Biggest Difference between Republicans and Democrats

[Supreme Cmdr]

When in doubt, vote Nader!!!

[LostInSpace]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

When in doubt, vote Nader!!!

---

Oh yeah that's the guy the democrats cry is only in it to steal the white house from them. Who said it was theirs in the first place.

Assailed by Democrats, Nader hits trail, fights back

quote:

---

WASHINGTON -- Ralph Nader yesterday sought to tamp down bubbling criticism of his newly announced Independent presidential bid, which some Democrats have characterized as an ego-quest that will harm their chances of winning back the White House.

---

The last time I checked this was still America and anyone has the right to run for office. What gives the Democrats the right to cry like that!?

Is this all the Democrats know how to do, cry about Bush, cry about Nader or cry about everything it seems.

[Guest $iLk]

Richard Lowery Column on Clarke

"When they don't argue that Bush is too soft on the War on Terror, the critics argue that he is too tough. In other words, they'll grasp at anything, very much including this weak and unconvincing book."

quote:

---

Clarke adds a dash of tendentious partisanship in insisting that President Clinton was an anti-terror stalwart even though he rejected Clarke's most important ideas, and that Bush was too soft even though he took Clarke's ideas a step further.

---

quote:

---

And that negates the facts in his book how?

---

I guess it all depends on how accurant his "facts" are. From what I've read in the column I linked to above, it reads just like any other government employee memoir... "If only they had heeded my advice..."

quote:

---

Clinton did take steps to fight Al Qaeda

---

C'mon guys let's bomb that Aspirin factory!!!

quote:

---

only you all were too busy trying to impeach the man to notice. Except for accusing him of trying to divert attention from the scandal when he did try to strike out.

Here's a thought, lets blame the congress, Ken Starr and anyone else that wasted 8 years of our governments time trying to impeach the President rather than let him deal with the real issues.

---

That's right... don't blame the criminal who lied under oath... if he hadn't done that - none of the above would have occured.

quote:

---

Lets say Clinton literally left a ticking time bomb in the Whitehouse when he left office. Bush and Co ignore it because it came from Clinton. The bomb goes off.

Is the more important issue that Clinton left the bomb or that Bush, knowing about it, failed to diffuse it?

Bush "Don't blame me...I didn't put it there, Clinton did."

Public "Yes, but you knew it was there and failed to address it"

---

A. You assume they ignore it.

B. You neglect to account that Bin Laden was offered to the U.S. on a silver platter and Clinton said "No". The problem was created by Clinton, ignored by Clinton, and festered and grew bigger under Clinton. He could have stopped it when it was a weed... as opposed to what we have today.

[Grizzle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

Is this all the Democrats know how to do, cry about Bush, cry about Nader or cry about everything it seems.

---

Nice, another broad brushed stroke from the Republicans. Find that sour note and play the hell out of it, it'll start to sound good if you play it long enough.

Sooner or later those that are so deeply entrenched in their own partisanship will realize that it's just politics as usual. Hypocrisy, secrecy and incompetence abounds on both sides.

Talk about 'Slick Willy' how about 'Greasy George'?

$ilk, do some research on Clintons response to all the terrorist activities. He WAS active and not only that, the republican congress stonewalled his first Anti-Terrorism bill. You also fail to account for the fact that a lot of governments failed to cooperate when Clinton asked for extradition of known terrorists.

The Sudanese wanted us to lift sanctions we imposed on them for harboring terrorists so they offered us Bin Laden in exchange for lifting them. Should we have taken the offer? Probably, but hindsight is 20-20 and who knows what would have happened had Osama been captured/killed at that time.

It's so easy to hear the republican pundits dismiss Clintons efforts out of hand, and while I would agree they were not very effective, you can't imply the man sat by and did nothing. If you do then you're not being very honest about the situation.

As for the aspirin factory, I guess we'll never know, but maybe thats where all the WMD's were

[ 03-23-2004, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Grizzle ]

[Charles Lindsey]

24 hours later and no one got my joke? I'm crushed.

(Edit: I wanted the baseball smack but it's showing the trout smack instead)

[ 03-24-2004, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

And that negates the facts in his book how? When he begins appearing on other shows will that make his claims more credible? (Red herring.)

---

That doesn't negate the facts in his book. What negates the facts in his book is that he was the principle source for Richard Miniter's book "Losing Bin Laden" where he said essentially the opposite things.

[Wolferz]

I only have 2 words for this book of memoirs from Mr Clarke, and all the hullabaloo it's stirring up.

Ordered Chaos

This diverts attention away from what's really going on.

