| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Bombshell from Condoleezza Rice | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 8 2004, 08:33 AM (542 Views) | |
| Dandandat | Apr 9 2004, 11:50 AM Post #16 |
|
Time to put something here
|
This 9/11 commission is nothing but a political machine. It should be obvious in the way they treated Rice (and the way people where clapping every time some one made a cheap shot) and the way she took every possible second to answer a question. Unfortunately this commission in not in search of the “truth” every one thought they where. I find it very sick that they are playing this dirty game on the graves of so many that lived in my area (some friends of friends). Every one has already made up their minds on this issue as evident in the news feeds and in this post, so the "truth" will never be found |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Apr 9 2004, 12:06 PM Post #17 |
|
Admiral
|
I found it odd how people were trying to work out who was to 'blame' for the attacks. Frankly I would have thought it was obvious by now that al-Qaeda were to blame. There is no point trying to pin this on one Government agency or another. Yes look at ways that things can be improved for the future to stop another attack, but accept that given the nature of the 9/11 attacks it very unlikely they could have been stopped given the information avaliable at the time. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Apr 9 2004, 12:15 PM Post #18 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
^^^ Agreed DS. Unfortunately, as is often the case, the victim ends up blaming him/herself for having allowed it to happen in the first place. It seems it can even apply on a large scale such as this... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Apr 9 2004, 05:17 PM Post #19 |
|
Unregistered
|
Hi, Admiralbill_gomec. I know you see the Bush administration in a different light than I do - but I really don't hate President Bush. I just happen to oppose nearly everything that the man stands for. To hear President Bush in the months leading up to last year's attack on Iraq, I had the strong impression that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was brimming with chemical and biological weapons that were targeted on my nation - that Saddam Hussein was orchestrating terrorist attacks from his palaces in Baghdad - the President even referenced (scare tactics) nuclear weapons. As justification for his plan to attack Iraq, the President emphasized the risks to the security of the USA - and he endeavored to weave (dishonestly, I believe) the terror attacks of 9-11 into the "necessity" of attacking Iraq. By the way - I don't think we have enough troops on the ground in Iraq to deal with the resistance that we're seeing. I don't like what I'm seeing in the news these days - I'm very afraid for the American men and women who have been sent to Iraq by President Bush. And, at this critical juncture in Iraq, we're hearing certain nations (minor players) making symbolic gestures of withdrawing their "coalition" troops - (even though the number of troops from those nations is very low, it is a symbolic step backward). And - in the midst of the current turmoil and unrest - the President stubbornly sticks to the June, 2004 "transfer" of power. Transfer power to whom? To whom? This reminds me of how the President stuck to the "borrowed" tax cuts at a time of shocking budgetary deficit. This man (President Bush) seems unable to correct course once he has set his machine in motion - I'm left to believe that he is arrogant and incompetent. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Swidden | Apr 9 2004, 07:40 PM Post #20 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
The June transfer was something we fought hard against. We said it was too soon, but others (UN negotiators) speaking with a big shot Shiite cleric who dealt mostly through intermediaries got us to concede that we had to turn over power sooner rather than later. It seems more accurate than ever that establishing an interim Iraqi government that would have handled a transition to a more permanent one later is what we should have stuck with. Now, because we're going along with the deadline that others wanted we're being chided for it again. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Apr 9 2004, 11:14 PM Post #21 |
|
Time to put something here
|
I don’t know why, but something tells me, if Bush decided that June was too soon and said the transferring of power would be put on hold. The opposition would turn around and scream bloody murder that we aren’t transferring power fast enough. I remember people crying US imperialism when we didn’t turn over power three weeks after the major ground offence was over and now many of these same people are saying its to soon for June. ![]() that’s why I say the US should do what every they want on this one. people are going to find fault in no matter what we do, we might as well do what we want. "if we are going to be damned lets be damned for what we really are" - Picard |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Apr 9 2004, 11:27 PM Post #22 |
|
Unregistered
|
Swidden: something just doesn't sound right - in your scenario, you portray the Bush administration as being pushed and pulled by external forces (conciliatory if not weak) - that the Bush administration was forced to go in a direction that was inadvisable, in a direction that the Bush administration knew would jeopardize the reconstruction phase in Iraq. That just doesn't sound like the President Bush that I have come to fear over the past three and a half years. It's just that President Bush has been rather bold (cavalier) when it comes to doing as he sees fit to do. A lot can change between now and the end of June, hopefully the situation in Iraq will improve. But if the situation in Iraq remains volatile for too much longer, I think President Bush has to postpone the transfer of power. I mean, at minimum, the President should know who he is turning power over to, shouldn't he? |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Swidden | Apr 10 2004, 12:14 AM Post #23 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
^^^ When there was a previous round of high insurgent activity. It was over the caucus concept to determine an interim Iraqi government selected by the Iraqi people. The cleric (I cannot recall his name thisevening for thelife of me) had a big problem with this, calling instead for immediate elections. PM Blair was rather instrumental at getting the BUsh administration to go along with having UN negotiators get involved. You may recall this was considered something of breakthrough for getting the UN to "go back in" several months after the hotel they used as a headquarters was attacked. What it shows, and that most opposed to President Bush prefer not to note, is that this administration has actually sought to work with other nations. Just not at the cost of our being able to act when and where necessary. If I can find a link or two I'll dig it/them up if they're not in a pay to read archive by now. As far as who we are likely to be turning over control in June, I believe it is the current Iraqi Governing Council. They will be charged with arranging free and fair elections before the year is out (last I heard). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 10 2004, 01:08 AM Post #24 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Good point. We didn't want to transfer power too soon, but who called for it? The Left. All of this is politics by another name. Do you know what I mean? The Leftists are saying to themselves, "Let's play up every negative story out of Iraq and beat Bush with it." That's been their pattern from the very begining. It started with the likes of Cynthia McKinney when we were in Afghanistan. She was just one facet of the critics in the United States, but most of the critics were in Europe. The Left has been fighting the effort to bring Osama to justice ever since 9-11, and they do it by parroting the rhetoric of the apologists and propagandist for Osama. "What proof do you have it was Osama bin Laden" That was the very first challenge. Of course, the West Bank practically erupted with applause when 9-11 occurred, and it seemed as if everyone in the Middle East had some foreknowledge of this event. Someone did it, and by the number of Saudi's on the planes, and the descriptions of the terrorist by passengers on cell phones, indicates it was Middle Eastern terrorists. Osama bin Laden himself denied he had involvement...
