Ex-Aide Says Bush Doing 'Terrible Job' - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-22-2004, 02:41 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:12 AM
Sting,


you seem to enjoy making several points in this discussion.


do you have a counter point to this infornation I posted?


Quote:
the president got on Prime Time T V and promised the American people and the World that there would be a vote in the UN. He said, something like "There will be a vote in the UN, We will let the chips fall where they will".
This was said in a primetime address to the nation in Feb or March 2003.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-22-2004, 03:03 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Sting,


you seem to enjoy making several points in this discussion.


do you have a counter point to this infornation I posted?



This was said in a primetime address to the nation in Feb or March 2003.
This is what I said in response to that:

"The Bush administration flirted with the idea, but backed off of it because there was simply no need for a further resolution to authorize military action and the benefits politically for Allies would be minimal. There of course was a new movement by France to block passage. Russia was in fact against a new resolution. The vote never happened for a variety of reasons and people can argue forever about how the vote would have come down. Syria was not supposed to have voted for 1441, but they did at the last minute."

The President said there would be another vote, but he didn't PROMISE there would be another vote. The need for another vote was weak and thats the chief reason it never took place. If other countries wanted a new vote on another resolution, they could have initiated it themselves, but they didn't.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-22-2004, 03:21 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:12 AM
Sting,


The allowances you make to support your arguments are not well founded.


To say anytime a Presidents makes a major address it means nothing unless he says "I PROMISE" leaves enough wiggle room that nothing means anything.



For other members to call for the vote to make the US - "VETO IT" would have been punitive.
Something the Bush Administration has demonstrated, and other nations that opposed the action have done much less.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-22-2004, 03:57 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Sting,


The allowances you make to support your arguments are not well founded.


To say anytime a Presidents makes a major address it means nothing unless he says "I PROMISE" leaves enough wiggle room that nothing means anything.



For other members to call for the vote to make the US - "VETO IT" would have been punitive.
Something the Bush Administration has demonstrated, and other nations that opposed the action have done much less.
Deep, you were the one who claimed the President "promised" that their would be another vote. The President didn't "Promise" that there would be. Events between the speech and the start of the war changed the decision for another vote. It would be stupid to have US policy be chained to few words in a speech, and unable to adjust to events as they happened.

No, it would not have been useless or "punitive" for other members to call for a vote that the US would veto. The other members do this all the time in regards to the Israely situation. It is a way of showing protest over certain policies. The fact that they did not here is revealing.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-22-2004, 04:12 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:12 AM
Quote:
Events between the speech and the start of the war changed the decision for another vote.


and what "events" were these?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-22-2004, 04:19 PM   #21
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep




and what "events" were these?
They didn't get their way...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-22-2004, 04:28 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Dreadsox,

Clarke spent most of his time serving Clinton. His job was terrorism. We know what the Clinton administrations record over 8 years on terrorism was.

Clarke has said that the invasion of Iraq was "unprovoked". He seems to know very little about the situation with Iraq over the past 10 years. Then again, it was not his area of expertise either.

While he spent 8 years under Clinton.....

He did indeed serve on Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. I am willing to bet that he is within a year or so of 8 years under Clinton in these administrations.

He also pointed out on 60 minutes last night that the Clinton Administration stopped an attack on LA's airports. He also pointed out that when they received chatter under Clinton there was DAILY involvement at the White House level. This is quite different from how he described the Bush administration.


I also agree with you, that they did NOT do enough to stop terrorism and too much happened against the US over the years.

I have to go get supper...maybe more later.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-22-2004, 05:50 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:12 AM
Quote:
He also pointed out on 60 minutes last night that the Clinton Administration stopped an attack on LA's airports.


I have mentioned this. Perhaps we would have had 10- 15 , 20 planes explode in the air or into buildings on New Years Eve 2000.


This was stopped during Clinton term.



Also, very likely prevented WW III.



Had the testes to risk everything in Kosovo and Bosnia.

Without an attack on US first. aka Pearl Harbor, or 911.

Conflicts in the Balkins have escalated before. The Russians supported the Serbs.

These were profiles in courage.






These could have spun out of control or had large American casualties.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-22-2004, 08:22 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:12 PM
deep,

"and what "events" were these?"

The minimal benefit a new resolution would have.

France's efforts to coerce countries into voting against the resolution.

The administration already had all the legal requirments in and support in place to conduct the operation. It would have been foolish to risk losing that over France's last minute mischief.


