richard clark reports bush sat on his ass....

[SHATOUSHKA]

well... not in so many words....

if you don't listen to NPR... you really should.
i like it for so many reasons... and today
was no exception.

i suppose in light of the trial regarding
9-11 et al... NPR has taken a break from
outside reporting to give a deeper glance
that the trial and persons/issues surrounding it.

CLICK CLICK

listen to the coverage of richard clark's
interview (link on the top half). its
brillant...

in fact, if you went to www.npr.org you could
read all about the trial and events uncovered.

my point was to bring up this one particular
interview... as i heard it earlier this
morning (they didn't add it to the site until
later). clark makes so many valid points...
points that i, too, made just after the
9-11 attack... and points that have been
made since.

its scary to hear these things from someone
other than me. especially when i was chastised
back in the day for being 'less than american'
for my opinions.

but that is all in the past now. i no longer
care about that. i just think that because
i do not watch tv, i have no idea if these
things are being broadcast on the air.

if so, i fear that many people will become
bored with the trial because its uncovering
things that make them seem like bad people.

well.... i told you so.

nothing wrong with seeing how the government,
namely bush, misused his power to not only
DESTROY a country that had NO real relevance
to 9-11... but also how he used his power
to make american MORE vulnerable to terrorist
attacks. bush is such a fucking dumbass.

but no one listened.

in the interview, clark reveals many of these
things... though the interview is short, i'm
quite curious to read his book.

that is all.....

[TastinGood]

I listened to it and found nothing really all that shocking to have been said. Maybe because I've heard it all before on here. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

It's pretty much a he said/she said argument on many of the things he was talking about, but I'll go ahead and give him the benefit of the doubt.

At first I questioned his credibility, especially resigning just a year and some odd months before an election, but he seemingly put that at ease when he stated that he wouldnt accept any postions were Kerry to offer him anything.

It's no secret that Bush really has fucked up. There are many things that he's being blamed for that really arent his fault. I dont care what anyone says, the economy was starting its recession the final year that Slick Willy was in office. G-Dub's swooshing into the hot seat had little effect on that at all.

Wars and oil....well that's a different story.

The current administration obviously tried to misguide the public, as has been well documented, and have pretty much failed. How WMD hasnt mysteriously popped up in Iraq by now is beyond me. I really wouldnt be surprised if some were to be "stumbled across" in the near future. It's really the only chance GWB has.

As for Sept. 11....I have no doubt that the President was getting briefings every morning from the CIA director....however, do you REALLY think he ignored the threat of an attack on America? I would assume that these briefings and warnings have been an ongoing thing through MANY administrations. What in the hell could have been done? Clarke stated himself that many local and national agencies were notified of the elevated risk.

Bush has done many things wrong and definately is not deserved of re-election for another 4 years....however Osama could have phoned in the date and time of the 9/11 attacks and aside from mentioning that the attack would come via planes still virtually nothing could have been done.

They set forth an unprecedented plan of attack and succeeded.

Now, I know I've strayed a bit from your point....but I'm just saying.....blame Bush for the war and the lies because of those things, he is guilty....but god himself would've had a hard time stopping those airplanes from hitting the towers.

[SHATOUSHKA]

are you mental????

he wasn't only saying that the threat was there,
he was specifically stating about the state of
things after the 9-11 attack.
while he DID say that there was PLENTY of information
ignored (about certain protection was could have
done prior), he specifically stated the route
of things AFTER 9-11 that really fucked shit up.

i'm specifically referring to bush and his
agenda to go at iraq with no provication. because
of this, we have not only made american MORE
OPEN to terrorist attacks... but we casually
turned our heads to iraq while touting END
TERRORISM while letting the majority of REAL
terroists coups go about their business.

its as he said, bush had a plan and wanted reports
to back up his plan... regardless of what other
evidence showed.

the fact that 9-11 would have happened anyway
is a mental experiment. clark even stated that
had it not been 9-11, it would have been something
else. even today, we are STILL capable of having
another similar 9-11 event because we are so
fucked that homeland security is a joke.

and the comment about clinton....
while i do not deny that shit was awry... you have
to consider that many of today's events were
started YEARS ago... with their effects only
surfacing many years later.

the statement about a potential economical deficit
could be true based on previous legislation made
years before clinton's office stint... similarly
to bush's current investments into nasa and other
bullshit... the effects of this legislation today
will not be seen for another decade... would you
then blame the current president for a fuck up
on bush's part today???

i heard in a later NPR report that social security
funds are estimated to be on the negative in
seven years.... which is 5 years sooner than
previously estimated last year alone. this is
due to the current bush legislation for putting
funds in X, Y, and Z that have NOTHING to do
with REAL american security (and i don't mean
of the military type).

if the threat of social security running out
in 5 years, who then will be to blame? the
president of 2009???

[TastinGood]

Originally posted by shatzy:
if the threat of social security running out
in 5 years, who then will be to blame? the
president of 2009???

<font size="4" face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">In reality? Of course not. To all of the popular media outlets and especially the opposing national party at that time...yes.

[SHATOUSHKA]

yeah...

and don't forget those late night parody shows!