!@#$% Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 In his own words, here are some of Clarke's revelations: * Clarke repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about attacks from al Qaeda, starting in the first days of Bush's term. "But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on."8 According to another Bush administration security official, Clarke "was the guy pushing hardest, saying again and again that something big was going to happen, including possibly here in the U.S." The official added that Clarke was likely sidelined because he had served in the previous (Clinton) administration.9 * In face-to-face meetings, CIA Director George Tenet warned President Bush repeatedly in the months before 9/11 that an attack was coming. According to Clarke, Tenet told the President that "A major al-Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead."10 * On September 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld pushed to bomb Iraq even though they knew that al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.'"11 * Also on September 12, 2001, President Bush personally pushed Clarke to find evidence that Iraq was behind the attacks. From the New York Times: "'I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything,' Mr. Clarke writes that Mr. Bush told him. 'See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way.' When Mr. Clarke protested that the culprit was Al Qaeda, not Iraq, Mr. Bush testily ordered him, he writes, to 'look into Iraq, Saddam,' and then left the room."12 * The Bush Administration knew from the beginning that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, but created the misperception in order to push their policy goals. "[Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush] did know better. They did know better. They did know better. We told them, the CIA told them, the FBI told them. They did know better. And the tragedy here is that Americans went to their death in Iraq thinking that they were avenging September 11th, when Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. I think for a commander-in-chief and a vice president to allow that to happen is unconscionable."13 * The war on Iraq has increased the danger of terrorism. In his book, he writes that shifting from al Qaeda to Iraq "launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."14 Footnotes: 1. "Dissent from within on Iraq war," Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/24/04 http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/fr.../8260216.htm?1c (Registration required) 2. "Bush Aides Blast Ex-Terror Chief," CBS News, 3/22/04 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/23/...ain608107.shtml 3. "The book on Richard Clarke," Washington Post, 3/23/04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Mar22.html (Registration required) 4. "Clarke's Take On Terror," CBS, 3/21/04 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/...ain607356.shtml 5. See 3, above. 6. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. 7. "Ex-Bush Aide Sets Off Debate as 9/11 Hearing Opens," New York Times, 3/23/04 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics.../23CLAR.html?hp (Registration required) 8. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. 9. See 7, above. 10. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. 11. "Sept. 11: Before And After," CBS News, 3/20/04 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/20/...ain607622.shtml 12. "Excerpts from 'Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror' by Richard A. Clarke," posted on NYTimes.com, 3/23/04 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/23CWOR.html (Registration required) 13. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. 14. "Memoir Criticizes Bush 9/11 Response," Washington Post, 3/22/04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Mar21.html (Registration required) 15. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. Already, the White House spin machine is in overdrive. Since they can't rebut Clarke's facts -- which independent witnesses have confirmed (7) -- they're trying to paint him as an angry partisan, even though he's a Republican. But Clarke's words remain a searing indictment of the Bush Administration's campaign against terrorism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAustin Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Brilliant government we have. Let's ignore a man's opinions because he served under the previous administration. And as a reward for being right...let's put the spin machine on him and discredit him. If they'd spend half the time and money on legitimate shit...we'd be so far ahead of everyone else. :nope: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 the Daily Show's take on this last night was brilliant! 'bang-your-head' relevent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MANIK DEK Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by SteveAustin Brilliant government we have. Let's ignore a man's opinions because he served under the previous administration. And as a reward for being right...let's put the spin machine on him and discredit him. If they'd spend half the time and money on legitimate shit...we'd be so far ahead of everyone else. :nope: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfreshsushi Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 i read the newsweek article on this guy, he's looking to hand bush his own ass on a platter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 McClellan on Clarke from yesterday's press gaggle: QUESTION: And then, can I ask you to clarify, too, because one of the points you've made is he was here for nearly a decade; why did he raise these concerns -- why did he raise these concerns a year-and-a-half after he left? What, then, was the report that he put together that, then, was on the President's desk September 4th, the action plan in terms of doing -- McCLELLAN: Well, that was something the National Security Council put together. That was something -- it was a comprehensive strategy for eliminating al Qaeda, not rolling back al Qaeda. The President wanted a strategy that had teeth, that when we came in and we looked at -- looked at