Richard Clarke, who was IN CHARGE OF COUNTER-TERRORISM for the first 2 and a half years of the Bush Administration (as well as under Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton)  has basically just come out with EXACTLY the same argument that I have been making, concerning the Bush Administration's myopia about Iraq at the expense of thwarting Al Qaida.  The only difference is, unlike me, HE's highly qualified and well positioned to make the argument, and he has taken it further than I ever did:   He claims that this myopia was so severe and misguided that it actually contributed to our failure to prevent 9-11 in the first place.   Prior to his coming out with this charge this weekend, I did not actually believe THAT, however I am CERTAINLY willing to yield to his superior qualifications and knowledge on the subject, and give the Bush Administration (especially Condoleeza Rice and Richard Wolfowitz) credit for criminal negligence in their failure to credibly address the Al Qaida threat prior to 9-11.

No matter what you may think of MY charging the Bush administration with these failures of policy in addressing terrorism, you cannot dismiss the fact that Richard Clarke was the single MOST qualified person within the Bush administration in dealing with these issues at the time, and now he is saying that the problem was even worse than I was charging.

Also, we still see that we are still leaving the Al Qaida battle in the hands of Pakistan, who has apparently let Ayman Al Zawahiri escape through a tunnel, and there have been several reports that Zawahiri's teams have obtained small suitcase-nukes from various sources amidst the chaos that was the Soviet Union.  

I might add, I certainly did not put Mr. Clarke up to it - LOL! and he is certainly no left wing extremist.  Frankly,  I put a heck of a lot more creedence in Richard Clarke's assessment about how safe we are, than I do in Bush's.  This is a man who was right in the middle of it, who is a moderately conservative who has served 3 Republican Administrations and 1 Democratic one, and who is now telling the world that the Bush Administration screwed up during the time he was a part of it.  

BTW,   I should also state that my opinion has changed about Bush's initial campaign ads, where he shows the fireman's corpse being carried out of the WTC rubble.   I am now all in favor of these ads, as, given Clarke's new information,  it seems entirely appropriate that Bush take the credit for 9-11 (as well as it's aftermath).

"Richard Clarke, who was IN CHARGE OF COUNTER-TERRORISM for the first 2 and a half years of the Bush Administration (as well as under Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton)  has basically just come out with EXACTLY the same argument that I have been making, concerning the Bush Administration's myopia about Iraq at the expense of thwarting Al Qaida.  The only difference is, unlike me, HE's highly qualified and well positioned to make the argument"

1993 first WTC bombing, 1996 Barracks bombing in Saudi Arabia, 1998 Embassy bombings in Africa, 2000 Cole bombing Yemen.....All under Clarke's watch & previous administration. 9.11 under Clarke,s watch. Why did he fail to stop any or all of these?? 8 years under Clinton, 8 months under Bush....and he failed to stop any of these attacks. Monsoor Ijaz, who also worked for the Clinton Administration as a counter terrorist 'expert' has some interesting things to say about Clarke and his 'expertness.'

Hmmm..... you may have a valid point for a change. All those years, all those administrations, and Clarke has nothing to show for all his "work" except failure. Maybe he`s the problem.

Apparently this guy is a 60 Minute man

The best they seem to be able to do is accuse Clarke of actually supporting Kerry.  Which, if it's true, is damning in itself, because Clarke was originally a Reagan appointee, who also worked for Bush I, before staying on to work for the Clinton Administration and then finally for Dumbya as well.

But, even supposing Clarke now DOES support Kerry, don't you think it might be a good idea to ask WHY  Richard Clarke, and Rand Beers before him, both quit their anti-terrorism posts within the Bush Administration and both now support Kerry?   Despite the fact that they both had a history of working for Republicans?   They will both tell you it was because of the myopic focus on Iraq within the Bush administration and ignoring of the Al Qaida threat leading to 9-11, and the continued enmity toward Iraq within the Administration, which continues to further endanger the U.S. in the face of a re-energized Al Qaida.

If the MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPLE within the Bush Administration on Terrorism and Al Qaida are both saying that Bush never had his eye on the ball, and were so concerned that they quit working for Bush in order to sign on to support his opponent, doesn't THAT tell you something?

