60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: DougR
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 01:23 PM

TTR: and your attack on Teribus is NOT personal? Strange how some folks, who cannot offer good arguments to support their position, resort to that strategy.

Teribus view, as stated in his past three or four posts, is an excellent summation of the hearings in my opinion, and the conclusions he draws are absolutely correct.

Interesting how so many people responding to this thread jump to the defence of Richard Clarke when it was HE that proposed preimptive strikes against the Taliban without the express approval of the Congress or anyone else. I thought most of you folks were peaceloving.

PDC: you're a riot.

DougR

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 01:14 PM

That's what I was trying to point out earlier, ttr.

The T-Bird is really incapable of objectivity since he is an died in the wool Bushite. He doesn't bother considering anyone else's views other than this immediate need to *react* because that is the only way reactionaries know...

Hey, now don't get me wrong, ttr. I like T-Bird but he is very consistent in his defense of the Bush administration's policies. Pick any of them and he is ready to jump in and defend it. But that is what highly partisan people do. Ain't about right or wrong but making sure yer in the power circle...

Bobert

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 01:14 PM

Well TTR,

Being on the other side of the Atlantic from America, odd though it may seem, I have no particular political interest in who is President of the United States of America, George W Bush, John Kerry or Mickey Mouse.

Since 9/11 I happen to think that your current President has handled things well. I believe that he did provide leadership when it was needed. Two of the most despicable regimes known on this planet have gone thanks to your President's actions. If you and those of a-like-mind had your way Milosevic, the Taleban and Saddam Hussein would all still be in place. Kuwait would now be part of Saddam's Iraq, because you would have found some reason, for not reacting to that back in 1990 (UN could talk to him, you know drop him a hint, ask him nicely if he would give the Kuwaiti's their country back). You're pathetic, and you, you, have the complete and utter gall to ask me - "Where are the people?" - You for one, do not give a flying fuck for anything other massaging your own conscience - irrespective of how many "of the people" have to suffer and die in order for you to sit, safe, fat dumb and happy and say, "Well my conscience is clear".

Another thing that does rather tick me off a bit, is when people start spouting complete and utter rubbish then quoting it as fact when it is nothing of the sort.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 11:10 AM

Teribus. I don't have time to waltz with you right now. But My, Oh My... You sure do seem to get off on being rude and offensive. Does it improve your sex life? If you could stick to the facts, and just swallow your rude invective, maybe we could get somewhere. You too have the "diplomacy of Barbarianism".

So, at the risk of slighting you with an 'ad hominem' personal attack, I must here point out that I fear you have your head so far up GWB"s ass, that it's stuck there, and the only way to deal with such a predicament, is to insist that GWB's poo tastes great!

Fact is, though you may have a lot to offer in terms of statistical evidence and governmental particulars, as any carrer military man should, something is keeping you from being objective ABOUT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

I'm sorry sir... though you seem big and mighty when you're flaunting your 'mad-on'... I just don't agree with your bias. Just who is supposed to win in your world view? Where are the people?

Whew... talk about immature!
ttr

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 07:46 AM

A long time ago pdc I reached a similar conclusion:

"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck and swims like a duck, and George W. Bush says it's a duck, most people posting to this forum will swear it's a camel."

Now, lets take a look at the latest offering of chaff and magpie chatter from Thomas:

Objectivity? So the world and his uncle were solidly behind Bill Clinton's decisions:
- To start lobbing cruise missiles into the Sudan and Afghanistan, amazing that's not how I recall it.
- To continue patrolling the the Northern and Southern "No-Fly" Zones with orders given to pilots to engage Iraqi units who targeted them. Again that's not how I recall it, the UN in fact called such patrols illegal, of course the fact that those patrols severely curtailed Saddam's acts of revenge against his own population would never have entered into the UN's thinking process.
- To advise the UN to withdraw their inspection teams from Iraq as he was about to launch "Desert Fox", which incidently had as an addendum US military plans for the full scale invasion and occupation of Iraq as supplied by General Zinni. A unilateral action taken in the face of UN opposition, if I remember correctly.

You "objectively" think that the above represents a blue-print to, how did you put it, maintain decent diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, and the UN? - Amazing.

Next:
Bill Clinton paid attention to his advisors did he? Certainly didn't seem to pay much heed, initially, to Samuel Berger, who kept advising him that the measures being proposed and recommended by Richard Clarke were totally unfeasible and only served to increase the stature of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Fortunately, George W Bush, also paid attention to his advisors who happened to be looking a damn sight further ahead than Richard Clarke. I don't think that many of the world's leaders were under the impression that Saddam Hussein was anything other than a threat, the difference was that while they were not prepared to do anything about him, after the events of 9/11, GWB, his advisors and the House Security Committee all decided that some form of action was required. By the way TTR precisely what was all that massive force supposed to do? What do you believe they would have accomplished? Pre-emptive Clarke has not ventured an opinion on that.

Realistically TTR, security in the face of a terrorist threat actually does require "obsession" and compulsive, expenditure of time, money and resources - unlike you I can appreciate that, I can also appreciate that such obsession and expenditure is not wasteful, it serves to keep more of us alive than not.

Yes, "Pre-emptive Clarke" his extensive experience seems to have resulted in Richard Clarke solutions that were rejected as being unfeasible and totally counter-productive. Yes he served Reagan, George Bush Snr, Bill Clinton (two terms) and one half of George W. Bush's term - All that indicates is that he is a time server who steadily climbed the ladder then stomped off when he didn't get the job he wanted. Oh, and it was to be a, "Pre-emptive strike on al Qaeda, BTW..." - His solution immediately post-USS Cole was an extensive bombing campaign in Afghanistan - But as it was only against Al-Qaeda, I am sure, quite rationally, that the Taleban and others comprising the general population of Afghanistan would have immediately appreciated that distinction. It would, of course, have been regarded by Pakistan as a mere bagatelle of absolutely no consequence.

