PDA

View Full Version : Question for Democrats and Liberals



TruthSpeak
22 Sep 04,, 21:56
Question:

If John Kerry wins, are democrats and liberals going to feel bad when they see Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan and insurgents in Iraq celebrating in the streets??

Ray
22 Sep 04,, 22:32
What makes you feel that would be the case?

All American Presidents are Conservatives as far as the remainder of the world's feeling.

Tell me one President of the USA who didn't work for USA's interest.

If you can say so, then I will answer, even though I am not american, democrat, republican or naderist.

This much I can assure you that if the rhetorics are toned down, many will join the bandwagon.

India requires stability in economy. Oil dpell stability in economy for the developing world. It cannot be there without a stable and a peaceful Middle East.

It is reported in the Indian media, that she will contribute to Sudan for UN peacekeeping. Obviously, we want peace and given the realpolitiks, it is awfully difficult for us to get tough with oil producing countries even if we agree with the basic rationale of the US war on terror, which anyway is in our interest.

India as of today does not take foreign financial aid.

Confed999
23 Sep 04,, 01:05
Tell me one President of the USA who didn't work for USA's interest.

Just like every other country, if there were he'd get fired. On election day, sadly most voters only think of themselves, little care is given to others. :(

TruthSpeak
23 Sep 04,, 04:52
What makes you feel that would be the case?

All American Presidents are Conservatives as far as the remainder of the world's feeling.

Tell me one President of the USA who didn't work for USA's interest.

If you can say so, then I will answer, even though I am not american, democrat, republican or naderist.

This much I can assure you that if the rhetorics are toned down, many will join the bandwagon.

India requires stability in economy. Oil dpell stability in economy for the developing world. It cannot be there without a stable and a peaceful Middle East.

It is reported in the Indian media, that she will contribute to Sudan for UN peacekeeping. Obviously, we want peace and given the realpolitiks, it is awfully difficult for us to get tough with oil producing countries even if we agree with the basic rationale of the US war on terror, which anyway is in our interest.

India as of today does not take foreign financial aid.

its not about them working for our interests, its about them killing terrorists. Bush does, Kerry won't (actively persue them).

If you were a terrorist, who would you vote for?

turnagainarm
23 Sep 04,, 14:59
Question:

If John Kerry wins, are democrats and liberals going to feel bad when they see Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan and insurgents in Iraq celebrating in the streets??

Don't the insurgents in Iraq still celebrate in street under Bush presidency?

As far as AlQaeda is concerned Bush has helped then launch their biggest recruitment drive. You kill 1 they get 10 new recruits.

Ray
23 Sep 04,, 15:28
its not about them working for our interests, its about them killing terrorists. Bush does, Kerry won't (actively persue them).

If you were a terrorist, who would you vote for?

Since I am not a terrorist, I wouldn't know, but you sure seem to know. ;)

TruthSpeak
23 Sep 04,, 19:16
Since I am not a terrorist, I wouldn't know, but you sure seem to know. ;)

idiocy.

Ray
23 Sep 04,, 20:18
idiocy.


Don't be unkind to yourself.

TruthSpeak
24 Sep 04,, 04:17
Don't be unkind to yourself.

Stick to politics...comedy isnt for you.

Ray
24 Sep 04,, 06:33
You bet it. I am dead serious.

You must understand the difference between repartee and comedy.

A real Joker in the pack, do I espy?

TruthSpeak
24 Sep 04,, 16:41
Don't the insurgents in Iraq still celebrate in street under Bush presidency?

No, they die in the streets.


As far as AlQaeda is concerned Bush has helped then launch their biggest recruitment drive. You kill 1 they get 10 new recruits.

Your reality is innaccurate. Al Qaeda was doing a thousand times better before this war started.

You realize the Taliban was the sole shield for Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?? Its gone. They have no protector. They have no country they can roam free in. Their assets are frozen.

Whatever new recruits they get will die alongside their recruiter. It doesnt matter to us. They havent attacked our homeland since 9/11 because of all this.

Donnie
24 Sep 04,, 16:41
Tell me one President of the USA who didn't work for USA's interest.

um, exactly who interest should the president of the united states be looking out for?

turnagainarm
24 Sep 04,, 17:51
No, they die in the streets.


