9/11 hearings
- Thread starter AR182
- Start date
Dick Morris:
March 24, 2004 -- THE Bush ads are working: Two weeks ago, the Washington Post poll showed Sen. John Kerry ahead of President Bush by 11 points, and the Gallup Poll had him up by 8, while more recent polls reflect a dead heat between the two.
Zogby (March 21) has Kerry up by only 48-46, and Rasmussen (March 20) has it Bush 46, Kerry 45.
Interestingly, the new surveys don't show Bush gain ing so much as they show Kerry dropping. In the odd configurations of political strategy, that is good news for the Republicans.
If Bush were simply gaining because of good news or a bump from the recent focus on terrorism, he could go down as easily as he went up. Let the news turn bad, and Bush would go back to the low ratings of a few weeks ago.
But with the gap closing because of Kerry's drop, the impact is likely to last a lot longer. The fact is that 6 to 9 percent of Americans were voting for the Democrat two weeks ago and now are undecided. The doubts that Bush's ads are raising about Kerry are not going to go away; they will grow as the ads continue and the facts pile up.
The polls are starting to reflect the effectiveness of Bush's ads, which depict Kerry explaining his ultra-liberal record to the voters. This Democrat, who escaped scrutiny by posing as the un-Dean in the primary, is now being revealed as the leftist he is.
Having defeated the three candidates of his party who might have beaten Bush - Wesley Clark, Joe Lieberman and John Edwards - Kerry is finding out that America is a centrist nation.
I have doubted the conventional wisdom that this election would be close. If Bush continues to stay on the offensive and Kerry's responses remain as inept as they've been, the Massachusetts Democrat will go downhill faster than he is now doing on his skiing vacation.
Bush's attacks have focused on the issues of terrorism and taxes. Kerry has not even answered the first charge and has given only a ritualistic denial of the second. Instead of answering Bush's charges in detail, he piously asks, in his ads, if the president has anything more to offer America than negative ads. But Americans don't see the Bush ads as below the belt, but as welcome information about a man they don't know who is running for president.
Indeed, the latest New York Times/CBS survey indicates that 60 percent of the voters feel Kerry is telling them what they want to hear, not what he really believes. Bush is opening a credibility gap which is only widened by Kerry's ridiculous statement that he voted for the $87 billion appropriation for the war effort before he voted against it.
In the next round of attack ads, Bush should focus on Kerry's previous support for a 50 cent increase in the gasoline tax. Remember, it was the gas tax, more than any other issue, that cost the Democrats control of Congress in 1994. With pump prices closing in on $2 a gallon, Americans will not look kindly on someone who proposes to add another half-dollar per gallon.
Kerry's two gaffes - on foreign leaders with whom he allegedly spoke and on his flip-flop on the money for the war - were not unforced errors: They were fumbles caused by the aggressive pressure of the Bush campaign.
This Democrat is not ready to run for president, and the more the Republicans press him, the more he will self-destruct. His campaign advisers are hoping that a few hours extra sleep on his ski trip will restore his political judgment, but they ignore the fact that he never had a lot to begin with.
The fact is that Massachusetts liberal Democrats don't spend a lot of time learning how to appeal to middle America.
Kerry only won the nomination because Dean lost it and Edwards was hobbled by Clark so he could not get the momentum he needed to mount a real challenge. With the front-loaded process, decreed by financial-wizard-but-political-amateur Terry McAuliffe, the party is united but saddled with a nominee who can't handle prime time.
Bush needs to keep up the pressure and watch Kerry's ratings drop. In a few months, we may be wondering why the conventional wisdom ever thought this race would be so close.
March 24, 2004 -- THE Bush ads are working: Two weeks ago, the Washington Post poll showed Sen. John Kerry ahead of President Bush by 11 points, and the Gallup Poll had him up by 8, while more recent polls reflect a dead heat between the two.
Zogby (March 21) has Kerry up by only 48-46, and Rasmussen (March 20) has it Bush 46, Kerry 45.
Interestingly, the new surveys don't show Bush gain ing so much as they show Kerry dropping. In the odd configurations of political strategy, that is good news for the Republicans.
