Oh dear.

Post #150,693 by bepatient 4/9/04 7:38:31 PM Reply	Oh dear. Are we not showing true colors in quotes. Someone said something different than her. "She's lying" bog If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #150,703 by jake123 4/10/04 1:11:27 AM Reply	I hate to say it but I don't trust her at all. Personally, I didn't find her performance compelling at all; it reminded me way too much of the middle management soft-shoe shuffle when something's not going according to plan. Then again, I don't particularly trust anyone in the current administration; personally, I think the current crop is a disaster for your country. If they win again, it's going to move from disaster to circling. What these people (aided by a lot of little wanna-be polizei) have done to your country is a real shame. IMhO. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #150,715 by mmoffitt 4/10/04 1:14:49 PM Reply	Nit: "win again". They have never won. They were appointed.
Post #150,714 by mmoffitt 4/10/04 1:12:48 PM Reply	I thought most had paid attention. And I didn't want to post the entire conversation. Rice was very good, as Kerrey noted, at figuring out how to work things (i.e. long answers that said nothing and ate up all the precious little time the commission had her for). If you had paid attention, you'd have no doubt noted that Kerrey went on to present her with the plan they got on their arrival. Of course, anyone defending this bitch would find all troublesome facts merely biased propaganda.
Post #150,854 by jb4 4/12/04 1:11:47 PM Reply	Yeah, someone did indeed say something different than her! And she is lying: See [link\|http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0404110513apr11,1,7692721.story\|here, in a notoriously Republican-leaning rag, the Chicago Tribune] Since the article will time out: Briefing sounded alert pre-9/11 White House releases memo that warned of Al Qaeda activities \t By Cam Simpson Washington Bureau Published April 11, 2004 WASHINGTON -- A CIA briefing warned President Bush five weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that there were Al Qaeda activities in the United States "consistent with preparations for hijackings" and that the terrorist network had been active on American soil for years. On Saturday night, the White House declassified and released the document, called a President's Daily Brief, or PDB. The briefing had been delivered to Bush on Aug. 6, 2001, while he was on a monthlong vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. It appears to be the first time a sitting president has declassified such a document. \t Its mention of possible ongoing Al Qaeda activities appears to be at odds with repeated assertions by the White House, delivered as recently as last week, that the president's briefing on the terrorist group was strictly "historical" and pointed to overseas threats. The 470-word document, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," advised Bush that there had been surveillance recently of federal buildings in New York and that Al Qaeda wanted to "follow the example" of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. The briefing also said bin Laden had told followers in 1998 that "he wanted to retaliate in Washington" for a cruise missile strike on his camps in Afghanistan and that an operative said in 1998 that bin Laden wanted to "mount a terrorist strike" in the U.S. The document also referred to an investigation into a report about possible attacks inside the U.S. received just three months before the briefing was written. It did not mention specific activities connected to the worst terrorist attacks in the nation's history, according to a statement released by the White House on Saturday night. The release of the briefing paper appears unlikely to be enough to quiet critics who allege that the Bush administration did not take Al Qaeda seriously enough before Sept. 11, 2001, because officials were too focused on other foreign policy concerns, including Iraq and ballistic missile defenses. Former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke, who served in the Bush and Clinton administrations, has recently raised those allegations in interviews, in a book and in his testimony before the Sept. 11 commission investigating the matter. Bush has made his record on terrorism the cornerstone of his re-election campaign, using controversial images of the Sept. 11 attacks in his first television advertisements. Agencies' names blacked out In the briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, the identities of foreign intelligence services cooperating with the U.S. were blacked out on the White House copies of the released document. The most specific reference to recent and possibly ongoing Al Qaeda activities followed information about an uncorroborated 1998 report from a foreign intelligence service that bin Laden wanted to hijack an airplane and presumably use its passengers to ransom the release of extremists in U.S. custody. "FBI information since that time," the briefing said, "indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." There was no mention of the possible use of airplanes as weapons, and the White House said Saturday night that those suspected of conducting surveillance in New York were two Yemeni men, whom the FBI interviewed and concluded were tourists taking photographs. But the White House did not say whether that determination had been made before or after the Sept. 11 attacks. The briefing also told the president that the "CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in UAE in May saying a group of bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives." And the document also indicated that intelligence officials informed Bush they were aware of a long history of widespread Al Qaeda activity on U.S. soil that could help the terrorist network carry out assaults. "Al Qaeda members-- including some who are U.S. citizens--have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks," it said. Rice's testimony When National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice appeared last week before the independent commission investigating the attacks, she said repeatedly that the briefing contained only historical information about Al Qaeda. She used the word "historical" at least eight times to describe the contents of the Aug. 6 document. "It did not warn of attacks inside the United States," Rice said in an exchange with Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democrat who served as a Watergate prosecutor. "It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information, and it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States." Rice also suggested before the packed Capitol Hill hearing room Thursday, as she has in the past, that the briefing pointed to attacks overseas. "It is just not the case that the Aug. 6 memorandum did anything but put together what the CIA decided that they wanted to put together about historical knowledge about what was going on, and a few things about what the FBI might be doing," she said under questioning from Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, a Democrat. "And so the light was shining abroad." The White House says the briefing was given to Bush after he asked questions about possible Al Qaeda activities inside the U.S. The briefing stated that the "FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related." White House: No link shown On Saturday night, the White House said none of the activities reported in the briefing has since been shown to be related to the Sept. 11 attacks. If that is the case, the briefing does not appear to contain what officials call "actionable intelligence," as Rice herself has said since word of the briefing's existence first emerged publicly almost two years ago. The phrase refers to a specific piece of information, such as the name of an operative or time of attack, that might lead to quick government action that could disrupt an unfolding plot. But such information is almost never available, as Rice said in a May 16, 2002, news conference on the subject. "I can tell you," she told reporters gathered at the White House, "that it is almost never the case that we have information that is specific as to time, place or method of attack." For several weeks during the summer of 2001, intelligence warnings about impending attacks reached historic volume--a period commissioners investigating the suicide hijackings have come to call "the summer of threat." Clarke is not alone in raising questions about the White House's actions, or alleged inaction, during that period. CIA Director George Tenet has said he believes the new administration understood the gravity of the threat. But his own deputy, John McLaughlin, told Sept. 11 commission investigators that "he felt a great tension--especially in June and July 2001--between the new administration's need to understand these issues and his sense that this was a matter of great urgency." And, according to the commission's staff, two veteran officers in the CIA's Counterterrorist Center "were so worried about an impending disaster" and government inaction that they weighed taking measures that would have been extraordinary for any official living in the agency's ultraclandestine world. One of them, investigators said, "told us that they considered resigning and going public with their concerns." Copyright \ufffd 2004, Chicago Tribune [emphasis added] Oh my, Bill, the memo contained only historical information. Oh my, oh my, oh my. How could I have been so duped?!? Oh yeah,... I know how that could have happened...I can read English! Perhaps illiteracy is the cure for all this...after all, ignorance is bliss! 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 #150,867 by bepatient 4/12/04 2:03:42 PM Reply	I would guess... ...that in the intel business, a 3 year old quote would be considered historical. And specific actionable intel is notoriously lacking from the document. So you can remain intent on saying "they lied, they lied, SEE?" or realize that there is truth throughout and pray that this commission actually can do something to correct the situation. Because as it stands, the only thing I see going on is grandstanding, distortion and reading more between the lines than is actually there on the page. But, I shouldn't be surprised. It is our government in (in)action, after all. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #150,889 by mmoffitt 4/12/04 4:52:51 PM Reply	It's not the Commission's Responsibility, it's ours.
