Beers starts talking about why he quit...

[sarettah]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Jun15.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62941-2003Jun15.html)

"The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure," said Beers, who until now has remained largely silent about leaving his National Security Council job as special assistant to the president for combating terrorism. "As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done. And the longer I sat and watched, the more concerned I became, until I got up and walked out."

......................

The focus on Iraq has robbed domestic security of manpower, brainpower and money, he said. The Iraq war created fissures in the United States' counterterrorism alliances, he said, and could breed a new generation of al Qaeda recruits. Many of his government colleagues, he said, thought Iraq was an "ill-conceived and poorly executed strategy."

"I continue to be puzzled by it," said Beers, who did not oppose the war but thought it should have been fought with a broader coalition. "Why was it such a policy priority?" The official rationale was the search for weapons of mass destruction, he said, "although the evidence was pretty qualified, if you listened carefully."

............................

"The first day, I came in fresh and eager," he said. "On the last day, I came home tired and burned out. And it only took seven months."

Part of that stemmed from his frustration with the culture of the White House. He was loath to discuss it. His wife, Bonnie, a school administrator, was not: "It's a very closed, small, controlled group. This is an administration that determines what it thinks and then sets about to prove it. There's almost a religious kind of certainty. There's no curiosity about opposing points of view. It's very scary. There's kind of a ghost agenda."

[PornoDoggy]

Oh, this one will be easy.

The article says he's a registered Democrat. As rite-thinkin 'merkins, we all know they don't really love 'merika.

Obviously, he's a sleeper. He worked under Reagan and Bush I with the appearance of loyalty just for this moment. It is simply inconceivable that anyone with any sense or patriotism could question the path that Bush II has started us down.

[Hooper]

His name was robert paulson.

[sarettah]

And Bush answers back

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...q_usa_bush_dc_3 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20030616/pl_nm/iraq_usa_bush_dc_3)

- President Bush (news - web sites) countered those questioning his justification for the invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) on Monday, dismissing "revisionist historians" and saying Washington acted to counter a persistent threat.


"Now there are some who would like to rewrite history; revisionist historians is what I like to call them," Bush said in a speech to New Jersey business leaders.

Referring to the ousted Iraqi president, Bush said, "Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was a threat to America and the free world in '91, in '98, in 2003. He continually ignored the demands of the free world, so the United States and friends and allies acted."

The president did not mention Iraqi unconventional weapons in his remarks, although accusations Iraq had chemical and biological weapons were central to his prewar campaign to build support for an attack. No such weapons have yet been found.

Bush said, "This is for certain, Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States and our friends and allies."

Bush said the U.S. global war on terrorism, begun after the Sept. 11 2001 attacks and which he said encompassed the war on Iraq, would continue.

"This government will use whatever technologies and skill is necessary to secure America by hunting down those who would harm us one person at a time."

[SykkBoy]

oooh, someone's gonna get audited by the IRS every year for the next couple years ;-)

[sarettah]

Originally posted by sarettah@Jun 16 2003, 03:31 PM
"This government will use whatever technologies and skill is necessary to secure America by hunting down those who would harm us one person at a time."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

oooh, someone's gonna get audited by the IRS every year for the next couple years ;-)
lololol... Yep, first one to be hunted down would be Rand Beers :yowsa:

[Mike AI]

The man has no secret information....

He is just of the opinion that going to war, and attack muslium countries will sprout more terrorism, while Bush thinks that killing terrorists, trying to stabilzie region is the way to solve the problem.

Nothing new....

Of course I am one that thinks KILLING terrorist is the only way to stop them. Creating new opportunies for the people in the region, to help create ssome long term stability with some type of political and economic freedoms....

One cannot appease a terrorist.... it just does not happen... it cannot work. There should be no negotiations, only exterminations!

I sound like the white Jesse Jackson!!

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jun 16 2003, 04:11 PM
The man has no secret information....

He is just of the opinion that going to war, and attack muslium countries will sprout more terrorism, while Bush thinks that killing terrorists, trying to stabilzie region is the way to solve the problem.

Nothing new....

Of course I am one that thinks KILLING terrorist is the only way to stop them. Creating new opportunies for the people in the region, to help create ssome long term stability with some type of political and economic freedoms....

