| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Perry Neheum" |
| Date: |
12 Dec 2005 12:27:34 PM |
| Object: |
Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
HOW DOES Condi Rice keep a straight face when writing and uttering
garbagey lies, such as are propounded in the following piece of
bull-*****?
This is obviously a pre-packaged collection of bald-faced falsehoods
aimed at convincing the most gullible audiences. Such hypocritical
hogwash barely deserves any comment. But such incredible lies are what
propelled us into Iraq!
Let's go over the Bush "democracy" rationale one more time, for those
of you who are weak-minded enough to believe it.
Except for a one-sentence toss-in utterance in a pre-2004 presidential
race speech, Bush NEVER spoke of spreading democracy any where in the
world! He spoke of fighting terrorism and other challenges, but
knowing as he did that oil was Cheney's, Rumsfeld's and his true reason
for wanting to attack and control Iraq, democracy seldom crossed the
the chimp's shallow, un-nuanced mind.
Now comes Rice, armed with Karen Hughes-style "public relations" pith,
spewing the democracy upchuck. But I hope she and Hughes don't think
Condi's Middle East audiences of tyrannical potentates actually buy
this spittle. If so, that makes Condi and Karen as dumb as Bush. And
we know how dumb that is.
=======
"The Promise of Democratic Peace"
Why Promoting Freedom Is the Only Realistic Path to Security
By Condoleezza Rice
Sunday, December 11, 2005; Page B07
The Washington Post
Soon after arriving at the State Department earlier this year, I hung a
portrait of Dean Acheson in my office. Over half a century ago, as
America sought to create the world anew in the aftermath of World War
II, Acheson sat in the office that I now occupy. And I hung his picture
where I did for a reason.
Like Acheson and his contemporaries, we live in an extraordinary time
-- one in which the terrain of international politics is shifting
beneath our feet and the pace of historical change outstrips even the
most vivid imagination. My predecessor's portrait is a reminder that in
times of unprecedented change, the traditional diplomacy of crisis
management is insufficient. Instead, we must transcend the doctrines
and debates of the past and transform volatile status quos that no
longer serve our interests. What is needed is a realistic statecraft
for a transformed world.
President Bush outlined the vision for it in his second inaugural
address: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the
growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and
culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." This
is admittedly a bold course of action, but it is consistent with the
proud tradition of American foreign policy, especially such recent
presidents as Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan. Most important: Like the
ambitious policies of Truman and Reagan, our statecraft will succeed
not simply because it is optimistic and idealistic but also because it
is premised on sound strategic logic and a proper understanding of the
new realities we face.
Our statecraft today recognizes that centuries of international
practice and precedent have been overturned in the past 15 years.
Consider one example: For the first time since the Peace of Westphalia
in 1648, the prospect of violent conflict between great powers is
becoming ever more unthinkable. Major states are increasingly competing
in peace, not preparing for war. To advance this remarkable trend, the
United States is transforming our partnerships with nations such as
Japan and Russia, with the European Union, and especially with China
and India. Together we are building a more lasting and durable form of
global stability: a balance of power that favors freedom.
This unprecedented change has supported others. Since its creation more
than 350 years ago, the modern state system has always rested on the
concept of sovereignty. It was assumed that states were the primary
international actors and that every state was able and willing to
address the threats emerging from its territory. Today, however, we
have seen that these assumptions no longer hold, and as a result the
greatest threats to our security are defined more by the dynamics
within weak and failing states than by the borders between strong and
aggressive ones.
The phenomenon of weak and failing states is not new, but the danger
they now pose is unparalleled. When people, goods and information
traverse the globe as fast as they do today, transnational threats such
as disease or terrorism can inflict damage comparable to the standing
armies of nation-states. Absent responsible state authority, threats
that would and should be contained within a country's borders can now
melt into the world and wreak untold havoc. Weak and failing states
serve as global pathways that facilitate the spread of pandemics, the
movement of criminals and terrorists, and the proliferation of the
world's most dangerous weapons.
Our experience of this new world leads us to conclude that the
fundamental character of regimes matters more today than the
international distribution of power. Insisting otherwise is imprudent
and impractical. The goal of our statecraft is to help create a world
of democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their
citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international
system. Attempting to draw neat, clean lines between our security
interests and our democratic ideals does not reflect the reality of
today's world. Supporting the growth of democratic institutions in all
nations is not some moralistic flight of fancy; it is the only
realistic response to our present challenges.
In one region of the world, however, the problems emerging from the
character of regimes are more urgent than in any other. The "freedom
deficit" in the broader Middle East provides fertile ground for the
growth of an ideology of hatred so vicious and virulent that it leads
people to strap suicide bombs to their bodies and fly airplanes into
buildings. When the citizens of this region cannot advance their
interests and redress their grievances through an open political
process, they retreat hopelessly into the shadows to be preyed upon by
evil men with violent designs. In these societies, it is illusory to
encourage economic reform by itself and hope that the freedom deficit
will work itself out over time.
Though the broader Middle East has no history of democracy, this is not
an excuse for doing nothing. If every action required a precedent,
there would be no firsts. We are confident that democracy will succeed
in this region not simply because we have faith in our principles but
because the basic human longing for liberty and democratic rights has
transformed our world. Dogmatic cynics and cultural determinists were
once certain that "Asian values," or Latin culture, or Slavic
despotism, or African tribalism would each render democracy impossible.
But they were wrong, and our statecraft must now be guided by the
undeniable truth that democracy is the only assurance of lasting peace
and security between states, because it is the only guarantee of
freedom and justice within states.
Implicit within the goals of our statecraft are the limits of our power
and the reasons for our humility. Unlike tyranny, democracy by its very
nature is never imposed. Citizens of conviction must choose it -- and
not just in one election. The work of democracy is a daily process to
build the institutions of democracy: the rule of law, an independent
judiciary, free media and property rights, among others. The United
States cannot manufacture these outcomes, but we can and must create
opportunities for individuals to assume ownership of their own lives
and nations. Our power gains its greatest legitimacy when we support
the natural right of all people, even those who disagree with us, to
govern themselves in liberty.
The statecraft that America is called to practice in today's world is
ambitious, even revolutionary, but it is not imprudent. A conservative
temperament will rightly be skeptical of any policy that embraces
change and rejects the status quo, but that is not an argument against
the merits of such a policy. As Truman once said, "The world is not
static, and the status quo is not sacred." In times of extraordinary
change such as ours, when the costs of inaction outweigh the risks of
action, doing nothing is not an option. If the school of thought called
"realism" is to be truly realistic, it must recognize that stability
without democracy will prove to be false stability, and that fear of
change is not a positive prescription for policy.
