The Scum Also Rises II...

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h1><a href=http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df03262004.html>White House, 4/01: Focus on Bin Laden "A Mistake"</a></h1></center>


<blockquote>A previously forgotten report from April 2001 (four months before 9/11) shows that the Bush Administration officially declared it "a mistake" to focus "so much energy on Osama bin Laden." The report directly contradicts the White House's continued assertion that fighting terrorism was its "top priority" before the 9/11 attacks1.

Specifically, on April 30, 2001, CNN reported that the Bush Administration's release of the government's annual terrorism report contained a serious change: "there was no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden" as there had been in previous years. When asked why the Administration had reduced the focus, "a senior Bush State Department official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden."2.

The move to downgrade the fight against Al Qaeda before 9/11 was not the only instance where the Administration ignored repeated warnings that an Al Qaeda attack was imminent3. Specifically, the Associated Press reported in 2002 that "President Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions"4. Meanwhile, Newsweek has reported that internal government documents show that the Bush Administration moved to "de-emphasize" counterterrorism prior to 9/115. When "FBI officials sought to add hundreds more counterintelligence agents" to deal with the problem, "they got shot down" by the White House.

Sources:

1. Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, 03/22/2004.

2. CNN, 04/30/2001.

3. Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11; Lawmakers Want Public Inquiry, ABC News, 05/16/2002.

4. "Top security advisers met just twice on terrorism before Sept. 11 attacks", Detroit News, 07/01/2002.

5. Freedom of Information Center, 05/27/2002.</blockquote>

Click on the link to check the citations. It's time to impeach the little peckerwood and be done with him...For the good of the nation and the world.

 

[Moi]

The only scum that has risen is the terrorists. Your continued pathetic attempts to portray GWB and his administration as worthy of impeachment are laughable.

Clinton had 8 years to get rid of Osama. He didn't.

Clinton had 8 years to get rid of Saddam. He didn't.

Clinton had 8 years to get back at the terrorists that struck at us and our allies repeatedly. He decided they didn't need aspirin.

Bush had a few months to acquaint himself with everything...no one is doubting that he and his administration would and did have missteps. However, to actually believe that he could have prevented 9/11 and didn't is ludicrous. He's proved that he isn't going to cower, he proved that he believes in military intervention. He's also proved that he's not a quick trigger by waiting and formulating a plan to go after terrorists.

There are so few people who actually believe that Bush could have and should have been so omniscient as to predict 9/11 after only a few months on the job and have the systems in place to prevent it. Those that do believe it are just deluding themselves because they need to feel safe just because.

 

[Bullypulpit]

<center><IMG src=http://www.politicalstrikes.com/images/ps1007.jpg></center>

 

[jimnyc]

"Clarke is lying" - An actual quote from The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

 

[eric]

Moi this is the best you can expect from our friend, childish attempts at humor.

 

[Moi]

Ahem, so what? Clarke could conceivably have been in all the meetings for deputies and not have been "in the loop". I have to assume that they also communicated via telephone, email and written memorandum. I also have to think that they met with people who were not deputies.

Gun's not only NOT smoking, it's encased in ice.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
"Clarke is lying" - An actual quote from The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Porter J. Goss, Republican representaitve of Florida's 14th district, and party hack.

 

[eric]

Clark will be lucky if he is not brought up on purgury charges, after admitting he bent the truth under oath in '02. Now I am suppossed to trust what he says. That is laughable !

 

[jimnyc]

Any reasonable person will see that Clarke has lied. His very own words contradict one another. Only those with blind hatred for GWB refuse to see something so obvious.

 

[eric]

Clark has lost all credibility, he is little more than amusement during dinner, and anyone who buys his garbage is little more than a fool.

 

[Moi]

What the hell does "and good German" have to do with anything. Seems to me you're a bigot with words like that.

 

[eric]

Well I am from German decent, and damn proud of it !

 

[Bullypulpit]

<blockquote>Bush's mantra to the international community during his inexorable march to war in 2002-2003 - you are either with us or against us - applies, with equal force, to all who serve him.

His inner circle has used fear and intimidation to keep the White House airtight. But the cracks are opening up, and those pesky facts keep resurfacing like unsightly flotsam, evidence that supports Richard Clarke's revelations.

The fact that the Pentagon pulled the fighting force most equipped for hunting down Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan in March 2002 in order to pre- position it for Iraq cannot be denied.

Fifth Group Special Forces were a rare breed in the US military: they spoke Arabic, Pastun and Dari. They had been in Afghanistan for half a year, had developed a network of local sources and alliances, and believed that they were closing in on bin Laden.

Without warning, they were then given the task of tracking down Saddam. "We were going nuts on the ground about that decision," one of them recalls.

"In spite of the fact that it had taken five months to establish trust, suddenly there were two days to hand over to people who spoke no Dari, Pastun or Arabic, and had no rapport."

