Lorie Byrd: Hating Bush is not a foreign policy [Archive]

View Full Version : Lorie Byrd: Hating Bush is not a foreign policy

Vegas

04-17-2007, 12:08 PM

http://www.examiner.com/a-677936~Lorie_Byrd__Hating_Bush_is_not_a_foreign_po licy.html

"Hate is not a family value” is a popular bumper sticker slogan many liberals have proudly displayed on their vehicles alongside Gore/Lieberman and Kerry/Edwards stickers.

The slogan is a statement on family values voters who were branded haters during the Clinton years for taking a stands (ala Dan Quayle) such as that two parents were better than one, and later for being against intern canoodling.

Because the family values issue has taken a backseat to national security, it is about time for a new slogan. “Hate is not a foreign policy” is my suggestion for the perfect bumper sticker leading up to the 2008 election.

For well over three years now, we have heard Democrats tell us everything that is wrong with President Bush’s policy in Iraq, with many of the criticisms falling under the other popular liberal bumper sticker phrase, “Bush lied, people died.”

At first, we heard the president lied about Iraq posing an “imminent threat,” despite the fact that in his 2003 State of the Union speech he said we could no longer wait until a threat became imminent.

We later heard (and will soon see via Hollywood production) claims that the president lied about Saddam’s efforts to obtain yellowcake uranium, even though British intelligence still stands behind a report saying just that.

When no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were discovered in Iraq, we heard that Bush lied about WMD, even though scores of leading Democrats, including some of the leading presidential candidates, also were on record saying they believed Saddam posed a WMD threat.

Another criticism from Democrats involves troop levels in Iraq. We learned how to pronounce Shinseki when the Army chief of staff became the member of the military most often quoted by Democrats who charged the president did not send enough troops to Iraq. Later, when Bush proposed sending additional troops, the Democrats decided less troops were needed and that it was time to pull the plug on the mission in Iraq altogether.

For several years, most Democrats’ “policy” on Iraq consisted of hatred for whatever policy George Bush supported. Over the past couple of years, though, that “policy” has evolved from hatred of Bush and any policy he suggested to a call for withdrawal before the mission is complete. Most recently, Democrats passed a bill that would only fund the troops if a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq was included.

To put it in bumper sticker language, the policy went from “hate” to “retreat.” Hate is not a foreign policy, and retreat is not a plan for success.

The 2008 presidential race is well underway. Tens of millions of dollars have been raised by the leading candidates and gradually those candidates are going on record staking out positions on various issues. There is currently no issue more important to the election of the next president than foreign policy and defense matters.

Last week, the liberal anti-war group Moveon.org released results of an online poll of 43,000 people who listened to a virtual town hall meeting with the leading Democratic contenders for president.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who has called for the U.S. to withdraw troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008, was chosen by those responding to the survey as “best to lead the U.S. out of Iraq.”

Former North Carolina Sen.John Edwards came in a close second, having urged Congress to cut off funding for the war. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who voted for the war in 2002 and supported the mission until fairly recently, came in fifth place with only 10.7 percent of the vote.

In January, Clinton said of Bush and the war in Iraq, “I think it’s the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it … this was his decision to go to war … we should expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office.”

It is highly unlikely that U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by January 2009 when Clinton hopes to assume the office. A call for withdrawal is a plan for defeat, not victory. It is time for Democrats running for the presidency to share their plans for success.

Not only will the next president almost certainly still have troops in Iraq to lead, but there will be other countries, possibly Iran, Syria, and North Korea, whose actions will require a clear American strategy in response.

Americans need to know how their future president would address such future challenges. So far, campaign rhetoric has told us a lot about what Democrats are against, and their strategy for defeat, but not much about how they would pursue victory if they held the office.

BoredWithNoSB

04-17-2007, 12:39 PM

arrrrrrrrrrrgh.

"defeat" and "victory" are pointless in this context. To win or lose, you must first have a goal. There is no goal, except "defeat the terrorists". Who is a terrorist, anyone who hates our country? Well, we're never going to kill everyone swho hates our country and wishes harm upon it. So, there is no chance at victory if this is the goal.

Plus, why is defeat so bad? Better to live to fight a real battle someday than to fight one that cannot be won. Defeat in this contaext is simply a matter of pride and we're past the point where we should be worrying about pride.