Post #150,893 by admin 4/12/04 5:10:01 PM Reply	It wasn't historical at the time... Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #150,895 by bepatient 4/12/04 5:36:30 PM Reply	It was over 3 yrs old at the time. In intel, that is definitely history. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #150,900 by admin 4/12/04 5:47:50 PM Reply	Re: It was over 3 yrs old at the time. The document also referred to an investigation into a report about possible attacks inside the U.S. received just three months before the briefing was written. The document was hardly "historical". Some portions of it, perhaps. The entire contents (and hence the document itself), no. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #150,901 by mmoffitt 4/12/04 5:50:20 PM Reply	The document itself is in my post. HTH. ;0)
Post #150,896 by mmoffitt 4/12/04 5:42:24 PM 4/12/04 5:46:53 PM Reply	None so blind as they that won't see. A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks. We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists. Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives. [link\|http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/\|http://us.cnn.com/20.../10/august6.memo/] "Three years old" indeed... [Edit]: Go ahead Beep. Reply to that and tell me how we all wrongly read the last two paragraphs. Edited by mmoffitt April 12, 2004, 05:46:53 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #150,937 by bepatient 4/12/04 8:48:37 PM Reply	And so... ...with this "specific, actionable intel" the President orders all Federal Buildings in New York to have security quadrupled and all cars within 100 blocks are searched for explosives. And 19 men still board aircraft and crash them into 3 buildings that were not listed as potential targets. Also, the >>>>old<<<< information dictated that the threat of a hijacking was for HOSTAGE purposes, in order to trade for release of prisoners. Act on this stuff that you consider a smoking gun and you get what, exactly? Nothing. Your "aha" leaves no change in what happened. And your finger pointing solves nothing. All this memo proves is what has been said by all parties, all along. We didn't know shit. And we were too stupid to even know that we knew shit. And legal provisions that allow interdepartmental communication that may have given us a shot at solving this before it happened are on everyone's hit list. We are going to be extremely lucky to get away with never seeing hundreds of thousands killed or wounded in an attack, because we can't seem to figure out that its >this precise bullshit< that makes us susceptible. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #150,959 by mmoffitt 4/13/04 8:20:25 AM Reply	Nice duck. Since you avoided the question, is the document in question concerning "three year old" content (as you previously claimed) or not? Lemme guess, "It depends on the meaning of the word 'recent'" right?
Post #150,983 by bepatient 4/13/04 10:02:14 AM Reply	Go ahead. Read through it. 3 years prior they heard that maybe there would be hijackings. Now, !!Big News!!, we're investigating cells in the US that may be casing Fed buildings in NY to blow them up. (oh, you mean just like 1993 when they took the first shot at the WTC and they've been after them ever since) Why do I hear a little boys voice yelling about a wolf? Yep, some smoking gun. Put in a brief how many active investigations you have ongoing. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #150,990 by pwhysall 4/13/04 10:36:20 AM Reply	Can any of you clowns remember what you're arguing ABOUT? Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #150,996 by boxley 4/13/04 10:50:07 AM Reply	what does that have to do with anything :-) "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #150,997 by bepatient 4/13/04 10:51:54 AM Reply	Oh, oh I am sorry,... ...but this is abuse. You want room 12A, Just along the corridor. ;-) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,027 by mmoffitt 4/13/04 1:51:45 PM Reply	Here it is: It was over 3 yrs old at the time. Despite the sidestepping, no, the document did NOT refer to three year old data. But that is despite the fact when you're spreading the propaganda. I just decided to call him out this time on his blatant misrepresentation of what was contained in the memo.
Post #151,036 by bepatient 4/13/04 2:15:58 PM Reply	Re: Here it is: It was over 3 yrs old at the time. The briefing also said bin Laden had told followers in 1998 that "he wanted to retaliate in Washington" for a cruise missile strike on his camps in Afghanistan and that an operative said in 1998 that bin Laden wanted to "mount a terrorist strike" in the U.S. 2001-1998=3 sport. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,043 by mmoffitt 4/13/04 2:50:14 PM Reply	You're just jaggin' me again, aren't you? Again, from the document itself, not some one else's interpretation: FBI information *since that time* indicates...The FBI *is conducting...CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May*... "since that time", "is conducting" and "in May". As of August of the same year, this is all three years ago? That your point?
Post #151,046 by boxley 4/13/04 2:56:06 PM Reply	yeah and the feebs are still looking for hoffa :-) "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #151,055 by jb4 4/13/04 5:01:36 PM Reply	<herring color=bright red>preceding post</herring> 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 #151,098 by boxley 4/13/04 10:26:00 PM Reply	name one case that wasnt broken by a rat and remember we have no stable of arab rats. The feebs are good at organization and lae, they dont have either the mentality or training for counter terror. They have great serveilance but not translators. thanx, bill "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #151,065 by bepatient 4/13/04 5:39:00 PM Reply	You seem to be serious. In thinking that, somehow, "current investigations" or a call in UAE are somehow mystical events that NEVER EVER HAPPEN so the fact that they are mentioned in this document is actually something to get excited about. We knew that there were cells in the US. We've known that for YEARS. I WOULD EXPECT THERE TO BE CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS ONGOING! I would expect these investigations to remain current until such time as the FBA and CIA could say with 100% assurity that all of the bad guys were gone. They had, on at least 2 occasions, struck pretty big on our soil already (though the gubmint seems to be sticking to the "acted alone" crap with the Murrah Building). None of your linked statements are "news". None of them are new information. Maybe to you they were. But maybe you think that someone saying "they're here" is big news. As someone who lives within a drive of NYC, to think 1993 had been forgotten to the point that there >weren't< active investigations into cells and radicals that we all know are there would have been the surprise to me...not the other way around. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,068 by mmoffitt 4/13/04 6:00:19 PM Reply	Even if I accept that, you must accept that ... a call received in May (3 months prior to the report being written) is most definitely not "3 year old information". You do see that, right? Or have you got that RW blindness thing?
