Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (185419)	4/20/2006 11:06:42 AM
From: bentway	Respond to of 281500

"We would be handing (the Bush Administration) a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to happen." Now it was up to Rice's team to consider what Clarke had put together." It would have been like Poppy handing Somalia to Clinton...

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (185419)	4/20/2006 11:55:18 AM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Now that Dubya is the Worst President Ever (did we ever have a question about that LOL), the Regressives are trying to tear down others to make Dubya look less-worst. :) It's the tactic of the immoral, unethical, inept and Republican. They won't try and improve themselves when it's so much easier to lie. Rove is now released to go muck up the 2006 campaign. Unfortunately he hasn't yet had the Lee Atwater 'Come to Jesus you Thug' epiphany.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (185419)	4/20/2006 2:45:47 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Nice try. Very good try. 2 points even, but just one more lie in support of lies. WTF does the right have so much trouble with the truth? Fine.. we all know that 9/11 probably could have been prevented had all of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies been talking to one another and acting proactively to prevent the attack. Both administrations are to blame for this failure. But the groundwork for Al Qai'da took place during the '90s. Bin Laden declared war upon the US back in 1996. The Justice Department under Clinton indicted Bin Laden for complicity in terrorism. They bombed empty training facilities in Afghanistan, but denied a CIA proposal to insert a covert hit team to find and kill Bin Laden. Clarke, who is one of longest serving White House security staffers, who served in the previous Bush administration, as well as previously at the Pentagon: sourcewatch.org Clarke was also considered to be very brusque and condescending. He did not have the political talents to advance his ideas because very few people were willing to back him due to his hostile temper. I also had a friend at the State Department who once told me that Clarke was considered to be a J. Edgar Hoover-type, keeping personal dossiers on people who he considered to be enemies, and was known to have certain other controversial personal "tastes" that were shared by JEH (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) which alienated him from many other staffers. The bottom line is that Clarke was a overbearing and dominating type of personality. He was a powerful man, given his experience.. but he just didn't have the "juice" to advance his agenda. But the question we're discussing related to Clarke's knowledge of the proposal to overthrow the Iranian regime. And my point STILL STANDS that he can not, with any credibility, assert that Gingrich had the power to conduct his own foreign policy agenda without the knowledge and approval of the administration that would be charged with undertaking the actions. Clarke cannot simply try and assert that a policy he would have played a major role in, was merely the FP proposals of a congressman and CIA director. He would have been involved, and should at least admit to that fact. That's what I'm talking about... Hawk

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (185419)	4/20/2006 5:56:13 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

911 could have been prevented if we had benefitted from some consciousness raising event prior to the collapse of the trade towers that would have made it acceptable to round up and incarcerate the kind of guys who perpetrated that crime. You know dang good and well, you would have been at the front of the line protesting such a round up. Do you support rounding up people now who cross the Mexican border illegally? How about just the one's who have additional criminal histories? How about just the one's who are anti-American government? I doubt it.