Oh, and I love the White House's Denial:    1) 1st of all, Bush never had the meeting Clarke referred to

2) Then, when CBS said that they had witnesses that the meeting occurred,  the White House said, It doesn't matter, what mattered is that eventually, we DID attack Afghanistan to get Al Qaida, rather than Iraq,

and 3) They completely ignore the fact that while they are busy cleaning up the mess we made in Iraq, they have now freed up Al Qaida to re-constitute itself in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that Re-constituted Al Qaida is now operating all over Europe as well as in Iraq, which they were NOT operating in before.

Its pretty obvious bush and his cronies had thier own agenda every since the supreme court ushered them in. They didnt win the last election and they wont win this one either. Seems like either a vendetta against iraq for tring to pop bush sr. or just a plain ole oil grab and reconstruction job for cheneys haliburton and for the big oil people.
   As far as running as the war President , bwahahahaha, , afghanistan was logical and deserved, something a moron could figure out.....ummm...guess one did.
  And on top of that i recall on 9-11, bush logging around 8000 miles to get away from the east coast and as for cheney, he went diving for the "spider" hole under the white house.            Punxatuney Phil coes out of his hole more than little Dick comes outta his, Dick comes up occasionally for payouts from halliburton and big oil....they both should be charged with cowardice on the battle field !!
  Im voting for Kerry , to get numbnuts out of the white house , not to get kerry in.
      have a nice day... :>)

discussion.  Not why I joined of course -- but sometimes I can't resist responding.  Don't have a lot of time to debate now - but here is something to keep in mind about all this Clark stuff:

A. He is trying to sell a book -- that should be enough right there.  It is about that mostly.
B. He was fine with the Bush Admin's war on terror while he was trying to get the #2 job at Homeland Security -- when he was passed over -- all of sudden time to write a book and bash the President.
C. Clark says Bush was obsessed with Iraq after 9/11.  Nice to say that I guess -- but look at the President's actual actions - he sent the military into Afghanistan and took the war the Terrorists and Taliban -- not Iraq -- but Afghanistan.  That was his focus after 9/11 -- if you don't think so then maybe you should ask the Taliban leaders now sitting at Gitmo in jail.
D. This guy is now teaching at Harvard along side John Kerry's current senior advisor on foreign policy -- hmmmmm.  
E. What week does he choose to announce all this, go on a book tour and do all these interviews -- the week John Kerry is on vacation and unable to make news himself.  Clearly a coordinated effort to keep the attacks up on Bush while Kerry takes it easy for a week.  I wonder which one his 5 houses valued at 30 million $$$  he is spending the week at -- a real man of the people.

Anyway -- all for now.  Back to thinking about the ladies

hes the advisor, he advised ....both presidents failed !..clit-ton did rain some tomohawks down on an bin-laden camp once , he tried in a  half-ass attempt....but he did try

So, of course, that would mean that the Buck Stops with Mr. Bush.  If Clarke was ineffective, why would Bush have re-appointed him, except perhaps, Bush's own incompetence?  Surely, you can't have it both ways.  Either Clarke ought not have been in that position, and it is Bush's fault for putting him there, or else Clark WAS qualified for his job, and Bush was a fool for ignoring his counsel.

-- Modified on 3/22/2004 2:59:48 PM

We still haven't caught the leadership of Al Qaida or the Taliban hiding out in the mountains along the Pakistani border.  And because OUR forces are all tied up in Iraq, we are leaving it to the Pakistanis to do that final cleanup - and they are failing.  Apparently, they have just let Ayman Al Zawahiri escape from being "cornered" by getting out through an underground tunnel.  This is because the Pakistani army is either incompetent, or intentionally let him get away because they sympathize with Al Qaida.  Probably the latter.

Even if you grant that Clarke is an opportunist in selling his book, there is still nobody refuting the substance of his two main arguments:

1) That the Bush administration had it's eye off the ball regarding Al Qaida BEFORE 9-11, because they were pre-occupied with Iraq, thus contributing to 9-11 actually happenning,  and

2) That the eventual Iraq invasion has been fundamental in Re-invigorating Al Qaida, because we pulled much of our forces out of Afghanistan too early, and because it played EXACTLY into Al Qaida's propaganda about what the Great Satan U.S. could be expected to do in terms of taking over an oil-rich sovereign Arab nation.

