|
Democrat Nat Con! (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| guster |
| Did anyone just see Barack Obama's speech? This guy is amazing! I wouldn't be surprised to seem him accepted the Democratic bid in 16 - 20 years. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by guster
Did anyone just see Barack Obama's speech? This guy is amazing! I wouldn't be surprised to seem him accepted the Democratic bid in 16 - 20 years. |
Definitely their most effective speaker of the night. He was dynamic and captivated the crowd and had a pretty positive message.
Tereeeeza on the other hand, bombed. I think she might think she's the one running. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
Okay, I'll simplify this for you since it seems you have a hard time figuring things out on your own.
The Bush clan has an inglorious past - it doesn't take a Rocket Scientist nor a National Archivist to figure that out; yet you blindly hold on to that Republican vote like it's your ticket to salvation.
BTW - I'm not a conspiacy theorist... much more of a conceptualist. I can take all the insulting perjoratives you want to throw at me, I'm not like those 12 year olds that you're used to playing with.
ciao |
|
|
| Q5echo |
then you didn't have a point. you being a conceptualist, i could believe that.
that said, you'll understand my calling you a fraud when you post crap like this http://bushwatch.org/family.htm and wanting to be taken seriously as a "conceptualist"
so if you are in fact, a conceptualist, why the hell would you care? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
now thats what i call a legacy of strength and leadership right there.
now lets get back to this "i'm not a conspiracy theorist i'm a conceptualist" issue...or not
good luck living in fear.
ciao |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
are you going to tag losing 3 million jobs to the current administration like your party buddies do? i'd suggest you do the same |
Am I doing that now? Please reference it if I did.
I have argued that Bush's policies were not the most beneficial for saving and creating jobs during the recovery, but that's a different topic.
It is a fact that Bush will be the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs. I know Occ has come down on me with that before with certain arguments of the differences in present day recessions vs. prior ones, but the fact remains, and it really isn't a pretty stain for any President to have on their resume, is it?
| quote: | | the growing global threat. |
Oh, you mean the one which Bush also did a fine job ignoring prior to 9/11?:
1999 –EXPLICIT WARNING THAT AL QAEDA HAD PLANS TO FLY AIRPLANES INTO BUILDINGS: A 1999 report prepared by the Library of Congress for the National Intelligence Council "warned that Osama bin Laden's terrorists could hijack an airliner and fly it into government buildings like the Pentagon." The report specifically said, "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives…into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House." In response to the ominous warnings, the New York Times reports "under Janet Reno, the Justice Department's counterterrorism budget increased 13.6% in the fiscal year 1999, 7.1% in 2000 and 22.7% in 2001." During the Clinton Administration "the federal government had on several earlier occasions taken elaborate, secret measures to protect special events from just such an attack." [Source: CBS, 5/17/02; NY Times, 2/28/02; WSJ, 4/1/04]
EARLY 2001 – MAJOR SURGE IN AL QAEDA ACTIVITY: "In late spring 2001, a sudden surge in activity began among known Al Qaeda operatives…a reporter from Middle East Broadcasting visited bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan and noted that his supporters were preparing for attacks against American 'interests.'"[Source: The Age of Sacred Terror, 2003]
EARLY 2001 – WHITE HOUSE DEPARTS FROM EFFORTS TO TRACK TERRORIST MONEY: The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center." [Source: The Age of Sacred Terror, 2003]
APRIL 30, 2001 - BUSH ADMINISTRATION SAYS BIN LADEN FOCUS WAS "MISTAKE": The Bush Administration released the government's annual report on terrorism, but unlike previous Administrations, it decided to specifically omit an "extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden." Similarly, AP reported in 2002 that the Bush Administration's "national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions." [Source: CNN, 4/30/01; AP, 6/29/01]
JULY 2001 –ANOTHER WARNING THAT AL QAEDA PLANNED TO USE PLANES AS MISSILES: The LA Times reported that U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July 2001 that "Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations." [Source: LA Times, 9/27/01]