The carpets in the White House must have lumps the size of Mt. Kiliminjaro.

[Guest $iLk]

A column to read, this one by Mansoor Ijaz(who helped broker the Bin Laden deals with Clinton) Politicized intelligence

Which should add a few facts to the mix.

And also a humorous (Dick's Tall Tale) recounting of some of Clarke's "facts" in his book.

And for the interested - a transcript of the 9/11 Commission hearing.

[Andergum]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

When in doubt, vote Nader!!!

---

Heh, I'm actually considering voting for Gary Nolan the Libertarian candidate.

I find I'm not really a Republican or a Democrat and that I side with either or neither on many many issues.

Right now I'm sick of how Bush is doing things and I don't see how Kerry will do any better.

If what Clark is saying in his book is true, then what Bush has done in linking Al Queda's activities to Saddam without verifiable proof and then deceiving the American public to believe the same, is far more impeachable than Clinton lying about getting BJ's in the oral oops I mean oval office.

I'm either voting libertarian or for which ever candidate will get us back to gridlock. At least under gridlock nothing got done which is preferable to the politicians getting anything done.

[Guest $iLk]

Personally I'd just as soon see the Republicans destroy the Democratic Party and have the Libertarian Party rise as the valid 2nd party. At least then we would have a clear choice of more or less government and that would get the Republican policies I don't agree with back in line and the Libertarian ideals I don't agree with would be held in check.

Why liberals continue reaching towards the DNC as their hope and savior baffles me - when the Libertarian party is a clear choice for them - despite misgivings brought about by Boortz who probably isn't the best example of model libertarianism.

[Guest $iLk]

More articles on Richard Clarke... the White House authorized release of recorded conversations between Clarke and the media in which he was singing a totally different tune:

Turning loose the Right Wing attack machineÔäó

Lying then or Lying Now?

Can't have it both ways Mr. Clarke

Ann Coulter dissects Clarke

Fox releases transcript of recordings

From Nealz Nuze:

quote:

---

RICHARD CLARKE EITHER IS .. OR WAS .. A LIAR

The proceedings of the committee to elect John Kerry President continued yesterday, this time with walking contradiction Richard Clarke testifying. This is the guy that wrote the book blaming 9/11 on President Bush and praising Bill Clinton's 8 years of inaction on terrorism as somehow better. What an absolute crock...perhaps he's been hired to revise the Clinton legacy because the facts just aren't on this guy's side.

Surprisingly, this egomaniac's head actually fit through the door of the hearing room. Clarke kicked off his testimony with an apology to "the loved ones of the victims of 9/11....your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you." His statement should have more truthfully been "to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11...the Clinton administration failed you. Prior to the slaughter of your loved ones on 9/11 by Islamic terrorists, Bill Clinton turned down the direct handover of Osama Bin Laden on numerous occasions. The Clinton administration refused to allow the CIA to kill Bin Laden, with only capture as the stated policy. Those entrusted with protecting you, including myself, were abject failures who viewed terrorism as a law enforcement problem. And don't forget to buy my book."

Well ... let's get to the rest of Clarke's testimony. We can basically wrap it up this way. Clarke told the commission, as he told America in his book, that the Bush administration did virtually nothing to address the threat of Al Qaeda until the attacks of 9/11. Nothing. He said that Bush was virtually unprepared to act as though it's a major problem.

Uh oh. Small problem. The White House was a few steps ahead of Clarke yesterday ... as was Fox News Channel. Jim Angle is a reporter for Fox. As the news about Clarke's book started to hit Angle remembered a briefing he received from a White House spokesman in August of 2002. That briefing was for background. That means that the seven reporters on the telephone conference call could not identify who their source was .. .only what their source said. Angle remembered that the person who delivered that briefing was ... Richard Clarke.

As luck would have it, Angle had a recording of that briefing. He listened to it and found that what Clarke was saying then was markedly different from what Clarke was saying now. So Angle went to the White House to seek permission to release a transcript of that 2002 briefing, and to identify Richard Clarke as the source. The White House, after conferring with the National Security Council, agreed.

So what did Clarke have to say in the 2002 briefing?

Let's start with a statement Clarke made to the 9/11 Commission yesterday. Clarke told the commissioners that early on in the Bush administration he told the president: " ... and I said, well, you know, we've had this strategy ready ... ahh ... since before you were inaugurated. I showed it to you. You have the paperwork. We can have a meeting on the strategy anytime you want."

So .. there's Clarke telling the media and the commissioners yesterday that he had presented paperwork to Bush on a strategy for dealing with Al Qaeda and was ready to discuss it. But what did he say to Jim Angle in 2002? This: "I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush Administration."

