Our torturous vice president.
Our torturous vice president.
Yesterday, Attorney General Mike Mukasey announced a DoJ probe into the CIA’s torture tape destruction. The Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin raises the question of whether the probe will investigate the roles of Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, David Addington:
Cheney has been the administration’s central figure on all things related to torture. [...]
So it should have come as no surprise when the New York Times reported last month that David S. Addington, Cheney’s chief of staff and former legal counsel, was among the three White House lawyers who participated in at least one key meeting about the videotapes in 2004.
The initial spin from the White House was that only Harriet E. Miers, then a deputy White House chief of staff, had been briefed about the tapes — and that she had advised against their destruction.
But with anything related to torture, it’s pretty clear the CIA took its orders from Cheney — via Addington. And how plausible is it that, in his exchanges with the CIA, Addington advised against the tapes’ destruction? Or that the CIA would have done it if he had told them not to? Isn’t it more likely that he supported the idea, either overtly or with a nod and a wink?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
David Addington giving a nod and a wink??
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:11 pmTrompe l’oeil!!
Addington/Cheney: Just don’t let anything happen to those tapes.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:15 pm**wink wink**
Maybe he had juice in his eye. Seinfeld fans?
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:20 pmComment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
>> COUGH COUGH
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:26 pmBe careful when you’re dusting off the old “Clinton did it too” lie.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 pmLock Cheney up b4 his heart peters out.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:28 pmAs my mother-in-law used to say, “From your lips to God’s ear.”
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:34 pmomment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
Thats not a reason to continue it, its a cop-out.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:36 pmYou got it all mixed up, troll-dude: It was “Clinton blowjob” and “Cheney torture.” And besides, Bush’s failed presidency is not Clinton’s fault. It’s Cheney’s. Can a man who surrounds himself with unprincipled and derelict people like Wolfowitz, Libby, Cheney, Rove, and Rumseld really expect success?
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:37 pmThe policy of extraordinary rendition was enacted in 1995 when Bill Clinton was president. Michael Scheuer, who devised the rendition policy, says that suspects were tortured during the Clinton years.
Comment by Manslagt
So are you criticizing Bush for continuing the torture policy, or are you praising Clinton, or do you care whether or not you make sense?
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:39 pmIf it was okay for Clinton to do it before 9/11, why isn’t it okay for Bush to do it after 9/11?
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Because it’s WRONG, you f_cking moron.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:43 pmHere’s the excerpt from the article:
“George W. Bush was still struggling to coax oil out of the ground when the United States “rendered to justice” its first suspect from abroad. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan authorized an operation that lured Lebanese hijacker Fawaz Younis to a boat off the coast of Cyprus, where FBI agents arrested him. (Younis had participated in the 1985 hijacking of a Jordanian plane and was implicated in the hijacking of TWA Flight 847, which left a U.S. Navy diver dead.) President George H.W. Bush approved the kidnapping in 1990 of Mexican physician Humberto Alvarez Machain, who was believed to be involved in the torture and killing of a Drug Enforcement Administration official. Nothing says that renditions can involve only suspected terrorists; Israel’s abduction of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Argentina in 1960 could be called a rendition, though the term was not yet in use.
Beginning in 1995, the Clinton administration turned up the speed with a full-fledged program to use rendition to disrupt terrorist plotting abroad. According to former director of central intelligence George J. Tenet, about 70 renditions were carried out before Sept. 11, 2001, most of them during the Clinton years.”
Yes, Clinton did it too, but the precedent was set long before that. So, you’re point is???
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:43 pmIf it was okay for Clinton to do it before 9/11, why isn’t it okay for Bush to do it after 9/11? Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
I never said I though it was okay for Clinton to do it.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:43 pmSidney Blumenthal was in the Clinton administration and has joined the Hillary team. Can a woman who surrounds herself with unprincipled and derelict people like Blumenthal really expect success?
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
Provide a link showing that Blumenthal is unprincipled and derelict.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:45 pmSo why were you moonbats silent when Clinton was doing it?
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
How do you know we were? BTW, TP wasn’t around back then.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:46 pmSo why were you moonbats silent when Clinton was doing it?
Comment by Manslagt —
Why were you silent when Reagan and Bush’s father did it?
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:47 pmSo why were you moonbats silent when Clinton was doing it?
Comment by Manslagt.
Did you know the Bible is primarily about astrology, would you drop the inane Limbaugh code-word?
I didnt even have a computer in 1995, nor did I blog about politics until recently.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:49 pm“Beginning in 1995, the Clinton administration turned up the speed with a full-fledged program to use rendition to disrupt terrorist plotting abroad. According to former director of central intelligence George J. Tenet, about 70 renditions were carried out before Sept. 11, 2001, most of them during the Clinton years.â€
And George Tenet is the gold standard for truth-telling, right?
I wouldn’t believe George Tenet about anything. The guy’s too concerned about covering his own ineptitude.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:52 pmSo one protested policies they disagreed with before there were computers and blogs? Comment by Manslagt
So why arent you protesting the current admins policy?
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:55 pmManslaughter is pointing out the possibility that there may be other powerful interests at work. There may not be a real difference between Democrats and Republicans.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:56 pmWasn’t Eichmann ‘renditioned’?
Watch your ass Bush/Cheney…
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:57 pmComment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
A book critique? By Michael Isikoff, a guy who hates Blumenthal?
You must be joking!
Another “Leftist Nazi” moment for Slag. Jesus christ…
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:57 pm“Keep in mind that it was Blumenthal who was telling journalists such as Christopher Hitchens that Monica Lewinsky was a stalker.”
Comment by Manslagt —
And keep in mind that Mike Isikoff was one of the most tenacious of Clinton and Gore’s enemies. He fully engaged in “the war on Gore,” repeating the most inane of republican talking points in print.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:57 pmManslaughter is pointing out the possibility that there may be other powerful interests at work. There may not be a real difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Comment by ForTruth — January 3, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
Blumenthal is clearly no f_cking Karl Rove.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:58 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
I read where the Clinton admin practiced extraordinary rendition, but that word does not actually mean torture. It is a violation of international law,
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:58 pmClinton wasn’t a saint, but Bush is most assuredly a demon based on the carnage he hath wrought.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:59 pmManslaughter is pointing out the possibility that there may be other powerful interests at work. There may not be a real difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Comment by ForTruth
Yes, but he’s not saying that. He’s supporting Bush for continuing Clinton’s rendition and torture policy, but he’s not praising Clinton for doing something he values. He’s intellectually dishonest. Here, you get two choices: either you support rendition and torture and therefore must praise Clinton, or you do not support rendition and toture and must condemn Bush. You get no third choice.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:59 pmLet’s take a closer look at manslagt’s link:
4. Rendition is just a euphemism for outsourcing torture.
Well, not historically. The guidelines for Clinton-era renditions required that subjects could be sent only to countries where they were not likely to be tortured — countries that gave assurances to that effect and whose compliance was monitored by the State Department and the intelligence community. It’s impossible to be certain that those standards were upheld every time, but serious efforts were made to see that they were. At a minimum, countries with indisputably lousy human rights records (say, Syria) were off-limits. Another key difference: Renditions before Bush were carried out to disrupt terrorist activity, not to gather intelligence or to interrogate individuals.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:01 pmYo Zooey wassup?
