Not very damn proud now,We have to do something about Bush

[Spider]

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Seymour_Hersh_shocking_new_Abu_Ghraib_0617.html
Seymour Hersh reveals shocking new details of Abu Ghraib; 'Father and son forced to do acts together'
John Byrne and David Edwards
Published: Sunday June 17, 2007

Print This Email This

In a Saturday interview with CNN's Late Edition, veteran New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh revealed new details about the coverup of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. His new piece in the magazine can be read here.

"The notion... that our leader, Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense and his aides, they all went and testified in May after the stories about Abu Ghraib became public that 'oh my God, we just didn't know about, we didn't realize how serious it was,' is simply not true."

Blitzer asks Hersh about a quote given by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba said in a May 6, 2004 meeting with Rumsfeld, then-Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and top brass at the Pentagon.

"I described the naked detainee lying on the wet floor, handcuffed, with an interrogator shoving things up his rectum and said, 'That's not abuse, that's torture,'" Taguba said. "There was quiet."

The following day, May 7, Rumsfeld testified before the House Armed Services Committee.

"It breaks our hearts that in fact someone didn't say wait, look, this is terrible," Rumsfeld said. "We need to do something to manage -- the legal part of these proceeding along fine. What wasn't proceeding along fine was that the president didn't know, and you didn't know and I didn't know and as a result, somebody leaked a secret report to the press and there they are."

Hersh scoffs at Rumsfeld's response.

"It's sort of ridiculous. Everybody at the top, by the middle of January, knew," Hersh said. "The only question I raise at the end of the article, is what the president know, when?"

Blitzer reads the White House response.

"The President addressed this fully," a White House statement says. "He first saw the pictures on TV and was upset by them. He called for the investigation to go forward. He found the actions abhorrent and urged the Defense Department to get to the bottom of the matter."

"It's not when they saw the photographs," Hersh stresses. "It's when they learned how serious it was. They were told in memos what the photographs showed... They showed other, more sexual abuse than we knew, sodomy of women prisons by American soldiers, a father and his son forced to do acts together. There was more stuff [than] was made public. You didn't need a photograph if you had a verbal description of it.

"It's quite implicit," he added. "They knew very quickly this was bad."

[Garcia Bronco]

call me when they cut off somebody's head

[bendog]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11151823

Listen to this. She says the US is the cause of all the violence, we need to get out now, we are stomping on their soverignty, Sadr is a peaceful protector, and the only thing that can prevent civil war is Sharia law. And she's elected their their ****ing parliment that won't make the compromises to end this thing.

That's what the damn dems should be forcing onto the national news at night. That's what the soldiers are fighting for. Bushii is insane. They'll never form a representative democracy with a western orientaiton. Saddam WAS better. Though leave that last part out. People aren't quite ready for that reality yet.

[Spider]

call me when they cut off somebody's head
Having Sex with your ole man .. one is just as bad as the other ...........

[footstepsfrom#27]

What else would you expect from the people who brought us this guy?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/61/MikeDBrown.jpg

[Crushaholic]

Having Sex with your ole man .. one is just as bad as the other ...........

The difference is that there is a better chance this father and son took up arms against the United States vs. innocent journalists merely covering the conflict and literally lose their head.

[Spider]

The difference is that there is a better chance this father and son took up arms against the United States vs. innocent journalists merely covering the conflict and literally lose their head.

Oh I see , so it is ok to force Dad and son to have intercourse cause they may have took up arms against us .........Now all we need is a Militant wing of NAMBLA

[Spider]

What else would you expect from the people who brought us this guy?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/61/MikeDBrown.jpg
Doing a heckva job Brownie ;D

[Rigs11]

call me when they cut off somebody's head
Why? So you can defend it?

[TailgateNut]

Having Sex with your ole man .. one is just as bad as the other ...........


No Doubt, they might as well cut of my f-ing head! If not I'll commit Hari Kari!

[Spider]

No Doubt, they might as well cut of my f-ing head! If not I'll commit Hari Kari!

in GB haste to protect Bush , I dont think he read the whole thing , and if GB did read it all, then he has some deep rooted Issues ;D

[TailgateNut]

in GB haste to protect Bush , I dont think he read the whole thing , and if GB did read it all, then he has some deep rooted Issues ;D


Regardless, He has deep rooted issues! ...and he's a board moderator?! Yikes!

It's like having a blind man managing the rifle range!

[Crushaholic]

Oh I see , so it is ok to force Dad and son to have intercourse cause they may have took up arms against us .........Now all we need is a Militant wing of NAMBLA

You're right in that this isn't the thread to talk about the legitimacy of our torture tactics. They appear to be toying with them, not extracting information out of them.

[codeman]

This thread is just plain stupid.

Why not just say you hate Bush and get it over with. Next election we can talk about what that president is doing to ruin the country and world.

[Rigs11]

This thread is just plain stupid.

Why not just say you hate Bush and get it over with. Next election we can talk about what that president is doing to ruin the country and world.

Beat it noob. If you're gonna hang out in the war forum at least have the intelligence to post something other than the tired blather that we hate bush.

[Bronco Bob]

This thread is just plain stupid.

Why not just say you hate Bush and get it over with. Next election we can talk about what that president is doing to ruin the country and world.

Better yet, give us your reasons why you are still in love with Bush.
What exactly is he doing to benefit you or the country?

[codeman]

Better yet, give us your reasons why you are still in love with Bush.
What exactly is he doing to benefit you or the country?

Never said anything to lead you in that direction. The concept of this whole thread has no basis of reality, it's just a hate thread.

[codeman]

Beat it noob. If you're gonna hang out in the war forum at least have the intelligence to post something other than the tired blather that we hate bush.

Dude, that's all it is. Take a look.

Anyone, any party, that runs for president in today's world will have much the same acceptance rating as Bush. With the advent of the internet there are many whacko nutjobs that tend to go overboard with their hate/dislike for the person in office, especially if they are of the opposing party.

[TailgateNut]

Dude, that's all it is. Take a look.

Anyone, any party, that runs for president in today's world will have much the same acceptance rating as Bush. With the advent of the internet there are many whacko nutjobs that tend to go overboard with their hate/dislike for the person in office, especially if they are of the opposing party.


Bull shiat. Bush takes the cake, and I doubt that we as a country will ever vote without being informed as the republicans did in 04.
There will still be quite a few un-informed citizens who will vote Party, or Name recognition, or "i just like his looks", or "flip the coin".......etc...

[Spider]

This thread is just plain stupid.

Why not just say you hate Bush and get it over with. Next election we can talk about what that president is doing to ruin the country and world.

LOL ........ talk about slow ............ everyone already knows I hate Bush and why , why dont you tell us why you still believe in him ....... no need be to shy , we all already know you are pretty simple

[Bronco Bob]

Never said anything to lead you in that direction. The concept of this whole thread has no basis of reality, it's just a hate thread.

So in other words we should love everyone, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam,
bin Laden, no matter how badly they screw it up for people?

[mhgaffney]

Most of the Iraqis we tortured at Abu Graib were just ordinary people who got swept up by chance -- just like most of the so called terrorists we arrested in Afghanistan and sent to Gitmo in Cuba.

Nearly all were innocent victims -- but you can be sure by now we've radicalized them because of how we treated them. The policy came down from the top: To extract information by any means necessary, meaning torture.

The responsibility for this obscenity rests with Rumsfeld and Bush and Cheney. We must hold them accountable.

If we fail to do so the world will hold the American people responsible. And the world will be right to do so.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

in GB haste to protect Bush , I dont think he read the whole thing , and if GB did read it all, then he has some deep rooted Issues ;D

:yep:

It's as if defending Dim Son no matter what is some sort of knee-jerk he can't control.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Beat it noob. If you're gonna hang out in the war forum at least have the intelligence to post something other than the tired blather that we hate bush.