If Bush were simply gaining because of good news or a bump from the recent focus on terrorism, he could go down as easily as he went up. Let the news turn bad, and Bush would go back to the low ratings of a few weeks ago.
But with the gap closing because of Kerry's drop, the impact is likely to last a lot longer. The fact is that 6 to 9 percent of Americans were voting for the Democrat two weeks ago and now are undecided. The doubts that Bush's ads are raising about Kerry are not going to go away; they will grow as the ads continue and the facts pile up.
The polls are starting to reflect the effectiveness of Bush's ads, which depict Kerry explaining his ultra-liberal record to the voters. This Democrat, who escaped scrutiny by posing as the un-Dean in the primary, is now being revealed as the leftist he is.
Having defeated the three candidates of his party who might have beaten Bush - Wesley Clark, Joe Lieberman and John Edwards - Kerry is finding out that America is a centrist nation.
I have doubted the conventional wisdom that this election would be close. If Bush continues to stay on the offensive and Kerry's responses remain as inept as they've been, the Massachusetts Democrat will go downhill faster than he is now doing on his skiing vacation.
Bush's attacks have focused on the issues of terrorism and taxes. Kerry has not even answered the first charge and has given only a ritualistic denial of the second. Instead of answering Bush's charges in detail, he piously asks, in his ads, if the president has anything more to offer America than negative ads. But Americans don't see the Bush ads as below the belt, but as welcome information about a man they don't know who is running for president.
Indeed, the latest New York Times/CBS survey indicates that 60 percent of the voters feel Kerry is telling them what they want to hear, not what he really believes. Bush is opening a credibility gap which is only widened by Kerry's ridiculous statement that he voted for the $87 billion appropriation for the war effort before he voted against it.
In the next round of attack ads, Bush should focus on Kerry's previous support for a 50 cent increase in the gasoline tax. Remember, it was the gas tax, more than any other issue, that cost the Democrats control of Congress in 1994. With pump prices closing in on $2 a gallon, Americans will not look kindly on someone who proposes to add another half-dollar per gallon.
Kerry's two gaffes - on foreign leaders with whom he allegedly spoke and on his flip-flop on the money for the war - were not unforced errors: They were fumbles caused by the aggressive pressure of the Bush campaign.
This Democrat is not ready to run for president, and the more the Republicans press him, the more he will self-destruct. His campaign advisers are hoping that a few hours extra sleep on his ski trip will restore his political judgment, but they ignore the fact that he never had a lot to begin with.
The fact is that Massachusetts liberal Democrats don't spend a lot of time learning how to appeal to middle America.
Kerry only won the nomination because Dean lost it and Edwards was hobbled by Clark so he could not get the momentum he needed to mount a real challenge. With the front-loaded process, decreed by financial-wizard-but-political-amateur Terry McAuliffe, the party is united but saddled with a nominee who can't handle prime time.
Bush needs to keep up the pressure and watch Kerry's ratings drop. In a few months, we may be wondering why the conventional wisdom ever thought this race would be so close.
Rice said today she is sorry to all those family memebers from 9/11 that were mad she did not show up for the 9/11 hearing. But she said she really had nothing much to add.. You got that right lady. And when you take the oath. Well why bother. They know already from two memos brought forward today. She really cant ad much. She didn't know what the hell was going on. I know I know she should. But hey shes a yes girl.
Censure Bush for Misleading Us
In an attempt to evade responsibility for the misleading statements that pushed the nation into war, Bush has announced plans to form an independent inquiry to look into what went wrong. An inquiry would serve the Bush administration well: it would envelop the issue in a fog of uncertainty, deflect blame onto the intelligence services, and delay any political damage until 2005, after the upcoming election.
But the facts need no clarification. Despite repeated warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, President Bush and his administration hyped and distorted the threat that Iraq posed. And now that reality is setting in, the President wants to pin the blame on someone else. We can't let him.
Congress has the power to censure the President ? to formally reprimand him for betraying the nation's trust. If ever there was a time for this, it's now.
