|
Hers is the text from the exchange...I hope you enjoy...I LOVE debunking repukes...GO DU!!
Welcome back M ...G, quit poisoning her mind, will ya!
It's tough to argue with those for whom Whoppi Goldberg speaks, however...
1. Post 9/11, Bush has been criticized for failing to prevent the attacks -- his staff has been repeatedly questioned about the information they had and why they failed to act on it
< ME > Well hell, when the president is on vacation or en route to 42% of the time prior to 9/11, how COULD they act.
Yet, when they had similar information concerning Iraq AND Iraq had REPEATEDLY thumbed its nose at the demands put upon it by the UN re: inspections, he DID act, and that was wrong, too. You can't have it both ways. Coming from a law enforcement/investigation profession, intelligence is not always correct. You have to do the best you can. And your sources are often the worst of the worst human beings, because, guess what? That's who knows the dirt!
< ME >
Actually, most of the "intelligence" came from sources referred to the US by the Iraqi National Congress, our very own Ahmed Chalabi
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/4/mccollam-list.asp
, who had his own agenda. And the information gleaned by the inspectors was - well, ignored...as a matter of fact, it was predominantly ONE source, code named CURVEBALL - which he managed to throw pretty well, wouldn't you agree? Any CIA caution flags in their reports was conveniently removed by the time it got to the top - heard of the Office of Special Plans, by chance?
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/feith/feith.php
< REPUKE >
That's the oldest problem in the world for a prosecutor -- your witness is often as bad as the defendant. But at least the Bush administration acted. Unlike Clinton who was too busy getting .... well, anyway, he let them attack our troops and our citizens without retribution. Oh, and by the way, did anyone see Christiane Amanpour interview him on CNN over the weekend? I almost fell off the treadmill. What a joke! "What about the fact that you said in a speech in New York that the Sudan gave you the opportunity to get Bin Laden in 2000, but you passed, because you said you didn't have enough information to go after him despite the bombing in Yemen, Mr. President?" "Well, I said that, but I misspoke." AND SHE JUST WENT ON TO THE NEXT QUESTION. GAVE HIM A PASS ON THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION ON THE MINDS AND HEARTS OF AMERICA! What a joke! THe liberal media is enough to make me puke!
< ME >
Falling off treadmills is a bad thing...
Two things...there is no liberal media...a myth spawned by, well, THE media that you listen to and watch on a daily basis, I'm sure. The Sudanese issue of which you speak happened well before 2000, I think in 1996. Clinton was NOT offered Osama by the Sudanese, negotiations were between the US, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia to extradite him to Saudi Arabia. Saudis (walking a fine line between the royal family and the Wahabees) said no way, Sudan said get out - he went to Afghanistan. PLEASE DO THIS - read Richard Clarke's book - "Against all enemies" - taken from the line in his oath to "defend the constitution against all enemies". As far as 2000, I think that you are speaking about the US Cole incident. Suspicion was immediately on Osama - it proved to be so - Clinton asked Richard Clarke for suggestions on how to deal with it - his reply came on Dec. 20 - unfortunately the same day that the Supreme Court made their fateful decision...Clarke's suggestions were to do exactly what Bush did after 9/11 - that is - beef up the Northern Alliance and plan for a strike by the US military against Osama and the Taliban. Clinton was unwilling (as a lame duck president) to pass that type or action on to his successor. Unlke George H.W. Bush, who put our boys into Somalia when HE was a lame duck - sorry - I could not resist...
At the same time, negotiations were still under way between the U.S., Israel and that piece-of-shite Afafat - who ended up turning down the very generous peace proposals offered - which had Clinton in a sensitive political situation with the Arab world. Richard Clarke presented the same plan to the Bush admin 4 days after Bush took office - and nothing was done...Blame Bush - not Clinton - if Clinton had invaded Afghanistan JUST before leaving office, I can just imagine the clamor for his ass...Bush did NOTHING!!! Except push for tax cuts for the wealthy (still waiting for those factories, Gary) and embrace Star Wars (F me). Or go to Mars...But, you have to ask yourself, why didn't Bush act against Osama for the Cole incident? Because it didn't happen under his watch?
