Did anyone watch 60 mins?
1 - 20 of 176 Posts
Joined
·
3,966 Posts
Was working, missed it (yes, actually wished I could have watched it, since you all were talking about it this morning).
Guess I'll have to read all about it as the posts roll in.....
Guess I'll have to read all about it as the posts roll in.....
Joined
·
47,448 Posts
Hi bassetman,
Saw it, taped it.
It's mostly what we have talked about, but now verified by another insider of the Bush admin.
It must take a lot of nerve to go against the Bushies with that kind of inside view to the corruption/incomptance that Bush brought .
I also think there is a story brewing with the way the Medicare scam was passed.
Saw it, taped it.
It's mostly what we have talked about, but now verified by another insider of the Bush admin.
It must take a lot of nerve to go against the Bushies with that kind of inside view to the corruption/incomptance that Bush brought .
I also think there is a story brewing with the way the Medicare scam was passed.
Joined
·
17,204 Posts
Former aide: Bush is doing "a terrible job" on terror
- - - - - - - - - - - -
March 21, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism coordinator, accuses the Bush administration of failing to recognize the al-Qaida threat before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and then manipulating America into war with Iraq with dangerous consequences.
He accuses Bush of doing "a terrible job on the war against terrorism."
Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, writes in a new book going on sale Monday that Bush and his Cabinet were preoccupied during the early months of his presidency with some of the same Cold War issues that had faced his father's administration.
"It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier," Clarke told CBS for an interview Sunday on its "60 Minutes" program.
CBS' corporate parent, Viacom Inc., owns Simon & Schuster, publisher for Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies."
Clarke acknowledges that, "there's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too." He said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Jan. 24, 2001, asking "urgently" for a Cabinet-level meeting "to deal with the impending al-Qaida attack." Months later, in April, Clarke met with deputy cabinet secretaries, and the conversation turned to Iraq.
"I'm sure I'll be criticized for lots of things, and I'm sure they'll launch their dogs on me," Clarke said. "But frankly I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something."
The Associated Press first reported in June 2002 that Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions.
The last of those two meetings occurred Sept. 4 as the security council put finishing touches on a proposed national security policy review for the president. That review was finished Sept. 10 and was awaiting Bush's approval when the first plane struck the World Trade Center.
Almost immediately after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Clarke said the president asked him directly to find whether Iraq was involved in the suicide hijackings.
"Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said, 'Iraq did this,"' said Clarke, who told the president that U.S. intelligence agencies had never found a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida.
"He came back at me and said, 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection,' and in a very intimidating way," Clarke said.
CBS said it asked Stephen Hadley, Rice's deputy on the national security council, about the incident, and Hadley said: "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."
CBS responded to Hadley that it found two people it did not identify who recounted the incident independently, and one of them witnessed the conversation.
"I stand on what I said," Hadley told CBS, "but the point I think we're missing in this is, of course the president wanted to know if there was any evidence linking Iraq to 9-11."
Clarke also harshly criticizes Bush over his decision to invade Iraq, saying it helped brew a new wave of anti-American sentiment among supporters of Osama bin Laden.
"Bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country.' This is part of his propaganda," Clarke said. "So what did we do after 9/11? We invade ... and occupy an oil-rich Arab country, which was doing nothing to threaten us."
Clarke retired early in 2003 after 30 years in government service. He was among the longest-serving White House staffers, transferred in from the State Department in 1992 to deal with threats from terrorism and narcotics.
Clarke previously led the government's secretive Counterterrorism and Security Group, made up of senior officials from the FBI, CIA, Justice Department and armed services, who met several times each week to discuss foreign threats.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
March 21, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism coordinator, accuses the Bush administration of failing to recognize the al-Qaida threat before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and then manipulating America into war with Iraq with dangerous consequences.
He accuses Bush of doing "a terrible job on the war against terrorism."
Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, writes in a new book going on sale Monday that Bush and his Cabinet were preoccupied during the early months of his presidency with some of the same Cold War issues that had faced his father's administration.
"It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier," Clarke told CBS for an interview Sunday on its "60 Minutes" program.
CBS' corporate parent, Viacom Inc., owns Simon & Schuster, publisher for Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies."
Clarke acknowledges that, "there's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too." He said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Jan. 24, 2001, asking "urgently" for a Cabinet-level meeting "to deal with the impending al-Qaida attack." Months later, in April, Clarke met with deputy cabinet secretaries, and the conversation turned to Iraq.
"I'm sure I'll be criticized for lots of things, and I'm sure they'll launch their dogs on me," Clarke said. "But frankly I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something."
The Associated Press first reported in June 2002 that Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions.
The last of those two meetings occurred Sept. 4 as the security council put finishing touches on a proposed national security policy review for the president. That review was finished Sept. 10 and was awaiting Bush's approval when the first plane struck the World Trade Center.
Almost immediately after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Clarke said the president asked him directly to find whether Iraq was involved in the suicide hijackings.
"Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said, 'Iraq did this,"' said Clarke, who told the president that U.S. intelligence agencies had never found a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida.
"He came back at me and said, 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection,' and in a very intimidating way," Clarke said.
CBS said it asked Stephen Hadley, Rice's deputy on the national security council, about the incident, and Hadley said: "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."
CBS responded to Hadley that it found two people it did not identify who recounted the incident independently, and one of them witnessed the conversation.
"I stand on what I said," Hadley told CBS, "but the point I think we're missing in this is, of course the president wanted to know if there was any evidence linking Iraq to 9-11."
Clarke also harshly criticizes Bush over his decision to invade Iraq, saying it helped brew a new wave of anti-American sentiment among supporters of Osama bin Laden.
"Bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country.' This is part of his propaganda," Clarke said. "So what did we do after 9/11? We invade ... and occupy an oil-rich Arab country, which was doing nothing to threaten us."
Clarke retired early in 2003 after 30 years in government service. He was among the longest-serving White House staffers, transferred in from the State Department in 1992 to deal with threats from terrorism and narcotics.
Clarke previously led the government's secretive Counterterrorism and Security Group, made up of senior officials from the FBI, CIA, Justice Department and armed services, who met several times each week to discuss foreign threats.
Joined
·
17,204 Posts
(March 21, 2004 -- 01:43 PM EDT)
Atrios quotes this passage from Richard Clarke's interview tonight on CBS at length. But it's worth excerpting again for reasons I note below ...
"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.
"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. 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.
"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."
Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.
For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.
Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'
"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."
Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."
This is the essence of the whole story. Everything.
As Talleyrand said of the restored Bourbons, they had learned nothing and forgotten nothing during their time in exile. So too with the foreign policy coterie President Bush brought back from the cold in January 2001.
One chilling note in this passage is that Paul Wolfowitz, the prime architect and idea man of the second Iraq war, spent the early months of the Bush administration focused on "Iraqi terrorism against the United States", something that demonstrably did not even exist. A rather bad sign.
The bigger point, however, is this.
The first months of the Bush administration were based on a fundamental strategic miscalcuation about the source of the greatest threats to the United States. They were, as Clark suggests, stuck in a Cold War mindset, focused on Cold War problems, though the terms of debate were superficially reordered to make them appear to address a post-Cold War world.
That screw up is a reality -- their inability to come clean about it is, I suspect, is at the root of all the covering up and stonewalling of the 9/11 commission. And Democrats are both right and within their rights to call the White House on it. But screw-ups happen; mistakes happen. What is inexcusable is the inability, indeed the refusal, to learn from them.
Rather than adjust to this different reality, on September 12th, the Bush war cabinet set about using 9/11 -- exploiting it, really -- to advance an agenda which had, in fact, been largely discredited by 9/11. They shoe-horned everything they'd been trying to do before the attacks into the new boots of 9/11. And the fit was so bad they had to deceive the public and themselves to do it.
