Author Topic: OT:FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR  (Read 9712 times)

Offline WayOutWest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7411
    • View Profile
OT:FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR
« Reply #30 on: March 22, 2004, 06:50:34 PM »
If we keep going down this Bush path our next Space Shuttle will be named Bismark!
"History shouldn't be a mystery"
"Our story is real history"
"Not his story"

"My people's culture was strong, it was pure"
"And if not for that white greed"
"It would've endured"

"Laker hate causes blindness"

Offline Laker Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1255
    • View Profile
OT:FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR
« Reply #31 on: March 22, 2004, 08:07:11 PM »
Just a little side note from Mr. Politically neutral here, I find this topic interesting but for reasons different for the rest of you.

Neither one of the men seeking the White House right now, the one already there and the one who would love to relace him, have the answer to these problems. But the most interesting thing to me is the way things get skewed when passionate dabates begin.

For example, 101 is characterizing this man a "defector" from the Bush camp. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anymore than his characterization (Clarkes) of himself as being "removed from a cabinet post" is true. He never held a cabinet post, was never recomended for one, and never supported actively any but a Democratic agenda. He rose through the ranks, was never "appointed" anything, and was at his job through the last year of Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. He is a registered Democrat and was an ardent and avowed enemy of Bush from the beginning, he had expressed a clear dislike of Dr. Rice and has quite a few friends in the Kerry election committee, including Kerry's homeland security advisor (at least, the man who will be if Kerry wins). His agenda is as transparent and shallow as Chris Webbers heart. In order to be a defector, he would have to be a supporter first.

His record during his job as an advisor and analyst included the 1993 World Trade Center attacks, the Cole bombing, the 2 African Emassies, countless individual victims and several airline bombings, not a great resume for someone who claims 9-11 was avoidable if they had just listened to him if you ask me. And never once did he criticize Clinton for his indecisive inactions against anyone. As an outsider politically, I find it fascinating how 2 groups here can not see or at least so clearly mis-state who or what this man is attempting, or how some of you seem to be under the impression he is a defector from a camp he was never in. Interesting, if you good folks can skew the facts to make your points, what makes you think an opportunist like Clarke, who clearly is positioning himself for a position in a possible Kerry administration cannot or would not do the same or worse. Whether I support either party, which I do not, as I said, I am absolutely neutral, I can still see this mans agenda as plain as day.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2004, 11:55:49 PM by Laker Fan »
Dan

Offline spursfan101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
    • http://
    • Email
OT:FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR
« Reply #32 on: March 23, 2004, 09:02:33 AM »
I've noticed the Bush adminstration is on a major offensive to discredit this guy. One other thing that stands out, if your able to see through the smoke and the fog, is that they are not saying much about his message, only about him directly.  

What he said was absolutely true, no doubt in mind. And what he's trying to do is become a wealthy writer, no doubt in my mind.  
Paul

Offline Laker Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1255
    • View Profile
OT:FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR
« Reply #33 on: March 23, 2004, 10:42:43 AM »
Well of course they are trying to discredit him, and they are disputing what he says, his message if you will, unlike what you are claiming, another example of skewing things to fit an agenda 101. The White House released a full rebuttal to everything the man has said, not "him directly".

If this guy was credible, truthful and sincere with his concerns about the way things have been handled, he would not have waited 2 1/2 years to say what he is saying, and he would have come out 2 years before that when Clinton had bin Laden dead in his sights and chose to not take the shot, Clarke claims he has been harping on the danger bin Laden represents for well over 10 years. Funny how 8 years of inaction by Clinton elicits nary a word of criticism from him. If 9/11 could have been prevented, it was the Clinton administration that had the power to do it, not Bush, they had at least 2 opportunities to take the leaders of Al Quaida out and didn't do it. Clarke is nothing more than a lying, greedy, opportunist trying to get a job with what he hopes is the next administration. The fact that he waited 2 1/2 years to complain is evidence of it. The fact that he ignores his own ineptitude for the past 10 years of terror attacks and the inaction of his own political party writes it in stone. It's almost as if the the DNC is paying this guy to do this, it is just that transparant.

