Rumsfeld - "I never said 'imminent threat'

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Rumsfeld - "I never said 'imminent threat'

Post by fnordboy » Mar 19th 2004, 10:50 pm

:lol: :lol:

Nice going Rummy!!! :D

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

Flippity-Flop, not just for Kerry anymore.

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Mar 19th 2004, 11:14 pm

Talk about flip flopping:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/7/213753/1954

# Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
# Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
# Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
# Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
# Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
# Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
# Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
# Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
# Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
# Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
# Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits
# Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
# Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
# Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
# Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
# Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
# Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
# Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
# Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Mar 20th 2004, 10:15 pm

The thing to remember is that politicians very frequently switch sides on issues. Sometimes, they change their minds because their understanding of issues changes. The facts of things can change in and of themselves. Also, they change their minds because it's politically expedient to do so. Bush and Kerry have jumped over many fences. It's funny that the Bush team is portraying as two-faced. By definition a politician is two-faced. But the millions Bush has in his war chest have to be spent.

Politicians also count on people's short-term memory. Of course, many members of the Bush team said Saddam was an imminent threat. I'm sure that they thought so at the time. To try to back away now smacks of dishonesty. Also, it undercuts what Bush is playing as a strength, national security. It's a shame.

I'm looking forward to the televised debates. Even though they have become media events, you can sometimes learn stuff about the candidates. Hopefully, there will at least be two debates.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
Sammi
Substitute Teacher
Posts: 189
Joined: Sep 28th 2002, 8:57 pm
Location: Sometimes Texas, Sometimes Iowa

Post by Sammi » Mar 20th 2004, 11:03 pm

TomSpeed wrote:I'm looking forward to the televised debates. Even though they have become media events, you can sometimes learn stuff about the candidates. Hopefully, there will at least be two debates.
Me too. I am a proud Republican, but at the present time I don't know enough about either candidate to decide whose getting my vote. I really need to see how each side lies on my key issues: education, affirmative action, the environment, universal healthcare and healthcare privacy. I also want to know who they are choosing for Vice President and particularly if Bush is thinking about changing any of his appointments (i.e. his current attorney general who really scares me because he seems to have even more power than Bush does).

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Mar 22nd 2004, 10:40 am

Sammi wrote:
TomSpeed wrote:I'm looking forward to the televised debates. Even though they have become media events, you can sometimes learn stuff about the candidates. Hopefully, there will at least be two debates.
Me too. I am a proud Republican, but at the present time I don't know enough about either candidate to decide whose getting my vote. I really need to see how each side lies on my key issues: education, affirmative action, the environment, universal healthcare and healthcare privacy. I also want to know who they are choosing for Vice President and particularly if Bush is thinking about changing any of his appointments (i.e. his current attorney general who really scares me because he seems to have even more power than Bush does).
Interesting thing that.

There is serious, serious talk about John McCain being John Kerry's Vice President, as a Republican. Won't know for certain until the deal is done. Also interesting that last week John McCain came out and said that Kerry is not weak on defense or national security.

Also interesting possiblities: Max Cleland, decorated Vietnam Vet and former senator from Georgia and Bill Richardson, govenor from New Mexico.

Another thing to watch will be the impact of Richard Clarke's new book and testimony in front of the 9/11 commission. He is the former #1 counter terroism expert, serving Reagan, Bush I, Clinton & Bush II. He gave a powerful and rather damning interview last night on 60 minutes. According to Clarke, Bush ignored the Al Qaeda threat, repeatedly since the start of his Administration.

-LanceMan

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Mar 22nd 2004, 9:04 pm

Read the Drudge Report. Clarke isn't the innocent that he pretends to be. Yes, he served under Reagan and Bush I. He also served under Clinton. He was demoted during Bush II. He was also passed over for the #2 spot on Homeland Security. I'm sure that his treatment under Bush II didn't make Clarke feel good. The guy is a hack. Do you think his book coming out now is sheer luck?

We also shouldn't forget that Clinton had good chances to get Osama, who committed acts of terrorism long before Bush II got on the scene. Sure, it's easy to blame Bush II. Where was Clinton? Also, if Clarke's plan was so good, why didn't Clinton put it into action?

I am ashamed of CBS, which used to be called the "Tiffany network" because it was one of the most trusted and reliable news and entertainment outlets in the world. It's gone downhill since it was bought by Viacom. Did Leslie Stall tell us that Viacom owns the company that published Clarke's book? The 60 Minutes piece was a plug to hawk the book. Shame, shame CBS for not disclosing this conflict of interest.

