TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice?
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice?

Is this a good or bad choice? Is she the best person for the job? The correct person?

I dunno. I'm sexist. I don't think there has ever been a good women Secretary of State.

I disagree with the Bush administration as it is, but Condoleeza makes me laugh. Maybe a bitch as secretary of state is what we need..I'm not sure. She's much more Hawkish than Powell, so it will be interesting to see what she does. Hell, it can't get much worse.

She appears to be very highly educated, very smart, and a touch chick...besides it appears she's been very responsible for the general success of Bush's administration (in terms of elections and such)...I guess we'll wait and see

Powell over Rice. Nothing against women. But Powell was the man for the job. I have yet to understand why he left.

quote:

Originally posted by ierxium Powell over Rice. Nothing against women. But Powell was the man for the job. I have yet to understand why he left.

Apparently it was always his intention to only serve for 1 term. I don't think he enjoys being in the public spotlight very much.

I love this Administration. Rice was told to be prepared for possible attacks - they happen on 9/11, she lies under oath (hey Repubs. what's that about lying under oath again?) and she gets promoted. Feith essentially fucks up Iraq by giving a kind "fuck off" to anyone who disagreed with the WMD intelligence and desire for a post-war plan, and he gets promoted.

Bush is essentially, well, what the hell hasn't he fucked up? And, of course, he gets another 4 years.

Ahh, politics. Could we just torch this sucker right now? I'll bring the marshmallows and sticks.....

Originally posted by Shakka on the Mirror Thread. Woops.

Originally posted by Shakka

Well, she's highly qualified, IMO, and she is one of Bush's most trusted cabinet members, so she was a likely selection. Only time will tell if she is the right choice--at this point I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and say I'm optimistic. She'd rather be an NFL coach, though.

Originally posted by occrider on the Mirror Thread. Woops.

Originally posted by occrider
She was Bush's tutor on foreign policy before he became president. That should say it all. If it doesn't, she's a yes-man clear and simple. Whereas Powell and Rumsfeld duked it out over foreign policy decisions and Powell forced Bush to take the issue to the UN, Rice did nothing to intervene or assert herself in the inter-agency squabbling. Her loyalties are to the President rather than standing up for her own convinctions. Either that or her convinctions always coincide with the President's. She appears to be the absence of forcefullness or convinction, and as such, don't expect much from the state department for the next 4 years.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I love this Administration. Rice was told to be prepared for possible attacks - they happen on 9/11, she lies under oath (hey Repubs. what's that about lying under oath again?) and she gets promoted. Feith essentially fucks up Iraq by giving a kind "fuck off" to anyone who disagreed with the WMD intelligence and desire for a post-war plan, and he gets promoted. Bush is essentially, well, what the hell hasn't he fucked up? And, of course, he gets another 4 years. Ahh, politics. Could we just torch this sucker right now? I'll bring the marshmallows and sticks.....

so fucking sad you haven't learned how not to be a liberal blame shifter in the face of strength.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo so fucking sad you haven't learned how not to be a liberal blame shifter in the face of strength.

Hmmm, let's see, answer a few questions for me, if you will:

-Did Iraq have WMD stockpiles, like Wolfowitz, Feith, Rummy, Cheney, and the rest of the neocons have, yes or no?

-Does it honestly appear that we ever had a viable post-war plan by the above characters, yes or no?

-Did Rice state the truth about the Aug. 6th memo - was it truly a "historical document" during her 9/11 testimony, yes or no?

-Did Rice state the truth about increasing funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies during her 9/11 testimony?

***psst, you might want to Google 2001 vs. 2002 Budget Analysis; NY Times, 2/28/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02 for your answer***

-Did Rice state the truth about not knowing whether or not hijacked planes were a possible option for terrorists to use for attack during her 9/11 testimony?

***you might want to check out ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02 before answering***

-Was Bush's tax cuts really not contributing to the deficit, as he clearly stated in 2001?

-Do you see any means of Bush really pushing towards reducing the deficit in any manner?

-Considering Bush signed on to these neo-con jackass stories about Iraq and WMD stockpiles, where exactly does the fucking buck stop?



You really ought to check your bullshit rhetoric, Q5 - you Republicans seem to know everything about shifting the fucking blame.

Strength and ignorance do not need to go hand in hand, but that seems pretty fucking fruitless for Bush apologists like you whom never seem to disagree with anything with this fucked up Administration.

quote:

Originally posted by ierxium Powell over Rice. Nothing against women. But Powell was the man for the job. I have yet to understand why he left.

well, Rice fit into the current administration much better than Powell (not that that is a good thing but still ).

