Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Apr 8th, 2004, 10:16 AM        Condi Testy Moany
Starts later this morning. Coments as it unfolds?

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that she'll say the administration was all over terrorism, plans to attack Iraq were only the sort of contingency stuff you have the military draw up for any Nation regarded as potentially threatening, and Richard Clarke is just sour graping, lord only knows why.

Do you supose anyone will ask her which other potentially threatening countires we have now and had at that time drawn up actual plans to invade?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Bennett Bennett is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: one shot, right between the eyes, just for old times sake
Bennett is probably a spambot
Old Apr 8th, 2004, 10:47 AM       
how do these two statements work together?

"I don't remember the al Qaeda cells being something that we were told we needed to do something about," she said.
Rice said the August memo focused on history and "was not a warning."

and:

Rice said that Tenet briefed Bush almost daily on security issues and that the president's "very first major national security policy directive" was the elimination of al Qaeda.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Cosmo Electrolux Cosmo Electrolux is offline
Stone Pants Rabbit
Cosmo Electrolux's Avatar
Join Date: May 2001
Location: In your distant memory
Cosmo Electrolux is probably a spambot
Old Apr 8th, 2004, 10:57 AM       
....via Iraq....and their Weapons of mass destruction
Reply With Quote
  #4  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Apr 8th, 2004, 01:10 PM       
"In testimony before the 9/11 commission today, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the title of an August 6, 2001, intelligence memo to President Bush suggested Osama bin Laden was determined to attack inside the United States. Still, Rice said she believed the memo, called "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States," focused on history and "was not a warning."
-CNN

So... what the hell does that mean, exactly? That the adminsitration had come to the conclusion Bin Laden no longer intended to attack inside the united states, or that at some point in time they knew he did, but now they weren't sure if that was still the plan?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
FartinMowler FartinMowler is offline
Banned
FartinMowler's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: incoherant
FartinMowler sucks
Old Apr 8th, 2004, 01:48 PM       
Quote:
So... what the hell does that mean, exactly? That the adminsitration had come to the conclusion Bin Laden no longer intended to attack inside the united states, or that at some point in time they knew he did, but now they weren't sure if that was still the plan?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Buffalo Tom Buffalo Tom is offline
Member
Buffalo Tom's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Map Ref 41N 93W
Buffalo Tom is probably a spambot
Old Apr 8th, 2004, 02:03 PM       
Dr. Rice said that the president's "very first major national security policy directive" called for the elimination of al Qaeda. Yet in explaining why the Bush Administration did not act on the alleged Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6th, 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States", she called the analysis in the PDB 'a warning'. Huh? If Al Qaeda was at the top of the American national security agenda, then wouldn't a PDB with such provocative language and written by Bush's own security advisors have put him on a cautious footing leading up to 9/11? Perhaps even leading to a public warning advisory similiar to the ones Americans receive now when even the slightest whisper of terrorism is heard?
__________________
You're cooler than me
Reply With Quote
  #7  
davinxtk davinxtk is offline
GO AWAY DONT POST HERE
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Up.
davinxtk is probably a spambot
Old Apr 9th, 2004, 11:14 AM       
Because, bt, this is America. Terrorists don't attack America.
Right?

Right?

Is this bitch contradicting herself enough to warrant purgery charges, or am I just supposed to cover my ears and go "lalalalaalalalala" like it seems the rest of the world is doing?

You know, if any other country tried to pull this shit they'd get the crap beat out of them. At least Saddam was killing his own people.


(god, I hope at least one of you gets that)
__________________
(1:02:34 AM): and i think i may have gone a little too far and let her know that i actually do hate her, on some level, just because she's female
(1:03:33 AM): and now she's being all kinds of sensitive about it
(1:03:53 AM): i hate women
Reply With Quote
  #8  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old Apr 9th, 2004, 01:10 PM       
You know, I saw some clips of her testimony on the evening news. She was smirking the whole time.

"Uhh... I don't really recall what I told him for sure, but I think... uh... *grin*"

WTF?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Cosmo Electrolux Cosmo Electrolux is offline
Stone Pants Rabbit
Cosmo Electrolux's Avatar
Join Date: May 2001
Location: In your distant memory
Cosmo Electrolux is probably a spambot
Old Apr 9th, 2004, 01:27 PM       
lying cunt is wft....
Reply With Quote
  #10  
punkgrrrlie10 punkgrrrlie10 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
punkgrrrlie10 is probably a spambot
Old Apr 9th, 2004, 01:55 PM       
my favorite was when she was asked a yes - no question and then would proceed to try to talk for the entire allotted time so that the committee members would only get 1 or 2 questions in during their time.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Brandon Brandon is offline
The Center Square
Brandon's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Migrant worker
Brandon is probably a spambot
Old Apr 9th, 2004, 04:47 PM       
I'm actually surprised major networks wasted time running that drivel. We didn't learn anything new, she left us with more questions than answers, and (once again) the blame has been shifted further down the line.