The Bush administration is now trying to smear Clarke, just as they smeared Paul O'Neill, and like they are trying to smear Kerry.  The Bush Administration doesn't have a record of their own that they can run on, so they simply resort to character assassination on anyone who disagrees with them.  I give Clarke alot of credit for going up against them, as he certainly knew that the smear campaign was going to be coming.

Also, the Bushies can't even admit that Clarke was actually a Republican, who was initially appointed by Reagan, and then again by Bush I, before working for Clinton and finally Bush II.
But, after seeing the incompetence of the current administration, he did what ANY TRUE PATRIOT would do.  He resigned, and is now making a strong case for Kerry, so as to improve National Security.

clearly were not going to agree on this topic.  I do admire your zeal though.  And while I support the President -- I do wish they did a better job of communicating what he has done to the American people.

I sincerely believe he is the perfect President to lead the war on terror.  I believe we can fight more than one battle in one country at one time, and I believe the war in Iraq was the right thing even if no WMD are found ever.  The world, Iraq, and the security of our nation will all be better off.

The war on terror, as the President said after 9/11, will not be easy or short.  I don't see how anyone can blame this President for not finding one man in the most unforgiving terrain on the planet.  We will get him -- but it will take time.  I trust this President and his military professionals that advise him to make the right decisions at the right time.

In addition, There is plenty of blame to go around with respect to going after Al Qadea before 9/11.  But I'll tell you this -- if President Bush or Clinton would have said to the American people and the world -- that we believe Al Qadea is a danger to the world and has to be stopped and invaded Afghanistan before 9/11 the world would have been outraged and people would have been calling the US crazy for acting before 9/11.  

Now, that time has passed again since 9/11, everyone quickly forgets.  Well, it was not the Germans or the French who were murdered on 9/11 it was us.  And I support a President that takes the basic approach that "your with us, or your with the Terrorists."  This President has learned you can't wait for another 9/11 to happen -- that is why I think the war in Iraq was justified.  You had a madman that had used WMD before and either had direct ties or indirect ties with terrorists -- he was one.  I feel better he, now like Qaddafi in Libya, are no longer threats.  One at a time we will get them.  However long it takes.

Anyway, enough from my end, your clearly a true believer on the other side of this -- good luck, you seem to have more energy than me on this topic

After all, they really won the war. If we do that, then we can send all the neocons there to live permanently. Hope you're Caucasian.....boy.

"Richard Clarke is a bitter, discredited bureaucrat who was an integral part of the Clinton administration's failed approach to terrorism, was demoted by President Bush, and is now an adjunct to John Kerry's presidential campaign.

Where to begin: the mind boggles at such shamelessness. To state the obvious, in late 2000 the Clinton administration was STILL IN OFFICE. If there were steps that needed to be taken immediately to counter the al Qaeda threat, as they "bluntly" told President Bush's transition team, why didn't they take those steps themselves?

The Clinton administration was in power for eight years, while al Qaeda grew, prospered, and repeatedly attacked American interests:

*1993: Shot down US helicopters and killed US servicemen in Somalia
*1994: Plotted to assassinate Pope John Paul II during his visit to Manila
*1995: Plotted to kill President Clinton during a visit to the Philippines
*1995: Plot to to bomb simultaneously, in midair, a dozen US trans-Pacific flights was discovered and thwarted at the last moment
*1998: Conducted the bombings of the US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, that killed at least 301 individuals and injured more than 5,000 others
*1999: Attempt to carry out terrorist operations against US and Israeli tourists visiting Jordan for millennial celebrations was discovered just in time by Jordanian authorities
*1999: In another millenium plot, bomber was caught en route to Los Angeles International Airport
*2000: Bombed the USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 US Navy members, and injuring another 39

So what, when they had the power to act effectively against al Qaeda, did these Clinton administration officials do? Little or nothing. Their most effective action was to bomb what turned out to be an aspirin factory in Sudan. They had the opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden, but decided not to do it because they were not sure their lawyers would approve.

For these people to criticize the Bush administration's efforts to protect Americans against terrorism, long after their own ineptitute had allowed al Qaeda to grow bold and powerful, is contemptible."

No wonder Bush demoted him, probably would have fired him if it wasn't impossible to fire bureaucrats.  His 15 minutes are quickly coming to an end.

You know, I read Forbes every week now, trying to figure out what hallucinogens Steve, Rich and Cap take before writing their columns, or if are they merely in a parallel universe. I'm rooting for the latter, because it would solve some unexplained mysteries about physics.

How many of these guys can be wrong? For such a closed ranks administration, the cracks are starting to become apparent.

BTW, Kerry isn't much better, but I felt the same way about Clinton before he got elected.

Clinton was offered Osama B by the Sudan government and turned them down.  Clinton did nothing at all after the 3 major terrorist attacks on his watch (WTC 1, USS Cole and U.S. Embassys in Africa).
Question:  What did Clark recommend after those terrorist attacks?
On Bush II's watch, Clark was never really in the inner circle and was transfered to the internet terrism unit very quickly because Bush sized Clark up to be a flunky nut-case.
Why did he wait till now to bring this up? ans.  To help that traitor Kerry.
One other thing about Bush being dumb, Gore flunked out of Divinity school after dropping out of Law school.  If Gore had won the election, the Taliban would still be running Afghanistan.

Or else, Bush was foolish for not accepting his counsel?  Which is it?  Either Clarke was NOT any good at his job, and therefore Bush is negligent for keeping him, or else Clarke was competent, and therefore should have been listened to.  You can't have this both ways.

BTW, Reagan appointed Clarke, and Bush I promoted him.  He kept his position under Clinton, and then Bush II demoted the POSITION of Terror Czar.  Clarke served until he resigned, a year ago.  If he wasn't any good at his job, why was he put in charge of Counter-Terrorism under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II?

Also, in fact, the Clinton administration tried twice to take out Bin Laden.  Unfortunately, they failed both times.  But at least they tried, which Bush NEVER did until after 9-11.

Also, I agree that Clarke was disgruntled, and quit in order to support Kerry.  But that was simply doing his Patriotic duty as an American, as a result of his frustration with Bush's Iraq policy.  Both Clarke, and Rand Beers before him were the top two members of the Bush counter-terrorism unit, and now both have quit to support Kerry.  Why is that, you might ask?  After all, both of them are moderately conservative and had a history of working for Republican administrations.  I would contend that they did it because they recognize the harm Bush's policies have caused, and the danger that they have created to our nation, and they realize how important that it is that Bush be defeated in the next election.  So, as patriots, they are doing EVERYTHING in their power to make it happen.

Under Clinton he was the "Anti-Terrorism Czar", Bush demoted him almost immediately.  Keeping someone who supposedly had some anti-terrorism intelligence from a previous administration is nothing new!  Not doing it would most definitely have brought greater rebuke from a "self appointed" watchdog as yourself.

That you can claim that "the Clinton administration tried twice to take out Bin Laden" is by far "one" of the stupidest things you have ever written here!   A pure unadulterated LIE!  What you probably are referring to is the TWO TIMES Clinton had bin laden in the CROSS HAIRS and lacked the balls to take him out!  Once in Sudan and once in Afghanistan, both widely reported!

I find it interesting that when ever anyone makes a point of Kerry's record, you assholes (read liberals) scream that we are attacking his patriotism!  But when Bush holds up his record of fighting al Qaeda, you assholes claim he is using 9/11 for political gain!  What hypocrisy!  

Clarke and Beers patriots?  You have got to be drinking too much Ripple!  Clarke and Beers are disgraced and disgruntled past employees!  Look for his book on the sale shelf before the Dem convention!

The fact is, Bush had and continues to have a total blind spot about Iraq.  All of the principles that you enunciate are VALID, but they have no connection to why we entered Iraq.  Saddam had NEVER worked with, nor sponsored Al Qaida IN ANY WAY, and Bush knew it, because EVERY time he asked the CIA, or Clarke, or the FBI, they told him so.

If Al Qaida was the enemy, we could have justified attacking Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and Yemen, Libya, and the Sudan, as THOSE nations DID work with and sponsor Al Qaida to some degree (Although when we read the Riot Act to the Saudis, they stopped equivocating).  The ONLY Arab nations that did NOT sponsor Al Qaida were Egypt, who was their sworn enemy, and Iraq, whom Al Qaida CORRECTLY viewed as a corrupt SECULAR regime.

But, the fact is, we attacked Iraq, either because Bush had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein (which was justifiable, but still had NOTHING to do with Al Qaida), or because there were oil spoils to be pillaged there.  There was NO OTHER REASON FOR IT.  Granted, Saddam was persecuting his own people, but we have ALWAYS been willing to turn a blind eye to that, when it was in our interests to do so.

-- Modified on 3/22/2004 5:36:59 PM

when the prior administration was from the opposing party.  Unless their expertise is unquestioned.   The fact was, Clarke was a Reagan appointee, and a Bush I appointee, and a Clinton appointee, and a Bush II appointee.  I believe that certainly establishes how much more expertise he had on this subject than either you or I.  And in fact, Clarke remained the TOP official in Bush II with responsibility for counter-terrorism until the Homeland Security department was formed.  He was not "demoted" until that department came into being.  Of course, he WAS ignored by the Bush Administration.  

BTW, I am now quite pleased to see Bush's ad campaign where he shows the fireman's corpse being removed from the WTC.  It's only fitting that Bush take credit for 9-11 (as well as it's aftermath), as he richly deserves it.

And, incidentally, there in fact WERE two attempts by Clinton's administration to take out Bin Laden.  Unfortunately, they were unsuccessful, as we know, but your claim that they did not happen shows that you are either simply uniformed, or completely willing to lie when attempting to discredit a Democrat.  So, please, either GET INFORMED, or STOP LYING ON BEHALF OF BUSH.

If Bush didn't consider Clarke to be an important asset in the fight against terrorism, why wasn't he fired?

In fact, after the Cole, Clinton fired dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles at what was believed to be Bin Laden's HQ.  Unfortunately, this attack failed.  WTC 1 was attributed to Hezbollah, not Al Qaida.  After the African Embassies were attacked, another strike was planned get Bin Laden, which actually was cancelled at the last minute because our local operative couldn't confirm his location.

Geeze, do you just make up this shit?  There are too many holdovers from prior administrations to count here!  Just for starters look at the top positions in the FBI and CIA!

It is a good thing that you were not advising FDR in 1941, we would only have been kicking Japan's ass and left the Nazi's up to England!  That your opinion of the US Military is so moronic as to think we cannot fight in Afghanistan and Iraq is just more proof to your lack of knowledge.  I have no doubt that you were with those who said we could never prosecute a war in Afghanistan!  Like your cronies in the NY Times and Pravda!

And where would you suppose that one could find substantiating facts as to the two attempts to kill bin laden?

Al Frankens book?

Oh, was it one of the missiles we shot at Iraq during the Lewisky hearings?  How pathetic, Clinton's legacy is a limp dick when it came to fighting terrorism and you know it.  Have a modicum of honesty at least!

The missile launch you refer to was an empty al Qaeda camp!  One that had been abandoned for over 3 months!  We had satellite images of the ragheads moving out for crying out loud!  He knew the fucking camp was empty!

Sdstud, your ability to lie knows no limit!  Below you said that Clinton attempted to kill bin laden twice, now it's only once.  You sound like that botox bozo saying "I actually did for for it, before I voted against it"!   I'll wait for tomorrow when you will say that Clinton did want to kill bin laden, but when he had him in the cross hairs, he was getting a blowjob and just couldn't be bothered with National Defense!  No wait a minute, that would be true and we all know that you never tell the truth!

It was just Clinton giving the order to appear to be doing something!  Just like his missile launches at Baghdad!  Empty blowhard bullshit!  In the Jimmah Carter tradition I might add, and Kerry would be worse!

If you really and truly believe that shit, then you have one of two problems: 1) you're incredibly ignorant of how presidential elections work, or 2) you're f**king nuts.

And so do you. Thanks.

Well then, maybe you ought to start drinking!

9/11 happened on Mr Bush's watch.  I don't know about the other people that post here, but if I am responsible for an organization for almost a year and an ongoing project blows up in my face, I don't advertise it as a "success" or an example of my "leadership skills".  My best course is to try to blame the person who had the job before and keep quiet about it otherwise.  That is what is happening.  There is an early attempt to trumpet 9/11 as a success (assuming you can fool some of the people all of the the time), but the argument isn't convincing.

On the other hand, any sensible person will look at the author and wonder about his motivations.  

The "truth" about all of this won't be known for years. What we have here is some more messy information.





-- Modified on 3/23/2004 6:53:40 AM

However, I realize that it was not the individuals involved who were at fault, even when they committed some dispicable acts, like the aforementioned baby killing that I'm sure bribite was involved with.  I realize that the fault lay with the leadership who put people in positions that human beings ought not be put in, without any just cause.

I DO admit that Clinton was NOT effective in fighting Terrorism.  However, Bush is FAR worse.  Whereas Clinton let terrorism fester and gain strength due to inadequate action, Bush's result has been to accelerate and strengthen Al Qaida more than any other course of action could POSSIBLY have done, by doing EXACTLY what Al Qaida's propaganda said that he would do because he has no regard for Arabs.  

I have no doubt that Bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri thank Allah 6 times a day facing Mecca that Bush attacked Iraq and re-vitalized their organization in doing so.  

And as for Richard Clarke, he was merely an advisor.  The buck always stops with the man at the top, in this case Bush.  9/11 occurred on Bush's watch, and there is no escaping that.  Clinton's negligence may well have contributed, but the Bush Administration is guilty of AT BEST, continuing Clinton's policies toward terrorism un-changed up to 9/11, despite the fact that he was receiving warnings about an imminent threat to US citizens on domestic soil.

-- Modified on 3/23/2004 9:31:09 AM

Because as we all know, Alcoholism is incurable, and someone who had a problem in their past, could relapse at any time, especially under severe stress.  Hopefully, Dumbya can stay on the wagon until we vote him out of office.

-- Modified on 3/23/2004 9:27:43 AM

So, I accept the charge.  I post and a big pile of shit like yourself shows up.

-- Modified on 3/23/2004 9:26:49 AM

what you talking about it should be the goal of use get
Bush out office Its not anout terriost look at everthing else there doing If i agaree with you  There is much else to worrier about Think for your self

The attack on Pearl Harbor occurred on FDR's watch, and not only did he use the war as a reason to vote for him, he was reelected and has been considered an icon of the left for fifty years.

I only wish that your whore candidate Kerry would be so honest in "his" assessments, and direction that he would take this country.  But alas, in order garner more than 20% of the vote he will have to lie about his true beliefs and his cowardice, cowardice you take great self pride in.

In a free country a mans record follows him, and Kerry's record is of a pathetic appeaser in the mold of Neville Chamberlain.  With one major exception, Chamberlain had the balls to admit he was wrong and his mistake almost cost his people their freedom.  In the end, Chamberlain supported Churchill.  Sadly, Kerry and you never will because you have and always will prostitute yourself to your fears!  You revel in every set back, every American soldiers death because you believe it helps undermine Bush.  World War II had people like you too, and as now they were acknowledged as to where their loyalties lie and that is not on the side of freedom and liberty!

The world is full of limp wristed appeasers like you, Clinton, Kerry and the neo-socialist of the democratic party.  The same crowd that fought Reagan when he stood firm against the Soviets.  You all cried in fear when Reagan told Gorby to "tear down this wall"!  Where's the wall now?  What happened to all the world destruction talk (fear)?  Fear and a deep hatred for America is all that you quitters embrace!

You talk about emboldening al Qaeda, what gave them strength is Clinton's withdrawal from Somalia at the first drop of blood!  Clinton's non-action after the 1993 WTC bombing!  Clinton's non-action after the bombings of our African Embassies!  Clinton's non-action after the USS Cole bombing!  Here's a lesson from history in treatment of terrorist and the countries that support them.  When Reagan had proof that Libya was involved in the bombing of a nightclub in Germany where American soldiers were killed and injured, he sent two F-118's into downtown Tripoli to kill that raghead Kadafi!  And to the dismay of Kerry, you and the UN.  Kadafi has been quiet ever since, kicked the terrorists training camps out of Libya and now is disarming!  That's historic truth, not some psyco-bullshit from the left!

Fortunately, we are now being lead by a President who has the balls and the moral compass to stand up to the tyrants of the world and the little yapper poodle ankle biters like you in his own country.  

You nauseate me.