After all, who truly believes, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,
that the status quo in the Middle East was stable, beneficial and worth
defending? How could it have been prudent to preserve the state of
affairs in a region that was incubating and exporting terrorism; where
the proliferation of deadly weapons was getting worse, not better;
where authoritarian regimes were projecting their failures onto
innocent nations and peoples; where Lebanon suffered under the boot
heel of Syrian occupation; where a corrupt Palestinian Authority cared
more for its own preservation than for its people's aspirations; and
where a tyrant such as Saddam Hussein was free to slaughter his
citizens, destabilize his neighbors and undermine the hope of peace
between Israelis and Palestinians? It is sheer fantasy to assume that
the Middle East was just peachy before America disrupted its alleged
stability.
Had we believed this, and had we done nothing, consider all that we
would have missed in just the past year: A Lebanon that is free of
foreign occupation and advancing democratic reform. A Palestinian
Authority run by an elected leader who openly calls for peace with
Israel. An Egypt that has amended its constitution to hold multiparty
elections. A Kuwait where women are now full citizens. And, of course,
an Iraq that in the face of a horrific insurgency has held historic
elections, drafted and ratified a new national charter, and will go to
the polls again in coming days to elect a new constitutional
government.
At this time last year, such unprecedented progress seemed impossible.
One day it will all seem to have been inevitable. This is the nature of
extraordinary times, which Acheson understood well and described
perfectly in his memoirs. "The significance of events," he wrote, "was
shrouded in ambiguity. We groped after interpretations of them,
sometimes reversed lines of action based on earlier views, and
hesitated long before grasping what now seems obvious." When Acheson
left office in 1953, he could not know the fate of the policies he
helped to create. He certainly could never have predicted that nearly
four decades later, war between Europe's major powers would be
unthinkable, or that America and the world would be harvesting the
fruits of his good decisions and managing the collapse of communism.
But because leaders such as Acheson steered American statecraft with
our principles when precedents for action were lacking, because they
dealt with their world as it was but never believed they were powerless
to change it for the better, the promise of democratic peace is now a
reality in all of Europe and in much of Asia.
When I walk past Acheson's portrait upon departing my office for the
last time, no one will be able to know the full scope of what our
statecraft has achieved. But I have an abiding confidence that we will
have laid a firm foundation of principle -- a foundation on which
future generations will realize our nation's vision of a fully free,
democratic and peaceful world.
The writer is secretary of state.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901711.html
.
|
|
| User: "David Goldberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
12 Dec 2005 12:47:51 PM |
|
|
Perry Neheum wrote:
Let's go over the Bush "democracy" rationale one more time, for those
of you who are weak-minded enough to believe it.
Except for a one-sentence toss-in utterance in a pre-2004 presidential
race speech, Bush NEVER spoke of spreading democracy any where in the
world! He spoke of fighting terrorism and other challenges, but
knowing as he did that oil was Cheney's, Rumsfeld's and his true reason
for wanting to attack and control Iraq, democracy seldom crossed the
the chimp's shallow, un-nuanced mind.
You realize that wars evolve, right? On December 8, 1941, our goal was not to bring
democracy to Japan and Germany. Our goal was to end the military threat that they posed
to America. In Iraq, now that we've ended the possibility of Saddam developing WMDs and
stopped his blatant promotion of international terror, we can move on to making Iraq
safe and free.
--
"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free."
~P.J. O'Rourke
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
12 Dec 2005 01:58:17 PM |
|
|
David Goldberg wrote:
Perry Neheum wrote:
Let's go over the Bush "democracy" rationale one more time, for those
of you who are weak-minded enough to believe it.
Except for a one-sentence toss-in utterance in a pre-2004 presidential
race speech, Bush NEVER spoke of spreading democracy any where in the
world! He spoke of fighting terrorism and other challenges, but
knowing as he did that oil was Cheney's, Rumsfeld's and his true reason
for wanting to attack and control Iraq, democracy seldom crossed the
the chimp's shallow, un-nuanced mind.
You realize that wars evolve, right? On December 8, 1941, our goal was not to bring
democracy to Japan and Germany.
On December 6, 1941, the US's goal was not to get involved
and pretend fascism wasn't its problem.
In Iraq, now that we've ended the possibility of Saddam developing WMDs and
stopped his blatant promotion of international terror, we can move on to making Iraq
safe and free.
A safe and free Iraq was the pretext for backing Saddam in the
1970s. I could hear those size 22 shoes and see your glowing
red nose from a mile away.
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
Bob Dog
Atheist #153 = 1^3 + 5^3 + 3^3
EAC's chief cook and brainwasher
-----
"Sooner or later the despairing Churches will try to get
a world-alliance with something like Fascist tyranny to
check the growth of Atheism. It is their one hope."
- Joseph McCabe
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Goldberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
12 Dec 2005 02:14:21 PM |
|
|
wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html
"Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's Armed Forces to strike military and
security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack
Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten
its
neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States and,
indeed, the interest of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam
Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms,
poison
gas, or biological weapons."
--
"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free."
~P.J. O'Rourke
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Ride" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
12 Dec 2005 02:23:56 PM |
|
|
"David Goldberg" <david_asbnll@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:439DDA1D.34B15F9B@yahoo.com...
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html
"Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's Armed Forces to strike
military and
security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission
is to attack
Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military
capacity to threaten
its
neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United
States and,
indeed, the interest of people throughout the Middle East and around the
world. Saddam
Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with
nuclear arms,
poison
gas, or biological weapons."
Perhaps because Clinton didn't invade the country because of wmd.
And did it ever occur to you that maybe the military strikes ordered by
Clinton actually worked and that's why there are no wmd in Iraq?
--
Aloha, G-Ride
"I love songs about horses, railroads, land, judgement day, family, hard
times, whiskey, courtship, marriage, adultery, separation, murder, war,
prison, rambling, damnation, home, salvation, death, pride, humor, piety,
rebellion, patriotism, larceny, determination, tragedy, rowdiness,
heartbreak and love. And Mother. And God. 'Rusty Cage' must fit in some of
these categories." - J. Cash
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
13 Dec 2005 01:35:34 AM |
|
|
"G-Ride" <gride42nolikeythespam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4064npF18ufe7U1@individual.net...
