It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anyone talking about this Robert Clarke freak?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
IF there was any shred of evidence to support the fact that the president has lied...then the democrats would have already have got a special commission and he'd have been impeached....why has this not happened?
because there is NO legal basis to say the president HAS LIED.


Not the president exactly. The blame can be passed down to other people. No legal action can be taken because it's nothing but, "I don't recall," and "To the best of my knowledge..." Anyone who poses a problem for this administration is either fired or becomes a victim of character assassination.


Saying that the war was unjust because we didnt find any wmd is a farce and after the fact assesment. Because the bush administration took actions on the intelligence at the time (which indicated to the entire UN that iraq had some kinds of wmd programs) and no wmd's were found does not mean the war is unjustified...it means intelligence agencies around the world didnt really know what was/was not going on there, and that the UN agreed that there was a problem in iraq, just not in the method/timing to deal with it.


Actually. The Bush administration took action on FALSE information. Nigeria and the "yellow cake" ring a bell? The Bush administration took action on evidence they knew to be false. They were told by the FBI and CIA that there was no reasonable evidence that Iraq had WMD's. Yet, the Bush criminals claimed to have undeniable proof of a imminent threat from Iraq.

They also claimed that Iraq had ties to Al-Qeada which were also proven to be false. If the Bush administration is so righteous in their claims, why are their claims in question? Because they lied, repeatedly...




posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Hey COLONEL,
i did read that link you put up...interesting, but full of crap....it tries to take totally unrelated statistics and link them to paint a conclusion that is predetermined....for example...so what that only 3% of energy comes from oil...how does that relate to the "more relevant" stat from the article that says 78% of campaign contributions went to republicans...the 2 are totally unrelated, and to suggest there is a connection is not provable...it might SEEM like it could be that way certaintly, but PROVE IT....again in the article it tries to link enron corporate greed with donations made to republican campaings....Enron can both give to whomever they want and still rip us off....the assertation that the government was "involved or complacient" in the enron activity is a streatch....not that i cant see where it COULD be inferred that favors were being bought, but WHERES THE PROOF...IF there was proof of this kind of payola, one side or the other would have already exposed it public for their gain.
.....Not only the rich got tax relief from bush BTW....its just that some people were not happy that the rich got considered at all for tax relief. everyone got something from tax relief...im sorry that you dont like that everyone was treated equally there.
follow the $$$ on any politician, and i think you will see similar things that can be inferred about payola, but none that can be proven. To base your politics on such speculative peices of "evidence" makes me terrified at the absolute lack of objectivity from some voters...ALSO...dont believe everything you read on the internet....check your facts...consider the source....your link went right to a very left wing webpage...one known to be a biased source....objectivity requires you to not only listen to but to be very familiar with your opponents strategy and tactic in order to be able to best defeate him...(know your enemy...sun soo)
my point is, read things from BOTH sides of the issue and make an INFORMED not one sided decision.



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 04:18 AM
link   
It's hard to take Clarke seriously when his book and quotes are so full of misinformation. For example, he tried to say that Condy Rice was unaware of al-Qaeda as recently as 2001, that her expression was one of surprise and confusion when he (Clarke) brought up the topic in 2001. Last night's news played an audiotape of her in 2000 where she clearly mentions bin Laden twice as a terror threat.

I agree...his is a case of sour grapes because he didn't get the higher-profile job he wanted from Bush. The Bush camp is handling it very well, IMO.

john



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Oh so now its not bush that lied, its a whole bunch of unnamed people...its really irrelevant...even if a dissenter was fired or had charecter asasination activities occured....those acts would not cover up criminal actions (like an actionable lie ((perjury)))
again, do you think for a second if anyone in the bush camp could be brought down by an actionable lie, that their enimies wouldnt have used it?

What about the fact that saddam had the entire world snowballed on this wmd situation for 10 years...
we knew he had them and used them (hell we gave him some)....they were not all accounted for, and saddams actions in the past would lead reasonable people to conclude that he still had them...he would still be in power today if he would have totally complied with the UN at the last minute...he could have de-fanged bush and kept his power by revealing openly he had nothing to hide. But he called our bluff and the USA enforced 12 years of non compliance with the world community...who cares if we found wmd's or not....a law breaking, power flouting, flipping the finger to the world dictator now understands there were consequences. not JUST TALK.

Link to al queda
did you read kramtronix original post in this thread?
this guy worked for clinton and at that time said they knew saddam was linked to al queda, but now several years later hes changing his tune? he cant have it both ways, if they knew there was some linkage then, then it was still there on 9-11...and if they knew then WHY THE HELL DIDNT THEY DO MORE?

our countries history doesnt start and stop with the change of a president...the past shapes the present which will determine future situatuions for new presidents...all are linked thru time...and do not exist as seperate entities from one another...we voters better start to see the bigger picture because both parties have us blinded by the short term view, and not watching them for the long haul.