Perhaps you'll choke on it.  BTW, those F-118s did not kill Khadaffi.  But they DID kill his infant son.  But, as we know, since you are a baby-killer yourself, that bit of colateral damage causes you not the least moral discomfort.  

Sorry, but I still believe that racism and hatred is not the proper basis for the U.S. to develop a foreign policy.  I would much rather go after our real enemies.  I don't approve of Clinton's foreign policy either, but it was nowhere near as disastrous as Bush's has been.  Bush has single-handedly squandered the moral high ground that our great nation has been re-building ever since you and your cohorts stopped committing atrocities in Vietnam, and which originally stems from the days that we saved Europe from tyranny of Hitler.

Only someone as stupid as Bush or Yourself would contend that because one group of Arabs has pledged itself toward our destruction in the name of Allah, that we should go overthrow an entirely unrelated, and completely secular Arab regime that in fact shares NOTHING in common with the belief structure of our sworn enemy.

BTW, I am pleased to hear that I nauseate you.  As much discomfort that I can give you, it's my pleasure.

-- Modified on 3/23/2004 11:49:33 AM

Bush has never blamed the previous Administration, a lot of us have, but not Bush!

That any civilized person could have foreseen the hideous acts of 9/11 is somewhat ridiculous.  To relate it to running an organization is bogus, and after less than 9 months.  Add to this mix the fact that the ground people at American Airlines had all the alarms go off, but did nothing due to the lawsuits that had been brought against AA for "profiling" (by the ACLU - hardly a conservative organization) and you have a perfect storm.

In my opinion it is more like what happened with Apollo 13.  Given the impossible task of returning the crew with so many systems malfunctioning, NASA's greatest moment was in bringing those astronauts home safely!  That our military prosecuted a war in Afghanistan so brilliantly is testament to Bush's leadership.  Even newspaper in Moscow reported that Bush was able to do in weeks what the Soviet Army couldn't do in 10 years!

A president plays with the cards dealt him, and a president of 9 month's has had little time to make enormous security changes, changes that should not have been so needed had his predecessor been on the ball!

For the record, I blame Clinton's 8 years of non-action for 9/11, but you have never heard Bush do that!  To claim that Bush is attempting ot shift the blame as his administration responds to Clarke's accusations is at the very least dishonest on your part.  That they would stand up against such indictment is very understandable.

Ya think that maybe Clarke is trying to sell a book?  And just think, if Kerry would be elected, he most probably would reinstall Clarke as his Terrorism Czar!  There's nightmare material for you.

I'll spew right in there!

Fewer people were killed in the bombing of Tripoli than in the nightclub in Germany!  Not to mention the Pan Am flight that Kadafi brought down in Scotland, there were a few babies in the plane and on the ground and of course they hold no value to you.

Kadafi is still silent!  Kadafi was running rampant during the Carter years!

I'll continue to let your comments on Viet Nam stand on their own as testament to your loyalty.

I find no moral high ground in the appeaser mentality of the UN, I see only those who suffer from fear and lack of valor.

My comfort comes from the knowledge that the American people have the fortitude to fight evil, rather than like yourself hide from it.

Bush will beat Kerry like a drum in November.  And like always you will be right there to nip has his ankles.

Since, certainly, if Bush doesn't blame Clinton for it, he must surely blame himself.  That would be a pleasant surprise to me, and it would be one of the few things that I could see eye to eye with Bush about.

OTOH, I don't believe you for a second.  I have personally heard Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney each blame the prior administration for 9/11.  And, of course, these folks all work for Bush, and don't put Administration positions out on ANYTHING important without it carrying the approval of the President.  Perhaps this President simply doesn't have the personal courage to speak his own convictions, so he has his underlings do it for him.   But, if, as you say, Bush recognizes that it was NOT Clinton, but rather, his own inadequacy, that was responsible for allowing 9/11 to occur, that would certainly be a refreshing change of pace for this administration.

Come to think of it, you are probably correct:  In the last Bush Ad I saw, he certainly appeared to be taking credit for 9/11, when he showed the body of a NYC fireman being removed from the WTC rubble.

On the other hand, I do at least know who the enemies of a free Democracy are.  They are idiots like yourself, who allow themselves to be manipulated by a duplicitous administration such as the one we presently have.

And yes, I am PROUD that I stood up to protest the Vietnam war, and helped to put an end to your committing atrocities against children in the name of our country.

