Text 8391, 142 rader
Skriven 2006-09-13 22:09:00 av Robert E Starr JR (8888.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: ABC backs down on 9/1
=================================
  * * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <FqSdnfGvQ7HkEpXYnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY:
<0001HW.C128B859001614ABF0407530@news.verizon.net><HuGdnVxiDqSb-Z7YnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com><0001HW.C128E6BD0020A9D1


"Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C12DEF92003CD944F0284530@news.verizon.net...
>>>On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:58:20 -0400, Vorlonagent wrote
> (in article <se6dnV3pWfdW_5XYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com>):
>
>>
>>
>> I do not accept Richard Clarke as a reliable source. <<
>
> Honestly, I never understand this when you say it.  This guy served since 
> the
> Reagan administration -- he served more Republican presidents than 
> Democratic
> ones.  He served admirably, and with distinction, and was a loyal civil
> servant for his entire career.  What do you find unreliable about that?

In 2002 he told Jim Angle of Fox News and a handful of other reporters that:



  a.. There was no plan on al-Qaida that was passed from the Clinton 
administration to Bush's.

  b.. He said the Bush administration decided to "increase CIA resources for 
covert action, five-fold, to go after al-Qaida.

  c.. The new administration, he claimed at that time, "Then changed the 
strategy from one of rollback with al-Qaida over the course of five years 
which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination 
of al-Qaida."

In his resignation letter, you wrote, "I will always remember the courage, 
determination, calm and leadership you demonstrated on September 11th ..."

He later claimed on March 24, 2004, that the Clinton administration had "no 
higher priority" than destroying the terrorism, whereas the Bush 
administration made it "an important issue, but not an urgent one." Yet he 
told Angle and the reporters in the August 2002 interview that the Clinton 
administration "never had a plan" for dealing effectively and forthrightly 
with terrorism.


I see an inherent contradiction in this.






>
>>> I rememeber people thought that there might be an Iraq/Al-Queda link.  I
>> don't remember the Bush Admin driving it.  <<
>
> Where have you been since 2003?  It's one thing to say you disagree about
> what was said, or for you to parse statements differently than most of the
> rest of the free world, but saying that you "dont remember the Bush
> administration driving it" is just plain disingenuous.
>
>>> As for clinton, there's a stain on a blue dress that proves he lied.  <<
>
> Yaaaaaaawn.  I can spout cliches as easily as you can:  when Clinton lied, 
> no
> one died.
>
>>> Reminder: Amy claims that the Bush administration said Iraq was 
>>> complicit in
>
>> 9/11.  Alleging a "relationship" with Al-Queda does not allege complicity 
>> in
>> 9/11.
>>
>> That is the point I was defending when you replied to my post asking Amy 
>> to
>> find a better quote.  You poets that CNN article, which no better proves
>> Amy's point than her own article did.
>>
>> As I said: Try again.<<
>
> You know, this is one way to have a discussion -- requiring chapter and 
> verse
> in black and white, notarized and footnoted -- but the other way is to
> acknowledge the reality that the world, and people, do not always function 
> in
> such a black and white way.  I don't think it would be too difficult for 
> me
> to find something more direct in the exact words of the Administration
> linking Iraq/Hussein to 9/11, but I'm not going to bother, because I'm 
> sure
> you'll find a way to parse it to your satisfaction anyway.  But let me 
> just
> leave you with something I read today in the Christian Science Monitor. 
> This
> is from a March 14, 2003 column:
>
>>> In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost 
>>> solely on
> Iraq,
> President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam 
> Hussein
> many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
>
> Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president.
> Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists 
> among
> much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct 
> role
> in the attacks. <<
>
> If the intent is to defraud, the exact words used don't really matter.  I
> don't think anyone here, except for maybe a handful of people, really 
> believe
> that the way you parsed that statement is truly the way the Administration
> intended it.  It's been clear since before we went into Iraq that the
> Administration wanted to conflate Iraq and 9/11 in the minds of the 
> average
> American, and this propaganda campaign has been _very_ successful.   As
> someone said earlier, "pick your poll."  They all say that the American
> public believes that Saddam Hussein and Iraq played a part in 9/11.
>
> What Clinton did with Lewinsky, and the fact that he lied about it, 
> doesn't
> even remotely compare.  I don't know how you aren't ashamed to even imply
> that it does.  It's pretty pathetic if the worst thing you can say about 
> your
> sworn political enemy is that he got a blow job from an intern.  Bush's 
> list
> of crimes is orders of magnitude worse.
>
> Amy
>
                     
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)