THEIR ABOUT TO GET CAUGHT OVER IRAQ

In your posts, you capitalize a bunch of words, dismiss anyone else's views as "right with propaganda" and so on. The mental picture I have is some guy foaming at the mouth, getting redder and redder in the face as he gets more and more angry, and rather than listening to the other side, just talks louder and louder until he feels his point was made, then goes off to beat his family.

You don't seem to even be willing to listen to anything else anyone has to say, but you seem so convinced of being right that you just turn up the volume and apparently try to belittle, out-argue, and name call others into submission.

The thing is, this is the Internet. If it was the real world, and someone was doing that, I would probably react very badly to someone behaving in this way. But this is the Internet, and it's easy for folks to just turn up the volume and behave differently than they would in real life. And on the internet, when all you do is just use more and more caps, and start slinging names, you only serve to make others tune you out.

I'd be interested in hearing the other rational side of the argument, but all you want to do is lecture, name-call and force your opinion on others. That only serves to make your commentary worthless.

Art has a good point - you laughed off the "it was a lie" argument about WMD by saying they couldn't ALL have lied about it. Doesn't the same hold true for Clarks comments? He has a whole bunch of people corroborating his story, and those on the other side like Rice aren't denying it, just saying "I don't recall saying that", etc, etc. You can't prove someone recalls something, so its an easy out. Its not one guy saying this - there are several, and it goes along with the facts as we know them (in other words, no WMD found). So with this preponderence of evidence, how come all you have to talk about is left wing liberals and a whole verbal diarrhea spell of non-factual opinion, delivered in a frothy anger-ridden tone that looks like you were hitting the keys with a 2x4 to make your point? I just tune you out.

 

Ummm..boy I can't belive I'm getting into this. But here goes..


Comming from a non american perspective I think Bush handeled the 9/11 attacks very well in the begining. He waited and gained some intelligence fisrt and consulted with many different countries before heading in.

Yes our Canadian government did not support the invation of Iraq but we really would have nothing to bring to the party anyway. What..are we going to throw fresh P.E.I potatos at them?

Anyway..Bush to me has seemed to take this "war" as his personal quest. He seems to have turned into a bit of a farce unfortunaly. He may also be trying to take the focus away from the lack intelligence that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. We hear so much about how good the U.S. military is, and how there satalights can see the face on a dime from space. But they still can't find a guy on the back of a camel.

Is it possiable that the world has been mislead about the true abilities of the U.S. military and intelligence? Is this why he is trying to hard to win an impossiable war? Yes they have showen that they can blow stuff up real good, but have they really acomplished anything of great magnitude?

The terrorists still seem to have the U.S. and the world living in fear. This has not decreased at all since the war began. If anything the fear has gone up 100%. There will be another attack and it will be a big one. This is an unfortunate certainty. They cannot fight and win a war with an enemy that is already prepared to die for there cause. There are just way to many cells in countries around the world. Here in Canada, the U.S., Britain, Spain as we have already seen.

Obviousy the world cannot sit back and allow this to continue. But this type of thing will forever be around. The only thing that we can do to protect ourselves is to be very awear of whats around us everyday. This has to be a world effort with every man women a child on the look out for suspisous behaviour. They must beable to report it and be taken very seriously. If the report turns out to be filed with intent to cause harm to an innocent person thethe punishment for makeing false claims would be very serious. But if they truely have a feeling that somthing is wrong, then they should beable to tell sombody who is going to have a look.

I greatly respectthe men and women of the U.S. military. They make a huge difference and without them this world could be a very different place.

 

Horsefly, we aren't talking about presidential candidate Wesley Clark. We are talking about Counter-Terrorism czar (for reagan, bush, clinton, bush) Richard Clarke.

 

Sorry Slim, I guess I didn't read every posting in depth. I guess that it's kind of hard to keep track of all the double talking politicians out there!!! But Wesley's doubletalking is typical of the whole lot. This deal about Richard Clarke and his tell all book just smells of a political smear campaign orchestrated by the liberal Democrats. Funny how this all comes out a few months before the election. Looks like 2 simple goals: smear the administration in election year and make a bundle of money off the book deal.