Jiddy78

04-17-2007, 12:43 PM

Now now righties...By playing the logic turnaround game, you indict yourselves to potentially surrendering the original issue...Point to ponder.

pnkpanther

04-17-2007, 12:56 PM

LSU

04-17-2007, 01:06 PM

President bush has been bad for America. Republicans running unchecked has been bad for America (thats why dem's won the mid-term elections, no way the do w/o republicans shitting themselves)

but this election will be no different, both sides are staying true to form, attack the other side, bring up irrelevant hot bed issues, and bicker and see who wins the sissy fight.

it astounds me we couldnt get bush out in 04, no President prior to him with such low approval numbers was reelected. I wanted to Puke when they started touting a "mandate"..there was no viable third canidate for first time in a long time, they wont by skin of their teeth and they're touting a mandate.

I'm amazed we cant agree on problems, amazing.

I don't blame Bush for running unchecked. That's congress' fault...now, that doesn't mean I agree with Bush's decisions while unchecked...that's a different story.

As for the Dems winning, it seems that they've turned their platform into "do the opposite of Bush" and that's just about as bad as "do what Bush wants".

I don't mind the oversight they've been touting...but I don't see what good they've been doing yet. They sent up a bill, but it's so loaded with shit, it might as well be the old Congress, except that instead of going down the toilet in Iraq, it goes down the toilet here.

Now, I suppose you could make the argument, and I don't know that I'd disagree, that if money is going to go t waste, it's better to have it wasted on Americans than on Iraqis.

And I'd like to qualify these statements by saying it's not that I think the money is a waste because it would be going towards better equipment for the troops...rather the overall "mission" in general is the waste. Why weren't they sent with proper equipment to begin with? Sounds like a failure to adapt to what's going on...and that's the thing they were supposed to have been doing after they said for 3 years that nothing needed to change.

Wha???

IBC

04-17-2007, 01:08 PM

http://www.examiner.com/a-677936~Lorie_Byrd__Hating_Bush_is_not_a_foreign_po licy.html

At first, we heard the president lied about Iraq posing an “imminent threat,” despite the fact that in his 2003 State of the Union speech he said we could no longer wait until a threat became imminent.

We later heard (and will soon see via Hollywood production) claims that the president lied about Saddam’s efforts to obtain yellowcake uranium, even though British intelligence still stands behind a report saying just that.

When no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were discovered in Iraq, we heard that Bush lied about WMD, even though scores of leading Democrats, including some of the leading presidential candidates, also were on record saying they believed Saddam posed a WMD threat.

Parroting the same old crap. Dems said it. Finish the mission. Defeat is not an option. What is the mission? Who are we fighting? What the hell does it matter now what dems agreed, now America wants us out, including almost all Dems and some repubs. This President is out of touch, and he is wrong on most issues. This tired crapola about defeat and victory is stupid as hell. We won, we lost, I don't care. Get our men and women the hell out of there.

You forget, Dems were called unpatriotic for not supporting this war, we still are, even on this site. :) When will conservatives admit WE were wrong and its time to go home. I have said my history on here, I will take the blame even though I was always against this war. Why can't we say, WE were wrong, lets go home.

Also, no mention of Saddams relationship with Al Qaeda that these idiots say is true? Where is that? I thought that was pretty well confirmed? No nuke program mention? They couldn't find a Dem that would say that.

Also, British intelligence nowhere near stands by that report. Is was compete bunk and everyone that has paid any attention at all knows it. More of the same BS.

And.... she is calling for potential wars in the rest of the middle east, but not in Saudi Arabia. This person is an idiot.

IBC

04-17-2007, 01:10 PM

I don't blame Bush for running unchecked. That's congress' fault...now, that doesn't mean I agree with Bush's decisions while unchecked...that's a different story.

As for the Dems winning, it seems that they've turned their platform into "do the opposite of Bush" and that's just about as bad as "do what Bush wants".

I don't mind the oversight they've been touting...but I don't see what good they've been doing yet. They sent up a bill, but it's so loaded with shit, it might as well be the old Congress, except that instead of going down the toilet in Iraq, it goes down the toilet here.