Lying then? Or lying now?

And what about this "Bush did virtually nothing" claim?

In the 2002 background briefing Clarke said: "When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that triggered the NSPD (National Security Presidential Directive) from one of roll back to one of elimination." "NSPD" is National Security Presidential Directive. So Clark was telling reporters in August of 2002 that the directive from the president in March of 2001 was to stop swatting at flies ... to eliminate Al Qaeda. This is what calls doing virtually nothing?

In the 2002 briefing Clarke also told Angle and the rest of the reporters that Bush had ordered an increase in CIA resources by five times .. .including funding for covert actions against Al Qaeda. Again ... doing virtually nothing?

Here's the kicker. It comes from the transcript of the 2002 Clarke briefing ... near the end.

Jim Angle: "So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the months just after the administration came into office?

Richard Clarke: "You got it. That's right.

So .. while the terrorist threat was increasing Clinton made no changes in his plan of action against terrorism during the last two years of his presidency, but Bush got on the stick immediately. That is what Clarke is now describing as "doing virtually nothing."

Obviously Clarke is lying. We just have to figure out which statements are the lies? Was he lying in 2002 when he was working in the Bush White House? Or is he lying now when he's trying to sell a book?

Figure it out.

---

Keep an eye on al-Qaida! We've done nothing, but you should do something about it. Tag ÔÇô you're it. That look of perplexity Clarke saw was Condi thinking to herself: "Hmmm, did I demote this guy far enough?"

[Darkling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grizzle:

Clinton did take steps to fight Al Qaeda only you all were too busy trying to impeach the man to notice. .... Here's a thought, lets blame the congress, Ken Starr and anyone else that wasted 8 years of our governments time trying to impeach the President rather than let him deal with the real issues.

---

You're absolutely right, I mean between Jennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky and all the other bimbo's in his life, He didn't have a lot of extra time, so we should be ashamed of ourselves for getting in his way.

Who kmows, Clinton may have had enough time to Capture Bin-Laden, Destroy Al Qaeda AND get another Bimbo or two's dresses soiled.

If only we had let him do his job

[Darkling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

You neglect to account that Bin Laden was offered to the U.S. on a silver platter and Clinton said "No". The problem was created by Clinton, ignored by Clinton, and festered and grew bigger under Clinton. He could have stopped it when it was a weed... as opposed to what we have today.

---

This is what REALLY get's me, why didn't Clarke right a book right after the bombing on how Clinton refused to take Bin Laden into custody, even though he knew that he had something to do with the Cole's bombing?

If you're wondering, "Hmmm, why didn't Clinton take Bin Laden into custody?" well, I'll tell you why, because he was afraid of how the UN would respond along with the Palestinians, he wanted to be known as the President who brought peace to the middle east and didn't want anything to deter from that ambition, not even arresting a known criminal who was implicated in the bombing and murder of U.S. Servicemen.

[Darkling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grizzle:

$ilk, do some research on Clintons response to all the terrorist activities. He WAS active and not only that, the republican congress stonewalled his first Anti-Terrorism bill. You also fail to account for the fact that a lot of governments failed to cooperate when Clinton asked for extradition of known terrorists.

The Sudanese wanted us to lift sanctions we imposed on them for harboring terrorists so they offered us Bin Laden in exchange for lifting them. Should we have taken the offer? Probably, but hindsight is 20-20 and who knows what would have happened had Osama been captured/killed at that time.

---

Do the research huh, maybe you should take your own advice. Here's just a little research for you.

quote:

---

Politicized intelligence . . .

By Mansoor Ijaz:

[QB] Sudan's president, Omar Hasan El Bashir, made an unconditional offer of counterterrorism assistance to the vice chairman of the September 11 Commission, then Rep. Lee Hamilton, Indiana Democrat, through my hands on April 19, 1997. Five months later on Sept. 28, 1997, after an exhaustive interagency review at the entrenched bureaucracy level of the U.S. government, Mrs. Albright announced the U.S. would send a high-level diplomatic team back to Khartoum to pressure its Islamic government to stop harboring Arab terrorists and to review Sudan data on terrorist groups operating from there.

As the re-engagement policy took shape, Susan E. Rice, incoming assistant secretary of state for East Africa, went to Mr. Clarke, made her anti-Sudan case and asked him to jointly approach Mr. Berger about the wisdom of Mrs. Albright's decision. Together, they recommended its reversal.The decision was overturned on Oct. 1, 1997.