Don't you see folks? none of these people have the answer, they will sell their mother if it advances their own ideology. Human lives lost are a tool, an expedient to leverage themselves into more power, and it matters not which political party it is, THEY ALL DO IT. I lost friends on September 11th, and it sickens me to see people exploit that tragedy to their own ends. You say Bush was stupid for the ads, I say this is makes it look like the height of decorum.
Dan

Offline WayOutWest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7411
    • View Profile
OT:FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR
« Reply #34 on: March 23, 2004, 11:47:12 AM »
Despite Bush's obvious and disgraceful attempts to hide the truth about 9/11 and the Iraq agenda, some of the truth seems to be getting out.  Enjoy Dan!

Front page link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Direct link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3561827.stm

Bin Laden 'topped Clinton agenda'
 
Albright sympathised with the Bush administration's difficulty in fighting terrorism
A former US secretary of state says President Bill Clinton did all he could to defeat al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

She said Mr Clinton had authorised action to "neutralise" Bin Laden after the 1998 US embassy attacks in Africa.

The hearings come after ex-White House counter-terrorism aide Richard Clarke criticised the Bush policy on terror.

He accused it of ignoring the threat from al-Qaeda - concentrating instead on Iraq.

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell will also testify on Tuesday and are expected to defend the current administration against the wider charge that it simply did not take al-Qaeda seriously enough.

Mrs Albright said the day of the embassy bombings had been the worst during her time in office - and days after learning that al-Qaeda had been behind the attacks, President Clinton had authorised cruise missile strikes against al-Qaeda targets.

She advised the current administration that al-Qaeda was not a military organisation - it was an ideology that needed to be fought.

"Al-Qaeda is an ideological virus. Until the right medicine is found, the virus will continue to spread," Mrs Albright said.

"We must be sure that Bin Laden goes down is a murderer, traitor to Islam and a loser."

She said she sympathised with Mr Bush and others who now held positions of responsibility.

She warned that, after the Madrid train bombings, Americans should expect more attacks on their soil.

The hearing will try to find whether any specific warnings were given  
White House spokesman Scott McClellan has accused Mr Clarke of political opportunism ahead of November's presidential poll.

Vice-President Dick Cheney said that Mr Clarke clearly missed a lot of what was going on during his time at the White House.

He also questioned Mr Clarke's effectiveness in running anti-terrorism efforts, citing the attacks on the US embassies in East Africa in 1998 and other incidents.

Mr Clarke served as head of counter-terrorism under four consecutive US presidents, from Ronald Reagan to George W Bush.

Bin Laden chase

This is the eighth public hearing held by the bi-partisan commission, established in 2002.

The hearings - on Tuesday and Wednesday - are on "the formulation and conduct of US counter-terrorism policy, with particular emphasis on the period from the August 1998 embassy bombings [in Kenya and Tanzania] to September 11, 2001".

ISSUES FOR COMMISSION
Congressional oversight and state of aviation security
Terrorism, al-Qaeda, and the Muslim world
Intelligence warnings against trans-national threats
Emergency preparedness
Security and liberty
Border and aviation security  

In his opening statement, commission chairman Thomas Kean said he regretted that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice had declined to give evidence.

But they had had "extensive" private meetings with Ms Rice, who had been "co-operative", he said.

Former Defence Secretary William Cohen will also be testifying on Tuesday.

Mr Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger will testify on Wednesday as will Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet.

A commission statement read before evidence was heard focused on US diplomatic efforts during the Clinton presidency to track down Osama Bin Laden and bring him to the US to face trial.

The Bush administration had agreed on a plan to combat Bin Laden, one day before the 11 September attacks, it said.
 
"History shouldn't be a mystery"
"Our story is real history"
"Not his story"

"My people's culture was strong, it was pure"
"And if not for that white greed"
"It would've endured"

"Laker hate causes blindness"

Offline Ted

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Rustedhart
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - ruteha
    • View Profile
    • Email
OT:FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR
« Reply #35 on: March 23, 2004, 11:54:33 AM »
Quote
Despite Bush's obvious and disgraceful attempts to hide the truth about 9/11 and the Iraq agenda, some of the truth seems to be getting out.  Enjoy Dan!