 

The book was submitted to the white house months and months ago. They stalled it as long as possible before allowing its release. It could have come out months ago.

Sure, the guy wants to make money on his book and the timing is good for that. But that doesn't have anything to do with the content of the book being truthful or untruthful. Clarke spent his life serving this country and I would be careful about dismissing a person like that just because he says things that you may not want to believe. Until you can present detailed evidence from someone more on the inside than Clarke, his word will have to stand.

 

art, the same accusation you level at those on this thread who disagree with you, can be aimed at you (to a small extent) and the others taking you side. and that was what colored my last post.
i know i get involved in all these political discussions, but i realized last night that it was a waste of time since we are all entrenched in our ideas, and only concede on very small issues, if at all.

while at the same time, as you said, the warship was headed for battle and the crew is squabbling - dangerous behaviour. to carry the analogy further, the ship will just keep going - the next captain can't turn this boat around, he just has to be ready to fight when it arrives. hence our efforts to blame somebody, anybody for past events is really a waste; we need to be looking forward to how we are going to win the battles ahead, and that is not what is being done in these commission inquiries or on the democratic campaign trail.

and teak, no i don't think all of the posters (or protesters) realize that we are at war with terror, as a matter of fact after seeing a few of their comments, i am pretty sure they are aware of very little in the geopolitical sphere; who knows, you may be one of them.

 

I know that Clarke says that the book was "delayed 3 months" by the White House review, but I heard that Simon & Schuster's (CBS cousin company) original publishing schedule showed an April 2004 release. Moved up to March to coincide with the 9/11 Commission hearings.

Can this be confirmed?



John

 

Ross:

I've got to admit that occassionally I've taken personal swipes at some of the people on this board. However, in my defense, only against those who've made personal attacks against me. As to those that have dealt with me in a reasoned manner, I've done the same.

As to their arguments, I think that I've always used facts to discuss them, and as such I would expect facts to be dealt with. An example of what I call a Nixon (I stole this from Bob Woodward, the journalist) non denial denial is the attacks against Clarke's book, saying its a political smear. Even if it is, what about his statements, which seem to be supported by O'Neil, and the opinions of the others in the same business that Clarke is an honest, straight forward person? Thrashing someone's character when they are trying to provide a factual basis for why we are where we are is not a good way to run a government, or a railroad.

Art

 

Dirty politics, of coarse it is.That doesn't let these clowns off the hook however. In my oppion we are clearly in Iraq under false pretense,and that is what I thought this thread was in reference to.We started in Afghanistcn fighting terrorists which under the circumstances any Republican or Dem would have done,I think we all support those necessary actions. Now in Iraq we are up to are asses in our children getting picked off on a daily basis,why? I have not seen one argument that justifies the detour we have taken in nkt completing the Afghanistan endeavor, and ousting Saddam instead.This administration scares me more than Saddom ever will. I know Art's political views are not the most popular on this board,but I agree with him 100%.

 