Yeah I know Manslaughter is supporting Bruschco by vehicle of doorknobitry. I decided to re-frame his crap to support my position. Therefore removing his power as a troll.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:02 pmI have no problem with terrorists being made to feel uncomfortable for a few seconds. Unlike you and TP, I am not objectively pro-terrorist.
Comment by Manslagt
You shouldn’t assume, for when you do your projecting, and when you project, your wrong.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:02 pmIsikoff is one of your fellow leftwing moonbats.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
First, Isikoff is no “moonbat.” Second, even if he were, we don’t fall into lockstep behind every lunatic out there, just because they MIGHT be on our side.
That’s the difference between us and you — we have minds of our own, and fully functional moral compasses.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:02 pmI think you’re confused. Isikoff has written a book with extreme leftist David Corn, wrote the bogus story about Korans being flushed down the toilet at Gitmo, and attacked Stephen Hayes after Hayes published an article on Iraq-al Qaeda connections. Isikoff is one of your fellow leftwing moonbats.
Comment by Manslagt —
I don’t think so. Try The Daily Howler. They’ve the scoop on Spikey Mike.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:03 pmAh, the Bush crime family investigating the Bush crime family… Do you think that the Bush crime family will find that the Bush crime family has committed any crimes?
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:07 pmManslat,
In what way did Clinton’s sanctions on Iraq contribute to the death of all those kids? How “indirect” are we talking here. Like the “indirect” effects of depleted uranium? Or the “indirect” effects of white sulfur?
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:07 pmHere’s a link, manny:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh052203.shtml
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:08 pmBush’s desire to protect the American people and Clinton’s desire to protect his presidency. -MS
A: Bush doesnt care where Osama is.
B:REPUBLICAN MYTH 671 DEMS ARE WEAK ON TERROR
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Looks like Obama with a slim lead of 34% to 32 for both Edwards and Clinton, with 46% of the precincts reporting, unofficial tally.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:10 pmWe might have been spared 9/11.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
How? By ignoring PDB’s?
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:10 pmAs far as the children in Iraq -MS
Your confusing Al Qaeda with Saddam and the Gulf War Sanctions.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:12 pmSo why were you moonbats silent when Clinton was doing it?
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
Why do Crackpot Evangelicals and Fundies think sex is more dangerous than death and destruction?
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:15 pmOk Manslaughter, both Democrats and Republicans pull the same sh!t. Like I said, what’s the real difference?
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:17 pmManslaughter ,
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:18 pmTorture is criminal under our treaties and international obligations and a war crime. Period !
The rights which the Bush Administration has been attempting to erradicate are INALIENABLE and no law ever passed by lawyers in Washington will ever change that !
Habeas corpus is A BASIC RIGHT ! Being slaughtered in your home because you live in a country which dicK cheney covets is a war crime , no matter what anthem is playing in the background .
Spying without a warrant on millions of AMericans is treason . Signing statements are treasonous . Extraordinary rendition , lies to go to war resulting in the deaths of millions , the wounding and maiming of many times that and the destruction of a Iraq’s infrastructure , a war crime .
A private contracted mercenary army operating within the US and on the streets of an american city , treasonous . ect …..
Got morals ?
barfly:
You’re still ignoring what Michael Scheuer said about rendition and torture during the Clinton year. I provided a link above.
Comment by Manslagt
You mean this?
Even more crucially, Scheuer’s rendition programme stated that snatched suspects would be taken to the US as prisoners of war, protected by the Geneva Conventions. The Clinton administration, however, says Scheuer, forbade this, insisting instead on sending captives to whatever nation had tried them or had an outstanding warrant for them. To give them PoW status would have given them credibility, in the eyes of the administration, and they didn’t want that, Scheuer says.
So Clinton did rendition prisoners – but only to countries that didn’t torture, and to countries that adhered to the Geneva conventions.
I never claimed Clinton didn’t – I was talking about Tenet’s claim, as to how many during the Bush administration and how many during the Clinton administration. Scherer didn’t deal with that, did he?
So Manny, Clinton didn’t torture, nor send folks where they could be tortured.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:18 pmNo confusion on my part. Can’t say the same about you and those “ignored PDBs.â€
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
Cant say the same about you and the Clintons desire to protect his presidency myths.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:18 pmActually, I wrote that maybe Clinton should have done it more than he did. We might have been spared 9/11.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
What do you mean? 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch not Clinton’s.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:19 pmThat’s an odd allegation. If it were true, the evangelical population would not be growing so rapidly.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
Yeh, just look at their leader Haggard, he liked gay sex and drugs.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 pmActually, I wrote that maybe Clinton should have done it more than he did. We might have been spared 9/11.
Comment by Manslagt
And again I accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. This is about principles, not partisan politics. Torture is an issue far more important than left or right, Democrat or Republic. Unlike you, I have principles and I will condemn torture whether a Democrat or a Republican perpetrates it. But you are incapble of praising someone who puts into place a practice that you value, torture, when a Democrat utilizes it. I’m waiting for you to praise Clinton for his rendition policy, as apparently it is a policy you value. But of course I only see your intellectual dishonesty. You want it both ways. You want to praise Bush for continuing a policy that existed under Clinton, but you nonetheless want to condemn Clinton, even though you maintain that he utilized the same policy. You worship a man and a party. You do not even have the honesty to praise Clinton for advancing a policy that you value. That proves you are not a man of principle. You believe in a government of men, not of laws. And for you it depends on who the man is and what party he is from and not principle.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 pmWhat do you mean? 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch not Clinton’s.