Now, I suppose you could make the argument, and I don't know that I'd disagree, that if money is going to go t waste, it's better to have it wasted on Americans than on Iraqis.

And I'd like to qualify these statements by saying it's not that I think the money is a waste because it would be going towards better equipment for the troops...rather the overall "mission" in general is the waste. Why weren't they sent with proper equipment to begin with? Sounds like a failure to adapt to what's going on...and that's the thing they were supposed to have been doing after they said for 3 years that nothing needed to change.

Wha???
There was no more pork in that bill than any other war spending bill. And the Repub lead Congress took alot longer to get spending bills to the president. the posturing is ridiculous.

IBC

04-17-2007, 01:12 PM

LSU

04-17-2007, 01:13 PM

There was no more pork in that bill than any other war spending bill. And the Repub lead Congress took alot longer to get spending bills to the president. the posturing is ridiculous.

But wasn't the American public sick of the pork the Repubs had all along, and that was something the Dems were going to clean up?

IBC

04-17-2007, 01:14 PM

But wasn't the American public sick of the pork the Repubs had all along, and that was something the Dems were going to clean up?

I wish. But they suck as a party too. There are at least a few good ones.

LSU

04-17-2007, 01:17 PM

I wish. But they suck as a party too. There are at least a few good ones.

So, in reality, the dems are not much better than the repubs, in regards to saying one thing, then doing another...i.e., they're not doing what the people want, so what's to say these bills they're sending up and these plans they have are any better than the BS that's come down the past 7 years?

Basically, I don't see how anyone can complain about the Repubs when the Dems are just as poisonous, and vice versa.

IBC

04-17-2007, 01:22 PM

LSU

04-17-2007, 01:26 PM

I don't think it is the same. I have a problem with government. At least I can vote for what they say that I agree with. That said, as much as some would like to make it true, Dems didn't and wouldn't have started this war. Dems wouldn't have put forward the Patriot Act. Dems haven't outed CIA agents for political purposes. Dems wouldn't have done this abstinence only crap. Dems believe in much more of what I believe in. I think to muddy the waters and say they both are terrible doesn't account for the arrogance and ignorance of this administration. Was Clinton bad? Yes, I believe he was. I would take him in a heartbeat.

I don't disagree with those sentiments. But regardless of the actual policies put into place during this administration, the question becomes, would America be better off if Gore had won in 2000 or Kerry in 2004?

I don't. I just think we'd have a different set of problems.

You still would've had to contend with the conservative congress all those years, and without Bush's muck ups of late, you maybe would still be dealing with them today.

IBC

04-17-2007, 01:30 PM

I don't disagree with those sentiments. But regardless of the actual policies put into place during this administration, the question becomes, would America be better off if Gore had won in 2000 or Kerry in 2004?

I don't. I just think we'd have a different set of problems.

You still would've had to contend with the conservative congress all those years, and without Bush's muck ups of late, you maybe would still be dealing with them today.

WE may have a different set problems. tell that to the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Put our place in the world in perspective.

LSU

04-17-2007, 01:34 PM

WE may have a different set problems. tell that to the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Put our place in the world in perspective.

There's nothing to say that there wouldn't have been 100,000 dead Iraqis at the hand of Saddam in 4 years...or that Iran/Iraq would've erupted and war broke out again, or any number of scenarios that could have happened.

IBC

04-17-2007, 02:50 PM

There's nothing to say that there wouldn't have been 100,000 dead Iraqis at the hand of Saddam in 4 years...or that Iran/Iraq would've erupted and war broke out again, or any number of scenarios that could have happened.

Sure but we wouldn't have caused it. This is really a stretch LSU.

LSU

04-17-2007, 05:22 PM

Sure but we wouldn't have caused it. This is really a stretch LSU.

Is it a stretch? There's history behind both Saddam killing his own AND warring with Iran. I see it as no more of a stretch as saying we'd have less problems without Bush. It's all speculation.

Reagan Smash

04-17-2007, 05:33 PM

Is it a stretch? There's history behind both Saddam killing his own AND warring with Iran. I see it as no more of a stretch as saying we'd have less problems without Bush. It's all speculation.

