Post #195,261
2/17/05 6:46:45 PM
|
Sure I have......
and it relates how?
If it was such an imminent issue, as he stated...why was it attached to a plan from 2000 and 1998. 2 years between work on such a >pressing< issue seems a bit much, no?
And it doesn't seem to say anything else other than there should be a meeting to decide if "the principles agree that this is a first order threat" and if so agreed to discuss modifications to the strategy (which appeared to be give money to the northern alliance).
This was not a warning, as everyone seems to be making it, but a request to revisit the strategy on Al Queda.
Read it from inside the beltway. Its a mindset you need to understand.
So...was she WARNED? No. So did she lie about "being warned"? No she did not.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #195,265
2/17/05 6:56:46 PM
|
D-I-Z-Z-Y
but that is what happens from too much spin....
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #195,270
2/17/05 7:30:49 PM
|
Quote
"Attached is the year end strategy on Al Qida developed by the last administration to give to you. Also attached is the 1998 strategy. Neither was a "covert action only" approach. Both incorporated diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy and intelligence tools. Using the 2000 paper as backround, we could prepare a decision paper/guide for a PC review.
I recommend you have a principle discussion of Al Qida soon and address the following issues:
<snip>
Please let us know if you would like such a decision/discussion paper or any modifications to the backround paper."
==============
Talk about your stern warnings. Damn, how could she or the President not see 9/11 coming after THAT?!?!
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #195,364
2/18/05 10:23:34 AM
|
BZZT....
and it relates how?
If it was such an imminent issue, as he stated...why was it attached to a plan from 2000 and 1998. 2 years between work on such a >pressing< issue seems a bit much, no?
It relates because she claimed she never received such a plan. Furthermore, you and I both know that the issue was being escalated over those years. Furthermore, a comprehensive plan would take years to accomplish. (Certainly you're not arguing that Bush should have been able to destroy al Qida quickly in the last 3 years, no?) So...was she WARNED? No. So did she lie about "being warned"? No she did not. Nope...didn't claim that. I claimed she LIED.
|
Post #195,386
2/18/05 12:24:06 PM
|
Ok...so now it gets even more complicated.
Did she receive a >plan< or did she receive a >proposal of a plan< or did she receive a recommendation or did she recieve a strategy or a proposal etc...?
Just because Clarke had a document and attached it doesn't mean it had been vetted and agreed on at the PC level. And if it hasn't been done at that level it isn't an official plan. Clarke became frustrated during the next several meetings because they wouldn't focus on that specific threat and those specific documents, instead focusing on "big picture" regional issues.
This is WASHINGTON DC. Again, I say, read it from inside the beltway. So. Did she lie or did she just tell a version of the truth that you happen to disagree with?
What I heard during the testimony was that noone in the administration viewed those documents as a comprehensive plan. (Everything in Washington takes years to accomplish). In her mind, what was sent did not constitute a plan. It was not complete. Even Clarke himself admits that nothing proposed would have prevented the attacks.
So, you can deal with your abolutes all you want. I'm not going to hang the lady's lifetime achievements out based on an inside the beltway dispute about what constitutes a plan and alot of hoopla about "liar liar pants on fire"
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #195,462
2/18/05 10:28:07 PM
|
No, no, no, no, no....
Did she receive a >plan< or did she receive a >proposal of a plan< or did she receive a recommendation or did she recieve a strategy or a proposal etc...? No, no, no, no, no... She wrote, in the Washington Post, that she NEVER received the Clinton plan regarding Al Qida. She chose the words. She chose to write the article. Regardless of whether it was a proposed plan (although I can't see how the 1998 plan would be proposed) or not, she chose the battle and the ground. If she wasn't clear, it's HER fault. Effectively you're arguing about what the definition of *IS* is. So, you can deal with your abolutes all you want. I'm not going to hang the lady's lifetime achievements out based on an inside the beltway dispute about what constitutes a plan and alot of hoopla about "liar liar pants on fire" I seem to recall someone *AHEM* claiming that those who still agreed with a known liar were enjoying the kool-aid. How's the kool-aid there BP? Can't even admit that she lied, even once?
|
Post #195,519
2/19/05 12:14:10 PM
|
Finally
Effectively you're arguing about what the definition of *IS* is. Welcome to DC. Do I think they presented something to her. Sure. Do I think they considered it a comprehensive plan, no. And there is others who enjoy this little semantic game "I think Condi Rice has at least an arguable case that it's short of a plan," said Michael E. O'Hanlon, a security analyst at the Brookings Institution.
Mr. O'Hanlon called Mr. Clarke's memorandums a set of "very dry data points. There's not a heightened sense of, 'Now our homeland is at risk.' "
But Matthew Levitt, who was an F.B.I. counterterrorism analyst in 2001, disagreed. He called the 13-page strategy memorandum "a pretty disturbing document."
Mr. Levitt, now director of terrorism studies at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that whether the document constitutes a "plan," as Mr. Clarke averred and Dr. Rice denied, is "a semantic debate." But he said the experience of reading the original documents for the first time Friday left him with a strong impression of the danger Al Qaeda posed. So is it a lie or a version of truth that you disagree with? Yes this is semantics. And in the end, this "plan" wouldn't have done a damned thing. Even the guy who wrote it said so. So regardless of which side of the truth your on, it really doesn't matter. Todd has brought out some of the better ones, though. Becasue some of these were used to prep for the war. Hang her for those. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #195,532
2/19/05 1:36:19 PM
|
There we go
I can't nail her for missing the airplane threat.
Although I do believe the entire administration took its eye off the ball and in doing so emboldened the terrorists in some way by taking heat off somehow. Definitely up to 9/11 the administration was blowing off foreign policy and running around prosecuting pornographers, drafting official school prayers and the like.
I can't hang my hat on that though.
What really burns my clams is the lying and selling during the run-up to the war and during the initial invasion. Why invade Iraq to nail bin Laden? Because the light is better over there?
That and disinformation and propaganda ON STUFF THAT MATTERS has become SOP.
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
