Talk about a flip flopping hypocrite!

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by OCA
The terrorists entered the country under Bubba's watch. OBL could've been handed over to Bubba but he screwed the pooch. Game not over. This is just the same thing as the good economy under Clinton which was due to George Sr. but Bubba gets the credit because he was in office. Bubba allowed a climate in which terrorists could make a 9/11 possible.

I feel even the most RIGHT-WING among us can concede that our security/intel failed, by some measure. I can't blame anyone though, except Liberals.

Why?

Liberals whine and bitch about the Government doing it's f'ing job if ANY SINGLE part of a 'right' gets inconvienanced. Can you image how quick the libs would have been ALL OVER the Gubbment, had they arrested some of the 911 terrorists because they 'Thought' they were going to do something????

It's a double-edge sword.

 

[jimnyc]

Please, Spilly, save your rhetoric.

while i'm not saying you are wrong, i'd like to see exactly where and how he is lying.

Former Clinton White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke is preparing to tell the Independent Commission Investigating the Sept. 11 Attacks this week that the Bush administration failed to act on a Clinton administration plan to attack Osama bin Laden.

And in a "60 Minutes" interview set to air Sunday night, Clarke blasts Bush for doing "a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

But just a year ago Clarke was singing a different tune, telling reporter Richard Miniter, author of the book "Losing bin Laden," that it was the Clinton administration - not team Bush - that had dropped the ball on bin Laden.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/20/232055.shtml

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who, along with Sen. John McCain, pushed for the creation of an independent commission to investigate the 9/11 attacks last year, said Sunday that he saw no basis for ex-terrorism czar Richard Clarke's allegations that the Bush administration had bungled the war on terror.

"The charge, if I hear it correctly, that Dick Clarke has made, that the Bush administration was more focused on Iraq in the days after September 11th, than on September 11th and getting back at the terrorists, I see no basis for it," Lieberman told "Fox News Sunday."

The former Democratic presidential candidate suggested that Clarke's allegations were driven by election year politics, prompting him to warn, "There is a higher interest than our partisan interest in victory and that is the national interest in victory over terrorism. "
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/22/14702.shtml

Former Clinton administration terrorism czar Richard Clarke, who has been portrayed in dozens of media accounts as a nonpartisan critic of the Bush White House's terrorism policies, faces new questions about his credibility after a report surfaced on Sunday suggesting he has close ties to the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry.

"One of [Clarke's] very close friends and colleagues for years - a man whom he taught a class with at Harvard, Rand Beers - is one of the top foreign policy advisers to Sen. Kerry," reported ABC White House correspondent Terry Moran.

Moran told ABC's "This Week" that Clarke's close relationship with the Kerry aide "discredited" him in the eyes of critics, with the White House maintaining that "this is essentially a Democrat making these arguments" that Bush dropped the ball in the war on terrorism.

Of Clarke's much-ballyhooed new book, "Against All Enemies," where the security expert charges that President Bush has done "a terrible job" fighting the war on terrorism, Moran noted that "[Republicans] say that this book is an audition for a place in the next Democratic administration."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/21/141608.shtml


This guy would be perfect working for Kerry, both a couple of flip floppers! While their is no definitive proof that he is lying about anything, who in their right mind would believe a man that has changed his stories so drastically?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by dmp
I feel even the most RIGHT-WING among us can concede that our security/intel failed, by some measure. I can't blame anyone though, except Liberals.

Why?

Liberals whine and bitch about the Government doing it's f'ing job if ANY SINGLE part of a 'right' gets inconvienanced. Can you image how quick the libs would have been ALL OVER the Gubbment, had they arrested some of the 911 terrorists because they 'Thought' they were going to do something????

It's a double-edge sword.

Agreed, I have stated before that there was a bit of an intel problem. Maybe intelligence wasn't shared betwen the outgoing Bubba admin. and the incoming Bush admin. as they were bust sabotaging and looting the White House.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by OCA
as they were bust sabotaging and looting the White House.

lol! I had forgotten about that! Greedy bastards...

 

[Moi]

The only people to blame for 9/11 are those that planned and carried out the terror.

Should we learn? Yes.

Do we all feel responsible? Yes.

Are any of us at fault? No.

There that's out of the way.

