| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
13 Aug 2004 01:00:38 AM |
| Object: |
935th GI Killed by Bush's Big Lie. Mission Accomplished |
"...The people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and
exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trial
http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -934 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
| User: "Dave Middleton" |
|
| Title: An unexpected assist for Bush |
13 Aug 2004 02:37:45 AM |
|
|
An unexpected assist for Bush
BY KEN FIREMAN
STAFF WRITER
NEWSDAY
March 24, 2004
When it really needed it, the beleaguered Bush administration found
some succor yesterday from an unlikely and potentially dangerous
source: the commission investigating the 9/11 terror attacks.
Just as the administration was launching a frantic effort to fend off
the allegations of former White House counterterrorism chief Richard
Clarke that it failed to take al-Qaida seriously before 9/11, the
commission delivered a couple of priceless gifts.
The first was a new staff report revealing that the previous
administration - the one headed by some guy named Clinton - had three
opportunities in 1998 and 1999 to launch lethal strikes at Osama bin
Laden but failed to pull the trigger. Each time, according to the
report, senior officials overruled field operatives on the grounds
that the intelligence was uncertain and the risk of "collateral
damage" great.
The second came from two of those Clinton-era officials, former
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Defense Secretary William
Cohen. Both responded to pointed questions from panel members about
why they had not sought to attack al-Qaida more aggressively by
pleading that the pre-9/11 political climate simply would not have
supported such a policy.
It was not lost on those listening, either in the cavernous Senate
hearing room or the broader rings of Washington's power structure,
that this rationale cuts two ways. If it excuses the Clinton
administration's conduct, it also offers a defense for the Bush crew
against Clarke's volatile accusation that they didn't do enough before
9/11 to take out al-Qaida. The current defense secretary, Donald
Rumsfeld, made precisely that point later in the day.
Of course, Bush's peril is hardly over. Clarke is scheduled to testify
today and can be expected to repeat his allegations that the president
and his top aides badly underestimated the al-Qaida threat, were
obsessed with Saddam Hussein and botched the war on terror by
launching an unnecessary conflict in Iraq.
Yesterday, Clarke added another charge during an appearance on ABC's
"Good Morning America": that Rumsfeld sought and obtained from Bush a
written directive to begin planning the invasion of Iraq right after
9/11, despite the utter lack of evidence tying Hussein to the terror
attacks.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan at first appeared to deny that
charge, calling it "revisionist history," but then seemed to qualify
that statement by adding that the administration regarded Iraq as a
"serious threat" at the time.
Bush offered his first public response to Clarke. "Had my
administration had any information that terrorists were going to
attack New York City on September the 11th, we would have acted," he
said. "We have been chasing down al-Qaida ever since the attacks. ...
We're still pursuing them, and we will continue to pursue them so long
as I am the president of the United States."
Whether that period of time turns out to be only the next 10 months,
or four years and 10 months, may well hinge on how the public comes to
judge this controversy. That's how high the political stakes are.
Bush's response to 9/11 and his prosecution of the war on terror are
central elements of his re-election campaign. There's a good reason
for this; it's the one issue on which voters clearly think Bush is
doing a good job at the moment.
An ABC-Washington Post poll taken earlier this month, for example,
found that 63 percent of those surveyed approved of Bush's handling of
the war on terror. The same survey found that majorities disapproved
of his performance on nearly every other issue, including the economy,
Iraq, Social Security, health insurance, the budget deficit and
prescription drugs for the elderly.
Clarke thus represents Bush's worst nightmare: an undeniable insider
with no obvious history of partisanship who has challenged his
performance on the one issue that he cannot afford to surrender.
The predictable result has been a furious onslaught aimed at
discrediting Clarke and his account. Administration officials have
simultaneously sought to portray Clarke as "out of the loop" and yet
culpable for the failure to scotch the terrorist menace. They accuse
him of hypocrisy for failing to raise his concerns while still in
government, partisanship for making them now in an election year, and
vindictiveness arising from the fact that he was demoted.