No, Clinton did not prevent World War III over the situation in Kosovo. The Russian Army add no ability to enter into the conflict as Ukraine, Romania, and Bulgaria would never have allowed any of their troops or aircraft to pass through their territories. In addition, the Russian military at the time was to small and inept to engage in a war against a much larger and powerful NATO.

The Russians made no attempts to try and mobilize any divisions that could be sent, which would have been blocked by Ukraine and other Eastern European countries anyways.

There was a small group of Russian soldiers that moved out of Bosnia into Kosovo and siezed the airport. This accomplished nothing though.

Not only was Russia not interested in intervening with military force in the conflict, more importantly, they did not have the capability to do so.

Dreadsox,

Clarke was one of Clintons top terrorism advisors. Clinton and his terrorism advisors did not do enough to stop terrorism. No one said that they did not do anything.

Clarke has a book to sell. If Clarke felt so strongly about his claims, why is he now only coming out about them?

I'd trust Powell any day over Clarke who seems more like an oportunist.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-22-2004, 08:43 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Clarke has a book to sell. If Clarke felt so strongly about his claims, why is he now only coming out about them?

I'd trust Powell any day over Clarke who seems more like an oportunist.
STING,

Is it your assertion that 100% of what Clarke says about Bush's handling of terrorism is in fact incorrect and is being presented now solely in the name of opportunism?

Is it a logical conclusion that a man who has devoted 30 years to his country (most of it under Republican/right wing leadership) has now, in his old age, decided to make a quick buck? Common sense says no.

Is he 100% lying?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 03-22-2004, 08:55 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


STING,

Is it your assertion that 100% of what Clarke says about Bush's handling of terrorism is in fact incorrect and is being presented now solely in the name of opportunism?

Is it a logical conclusion that a man who has devoted 30 years to his country (most of it under Republican/right wing leadership) has now, in his old age, decided to make a quick buck? Common sense says no.

Is he 100% lying?
He has spent most of it serving under Democratic Administrations. If he is not trying to make a quick buck and really does care about US security, why is he only telling the public now as his book is being released?

I'll take Powell's, Cheney's, Rumsfelds, and Rice's record any day over his, and they collectively dispute what he asserts.

I can't say that 100% of what he has said is incorrect. No administration is perfect, they have all made mistakes.

But his answers in regards to Iraq are just absurd. He claims that the USA attacked Iraq without any provocation and that is just horse dung.

He would be far more believable if he was at least somewhat accurate on some of these questions and came out years ago to make these statements without having a book deal in hand with a presidential election coming up in 7 months.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-22-2004, 09:12 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


He has spent most of it serving under Democratic Administrations. If he is not trying to make a quick buck and really does care about US security, why is he only telling the public now as his book is being released?

Again...if he were appointed by REAGAN which he was...and served under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II he has almost served equally in time.

Sorry...that point holds little water.

I already pointed that out.

And Condi Rice has come out today and refuted quite a bit of what Mr. Clarke has said. My reaction in the house here last night was that he did a nice job but he has really only stated what some people who read already knew.

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-22-2004, 09:16 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:12 AM
I do not have a problem that they wanted to go into Iraq. I have a problem with the appearance that they were NOT doing anything to prepare for 9/11 when it was clear that there were opportunities to do something about it. I think Mr. Clarke is using Iraq for his gain. I am not certain that he is lying about everything, and I do have faith that based on the other things I have read, he is telling the truth about the white house operations pre 9-11.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-22-2004, 10:06 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I do not have a problem that they wanted to go into Iraq. I have a problem with the appearance that they were NOT doing anything to prepare for 9/11 when it was clear that there were opportunities to do something about it. I think Mr. Clarke is using Iraq for his gain. I am not certain that he is lying about everything, and I do have faith that based on the other things I have read, he is telling the truth about the white house operations pre 9-11.
Woodwards book is guess work at best.
The best chance of preventing 9/11 had already passed once Bush entered office. Shoring up security in regions outside the United States as Clarke advised would have done nothing to prevent terrorist from carrying out 9/11 who were already in the United States. Clarke never suggested any new actions be taken domestically to the best of my knowledge.

At the end of the day, Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice collectively are more credible than Clarke. If what Clarke was saying is really true, why didn't he come out about it years ago?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-23-2004, 11:37 AM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 11:12 AM
Clarke's book was finished and delivered to the White House for review (security reasons) in November. The fact it's coming out in late March is the administrations doing.
__________________

__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com