the threat posed by al Qaeda, we made it a top priority. But the President wanted to go beyond the actions of the past, which were maybe aimed at rolling back al Qaeda. He wanted a comprehensive strategy that had teeth. That's why we made al Qaeda a priority from very early on. And then you also look at what we did after 9/11. We immediately took action to go into Afghanistan and remove the Taliban from power and to deny al Qaeda the safe haven that they had in that country to plan and plot against America and our friends and allies. QUESTION: But you have left the impression that Clarke did little or nothing to deal with or propose solutions to dealing with al Qaeda while he was here. McCLELLAN: No, no, no. Here in the United States. No, no. Dr. Rice actually asked him for ideas in the very first week of this administration that he had for going after al Qaeda. And some of those -- some of those we pursued -- QUESTION: Wasn't he the one who pushed in many ways and helped put together the report that landed on the President's desk September 4th? McCLELLAN: He was involved in our counterterrorism efforts up until October 9th of 2001, when that position was separated, something that he actually suggested, as well. QUESTION: Well, help clarify, because if he was involved with and helped author this report that had to deal with dealing with al Qaeda that landed on the President's desk a week before September 11th -- McCLELLAN: At the direction of -- QUESTION: -- how can you say he did nothing or raised no concerns? McCLELLAN: At the direction of -- at the direction of the National Security Advisor. I'm talking about here in the United States. Remember that the fact is that he was not in many of the meetings where he would have some of the direct knowledge of what he asserts. He appears to be more wrapped up in the process about what title he had and what meetings he was able to participate in or not participate in. The world according to Dick Clarke is all about Dick Clarke. If he and his ideas are not at the center of all that is going on, then he thinks you cannot be taking terrorism seriously. Well, let's look at the facts. Let's look at the action we took. This President took action immediately upon coming into office to develop a comprehensive strategy to eliminate al Qaeda. The first major foreign policy directive of this administration was a comprehensive -- to develop a comprehensive strategy to eliminate al Qaeda, not to roll back al Qaeda. QUESTION: Understood, but explain how there's not a glaring contradiction. You say he did nothing, and yet there was a report that was on the President's desk a week before September 11th. McCLELLAN: What did I say? Wait, wait. What did I say? I did not say -- QUESTION: You said he was more involved in process and which meetings he was in. I’m trying to understand -- McCLELLAN: He is more focused on -- he appears to be more focused on process and what title he had and what meetings he was in or not in. QUESTION: What was the report on September 4th? McCLELLAN: That was the comprehensive strategy to eliminate al Qaeda, at the direction of Dr. Rice and the National Security Council and the President of the United States, who made it clear early on. He said, I don't want to be swatting at flies, we need a comprehensive strategy to eliminate al Qaeda. And you can watch Clarke testifying live on the Hill right now.Click here. Note that Real Player is required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAustin Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 :nope: the politics of politics. I'm almost tempted to run for office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 can me and Gliko be the chief advisors on all matters dealing with dragons, sti's and internet dating? if so, you've got my support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.HollaBack Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by !@#$% * In face-to-face meetings, CIA Director George Tenet warned President Bush repeatedly in the months before 9/11 that an attack was coming. According to Clarke, Tenet told the President that "A major al-Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead."10 is that so? wow, a terrorist attack is going to happen sometime, somewhere in the (near) future... imagine that! this guy is the next mrs. cleo... p.s people- i predict another terrorist plot against the united states is going to happen in the future as well, i dont know when, or by who, or how they intend to do it, but im sure it's going to happen. Now that I gave you the heads up, please go prevent it someone... (I am not trying to be overly funny here, I just feel that it's a joke to blaim the Bush administration for "not preventing" the terrorist attacks because they might have been given a heads up before hand. And that broad statement that I quoted struck a nerve in me, pardon my sarcasm, but I just find that statement aggrivating in reguards to placing blaim on President Bush or his administration for the terrorist attacks). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 not to risk swerving this thread off track, but tease, you stupid motherfucker, YOU DO NOT LISTEN!!! this is the exact shit i just made a huge fucking thread about two days ago. you have no fucking clue what so ever as to what (or who) is being discussed, but you just cant handle there being a thread that your dumb ass isnt a part of. so you pop your head in, make some stupid ass joke that is neither funny, nor witty, nor wanted. i honestly can not fathom why we have not condemned you for good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.HollaBack Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 no seeking, i am being serious. my point was that the point that she mentioned (that i quoted)... was very broad. Anyone could predict that the US was going to get attacked by terrorists in the future and in fact it was very likely to happen. But that doesn't mean you can prevent the attacks just because you were warned about them. That's all i was getting at. I'm not trying to be funny or throw this thread off, I have no intention to. My apologies seriously... ps- I do know who is being discussed here, and the severity of the ordeal. The former TERRORISM ADVISOR is saying that he believes that the Bush administration had the proper knowledge about these terrorist warnings for 9/11 prior to them happening and did nothing about them, I get that. And man, like i said, I realised I was being an idiot in those other threads with the stupid comments I was making, but I am being serious when I tell you that I'm interested in learning about this stuff, and I'm not making jokes or anything to be funny or throw the thread off, I'm simply giving my two cents on the matter (which is the point of a message board). You guys use sarcasm a lot, I was merely doing the same thing. Once again, I apoligize if you thought I was being childish or not acting properly, I didnt mean to be out of line by any means. (you can delete this part of my post after I know you read it, if you want.