"Blah blah blah 'shaking the trees.' Blah blah blah 'silver bullet.' Blah blah blah 'hair on fire.'"
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Stabby Stabby is offline
TOP CHEF
Stabby's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: GODS AMERICA
Stabby is probably a spambot
Old Apr 10th, 2004, 07:50 PM       
Remember when before he was elected, Bush wasn't able to so much as name the president of Pakistan. Yet, according Condosleezza, before 9/11, W supported some detailed plan to help Musharraf cut off support to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. :/
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Two-Faced Two-Faced is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Two-Faced is probably a spambot
Old Apr 10th, 2004, 09:10 PM       
I like how she brings up more questions than answers any of those given to her. Oh wait, she's black...
Reply With Quote
  #14  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Apr 10th, 2004, 09:20 PM       
LOL, anyway.....

The 8/6/01 memo was declasified today. Here it is: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html
Reply With Quote
  #15  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Apr 11th, 2004, 11:20 AM       
Okay, again, for the record, I don't think assiging blame for not preventing 9/11 is meaningful.

I do however, think the way he Administration is reacting to all of this is highly meaningul. None of them can bring themselves to say "we could have done a lot better. Terrorism wasn't te priority it should have been for us or any previous administration. Now it is."

Instead, they back themselves further and further toward saying "If we had known the terrorist were going to fly planes into the world trade center, we would havetried to stop them. If we had known which flights they would be on, we would have done everything in our pwer to cancel those flights."

The main crime is not what they did before 9/11, it's what they did after. They should be greatful for all this focus on pre 9/11, becuase as bad as it may be for them, it's drawing attention away from how thye responded.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Brandon Brandon is offline
The Center Square
Brandon's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Migrant worker
Brandon is probably a spambot
Old Apr 11th, 2004, 12:12 PM       
If you ask me, how they responded after 9/11 was their saving grace. The Iraq situation was, of course, less than graceful, but I think they at least have the right idea in terms of foreign policy.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Apr 12th, 2004, 09:11 AM       
What aspect of their foreign policy are you speaking of?
Preemption?
Unilateralism?
Treaty Abandonment?
Bribery (Uzbekistan)
Failed bribery (Turkey)
Finger pointing (UK and Uranium claims)
Strategic abandonment (Aghanistan)
Quagmirism (Iraq)
Ignorification (All of Africa)
Nuclear redherringism (Iraq vs. North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan)
Blind eyeism (Pakistan's Nuclear blackmarket leadership)
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Buffalo Tom Buffalo Tom is offline
Member
Buffalo Tom's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Map Ref 41N 93W
Buffalo Tom is probably a spambot
Old Apr 12th, 2004, 11:01 AM       
Here is an insightful editorial about Dr. Rice's testimony last week and her performance as NSA. It is written Roger Morris, a former member of the NSCs under Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

The Lady Doth Protest too Much

Quote:
That the now-famous Aug. 6 presidential brief and other alarms forewarned the White House, which neglected to forearm the nation, has been well reported. Ms. Rice insisted the data were not precise enough to be "actionable," yet the warnings were chillingly prescient: The CIA and FBI knew, and told the White House, that Osama bin Laden was planning major attacks in the U.S., and al-Qaeda "sleeper cells" were awake. Intercepts in the summer of 2001 caught boasting of "a very, very, very, very big uproar..... in the near future."

History can only guess how many lives might have been saved had there been serious precautions, comparable to measures taken at the millennium on less justification. Ms. Rice's defence — to blame "structural" problems melding FBI and CIA reporting or lack of responsiveness to "tasking" added FBI surveillance — only begged the point commissioners seemed loath to make: It's well understood that U.S. national security policy is beset by bureaucratic inertia, relentless parochial bias and bitter departmental rivalries. Overcoming those problems and ensuring responsiveness was the very essence of the National Security Adviser's job.
He makes a good point about the terrorist warnings that were issued in the days before the Milennium celebrations. At that time, the domestic security forces in the U.S. thought the tips they got and chatter they were hearing were compelling enough to issue a warning for the public to forearm themselves and be vigilant. Why wasn't a similiar warning issued in the summer of 2001 when all intelligence was pointing to an attack against American interests? Whether or not such a warning would have stopped 9/11 is irrelevant. What is relevant is that someone in the Bush Administration had a serious lapse in judgement when presented with the intelligence analysis from that period. Given that one of Bush's main pillars, some might say the only pillar, of his re-election platform is his leadership in the 'war on terrorism', the PDB of August 6th, 2001, is a potentially damaging revelation.
__________________
You're cooler than me
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Brandon Brandon is offline
The Center Square
Brandon's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Migrant worker
Brandon is probably a spambot
Old Apr 12th, 2004, 11:22 AM       
Quote:
What aspect of their foreign policy are you speaking of?
Preemption?
Unilateralism?
Treaty Abandonment?
Bribery (Uzbekistan)
Failed bribery (Turkey)
Finger pointing (UK and Uranium claims)
Strategic abandonment (Aghanistan)
Quagmirism (Iraq)
Ignorification (All of Africa)
Nuclear redherringism (Iraq vs. North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan)
Blind eyeism (Pakistan's Nuclear blackmarket leadership
I respect the hard-line stance now. We can't afford to continue pussyfooting in foreign policy if we want to ensure that the world is safe for our way of life. If mere multilateral negotiations and weak diplomacy (the prevailing "wisdom" of most Democrats) actually worked, then 9/11 would never have happened. The solution to terrorism obviously isn't going to be doing the same things that failed in the past.

As for the list.. Well, preemption is not a bad idea in and of itself, actually. If regimes refuse to comply with mandates to disarm and/or stop harboring terrorists, then they must be forcibly removed. As for the decision to act "unilaterally," well.. we haven't really lost allies, have we? There are some tensions with France, Germany, and Russia, but ties aren't completely broken. If America senses a threat, it can't wait forever for a few malcontent "allies" (France is most definitely a grudging ally) and the ineffectual United Nations to give their blessing.

And Iraq is not a "quagmire," despite how desperately the hard left wants it to be. It is not a "Vietnam" or even a "Lebanon." We are having difficulties in Fallujah, which is what was expected to happen, since it has always been a center of the most reactionary elements of Iraqi society. The vast majority of the country is firmly behind the idea of democracy.

All this being said, Bush has made many mistakes (your list) with this new approach, and I'm not denying that. I'm merely saying that the general idea is the right one.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Brandon Brandon is offline
The Center Square
Brandon's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Migrant worker
Brandon is probably a spambot
Old Apr 12th, 2004, 11:34 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffalo Tom
He makes a good point about the terrorist warnings that were issued in the days before the Milennium celebrations. At that time, the domestic security forces in the U.S. thought the tips they got and chatter they were hearing were compelling enough to issue a warning for the public to forearm themselves and be vigilant. Why wasn't a similiar warning issued in the summer of 2001 when all intelligence was pointing to an attack against American interests? Whether or not such a warning would have stopped 9/11 is irrelevant. What is relevant is that someone in the Bush Administration had a serious lapse in judgement when presented with the intelligence analysis from that period. Given that one of Bush's main pillars, some might say the only pillar, of his re-election platform is his leadership in the 'war on terrorism', the PDB of August 6th, 2001, is a potentially damaging revelation.
Suppose that Bush had taken stricter measures after receiving the intelligence. Let's suppose that he even made a preemptive strike against terrorist camps in Afghanistan. I GUARANTEE you would be crying foul and calling Bush a war criminal.
-----------

Read this: http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1545

AN ALTERNATIVE HISTORY: washington, april 9, 2004. A hush fell over the city as George W. Bush today became the first president of the United States ever to be removed from office by impeachment. Meeting late into the night, the Senate unanimously voted to convict Bush following a trial on his bill of impeachment from the House.

Moments after being sworn in as the 44th president, Dick Cheney said that disgraced former national security adviser Condoleezza Rice would be turned over to the Hague for trial in the International Court of Justice as a war criminal. Cheney said Washington would "firmly resist" international demands that Bush be extradited for prosecution as well.

On August 7, 2001, Bush had ordered the United States military to stage an all-out attack on alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Thousands of U.S. special forces units parachuted into this neutral country, while air strikes targeted the Afghan government and its supporting military. Pentagon units seized abandoned Soviet air bases throughout Afghanistan, while establishing support bases in nearby nations such as Uzbekistan. Simultaneously, FBI agents throughout the United States staged raids in which dozens of men accused of terrorism were taken prisoner.

Reaction was swift and furious. Florida Senator Bob Graham said Bush had "brought shame to the United States with his paranoid delusions about so-called terror networks." British Prime Minister Tony Blair accused the United States of "an inexcusable act of conquest in plain violation of international law." White House chief counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke immediately resigned in protest of "a disgusting exercise in over-kill."

When dozens of U.S. soldiers were slain in gun battles with fighters in the Afghan mountains, public opinion polls showed the nation overwhelmingly opposed to Bush's action. Political leaders of both parties called on Bush to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan immediately. "We are supposed to believe that attacking people in caves in some place called Tora Bora is worth the life of even one single U.S. soldier?" former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey asked.

When an off-target U.S. bomb killed scores of Afghan civilians who had taken refuge in a mosque, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Aznar announced a global boycott of American products. The United Nations General Assembly voted to condemn the United States, and Washington was forced into the humiliating position of vetoing a Security Council resolution declaring America guilty of "criminal acts of aggression."

