Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspondent

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

> If Saddam posed no threat to the

>>U.S., why did the prior Administration want to change that

>>Government?

>

>To force him to comply with the UN resolutions, which he did.

Saddam didn't comply with anything under the Clinton Administration. To the contrary, he expelled the inspectors and Clinton did nothing - sort of like the Taliban turned Afghanistan into a training camp for Al Qaeda while Clinton did nothing. That stopped only once Bush became President.

Saddam began partially, but not fully, complying with UN resolutions only once Bush took over - sort of like the Iranians felt free to keep our hostages when Carter was President, and then almost immediately released them when Reagan was inagurated.

>>Do you know of anyone who knew that he had no WMD's before

>the

>>war began?

>

>Dubya, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Conodleeza

>Rice...

How do you know they knew there were no WMDs? And how did they find. Given that every intelligence service in the Western World, including the CIA, had evidence suggesting that Iraq did have WMDs, how did Bush et al. find out that they didn't? And what's your proof that they knew there were none?

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>This notion that they didn't do anything because they were

>"working on a plan" is a fucking joke, and you know it. Aside

>from the fact that you just made it up, . . .

It's a joke and I know it because I made it up? I'm glad you have the ability to read my mind!!

Actually, what I've stated is a compilation of information I've read in books written by Molly Ivins, Al Franken and Joe Conason, among others.

Actually, I have read books by a greater number of authors who have commented on the right wing spin machine, including a very interesting book by David Brock.

The statements I have made are based on reading the same message from a variety of sources who substantiate what they write.

nuf said . . .

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>Actually, what I've stated is a compilation of information

>I've read in books written by Molly Ivins, Al Franken and Joe

>Conason, among others.

LOL!!! Yeah - Al Franken, Molly Ivins and David Brock really know about secret national security plans that the Clinton Administration was working on. Great sources.

And I think you forgot to address this:

<<it took the Bush Administraiton less than one month to figure out how to overthrow the Taliban with minimal causalties and cease having Afghanistan be a terrorist amusement park for Osama bin Laden. If the Clinton Administration knew that Al Qaeda was such a threat, what possible excuse is there for that Administration allowing the Taliban to remain in power, playing host for years to Al Qaeda????>>

And Rockefeller and Ford Foundations were set up by families which were enemies of the union movement and the environmentalists. Is that still enough said so that no environmental movement or liberal movement can take money or have any dealings with the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. The logic is the same as your postings and makes just about as much sense.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>Saddam didn't comply with anything under the Clinton

>Administration. To the contrary, he expelled the inspectors

>and Clinton did nothing - sort of like the Taliban turned

>Afghanistan into a training camp for Al Qaeda while Clinton

>did nothing. That stopped only once Bush became President.

Um, no. The Taliban only stopped once Bush came a knockin on their door looking for Osama. That is something which I fully supported at the time and still do.

>Saddam began partially, but not fully, complying with UN

>resolutions only once Bush took over - sort of like the

>Iranians felt free to keep our hostages when Carter was

>President, and then almost immediately released them when

>Reagan was inagurated.

You give Junior way too much credit. According to Sadsam's former scientists, Saddam gave up the weapons after the legitimate Iraq War that Poppy waged.

>>Dubya, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell,

>Conodleeza

>>Rice...

>

>How do you know they knew there were no WMDs? And how did

>they find. Given that every intelligence service in the

>Western World, including the CIA, had evidence suggesting that

>Iraq did have WMDs, how did Bush et al. find out that they

>didn't? And what's your proof that they knew there were

>none?

First of all, I refuse to beleive that every intelligence agency in the world is so incompetent that none of them knew that Saddam was harmless. Secondly, my proof is simple...it's the lack of proof. No WMD found, despite the very specific items that Shrubya, Cheney et al said Saddam had.

Sorry if you take my post about your "opinion piece" with less than a grain of salt.

Feel free to enjoy it for me, however.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

><<it took the Bush Administraiton less than one month to

>figure out how to overthrow the Taliban with minimal

>causalties and cease having Afghanistan be a terrorist

>amusement park for Osama bin Laden. If the Clinton

>Administration knew that Al Qaeda was such a threat, what

>possible excuse is there for that Administration allowing the

>Taliban to remain in power, playing host for years to Al

>Qaeda????>>

Gee, for someone who says he's not a Republican, you sure have mastered the Faux News spin, Doug.

Shrubya and the rest of Bush/Halliburton Co. had no interest in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, not one single shred more or less than the Clinton Administration. Shrubya did the right thing, perhaps the only time in his presidency, by invading Afghanistan, but let's be very clear about this: had it not been for 9/11, Shrubya would have put no greater emphasis on Afghanistan than any prior Administration.

As pointed out by Paul O'Neill in his remarkable book, Shrubya used 9/11 to further his own agenda (Iraq) after doing that one right thing mentioned above.