Were mistakes made by Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II? There is plenty of blame to go around. But to say everything is Bush II's fault is a downright lie.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Mar 23rd 2004, 2:29 am

TomSpeed wrote:He was demoted during Bush II.
"Perhaps they'll whisper that he's bitter over being demoted? I guess they might try it, but it will be a mighty quiet whisper. After all, they really don't want to remind people that counterterrorism was a cabinet level position under Clinton and was downgraded by Bush immediately upon taking office." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

And I don't get why people still want to blame Clinton. If you're blaming Clinton, then you HAVE to put just as much blame on Bush, cause he was and still is our president.

Blaming Clinton seems like a childish way to try and deflect attention away from our current president who dropped the ball. He was on vacation on his politically convenient ranch for almost a whole month during his time in office before 9/11. Hmm. Maybe he should have spent more time listening to his security advisor who served under Reagan and his daddy. (Oh! But he served under Clinton too!!! He MUST be partisan, right????)

As for the whole long list of people trying to discredit Clarke, this puts it best:

"In this case, I imagine that part of the strategy is not just to rebut Clarke, but to throw up enough smoke to convince everyone that this is just another partisan beltway slugfest and hope they tune the whole thing out. It might work, too, although they seem to be in enough of a panic mode that they might end up doing something stupid. We can always hope." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

There have already been contradictory statements out of half the administration on this matter...
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Mar 23rd 2004, 11:43 am

andrewgd wrote:
TomSpeed wrote:He was demoted during Bush II.
"Perhaps they'll whisper that he's bitter over being demoted? I guess they might try it, but it will be a mighty quiet whisper. After all, they really don't want to remind people that counterterrorism was a cabinet level position under Clinton and was downgraded by Bush immediately upon taking office." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

And I don't get why people still want to blame Clinton. If you're blaming Clinton, then you HAVE to put just as much blame on Bush, cause he was and still is our president.

Blaming Clinton seems like a childish way to try and deflect attention away from our current president who dropped the ball. He was on vacation on his politically convenient ranch for almost a whole month during his time in office before 9/11. Hmm. Maybe he should have spent more time listening to his security advisor who served under Reagan and his daddy. (Oh! But he served under Clinton too!!! He MUST be partisan, right????)

As for the whole long list of people trying to discredit Clarke, this puts it best:

"In this case, I imagine that part of the strategy is not just to rebut Clarke, but to throw up enough smoke to convince everyone that this is just another partisan beltway slugfest and hope they tune the whole thing out. It might work, too, although they seem to be in enough of a panic mode that they might end up doing something stupid. We can always hope." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

There have already been contradictory statements out of half the administration on this matter...
I'll repost this part of my previous post:
Were mistakes made by Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II? There is plenty of blame to go around. But to say everything is Bush II's fault is a downright lie.
There is much blame to go around. However, did you hear Clarke say that Clinton did everything he could to get Osama? When were the embassies bombed? How long was Clinton in office? I believe he served eight years before Bush II took office. I don't only blame Clinton. Bush II could have treated Osama as more of a priority. But Clarke barely mentioned Clinton during the interview/photo op. Also, those who don't blindly follow Bush II should also not blindly follow Clarke. Be skeptical of everyone. Take nothing at face value. Yes, Clarke might be right about some things. But he could be wrong on others. And everyone has a motive, even Clarke, CBS, and Viacom.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Mar 23rd 2004, 8:41 pm

TomSpeed wrote:Read the Drudge Report. Clarke isn't the innocent that he pretends to be. Yes, he served under Reagan and Bush I. He also served under Clinton. He was demoted during Bush II. He was also passed over for the #2 spot on Homeland Security. I'm sure that his treatment under Bush II didn't make Clarke feel good. The guy is a hack. Do you think his book coming out now is sheer luck?

We also shouldn't forget that Clinton had good chances to get Osama, who committed acts of terrorism long before Bush II got on the scene. Sure, it's easy to blame Bush II. Where was Clinton? Also, if Clarke's plan was so good, why didn't Clinton put it into action?