Action against Al-Qaeda and other similar groups was "shelved"? When? Where? How? Please provide some concrete facts to back that idiotic contention up, I'd be more than interested at looking at them. Actions throughout the world to combat Al-Qaeda have not slackened one jot since the attacks of 9/11, if anything they have steadily increased, and continue to do so.

Another objective, reality check:

----wrested the initiative from the UN, that's the best laugh I've had all week, and if you doubt that take a good long hard look at the track record of the UN and try to identify where and when it has ever used any intiative - East Timor possibly.

----wrested the initiative from the American people? Presidential elections apart, when have the American people ever held the initiative in terms of your country's foreign policy?

----wrested the initiative from the US economy? Oddly enough, according to most international analysts, the American economy is doing quite well at the moment and is forecasted to continue improving.

----"may have stimulated anti American sentiment in troubled terrorist producing countries..." That anti-American sentiment, in those terrorist producing countries has always been there TTR, way before your current President took office. As an aside, did you note the rhetoric used by Hamas's new leader in Gaza? All the chants about opening the doors of hell, about how America and Israel are to blame, but then immediately saying that America will not be attacked, that only Israel will be attacked. What, or, more accurately, who, do you think demanded that qualification? - Rantissi's lords and paymasters in Damascus and Tehran that's who. As for the why, they, President Assad and Iran's 12 old gits, have been watching their TV screens for the last two years.

Now the attacks took place on 11th September 2001, Bush had been in office for just about eight months. The attack had been in planning for at least eighteen months to two years, prior to 9/11 - so the decision to implement this plan was taken while Clinton was in office. Are you seriously attempting to suggest that if Al Gore had been sitting in the White House on the 11th September, 2001, the attacks would not have taken place?

TTR, you really should read what "Pre-emptive's" view on threat situations actually is. Identify and hit them before they become a threat, more or less his words before the 9/11 committee. Unfortunately TTR the world, and the problems that world can throw up at you, does not always allow you to complete one job before you have to take on the next. To believe otherwise is being incredibly naive, almost childish.

By all means - keep 'em comin'

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 05:23 AM

I suggest, Teribus, that if you want to go through posts and respond to them point by point, it would be clearer if you formatted your posts so as to make it easier to see whch are the quotes and which are the responses. Italics or quote marks would do the job.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 12:21 AM

So, Teribus... you liked my tripe as an hors d'oeuvres so much, you want more tripe as a main course? By all means, eat more tripe!

What on earth are you rambling on about?
----Your inability to view the current regime with any appreciable degree of objective assessment
In 1998 Clinton identified regime change in Iraq as being required for the good of the region and in the interests of world peace.
----Yes, but if you noticed, he did not start a war we could not win... and Clinton maintained decent diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, and the UN



Yes Thomas, exactly the same "responsibly informed" individuals were briefing GWB (George Tenet and good old Richard 'Pre-emptive Strike' Clarke) - Your Point?
----Clinton paid attention to his advisors, and chose a middle ground solution... as opposed to Bush's preconcieved notion that Saddam is the biggest threat and warrants immediate attention... instead of utilizing those same massive forces to 'get al Qaeda' with deadly serious intent.

----yes, Teribus...concerned, not obsessed to compusive and wasteful expenditures of time, money, and rescources.


Pre-emptive Clarke.
----disrespectful, Teribus. Clarke has extensive experience, most of which was with Reagan and Bush the first. Pre-emptive strike on al Qaeda, BTW...

The Clinton administration's policy was to contain Al-Qaeda, it was the Bush administration whose policy was to stop Al-Qaeda.
----Yes, I hear that was their 'big plan'... which they shelved in favor of a full scale attack of a 'toothless tiger'...

Clinton & Co never once made any attempt at wresting the initiative from the terrorists.
----Bush & Co. have wrested the initiative from the UN, the American people and the US economy, and may have stimulated anti American sentiment in troubled terrorist producing countries...


Irrespective of the 2000 election result, 9/11 would have happened with whoever was sitting in the White House.
----This assertion is not based in fact. It is an assumption that is popular amoungst the top level advisors and is not provable one way or the other. A lot of things would have been different...

Immediate reaction by the Bush Administration was to identify who was responsible, focus the
world's attention on the problem of international terrorism problem and attack Al-Qaeda in the
only safe haven Al-Qaeda thought they had. Hear any complaints from the "responsibly informed"
at this stage in the proceedings? - No, not a whisper.


Potential rogue states were identified, most prominent was Iraq, did the Bush administration just go in guns blazing - did they hell - they went to the United Nations. And if anyone was guilty of dropping the
ball it was the UN - mind you the UN are rather good at doing that.
----No Teribus. The rogue state you speak of, Iraq, was identified long before 9/11 as a place to go with guns blazing. Going there before al Qeada was dealt with, before Afghanistan could be rebuilt, and on faulty information... when the inspections were in progress and had the full support of the UN... (read 'the rest of the world'), was a poor excuse for war, and the diplomacy of barbarianism.

Full plate ttr? By all means keep servin' up your tripe.
----Chow down, and eat hearty!
ttr

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 11:03 PM

Although I don't post here that often, I have reached a conclusion:

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck and swims like a duck, Teribus and Doug R. will swear it's a camel.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 11:59 AM

Thomas the Rhymer - 24 Mar 04 - 10:09 AM

What on earth are you rambling on about? In 1998 Clinton identified regime change in Iraq as being required for the good of the region and in the interests of world peace.

