1. #1
    FIREMAN 1st GRADE
    E40FDNYL35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Malingering
    Posts
    3,644

    Default Mr. Clarke and the 9-11-01 hearings...

    March 28, 2004 -- A group of New York families of 9/11 victims came out swinging against Richard Clarke yesterday, accusing the former White House anti-terror chief of cashing in on the tragedy with his explosive book. In a scathing open letter, the furious families also ripped Clarke for releasing the controversial tome to coincide with his appearance before the 9/11 commission on Wednesday.
    "It was very disturbing to learn that Mr. Clarke would be releasing his book immediately before his scheduled public testimony before the 9/11 commission," they said in their emotional "Open Letter to America." "The notion of [Clarke] profiteering from anything associated with 9/11 is particularly offensive to all of us."
    In "Against All Enemies," Clarke accuses President Bush of not doing enough to thwart the terror strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
    The fuming families said Clarke's motivations are also political and called the book - which has become an overnight best seller - divisive and mean-spirited. "We find Mr. Clarke's actions all the more offensive especially considering the fact that there was always a high possibility that the 9/11 commission could be used for political gain . . . with the presidential election less than eight months away," they wrote. "Surely, Mr. Clarke knew this. Yet, he decided to risk the actual and perceived impartiality of this important process to maximize book sales," they added. "We believe it inappropriate for [him] to profit from and politicize 9/11 and further divide America by his testimony before the 9/11 commission."
    Retired FDNY firefighter Jim Boyle, who lent his name to the letter, ripped into Clarke, who served as a counterterrorism adviser to the past four presidents. "Richard Clarke is doing all of this to sell his book," said Boyle, whose Bravest son, Michael Boyle, died in the WTC. "What he's doing isn't right. He's trying to make money off our pain. This was all orchestrated to benefit him," Boyle told The Post.

    Retired FDNY Capt. John Vigiano Sr. said he's "incensed" with Clarke. "He's all about promoting his book, plain and simple," said Vigiano Sr., whose sons John, a firefighter, and Joseph, a police officer, died in the WTC attacks. "It's all about greed. He shouldn't be doing this. He's showing a lack of loyalty to the president. It's awful."
    The blistering letter, signed by more than 36 people who lost loved ones in the WTC, came a day after the Senate's top Republican, Bill Frist, accused Clark of an "appalling act of profiteering."
    Meanwhile, a Newsweek poll released yesterday found that 65 percent of Americans say Clarke's testimony hasn't affected their opinion of the president. Fifty percent of those polled said they believe Clarke is motivated by personal and political reasons. Clarke, who retired early last year after 30 years in government service, has said he provided dire warnings to the Bush White House in the months leading up to 9/11 but that little was done.
    ALL GAVE SOME BUT SOME GAVE ALL
    NEVER FORGET 9-11-01
    343
    CAPT. Frank Callahan Ladder 35 *
    LT. John Ginley Engine 40
    FF. Bruce Gary Engine 40
    FF. Jimmy Giberson Ladder 35
    FF. Michael Otten Ladder 35 *
    FF. Steve Mercado Engine 40 *
    FF. Kevin Bracken Engine 40 *
    FF. Vincent Morello Ladder 35
    FF. Michael Roberts Ladder 35 *
    FF. Michael Lynch Engine 40
    FF. Michael Dauria Engine 40

    Charleston 9
    "If my job was easy a cop would be doing it."
    *******************CLICK HERE*****************

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    BucksEng91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Warminster, PA
    Posts
    576

    Default

    The guy is a mutt, plain and simple. He's a whore, and he's standing squarely on the bodies of the dead of 9-11.

    His whole grandstanding "apology" made my skin crawl. "I'm really sorry that we failed. Now buy my book." You self-centered, self-serving, lying b*stard.

    I really hope the Republicans in Congress succeed in getting his 2002 testimony declassified and have him tried on perjury charges. That would make my freakin' day.
    "Let's roll." - Todd Beamer, one of a group of American soldiers who handed the terrorists their first defeat.

    Joe Black

    The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone (but you can borrow them )and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated (but then again, they just may not be thinking clearly).

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    Robertsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    103

    Default

    He claims that the book was waiting for white house checks before it could be published and it was released when they were done checking it. Is this a posibility, seems possible to me has anyone found anythign on this?
    "Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgement that something else is more important than fear" - Ambrose Redmoon
    “It’s like Lego’s for firefighters.” Robert James III talking about hose appliances.
    "Police, Firefighters and EMS are the most collectively dysfunctional group of people in existence and only we understand each other!"