JULY 2001 – ASHCROFT STOPS FLYING COMMERCIAL BECAUSE OF "THREAT ASSESSMENT": Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airlines and instead began "traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines" because of "what the Justice Department called a 'threat assessment.'" That "threat assessment" has never been made public. [Source: CBS, 7/26/01]
AUGUST 2001 - PRESIDENT PERSONALLY WARNED OF AL QAEDA AIRPLANE PLOT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration "officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." Dateline NBC reported that on August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." [Source: ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02]
SEPTEMBER 2001 - PENTAGON OFFICIALS CHANGE FLIGHTS ON 9/11 BECAUSE OF SECURITY: Newsweek reported that on 9/10/01 "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." Newsweek also reported "that as many as 10 to 12 warnings" were issued before 9/11, and "more than two of the warnings specifically mentioned the possibility of hijackings." [Source: Newsweek, 9/24/01]
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 – RICE SPEECH ON SECURITY GOALS HAS NO MENTION OF TERRORISM: National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to give a speech outlining "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday." But instead of focusing on the new challenges, Rice instead was set to address Cold War-type challenges by "promoting missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy." The address "contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups." [Source: Wash Post, 4/1/04]
Beore 9/11: Reducing Counter-Terrorism
The federal government was rapidly increasing its counter-terrorism efforts at the time President Bush took office. As the New York Times reported, Attorney General Janet Reno ended her tenure as "perhaps the strongest advocate" of counterterrorism spending. Similarly, Newsweek and the Washington Post reported National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was "totally preoccupied" with the prospect of a domestic terror attack, telling his replacement that they need to be "spending more time on this issue" than on any other. The focus changed dramatically when the Bush Administration took office.
ADMINISTRATION SHIFTED LAW ENFORCEMENT'S FOCUS OFF OF COUNTER-TERRORISM: The New York Times reported that in the lead-up to 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft "said fighting terrorism was a top priority of his agency," yet upon entering office, "he identified more than a dozen other objectives for greater emphasis within the Justice Department before the attacks." On Aug. 9, the Administration distributed a strategic plan to the Justice Department highlighting its new goals from a list of Clinton Administration goals. The item that referred to intelligence and investigation of terrorists was left un-highlighted. [Source: NY Times, 2/28/02]
ASHCROFT OVERRULED EFFORTS FOCUSED ON COUNTER-TERROR: Newsweek reported that "in the spring of 2001, the attorney general had an extraordinary confrontation with the then FBI Director Louis Freeh at an annual meeting of special agents." The two talked before appearing, and Ashcroft laid out his priorities for Freeh: "basically violent crime and drugs," recalls one participant. Freeh replied bluntly that those were not his priorities, and began to talk about terror and counterterrorism. "Ashcroft didn't want to hear about it," says a former senior law-enforcement official." [Source: Newsweek, 5/27/02]
BUSH ADMINISTRATION TERMINATED PROGRAM THAT TRACKED AL QAEDA: "In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States." [Source: Newsweek, 3/21/04]
SO LITTLE CONCERN FOR COUNTER-TERROR THAT A WHITE HOUSE TASK FORCE NEVER MET: In January of 2001, the U.S. Government's bipartisan Commission on National Security gave the White House a report that warned of an attack on the homeland and urged the new Administration to implement its specific "recommendations to prevent acts of domestic terrorism. The Administration rejected the Commission's report, "preferring to put aside the recommendations." Instead, the Administration waited until May of 2001 to appoint Vice President Cheney to head a task force "to combat terrorist attacks on the United States." But according to the Washington Post, neither "Cheney's review nor Bush's took place." Meanwhile, Newsweek reported that when senators "sent a copy of draft legislation on counterterrorism and homeland defense to Cheney's office on July 20," they were told by Cheney's top aide "that it might be another six months before he would be able to review the material." [Source: Salon, 9/12/04; White House release, 5/8/01; Washington Post, 1/20/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]