Comment by Nat — January 3, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
Clinton got a blowjob that Slag really wishes he would have gotten, so from now on everything is Clinton’s fault. Simple!
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 pmSomeone could write a book on the Clintons’ efforts to rewrite Bill Clinton’s record on Iraq and terrorism.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
Yeh, that must be why Brent Scowcroft said Saddam was a problem but not a problem of terror and that going into Iraq would undermine the war on terror and destabilize the middle east, just like its doing today.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:23 pmScheuer accepts that targets were tortured both before and after 9/11. “I have no doubt about it,” he says. “You’d think I’m an ass if I said nobody was tortured. There was more of a willingness in the White House to turn a blind eye to the legal niceties than within the CIA. The Agency always knew it would be left holding the baby for this one.
He doesn’t specifically state that folk were tortured during the Clinton admin., just “before 9/11.”
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm“You’re not too sharp, are you? I said that maybe Clinton should have done it more than he did.”
Look who’s talking. Perhaps if you’d read your link a little closer you’d see the little mistake I just pointed out to you.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:27 pm“You either did not read the article closely or you are lying. Scheuer made clear that it occurred under Clinton.”
Comment by Manslagt —
I just posted from the article, fool. Too bad you can’t read any better than that.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:28 pmFrom the article (fool):
Scheuer accepts that targets were tortured both before and after 9/11. “I have no doubt about it,†he says. “You’d think I’m an ass if I said nobody was tortured. There was more of a willingness in the White House to turn a blind eye to the legal niceties than within the CIA. The Agency always knew it would be left holding the baby for this one.
Try again.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:30 pmIf you can’t debate the facts, throw out a personal attack. It’s the moonbat way.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
Yet your being a hypocrite when you continue to use moonbat.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:30 pmYou’re not too sharp, are you? I said that maybe Clinton should have done it more than he did. That means I supported what he did, but think he probably didn’t do enough. Obviously, he did not do enough to prevent 9/11.
Comment by Manslagt
You’re not too honest, are you. You did not offer a scintilla of praise for Clinton in your previous posts. Did you.
So you supported Clinton, then? Did you manifest your support for Clinton for the policies you apparently now praise? Did you contribute to his campaign? Did you vote for him? I note that in your previous posts you accuse Democrats of having been silent while Clinton was utilizing rendition. Were you silent in offering your support of Clinton? Or were you just the partisan hack you now appear to be?
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:30 pm“Scheuer accepts that targets were tortured both before and after 9/11. ”
A little vague to be hanging a “Clinton did it too” on it.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:31 pmClinton was smart enough to know that the war on terror is an assymetrical battle that cant be fought by occupying countries. Ergo Clinton got rid of these groups in 20 countries while George has us bogged down in two countries that has not defeated Al Qaeda in ither one, which is harming our economy and wearing out the military thru nation building.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:33 pmWhat’s that got to do with it? The Soviet Union fell on Reagan and Bush 41’s watch. To you give them 100% of the credit for that?
I give them little or no credit.
Nurse A gives a patient the wrong medication a half hour before her shift ends. The patient dies one hour into Nurse B’s shift. Is Nurse B responsible for the patient’s death because it occurred on her watch?
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
Wrong scenario. Nurse A was watching a patient with an unknown disease and her shifts end. She tells Nurse B to watch the patient carefully so nothing happens. Nurse B goes shopping for shoes and the patient dies.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:34 pmpunchy man,
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:38 pmvery adroit at partisan rhetoric and word play with no pronciples or morals to get in your way . A full half of the posters here I wager are actually independents dissatisfied in the extreme with the democratic party in general and it’s leadership in general .
People whose principles are more important than the democratic party . Generations of Americans made the ultimate sacrifice to protect those values , which you are willing to give away .
You mock their memory and sacrifices with your word play but that ,probably, is as easy for you as the defense of war criminals and torture .
I rest my case .
You’re not too sharp, are you? I said that maybe Clinton should have done it more than he did. That means I supported what he did, but think he probably didn’t do enough. Obviously, he did not do enough to prevent 9/11.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
Again, 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch not Clinton’s. The Bush administration did absolutely nothing before 9/11 in respect to terrorism and Al Qaeda. They were more concerned with taxcuts for Bush’s base (the haves and the have mores).
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:39 pmBASIC RIGHTS ARE INALIENABLE !……. GOD
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:42 pmThat’s a completely bogus figure. By 9/11, al Qaeda was in nearly 70 countries and getting stronger. Al Qaeda was a ragtag group in 1993, yet grew exponentially during the Clinton years.
They grew during the Reagan Freedom Fighter Years.
Nice try.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:46 pmYou says its a bogus figure then say they grew during the Clinton years making Al Qaeda in 20 countries…bogus?
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 pmThey grew during the Afghanistan war years Manslagt. Freedom Fighters, YaY Mujahdeen -Reagan.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:49 pmThe 9/11 pilots were in this country before Bush was elected president. I guess it’s also Bush’s fault that they were allowed in without proper documentation.
I doesn’t matter. Bush did absolutely nothing in respect to terrorism and Al Qaeda before 9/11. If he spent just an ounce of time focused on it as he was with taxcuts, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened.
And your contention that the Bush administration was doing nothing regarding terrorism and al Qaeda before 9/11 is contradicted by the final paragraph in the August 6 PDB, which I suspect few on you moonbats have even read.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
What did the final paragraph of the PDB which the Bush administration ignored say?
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:52 pmRead it.
Post it.
BTW, that PDB was not ignored.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
Of course it was ignored that’s why we had 9/11.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:59 pmWell,
Since your traitor-in-Chief never released the PDB, it is pretty hard to read it asshole.
But CNN has a transcript, and accordingly the last paragraph says:
“The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.”
And your useless point is…?
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:02 pmTranscript
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:02 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/index.html
Read it. BTW, that PDB was not ignored.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
What would you call it then?
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:03 pmOh, so now taking money to speak is the same as sucking Saudi COX. Get real fu(kwad traitro lover.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 pmRemember the dress, remember the dress. You got some spluge on your chin.
“Bin Laden determined to strike in US”
“Bin Laden determined to strike in US”
“Bin Laden determined to strike in US”
“Bin Laden determined to strike in US”
“Bin Laden determined to strike in US”
“Bin Laden determined to strike in US”
“Bin Laden determined to strike in US”
“Bin Laden determined to strike in US”
ANd yet, you want to blame Clinton for not hitting Bin Laden 3 years prior. You are out of your fu(king mind. Traitor lover.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 pmYou’re ignoring the final paragraph og the PDB.
