Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
lummox

deeply offensive

Recommended Posts

starting a political thread sucks i know. i will do it anyway.

i read this on cnn.com:

'Bush put on a slide show, calling it the "White House Election-Year Album" at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association 60th annual dinner, showing himself and his staff in some decidedly unflattering poses.

'There was Bush looking under furniture in a fruitless, frustrating search. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," he said.'

 

i do not see the humor in joking about how a war was falsely justified. thousands of iraqis and hundreds of american soldiers have been killed. many more maimed. that shit aint funny.

bin laden is still kicking. al qaeda has been glorified. spain took a beating. france is gettin fuked with. pm blair is shaking qaddafis soft hand in a photo op. madgo_ron.gif clarkes testimony yesterday underscored the fact that no one from the white house has apologized for failing to protect americans from the 9-11 attacks. i have become one disillusioned former bush supporter. 'lets roll' my ass. mad.giffrown.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
immediate thread drift. thanks gregw rolleyes.gif

 

You brought up Clark's testimony in your post. That was the only thing I saw worthwhile to respond to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I hear, Richard Clarke is full of shit.

 

Well if you listened objectvely, to sources other than 24/7 Rush, you would likely come to a different conclusion. Certainly the Clinton administration doesn't escape criticism here for not making some hard decisions with less than perfect data. But the primary indictment against Bush and his buddies is that they were "encased in amber" from the 1st Bush Admin. and all they could think about was Iraq, despite being told otherwise from the CIA, FBI, and their head of counter terrorism - Clarke. Clarke severed under 3 Republican and one Democrat administration. Guy seems like a straight shooter to me and very serious about what his role was in those administrations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to be able to read transcripst as I can't listewn at work, any one know how I could go about getting those?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think you'd grow tired of it pretty quickly. It's turned out to be a lot of sniping and finger pointing and it most likely won't do anything to bring back the people who died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clarke severed under 3 Republican and one Democrat administration. Guy seems like a straight shooter to me and very serious about what his role was in those administrations.
This is one of the best Freudian slips I have seen in a long time. yelrotflmao.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well it's ironic cause they say the reason the American people (er... i mean th' US Supreme Court) liked Bush enuf to see past his faults and put him in the White House was cuz he was so personable, humorous, etc...

 

but i think this Richard Clarke thing and other issues will make the voters realize that he not only makes jokes... but the dumbass IS a joke. i don't think he's gonna win" again this year.

 

fruit.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching one of his commercials the other day. He seemed like such a warm and caring guy. I'm thinking about all the Americans watching this ad who are going to fall for the lie. It absolutely amazes me how the exterior belies the truth of the man. Americans are pretty dumb when it comes to falling for false fronts. But after they have been burned a few times more and more of them will come around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the events of 9/11 had occurred during Clinton's tenure you would all be hiding under your desks right now waiting for the next one. If Kerry get's into office the next one will be very bad. More than likely multiple strikes. Clarke is an opportunist and should have been fired 25 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clarke severed under 3 Republican and one Democrat administration. Guy seems like a straight shooter to me and very serious about what his role was in those administrations.
This is one of the best Freudian slips I have seen in a long time. yelrotflmao.gif

 

Do I get the daily Muffy award?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They really are pulling out all the stops to discredit ol' "Dick" Clarke. Try doing a search on Google News for "Richard Clarke" and check out all the dirt from Rush and others.

 

Here's some good stuff (from PP-disapproved Dan Froomkin ) The last point is germane to Lummox's initial post.

 

"1) Senior administration officials can make remarks on a not-for-attribution basis to the press -- but the White House can later decide to make the attribution public if it can help discredit said senior administration official-turned-whistle-blower.

 

2) When you're a special assistant to the president, your job is to tell the press the truth -- but only the parts that reflect well on the president.

 

3) When you're the national security adviser, it's really important for the public to understand your position so you give lots of interviews to the press -- but you can't answer questions under oath before a legislatively-chartered body because that would be a violation of the Constitution.

 

4) It's not okay to suggest the president has credibility problems -- unless you're the president, and you're at a black-tie correspondents dinner, and you're being really, really funny."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Clark is full of shit, why did the Bushies keep him around? What does this say about their ability to put the most highly qualified people in the most critical positions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didnt keep him around for long.

 

I agree that Clarke's an opportunist, especially after listening to his interview on Fresh Air. Sounds like sour grapes because he wasn't bending Bush's ear regularly. However, that doesn't discount the accuracy of the things he said about both Bush and Clinton.

 

In the case of protecting the US from terrorism I don't think Bush has done a very good job of that. Significantly, he pursues a single-minded policy against Iraq, in spite of their lack of involvement in 9/11. What was the immediate threat to the US that Iraq posed again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the events of 9/11 had occurred during Clinton's tenure you would all be hiding under your desks right now waiting for the next one. If Kerry get's into office the next one will be very bad. More than likely multiple strikes. Clarke is an opportunist and should have been fired 25 years ago.

 

I'm not sure what you are reffering to, but didn't Kerry vote in favor of going to war in Iraq? I'm not sure I like Kerry's voting record, but Bush has shown us he's a liar, and the people working for him are liars.. It takes a lot to stand up to tyrants.. Clarke may deserve more credit than you give him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They didnt keep him around for long.

 

I agree that Clarke's an opportunist, especially after listening to his interview on Fresh Air. Sounds like sour grapes because he wasn't bending Bush's ear regularly. However, that doesn't discount the accuracy of the things he said about both Bush and Clinton.

 

In the case of protecting the US from terrorism I don't think Bush has done a very good job of that. Significantly, he pursues a single-minded policy against Iraq, in spite of their lack of involvement in 9/11. What was the immediate threat to the US that Iraq posed again?

 

Actually they did keep him around. He resigned finally after the Bushies didn't think the lead couter-terrorism guy for 3 previous administrations needed to be a cabinet post. He asked for a reassingment and was refused. He asked them to pay attention to potential terrorism and was rebuffed. Then he resigned.

 

Agree with the distraction of Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Telenut, please explain:

Why would we feel more scared if these attacks had come under Clinton or Kerry? Isn't Bush intentionally trying to make us scared with all his duct tape, orange alerts, etc. bullshit?

I personally am LESS afraid when there is a president at the helm with a proven record of foiling terrorist attacks (e.g. Clinton: Seattle on New Year's Eve 2000 and the al Qaeda LA airport bombing attempt) or with a proven military record (Kerry). I am frankly scared shitless that we have to trust our foreign policy and our security to neocon ideologues who cannot objectively assess a situation if the solution does not accord with their own political views or business interests.

 

Also, if you are saying that there will be another attack and it will be very bad, isn't that an implicit admission that Bush is failing in either his policy or military strategy (or both) to effectively fight terrorism? If he's doing such a shit job that it WILL happen again, why in God's name would we want him in office???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually they did keep him around. He resigned. .

 

Yeah, I meant to say he didnt stick around for long in the Bush administration. I knew he resigned--March, 2003 to be precise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kerry actually had a pretty questionable military record, but at least he went to Vietnam.

 

I think I mentioned earlier in another thread that it wasn't a strike during Kerry's tenure (assuming) I would predict, but a strike following his tenure after years of appeasement, and buildup by anti American elements. I am non-partisan (right leaning) when it comes to politics. Each side has some good people in their corners.

 

If evidence of WMD activity in Iraq *suddenly* pops up on the radar preceding the election I wouldn't be too surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×