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted March 24, 2004 Author Share Posted March 24, 2004 tease. the warning was PRE-9/11... we'd had problems at waco, a unabomber, a few floors in wtc, and oklahoma. domestic terrorism. what this guy is getting at is that back then, NO ONE in power was PAYING ATTENTION to the HUGE mounting threat...we might as well have had our heads in the sand... back in 2000, people were not thinking that we were going to be a terrorist target much less that thousands were about to die.. or that we were about to enter a fucking WAR WITHOUT END! how crazy it is people, like yourself tease, have adjusted SO QUICKLY to the threat of terrorism that you now think it was PLAINLY OBVIOUS that we were about to be attacked. the guy also specifically stated: IN THE WEEKS AND MONTHS AHEAD NOT some random time in the future, as your ms.cleo abilities tell you. and another thing: if you think the government we live under could KNOW attacks were coming and NOT do enough to PREVENT them, you are letting the government off way too easy. part of a government's job is to PROTECT IT'S PEOPLE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.HollaBack Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by !@#$% what this guy is getting at is that back then, NO ONE in power was PAYING ATTENTION to the HUGE mounting threat...we might as well have had our heads in the sand... You are absolutely correct. We weren't doing much about this huge mounting terrorist threat that seemed more than obvious to be building up and about to explode, without a doubt, you are exactly right. All I was trying to get at was, even with the warnings, and prior knowledge that terrorists seemed to be plotting a major attack on us, I feel that it was hard to know: how they were going to execute their plan, where it was going to unfold, what time it was going to go down during the day, and all of the other aspects of a possible attack... making it very hard for ANYONE to prevent it from occuring. That's all. and just so you know, I'm not trying to let the Government off easy by any means. They are suppost to protect the people of their country like you said, but that's why terrorism is so tricky, because anyone at anytime could execute a terrorist plot by any number of ways... (it's hard to prevent). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted March 24, 2004 Author Share Posted March 24, 2004 i hear you...but i personally think they could have, should have done a lot more (as i think that now, we are having the wrong reaction) the FBI knew that terrorists were in the country. why weren't they originally detained at customs? shouldn't there have been more effective checks in place? Atta, the ringleader, entered florida with another guy, who WAS detained and DEPORTED by a customs agent.. authorities now believe that this guy was the elusive 20th hijacker (NOT mousaaoui) authorities credit the customs agent for being extremely vigilant: he gave the routine questions they ask everyone entering where are you from? why are you here? for how long? the guy answered a few questions, then his story fell apart they kicked him out of the country. phone records show atta was calling his buddies trying to figure out what went wrong that day..... the WTC had already been used as a target. if the attack was imminent, couldn't some type of plan have been formulated to deal with such a situation? at least a contingency plan? was it necessary that 2 planes crash into WTC, with one into the pentagon? shouldn't the government have discussed what to do if planes were hijacked and used as weapons?? (there is evidence the government had heard of those threats) why were 3 out of 4 crashed into targets? why were cockpit doors so flimsy? making the pilots and controls vulnerable? why did we wait so long? people who lost fathers, husbands, providers, sisters, mothers, children in those attacks are demanding answers. they deserve an explanation and someone needs to get fired so people in power know they can't ignore shit like this ever again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villain Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Hmm.... Rumsfeld and them were talking about Clarke yesterday during the 9-11 investigations.... They were painting him a sort of disgruntled former employee from what I gathered.... As far as government prior knowledge goes, I was reading the papers every day around the time of 9-11 and I specifically remember a few different articles about an FBI agent who tried to warn officials of suspected terrorists, with ties to terrorist organizations attending a flight training school in Florida. There was a conspiracy to silence this man. I haven't heard about him since. Unfortunately I have forgot his name.... But this search on google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-...G=Google+Search Has turned up the name of an agent named Delmart Edward "Mike" Vreeland. I'm not sure if this is the same FBI agent I'm thinking of but there seems to be quite an intriguing assortment of information haloing around him.... So I'm going to look further into it on this message board... they seem to know something about this. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_whistleblower.