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    firespec35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Milford MI USA
    Posts
    213

    Default

    I think y'all know how I feel about this schmuck. I truly feel that this is politically motivated because I've heard rumblings that if Kerry gets into office this schmuck will get some sort of high ranking position (Cabinet level?). Gee is that some Kerry slime behind you Mr. Clarke
    Never Forget 9-11-01!!!!!!
    There wasn't just 343, the other 73 rescue workers deserve to be remembered too!!!!

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Is this a posibility, seems possible to me has anyone found anythign on this?
    Many times in government service much of the book must be reviewed due to the possibility of sensitive or classified information being released. National security is the priority, not necessarily politics. In either event, I think he has bead timing when it comes to publishing the book, knowing he was going before the panel.

    I remember watching the investigation last week and a panel member holding up the book and a brief he released a few years ago and he was asked point blank which one was the truth? He squirmed for a second and said he was ordered to write the brief.

    So you signed your name to a document that was a fabrication or that you knew had qualiteies that were atently untrue? Talk about a credibility gap.

    This, not to mention, on top of withering criticism of 8 months of Bush in office, but little of teh 8 years of the Clinton administration that was "Obsessed" with Bin Laden (Clinton's own word there.)
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    BucksEng91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Warminster, PA
    Posts
    576

    Default

    From the EIB Network...good questions, don't you think?

    --------------------------------------------------------
    Did you notice how soft Lesley Stahl’s gloves were in the 60 Minutes interview with Richard Clarke? Charlie Gibson’s pitches were equally soft on Good Morning America. Well, I have ten questions that could have been asked of Richard Clarke, but weren’t. You can read them below or listen to the audio link. See if my questions change your perception or opinion of Clarke's answers based on what you heard in either of these interviews.

    Question number 1: Mr. Clarke, the first time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

    Question number 2: Mr. Clarke, the second time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

    Question number 3: Mr. Clarke, the third time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

    Question number 4: When Al-Qaeda attacked our barracks in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Clarke, what exact advice did you give Clinton for striking back at them?

    Question number 5: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, what advice did you give Clinton for striking back at them?

    Question number 6: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in 2000, what advice did you give President Clinton for striking back at them?

    Question number 7: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the two U.S. embassies in North Africa, weren't you one of the experts who advised Clinton to bomb the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan?

    Question number 8: Mr. Clarke, when Clinton was slashing the defense budget in the face of these Al-Qaeda attacks, did you advise him against it?

    Question number 9: Mr. Clarke, when Clinton undermined the CIA in the face of all these takers, did you advise him against doing that?

    Question number 10: Mr. Clarke, isn't it true that you and your colleagues in the Clinton administration generally were complete and miserable failures in defending this nation for eight years, and isn't it a little weak of you to now come forward and say that what Bush didn't do in the first nine months of his term, is pathetic?
    "Let's roll." - Todd Beamer, one of a group of American soldiers who handed the terrorists their first defeat.

    Joe Black

    The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone (but you can borrow them )and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated (but then again, they just may not be thinking clearly).

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default

    When Clinton sent some missles headed towards Al-Queda, he, due to his lack of morals was accused of "wagging the dog". Fair enough. But what exactly did GWB do to try and prevent an attack on this country?
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    BucksEng91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Warminster, PA
    Posts
    576

    Default

    Originally posted by MIKEYLIKESIT
    When Clinton sent some missles headed towards Al-Queda, he, due to his lack of morals was accused of "wagging the dog". Fair enough. But what exactly did GWB do to try and prevent an attack on this country?
    Why don't we listen to Richard Clarke's own words? (this is from a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle):

    "Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

    >>EDITORIAL COMMENT: Yeah, Clinton was really tough on Al Qaeda, right Dickie?

    "The Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

    And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

    And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.


    The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

    Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

    And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.”

    That good enuff for ya, Mikey? When was Dickie lying? When he gave the briefing in 2002, or now in 2004 just before his book comes out? What does it take for libs to admit that this guy is a total and irretrievable scumbag? Does he need to actually dig up 9-11 victims' bodies and "apologize" to them in person?

    This is a loser, Mikey. In the end, the only thing that's going to come from this is a final acknowledgment that the Clinton administration did virtually nothing to stop Al Qaeda beyond TALKING about it. They were good at that, talking.

    The Bush administration increased CIA funding FIVE FOLD, for the express purpose not of "rolling back" Al Qaeda (which means, essentially, launching a couple of cruise missiles at camels) to one of active and "rapid elimination". The planning for the 9-11 attacks had already begun during the Clinton administration, and there is little doubt in any reasonable person's mind that the reason that those animals were emboldened to try such a huge and catastrophic attack was the limp response of the Clinton administration to terror over the EIGHT F-ING YEARS that he was in office, with Dickie Clarke as his anti-terror specialist.