"Clinton was concerned about the terrorist threat... with constant briefings from 'responsibly informed' individuals..."

Yes Thomas, exactly the same "responsibly informed" individuals were briefing GWB (George Tenet and good old Richard 'Pre-emptive Strike' Clarke) - Your Point?

"But he was not obsessed with Saddam. Concerned, yes... weren't you?"

Concerned enough to maintain the "no-fly" zones? Concerned enough to pre-emptively an unilaterally launch the bombing offensive otherwise know as "Desert Fox"? Concerned enough to openly declare that the United States would give 100% backing to anyone who would remove Saddam Hussein from power? Naw, that's not being obsessed with Saddam is it? As to Saddam being a cause of concern to me, yes he was, but obviously not to most, yourself included, who post to this forum. On your apparent preferred course of action Saddam would still be in power, the recent UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections would never have happened and the UN would still be doing absolutely nothing about Iraq.

"Clinton knew that Al-Quida must be stopped. His priorities were correct." AL-QAEDA had to be stopped, was Clinton's view and Clinton's priority was it? Not according to Samuel Berger, or Pre-emptive Clarke. The Clinton administration's policy was to contain Al-Qaeda, it was the Bush administration whose policy was to stop Al-Qaeda. In reality, at best all that was managed under the Clinton administration was that the US could only react to anything Al-Qaeda attempted. Clinton & Co never once made any attempt at wresting the initiative from the terrorists.

"Bush dropped the ball when he was elected..." Your opinion, probably borrowed from Pre-emptive, who is currently trying to sell his book - It's certainly not mine.

Irrespective of the 2000 election result, 9/11 would have happened with whoever was sitting in the White House.

Immediate reaction by the Bush Administration was to identify who was responsible, focus the world's attention on the problem of international terrorism problem and attack Al-Qaeda in the only safe haven Al-Qaeda thought they had. Hear any complaints from the "responsibly informed" at this stage in the proceedings? - No, not a whisper.

This process was then taken further to evaluate potential future threats to the United States of America, her allies and her interests. The risk evaluation threw up the possibilty of a rogue state supporting, supplying and assisting an international terrorist organisation on an attack on the US using WMD. By this time, others in the Bush Administration responsible with security, are way ahead of Richard Clarke (Old Pre-emptive is still riding his own old hobby-horse). Potential rogue states were identified, most prominent was Iraq, did the Bush administration just go in guns blazing - did they hell - they went to the United Nations. And if anyone was guilty of dropping the ball it was the UN - mind you the UN are rather good at doing that.

Full plate ttr? Hell you can't even muster enough in terms of point, fact or arguement to make the hors d'oeuvres. By all means keep servin' up your tripe.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 05:49 AM

I couldn't agree with Robomatic more regarding the hearings. I watched and listened to Tenet, Berger and Clarke yesterday.

Of the three performances, Tenet was comfortable, Berger was superb, Clarke impressive, although of the three, his body language indicated that he was the most ill-at-ease.

Now, what did I get from it all.

1. In an earlier post I said that terrorism within the US has never been a priority. That remark I retract, with the qualifier that compared to European countries faced with terrorist activity, activity on the part of the two administrations concerned in the US have always appeared (to me on this side of the pond) to have been very low key, very much behind the scenes.

2. Like the proud mum who goes to see her son's passing out parade and comments as her son's squad passes, "Oh look, they're all out of step except our Jimmy". That summed up Tuesday's and Wednesday's evidence, with regard to what Clarke had to say.

3. Berger clearly stated the options open to the US Government of Bill Clinton, as proposed by Clarke. He also stated with regard to hitting Al-Qaeda all of those options were simply just not feasible. He also stated that what action the Clinton administration did take (i.e. the cruise missile attacks) only succeeded in making Al-Qaeda look good and the US look feeble. He also explained that the cruise missile attack that Clinton did order was fraught with danger, given the required trajectory of the strike and the situation on the Indian sub-continent at the time.

4. On the USS Cole attack, Berger clearly explained that through December 2000, and into January 2001, the CIA had reached a "Preliminary Judgement" that Al-Qaeda was responsible and that a response to that attack could not, and should not, be launched on such a judgement, the case needed to be more compelling. Clarke on the other hand wanted Afghanistan bombed immediately, and continued with that line once the Bush administration took up the reins of government in January 2001. Clarke in recommending such a course of action, on which he was adamant, completely ignores the fact that Pakistan would, at that time, never have allowed such a violation of it's air-space.

5. The title, "Terrorism Tsar", Clarke himself rubbished, he clearly stated that that title was coined by the media. Under the Clinton administrations he (Clarke) had direct access to what he described as the "principals". Under the Bush administration his line of reporting was through their (the principal's) assistants. It was obvious that he felt that that represented a demotion, summed up by his comment that under the system as run by the Bush administration he had all the responsibility, but none of the authority. Considering some of his recommendations that does not surprise me and I do not believe it would have surprised Samuel Berger. The impression I got was that Berger/Tenet had a few "heated" discussions, while Berger/Clarke had many. On "actionable intelligence" and apparent lack of will on the part of the CIA to take direct action, Clarke's explanation regarding the pervading philosophy at Langley was excellent and probably very true.

6. The hand over in January 2001 between Berger and Rice consisted of three very comprehensive briefings. The first by Berger himself, the others were given to Rice by assistants (Clarke being one of them).

7. Considering the reported threat posed by Al-Qaeda according to Clarke, the differences in approach between the Clinton and Bush administrations were interesting. The Clinton administration were pursuing a policy of containment, of "rolling up" Al-Qaeda, to reduce its effectiveness over a period of 3 to 5 years. The Bush administration from the outset gave instructions that their policy would be to "eliminate" that organisation within 3 years. Now that is quite a radical change and it is clear that would obviously take time to put into practice. Equally clear was that this change, although welcomed by Clarke, also greatly frustrated him.

