THEIR ABOUT TO GET CAUGHT OVER IRAQ

Clarke is a sour-grapes guy who got pushed out and CBS/Viacom are a bunch of money-grubbing whores who DO NOT have the journalistic integrity to MAKE (if necessary, as I'm sure it would be with the gang over at the admittedly left-wing biased 60 Minutes show) to have Lesley Stall (another limousine liberal, long-in-the-tooth leftover from the Walter Cronkite days)TELL people the whole truth that Art is so famous for supporting, namely that in an indirect way, Leslie Stall and all the other socialists as CBS want to sell as many copies of Clarke's book as they can because it directly puts money in their pocket. Not to mention I LOVE THE TIMING OF THIS WHOLE THING! Must be an unavoidable coincidence that Clark is coming out now with all this.

 

I love it, this is like reading the transcript of an argument between my wife and I! Art is basically saying you can't disprove a negative; Ross: why didn't they plant evidence of wmd's? Art: too easy to get caught. Art, c'mon, you can use that sort of logic to extrapolate ANYTHING in life is impossible to prove. IF this was a premeditated attempt to get rid of Saddam regardless of any ties or lack of ties to terrorism, then please answer these 2 questions: 1. Why did ALL the democratic leadership, including but not limited to: Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, JOHN "FLIP-FLOP" KERRY, Bill Clinton, Hitlary Clinton (as First Lady), etc. say all the way until the end of Clinton's term that we needed to get rid of Saddam? I have been asking you to answer this for days Art but you refuse, is it just because you don't want to address me?

2. IF it was premeditated, then they would have logically known ahead of time, say much earlier than March of 2003 when the war started, that there were no WMD's, SO, WHY DIDN"T THEY PLANT THEM RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING AND CONSPIRE TO "DISCOVER" THEM LATER LAST YEAR? Would not have been hard to do with millions upon millions of square miles of desert. No one but a few key people would have to be in the know. You say that a conspiracy needs to be kept within a tight circle correct? How can you say this "tight-lipped" small circle existed when we involved: Tony Blair and the UK, Poland and it's leadership and troops, Spain (the same), Pakistan (the same, along with their intelligence), and your most favorite, the money-grubbing impotent CROOKS at the UN?

 

Sick. Absolutely sick.

 

Probably not as sick as you think. It's a christian, multi-ethnic country where the people generally really hate each other.

I don't think Art or anyone is suggesting Saddam was good, but rather that it may require a dictator to keep things straight, because these people may hate each other too much to function as a democratic society. We shall see.

 

Art, perhaps you should go back and re-read my post. WHO did I insult exactly?

 

You are pretty venemous in your posts... it seems anyone who doesn't see things your way is dismissed as a liberal fool.

It doesn't do too much in terms of getting people to see things your way. You are the same animal as the uber liberal, just the opposite. You cancel each other out, and render each other irrelevant, leaving those with open minds in the middle to read the data and formulate their opinion.

For the record, I argued with Art and others in favor of going into Iraq, but it REALLY pisses me off that my support was based on what appears to be a big lie. Fool me once, shame on you, etc, etc.

 

What gets me is that there are people on this board who are wanting to err on the side of authority. They want to totally trust those who have power over them until there is absolute proff they are being screwed.

A much more healthy approach is to question authority and require *them* to prove to us over and over that they are not screwing us.

The burden of proof does not lie with the American people or former staff members to show that the Bush administration has acted poorly: the Bush administration has the burden to prove to us that they have not.

Anyone who doesn't see it that way is a sucker, plain and simple.

 

Think about the process it takes to get a gallon of gas into your car. The entire process from oil to refining is something else. We complain about paying $2.00 a gallon but it doesn't bother us to pay $1.25 for 24 oz of water.

I don't support any leader that is going to take money out of my paycheck.

 

I believe the system of American jurisprudence calls for INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty, NOT the other way around as you have stated. And that concept SHOULD also apply, although it rarely ever does, when it comes to matters of politics and others in the limelight that are accused of things improper. Unfortunately, in today's 24 hour news network culture people are allowed to throw out any unsubstantiated drivel and it is held up as fact by those that have their own agenda to forward. The facts, as I recall them, are this: all the dems stood by Clinton and supported EVERY thing he did and every move he made regarding Iraq when HE was in office; now however they are singing a different tune. If you do not see that, you are the sucker!

 

I stand by what I have said. I have not been "venemous" as you say to anyone on the board. If you are referring to my catch phrases for 60 Minutes, Leslie Stahl, Kerry, etc. then grow up, I stick by those comments, however colorful they may be. That's my opinion, as well as the opinion of many others here, although some hold these thoughts secretly and to themselves, for fear of being accused of doing something that they have not done. Ah, PC rules again. Well too bad, not with me it doesn't.

 

You know I am sitting here watching this hearing FIASCO and saying to myself: why are the average voters so foolish that they cannot see this for what it is, a blatant partisan political ploy brilliantly executed and playing out in an election year? This is really making me want to vomit! Forget about your politics for a second and examine the FACTS: for 8 years on their watch the dems in power did NOTHING about OBL or terrorism in general for that matter, with the exception of bombing an aspirin factory, WHOOPS, sorry, wrong building. The Sudanese HANDED him over to them and they did not want him. They had satellite photos of him casually strolling through the streets and could have taken him out but they did not. NOW, fast forward to an election year, and these guys are sitting their in judgement asking Rumsfeld why the Bush admin. didn't solve the problem during the 232 days they were in office at the time of 9/11.