    And THAT is the only thing that will come out of this three-ring circus. What is really important is how the President reacted to the 9-11 attack. He took the fight right to Al Qaeda. No cruise missiles into aspirin factories, no scowling at the camera and telling us how he "feels the victims' pain". We went right after those f-ing animals and KILLED them.

    Now THAT is a leader.
    Last edited by BucksEng91; 03-29-2004 at 10:17 AM.
    "Let's roll." - Todd Beamer, one of a group of American soldiers who handed the terrorists their first defeat.

    Joe Black

    The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone (but you can borrow them )and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated (but then again, they just may not be thinking clearly).

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    BucksEng91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Warminster, PA
    Posts
    576

    Default

    The thing that really p*sses me off about this whole thing, beyond the fact that Clarke is a bald-faced partisan liar, and he's doing it during a time of war, and he's selling books over the bodies of the 9-11 dead, is that liberal hacks, rather than face up to the fact that their boy Clinton did nothing for eight years...didn't even have a STRATEGY on Al Qaeda to hand off to the Bush administration (by Dickie Clarke's own words), now demand to know WHAT BUSH DID.

    As if Bush came in with greater access to intelligence and information than the Clinton administration had, or somehow were privy to secret info that the Clinton administration simply didn't have for eight long years. We know that's not the case, so the real question becomes not what did Bush do to prevent 9-11, but what did Clinton do?

    Can Democrats and liberals have the intellectual honesty and integrity to answer that question? I don't know. Doesn't seem like it, does it?
    "Let's roll." - Todd Beamer, one of a group of American soldiers who handed the terrorists their first defeat.

    Joe Black

    The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone (but you can borrow them )and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated (but then again, they just may not be thinking clearly).

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default

    Let me set the record straight Joe. I never voted for Clinton. I thought then, as I do now that he was a disgrace. I asked a simple question. I still cant quite figure out why our President kept the CIA Director. Both sides in this debate are partisan. If you think that the current administation is blameless, well thats your opinion. The fact remains that 9-11 occured during President Bush's watch. Yes he did react and I support that reaction and the subsequent invasion of Iraq. I personally believe that Saudi Arabia has a lot more AMERICAN blood on its hands then Iraq ever did. I would love to see democracy take hold in the entire Middle East. But when you have forces strapping bombs to CHILDREN, its going to be a struggle that lasts long after you and I meet our maker. Actually I wouldnt mind seeing us make a vist to Syria. You have REPUBLICAN members of the 9-11 commission questioning the administration's refusal to let Ms. Rice testify under oath. In a matter of this much importance she should. It would clear things us for some of us Midwestern Rubes.
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    BucksEng91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Warminster, PA
    Posts
    576

    Default

    Originally posted by MIKEYLIKESIT
    Let me set the record straight Joe. I never voted for Clinton. I thought then, as I do now that he was a disgrace. I asked a simple question. I still cant quite figure out why our President kept the CIA Director. Both sides in this debate are partisan. If you think that the current administation is blameless, well thats your opinion. The fact remains that 9-11 occured during President Bush's watch. Yes he did react and I support that reaction and the subsequent invasion of Iraq. I personally believe that Saudi Arabia has a lot more AMERICAN blood on its hands then Iraq ever did. I would love to see democracy take hold in the entire Middle East. But when you have forces strapping bombs to CHILDREN, its going to be a struggle that lasts long after you and I meet our maker. Actually I wouldnt mind seeing us make a vist to Syria. You have REPUBLICAN members of the 9-11 commission questioning the administration's refusal to let Ms. Rice testify under oath. In a matter of this much importance she should. It would clear things us for some of us Midwestern Rubes.
    First off, Mike, I never said you voted for Clinton, so let's get THAT straight while we're "setting the record straight". I personally don't care who you voted for. That's your business.

    Yes, you asked a simple question. And I believe I gave a pretty simple answer...or rather Dickie Clarke did. Let's recap.

    1. According to Mr. Clarke, the Clinton administration did not have an Al Qaeda strategy to hand off to the Bush administration. This despite the fact that there was no doubt that it was the organization behind the first WTC attack, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, and the Mogadishu fiasco, just to name a few. We can assume that since there was no Al Qaeda strategy to hand off, that the Clinton administration not only was not anticipating 9-11, but that they did nothing with whatever information they MIGHT have had about airliner attacks.