Clarke's response is that such attacks seek to divert attention from
the main issue: Bush's performance before and after 9/11. He told ABC
that he expects it to go on. "I'm getting a bulletproof vest," he
said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: An unexpected assist for Bush |
13 Aug 2004 08:24:15 AM |
|
|
"Dave Middleton" <dmiddleton@N0TSPAM.0RG> wrote
The first was a new staff report revealing that the
previous administration - the one headed by some
guy named Clinton - had three opportunities in
1998 and 1999 to launch lethal strikes at Osama bin
Laden but failed to pull the trigger.
The fact that he couldn't is of no consequence to you
neo-cons...
Congress always has been -- and always will be -- quite
nervous about the President wielding assasination powers.
It was only AFTER 9/11 when Bush felt politically "safe"
enough to amend Executive Orders allowing the assasination
of Bin Laden, or any other target.
"Officially," Clinton was limited to a "Capture Or Kill"
order. This meant that they could kill Bin Laden, but only
during a "Capture" attempt that had a realistic opportunity
to succeed.
If you think the Republicans wouldn't have caused any
trouble for Clinton for assassinating Bin Laden, think
again. It was two years *After* 1999, when you claim
Clinton had an assassination opportunity, that the
Republicans were still DISMISSING Bin Laden as any
kind of concern:
| "A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S.
| government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly
| on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts
| of the elephant and not the whole beast."
| http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/
Yes, a mere six months before 9/11 the Republicans were
DENOUNCING Clinton for "focusing too tightly on bin
Laden".
You ***** lickers now claim that Clinton didn't go far enough,
but as recently as 2001 you ***** lickers were pretending that
Clinton went TOO FAR!
3,000 Americans died for your mistakes. I know there isn't
a single Republican that's man enough to own up to it, but the
least you can do is stop disgracing yourself in public like
this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pete Lewis" |
|
| Title: Kerry shill caught in act! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA! |
13 Aug 2004 10:14:17 AM |
|
|
Kerry shill caught in act! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!
ANTI-KERRY VETS HANG TOUGH
Fri Aug 06 2004 13:37:12 ET
The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth concerns
an
article appearing in morning edition of the BOSTON GLOBE, written by
GLOBE reporter and author of the official Kerry-Edwards campaign
book,
Mike Kranish.
"Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today's
edition
of the BOSTON GLOBE by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and
highly
misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the
current
advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain
Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and
he
reaffirms his request that the ad be played.
"Additional documentation will follow.
"The article by Mr. Kranish is particularly surprising given page 102
of
Mr. Kranish's own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he
killed
a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would
turn around.
"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 supporters who are
revealing first hand, eyewitness accounts of numerous incidents
concerning John Kerry's military service record. The organization
will
continue to discuss much of what John Kerry has reported as fact
concerning his four-month tour of duty in Vietnam."
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm
---------
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Demon-Rats" |
|
| Title: Kerry shill caught in act! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA! |
13 Aug 2004 01:17:47 PM |
|
|
A mere six months before 9/11 the Republicans were
ATTACKING Clinton for going TOO FAR in trying
to get Osama Bin Laden:
| "A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S.
| government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly
| on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts
| of the elephant and not the whole beast."
| http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bush Has To Go!!!!!" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry shill caught in act! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA! |
13 Aug 2004 08:14:40 PM |
|
|
"Demon-Rats" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<meCdndMah5nlmYDcRVn-qA@comcast.com>...
A mere six months before 9/11 the Republicans were
ATTACKING Clinton for going TOO FAR in trying
to get Osama Bin Laden:
| "A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S.
| government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly
| on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts
| of the elephant and not the whole beast."
| http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/
"I don't know where he (bin Laden) is. I have no idea and I
really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our
priority." ~ George Bush Jr. 2002-03-13
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
