quote:Originally posted by tigertony: I don't know she looked like kerry might have smacked her around pretty good.LMAO
Thats funny. I've always thought that Teressa Heinz always looks as if she just rolled out of bed. Her hair is always in tangles and she dresses very sloppy. I understand that you vote for the husband, not the wife, but Laura Bush is much more first lady like then Teressa Heinz ever could be. I'm surprised the Kerry campaign allows her to be seen as much as she is. For as much money as she has, you think she could do better.
[This message has been edited by kbpkt (edited October 14, 2004).]
Posts: 1120 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, President Bush said in a quote, March 13, 2002,. that finding Osama wasn't that important, but right after that, he also said it wasn't our first priority! Which it isn't! I took it to mean, that he was trying to convey that he wasn't worried about it, so that people wouldn't be scared! Just like I try not to place any significance on satan in my own life! If you ignore him, he goes away! Our soldiers will find Osama, some day soon, I have every confidence in them!
Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think T.H.K. looks like, or comes off as a first lady either. Mrs. Bush, on the other hand really does appear to be just what she is. I don't know much about aura (spelling?), but it is as if she is surrounded by such tranquility (which is odd) that she just has a precense.
Posts: 1153 | From: northeast | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kate: Yes, President Bush said in a quote, March 13, 2002,. that finding Osama wasn't that important, but right after that, he also said it wasn't our first priority! Which it isn't! I took it to mean, that he was trying to convey that he wasn't worried about it, so that people wouldn't be scared! Just like I try not to place any significance on satan in my own life! If you ignore him, he goes away! Our soldiers will find Osama, some day soon, I have every confidence in them!
Kate....
please; this is just ANOTHER example of how Bush is not really being very honest with himself.....
he said he didn't say it..but he did say it and he was making excuses...
since when is catching THE mass-murderer of 3000 people not the most important thing????? since iraq has so much oil...thats when...
today in respect to the sexual orientation of Cheney's daughter, Cheney accused Kerry of being willing to say anything to get elected, as if it is not the samre thing the Bush Cheney people are doing....
i see NO moral high ground.....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 14, 2004).]
I think it's not a question as to whether he said it or not, because he did. How did you perceive it? I took it to mean that the first priority at that time was to stabilize Afghanistan, and get rid of the Taliban which allowed refuge and breeding grounds for the terrorists. I don't think it meant that we were no longer looking for him, just that it wasn't #1 on the agenda at the time. But while we are talking about inconsistencies, during the second debate, Kerry was asked if he would have done things the same as Bush or if he would have done things differently....He had already stated that he voted against the funding of the troops(I still don't understand his reasoning behind that one). Any way, he answered the question that he would have done everything differently...one reason being the military vehicles not being properly protected(one of the things he voted against by voting against the funding)
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Kate....
please; this is just ANOTHER example of how Bush is not really being very honest with himself..... he said he didn't say it..but he did say it and he was making excuses...
[This message has been edited by mondayschild (edited October 14, 2004).]
posted
putting a bullet in osam's head was what Bush PROMISED.....dead or alive were his words.... shall i spend 20 more minutes getting you the quotes?????(it's gettin old....)digging up EVERY single one of these..i remember them....but you need to see the proof i know...
secondly..iraq was not a terrorists strong-hold nor was it a moslem nation..now it is and it will be...and that was a major malfunctiuon...
i have shown you all the DD and provided plenty of links...this admin wanted Sadam more than anything else...
Saddam really was the LEAST of our Mid-east problems, now it's the BIGGEST...and you guys continue to ignore the facts i present you with... we took Baghdad with NO resistance..no WMD ..... now we need permission to fight there from the gov WE installed---
our pilots were getting GREAT training flying over there...
its all LIES......
there is some kind of a HUGE SCAM going on and i expect it MIGHT become clear if Bush loses, cuz his control over all the data and the intel community will be lost...
i don't know the details, but it's pretty clear that something STINKS bad...
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 14, 2004).]
posted
First he says this: KERRY: Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary.
Then he says that:
KERRY: That's why Senator Lugar says: incompetent in the delivery of services. That's why Senator Hagel, Republican, says, you know: beyond pitiful, beyond embarrassing, in the zone of dangerous.
We didn't guard 850,000 tons of ammo. That ammo is now being used against our kids. Ten thousand out of 12,000 Humvees aren't armored. I visited some of those kids with no limbs today, because they didn't have the armor on those vehicles. They didn't have the right body armor.
I've met parents who've on the Internet gotten the armor to send their kids.
There is no bigger judgment for a president of the United states than how you take a nation to war. And you can't say, because Saddam might have done it 10 years from now, that's a reason; that's an excuse.
posted
has he said he doesn't want osama anymore, killing him and him being the number one priority are 2 totally different things. no don't dig up dd. I want that maggot hunted down, but, first i want my ass protected!
on iraq, you know my opinion and don't give me the spin that because of iraq there is no osama. thats bull. first its the lack of dropping a nuke when your intelligence is crap. another million soldiers won't find that needle any quicker.