    2. The Bush administration immediately (we're talking January / February time frame, again according to Mr. Clarke) decided that the threat from Al Qaeda was much graver than the Clinton administration had treated it, and specifically changed the strategy from rolling back Al Qaeda to ELIMINATING it, both by killing terrorists and actively sh*t-listing terror supporting states, up to and including attacking them if they refused to stop harboring and training terrorists.

    3. As the Clinton administration had cut military funding and gutted the US' human intelligence assets, the Bush administration increased CIA funding FIVE HUNDRED PERCENT (again, according to Mr. Clarke) with the express purpose of seeking out Al Qaeda and killing it.

    4. Richard Clarke was supposed to be the expert who could make this argument with a straight face - that BUSH DID NOTHING! And, indeed, his week started well. The media were very taken by this passage from his book, in which he alerts Mr Bush's incoming National Security Adviser to the terrorist threat: "As I briefed Rice on al-Qa'eda, her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before, so I added, 'Most people think of it as Osama bin Laden's group, but it's much more than that. It's a network of affiliated terrorist organisations with cells in over 50 countries, including the US.' " As it turns out, Clarke's ability to read "facial expressions" is not as reliable as one might wish in a "counter-terrorism expert". In October the previous year, Dr Rice gave an interview to WJR Radio in Detroit in which she discoursed authoritatively on al-Qa'eda and bin Laden - and without ever having met Richard Clarke!

    So, your best argument is that 9-11 happened on "Bush's watch". As if the President had some special knowledge that Clinton didn't have, or that Clinton ignored, and allowed the attacks to happen. I could make the argument, using this logic, that the planning for the attacks happened on "Clinton's watch" - to me, that's a lot more devastating indictment. In any case, neither of them makes any sense unless you assume that either president had foreknowledge of 9-11, and did nothing. Tell me, and this is an important point, so I'm going to bold it: Do you believe that the President had prior knowledge of the attacks, and did nothing?

    I can't figure out why Bush kept Tenet in as CIA director either, but let me ask you another question: Do you believe that George Tenet had prior knowledge of the attacks, and did nothing?

    You're a believer that Saudi Arabia should somehow pay for 9-11. Let me ask you this, and be specific: Should the US attack Saudi Arabia, and on what grounds? What UN resolutions has Saudi Arabia broken? What specific US demands have they refused?
    Last edited by BucksEng91; 03-29-2004 at 12:17 PM.
    "Let's roll." - Todd Beamer, one of a group of American soldiers who handed the terrorists their first defeat.

    Joe Black

    The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone (but you can borrow them )and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated (but then again, they just may not be thinking clearly).

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default SAUDI ARABIA

    THE leading harborer of terrorists. One of THE most brutal and repressive regimes on the planet.
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    BucksEng91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Warminster, PA
    Posts
    576

    Default

    Here's an excellent op-ed from the Wall Street Journal that puts all the partisan bullsh*t in perspective:

    ----------------------------------------------------------
    A President's Job
    The 9/11 hearings: We're all Bush Doctrine believers now.

    Friday, March 26, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

    Give President Bush's critics credit for versatility. Having spent months assailing him for doing too much after 9/11--Iraq, the Patriot Act, the "pre-emption" doctrine--they have now turned on a dime to allege that he did too little before it. This contradiction is Mr. Bush's opportunity to rise above the ankle biting and explain to the American public what a President is elected to do.

    Any President's most difficult decision is how and when to defend the American people. As the 9/11 hearings reveal, there are always a thousand reasons for a President not to act. The intelligence might be uncertain, civilians might be killed, U.S. soldiers could die, and the "international community" might object. There are risks in any decision. But when Presidents fail to act at all, or act with too little conviction, we get a September 11.

    This is the real lesson emerging from the 9/11 Commission hearings if you listen above the partisan din. In their eagerness to insist that Mr. Bush should have acted more pre-emptively before 9/11, the critics are rebutting their own case against the President's aggressive antiterror policy ever since. The implication of their critique is that Mr. Bush didn't repudiate the failed strategy of the Clinton years fast enough.

    The bias in these columns has long been to support forceful Presidential leadership on national security. Even when skeptical about a military intervention, as we were about Haiti in 1994, we saluted once Bill Clinton sent in the troops. We supported Mr. Clinton in Bosnia and Kosovo, and we were among the few who didn't pile on Jimmy Carter after the hostage-rescue fiasco in Iran.

    We likewise support Mr. Bush's antiterror leadership, despite the inevitable missteps of planning or WMD intelligence. Whatever lapses may have occurred in the eight months of his Presidency before 9/11, since that day Mr. Bush has had the courage to act, and forcefully. He has turned 20 years of antiterror policy on its head, going on offense by taking the war to the terrorists, toppling state sponsors in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now attempting to "transform" the Middle East through a democratic beachhead in Iraq. This is leadership.