FUCK THAT UNCLE TOM...SHE CALLS HERSELF A SISTA?

I'm not being sexist or anything; It just unsettles me that she is 50 years old and has never been married.

quote:

Originally posted by CityKitty She's much more Hawkish than Powell, so it will be interesting to see what she does.

lol he said hawkish

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 lol he said hawkish

Correction...he said Hawkish, with a capital "H".

Now is it really a he? CityKitty sounds kinda...effiminate to me.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hmmm, let's see, answer a few questions for me, if you will: -Did Iraq have WMD stockpiles, like Wolfowitz, Feith, Rummy, Cheney, and the rest of the neocons have, yes or no? -Does it honestly appear that we ever had a viable post-war plan by the above characters, yes or no? -Did Rice state the truth about the Aug. 6th memo - was it truly a "historical document" during her 9/11 testimony, yes or no? -Did Rice state the truth about increasing funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies during her 9/11 testimony? ***psst, you might want to Google 2001 vs. 2002 Budget Analysis; NY Times, 2/28/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02 for your answer*** -Did Rice state the truth about not knowing whether or not hijacked planes were a possible option for terrorists to use for attack during her 9/11 testimony? ***you might want to check out ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02 before answering*** -Was Bush's tax cuts really not contributing to the deficit, as he clearly stated in 2001? -Do you see any means of Bush really pushing towards reducing the deficit in any manner? -Considering Bush signed on to these neo-con jackass stories about Iraq and WMD stockpiles, where exactly does the fucking buck stop? You really ought to check your bullshit rhetoric, Q5 - you Republicans seem to know everything about shifting the fucking blame. Strength and ignorance do not need to go hand in hand, but that seems pretty fucking fruitless for Bush apologists like you whom never seem to disagree with anything with this fucked up Administration.

Can't agree with you more... (even though I would have used more subtle language).


I watched Dr. Rice live during the 9/11 commision and got a very queasy feeling. The Daily Show that night strung out exactly what bothered me. She as National Security Advisor found no fault in her actions and took no responsiblity for the choices she made leading up to 9/11/01. She spent the entire time writing of the Aug 6th memo as a Historical Document. She blamed everyone except her copy boy for the agencies not being ready for an attack in the US.

Conclusion: REALITY IS NOT ONE OF HER MORAL VALUES.

As NSC advisor she recieved reports straight from our Energy Department about Aluminum tubes being unsuitable for Nuclear use. What did she do with it? Left it on her desk and delivered a speech at the white house on the immenent threat from Saddam Hussein's "Active" nuclear program.

Conclusion: TRUTH IS NOT ONE OF HER MORAL VALUES.

The Secretary of State is our top diplomat and will have to deal with the very sensitive issues, Middle East Peace, tensions between between China and Taiwan, N. Korea etc. I trusted Powell because he had a level head and handled the job well. After the hr+ long UN speech on Saddam's WMD stockpiles he had the guts to say he was wrong along with the weird statement about never seeing a "smoking gun" case for connecting Saddam to Al Queda. REALITY AND TRUTH are clearly important to him.

As for a Sec. of State Condi Rice. If she doesn't care about TRUTH and REALITY we're in for 4 more yrs of really crazy shit & god knows how many of our armed forces will be placed in harms way when she leaves THE TRUTH lying on her desk.

oooohhh that face gives me chills

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Apparently it was always his intention to only serve for 1 term. I don't think he enjoys being in the public spotlight very much.

I am not sure if it is the public spotlight issue, I think it is simply the fact that it is a very demanding job. Long, long hours of stressfull work. I am really sad to see Powell leave, particularly now that they named Rice.

quote:

Originally posted by auujay I am not sure if it is the public spotlight issue, I think it is simply the fact that it is a very demanding job. Long, long hours of stressfull work. I am really sad to see Powell leave, particularly now that they named Rice.

True. Good point.

quote:

Originally posted by ierxium But Powell was the man for the job. I have yet to understand why he left.

errr because the president asked the lame duck to leave. duh! You think it was a lucky coincidence his replacement was anounced the very next day?

Rice was a good choice we need a spineless lying bitch that is willing to knuckle under to rummy and follows the president around like a lost puppy. Hope she works on her lying; she wasn't that convincing in front of the 9/11 commission. Historical document. I remember bush saying he welcomes dissent in his cabinet, interesting how all dissenter have been shown the door.