Post it.
And if Clinton had pursued bad guys with as much enthusiasm as he pursued bad girls, al Qaeda were have been wiped out by 1997.
Clinton was multitasking and prevented any attacks by Al Qaeda on U.S. soil. On the other hand, Bush went on vacation and Al Qaeda attacked us.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 pm“And if Clinton had pursued bad guys with as much enthusiasm as he pursued bad girls, al Qaeda were have been wiped out by 1997.”
This is the final paragraph of a formal governement document, I think not lying mutherfuker. Traitor Lover
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:08 pmNOT TAKE A MONTH OFF, THAT IS DAMN SURE SHITHEAD.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:08 pmTraitor Lover.
With it’s lack of “proof or specificity,†what would you have done?
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
I would have called a meeting of my cabinet members. I would have been meeting with my terrorism expert all along, and I would listen to his advice about any doubts or questions I might have. I would send someone immediately to investigate the pilot schools. I would have ordered increased security at all airports.
I would have done SOMETHING — not gone f_cking FISHING.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:08 pmLet’s pretend that your were president on August 6, 2001 and you read that PDB. With it’s lack of “proof or specificity,†what would you have done?
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
I would have kept an eye out on Al Qaeda which is more than what the Bush administration did. They did absolutely nothing in regards to terrorism and Al Qaeda before 9/11.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 pmSo, is that Manslagt, because you are choking on Man stuff? Like Bush’s COX?
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 pmTraitor lover.
So, dickhead, you are saying that you would not have done ANYTHING different if you had also stolen the Presidency and were sitting in Texas on your month long FIRST vacation, after working only 8 months? That is what you are saying traitor lover?
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:12 pmI would have called for the beheading of all traitor lovers like yourself. ROund em up, cut em off.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:12 pmComment by Nat # 85
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:14 pmActually 1/3 of the AMerican people believe the bush Administration was directly involved in 911 and the attack on our nation . surely after the use of near dictatorial powers ,
the patriot act , which only 2 senators read befors passage which has essentially rewritten the entire criminal code of the US ,
signing statements used to violate 1/3 of all the laws passed since 911 ( GAO )
Total and ttransparent lies used to justify the invasion of a nation which had absolutely nothing to do with 911( 911 commission ) but happens to sit above the worlds 2nd largest oil supply and whose invasion for the purposes of control of world oil supplies was written and signed onto by the members of this administration pre 911 ( PNAC ),
Blackwater , a mercenary army with a budget of billions operating on American soil , pointing guns at AMerican citizens ( new orleans )
Spying in violation of the laws of the US on millions of innocent citizens and collecting the information ,Wiretapping telephones , illegally looking at the computer browsing habits of the citizens as well as what they read at ther library,
striking down our MOST basic right’s and the very right which all other rights hang upon ,habeas corpus,
ramping up a war with a country for reasons , which we now know the president has been long aware of , are falsehoods and fabrications ( NIE ),
the list ,that we know of ,goes on and on … each new piece of the puzzle more unsavory than the last and the trolls response is Clinton did it too ?
Wake up punchy man , your ignorance of basic American values is TORTUROUS for anybody who has a conscience !
Not quite. U.S. embassies are considered U.S. soil. Al Qaeda also nearly sunk the USS Cole on Clinton’s watch.
That’s like saying “Why isn’t Bush preventing attacks on Americans in Iraq?”
One more time. Let’s pretend that your were president on August 6, 2001 and you read that PDB. With it’s lack of “proof or specificity,†what would you have done?
More than nothing.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:14 pmI would have blown the cover story of my VP’s plan to overthrow the U.S. Government, and make it so apparent that I have abborgated my oath of office, that I should be shot on sight, by any Consitution loving American with a gun and badge.
But, I stayed in Texas on my make beleive ranch, doing make believe chores, with my make believe friends and family. ALlowing Darth Cheney to plan the final assault on the country.
He he, Keep the horses away. He, he.
Hang the fu(k
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:16 pmKill you. Manslagt.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:17 pmSpecifically, what? Nothing you listed above would have prevented 9/11.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
Perhaps, but we’ll never know will we? Your King got a PDB that had the title “bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the United States” and did nothing. Absolutely nothing.
And that certainly did not stop 9/11, did it?
You are a freeper moron who thinks Nazis were leftists, and that speaks volumes about you.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:18 pmWhat would you have done? Practice reading My Pet Goat, in preparation of 9/11? That is about all he did. No further investigation, no interest, no questions.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:19 pmNo American would have done that. These are the actions of a coward and traitor like yourself.
Traitor LOVER
Manslagt is a complete idiot who is here to clog threads with idiotic freeper shit.
Flag his ass and get rid of him.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:19 pmI would slit yur throat if you sat next to me right now.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:19 pmActually 1/3 of the AMerican people believe the bush Administration was directly involved in 911 and the attack on our nation . surely after the use of near dictatorial powers ,
the patriot act , which only 2 senators read befors passage which has essentially rewritten the entire criminal code of the US ,
signing statements used to violate 1/3 of all the laws passed since 911 ( GAO )
Comment by freeman — January 3, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
There’s no doubt that 9/11 was the Neocon’s dream come true but I chalk it up criminal negligence.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:20 pmFragh his ass instead.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:20 pmWhat specifically? (And, again, the final paragraph of the PDB shows that action was being taken during the summer of 2001.)
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
Your saying he did nothing, and I agree.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 pmSo what would you do with a PDB entitled:
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:23 pm“Bin Laden determined to strike in USâ€
Tell us oh great traitor lover
And your contention that the Bush administration was doing nothing regarding terrorism and al Qaeda before 9/11 is contradicted by the final paragraph in the August 6 PDB, which I suspect few on you moonbats have even read.
Comment by Manslagt
The final paragraph of the August 6th PDB says the FBI had initiated 70 investigations of Al Qaeda in the U.S. Seventy investigations? Is that the massive response to possible terrorism (Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.) you refer to? Seventy investigations? I find your use of the August 6th PDB to support Bush’s limp-wristed actions against terrorism to be breathtaking in its audacity. Did you forget the many tips the Bush Administration received in advance of 9/11? Did you forget that French intelligence tipped off the FBI about the presence of known terrorist Moussaoui in the United States and they dragged their feet? Did you forget about Coleen Rawley’s memos to FBI head Robert Mueller that went unnoticed and that her attempts to get an investigation underway went unheaded? Remember that back in 1995, security officials in the Philippines arrested Abdul Hakim Murad and learned of several plots, including a well-financed one to crash a hijacked plane into Langley of which the FBI was aware. Maybe Bush couldn’t have personally known about everything going on. But he sure as hell could have instructed the FBI to be on maximum alert for any tips involving a possible terrorist act, which would have triggered immediate notice of Coleen Rawley’s suspicions about Moussaoui. Bush was derlict in his duties and the August 6th PDB only confirms that fact.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:23 pmComment by Arn Gunnutes — January 3, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
Really. He says since Nazis started in the National Socialist Party, that means they were socialists. :-D
He’s a f_cking freeper!