Post #151,095 by bepatient 4/13/04 9:54:35 PM Reply	Certainly. Though without all briefings being made public, one will never know if that was actually >new< info. I'd venture that since the WH agreed to release the 8/6 brief that it had, indeed, been mentioned to the President prior to that date. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,101 by Silverlock 4/13/04 10:33:53 PM Reply	What was the title of the briefing? Eagerly awaiting another obfuscation. Let's get real. They screwed up. They got caught. They then lied about getting caught and then got caught lying about lying about getting caught. (removed incindiary text in the interest of discourse) Please start any response to this with the actual title of the briefing. ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko
Post #151,128 by bepatient 4/14/04 7:19:15 AM Reply	Discourse on whose terms. The title if the document is something that we already knew. Al Queda determined to strike in the US. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,134 by mmoffitt 4/14/04 8:22:44 AM Reply	If all the briefings were release, or even the full text ... of this one, I think the cries of condemnation would be even louder than they are right now. As some one noted above, the part of the 8/6 PDB that was released was a small part of it. And, arguably, the part that made the administration look the best. Which speaks volumes to how bad this administration would look in the full light of day. My argument with you to this point, as you know, is that you initially said the document contained three year old, "historical" information. While it is certainly true that some historical background was in that document, it is also certainly true (as you now concede) that not all the information in the document was of an "historical" nature - as Ms. Rice had claimed in her sworn testimony. So, Ms. Rice did, in fact, lie under oath. qed.
Post #151,138 by bepatient 4/14/04 10:02:58 AM Reply	Nope, sorry, try again. You cannot judge it as current or historical unless you can prove that the President had not been advised of that UAE call in a previous briefing. If he had been briefed on it, then it indeed, though only 3 months old, was actually historic information. That was the point that you missed. The other one you continue to miss is imbedded in your statement. If more gets released you will just pidgeon that into your preconceived nest of all other failings of >this< administration. Absolving the failings of 20 years of government (or longer) by blaming the guy with less than a year at the helm. We had the man in crosshairs. Polls would have been unfavorable. So we didn't shoot, choosing instead to pelt the desert and an aspirin factory. Pointing that out to you is conidered "passing the buck" or "missing the point". Where was the "number one priority" then? In the exact place it was up until 9/11. Until you get >that< you will remain part of the problem and not part of the solution. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,149 by GBert 4/14/04 11:41:51 AM Reply	Just two cents... One damning aspect of the brief for me is this. Why, after seven months of trying to focus the President's attention on al Qaeda as an imminent threat, does the man still need historical info? He should be clamoring for the latest intel, asking every principal for their latest action reports, NOT still in the dark and in need of "so who is this guy again and why should I care?" info. Giovanni I'm not a complete idiot -- some parts are missing
Post #151,153 by mmoffitt 4/14/04 12:36:57 PM Reply	Well, at least you dropped the "3 year old" bit. <sigh>
Post #151,179 by bepatient 4/14/04 5:02:49 PM Reply	Point fingers all you like. It seems to make y'all feel better to believe one person at fault as opposed to understanding the reality that the problem is systemic. sigh yourself. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,181 by mmoffitt 4/14/04 5:12:14 PM Reply	Where'd I say that? It seems to make y'all feel better to believe one person at fault as opposed to understanding the reality that the problem is systemic. This started when you defended the outright lie Ms. Rice told during her sworn testimony. She said the document only contained old information of an historical nature. That is clearly false, and you admitted as much. By no one standards is "current events" historical in nature. Feh!
Post #151,191 by bepatient 4/14/04 8:38:22 PM Reply	No I didn't admit that. You have inferred it and done so without any basis for the determination. 3 months old or 3 years old are both "historic information" if they have been reported on prior to that document. Since you have no information to prove that one way or the other, you prefer to simply say "she's lying". That is based on your preconceptions, not on fact...as much as you would like to believe that all of these "facts" flying around are actually facts, which they aren't. Lovin that spin I'm in...gimme that old black magic... If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,218 by pwhysall 4/15/04 1:48:15 AM Reply	Can we cut to the chase? <bepatient> You're a poopy-head! <mmoffitt> No, you are! <bepatient> neener! neener! You've got cooties! <mmoffitt> At least I don't smell of poo ... Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,226 by bepatient 4/15/04 2:51:02 AM Reply	Shall I quote more Python? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,227 by pwhysall 4/15/04 7:05:54 AM Reply	Please do It would be more enlightening than the current debate :-) Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,236 by mmoffitt 4/15/04 9:55:04 AM Reply	Right. What was I thinking? Since when is "truth" important in American Politics? In short, "Current Events" != "History"
Post #151,261 by bepatient 4/15/04 1:29:05 PM Reply	Never mind. Cannot comprehend that today's historical reference can be something discussed previously. Like yesterday. To fine a point anyway for someone interested in painting with a very wide brush. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,262 by jb4 4/15/04 2:00:34 PM Reply	And 2 == 1, for very large values of 1________:-\ufffd 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 #151,263 by mmoffitt 4/15/04 2:01:53 PM Reply	:-D
Post #151,266 by Silverlock 4/15/04 2:39:19 PM Reply	It finally makes sense. Historical is anything older than now. ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko
Post #151,267 by boxley 4/15/04 2:41:47 PM Reply	check out tom tommorow for the definitions Its bad to look in the past unless the past is before 4 years ago. Its bad to look at the future because unexpected things happen it best to mind your business and look at the now or else you are unpatriotic :-) thanx, bill "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #151,279 by mmoffitt 4/15/04 4:48:53 PM Reply	That's an ancient remark. Historical begins when you press <Enter>
Post #151,029 by mmoffitt 4/13/04 1:56:21 PM Reply	You READ IT. HELLS BELLS, MAN! I EVEN BOLDED THE OPERATIVE PART FOR YOU!!! YOU STILL DON'T SEE IT??????????????? FFFFFFFFFFFFFBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.