Art and all your followers: if you see this as ANYTHING but dirty, election year politics on the part of the dems then you are deluding yourself.

 

In a court of law, yes, however, we are talking about politics.

I should mention that if we had an active, engaged, and substantive third party, they would be pointing fingers in both directions (dems and repubs). What we need is a wholesale cleanup of the representatives in D.C. (e.g. don't re-elect anyone--repeat 3 elections in a row).

Question: just exactly how many ex-bushie cabinet members have to say "bushie wanted Iraq from the start" will it take for you to believe that "bushie wanted Iraq from the start"?

The facts of the matter are: a) Billie had repubs governing for 6 of his 8 years, b) those repubs were more intrested in a te'-a-te' than in what OBL was up to.

If you don't see that bushie is unraveling, it is you who are playing Monica's role.

 

The system is innocent until proven guilty because the charged is the individual, not the state! It is set up that way to protect the individual from state power. In other words, in criminal matters, the burden of proof is on the government. When the question is whether they are serving our interests or not, the burden of proof should remain with the government.

 

you guys are all pretty sad.
while we sit around arguing over the legality of some actions concerning the take-down of saddam's iraq, and witch hunting over who might be to blame for 9/11.....those who are living it for real in iraq are struggling their way to a better life, and those who actually perpetrated the attacks against america and elsewhere are planning their next attack, overjoyed that we are caught up in our bullsh.t western ideas of political correctness and cultural anthropology.

get a fncking clue ! this is a war, and it will be fought for the next 25 years, whether we have appeasement junkies like zapatero, backhand takers like chirac, hardline bastards like bush, or panderers like kerry in power. how we achieve victory (or survival) is irrelevant - the enemy certainly doesn't give a rat's ass whether they are following any rules and regs or being sufficiently sensitive to the enemies feelings.

get used to it, and please get over yourselves and your self righteous bs, and that goes for both sides.

 

Did they do nothing or did they do enough to keep terrorist from attacking our home soil? It seems like they did just fine to me. The only time we've been attacked is on Bush's watch and you've gotta stop blaming the past administrations for that failure. There is NO excuse for having something like that happen on his watch.

You may be able to find other reasons why Bush should be re-elected, but his record on protecting us from terrorists certainly shouldn't be one!

 

Actually, we have been attacked before. The WTC was bombed by terrorists in 1993 as well, not to mention Pearl Harbor as well as attacks on our ships and troops abroad.

 

Maybe they should all just go watch "The Bachelorette" instead of engaging in this exchange?

Look who's talking. What makes you think the posters aren't aware of this? That is quite a stretch.

Who are you, their mother?

 

I said on our "home soil" and last I checked, Pearl Harbor didn't happen under the Clinton Administration...

I'm sorry for not considering the six people who died in the 1993 bombing. I shouldn't have forgotten them. Sorry.

 

The operative word there being "ex" ie. sour grapes people who have an axe to grind and there is always some axe to grind. I guess you have never worked for a major corporation or owned your own business with employees? I would assume you have done one if not both and how do you think your ex-employees think and talk about YOU after the fact? Sorry, office politics playing out here, only on a much grander scale, nothing more. I also suppose that the Simon & Schuster connection with Viacom and CBS has NOTHING whatsoever to do with them giving Clark more FREE airtime then Michael Jackson? Sorry, you guys are so gung-ho on conspiracies, how about you and Art and Slime have a "Conspiracy Summit" and invite Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison and try to figure that one out. Dirty politics, timed to start playing out in advance of an election with the duplicitous help of the largely liberal media. In fact I would not be surprised to find out that George Soros has paid money to Clarke. He's the one that said he would spend millions of his own to beat Bush.

You only WISH that is the case, we'll talk on November 3rd.

 

Didn't see "home soil" in the first post, sorry about the confusion. I obviously wasn't implying PH happened during the Clinton era...You said the only time we have been attacked is under the Bush admin. and I was pointing out that it wasn't correct.

 

Sure. But then again, being hit by the Japanese navy while the world was at war can hardly be considered a terrorist attack.

Tifosi, you need to learn a more respectful way of speaking to and about people that you disagree with. The shouting (your posts always read as if you are standing on a soapbox upset about something and trying to hammer your point home) and the name calling are really childish.

 

Well that pretty much loses all credibility right there. Clarke was giving a speech at one of the local Arkansas universities long before he was running for president. After the speech, there was a question and answer period. One of the questioners asked Clarke if he thought that we should be doing anything differently in handling the war on terrorism. Clarke's answer was something to the effect that we couldn't just sit idly buy and do nothing, and that Bush was doing a good job. CNN reporters were here in Arkansas later on during Clarke's presidential candidacy and they went to the college and obtained a copy of Clarke's speech and Q&A session that the college had videotaped themselves. The CNN reporters brought the videotapes back here to our station where we fed the videotapes back to CNN in Atlanta by fiber feed line.
But when Clarke was running for president himself, SUDDENLY his OWN opinion about Bush was completely flip-flopped in the interest of gaining some political ground of his own. Suddenly he thought that Bush was doing a bad job of fighting the war on terrorism. I guess that Clarke forgot what he told that university audience a few months earlier. Looks like his flip-flopping wasn't successful. It's hard to run for president when you tell a university crowd one story and then tell a political rally crowd an entirely different story.
So statements made by Clarke don't really mean a hill of beans.