"David Goldberg" <david_asbnll@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:439DDA1D.34B15F9B@yahoo.com...
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html
"Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's Armed Forces to strike
military and
security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their
mission
is to attack
Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military
capacity to threaten
its
neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the
United
States and,
indeed, the interest of people throughout the Middle East and around the
world. Saddam
Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with
nuclear arms,
poison
gas, or biological weapons."
Perhaps because Clinton didn't invade the country because of wmd.
No, Clinton only fired missiles in to a country without that countries
permission or a decoration of war. Thank God he had wrong location and the
missiles hit only sand dunes or we could of started WWIII.
And did it ever occur to you that maybe the military strikes ordered by
Clinton actually worked and that's why there are no wmd in Iraq?
--
Aloha, G-Ride
"I love songs about horses, railroads, land, judgement day, family, hard
times, whiskey, courtship, marriage, adultery, separation, murder, war,
prison, rambling, damnation, home, salvation, death, pride, humor, piety,
rebellion, patriotism, larceny, determination, tragedy, rowdiness,
heartbreak and love. And Mother. And God. 'Rusty Cage' must fit in some of
these categories." - J. Cash
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
13 Dec 2005 03:53:02 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:35:34 -0700, "Roy Boy" <roy@comcast.net> wrote:
"G-Ride" <gride42nolikeythespam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4064npF18ufe7U1@individual.net...
"David Goldberg" <david_asbnll@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:439DDA1D.34B15F9B@yahoo.com...
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html
"Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's Armed Forces to strike
military and
security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their
mission
is to attack
Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military
capacity to threaten
its
neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the
United
States and,
indeed, the interest of people throughout the Middle East and around the
world. Saddam
Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with
nuclear arms,
poison
gas, or biological weapons."
Perhaps because Clinton didn't invade the country because of wmd.
No, Clinton only fired missiles in to a country without that countries
permission or a decoration of war. Thank God he had wrong location and the
missiles hit only sand dunes or we could of started WWIII.
They did not hit just "sand".
They destroyed a civilian pharmaceutical factory.
225 innocents were murdered outright.
more than 4000 injured.
Or am I thinking of an entirely separate Clinton War-Crime?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Goldberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
12 Dec 2005 06:52:42 PM |
|
|
G-Ride wrote:
"David Goldberg" <david_asbnll@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:439DDA1D.34B15F9B@yahoo.com...
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html
"Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's Armed Forces to strike
military and
security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission
is to attack
Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military
capacity to threaten
its
neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United
States and,
indeed, the interest of people throughout the Middle East and around the
world. Saddam
Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with
nuclear arms,
poison
gas, or biological weapons."
Perhaps because Clinton didn't invade the country because of wmd.
He bombed them on a regular basis specifically because of WMDs. Read the link I
posted.
--
"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free."
~P.J. O'Rourke
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
12 Dec 2005 02:55:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:23:56 -1000, "G-Ride"
<gride42nolikeythespam@yahoo.com> wrote:
"David Goldberg" <david_asbnll@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:439DDA1D.34B15F9B@yahoo.com...
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html
"Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's Armed Forces to strike
military and
security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission
is to attack
Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military
capacity to threaten
its
neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United
States and,
indeed, the interest of people throughout the Middle East and around the
world. Saddam
Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with
nuclear arms,
poison
gas, or biological weapons."
Perhaps because Clinton didn't invade the country because of wmd.
I think that's the actual reason.
And did it ever occur to you that maybe the military strikes ordered by
Clinton actually worked and that's why there are no wmd in Iraq?
I suspect it happened before that. Most of their capacity to do
anything, civil or military was destroyed (including civilian
infrastructure like clean water supply, illegally according to
international law) during Gulf War 1. And sanctions pevented pretty
well everything from being repaired - civil and military, let alone
the programs Bush lied about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
12 Dec 2005 10:55:10 PM |
|
|
David Goldberg wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
He wouldn't have time to answer. He was too busy defending a fucking
***** while terrorists were mounting an attack. Good moves on the part
of the Repubnicunts.
--
Jack
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
12 Dec 2005 10:57:24 PM |
|
|
David Goldberg wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html
"Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's Armed Forces to strike military and
security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack
Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten
its
neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States and,
indeed, the interest of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam
Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms,
poison
gas, or biological weapons."
And how many American lives were lost?
--
Jack
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lamont Cranston" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
12 Dec 2005 02:33:58 PM |
|
|
David Goldberg wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
Clinton didn't invade Iraq.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
13 Dec 2005 01:37:47 AM |
|
|
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in message
news:W8lnf.896$Ql1.69@chiapp18.algx.net...
David Goldberg wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
Clinton didn't invade Iraq.
Clinton only bombed countries without cause or decorations of war.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
13 Dec 2005 03:53:09 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:37:47 -0700, "Roy Boy" <roy@comcast.net> wrote:
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in message
news:W8lnf.896$Ql1.69@chiapp18.algx.net...
David Goldberg wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
Clinton didn't invade Iraq.
Clinton only bombed countries without cause or decorations of war.
Like Khartoum, Sudan?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edw" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
13 Dec 2005 09:31:36 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message =
news:vf6tp1d6hvk4m3mcpjdvbq1b8knr90fs8d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:37:47 -0700, "Roy Boy" <roy@comcast.net> wrote:
=20
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in message=20
news:W8lnf.896$Ql1.69@chiapp18.algx.net...
David Goldberg wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
Clinton didn't invade Iraq.
Clinton only bombed countries without cause or decorations of war.
=20
Like Khartoum, Sudan?
As for Iraq, the war of 1991 was in truce, not an end of the war. =
Actions in Iraq were in enforcement of the truce arrangement.
As for the Sudan and afghanistan, I submit that Clinton's actions =
exhaustively refute the notion that he did nothing about terrorism, and =
they are scarcely any different to Reagan's actions in Grenada, Libya or =
Lebanon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
13 Dec 2005 11:59:12 AM |
|
|
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:sPBnf.41118$6e1.7198@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:vf6tp1d6hvk4m3mcpjdvbq1b8knr90fs8d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:37:47 -0700, "Roy Boy" <roy@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in message
news:W8lnf.896$Ql1.69@chiapp18.algx.net...
David Goldberg wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
Clinton didn't invade Iraq.
Clinton only bombed countries without cause or decorations of war.