He will be found though.... how many days till election...
Posts: 9110 | From: boston, ma | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: you echo Bush AGAIN..... Bush made several derogatory facial expressions and even started to say something VERY negative about the media.... but he caught himself.... Kerry won hands down....
does Bush have an eye-twitch or is he winking at people? LOL
cuz if i see people winking i ususally suspect they are up to something....
There are times you remind me of a twelve year old girl.
Posts: 1019 | From: Are You With The CIA? | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DiQuiRiesco: [QUOTE]Originally posted by glassman: [b]you echo Bush AGAIN..... Bush made several derogatory facial expressions and even started to say something VERY negative about the media.... but he caught himself.... Kerry won hands down....
does Bush have an eye-twitch or is he winking at people? LOL
cuz if i see people winking i ususally suspect they are up to something....
There are times you remind me of a twelve year old girl.
i always feel all giggly when i annoy you....( i hope it's annoying and not a turn-on...)
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 14, 2004).]
posted
Glass, when President Bush said he would get Osama dead or alive, I took him at his word, but it isn't his job to focus on Osama every day, it is our military! He told the military to go get him, and he is depending on them to do their jobs! If someone would break into your home, and took your computer, would you hold the police chief responsible for tracking down the perp, or the police detectives assigned to the case? If you should ask him, would the Police Chief say, Oh, glassmans perp is number one on my list of priorities, and it is my obligation to take care of it right now? Or do you think he might say, the perp isn't that important, he isn't my first priority, because I'm too busy being in charge of 10,000 other issues???????? The implication being, that those who work for him, would take care of it? Hmmmm? Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi Kate... i look to former Reagan advisor Richard Clarke for guidance here....he also worked for BOTH Bush's and Clinton.....
"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "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.
"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.
"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."
Kate, it's very SAD.....
we, the people were HAD.....
this is old news......
face the TRUTH: Bush himself may be honest, but he hired some real nasty folks to advise him...... and he REFUSES to fire them or even acknowledge the errors made.... the intel was ALWAYS there...
NOW the GOOD people in the intel world have been stifled at best and at worst are leaving and or ready to leave, and then our fate is sealed..... and you will get your pockylips
posted
remeber these are professionals.... and they are gone... and there' many many more that you haven't heard about and many more that are hoping that there's still a chance...
Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.
"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.
"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'
"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."
Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'
posted
more.... Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
more from Clarke "Osama bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country. He had been saying this. This is part of his propaganda," adds Clarke.
"So what did we do after 9/11? We invade an oil-rich and occupy an oil-rich Arab country which was doing nothing to threaten us. In other words, we stepped right into bin Laden's propaganda. And the result of that is that al Qaeda and organizations like it, offshoots of it, second-generation al Qaeda have been greatly strengthened."
so what we are saying here is BRING IT ON BABY.....
no, we are not safer, and we are not making ANYBODY safer and i am sick of the lies.... i am not anti-war i am anti-stupidity....
because, to paraphrase Sun Tzu the most intelligent warriors win without physical conflict.....
posted
Clarke, a registered Republican as late as 2000, is a long-time associate of the most hawkish faction of the national security establishment. In 1991, he supported continuation of the first Persian Gulf War, arguing against the decision of President George H. W. Bush to call off the ground war after four days rather than pressing forward into southern Iraq. During the 1990s, he supported aggressive US military action against Iraq’s supposed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. That such an individual should come out publicly against the Bush White House is an indication of deep divisions within the American ruling elite and its military-intelligence apparatus over the deepening crisis in US-occupied Iraq.
Like former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill, who published his own critical book on the Bush administration in January, Clarke describes the Bush administration’s leading personnel as “right-wing ideologues” who simply refused to consider any facts that did not conform to their world view, and who were focused on preparing war with Iraq from the time Bush entered the White House.
posted
Most pertinent, Rand Beers, the official who succeeded Clarke after he left the White House in February 2003, resigned in protest just one month later—five days before the Iraqi war started—for precisely the same reason that Clarke quit. In June, he told the Washington Post, "The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terror. They're making us less secure, not more." And: "The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged, and generally underfunded....Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So whats your real opinion on this.LMAO sorry could'nt help it.I respect your vigor and strong feelings and taking a stance.I don't totally agree.It's not always so black and white.Were like monday morning quarterbacks, if i go back over almost anything i can see a flaw or better way to handle it.Ok i have my shield up fire at will.LOL
Posts: 942 | From: tracy,ca U.S.A | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
if it was JUST clarke, i wouldn't be doing this.... there's a lot more.....a lot more.....
they are investigating quite a bit inside the pentagon right now too.....
if you recall Keith, i didn't start off being pro-Kerry.... i started off on this by getting annoyed about the propaganda...and the more i look, the more find.......
right now everybody is still yakking about Cheney's daughter .....
people are fighting a war.... and we are worried about this...come on..
