Pres Bill Clinton Bitch Slaps Chris Wallace on FOX

[Nixxxed]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Interestingly, and to stir it up just a little

I get that Clinton tried and failed - but so did W, who indeed went into Afgan, etc.

So, despite Clinton's posturing (based in fact though) - - what does this interview show about how the D's would have handled 9/11 (post) differently. Remember almost all D's voted for the war in Afgan and for the war in Iraq. So, they can make the argument that W screwed those up, which he did, but they will likely as history demonstrates be seen as flipp flopping.

So, my question is, what can the D's show to the American people that will demonstrate they are not weak on national defense, etc. I can tell you I think that talking about no spying and no torture ain't gonna cut it because most Americans do not care about that and, mostly correctly, think those avenues had lead to stopping the terrorists. So, what are the D's gonna do is the question.

It might be a good start to actually implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report...

And on a side note, I read (somewhere) yesterday that bin Laden hasn't even been indicted for the 9/11 attacks. Is that true? I know he was indicted for the 98 bombings, but not for 9/11 apparently. I find that very strange.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Interestingly, and to stir it up just a little

I get that Clinton tried and failed - but so did W, who indeed went into Afgan, etc.

So, despite Clinton's posturing (based in fact though) - - what does this interview show about how the D's would have handled 9/11 (post) differently. Remember almost all D's voted for the war in Afgan and for the war in Iraq. So, they can make the argument that W screwed those up, which he did, but they will likely as history demonstrates be seen as flipp flopping.

So, my question is, what can the D's show to the American people that will demonstrate they are not weak on national defense, etc. I can tell you I think that talking about no spying and no torture ain't gonna cut it because most Americans do not care about that and, mostly correctly, think those avenues had lead to stopping the terrorists. So, what are the D's gonna do is the question.

Clark still would have been at his post and they would have been paying attention.

Ds are not saying no spying (just no illegals spying) nor is there any proof that torture has lead to any foiled plots. It has, however, led to many false confessions. It is also leaves our soldiers vulnerable to torture out of revenge. I agree though that they should not run on these issues. I think the distinctions are too complex for most people to get. They don't pay close enough attention.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Interestingly, and to stir it up just a little

I get that Clinton tried and failed - but so did W, who indeed went into Afgan, etc.

So, despite Clinton's posturing (based in fact though) - - what does this interview show about how the D's would have handled 9/11 (post) differently. Remember almost all D's voted for the war in Afgan and for the war in Iraq. So, they can make the argument that W screwed those up, which he did, but they will likely as history demonstrates be seen as flipp flopping.

So, my question is, what can the D's show to the American people that will demonstrate they are not weak on national defense, etc. I can tell you I think that talking about no spying and no torture ain't gonna cut it because most Americans do not care about that and, mostly correctly, think those avenues had lead to stopping the terrorists. So, what are the D's gonna do is the question.

its a whole different kettle of fish to ask what the Dems would do NOW as opposed to what they would have done THEN. Its too late to now ask what the Dems would have done differently if they had been in office, and its unreasonable to expect the Dems to clean up a GOP mess...

I think we need to get OUT of Iraq, develop alternative energy sources and vehicles, scale back the protections on multinationals and financial institutions (bring back consumer protection and the anti-monopoly mindset!!) remind the country that the Church and State are SEPARATE,
take global warming seriously and restore social programs that benefit the least advantaged among us. (Thats MY platform!!)

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Clark still would have been at his post and they would have been paying attention.

Ds are not saying no spying (just no illegals spying) nor is there any proof that torture has lead to any foiled plots. It has, however, led to many false confessions. It is also leaves our soldiers vulnerable to torture out of revenge. I agree though that they should not run on these issues. I think the distinctions are too complex for most people to get. They don't pay close enough attention.

There was an article awhile back that said some of the confessions were valid. of course, we will never really know the truth, etc.

As for Clark being there - it still would have been a crap shoot as he was there for part of that eight months and the planning of 9/11 stretched out further than that and they did not catch them, etc. So, the facts indicate 9/11 likely could not have been prevented, though more effort by W would have helped This is what Clinton was saying.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

its a whole different kettle of fish to ask what the Dems would do NOW as opposed to what they would have done THEN. Its too late to now ask what the Dems would have done differently if they had been in office, and its unreasonable to expect the Dems to clean up a GOP mess...