It's very difficult to say how things would have turned out. Being a sitting president during 9/11 might have changed many of the stances that Gore had at the time. As much as we talk about politics here, I really think the amount of difference in the parties, and the effect on the general American public is minimal.

Potomac Yank

04-17-2007, 11:19 PM

So, in reality, the dems are not much better than the repubs, in regards to saying one thing, then doing another...i.e., they're not doing what the people want, so what's to say these bills they're sending up and these plans they have are any better than the BS that's come down the past 7 years?

Basically, I don't see how anyone can complain about the Repubs when the Dems are just as poisonous, and vice versa.

*
*

I think we can all agree, that there are whore's in all parties, but I don't quite seem to grasp your comparison factor.
It's almost like we went to the same movie complex, but we bought tickets to a different movie.

During the Clinton years, 1993 - 2001.
Do you recall him dragging us into a mess in the Middle East?
Do you recall him having a problem with prisoners, at a POW prison in Iraq?
DITTO for Guantanamo Cuba.
I recall the economy bubbling, and my United Airlines stock doing well.
I also recall a United Airlines pension, being paid by United Airlines then.

Now, due to the corporate oil war in Iraq, someone else pays my readjusted pension, and I can paper my walls with the United Airlines stock.

During the Clinton years, no CIA agents were exposed. .. can the Repubs make that statement?

During the Clinton years, he worked with the Repub Congress. .. can the Bush administration make the reverse statement?

The world opinion of the USA was favorable then.

During the Clinton years, Clinton received letters from the Neo Con think tank, The Project for the New American Century, populated by many that later became the foundation of the Bush administration.
Letters that were trying to navigate Clinton to invade Iraq. ... the salivating goal of Bush, and his Texas Oil Boy's.

Clinton didn't bite.

Therefore, no over 3000 KIA's during his administration.
No Ten's of thousands missing limbs.
No over crowded VA hospitals with war trauma, and limb adjustments.

These are just a few of the differences between the two administrations that come to mind.
I'm sure that others can point out some more.

No LSU, the differences is so huge, it's Night and Day.

However, I will agree with you, there are whores on each side, and they can be replaced.

LSU

04-17-2007, 11:24 PM

*
*

I think we can all agree, that there are whore's in all parties, but I don't quite seem to grasp your comparison factor.
It's almost like we went to the same movie complex, but we bought tickets to a different movie.

During the Clinton years, 1993 - 2001.
Do you recall him dragging us into a mess in the Middle East?
Do you recall him having a problem with prisoners, at a POW prison in Iraq?
DITTO for Guantanamo Cuba.
I recall the economy bubbling, and my United Airlines stock doing well.
I also recall a United Airlines pension, being paid by United Airlines then.

Now, due to the corporate oil war in Iraq, someone else pays my readjusted pension, and I can paper my walls with the United Airlines stock.

During the Clinton years, no CIA agents were exposed. .. can the Repubs make that statement?

During the Clinton years, he worked with the Repub Congress. .. can the Bush administration make the reverse statement?

The world opinion of the USA was favorable then.

During the Clinton years, Clinton received letters from the Neo Con think tank, The Project for the New American Century, populated by many that later became the foundation of the Bush administration.
Letters that were trying to navigate Clinton to invade Iraq. ... the salivating goal of Bush, and his Texas Oil Boy's.

Clinton didn't bite.

Therefore, no over 3000 KIA's during his administration.
No Ten's of thousands missing limbs.
No over crowded VA hospitals with war trauma, and limb adjustments.

These are just a few of the differences between the two administrations that come to mind.
I'm sure that others can point out some more.

No LSU, the differences is so huge, it's Night and Day.

However, I will agree with you, there are whores on each side, and they can be replaced.

I didn't make any comparisons of Bush to Clinton.

My comments were directed at what would have (may have) happened if Gore or Kerry were elected. And my opinion on that scenario is not a lot better, mainly because I don't think any of the 3 candidates we've had in the last 2 elections were worth my morning dump.

ryr8828

04-17-2007, 11:29 PM

*
*

I think we can all agree, that there are whore's in all parties, but I don't quite seem to grasp your comparison factor.
It's almost like we went to the same movie complex, but we bought tickets to a different movie.