    Democrats now claim that any President would have responded this way, save for invading the "distraction" of Iraq. But would they really? Their strategy in power was to play defense and prosecute terrorists after they'd struck. Even Richard Clarke admits this. Madeleine Albright attributes that failure to a general "mindset" that prevailed everywhere before September 11, and she has a point.

    But in her 9/11 testimony this week, Ms. Albright blamed the Bush Administration detentions at Guantanamo for creating more terrorists. "It is possible and perhaps probable that anger over these detentions has helped bin Laden succeed in recruiting more new operatives," she said. So the detention of Taliban fighters caught while fighting Americans and harboring terrorists will only help the terrorists? This is the same "mindset" that blocked strong U.S. action against al Qaeda for half a decade.

    Or consider this episode from the 9/11 Commission's staff report on the U.S. response to news that terrorists linked to Iran had killed 19 Americans at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996:

    "Albright emphasized to us, for example, that even if some individual Iranian officials were involved, this was not the same as proving that the Iranian government as a whole should be held responsible for the bombing. National Security Adviser Berger held a similar view. He stressed the need for a definitive intelligence judgment. The evidence might be challenged by foreign governments. The evidence might form a basis for going to war."

    Yes, it might. But the failure to act without "definitive" evidence and "foreign" agreement might also encourage the terrorists to think that they can get away with it and so hit us again.

    The idea that every President would have toppled the Taliban after 9/11 is also wishful thinking. The press at the time was full of hand-wringing about the dangers. The establishment consensus, even so soon after 9/11, was that the U.S. could end up bogged down in Kabul like the British and Soviets. President Bush is the one who took the risk of using force to rout the Taliban and the al Qaeda camps they were protecting.

    All of this is what we ought to be debating this election year, not how selective Dick Clarke's memory is. Even if everything Mr. Clarke says is true--and he's already contradicted himself numerous times--it is beside the point. What matters is which strategy against terrorism the U.S. should pursue now and for the next four years.

    This is also the case that Mr. Bush needs to make, rising above the Lilliputians who want to fight over intelligence and yellowcake uranium in Niger. Mr. Bush should tell Americans that he too is disappointed that U.S. intelligence in Iraq wasn't as good as it might have been, though even Bill Clinton was convinced Saddam Hussein had WMD.

    But this election is about leadership. And a President who takes the oath to protect America has to make difficult, often life-or-death, decisions based on imperfect information. In a world of terrorism and (still unsolved) anthrax attacks on the U.S. Capitol, a President doesn't have the luxury of waiting for French approval or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In Iraq, the burden was on Saddam--a proven supporter of terrorists, user of WMD and enemy of America--to show he had destroyed the weapons we know he once had. He didn't, and so Mr. Bush acted to protect America and prevent another September 11.
    Last edited by BucksEng91; 03-29-2004 at 12:37 PM.
    "Let's roll." - Todd Beamer, one of a group of American soldiers who handed the terrorists their first defeat.

    Joe Black

    The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone (but you can borrow them )and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated (but then again, they just may not be thinking clearly).

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    BucksEng91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Warminster, PA
    Posts
    576

    Default Re: SAUDI ARABIA

    Originally posted by MIKEYLIKESIT
    THE leading harborer of terrorists. One of THE most brutal and repressive regimes on the planet.
    Is the Saudi government harboring terrorists? Hmmm...news to me. Repressive regime? Yep. So's Iran, Syria, Somalia...

    But my question stands - what do you suggest we do with the Saudis? Should we attack them, right now? Take a stand, don't just tell me that the Saudis are @ssholes. We know that already.

    But here's an even better question - should we have attacked the Saudis prior to 9-11? Is that what you're faulting the President for? Is that why you brought up Saudi Arabia?

    All great questions, and you're not answering a one.
    Last edited by BucksEng91; 03-29-2004 at 12:36 PM.
    "Let's roll." - Todd Beamer, one of a group of American soldiers who handed the terrorists their first defeat.

    Joe Black

    The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone (but you can borrow them )and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated (but then again, they just may not be thinking clearly).

