healthy debate, and as soon as things get interesting with the opposing opinions getting elaborated and clarified, the part-poopers gets in and start to burst the balloons with their "Hey, this is not the forum for these intellectual discourses, let's go back to talking about vaginas, pussies and cunts". Just take a look at the "NON-PRO PICKUP" discussion (in South America: Brazil: Advice/Questions/Commentary); as soon as it became philosophical but really interesting -- especially with eye-opening and educational posts by Badseed and other posters regarding race, these KJs come in and shut the party down. They go in with their cynicism and insults and try to dumb-down the conversation -- and of course, the people leave. Just go and take a look; you will see how an interesting discourse gets to be killed.

For the information of "intellectual-discourse-haters": for some people life is MORE than just screwing vaginas and fucking assholes; they travel to exotic countries, enjoy those places and the people of those places, talk politics, philosophy, current events with their friends over coffee or maté, etc. Of course, they also fuck around, but in case they don't, it's also okay. To be TOLERANT of others is always a good virtue to have.

I just went to take a look at the "Non-pro Pickup" thread and most of the posts were moved to: South America: Brazil: Advice/Questions/Commentary: Racism in Brazil.

Gents:

Yeah, Hombre did some neccesary clean-up, that thread did get kind of off-course. On the other hand, Hombre has made this whole "off-topic" section specifically to discuss stuff like politics (and cigars!), so no problems here, huh? And I think we are all big enough that we can distinguish the difference between hating a country's POLICIES, versus hating the country. That applies equally to the USA or Brazil, or to Micronesia, for that matter. Too bad we can't put all politicians on their own little tiny island with some webcams so we can watch them all fuck each other instead of us...

That being said, my own opinion (and that of at least 48% of the USA) is that America is ripe for some "regime change"......

Abraco,

BS

P.S. But couldn't we have come up with anybody better than Kerry?!?! Our two party system is ideally rigged for mediocrity. And OK, I'm a whiner, but where is Teddy Roosevelt when you need him? Only the Bull Moose can pull us out of the mess we're in...