[QB]

---

That's right an UNCONDITIONAL offer to hand over Bin-Laden. Why didn't they take it, read my post above and you will understand.

[Guest $iLk]

More Clarke Bashing:

From Nealz Nuze - the new Flip Flopper

quote:

---

RICHARD CLARKE: FOLLOW THE MONEY

Richard Clarke took the full hour on Meet the Press yesterday. Throughout the week revelation after revelation highlighted Clarke's lack of voracity. Day by day it became increasingly clear that Clarke's motivations were based more in partisan feelings and a desire for revenge, Oh ... and there's that more than one million dollars he's going to earn from his book. So ... Tim Russert decides he's worthy of the entire hour on Sunday.

One thing should stand out here. We're spending all of this time talking about what happened ... what Bush did or did not do ... before 9/11. What's really important is what Bush did after 9/11. The polls show that the Democrats will have limited success attacking Bush on his record of fighting terrorism after 9/11. That leaves them with little to do but try to convince the voters that somehow they need to blame Bush for allowing 9/11 to happen in the first place. Right now Richard Clarke is their point man in this effort.

It's clear that Clarke is getting a huge pass in the press as to what his motivations for the book are.

For the most part, people are largely buying his story that he was some sort of tortured soul that knew the truth about 9/11, and had Bush only listened to him, the attacks might have been prevented. Nice story, isn't it? The only problem is this: if Clarke felt so strongly about his views, then why didn't he just resign and hold a press conference? Why wait all the way until now? Why wait until a few days ago to apologize to the families? It all comes down to one thing and one thing only: money. Richard Clarke waited until now to "tell" his story because he wanted to make money on his book. The inconsistencies in his book and his prior testimony don't matter...he doesn't let the facts get in the way of his good story...it's all about the money. Otherwise, why wait?

Secondly, did anybody else catch Clarke on TV yesterday admitting he voted for Al Gore in 2000? This doesn't exactly square with what he told the 9/11 commission last week. He said "Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot." Of course, the only reason he would say that would be to leave the impression that he voted for President Bush, which some media outlets even reported. Now he admits on national television that he voted for Gore.

Maybe he should go work for the Kerry campaign....he's already got the flip-flopping down pat.

---

Flash movie with Facts on Dubya's handling of the economy.

Which Clarke should you believe?

Not just misrepresentation or spin - Clarke's outright lies pointed out.

Hilarious accounting of Clarke's work of fiction.

[Guest $iLk]

What if? from Rush Limbaugh

quote:

---

What If

March 29, 2004

Let's approach this from the angle of the liberals and the Democrats and Richard Clarke, and let's say Bush had done everything possible to prevent 9/11. Let's say that Bush had done everything Clinton had

failed to do

.

Let's say that George W. Bush, in less than eight months' time, had done this: Armed and organized the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, moved our military in a position to launch a war against Afghanistan including negotiated forward bases with surrounding hostile regimes, had secured a resolution of war from a willing Congress, had secured approval from an unwilling UN Security Council, had actually launched the war, destroyed the Taliban regime and destroyed large parts of Al-Qaeda, and had never once held a meeting about Iraq. In fact, never once discussed Iraq.

Imagine George Bush assumes office in late January, and the next day says, "All right. We are going to go to Afghanistan and take out Al-Qaeda based on what I've been told from the Clinton administration. First thing we're going to do is going to arm and organize the Northern Alliance. Next we're going to move the U.S. military in a position to launch a war against Afghanistan. We're going to go negotiate for forward bases with surrounding hostile regimes, meaning countries, so let's put our troops in forward positions to conduct this. Then I'm going to go get resolution of war from an unwilling Congress to let me do this." Now, remember, 9/11 hasn't happened yet. "Then I'm going to secure approval from an unwilling UN Security Council to invade Afghanistan because I've just been told that Al-Qaeda is gearing up for an attack on this country and I'm going to take 'em out."

My friends, if all of that had happened, what do you think the mood of the American public would have been? You think he's a cowboy now? There would have been impeachment proceedings inside the first week. Can you imagine the Ted Kennedys of the world, and Gore? Gore would have gone berserk. He would have been trying to break in the White House at night to take over the Oval Office.

These things were set in motion after 9/11 and were not dealt with at all in the eight years leading up to it. It is preposterous to assume that this could have been stopped in a serious way in eight months, if only we'd listened to Richard Clarke. It's such a crock and I'll tell you something else, folks. If Bush had done all those things before we were attacked, he would have ushered in the era of preemption, reversing containment, and the left and the international community would have howled to the point that they would still be howling.

---