In an attempt to evade responsibility for the misleading statements that pushed the nation into war, Bush has announced plans to form an independent inquiry to look into what went wrong. An inquiry would serve the Bush administration well: it would envelop the issue in a fog of uncertainty, deflect blame onto the intelligence services, and delay any political damage until 2005, after the upcoming election.
But the facts need no clarification. Despite repeated warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, President Bush and his administration hyped and distorted the threat that Iraq posed. And now that reality is setting in, the President wants to pin the blame on someone else. We can't let him.
Congress has the power to censure the President ? to formally reprimand him for betraying the nation's trust. If ever there was a time for this, it's now.
his own words, here are some of Clarke's revelations:
Clarke repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about attacks from al Qaeda, starting in the first days of Bush's term. "But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on."8 According to another Bush administration security official, Clarke "was the guy pushing hardest, saying again and again that something big was going to happen, including possibly here in the U.S." The official added that Clarke was likely sidelined because he had served in the previous (Clinton) administration.9
In face-to-face meetings, CIA Director George Tenet warned President Bush repeatedly in the months before 9/11 that an attack was coming. According to Clarke, Tenet told the President that "A major al-Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead."10
On September 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld pushed to bomb Iraq even though they knew that al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.'"11
Also on September 12, 2001, President Bush personally pushed Clarke to find evidence that Iraq was behind the attacks. From the New York Times: "'I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything,' Mr. Clarke writes that Mr. Bush told him. 'See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way.' When Mr. Clarke protested that the culprit was Al Qaeda, not Iraq, Mr. Bush testily ordered him, he writes, to 'look into Iraq, Saddam,' and then left the room."12
The Bush Administration knew from the beginning that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, but created the misperception in order to push their policy goals. "[Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush] did know better. They did know better. They did know better. We told them, the CIA told them, the FBI told them. They did know better. And the tragedy here is that Americans went to their death in Iraq thinking that they were avenging September 11th, when Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. I think for a commander-in-chief and a vice president to allow that to happen is unconscionable."13
The war on Iraq has increased the danger of terrorism. In his book, he writes that shifting from al Qaeda to Iraq "launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."
Clarke repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about attacks from al Qaeda, starting in the first days of Bush's term. "But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on."8 According to another Bush administration security official, Clarke "was the guy pushing hardest, saying again and again that something big was going to happen, including possibly here in the U.S." The official added that Clarke was likely sidelined because he had served in the previous (Clinton) administration.9
In face-to-face meetings, CIA Director George Tenet warned President Bush repeatedly in the months before 9/11 that an attack was coming. According to Clarke, Tenet told the President that "A major al-Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead."10
On September 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld pushed to bomb Iraq even though they knew that al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.'"11
Also on September 12, 2001, President Bush personally pushed Clarke to find evidence that Iraq was behind the attacks. From the New York Times: "'I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything,' Mr. Clarke writes that Mr. Bush told him. 'See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way.' When Mr. Clarke protested that the culprit was Al Qaeda, not Iraq, Mr. Bush testily ordered him, he writes, to 'look into Iraq, Saddam,' and then left the room."12
The Bush Administration knew from the beginning that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, but created the misperception in order to push their policy goals. "[Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush] did know better. They did know better. They did know better. We told them, the CIA told them, the FBI told them. They did know better. And the tragedy here is that Americans went to their death in Iraq thinking that they were avenging September 11th, when Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. I think for a commander-in-chief and a vice president to allow that to happen is unconscionable."13
The war on Iraq has increased the danger of terrorism. In his book, he writes that shifting from al Qaeda to Iraq "launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."
is this the same Clarke who orchestrated the US plans to hit and run in Somalia? thus portraying America as weak and unwilling to take casualties? thus giving terrorists all the more reason to think they can have their way.....Why is he so credible all of a sudden right before his book comes out? Why is he so credible after saying completely the opposite in previous memos? LMAO....this is a joke
Bush has done an outstanding job at fighting terrorism....and Al Quaeda for that matter...we have rounded up and are rounding up these scoundrels one by one.....neither he nor Clinton is to blame for what happened on 9/11 and the fact that these monkey trials are even here is nonsensical...nothing could have been done except for airport security to have done their jobs....that and give the pilot a pistol....good grief if we can trust a pilot to fly a plane then we should be able to trust them to carry a pistol....