Front page link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Direct link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3561827.stm

Bin Laden 'topped Clinton agenda'
 
Albright sympathised with the Bush administration's difficulty in fighting terrorism
A former US secretary of state says President Bill Clinton did all he could to defeat al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

She said Mr Clinton had authorised action to "neutralise" Bin Laden after the 1998 US embassy attacks in Africa.

The hearings come after ex-White House counter-terrorism aide Richard Clarke criticised the Bush policy on terror.

He accused it of ignoring the threat from al-Qaeda - concentrating instead on Iraq.

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell will also testify on Tuesday and are expected to defend the current administration against the wider charge that it simply did not take al-Qaeda seriously enough.

Mrs Albright said the day of the embassy bombings had been the worst during her time in office - and days after learning that al-Qaeda had been behind the attacks, President Clinton had authorised cruise missile strikes against al-Qaeda targets.

She advised the current administration that al-Qaeda was not a military organisation - it was an ideology that needed to be fought.

"Al-Qaeda is an ideological virus. Until the right medicine is found, the virus will continue to spread," Mrs Albright said.

"We must be sure that Bin Laden goes down is a murderer, traitor to Islam and a loser."

She said she sympathised with Mr Bush and others who now held positions of responsibility.

She warned that, after the Madrid train bombings, Americans should expect more attacks on their soil.

The hearing will try to find whether any specific warnings were given  
White House spokesman Scott McClellan has accused Mr Clarke of political opportunism ahead of November's presidential poll.

Vice-President Dick Cheney said that Mr Clarke clearly missed a lot of what was going on during his time at the White House.

He also questioned Mr Clarke's effectiveness in running anti-terrorism efforts, citing the attacks on the US embassies in East Africa in 1998 and other incidents.

Mr Clarke served as head of counter-terrorism under four consecutive US presidents, from Ronald Reagan to George W Bush.

Bin Laden chase

This is the eighth public hearing held by the bi-partisan commission, established in 2002.

The hearings - on Tuesday and Wednesday - are on "the formulation and conduct of US counter-terrorism policy, with particular emphasis on the period from the August 1998 embassy bombings [in Kenya and Tanzania] to September 11, 2001".

ISSUES FOR COMMISSION
Congressional oversight and state of aviation security
Terrorism, al-Qaeda, and the Muslim world
Intelligence warnings against trans-national threats
Emergency preparedness
Security and liberty
Border and aviation security  

In his opening statement, commission chairman Thomas Kean said he regretted that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice had declined to give evidence.

But they had had "extensive" private meetings with Ms Rice, who had been "co-operative", he said.

Former Defence Secretary William Cohen will also be testifying on Tuesday.

Mr Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger will testify on Wednesday as will Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet.

A commission statement read before evidence was heard focused on US diplomatic efforts during the Clinton presidency to track down Osama Bin Laden and bring him to the US to face trial.

The Bush administration had agreed on a plan to combat Bin Laden, one day before the 11 September attacks, it said.
LOL! WoW, how pathetic that you can't even see the similarity between what Condoleeza Rice says to defend her boss and what Madeleine Albright says to defend her old boss.

If you're not going to give any credence to what Rice says, why should we believe a word of what Albright says? Of course with her, it's all complete honesty, but with Rice, it's smoke and mirrors. Good hell man, pull your head out.

Cruise missile strikes equate to Clinton's "action" against Al Qaeda. Brilliant. Of course. Push a button and hope that somehow our missile flies right down the cave entrance and kills Osama in his bunker. STUPID.
"You take him Perk!" ~Kevin Garnett

"I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards in and tighten up a little bit on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." ~Bill Clinton

Offline WayOutWest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7411
    • View Profile
OT:FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR
« Reply #36 on: March 23, 2004, 11:55:11 AM »
Dan, you may think that Clark is "transparent" but he's a iron curtain compared to that POS Bush.

http://www.phillyarena.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=245

http://www.phillyarena.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=335
"History shouldn't be a mystery"
"Our story is real history"
"Not his story"

"My people's culture was strong, it was pure"
"And if not for that white greed"
"It would've endured"

"Laker hate causes blindness"

Offline WayOutWest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7411
    • View Profile
OT:FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR
« Reply #37 on: March 23, 2004, 12:02:03 PM »
Quote
LOL! WoW, how pathetic that you can't even see the similarity between what Condoleeza Rice says to defend her boss and what Madeleine Albright says to defend her old boss.

