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 04-11-2004, 08:15 PM   #51
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
Originally Posted by Caelie
Exactly my point. Maybe I read your post and pay attention because you apply logic and not alot of paranoia propaganda. Not only with Bush, but with religion and just about anything else we discuss. I'm not saying that you could ever change my views on how I feel about Bush or my belief in God or gay marriage, but I do take the time to read what you have to say. There are some on this board that I read about one sentence and move on because you can tell right off that it's a post filled with hate and paranoid delusions.
The fact that you slog through my encyclopedic posts is hard to believe . Seriously, I've learned that unless you debate in a manner that you yourself would take seriously, nobody else is going to.

Edit: Codsan, the link to your article requires subscription. Cut and paste please?
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2004, 10:06 PM   #52
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
There are some on this board that I read about one sentence and move on because you can tell right off that it's a post filled with hate and paranoid delusions.
Caelie, that's just crap. You seem to equate hate with invective. They are not the same thing. Bush arouses passion in me because I know he lies and is wrong. I do all in my heart to point out these points. I don't do so out of hatred for the man. I was 100% behind him after 9/11, but I show reason and not blind faith. I know in my heart that the conservative mantra is based upon anger and not reason. And in fact if you look back on the words of Jack Gargan, the conservative movement of today is based purely on anger and not on purpose. You cons seem to be not able to remove yourselves from that anger. If you were truly conservative you would ask yourself what a thinking man's conservative like Nixon would do. I guarantee you his approach would be different on all of the things we are doing today. That is why I continually struggle to make my points. You cons refuse to use reason and instead resort to anger. And if you think that I am taking offense at what you are saying, I don't, but I know you are referring to me amongst others.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2004, 05:49 AM   #53
Brigiid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,879
Send a message via AIM to Brigiid
See, I honestly think you believe that you're being factual and not opinion-driven.


Originally Posted by Bumbleroot
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?
Opinions and sarcasm, my friend. You know that Bush never made an effort to find the plots? You were with him every day to see that he was honestly slacking off and not trying? And he's been on vacation for his entire administration? His vacations are highly publicized - as is the fact that he's in contact with his administration daily and makes decisions from wherever he happens to be. Are you going to begrudge one of the most powerful men in the world the right to a vacation from the most stressful job in the world? Can't you see where him taking periodic vacations, to a point, would be a good thing, or do you expect him to work 24/7?


Originally Posted by Bumbleroot
he was more interested in Missile defense and Cold War ideology than the real threat of terrorism as Clinton had been dealing with.
Opinion. You don't know what he was more interested in. You know what produced the most visible results. The two are not necessarily related. Unless you are Bush's brain, you don't know what he was thinking.


Originally Posted by Bumbleroot
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.
Define legitimate. Would vague rumors be considered legitimate? If he was lacking in legitimate information, what "directing of the country" would you propose that he did on this matter?


Originally Posted by Bumbleroot
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.
Assumption. Have you seen this document? Do you know what it contains, or are you just guessing?


Originally Posted by Bumbleroot
And as far as the hardcore proof that Al Qaeda was going to attack, it was there.
Again, assumption, unless you have access to said intelligence and know what it included.


Originally Posted by Bumbleroot
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.
Did Clinton really thwart that many attacks, or where attacks just not staged while he was in office? Do you have access to that information?


Originally Posted by Bumbleroot
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?
Unless my memory fails me, they weren't involved. Shall we persecute the family for his actions, just because they're related? Would you want to be held responsible for a family member's actions?

Originally Posted by Bumbleroot
There was never an attack from Iraq, never even a threat from them. Why attack someone solely because you dislike them?
And you know that there was never a threat from Iraq because, how exactly? The Bush administration has stated their reasoning for believing in Iraq's involvement. Could it just be that it doesn't coincide with your opinion, and you've therefore ruled it false?


Originally Posted by Bumbleroot
In other words you don't WANT to believe what I lay out in clear common sense.
If you'd try laying it out in clear common sense and not rambling paranoia, conjecture, and opinion, it might be worth the benefit of the doubt.


Originally Posted by Bumbleroot
You cons refuse to use reason and instead resort to anger.
Which is much much worse than refusing to use reason, and instead resorting to paranoia and "OMG BUSH IS LIEING!" about everything. Riiiiiight, gotcha.

Do I think Bush is perfect? Nope. Do I think he's wrong occasionally? Sure. I think he's human, nothing more. I expect him to try, and I truly believe that he does. I expect him to have some successes and some failures, just as everyone else has. I speak up because I hate to see him blamed for things that are not solely his fault. He's not Superman. Your next president won't be either. He's human, just like us.