Apparentally you don't watch the TV news. Watch the news you will see them dancing with their AK-47 and RPG.




Your reality is innaccurate. Al Qaeda was doing a thousand times better before this war started.

If that is the case then how come they have killed far people after 9/11 than they had before it.

Your statement shows that you don't understand the nature of AlQaeda.



You realize the Taliban was the sole shield for Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?? Its gone. They have no protector. They have no country they can roam free in.

These guys are just lying low in Pakistan, supposedly a frontline ally of US!
Still they are able to cross into Afghanistan and shoot at US soldiers and occasionally inflict casualty.

War on terror has been a joke so far. The two countries responsible for 9/11 Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are US best allies.
How do you fight a war on terror when two countries who manufacutred all the terrorists, you declare them your best allies and sleep with them?




Their assets are frozen.

You gotta freeze more, just look around how many people they are still killing.



Whatever new recruits they get will die alongside their recruiter. It doesnt matter to us. They havent attacked our homeland since 9/11 because of all this.

Terrorists must be eliminated I have no problem with that.

Yes the terrorists have not attacked the mainland USA, there are couple of reasons for that. First of all the geographical seperation from the rest of the world, thanks to Atalantic and Pacific ocean, makes US much much less vulnerable to terrorism than the rest of the world.
Sure you have 5 million muslims living in US, but after they got their asses kicked after 9/11 with thousands of imprisionment and thousands of deportation, they have learnt their lesson. They know if there was a single incidence of terrorism on US soil then they all would be interned like the Japanese during the ww-2, stripped of their citizenship and deported.
Other reason is that US has successfully deflected it on to other places, such as Bali, Moracco, Bombay, Isatambul, Ankara, Baslan, you name it.

As long as terrorists are killing other people USA does not give a damn.

In fact recently when terrorists were killing small Russian children in Beslan, USA was supporting the terrorists by asking Putin to negotiate with terrorists.

Ray
24 Sep 04,, 19:27
I always wonder about this frointline ally business.

True Pakistan is taking action. Quite a lot to against the AQ. However, it is also for her own good and especially for Musharraf's own good. Can;t have a State where there are many power centres - the AQ terrorists, the Mullahmen, and the govt.

All said and done, Musharraf wants Pakistan to do well.

Therefore, I wonder why they are so chary about US troops entering Pakistan when chasing AQ operatives, who go into the Pakistani tribal areas for refuge. If the US was allowed then with their superior weaponry and surveillance devices, they would be of immense assitance to Pakistan.

Ray
24 Sep 04,, 19:30
um, exactly who interest should the president of the united states be looking out for?


I think you have misunderstood me.

I was just saying that een if Kerry win, obviously the interest of the USA would be paramount for him.

Thus, there is no President of the USA or any country who would willing sell his country; at least not the US Presidents. Bannana Republics may.

Donnie
24 Sep 04,, 19:56
I think you have misunderstood me.

I was just saying that een if Kerry win, obviously the interest of the USA would be paramount for him.

Thus, there is no President of the USA or any country who would willing sell his country; at least not the US Presidents. Bannana Republics may.

Well that makes sense, but i thought you were trying to make some kind of connection with all US presidents being conservative because they all look out for US interest.

TruthSpeak
24 Sep 04,, 20:00
Apparentally you don't watch the TV news. Watch the news you will see them dancing with their AK-47 and RPG.

And they die the next day.


If that is the case then how come they have killed far people after 9/11 than they had before it.

How many did they kill before 9/11?

I think you will find that the number is much higher than you think.


Your statement shows that you don't understand the nature of AlQaeda.



These guys are just lying low in Pakistan, supposedly a frontline ally of US!
Still they are able to cross into Afghanistan and shoot at US soldiers and occasionally inflict casualty.

War on terror has been a joke so far. The two countries responsible for 9/11 Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are US best allies.
How do you fight a war on terror when two countries who manufacutred all the terrorists, you declare them your best allies and sleep with them?

We never declared them our best allies for one.