If you're not going to give any credence to what Rice says, why should we believe a word of what Albright says? Of course with her, it's all complete honesty, but with Rice, it's smoke and mirrors. Good hell man, pull your head out.

Cruise missile strikes equate to Clinton's "action" against Al Qaeda. Brilliant. Of course. Push a button and hope that somehow our missile flies right down the cave entrance and kills Osama in his bunker. STUPID.
Hey genius, please point out where I posted ANYTHING about Rice.  Point out anything Ted, please.

This is what I'm referring to in regards to Bush hidding the truth:
http://www.phillyarena.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=245

Honestly Ted, it's the Bush backers who don't see that truth that is starring them in the face.  It's hard for me to comprehend that people who seem so intelligent can be so blinded to the truth.

I have never been anti-Bush until the war for oil began.  I always thought Bush was just a knucklehead but there wasn't any real animosity toward him until all this OBVIOUS BS started.  I can't stand the thought of him being the Pres for four more years, he and his BOUGHT agenda are a disgrace to our country.
"History shouldn't be a mystery"
"Our story is real history"
"Not his story"

"My people's culture was strong, it was pure"
"And if not for that white greed"
"It would've endured"

"Laker hate causes blindness"

Offline Lurker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
    • View Profile
    • Email
OT:FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR
« Reply #38 on: March 23, 2004, 12:11:43 PM »
Quote
Push a button and hope that somehow our missile flies right down the cave entrance and kills Osama in his bunker. STUPID.
And how is this different from Bush's extensive use of "bunker buster" bombs in Afghanistan & Iraq?

Sounds like it all depends on which side of the political fence you are on.
It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave.  Keep on thinking free.
-Moody Blues

Offline Ted

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Rustedhart
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - ruteha
    • View Profile
    • Email
OT:FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR
« Reply #39 on: March 23, 2004, 12:59:31 PM »
Quote
And how is this different from Bush's extensive use of "bunker buster" bombs in Afghanistan & Iraq?

Sounds like it all depends on which side of the political fence you are on.
I'm sorry Lurker, but that's just a silly comment. How ISN'T different it from bunker busters?

I'd say you had a point if all we did in response to Al Qaeda after 9-11 was to drop a few bombs on their bunkers. In the 90s, Al Qaeda (off the top of my head) made four major attacks against us (1st World Trade Center, two embassy bombings, and the USS Cole), and our only response was a few cruise missiles. Where's the risk for Al Qaeda when all we cowardly infidels are willing to do is push a button to lob a few impotent missiles?

As far as bunker busters go, when coupled with troops on the ground at least they have a chance of success. And as far as Iraq is concerned, the more countries who fund or harbor terrorists have the fear of God (or the US military) in them, the better.
"You take him Perk!" ~Kevin Garnett

"I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards in and tighten up a little bit on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." ~Bill Clinton

Offline Ted

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Rustedhart
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - ruteha
    • View Profile
    • Email
OT:FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR
« Reply #40 on: March 23, 2004, 01:11:58 PM »
Quote
Hey genius, please point out where I posted ANYTHING about Rice.  Point out anything Ted, please.

This is what I'm referring to in regards to Bush hidding the truth:
http://www.phillyarena.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=245

Honestly Ted, it's the Bush backers who don't see that truth that is starring them in the face.  It's hard for me to comprehend that people who seem so intelligent can be so blinded to the truth.

I have never been anti-Bush until the war for oil began.  I always thought Bush was just a knucklehead but there wasn't any real animosity toward him until all this OBVIOUS BS started.  I can't stand the thought of him being the Pres for four more years, he and his BOUGHT agenda are a disgrace to our country.
You've been talking about Bush admin smoke and mirrors haven't you? The lies, the deception, blah blah blah.

WoW, I see many political issues in complete contrast to the way you see them. It's hard for me to comprehend how someone who seems intelligent like you can be so blinded by hatred of one man and so unwilling to listen to something you don't agree with. I try to be objective about politics, I really do. I say things like, "If I find out that Bush deliberately lied about the Iraq intel, he'll lose my vote. If the administration doesn't slow down its spending soon, they need to go."