Post #150,890 by Silverlock 4/12/04 4:53:03 PM Reply	Here's a breakdown of her lies Conviently arranged for your reading [link\|http://alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18368\|pleasure] ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko
Post #150,894 by bepatient 4/12/04 5:35:34 PM Reply	I've read through those. In different location. And they use other peoples statements (labeled as "FACT") and other spun news to debunk the testimony. Its all down to people listening to those with their own POV and agreeing (here here..Clark said X and Rice said Y SHE MUST BE LYING) The predator drone is a pet peave. No they were not flying. The flights were stopped during the Clinton administration. Why? They could take pics but couldn't shoot. On top of that, the CIA didn't have the money to pay for them if they crashed it...so they wanted the money from AF. That dispute was ongoing, while at the same time all the drones were sent to the US. One was retrofitted and tested to fire Hellfire Missiles. The test was successful and all were fitted with missiles and returned to theater. It just so happened that during this time, 4 planes were hijacked and flown into buildings. The non-flying of drones in theater was done specifically because the new administration didn't want pictures. They wanted to be able to shoot the bastard if they got them in sights. Not long after they were returned to theater they were used [link\|http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/yemen021104.html\|quite successfully] against Al Queda targets. So please. Spare me your "truth". If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #150,902 by admin 4/12/04 5:51:26 PM Reply	Seems to me... ... that a lot of that should be verifiable. Specifically one that caught my eye: Upon taking office, the 2002 Bush budget proposed to slash more than half a billion dollars out of funding for counterterrorism at the Justice Department. In preparing the 2003 budget, the New York Times reported that the Bush White House "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." [Sources: 2001 vs. 2002 Budget Analysis; NY Times, 2/28/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02] Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #150,905 by jb4 4/12/04 5:57:05 PM Reply	You SURE you read this somewhere? because from your statement, it seems you're not reading the same text I'm reading. BeeP protests: Its all down to people listening to those with their own POV and agreeing (here here..Clark said X and Rice said Y SHE MUST BE LYING) Test fromt he actual link that BeeP claims to have read: CLAIM: "While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaeda, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaeda initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke." FACT: Rice's statement finally confirms what she previously \ufffd and inaccurately \ufffd denied. She falsely claimed on 3/22/04 that "No al-Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." [Washington Post, 3/22/04] So if I may paraphrease the BeePster: "Its all down to people listening to those with their own POV and agreeing (here here..Rice said X and then Rice said Y SHE MUST BE LYING)!" Indeed.... 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 #150,907 by boxley 4/12/04 6:07:38 PM Reply	I did not have sex with that woman, miss lewinski it depends on the meaning of is is, yes rice was lying, as the above example shows people can admit that they were lying. Thank you for helping Beep make his point. thanx, bill "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #150,909 by jb4 4/12/04 6:13:00 PM Reply	Ermmmm.....Say What?!? BeeP's point was that she WASN'T lying, that she never lied, and that anybody that says otherwise is wrong and has a political axe to grind. (Me? I keep my axe finely tuned...) Maybe you ought to come in at the beginning of the thread instead of in the middle somewhere, and try to keep up. 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 #150,911 by boxley 4/12/04 6:20:03 PM Reply	Beeps point was quite clear, and you have watched it swish over your head time and again. He stated that you all are keeping your axes sharp to borrow a metaphor, and heaing what you wish to hear. You helped make his point. Several times :-) thanx, bill "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #150,936 by bepatient 4/12/04 8:34:29 PM Reply	whew. I was dreading having to actually s p e l l it. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,033 by jb4 4/13/04 2:03:11 PM Reply	But your spelling is notoriously faulty Your pap about "actionable intelligence" is so red a herring that I could attach it to the end of a train in place of a FRED. From the link: The briefing also told the president that the "CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in UAE in May saying a group of bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives." And the document also indicated that intelligence officials informed Bush they were aware of a long history of widespread Al Qaeda activity on U.S. soil that could help the terrorist network carry out assaults. "Al Qaeda members-- including some who are U.S. citizens--have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks," it said. Now, whether or not this is "actionable" is so beyond the point. The point is that we have here two concrete instances of intelligence in the report that points to al-Qaeda activity on our shores. Have we all got that? Now from the same link, Congaline opines (or, perhaps more accurately, prevaricates): "It is just not the case that the Aug. 6 memorandum did anything but put together what the CIA decided that they wanted to put together about historical knowledge about what was going on, and a few things about what the FBI might be doing," she said under questioning from Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, a Democrat. "And so the light was shining abroad." [emphasis added] Now, ignoring the shrubbish, "[...] put together what the CIA decided that they wanted to put together about historical knowledge about what was going on[...]", which is simply gas exapnding to fill a time limit (or perhaps more accurately, Condi trying to to formulate the "correct" response; remember, she's not a very good liar), the important part is the highlight: "[...] the light was shining abroad." No, it wasn't. It was shining right here, and it is so clear that even our resident non-native English speaker (that would be you, Sir Cyclic) can understand it. 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 #151,384 by CRConrad 4/16/04 9:35:36 AM Reply	Yup, got that; it's obvious. (WTF YM, "even" I can get it?)
Post #151,390 by jb4 4/16/04 9:57:51 AM 4/16/04 9:58:23 AM Reply	Its a metaphor....or is that a simile...or a euphemism... Oh, yeah...I know...onomatopoeia! Yeah,...that's it! ;-0 As far as WTFIM, you are the only non-native English speaker that I could think of here (well...there's Peter, but I didn't want to go there....) 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 Edited by jb4 April 16, 2004, 09:58:23 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #151,469 by pwhysall 4/16/04 4:59:08 PM Reply	I'm the fookin' native speaker. You lot are just speaking a sub-language :-) Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,717 by CRConrad 4/19/04 2:15:28 AM Reply	Sorry, mr Inferior Whisky-Like Beverage 4, but Peter's right
Post #150,967 by Silverlock 4/13/04 8:50:08 AM Reply	Nit It's not that I "want to hear" that our boy in the oval office was criminally inept. It's that, sadly, expecting anything else is seems to be blind optimism. ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko
Post #150,985 by bepatient 4/13/04 10:04:34 AM Reply	Yes it is. It is your pre-judged opinion held since he took office. Hence you read with the benefit of hindsight into these documents more than is actually there and you do it with an eye towards validating your own opinion. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,017 by Silverlock 4/13/04 12:39:27 PM Reply	I've held these positions long before this doc came out With ample reason. You are the one who fixated on my mischoice of words regarding the bad intell supplied by Chalabi with the "one man" references. Right back at ya with a "one document" in yer eye. ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko
Post #151,037 by bepatient 4/13/04 2:27:58 PM Reply	None so blind as they can't see. You want to believe these things so you do. You are being spun. Have fun with it. We have a document that some say provides a "revelation" about Al Queda operatives within the USA. 6 sublevels of the World Trade center vanishing 8 years prior wasn't enough of a clue? Condi says it was a summary of historical information. And as I read it, thats what it was. She wasn't 100% accurate, but noone in this mess has been so far. It said that there were current investigations into terrorists travelling in and out of the US. Well I'll be damned, I would have NEVER guessed that! (Regardless of the fact that we know this to be the case HISTORICALLY) But to point to this 8/6 document as some kind of smoking gun of criminal negligence is absolute crap. What this document shows me is that underneath the top levels of government, absolutely nothing was shared. The CIA knew these guys were coming in. The FBI knew there were people here already. But since they didn't talk, unless they recognized each other from opposing buildings in the stake-out, nobody >actually< was aware that we were fighting the same battle. >Thats< what needs to be fixed. And once identified, I don't want anyone around that thinks we need France's blessing to bomb the shit out of them thank you very much (though that will be the topic for other conversations) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,038 by boxley 4/13/04 2:29:45 PM Reply	Guiduin invoked thread closed :-) "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #151,039 by bepatient 4/13/04 2:31:46 PM Reply	Who invoked Guido-an? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,040 by inthane-chan 4/13/04 2:40:31 PM Reply	And where's Nunzio?