Bush has done an outstanding job at fighting terrorism....and Al Quaeda for that matter...we have rounded up and are rounding up these scoundrels one by one.....neither he nor Clinton is to blame for what happened on 9/11 and the fact that these monkey trials are even here is nonsensical...nothing could have been done except for airport security to have done their jobs....that and give the pilot a pistol....good grief if we can trust a pilot to fly a plane then we should be able to trust them to carry a pistol....
IS THIS THE SAME CLARKE THAT GAVE 15 HOURS OF TESTIMONY TO THE COMMISSION DURING THE BEHIND THE DOOR CLOSED SESSION OF THE HEARINGS AND NOW AFTER HAVING HIS BOOK RELEASE PUSHED UP TO COINCIDE WITH THE START OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, NOW HAS COMPLETELY CHANGE HIS TESTIMONY FROM THE CLOSED DOOR SESSION.
SEEM FISHY TO YOU, BUT OF COURSE THE LIBEREAL BIG 4 JUST REPORT HIS "ASTONISHING REVELATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC HEARINGS" AS JOHN LEMAN POINTED OUT YESTERDAY, ONE OF THE 2 HAS TO BE A COMPLETE FABRICATION, IN ANY CASE HIS CREDIBILITY IS DEFINITELY IN JEOPARDY, HE LIED IN ONE OF THE HEARINGS, BUT YOU WON'T HEAR THIS IN THE NAT'L MEDIA.
THEY CONTINUE TO REPORT THE SLANT THAT BUSH IS IN TROUBLE AND CLARKE IS SUCH AN HONORABLE PERSON TO COME FORWARD, WHAT A JOKE.
AND BTW, HOW CAN CLARKE, A MEMBER OF THE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SECURITY COUNCIL WITH THE UTMOST NATIONAL SECURITY CLEARENCES, BE ABLE TO PUBLISH A BOOK ABOUT HIS TENURE FOR MONEY AND NOT HAVE EVERYONE OUTRAGED AT SUCH A THING, BECAUSE WHAT HE HAS TO SAY IS TRYING TO DISCREDIT A REPUBLICAN IN AN ELECTION YEAR.
FORTUNATELY THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS CAN SEE THIS SHAM FOR WHAT IT IS, ONLY THE VERY PARTISIAN LEFT AND THE FEW NITWITS HERE IN THIS FORUM WILL BELIEVE ALL THIS CRAP. AND LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THE CLOSER WE GET TO THE ELECTION IT WILL BE PLAIN TO SEE THAT BUSH WILL STILL BE PRESIDENT AFTER THE ELECTION.
SEEM FISHY TO YOU, BUT OF COURSE THE LIBEREAL BIG 4 JUST REPORT HIS "ASTONISHING REVELATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC HEARINGS" AS JOHN LEMAN POINTED OUT YESTERDAY, ONE OF THE 2 HAS TO BE A COMPLETE FABRICATION, IN ANY CASE HIS CREDIBILITY IS DEFINITELY IN JEOPARDY, HE LIED IN ONE OF THE HEARINGS, BUT YOU WON'T HEAR THIS IN THE NAT'L MEDIA.
THEY CONTINUE TO REPORT THE SLANT THAT BUSH IS IN TROUBLE AND CLARKE IS SUCH AN HONORABLE PERSON TO COME FORWARD, WHAT A JOKE.
AND BTW, HOW CAN CLARKE, A MEMBER OF THE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SECURITY COUNCIL WITH THE UTMOST NATIONAL SECURITY CLEARENCES, BE ABLE TO PUBLISH A BOOK ABOUT HIS TENURE FOR MONEY AND NOT HAVE EVERYONE OUTRAGED AT SUCH A THING, BECAUSE WHAT HE HAS TO SAY IS TRYING TO DISCREDIT A REPUBLICAN IN AN ELECTION YEAR.
