Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-09-2004, 06:06 PM   #1
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
Default Looks like Condi Rice Lied!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

Historical reference my ass- The LIES are becoming revealed. This was not as I and other libs expected "A Historical Document" This was actual intelligence and the Bush team IGNORED IT!!!!!
The lies are unravelling now. Bush IGNORED AL QAEDA BEFORE 9/11.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 06:12 PM   #2
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
from your article
Those August 2001 reports -- among thousands of varied and uncorroborated threats received by the government each month -- weren't deemed credible enough to tell the president or his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, the officials said. Neither involved the eventual September 11 plot.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 06:21 PM   #3
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
So basically Bush says that if he doesn't have specific info on an attack he isn't going to make an effort to find the plots? Sounds like he may have been lazy or more interested in taking a vacation than working. Gee- Clinton shook the trees to find the info--- why didn't Bush?
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 06:31 PM   #4
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
Clinton shook the trees to find the info
If Clinton did that then why did 9/11 happen? Al Qaeda didnt suddenly become a threat after Bush took office.-----
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 06:35 PM   #5
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
BEcause Bush did not make the effort because AS I SAID BEFORE and I proved with US Government documentation- he was more interested in Missile defense and Cold War ideology than the real threat of terrorism as Clinton had been dealing with.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 07:51 PM   #6
Maximus Faticus
Registered User
 
Maximus Faticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,291
So basically Bush says that if he doesn't have specific info on an attack he isn't going to make an effort to find the plots?
That is the CIA and the FBI's job, not Bush's.
Maximus Faticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 07:56 PM   #7
crimsonedge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 767
Bumble could you please point out the "lies" and or inconsistency here? I read throught that and like Chuk found that any mentions of planes as weapons never reached Bush or Rice. They have all expressed a concern about terrorism and as your boy Clarke even said Bush quintupled the spending on action programs to go after the terrorists so how is it that you can make a statement that he just ignored it ?

The evil plot thing is getting a little out of hand with you Bumble I think you need to take a deep breath and start over.
crimsonedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 07:58 PM   #8
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
No sirreeee- Bush's job is to TAKE ACTION. He did not do that instead opting to continue a leisurely game of golf in Crawford. It is his job to direct this country and when there is a legitimate threat it is his job to command our country so we can thwart it. Afterall, he is the boss (or is Cheney?)
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 08:12 PM   #9
Zolmaz Zo'Boto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,040
Originally Posted by Maximus Faticus
That is the CIA and the FBI's job, not Bush's.
Hello patriot act. Focus of information huh?

Bumbleroot,
You're trying my patience. You cannot rewrite history based on propaganda
and opinion. Stop trying to create a problem.

With every lie Bumble, you lose credibility. What do you gain for your reverence?
Hmm? Respect? Admiration? Love? Money? Sex?

Do you sleep well? I don't think so.




God Bless America
Zolmaz.
Zolmaz Zo'Boto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 08:19 PM   #10
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
Z- I am not offering propaganda.
You will see when the memo comes out that Condi Rice lied about the context of the memo.
That right there will prove that Bush did not take steps to counteract the threat as he has lied to having done.
Z- you and others can continue following the lies that Bush says, but I can guarantee you that the truth always prevails. It is prevailing in Iraq and we have been right all along while you and your cons have been thinking you were right and have been shown wrong every step of the way.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 08:20 PM   #11
Alauradana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,460
Quote Bumble: No sirreeee- Bush's job is to TAKE ACTION.

Yeah, and he did take action in Iraq and all you do is complain about that. Had he taken action prior to 9/11, YOU would have been on this board slamming him for that. In that same article, it says that it was knowledge in 1997, how come Clinton didn't TAKE ACTION??????