Not to mention bring some kind of reading comprehension game.

[cutthemdown]

Beat it noob. If you're gonna hang out in the war forum at least have the intelligence to post something other than the tired blather that we hate bush.

Actually the newbie got it right. That's all you people do is bash Bush. What will you do when you don't have Bush to bash? Maybe go out and actually try and make the world a better place maybe? Probably not you will find someone new to blame everything on.

[cutthemdown]

Most of the Iraqis we tortured at Abu Graib were just ordinary people who got swept up by chance -- just like most of the so called terrorists we arrested in Afghanistan and sent to Gitmo in Cuba.

Nearly all were innocent victims -- but you can be sure by now we've radicalized them because of how we treated them. The policy came down from the top: To extract information by any means necessary, meaning torture.

The responsibility for this obscenity rests with Rumsfeld and Bush and Cheney. We must hold them accountable.

If we fail to do so the world will hold the American people responsible. And the world will be right to do so.

Kill em all, let god sort them out.

[TailgateNut]

Actually the newbie got it right. That's all you people do is bash Bush. What will you do when you don't have Bush to bash? Maybe go out and actually try and make the world a better place maybe? Probably not you will find someone new to blame everything on.



Ya know what, I never, until you braindead ****s voted for the idiot, bashed a president, regardless of party, but BUSH needs to be bashed, in the ****ing head with a damn 2x4. The guy is an embarrasment to this country. He doesn't care one iota about the citizens, the economy nor or soldiers. He is our Sadam!

[codeman]

Bull shiat. Bush takes the cake, and I doubt that we as a country will ever vote without being informed as the republicans did in 04.
There will still be quite a few un-informed citizens who will vote Party, or Name recognition, or "i just like his looks", or "flip the coin".......etc...

You mean that you want voters to vote like you - liberal.

I'd say that Slick Willie takes the cake. He gets blowjobs in the oval office while the country is being attacked and then lies about the blowjob.

That takes the cake dude.

Bush is not a good president but at least he had the balls to go after the terrorists where they are rather than to do a Clinton and wait for them to return.

People with any sense will not run for president. From the 1996 election on every President will be investigated for whatever the other party can dig up. It's a no win situation. Unless there is a political change in this country we will continue to spiral into unrecoverable debt. Some day that debt will be called in and we all will be in a world of hurt.

[codeman]

Ya know what, I never, until you braindead ****s voted for the idiot, bashed a president, regardless of party, but BUSH needs to be bashed, in the ****ing head with a damn 2x4. The guy is an embarrasment to this country. He doesn't care one iota about the citizens, the economy nor or soldiers. He is our Sadam!

Bush is not perfect, but he is far from you profile of him. Your rant is just stupid, the same would be said of anyone that is in office and not to mention those that should have been given the same wood shampoo... Clinton would be one and his little peanut eating brother Carter is another.

[cutthemdown]

If you stick around codeman get used to it. Many of the people on this board are so far left it's amazing.

[Bronco Bob]

I'd say that Slick Willie takes the cake. He gets blowjobs in the oval office while the country is being attacked and then lies about the blowjob.



Excuse me, but the country didn't get attacked until 9/11, and that
was under W's watch, while he was reading "My Pet Goat."

[Bronco Bob]

If you stick around codeman get used to it. Many of the people on this board are so far left it's amazing.

The hard core Bushies are even more amazing. I swear we must have
a good 15% of the 29% on this board.

[Rascal]

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Seymour_Hersh_shocking_new_Abu_Ghraib_0617.html
Seymour Hersh reveals shocking new details of Abu Ghraib; 'Father and son forced to do acts together'
John Byrne and David Edwards
Published: Sunday June 17, 2007

Print This Email This

In a Saturday interview with CNN's Late Edition, veteran New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh revealed new details about the coverup of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. His new piece in the magazine can be read here.

"The notion... that our leader, Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense and his aides, they all went and testified in May after the stories about Abu Ghraib became public that 'oh my God, we just didn't know about, we didn't realize how serious it was,' is simply not true."

Blitzer asks Hersh about a quote given by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba said in a May 6, 2004 meeting with Rumsfeld, then-Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and top brass at the Pentagon.

"I described the naked detainee lying on the wet floor, handcuffed, with an interrogator shoving things up his rectum and said, 'That's not abuse, that's torture,'" Taguba said. "There was quiet."

The following day, May 7, Rumsfeld testified before the House Armed Services Committee.

"It breaks our hearts that in fact someone didn't say wait, look, this is terrible," Rumsfeld said. "We need to do something to manage -- the legal part of these proceeding along fine. What wasn't proceeding along fine was that the president didn't know, and you didn't know and I didn't know and as a result, somebody leaked a secret report to the press and there they are."

Hersh scoffs at Rumsfeld's response.

"It's sort of ridiculous. Everybody at the top, by the middle of January, knew," Hersh said. "The only question I raise at the end of the article, is what the president know, when?"

Blitzer reads the White House response.

"The President addressed this fully," a White House statement says. "He first saw the pictures on TV and was upset by them. He called for the investigation to go forward. He found the actions abhorrent and urged the Defense Department to get to the bottom of the matter."

"It's not when they saw the photographs," Hersh stresses. "It's when they learned how serious it was. They were told in memos what the photographs showed... They showed other, more sexual abuse than we knew, sodomy of women prisons by American soldiers, a father and his son forced to do acts together. There was more stuff [than] was made public. You didn't need a photograph if you had a verbal description of it.

"It's quite implicit," he added. "They knew very quickly this was bad."

Well considering the facts, did people honestly think there would not be a coverup? This sort of thing is very damaging to not only public perception towards our soldiers by Iraqi's, etc, but also to the soldiers moral as a whole.

It's unfortunate that these events took place, but I'm not ready to blame Bush for it other then it was his decision to go there. But the soldiers and commanders there have to take responsibility for their actions. Bush can't hold their hands 24/7.

Regarding Rummy's remarks...that would easily appear to be irregularities in his sworn statements, as such he should be subpeoned.

[codeman]

Excuse me, but the country didn't get attacked until 9/11, and that
was under W's watch, while he was reading "My Pet Goat."

1993 WTC bombed, not long afterward the Khobar Towers, The American Embassy, The Marine Barracks, the USS Cole.

Which part of that have you conveniently forgotten?

You've been watching too much of the Moron Moore movie, I had hoped that people were smart enough to see the editing of that but I have to guess that you were fooled. Have you ever watched the whole video of that school meeting? I thought not.

[24champ]

Meanwhile Bush used Mini-Nukes on 9/11....

[Bronco Bob]

1993 WTC bombed, not long afterward the Khobar Towers, The American Embassy, The Marine Barracks, the USS Cole.

Which part of that have you conveniently forgotten?

Apparently you have forgetten 1993 WTC was bombed 1 month into Clinton's
presidency, and unlike W, he had no advance warning it was going to happen.
Apparently you have forgotten the bombers were rounded up and sent to
prison. Apparently you have forgotten that Lewinsky didn't even start
working at the White House until 1995.
Not only that, but you must have failed geography, as neither the Khobar
Towers, an American Embassy you don't even know what country it was
in, are even in the USA, or the that the USS Cole was either at the time,
not to mention that happened in October of 2000.





You've been watching too much of the Moron Moore movie, I had hoped that people were smart enough to see the editing of that but I have to guess that you were fooled. Have you ever watched the whole video of that school meeting? I thought not.

And you have been watching too much Faux Noise.

[Spider]

1993 WTC bombed, not long afterward the Khobar Towers, The American Embassy, The Marine Barracks, the USS Cole.

Which part of that have you conveniently forgotten?

