I can't keep up with ya.

Post #195,152 by mmoffitt 2/17/05 10:40:40 AM 2/17/05 10:42:09 AM Reply	I can't keep up with ya. [Edit: Gotta fix that damned "h" key]. But y'all don't need facts. She's a black woman. NO WAY she did it on her own, RIGHT? Thought we'd moved on to "qualifications", merit and the like. Like my favorite uncle told me once, "You can get an Ivy League education at a State College and you can get a State College education at an Ivy League school. It's up to you." So, the Stanford crap has little meaning to me. The fact that she was most definitely, by any objective measure, asleep at the wheel up to and including 9/11/2001 demonstrates clearly that she was/is incompetent. The fact that she has lied repeatedly makes her sleazy. The fact that neither of the above has caused her to face firing and instead has faced promotion indicates clearly that something other than competence keeps her on her upward climb. There. Is that clear enough? bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America. Edited by mmoffitt Feb. 17, 2005, 10:42:09 AM EST Expand All History
Post #195,154 by SpiceWare 2/17/05 10:50:29 AM Reply	and yet you're blaming it on Texas... Darrell Spice, Jr. [link\|http://spiceware.org/gallery/ArtisticOverpass\|Artistic Overpass]\n[link\|http://www.spiceware.org/\|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
Post #195,155 by mmoffitt 2/17/05 10:55:37 AM Reply	That was a poorly placed tongue-in-cheek reference to her ties with Dubya. I apologize to all the good people of Texas. I know there's one. I like Ann Richards (and, anyone here who ~~has the great misfortune~~ happens to hang his hat there). bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America.
Post #195,163 by bepatient 2/17/05 11:35:28 AM Reply	And again... ...you tie her association with W to a summary dismissal of everything she has accomplished. If she was asleep at the wheel through 9/11 for 8 months...she certainly was jumping in with a group that had been asleep for the 8 years prior (remember...GW kept Clintons team for continuity) And you keep insisting that the subject matter is an absolute between true/false. Not a gradient of such based on best available evidence and advice. Lets hope you never get stuck in such and enviroment, lest it make your head explode for lack of ability to comprehend. Its clear enough. It just has nothing to do with your rationalizations. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #195,165 by JayMehaffey 2/17/05 11:43:56 AM Reply	Clinton's team Clinton's team tried to hand Bush reports of terrorist dangers and plans to deal with them. Bush's team (including Rice) wouldn't hear of it. I don't know why they didn't want to talk about terrorism or do anything about it. But in such a situation it would have been Rice's job to measure the real relative dangers of things and bring the important ones to her boss's attention. Rice seems to have the done reverse, ignoring issues her boss didn't want to deal with. As for truth and lies, I don't see a lot of shade of grey here. Rice outright lied about having been warned about terrorism before 9/11. Jay
Post #195,167 by Simon_Jester 2/17/05 11:52:40 AM Reply	Oops.... (remember...GW kept Clintons team for continuity) You haven't read Clarke's memo, have you. Naughty, naughty.
Post #195,261 by bepatient 2/17/05 6:46:45 PM Reply	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 by jb4 2/17/05 6:56:46 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 2/17/05 7:30:49 PM Reply	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 by Simon_Jester 2/18/05 10:23:34 AM Reply	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 by bepatient 2/18/05 12:24:06 PM Reply	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 by Simon_Jester 2/18/05 10:28:07 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 2/19/05 12:14:10 PM Reply	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 by tuberculosis 2/19/05 1:36:19 PM Reply	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

Welcome to IWETHEY!