Bush, 9/11, and the Campaign - Page 2 - Video Games Forum

Ranger · #11 (**permalink**) 03-20-2004, 09:22 PM

I think it's a very risky political ploy that has as much potential to hurt him as help him, in the long run. As to whether or not it's "right" to use it at all, well...it is a part of his resume now, I guess. I don't think it's wrong to use it, necessarily. I don't like what he's done since 9-11, so to me this approach is simply counterproductive. It highlights his failures, not any real successes.

Grisu · #12 (**permalink**) 03-21-2004, 09:34 PM

Let me think... 9/11 happened and we got that piece of garbage "Patriot Act". The US, which always fronted its progressive system of laws and balances now is no better than a a totalitarian dictatorship (IN THIS RESPECT ONLY!!!).
WHat i mean is that 9/11 was the point in which the US started to prosecute innocent people based on heritage, religion and the place they happen to have been "captured" (maybe obducted would be a better fitting word). This was however not limited to foreign nationals but also to Americans!
Bringing 9/11 up in the election should bring up those points. It should also bring up that there were no WMD's and that the war (yes if one country invades another that is called war) in Iraq was founded on lies. Maybe Kerry or whomever will open the populations eyes that other than a ruining tax refund nothing has come from this government since....

Ranger · #13 (**permalink**) 03-22-2004, 12:07 AM

Now that former US Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke's new book "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror" is out and being very widely discussed, Bush's assertion that he's the right man to handle the job of directing US security efforts is really being questioned, and for very good reason, it looks like.

Some quotes from Clarke on tonight's "60 Minutes" interview with correspondent Lesley Stahl:

Quote:

CBS News :: Sept. 11: Before And After :: March 19, 2004 19:31:21: (CBS)

Former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke tells Correspondent Lesley Stahl that on Sept. 11, 2001, and the day after - when it was clear al Qaeda had carried out the terrorist attacks - the Bush administration was considering bombing Iraq in retaliation. Clarke's exclusive interview will be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, March 21 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Clarke was surprised that the attention of administration officials was turning toward Iraq when he expected the focus to be on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. "They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," says Clarke. The top counter-terrorism advisor, Clarke was briefing the highest government officials, including President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq.... We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the September 11 attacks].'"

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection." And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."

And there was this choice snippet from the book's review:

Quote:

Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously. "We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months. There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on. I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department. For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.' And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke goes on to explain what he believes was the reason for the focus on Iraq. "I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection [between Iraq and al Qaeda], but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection,'" says Clarke. Clarke, who advised four presidents, reveals more about the current administration's reaction to terrorism in his new book, "Against All Enemies."

So...this is our grand hero of 9-11? This President who's re-election ad's feature him standing proudly atop the pile of rubble that was once the WTC? He looks more like a complete and total idiot to me.

thedevilf · #14 (**permalink**) 03-22-2004, 01:26 AM

Self Interest, definitely. He doesnt give a rats ass about anybody.

Grisu · #15 (**permalink**) 03-22-2004, 08:37 AM

Ranger, did it truly take this long for realization to set in the Bush is a bloke? THe Patriot Act wasn't enough for you? The interning of american citizens in the camps without due process wasn't enough? Bush is as far from a hero as he can be. (*Except for the buddies at Halliburton and all other Oil Companies)....

Ranger · #16 (**permalink**) 03-22-2004, 10:29 AM

@ Grisu -- I've never thought that Bush was Presidential-grade material -- not even close. I certainly didn't vote for the man, nor will I, now or ever. I think he's about as "low-class" as they come, and if he's not the very worst President we've ever had, he's at least in the top 3.

The really sad thing about all this is that even when highly respected Americans like Clarke, with decades of distinguished public service under the administations of both major parties, come forward with these shocking accounts of Bush and his administration, a lot of Americans just turn a blind eye to the truth and the facts, and continue to believe that Bush can do no wrong. We saw the same thing when former Secretary of the Treasury Paul H. O'Neill presented an equally damning expose of the Bush administration's ficsal and economic policies in his recent book.

In other words, the realization probably still hasn't "set in" with the American people, even with evidence like this.

Most Americans are just not very bright, I guess (I'm an American myself, btw). They either refuse to accept the truth about this loser, or they just don't care. So long as Bush keeps telling them exactly what they want to hear they seem to be more than willing to accept his bullshit at face value, and believe it, no matter how obvious and indisputable the actual facts to the contrary may be.

America is in real trouble right now, if you ask me. Not just because we have a President that's both a liar and a utter fool, but also because we have far too many citizens here in this country that are equally brain-dead.

fatboy · #17 (**permalink**) 03-22-2004, 10:51 AM

@Ranger - Mr. Clarke also advised that we hit al Queda training camps in Afghanistan. Do you support this view, too?

If Clinton had taken his advise we might not have had 9.11.

SwamP_ThinG · #18 (**permalink**) 03-22-2004, 11:03 AM

Just another logg in the fire, my friends!!
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ush/index.html

I hate it when i´m right...

fatboy · #19 (**permalink**) 03-22-2004, 11:09 AM

Are we rehashing all this old stuff, SwamP-ThinG?

SwamP_ThinG · #20 (**permalink**) 03-22-2004, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Are we rehashing all this old stuff, SwamP-ThinG?

Holy shit!!! Sorry, wrong link!!
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/bush.terror/index.html
My bad!!
But the other link is quite relevant aswell. If i remember correctly, and if you are Fatboyshare, you said the proof needed to make you believe all this was if someone from the inside would start talking. Well, back then we had Paul O´Neil, Kay, and now we have his senior anti-terrorism adviser, Richard Clarke!! I´d say we have more than enough proof now, wouldn´t you say?
Don´t worry, i won´t hold it against you!:bird:
(just kidding)