I am ashamed of CBS, which used to be called the "Tiffany network" because it was one of the most trusted and reliable news and entertainment outlets in the world. It's gone downhill since it was bought by Viacom. Did Leslie Stall tell us that Viacom owns the company that published Clarke's book? The 60 Minutes piece was a plug to hawk the book. Shame, shame CBS for not disclosing this conflict of interest.

Were mistakes made by Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II? There is plenty of blame to go around. But to say everything is Bush II's fault is a downright lie.
Actually Clarke was asked about the timing of the books release and he said that it would have come out three months ago, but the White House insisted on vetting this book and they took their time about it.

His accounting is supported by other former members of the Bush Administration including Secretary Paul O'Neal.

Clarke is also a registered Republican who was hired by Reagan, not a flaming liberal by anyones's standards. He has already said that if offered he would refuse any position in any future Kerry Administration.

Drudge is at best a right wing pundit, not a journalist.

-LanceMan

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Mar 23rd 2004, 10:45 pm

lance wrote: Drudge is at best a right wing pundit, not a journalist.
The truth.

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Clarke

Post by lance » Mar 24th 2004, 10:43 pm

Another interesting thing from today's public testimony at the 9/11 hearings.

Richard Clarke apologized to the families who lost loved ones in 9/11. He apologized for not doing enough and not being able to stop the attacks.
I don't care what All the President's People say about Clarke, he has honor & integrity. You did not see any former Clinton offical or Bush offical do the same. This speaks volumes to me as to Clarke's credibility and character.

-LanceMan

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Mar 26th 2004, 6:14 pm

Congress has something to say about Clarke too.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/ ... index.html
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Mar 26th 2004, 6:36 pm

Drudge has an agenda. Everyone does. But it's common journalistic practice to disclose when you have a proprietary interest in what you are covering. Viacom owns CBS and the publisher of Clarke's book. How does the publisher make money? It sells books. How does it get people to buy books? It puts Clarke on 60 Minutes, which is ones of the highest rated show on TV. Did CBS disclose this fact? No. Finally, as my previous posts points out....there are some questions as to whether Clarke was telling the truth then or now. How does Clarke make money? Write sensational stories that might be true...or not...or are really exaggerated.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

clarke

Post by lance » Mar 26th 2004, 10:03 pm

TomSpeed wrote:Congress has something to say about Clarke too.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/ ... index.html
Interesting thing that,

Clarke said that those memos he released on behalf of the President were done on "background", anonymously. At that time he had to put the best face on the President's policies, also known as spin.

Tonight on the MacLaughlin Group Pat Buchanan, former Nixon staffer, defended Clarke. He said that he too had to put the best face on some of Nixon's policies that he (Buchanan) personally did not agree with.

From http://www.bartcop.com 3/24/04

"Let me get this right...According to the Bush White House: Richard Clarke is wrong, Paul O'Neill is wrong, David Kay is wrong, Hans Blix is wrong, the CIA is wrong, the FBI is wrong, the librul media is wrong, blogville is wrong, protesting a pre-emptive unprovoked war is wrong, hunting bin Laden 24/7 with everything our military forces have is wrong (unless it's an election year), John Kerry is wrong, John McCain was wrong down in S. Carolina, Howard Dean is wrong, Max Cleland is wrong, Valerie Plame is wrong, thinking we should all pay a little more income tax when our country is engaged in war on terroism is wrong, a solvent government is wrong, taking as much time as necessary to fairly recount votes in a close election is wrong, and for having relied upon the aforementioned individuals for advice relating to their field of expertise-the White House was wrong."

-Richard Harvey, Austin, Letter to Altercation


-LanceMan

User avatar
grim4746
Krakow
Posts: 391
Joined: Aug 8th 1999, 2:14 am
Location: Canada

Post by grim4746 » Mar 28th 2004, 7:51 am

According to Reuters Condoleezza Rice "will be interviewed on CBS's "60 Minutes" -- the influential television news program where counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke a week ago accused Bush of mishandling the terror threat."

Some people might see this as 60 Minutes trying to give balance to the scandal surrounding Clarke's allegations, sort of fleshing out a major news story with great significance to the United States and the World. Or possibly they just want to keep the topic on people's minds so that Viacom can sell more books.

At the same time Rice is facing criticism from both democrats and republicans for declining to testify publicly under oath as part of the 9/11 Commission, in spite of her willingness to make endless public statements about just about anything (and all too often pretty much nothing) while not under oath.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests