That's why I said "right now" as in "in this thread". The fact that some people are allowed to post here despite the fact they only exist to diminish civility and remove meaningful discourse from these "discussions" and "debates" and turn them into feces flinging contests baffles me. It undermines the purpose of this entire forum. Not saying I'm a total stick in the mud, I get a good laugh every now and then, but jeez.. sometimes it just gets pathetic..
Oh I'm sorry, for a moment there I thought the liberals were the ones who launched into a string of vulgarities, accused someone else of drug use, and launched several personal attacks in an attempt to change the subject. Oh wait -- THEY WERE. Keep trying, you really are getting better.
Hey Trader w**** Hey do you have a city permit or health permit to store so much s*** in your brain. I know all of the s*** you talk is for entertainment value only,but can you for once add something constructive to the debate? If you were any more full of it they would be trying to pull you out of shrub's ass. P.S. have a nice day
You get a free ride on this one, provided you really think about whether you want some of us to open up right-wing or Republican leaning sites and compare what we find there to what you found on Kos.
Well, the description says "monkeys flinging poo" and there is definitely lots of monkeys and poo to go around!
What? Kerry isn't even involved in this issue. Trader_Jorge: I see a lot of (perhaps justified) hyperbole and venom, but no one has yet has pointed out the glaring fraud that is your initial post. I live in New York; the Post is a joke. (By the way, you might want to look up the front page from many, many moons ago. It was titled, "He" referred to Bush, "knew" referred to the Aug. 6 PDB, back when Woodward first broke the PDB's title back in 2002. Even the Murdoch-owned, right-wing Post recognized that, should be (de)classified as a warning. Now that it's an election year, the PDB is public, and contains: the NY Post is back to doing Bush's damage control. Beautiful that you would cite as your main argument an article, titled "NATIONAL DISGRACE," that is completely unsubstantiated to rebut the many inconsistencies that have been pointed out in Rice's testimony. Among those inconsistencies is the article's central thesis, that Bush's administration is redeemed because: No. Rice mentioned this in her testimony. So did Bush in his press conference. Both appear to be lying to cover themselves. Point of fact, the CIA agent who wrote the memo says she did so of her own accord, that President Bush did not order the memo. According to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22231-2004Mar24_2.html): Tenet has changed the CIA's story on the matter, taking the political bullet for Bush (as he is wont to do [see: Iraqi WMD intelligence failures, Cincinatti/State of the Union "yellowcake" flap, etc.]; his role as perpetual scapegoat is what makes him so valuable). But the agent who wrote the PDB hasn't retracted her claim. Kaplan wrote an excellent article dealing with this issue. In testimony yesterday, CIA director Tenet revealed that Bush and he were out of touch for almost the entire month of August 2001 while Bush was vacationing in Crawford. This wouldn't be a problem necessarily, but Bush has repeatedly cited Tenet's "almost-daily" briefings to him as the way he kept up-to-date on national security, since he did not regularly meet with other principals (and his terrorism chief Clarke). Via Atrios, the link is to the Times transcript of Tenet's testimony: Rice said that the government was at "battle stations" during that early summer (an extreme overstatement, to be generous). Nothing happened in June or July. So Bush, cognizant of the terrorist threat (and, in his version, so concerned that he demands the brief on US vulnerability) takes August off, and seals himself out of the intelligence loop while doing so. So that's August. Next comes September, and September 11. Again, from Kaplan. And the Aug. 6 PDB wasn't the only warning. According to a year-old Newsweek article: Trust me, Trader_Jorge, this is the polar opposite of the sincerest form of flattery: PERSONAL DISGRACE
Thanks for proving my point, aghast. What you and the rest of the politically desperate and frustrated liberals have on your mind is election day. You don't care about learning lessons from a tragic event caused by an unprecedented attack. That is after all, why the commission was put in place. It wasn't put in place for Ben-veniste and Kerrey to grandstand and try to embarrass the people who are working their tails off in good faith to protect this country. You don't seem to understand how the benefit of hindsight colors and taints how you read these memos and briefings. Try reading those memos before 9-11, when nothing of this magnitude was ever dreamed about. The bottom line is this, and Bush has said it over and over -- if Bush or *anyone* in the administration knew what was going to happen, they would have done EVERYTHING possible to avoid it. No one knew. No one could have predicted 9-11. Clinton didn't lift a finger in his 8 years in office to combat terror. Now look who is on the attack -- the liberals. Yup, it’s hypocritical. The liberals clearly have no problem disgracing the tragedy, disgracing those who lost family members, disgracing those whose lives were ruined. No sir, not one problem at all. The liberals have no problem talking down the accomplishments of our troops abroad and helping to boost the morale of the insurgents by advocating a troop withdrawal from the region. The liberals’ problem is the White House. Every single action in which they endeavor is tailored to that one problem. It is gross.
As long as you continue to try to promote this fallacy (about the only thing you are good at) I will continue to rebut it. Clinton did more to combat terrorism than any president to that point and would have been able to do significantly more had the GOP controlled congress allowed him to do so. THE TRUTH HURTS
Testimony in front of the 9-11 commission reveals that Bill Clinton spent more time with Monica Lewinsky than he did with George Tenet. Clinton met with Tenet TWICE. I guess Monica was more important. So sorry to debunk you in such a harsh manner, andymoon, but your statement just doesn't add up!