Your prejudices and hatred have become so apparent in your postings. You cannot look at anything objectively anymore, no matter what you read, you miscontrue and stretch.
Alauradana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 09:09 PM   #12
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
Yeah, and he did take action in Iraq and all you do is complain about that.
You meant MAKE action not TAKE action. Just merely attacking a country does not mean you are protecting our country from terrorism. Terrorism is not a state problem it is an ideology problem.
There was NO NEED to attack Iraq- if there has been one- I am still waiting for anyone to show me ANY PROOF- As I have said over and over again PUT UP OR SHUT UP- THERE IS NO PROOF!!!
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 09:09 PM   #13
Maximus Faticus
Registered User
 
Maximus Faticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,291
It's all Bush's fault. He should have asked for consultation with "The Oracle of Delphi." Or he should have at least called up Miss Cleo.
Maximus Faticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 09:20 PM   #14
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
It is Bush's fault!!!!
Had he continued the foreign policy continuum rather than creating his own ideological foreign policy, this may have been averted as other attacks were.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 09:29 PM   #15
Alauradana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,460
Quote Bumble: I am still waiting for anyone to show me ANY PROOF- As I have said over and over again PUT UP OR SHUT UP- THERE IS NO PROOF!!!

Bumble HHHHEEEELLLLLLOOOOO---where was the hardcore proof that Al Queda was going to attack? We had intelligence, the same type we had on Iraq!! Do you know what that intelligence is?? It is basically rumors, they are trying to figure out what the other side is doing.

You know Bumble, it is odd that you think the CIA saying they have intelligence that Al Queda may attack and that is acceptable PROOF that Bush should have attacked, and when the CIA said they had intelligence about Iraq, that was not acceptable PROOF to attack Iraq. Get a clue, decide what side you are going to be on.

So let me get this, when the CIA says they have intelligence on Al Queda and that they may attack, that is sufficient proof to go after them, but saying that a country that has invaded another country and the CIA says they have intelligence that that country may have WMD that they may use against our country is not proof enough to attack. HMMMMMM.....do you get the picture?

I guess it just boils down to whether or not YOU think it was good enough proof (hmmm...probably why you are stuck posting your lame opinions here). Before 9/11, no one would have believed Bush if he had said that he was going to attack Al Queda because they may attack us. Bleeding hearts like you would have screamed that it was a terrible injustice; and yet here you are saying that when he got intelligence about Iraq, he was wrong to attack. What the hell was he supposed to do? I think we learned a lesson on 9/11 about doing nothing. I still stand by my earlier post, you just don't want to admit it--you would have screamed to high heaven had Bush went after Al Queda based on that memo. The American public would never have tolerated the restrictions on air travel. As it is, complacency has set in yet again, and they are easing up on the travel restrictions. You Dems bitch about the government scrutinizing citizens and communications and say they are violating privacy, and in the same breath you blame the government for not protecting you. You can't have it both ways. By saying that Bush was wrong over Iraq, then don't sit here and say he was wrong about 9/11--both are based on the intelligence that the CIA collects. So, is it ok to attack someone based on intelligence or not Bumble??
Alauradana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 09:35 PM   #16
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
Bumble HHHHEEEELLLLLLOOOOO---where was the hardcore proof that Al Queda was going to attack? We had intelligence, the same type we had on Iraq!!
AAAHHHH
This is where you are wrong.
Remember how Condi Rice characterized the Aug. 6th PDB as being historical in nature. It is not. It will be released and you will see that as such.

Now since it is obvious that the Bush administration operates under the premise that present intelligence must be had in order to act that leads to the next point.
The info we had on Iraq (or used more to say) was at best 5 years old intelligence or as Condi Rice says "Historical in nature"

Now that I have shown you once more the fallacy of the Bush doctrine would you care to refute it?

And as far as the hardcore proof that Al Qaeda was going to attack, it was there. It was not pieced together because there was no directive from the top to find out about it as there had been so often in the Clinton administration thus thwarting previous attack attempts.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 09:43 PM   #17
Alauradana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,460
Bumble you are babbling on about a memo you have not read. Wait until it is released. Historical or not, all we had was intelligence. You say that the Al Queda intelligence was hardcore. Are you an expert in this area? Were you with the CIA? What PROOF do you have of that? Intelligence had info on Al Queda and info on Iraq. Again, I ask you, why is it ok to attack Al Queda based solely on intelligence and not ok when it comes to Iraq? A logical answer, please refrain from just saying oh I know, because you are not in a position to know.
Alauradana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 09:47 PM   #18
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
You say that the Al Queda intelligence was hardcore.
That is a weak argument. It is more or less an excuse. We see now how Bush has changed his strategy and they now shake the trees as they should have been doing then.
The information was there- they had to get to it. They failed to do that- that is their fault.