During the Clinton years, 1993 - 2001.
Do you recall him dragging us into a mess in the Middle East?
Do you recall him having a problem with prisoners, at a POW prison in Iraq?
DITTO for Guantanamo Cuba.
I recall the economy bubbling, and my United Airlines stock doing well.
I also recall a United Airlines pension, being paid by United Airlines then.

Now, due to the corporate oil war in Iraq, someone else pays my readjusted pension, and I can paper my walls with the United Airlines stock.

During the Clinton years, no CIA agents were exposed. .. can the Repubs make that statement?

During the Clinton years, he worked with the Repub Congress. .. can the Bush administration make the reverse statement?

The world opinion of the USA was favorable then.

During the Clinton years, Clinton received letters from the Neo Con think tank, The Project for the New American Century, populated by many that later became the foundation of the Bush administration.
Letters that were trying to navigate Clinton to invade Iraq. ... the salivating goal of Bush, and his Texas Oil Boy's.

Clinton didn't bite.

Therefore, no over 3000 KIA's during his administration.
No Ten's of thousands missing limbs.
No over crowded VA hospitals with war trauma, and limb adjustments.

These are just a few of the differences between the two administrations that come to mind.
I'm sure that others can point out some more.

No LSU, the differences is so huge, it's Night and Day.

However, I will agree with you, there are whores on each side, and they can be replaced.

Clinton was concerned with politics.

Bush is concerned with terrorists.

Clinton's policy changed with the polls.

Bush is staying to what he believes is right.

It's not oil, it's not anything like that. Believe what you must.

Potomac Yank

04-18-2007, 01:37 AM

Clinton was concerned with politics.

Bush is concerned with terrorists.

Clinton's policy changed with the polls.

Bush is staying to what he believes is right.

It's not oil, it's not anything like that. Believe what you must.

*
*

1. Clinton was concerned with politics.
What politician isn't?

2. Bush is concerned with terrorists.
So you bought that snow job.
GW, and his Project for the New American Century boy's, had their eyes on Iraq for quite a while.

3. Clinton's policy changed with the polls.
At least he was capable of change.
The continuous GW poll drop, indicates that he's incapable.

4. Bush is staying to what he believes is right.
He's right, and the country is wrong

5. It's not oil, it's not anything like that. Believe what you must.
RYR, if it isn't oil, or anything like that ... What is it?
What do YOU believe it is?
We're interested to know why you believe like you do?

IBC

04-18-2007, 11:06 AM

pnkpanther

04-18-2007, 11:10 AM

Clinton was concerned with politics.

Bush is concerned with terrorists.

Clinton's policy changed with the polls.

Bush is staying to what he believes is right.

It's not oil, it's not anything like that. Believe what you must.

so when clinton left and incoming bush officals were quoted as saying

"we think Clinton did a good job but he was too focused on OSBL"

IBC

04-18-2007, 11:15 AM

so when clinton left and incoming bush officals were quoted as saying

"we think Clinton did a good job but he was too focused on OSBL"

Facts don't matter. Clinton refused to focus on terror and Bush did an bang-up job.

pnkpanther

04-18-2007, 11:22 AM

Facts don't matter. Clinton refused to focus on terror and Bush did an bang-up job.

i wonder why condi's speech she was going to give on 9-11-01 about threats facing america was never released, maybe it was because it didnt have anything to do with Islamic terrorist groups and was focused on pushing for funding for Darth's star wars defenese system

and why is it that clinton set up more terrorist programs then any president prior to him? Ronald prefferred to fund terrorist, where as we now see terrorist not terrorist, Regan saw that shady gray area.

But yeah, Clinton didnt like terrorist. He set up a comprehensive plan and forwarded it to bush before he left office, which of course Bush ignored. Bush ignored many memo's prior to 9-11. he was busy relaxing on the ranch.

IBC

04-18-2007, 11:28 AM

i wonder why condi's speech she was going to give on 9-11-01 about threats facing america was never released, maybe it was because it didnt have anything to do with Islamic terrorist groups and was focused on pushing for funding for Darth's star wars defenese system

and why is it that clinton set up more terrorist programs then any president prior to him? Ronald prefferred to fund terrorist, where as we now see terrorist not terrorist, Regan saw that shady gray area.