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default

    If I was smart enough to have all the answers, I would run for President. At the very least, our government should do everything they can to persuade the Saudi Royal family to effect some REAL change in the way things are done there. I probably shouldnt have used the word "harbored" when referring to terrorists in Saudi Arabia.. A better word(s) is "breeding ground".
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    BucksEng91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Warminster, PA
    Posts
    576

    Default

    Originally posted by MIKEYLIKESIT
    If I was smart enough to have all the answers, I would run for President. At the very least, our government should do everything they can to persuade the Saudi Royal family to effect some REAL change in the way things are done there. I probably shouldnt have used the word "harbored" when referring to terrorists in Saudi Arabia.. A better word(s) is "breeding ground".
    Agreed. Which is why it's so important that our democratic beachhead in Iraq succeeds. A successful democracy in Iraq will be the critical mass that the entire Middle East needs to finally move out of the 4th century, whether they need to be dragged or not.

    But you still haven't said what you think the President should have done to prevent the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Let's get back to the basics:

    1. Did the President (either one - Clinton or Bush) have prior knowledge of 9-11?

    OK, only go on if you answered "yes", because if you answered "no" then your original question - (what did Bush do to prevent the terrorist attacks?), is completely meaningless. So let's assume you answered "yes".

    2. If Clinton did nothing, why, if he knew that the US was going to be attacked with airliners flown into buildings?

    3. If Clinton knew about it and did nothing, but told Bush about it, why did Bush do nothing?

    4. Did Bush have some super-secret Illuminati knowledge about the 9-11 attacks that Clinton didn't have, and kept it secret?

    5. If you answered "yes" to number 4, what size tin foil hat do you wear to keep the Halliburton secret police from reading your mind?

    OK, now just for fun let's assume that you believe that neither Clinton nor Bush had specific knoweldge of the 9-11 attacks beforehand. What would you have proposed that President Bush, in office all of about 8 months, have done to prevent an attack that he didn't know was coming? Your answer would seem to be, "Bomb Saudi Arabia".
    "Let's roll." - Todd Beamer, one of a group of American soldiers who handed the terrorists their first defeat.

    Joe Black

    The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone (but you can borrow them )and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated (but then again, they just may not be thinking clearly).

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    BucksEng91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Warminster, PA
    Posts
    576

    Default

    Look, it comes down to this - are you going to blame the entirety of 9-11 on the Bush administration by holding it to an unreasonably higher standard than you would hold the Clinton administration? I don't care who you voted for, although in some cases it does speak to people's motivations for making scurrilous charges.

    Reasonable people just cannot look at 8 years of impotent Clinton administration response (or lack thereof) to terror attacks, cutting of defense spending and gutting of strategic and human intelligence programs, then turn around and blame it on a President who was in office for about 8 months, and still did not have his "team" completely in place due to the acrimony following the Florida recount, and the delay of transition planning while the recount proceeded.

    It's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Dickie Clarke is a liar and an opportunist. It's clear that he gave wildly DIFFERENT accounts of the Bush administration's actions against terror in 2002 and 2004. This is a partisan attack conveniently timed to make Mr. Clarke a rich man.

    He's a mutt. And so is John Kerry, who tried his damndest in 1994 to slash defense and intelligence spending. Was THAT an appropriate response to the rising tide of terrorism in the world?
    "Let's roll." - Todd Beamer, one of a group of American soldiers who handed the terrorists their first defeat.

    Joe Black

    The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone (but you can borrow them )and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated (but then again, they just may not be thinking clearly).

  18. #18
    Forum Member
    BucksEng91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Warminster, PA
    Posts
    576

    Default

    No Thanks, Mr. Clarke

    By September 11th Families
    New York Post | March 29, 2004

    We are all in agreement that a review of what happened leading up to 9/11 is important for many reasons. As families and friends of loved ones killed by the terrorists that day, we want to know if 9/11 realistically could have been prevented, whether justice is being brought to those behind this attack, and, most important, that our government is taking the right action to stop future attacks.
    A meaningful review as to what happened on 9/11 and the aftermath can only happen if it is truly nonpartisan. Unfortunately, this week much of the non-partisanship was taken from us when Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism advisor, decided to use his testimony before the 9/11 Commission to showcase the release of his tell-all book.

    In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was an overwhelming outpouring of support from all corners of America. New Yorkers, non-New Yorkers, Democrats, Republicans - none of that mattered. We were all joined together as a country to share our grief over what the terrorists did to America that day.

    Of course, even then, a small number of individuals tried to take advantage of the situation and emotions exposed by 9/11, from looters of shops destroyed in the attack to those who filed bogus insurance claims. We realized then that the likelihood of exploitation would only increase as the distance of time began to separate us from that horrible day.

    It was very disturbing, then, to learn that Mr. Clarke would be releasing his book immediately before his scheduled public testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

    We are well aware that the friends and family members of those killed in 9/11 do not speak with a single voice on all issues. Nonetheless, the notion of profiteering from anything associated with 9/11 is particularly offensive to all of us.