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:27 pmWhat specifically?
More than nothing.
(And, again, the final paragraph of the PDB shows that action was being taken during the summer of 2001.)
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
What action was taken?
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:27 pmMr Muscle Man Manslaw got fragged and ran with his pussy assed tail between his girly-man legs. What a pussy traitor lover troll.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:27 pmManster ,
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 pmSure they hate us because were good and because clinton didn’t do enough to protect us , real astute analysis Manster.Do you think maybe , european colonialism , our endlessly overthrowing other elected democracies and other governments around the world for 60 years, arming , at great profit , conflicts worldwide ( how christian ) and sponsoring the worst dictatorships on the planet , might have played any role or the behavior of israel in palestine ?
It’s a good thing we have friends like the saudi’s and isn’t it wonderful that at tax payer expence ALL of bin ladens relatives were flown out of the US without even being interviewed within hours of 911 , despite the fact that the vast majority of the terrorists were saudi and bin laden was the supposed mastermind .
Yet, interestingly, traitor lover, Clark came out full bore against your traitor lover Heir Bush, the fascist pig.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 pmNo proof or specificity. That’s pretty clear.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
Listen dumbass, there’s a reason that report came our at that time — because things were ratcheting up, and people were getting worried. No, there was no proof — it’s a flipping REPORT. They are ALL speculation to some degree — but you don’t ignore them.
Tell us again how Nazis are leftists. Convince me. Go ahead…
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 pmBecause they jerk off with their left hands, that is how the traitor lover knows it. Zoo
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:30 pmCheney appointed himself VP. He is the torture czar. And how could you paid bloggers know that “Clinton did it too?” Did KKKarl tell you? I am so sick of the crap I read whenever there is a major story that might require impeachment. I am not afraid of you idiots. I will not shut up and I will not go away. 9/11/01 was NINE months after Bush became president. And he ignored the warnings and Cheney was conducting flight training for NORAD planes that day, requiring them to go IN THE WRONG DIRECTION even if they were still in the area. Since when does the VP conduct military operations?
They will not get away with this. Bushco will be convicted of treason.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:30 pmNo proof or specificity. That’s pretty clear.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
Thats why its called assymetric warfare. And as I noted above, which you apparently haven’t read.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:32 pmClinton Administration sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
There’s no doubt that 9/11 was the Neocon’s dream come true but I chalk it up criminal negligence.
Comment by Nat — January 3, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
you may well be right BUT can we really function as a nation if 1/3 of the popualtion believes the Admonistration is capable of this ?
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:33 pmRepeat after me, Clinton sent legislation to to congress about tightening airport security [without specificity] was scrapped by the Republicans, which were in control during 911.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:33 pm911 is simple to show as a bullshiit story. They even expect to beleive that physics works differentially.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 pmThe same 757 is susspoed to have the ability to incinerate on contact with the Pentagon, melting the wings and the engines an the tail, but yet have enough mass and velocity to blast through 6, 2 ft, steel reinforced concrete walls over 60 ft from the front wall.
WHILE
the same plane 757, could even make it through both sides of the aluminum sknned WTC tower, without touching any of the internal support beams.
How is that?
“Bush asked for it to be written.”
Tee hee, tee hee.
OH traitor lover you are fu(king hysterical.
Bush asked for it to be written.
BWAHAHAHHAHA!!!
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:35 pmNo proof or specificity. Given that, tell us what action you would have taken on August 6.
Comment by Manslagt
But only 70 investigations, in a country the size of the United States where a grave threat was pending. That’s weak, brother, weak. Again, Bush’s duty was to instruct the FBI to immediately pay heed to any tips regarding potential terrorist acts. They ignored the tip of French intelligence about Moussaoui, They ignored Coleen Rowley’s suspicions about Moussaoi. A true President would have made it a high priority, instructing his intelligence agencies that heads would roll if they let a tip, any tip go unnoticed. A known terrorist, Moussaoi was training to fly a 747. That would have triggered alarm bells about other hijackings, but apparently there was no leadership at the head of the executive branch to force the FBI and other intelligence agencies to take notice of Coleen Rowley’s memo. The action Bush should have taken, but did not, was to demand, no absolutely insist that every tip be taken seriously or else. But again, Bush did nothing except passively have his pdb read to him and take a vacation.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:36 pmBush tightened airport security, without specificity, after 911.
This is just ludicrous. Bush should have tightened airport security BEFORE the incident, not after it. You can try as you please Manslagt, but your wrong, the Republicans in congress were wrong, Bush was wrong for doing nothing until AFTER the fact.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 pmStarve,
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 pm“apparently there was no leadership at the head of the executive branch to force the FBI and other intelligence agencies to take notice of Coleen Rowley’s memo.”
Yes that is the action that the traitor-in-chief took. He told everyone to stand down.
Perfect actons for the ultimate traitor.
… but barring a national catastrophy it will be hardf to galvanize the American public behind such a scheme .
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 pmPNAC
“barfly:
I’ve read that link several times. If I had read it just once, it would be one more time than you.”
I notice you haven’t tried to attack the quote (from your link) I posted, that stated people were tortured “before and after 9/11″ but didn’t specifically state that torture was committed during the Clinton administration.
Could you explain how I could have possibly found, and posted this refutation of your assertion, without reading it, fool?
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:40 pmFrom your link: WASHINGTON – Despite recurrent warnings from official watchdog agencies and presidential commissions [Clinton] that airport security lapses could have catastrophic consequences, government efforts to remedy the problems have been frustrated repeatedly by cost-conscious airlines.
Thats what I posted before.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 pm“No proof or specificity. Given that, tell us what action you would have taken on August 6.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 10:28 pm”
Your kidding right???
How about this…….
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&warning_signs:_specific_cases=foreignIntelligence
Clintons watch:
1998: Indonesia Gives US Warning of 9/11 Attack?
