he mentions the days since Mission Accomplished either right before or right after he says Good Night and Good Luck.
My thoughts: 1. It was VERY refreshing to see a democrat stick up for themselves to the right-wing bullying tactics. Actually, it gets me fired up. 2. I miss having a president in office that is capable of speaking without rhetoric. VERY refreshing. 3. If the democrats are going to truely win hearts and minds of people this election, we need more of this. We need some passion. 4. At the time I never thought I'd say it, but after 6 years of W in office, I am really happy to see Clinton. Ah, the good ol days.
i dont want to defend clinton. as far as im concerned he and bush are both puppets controlled by the same masters. they (and all presidents) work for the same team. democrat vs. republican / liberal vs. conservative is a b.s. argument that is used to keep us arguing amongst ourselves while those in power, republican or democrat work to further their own and their overlords agendas. no matter who is in charge, there is never a real sea change in policy or direction of the country. clinton was the one to bring in NAFTA, which bush furthered with the north american union, despite the fact that NAFTA has been horrible for mexicans and american workers. these guys are all buddy-buddy behind the scenes. the clintons vacation with the bushs. bush sr. calls clinton "son". rupert murdoch is holding multiple fundraisers for hillary clinton. the country needs to wake up and quick! back on topic though, its hilarious that bush supporters want to attack clinton for 9/11, yet totally ignore bush's failings and seeming facilitating of the attacks. thats right, actions that the bush administration took actually helped the attacks take place. for example, in may 2001 the bush administration introduced the visa express program, which allowed saudi nationals to get a visa from a travel agent rather than their consulate. several of the hijackers used this program to gain entry into the u.s. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/terror/articles/visa011212.htm bush ignored warnings from DOZENS of other countries and their intelligence agencies in the months leading up to 9/11. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53065,00.html – Russian President Vladimir Putin has said publicly that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the United States last summer that suicide pilots were training for attacks on U.S. targets. – U.S. investigators confirmed in October that a 29-year-old Iranian in custody in Germany's Langenhagen prison last year made phone calls to U.S. police from his deportation cell that an attack on the World Trade Center was imminent in "the days before the attack." The warning was considered the threat of a madman. – Based on its own intelligence, the Israeli government provided "general" information to the United States in the second week of August that an Al Qaeda attack was imminent. – French intelligence echoed the "general" information in the final week of August. – The Italian government shared "general" information of possible attacks in March 2001 based on bugs in apartments in Milan. – An Iranian in custody in New York City told local police last May of a plot to attack the World Trade Center. – German intelligence alerted the Central Intelligence Agency, Britain's MI-6 intelligence service, Israel's Mossad in June 2001 that Middle Eastern terrorists were training for hijackings and targeting American and Israeli interests. – Millennium bomber Ahmad Ressam testified in closed and open court trials relating to his Dec. 1999 arrest for trying to bring bomb-making materials across the Canadian border that attack plans, including hijackings and attacks on New York City targets, were ongoing. – An Islamic terrorist conspiracy was uncovered in 1996 in the Philippines to hijack a dozen airplanes and fly them into CIA headquarters and other buildings. Among the discoveries was a plot for a "bojinka" – a big bang. The information was discovered on a computer and noted in the 1997 trial of Ramzi Yousef, one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. – Pakistanis were taken into custody June 4 in the Cayman Islands after they were overheard discussing hijacking attacks in New York City; they were questioned and released, and the information was forwarded to U.S. intelligence. – Indian intelligence shared "general" information in July 2001. – In July and August, British intelligence shared "general" information that it had learned through surveillance of Khalid al-Fawwaz, a Saudi Arabian dissident who has publicly acknowledged being a bin Laden operative. Fawwaz, suspected of participating in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombing in Kenya, was arrested after Sept. 11. and finally, we have the infamous PDB of august 6 - bin laden determined to strike in the u.s. bush has used the excuse that the memo was not place or time specific so it wasnt "actionable intelligence". bush is also exposed as a LIAR when he said that "nobody could have imagined flying planes into buildings" than it comes out that the cia and the pentagon were running war game drills of hijacked planes flying into buildings...but not just any buildings - the WTC, the pentagon and the white house...and these drills just happened to be taking place on september 11, 2001. very convenient, wasnt it?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/26/what-did-bush-do-about-the-cole/ Interesting on many levels. Bush Admin pretended that the Cole bombing never happened. The 911 comission's oval office interviews (where Cheney held W's hand) were not made part of the final 911 report (from what appears to be a party line vote). Man are historians going to have a field day with W or what!!!