Secondly....the war on terrorism has been perfected so far. We opened up Iraq, which has been a magnet for terrorism (even john kerry says it, but he doesnt understand what it means because he thinks its a bad thing). They are walking to us in droves, and dying in droves. Instead of fighting them around the world, we get to fight them in one spot.

Its masterful.



You gotta freeze more, just look around how many people they are still killing.



Terrorists must be eliminated I have no problem with that.

Yes the terrorists have not attacked the mainland USA, there are couple of reasons for that. First of all the geographical seperation from the rest of the world, thanks to Atalantic and Pacific ocean, makes US much much less vulnerable to terrorism than the rest of the world.

That only pertains to wars where countries fight countries. Al Qaeda is mobile, they can be here in 12 hours.


Sure you have 5 million muslims living in US, but after they got their asses kicked after 9/11 with thousands of imprisionment and thousands of deportation, they have learnt their lesson. They know if there was a single incidence of terrorism on US soil then they all would be interned like the Japanese during the ww-2, stripped of their citizenship and deported.
Other reason is that US has successfully deflected it on to other places, such as Bali, Moracco, Bombay, Isatambul, Ankara, Baslan, you name it.

As long as terrorists are killing other people USA does not give a damn.

In fact recently when terrorists were killing small Russian children in Beslan, USA was supporting the terrorists by asking Putin to negotiate with terrorists.

Thats not true.

The USA will never ask anyone to negotiate with terrorists.

SOME PEOPLE from the U.S. might have been...but certainly not the administration. John Kerry would have liked to negotiate with them. John Kerry wants to bring them coffee and donuts and understand them.

When that school was taken over, Putin should have sent armed soldiers in within the hour and just slaughtered every terrorist in there. Terrorists have to get the message that anytime they take a hostage, they will be killed instantly, and their message will not be heard.

I'm still trying to figure out why people are still being beheaded in Iraq. If 5 islamic militia men come up to me in masks with Ak47's, I'm going to stab the first one and then they can fucking shoot me. I'm not letting them drag my ass back so they can parade me on television and cut my head off. They are going to kill me in the street where I stand, or i'm going to get away.

Praxus
24 Sep 04,, 20:18
Tell me one President of the USA who didn't work for USA's interest.

George W. Bush

If he were fighting for Americas interest, Tehran, Mecca, Najaf, and Fullujah would be sacked and firebombed and this Militant Islamists shit would be gone.

Ray
24 Sep 04,, 20:54
Praxus,

I don't agree.

Bush's calling card reads - Get men, will travel.

The manpower is dried up.

To do what you are suggesting, you have to get the international community on board and.......

change the calling card to read:

Have MONEY, get cracking ;)

Giddiap and get the Injuns. Pronto.

turnagainarm
24 Sep 04,, 20:55
And they die the next day.

Some do die, but there is enough of them. That is they are able to launch upto 200 attacks/day. That is why they control pretty much whole Sunni triangle, parts of Baghdad, and some areas on south.

Your orginal question was what would liberals do when under Kerry's presidency terrorists will dance in the streets in Iraq.

The answer is even now they are dancing on the daily basis, and they control substantial chunk of Iraq right now.

Enough said on this.



How many did they kill before 9/11?

I think you will find that the number is much higher than you think.

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. AlQaeda pre 9/11 toll was in the range of 500-600 approx.
Post 9/11 is at least 3 times more, I consider chechen terrorists part of AlQaeda since they trained with AlQaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan camps.



We never declared them our best allies for one.

Again you have no clue what you are talking about. USA granted Pakistan MNNA status (most favored non-NATO ally), and is giving them $5 billion, half of that for military uses.

Point is if USA was sincere about fighting war on terror, all it needed to do was attack and capture Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. That would have taken care AlQaeda terrorism.



Secondly....the war on terrorism has been perfected so far. We opened up Iraq, which has been a magnet for terrorism (even john kerry says it, but he doesnt understand what it means because he thinks its a bad thing). They are walking to us in droves, and dying in droves. Instead of fighting them around the world, we get to fight them in one spot.
Its masterful.


Most of what you are saying is nonsense, becuase most of the militants/fighters/insurgents/terrorists have been Iraqi citizens of ex-Saddam regime, with fewer than 100 of foreign origin.
Now before Iraq war these Iraqis Bathists/Fidayeens were not related to AlQaeda and were NOT terrorists.