Very sorry to see Colin Powell go. He seemed to be the one sane head amongst an insane posse of neo-conservative nutjobs and I shudder to think what direction US foreign policy is going to take without his steadying influence. Condi Rice doesn't seem to be as insane as the rest of them, but I'm not sure that's saying much. Her stonewalling during the 9/11 commission interviews, for instance, tells me that she isn't afraid to tow the administration's line and will be influenced far more easily by the less desirable elements of the Republican hierarchy than statesman Powell ever was.

If there's one positive thing sure to come from this, however, it's the tell-all autobiography that'll doubtless hit the shelves within the next 18 months...

quote:

Originally posted by Yeopus I dunno. I'm sexist. I don't think there has ever been a good women Secretary of State.

I was originally going to disagree and suggest Madeline Albright, but then I realised you were only talking about female Secretaries of State.

in all honesty, hearing about colin powell resigning and that condoleeza rice will be taking his spot gave me the absolute willies...

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade If there's one positive thing sure to come from this, however, it's the tell-all autobiography that'll doubtless hit the shelves within the next 18 months...

that's why he wasn't turned lose until after the election

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hmmm, let's see, answer a few questions for me, if you will: -Did Iraq have WMD stockpiles, like Wolfowitz, Feith, Rummy, Cheney, and the rest of the neocons have, yes or no?

it wasn't worth the risk to assume he didn't. it didn't take much to convince the Security Council either, but you have the luxury of shifting the blame in hindsight knowing full well you didn't know in the first place. thats the difference between strength and weakness.

-

quote:

Does it honestly appear that we ever had a viable post-war plan by the above characters, yes or no?

yes. The major goals this administration has set have been achieved, or is being achieved. to have the luxuries of a pacifist in a time of war says nothing about your strength.

-

quote:

Did Rice state the truth about the Aug. 6th memo - was it truly a "historical document" during her 9/11 testimony, yes or no?

don't ask me about about a non-specific PDB when no one else gave it signifigance but the ones (like you) that want to shift blame in hindsight. that is just so fucking weak dude.

-

quote:

Did Rice state the truth about increasing funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies during her 9/11 testimony?

it�s real nice to be able to pick and choose your arguments when you�re a liberal blame shifter. The truth is that the increases that occurred in �98 of closer to $28 billion over 5 years, plus the over $500 million at the beginning of the Bush administration accounted for her testimony. http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/intel-funding.cfm
not including MAXCAP implemented in 2000.

What your argument or complaint amounts to is nothing but �banging on pots and pans�
Over some misstatement that has no real bearing on reality. It�s seems like you just pulled those retorts off of some reactionary website and now it�s gospel.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo it wasn't worth the risk to assume he didn't. it didn't take much to convince the Security Council either, but you have the luxury of shifting the blame in hindsight knowing full well you didn't know in the first place.

Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Don't pull revisionist history on us - we know damn well why we went to war - the threat of WMD pointing at us - this scare was embedded in us by all members of this Administration, and was further propelled by Judith Miller from the NYTimes who did a magnificent job of listening all too carefully to that lying shit, Chalabi, which unfortunately was the same boy Feith, Rummy, Wolfowitz, and Cheney ALL listened too as well. It wasn't merely a "risk to assume he didn't" - it was a supposed reality that he did, in fact, possess WMD that were pointing directly at us, period.

Hindsight my ass � there�s plenty of evidence to indicate that the data we had was fully manipulated to the likes of Feith�s OSP, as well as discard any counterevidence to the claims:

quote:

2002: Intel Agencies Repeatedly Warn White House of Its Weak WMD Case Throughout 2002, the CIA, DIA, Department of Energy and United Nations all warned the Bush Administration that its selective use of intelligence was painting a weak WMD case. Those warnings were repeatedly ignored. JANUARY, 2002 � TENET DOES NOT MENTION IRAQ IN NUCLEAR THREAT REPORT: "In CIA Director George Tenet's January 2002 review of global weapons-technology proliferation, he did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03] FEBRUARY 6, 2002 � CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NOT PROVIDED WMD TO TERRORISTS: "The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials." [Source: NY Times, 2/6/02] APRIL 15, 2002 � WOLFOWITZ ANGERED AT CIA FOR NOT UNDERMINING U.N. REPORT: After receiving a CIA report that concluded that Hans Blix had conducted inspections of Iraq's declared nuclear power plants "fully within the parameters he could operate" when Blix was head of the international agency responsible for these inspections prior to the Gulf War, a report indicated that "Wolfowitz �hit the ceiling� because the CIA failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program." [Source: W. Post, 4/15/02] SUMMER, 2002 � CIA WARNINGS TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: "In the late summer of 2002, Sen. Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies--noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA's classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03] SEPTEMBER, 2002 � DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS: "An unclassified excerpt of a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq's chemical warfare program in which it stated that there is �no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.�" The report also said, "A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions." [Source: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 6/13/03; DIA report, 2002] SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 � DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: "Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes �are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs� a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence." [Source: UPI, 9/20/02] OCTOBER 2002 � CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa." [Source: Washington Post, 7/23/03] OCTOBER 2002 � STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES: The State Department�s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq�s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. "The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons." INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium. [Source, Declassified Iraq NIE released 7/2003] OCTOBER 2002 � AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The government organization most knowledgeable about the United States' UAV program -- the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center -- had sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons" � a WMD claim President Bush used in his October 7 speech on Iraqi WMD, just three days before the congressional vote authorizing the president to use force. [Source: Washington Post, 9/26/03] 2003: WH Pressures Intel Agencies to Conform; Ignores More Warnings Instead of listening to the repeated warnings from the intelligence community, intelligence officials say the White House instead pressured them to conform their reports to fit a pre-determined policy. Meanwhile, more evidence from international institutions poured in that the White House�s claims were not well-grounded. LATE 2002-EARLY 2003 � CHENEY PRESSURES CIA TO CHANGE INTELLIGENCE: "Vice President Dick Cheney's repeated trips to CIA headquarters in the run-up to the war for unusual, face-to-face sessions with intelligence analysts poring over Iraqi data. The pressure on the intelligence community to document the administration's claims that the Iraqi regime had ties to al-Qaida and was pursuing a nuclear weapons capacity was �unremitting,� said former CIA counterterrorism chief Vince Cannistraro, echoing several other intelligence veterans interviewed." Additionally, CIA officials "charged that the hard-liners in the Defense Department and vice president's office had 'pressured' agency analysts to paint a dire picture of Saddam's capabilities and intentions." [Sources: Dallas Morning News, 7/28/03; Newsweek, 7/28/03] JANUARY, 2003 � STATE DEPT. INTEL BUREAU REITERATE WARNING TO POWELL: "The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the State Department's in-house analysis unit, and nuclear experts at the Department of Energy are understood to have explicitly warned Secretary of State Colin Powell during the preparation of his speech that the evidence was questionable. The Bureau reiterated to Mr. Powell during the preparation of his February speech that its analysts were not persuaded that the aluminum tubes the Administration was citing could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium." [Source: Financial Times, 7/30/03] FEBRUARY 14, 2003 � UN WARNS WHITE HOUSE THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND: "In their third progress report since U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed in November, inspectors told the council they had not found any weapons of mass destruction." Weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council they had been unable to find any WMD in Iraq and that more time was needed for inspections. [Source: CNN, 2/14/03] FEBRUARY 15, 2003 � IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE: The head of the IAEA told the U.N. in February that "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." The IAEA examined "2,000 pages of documents seized Jan. 16 from an Iraqi scientist's home -- evidence, the Americans said, that the Iraqi regime was hiding government documents in private homes. The documents, including some marked classified, appear to be the scientist's personal files." However, "the documents, which contained information about the use of laser technology to enrich uranium, refer to activities and sites known to the IAEA and do not change the agency's conclusions about Iraq's laser enrichment program." [Source: Wash. Post, 2/15/03] FEBURARY 24, 2003 � CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE �NO DIRECT EVIDENCE� OF WMD: "A CIA report on proliferation released this week says the intelligence community has no �direct evidence� that Iraq has succeeded in reconstituting its biological, chemical, nuclear or long-range missile programs in the two years since U.N. weapons inspectors left and U.S. planes bombed Iraqi facilities. �We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs,� said the agency in its semi-annual report on proliferation activities." [NBC News, 2/24/03] MARCH 7, 2003 � IAEA REITERATES TO WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES: IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes or specialized ring magnets for centrifuge enrichment of uranium. For months, American officials had "cited Iraq's importation of these tubes as evidence that Mr. Hussein's scientists have been seeking to develop a nuclear capability." ElBaradei also noted said "the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that documents which formed the basis for the [President Bush�s assertion] of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic." When questioned about this on Meet the Press, Vice President Dick Cheney simply said "Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong." [Source: NY Times, 3/7/03: Meet the Press, 3/16/03]

Or better yet, just flat out lie to the public like Rice did once any counterevidence or conflicting evidence was received:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/i...ner=rssuserland

quote:

thats the difference between strength and weakness.