As the international relations expert John Ikenberry noted aptly in a recent essay, the Bush hardliners "fancy themselves tough-minded thinkers. But they didn't have the courage of their convictions to level with the American people on what this geopolitical adventure in Iraq was really about and what it would cost."
To revert again to paraphrases of Talleyrandian wisdom, this was worse than a crime. It was a mistake -- though I suspect that when the full story is told, we'll see that it was both.
-- Josh Marshall
Copyright 2004 Joshua Micah Marshall
This document is available online at
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_03_21.html#002737
Atrios quotes this passage from Richard Clarke's interview tonight on CBS at length. But it's worth excerpting again for reasons I note below ...
"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.
"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. 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.
"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."
Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.
For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.
Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'
"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."
Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."
This is the essence of the whole story. Everything.
As Talleyrand said of the restored Bourbons, they had learned nothing and forgotten nothing during their time in exile. So too with the foreign policy coterie President Bush brought back from the cold in January 2001.
One chilling note in this passage is that Paul Wolfowitz, the prime architect and idea man of the second Iraq war, spent the early months of the Bush administration focused on "Iraqi terrorism against the United States", something that demonstrably did not even exist. A rather bad sign.
The bigger point, however, is this.
The first months of the Bush administration were based on a fundamental strategic miscalcuation about the source of the greatest threats to the United States. They were, as Clark suggests, stuck in a Cold War mindset, focused on Cold War problems, though the terms of debate were superficially reordered to make them appear to address a post-Cold War world.
That screw up is a reality -- their inability to come clean about it is, I suspect, is at the root of all the covering up and stonewalling of the 9/11 commission. And Democrats are both right and within their rights to call the White House on it. But screw-ups happen; mistakes happen. What is inexcusable is the inability, indeed the refusal, to learn from them.
Rather than adjust to this different reality, on September 12th, the Bush war cabinet set about using 9/11 -- exploiting it, really -- to advance an agenda which had, in fact, been largely discredited by 9/11. They shoe-horned everything they'd been trying to do before the attacks into the new boots of 9/11. And the fit was so bad they had to deceive the public and themselves to do it.
As the international relations expert John Ikenberry noted aptly in a recent essay, the Bush hardliners "fancy themselves tough-minded thinkers. But they didn't have the courage of their convictions to level with the American people on what this geopolitical adventure in Iraq was really about and what it would cost."
To revert again to paraphrases of Talleyrandian wisdom, this was worse than a crime. It was a mistake -- though I suspect that when the full story is told, we'll see that it was both.
-- Josh Marshall
Copyright 2004 Joshua Micah Marshall
This document is available online at
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_03_21.html#002737
This probably still wouldn't change some minds as it seems it should. Personally I think it's damning and deserves a lot of attention.
However your certainly going to hear about the publisher of this book "Against All Enemies", a company called Free Press.
Free Press is owned by Viacom. Viacom is the parent company of CBS. It's no coincidence that the interview was on 60 Minutes, a CBS program.
CBS and particularly Dan Rather is the eminent liberal media to the Fox crowd.
"The Price of Loyalty" by Paul O'Neill was published by Simon & Schuster. You guessed it. Another Viacom company.
I may be wrong but after all the things both men have accomplished I can't see sour grapes as their primary motivator for writing these books. Money doesn't seem to be it either. Paul O'Neill's got enough money to burn a wet dog. Remember he was the "whiz kid" from Alcoa.
Still you'll never convince the dedicated Republican that it's not a vast left wing conspiracy.
However your certainly going to hear about the publisher of this book "Against All Enemies", a company called Free Press.
Free Press is owned by Viacom. Viacom is the parent company of CBS. It's no coincidence that the interview was on 60 Minutes, a CBS program.