Like Khartoum, Sudan?
As for Iraq, the war of 1991 was in truce, not an end of the war.
Actions in Iraq were in enforcement of the truce arrangement.
Saddam broke the truce in 1992. Our later acts in Iraq were a
continuation of the war.
As for
the Sudan and afghanistan, I submit that Clinton's actions
exhaustively refute the notion that he did nothing about terrorism,
and they are scarcely any different to Reagan's actions in Grenada,
Libya or Lebanon.
He did nothing effective about terrorism. Neither did Reagan. That
excuse won't fly.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I can say one thing about these plans of ours: They are not being
decided by the typewriter strategists who expound their views in the
press or on the radio." - FDR
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edw" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
14 Dec 2005 10:06:19 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message =
news:Xns972B8444E4D50fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:sPBnf.41118$6e1.7198@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:=20
=20
=20
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:vf6tp1d6hvk4m3mcpjdvbq1b8knr90fs8d@4ax.com...=20
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:37:47 -0700, "Roy Boy" <roy@comcast.net>
wrote:=20
=20
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in message=20
news:W8lnf.896$Ql1.69@chiapp18.algx.net...
David Goldberg wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
Clinton didn't invade Iraq.
Clinton only bombed countries without cause or decorations of war.
=20
Like Khartoum, Sudan?
=20
As for Iraq, the war of 1991 was in truce, not an end of the war.=20
Actions in Iraq were in enforcement of the truce arrangement.
=20
Saddam broke the truce in 1992. Our later acts in Iraq were a=20
continuation of the war.
That's what I said.
=20
As for
the Sudan and afghanistan, I submit that Clinton's actions
exhaustively refute the notion that he did nothing about terrorism,
and they are scarcely any different to Reagan's actions in Grenada,
Libya or Lebanon.=20
=20
He did nothing effective about terrorism. Neither did Reagan. That=20
excuse won't fly.
It isn't an excuse; the rightie is bitching about what Clinton did in =
Afghanistan. You're saying he didn't do enough.
Which is it?
One fact is ineluctable; Bush dismantled the anti-terror programs =
Clinton had in place and replaced them with nothing until AFTER 911.
=20
--=20
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I can say one thing about these plans of ours: They are not being=20
decided by the typewriter strategists who expound their views in the=20
press or on the radio." - FDR
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
14 Dec 2005 10:40:48 AM |
|
|
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:%pXnf.31393$dO2.2558@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns972B8444E4D50fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:sPBnf.41118$6e1.7198@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:vf6tp1d6hvk4m3mcpjdvbq1b8knr90fs8d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:37:47 -0700, "Roy Boy" <roy@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in message
news:W8lnf.896$Ql1.69@chiapp18.algx.net...
David Goldberg wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
Clinton didn't invade Iraq.
Clinton only bombed countries without cause or decorations of war.
Like Khartoum, Sudan?
As for Iraq, the war of 1991 was in truce, not an end of the war.
Actions in Iraq were in enforcement of the truce arrangement.
Saddam broke the truce in 1992. Our later acts in Iraq were a
continuation of the war.
That's what I said.
As for
the Sudan and afghanistan, I submit that Clinton's actions
exhaustively refute the notion that he did nothing about terrorism,
and they are scarcely any different to Reagan's actions in Grenada,
Libya or Lebanon.
He did nothing effective about terrorism. Neither did Reagan. That
excuse won't fly.
It isn't an excuse; the rightie is bitching about what Clinton did in
Afghanistan. You're saying he didn't do enough. Which is it?
Both.
One fact is ineluctable; Bush dismantled the anti-terror programs
Clinton had in place and replaced them with nothing until AFTER 911.
I didn't realize that "ineluctable" meant "*****".
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I either want less corruption, or more chances to participate."
- Ashleigh Brilliant -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lamont Cranston" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
14 Dec 2005 11:16:05 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:%pXnf.31393$dO2.2558@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns972B8444E4D50fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:sPBnf.41118$6e1.7198@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:vf6tp1d6hvk4m3mcpjdvbq1b8knr90fs8d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:37:47 -0700, "Roy Boy" <roy@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in message
news:W8lnf.896$Ql1.69@chiapp18.algx.net...
David Goldberg wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
Clinton didn't invade Iraq.
Clinton only bombed countries without cause or decorations of war.
Like Khartoum, Sudan?
As for Iraq, the war of 1991 was in truce, not an end of the war.
Actions in Iraq were in enforcement of the truce arrangement.
Saddam broke the truce in 1992. Our later acts in Iraq were a
continuation of the war.
That's what I said.
As for
the Sudan and afghanistan, I submit that Clinton's actions
exhaustively refute the notion that he did nothing about terrorism,
and they are scarcely any different to Reagan's actions in Grenada,
Libya or Lebanon.
He did nothing effective about terrorism. Neither did Reagan. That
excuse won't fly.
It isn't an excuse; the rightie is bitching about what Clinton did in
Afghanistan. You're saying he didn't do enough. Which is it?
Both.
One fact is ineluctable; Bush dismantled the anti-terror programs
Clinton had in place and replaced them with nothing until AFTER 911.
I didn't realize that "ineluctable" meant "*****".
In January, 2001, the following anti-terrorism measures programs were
operational: Predator drone surveillance flights tracked Osama bin
Laden's movements, a cruise-missle-equipped submarine targeted bin Laden
from the Indian Ocean, AC-130 gunships close to bin Laden were on
scramble alert, Uzbekistan-based special forces operations targeted bin
Laden, and the FBI was investigating Saudi Arabian ties to Al Qaeda.
All were cancelled by Bush immediately after he was sworn in.
In May through July, 2001, CIA Director George Tenet grew frantic with
concern over incoming intelligence indicating a huge terrorist attack on
American soil. Tenet's concerns went unheeded. George Bush went on
vacation. John Ashcroft refused FBI requests for new counter-terrorism
agents. ***** Cheney's counter-terrorism task force held no meetings
until September 4. On September 10, Cheney's chief of staff told
Senator Diane Feinstein that the administration would not be prepared to
focus on terror threats for another six months.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
14 Dec 2005 12:29:59 PM |
|
|
Lamont Cranston <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in
news:prYnf.923$Ql1.883@chiapp18.algx.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:%pXnf.31393$dO2.2558@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns972B8444E4D50fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:sPBnf.41118$6e1.7198@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:vf6tp1d6hvk4m3mcpjdvbq1b8knr90fs8d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:37:47 -0700, "Roy Boy" <roy@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in message
news:W8lnf.896$Ql1.69@chiapp18.algx.net...