You've been watching too much of the Moron Moore movie, I had hoped that people were smart enough to see the editing of that but I have to guess that you were fooled. Have you ever watched the whole video of that school meeting? I thought not.

you have to be inbred ........ Seriously ......No one is this stupid without help

[codeman]

Apparently you have forgetten 1993 WTC was bombed 1 month into Clinton's
presidency, and unlike W, he had no advance warning it was going to happen.
Apparently you have forgotten the bombers were rounded up and sent to
prison. Apparently you have forgotten that Lewinsky didn't even start
working at the White House until 1995.
Not only that, but you must have failed geography, as neither the Khobar
Towers, an American Embassy you don't even know what country it was
in, are even in the USA, or the that the USS Cole was either at the time,
not to mention that happened in October of 2000.
.

All of the attacks were under Clintons watch. All Embassy's are considered U.S. soil. Bush had no warning that 9/11 was going to happen, that is all urban legend. Where are those bombers from 1993 now? Care to venture a guess? Which part of Clintons presidency was not during 1993-2001? I mentioned the start of the attacks as the WTC in 1993. You obviously do not have a grasp on history nor do you have a grasp on U.S. presence in foreign countries nor their presence here. If you go to an Embassy of another country in the U.S. you are standing on their soil. If you attack a US Navy Ship you are attacking the United States. Now, tell me again who was president when the USS Cole was attacked. Tell me what the response was?

As for the pre warning of the 1993 attack, you might have missed some of the news about holy war being called on the U.S. in the 1980's. I'm sure you know about that, as you are telling me you know all.

Get me some of your debunking information, I'd like to see it.

The response during Clintons time in office was to fire a couple of million dollar missiles into the desert. He missed Ali Baba and the 40 thieves, they were in another part of the world.

[Rascal]

Sorry Spider but he is correct. He said that the country wasn't attacked till 9/11 and that is completely false. If you don't want to blame Clinton for 1993 WTC bombing fine (not to mention the attack on the US Embassy which is US soil BTW), and somehow spin away the other attacks, the WTC bombing alone debunks his comment regardless of who you want to blame.

[codeman]

you have to be inbred ........ Seriously ......No one is this stupid without help

Apparently you are. You have forgotten the five attacks that happened between the inauguration of Clinton and the time that he left office? I'm might be a little gray on top, but I still remember that happening.

Oh, yeah. I forget. You are one of the conspiracy jerks that says that all of those attacks were planned and pulled off by George Bush so he could get elected and then he carried it further and nuked the WTC.

Don't be an ass ..... Oops ...... Too late.

[Spider]

Apparently you are. You have forgotten the five attacks that happened between the inauguration of Clinton and the time that he left office? I'm might be a little gray on top, but I still remember that happening.

Oh, yeah. I forget. You are one of the conspiracy jerks that says that all of those attacks were planned and pulled off by George Bush so he could get elected and then he carried it further and nuked the WTC.

Don't be an ass ..... Oops ...... Too late.

Not here in America Dumb ass ...1993 WTC bombing , the terrorist are locked up doing time , the cole , Clinton was on his way out the door .. too bad so sad ....
Sell your silly ass bullshít somewhere else .........Pretty sick a tired of liars like you

[Spider]

Sorry Spider but he is correct. He said that the country wasn't attacked till 9/11 and that is completely false. If you don't want to blame Clinton for 1993 WTC bombing fine (not to mention the attack on the US Embassy which is US soil BTW), and somehow spin away the other attacks, the WTC bombing alone debunks his comment regardless of who you want to blame.
that wasnt the part I was disputing , it was the lying about BJ when america was attacked ........you know damn well codeman is full of shít just spitting out right wing talking points .......the asshat wont bring up 1983

[Spider]

All of the attacks were under Clintons watch. All Embassy's are considered U.S. soil. Bush had no warning that 9/11 was going to happen, that is all urban legend. Where are those bombers from 1993 now? Care to venture a guess? Which part of Clintons presidency was not during 1993-2001? I mentioned the start of the attacks as the WTC in 1993. You obviously do not have a grasp on history nor do you have a grasp on U.S. presence in foreign countries nor their presence here. If you go to an Embassy of another country in the U.S. you are standing on their soil. If you attack a US Navy Ship you are attacking the United States. Now, tell me again who was president when the USS Cole was attacked. Tell me what the response was?

As for the pre warning of the 1993 attack, you might have missed some of the news about holy war being called on the U.S. in the 1980's. I'm sure you know about that, as you are telling me you know all.

Get me some of your debunking information, I'd like to see it.

The response during Clintons time in office was to fire a couple of million dollar missiles into the desert. He missed Ali Baba and the 40 thieves, they were in another part of the world.

you are a damn liar ........Aug 6th Memo ........

[gunns]

Dude, that's all it is. Take a look.

Anyone, any party, that runs for president in today's world will have much the same acceptance rating as Bush. With the advent of the internet there are many whacko nutjobs that tend to go overboard with their hate/dislike for the person in office, especially if they are of the opposing party.

I've been alive through 9 Presidents, 8 that I can remember. Never have I seen a President abuse the office and be disliked as much as Bush. Not even Nixon. Any thread that includes Bush will reflect disdain and hatred. It goes with the man. He's earned it.

[gunns]

Apparently you are. You have forgotten the five attacks that happened between the inauguration of Clinton and the time that he left office? I'm might be a little gray on top, but I still remember that happening.

Oh, yeah. I forget. You are one of the conspiracy jerks that says that all of those attacks were planned and pulled off by George Bush so he could get elected and then he carried it further and nuked the WTC.

Don't be an ass ..... Oops ...... Too late.

Pot, kettle. I love the deflection to Clinton when speaking of Bush's sins. They are his own.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I love the deflection to Clinton when speaking of Bush's sins.

:yep:

Especially when you consider how far from the original thread topic the bush lemmings took this.

These are obviously people who would make excuses for Bush if GeeDubya ate their children.

[cutthemdown]

I don't think you can blam presidents for attacks on America. Clinton, Bush SR, Bush JR all would have loved to thwart the attacks that occurred under their watches. I think what you have to look at as what they did about it. Clinton really didn't go after Al Quedia very hard. He launched a few cruise missiles that's about it. He did bomb the hell out of Yugoslavia and I supported that action.

[codeman]

you are a damn liar ........Aug 6th Memo ........

I'm a damn liar? OK, I can play that game, you are a left wing nut job that will believe any conspiracy theory that comes up.

Post your "truthful memo" nut job.

[codeman]

I don't think you can blam presidents for attacks on America. Clinton, Bush SR, Bush JR all would have loved to thwart the attacks that occurred under their watches. I think what you have to look at as what they did about it. Clinton really didn't go after Al Quedia very hard. He launched a few cruise missiles that's about it. He did bomb the hell out of Yugoslavia and I supported that action.

You left out Reagan. Jimmy Carter knew the mid-east was a time-bomb but he wasn't the type of president that had the balls to act, i.e. see Iran hostage situation.

[codeman]

that wasnt the part I was disputing , it was the lying about BJ when america was attacked ........you know damn well codeman is full of shít just spitting out right wing talking points .......the asshat wont bring up 1983

Why don't you, as the local asshat, bring it up. Post it and make your points ... that is unless you are chicken. Well McFly, ya chicken? (oh, I forgot .. you're not chicken you're gay.)

[codeman]

Originally Posted by gunns View Post
I love the deflection to Clinton when speaking of Bush's sins.

:yep:

Especially when you consider how far from the original thread topic the bush lemmings took this.

These are obviously people who would make excuses for Bush if GeeDubya ate their children.

You mean like all of the excuses you guys made for Willie and the hand job/blow job?

You jerks take time and dates verbatim and can't reason that usually the date is the beginning of a time frame.

The original topic of the thread wasn't about the terrorist attacks but it was opened up by the ignorance of the liberals here that will go to all ends to discredit anything this President has done. He hasn't been right in all things but he is also has not been as wrong as some of the lwnjs here are purporting.