But yeah, Clinton didnt like terrorist. He set up a comprehensive plan and forwarded it to bush before he left office, which of course Bush ignored. Bush ignored many memo's prior to 9-11. he was busy relaxing on the ranch.

*crickets*

Well Clinton cared about politics, Bush about terror.

Saying something makes it true right?

Vegas

04-18-2007, 11:55 AM

*crickets*

Well Clinton cared about politics, Bush about terror.

Saying something makes it true right?

You disagreeing makes it untrue?

IBC

04-18-2007, 11:59 AM

You disagreeing makes it untrue?

Yes. Dispute the point. Bush had 0 meetings prior to 9/11 on terror. He has never disputed it, nor has anyone else. Sorry it easily refutes your ridiculous Clinton statements, but it does.

Vegas

04-18-2007, 12:01 PM

Yes. Dispute the point. Bush had 0 meetings prior to 9/11 on terror. He has never disputed it, nor has anyone else. Sorry it easily refutes your ridiculous Clinton statements, but it does.

Bush had several hundred meetings on terror prior to 9/11. That's as easy for me to say as it is for you to say he had none. You can't prove I'm wrong any more than I can prove you're wrong.

pnkpanther

04-18-2007, 12:06 PM

Bush had several hundred meetings on terror prior to 9/11. That's as easy for me to say as it is for you to say he had none. You can't prove I'm wrong any more than I can prove you're wrong.

not according to the 9-11 report

IBC

04-18-2007, 12:13 PM

pnkpanther

04-18-2007, 12:16 PM

By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The White House's former top anti-terrorism adviser says President Bush ignored warnings about al-Qaeda and ordered him to find a link between the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and Iraq.

Former Bush counterterror adviser Richard Clarke says Bush was stuck on Cold War issues.
By Paul Sakuma, AP file

Counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke makes the allegations in a book, Against All Enemies, that comes out today. He will testify Tuesday to a federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, along with other former Clinton and Bush administration officials.

Clarke says that within a week of Bush's inauguration, he sought a meeting with senior Cabinet officials to discuss the threat from al-Qaeda. He says he met with Cabinet deputies months later.

Stephen Hadley, the No. 2 official on the National Security Council, denied that warnings were ignored. He said Bush met daily with CIA Director George Tenet and in the weeks before Sept. 11 "put us on battle stations."

Clarke said Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes that soon after the attacks, Bush demanded to know whether Iraq was behind them. When Clarke told him intelligence found no link, "He came back at me and said: 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way."

After experts concluded again that Saddam Hussein played no role, Clarke said, his memo "got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. Do it again.' "

Clarke's memo was returned because Tenet had already "told the president that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack," the White House said.

In rebutting Clarke's charges, the White House said national security deputies worked diligently between March and September 2001 to develop a strategy to attack the al-Qaeda terror network, one that was completed and ready for Bush's approval a week before the suicide airliner hijackings.

Clarke also wrote that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice appeared never to have heard of al-Qaeda until she was warned early in 2001 about the terrorist organization and that she "looked skeptical" about his warnings.

"Her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before," Clarke said in the book, going on sale Monday. Clarke said Rice appeared not to recognize post-Cold War security issues and effectively demoted him within the National Security Council staff.

Rice echoed the administration's rebuttal in a guest column in Monday's Washington Post and addressed Clarke's characterization of her obliquely. "Before Sept. 11, we closely monitored threats to our nation," she wrote. "President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the director of the CIA every day - meetings that I attended. And I personally met with (director) George Tenet regularly and frequently reviewed aspects of the counterterrorism effort."

Clarke's charges will likely be used as political fodder in the presidential campaign. Democrat John Kerry said Sunday he has asked for copies of the book.

As early as Sept. 12, 2001, Clarke says, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urged bombing Iraq despite repeated assurances from intelligence officials that the threat emanated from Afghanistan.

"Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq," Clarke said on Sunday's 60 Minutes. "I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.' "

The White House defended the consideration of a potential Iraq link. "Given Iraq's past support of terror it would have been irresponsible not to ask if Iraq had any involvement in the attack," it said.

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said Sunday on ABC's This Week that while he has been critical of Bush policies on Iraq, "I think it's unfair to blame the president for the spread of terror and the diffuseness of it."