David Goldberg wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
Clinton didn't invade Iraq.
Clinton only bombed countries without cause or decorations of
war.
Like Khartoum, Sudan?
As for Iraq, the war of 1991 was in truce, not an end of the war.
Actions in Iraq were in enforcement of the truce arrangement.
Saddam broke the truce in 1992. Our later acts in Iraq were a
continuation of the war.
That's what I said.
As for
the Sudan and afghanistan, I submit that Clinton's actions
exhaustively refute the notion that he did nothing about terrorism,
and they are scarcely any different to Reagan's actions in Grenada,
Libya or Lebanon.
He did nothing effective about terrorism. Neither did Reagan. That
excuse won't fly.
It isn't an excuse; the rightie is bitching about what Clinton did in
Afghanistan. You're saying he didn't do enough. Which is it?
Both.
One fact is ineluctable; Bush dismantled the anti-terror programs
Clinton had in place and replaced them with nothing until AFTER 911.
I didn't realize that "ineluctable" meant "*****".
In January, 2001, the following anti-terrorism measures programs were
operational: Predator drone surveillance flights tracked Osama bin
Laden's movements,
But weren't permitted to shoot.
a cruise-missle-equipped submarine targeted bin
Laden from the Indian Ocean,
But didn't shoot.
AC-130 gunships close to bin Laden were
on scramble alert,
But didn't go in and shoot.
Uzbekistan-based special forces operations targeted
bin Laden,
But didn't go in and shoot.
and the FBI was investigating Saudi Arabian ties to Al
Qaeda.
But didn't take action.
All were cancelled by Bush immediately after he was sworn in.
So doing "something" which amounts to nothing is better than cancelling
the nothing altogether?
In May through July, 2001, CIA Director George Tenet grew frantic with
concern over incoming intelligence indicating a huge terrorist attack
on American soil.
Nothing specific as to means or targets.
Tenet's concerns went unheeded.
He had nothing specific enough to be actionable anyway.
George Bush went on vacation.
Which means nothing, since there are such things as telephones.
John Ashcroft refused FBI requests for new counter-terrorism agents.
Which were requested for *cyber-terrorism* per Richard Clarke.
***** Cheney's counter-terrorism task force
held no meetings until September 4. On September 10, Cheney's chief
of staff told Senator Diane Feinstein that the administration would
not be prepared to focus on terror threats for another six months.
Yep, nothing but *****.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I either want less corruption, or more chances to participate."
- Ashleigh Brilliant -
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Ride" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
14 Dec 2005 02:08:20 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns972C897D3E58Bfstone69@213.155.197.138...
Lamont Cranston <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in
news:prYnf.923$Ql1.883@chiapp18.algx.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:%pXnf.31393$dO2.2558@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns972B8444E4D50fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:sPBnf.41118$6e1.7198@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:vf6tp1d6hvk4m3mcpjdvbq1b8knr90fs8d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:37:47 -0700, "Roy Boy" <roy@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in message
news:W8lnf.896$Ql1.69@chiapp18.algx.net...
David Goldberg wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
Clinton didn't invade Iraq.
Clinton only bombed countries without cause or decorations of
war.
Like Khartoum, Sudan?
As for Iraq, the war of 1991 was in truce, not an end of the war.
Actions in Iraq were in enforcement of the truce arrangement.
Saddam broke the truce in 1992. Our later acts in Iraq were a
continuation of the war.
That's what I said.
As for
the Sudan and afghanistan, I submit that Clinton's actions
exhaustively refute the notion that he did nothing about terrorism,
and they are scarcely any different to Reagan's actions in Grenada,
Libya or Lebanon.
He did nothing effective about terrorism. Neither did Reagan. That
excuse won't fly.
It isn't an excuse; the rightie is bitching about what Clinton did in
Afghanistan. You're saying he didn't do enough. Which is it?
Both.
One fact is ineluctable; Bush dismantled the anti-terror programs
Clinton had in place and replaced them with nothing until AFTER 911.
I didn't realize that "ineluctable" meant "*****".
In January, 2001, the following anti-terrorism measures programs were
operational: Predator drone surveillance flights tracked Osama bin
Laden's movements,
But weren't permitted to shoot.
And would *never* be permitted to shoot because Bush cancelled it.
a cruise-missle-equipped submarine targeted bin
Laden from the Indian Ocean,
But didn't shoot.
And would *never* be permitted to shoot because Bush cancelled it.
AC-130 gunships close to bin Laden were
on scramble alert,
But didn't go in and shoot.
And would *never* be permitted to shoot because Bush cancelled it.
Uzbekistan-based special forces operations targeted
bin Laden,
But didn't go in and shoot.
And would *never* be permitted to shoot because Bush cancelled it.
and the FBI was investigating Saudi Arabian ties to Al
Qaeda.
But didn't take action.
And would *never* be permitted to take action because Bush cancelled it.
All were cancelled by Bush immediately after he was sworn in.
So doing "something" which amounts to nothing is better than cancelling
the nothing altogether?
So cancelling "something" that hasn't been used is better than keeping it in
place so that it may be used if necessary?
Jeebus. That's some incredible spin you've got there. Keep licking those
bush boots, Fred. You're pathetically brilliant at it.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
"I love songs about horses, railroads, land, judgement day, family, hard
times, whiskey, courtship, marriage, adultery, separation, murder, war,
prison, rambling, damnation, home, salvation, death, pride, humor, piety,
rebellion, patriotism, larceny, determination, tragedy, rowdiness,
heartbreak and love. And Mother. And God. 'Rusty Cage' must fit in some of
these categories." - J. Cash
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edw" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
14 Dec 2005 04:41:54 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message =
news:Xns972C897D3E58Bfstone69@213.155.197.138...
Lamont Cranston <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in
news:prYnf.923$Ql1.883@chiapp18.algx.net:=20
=20
Fred Stone wrote:
=20
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:%pXnf.31393$dO2.2558@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:=20
=20
=20
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns972B8444E4D50fstone69@213.155.197.138...=20
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:sPBnf.41118$6e1.7198@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:=20
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:vf6tp1d6hvk4m3mcpjdvbq1b8knr90fs8d@4ax.com...=20
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:37:47 -0700, "Roy Boy" <roy@comcast.net>
wrote:=20
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in message=20
news:W8lnf.896$Ql1.69@chiapp18.algx.net...