8. On the 9/11 attacks themselves, and the lead up to them, all three (but particularly Clarke and Tenet) commented on the amount of general intelligence regarding Al-Qaeda that had to be weighed through. They knew that an attack was being mounted, opinion was split over where that attack would fall, and how that attack would be carried out. General concensus, was that the attack would fall outside the US as that is where the bulk of intelligence information, at the time, pointed. Another factor causing people to consider an external target more likely, was the success in thwarting the "millenium" attempts by Al-Qaeda, and the number of cells broken in the US during those operations. Clarke alone was of the opinion that the attack would be made in the US. Action was taken to cover both possibilities. None considered an attack of the type that did actually occur (Clarke included). They did take into account that it could involve aircraft and warnings were issued during the summer of 2001 to the FAA and other associated agencies. Clarke was scathing in his opinions of the capabilities of the FBI. So low was his opinion of them that he recommended a seperate "secret police" to counter terrorism within the US. Berger was slightly more conciliatory towards the FBI, saying that due to the information load, it was probably true that the FBI didn't know, or realise, the importance of the information they actually had. Two factors, heavier than usual work-load, coupled with poor inter-departmental, inter-agency flow and exchange of information.

8. From his recommendations Clarke viewed Al-Qaeda as a fixed centralised organisation that could be attacked. Tenet did not hold the same view. From it's inception Al-Qaeda during the years of the Clinton administration successfully carried out a number of attacks against the US and attempted more. To date during the Bush administration Al-Qaeda scored it's greatest success with the attacks of 9/11. It was an attack that, given the set up in the US at the time, could not have been averted, even had bin Laden been killed - things were already too far down the track. The form of attack was not even considered, Clarke, himself, said that indications and assessments regarding such a form of attack amounted to a hand-full of papers dating back to 1995 buried among hundreds of thousands of bits of paper. One thing Berger did say was that Clarke's recommendations with regard to destroying Al-Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan only became feasible AFTER 9/11 - he was adamant that it could not have been done before.

9. So did the Bush Administration "drop the ball" as Richard Clarke contends? Given the circumstances, all-in-all, no I don't think they did.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 05:38 PM

Wasn't the real "Terrorism Czar" Alexander III? (Hanged Lenin's elder brother, also called Alexander - which ultimately, perhaps, proved rather to have been rather a mistake...)

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: DougR
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 05:31 PM

Chief Chaos: he was NOT the Terrorism czar. Said so himself.

DougR

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 04:44 PM

So lets see,

When I comment on Bush not being an expert on everything and not seeming to have the competence to be pres. all of my republican acquaintances tell me that he makes up for his shortcomings by surrounding himself with hand picked people who are experts.

It seems to me though that when one of his hand picked experts (in this case a former Republican who served in his position for Clinton) disagrees with the pres's view they toss him out on his ear and then claim sour grapes if the expert blows the whistle?

Can't have it both ways.

As with any other Presidents, regardless of who preceded them or who will follow, if it happens on his watch then he is ultimately responsible.

That's the meaning behind "The Buck Stops Here".
Stop blaming the intelligence community.
Stop blaming the Media.
Stop blaming former presidents.
Bad decisions made, even on bad information, are still bad decisions by the people who make them and they are responsible.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 04:12 PM

Guest, Larry:

I was the one who left the earlier update message of the FOX 'revelatory' tapes (wasn't logged in). I have also just watched Mr. Clarke's testimony before congress and I found him very forthright and a truly excellent communicator. I think you are perhaps overly primed to discredit him with these partial recordings which FOX has produced.

1) When he was interviewed, he was a member of the Bush Administration, and it is consistent with such a position that you present your employer, your 'team' in the best light possible and confine your critique in-house.

2) Apparently the newly revealed tapes are from 'background' which means there was an understanding when they were made that they were NOT for public airing but were a kind of 'aide-memoire' for the interviewers.

I was really impressed by Clarke who has a comparable presence and solidity to the impression given by Cheney, who whatever he says and whether you believe it or not, agree with it or not, gives an impression of sobriety and intelligence.


I haven't found Congressional hearings so riveting since the days of Ollie 'I shredded' North.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 04:12 PM

Teribus:

I picked these four things out of your post because they caught my eye; I haven't the patience to to go through the whole thing.

'1. "From the day it took office, the Bush administration "dropped a shroud of secrecy" over the federal government."

Opinion - not "evidence" - I take it that the federal governments business in the previous administration was completely open and transparent- Is that what Mr. Krugman is trying to say? - if so I don't buy it.'

No, he didn't say that. The federal governments business in the previous administration was not completely open and transparent, but the Bush administration is more secretive. Check it out.

'2. After 9/11 - "Ari Fleischer ominously warned, "need to watch what they say, watch what they do."
'Sounds pretty logical and sensible thing to do - what would Mr. Krugman rather have had Ari Fleischer say?'

In the context of the time it was a threat. The prevailing attitude, and is, was that those who criticize the administration are helping the terrorists. Myself, I would rather hear him say "We do not need to give up freedom for safety."

'3. -snip 1 - Purely Mr. Clarke's opinion.'

True. Informed opinion, though.

'4. -snip 2 - Bush officials have not attacked Mr. Clarke's character. They have pointed out a number of significant inconsistencies in both Mr. Clarke's actions and statements. There is no independent evidence confirming the thrust of his charges, there is only opinion.'

What I have heard is largely variations on "disgruntled employee." But 60 Minutes said they had witnesses to at least one of Clarke's conversations with Bush.