You have to be really naive to believe into this nonsensical Bush/Chenney propoganda. These guys have been proven to be consumate liers.



Thats not true.

The USA will never ask anyone to negotiate with terrorists.

SOME PEOPLE from the U.S. might have been...but certainly not the administration.

Once again it shows that you have no clue what you are talking about and nor do you follow news.

State dept. asked the Russians to negotiate with chechens. Putin reply was that he was not going to negotiate with these child killer terrorists bastards, and suggested that why doesn't US negotiate with Bin Laden.



When that school was taken over, Putin should have sent armed soldiers in within the hour and just slaughtered every terrorist in there. Terrorists have to get the message that anytime they take a hostage, they will be killed instantly, and their message will not be heard.


Again you have no clue if you think that Russian soldiers should have lauched their operation in the first hour.



I'm still trying to figure out why people are still being beheaded in Iraq. If 5 islamic militia men come up to me in masks with Ak47's, I'm going to stab the first one and then they can fucking shoot me. I'm not letting them drag my ass back so they can parade me on television and cut my head off. They are going to kill me in the street where I stand, or i'm going to get away.

You are a Rambo, not everybody is a Rambo.

Donnie
24 Sep 04,, 22:42
I'm still trying to figure out why people are still being beheaded in Iraq. If 5 islamic militia men come up to me in masks with Ak47's, I'm going to stab the first one and then they can fucking shoot me. I'm not letting them drag my ass back so they can parade me on television and cut my head off. They are going to kill me in the street where I stand, or i'm going to get away.

You are a Rambo, not everybody is a Rambo.

actualy i find this strang myself, dont get me wrong i have no clue what i actualy would do in thier situation, i can only think of what i hope i would do, and standing there letting someone cut my head off without a fight isnt it. i truly think they would have to shoot me, no way would i cooperate. (at least thats what i think)

Ray
24 Sep 04,, 23:26
actualy i find this strang myself, dont get me wrong i have no clue what i actualy would do in thier situation, i can only think of what i hope i would do, and standing there letting someone cut my head off without a fight isnt it. i truly think they would have to shoot me, no way would i cooperate. (at least thats what i think)

Donnie,

You underestimate the bravery of these Moslem freedom fighter in the name of Allah, the Benevolent.

They will tie your hand behind your back and cover your eyes (this only if they are kind).

You can do what you want.

The only thing that you maybe able do (as I think) is squirm and then the Sword of 'Justice' will set your beautiful head with golden locks and milky complexion asunder, as you whimper before the Sword hits and does it worthy duty in the name of Allah!

Theyw ill yell Allah ho Akhbar i.e. God is Great.

Their service toi God done, they will hunt for more infidels so that they can go to Paradise and have their 70+ virigns which they denied themselves while on Earth banking on the great sexy times up in Paradise.

Don't insult these brave and wonderful Soldiers of God (Mujahideens or something they call themselves). They are the best amongst all.

TruthSpeak
25 Sep 04,, 00:59
Donnie,

You underestimate the bravery of these Moslem freedom fighter in the name of Allah, the Benevolent.

They will tie your hand behind your back and cover your eyes (this only if they are kind).

You can do what you want.

The only thing that you maybe able do (as I think) is squirm and then the Sword of 'Justice' will set your beautiful head with golden locks and milky complexion asunder, as you whimper before the Sword hits and does it worthy duty in the name of Allah!

Theyw ill yell Allah ho Akhbar i.e. God is Great.

Their service toi God done, they will hunt for more infidels so that they can go to Paradise and have their 70+ virigns which they denied themselves while on Earth banking on the great sexy times up in Paradise.

Don't insult these brave and wonderful Soldiers of God (Mujahideens or something they call themselves). They are the best amongst all.


I'm wondering when you are going to take my sword of justice out of your mouth.

Confed999
25 Sep 04,, 02:46
I'm wondering when you are going to take my sword of justice out of your mouth.
What?

Ray
25 Sep 04,, 09:55
Truthspeak,

It is time I do some Bush like frank right from the hip talking to you.

You thought I was par excellence in comedy.