David Goldberg wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
Clinton didn't invade Iraq.
Clinton only bombed countries without cause or decorations of
war.=20
Like Khartoum, Sudan?
As for Iraq, the war of 1991 was in truce, not an end of the war.=20
Actions in Iraq were in enforcement of the truce arrangement.
Saddam broke the truce in 1992. Our later acts in Iraq were a=20
continuation of the war.
That's what I said.
As for
the Sudan and afghanistan, I submit that Clinton's actions
exhaustively refute the notion that he did nothing about =
terrorism,
and they are scarcely any different to Reagan's actions in =
Grenada,
Libya or Lebanon.=20
He did nothing effective about terrorism. Neither did Reagan. That=20
excuse won't fly.
It isn't an excuse; the rightie is bitching about what Clinton did =
in
Afghanistan. You're saying he didn't do enough. Which is it?
=20
=20
Both.
=20
=20
One fact is ineluctable; Bush dismantled the anti-terror programs
Clinton had in place and replaced them with nothing until AFTER 911. =
=20
=20
I didn't realize that "ineluctable" meant "*****".
=20
In January, 2001, the following anti-terrorism measures programs were =
operational: Predator drone surveillance flights tracked Osama bin=20
Laden's movements,
=20
But weren't permitted to shoot.
=20
a cruise-missle-equipped submarine targeted bin
Laden from the Indian Ocean,
=20
But didn't shoot.
It did shoot. Read a newspaper.
=20
AC-130 gunships close to bin Laden were
on scramble alert,
=20
But didn't go in and shoot.
=20
Uzbekistan-based special forces operations targeted
bin Laden,
=20
But didn't go in and shoot.
=20
and the FBI was investigating Saudi Arabian ties to Al
Qaeda.
=20
But didn't take action.
=20
All were cancelled by Bush immediately after he was sworn in.
=20
=20
So doing "something" which amounts to nothing is better than =
cancelling
the nothing altogether?=20
=20
In May through July, 2001, CIA Director George Tenet grew frantic =
with
concern over incoming intelligence indicating a huge terrorist attack
on American soil.
=20
Nothing specific as to means or targets.
Such as people wanting to learn how fly aircraft, but not land them?
=20
Tenet's concerns went unheeded.
=20
He had nothing specific enough to be actionable anyway.
And you talk about *****.
=20
George Bush went on vacation.
=20
Which means nothing, since there are such things as telephones.
=20
John Ashcroft refused FBI requests for new counter-terrorism agents. =
=20
Which were requested for *cyber-terrorism* per Richard Clarke.
=20
***** Cheney's counter-terrorism task force
held no meetings until September 4. On September 10, Cheney's chief
of staff told Senator Diane Feinstein that the administration would
not be prepared to focus on terror threats for another six months.
=20
=20
Yep, nothing but *****.
=20
--=20
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I either want less corruption, or more chances to participate."
- Ashleigh Brilliant -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lamont Cranston" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
14 Dec 2005 02:15:03 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Lamont Cranston <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in
news:prYnf.923$Ql1.883@chiapp18.algx.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:%pXnf.31393$dO2.2558@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns972B8444E4D50fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:sPBnf.41118$6e1.7198@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:vf6tp1d6hvk4m3mcpjdvbq1b8knr90fs8d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:37:47 -0700, "Roy Boy" <roy@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in message
news:W8lnf.896$Ql1.69@chiapp18.algx.net...
David Goldberg wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
Clinton didn't invade Iraq.
Clinton only bombed countries without cause or decorations of
war.
Like Khartoum, Sudan?
As for Iraq, the war of 1991 was in truce, not an end of the war.
Actions in Iraq were in enforcement of the truce arrangement.
Saddam broke the truce in 1992. Our later acts in Iraq were a
continuation of the war.
That's what I said.
As for
the Sudan and afghanistan, I submit that Clinton's actions
exhaustively refute the notion that he did nothing about terrorism,
and they are scarcely any different to Reagan's actions in Grenada,
Libya or Lebanon.
He did nothing effective about terrorism. Neither did Reagan. That
excuse won't fly.
It isn't an excuse; the rightie is bitching about what Clinton did in
Afghanistan. You're saying he didn't do enough. Which is it?
Both.
One fact is ineluctable; Bush dismantled the anti-terror programs
Clinton had in place and replaced them with nothing until AFTER 911.
I didn't realize that "ineluctable" meant "*****".
In January, 2001, the following anti-terrorism measures programs were
operational: Predator drone surveillance flights tracked Osama bin
Laden's movements,
But weren't permitted to shoot.
lol. What part of "Predator drone surveillance" do you not understand?
a cruise-missle-equipped submarine targeted bin
Laden from the Indian Ocean,
But didn't shoot.
Actually, it did.
AC-130 gunships close to bin Laden were
on scramble alert,
But didn't go in and shoot.
Shoot at what?
Uzbekistan-based special forces operations targeted
bin Laden,
But didn't go in and shoot.
Shoot at what?
and the FBI was investigating Saudi Arabian ties to Al
Qaeda.
But didn't take action.
Investigate first, take action second.
All were cancelled by Bush immediately after he was sworn in.
So doing "something" which amounts to nothing is better than cancelling
the nothing altogether?
Pursuing one's enemy is better than not pursuing one's enemy.
In May through July, 2001, CIA Director George Tenet grew frantic with
concern over incoming intelligence indicating a huge terrorist attack
on American soil.
Nothing specific as to means or targets.
Tenet's concerns went unheeded.
He had nothing specific enough to be actionable anyway.
He had much which was quite specific.
George Bush went on vacation.
Which means nothing, since there are such things as telephones.
John Ashcroft refused FBI requests for new counter-terrorism agents.
Which were requested for *cyber-terrorism* per Richard Clarke.
So?
***** Cheney's counter-terrorism task force
held no meetings until September 4. On September 10, Cheney's chief
of staff told Senator Diane Feinstein that the administration would
not be prepared to focus on terror threats for another six months.
Yep, nothing but *****.