Seems to me you are arguing to win the debate rather than to arrive at (an approximation of) the truth.

clint

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 02:25 PM

"Pardon me but the administration was studying and making policy decisions without keeping their terrorism czar in the loop?"

Exactly. That is the scariest part of the whole deal, isn't it? The Bush administration hacks thought they were the experts on terrorism. Obviously they were wrong on that count.

As to the silly thing over the resignation letter--please. I put nice things in my resignation letters to employers I left because they were totally incompetent too. So what the hell is a resignation letter supposed to "prove" about Clarke's charges? Not a damn thing.

Haven't seen the video from Fox you are referring to, so can't comment on that. But I don't think this is sour grapes. This sounds like a man who wanted to write his own account, in hopes of influencing his legacy. Lots of high ranking politicos do that when they leave government for good.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 02:17 PM

I am glad I waited before adressing this issue.   Every day there is more and more evidence how Clark is a fraud.   And most of it in his own words.    Fox news just played a video tape of a Clark briefing to Newsweek and Andrea (Mithcell?) basically contradicting everything he said on 60 minutes.    Devastating.

There is also the resignation letter praising Bush for his action in the war on terror.   There is also the transcript of his apprearance before Congress explaining why the Clinton administation did nothing on the war on terror from 1998 to 2000.   There is also his speech to Congress where he linked Al Queda to Iraq.    This directly contradicts what he said on 60 minutes.

The man is a walking time bomb.    I can't wait till what we find out tomorrow.    Clearly sour grapes from his demotion by Bush and the need to sell books have led to putting his foot in his mouth.    The only thing left to do is to tell us that foreign leaders support his assertions on the war on terror.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 01:17 PM

"Terrorism Czar" - what a ridiculous thing to call anyone.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 01:08 PM

Absolutely Bush lacks the intellect to debate Kerry. He might carry if off if he was actually sitting on Rove's knee, with Rove the ventriloquist putting words in his puppet's mouth.

What really broke me up was an interview with Bush last year, before Kerry had even become the dem nominee, in which Bush said he wouldn't have time for debates because he would be "too busy being president."
This from the president who set records for vacation time and fundraising trips.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: kendall
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 12:39 PM

Doug, Bush lacks the intellect and the balls to debate Kerry. All he has is a shitty record and a pack of attack dogs to cover up his failures.

Also, let's not forget how Saddam got to be so powerful with all those WMD that were given to him by Reagan.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 12:34 PM

Yo, T:

No, the millions of people who actually took to the streets did not represent everyone who was against the invasion of Iraq any more than if a pro-life demonsatration attracts a thousand people that those 1000 prople are the only ones that hold pro-life views. Get my drift here? Your reasoning is flawed. The point is that with millions of folks in the streets Bush should have been more concerned with *getting it right* than playing cowboy.

Now we all have been witness to the revisions and re-revisions and re-re-revisions of how the story will look in it's final form.

Remember the "mushroom cloud" days, T? Remember the articles in the major newspapers and on the major television networks of the CIA warning the White House not to play that card? No? Well, I sure do. But the Bush White House played it anyway.

Then there was this inmistakenable link between bin Laden and Iraq. Might of fact, evn after Bushj himself has acknowledged that there is no proff to back that claim up, Dick Cheney still brings it up as if it is fact. These are reasonable things to look at, my friend, especially when you have a pre-emtive policy of defense.

And now you have folks calling into C-SPAN saying stuff like, "Well, I don't care if there weren't any WDM's, at least Saddam is out of power." Well, where did that little *slogan* come from? Well, I'll tell you. The Bush PR machine, that's where.

See where wre are going with this? This administration has had an agenda that dates back to at least 1992 when Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle drew it up on paper. They took the plan to the Clinton adminstration and it was rejected. Then along comes Cowboy George and 9/11 and waalaa. Bingo!

Problem is, T, that the US hasn't yet figgured out how to act in its roll of Big Dog yet. The invasion of Iraq is a prime example. Consider this, my friend. What if rather than whack Iraq, the Bush folks had chosen to buddy up to Saddam? Hey, he been a company man most of his life and there's no reason to believe that he couldn't have been given an opportunity to be brought back into the fold, so to speak. And don't give me the "he was a bad man" crap because the US has and continues to buddy up to bad men so that dog won't hunt. At some point in time the Big Dog will have to think diplomacy first rather than bite. We missed an opportunity in Iraq and now we're paying dearly for it. Figuratively, morally and finacially with no end in sight.

Just food for thought, T-Bird... Why noy consider what I've and others have said here fir a couple of hours before working up your standard rebuttal. I mean we can argue all day over tiny details but the basics are purdy much in place here. We hear your arguments 24/7 as the Bush folks and their media allies thry to pound the fight song into our heads. It's easy to take your side because of this but, IMHO, it does not make your side right.

Try a little open mindedness once in a while. Your *reaction* time is a tad bit too fast and seems to be getting in the way of your objectivity...

Peace.

Bobert

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 12:32 PM

DougR

Seems to me a man acting in the capacity of Terrorism Czar was put there so he could pretty much handle the mission. Not wait for the pres. to agree with what he was doing. a quote from Cheney on the news last night:

"Clark doesn't know everything that went on because he was not always kept in the loop."

Pardon me but the administration was studying and making policy decisions without keeping their terrorism czar in the loop?

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Update on Clarke from FOX
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 12:22 PM

Fox news (you KNOW it's true because it's bare and phalanxed) just released some tapes of Clarke made some months ago wherein he is praising the Bush administration. Look for this to be trotted into the mainstream as the current admin continues its campaign.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: DougR
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 11:11 AM

Kendall: there will be debates, but we don't need eight months of debates. Bush would be stupid (and even I would think so)to enter into monthly debates with his opponent prior to the election. Bush has real identity with the voters, Kerry has to gain that. Why should Bush give Kerry the exposure he needs so many months prior to the election?