2. Where are the stories of all the good things we're doing in Iraq? Yes, people are dying. I realize in this liberal politically correct world, that's hard to stomach, but that's war. If the people of the greatest generation had the fortitude of today's society, we'd all be speaking Japanese or German. We had information that Iraq had WMDs -! - AND we weren't allowed to disprove it
< ME > Inspectors were running all over the country, the U.S. said it had information on EXACTLY where they were, but would not pass that information along because we said it would "compromise our sources". War is always a last resort...this president went to war as a first resort.
"Good things we're doing in Iraq" - yeah, like rebuilding the water and electrical systems that we destroyed as part of Gulf War I. Which is against the Geneva convention to do harm to a civilian population - the sanctions imposed by Bush 41 (and followed, I must admit by Clinton) - PREVENTED the rebuilding of same.
-- so we acted on it. Remind me again, why is that a bad thing? And we've found several scary things over there already.
< ME >
We acted - against Iraq? Because Osama attacked us? Why did we not attack Saudi Arabia, since 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, and none were from Iraq? Daily flyovers, bombings, and sanctions had Iraq powerless.
"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."
Colin Powell, February 24, 201
Scary things?
Like munitions left over from the Iraq/Iran war, which we winked and nodded at even though we knew he was using them? Guess what. The US was more afraid of Iran's fundamentalist movement at the time (1980's) and did anything it could to help Saddam in that war. Yeah, I know - he gassed his own people - in 1988...with American supplied helicopters, I might add...
Can you imagine had they used the nerve gas in a NY subway?
< ME >
Again, what nerve gas? Anything left over from the 1980's had NO potency at all. Please, do not try to debunk by using the Polish troops story...PLEASE!!! Or I will have to debunk you right back...
It would have been, "We had information and the inspectors were kicked out and Bush did nothing."
3. Oh, and I personally know 3 soldiers currently serving in Afghanistan who would be PISSED to hear they've given up looking for UBL! Just because the short attention span of the liberal media and the citizens of this country isn't focused on it, DO NOT insult the military by saying they're not. They're risking their lives every single minute of every single day looking for that son of a bitch, so just because you're over here enjoying a damn good life thanks to them and betting cases of beer while you pontificate about how you could have done a much better job, don't forget where they are sleeping tonight!!!!!!!!!!!
< ME >
Actually, I was one of the 85% of Americans who was supportive of Bush's actions against the Taliban and the search for Bin Laden (who DID attack us). My complaint is that 15,000 coalition troops (don't know the U.S. total) in a country of 25.8 million does not quite seem enough to get the job done. Seems to me that your 3 friends could use a little bit more help...
The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one
priority and we will not rest until we find him."
-- George W. Bush, September 13, 2001
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's n
ot that important. It's not our priority."
-- George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
- a repeat of above (my edit)
"so just because you're over here enjoying a damn good life thanks to them and betting cases of beer while you pontificate about how you could have done a much better job, don't forget where they are sleeping tonight!!!!!!!!!!!"
When my sons (11, 6, and 4) come of age to be drafted - I will volunteer to go in their place...I think am smart enough to stay alive but would gladly sacrifice my life so that they may be able to reach the age where they can have children of their own. And enjoy the things that I have enjoyed.
Darn, my baby is crying, so I have to go. And just when I was getting good and mad!
< ME >
Please, don't get mad...have fun with this...and show my responses to your husband...And DO read Richard Clarke's book - it is very enlightening. Here is more info on Richard Clarke - a true American patriot...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4608698/
Goodnight - God Bless America
And, if you have the time, read Patrick Buchanan's discourse on the NEO-conservative agenda which is poisoning our foreign policy...
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=11325
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(943 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