One cannot appease a terrorist.... it just does not happen... it cannot work. There should be no negotiations, only exterminations!

I sound like the white Jesse Jackson!!
I am not sure what you base your statement that he has no secret information on, nor do I understand the relevance of his possession of secret information.

If what I read in the slanted, biased, liberal media is correct, this guy's complaint with the Bush Administration is that it has neglected Homeland Security in pursuit of the war in Iraq, which has every bit as much a tenuous relationship with alQaida as it seems to have with the WMD that could be fired at our troops upon 45 minutes notice. He is not the first person to express those concerns, and they are not limited to liberals by any stretch of the imagination.

I also believe that killing terrorists is ultimately the only way to do that. What (IMHO, of course) the Bush Administration hasn't addressed is exactly how they are going to kill off the terrorists in such a way as to avoid creating new ones to replace the ones they kill off. I realize that there are some very niave folks running loose who actually believe we can scare people out of acts of terror. I don't think they have any more contact with reality than the ones who think we can negotiate with them.

I don't think you sound like a "white Jesse Jackson" - I think you sound like just any old ordinary Ari-Fleisher wanna-be defending the Bush Administration. I really don't think you came close to addressing what this guy's actual concerns were.

[Mike AI]

PD I made the reference to Jesse since my words rhymed... I know you put more faith in Rev. Jesse then you do Bush, or myself.

I am no Ari Flieshier ( I do respect the man and like him a lot) because I have NO problem saying we went into Iraq to change the balance of power in the region, to stabilize fuel prices, to give the US a base of operations in the middle east ( rather then relying upon Saudi Arabia) and 30 other reasons....

I do not have to be spoon fed Real Politik.... I live it, I love it, and I want more!

I love what Bush has done, and I look forward to the world map being changed even more after his re-election. His work, over the long haul will bring peace and stability to the middle east - rather then all the liberal -feel-good policies ever will.

No more bending over backward, letting terrorists do what they want, letting rouge nations get away with extortion or putting our vital interest in peril.

Take the time to read Theodore Rex.... look at what Teddy did his first term... I see Bush as following the same blue print. Thing is the democrats were crying back then... about Panama ( breaking away from Columbia with out help, about Turkey, and all the other things TR did... which helped create this nation into a world power!)

Bush win re-election, if I was a ruler Syria, Iran, or N. Korea I would be looking for some nice retirment home...

[PornoDoggy]

Now wait a minute. I thought you were comparing Bush to Franklin Roosevelt - or is that like, so yesterday?

First of all, I think - unfortunately - that you may be right about Bush being re-elected, but I wouldn't call it a sure thing yet. I only hope he shows the same arrogance on that assumption that you do.

Second, your comparisson to the late 1890s and early 1900s is appropriate only if you acknowledge there are certain imperialist aims inherent in the Bush foreign policy. Since that would put you in complete agreement with the most radical of the Bush opponents on the left, I find that odd - although one never knows when the wackos on the extremes will meet.

Third, I haven't seen much in the way of "beef" when it comes to tackling terrorism. I am an Unbeliever in your "leader' - a cynic who believes that the job was poorly done in Afghanistan, quite possibly going very wrong in Iraq already, and, to repeat myself, the very connection between the terrorists who threaten the United States and Iraq is a product of the same spin-doctors who talked of our "knowledge" of WMD in the hands of field commanders.

Fourth, I think that GW is doing as much to destabalize the Middle East as he is to stabalize it. I realize that I - like the American people - am not privy to the Grand Plan; however, I doubt that you are either.

Finally, I doubt George W. Bush will do much more of a military nature in Korea than his predecssor did - at least, not without far more provacation than we've seen so far. There are far more factors at play on the Korean peninsula and in Asia than come to play in Iraq. Perhaps it's that your Bush cheerleader outfit deprives you of some blood to the brain, but the answer to every problem is not military.

Oh, and btw ... I do understand your "Jesse Jackson" comparison now. However, I was wrong in calling you Ari Fleischer.