CBS and particularly Dan Rather is the eminent liberal media to the Fox crowd.
"The Price of Loyalty" by Paul O'Neill was published by Simon & Schuster. You guessed it. Another Viacom company.
I may be wrong but after all the things both men have accomplished I can't see sour grapes as their primary motivator for writing these books. Money doesn't seem to be it either. Paul O'Neill's got enough money to burn a wet dog. Remember he was the "whiz kid" from Alcoa.
Still you'll never convince the dedicated Republican that it's not a vast left wing conspiracy.
Joined
·
3,484 Posts
Stoner, in post #4
I notice this morning Josh has pointed out some inconsistencies with the administrations reaction to Richard Clarke's book and appearance on 60 minutes. Go to, http://talkingpointsmemo.com/
That is going to be one to watch as it folds out. A number of months ago, Eggplant referred to a site that I have begun checking a couple of times a day. The Medicare scandel is really big. I think it will take hold because it relates back to the President's promise as a candidate, and then as President he would do anything to fullfill the promise. It looks as though he hit many of his parties members in congress below the belt.
I notice this morning Josh has pointed out some inconsistencies with the administrations reaction to Richard Clarke's book and appearance on 60 minutes. Go to, http://talkingpointsmemo.com/
Joined
·
48,309 Posts
Thanks for the link Rep!
![]()
I watched it at the local watering hole, after WI lost.
But anyway, the most shocking part to me was that the only people who were glued to the TV were those of us over the age of 30.
One 27 year old asked me what they were saying, but the rest ignored it!
Apathy lives!
I watched it at the local watering hole, after WI lost.
But anyway, the most shocking part to me was that the only people who were glued to the TV were those of us over the age of 30.
One 27 year old asked me what they were saying, but the rest ignored it!
Apathy lives!
Attachments
Joined
·
3,966 Posts
OK, gonna read everything first, but this is the part that is getting annoying.
BTW Jack, there is nothing "difficult" about speaking out against the administration. It is the latest fad, like the Atkins diet.
OK, back to this bit. I have a hard time "revering" these guys who have nothing to say until their book is ready to be released. Quite the patriot, waiting until your book is ready for sale to "save" us poor dumb masses.
Sorry, had to get that off my chest. I am tired of these guys waiting until they can make a buck to come out and say "here is the truth". This guy hosed us with his silence as much as you can say Bush hosed us with his speech. Whether what he says is true, believable, bullshirt, or somewhere in between all of those, I hold zero respect for him and others like him.
Joined
·
48,309 Posts
I don't agree CF. He tried to work with the White House for two years. He said he had to come out when Bush was running on what a great job he did to make us (keep us) safe!
So what if he wrote a book that has all the details?
If he makes a few bucks from it, so what? Isn't that the Republican way?
Ann Coulter sells books and has nothing to say.
So what if he wrote a book that has all the details?
If he makes a few bucks from it, so what? Isn't that the Republican way?
Ann Coulter sells books and has nothing to say.
Joined
·
3,966 Posts
I really wished I had watched the whole interview, without the convenient edits. Convenient edits for either side, btw. His statements are rather pointed in nature.
I found his comment about OBL's harping very, very concerning.
As to the "ignored terrorism prior to 9/11".......guess I'll say it first...duh! So did every other American and the Presidents before! As a whole, this country, even with a prior incident within the boarder, basically payed lip service. A 9/11 type scenario was discovered during a Philippine raid many years ago, outlining targets and flight numbers. Some monitoring, but nothing really came of it from that administration either.
As to the focus on Iraq, that was simply carrying on where the prev. administration left off, which carried on from where that admin's prev administration left off. (before that, well, Jack has pictures )
Good move in hindsight? Nope. Interesting though, I really don't see any editorials dated Jan thru Aug of 2001 screaming about the admin ignoring terrorism. It as if we have some sort of window, wondering why GWB would even know where Iraq is, as though there were no years prior. I'm trying not to use other names, but lets be real. President Clinton, Monica aside, was also "fixated" on Iraq. Saddam has been a fixation for three presidencies, each picking up where the other left off. Let's keep some perspective here guys.