I think we need to get OUT of Iraq, develop alternative energy sources and vehicles, scale back the protections on multinationals and financial institutions (bring back consumer protection and the anti-monopoly mindset!!) remind the country that the Church and State are SEPARATE,
take global warming seriously and restore social programs that benefit the least advantaged among us. (Thats MY platform!!)

1. Any notion that the US should get out of Iraq completely today is not only inhumane, but a death sentence for any candidate. Powell correctly said we broke it and now have to fix it. The D's should implement a year or so schedule for staged withdrawal, etc.

2. If course the D's have to clean it up, esp. when they played a part in making it. Certainly, not even you think the D's hands are clean on Iraq Again, Clinton killed there, Kerry was a huge cheerleader for the invasion, etc. So, yes, the D's have egg on their faces.

3. There never really has been any significant consumer protection or anti-monopoly mind set.

4. Though the govt. should stay out of religion, good luck getting elected even in crazy California with that platform

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

I love how righties are all excited about the president's rising approval rating. It is still only about 44% which is "sucks". He had to go up just to get to "sucks".

but "44" is a failing grade, correct? I remember in high school anything under a "66" was a failing grade (My school had A, B, C & F grades-Anything lower than 66 is an F)

It would take alot to get from '44' to '67' (From failing to passing) if ya ask me.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

There was an article awhile back that said some of the confessions were valid. of course, we will never really know the truth, etc.

As for Clark being there - it still would have been a crap shoot as he was there for part of that eight months and the planning of 9/11 stretched out further than that and they did not catch them, etc. So, the facts indicate 9/11 likely could not have been prevented, though more effort by W would have helped This is what Clinton was saying.

maybe planes should be outfitted with some sort of device that alerts air traffic when a plane deviates from its scheduled course

although, I doubt terrorists will use that avenue again....I think they would go for some other mass transit target or maybe a water supply or something...

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

maybe planes should be outfitted with some sort of device that alerts air traffic when a plane deviates from its scheduled course

although, I doubt terrorists will use that avenue again....I think they would go for some other mass transit target or maybe a water supply or something...

Planed should be fitted with many devices like that and the missle deterent systems. The US has known this since like the 70's and all military planes have them. The govt. just refuses to make the airlines spend the money. Interestingly, from a cost benefit point of view - only one, maybe two planes out of hundreds of thousands if not millions of planes in the last 30 years have gone down this way

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

maybe planes should be outfitted with some sort of device that alerts air traffic when a plane deviates from its scheduled course

but it would be too much (In financial terms) to retro-fit the current fleet of airplanes for all the airlines.

although, I doubt terrorists will use that avenue again....I think they would go for some other mass transit target or maybe a water supply or something...

I believe their next targets will either be the oil supplies in the Middle East to cause a World-wide economic panic & collapse, or even worse a nuclear attack on the US West Coast (Possibly Los Angeles) which would cripple the US (Fallout would travel West to East in the jetstreams, causing panic unlike any ever seen in our lifetimes & absolute civil unrest.)

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

Trust me, when a reporter on Bill Maher's HBO show says OBL has the blessings of radical Muslim leaders to kill 10,000,000 people by use of a WMD something is definitely not being done.

That was a good show. I think it is because of the upcoming elections that they want to take the focus off of what Osama is up to now.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Interestingly, and to stir it up just a little

I get that Clinton tried and failed - but so did W, who indeed went into Afgan, etc.

At least Clinton has the stuff to admit his failures. W never will. Which is the point.

So, despite Clinton's posturing (based in fact though) - - what does this interview show about how the D's would have handled 9/11 (post) differently. Remember almost all D's voted for the war in Afgan and for the war in Iraq. So, they can make the argument that W screwed those up, which he did, but they will likely as history demonstrates be seen as flipp flopping.

One, the debate wasn't about the hypothetical about what a Gore administration would have done, it was about what Clinton didn't do-all in an attempt to deflect blame away from Dubya and put it ALL on Clinton. Again- zero accountability. It's not as cut-and-dry as you'd like to put it.