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Lock and load people......new ammo to be fired!
Clarke: Iraq Teamed Up With Bin Laden To Produce WMD.


See how the "spin doctors" against this current administration and all those supposed "lies" pan out against what is mentioned in the above topic.



seekerof



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 04:38 AM
link   
way to put it in terms that even the most hard core liberal can't argue with



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 05:51 AM
link   
From NewsMax:

Cheney Blasts Clinton's 'Totally Ineffective' Terror War

Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that the Clinton administration's strategy for dealing with the al-Qaida threat under the stewardship of terrorism czar Richard Clarke was "totally ineffective."

"The only thing I can say about Dick Clarke," Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh, "is he was here throughout those eight years going back to 1993, and the first attack on the World Trade Center in '98 when the embassies were hit in east Africa, in 2000 when the USS Cole was hit.

"And the question that ought to be asked is, what were they doing in those days when he was in charge of counterterrorism efforts?"

Cheney said that when President Bush took office, he did not want to repeat the mistakes of the 1990s.

"The fact is what the president did not want to do is to have an ineffective response with respect to al-Qaida, and we felt up till that point much of what had been done vis--vis al-Qaida had been totally ineffective."

The vice president complained that the Clinton administration's August 1998 cruise missile attack on bin Laden's encampment in Khost, Afghanistan, "basically didn't hit anything, and it made the U.S. look weak and ineffective."

Bush, he said, "wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with that, and that process was in motion throughout the spring [of 2001]."

As for Clarke's motivations, Cheney said that his attack on the White House was likely rooted in personal animosity toward National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who had demoted him to chief of cybersecurity.

"I suppose he may have a grudge to bear there since he probably wanted a more prominent position than she was prepared to give him," he told L! imbaugh.



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Ok, first off...I have kram's link...it is biased...still looking to cross reference it elsewhere.

Secondly, in it, it only says Iraqi experts, not officials. Big difference there. By that logic, one could say that Germany was producing the atomic bomb for the US in the 1940's, two of which was dropped on Japan.

Also the quote of his letter "courage, determination, calm and leadership" on Sept. 11, 2001" is accurate. If you gauge his public activities of the day, he did a good job. He didn't come out guns blazing, throwing bombs at random Muslim countries. Now, his words on that day may sound like an excited 8th grader's paper, but he comforted the people, then he said we are going to "get 'em".

03-03, that's about right. It takes some time to write a book and reference it and check, check, and recheck the facts that are in it and get it ready for publication. Haven't read it yet, but most publishers won't let blatant lies to come out of their company, at least not on this magnitude.

Kram, still looking for his "Kerry campaign ties"...any help? The only thing I can find right now is this headline, "Kerry studying Clarke book."

The most odd quote to come out of this was Cheney's interview. "Clarke wasn't in the loop." You would think someone supposedly this important would be in the loop, but he wasn't.

Caz, that's what the 9-11 commission is for. They are trying to find out if any wrong doing was going on. Rarely is anything ever black and white in this world. After all, look at the Clinton's struggle. They had an independent commission on them for many things. All they turned up was a lie about a blow job...but anyway. If anything does turn out, I hope we string up everyone who had a hand in it from highest gallows. Notice, I said everyone. I believe there are many more dirty hands in all of this. Not just the Bush administration, IMO.

And the rest of it, I roll my eyes...politics as usual...



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Kram, TC, you're all the same. Why can' you for once be objective and glean from the truth? Why do you follow this administration like a cult groupie? Here is an excerpt from the Washington Post today:

Step back a minute and look at who has left this administration or blown the whistle on it, and why. Clarke enumerates a half-dozen counterterrorism staffers, three of whom were with him in the Situation Room on Sept. 11, who left because they felt the White House was placing too much emphasis on the enemy who didn't attack us, Iraq, and far too little on the enemy who did.

But that only begins the list. There's Paul O'Neill, whose recent memoir recounts his ongoing and unavailing battle to get the president to take the skyrocketing deficit seriously. There's Christie Todd Whitman, who appears in O'Neill's memoir recalling her own unsuccessful struggles to get the White House to acknowledge the scientific data on environmental problems. There's Eric Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, who told Congress that it would take hundreds of thousands of American soldiers to adequately secure postwar Iraq. There's Richard Foster, the Medicare accountant, who was forbidden by his superiors from giving Congress an accurate assessment of the cost of the administration's new program. All but Foster are now gone, and Foster's sole insurance policy is that Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress were burnt by his muzzling.

www.washingtonpost.com...