So the overall comment "Ha! you run as a terrorism fighter "
Indeed, a very risky path. On the one hand, his response of actually going into Afghanistan makes the response of our last Prez look like it never happened. On the other, had he "been on the ball", well hell, the reality is, had our govt been on the ball it really would have been the same IMO...but at least we could say we tried, actually put forth effort.
Egg, I commend your idealism, but in the real world of politics, you don't get to learn from your mistakes. Mistakes are not permitted. We expect perfection from our government because human fallibility scares the crap out of us. We talk a good game, and I have made a similar statement as you have, but I know that in reality, such a good solution would just not be allowed to play out.
So before you all go jumping on the "that ba$tard ignored terrorism!" bandwagon, ask yourself this. If in January of 2000, just after inauguration, Bush had gone before Congress and said, "I need 100 billion to fight terrorists, Al Queda for example", how many of you would have said give it to him?(how many would have said Al who?) How many would have cried pork? How many would have said "great, first steal the election, now piss away our money"? (OK, so the last one is said anyway )
That's what I thought......
I found his comment about OBL's harping very, very concerning.
As to the "ignored terrorism prior to 9/11".......guess I'll say it first...duh! So did every other American and the Presidents before! As a whole, this country, even with a prior incident within the boarder, basically payed lip service. A 9/11 type scenario was discovered during a Philippine raid many years ago, outlining targets and flight numbers. Some monitoring, but nothing really came of it from that administration either.
As to the focus on Iraq, that was simply carrying on where the prev. administration left off, which carried on from where that admin's prev administration left off. (before that, well, Jack has pictures
)Good move in hindsight? Nope. Interesting though, I really don't see any editorials dated Jan thru Aug of 2001 screaming about the admin ignoring terrorism. It as if we have some sort of window, wondering why GWB would even know where Iraq is, as though there were no years prior. I'm trying not to use other names, but lets be real. President Clinton, Monica aside, was also "fixated" on Iraq. Saddam has been a fixation for three presidencies, each picking up where the other left off. Let's keep some perspective here guys.
So the overall comment "Ha! you run as a terrorism fighter
"Indeed, a very risky path. On the one hand, his response of actually going into Afghanistan makes the response of our last Prez look like it never happened. On the other, had he "been on the ball", well hell, the reality is, had our govt been on the ball it really would have been the same IMO...but at least we could say we tried, actually put forth effort.
Egg, I commend your idealism, but in the real world of politics, you don't get to learn from your mistakes. Mistakes are not permitted. We expect perfection from our government because human fallibility scares the crap out of us. We talk a good game, and I have made a similar statement as you have, but I know that in reality, such a good solution would just not be allowed to play out.
So before you all go jumping on the "that ba$tard ignored terrorism!" bandwagon, ask yourself this. If in January of 2000, just after inauguration, Bush had gone before Congress and said, "I need 100 billion to fight terrorists, Al Queda for example", how many of you would have said give it to him?(how many would have said Al who?) How many would have cried pork? How many would have said "great, first steal the election, now piss away our money"? (OK, so the last one is said anyway
)That's what I thought......
Joined
·
3,966 Posts
Ann's a talking head. Write away. She isn't a government official (or a retired one)
So he had to come out when Bush started his campaign?
OK, I didn't realize he wrote his book between that interview and today.
Your being sucked in. He decided to "come out" before Bush ran ad 1. He had to in order to write the book, else none of this would be in that book, right?
So that means what he really decided was to keep his mouth shut until it was release time.
Too bad he tries to cover that up with some sort of honorable "I couldn't let Bush run those ads" line. If this were really the reason, the book would not have been written yet, or we would have heard from him verbally months ago before the pen hit the paper for today's release.