    We find Mr. Clarke's actions all the more offensive especially considering the fact that there was always a high possibility that the 9/11 Commission could be used for political gain, especially now, with the presidential election less than eight months away.

    Surely, Mr. Clarke knew this. Yet he decided to risk the actual and perceived impartiality of this important process to maximize book sales.

    As family and friends of those killed on 9/11, we believe it inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to profit from and politicize 9/11, and further divide America, by his testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

    Indeed, we are now seeing some partisans more interested in somehow laying blame for 9/11 at the feet of President Bush - even though what we heard from both Bush and Clinton administration officials confirms what we already believed: that while al Qaeda was a known threat, no one could have known that 19 terrorists already in the United States would hijack domestic aircraft and fly them in to the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

    Had there been real evidence, "actionable" or otherwise, that this was being planned, we believe that President Bush, President Clinton - indeed, any president of the United States - would have done everything possible to prevent it.

    In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it was President Bush who helped unite America and guide us through that devastating time. Since 9/11, he has taken the fight to the terrorists abroad. He recognizes that America is at war and has made the difficult choices necessary to destroy the terrorists and confront those who harbor them.

    Despite Mr. Clarke, we are hopeful that the 9/11 Commission will be able to continue its investigation in a nonpartisan way. More important, we must never lose sight of the fact that the attacks of 9/11 were perpetrated on this country by foreign terrorists committed to destroying our way of life.

    In the end, we will be judged on whether we successfully continue pursuing the ongoing war on terror so that we never again face another 9/11.

    Sincerely,

    Jim Boyle (father of Michael Boyle, FDNY)

    Madeline Bergen (wife of John Bergen, FDNY)

    Rosemary Cain (mother of George Cain, FDNY)

    Carol & Vincent Coakley (parents of Steve Coakley, FDNY)

    Marie Corrigan (wife of Jim Corrrigan, FDNY)

    Susan Cronin (sister of Thomas Strada, Cantor Fitzgerald)

    Chris & Lisa Della Pietra (brother and sister of Joseph Della Pietra, Cantor Fitzgerald)

    Sandra Della Pietra (mother of Joseph Della Pietra)

    Sam & Rose Esposito (parents of Michael Esposito, FDNY)

    Joe & Sal Esposito (brothers of Michael Esposito, FDNY, and cousins of Frank Esposito, FDNY)

    Tom & Patricia Farragher (brother-in-law and sister of FDNY Capt. Walter Hynes)

    Barbara Haskell (wife of Tom Haskell, FDNY)

    Dawn Haskell Carbone (sister of Tom and Tim Haskell, FDNY)

    Maureen Haskell (mother of Tom and Tim Haskell)

    Ken Haskell (brother of Tom and Tim Haskell)

    Frank Haskell (cousin of Tom and Tim Haskell)

    Paulette & Joseph J. Hasson, Jr. (parents of Joe Hasson, Cantor Fitzgerald)

    Virginia Hayes (wife of Phil Hayes, FDNY ret.)

    Bernie Heeran (father of Charles Heeran, Cantor Fitzgerald)

    Mike Heffernan (brother of John Heffernan, FDNY)

    Arlene Howard (mother of George Howard, Port Authority PD)

    Jennifer Iannotti (sister of Thomas Strada)

    John Leavy (father of Neil Leavy, FDNY)

    The McAleese family (family of Brian McAleese, FDNY)

    Bart Mitchell (father-in-law of Ronnie Bucca, FDNY)

    Richard & Terry Otten (parents of Michael Otten, FDNY)

    Frank Siller (brother of Stephen Siller, FDNY)

    Ernest & Mary Ann Strada (parents of Thomas Strada)

    Terry Strada (wife of Thomas Strada)

    Joseph & Michael Strada (brothers of Thomas Strada)

    Ed Sweeney (father of Brian Sweeney, FDNY)

    John & Janet Vigiano (parents of Joseph Vigiano, NYPD, and John Vigiano, FDNY)
    "Let's roll." - Todd Beamer, one of a group of American soldiers who handed the terrorists their first defeat.

    Joe Black

    The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone (but you can borrow them )and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated (but then again, they just may not be thinking clearly).

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Question 11 for Richard Clarke.. when u worked for the Clinton admin. for 8 years and Clinton said publicly Sadam had WMD's, why didn't you correct him and tell him he was wrong? SB (Local 1355 retired)

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    firespec35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Milford MI USA
    Posts
    213

    Default

    Wow I don't even get to have any fun with MIKEY. Y'all beat me to the punch. To do any more would be like kicking a dead dog. Good job guys points well made.
    Never Forget 9-11-01!!!!!!
    There wasn't just 343, the other 73 rescue workers deserve to be remembered too!!!!