Post #151,045 by boxley 4/13/04 2:54:59 PM Reply	Gallic Godwin :-) "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #151,050 by Silverlock 4/13/04 3:18:36 PM Reply	Small problem You are defending a position I did not attack. But to point to this 8/6 document as some kind of smoking gun of criminal negligence is absolute crap. It's simply one more indicator of the criminal negligence of this administration. One more. They ignored all warnings from any quarter. Not just this one. The problem with you saying I think this document is evidence that validates my previously held position is that I did indeed have that position before hand. It doesn't require further validation. It is emminently defensible without this portion of a memo. That position, in case you missed it, is that the current admin ignored terrorism despite being warned by a variety of credible sources (Hart/Rudman ring a bell?) and then attempted to cover up this fact. As an aside, I find it odd that the 2 pages of info from a 11.5 page memo they saw fit to release (presumably because these two pages are the most likely to bolster their position) have raised such a stink. ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko
Post #151,057 by jb4 4/13/04 5:06:08 PM Reply	Don't joust with the Master Silverlock stated: You are defending a position I did not attack. But to point to this 8/6 document as some kind of smoking gun of criminal negligence is absolute crap. It's called a "red herring" argument, and BeeP is a master at it. But its good that you recognized it, grasshopper. 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 #151,067 by bepatient 4/13/04 5:44:24 PM Reply	They are his words. No herring. I didn't invent his position. He, in fact, validated it. He disagreed only with me attriuting this document any weight in formulating that position. Which actually semi-supports my position that he's reading with the blinders already on. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,097 by Silverlock 4/13/04 10:15:23 PM Reply	The grasshopper objects. In case you missed it, my position was that this document is gravy. This document is simply another in the long list of documents that have shown this admin to be derelict. Jesus H. Christ dude, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're not being persecuted. It only makes it unlikely. Discounting info because of its source is a insidious trap we all fall into. I know I have. But let's get real, you are defending a admin that has shown itself to hold only the most venal of values. Doesn't thiat piss you off? Or are you a true believer? A thought I refuse to believe. Nah. I have to bet most of the recent posts (and to be honest, most of your entire history here) were more of the nature of "keep presenting the opposing position and stir up trouble if you can". Do you honestly believe after all that has been presented that this admin was paying attention? ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko
Post #151,100 by bepatient 4/13/04 10:32:12 PM Reply	I don't believe they were paying any more or any less attention than any previous administration. Nor that there was anything they could have done even if they had walked in the door with this as their #1 agenda. They knew it to be important, but it was not "critical". It had never been critical. We were invincible remember? Freeh has it right. We were not on a war footing. A war footing >may< have been able to hamper the terrorists. (key word >may<). Now, how much popular support do you think there would have been for the TSA and like policies >before< 9/11? This is all being done on hindsight. Equal blame can go on all administrations back through Reagan. Possibly as far back as Carter. The government, regardless of administration, was not capable nor could it have garnered support for the steps required to combat this enemy prior to 9/11. Clinton, for example, got nice footage of Bin Laden. Could have ended the search right there. Why didn't he? No support from the consituents. This administration holds lots of values. They don't match yours. Alot of them aren't very close to mine either. However, I do not believe them to be doing things out of malice, which it appears that many do actually believe. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,382 by CRConrad 4/16/04 9:34:55 AM Reply	Have you all gone completely INSANE ??? BeeP: Freeh has it right. We were not on a war footing. Holy fucking shit, when were you ever SUPPOSED to "be on a war footing" ??? There IS NO WAR!!! (OK, there was one, a while ago, against Iraq; but that has since turned into an occupation; could have been like the occupation of [large parts of] Germany, unless your troops screwed up and it's turning into a Vietnam in stead. [So you might soon have a war on your hands again... But right now, you don't.]) I'll buy this talk about a "War on Terrorism" when you show me a copy of the Declaration of War that your ambassador to the country of Terrorism delivered to the government of that country. Until then, this is all just another case of America running Amok in foreign parts, just like in Vietnam. Then, the excuse was some gobbledy-gook about "the imminent danger of World communism"; now, it's a single CRIME that some fuck-head from foreign parts committed in the USA. (Conveniently, he had accesories from several other foreign parts, and supporters in even more, so the USA is taking this as carte blanche to run Amok pretty much whereverthefuck it feels like it. [I'm sure it's sheer coincidence that they have so far happened to do so in places with Lots Of Oil...]) It's fucking time for America -- and more so than many Americans for you, Beep() -- to take a deep breath, and GET the fuck OVER IT! This administration holds lots of values. They don't match yours. Alot of them aren't very close to mine either. However, I do not believe them to be doing things out of malice, which it appears that many do actually believe. What does it matter if it's actuallly intentional* malice or not? When fanaticism -- in favour of anything, even the most inoffensive generally beneficial goal imaginable (though the Shrubbist's "values" don't come even close to that) -- gets sufficiently rabid, it will in effect be indistinguishable from malice that was intended as such. So, AFAICS, it's actually just another form of the same thing: Say, in stead of intentional malice, "blind malice". In a nutshell: Yes, "this administration" is, because of its "values", in effect doing things "out of malice"; out of blind malice. (): Not that you're alone among IWeThey'ers, in this: There's also Arkadiy (and his hero James Lileks -- frigging scary, with his blither about it being "9/10 in some parts of America, and 9/12 in others"), and Addison and all the Warmonger-bloggers he frequnts nowadays in stead of this place, and... Oh, I'm not keeping count. Ah, yes, of course -- I almost forgot the Mar-bot. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad]* (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575\|Ashton Brown]
Post #151,387 by jbrabeck 4/16/04 9:42:31 AM Reply	Bravo I had quit reading this thread due to the incessant blathering. When I saw your post I decided to read it. Well said and FWIW I concur with your observations.