[gunns]

You mean that you want voters to vote like you - liberal.

I'd say that Slick Willie takes the cake. He gets blowjobs in the oval office while the country is being attacked and then lies about the blowjob.

That takes the cake dude.

Bush is not a good president but at least he had the balls to go after the terrorists where they are rather than to do a Clinton and wait for them to return.

People with any sense will not run for president. From the 1996 election on every President will be investigated for whatever the other party can dig up. It's a no win situation. Unless there is a political change in this country we will continue to spiral into unrecoverable debt. Some day that debt will be called in and we all will be in a world of hurt.

Ahhh, another labelmaker. Hmmm, I don't consider myself a liberal, I'm conservative on many issues, but since I didn't vote for the clueless I guess I've been stamped.

Yes, Bush went after the terrorist, then got side tracked with Iraq and forgot about the terrorists. But you're right, you do have to hand it to him, by going to Iraq, the terrorists came to his war. I really don't think he figured on that. Give me a President that goes after a blowjob rather than one that goes after his own personal agenda without a plan for the aftermath while showing off his golf swing while troops are dying. To me, that takes the cake.

Since 1996??? Please, the Republicans are the pimp daddies for digging up stuff. Problem is all they come up with is sexual and personal in nature, not something that effects us personally. If that were so almost every President since I've been alive has adversely affected this country with their sexual practices and an awful lot of Republican legislators at that.

[TailgateNut]

You mean that you want voters to vote like you - liberal.



Bush is not a good president but at least he had the balls to go after the terrorists where they are rather than to do a Clinton and wait for them to return.

Unless there is a political change in this country we will continue to spiral into unrecoverable debt. Some day that debt will be called in and we all will be in a world of hurt.


#1 Bush did NOT go after the terrorists where they "ARE"/"WERE". He went to Iraq. Inform yourself prior to opening your trap. Osama is sitting somewhere in Afghanistanor Pakistan laughing his ass of at the incompetent knee jerk reaction and results of Dumbyas response.

#2 Unrecoverable debt? You are correct, just look at where the debt ceiling was when Dingleberry moved into the WH, and where it is now. Hell, my future grandchildren will be paying out of their assses to bail us out of the Dictators Credit card habits.

[Spider]

Why don't you, as the local asshat, bring it up. Post it and make your points ... that is unless you are chicken. Well McFly, ya chicken? (oh, I forgot .. you're not chicken you're gay.)

in a day or 2 you will come back and reread this post and say damn what in the hell was I thinking ........... 1983 Beriut ...... come on tough guy you remember

[codeman]

Ahhh, another labelmaker. Hmmm, I don't consider myself a liberal, I'm conservative on many issues, but since I didn't vote for the clueless I guess I've been stamped.

Yes, Bush went after the terrorist, then got side tracked with Iraq and forgot about the terrorists. But you're right, you do have to hand it to him, by going to Iraq, the terrorists came to his war. I really don't think he figured on that. Give me a President that goes after a blowjob rather than one that goes after his own personal agenda without a plan for the aftermath while showing off his golf swing while troops are dying. To me, that takes the cake.

Since 1996??? Please, the Republicans are the pimp daddies for digging up stuff. Problem is all they come up with is sexual and personal in nature, not something that effects us personally. If that were so almost every President since I've been alive has adversely affected this country with their sexual practices and an awful lot of Republican legislators at that.

You liberals seem to always go after the sexual freedom issue. Clinton's sexual escapades have nothing to do with the point at question. He didn't do anything substantial about the attacks on the U.S. He did LIE about his escapades while under oath. Didn't scooter libby get jail time for the same issue?

As for the current president giving up on terrorism, I think you have your mind clouded with Iraq and don't understand that there are more troops and government issued dealing with terrorism than you have ever seen on the media.

Try to keep up with the whole issue of terrorism and forget about the Iraq war for a second and you might find that we are looking for terrorist cells around the world. I don't expect you to believe that we are but if you would stop drinking the liberal koolaid for a while you might be able to think on your own.

[codeman]

#1 Bush did NOT go after the terrorists where they "ARE"/"WERE". He went to Iraq. Inform yourself prior to opening your trap. Osama is sitting somewhere in Afghanistanor Pakistan laughing his ass of at the incompetent knee jerk reaction and results of Dumbyas response.

#2 Unrecoverable debt? You are correct, just look at where the debt ceiling was when Dingleberry moved into the WH, and where it is now. Hell, my future grandchildren will be paying out of their assses to bail us out of the Dictators Credit card habits.

It seems to me that we went to Afghanistan before we went to Iraq, but then I'm sure that you can't remember that small detail. Also, we still have troops in Afghanistan and most likely undercover people in Pakistan. You, like most other liberals have tunnel vision when it comes to what we are doing. I'm also sure that the fact has eluded you that there are people associated with AQ fighting in Iraq as well as AQ funding some of the insurgency.

Just in case you didn't notice, the national debt was going to be dumped on your grandchildren regardless of what Bush has done to the debt, he has increased it, but you might find that the debt grows at exponential rates every day as the futrue unfolds. Inflation has a pretty sizeable impact on the debt as does the war against Terrorism (whereever you want to say it's going on - Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, etc. )

[codeman]

in a day or 2 you will come back and reread this post and say damn what in the hell was I thinking ........... 1983 Beriut ...... come on tough guy you remember

I remember what went on, I want you to post your story.

Come on Alice, you can do it.

[Rigs11]

I remember what went on, I want you to post your story.

Come on Alice, you can do it.

Hotrod is that you?

[Rigs11]

You liberals seem to always go after the sexual freedom issue. Clinton's sexual escapades have nothing to do with the point at question. He didn't do anything substantial about the attacks on the U.S. He did LIE about his escapades while under oath. Didn't scooter libby get jail time for the same issue?

As for the current president giving up on terrorism, I think you have your mind clouded with Iraq and don't understand that there are more troops and government issued dealing with terrorism than you have ever seen on the media.

Try to keep up with the whole issue of terrorism and forget about the Iraq war for a second and you might find that we are looking for terrorist cells around the world. I don't expect you to believe that we are but if you would stop drinking the liberal koolaid for a while you might be able to think on your own.

Clinton has not benn president in almost eight years now. Bush is the current pres.

Bush said that Iraq was the central point in the war against terrorism.

the majority of our troops are in iraq.

Bush said he doesn't know where bin laden is and frankly he doesn't think about it.

try again

[TailgateNut]

It seems to me that we went to Afghanistan before we went to Iraq, but then I'm sure that you can't remember that small detail. Also, we still have troops in Afghanistan and most likely undercover people in Pakistan. You, like most other liberals have tunnel vision when it comes to what we are doing. I'm also sure that the fact has eluded you that there are people associated with AQ fighting in Iraq as well as AQ funding some of the insurgency.

Just in case you didn't notice, the national debt was going to be dumped on your grandchildren regardless of what Bush has done to the debt, he has increased it, but you might find that the debt grows at exponential rates every day as the futrue unfolds. Inflation has a pretty sizeable impact on the debt as does the war against Terrorism (whereever you want to say it's going on - Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, etc. )


Yeah we went to Afghanistan in route to Bush's intended target. You know the more you suck on Bush's wiener the dumber you get. You dimwits don't realize we are in Iraq because Bush wanted to go there way before 9/11 occured. It was an "icing on the cake" for him and Cheney.

Yes the national debt was going to be dumped regardless, it's just that Bush is increasing it at an astonishing rate for no good reason other than personal satifaction and "debts" owed to his political campaign contributors. T

The war on terrorism!:rofl: What a ****ing Joke! It should be called "the war to create and sustain terrorism" brought to you by the Decider!

[Spider]

I remember what went on, I want you to post your story.

Come on Alice, you can do it.