If Al Qaeda was such a threat, why did it take 2 towers collapsing for ANY president to take action?

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>Gee, for someone who says he's not a Republican, you sure have

>mastered the Faux News spin, Doug.

BoN: "Any time anyone says something that differs from what I believe, it means they've been brainwashed by Faux News. I, however, am incapable of expressing a single political view without resorting to every known name-calling cliche floating around on the Internet and in DNC Press Releases, and I have never uttered a single original thought about any political matter, but I am a great independent political thinker."

>Shrubya and the rest of Bush/Halliburton Co. had no interest

>in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, not one single shred more or

>less than the Clinton Administration. Shrubya did the right

>thing, perhaps the only time in his presidency, by invading

>Afghanistan, but let's be very clear about this: had it not

>been for 9/11, Shrubya would have put no greater emphasis on

>Afghanistan than any prior Administration.

Whenever BoN is involved in any discussion, it means that one has to make one's point at least 5 times before it's understood (not agreed with, just understood).

I am not saying that pre-9/11, Bush took Al Qaeda more seriously than Clinton. I was responding to, and rebutting, the assertion made by Dannynyc that the opposite was true: namely, that Clinton understood the unique threat of Al Qaeda and warned Bush, who then did nothing about it.

In response, I was making the point that it's rather untenable to say that Clinton appreciated the Al Qaeda threat in a way that Bush didn't when Clinton did nothing about Al Qaeda sitting in Afghanistan for years. Dannynyc tried making the quite idiotic claim that Clinton was getting to it - "was making a plan" - and in response I pointed that if, as he claims, Clinton truly understood the Al Qaeda threat, then it was rather reckless, criminally so, to sit around for years "making a plan" to deal with this threat, given that Bush proved an effective plan could be devised in a matter of weeks.

Get it now?

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>Um, no. The Taliban only stopped once Bush came a knockin on

>their door looking for Osama. That is something which I fully

>supported at the time and still do.

Do you have any explanation for, or defense of, why Clinton didn't do this? Why did he, instead, allow Al Qaeda to fester in Afghanistan for years under his Administration?

>Secondly, my proof is simple...it's

>the lack of proof. No WMD found, despite the very specific

>items that Shrubya, Cheney et al said Saddam had.

Didn't anyone ever teach you the difference between being mistaken and lying? If, for instance, someone claimed that you had a working brain inside your head, and an autopsy were performed and it was determined that only cotton and pus were in there, it wouldn't mean that they lied, only that they were mistaken.

Similarly, the fact that Bush said "there are WMD's in Iraq" and it turns out that there are none is NOT, as a matter of basic logic, "proof" that he was "lying." You need one other piece of evidence - not just that he was wrong about what he said, but that he KNEW at the time that he said it that it wasn't true.

Do you have any proof of that, or are you just accusing the President of the United States of lying with no proof whatsoever?

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>>>namely, that Clinton understood the unique threat of Al Qaeda and warned Bush, who then did nothing about it.

Uh... so then all the intelligence accrued about al Qaeda just "appeared" out of a magic cloud the afternoon of 11 September? Give me a break! Typical Newsmax hogwash.

Clinton wouldn't have told Bush... the NSA of each admin would have conferred directly during the tansition. It's been rather well-documented that Condi's "policy review" of Sandy Berger's terrorism briefing went on way to long (like 8 months too long).

Bush was, unfortunately, more concerned with reviving Star Wars.

Here's a good article about which you can spend the next few days refutting:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>Clinton wouldn't have told Bush... the NSA of each admin would

>have conferred directly during the tansition. It's been

>rather well-documented that Condi's "policy review" of Sandy

>Berger's terrorism briefing went on way to long (like 8 months

>too long).

I've asked this question 100 times now to people like you who claim that the Clinton Administration was well aware of the Al Qaeda risk and told the Bush Administraiton about it, and for some reason, I can't get a fucking straight answer:

If the Clinton Administration knew about Al Qaeda and the magnitude of the risk it presented, why did it do nothing about the fact that Afghanistan was being openly used for years as an Al Qaeda training camp?????

And if the Clinton Administration knew about Al Qaeda and the magnitude of the risk is presented, what is the justification for the fact that, in 8 years, it essentially did nothing serious to combat that risk?????

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>BoN: "Any time anyone says something that differs from what I

>believe, it means they've been brainwashed by Faux News. I,

>however, am incapable of expressing a single political view

>without resorting to every known name-calling cliche floating

>around on the Internet and in DNC Press Releases, and I have

>never uttered a single original thought about any political

>matter, but I am a great independent political thinker."