I haven't read Clarke's book so I won't comment on its content other than having seen the 60 Minutes interview. To me, he came across as a whiner who "didn't get his way" when he wanted it. It will be interesting to watch his testimony this afternoon before the 9/11 Commission.

Don: Bush may have said, as you quote, "Find it" when commanding Clarke to find evidence that Iraq was connected to 9/11, but I don't recall Clarke saying that on 60 Minutes. Perhaps he says something in the book he did not say on television.

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 10:51 AM

But how can that GUEST know he or she doesn't know Teribus in 3D?

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 10:09 AM

Earlier still... T bird... Perhaps the humiliation suffered by the Bush team in '91 led to the 'all out' pull for Bush in '00... a little unfinished business 'bout humilliation? Or was it guilt for leaving such a mess...

Bush was obsessed with Iraq from the beginning. Is that why he was placed in the oval office? He sure wasn't interested in any sort of objectivity in his meetings... in fact, it appears as though he is terrified of intelligence... As any good puppet must be.

Clinton was concerned about the terrorist threat... with constant briefings from 'responsibly informed' individuals... But he was not obsessed with Saddam. Concerned, yes... weren't you? However, Clinton knew that Al-Quida must be stopped. His priorities were correct.

...and they probably still are...

Bush dropped the ball when he was elected... and went into a revery of how it used to be... and his hard studied 'Leave it to Beaver' reruns didn't give him the briefings he needed to have a clue about contemporary world issues and diplomacy... And his staff, consisting largely of 'blame game' afficianados, were hand picked by 'George' himself... (read: Carl)

You've got a full plate T-bird, and we're gonna keep servin' it up... Still hungry?

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 09:30 AM

GUEST 24 Mar 04 - 08:50 AM
Guest's Mum:
Aw diddums, never-mind, you go and continue to believe whatever it is you want to believe. You go and chatter with all those "nice" people who only believe what you believe. Pay no attention to that nasty Teribus person who persists in challenging your beliefs and keeps asking you to provide some form of substantiation for them.

Teribus:
What me negative? Deceitful? Manipulative? Examples please Guest.

Oh, and Guest, I think no more highly of my opinions than you do of yours - only difference being that mine tend largely to be based on fact, wish the same could be said about yours.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 08:50 AM

I'm really glad I don't know you in 3D TBird. You are the most negative, deceitful, manipulative poster I may ever have encountered on the net.

And you think much too highly of your own opinions.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 05:25 AM

Thomas the Rhymer - 23 Mar 04 - 10:40 AM

"Ten days in, it was all about Iraq'.

Damn sight earlier than that ttr, Clinton 1998 - Agenda "Regime Change in Iraq"

GUEST 23 Mar 04 - 11:20 AM
What the Bush administration told them (the American public and the world at large) was that A FUTURE attack, by international terrorist groups, similar, or more dangerous, in nature to those of 9/11 was "possible, even probable" if backed by regimes prepared to furnish such groups with WMD, or WMD technology. A Senate Security Committee identified the Ba'athist regime in Iraq as one of the most likely candidates to fulfil that role.

The reason why all the major media keeps publishing these stories is simple - it sells.

Where is your "information"? Where are your "facts"? So far, from what you, and others, have put up as fact amounts to opinions and suppositions based on 20 x 20 hindsight - i.e. not facts at all.

The Bush and Blair administrations evaluated what intelligence data they had in order to establish what sort of threat existed, or could potentially exist in the case of nothing being done (favoured UN course of action) with regard to Iraq. Far from being wrong, the Bush and Blair administrations, were correct in their reading of the situation and their actions were correct.

GUEST 23 Mar 04 - 11:40 AM
"New information", "facts that emerge later" - As stated above you have offered neither.

By the bye, in the Gilligan/BBC v Blair Government case which you refer to as the "infamous case in Britain over the BBC & WMD constroversy" - The BBC and Gilligan were found to have been at fault.

Bobert - 23 Mar 04 - 01:32 PM
As poor as ever on fact and detail Bobert.

The "recent reports" are all recently reported opinions, nothing more. There have been no recent "discoveries" at all. And what Scott McClelland has said apparently has been analysed by Greg Miller of the Los Angeles Times and guess what Bobert, Mr. Miller has come down to the conclusion that what Mr. McClelland has been saying is "factually correct" - but like I've said many times before your credo seems to be, "Facts I don' need no steenkin' facts".

Liked this bit Bobert -
"Lets go back to before the invasion of Iraq. What was going on? Were folks just standing around supporting an invasion? Well, heck no they weren't." Again not too good on facts Bobert - Heck yeah they were.

The "Millions took to the streets in cities across the US and in hundreds of cities around the world." Did they constitute a majority of the populations of the US and the world Bobert? - you suggest so, but both you and I know that that was not the case.

GUEST,pdc - 23 Mar 04 - 01:37 PM

Let's have a look at Krugman's, "bits of evidence" - that weren't

1. "From the day it took office, the Bush administration "dropped a shroud of secrecy" over the federal government."

Opinion - not "evidence" - I take it that the federal governments business in the previous administration was completely open and transparent - Is that what Mr. Krugman is trying to say? - if so I don't buy it.

2. After 9/11 - "Ari Fleischer ominously warned, "need to watch what they say, watch what they do."

Sounds pretty logical and sensible thing to do - what would Mr. Krugman rather have had Ari Fleischer say?

3. -snip 1 - Purely Mr. Clarke's opinion.