If you dont know about Beruit in 1983 under Reagan , then you are completely stupid , but if you are in Colorado , you are not alone , plenty of stupid people here in Greeley where I am at right now

[Spider]

Hotrod is that you?

LOL .codeman has to be a fake , no one is this stupid

[24champ]

Hotrod is that you?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v504/nila0918/ostrich_001.jpg

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Why don't you, as the local asshat, bring it up. Post it and make your points ... that is unless you are chicken. Well McFly, ya chicken? (oh, I forgot .. you're not chicken you're gay.)
When did this latest right wing champion show up?

[gunns]

Try to keep up with the whole issue of terrorism and forget about the Iraq war for a second and you might find that we are looking for terrorist cells around the world. I don't expect you to believe that we are but if you would stop drinking the liberal koolaid for a while you might be able to think on your own.

I have a question for you....what exactly is my son doing in Iraq?

[codeman]

I have a question for you....what exactly is my son doing in Iraq?

Probably much the same as my son who is in Afghanistan.

Fighting for his country.

If you are upset because your son is in Iraq, your priorities may be a little confused. But that is probably par for the course with libs. Your favorite hero Hillary can't even make up her mind why we are there, she says we will stay the course, then cuts money to support the troops, then says there are going to be no time lines then she says that we will pull out upon her inauguration into the White House.

This is a lost cause for argument. there are libs here that will not see the facts and will argue against the administration at all costs.

Keep your self gratifying conversation going, it will get you no where other than to grow into bitter old people.


GO CHIEFS!

[24champ]

Probably much the same as my son who is in Afghanistan.

Fighting for his country.

If you are upset because your son is in Iraq, your priorities may be a little confused. But that is probably par for the course with libs. Your favorite hero Hillary can't even make up her mind why we are there, she says we will stay the course, then cuts money to support the troops, then says there are going to be no time lines then she says that we will pull out upon her inauguration into the White House.

This is a lost cause for argument. there are libs here that will not see the facts and will argue against the administration at all costs.

Keep your self gratifying conversation going, it will get you no where other than to grow into bitter old people.


GO CHIEFS!
I agreed with you until that last part about the queefs.

[codeman]

I agreed with you until that last part about the CHIEFS.


Don't let that bother you, there are 32 teams in the NFL.

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by gunns View Post
I love the deflection to Clinton when speaking of Bush's sins.



You mean like all of the excuses you guys made for Willie and the hand job/blow job?

You jerks take time and dates verbatim and can't reason that usually the date is the beginning of a time frame.

The original topic of the thread wasn't about the terrorist attacks but it was opened up by the ignorance of the liberals here that will go to all ends to discredit anything this President has done. He hasn't been right in all things but he is also has not been as wrong as some of the lwnjs here are purporting.

The only two people Clinton owes any apologies to re: "the hand job/blow job" are his wife and his daughter. It's no one else's business, although we did spend something like $70 million taxpayer dollars on Ken Starr's largely-fruitless fishing expedition.

Torture of the detainees at Abu Ghraib was wrong. And the authorization for those "enhanced interrogation methods" came right from the top.

[Blueflame]

You liberals seem to always go after the sexual freedom issue. Clinton's sexual escapades have nothing to do with the point at question. He didn't do anything substantial about the attacks on the U.S. He did LIE about his escapades while under oath. Didn't scooter libby get jail time for the same issue?

As for the current president giving up on terrorism, I think you have your mind clouded with Iraq and don't understand that there are more troops and government issued dealing with terrorism than you have ever seen on the media.

Try to keep up with the whole issue of terrorism and forget about the Iraq war for a second and you might find that we are looking for terrorist cells around the world. I don't expect you to believe that we are but if you would stop drinking the liberal koolaid for a while you might be able to think on your own.

The terrorists who attacked the WTC (in '93) were arrested, tried, convicted, and jailed. As to the claim of lying about adultery while under oath, Congress tried (but failed) to impeach him for that "offense". Scooter Libby was found guilty of his perjury and obstruction of justice. No one died as a direct result of Clinton's lie; you can't say the same for Libby's.

[codeman]

The terrorists who attacked the WTC (in '93) were arrested, tried, convicted, and jailed. As to the claim of lying about adultery while under oath, Congress tried (but failed) to impeach him for that "offense". Scooter Libby was found guilty of his perjury and obstruction of justice. No one died as a direct result of Clinton's lie; you can't say the same for Libby's.

You are wrong, Clinton was impeached. He was not removed from office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

He was impeached by the United States House of Representatives, but was subsequently acquitted by the United States Senate and remained in office to complete his term.

Just where are the terrorists that were tried and convicted and jailed?

Who died due to any perjury by Libby? got a link?

How many people have unexpectedly died that were involved with the Clinton's in the Whitewater Scandal?

How many people were convicted although the Clinton's got away scot free?

Ultimately the Clintons were never charged, but 14 other persons were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including a sitting Governor who was forced to resign.

* Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, forced to resign (fraud, 3 counts)
* John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax fraud)
* William J. Marks Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker business partner (conspiracy)
* Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds)
* Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
* Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
* Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple fraud, , contempt)
* David Hale: banker, Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
* Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
* Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud) Bill Clinton pardoned.
* Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
* Robert Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy)
* John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
* Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
* Charles Matthews (Whitewater): Whitewater defendant (bribery)

[codeman]

The only two people Clinton owes any apologies to re: "the hand job/blow job" are his wife and his daughter. It's no one else's business, although we did spend something like $70 million taxpayer dollars on Ken Starr's largely-fruitless fishing expedition.

Torture of the detainees at Abu Ghraib was wrong. And the authorization for those "enhanced interrogation methods" came right from the top.

I suppose that you would think the same of a republican in office under the same circumstances?

How many presidents have given the same authorization for "enhanced interrogation methods" while they were in office? Think about that one for a while. It started with Kennedy and every president since has signed the same type of order.

[Blueflame]

You are wrong, Clinton was impeached. He was not removed from office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

He was impeached by the United States House of Representatives, but was subsequently acquitted by the United States Senate and remained in office to complete his term.
Which is the same as being indicted and subsequently acquitted. In other words, "not guilty"....

Just where are the terrorists that were tried and convicted and jailed?
Um... still in jail.

Who died due to any perjury by Libby? got a link?
Libby's lies were to protect those who lied to justify an unprovoked war with Iraq; hence each and every death of an American soldier or Iraqi civilian is on him. IMO.

How many people have unexpectedly died that were involved with the Clinton's in the Whitewater Scandal?
Ah... the ol' (unsubstantiated, of course) "Clinton Body Count", eh? Irrelevant.

How many people were convicted although the Clinton's got away scot free?

Ultimately the Clintons were never charged, but 14 other persons were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including a sitting Governor who was forced to resign.

* Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, forced to resign (fraud, 3 counts)
* John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax fraud)
* William J. Marks Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker business partner (conspiracy)
* Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds)
* Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
* Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
* Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple fraud, , contempt)
* David Hale: banker, Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
* Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
* Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud) Bill Clinton pardoned.
* Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
* Robert Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy)
* John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
* Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
* Charles Matthews (Whitewater): Whitewater defendant (bribery)
How many more millions of taxpayer dollars (beyond Ken Starr's "blank check") would you like to spend to find no evidence of any Clinton wrongdoing?

[Blueflame]

I suppose that you would think the same of a republican in office under the same circumstances?
Yep. I'd think that's between him and his wife and none of my business. Assuming, of course, that (as in the Clinton case), what's involved is consenting adults (as opposed to preying on underage Congressional pages a la Rep. Foley).

How many presidents have given the same authorization for "enhanced interrogation methods" while they were in office? Think about that one for a while. It started with Kennedy and every president since has signed the same type of order.
Link, please. To the orders signed by "every president since Kennedy" stating that the Geneva Convention rules were "quaint" and could be disregarded with impunity.