Sorry for the long post - I had to catch up for ~3 days away from the boards.
__________________
Meh.
Brigiid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2004, 08:36 AM   #54
Codsan
The Codfather
 
Codsan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Alabama
Posts: 278
Originally Posted by AresProphet
Edit: Codsan, the link to your article requires subscription. Cut and paste please?
You can read it if you click the "Day Pass" link at the bottom of the page. You have to click through an advertisement before you can read the entire text.

EDIT: typoed advertisment.

Last edited by Codsan; 04-13-2004 at 11:44 AM.
Codsan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2004, 10:35 AM   #55
Caoilfhionn
Erotic, exotic & a little psychotic
 
Caoilfhionn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sweet home......
Posts: 686
Send a message via ICQ to Caoilfhionn Send a message via MSN to Caoilfhionn
Here's the salon opinion article after watching the .05 second ad:

April 9, 2004 | The public testimony of Condoleezza Rice before the 9/11 commission had a strategy and a structure, to use terms that she favors. The obvious strategy was to swathe every answer to a challenging question from the commissioners in "context" that did more to obfuscate than clarify. The underlying structure of her statements shifted responsibility away from the Bush White House, in any direction possible: toward previous administrations, the FBI, the CIA and, as subtly as possible, toward former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke.

Rice was nothing if not repetitive in her response to the main issue before the commission and the country. Like the president himself, she assured us again and again that if only al-Qaida had revealed the date, timing, location and methods to be used in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the White House would surely have done everything in its power to thwart the threat. That, of course, is the answer to a question nobody has bothered to ask.

The pertinent question is not whether the president would have tried to stop an attack whose details were thoughtfully placed under his nose. The real question is whether the Bush administration paid sufficient attention to the stream of warnings it received about al-Qaida, or whether, due to its preoccupation with Iraq, missile defense and other matters, those officials simply failed to act. This is the million-dollar question that Rice so expertly dodged on Thursday.

The most concrete evidence of administration fecklessness is the now-notorious Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing, or PDB, delivered to George W. Bush while he vacationed at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Although its existence was first revealed almost two years ago, yesterday's hearings brought fresh attention to its still-classified contents.

Until Rice answered a sharp question from commissioner Richard Ben Veniste, most Americans probably didn't know that weeks before Sept. 11, the president had been given a CIA memorandum with the ominous title "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." The national security advisor insisted that this "historical analysis" of al-Qaida did not provide "new threat information." But her dismissal of the controversial document undermined her own argument for keeping it classified. If the Aug. 6 PDB was merely of historical interest, why not prove her point by allowing the memo to be published in full?

Commissioner Bob Kerrey later provided another tantalizing glimpse of the PDB's contents that demonstrated why the White House wants to keep it secret. "In the spirit of further declassification," said Kerrey, "this is what the Aug. 6 memo said to the president: that the FBI indicates patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking. That's the language of the memo that was briefed to the president on the sixth of August."

In the context of what Clarke and others have said about the "threat spike" during the prior two months, that warning seems stark enough to provoke serious action. According to Rice, she and the president assumed that the FBI, the Federal Aviation Administration and the rest of the federal bureaucracy had done whatever they could -- given the "structural impediments" in a dysfunctional Washington bureaucracy.

How dysfunctional was the Bush administration during that fateful summer? Commissioner Jamie Gorelick challenged Rice's assertion that federal agencies and their field offices had been put on alert status during the threat spike. Citing previous commission interviews with the FAA administrator, FBI officials from around the country, and Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, among others, Gorelick said that none of them had ever heard the warnings of a potential attack.

Were the FBI field offices and other relevant federal employees called to their battle stations, as Rice claimed, or were they not? Presumably the commission will assess that contradiction in its final report (which may or may not be released before the November election).

Rice's testimony raised more questions than she answered. Was she truthful in describing Clarke's Jan. 25, 2001, plan to attack al-Qaida, which remained in bureaucratic limbo until a week before Sept. 11? Nobody will know unless and until that document, too, is declassified. What about the task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, which was supposed to begin assessing homeland security in May 2001, but reportedly never met until after Sept. 11? Rice mentioned the Cheney task force but was not asked about its inactivity.

The national security advisor walked away from the witness table, never to return, with her characteristic poise intact, and without apologizing or acknowledging any error. Stripped of all the seminar verbiage, her message was simple enough for her boss: Nothing could have been done to prevent Sept. 11, and the Bush administration did everything within its authority and ability to deal with the terrorist threat.

But the Bush strategy for deflecting criticism is breaking down, despite Rice's cool demeanor and steely tone. The true narrative is seeping out, and the hidden facts are leaking out. What remains to be seen in the coming weeks is whether the 9/11 commission possesses the courage and commitment to complete that process, no matter where it may lead.
Caoilfhionn 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 12:04 AM.


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