4. -snip 2 - Bush officials have not attacked Mr. Clarke's character. They have pointed out a number of significant inconsistencies in both Mr. Clarke's actions and statements. There is no independent evidence confirming the thrust of his charges, there is only opinion.

5. Prior to 9/11, terrorism within the US, has never been a priority, regardless of which administration was in power.   

6. Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11? It most certainly did not. The FBI thing is a red-herring, post-9/11 the counter-terrorist policy adopted called for a complete revamp in order to streamline the flow of information between intelligence agancies. The present administration did spend more on counter-terrorist post 9/11, that is a fact. The UK went through the same thing in eliminating "turf" wars involving MI6; MI5; Special Branch and the Anti-terrorist Squad.

7. Regarding, "the next time terrorists launch an attack on American soil, they will find their task made much easier by the administration's strange reluctance, even after 9/11, to protect potential targets."

Really, you mentioned nuclear sites and ports. With regard to the latter, take a look at the recent IMO ISPS code - Not just the USA but world-wide. If G. W. Bush did flatly refuse to do anything about it, that flat refusal is having a pretty funny way of manifesting itself. All ports and vessels of 500 dwt engaged in international trade have to comply with this code by July this year.

8. "Finally, did some top officials really want to respond to 9/11 not by going after Al Qaeda, but by attacking Iraq? Of course they did."

Another red-herring. Pure observation on my part, but what did the administration do? Ignore what some wanted to do, what did the administration do? They went after the Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan - DIDN'T THEY.

McGrath of Harlow - 23 Mar 04 - 02:00 PM

I liked the Blake quote.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Kaleea
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 12:53 AM

Jeepers!   Truth? Truth, like time & space, is relative!    i believe that 60 Mintues certainly can tell the "truth." And I believe that they sometimes do.
    The harder question is: Can a politician tell the entire truth as opposed to speak the "truth"? Or should that be mis-speak an untruthfullness?
   Will Bubbabush speak "the truth"? More importantly, can Bubbabush ever be taught to speak in complete sentences which are gramatically correct?   
               NOT!!!!

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 11:38 PM

"People will believe the big lie more than the smaller ones..."

Adolf Hitler_______________

Bobert

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 11:15 PM

George Washington couldn't tell a lie. I hold myself to a higher standard. I can tell a lie, but I chose not to.
                                                                                                                                        --Mark Twain

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 06:04 PM

How could the poor man be expected to know that terrorists wouldn't issue press releases in advance of doing stuff like that?

All together now:

If I knew you were coming
I'd have baked a cake
Baked a cake
Baked a cake
If I knew you were coming
I'd have baked a cake
How'd ya do, how'd ya do, how'd ya do?

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 05:53 PM

Why didn't someone tell him? The poor old duffer. Now he's stuck listening to the country serenading him with "Where in the World is Osama bin Laden?"

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 04:45 PM

Oh, this is almost embarrassing -- lord help us all.

Bush says he'd have acted quicker against al-Qaida if he knew attack was coming
04:30 PM EST Mar 23

WASHINGTON (AP) - President George W. Bush said Tuesday he would have acted quicker against al-Qaida if he had information before Sept. 11, 2001, that a terror attack against New York City was imminent.

"We have been chasing down al-Qaida, ever since those attacks," Bush said. In his first direct response to criticism raised in a new book by his former counterterrorism adviser, Bush denied that he ignored Osama bin Laden and the threat of the al-Qaida terror network before the terror attacks while rushing to blame Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

"The facts are these, George Tenet briefed me on a regular basis about the terrorist threat to the United States of America, and had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on Sept. 11th, we would have acted," Bush said. Tenet is the CIA director.

© The Canadian Press, 2004

Gee, no kidding, eh?

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Everyone should have a Willy
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 04:23 PM

You don't tell deliberate lies, but sometimes you have to be evasive.


~ Margaret Thatcher ~

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,I am in charge here
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 04:14 PM

"That's not a lie, it's a terminological inexactitude. Also, a tactical misrepresentation."


~ Alexander Haig ~

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,One More for the Road
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 04:13 PM

"If a lie is repeated often enough all the dumb jackasses in the world not only get to believe it, they even swear by it."

                                        ~ Billy Boy Franklin ~

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 04:11 PM

"People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election."
                                           Otto Von Bismarck

"One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives."
                                           Pudd'nhead Wilson

"Please don't lie to me, unless you're absolutely sure I'll never find out the truth."
                                           Ashleigh Brilliant

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 03:51 PM

Thomas, you're a philistine....

'Who is this Blake fellow', indeed...

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 03:05 PM

A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.

WOW! Nice one... Who was this "Blake" fellow? ...he's pretty good!

...?;^)... ttr

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 02:00 PM

"Factually correct" - the way Clinton was "factually correct" with his "I did not have 'sexual relations' with that woman", and his quibbles about what "is" means. Avoiding the lie direct is the easiest trick in the book - which is presumably what Carter had in mind when he chose to use the wider expression "lies and misinterpretations".

The important thing to keep in mind when listening to someone you have reason to distrust is not "is this person lying to me?", but rather "what is the truth; what does this person want me to believe; and how do those two differ?" Whether the deception involves a lie direct or not is just a matter of technique, not of morality.

William Blake cut to the heart of this kind of thing:

A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 01:37 PM

Krugman's column in this morning's NYT offers a few more bits of evidence that weren't covered in 60 Minutes. Snippets offered below.

Lifting the Shroud
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: March 23, 2004

From the day it took office, U.S. News & World Report wrote a few months ago, the Bush administration "dropped a shroud of secrecy" over the federal government. After 9/11, the administration's secretiveness knew no limits — Americans, Ari Fleischer ominously warned, "need to watch what they say, watch what they do." Patriotic citizens were supposed to accept the administration's version of events, not ask awkward questions.