I am afraid you seriously require to brush up on the nuances of the English lexicon, morphemes, syntax.

It is obvious that you dont understand, witticisms, understatements, repartee.

Just because you are dumb, may I explain.

The whole essence of the post lies in this Paragraph:

Their service to God done, they will hunt for more infidels so that they can go to Paradise and have their 70+ virigns which they denied themselves while on Earth banking on the great sexy times up in Paradise.

Sadly, you missed the double-entendre so categorical clear in my post.

As far as the Sword of Justice being in your Mouth, I am not aware where your Mouth is. I thought it went up the place which is normally used for you know what.

But then, the tone of most of your Posts may suggest that this is where your Mouth is. ;)

I am sure all this too has gone over your head! :eek:

porsteamboy
25 Sep 04,, 15:38
Question:

If John Kerry wins, are democrats and liberals going to feel bad when they see Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan and insurgents in Iraq celebrating in the streets??
The Dems won't even notice, they'll be too busy celebrating in our streets that Dubya is gone!

TruthSpeak
25 Sep 04,, 17:40
The Dems won't even notice, they'll be too busy celebrating in our streets that Dubya is gone!

Except for the fact that they wer going to lose because their candidate still cant pick a side on any issue except socialized medicine.

porsteamboy
26 Sep 04,, 10:31
Except for the fact that they wer going to lose because their candidate still cant pick a side on any issue except socialized medicine.
He has a good issue - the Bush cabal ! The only issue the necons have is the fright tactic of... The terriost will get you , If you don't vote right!

Donnie
27 Sep 04,, 17:44
The only issue the necons have is the fright tactic

or abortion

or sanctity of marriage

Confed999
27 Sep 04,, 23:49
He has a good issue - the Bush cabal ! The only issue the necons have is the fright tactic of... The terriost will get you , If you don't vote right!
LOL, and you call my posts propaganda. Bet you can't prove your post though.

porsteamboy
28 Sep 04,, 09:30
LOL, and you call my posts propaganda. Bet you can't prove your post though.
The proof will be in the re-election!

Donnie
28 Sep 04,, 14:43
The proof will be in the re-election!

re-election would be a RESULT, not proof.

Confed999
29 Sep 04,, 00:27
The proof will be in the re-election!
Have you added anything coherent, to any discussion here?

turnagainarm
30 Sep 04,, 04:47
Except for the fact that they wer going to lose because their candidate still cant pick a side on any issue except socialized medicine.

ah..the flip-flop argument....

Let me lists some for you.

(i) In 2000 election Governor Bush said when he becomes President he will not employ US troops and money in nation building abroad.

Now he is engaged in nation buildng in not one but two places, Afghanistan & Iraq!

(ii) After 9/11 he said no to the homeland security dept., but then changed his mind and agreed to it!

(iii) Said no to contistuting 9/11 enquiry commisson, then later on changed his mind and said yes!

(iv) Was adamant about Condoleeza Rice wouldn't testify in front of the 9/11 commission, but later on changed his mind and allowed Rice to testify before the 9/11 commission!

(v) He first said that neither he nor chenney would testify before the 9/11 commission, then later on changed his mind and both he and Chenney did testify in front of 9/11 commission!

(vi) Promised to conduct Iraq war for less than $2 billion and finance it by selling Iraqi oil, but now Iraq is costing US $200 billion.

Can you imagine how much work can be done for $200 billion inside US?
Pretty much the entire infrastructure could be updated for that much amount!

I can go on and on....

Now tell me who is the flip-flopper?

Confed999
30 Sep 04,, 05:09
Can you imagine how much work can be done for $200 billion inside US?
Pretty much the entire infrastructure could be updated for that much amount!
That's funny. It wouldn't even cover the major ports.

Ray
30 Sep 04,, 07:58
Now tell me who is the flip-flopper?

A fish that has been landed!

turnagainarm
30 Sep 04,, 12:12
Originally Posted by turnagainarm
Can you imagine how much work can be done for $200 billion inside US?
Pretty much the entire infrastructure could be updated for that much amount!

That's funny. It wouldn't even cover the major ports.

I was talking about "updating", not building brand new infrastructure.

How much you were expecting to spend in updating the 14 major ports of the country?

My budget was $1000 million for each port, in this round of update.

That would still leave me with $186 billion to upgrade roads, railways, inland waterways, park services.

By budgeting judiciously, all those could be updated to some extent, until money is again awvailable to for the next round of update.

Anyway what did you think of Bush flip-flopping? Is it not the case of Kettle calling pot black?
Kerry has done a poor job of not exposing Bush's flip-flopping.

turnagainarm
30 Sep 04,, 12:24
Ray,
In USA politics flip-flop stands for a politician who changes his position on issues.
For example say a politician supports tax cut and later on changes his position says no to tax cut, he is going to be labeled a flip-flopper by his opponent/s.

The idea is to characterise your oppnent as a wishy-washy person who can't make up his mind and therefore can't be an effective decisionmaker.

Republican use this tactics against democrats quite often, this makes the gullible Republican voters very happy and they go on to vote for their Republican candidates in droves.

Gio
30 Sep 04,, 12:53
Well, said party wouldn't need such tatic if the other party's canadiate would decide if he's going to apease the doves or the hawks in his base. It's not totally his fault, he was picked in a hail of panic, besides being from a sheltered state with no real oppostion made him vulnerable to attacks from the national party machine.

Kerry has done a weak job period. Come on, this guy reaks of Michael Dukakis. Mean anti-Bush Kerry didn't work. Focusing on the economy and health care didn't work, so now its back to anti-war kerry. Whats his problem? He's not going to get any swing voters by shoring up the moveon.org crowd. Whatever this guy is, he surely can't act. I don't know, though. I give him one final chance, lets see how the debate today goes. With both parties trying to paint the other sides opponent as the most brilliant debater known to man, its time to see whos full of it. Funny, one moment Bush is a moron, the next he's the greatest orator known to man. I honestly don't get it, you realize with how bitter this campiagn is that if Kerry manages to win, he'll divide the nation just as much if not more?
I may be a partistan hack at times but i can be pragmatic. And this election blows.

Ray
30 Sep 04,, 16:23
Turnaganarm,

I know what is flip flop. It is from the English language.

My mistake. I should have put the Wink symobol.

Confed999
01 Oct 04,, 01:53
Anyway what did you think of Bush flip-flopping?
For it to be a "flip-flop", he would have actually had to take both sides of the issue. Agreeing to do something he's against, or not sure will help, isn't a flip-flop, it's politics.

xxxxx
04 Oct 04,, 04:39
It doesnt matter to us. They havent attacked our homeland since 9/11 because of all this.

maybe you should consider that they only could attack your homeland because of significant failures of your beloved bush-administration:

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Should he have held at least one meeting since taking office to discuss the threat of terrorism with his head of counterterrorism?”

“[T]hey didn't allow me to brief him on terrorism. You know, they're saying now that when I was afforded the opportunity to talk to him about cybersecurity, it was my choice. I could have talked about terrorism or cybersecurity. That's not true. I asked in January to brief him, the president, on terrorism, to give him the same briefing I had given Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. And I was told, ‘You can't do that briefing, Dick, until after the policy development process.’” Richard Clarke interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press, March 28, 2004.
"Clarke asked on several occasions for early Principals Committee meetings on these issues [outlined in his January 25, 2001 memo] and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. He wanted principals to accept that al Qaeda was a ‘first order threat’ and not a routine problem being exaggerated by ‘chicken little’ alarmists. No Principals Committee meetings on al Qaeda were held until September 4, 2001.” National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 8, “National Policy Coordination,” pp 9-10; http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/
hearing8/staff_statement_8.pdf
See Testimony of Richard A. Clarke before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, March 24, 2004:
MR. ROEMER: Okay. Let's move into, with my 15 minutes, let's move into the Bush administration. On January the 25th, we've seen a memo that you had written to Dr. Rice, urgently asking for a principals review of al Qaeda. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight al Qaeda --

MR. CLARKE: Uh-huh.

MR. ROEMER: -- and response to the U.S.S. Cole. You attached to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000. Did you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these, and how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

MR. CLARKE: I did geta response. The response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, the counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-cabinet level committee, and not to the principals, and that therefore it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

MR. ROEMER: So, does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group, as you had previously done?

MR. CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn't meet urgently in January or February. Then, when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of al Qaeda as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the problems, the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan, and, launched on a series of deputies meetings extending over several months to address al Qaeda in the context of all of those interrelated issues. That process probably ended, I think, in July of 2001, so we were readying for a principals meeting in July, but the principals' calendar was full, and then they went on vacation, many of them, in August, so we couldn't meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September.


FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Maybe Mr. Bush was wondering why he had cut terrorism funding from the FBI.”

“This question of resources will also come up in the commission's questioning of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was brand-new on the job in the fall of 2001 and on September 10th cut the FBI's request for new counterterrorism money by 12 percent.” John Dimsdale, “Former FBI Director Louis Freeh and Attorney General John Ashcroft to appear before 9/11 commission tomorrow,” NPR Radio: Marketplace, April 12, 2004. See also, 2001 budget documents including Attorney General John Ashcroft FY 2003 budget request to Office of Management and Budget, September 10, 2001, showing $65 million offset in the FBI budget for counter-terrorism equipment grants: http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/
cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D
/FY03ASHCROFT.PDF


FAHRENHEIT 9/11: The security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001, said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes.

August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB): “Al-Qa'ida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s. A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks. We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (redacted portion) ... service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of ‘Blind Shaykh’ 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists. Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” August 6, 2001, Bin Ladin Determined to Strike Inside US, http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/
04/10/whitehouse.pdf
“The Aug. 6, 2001, document, known as the President's Daily Brief, has been the focus of intense scrutiny because it reported that bin Laden advocated airplane hijackings, that al-Qaida supporters were in the United States and that the group was planning attacks here.” Clarke J. Scott, “Clarke Gave Warning on Sept. 4, 2001; Testimony Includes Apology to Families of Sept. 11 Victims, Associated Press, March 25, 2004.

xxxxx
04 Oct 04,, 04:50
George W. Bush

If he were fighting for Americas interest, Tehran, Mecca, Najaf, and Fullujah would be sacked and firebombed and this Militant Islamists shit would be gone.

and what are you dreaming of during the nights???

Confed999
04 Oct 04,, 05:19
Clarke Gave Warning on Sept. 4, 2001
No good, it didn't contain specific information. Without specific targets, or at least dates, there was nothing to be done. The American public wouldn't have stood for increased security without precident.

Donnie
05 Oct 04,, 21:22
No good, it didn't contain specific information. Without specific targets, or at least dates, there was nothing to be done. The American public wouldn't have stood for increased security without precident.

hell confed, there barely putting up with them now, WITH precident.

Fonnicker
06 Oct 04,, 16:57
Question:

If John Kerry wins, are democrats and liberals going to feel bad when they see Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan and insurgents in Iraq celebrating in the streets??

Terrorists have been celebrating in the streets for eons, regardless who happens to be in the white house. Here is what I find disconcerting:

We are a democratic nation. Some would say, "No, we are a Repulic!" Either way, the problem is that we went into Iraq with the intent to install democracy in the area. Democracy. I'll say it again...Democracy! As a member of the largest democratic world body - the UN - it is our responsibility to hold up the democratic process of that institution. We didn't. We completely bypassed the democratic process of the UN in order to invade Iraq under the pretence of the spread of democracy (and of course the WMD's which didn't exist) We need to consider why it is that the Republican controlled US Government really went in there when the vast majority of the world believed that it was and is unjustified. When are we going to decide to be a part of the world community rather than the one that thinks we can rule over it with a psuedo-democratic iron fist that holds in it's clutches the threat of economic sanctions for all those who dare opose our intigral democratic crusade.

Donnie
06 Oct 04,, 18:07
We need to consider why it is that the Republican controlled US Government really went in there when the vast majority of the world believed that it was and is unjustified.

congress votes for war, that includes liberals, it also includes kerry.

Confed999
07 Oct 04,, 01:01
Democracy. I'll say it again...Democracy
Most people in the world don't know the difference between a republic and a democracy. The first thing the Iraqi government did was to produce a constitution, thus they could still be called a "constitutional democracy", if that makes you feel better.