Post #151,394 by bepatient 4/16/04 10:14:40 AM Reply	Ok. Call it what you want. But put simply a well organized and well funded group declared war (def >jihad<) against the United States. We, in traditional fashion, tried to arrest them. So far, we're short a few 767s and a couple of very large buildings. No they don't have a border or a constitution or a patch of land to carpet bomb. But "war footing" is not a replacement for "at war" either. It is as much a state of mind by the people in this country. That state of mind is that there are certain people who are not going to be afforded a public attorney before they are whacked and we damn well better be prepared for it. Bombing a pill factory and a barren patch of desert because "thats all the polls will support" is NOT going to solve the problem. Call it whatever the fuck you want, but wandering over with a badge and a snub-nosed 38 and saying "yer unda arrest, pardner" is NOT gonna work. You'll have all the folks crying once you get him here about how his "rights" have been violated, and how we have to make sure that he is treated fairly and given access to the best attorneys (if the turbin don't fit, you must acquit!). Aiding is also a crime. So how do you arrest the sitting government of several nations that actively support these criminals? Maybe we should all just sit together and sing kumbayah. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,395 by mmoffitt 4/16/04 10:36:04 AM Reply	We are (used to be?) a nation of laws, beep. Do try to remember that. CR is correct. This was not a "declaration of war". This was a criminal act of mass murder. Immediately after the fact, we had a choice: 1) Leverage the world-wide sympathy we had to illicit the help of the world's criminal investigative powers to root out the co-conspirators, bring them here, try them, convict them and send them to prison for the rest of their lives (similar to what we had done during the Millenium threat and the first group of thugs that tried to blow up the WTC). -OR- 2) We could become just like the terrorists we were trying to capture while simultaneously alienating almost the entire world in the process. Guess which one we did?
Post #151,397 by bepatient 4/16/04 10:39:20 AM Reply	I don't think you get it either. you cannot threaten someone willing to DIE with life in prison. The fact they they can kill several thousand that then get 3 squares and 100k a year to support them with free cable...yeah baby!!! If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,398 by mmoffitt 4/16/04 10:41:35 AM Reply	Whose threatening? I'm talking about getting them behind bars so that they can plot no more. Or does your protest, as I LARGELY suspect, have more to do with an infantile "I gotta hit 'em back" attitude than it does with making us a safer, more humane and more respectable place?
Post #151,437 by jb4 4/16/04 2:01:17 PM 4/16/04 2:02:57 PM Reply	I dunno, BeeP Putting a martyr-wannabee behind bars for-basically-ever, and making sure they can't ever become martyrs strikes me as being a death worse than fate, and wholly appropriate punishment. (And the occasional boo-foo would surely add insult to injury, as well.) 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 Edited by jb4 April 16, 2004, 02:02:57 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #151,465 by pwhysall 4/16/04 4:51:36 PM Reply	Depends on what you regard prison AS. Do you think of it as a place of rehabilitation, a place of restraint, or a place where you exact your revenge? Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,464 by pwhysall 4/16/04 4:50:37 PM Reply	Declare war then. Until then, accept that you're indulging in bilateral (UK + US) armed conflict. But you ain't at war. No way, no how. Who are you declaring WAR on? And we're not on a war footing, either; that means conscription, and all the shit that goes with that. Whine all you like, but the evidence (huge contracts awarded to American companies (Halliburton, for one)) indicates that the reason we're in Iraq is pure and simple business. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,485 by boxley 4/16/04 6:53:07 PM Reply	war IS a business, when has it not been? All you euros for centuries trudging up and down the continent killing each other ever since you found out the buggers over the hill have something you want. thanx, bill "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #151,396 by mmoffitt 4/16/04 10:37:26 AM Reply	Not all of us, but an alarmingly high percentage. Bush was backed by 45 percent ... in the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs. [link\|http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/04/09/poll/index_np.html\|http://www.salon.com...oll/index_np.html]
Post #151,399 by boxley 4/16/04 10:43:27 AM Reply	got yer declaration right here [link\|http://www.islam-online.net/English/Views/2001/09/article10.shtml\|http://www.islam-onl...9/article10.shtml] Even if bin Laden was not behind the September carnage, a declaration of war against him is logical. After all, he declared war on the United States in February of1998 . His signature appears on a fax sent to the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi of a directive that specified "crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims" and on the basis that struggle "is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries" that therefore "to kill the Americans and their allies - civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Holy Mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim" (Bin Laden, et al.1998 ). so war was declared, you dont need a counter declaration. thanx, bill "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #151,403 by mmoffitt 4/16/04 10:49:30 AM Reply	I declare War on Microsoft. Are Microsoft and I now "at war"? GMAFB. Some Islamic lunatic "declares war" and that's all it takes? Fsck. Who can't declare war?
Post #151,405 by bepatient 4/16/04 10:53:28 AM Reply	Its one thing to declare it. But we've suffered several thousand casualties as a result of >that< one. Strap a bomb on your back and walk up MS way...I bet they take yours seriously afterwards. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,408 by mmoffitt 4/16/04 10:58:20 AM Reply	Then I'd be a murderer, not a nation-state capable of prosecuting a war.