Now as for this so called terror expert. No offense, but I don't consider anyone above reproach when they purposesly write a book which contradicts their sworn testimony and their entire career's borne out the proof that they had said opposing tings. The fact is the guy wrote a book for money.

Not everthing he said could be true. The world can't be round and flat at the same time. Either he's lying now about Bush being culpable or he lied then when he said that Clinton's administration had no plan.

I find it very hard to believe, indeed, that President Bush and his entire administration would just IGNORE warnings of terror if they were credible. You who beleive it, are so quick to talk about how fast Bush went to war, what the hell makes you so sure he'd not have done it earlier if given credible evidence? It makes no sense. Either Bush has a hair trigger and he'd go after anyone on little evidence or he completely ignored terror warnings (and so did every single other person in government) in which case, his patience in going after Iraq and Afghanistan are admirable.

 

[SPIKESMYGOD]

[Since you refused, when quoting me, to call me by my name, SPIKES, I will be more mature & direct and I will call you by name, Spill.]

Ann Coulter isn't pretty enough? That IS about on the average level of your typical liberal. I'd love to retort with slurs about Hillary's looks, but I am older than 12 years old. Then again, with females like Nancy Pelosi & Barbara Boxer on your side, I am sure the crux of it is that you are intimidated by a beautiful AND brilliant woman like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham; Joss, liberals are so sexist & hate-filled. Matter of fact, I bet you are the same kind of person who calls Colin Powell & Condy Rice "Uncle/Aunt Toms," right? LMFAO
You liberals are SO bitter, twisted, racist, & pathetic.

"Non-elected chimp?"

I may be a Republican, but that is NO way to talk about John F. Kennedy; He stole that election fair & square.

Gee, I really hope you weren't talking about the *Florida debacle, when Gore, the Democrats, & the three major liberal networks attempted to steal the 2000 election from Bush, were you?

*Setting aside Gore's attempt to have a recount of ONLY three heavily Democratic districts, yet fought against a TOTAL recount.......The three major networks called Florida for Gore, even though they were 1) Wrong, and 2) There was still nearly an hour to vote in Florida when they INCORRECTLY called it for Gore, thus killing thousands of votes for Bush, votes which would have never allowed the Democrats to attempt an illegal coup. Yet, ironically enough, Fox got heat & dragged before Congress for calling the election CORRECTLY at 2:00am in the morning.
LMFAO
Now that Seinfeld is only in syndication, if it weren't for liberals we Republicans would have no entertainment at ALL!

Random Side Note: This guy, me, loves Emin3m but not NEARLY as much as he loves Morrissey & The Pet Shop Boys, and I am here to say that you liberals are the biggest hypocrites, bigots, & liars I have ever witnessed, short of Goebbels & Baghdad Bob.

9/11 Victims:

Since it has been discovered that the FIVE members of a radical socialist group of 9/11 victims- they even opposed the overthrow of the Taliban, the hunt for bin Laden, and Bush's ever-growing destruction of Al Qaeda- it is obvious that they can't be trusted, no matter WHAT their loss. I find it interesting that when someone like Kristen Breitwieser is trotted out on every liberal forum- Hardball, Today, etc....- she NEVER mentions the eight years of Clinton's complete failure to retaliate against Al Qaeda for numerous attacks & his unwillingness even to accept Sudan's THREE offers to turn over bin Laden to us.



Condy?

Yeah, there's this little Article I vs. Article II deal. See, advisors to the President- ANY president- cannot be forced into a situation where he/she is subordinate, under oath, to Congress or any indirect manifestation of it.

She has given several hours of testimony and, as just reported, is ASKING for additional time to testify.

Clarke is an opportunistic, book-whoring liar, and his word is as good as Scott Peterson's or O.J.'s.


Please, liberals, I love ya, so promise me this: When, on November 2nd, FOX calls the election for Bush at 8:36pm- the LMM will HAVE to call it by 9:21pm- please, do NOT go to your nearest park & pull a Vince Foster, ok?


Peace & Love!

 

[modman]

We should be so lucky to have a guy like clarke as a president. Bottom line. Clinton went after bin laden. Bush ignored it.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by modman
We should be so lucky to have a guy like clarke as a president. Bottom line. Clinton went after bin laden. Bush ignored it.

Wrong again, Clinton's own words:

http://www.newsmax.com/clinton2.mp3