Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

1 - 20 of 106 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm curious to know if anyone watched this most interesting program tonight highlighting what the White House agenda was before and after september 11th. Clark was the anti-terrorism head for Reagn,Bush I,Clinton and Bush II.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,449 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,541 Posts
I wasn't suprised by any of the recent developements. Regardless of his motivation and whether what he's saying is true or not the whole thing gave administration a whole new chance to lie.

Here I yet again detail the USCNS project, the bi-partisan commission, convened in 1998, led by Hart and Rudman, and offered to the Bush administration in Janurary 2001 as a stratgey and means of combating terrorism abroad and at home. The findings and suggestions of this committee were wholly ignored by the Bush administration until AFTER 9-11, when the President authorised and took credit for the DHS, which was designed under Clinton.
Yesterday in response to Clark's book McCormack said "We actively pursued the Clinton administration's policies on Al Qaeda until we could get into place a more comprehensive policy."
That sounds good except when you consider the fact they did what I outlined above. Nothing.

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).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,730 Posts
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).
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.

She also said that in a meeting with the president on July 5th about security and terrorism, before the attack, Clarke stressed concerns about cyber attacks, which he was much more concerned about, and that he (Clarke) had mentioned nothing else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,541 Posts
True Sullie it was only an insinuation. She said what you said above. Said that the Bush Admin was only there for 8 months and he was there for 30 years. Honestly, she is right. The reason I think it sucks that they blame him is because Bush will take credit for all the good things and blame others for the bad. I know that this is what politicians do. I still don't like it.

Also bear in mind how well the Bush admin forces transition from insinuation to statement. 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. Why? Because the Bushies constantly insinuate the connection and the 'liberal media' :poke: does little to nothing to refute it... and watches as our nation wallows in misinformed atrophy... :suspicio:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,449 Posts
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.
You gotta back comments like that up with proof. I don't believe this is an accurate statement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
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.
yes, I saw it (have it still on my tivo if anyone wants a copy).

I'm sure its true. whent they interviewed the guy from the white house (that guy with glasses) he seemed too fidgety and uncomfortable. like he was obviously told to do damage control and felt damned uncomfortable doing it.

this could very well be the nail in the coffin for bush.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
I especially liked the part where clark submitted a written report and it was returned to him 'REDO' meaning, re-do the paper since the conclusion wasn't in fitting with the agenda I already have.

this shit stinks on ice.

BUSH HAS TO GO. that lying sack of shit.

to bring us into a TOTALLY UNNECESSARY WAR has to be the most evil thing a US pres has ever done. THE most evil thing. much much worse than lying about a blowjob, don't you think?

and yet half of the american public STILL think that 9/11 = iraq.

we look like fools (to the rest of the world) and that's also a non-excusable offense for a president.

I don't care how bad kerry is. we need a full system reset in the white house. nothing else will do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,449 Posts
linux-works said:
and yet half of the american public STILL think that 9/11 = iraq.
back it up!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
ok, so I was wrong.

its not half of america.

its more like 69%

(i endeavor to be accurate) ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,541 Posts
Medrosje said:
linux-works said:
and yet half of the american public STILL think that 9/11 = iraq.
back it up!
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?

BUT since I'm such a nice guy... I did what you asked anyhow. You can try this at home too! I typed 'poll iraq terror 9-11' into a handy thing called a Google search engine. Below is Result 1 of about 108,000. Search took 0.34 seconds.

Story last updated at 9:25 a.m. Sunday, June 15, 2003

Poll: Americans misinformed about Iraq, 9-11
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON--A third of the American public believes U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a recent poll, and 22 percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons.

Before the war, half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers Sept. 11, 2001.

But such weapons have not been found in Iraq and were never used. Most of the Sept. 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. None were Iraqis.

How could so many people be so wrong about life-and-death information that has dominated news coverage for almost two years?

These poll results startled the pollsters who conducted and analyzed the surveys.

"It's a striking finding," said Steve Kull, the director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which asked the weapons questions during a May 14-18 poll of 1,256 respondents.

He added, "Given the intensive news coverage and high levels of public attention, this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."

That is, having their beliefs conflict with the facts.

Kull said the data showed that the belief that weapons of mass destruction had been found "is substantially greater among those who favored the war
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
and besides, it was a growing murmer from the american people. true, bush never said in very distinct clear words that iraq=9/11 - no one is THAT dumb to go on record with those exact words. but by the same token, he did all he could to insinuate and imply that there was a connection - and much much worse - once he knew that there was a connection made in peoples' minds, he never ONCE tried to correct it 'whoa, people - iraq wasn't the one who bombed us with planes.'.

not once did he ever even imply there was DOUBT that 9/11 and iraq were linked.

there is just too much evidence coming out that shows bush in a very bad light re: the whole reason for war.

it really stinks on ice.

fortunately, he won't be around in office much longer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
It's too bad some of you think Saddam was such a nice guy. Like it or not, President Bush campaigned on getting rid of Saddam, the fact that the middle east is a haven for terrorism gave him the chance to kick his butt out of there. If you don't see ANY connection between Saddam and terrorism, perhaps you should open your eyes and do some reading :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
also, by your reasoning, 'bad men' should be taken from power by the US.

but was saddam the worst 'bad man' we could have gone after?

and why did we stop there? there is a shitload of 'bad men in power' in south america, africa, asia.

...and one very very bad man in power in the US.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,449 Posts
linux-works said:
ok, so I was wrong.

its not half of america.

its more like 69%

(i endeavor to be accurate) ;)
oh, in 2003 it was 7 out of 10. ahh, i thought we were talking CURRENT info, i guess i was wrong. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
in fact, it was MORE relevant in 2003! that's when we attacked!

it matters very little what we believe now. the damage is already done. american lives were lost and the US is the laughing stock of the world.

we were hoodwinked back then. what we believe now only adds insult to injury.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
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.
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.

You seem to have some absolute concrete proof that prior to us going into Iraq in 2003, he was not a threat to anyone, particularly the US. I would like to see that. Why in the world would you wait until now to provide it? Do you really think we could have relied on Saddam to help us fight terrorism?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
91 16V Jetta said:
linux, you are CONSTANTLY sticking up for the guy.
you seem to have reading comprehension issues. please fix and resubmit comment at a later time.
 
1 - 20 of 106 Posts
About this Discussion
105 Replies
19 Participants
linux-works
Volkswagen Passat Forum
Passatworld is a forum dedicated to Volkswagen Passat enthusiasts to discuss mods, Quattro, Turbo Diesel, reviews and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top