Bully for you, tune me out, as IF (you like that one) I give a **** (there's another) This is a sour-grapes guy who is pissed he did not get a promotion.. plain and simple. As for "a whole bunch of people corroborating his story" could you please name all these people? Clark has forgotten that in todays technology age you can't go around and say one thing today and then a few weeks later hope and pray that people will forget you said it when you do a 180 and say something else. Example: in his book, (I have read it, have any of YOU besides Art?) Clarke mentions that in a national security briefing early on in 2001 Condalesa Rice "made a funny face and acted perplexed, as if she did not know to whom I was referring" when he brought up OBL and Al Quaeda. WRONG, a LIE: in October of 2000 ( a month BEFORE the presidential election) she was on 750 WJR AM in my former hometown of Detroit and spoke rather eloquently for several minutes regarding the terrorist threat, OBL and Al Quaeda. He also sent an very gushing resignation letter to GW enumerating the myriad of reasons he admired his strength and conviction and his acumen for understanding the complexity and importance of peripheral issues such as cyber-security. Now, in an election year, Bush is a POS. That makes sense to me. The guy worked for Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and GW and the majority of the book is spent on character assassination and vitriol directed solely at GW, as if in 232 days leading up to 9/11 he was going to solve the world's problems. Hello, what about the previous 8 years? I was pleasantly surprised to see Madeline Allbright being pretty honest yesterday and saying that the Clinton admin. knew the importance of Al Quaeda and that they were growing. She is not trying to obfuscate the facts. The whole commission is a joke and if you don't see that you are confused. This "kangaroo court" is foolish: first of all it's only timed to TRY and make Bush look bad (although much to your dismay I'm sure a Gallup poll puts Bush ahead of Kerry on the terrorist issue by 20+ points, so I guess some people have their heads out of their asses) and secondly it accomplishes zero; instead of trying to assess blame (only one with a horse in that race is the dems and Kerry) why are we not trying to see what will be done from here on out? To point fingers, as Art has said, does nothing, yet I hazzard to guess many of you liberals (sorry if you think it's name calling but that is what your politics say) would be happy as pie to see this drag out for months right up to the election and try to besmirch the reputation of the only man that has the will to do what needs to be done. Art talks about "noise and shouting over" and such, but is this whole commission not just a bunch of noise? What good comes from it? No new policy initiatives will result, no more intra-agency cooperation willl result, it does not a thing but to show to terrorists and the rest of the appeasement world that the US is a "paper tiger" that does not have the will to follow through with what they have started, and all that does is open the floodgates to more terror. Don't any of you see that? Forget you unabashed hatred of Bush for a second: Kerry is NOT pro-military, that is a fact, Kerry did NOT vote for many weapons programs, that is fact, Even Dennis Deconcini could not justify Kerry's flip-flops on his votes on TV, that is fact. The list goes on. I have seen many people on this post say: "who would OBL vote for in this election" and everyone ignores and does not answer because I think they know. I am not obfuscating the facts with noise, rather I propose that you and Art and others are.


My commentary is worthless, because you don't like it? Is that not exactly what you are accusing me of? Yeah, I have gottem pretty worked up on a lot of these political issues because I can see the hypocrisy (I believe Clinton called it "politics of personal destruction") that so many others of you do see yet refuse to admit, now who is peddling an agenda? As for what I said to Art, I stand by it. It is impossible to disprove a negative. I can say "SRT Mike is a crook" and then stand back and watch as you are forced to fumble around and defend yourself against baseless charges. I can say we have had conversations that we never had, tell me Mike, how would you disprove that we did? I say that George Soros has paid a substantial amount of money to Clark for this one-sided hatchet job of a book that flies in the face of everything he has said previously, both publically and privately. Come to think of it, Larry David and Barbara Streisand and Sean Penn and Tim Robbins and Bill Mahrer have probably pitched in as well. Can you disprove that Mike?

 

Tifiosi:

Your post is useless because instead of citing facts, you cite polls, opinions, etec. If you believe that your are so right, point out where those who say this was fabricated are wrong. I would think that instead of invective, you'd point out facts, with names, dates, times, etc. whatever you have to support your position. Instead you rant about how your side will win. That maybe true, however, it isn't the argument. If you are going to reply, please try to stay focused on the issue.

Art

 

I just did, did you not read what I posted? Clarke fabricated the story about Rice, Allbright testified yesterday that Clinton did in fact think Al Quaeda was important, so therefore the dems can't run around and say that their ignoring of terrorism was OK. There were the embassy bombing, the boat/bomb rammed into our battle ship, the first WTC bombing and the Somolia incident and he did nothing but bomb the wrong building in Sudan. There are some FACTS for you.

 

BTW, I also pointed out an interview on I believe 10/2 or 3/00 on WJR, go to their archives. Sorry Art but I have pointed out facts, dates and times, where are yours? Your posts are useless because all you do is spout Oliver Stone conspiracies about Bush and repubs. I guess polls (numbers) are not facts now? Funny, if Kerry was blowing Bush away in the polls you and all your friends would be rubbing it in my face all day and you know it.