This isn't any different than what occurred in 1990 and 91, before the first half of this war with Iraq. The Left did the same thing then, but anyway, the Hard Left Bush Bashers, were claiming that the whole reason for going into Afghanistan was to put in a pipeline. Quite frankly, they still have no proof this allegation. A few months later, the Left went ballistic when Pres. Bush gave his 2002 State of the Union speech, in which he laid out the following;
The Left were so critical of this speech. They said it was jingoistic and simplistic, but it was exactly what Americans wanted to hear. But instead of showing how it was simplistic, the Left cast insults and allegations. Many on the left simply pulled phrases out of the speech and contrived a speech out of those few phrases.
Do you see how this anti-Bush Liberal takes, "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world," and turns it into a simple assersion that, "Iran, Iraq and North Korea," are the "axis of evil". Why must they spin and distort everything? Mr. Bush called for a paradigm shift in how America dealt with terrorism. The treatment of the state sponsors of terrorism would change from one of containment to one of eradication. The Left argued that Mr. Bush's approach would just invite more terrorism, but they never credibly address the fact that there was no associated previous attack by the USA that lead to Sept. 11th. Essentially, if we do hardly anything and that leads to 9-11? How can we wait around for another 9-11? And when responding to 9-11 - going into Afghanistan - isn't that action leading to another attack? The usual retort by the Bush Bashers is to cite Israel, but frankly, Israel has not attempted what the United States is attempting. And when they cite Israel, they are talking about Israel's attacks on Hamas and then the counter act carried out by Hamas. What the Bush Basher neglects to address is the fact that Israel is responding to Hamas, but Hamas gets its back from Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia ... just to name a few. The United States isn't going after the terrorist organization, but the states that sponsor them. It's really a different approach than what Israel had been doing. Man ... I just now realized how long these comment were getting ... sorry ... let me wrap this up. In short, no matter what America did more attacks were promised. And the Left has repeatedly bashed Bush by suggesting one nefarious deed after another. The Left has characterized everything America has done since 9-11 as a quagmire - another Vietnam. My point is this, the Bush Bashers are politicizing the war to bring down the President and no matter what he does, they'll find fault.
You've astutely characterized the situation. The Shia cleric you refer to is the Ayatollah Ali Sistani. In July 2003 he was opposed to US plans for creating an Iraq constitution. When the GC and the CPA determined in November of 2003 to have election in June of 2004, Sistani was the prime forces behind the opposition to this election - he wanted it sooner. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Apr 14 2004, 08:10 AM Post #25 |
|
Admiral
|
[Most here know that I am a Republican and a Conservative. Here are my two cents on something that's been on my mind the past few days.] Recently, Ms. Condoleezza Rice testified to the 9/11 Commission. She referred at one point to an Aug. 6, 2001 document, the President's Daily Briefing (PDB) of that date: "It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States." Whether or not this characterization has held up in substance is not what I wish to address; rather, I have another point I'd like to make. Describing the document as 'historical information' is, to me, clearly an attempt at spin, and one that doesn't work, regardless of which side of the fence one sits. Work products documenting analysis, which this was, *must* include reference to past events, in order to show a trend pattern and provide a context for the conclusions they draw. In this instance, these conclusions involved warnings of possible (i.e., in the sense of 'in the near future', not in the sense of 'theoretically possible') attacks. My point is this: I don't mind the Administration trying to spin the story, I expect that and it is their job. But it is better if the spin is plausible. This time, it was not. The logic of the matter doesn't hold, and it cripples the spin. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 14 2004, 08:38 AM Post #26 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Most of the report on that August 6th President's Daily Briefing came from media wire services, so she didn't spin it, she shot it down. Drudge had a link to it on his website over the weekend. Richard BenVeniste wanted to make hay with this document simply because of the title: "Osama bin Laden Determined To Strike in US" Instead, he made manure. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Apr 14 2004, 08:42 AM Post #27 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Admiral, Thanks. You frequently shed light on topics I post, and it is appreciated.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 14 2004, 08:51 AM Post #28 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Always glad to be of help
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Adrian | Apr 15 2004, 02:04 PM Post #29 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
The thing that bothers me the most is the complete lack of policy on terrorism the administration had for the first eight months. I mean the first time Bush got briefed was on 9/11! Did they really think it was such a trivial matter? Would it take care of itself? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 15 2004, 02:44 PM Post #30 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Or the previous administration's EIGHT YEARS. I guess we can also forget the Democrat Senatorial stonewalling on Bush's cabinet nominees, too... For example, the eeeeeeeevil Paul Wolfowitz was not confirmed until the end of July 2001.
Then why was there a presidential order on September 4th claiming that al Queda needed to be dealt with (this is at the beginning of this thread)... please check your facts before posting. Nothing takes care of itself, but you are living in a fantasy world if you think the Bush Administration fiddled while Rome burned... By the way, I'm still waiting for my apology for your slanderous remark in the Ted Kennedy thread... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |




2:13 PM Jul 11