You really sound more like Dig talking about Bill Clinton.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Jun 16 2003, 10:28 PM

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jun 16 2003, 10:01 PM
I love what Bush has done, and I look forward to the world map being changed even more after his re-election. His work, over the long haul will bring peace and stability to the middle east - rather then all the liberal -feel-good policies ever will.

His work over the short haul WILL lead to WWIII.....

Just imo.... Of course

[Turner]

http://www.flatface.net/~thomas/jessemikeai.jpg


The rhyming Jesse and Mikeai??

:nyanya:

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jun 16 2003, 04:11 PM
Of course I am one that thinks KILLING terrorist is the only way to stop them.
Actually the guys who flew a couple planes into buildings and the guys strapping bombs on themselves and walking into dance clubs in Isreal are doing a pretty good job of that themselves.

You do realize that a lot of these terrorists want us to attack the Middle East so they can be justified in their jihad? While I agree we can't negotiate with terorrists (how do you convince someone living oin total poverty in the desert that barely has electricity in his home that the promise of 100 channels of HBO and a 30 cents per gallon savings on gasoline is better than an afterlife in paradise with 100 virgins at his beck and call?) but just bombing willy nilly doesn't exactly fix the problem either. OK, so the attack on Iraq was a pre-emptive strike...so what are we doing to solve the problems that already exist?

How are we restoring "goodwill and rebuilding" these countries we've already targeted? Just because they aren't exactly shooting at us anymore in Afghanistan, it doesn't mean they like us and there is really very very little we can do to change that...or do you have a master plan? I'd like to hear it. How do we rebuild these countries and get rid of the resistance? How do we make them like us and start buying our products rather than have them wish they knew how to fly airplanes?

While I understand the short term reasons behind the bombing and fist shaking (whether I agree with them or not is beside the point), I'd really like to see what the long term plans are (besides giving more cushy post-bombing session jobs to Haliburton). We can have a McDonalds on every block in Afghanistan and give them pay per view access to Wrestlemania XX, but that still doesn't mean we've gotten rid of the deep resentment they have for us.

[Mike AI]

HAHAHA Turner, I love that photo!! I saved it to my HD!



Saretteh - WWIII? How is this going to come about? What will the sides be?

Realisticly we are already in WWIII, have been so since the 80s... the war against radical fundementalist islam is a war... we have finally realized it after 9-11 and we are fighting. Afganistan and Iraq were not WARS, but rather battles in WWIII....

Support your country....

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jun 17 2003, 01:24 PM
Saretteh - WWIII? How is this going to come about? What will the sides be?

Realisticly we are already in WWIII, have been so since the 80s... the war against radical fundementalist islam is a war... we have finally realized it after 9-11 and we are fighting. Afganistan and Iraq were not WARS, but rather battles in WWIII....

Support your country....
Is the support your country directed at me personally ?? Cause I think we know better on that one....

************************************************** **********
As far as what the sides will be......

U.S./Britain/Canada/Australia/Japan/Israel vs Europe/Russia/China/Mid East/Indonesia

If you want me to go into detail on my thinking, that will be a rather long post :)


:yowsa:

[PornoDoggy]

sarettah, you have been reading this board long enough to know that "support your country" means "don't question Bush."

[sarettah]

http://www.awrats.com/images/poster_silence_sm.jpg

From: http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/PhotoAlbum1.html

[Turner]

Mike, there's more where that came from... :agrin:

Glad you liked it.

[Mike AI]

U.S./Britain/Canada/Australia/Japan/Israel vs Europe/Russia/China/Mid East/Indonesia

Hmmm you may be right on some side.... but I think you are grouping way to many countries/regions that have no common interests, many who have been struggling with each other for centuries!

PD , Sarettah... Have I ever said I think you should shut up, or not post your opinions? Questioning the gov't? No way... I love divergent opinions, I may not agree with them alway but belevie you have a right, and a duty to hold them and speak up!

Everyone has the right to be wrong! :P

[Mike AI]

Turner, when you get them out let me know!!

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jun 17 2003, 10:22 PM
U.S./Britain/Canada/Australia/Japan/Israel vs Europe/Russia/China/Mid East/Indonesia

Hmmm you may be right on some side.... but I think you are grouping way to many countries/regions that have no common interests, many who have been struggling with each other for centuries!