You didn't debunk ****, moron. Clinton spent so much money and time on terrorism that the GOP controlled congress went so far as to accuse him of being "obsessed" by terrorism in general and by OBL specifically. Remember, those are your leash holders that said that, not the "liberal media." I am not sorry to put your lies to rest as your statements haven't ever added up. LIAR
this is important, since the left equates meetings held with effort fighting terrorism. clearly, monica was job one using andy's own criteria.
I challenge you to find a single post where I equate meetings held with effort fighting terrorism. I have never said that because I do not believe it to be true.
Great question. I thought he was obsessed with it when the congress started saying that. I just thought that if the president is to be obsessed with something, it might as well be terrorism.
Trader_Jorge: Now I'm positive that you insist on self-parody. As in, "This has nothing to do with Kerry." As in, this has nothing to do with the upcoming election. And your original post, mindful of the importance of keeping this solemn occasion apolitical, remarked: I agree, the 9/11 commission should be above politics. Generally, how would you say the commission should work to learn these lessons? I would think that the panel would call forth government officials (supposedly) in the know, those in power during and just before that fateful day. Then the commission would ask questions, and the officials would answer those questions. All with the goal of formulating such lessons to prevent future attacks. For example: Lookie there. Instead of just effusively heaping praise on the CIA director, accomplishing nothing, the Democratic panelist asked him probing questions. He learned that the CIA director did not keep the president informed about threats to national security in the month preceding this catastrophe. What lesson can be gleaned from this exchange to prevent future attacks? Well, it's pretty important that the President be well-informed about threats to national security to prevent such threats from coming to fruition. Another lesson learned: it may be important that, while they are "working their tails off" to "protect this country," future presidents not spend 40% of their terms on vacation, especially for month-long stretches during times of national peril. Written on 8.3.2001, before Bush's monthlong vacation, a month and eight days before September 11 (notice that last line in present context): These memos? These memos aren't cause for concern before 9-11? Yet the commander in chief decides that this period was a good time to play hooky for thirty days? Fascinating. First you state that the current administration cannot be held accountable for what you claim is an unforseeable event. Then, in the very next sentence, you hold the previous administration accountable for what you claim is a completely unforeseeable event. Yup, it's hypocritical. Nowhere have I absolved the Clinton administration of responsibility for the Al Qaeda threat. To hold blameless one administration, while simultaneously faulting entirely another, I would have to be willfully daft. Clinton didn't do enough; Bush did far less. To anyone who is not on a DNC or RNC payroll, it is clear that neither comes out the winner. Both must shoulder this burden, even if an unequal burden. So, merely to question the administration is to say, "To hell with the 9/11 families," "to hell" with the soldiers in Iraq? That's quite a leap. It's not just anybody doing the questioning either: it's not a blogger, a Hollywood star, or even me. The people doing the questioning, the people supposedly saying "to hell with the 9/11 families" are the very members of the commission charged with investigating the events of that date, a commission charged with making recommendations on ways to prevent future 9/11s, a commission whose creation was supported by the president himself. (After initially resisting it, he gave in to public demand.). The commissioners must question, challenge those in power; how else is the government to learn any lessons from that day? With regard to Ben-Veniste and Kerrey specifically, neither is running for political office, neither has anything to gain. Kerrey had long been a supporter of removing Hussein from power, even before it became popular. This charge of hectoring for political gain is baseless. I think the following passage is representative of the gross mischaracterizations that the Post editorial and Trader_Jorge have to offer: No, not at all. This is a deliberate mischaracterization, dare I say for political gain. The actual transcript: Further: The overseer of the FBI and Justice wasn't privy to the presidential CIA briefings. Had he been there to listen to this particular PDB, he might have connected the dots to the arrested "20th hijacker." Lesson: it is important that the CIA and FBI share. Lesson: it's probably important that terrorism is among the top five strategic goals of the justice department. On to Kerrey vs. Ashcroft. Here's his opening remark: Awww, how sweet. Lesson: Kerrey is glad that the attorney general is recovering from surgery. Next up, Rice: It's a yes/no question. I believe the term is hostile witness. There's a ten minute time limit per each commissioner. Rice is clearly stalling here. Ben-Veniste attempts to budget his time accordingly and, as a prosecutor, control the flow of Rice's testimony. But nowhere do I see political motive or disrespect. Compare: I believe this could qualify as perjury. On to Kerrey vs. Rice: Before saying his piece on the mishandling of Iraq for half a minute, Kerrey begins thusly: Then Kerrey does move on to the only possible grandstanding that I can find in his and Ben-Veniste's questioning. He states: Agreed, this bit is out of line. It could be true conviction, self-aggrandizement, or politically-motivated. I lean toward the first, but I have my biases. On to: Kerrey's questioning is intense here, sure. But I believe any commissioner, Democrat or Republican, is right to ask about the lack of US response to the Cole attack. It's a valid question. Then Rice stalls some more: Kerrey brings up a plausible scenario: given better attention and communication between Rice, the FBI and CIA, the 9/11 plot could have been foiled. This seems clear to me. But Rice insists upon a "silver bullet," when the many lead bullets they already had (but didn't realize they had) would suffice. He also notes, correctly, that it's Rice's responsibility to prod the various agencies and coordinate their responses, follow up, not to sit passively and wait for intelligence manna. to come to her. And, ultimately, Rice agrees: Besides Kerrey's thirty second pronouncement on the threats we face in Iraq, stated before questioning Rice, neither Ben-Veniste nor Kerry could in any way be accused of stooping to political grandstanding. Given this, I suspect that the NY Post editorial writer and Trader_Jorge who parroted him never even listened to the 9/11 commission to begin with. An echo chamber proves untenable when you have to formulate your own voice.