Post #151,411 by bepatient 4/16/04 11:13:14 AM Reply	Ah. And what would the leader of the country that paid your family after you did it be? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,447 by mmoffitt 4/16/04 2:46:27 PM Reply	Be very careful with that argument. Wasn't Reagan one of your heroes? Emphasis Mine. Between 1980-85 the CIA funds the recruitment and training of thousands of volunteers from three dozen Muslim countries to fight in Afghanistan. *Among these \ufffdAfghan Arabs\ufffd is Osama bin Laden,* heir to a Saudi construction fortune, as well as top officials from Islamic movements throughout the Middle East and Asia. Many of these fighters and groups later join to form the Al Qaeda network and turn against their former American and Saudi sponsors.6 President Reagan says that \ufffdThe resistance of the Afghan freedom fighters is an example to all the world of the invincibility of the ideals we in this country hold most dear, the ideals of freedom and independence.\ufffd7 [link\|http://www.cesr.org/Emergency%20Response/Afghanistan%20Fact%20Sheet%202%20WORD.doc\|http://www.cesr.org/...et%202%20WORD.doc] and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983... The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. ... Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford's defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31]. *Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests."* [link\|http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/\|Shaking hands with Saddam]
Post #151,492 by bepatient 4/16/04 8:30:19 PM Reply	And what would these things do... ...other than bolster my continuing argument? Everyone points fingers at this administration when the problem is systemic and years old? One could even call it "historic". And meeting with people is one thing. Show me where these guys [link\|http://www.seacoastonline.com/2002news/4_4_w2.htm\|cut checks] to the families of suicide bombers. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,593 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 12:43:48 PM Reply	Boggle And meeting with people is one thing. Show me where these guys cut checks [] to the families of suicide bombers.* Maybe you can't read. Start with this one: Between 1980-85 the CIA funds the recruitment and training of thousands of volunteers from three dozen Muslim countries to fight in Afghanistan. Among these \ufffdAfghan Arabs\ufffd is Osama bin Laden,... Reagan praised them, sent Rummy to friendly up to Saddam. You say we had to rid ourselves of Saddam because he paid criminals ex post facto for their crimes. What do we do with ourselves? You know, the people who paid for the "recruitment and training of thousands" to commit the crimes? The crop you're defending, (Rummy, Cheney, et. al.) are the ones who paid for the recruitment and training of the very same terrorists who have attacked us. If Saddam paying "our old pals" is enough for us to go after him, isn't it time we, at the very least, threw Cheney and crew out of office?
Post #151,602 by Another Scott 4/18/04 2:39:45 PM Reply	We've been through this before. The CIA didn't support, recruit or train bin Laden. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=9897\|#9897] and the link within. Cheers, Scott.
Post #151,604 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 2:56:59 PM Reply	Why I cautioned Beep. If "financing" terrorists is enough, well then we don't have to look beyond our borders do we? Keep in mind that bin Laden himself didn't pilot those aircraft. Nor did Saddam. If "funding" is enough - well, then, we're culpable too.
Post #151,606 by bepatient 4/18/04 3:00:26 PM Reply	It wasn't funding I was discussing. You should read the link. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,608 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 3:03:28 PM Reply	I (mis?)read this one. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=151408\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=151408] Aren't you saying that 'We went after Saddam because he paid the families of suicide bombers'? Wouldn't that, generally, be classified as "funding terrorists"?
Post #151,609 by bepatient 4/18/04 3:05:49 PM Reply	I would generally say no. Cause the terrorist is already dead. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,612 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 3:09:13 PM Reply	Okay, I'll play. Exactly, why did we need to get rid of Saddam? And please, don't lecture me about what an evil bastard he is/was. I was screaming about that when you were probably still in high school and I was in college back when Saddam was "the leading force for moderation in the region" according to the Reagan Administration (circa that famous handshake above).
Post #151,615 by bepatient 4/18/04 3:17:20 PM Reply	We didn't. You really haven't been paying attention, have you? The question is, when arresting and prosecuting terrorists, what do you do when you have >governments< complicit in the terrorism? Do you stroll into Libya and arrest Khadaffi? He bankrolled the bombing of a 747. We arrested those "responsible", but we didn't get all of those complicit in the attack. The point being, fighting terrorism is NOT as simple as "arresting terrorists". If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,621 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 3:31:18 PM 4/18/04 3:34:08 PM Reply	? The question is, when arresting and prosecuting terrorists, what do you do when you have >governments< complicit in the terrorism? Central America anyone? Or are "Death Squads" not terrorists? The United States (in particular the United States when run by folks like Reagan, Bush I, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al.) has a history of supporting terrorists. I'm just cautioning you about living in a glass house and pitching rocks. [Edit: Supporting terrorists, not terrorist nations] Edited by mmoffitt April 18, 2004, 03:34:08 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #151,624 by bepatient 4/18/04 3:40:03 PM Reply	So fine. What do you do? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,626 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 3:58:18 PM Reply	Vote for smarter people ;0) I saw Kerry on "Face the Nation" today. I'd go along with him for the most part. Russert tried to beat him up over his position that fighting terrorism "is not primarily a military action" but a primarily a law enforcement, intelligence action. Bombing Iraq for the sake of "defendin' mah daddee" didn't do a lot for rooting out terrorist organizations (which, mind you, I do not think are that great a threat in the first place. Sure, we should pay attention. Sure, we can't have slackers in the CIA, FBI and White House. Yes, we've got to have a President who pays attention even when he is on the longest Presidential Vacation in history. But most Americans - no, probably ALL Americans are more likely to be killed by their automobiles on the way to work than they are to become a victim of terrorism). In pursuing those responsible for 9/11, imagine where Osama would be today if we had sent the same number of troops into Afghanistan when we had Osama cornered in Tora Bora as we sent into Iraq. I don't claim to have all the answers, but it is clear to me that the current crop has none of the answers.
Post #151,707 by bepatient 4/18/04 10:55:33 PM Reply	I wish there were some to vote for. We're back to a lesser of 2 evils choice again. It would be nice to see someone smart actually run. Unfortunately, the fact that their smart automatically excludes them from consideration. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,466 by pwhysall 4/16/04 4:53:28 PM Reply	So declare war, or else STFU. Or is it just a handy way to get the ra-ra kids going? I notice a singular absence of any formal declaration of war anywhere. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,505 by boxley 4/16/04 10:43:22 PM Reply	google bush declares war on Al Quida Results 1 - 10 of about 711 for bush declares war on Al Quida. (0.28 seconds) pick one get over it. Yhink how many more hits I ould get if I could spell. Point == useless, war has been declared. thanx, bill "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #151,716 by pwhysall 4/19/04 1:24:03 AM Reply	Neato. And here's me thinking "war", in the context of international politics, is some kind of specific state of declared conflict between sovereign nations. Thank you for reminding me that "war" is what the USA declares whenever it's about to spend a lot of money and lives on something pointless. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,729 by boxley 4/19/04 8:08:29 AM Reply	cant help if you are uneducated war is conflict. The Crips have an ongoing war with the Bloods. Smarmy bastards in suits dont have a monopoly on it. thanx, bill "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #151,751 by pwhysall 4/19/04 10:43:18 AM Reply	Whatever. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,737 by Silverlock 4/19/04 9:30:38 AM Reply	War on Terrorism as successful as the War on Drugs. 'Scuse me while I fire up this bong. Waiting for my heroin to finish cookin' before I shoot up. ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko
Post #151,738 by drewk 4/19/04 9:44:02 AM Reply	Someone please fork this damn thing === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #151,747 by jbrabeck 4/19/04 10:28:14 AM Reply	Forked Dr. Strangelove. (new thread) Created as new thread #151746 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=151746\|Forked Dr. Strangelove.]