FORTUNATELY THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS CAN SEE THIS SHAM FOR WHAT IT IS, ONLY THE VERY PARTISIAN LEFT AND THE FEW NITWITS HERE IN THIS FORUM WILL BELIEVE ALL THIS CRAP. AND LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THE CLOSER WE GET TO THE ELECTION IT WILL BE PLAIN TO SEE THAT BUSH WILL STILL BE PRESIDENT AFTER THE ELECTION.
M.C. Which of Clarkes revelations??? The ones in 2002 praising Bush or the ones now after he's out and as his book goes on sale. Which one is the truth and which one the lie????
on the following--
"What positive thing has Bush done for the country? I can think of very little, unless you want to count 1) attacking Iraq under a vail of lies, 2) passing through a Medicare bill that was fabricated on the cost, 3) tax cuts that really have little benefit to 90% of the population, 4) unite the country through non-partisan politics?
1 Elaborate on the viel of lies please
2 Medicare I hate it as bad as anyone--but fact is the liberals been trying to pass similiar for years PLUS adding benefits for under 65 population to boot.
3 Which 90% are you referring to---
We are approaching the point where voters adversely affected by the income tax are a minority that can be exploited to the hilt. There are 129 million taxpayers. The top 5 percent of income earners (6.5 million people) already bear 54 percent of the income tax burden. The top 25 percent (32 million people) pay 83 percent of the total personal income tax collection.
The remaining 75 percent of taxpayers (97 million people) bear only 17 percent of the income tax burden, and 70 million voters have no income tax liability whatsoever.
With 167 million voters with little or no income tax liability and 32 million burdened with 83 percent of the liability, have we achieved the tyranny of the majority? Will the political temptation to plunder the minority and to turn them into tax slaves destroy the creativity and productivity of the American economy?
Paul Craig Roberts
4 Explain how the alternative has united America
eg> war- gay marriage-using word God in any form with gov- defending child porn sites-kicking boyscouts out of parks-pledge of allegiance issues ect.--or are these the sacred freedoms you were referring to????
on the following--
"What positive thing has Bush done for the country? I can think of very little, unless you want to count 1) attacking Iraq under a vail of lies, 2) passing through a Medicare bill that was fabricated on the cost, 3) tax cuts that really have little benefit to 90% of the population, 4) unite the country through non-partisan politics?
1 Elaborate on the viel of lies please
2 Medicare I hate it as bad as anyone--but fact is the liberals been trying to pass similiar for years PLUS adding benefits for under 65 population to boot.
3 Which 90% are you referring to---
We are approaching the point where voters adversely affected by the income tax are a minority that can be exploited to the hilt. There are 129 million taxpayers. The top 5 percent of income earners (6.5 million people) already bear 54 percent of the income tax burden. The top 25 percent (32 million people) pay 83 percent of the total personal income tax collection.
The remaining 75 percent of taxpayers (97 million people) bear only 17 percent of the income tax burden, and 70 million voters have no income tax liability whatsoever.
With 167 million voters with little or no income tax liability and 32 million burdened with 83 percent of the liability, have we achieved the tyranny of the majority? Will the political temptation to plunder the minority and to turn them into tax slaves destroy the creativity and productivity of the American economy?
Paul Craig Roberts
4 Explain how the alternative has united America
eg> war- gay marriage-using word God in any form with gov- defending child porn sites-kicking boyscouts out of parks-pledge of allegiance issues ect.--or are these the sacred freedoms you were referring to????
Was easy to understand these hearings. There were those needing to keep there jobs. Marching in step. Then Clark who did not need the job and could say what was on his mind. No more must follow the line and march as told. When asked did you lie. Clark said you put the best side on the story for whom your working for. That was Bush at the time. So I guess he deside not to lie for Bush anymore. That's ok guys we should want the truth.
You could see the CIA director still wants his job. Many of his answers were hedge ones. j
This book timeing is BS also. CTG you are right the book had to go to the state dept for review so no cassified info was in it. They had the book for over 5 months. Book should have been out by first of year.