The facts clearly show that�s the difference between lying and distorting to bolster your case vs. being forthright to the public and Congress on your case for war.

I really don�t know what you�re referring to on the Security Council � are you referring to the UN council which did not give authorization for Bush to go to war, or are you referring to our National Security Council, which was clearly neocon run in the first place?
-

quote:

yes. The major goals this administration has set have been achieved, or is being achieved. to have the luxuries of a pacifist in a time of war says nothing about your strength.

Eh? Are you serious? So since I am against our invasion of Iraq, as well as our ineptitude of post war planning there, I�m now a pacifist? Since I believe that:

1. It was more prudent to go after the man who killed almost 3,000 innocent people on our soil, rather than divert attention away from him and towards another country

2. It was wrong to attack this country when it was clear it had no collaborative operational ties to the man and his group in #1

3. Once the counterevidence was given it was clear that our case for going to war based on WMD stockpiles was weak at best

I�m somehow a pacifist?

I really don�t know what else to say � if pacifist is something equivalent to being reality-based, then I suppose you could continue giving me that label.

But seriously, turn off Hannity just for a moment, will you? This sounds a wee bit too much like Conservative mouthpiece labeling.

And you�re going to have to explain to me how this post-war planning was set and achieved exactly how Bush, the genius that he is, set it out to be. Please be specific as to how everything done here was all part of our Administration�s master plan.

quote:

-don't ask me about about a non-specific PDB when no one else gave it signifigance but the ones (like you) that want to shift blame in hindsight. that is just so fucking weak dude.

Umm, uhh, what the fuck?!?

No one else gave it significance? Why thank you for pretty much delivering my point, sir. That was the problem in the first place � Rice had done a piss poor job at even addressing the growing terrorist problem, Cheney was supposed to set up a meeting and coordinate plans to address the problems set forth by Clarke and other intelligence analysts about Al Qaeda�s threats AND IT NEVER HAPPENED, Ashcroft got so tired about hearing shit on terrorism to the point where he simply told those alarmists that he didn�t want to hear about Al Qaeda anymore, and here we have a memo addressing the EXACT little �dilemma� that came to fruition one month later (uhh, 9/11 to be exact),

AND IT ALL HAPPENED PRIOR TO 9/11.

You don�t need hindsight to examine this problem and say many avenues were not met by this Administration � all you need is a few simple facts of mismanagement, disillusionment, and negligence by this Administration to clearly exemplify the point of pre-9/11 ineptitude.

-

quote:

it�s real nice to be able to pick and choose your arguments when you�re a liberal blame shifter.

It�s quite apparent that you conservatives will never learn how to take a wee bit of blame on yourselves.

Everything is the fault of Clinton, liberals, France, and the media � we�re all the blame shifters, huh?

It�s old and tiresome, and your continual labeling and broad sweeping generalizations of all who disagree with your Bush apologists views is way past the point of annoying.

quote:

The truth is that the increases that occurred in �98 of closer to $28 billion over 5 years, plus the over $500 million at the beginning of the Bush administration accounted for her testimony. http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/intel-funding.cfm not including MAXCAP implemented in 2000.

That�s not what I am referring to � what I am referring to is the fact that the first full Bush budget for FY2003 "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism."

It�s irrelevant what was used for her testimony � these facts alone, which are from internal government documents, dispels any idea that this Administration was seriously addressing the counterterrorist needs of our intelligence agencies.

quote:

What your argument or complaint amounts to is nothing but �banging on pots and pans�

Considering this Administration and it�s minion of followers will believe anything they say, whom unfortunately carry the majority, that�s about all us reality-based folks have.

So cover your ears if you have to � the noise is going to get a lot louder this 2nd term.

quote:

Over some misstatement that has no real bearing on reality. It�s seems like you just pulled those retorts off of some reactionary website and now it�s gospel.

You really should be careful lecturing about reality. Judging by your comments and �yes-sir� stance you continue to take with this Administration without question, perhaps it is you who needs to understand the difference between reality and idealism.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.