Doug69: "Any time anyone successfully refutes something I;ve said, i turn it into a personal attack on the poster so as to cloud the issue and draw attention away from the fact that I was wrong. I however, am incapable of independent thought outside of what Rush, Hannity and Karl Rove instruct me to think."

>In response, I was making the point that it's rather untenable

>to say that Clinton appreciated the Al Qaeda threat in a way

>that Bush didn't when Clinton did nothing about Al Qaeda

>sitting in Afghanistan for years. Dannynyc tried making the

>quite idiotic claim that Clinton was getting to it - "was

>making a plan" - and in response I pointed that if, as he

>claims, Clinton truly understood the Al Qaeda threat, then it

>was rather reckless, criminally so, to sit around for years

>"making a plan" to deal with this threat, given that Bush

>proved an effective plan could be devised in a matter of

>weeks.

Um, no you didn't. You soun the invasion of Afghanistan as some sort of noble crusade that Bush would have done in any case regardless of the impact of 9/11.

I comment. You insult.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>>Didn't anyone ever teach you the difference between being mistaken and lying?

What a shill!!!

Governments lie all the time. President Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky. Bush the Elder lied about "No New Taxes." The Reagan/Bush administrations lied about Iran-Contra. Nixon lied about Watergate and, earlier, his secret plan for peace in Vietnam. Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, which hastened our tragic foray into Southeast Asia. Kennedy and Eisenhower both lied about the Bay of Pigs, at least before the fact.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>>>Didn't anyone ever teach you the difference between being

>mistaken and lying?

>

>What a shill!!!

How shrill. What's your evidence that the Bush Administraiton knew that Iraq had no WMD's but said that there were? Or do you think you don't need evidence to accuse them of lying?

>Governments lie all the time. President Clinton lied about

>Monica Lewinsky. Bush the Elder lied about "No New Taxes."

>The Reagan/Bush administrations lied about Iran-Contra. Nixon

>lied about Watergate and, earlier, his secret plan for peace

>in Vietnam. Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, which

>hastened our tragic foray into Southeast Asia. Kennedy and

>Eisenhower both lied about the Bay of Pigs, at least before

>the fact.

And therefore everything Governments say is a lie. Brilliant.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>Doug69: "Any time anyone successfully refutes something I;ve

>said, i turn it into a personal attack on the poster so as to

>cloud the issue and draw attention away from the fact that I

>was wrong.

Actually, this was a perfectly insult-free conversation which focused on the issue, not the person - that is, until you came along and began writing about how I am brainwashed by Fox News. In light of that, re-read the above and see who it is to whom it actually applies.

I however, am incapable of independent thought

>outside of what Rush, Hannity and Karl Rove instruct me to

>think."

Right - that's why I would vote for Howard Dean over George Bush - because Rush, Hannity and Karl Rove told me to.

>Um, no you didn't. You soun the invasion of Afghanistan as

>some sort of noble crusade that Bush would have done in any

>case regardless of the impact of 9/11.

Why did the Clinton Administration allow Afghanistan to be used for years as a training ground for Al Qaeda without doing anything about it??

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

YOU used the word "everything" not me, but then that's an obvious tactic of yours from what I've picked up around here so it's easy to discount.

My my my... seems a lot of the "American People" mus think the government lies "frequently", and also are lackeys of Big Business. Otherwise you'd see more of them registering to vote and

golly gee

shock

horror

actually VOTING

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

Two things about your posting:

1) If Clinton was aware of an imminent threat from Al Qaeda and bin Laden, then why did he not do something about it or pinpoint when this imminent threat would occur and what he based that on. The preferable thing to do if he were serious about his responsibilities as head of the US government would have been to take out that imminent threat.

2) If there was a threat that needed to be countered, precisely how was this to be countered once it was in the US? If the threat were to come from an airplane in New York, which of the thousands of planes arriving daily would it be or where would the plane start or what provisions had Clinton made to beef up the security at the airports to counter this imminent threat he was warning them about? Since he did nothing then the natural assumption was that since the head of government did not consider it important enough to do anything other than say there was a threat, then the threat must not be that imminent at all.

I may take it with a grain of salt but I do not just disregard it because one of the people who helped found an organization did not agree with your vision of the world. That in itself has about as much currency as saying that because Random House publishes a consrvative book, it cannot be publishing anything but garbage in your eyes. Same principle.

Actually, no DICK, that's not quite "it"

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm

There are too many on the list that raise my eyebrow to see your opinion piece (that IS the subject here) as anymore than largely biased. There are also too many to dissect individually on this board. So, instead, I thought I'd illuminate the point with Richard Perle, as I'm sure there are many others on this board who view him with equal disdain.

I'm sure you'll enjoy the list, if you didn't bother to investigate this "think tank" in the first place. Frankly it's the first thing I do when confronted with an opinion piece with the name of some organization I've never heard of.

The Potomac breeds these sewers, whether conservative or liberal.