Along with the redeployment of human assets came a reallocation of sophisticated hardware. The US air force has only two specially-equipped RC135 U spy planes. They had successfully vectored in on al-Qaida leadership radio transmissions and cellphone calls, but they would no longer circle over the mountains of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

The Bush White House has banked on all who were privy to these details keeping the code of silence. But too many people outside the White House sphere of influence are too well informed, be they commandos on the ground or career civil servants at the state department and CIA. - <a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1178658,00.html>The Guardian</a> </blockquote>

Dubbyuh and his merry band quickly lost focus on Al Qaeda. The oil fields of Iraq and a US foothold in the Middle East are all pieces in the neo-con strategy outlined in PNAC's whitepaper which was published in 2000. Like an over burndened septic system, all of the Administrations crap is leaking everywhere. It.s going to be iinteresting to watch the whole thing explode in their faces.

 

[Hobbit]

Ok, to all you crazy liberals that have the idea that all conservatives want is oil and corrupt corporations, let me show you a far more logical picture for the invasion of Iraq.

For years, several rogue states have been defying repeated orders from the U.N. and the world superpowers and have just been off doing whatever they want. Libya, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and a few other 3rd world coutries were building nuclear programs, despite orders not to from the rest of the world. After considering level of defiance, strength of military, strenght of allies, support of citizens, and a few other factors to go for the 'softest target' to make an example to the rest of the world. Iraq refused U.N. inspectors repeatedly, harbored terrorists (the only guy never caught for the 1993 WTC bombing hid in Iraq), was believed to have WMDs (it was bad intel, not evil, Enron controlled conservatives lieing to you), had a cowardly army, and the citizens were ready and willing to give up their old government. Many of the same things could be said about the Taliban. Notice that once we invaded Iraq, Libya started dismantling their nuclear program, NK opened up to diplomacy, Iran began to fall apart, and most other 'rogue nations' began to start listening to what we had to say. I'd say it was quite effective. BTW, if we're all in this just for the oil, then why is gas still so frickin' expensive and how come some of our biggest allies over there are the oil sheiks, who will maintain ownership of their wells?

We've not lost touch with the concern of al Qaida, we simple decided we had broken their back and had some bigger fish to deal with for a while.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Hobbit
Ok, to all you crazy liberals that have the idea that all conservatives want is oil and corrupt corporations, let me show you a far more logical picture for the invasion of Iraq.

For years, several rogue states have been defying repeated orders from the U.N. and the world superpowers and have just been off doing whatever they want. Libya, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and a few other 3rd world coutries were building nuclear programs, despite orders not to from the rest of the world. After considering level of defiance, strength of military, strenght of allies, support of citizens, and a few other factors to go for the 'softest target' to make an example to the rest of the world. Iraq refused U.N. inspectors repeatedly, harbored terrorists (the only guy never caught for the 1993 WTC bombing hid in Iraq), was believed to have WMDs (it was bad intel, not evil, Enron controlled conservatives lieing to you), had a cowardly army, and the citizens were ready and willing to give up their old government. Many of the same things could be said about the Taliban. Notice that once we invaded Iraq, Libya started dismantling their nuclear program, NK opened up to diplomacy, Iran began to fall apart, and most other 'rogue nations' began to start listening to what we had to say. I'd say it was quite effective. BTW, if we're all in this just for the oil, then why is gas still so frickin' expensive and how come some of our biggest allies over there are the oil sheiks, who will maintain ownership of their wells?

We've not lost touch with the concern of al Qaida, we simple decided we had broken their back and had some bigger fish to deal with for a while.

Snort...! Snicker...! Giggle...! You've swallowed their crap hook, line and sinker. You're a good little robot.

 

[Hobbit]

And you've swallowed a nightmare of conspiracy theories straight from the elite media. Allow me to let you in on a little secret, most TV stations and newspapers hate Bush and will say anything to get him voted out of office. Sor far, I think the idea that the President of the United States is trying his best to defend the country is a bit more believable than him toppling governments for oil. If he was after oil, he could start drilling in Alaska and have so many less headaches than he's got now. I'm still waiting for a logical arguement to be provided to back up your conspiracies. Oh, Oh, and get this. Almost every Bush bashing source is trying to sell something and knows that liberal freaks will buy it as long as it portrays Bush as a crook. One more thing I'm waiting for is for you to try to poke a hole in the scenario I've presented above. So far, all you've done is basically say that I'm wrong. That's a pretty empty statement without proof. I could say that asphalt is black and you can tell me I'm wrong, but without proof it means nothing.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Snort...! Snicker...! Giggle...! You've swallowed their crap hook, line and sinker. You're a good little robot.

Can you tell me who the soldier is that is quoted in the last article you posted?

About the author of the article:

"Philip James is a former senior Democratic party strategist"

If the soldier is named, I don't care who wrote it. Without his name, this doesn't have much credibility.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Can you tell me who the soldier is that is quoted in the last article you posted?

About the author of the article:

"Philip James is a former senior Democratic party strategist"

If the soldier is named, I don't care who wrote it. Without his name, this doesn't have much credibility.

Umm...Kinda like Faux News.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Umm...Kinda like Faux News.

But you used this crappy article as a source. Do you see me quoting Fox here? The article is obviously worthless.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
But you used this crappy article as a source. Do you see me quoting Fox here? The article is obviously worthless.

Sorry, The Guardian is a valid and intenationally reputable source of news.