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 tease, i have no problem with you being a part of political discussions as long as you have something to add, be it in the form of questions or oppinions. but in this instance, you took one quote, negated a very important portion of it, then tried to make a joke out of the rest. it was just dumb, and it was the exact stuff i spoke of. i don't think you did it to be malicious, you just don't think. you want to be a part of things so you try and interject your brand of humor, forgetting (or not realizing) that it is not appreciated here. im glad you seem to have an interest in things, but it would serve you well to remember that you really do not know what you're talking about most the time, and that you should maybe listen and ask questions more than give (generally) baseless oppinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.HollaBack Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 have you seen the latest news about this tape that has Clarke talking about how a month or so into office Bush announced that he was going to go after Al Queda and these terrorist groups way before 9/11 happening, which means that these latest accusations about how Bush went after them only after 9/11 are false. The news is saying that there is like 2 sides to this guy, first he was bashing clinton's policies and acknowledging Bush's efforts, and now he's bashing Bush's policies and praising Clinton's. I think this guy is done with... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 You may dismiss him nonchalantly Tease, but the rest of the public won't. His book will premiere at #1 on the NYT bestseller list and will remain there for easily a month. He's not "done with" by any means. And when you talk about the "latest news" you should provide a link to the story. It makes discussion a lot easier. When you refer to the "news," what do you mean? Internet? TV? Fox News? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.HollaBack Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by !@#$% the FBI knew that terrorists were in the country. why weren't they originally detained at customs? shouldn't there have been more effective checks in place? Yes, I just saw this on the news, and not only is it obsurd, it is absolutely ridiculous that they knew about these people, and yet did nothing. Originally posted by !@#$% the WTC had already been used as a target. This is true, however, the first attack was a car bomb, had nothing to do with planes being used as bombs. I don't know what you could have really done to prepare the twin towers against another attack based off this previous one, besides more security in/around the building or in the basement where the first car/van bombing happened, but like i said, planning to protect the towers from plane attacks would be rather difficult. Originally posted by !@#$% if the attack was imminent, couldn't some type of plan have been formulated to deal with such a situation? at least a contingency plan? sure a plan should have been looked into I guess, but I'm not sure what that plan could have entailed in order to protect us from what unfolded on 9/11. Originally posted by !@#$% shouldn't the government have discussed what to do if planes were hijacked and used as weapons?? (there is evidence the government had heard of those threats) why were 3 out of 4 crashed into targets? well I was watching the 9/11 discussion committee thing on the news the other day and they brought this up, about how another plane (a smaller one) a few months to a year or so flew and crash landed near the white house, and it wasnt shot down... and they wanted to know where the security was in that situation. relating that situation to when planes are known to have been hijacked: Rumsfeld explained, that normally they dont just "shoot down planes that have been hi-jacked" because in normal "hi-jackings" of planes, the planes are used to go to another destination than the one that was originally intended, so the Government tries to talk them into a landing or whatever, and work out a resolution asap. So even before 9/11 happened, they could have thought the planes were just being used to go to an alternate destination, not knowing the hijackers real intent. But now that 9/11 happened, I'm sure they'd shoot down "hi-jacked" planes as soon as they found out that they had been hi-jacked. Originally posted by !@#$% why were cockpit doors so flimsy? making the pilots and controls vulnerable? why did we wait so long? this is a very good point as well, the pilot's security should have been a major concern, especially after the supposed warnings about planes being used as bombs we made aware of. But the blame on this matter could be put on a lot of people, such as the maker's of the planes themselves. They should have had the insight to make better planes with more protection for the pilots, reguardless of 9/11 and prior to it, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted March 24, 2004 Author Share Posted March 24, 2004 and the most pathetic thing? these points i've noted are just some shit i came up with off the top of my head. i don't work for the government. hell, i don't even study terrorism i'm a well-informed graffiti writing lunatic with a degree in biochemistry and a penchant for drugs.. shouldn't these things, along with more i haven't even thought of, been considered by people who are in the position to DO something? i'm really incensed by this. bush needs out of office now. this is what happens when a president tells lies that are actually a really big deal to matters of mational security. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.HollaBack Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by Poop Man Bob You may dismiss him nonchalantly Tease, but the rest of the public won't. His book will premiere at #1 on the NYT bestseller list and will remain there for easily a month. He's not "done with" by any means. And when you talk about the "latest news" you should provide a link to the story. It makes discussion a lot easier. When you refer to the "news," what do you mean? Internet? TV? Fox News? I didn't mean that just because these tapes have surfaced this guy holds no weight once so ever when it comes to pointing out problems in the Bush's administration, I just meant these tapes are going to discredit him a lot, atleast that's what the people on the news were saying, in which I agree. And I am watching the news on tv, MSNBC I think, I went to their website, but wasn't able to find the article reguarding these tapes that they just spoke of, where Clarke admitted that Bush was interesting in fighting terrorism / going after Bin Laden prior to 9/11 and he mentioned this to Clarke a month or so after becoming president. sorry, I can't provide / find the link at this time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by J.HollaBack I think this guy is done with... Again, good thing you have no idea what you're talking about. you're so easily swayed, it's ridiculous. you change your mind based on whatever news report happens to be playing as you type your reply. the government is going to do everything in their power to discredit dude, because what he's implying, if true, is beyond treason. you have to take into account what each side has to lose and gain from any battle. in this case, the bush administration has a hell of alot more to lose, than clark has to gain. use some common sense, and if you don't have any, just wait for !@#$, browner or pmb to give their oppinion, then align yourself with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.HollaBack Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 SEEKING- just like you asked me to smarten up and not say retarded shit in these threads, I ask that you quit treating me like a retard and putting me down. Saying that I have no common sense or that I'm easily swayed is what I'm refering to. You're trying my fucking patience with your low blows and put downs. So, just like you asked me to smarten up, please quit saying that shit about me when you address something I've said, if you disagree, talk about it, and give your reasons, without putting me down. Thank you. that being said, I know the Bush administration has more to lose than Clarke does, and both sides will try to bash the other one in order to look better to the american public, but that's politics after all isn't it. I'll hold my replies for awhile, and let others discuss, because I've said more than enough, I just wanted to address you one last time. I'll sit on the sidelines for a little while now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted March 24, 2004 Author Share Posted March 24, 2004 Tease.. hang in there. read a bunch and then you'll have knowledge to back up your opinions. by the way though, i noted in the title, and in the post, the guy is a REPUBLICAN..he actually served under Reagan (as well as clinton and bush) that's because the guy is GOOD and very highly RESPECTED among his colleagues he is NOT PLAYING POLITICS. that's why what the guy is saying is such a big deal. CILONE yes, i think what i do makes a difference in the world. mostly in terms of my job, because i work in a science lab that publiches papers on our findings..these happen to have far-reaching implications in the world of molecualr biology and genetics...our lab is actually trying to reformulate how people think about complex inheritance..we are also working on a paper right now, as i type, that another lab got us in on, because they read a paper we wrote, which inspired them to do some experiments, which led to some discoveries, that now we'll be a part of too.. in a broader sense i tend toward buddhism so i really do believe that actions one takes affects everything. i think my mental attitude does affect people.. hell, i may even get tease to read KIlling Hope or A Peace to End All Peace.. that would be changing some shit for sure haha.. i also vacation abroad quite often i am ok with admitting that i'm american i try to put as intelligent and respectful a face on "the american people' as i possibly can, by being a respectful and courteous tourist. i have had more than a few discussion with foreigners (who were strangers) and changed the way they thought about who the american people were. i'm launching a big effort not to get cynical or bitter in these times we live in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUCK FUSH Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 i actually met this guy in november. He's an alum of my high school and was at some important dinner. While everyother speaker was tallking about the good old days in high school, he got up and stated pretty much everything he said in the interview. funny guy. meh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekro Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 This guy's the real deal, he did what nobody from the government has done yet: apologized for the security failures that allowed 9.11 to happen: "Your government failed you, and I failed you," he said. "We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed you. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Word the fuck up, Nekro. It's astounding that this is the first time an apology has been made at this level - regardless of the partisan affiliation (or lack thereof, in this instance). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 just like they said on the Daily Show..... the Current Admins are accusing him of trying to hype his new book. yeah.... 30 years of government service was just part of his hype plan. :rolleyes: and Rumsfeld even said something like "he wouldnt have had access to that kind of information" Well should the anti-terror czar have that info????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
random Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 it amazes me that people aren't calling for impeachment. how much can one administration get away with?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_El Mamerro Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Originally posted by Poop Man Bob And when you talk about the "latest news" you should provide a link to the story. It makes discussion a lot easier. When you refer to the "news," what do you mean? Internet? TV? Fox News? Well, here's an article from the bastion of pure and unbiased news that is Fox News, where Clarke does seem to have agreed that Bush wanted to go after Al Qaida prior to 9/11. It's a transcript from early August 2002. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.