But then I ask you what I think are legitamate questions about Clarke's intentions, and you totally sidestep them and say I'm attacking him rather than what he says. Then you say no one has addressed the actual claims he makes, which is totally false. Just look at what Rice, Powell, and Bartlett have said in the past few days. They have addressed what he says line by line. But you don't want to hear that. Even a House Democrat who was on the House Intelligence Committee says he doesn't remember any Al Qaeda action plan supposedly presented by Clarke. But you don't want to hear that.

You've never been anti-Bush until the war for oil began? Whatever. How many "Bush is a moron" posts did you make before the Iraq war? As I remember it, that's all you could ever say about him. WoW, it's okay to be liberal. The country needs you to oppose those who are too conservative. You don't have to act like you once like the guy.
"You take him Perk!" ~Kevin Garnett

"I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards in and tighten up a little bit on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." ~Bill Clinton

Offline TheloMonk

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
    • Email
OT:FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR
« Reply #41 on: March 23, 2004, 01:37:42 PM »
I agree with you 101, there seems to be lots of energy to directed towards killing  the messenger while ignoring the message.  The unfortunate thing is that, for those who care enough about the world around them to seek out sources other than the US media this is old news. Who cares what this guys motivations are …that’s for his mental health professional to determine.  What I care about if whether or not he’s telling the truth.    Personally I’ve heard similar stories from too many different sources not to believe him.

Offline WayOutWest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7411
    • View Profile
OT:FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR
« Reply #42 on: March 23, 2004, 01:43:49 PM »
Quote
You've been talking about Bush admin smoke and mirrors haven't you? The lies, the deception, blah blah blah.

WoW, I see many political issues in complete contrast to the way you see them. It's hard for me to comprehend how someone who seems intelligent like you can be so blinded by hatred of one man and so unwilling to listen to something you don't agree with. I try to be objective about politics, I really do. I say things like, "If I find out that Bush deliberately lied about the Iraq intel, he'll lose my vote. If the administration doesn't slow down its spending soon, they need to go."

But then I ask you what I think are legitamate questions about Clarke's intentions, and you totally sidestep them and say I'm attacking him rather than what he says. Then you say no one has addressed the actual claims he makes, which is totally false. Just look at what Rice, Powell, and Bartlett have said in the past few days. They have addressed what he says line by line. But you don't want to hear that. Even a House Democrat who was on the House Intelligence Committee says he doesn't remember any Al Qaeda action plan supposedly presented by Clarke. But you don't want to hear that.

You've never been anti-Bush until the war for oil began? Whatever. How many "Bush is a moron" posts did you make before the Iraq war? As I remember it, that's all you could ever say about him. WoW, it's okay to be liberal. The country needs you to oppose those who are too conservative. You don't have to act like you once like the guy.
Ted, I know you're not on par with me mentally but try and keep up with who's posting what, most of you comments should be directed to Lurker not me punk!  :P

Like I posted TED!!!!! I didn't have any REAL ANIMOSITY towards Bush, I just thought he was a knucklehead.

Get a grip cause you're losing ground.
"History shouldn't be a mystery"
"Our story is real history"
"Not his story"

"My people's culture was strong, it was pure"
"And if not for that white greed"
"It would've endured"

"Laker hate causes blindness"

Offline JoMal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3361
    • View Profile
    • http://
    • Email
OT:FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR
« Reply #43 on: March 23, 2004, 02:18:37 PM »
Quote
the president supports free speach...as long as it doesnt piss him off! snoggie-muncher!!

Have I missed something, or is SPURSX3 gay? And a Texan yet. What will those longhorns think?
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.....We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason.....We are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular....We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."

Offline spursfan101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
    • http://
    • Email
OT:FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR
« Reply #44 on: March 23, 2004, 02:49:31 PM »
To answer the "is x3 gay question", no, he is not. He sent me an email saying he was going to put all these stupid messages with the name calling up there for a few days, and he was waiting for somebody to bite on the "is he gay" reference. Guy has too much time on his hands!   :lol:  <_<

Thanks for biting Jomal, maybe now, he'll stop.
Paul