Please site where those papers advocate invading Iraq. They don't. Clinton actually wanted to put boots on the ground in Afghanistan but the military was against it so he caved. I don't really blame him. I can only imagine what the Republican response would have been. It's sad that he even has to take Wallace to task for his attempted hatchet job, but good for him.
Notice the URLs...and all before 9/11... Excerpt from 1998 PNAC Letter to Clinton. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20010514.htm http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-092898.htm http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-013098.htm
And if I were still president we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq... --Clinton quoted on Fox "One year ago we couldn't have had such a meeting at midnight," says Sabir, who is in his mid-40s and looks forward to living out his life as an anti-American jihadist. "Now we gather in broad daylight. The people know we are returning to power." --Taliban Commander quoted in Newsweek http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14975282/site/newsweek/
Force presence in the Gulf is not the same as calling for an invasion of Iraq. You acknowledge as much. Rimrocker just wastes his time proving my point. There is no call to invade Iraq in that letter. This is just a tactic where the .org's mirror foxnews by making assertions often enough that they are repeated until people believe its true and then repeat it as fact.
With all due respect, Rimrocker's quotes (while not from the PNAC) are definitely calling for invasion.
Well, it's true they don't use the word "invade," so I consider myself appropriately chastened. I mean, after all, "military action," "military steps," "battle," "military might," "air power and ground forces," and "effective military campaign" are almost as slippery and undefinable as the word "is" is isn't it?
Check the URLs. They are either from PNAC documents or from members of PNAC and all are from the PNAC site.
If Osama were a budget surplus, Bush would have wiped him out. If Osama were Harken Energy or Arbusto Energy, Bush would have run him into the ground. If Osama were the Iraq War, Bush would have fu*ked him up and left a bigger body count than Sept 11. If Osama were Bush's War on Terror strategy, then there'd be nothing to worry about...because he'd be ineffective. If Osama were Bush, Bush would have outsmarted him.
I meant the oft-referenced "pax americana" document. And don't bother arguing with Hayes in this way, it will cause your neocortex to pound in unmatched agony.
Of course you did. Undoubtedly that was also what was earlier being referenced, not articles from the Weekly Standard and the NYT. Bravo, rhad. "...while not from the PNAC..." I admire that you seek to maintain your intellectual honesty despite your personal views, rhad. The article, while not from the PNAC, talks about giving military support to an internal uprising, not invading Iraq. Further, those are articles from Kristol et al, not documents from PNAC, such as the oft referred to letter to Clinton.
See the post above this yours - I meant the Rebuilding America's Defenses document. *cough*bull*****cough* Busted.
I'm not sure which of your links you're talking about. The letter to Clinton doesn't say anything about invading Iraq. The rest of the links are articles from papers and magazines, as you pointed out. Er, no. Read the links, Chief. Selective quoting to make your point isn't intellectually honest. I guess I take back my earlier compliment. Unlike some of the ideas circulating on Capitol Hill, which suppose that Saddam will be toppled without any military action, the Wolfowitz plan rests on a guarantee of military support to protect the opposition within the liberated zone. If, as would be likely, Saddam sent his tanks to wipe out this new threat to his regime, the United States would have to be ready to defend the Iraqi opposition with overwhelming force. The United States could not again stand by while an uprising was crushed by Saddam. Defend the opposition, not invade Iraq and remove Saddam. And again, these are articles not documents from the PNAC.