So, my question is, what can the D's show to the American people that will demonstrate they are not weak on national defense, etc. I can tell you I think that talking about no spying...

Disinformation. The democrats want the W administration to follow the law instead of creating enemy lists and files. It doesn't have anything to do with not being able to "spy".

...and no torture ain't gonna cut it because most Americans do not care about that...

Wrong again. I think most americans care about whether or not our government tortures people.

and, mostly correctly, think those avenues had lead to stopping the terrorists.

Wrong again. Most successful interrogation methods involve working with the suspect to get valid information. To torture someone is just a "thrown-one's-hands-up-in-the-air" / easy way out solution that is completely barbaric.

So, what are the D's gonna do is the question.

Phased redeployment and on the ground detective work- just like British intelligence did with those London airplane jerks.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

There was an article awhile back that said some of the confessions were valid. of course, we will never really know the truth, etc.

Torture is illegal, morally wrong and barbaric. Nothing justifies torture. End of story.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

1. Any notion that the US should get out of Iraq completely today is not only inhumane, but a death sentence for any candidate. Powell correctly said we broke it and now have to fix it. The D's should implement a year or so schedule for staged withdrawal, etc.

That's their plan Jason- where the hell have you been? I don't think anyone in congress or part of the democratic establishment has stated that they want complete and immediate withdrawl. Phased redeployment.

[Nixxxed]

Poor CondoLIEza - RawStory just published the Clarke terrorism strategy memo that Dubya got 5 days after being sworn in. It's the one Clinton was referring to in the Wallace interview, and the one she said didn't include any strategies for dealing with the Pakistan angle and was therefore useless.

(Guess what? It does ... 3 pages worth in fact.)

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/20...ents_0926.html

And have you heard yet about the SECOND NIE report that Dubya is hiding because it's worse than the first?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001603.php

[strandinthewind]

Like Clinton, W admitted his failure to protect America on 9/11 - then he went on about how that failure is prompting to never let it happen again via his methods, which I think are ineffective to say the least.

As for the torture, I make no comment on its morality, etc. I am just going by what I hear and see and I know of none who think the water torture stuff is inappropriate. But, I could be wrong as I do not know everyone LOL and certainly have never tortured anyone - and if you make a crack about my singing . . .

In the end, W's administration touted good things and them failed to execute any of them, which is sad and pathetic. Conversley, the Clinton Administration succeeded in many areas and failed in fewer than W's deal.

And - them's the facts!

[strandinthewind]

Bush dismisses the notion that his party was using this for political reasons.

In the end, it would be like Rove to leak parts of the doc that were disfavorable to W and then release the doc in full with the favorable parts - though it appears that has not happened.

NIE: Al Qaeda 'damaged,' becoming more scattered
Story Highlights•NEW: Report says anti-Western attacks could increase if "jihadist movement" continues to grow
•NEW: Declassified judgments from NIE released on Director of National Intelligence Web site
•Proposal by top House Democrat for secret session on intelligence fails
•Leaked intelligence report says Iraq war is increasing Islamic radicalism


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Islamist terrorists are adapting to global counterterrorism efforts, as the "jihadist movement" is becoming more decentralized and spawning offshoot organizations with anti-American agendas, according to a declassified intelligence document released Tuesday.

Earlier, President Bush angrily lambasted a media report that said the document asserted that the Iraq war increased the terrorist threat to the United States.

He added that the media accounts of the leak of the National Intelligence Estimate were meant to "create confusion in the minds of the American people" and promised to declassify the document's key judgments.

"It will stop all the speculation, all the politics about somebody saying something about Iraq; you know, somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of this enemy," Bush said.

The judgments state that U.S.-led counterterrorism efforts have "seriously damaged" al Qaeda's leadership and operations, but that the group still poses "the greatest threat to the homeland and U.S. interests."

It adds that the number of Muslims who describe themselves as jihadists is increasing, and that "if this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide."