1999: British Intelligence Warns Al-Qaeda Plans to Use Aircraft, Possibly as Flying Bombs
March 1999: Germany Provides CIA Hijacker’s Name and Telephone Number
August 12, 2000: Italian Intelligence Wiretap of Al-Qaeda Cell Reveals Massive Aircraft-based Strike
Bush’s watch:
January 24, 2001: Italians Hear of Brothers Going to US for ‘Very, Very Secret’ Plan, Other Clues
March 2001: Italians Advise US about Al-Qaeda Wiretaps
Summer 2001: Bin Laden Speech Mentions 20 Martyrs in Upcoming Attack; Other Hints of Attack Spread Widely
June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols
June 4, 2001: Illegal Afghans Overheard Discussing New York City Hijacking Attack
June 13, 2001: Bin Laden Wants to Assassinate Bush with an Explosives-Filled Airplane
July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks
July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West
Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US
Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US
Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly; CIA Is Not Interested
Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US
August 2001: Moroccan Informant Warns US of Large Scale, Imminent Attack in New York
August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots
August 2001: Persian Gulf Informant Gives Ex-CIA Agent Information About ‘Spectacular Terrorist Operation’
Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings
August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US
August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named
August 29, 2001: Cayman Islands Letter Warns of ‘Major Terrorist Act Against US via an Airline or Airlines’
August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns Al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US
Late August 2001: French Warning to US Echoes Earlier Israeli Warning
September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack
September 7, 2001: French Give ‘Very Specific Information’ about Possible Attack on US Soil
September 7, 2001: Priest Is Told of Plot to Attack US and Britain Using Hijacked Airplanes
Before September 11, 2001: Three Countries Hear Bin Laden Tell Wife to Return to Afghanistan; This Warning Sets Off ‘Scramble’ in US and Elsewhere
NOW….. Who could have known that there was going to be an attack?????
Only an IDIOT like Bush, that’s who……
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:42 pmThanks for proving me correct Manslagt.
Thanks for playing
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:43 pmConsidering domestic spying, lies to conduct a war by oil exec’s , kidnapping , torture , the revokation of Habeas corpus for even American citizens who can no longer assume they will not be tortured or given a fair trial , and being endlessly caught lying to the American people on natioal TV ,I see no reson not to trust our leaders .
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:43 pmCorrection….
“NOW….. Who could have known that there was going to be an attack?????”
Should be
NOW….. Who could NOT have known…..
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:44 pmAgain, none of you moonbats has told us what you would have done after you read a PDB that lacked any specificity concerning an impending attack Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
Gee, lemme think about what I have been posting…tighten aiport security.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:44 pmNow we go through airport checks with no specificity, right? Right Manlsagt?
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:44 pm“I’ve read that link several times. If I had read it just once, it would be one more time than you.â€,/i>
You assumed “before and after 9/11″ was a specific statement, and that’s just plain sad…
Home schooled?
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:45 pmActually, you wouldn’t know this, but the reaon that report came out is because Bush asked for it to be written.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
Uh huh. Prove it. PROOF — not book reviews.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:45 pmStill a stupid answer traitor lover.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:47 pmOne last time Manslagt, we go through airport checks today with no specificity. According to you we should stop those checks?
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:47 pmIf there was no specificity, why did the government issue an internal warning to its employees?
Remember, Ashcroft stopped flying commercial after the warning was issued.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:48 pmYou might have read CLark’s book, but you read it with only an eye to find the data that fits into your traitor loving ways.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:48 pmMcTraitorlovin.
When I said you hadn’t read it once, I might the entire article.
Comment by Manslagt
Why? because I found the flaw in your assertion?
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:49 pmHope you solve the problems of the day looking back to the last century , mensch shlag . Your inability to be critical in defense of any treason is staggering as is your partisanship in the face of SO MUCH EVIDENCE .
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:50 pmMushroom Cloud Condi?
Puhllleeez.
They got us into Iraq with remarks lacking any specificity.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:50 pmAnd there was historical information in there about various as-pects of al Qaeda‘s operations.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
“Historical” in that Sam Berger told them about the threat months before, when leaving office.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 pmmanslag
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:53 pmes ist veleicht nur kinderspeil fur dich .
We had airport security prior to 9/11 without specificity. Obviously, securiyt measures have been intensified since 9/11.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
WTF? Your logic is circuitous, You say there was no specificity before 911 and now your saying there was security without specificity
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:53 pmYour going in circles Manlsagt and undermining your own argument.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:55 pm“The only flaw was you not reading far enough into the article to know that Scheuer was referring to the Clinton administration when he said the CIA knew they would be left holding the bag over torture.”
Comment by Manslagt
Please post the exact section you’re referring to.
But if it’s “torture occurred before and after 9/11″ you should just apologize now for your lack of reading comp.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:56 pmI need to remind you again that home-schooled kids usually win the national spelling bee.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 10:54 pm
The last home school kid I read of shot people of his own religion
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:56 pmAgain, none of you moonbats has told us what you would have done after you read a PDB that lacked any specificity concerning an impending attack.
Comment by Manslagt
Oh, but there were specific warnings. Again, Moussaoui, a known terrorist, was specifically known to be training to fly a 747. French intelligence sent the warning to the FBI about his presence in the United States and they dragged their feet. Coleen Rowley and her fellow investigators tried to get a search warrant to inspect Moussaoui’s laptop before any evidence disappeared and the FBI again dragged their feet. They refused to request authority from the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR) which was directly under the President. At the very least, it was Bush’s responsibility, given the many warnings, to put the FBI on high alert to pay attention to any specific warnings, such as the one about Moussaoui. It was Bush’s responsibility to get everyone working together on this, to implement a coordinated system of high alert among his intelligence services where all potential evidence could immediately be acted upon. Bush did eventually implement such a system, but it was after the horse had left the barn. Moussaoui was such a specific warning. But Bush did nothing and dropped the ball.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 pm“I need to remind you again that home-schooled kids usually win the national spelling bee.”
Comment by Manslagt
And have horrible socialization skills – just like a certain troll…
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 pmSpelling bees do not a mind make.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:58 pmThere was airport security prior to 9/11 because of a general threat of terrorism.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Yet you use that same lack of specificty as a rational for Bush doing nothing.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:59 pmAnd I doubt your assertion to the spelling bee point. Links please.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:59 pmAnd I contest your assertion to the spelling bee point. Links please.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:00 pmWHats the point man you want to blame terrorism on a democrat , and you believe that makes treason and war crimes condonable . Who cares, whats done is done , most here i think don’t even like the clintons politics . They’re largely progressives which the clintons are not .