I can assure you that I won't be nipping at Dumbya's ankles.  I will simply be voting him back to Crawford TX, where he can shovel REAL Bull shit, instead of the stuff he's filled your mind with.

And yes, I am deeply loyal to this great nation.  So much so that I cannot sit quietly when our "leaders" hijack it's ideals.  Hopefully, this nauseates you as well.  

However, my loyalty does NOT include loyalty to an illegitimate president who was never elected, but rather was installed by judicial fiat.  Nor does it include loyalty to someone such as yourself who disgraced the nation by committing war atrocities while wearing and simultaneously desecrating the uniform of a soldier.  It DOES, however, encompass loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, and the ideals that are codified in it's body.  Nowhere does this document mention killing "rag-heads" or infant children, which are ideals that YOU seem to espouse.  Neither does it mention getting 575 Brave Americans killed and 3200 maimed so that corrupt oil interests of our President and Vice President and a personal vendetta against an admittedly corrupt, but harmless TO US despot can be assuaged.



-- Modified on 3/23/2004 12:22:37 PM

..he recommended Cliton bomb Sudan's al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant as the best response to the embassy attacks. What evidence led Clarke to believe al-Shifa was producing nerve agents, and what evidence did he have of its ownership and financing by bin Laden? Can you help us to rectify his categorical statement now that there was no relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime, ever, when he previously argued that Iraq and Sudan were cooperating on the development of chemical and biological weapons at a pharmaceutical plant Clarke claimed was owned and financed by bin Laden?

yes its prety amazing how a country will rally behind a president who goes after THE someone that attacked us. Too bad he didnt direct the full force of our armies (like in Iraq)  while he was in afghanistan , going after the fucker that attacked us. instead .....here we are..........wich is also why he wont follow in fdrs footseps

We eventually learned that al-Shifa was producing Acetomenophen (a.k.a generic Tylenol) when we bombed it.  Clarke knew this by the time Bush took office.  So basically, like any intelligent person, Clarke learned from a mistake, and modified his view as a result.   What had been THOUGHT to be an Iraqi connection to Al Qaida, turned out to not to be, and it eventually became apparent that there wasn't any such connection, even if intelligence had mistakenly thought that there was a few years previously.  

Here's an analogy:  When you were a child, did you ever inadvertently touch the stove when something was cooking?  I'm sure that if you did, you burned your hand, and made a mental note not to touch the stove anymore.  It doesn't mean that you were STUPID to touch the stove, merely inexperienced.  And once you had gained that experience, you no longer touched the burners while something was cooking.  However, if, that first time, had your mother been there and told you NOT to touch the stove, it would have been irresponsible for you to still try to touch the burners.

Unfortunately, in this case, Bush's Iraq invasion is analogous to touching the stove, despite all of Bush's intelligence agencies, as well as Clarke, telling him that the stove is hot and it would burn his hands.   Well, Bushie got his hand burned, because he ignored his counsel.  Unfortunately, 575 brave young Americans are dead, and 3200 are seriously wounded as a result.  Also, Al Qaida is much stronger, and our economy and international prestige is much weaker as a result.  So, we are the ones who get burned because Bushie ignored all of the wise counsel he got, telling him specifically that Iraq and Al Qaida were not connected in any way.

-- Modified on 3/23/2004 1:52:36 PM

Or how about a book to promote?

How about close ties to Kerry?

Why not talk about HIS thwarting every suggestion of going after OBL when it was brought up during the Clinton years?

Maybe he is an ex-aide because he was incompetent?

Clinton had years to go after OBL after he was tied to the original World Trade Center bombing; the Cole; and U.S. embassy attack in Africa.

Clinton also had years to change airline procedures that would have prevented terrorists from taking control of airplanes with box cutters.

So did Congress. Not one person thought to change procedures even after terrorists were thwarted in France from using a hijacked plane to crash into the Eiffel Tower.

Too easy to blame Bush.

Blame them all. Our government failed us and now points the finger at everyone except themselves.

This nation does not need you sick fuck kind of loyalty.

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz

I would contend that killing babies with M-16s is sicker.

but obviously, you cannot resist replying to my posts, so it must somehow be compelling for you nonetheless.