PD , Sarettah... Have I ever said I think you should shut up, or not post your opinions? Questioning the gov't? No way... I love divergent opinions, I may not agree with them alway but belevie you have a right, and a duty to hold them and speak up!

Everyone has the right to be wrong! :P
Nope, you haven't ever.... and the poster was for PD :)
Bunch of cool retro style posters on the link I dropped....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike, I did however question the "support your Country" at the bottom of your post.... as I said, I certainly hope my patriotism and support for my country was not being called into question...

I think 9/11 was designed by Bin Laden to get us to attack in the Mid East. I can only figure that he had a reason to want that and that by going into the Mid East we played into his hand in some manner.

I am still waiting for that old other shoe to drop.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as the countries and alliances...

War/politics always makes for strange bedfellows....

First of all, going back to '67 or '68 when the Nixon administration was in power and we moved off of the gold standard. Officially no actual standard ever replaced it. By proxy, energy become the standard upon which our economy rests. Imo, if you watch the economy's reaction to drifting oil prices, you get confirmation of this.

The lynchpin, imo, is the Oil. If Middle Eastern countries have a transfer of power, violent or peaceful, to Muslim fundamentalist groups, those groups will for lack of a better weapon cut off the flow of oil to the U.S.

Back when the USSR existed as a total entity, one of the main goals (that we always subverted) was a warm water port to operate out of. That was always one of Ivan's primary interests in the Mid East.

If the fundamentalists are in charge, they will be looking for a new trade partner to take the oil off of their hands... Enter Europe, Russia, China....

Russia is not all that far away from being the USSR. If I remember right, Putin was actually a bigwig with the KGB. The hardliners are not totally gone by any means and maintain some influence on the decisions being made. In 89, at the fall of the Iron curtain, the USSR still had the largest Navy in the world. Those ships have not been destroyed, most are still listed in Janes. They are in mothballs and are under the control of Russia for the most part (although some may be under the control of Ukraine etc).

Russia still has aspirations to become (or in their eyes, remain) a superpower. I don't find it farfetched that they would agree to buy oil in exchange for use of warm water ports.

China ia still under the control of hardliners. Even though Nixon paved the way for an opening back in '72, it is still a very closed society run by hardline communists.

So, as it would lay out. As Muslim fundamentalism grows, the US would be in the position of having to invade more and more countries to maintain any semblance of control and order. This would serve to paint the US as an aggressor against the Muslim world which will only forment more unease etc eventually dominoeing the entire region.

France and Germeny have already shown where they will stand as it goes down. An important note to remember is that France is a nuclear power, missiles, subs, the whole bit. They will share the technology with Germany when the need comes. The hardliners in Russia and China will see opportunity. Russia will see the chance to make an oil/land grab by supporting various Muslim factions clandestinely at first and then later as being their rescuer against the big mean US of A. China will see the chance to grab Taiwan and to help North Korea grab South Korea. Both of these will also be backed by Nukes, etc...

From there, it is all downhill....

Will nukes fly... I don't know...

Anyway, that is the short version...lol... I left the long version I started at work... Footnoted and all :yowsa:

[sarettah]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm...ubsection=world (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3508185&thesection=news&thesubsection=world)

LONDON - In just over an hour of testimony yesterday, Robin Cook took apart the British Government's justification for war in Iraq.

The former Foreign Secretary and Leader of the Commons used the quiet forensic skills which made his name in Opposition to pick away at the evidence used to argue that Saddam Hussein was a clear and immediate threat to his neighbours and the international community.

............................................

Cook told the all-party Commons foreign affairs committee that secret briefings he received immediately before the outbreak of war differed sharply from the rhetoric from Downing St.

He declared that they reflected "word for word" the warning in his resignation speech that "Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term; namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target."

He also revealed that concerns about Saddam's arsenal had eased to the extent that Britain had considered "closing the files" on Iraq's nuclear and long-range missile programme in the late 1990s

...........................................

"I fear the fundamental problem is, instead of using intelligence as evidence on which to base a conclusion for a policy, we used intelligence as a basis to justify a policy on which we had already settled."