Yep, nothing but inaction from Bush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
14 Dec 2005 03:28:47 PM |
|
|
Lamont Cranston <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in
news:b3%nf.926$Ql1.676@chiapp18.algx.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
Lamont Cranston <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in
news:prYnf.923$Ql1.883@chiapp18.algx.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:%pXnf.31393$dO2.2558@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns972B8444E4D50fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:sPBnf.41118$6e1.7198@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:vf6tp1d6hvk4m3mcpjdvbq1b8knr90fs8d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:37:47 -0700, "Roy Boy" <roy@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in message
news:W8lnf.896$Ql1.69@chiapp18.algx.net...
David Goldberg wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
Clinton didn't invade Iraq.
Clinton only bombed countries without cause or decorations of
war.
Like Khartoum, Sudan?
As for Iraq, the war of 1991 was in truce, not an end of the war.
Actions in Iraq were in enforcement of the truce arrangement.
Saddam broke the truce in 1992. Our later acts in Iraq were a
continuation of the war.
That's what I said.
As for
the Sudan and afghanistan, I submit that Clinton's actions
exhaustively refute the notion that he did nothing about
terrorism, and they are scarcely any different to Reagan's
actions in Grenada, Libya or Lebanon.
He did nothing effective about terrorism. Neither did Reagan. That
excuse won't fly.
It isn't an excuse; the rightie is bitching about what Clinton did
in Afghanistan. You're saying he didn't do enough. Which is it?
Both.
One fact is ineluctable; Bush dismantled the anti-terror programs
Clinton had in place and replaced them with nothing until AFTER
911.
I didn't realize that "ineluctable" meant "*****".
In January, 2001, the following anti-terrorism measures programs were
operational: Predator drone surveillance flights tracked Osama bin
Laden's movements,
But weren't permitted to shoot.
lol. What part of "Predator drone surveillance" do you not
understand?
Big fucking deal. If we weren't going to go in and get him, why bother?
a cruise-missle-equipped submarine targeted bin
Laden from the Indian Ocean,
But didn't shoot.
Actually, it did.
And hit a bunch of empty tents.
AC-130 gunships close to bin Laden were
on scramble alert,
But didn't go in and shoot.
Shoot at what?
bin Laden.
Uzbekistan-based special forces operations targeted
bin Laden,
But didn't go in and shoot.
Shoot at what?
bin Laden.
and the FBI was investigating Saudi Arabian ties to Al
Qaeda.
But didn't take action.
Investigate first, take action second.
No, no, with Democrats, it's investigate first, leak to the media,
investigate some more, leak to the media, ***** around, leak some
more to the media...
All were cancelled by Bush immediately after he was sworn in.
So doing "something" which amounts to nothing is better than
cancelling the nothing altogether?
Pursuing one's enemy is better than not pursuing one's enemy.
If you're actually going to pursue him and kill him, sure.
In May through July, 2001, CIA Director George Tenet grew frantic
with concern over incoming intelligence indicating a huge terrorist
attack on American soil.
Nothing specific as to means or targets.
Tenet's concerns went unheeded.
He had nothing specific enough to be actionable anyway.
He had much which was quite specific.
Not specific enough to deflect the 9/11 attacks.
Not to mention suppressing the Able Danger information because it
violated Gorelick's Wall.
George Bush went on vacation.
Which means nothing, since there are such things as telephones.
John Ashcroft refused FBI requests for new counter-terrorism agents.
Which were requested for *cyber-terrorism* per Richard Clarke.
So?
So, what would they have done to stop Osama?
***** Cheney's counter-terrorism task force
held no meetings until September 4. On September 10, Cheney's chief
of staff told Senator Diane Feinstein that the administration would
not be prepared to focus on terror threats for another six months.
Yep, nothing but *****.
Yep, nothing but inaction from Bush.
And still more *****.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I either want less corruption, or more chances to participate."
- Ashleigh Brilliant -
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Ride" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
14 Dec 2005 04:40:47 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns972CA7C8627EBfstone69@213.155.197.138...
a cruise-missle-equipped submarine targeted bin
Laden from the Indian Ocean,
But didn't shoot.
Actually, it did.
And hit a bunch of empty tents.
So Fred, were you lying or just wrong?
--
Aloha, G-Ride
"I love songs about horses, railroads, land, judgement day, family, hard
times, whiskey, courtship, marriage, adultery, separation, murder, war,
prison, rambling, damnation, home, salvation, death, pride, humor, piety,
rebellion, patriotism, larceny, determination, tragedy, rowdiness,
heartbreak and love. And Mother. And God. 'Rusty Cage' must fit in some of
these categories." - J. Cash
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edw" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
14 Dec 2005 04:43:00 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message =
news:Xns972CA7C8627EBfstone69@213.155.197.138...
Lamont Cranston <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in
news:b3%nf.926$Ql1.676@chiapp18.algx.net:=20
=20
Fred Stone wrote:
=20
Lamont Cranston <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in
news:prYnf.923$Ql1.883@chiapp18.algx.net:=20
=20
=20
Fred Stone wrote:
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:%pXnf.31393$dO2.2558@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:=20
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns972B8444E4D50fstone69@213.155.197.138...=20
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:sPBnf.41118$6e1.7198@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:=20
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:vf6tp1d6hvk4m3mcpjdvbq1b8knr90fs8d@4ax.com...=20
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:37:47 -0700, "Roy Boy" <roy@comcast.net>
wrote:=20
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in message=20
news:W8lnf.896$Ql1.69@chiapp18.algx.net...
David Goldberg wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
Clinton didn't invade Iraq.
Clinton only bombed countries without cause or decorations of
war.=20
Like Khartoum, Sudan?
As for Iraq, the war of 1991 was in truce, not an end of the =
war.
Actions in Iraq were in enforcement of the truce arrangement.
Saddam broke the truce in 1992. Our later acts in Iraq were a=20
continuation of the war.
That's what I said.
As for
the Sudan and afghanistan, I submit that Clinton's actions
exhaustively refute the notion that he did nothing about
terrorism, and they are scarcely any different to Reagan's
actions in Grenada, Libya or Lebanon.=20
He did nothing effective about terrorism. Neither did Reagan. =
That
excuse won't fly.
It isn't an excuse; the rightie is bitching about what Clinton did
in Afghanistan. You're saying he didn't do enough. Which is it?
Both.
One fact is ineluctable; Bush dismantled the anti-terror programs
Clinton had in place and replaced them with nothing until AFTER
911.=20
I didn't realize that "ineluctable" meant "*****".
In January, 2001, the following anti-terrorism measures programs =
were
operational: Predator drone surveillance flights tracked Osama bin=20
Laden's movements,
=20
=20
But weren't permitted to shoot.