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:00 pmYou really cannot be this stupid, can you? -MS
Resorting to ad-hominem and third grade tactics?
Pfft. I thought you were above that.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:00 pmComment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
Condi Rice saying it is not proof.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:02 pmI guess you are that stupid.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
Here’s the whiner making a personal attack of his own.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:02 pmOY
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15380
“Indeed, it may not be long. Although home schoolers comprise just two percent of the school-age population, said Farris, at the outset of this year’s contest 27 out of 248 contestants were home-schooled children — or eleven percent. That figure is up from just under ten percent in 1999.”
BWAHAHAHA
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 pm10.8 percent and that is your proof?
Manshiit said:
” I need to remind you again that home-schooled kids usually win the national spelling bee.”
“usually win the national spelling bee.â€
Do you know what “usually” means?
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:04 pm“Yet you use that same lack of specificty as a rational for Bush doing nothing.â€
You post Richard Clarkes rational, about no specificity as to an attack and why Bush did not raise airport security, then you say that there was Airport security because of a ‘general’ threat, which means un specific.\ threat.
You cant have it both ways Manslagt.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:05 pmThat’s an odd allegation. If it were true, the evangelical population would not be growing so rapidly.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
Sex and Procreation are two different functions to Evangelicals and Fundies. With all the gay sex going on with Religious types, sounds like a Freudian nightmare. In the old days, Fundies would screw around all week, and then go to confession on Saturdays. Besides, what statistics do you have to prove your claim of growing Fundie population?
One other question…..Why did/do Fundies and Religious types torture Witches, Woman, Pagans, and other Non-Linear Lifestyles?
Look, here’s the lowdown. Progressives can tolerate Fundies as long as they do not initiate into law their beliefs. Progressives should in turn be the same toward Fundies. Live and Let Live.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:07 pmAnd they knew he was going to hijack a plane and fly it into the WTC or Pentagon?
Comment by Manslagt
The answer is yes. Questioning Moussaoui about his reasons for wanting to fly 747s, examining his laptop and uncovering his ties to Al Qaeda could have led to the determination that Al Qaeda’s specific type of attack could have involved hijacking planes. Also, as mentioned in my previous post, there were known plans of Al Qaeda to hijack planes and crash them, inclusing crashing into Langley. At least, the Bush Administration could have alerted the airlines and even placed armed personnel on the aircraft. Even one trained security guard with a baseball bat could have stopped 3 hijackers with box cutters.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:07 pm“Sounds as if the presidential initiates the writing of a PDB.”
NO it sounds like to me, they take notes on the STUPIDITY of his “questions” and go back to their offices to gaffaw and slap their knees.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:08 pmMctraitorlovin
Do you have any information that contradicts Rice’s statement? It seems that the process. Here’s how Clarke described it:
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
Her record of lying and obfuscation. Her reluctance to even say the title of the PDB. The shrugging of her shoulders when she spoke the title of the PDB. She’s a liar.
You support that. You are a disgusting fool.
Dismissed.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:08 pmSounds as if the presidential initiates the writing of a PDB.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
So Bush asked about possible attacks from Airplanes into buildings, which Condi says nobody could foresee and the PDB then talks about planes into buildings and since the ariports already had general [unspecific] security because of general terror threats airport security could not be raised becvause the threat was unspecific.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:09 pmAgain? How about you read things the first time?
Comment by Manslagt
From the link:
Scheuer accepts that targets were tortured both before and after 9/11. “I have no doubt about it,” he says. “You’d think I’m an ass if I said nobody was tortured. There was more of a willingness in the White House to turn a blind eye to the legal niceties than within the CIA. The Agency always knew it would be left holding the baby for this one.”
Scheuer says two thing in this article:
1. The Clinton administration renditioned prisoners.
2. That “torture occurred before and after 9/11.”
What the article does NOT explicitly state, is that ” the Clinton administration also tortured renditioned prisoners.”
If you can find it, post it, fool.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:09 pmI would go into Aristotle’s “law of noncontradiction,†but I think you’re confused enough already. -Manslagt
Thats great that you read Aristotle, but its not me who is being contradictive, I am pointing out YOUR contradictions
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:10 pmIts Mctraitorlovin who does the contradictions around here, and don’t you forget it Xisithrus. Hey knows Aristotle, firs hand too.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 pmHow do you know what is or is not in the PDB, it was NOT published.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:13 pmSorry my bad.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:14 pmhttp://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html
Was going with the CNN site above.
The true mark of a squalid mentality: refusal to acknowledge an obvious error.
Exhibit “a:” Manslaght
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:15 pmhttp://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html
Sounds more like hailing the actions of the Clinton administration and how they foiled plans in the 90s and ACTUALLY brought people to justice.
It is actually a very poor report for it to have been written by the CIA, after these supposed pointed questions posed by the TRaitor-in-Chief. What a crock of shit. I do not even believe this IS the PDB. I do not believe ANYTHING this traitorous cabal says anymore. I am doing everything in my power to get them out of power one way or the other. And bring to justice those that have supported and helped to maintaint their fascist grasp on our country.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:18 pmAnd that includes you McTraitorlovin.
C’mon Manny.
You’ve been challenged – by me.
Put up, or apologize.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:18 pmThe true mark of a squalid mentality: refusal to acknowledge an obvious error.
Exhibit “a:†Manslaght
Comment by barfly — January 3, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
And defending the indefensible…
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:18 pmThere is no evidence of that. And there’s nothing in the August 6 PDB about planes being flown into buildings.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
You cant prove that.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:19 pmAnd defending the indefensible…
Comment by Zooey
True, dat.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:19 pmThere’s a reaon why she was reluctant. Until she mentioned the title it was classified.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
It was not classified when she was testifying that way, you f_cking moron. It was declassified, and she STILL didn’t want to say it, because she knew it was a f_ck up.
You support that. Live with it, leftist Nazi believer fool.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:20 pmXisithrus There is no contradiction on my part. Do you even know what a contradiction is?
Comment by Manslagt
I have already shown your contradictions.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 pmPlanes flying into buildings IS part of the war plans planned for Sept 11, 2001. So, WTF are you talking about. There is a FEMA report with a target and plane flying into the WTC on its cover, printed in 2000 or early 2001, as a training manual for FEMA.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm“You failed to read the article in its entirety. The error was yours.”