Clarke served under every president since Ronald Reagan. He quit the White House in January 2003 after he was demoted to a sub-Cabinet job. The White House statement said Clarke "never had Cabinet rank." It said Bush did not need briefings from Clarke because he met daily with the CIA director.

Clarke did acknowledge, "There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too."

Contributing: Wire services

Vegas

04-18-2007, 12:17 PM

Whatever. read the 9/11 report.

I suggest you read Gerald Posner's book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0812966236/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-5176398-5412901#reader-link

He's one of my favorite writers (and BTW a Democrat). That's a fantastic book that gives a lot of background as to why 9/11 happened. There's plenty of blame on all sides.

Vegas

04-18-2007, 12:20 PM

Rice echoed the administration's rebuttal in a guest column in Monday's Washington Post and addressed Clarke's characterization of her obliquely. "Before Sept. 11, we closely monitored threats to our nation," she wrote. "President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the director of the CIA every day - meetings that I attended. And I personally met with (director) George Tenet regularly and frequently reviewed aspects of the counterterrorism effort."

Clarke served under every president since Ronald Reagan. He quit the White House in January 2003 after he was demoted to a sub-Cabinet job. The White House statement said Clarke "never had Cabinet rank." It said Bush did not need briefings from Clarke because he met daily with the CIA director.

Clarke did acknowledge, "There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too."

Contributing: Wire services

Interesting.....a guy that got demoted has an ax to grind. It happens in every administration. But even so, you've got "he says" vs. "she says" and you'll believe whom you will.

IBC

04-18-2007, 12:20 PM

I suggest you read Gerald Posner's book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0812966236/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-5176398-5412901#reader-link

He's one of my favorite writers (and BTW a Democrat). That's a fantastic book that gives a lot of background as to why 9/11 happened. There's plenty of blame on all sides.

I agree. That is not what you claimed before. You claimed that Clinton focused on politics and Bush focused on terrorism. That is wrong.

Vegas

04-18-2007, 12:23 PM

I agree. That is not what you claimed before. You claimed that Clinton focused on politics and Bush focused on terrorism. That is wrong.

I didn't write that, but don't completely disagree with it either.

Clinton was getting a hummer while taking a national security phone call. If you want to say that's a sign of a guy that really takes national security seriously you're welcome to that opinion. And if you don't think he made his decisions based on polling data you weren't paying attention.

IBC

04-18-2007, 12:25 PM

I didn't write that, but don't completely disagree with it either.

Clinton was getting a hummer while taking a national security phone call. If you want to say that's a sign of a guy that really takes national security seriously you're welcome to that opinion. And if you don't think he made his decisions based on polling data you weren't paying attention.
My bad, that was RYR.

Now you bring up the BJ. I never said he didn't make his decisions on polls. Good. Better than the guy who won't change his mind even when he is dead wrong.

Vegas

04-18-2007, 12:27 PM

My bad, that was RYR.

Now you bring up the BJ. I never said he didn't make his decisions on polls. Good. Better than the guy who won't change his mind even when he is dead wrong.

OK. Let's try to respectfully disagree. I still don't think he's wrong.

IBC

04-18-2007, 12:28 PM

OK. Let's try to respectfully disagree. I still don't think he's wrong.

Fair enough. I have to get some lunch anyhow. I do enjoy the conversation. We are obviously very different in our views, but I do feel I learn.

Potomac Yank

04-18-2007, 12:47 PM

I didn't write that, but don't completely disagree with it either.

Clinton was getting a hummer while taking a national security phone call. If you want to say that's a sign of a guy that really takes national security seriously you're welcome to that opinion. And if you don't think he made his decisions based on polling data you weren't paying attention.

*
*

In the Neo Con, and Rligious Right mind.

A hummer is worse than over 3000 KIA's. ... How sad.

pnkpanther

04-18-2007, 01:03 PM

Interesting.....a guy that got demoted has an ax to grind. It happens in every administration. But even so, you've got "he says" vs. "she says" and you'll believe whom you will.

he was demoted cause he wasnt a yes man to Bush. he worked in white for 30 years for republicans and dem's and prior to bush only hiring lackey's was repsected by all prior staff's.