Post #151,400 by Another Scott 4/16/04 10:43:31 AM Reply	It's an old problem. It's similar to what the US and Europe had to deal with when confronting the [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=150713\|Barbary pirates]. The US and Europe didn't treat piracy as a law enforcement problem, but rather as a something that the military often had to address. [link\|http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/blackbea.cfm\|Edward Teach - aka Blackbeard] - didn't spend his last days in a prison cell - he was killed in battle. The US did effectively declare war on terrorism on [link\|http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/useofforce.htm\|September 14, 2001]. The wording is similar to that used to enter WWII. It's not simply a law enforcement issue. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #151,404 by mmoffitt 4/16/04 10:51:31 AM Reply	And that attitude. It's not simply a law enforcement issue. is what we are shredding the BoR for. "We are at War" so we have to give up some, maybe just a few, of our liberties. You can't protect anything by destroying it.
Post #151,406 by bepatient 4/16/04 10:57:17 AM Reply	If you want it to be a "law enforcement issue" You have to be willing to give law enforcement the proper tools to do it. Which you aren't. 4 lilly whites cannot be investigated until they commit some type of crime. You have to stop them before they start building it. But you can't, because you're not allowed to investigate them. See a problem here? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,409 by mmoffitt 4/16/04 11:01:14 AM Reply	You want it to be a "war"? How's about you telling me the object of any war? Hint: It ain't victory. 'Nother hint: It's PEACE. Now, how's about you telling me with whom we reach this peace? Wars are of finite length and result, ultimately, in peace. What's the end-game for this "War on Terrorism"? Hint: There isn't one. 'Nother hint: There can't be because this is not a war at all.
Post #151,410 by bepatient 4/16/04 11:12:01 AM Reply	I want it solved. By the most effective means possible. And I don't like the term "War on Terror" because its not entirely accurate. Nor do I like the term "police action" because thats not entirely accurate. But to pretend that we can use the same rules that got us into this mess to get us out of it is just that. Pretend. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,417 by jbrabeck 4/16/04 11:48:30 AM Reply	Simple solution Kill off the entire population of the world except for you. Short of having only one inhabitant, nothing can prevent all terrorism. They, the terrorist, is fighting for an idea. Tim McVey was a terrorist. The only thing that makes us civilized are laws. Realizing that I'd rather obey the law than go to jail. If I didn't care about the results of my actions then I'm freed to do whatever I want. If a terrorist is willing to die for his beliefs, then war won't stop him. Neither will police action. Believing that any agency could infiltrate all organizations and prevent further terroristic actions in an exercise in fantasy. There will always be terrorists. A War on Terrorism is ludicrious. Unless the War is only a front to restrict our freedoms. "We're at war, therefore ...". A war must be against a country with whom we can negotiate a ending. ObL cannot end the terrorism. So we cannot declare "war" on ObL. When will Schrub declare "peace"? Week after his reselection?
Post #151,438 by jb4 4/16/04 2:06:32 PM Reply	When, indeed! "We're at war with Eastasia. We've alwasy been at war with Eastasia!" 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 #151,468 by pwhysall 4/16/04 4:57:41 PM Reply	That's not a declaration of war. A declaration of war is a very specific thing. That ain't it. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,472 by jbrabeck 4/16/04 5:09:12 PM Reply	But Peter, We have a War on Drugs -- ends when everyone is high. And a War on Poverty -- Ends when Shrub & Co has all the money. And locally we have a war on prostitution -- Ends when everyone is hard up ;-j Must have a few more, but that's all that I can think of right now.
Post #151,474 by drewk 4/16/04 5:18:40 PM Reply	Can someone please fork a new thread (or several)? === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #151,476 by Another Scott 4/16/04 5:24:10 PM Reply	It'll probably die soon. Threads usually croak after I've posted more than 3 replies. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #151,493 by bepatient 4/16/04 8:31:59 PM Reply	Yeah darnit...FORK this thread! If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,535 by Arkadiy 4/17/04 12:48:40 PM Reply	Knifing it is too much work -- Buy high, sell sober.
Post #151,475 by Another Scott 4/16/04 5:22:25 PM Reply	Not in the traditional sense. In the traditional sense, terrorism isn't a cross-border phenomenon. E.g. The Red Brigades, Bader-Meinhoff, and even the IRA didn't operate across (more than one) border(s). They were domestic terrorists. Al Qaeda is different. It's closer to the Barbary Pirates than to a traditional terrorist organization. As you say, traditionally, states-of-war can only exist between governments. The [link\|http://www.luminet.net/~tgort/tonkin.htm\|Gulf of Tonkin] resolution was probably closest to the 9/14/2001 resolution. It didn't state that the US was at war with North Vietnam, but it authorized the use of military force to repel and prevent further aggression. I think if we apply the Duck Test, then the 9/14/2001 is a declaration of war. YMMV. Cheers, Scott.
Post #151,063 by Another Scott 4/13/04 5:25:07 PM Reply	4/13/2004 Tom Toles (78 kB .gif) (new thread) Created as new thread #151062 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=151062\|4/13/2004 Tom Toles (78 kB .gif)]
Post #151,383 by CRConrad 4/16/04 9:35:30 AM Reply	Yes, there are - those that won't, even though they can. And that would seem to be the group you're squarely placing yourself in, BeeP. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575\|Ashton Brown]
Post #150,914 by altmann 4/12/04 6:26:48 PM Reply	Necroeqquiphilia can do that to a person. -- Chris Altmann
Post #151,015 by bbronson 4/13/04 12:20:46 PM Reply	Necroeqquiphilia; I'll have to remember that one ;-)
Post #151,035 by jb4 4/13/04 2:06:00 PM Reply	ICLRPD (new thread) Created as new thread #151034 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=151034\|ICLRPD] 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 #150,903 by jb4 4/12/04 5:51:59 PM Reply	and they STILL don't get it! From Silverlock's excellent link: Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism [in the fiscal 2003 budget]." Those fucknuts still don't get it! It's not the missiles, it's the terrorists, stupid! 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

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Briefing sounded alert pre-9/11

White House releases memo that warned of Al Qaeda activities

Agencies' names blacked out

Rice's testimony

White House: No link shown