WHITE HOUSE BEGAN EFFORT TO CUT COUNTER-TERRORISM PROGRAMS: The New York Times reported that in its final 2003 budget request, the Administration "called for spending increases in 68 programs, none of which directly involved counterterrorism...In his Sept. 10 submission to the budget office, Ashcroft did not endorse FBI requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators. Ashcroft proposed a $65 million cut for a program that gives states and localities counterterrorism grants for equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and training." By comparison, "Under Janet Reno, the department's counterterrorism budget increased 13.6% in the fiscal year 1999, 7.1% in 2000 and 22.7% in 2001." [Source: NY Times, 2/28/02]
ADMINISTRATION LEFT "GAPS" IN MILITARY'S REQUEST FOR COUNTER-TERROR FUNDS: The Washington Post reported that in its first budget, the White House left "gaps" between "what military commanders said they needed to combat terrorists and what they got." Newsweek noted that, among other things, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld elected not to re-launch a Predator drone that had been tracking bin Laden. When the Senate Armed Services Committee tried to fill those gaps, "Rumsfeld said he would recommend a veto" on September 9. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02; NY Times, 2/28/02]
ADMINISTRATION STOPPED PREDATOR FLIGHTS TRACKING AL QAEDA IN AFGHANISTAN: AP reported "though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight months." Additionally, "the military successfully tested an armed Predator throughout the first half of 2001" but the White House "failed to resolve a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed Predators" and the armed Predator never got off the ground before 9/11. [Source: AP, 6/25/03]
WHILE CUTTING COUNTER-TERROR, THE WHITE HOUSE SENT FUNDING TO THE TALIBAN: At the same time the White House was trying to cut counter-terrorism funding, it gave "$43 million in drought aid to Afghanistan after the Taliban began a campaign against poppy growers." As the 5/29/01 edition of Newsday noted, the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan "are a decidedly odd choice for an outright gift of $43 million from the Bush Administration. This is the same government against which the United Nation imposes sanctions, at the behest of the United States, for refusing to turn over the terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden." [Washington Post, 9/23/01; Newsday, 5/29/01]
Before 9/11: Despite Terror Ties, Bush-Saudi Bonds Strengthen
According to Time Magazine, President Bush is far "cozier than most [Presidents] to Riyadh." But with the LA Times pointing out that the Saudi government "provided significant money and aid to the 9/11 suicide hijackers," Vanity Fair notes that "the Bush-Saudi relationship raises serious questions" about why the Administration ignored the clear Saudi ties to terror before 9/11.
SAUDI TIES TO TERROR KNOWN LONG BEFORE 9/11: According to U.S. News and World Report, a 1996 CIA report found that a third of the 50 Saudi-backed charities it studied "were tied to terrorist groups." Similarly, a 1998 report by the National Security Council had identified the Saudi government as "the epicenter" of terrorist financing, becoming "the single greatest force in spreading Islamic fundamentalism" and "funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to jihad groups and al Qaeda cells around the world." Over the past decade, "al Qaeda and its fellow jihadists collected between $300 million and $500 million, most of it from Saudi charities and private donors" and the very "origins of al Qaeda are intimately bound up with the Saudi charities." [Source: U.S. News and World Report, 12/15/03]
SAUDI STONEWALLING OF U.S. COUNTER-TERROR INVESTIGATORS BEFORE 9/11: At the same time Al Qaeda-Saudi government ties were strengthening, U.S. "inquiries about bin Laden went unanswered by Riyadh. When Hezbollah terrorists killed 19 U.S. troops with a massive truck bomb at Khobar Towers in Dhahran in 1996, Saudi officials stonewalled, then shut the FBI out of the investigation." [Source: U.S. News and World Report, 12/15/03]