But something remarkable has been happening lately: more and more insiders are finding the courage to reveal the truth on issues ranging from mercury pollution — yes, Virginia, polluters do write the regulations these days, and never mind the science — to the war on terror.

-snip-
On "60 Minutes" on Sunday, Mr. Clarke said the previously unsayable: that Mr. Bush, the self-proclaimed "war president," had "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

-snip-

Of course, Bush officials have to attack Mr. Clarke's character because there is plenty of independent evidence confirming the thrust of his charges.

Did the Bush administration ignore terrorism warnings before 9/11? Justice Department documents obtained by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, show that it did. Not only did John Ashcroft completely drop terrorism as a priority — it wasn't even mentioned in his list of seven "strategic goals"-- just one day before 9/11 he proposed a reduction in counterterrorism funds.

Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11? After 9/11 the F.B.I. requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism operations, but the White House slashed this by two-thirds.

Oh, and the next time terrorists launch an attack on American soil, they will find their task made much easier by the administration's strange reluctance, even after 9/11, to protect potential targets. In November 2001 a bipartisan delegation urged the president to spend about $10 billion on top-security priorities like ports and nuclear sites. But Mr. Bush flatly refused.

Finally, did some top officials really want to respond to 9/11 not by going after Al Qaeda, but by attacking Iraq? Of course they did. "From the very first moments after Sept. 11," Kenneth Pollack told "Frontline," "there was a group of people, both inside and outside the administration, who believed that the war on terrorism . . . should target Iraq first." Mr. Clarke simply adds more detail.

Link

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 01:32 PM

Yeah, what GUEST says about the T-Bird. We all know his tactics. Whenever he is cornered he pulls out his tried and true defense of assigning the one who has cornered him a danged lengthy homework assignment. But if you do the homework assigment then he finds the tiniest of details and thrie to get you to focus on them... It's just the same diversionary song and dance routine time after time...

Now he trying to revise recent reports and discoveries that with the exception if T-Bird and the Bushites, the entire *sighted* population now understands to be facts in the case. I love listening to Scott McClelland. He dose the exact same thing and when that doesn't work he just glosses over the question with non answers...

Now I'd just like to bring up one small point. Lets go back to before the invasion of Iraq. What was going on? Were folks just standing around supporting an invasion? Well, heck no they weren't. Millions took to the streets in cities across the US and in hundreds of cities around the world. Our European allies warned the US not to invade Iraq. The UN inspectors were doing their job. The US could not get the UN behind invading Iraq... I mean, had I been president, I'd have been mighty sure that every "t" was crossed and "i" dotted but we all now know that wasn't on any imporatnce to the Bush folks...

Now they are having to expalin themselves and I guess for folks like the T-Bird the explainations are just as believable as the lies he believed before the invasion. We tried to tell him then and he wouldn't listen then either. Meanwhile, most of the world sees what is going down here and it does not shine a credible light on the Bush administration...

And the more stories they come up with the less credible they look... And I might add, those who parrot the new story lines.

Bobert

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 01:26 PM

1441 explained

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 01:05 PM

Oops... make that NSC will ya? "National Security Council" Sorry.
ttr

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 11:40 AM

No Amos, it doesn't boggle the mind. Teribus is an ideologue. He isn't swayed by new information, because his mind gets made up once, and for all time, regardless of the facts that emerge later.

And actually, what should boggle the mind is how many ideologues just like Teribus there are voting. They make up their minds once, and for all time. There will be many people who will not change their minds about the conduct of the Bush and Blair administrations, even when their own administration's experts come out and say the Bush and Blair administrations manipulated and spun the intelligence to fit their political agenda.

Which HAS happened in both countries. Personally, I fault the media and it's acquiesence to the media titans and kings (including in the now infamous case in Britain over the BBC & WMD constroversy) insistence before the war, that the Blair and Bush administration stories were not only not to investigated independently, but that they shouldn't even be challenged, despite all the red flags that were sent up in the lead up to the war.

The media establishment is colluding with the political establishment, to further the agenda of the wealthy elites in Europe and the US. The only reason why France, Germany, and Russia weren't on board was because they weren't getting a piece of the action.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 11:31 AM

Teribus, it boggles my mind that you can rest in the comfortable belief that the POTUS has not once lied to you. The clique in the White House have falsified almost every important issue. Just boggles my mind.

But, hey, that's what makes the world an interesting place, innit. You and Dougie hold fast to that sense of security, as it seems to suit you.

Me, I think he's lied to me at every hand, non-stop, to a pathological degree.

A

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 11:20 AM

Ah, so the Great and Wonderful Oz claims something that is factually correct cannot also be deliberately misleading?

Bullshit.

The American people did not come to believe that Iraq and Saddam were responsible for 9/11 for no reason. They came to believe that because the Bush administration told them it was "possible, even probable".

That is deliberately misleading the country into war. But hell Teribus, don't take my word for it. I mean, there must be a reason why all the major media keeps publishing these stories.

The bare majority of Americans don't yet feel they were lied to or misled by the Bush administration--but those numbers are changing fast. Why? Because once they get this information, they do what any reasonable person would do, which is to change their minds to fit the facts, not a predetermined political ideology, which is what you cling to Teribus, despite all the facts being presented.

The Bush and Blair administrations deliberately manipulated the facts to suit their political agendas, which was to persuade the world that they had legitimate reasons to invade Iraq. They did not. The truth is coming out, and the truth that is coming out is that you Teribus, along with the Bush and Blair administrations, are wrong.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 10:45 AM

FYI... 'George's' first NEC session was held on the afternoon of January 30th, 2001. Iraq was the main topic of discussion.
ttr