And while we are on this, Why did Bush allow the bin Laden family to fly out on 9/11? What was going on there?
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 09:53 PM   #19
Alauradana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,460
Again, fail to answer the question and throw in another subject to get out of the spotlight? Not worth debating when you cannot answer a basic question, probably because answering it would put you in the inconvenient position of being proved nothing more than a bitter, prejudiced, paranoid person.
Alauradana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 09:53 PM   #20
Zolmaz Zo'Boto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,040
Originally Posted by bumbleroot
Remember how Condi Rice characterized the Aug. 6th PDB as being historical in nature. It is not. It will be released and you will see that as such.
Nuff said.

Alauradana,
Bumble has found a listening post called you. He is full of crap and knows it.
Bumbles only point is to be the troll that attracts attention.

If Bumble could create a threat about America nuking mexico, he would drive
it past the point of no return.

Alauradana,
Ignore bumble. He is only a pestering liberal suckling.



GOD BLESS AMERICA
GOD BLESS OUR AMERICAN TROOPS
Zolmaz.
Zolmaz Zo'Boto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 09:55 PM   #21
Alauradana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,460
Read my last post Zol, I have noticed this on other threads. The minute you post proof and blow his theories apart, he conveniently quits posting or changes the subject. Just proves my point beyond a doubt.
Alauradana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 10:08 PM   #22
Maximus Faticus
Registered User
 
Maximus Faticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,291
And while we are on this, Why did Bush allow the bin Laden family to fly out on 9/11? What was going on there?
Better out then in.
why is it ok to attack Al Queda based solely on intelligence and not ok when it comes to Iraq?
I'd like Bumble to answer that too.
Maximus Faticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 10:14 PM   #23
Zolmaz Zo'Boto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,040
Originally Posted by Alauradana
Read my last post Zol, I have noticed this on other threads. The minute you post proof and blow his theories apart, he conveniently quits posting or changes the subject. Just proves my point beyond a doubt.
Indeed.
God bless.



God Bless America
God Bless our American Troops
Zolmaz.
Zolmaz Zo'Boto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2004, 10:26 PM   #24
Zolmaz Zo'Boto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,040
I just received a private message from Bumble and it was 32.3kb long.
He must have passed out becuase it reads,


jkdfgdbhvbhbb vbbvbbbvrebvb bv ib reibv ibr rb iierivbelb vibv ibvibu ibibiirbvhy hbf kfr hbhfb kib ikbf fb fb hrb kih ilerbv ehvb lhb rebvif eikbvefb vb vbv b viub eub vbv bv obvobvob vjbf br rbv bvvbjbr jkb jrbf jvb kbfr kighbtytigbevjbibikvr erv ev bv vbr ujbuobobeobeoubouvj jb f fejb vhnfb khfeb fvb bv fvb fbvojuoluv olf jebvffveboufbf
ACK.

I guess some people can't handle their liquor.
That poor pitiful old man.




Z..
Zolmaz Zo'Boto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 06:04 AM   #25
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
why is it ok to attack Al Queda based solely on intelligence and not ok when it comes to Iraq?
There was never an attack from Iraq, never even a threat from them. Why attack someone solely because you dislike them?

And as far as the question that you donb't seem to understand Alaura, the point is that the intelligence was not specific on Al Qaeda. All or at least most intelligence is not hardcore or specific. It only becomes specific when it is pursued. It is much like a murder, you have to put the pieces together and do not put them together unless you have an investigation. This did not happen because the URGENCY was not felt and the direction to pursue it was not there as it was for Clinton.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:03 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.