Vegas

04-18-2007, 01:13 PM

he was demoted cause he wasnt a yes man to Bush. he worked in white for 30 years for republicans and dem's and prior to bush only hiring lackey's was repsected by all prior staff's.

There's always a different perspective. You and I can both speculate about the reasons all day long.

LSU

04-18-2007, 01:15 PM

There's always a different perspective. You and I can both speculate about the reasons all day long.

You can, but at some point you have to stop worrying about why he's talking and start looking at what he's talking about. Sour grapes or not, if what he says is true, then it's...well, true.

Or in the same respect, untrue.

But he's not the only one I've heard say that the overall file of intelligence didn't lend itself to the admin's conclusions...

pnkpanther

04-18-2007, 01:21 PM

There's always a different perspective. You and I can both speculate about the reasons all day long.

If it were isolated i'd be more likely to dimiss it, bush has shown he's favorable to yes men, not differing posistions

if Condi's speech included terroristic attacks and other threats, why wasnt the speech released? she was our NSA at the time...

pnkpanther

04-18-2007, 01:22 PM

Latest News

Printer-friendly Version

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 1, 2004

Schumer Urges White House To Release Full Text Of Rice's 9/11/01 Speech

News reports reveal today that Rice was to deliver speech on 9/11/01 on how missile defense would be the White House's top security priority, NOT TERRORISM

White House refuses to make entire speech available, will only release excerpts

US Senator Charles Schumer today urged the White House to release to the public a copy of the speech National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to deliver on September 11, 2001 on how the Bush Administration’s national security outlook would focus primarily on missile defense. The speech reportedly makes no mention of terrorism or al Qaeda.

According to news reports, Dr. Rice was to deliver an address at the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University describing threats to American national security but was pre-empted from doing so by the 9-11 attacks. Although Dr. Rice kept her promise to appear at SAIS, speaking there in April 2002, the speech she delivered that day was substantially different from the version scheduled seven months earlier.

Dr. Rice’s 9-11 speech reportedly placed heavy emphasis on national missile defense while making no mention of Osama Bin Laden or al Qaeda. This is disturbing because according to senior Bush Administration officials there was a significant terrorist “threat spike”in intelligence reports beginning in June 2001 that continued throughout the summer. Over the following three months, the Federal Aviation Administration issued at least five information circulars warning of potential terrorist attacks and on at least two occasions the FBI warned local law enforcement agencies about similar threats.

In a letter being sent to the White House today, Schumer wrote "Dr. Rice’s speech suggests that at the very least there was a disconnect between the public security message and the policy prescriptions top White House officials were pushing and the private warnings federal agencies were issuing about imminent threats to our homeland. More ominously, it may demonstrate that top White House officials did not take the warnings they received seriously enough. Finally, it appears to undermine comments Dr. Rice made in an editorial of March 22, 2004 that 'The seriousness of the [al Qaeda] threat was well understood by the president and his national security principals.'"

"As the 9-11 Commission continues its groundbreaking work to make American safer, it is essential that all the facts about the Bush Administration’s security preparations and outlook during its first nine months in office are known to the public. Only then will the American people have full confidence that we are doing all we can to make sure a similar tragedy never occurs again. Accordingly, I encourage you to release the full text of Dr. Rice’s 9-11 speech to the public," Schumer's letter to the President continued. In the speech prepared for Sept. 11, Rice intended to point out that the United States had spent $11 billion on counter-terrorism, about twice as much as it spent on missile defense, during the previous year, although the speech did not point out that those funds were spent when President Clinton was in office.

Vegas

04-18-2007, 01:28 PM

LSU

04-18-2007, 01:30 PM

And of course I contend that Clinton set back progress on missle defense by not spending enough there. That's especially true when the Chinese and North Koreans made such progress on nukes during his term largely due to his horrible policies.

And if Clinton was Mr. anti-terrorism, why didn't he spend even more? The money spent didn't prevent 9-11.

Cause is not always effect.

But for missile defense, maybe not spending that money was a good thing. We've been attacked in a lot of ways since Clinton was in office. None of them were missiles.

But to say the money he spent didn't prevent 9/11...maybe the money he spent prevented more than 9/11. Speculation abounds.

pnkpanther

04-18-2007, 02:37 PM