=20
lol. What part of "Predator drone surveillance" do you not
understand?=20
=20
=20
Big fucking deal. If we weren't going to go in and get him, why =
bother?
=20
=20
=20
a cruise-missle-equipped submarine targeted bin
Laden from the Indian Ocean,
=20
=20
But didn't shoot.
=20
Actually, it did.
=20
=20
And hit a bunch of empty tents.
Which is a shitload closer than Bush ever got.
=20
=20
=20
AC-130 gunships close to bin Laden were
on scramble alert,
=20
=20
But didn't go in and shoot.
=20
=20
Shoot at what?
=20
=20
bin Laden.
=20
=20
=20
=20
Uzbekistan-based special forces operations targeted
bin Laden,
=20
=20
But didn't go in and shoot.
=20
=20
Shoot at what?
=20
=20
bin Laden.
=20
=20
=20
=20
and the FBI was investigating Saudi Arabian ties to Al
Qaeda.
=20
=20
But didn't take action.
=20
=20
Investigate first, take action second.
=20
=20
No, no, with Democrats, it's investigate first, leak to the media,=20
investigate some more, leak to the media, ***** around, leak some=20
more to the media...
=20
=20
=20
=20
All were cancelled by Bush immediately after he was sworn in.
=20
=20
So doing "something" which amounts to nothing is better than
cancelling the nothing altogether?=20
=20
=20
Pursuing one's enemy is better than not pursuing one's enemy.
=20
=20
If you're actually going to pursue him and kill him, sure.
=20
=20
=20
=20
In May through July, 2001, CIA Director George Tenet grew frantic
with concern over incoming intelligence indicating a huge terrorist
attack on American soil.
=20
=20
Nothing specific as to means or targets.
=20
=20
Tenet's concerns went unheeded.
=20
=20
He had nothing specific enough to be actionable anyway.
=20
=20
He had much which was quite specific.
=20
=20
Not specific enough to deflect the 9/11 attacks.
=20
Not to mention suppressing the Able Danger information because it=20
violated Gorelick's Wall.
=20
=20
=20
=20
George Bush went on vacation.
=20
=20
Which means nothing, since there are such things as telephones.
=20
=20
John Ashcroft refused FBI requests for new counter-terrorism agents. =
=20
=20
Which were requested for *cyber-terrorism* per Richard Clarke.
=20
So?
=20
=20
So, what would they have done to stop Osama?
=20
=20
=20
=20
***** Cheney's counter-terrorism task force
held no meetings until September 4. On September 10, Cheney's chief
of staff told Senator Diane Feinstein that the administration would
not be prepared to focus on terror threats for another six months.
=20
=20
Yep, nothing but *****.
=20
=20
Yep, nothing but inaction from Bush.
=20
And still more *****.
=20
--=20
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I either want less corruption, or more chances to participate."
- Ashleigh Brilliant -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lamont Cranston" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi: Keeping a Straight Face? |
15 Dec 2005 08:26:27 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Lamont Cranston <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in
news:b3%nf.926$Ql1.676@chiapp18.algx.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
Lamont Cranston <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in
news:prYnf.923$Ql1.883@chiapp18.algx.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:%pXnf.31393$dO2.2558@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns972B8444E4D50fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Edw" <theotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:sPBnf.41118$6e1.7198@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:vf6tp1d6hvk4m3mcpjdvbq1b8knr90fs8d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:37:47 -0700, "Roy Boy" <roy@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in message
news:W8lnf.896$Ql1.69@chiapp18.algx.net...
David Goldberg wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
To quote Yang, "Where are the WMDs, *****?"
I wonder why liberals never asked Clinton this question.
Clinton didn't invade Iraq.
Clinton only bombed countries without cause or decorations of
war.
Like Khartoum, Sudan?
As for Iraq, the war of 1991 was in truce, not an end of the war.
Actions in Iraq were in enforcement of the truce arrangement.
Saddam broke the truce in 1992. Our later acts in Iraq were a
continuation of the war.
That's what I said.
As for
the Sudan and afghanistan, I submit that Clinton's actions
exhaustively refute the notion that he did nothing about
terrorism, and they are scarcely any different to Reagan's
actions in Grenada, Libya or Lebanon.
He did nothing effective about terrorism. Neither did Reagan. That
excuse won't fly.
It isn't an excuse; the rightie is bitching about what Clinton did
in Afghanistan. You're saying he didn't do enough. Which is it?
Both.
One fact is ineluctable; Bush dismantled the anti-terror programs
Clinton had in place and replaced them with nothing until AFTER
911.
I didn't realize that "ineluctable" meant "*****".
In January, 2001, the following anti-terrorism measures programs were
operational: Predator drone surveillance flights tracked Osama bin
Laden's movements,
But weren't permitted to shoot.
lol. What part of "Predator drone surveillance" do you not
understand?
Big fucking deal. If we weren't going to go in and get him, why bother?
a cruise-missle-equipped submarine targeted bin
Laden from the Indian Ocean,
But didn't shoot.
Actually, it did.
And hit a bunch of empty tents.
AC-130 gunships close to bin Laden were
on scramble alert,
But didn't go in and shoot.
Shoot at what?
bin Laden.
Uzbekistan-based special forces operations targeted
bin Laden,
But didn't go in and shoot.
Shoot at what?
bin Laden.
and the FBI was investigating Saudi Arabian ties to Al
Qaeda.
But didn't take action.
Investigate first, take action second.
No, no, with Democrats, it's investigate first, leak to the media,
investigate some more, leak to the media, ***** around, leak some
more to the media...
All were cancelled by Bush immediately after he was sworn in.
So doing "something" which amounts to nothing is better than
cancelling the nothing altogether?
Pursuing one's enemy is better than not pursuing one's enemy.
If you're actually going to pursue him and kill him, sure.
In May through July, 2001, CIA Director George Tenet grew frantic
with concern over incoming intelligence indicating a huge terrorist
attack on American soil.
Nothing specific as to means or targets.
Tenet's concerns went unheeded.
He had nothing specific enough to be actionable anyway.
He had much which was quite specific.
Not specific enough to deflect the 9/11 attacks.
Not to mention suppressing the Able Danger information because it
violated Gorelick's Wall.
George Bush went on vacation.
Which means nothing, since there are such things as telephones.
John Ashcro | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