So now we have two. MR O'Neill who can say what ever and does not have to march in step and Clark. Im sure there both just leiing about all.
You could see the CIA director still wants his job. Many of his answers were hedge ones. j
This book timeing is BS also. CTG you are right the book had to go to the state dept for review so no cassified info was in it. They had the book for over 5 months. Book should have been out by first of year.
So now we have two. MR O'Neill who can say what ever and does not have to march in step and Clark. Im sure there both just leiing about all.
well....i, for one, am quite pleased that GW is on the verge of being re-elected....the star wars program needs to be re-vamped....'cause you never know when those commie bastards will turn around and stab us in the back....and racial profiling becomes a reality....shit....mccarthyism done no hurt no one....and the crusades against all those who oppose capitalism is in full effect....damn the russkies, damn the commies, damn the arabs, damn the gooks....and while we're at it....why not just void all the treaties that we initiated/signed previously....they don't make no sense no how....nuclear non-proliferation treaty....intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty....strategic arms reduction treaty....comprehensive test ban treaty....wut dat dem mean anyhows....and the whole entire world becomes our oyster.....colonization anyone???
what's this we stuff cherry, if I'm not mistaken aren't you canadian you don't pay taxes here, you don't live here, yet you sure run your mouth alot about things that don't condern you, typical.
You don't have a dog in the fight, but you sure sound like you do:nono:
you don't pay taxes here, you don't live here, yet you sure run your mouth alot about things that don't condern you, typical.You don't have a dog in the fight, but you sure sound like you do:nono:
No shit i already said something to him in another thread, you vote for what you think is right in your country and we can handle our own, no go gas up those 3 battle ships incase someone ever does attack you, and if they did who would you look to first for help? france i am sure.
And we choose to live here in the us so like i said you worry about cannada and we can handle our own, if you choose to move your choice, you also lose your right to bitch, if you want to bitch bitch about where you call home.
And we choose to live here in the us so like i said you worry about cannada and we can handle our own, if you choose to move your choice, you also lose your right to bitch, if you want to bitch bitch about where you call home.
fletch:
unfortunately....what you perceive as the truth belies reality....for regardless of where i am, or anyone else is, for that matter....american or non-american.....we are all inadvertently polarized by the great republic's foreign policy and what transpires in that country....atrocities against humanity....regardless of the perpetrator or the justification behind it....does in fact affect the entire world!!!
unfortunately....what you perceive as the truth belies reality....for regardless of where i am, or anyone else is, for that matter....american or non-american.....we are all inadvertently polarized by the great republic's foreign policy and what transpires in that country....atrocities against humanity....regardless of the perpetrator or the justification behind it....does in fact affect the entire world!!!
I can understand your point and can agree with it, we don't really have much to choose from in nov. so either way not much will change, sad but true and i did vote for bush if had someone i felt who was more then what kerry has to bring to the table i would vote for them, even though i am a rep. i vote for who i feel is the best for our over all needs not really into the different parties and vote your own party stuff i vote for what i feel is right for me, this time i got to go with bush again don't like kerry on things, he just has something about him i don't trust not that any little person can trust many higher ups, but there will be something better someday just not this time. what the world really needs is real people running our countries but that will never happen. have a good day
Eric
Eric
fletch:
i respect your opinion....and can totally feel your pain....the 2 party system doesn't really leave one much of an alternative!!!
have a great day too!!!
i respect your opinion....and can totally feel your pain....the 2 party system doesn't really leave one much of an alternative!!!
have a great day too!!!
Kerry and Bush. Personally I don't trust either one, then momma told me never to trust people from Yale Secret Societies. You guys go on bitching back and forth, I am gonna vote Libertarian.
clark
clark
is a scumbag that has little to no integrity....he obviously has an axe to grind and is a guy that,it has now been proven,will say whatever is expedient for him at the moment....he`s pissed because he got demoted or didn`t get the post he wanted...it`s obvious..
his explanantion about his glowing comments about bush in 2002 and his flip flop now being about just doing his job is,maybe,the most disgusting thing i`ve ever heard from a civil servant.....if he was so worried about bush policy costing lives,why did he wait years to come forward?....how can you defend this asswipe?
is this a guy we should trust with our security?i wouldn`t trust this guy with a baseball card collection..
anybody that sees him any differently obviously can`t see the forest for the trees...
now it looks like rice is requesting to testify before the commission...to rebut clarke...i guess she could only take so much self-promoting,vindictive b.s....