Bush justified his attack on Afghanistan, and the detention of 19 men of Arab descent who had entered the country legally, on grounds of intelligence reports suggesting an imminent, devastating attack on the United States. But no such attack ever occurred, leading to widespread ridicule of Bush's claims. Speaking before a special commission created by Congress to investigate Bush's anti-terrorism actions, former national security adviser Rice shocked and horrified listeners when she admitted, "We had no actionable warnings of any specific threat, just good reason to believe something really bad was about to happen."

The president fired Rice immediately after her admission, but this did little to quell public anger regarding the war in Afghanistan. When it was revealed that U.S. special forces were also carrying out attacks against suspected terrorist bases in Indonesia and Pakistan, fury against the United States became universal, with even Israel condemning American action as "totally unjustified."

Speaking briefly to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House before a helicopter carried him out of Washington as the first-ever president removed by impeachment, Bush seemed bitter. "I was given bad advice," he insisted. "My advisers told me that unless we took decisive action, thousands of innocent Americans might die. Obviously I should not have listened."

Announcing his candidacy for the 2004 Republican presidential nomination, Senator John McCain said today that "George W. Bush was very foolish and naïve; he didn't realize he was being pushed into this needless conflict by oil interests that wanted to seize Afghanistan to run a pipeline across it." McCain spoke at a campaign rally at the World Trade Center in New York City.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Buffalo Tom Buffalo Tom is offline
Member
Buffalo Tom's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Map Ref 41N 93W
Buffalo Tom is probably a spambot
Old Apr 12th, 2004, 11:34 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon
The vast majority of the country is firmly behind the idea of democracy.
They are not behind a foreign power dictating to them the terms of that democracy. This is a country and a culture for which the events of the past are as alive as the events of the present. I have associates from Iraq who still talk with pride about how the British were ousted from the country in the early 20th century. These are folks who were born in the 1960s and 1970s.
__________________
You're cooler than me
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Brandon Brandon is offline
The Center Square
Brandon's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Migrant worker
Brandon is probably a spambot
Old Apr 12th, 2004, 11:35 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffalo Tom
They are not behind a foreign power dictating to them the terms of that democracy. This is a country and a culture for which the events of the past are as alive as the events of the present. I have associates from Iraq who still talk with pride about how the British were ousted from the country in the early 20th century. These are folks who were born in the 1960s and 1970s.
We aren't "dictating" the terms.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Buffalo Tom Buffalo Tom is offline
Member
Buffalo Tom's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Map Ref 41N 93W
Buffalo Tom is probably a spambot
Old Apr 12th, 2004, 11:43 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon
Suppose that Bush had taken stricter measures after receiving the intelligence. Let's suppose that he even made a preemptive strike against terrorist camps in Afghanistan. I GUARANTEE you would be crying foul and calling Bush a war criminal.
Yes, I would be crying foul because the United States - indeed no country - has the legal right to launch a pre-emptive military attack against any nation. If the United States considers itself part of the international community, then it must abide by the very rules of that community. Heck, Gulf War I was fought ostensibly to oust Iraq from Kuwait because it had launched a pre-emptive strike against a country it perceived to be a threat to its economic well-being. Let's not forget the American outrage over Pearl Harbour. The United States has the right to protect itself and its citizens with all means that conform to all international legal standards, but pre-emptive war is not one of these means.
__________________
You're cooler than me
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Buffalo Tom Buffalo Tom is offline
Member
Buffalo Tom's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Map Ref 41N 93W
Buffalo Tom is probably a spambot
Old Apr 12th, 2004, 11:48 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon
We aren't "dictating" the terms.
What do you call the provision that the United States must approve any Iraqi constitution before it can be put to a vote before its citizenry? What do you call hand-picking the majority of members of the provisional government who are drafting said constitution and doling out the development contracts for control of everything from garbage collection to water utilities?
__________________
You're cooler than me
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Buffalo Tom Buffalo Tom is offline
Member
Buffalo Tom's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Map Ref 41N 93W
Buffalo Tom is probably a spambot
Old Apr 12th, 2004, 12:00 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon
Suppose that Bush had taken stricter measures after receiving the intelligence. Let's suppose that he even made a preemptive strike against terrorist camps in Afghanistan. I GUARANTEE you would be crying foul and calling Bush a war criminal.
Your argument is irrelavant. The fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration took NO STEPS to increase efforts to stymie al Qaeda. By all accounts, it cut staff to the counter-terrorism department for which Richard Clarke was responsible. It ignored a PDB by its hand-picked intelligence advisors that warned an attack against an American interest by al Qaeda was in the near future, viewing the report, as Dr. Rice described, as a historical analysis. It was feting Taliban officials, the very patrons of al Qaeda, in the summer of 2001.
__________________
You're cooler than me
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:34 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.