  21. #21
    Forum Member
    MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default WOOF WOOF ... I AM STILL BREATHING

    Kick away Spec. What special insight do you have ? I am posing question as an average American. Not someone that watches hours and hours of Fox News. I would like to know if all of Clarkes testimony was a lie. According to Bucks91 it was. Well then Clarke should be charged with perjury. The President must have liked him because he kept him on after he was elected.
    Bucks says. Look, it comes down to this - are you going to blame the entirety of 9-11 on the Bush administration by holding it to an unreasonably higher standard than you would hold the Clinton administration? I don't care who you voted for, although in some cases it does speak to people's motivations for making scurrilous charges.
    I never said that. Only that it occured while President Bush was in office.

    Bucks asks ...5. If you answered "yes" to number 4, what size tin foil hat do you wear to keep the Halliburton secret police from reading your mind? I say. Come on Joe dont be a meany. These are your opinions. I would never claim to be as smart as you are. However, it seems that whenever anyone questions our government lately theres that thinly veiled " You are crazy" or some how "unpatriotic". I welcome Spec and his kicking a dead dog. I am a FIRM believer that most politicians are less then forthcoming when it suits them. Both Democrats and Republicans. Usually the REAL truth lies somewhere in the middle. Only time will tell.
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

  22. #22
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it was President Bush who helped unite America and guide us through that devastating time. Since 9/11, he has taken the fight to the terrorists abroad. He recognizes that America is at war and has made the difficult choices necessary to destroy the terrorists and confront those who harbor them.
    With 10,000+ dead and thousands wounded and maimed, war in Iraq (a country who had nothing to do with 9/11 in the first place) really makes sense, huh? All this to invade a country that was zero threat to anyone. Bush is an idiot.

  23. #23
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,098

    Default

    war in Iraq (a country who had nothing to do with 9/11 in the first place)
    Well, Mr. National Security Advisor, why do you think Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11? It only harbored Al Quaeda Members, funded A.Q. operations and rewarded members after the operations were completed. Wasn't there admission of a top terrorist leader assasinated by the Iraqi government when it became known he was hiding there?

    All this to invade a country that was zero threat to anyone.
    Let's ask the Kurds if Iraq was a threat to anyone....oh wait, we can't Saddam and his government gassed them to death.


    Bush is an idiot.
    I didn't know you changed your name to "Bush."


    Just admit that you are a pacifist who is afraid you will be called to fight if the Draft were ever reinstated! God forbid you leave the serene hills of Tennessee to fight for a government that you expect to take care of you. Typical Liberal, take, take, take....but give nothing back. I bet you are praying, woops, forgot you are godless, wishing on stars that Uncle John Kerry gets to the White House to save you from aggression and leave our military matters to the United Nation ( An organization full of cowards like yourself.)

    I cannot wait til November to see Uncle John and the DNC go down in flames.
    Last edited by TillerMan25; 03-30-2004 at 09:33 AM.

  24. #24
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    (a country who had nothing to do with 9/11 in the first place)
    And whoe ever siad that it did? I never once heard the President or the current administration say that Iraq had anything to do with murders that occurred.

    The only things I have heard is that Iraq supported terrorist organizations adn terrorism. This has been a known fact for years.

    I suppose that I am wasting my breathe here because this has been pointed out to you before.

    All this to invade a country that was zero threat to anyone
    Uh, huh. What about Israel - paying a monetary "gift" to families of homicide bombers. He invaded Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. He launched missiles against Israel (Spare teh **** and bull story - I know how you feel about Israel), had training areas for terrorist groups (remember those airliner fuselages we found with bullet holes inthem?)

    He gassed his own citizens, tortured his own citizens, still no record of a downed US Naval Aviator - Lt. Cmdr. Spicher form the first Gulf War, weekly locking of radar sites on U.S. and British aircraft in the no fly zones.

    This, not mention that he had possession and the capability to manufacture biological and chemical weapons systems. Oh yeah, teh oil for food program where Hussein bribed UN officials and administrators instead of supplying food and medical supplies to his countrymen.

    Oh yeah he was a zero threat.

    Bush is an idiot.
    Uh huh. Whatever you say.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  25. #25
    Forum Member
    stm4710's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,713

    Default

    I think people need to get out of the starbucks and stop debateing wether or not we should have gone to war. We are there, lets focus on way to bring home our troops in reltivly the same condition they left in and finish what we started. We welcomed back a member of our department yesterday who came home from Iraq. Lets just pray our troops get the chance to come to home to there familys.
    I dont suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register