[codeman]

Which is the same as being indicted and subsequently acquitted. In other words, "not guilty"....

Clinton was impeached. Which means he was found guilty. He was acquitted does not mean that he wasn't guilty it means they turned a blind eye to his transgression.

Libby's lies were to protect those who lied to justify an unprovoked war with Iraq; hence each and every death of an American soldier or Iraqi civilian is on him. IMO.

That is totally absurd. You pay taxes, you are just as guilty as anyone for funding the war.


How many more millions of taxpayer dollars (beyond Ken Starr's "blank check") would you like to spend to find no evidence of any Clinton wrongdoing?

To go into the files (that most feel were doctored by the Clintons, or with their full knowledge and guidance) would prove nothing today. Any evidence that might have implicated them was removed during the 5 months the files were lost and then later found at the White House. You've been drinking too much of the lwnj koolaid.

[Blueflame]

Clinton was impeached. Which means he was found guilty. He was acquitted does not mean that he wasn't guilty it means they turned a blind eye to his transgression.
Wrong. "Impeached" means the exact same thing as "indicted" except it's done by Congress instead of by a grand jury. "Acquitted" is "acquitted" regardless of the forum in which it occurs and means that the accused is not convicted of the offense. One cannot be "found guilty" unless the panel (jury or Senate) says "Guilty".

That is totally absurd. You pay taxes, you are just as guilty as anyone for funding the war.
No one said anything about funding the war... we're all forced to do that, regardless of whether we agree with a neverending war or not. That, however, is different from lying to prevent those who did make the decision (to go to war) from being held accountable.

To go into the files (that most feel were doctored by the Clintons, or with their full knowledge and guidance) would prove nothing today. Any evidence that might have implicated them was removed during the 5 months the files were lost and then later found at the White House. You've been drinking too much of the lwnj koolaid.
There was no evidence to be found years ago when Ken Starr wasted millions of taxpayer dollars looking for something... anything... to charge them with. Of course, rightwingers can claim till Doomsday that the evidence once existed (but was "lost" or "destroyed"), but the point is moot because they cannot prove it and therefore, it's irrelevant to anything.

[codeman]

There was no evidence to be found years ago when Ken Starr wasted millions of taxpayer dollars looking for something... anything... to charge them with. Of course, rightwingers can claim till Doomsday that the evidence once existed (but was "lost" or "destroyed"), but the point is moot because they cannot prove it and therefore, it's irrelevant to anything.

Your definition of impeached is different from that of the rest of the world.

You are right, the evidence was destroyed and cannot be recovered. The Clintons cleaned house completely. The fact that they destroyed evidence and you know it is good enough for me.

[Rascal]

Blue is right codeman.

Impeached is only the legal statement of charges, paralleling an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote, which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

Providing a source would be required to disprove this BTW.

[Blueflame]

Your definition of impeached is different from that of the rest of the world.
No, it's not. The impeachment process has two parts... the formal accusation by the House and then a trial by the Senate. Where our opinions differ is in the definition of "found guilty". Amusing is the fact that Newt Gingrich was committing adultery at the very same time that he was voting to impeach Clinton for lying about having committed adultery. And Henry Hyde had committed adultery (oh, excuse me "experienced a youthful indiscretion") in his past. It is to laugh.

You are right, the evidence was destroyed and cannot be recovered. The Clintons cleaned house completely. The fact that they destroyed evidence and you know it is good enough for me.
No, I don't know what evidence may (or may not) have once existed. Or if any evidence ever actually existed to be "destroyed". And neither do you. All we do know is that even with unlimited funds, Ken Starr couldn't find any. Nearly a decade ago.

But that still doesn't excuse the Bush-administration-sanctioned abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

[Rascal]

No, I don't know what evidence may (or may not) have once existed. Or if any evidence ever actually existed to be "destroyed". And neither do you.

Remember that this same principle must be applied to Bush's administration. :twokisses

[Blueflame]

Remember that this same principle must be applied to Bush's administration. :twokisses

OK. After we appoint a highly partisan special prosecutor and allow him to spend $70 million (or more... inflation, y'know ;)) on investigations, then if no evidence is found, we can apply the same principle.

[Rascal]

OK. After we appoint a highly partisan special prosecutor and allow him to spend $70 million (or more... inflation, y'know ;)) on investigations, then if no evidence is found, we can apply the same principle.

That's fine. I'm sure they employ the best people to remove/destroy such things just like the Clintons did. Everybody learned their lesson watching Nixon.

:giggle:

[Blueflame]

That's fine. I'm sure they employ the best people to remove/destroy such things just like the Clintons did. Everybody learned their lesson watching Nixon.

:giggle:

Are you sure about that? The "missing" White House emails have allegedly now been "found" on a RNC server... :P

Of course, I don't recall any of the Clinton cabinet blatantly and arrogantly ignoring a Congressional subpoena, as SOS Rice and AG Gonzales are currently doing. Back in the Clinton years, Republicans actually seemed to care a little bit about the rule of law....

[Rascal]

If they were found they would have been published.

Dems need to be more aggressive about it and use the media. When Clinton was involved that's all you heard. Dems need to do the same about if they want to pursue it. Since they aren't, and it's most the liberal affiliates that are pushing the most, it makes me suspiscious.

Besides, there is no way they will be able to impeach both Cheney and Bush as I have previously said. Republicans might go with one, doubtful, but there is no chance in hell of them going with two as it would put Pelosi in.

In the end, it's going to end up being a bunch of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. And to those that have suffered, the soldiers and their families, that is the worst thing of all.

[Blueflame]

If they were found they would have been published.

Dems need to be more aggressive about it and use the media. When Clinton was involved that's all you heard. Dems need to do the same about if they want to pursue it. Since they aren't, and it's most the liberal affiliates that are pushing the most, it makes me suspiscious.

Besides, there is no way they will be able to impeach both Cheney and Bush as I have previously said. Republicans might go with one, doubtful, but there is no chance in hell of them going with two as it would put Pelosi in.

In the end, it's going to end up being a bunch of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. And to those that have suffered, the soldiers and their families, that is the worst thing of all.

No, from what I've read, the emails have been "found" but the administration is now claiming (again) that they're "classified". So they won't turn them over to Congress.

You're right that the Democrats are being too timid... and the media is a big part of the problem. There never really was a "liberal" media... that's an intentionally-created myth. Mergers have served to consolidate control of our media into the hands of perhaps five mega-corporations, who support Republicans and benefit hugely from Republicans' tax cuts for the wealthy. They'll give us 24/7 coverage of the latest Natalee Holloway or Anna Nicole Smith but ignore important stories that affect everyday American life. And Americans who watch corporate "news" shows will think they're informed ('cause they watch the news, after all) but they're not only uninformed, they're misinformed.

I don't believe impeachment will happen... despite the outcome of the midterm elections, Congressional Democrats have too narrow of a majority (and Lieberman's not a Democrat or an Independent; he's a Republican) to do much about Bush/Cheney. Hopefully, some of the damage they have done can be undone... or at least mitigated... by President #44.

[SoCalBronco]

Are you sure about that? The "missing" White House emails have allegedly now been "found" on a RNC server... :P

Of course, I don't recall any of the Clinton cabinet blatantly and arrogantly ignoring a Congressional subpoena, as SOS Rice and AG Gonzales are currently doing. Back in the Clinton years, Republicans actually seemed to care a little bit about the rule of law....

I'm not sure what is so arrogant about various members of the Administration (and/or past administrations) ignoring a congressional subpoena. It isn't a given that Congress is entitled to the information that they want. There may very well be colorable defenses at play, possibly involving executive privilege and/or the political question doctrine that the Court might find as persuasive.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No, it's not. The impeachment process has two parts... the formal accusation by the House and then a trial by the Senate. Where our opinions differ is in the definition of "found guilty". Amusing is the fact that Newt Gingrich was committing adultery at the very same time that he was voting to impeach Clinton for lying about having committed adultery. And Henry Hyde had committed adultery (oh, excuse me "experienced a youthful indiscretion") in his past. It is to laugh.


