I watched that interview this morning and that's not a fair or accurate statement at all. Of course when you say "they", I assume you mean Condoleezza Rice since she was the only "they" in that interview this morning. She said the current administration was in power for only 8 months when the attack happened while Clarke (who was the first National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism ) was appointed to that position in May of 1998. Meaning, he had been in his position there over three years while the current administration had been in power only 8 months.Spirare said:Now Clarke is going to testify, tomorrow, in front of the 9-11 commission and Rice still won't. Somehting's fishy.. the worst is that they are blaming Clarke for 9-11 (on ABC this morning).
You gotta back comments like that up with proof. I don't believe this is an accurate statement.Spirare said:Consider that over half of our country balmes Iraq for 9-11 while the intelligence repeatedly shows that they had nothing to do with it.
yes, I saw it (have it still on my tivo if anyone wants a copy).Medrosje said:yup, i did. as a family friend stated in discussion after the show he is very convenient with his timing, especially after being fired from the current administration. there's also an article i read yesterday that a close friend of his is the foreign-policy chief of kerry's campaign.
but i will say this, if what he says is true, heads should roll.
I don't have those numbers Med. I actually misquote what I hear on television all the time. Liek this morning on ABC they said 1/3 of Americans believe Iraq was at least partially responsible for 9-11. You haven't heard the same thing? You haven't SEEN the same thing day in day out as this debate unfolds? 91 16v Jetta's mantra is just that! That we needed to take out Saddam in response to 9-11 as a facet of the War on Terror.... WHy should we back this up? The President is the one who should be backing up his lcaims.. after all we are in Iraq.. on the pretense that it is the War on Terror DESPITE the evidence lacking, linking Iraq to terrorism AT ALL! Why should we back it up? That's off topic anyhow. What do you think about new and even more damning evidence that Bush and his people IGNORED or at least completely botched our homeland security to the benefit of the companies that they worked for prior to their election/appointment? How many people are going to have to say the SAME DAMNED THING before Bush and his step in front of the 9-11 commission and answer some hard questions under oath?Medrosje said:
linux, you are CONSTANTLY sticking up for the guy. You wish we never went in there and ousted him. He was harmless. We have no business in the middle east. Think about what you write.linux-works said:91, you can't comprehend english (ie, understand it) very well, can you?
where, JUST WHERE, did anyone EVER SAY that saddam was 'such a nice guy'.
let me try to clear this up for you. I'll speak real slowly, so even you can understand it:
1) no one liked saddam. yet he was no direct (or even indirect) threat to the US.
2) the ones that attacked us were almost entirely from saudi and had no connection with saddam
and finally (1) and (2) have ZERO EVIDENCE OF ANY LINKAGE.
your reasoning of 'one bad arab is just the same as another' is really pretty juvinile.