CIA operatives have been OUTED!!! by the White House!!!!!!! forget the gay issue...
the White House has waged war on OUR CIA.....
the White House apparently was able to stall the criminal ivestigation into who gave Valerie Plame's name to Robert Novak long enough to have it come out AFTER the election...he published it on 7-14-03.....it should have been solved already...
it was BAD politics, and on top of that it causes some serious problmes in freedom of speech issues... the law is clear..it was classified.....making this a felony
i'm a Freedom of Speech person and i still think Novak should be i jail until he tells......
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 15, 2004).]
posted
You're right Glass, there are a lot of corrupt people working for the President! If, for instance,you were the President of a corporation, and you had thousands of employees, would you like the world to point their fingers at you, if one of them has committed a crime? Blaming you for it? The bottom line is, I would rather vote for someone, that has the same Christian values that I do, than for a man who says that God is mentioned too many times! I was totally offended when Kerry said Chenneys daughters name in the last debate, and I don't support the gay lifestyle! That doesn't mean that I dislike them as people, or not care about them, or what they think though, and I was deeply offended on her behalf! If I cared for someones feelings, I wouldn't be saying their name to the world, on TV, about such a topic, without their consent. That is just the way I do things! I agree that it is a big issue on the news too, and that it shouldn't be, but then, people tried to play down President Clinton, having sex in the oval office, and that was definately something that shouldn't of happened! Evil tries to hide in the dark, and place blame where it doesn't belong! It is called lies! I have to go with what my soul is saying, and go with the one who is most like me!
Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I don't mean the President deliberately hired corrupt people, I'm sure he has tried to hire only the best, but you always have corrupt and dishonest people, no matter where you go!
Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
once again Kate, i appreciate your honesty.... i can understand why you feel that way... i was absolutely furious about Clinton getting on TV and looking right into the camera and LYING to US...
In a letter to the 9/11 commission on Wednesday, Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., told panel members that "Clarke was part of the problem before Sept. 11 because he took too narrow a view of the terrorism threat."
Shays said that before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, a House panel held 20 hearings and two formal briefings on terrorism - and Clarke "was of little help in our oversight."
"When he briefed the subcommittee, his answers were both evasive and derisive," Shays said in his March 24, 2004 letter.
Shays also released a copy of a letter he wrote to Clarke on July 5, 2000, telling Clarke that Shays' subcommittee found the information Clarke had given them "less than useful," and asking him to answer additional questions.
And Shays released a Jan. 22, 2001 letter he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice complaining that Clarke had not answered the subcommittee's questions. "During a briefing to this Subcommittee, Mr. Clarke stated that there is no need for a national strategy," Shays wrote to Rice.
"This Subcommittee, and others, disagree with Mr. Clarke's assessment that U.S. government agencies do not require a planning and preparation document to respond to terrorist attacks," Shays wrote.
Posts: 9110 | From: boston, ma | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
last one, just cuz it those scumbags at cbs.....
3. Stahl Concedes Negative Viewer Feedback to Promoting Clarke 60 Minutes conceded on Sunday night that most of the reaction it received, to Lesley Stahl’s two-parter a week earlier promoting Dick Clarke’s new book and his attacks on the Bush administration, was negative and questioning of CBS’s motives -- a bias re-enforced just minutes earlier when Ed Bradley delivered an interview with Condoleezza Rice that was far more hostile than how Stahl had treated Clarke.
Posts: 9110 | From: boston, ma | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keith, Clarke has worked for 4 presidents.... if you are going to critisize Clarke for not being open enough to Congress, then you need to bring Cheny and Bush to task for that too....cuz he worked for them...and the policy of the White House is to snub congress...
this attitude that we need to discount our media sources entirely cuz they are liberal or conservative is a little strange... i listen to all of them and compare the spin......
posted
you brought clarke in name and quotes, not I. I find him easy to ignore and rebut, some of his colleagues will argue with you about whether he actually WORKED for those 4 presidents.
Posts: 9110 | From: boston, ma | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i think you are choosing to ignore facts again..... i have picked quite a few and you have the same answer for every one of them...the fact is this atmosphere of quitting is UNPRECEDENTED.....
Last Updated: Monday, 22 March, 2004, 19:52 GMT
Profile: Richard Clarke
Four successive US presidents have picked Richard Clarke to defend the country against terrorists.
Clarke will testify in the inquiry into the 11 September attacks
His fourth boss, George W Bush, may be regretting the choice.
Mr Clarke has turned on his former master, a year after stepping down as the cyber-security adviser charged with protecting America against an "electronic Pearl Harbour".
He has accused President Bush of doing a "terrible job" fighting terrorism - of ignoring the al-Qaeda threat before 11 September 2001 and distorting it afterwards.
show me how Clarke gained politically from this?????
many of these people have quit...and the White House keeps saying it's political...but these guys aren't democrats...... there are DOZENS and DOZENS........
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 15, 2004).]
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