No, I don't know what evidence may (or may not) have once existed. Or if any evidence ever actually existed to be "destroyed". And neither do you. All we do know is that even with unlimited funds, Ken Starr couldn't find any. Nearly a decade ago.

But that still doesn't excuse the Bush-administration-sanctioned abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

^5

Wow!

This "codeman" character is getting schooled here. :thumbsup:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Clinton really didn't go after Al Quedia very hard. He launched a few cruise missiles that's about it.

Damn. Can't let this disinfo go unchalleged.

Here are the facts:



Roger Cressy, National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism in the period 1999-2001, responded to these allegations in an article for the Washington Times in 2003. "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda," wrote Cressy. "As President Bush well knows, bin Laden was and remains very good at staying hidden. The current administration faces many of the same challenges. Confusing the American people with misinformation and distortions will not generate the support we need to come together as a nation and defeat our terrorist enemies."

Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:

* Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
* Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
* Passenger Profiling: $10 million
* Screener Training: $5.3 million
* Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
* Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million
* Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
* Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
* Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
* Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
* Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
* Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
* Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
* Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
* Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
* Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
* Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million
* Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
* Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
* Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
* Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
* Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million

The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.

Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."

In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that Gramm's wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors.

Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al-Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement.

According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same.

In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and the Bush administration pulled out of the plan. The Time article stated, "Without the world's financial superpower, the biggest effort in years to rid the world's financial system of dirty money was short-circuited."

ABC's miniseries skates right over this, and likewise refuses to address the myriad ways in which the Bush administration failed completely to defend this nation from attack. All the efforts put forth by the Clinton administration were cast aside when Bush took office, simply because they wanted nothing to do with the outgoing government. Condoleezza Rice, by her own admission, did not even bother to look at the massive compendium of al-Qaeda data compiled by Sandy Berger until the morning of September 11.

After the attacks, virtually every member of the Bush administration put forth the talking point that, "No one could have anticipated anyone using airplanes as bombs." The facts tell a different story.

In 1993, a $150,000 study was undertaken by the Pentagon to investigate the possibility of airplanes being used as bombs. A draft document of this was circulated throughout the Pentagon, the Justice Department, and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In 1994, a disgruntled Federal Express employee invaded the cockpit of a DC10 with the intention of crashing it into a company building. Again in 1994, a pilot crashed a small airplane into a tree on the White House grounds, narrowly missing the building itself. Also in 1994, an Air France flight was hijacked by members of a terrorist organization called the Armed Islamic Group, who intended to crash the plane into the Eiffel Tower.

The 1993 Pentagon report was followed up in September 1999 by a report titled "The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism." This report was prepared for the American intelligence community by the Federal Research Division, an adjunct of the Library of Congress. The report stated, "Suicide bombers belonging to Al Qaida's martyrdom battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House."

Ramzi Yousef was one of the planners and participants in the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Yousef's right-hand man, Abdul Hakim Murad, was captured and interrogated in 1995. During that interrogation, Murad described a detailed plot to hijack airplanes and use them as weapons of terrorism. The primary plan was to commandeer eleven commercial planes and blow them up over the Pacific Ocean. The secondary plan was to hijack several planes, which would be flown into CIA headquarters, the World Trade Center, the Sears Tower, the White House and a variety of other targets.

Ramzi Yousef eluded capture until his final apprehension in Pakistan. During his 1997 trial, the plot described by Murad resurfaced. FBI agents testified in the Yousef trial that, "The plan targeted not only the CIA, but other U.S. government buildings in Washington, including the Pentagon."

Abdul Hakim Murad described plans to use hijacked commercial airplanes as weapons in 1995. Ramzi Yousef's trial further exposed the existence of these plans in 1997. Two reports prepared by the American government, one from 1993 and another from 1999, further detailed again the existence and danger of these plots. The Federal Express employee's hijacking attempt in 1994, the attempted airplane attack on the White House in 1994, and the hijacking of the Air France flight in 1994 by terrorists intending to fly the plane into the Eiffel Tower provided a glaring underscore to the data.

This data served to underscore the efforts made by the Clinton administration to combat international terrorism and attacks against the United States. Unfortunately, the data and the work that inspired it was not followed up on.

A mission statement from the internal FBI Strategic Plan, dated 5/8/98, describes the FBI's Tier One priority as 'counterterrorism.' The FBI, under the Clinton administration, was making counterterrorism its highest priority. The official annual budget goals memo from Attorney General Janet Reno to department heads, dated 4/6/2000, detailed how counterterrorism was her top priority for the Department of Justice. In the second paragraph, she states, "In the near term as well as the future, cybercrime and counterterrorism are going to be the most challenging threats in the criminal justice area. Nowhere is the need for an up-to-date human and technical infrastructure more critical."

Contrast this with the official annual budget goals memo from Attorney General John Ashcroft, dated 5/10/2001. Out of seven strategic goals described, not one mentions counterterrorism. An internal draft of the Department of Justice's plans to revamp the official DoJ Strategic Plan, dated 8/9/2001, describes Ashcroft's new priorities. The areas Ashcroft wished to focus on were highlighted in yellow. Specifically highlighted by Ashcroft were domestic violent crime and drug trafficking prevention. Item 1.3, entitled "Combat terrorist activities by developing maximum intelligence and investigative capability," was not highlighted.

There is the internal FBI budget request for 2003 to the Department of Justice, dated late August 2001. This was not the FBI's total budget request, but was instead restricted only to the areas where the FBI specifically requested increases over the previous year's budget. In this request, the FBI specifically asked for, among other things, 54 translators to transcribe the backlog of intelligence gathered, 248 counterterrorism agents and support staff, and 200 professional intelligence researchers. The FBI had repeatedly stated that it had a serious backlog of intelligence data it has gathered, but could not process the data because it did not have the staff to analyze or translate it into usable information. Again, this was August 2001.

The official Department of Justice budget request from Attorney General Ashcroft to OMB Director Mitch Daniels is dated September 10, 2001. This document specifically highlights only the programs slated for above-baseline increases or below-baseline cuts. Ashcroft outlined the programs he was trying to cut. Specifically, Ashcroft was planning to ignore the FBI's specific requests for more translators, counterintelligence agents and researchers. It additionally shows Ashcroft was trying to cut funding for counterterrorism efforts, grants and other homeland defense programs before the 9/11 attacks.

Along with these new priorities, which demoted terrorism significantly, there were the warnings delivered to the Bush administration about potential attacks against the United States. Newspapers in Germany, France, Russia and London reported in the months before September 11th a blizzard of warnings delivered to the Bush administration from a number of allies.

The German intelligence service, BND, warned American and Israeli agencies that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack important American targets. Egypt warned of a similar plot to use airplanes to attack Bush during the G-8 summit in Genoa in June of 2001. This warning was taken so seriously that anti-aircraft missiles were deployed around Columbus Airport in Italy.

In August of 2001, Russian intelligence services notified the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots had been trained for suicide missions, and Putin himself confirmed that this warning was delivered "in the strongest possible terms," specifically regarding threats to airports and government buildings.

In that same month, the Israeli security agency Mossad issued a warning to both the FBI and the CIA that up to 200 bin Laden followers were planning a major assault on America, aimed at vulnerable targets. The Los Angeles Times later confirmed via unnamed US officials that the Mossad warnings had been received.

On August 6, 2001, George W. Bush received his Presidential Daily Briefing. The briefing described active plots to attack the United States by Osama bin Laden. The word "hijacking" appeared in that briefing. Bush reacted to this warning by continuing with his month-long vacation in Texas.