How much do you need to finally realize that this guy is a LOSER.



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 09:16 AM
link   
For all that is wrong with the US, you have to admit that at least we're trying to go after the truth, with the 9/11 commission, etc. What other countries do the same amount of self-examining? The recent UK incident with the scientist that commited suicide, and whether Blair was involved comes to mind, but not much more. And we were the ones who were attacked!

john



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

For all that is wrong with the US, you have to admit that at least we're trying to go after the truth, with the 9/11 commission, etc.

john



Nope. Not buying it. This "commission" is giving certain people to much leeway. DId Condi even speak to the commission yet? Did Cheney? DId Bush?



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Nope. Not buying it. This "commission" is giving certain people to much leeway. DId Condi even speak to the commission yet? Did Cheney? DId Bush?


Here is a question, why are you only pointing out Republicans? If there is fault to be found, plenty of it will happen to fall on the previous administration.

Personally I think that the whole point of the commision is to garner attention for the Democrats. C'mon, it doesn't strike anyone as more than a litte odd that they pick an election year, two years after the fact, to really get the commision rolling.

What a crock. Nothing good will come out of this.



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Here is a question, why are you only pointing out Republicans?


Because they're the usual suspects. They're the ones that tell all the lies. They're the usual liars, thieves, and deceivers of the people. What amazes me is why you're surprised. Don't getmad at being called liars. Get mad at always being a liar.

[Edited on 24-3-2004 by Colonel]



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Because they're the usual suspects. They're the ones that tell all the lies. They're the usual liars, thieves, and deceivers of the people. What amazes me is why you're surprised. Don't getmad at being called liars. Get mad at always being a liar.

[Edited on 24-3-2004 by Colonel]

I willl not dispute the fact that there have been Republicans who were elected to office who have lied in the past.

However, how is this any different than what Democrats have done? Clinton lied under oath and should have been impeached for that.



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by goose
If all these people who continue to believ Bush's lies would wake up and see that everytime that anyone says anything negative about Bush then the Bush administration uses the same tactic over and over, Well they were angry because they did not get promoted and thats why they said that, he was fired from his job so thats why he said that. So everyone is lying on poor President Bush, why?



The only people coming out with these claims are the people who feel "wronged" by the administration.

I think you answered your own question.



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
Nope. Not buying it. This "commission" is giving certain people to much leeway. DId Condi even speak to the commission yet? Did Cheney? DId Bush?



Yeah, you follow politics, buddy.


Condaleeza Rice spoke with the commission for 4 long hours.

EDIT:
I was laughing so hard, I forgot to add that, yes, Bush did meet with the panel as well.

[Edited on 24-3-2004 by kramtronix]



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Because they're the usual suspects. They're the ones that tell all the lies. They're the usual liars, thieves, and deceivers of the people. What amazes me is why you're surprised. Don't getmad at being called liars. Get mad at always being a liar.

[Edited on 24-3-2004 by Colonel]


I willl not dispute the fact that there have been Republicans who were elected to office who have lied in the past.

However, how is this any different than what Democrats have done? Clinton lied under oath and should have been impeached for that.

Leave Clinton alone. He just had sex which is foreign to the repugnant---unless its something deviant and in the closet. That's a repugnant's default answer. Clinton lied. Well, none of our patriotic servcemen died because Clinton lied and lied and lied like Bush. We didn't lose respect worldwide because Clinton lied and lied and lied like Bush. 10,000 Iraqis didn't die under Clinton over a lie like Bush.

It doesn't compare.



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by kramtronix

Originally posted by Colonel
Nope. Not buying it. This "commission" is giving certain people to much leeway. DId Condi even speak to the commission yet? Did Cheney? DId Bush?



Yeah, you follow politics, buddy.


Condaleeza Rice spoke with the commission for 4 long hours.

EDIT:
I was laughing so hard, I forgot to add that, yes, Bush did meet with the panel as well.

[Edited on 24-3-2004 by kramtronix]


For an hour. Ans why wasn't Rice's speech televeised in a public forum?



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   
All one really needs to do Colonel is look at these and one will really see just "who" the "real" loser is!

The Culpability of William Jefferson Clinton

Here ya go Colonel...insert self in place of the man who stands on the 'mountain'..k?






seekerof



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 11:55 AM
link   
RICHARD CLARKE: 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.

www.foxnews.com...

Who's the liar here?

And like someone else pointed out, look at the facts. If the Clinton administration was so 'UP" on al-Qaeda operatives in the USA, why didn't they do anything about them? Why are they claiming they collected this intel and then simply handed it over to the Bush administration?

The Clinton advisors are either guilty of lying about their alleged "information," or they are guilty of being responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Which one is it? Because it has to be one of the two!!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join