DESPITE CLEAR TIES TO TERROR, BUSH-SAUDI TIES STRENGTHENED BEFORE 9/11: The Bush Administration maintained and strengthened its ties to the Saudi government upon taking office. As the Boston Herald reported, a "revolving U.S.-Saudi money wheel" exists "within President Bush's own coterie of foreign policy advisers." First and foremost, the current President's father "remains a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group" – an investment bank with deep connections to the Saudi royal family, and received $1 million for his Presidential library from the royal family. George W. Bush himself is also linked to the Saudi-backed Carlyle Group: he was a director of a Carlyle subsidiary called Caterair. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice "is a former longtime member of the board of Chevron which did business in the Saudi desert." And Vice President Cheney's tenure as CEO of oil giant Halliburton was among his dealings with "firms connected to the Saudis that paid big dividends." [Source: Boston Herald, 12/11/01]
INSTEAD OF TAKING PRE-9/11 TERROR TIES SERIOUSLY, WHITE HOUSE APPOINTS A CRONY: With the Saudis' ties to terror clear, the Administration refused to appoint a qualified diplomat or counterterrorism expert as the U.S. government's ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Instead, the President appointed his Texas crony Robert Jordan – a man with no diplomatic experience, who spoke no Arabic and who had never set foot in Saudi Arabia. Jordan's chief qualification for the post was that he had been Bush's lawyer during the SEC inquiry into the Harken energy scandal, was part of the legal team representing the president in Florida during the 2000 election. He also worked at the law firm Baker-Botts, which is headed by former Secretary of State James Baker, a man who has considerable ties to the Saudi government, and who told PBS even after 9/11 that Saudi Arabia is "an ally and friend of the United States." Even after Jordan retired earlier this year, the Administration still refused to appoint a diplomatic/counter-terrorism expert, instead appointing Texas oil lobbyist James Oberwetter. [Source: Houston Chronicle, 10/3/01; Knight-Ridder, 11/17/03; PBS, 10/01; AP, 11/19/03]
source: http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...JRJ8OVF&b=43926
| quote: | his impeachment is what he leaves behind after 8yrs. his impeachment is his contribution to the party that defends him. if he lies to congress again he goes to prison. kinda like Martha. "his conduct distracted a nation that had a bullseye on it" is not an exageration.
his impeachment wasn't either. |
Are you a revisionist historian or something? What world do you live in which demonstrates Clinton was impeached?
Show me with specific references that Clinton was, in fact, impeached, and I might consider your argument.
It was $65 million of our tax money well spent, wasn't it?
| quote: | | then don't respond to me. oh wait, you don't want me to corrupt the contsituency do you? would you have me shut up? |
No, I think Bush and Ashcroft is taking care of our civil liberties pretty well on their own, and I doubt they need any assistance from me.;) |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
How's that? By standing up to an inept UN? By doing what he said he would do? Credibility has nothing to do with it. |
Are you serious?!?!.. I tell you how.
Showing evidence to the UN assuring that there are WMD in Iraq with concrete evidence, among other things.. at the end, it all came out to be not true, or never approved or assured by neither intelligence.. THATS how credibelity is lost, and not to mention the case with the Soldiers abuse.
CREDEBILITY does have to do with it . |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
now thats what i call a legacy of strength and leadership right there.
now lets get back to this "i'm not a conspiracy theorist i'm a conceptualist" issue...or not
good luck living in fear.
ciao |
Bro, you win the prize for been the biggest Bush follower and defender no matter what.. you dont even see the cons of his administration.. every administration has a cons and pros.. but no, you are just all out on defending BLINDLY without actually pointing out the proofs that trancer-x is saying, you end up focusing on a little claim that he said about theorist instead of reading the other truth.. mmmm hehe.. but hey, you get the prize, alongside JM :D
At least there can be arguments and see both sides appeal and shoot which is kewl and entertaining to read at times.. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| history is on my side. sorry.:D |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
history is on my side. sorry.:D |
Excellent. Please point me towards the historical fact that Clinton was impeached, then. I'm sure if history is on your side that you should have little trouble with this little tidbit. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I'm sure if history is on your side that you should have little trouble with this little tidbit. |
I wouldn't even bother. He could be referring to his personal history of neurological and mental impairments for all we know.
Just like Bush is on his side, so are the neo-con voices in his head. |
|
|
|
|