Richard Clarke, former Director of Counter-Terrorism for the National Security Council, has worked on the terrorist threat for the Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. administrations, amassing a peerless resume in the field. He became a central figure in the commission investigating the September 11 attacks. Clarke has laid bare an ugly truth: The administration of George W. Bush did not consider terrorism or the threat of al-Qaeda to be a priority prior to the attacks.

Clarke, along with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who as a member of the National Security Council was privy to military strategy meetings, indicated that the Bush administration was obsessed with an invasion of Iraq from the day it arrived in Washington. This obsession continued even after the attacks, despite the fact that the entire intelligence community flatly declared that Iraq was not involved.

Five years later, the questions surrounding what exactly happened on September 11, and why they were allowed to happen, remain unsettled. A recent national poll conducted by Scripps Howard/Ohio University states that more than one third of Americans believe that Bush's government either actively assisted in the 9/11 attacks, or allowed them to happen so as to create a justification for war in the Middle East.

The New York Post, reporting on this poll, stated, "Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Seventy percent of people who give credence to these theories also say they've become angrier with the federal government than they used to be."

"Thirty-six percent of respondents overall," continued the Post, "said it is 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them 'because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.' 'One out of three sounds high, but that may very well be right,' said Lee Hamilton, former vice chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also called the 9/11 Commission). His Congressionally-appointed investigation concluded that federal officials bungled their attempts to prevent, but did not participate in, the attacks by al-Qaeda five years ago. 'A lot of people I've encountered believe the U.S. government was involved," Hamilton said. 'Many say the government planned the whole thing.'"

The passage of time will, in all likelihood, finally expose the truth behind exactly what happened on September 11, and why. Until the moment of final revelation comes, however, we are all best served by a systematic analysis of the facts surrounding that dark day. Efforts such as this ABC miniseries to use 9/11 as a partisan club should be shunned, and hard data should be highlighted instead.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/083006J.shtml

[gunns]

Probably much the same as my son who is in Afghanistan.

Fighting for his country.

If you are upset because your son is in Iraq, your priorities may be a little confused. But that is probably par for the course with libs. Your favorite hero Hillary can't even make up her mind why we are there, she says we will stay the course, then cuts money to support the troops, then says there are going to be no time lines then she says that we will pull out upon her inauguration into the White House.

This is a lost cause for argument. there are libs here that will not see the facts and will argue against the administration at all costs.

Keep your self gratifying conversation going, it will get you no where other than to grow into bitter old people.


GO CHIEFS!

I come from a military family so I know why the members of my family are in the military. Now your son may be fighting for his country in Afghanistan which is where we should have concentrated our efforts from the beginning, I was asking you why we are in Iraq.

If you are rationalizing that the terrorists were in Iraq, if you are rationalizing that we would make a dent in the terrorists activities by going to Iraq, I can understand that. But as we all know now the terrorists were not in Iraq and all we've done is increase the number in Iraq and their activities have not ceased around the world. Some of us were smart enough to see this a long, long time ago. So again I ask you why are we in Iraq? And do you approve of Bush's plan after the overthrow of Saddam for Iraq Please no more self gratifying sermons, I'm not asking for your opinion of me because frankly I don't care what you think of me and I'm not here for you to make you feel better about yourself by putting others down.

[TailgateNut]

Don't let that bother you, there are 32 teams in the NFL.


Wrong, there are 30 teams and two wannabes. The Faid and the Queefs!

[TailgateNut]

Clinton was impeached. Which means he was found guilty. He was acquitted does not mean that he wasn't guilty it means they turned a blind eye to his transgression.



That is totally absurd. You pay taxes, you are just as guilty as anyone for funding the war.










To go into the files (that most feel were doctored by the Clintons, or with their full knowledge and guidance) would prove nothing today. Any evidence that might have implicated them was removed during the 5 months the files were lost and then later found at the White House. You've been drinking too much of the lwnj koolaid.


He was acquitted!

ac·quit /əˈkwɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-kwit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -quit·ted, -quit·ting. 1. to relieve from a charge of fault or crime; declare not guilty

Get it you left wing bafoon!


Yeah, I pay taxes, but I oppose the war in Iraq.
I didn't help put Bush in office, and I support bringing our troops home ASAP. ....and NO I don't give a flying **** what happens in Iraq after we leave. We just have to chalk this one up as I giant **** up brought to the world by YOUR HERO!


Regarding you comment about the files. How about those E-mails that "magically disappeared thanks to the "Rove Machine"!

[Play2win]

I don't see why you guys respond to this clown who does even have a clue of what an Impeachment actually is.

I mean did he ever take Government class in Jr High?!?

[Rascal]

I don't see why you guys respond to this clown who does even have a clue of what an Impeachment actually is.

I mean did he ever take Government class is Jr High?!?

Lame.

The same year you took English apparently.

[Play2win]

Lame.

The same year you took English apparently.

Grammar police are lame, but Typo-Police?!? come on you're better than that...


The quicker to judge, the quicker one (usually) is to be at fault.

[Play2win]

BTW- At least I corrected my mistake, something BUSH hasn't even come close to doing yet...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

BTW- At least I corrected my mistake, something BUSH hasn't even come close to doing yet...

^5 :thumbsup:

[codeman]

y

Get it you left wing bafoon!

Regarding you comment about the files. How about those E-mails that "magically disappeared thanks to the "Rove Machine"!


Left wing? I think you are using some of the same drugs the raiders use and on too regular of a basis.

JUST SAY NO TO DRUGS!

What does Rove have to do with the Clintons doctoring of files?

[Blueflame]

I'm not sure what is so arrogant about various members of the Administration (and/or past administrations) ignoring a congressional subpoena. It isn't a given that Congress is entitled to the information that they want. There may very well be colorable defenses at play, possibly involving executive privilege and/or the political question doctrine that the Court might find as persuasive.
I don't think either AG Gonzales or SOS Rice has even bothered to acknowledge the Congressional subpoenas, much less present any valid reason why they should not be required to submit the requested information. Isn't "executive privilege" limited to the President? I do know that more than one deadline has been ignored and have read reports that Congress is contemplating pursuing a contempt of Congress motion....

[BroncoBuff]

codeman can't be real ... no way. Nobody is that big a fool.

It's Hotrod again, yanking chains out of sheer boredom.



And SoCal ... what about the "lost" e-mails?! That's an impossibly wrong lie - just impossible to believe. By anyone. They waived executive branch immunity (that's clear) by e-mailing on RNC servers ... and when they were told they had screwed up, the suddenly "lost" thousands of e-mails?! C'mon, SoCal. This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue - this is naked perjury and illegality perpetrated by what I trust history will judge to be the most corrupt and ineffective administration ever. History will show that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney were the most dangerous men ever to be so close to power (at least post WWII). No posse commitatis? No habeus corpus? Signing statements? Bypassing the freebie FISA court just because they say they can?

These people are not "Republicans," per se. Not in the Goldwater/Nixon/Reagan Republican mold. This is an unholy cabal of neo-cons and power-mad puppet-masters fused to a bizarre array of good old boys, 'Anchor Baby" idiots masquerading as attorney generals, and unqualified Christian zealots manning the most sensitive jobs in the free world ... all working under and for their Chauncey Gardner president. I don't care if Monica Goodling is hot ... she's a completely unqualified zealot who did whatever she was told. You and I are more qualified to liasse between the WH and Justice, SoCal! And no self-respecting Republican could defend Alberto Gonzales. Even John freaking Ashcroft told these crooks NO!

Yes, there may be sustainable objections to the subpoenas along the lines of separations of the branches ... even Bill Clinton tried to deny subpoenas for White House Counsel testimoby to Congress. But losing thousands of e-mails only AFTER they found out their arguably priviledged status had been waived??! Puh-leeeeeeeeeease.

[Blueflame]

For the record, Codeman's IP is different from Hotrod's...