During a joint White House press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Bush said he had ordered Director of National Security John Negroponte to declassify the findings. (Full story)

"He'll do so in such a way that we'll be able to protect sources and methods ... that our intelligence community uses," Bush said, "and then everybody can draw their own conclusions about what the report says." (Watch U.S. to declassify terror report -- 2:03)

The full findings are posted at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence Web site. (www.dni.gov).

Bush said he agreed with the report's conclusions that al Qaeda is becoming more diffuse and decentralized but rejected the interpretation that the Iraq war had made the U.S. less safe.

"This government is going to do whatever it takes to protect this homeland. We're not going to let their excuses stop us from staying on the offense," Bush said.

"The best way to protect America is to defeat these killers overseas so we do not have to face them here at home," Bush said. "We're not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war." (Watch Bush call critics of war 'naive' -- 3:10)

On Monday evening, Negroponte rejected the argument that the Iraq war had increased the terrorist threat against the United States.

Negroponte conceded that Iraq had become a training ground for a new generation of jihadists.

Democrats push for more disclosures
On Tuesday, congressional Democrats put pressure on the administration to disclose more analysis by the intelligence community on Iraq and the new generation of Islamic terrorists.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, asked that the chamber go into secret session to discuss the intelligence reports, something the House has not done since 1983. The proposal was denied by a vote of 171-217 along mostly party lines.

Senate Democrats Tuesdayalso demanded that Negroponte testify about the report and fully declassify not only the portion leaked over the weekend but also all intelligence estimates dealing with terrorism.

"We want to make certain that what we're doing in Iraq and around the world contains and destroys the threat of terrorism," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, said. "This National Intelligence Estimate suggests just the opposite: that our strategy in Iraq is adding to the problem and not diminishing the problem."

Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, called on the White House to release a second, previously unknown national intelligence document that focuses solely on Iraq.

Harman insisted there is a draft NIE that has not been revealed to the public.

"I have learned there is an NIE on Iraq, specifically on Iraq, that has been left in draft form at the National Intelligence Council," the California congresswoman said at a news conference.

Harman said the document has been kept in draft form so that it won't be seen before midterm elections.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CNN that he is not aware of any draft dealing solely with Iraq, but he believes Harman is reliable.

"If she says she has that information, I wouldn't doubt it for one minute," he said.

The call for declassifying thefirst NIE has been bipartisan. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, on Monday called on Bush to declassify the report so that the public can "come to their own conclusions." Roberts, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he was negotiating with Negroponte's office to have a declassified version of the findings released.

CNN's Andrea Koppel and Ted Barrett contributed to this report.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/...raq/index.html

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

1. Any notion that the US should get out of Iraq completely today is not only inhumane, but a death sentence for any candidate. Powell correctly said we broke it and now have to fix it. The D's should implement a year or so schedule for staged withdrawal, etc.

2. If course the D's have to clean it up, esp. when they played a part in making it. Certainly, not even you think the D's hands are clean on Iraq Again, Clinton killed there, Kerry was a huge cheerleader for the invasion, etc. So, yes, the D's have egg on their faces.

3. There never really has been any significant consumer protection or anti-monopoly mind set.

4. Though the govt. should stay out of religion, good luck getting elected even in crazy California with that platform

personally I say if Iraq wants us out we should go. Everyone knows the only real reason we're there is for the oil. The Iraqis arent ready for a Democracy and we can never "fix" the situation. To think we could is sheer fantasy.

your notion of "dirty hands" with respect to Iraq is interesting to say the least. Clinton didnt do much there at all........aside from a short bombing stint during Monicagate, how can you even really attach any blame to the Dems? No, Jason, the TRUE culprits in Iraq (from Day ONE) have been the GOP hawks. face it.

as for your statement re: consumer protection and trustbusting/anti-monopoly mindset, you are sadly mistaken. The late 60's, early 70's had all sorts of consumer protection action.....Ralph Nader got his start as a consumer advocate after all.........and we USED to have anti-monopoly laws in place until the Reagan era when deregulation came into being. Maybe you're too young to remember the breakup of ATT? Viacom Cable? The idea was to give the little guys a chance to operate as equals in the various types of businesses, and then it seemed like Government looked the other way while corporations bought each other out and acquired other companies and voila, back we went to conglomerates again..............