Joined
·
48,309 Posts
Well, just one thought. My understanding was that when Bush Light came into office one of his main goals was to not continue anything that Clinton had started or was working on. He had an isolationist attitude as far as foreign policy until 9-11.
Flyeater for the most part I tend to agree with you, but the evidence is piling up higher than dangling chads in FL.!
Remember (or not ) even the Republicans realized that Nixon had to go at some point!
Flyeater for the most part I tend to agree with you, but the evidence is piling up higher than dangling chads in FL.!
Remember (or not
) even the Republicans realized that Nixon had to go at some point! 
Joined
·
82,265 Posts
Gee.....I thought you meant something else! I would love to watch Mulder for 60 minutes!
*Snicker*
I would love to watch Mulder for 60 minutes! *Snicker*
Joined
·
82,265 Posts
Let's write a book Val....on all the characters in CivDeb! We'd make a million.....just don't know a million of what!
Joined
·
48,309 Posts
Hehe Angel!
Here is a link for some who may have missed the show.
http://www.parapolitics.info/phorum/read.php?f=32&i=169&t=169
Here is a link for some who may have missed the show.
http://www.parapolitics.info/phorum/read.php?f=32&i=169&t=169
Joined
·
3,966 Posts
It's a good thing to say (as a Repub about an exiting Dem), but I think that anyone knows that really isn't possible in practice. Besides, the "Iraq all along" bit proves that he continued that part.
Make no mistake, I do not label this as some "left conspiracy" as flyeater implies, though I do like his reasoning that rich people do not desire more money. I wonder if I can use that statement over in the Rummy or Cheney thread? Somehow I don't think ya'll would be nodding in agreement.
It doesn't really change anything (though as I said, I didn't get to watch the whole thing) only because he is stating what was already known, just putting a nifty "ignore before" spin on it. Let's outline....
1) focus on Iraq.
Iraq and Saddam were a constant focus since Desert Storm. From the UN to the US and everywhere in between.
2) Ignored terrorism prior to 9/11/01
Hasn't this been the problem with us all along? Isn't this why our dear British friends, on Sept 12 of 01, very delicately but very appropriately said "we're sorry, but it's about time you pulled your head out of the sand". They weren't talking about the prev 18 months, they were talking about the previous 18 years.
3) Egg's interpretation, looking the wrong way from Jan '00 thru 9/11/01.
Well written, but again, yeah, pretty much stating the obvious (only we were doing that for much longer). If we had been "looking the right way" at terrorism during this admin or the previous, Al Queda and the Taliban would have been looking for new stomping grounds when they tried to topple the towers the first time.
Make no mistake, I do not label this as some "left conspiracy" as flyeater implies, though I do like his reasoning that rich people do not desire more money. I wonder if I can use that statement over in the Rummy or Cheney thread? Somehow I don't think ya'll would be nodding in agreement.
It doesn't really change anything (though as I said, I didn't get to watch the whole thing) only because he is stating what was already known, just putting a nifty "ignore before" spin on it. Let's outline....
1) focus on Iraq.
Iraq and Saddam were a constant focus since Desert Storm. From the UN to the US and everywhere in between.
2) Ignored terrorism prior to 9/11/01
Hasn't this been the problem with us all along? Isn't this why our dear British friends, on Sept 12 of 01, very delicately but very appropriately said "we're sorry, but it's about time you pulled your head out of the sand". They weren't talking about the prev 18 months, they were talking about the previous 18 years.
3) Egg's interpretation, looking the wrong way from Jan '00 thru 9/11/01.
Well written, but again, yeah, pretty much stating the obvious (only we were doing that for much longer). If we had been "looking the right way" at terrorism during this admin or the previous, Al Queda and the Taliban would have been looking for new stomping grounds when they tried to topple the towers the first time.
1 - 20 of 176 Posts
Join the discussion