 

And furthermore Art, I have yet to see anyone step up to the plate and say they have read the book. I have 2 paragraphs filled with facts, numbers and dates. Am I the only one here that sees that? You did not address ONE thing that I wrote. What invective: read the book and you will see he spends 2/3 + saying it is Bush's fault, despite the fact that he was in office for only 232 days. I fail to see where I am "shouting over" anyone or spewing "invective" that's what Clarke wrote, sorry you don't want to admit it (or more importantly address it). The left just wants to spout conspiracies because they know that is "sexy" and that it peaks the interest of the feeble-minded, great-unwashed.

 

Tifosi, very good points. However, I think no matter how many FACTS you point out, there are some people that just plaine refuse to see the truth. It's obvious that joker is just pissed he got passed over and this is his p*ssy way of getting even.

 

Actually, there's a pattern forming here. Rand Beers, the guy who replaced Clarke, quit a month after taking the job. Interestingly enough, he quit for the same reasons Clarke did. He thought Bush was too focused on Iraq instead of the real problem. Here's an article in the WP about him from June 16 of last year: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62941-2003Jun15?language=printer Sound familiar?

Beers, O'Neill, Clarke... This is similar to the pattern that followed Clinton with his philandering. First one girl comes out, then another, and another... soon it becomes apparent that there must be SOME truth to the claims. I think this issue is a bit more sensitive than the president's sexual habits though, which is why I'm absolutely amazed by the number of people so willing to dismiss it as left wing politics.

Keep in mind that this is the guy who, while pointing out FACTS in another thread, stated that it was a FACT that during WW2 the German Luftwaffe dominated the British RAF, and that Germans occupied London. I'm not sure I'd rely on him for FACTS.

-R

 

Tifiosi:

The threat is about their lying about Iraq. Where are your facts about that?
That's the point, it was always the point. Those facts are set forth in O'Neil story by Suskin, in Clarke's book, in the comments made by Blix, in the failure to find the WMDs, in the admissions made by David Kay, in the **** poor treatment of Scott Ritter, who told the truth and this administration and the conservatives who attempted to brand him as a spokeman for Saddam. Those are the issues, not the crap you are posting.

Standard conservative ploy, change the topic, claim victory. Look again at the title of the thread.

Art

 

The left just wants to spout conspiracies because they know that is "sexy" and that it peaks the interest of the feeble-minded, great-unwashed.

As for the WWII thread, I cleared that up but I guess you didn't bother to read that part. No matter, you guys are just crying that your "invective" isn't affecting the average voter when it comes to (Art) whether Iraq is justified or not, sorry, the polls don't lie, Bush is the man to beat.

 

Robin, have you read the book? The facts are straight from the book. Clarke is out on a limb with several lies or "creative stories" that we know about so far.

 

Cheerleading isn't rational discussion.

 

Thanks.. that was quite an illuminating post. You really shed a lot of light on the issue. Friend of yours Art?

 

Art's lawyer-reasoning:

Since the word "yesterday" technically is not a date, then this is not the type of "fact" I was looking for. Sorry, but it doesn't qualify.

Oh, and you never provided a time that Albright made the [alleged] comment.

LOL

 

And BTW Art, we are still waiting for your response to the putrid stench surrounding the relationship between Viacom, Simon & Schuster and CBS. Is the fact that you have refused to answer that considered "cheerleading" for the left?

 

LOL Challenge, "awh gosh...it depends on how you define the word 'is' shucks... Al, help me out here"

 

Robin, let's be real here. There are a lot of people (AQ/OBL to name a few) out there that want to kill you and me the first chance they get. This is a fact.I put our safety #1 on what I expect from a president. Bush, has taken the fight to the enemy. They started this not us. Did we get all the facts on why we are in Iraq? Maybe and maybe not, but Bush took the fight to the enemies back yard. We are now inside the hornet's nest there. All those terrorist breeding nations are now an arms reach away from our fire. We now have CIA/FBI/NSA in there where all the action starts. I guarentee you, Iran, Syria, and even Saudi Arabia will think twice before sending/sanctioning any attack on our soil. Therefore, our presence there is two fold. We got rid of a jerk dictator and have boots on the ground to gather intel and in case we need to, take care of business. Do you really want Kerry in the driver's seat? I bet if OBL could vote, it'll go in the Kerry box.