...guys like clarke make my skin crawl...
he`s a rat that would turn on anyone if it served his own agenda....he has changed the political landscape forever...you won`t see presidents holding over security advisors ever again,for the sake of policy continuity.....
i`m considering kerry for many reasons...none having to do with the war on terror...
this is the one area that bush has been successful..to compare the clinton administration lobbing missiles into a pill factory with bush liberating 50 million muslims in iraq and afghanistan is a joke....whether invading iraq was a horrible move is a legitimate issue....whether the bush administration has effectively fought terrorism domestically post 9/11 is not up for debate....he`s being attacked on this front because it`s seen as his "anchor"...
bush has many flaws....his obsession with iraq is one thing....his hardline stance on many conservative issues is a turn off...his reticence to address the immigration problem is pathetic...that probably won`t change with kerry,though...
but on clarke,it`s so obvious it`s painful...
clark
is a scumbag that has little to no integrity....he obviously has an axe to grind and is a guy that,it has now been proven,will say whatever is expedient for him at the moment....he`s pissed because he got demoted or didn`t get the post he wanted...it`s obvious..
his explanantion about his glowing comments about bush in 2002 and his flip flop now being about just doing his job is,maybe,the most disgusting thing i`ve ever heard from a civil servant.....if he was so worried about bush policy costing lives,why did he wait years to come forward?....how can you defend this asswipe?
is this a guy we should trust with our security?i wouldn`t trust this guy with a baseball card collection..
anybody that sees him any differently obviously can`t see the forest for the trees...
now it looks like rice is requesting to testify before the commission...to rebut clarke...i guess she could only take so much self-promoting,vindictive b.s....
...guys like clarke make my skin crawl...
he`s a rat that would turn on anyone if it served his own agenda....he has changed the political landscape forever...you won`t see presidents holding over security advisors ever again,for the sake of policy continuity.....
i`m considering kerry for many reasons...none having to do with the war on terror...
this is the one area that bush has been successful..to compare the clinton administration lobbing missiles into a pill factory with bush liberating 50 million muslims in iraq and afghanistan is a joke....whether invading iraq was a horrible move is a legitimate issue....whether the bush administration has effectively fought terrorism domestically post 9/11 is not up for debate....he`s being attacked on this front because it`s seen as his "anchor"...
bush has many flaws....his obsession with iraq is one thing....his hardline stance on many conservative issues is a turn off...his reticence to address the immigration problem is pathetic...that probably won`t change with kerry,though...
but on clarke,it`s so obvious it`s painful...
Last edited:
Im still waiting to know what they really new about 9/11 before it happen. What part of our government was not in the Q. What part new the most but forgot to tell others. Why did no one want to listen to this Clark guy. He already had brought up the use of planes this way twice before. Why did no one know we had folks in this country learning odd ways to fly planes. Like just how they worked in the air not how to get them off the ground. Why did no one listen to that flight instructer from Florida when he reported this to the FBI. WHY?
And to find out where the lies may come from. I think they should investigate this Clark guy. But bring eveyone in that has anything to say under oath and out in the open for all Americans to see. Go back and start in 1998 and work forward. We should all have the truth. But knowing Wash DC. I guess we know what happens. Put the best smile on it and spin baby spin. Been on going for so many years. Why should we think it will ever change.
And to find out where the lies may come from. I think they should investigate this Clark guy. But bring eveyone in that has anything to say under oath and out in the open for all Americans to see. Go back and start in 1998 and work forward. We should all have the truth. But knowing Wash DC. I guess we know what happens. Put the best smile on it and spin baby spin. Been on going for so many years. Why should we think it will ever change.