Comment by Manslagt —
Can’t post a refutation, can you, poor child?
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 pmpre 911 an organization to which the most important players in this administration are signatories advocated attacking the middle east inorder to control world oil supplies and thereby the developing world … a WAR CRIME plain and simple . Manslaughter imagine a murderer on trial whose only defense is other people have done it .
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:23 pmThe worlds shortest trial.
Xisithrus: “You cant prove that.â€
Shows us where is says anything aboutn planes being flown into buildings. Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 11:22
Show me where it does not
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:26 pmAlberto gonzales worried about his client being vulnerable to the charge of war crimes . Gee wonder why ?
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:28 pmShows us where is says anything aboutn planes being flown into buildings.
Comment by Manslagt — January 3, 2008 @ 11:22 pm
This fool defends Bush ignoring the PDB because it didn’t say definitively that airplanes would hit buildings. How base and morally repugnant can you get?
Do nothing — because the deed is not there specifically in black and white.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:28 pmSomeone should complain to their mom that they aren’t being given an adequate understanding of how to mentally digest articles they’ve read.
Now, I ain’t naming names – cough-cough-manslaught-cough… – but someone around here is definitely getting shortchanged…
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:28 pmSeriously, guys.
Flag this moron, and get rid of him. He’s worse than stupid.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 pmI get it manslagt!!! You say it doesn’t mention planes when referring to hijackings…were they going to hijack chariots? Genius talking point.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:31 pmSeriously, guys.
Flag this moron, and get rid of him. He’s worse than stupid.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:33 pmsuper ditto !
Hi JP, I hope Slag is off getting proof about Nazis being leftists. I really need to learn more about that. :-D
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:33 pmScheuer spoke of the White House in the past tense, not the present tense. It is also clear that he was referring to the Clinton White House leaving the CIA hold the “baby.â€
I’m asserting that there is no place in the article that explicitly states that torture occurred during the Clinton administration.
Feel free to post anything that you think refutes this.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:35 pmI think he’s realized the article he linked to doesn’t say what he thought it did.
Poor thing.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 pm“Hi JP, I hope Slag is off getting proof about Nazis being leftists. I really need to learn more about that. :-D”
He claimed Nazis were left-wing? Sorry, I didn’t read all the comments. Well…geez, they called themselves socialists, right? So they must be left-wing…despite the fact that they annihilated anything and anyone who was one bit left-wing. That explains their extreme hatred of Russia and communism. This guy is not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 pmI think, Manslagt did a pretty good job here, taking out some moonbat and stupid words, he really behaved.
Now, his POV about the situation lacks sense and logic, but my guess is that he is an informed troll who is payed. No informed troll exists because unless they have economical motivation, they don’t want to know anything about culture.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 pm“Now, his POV about the situation lacks sense and logic, but my guess is that he is an informed troll who is payed. No informed troll exists because unless they have economical motivation, they don’t want to know anything about culture.”
I would say informed would be an overstatement, Juan. If you said informed by Rush…well, that is probably true.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:43 pmJP & Bart,
Slag didn’t make the claim about the Nazis on this thread — it was another thread a couple nights ago. Total fool.
He gets his shit from Free Republic.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:44 pm“No informed troll exists because unless they have economical motivation, they don’t want to know anything about culture.”
Comment by Juan C.
That’s not true! They’ve just got their own culture.
You’ve never heard of the Grand Old Opry?
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:45 pmClarke said there was no specificity, the 9/11 Commission said the same thing.
Comment by Manslagt
The issue is not what Richard Clarke was aware of or what the Bush Administration was aware of. It’s what they COULD and SHOULD have been aware of. They should have been aware of the fact that a known terrorist was in the United States, that he was studying how to fly a 747 (only taking off, not landing), that French intelligence had warned the FBI about him and his terrorist ties, that when FBI agents tried to act upon that knowledge, they were met with silence and inaction. But no one in the Bush Administration was aware of these facts because they did not foster an environment in which they could have been aware. The FBI agents were unable to examine Moussaoui’s lap top or obtain a search warrant or even question his ties to Al Qaeda and his reason for wanting to learn how to take off in a 747 until it was too late. A competent President, given the high degree of urgent warnings in the weeks before 911 he had received would have streamlined his intelligence services with the demand that all specific warnings such as Mr. Moussaoui’s presence and activities be channeled immediately to a central authority and given high priority. Bush did streamline his intelligence services through a central authority, but he only did that AFTER 9/11. It is an acknowledgement on his part of his failure. Why did he improve the operation of intelligence services AFTER 9/11? Why did they need improvement, if Bush was doing his job? Because they weren’t working before 9/11. And Bush, given the many warnings he received didn’t seek to improve the way the intelligence community responded to specific threats, such as the purpose of Moussaoui in the United States. The fact that Bush only streamlined his intelligence services to respond to specific threats AFTER the fact is an admission of his failure of leadership and organization. He was, after all, a hands-off governor of a medium-sized state and more of a political animal than a statesman or a true and competent executive and organizer.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 pmTorture is indefensible whatever the rhetorical arguments . Since 911 and the patriot act all the laws in our country have been altered and by law makers who never even read the document .The Patriot act cannot be read without the entire criminal code of the united states at hand , it substitutes key words and phrases which are to be read into each and every law on our books .
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:47 pmIt reads something like …….Law # 83375b , section 4 paragraph 5 substitute is for of ….. ect . It reaches into every law in our land and was obviosly written long before 911.
IT IS TREASONOUS !
Another thing to Manslagt:
Madeleine Albright made it clear on tape that she thought that thousands of Iraqi children.
Bill Clinton sent to their deaths to thousands of people around the globe, from Sudan to Kosovo. He is as a murderer as Bush. So the Clinton did it too, is not cutting it.
Although it has to be said, that in terms of domestic policies, Clinton did a far far far better job than Bush, including the fact that the worst attack suffered in US soil was made under Bush. There is no escape from that one, no excuse whatsoever, unless you are a payed troll like I said, and your morals and common sense were left behind when you received the check.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:49 pmComment by Starve-A-Bush_Feed-A-Beaver — January 3, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
But nobody said they would ram the airplanes into buildings, so according to Slag, it’s right that they did nothing.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:51 pmDuh, sorry:
Madeleine Albright made it clear on tape what she thought about thousands of Iraqi children dead.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:52 pmBut nobody said they would ram the airplanes into buildings, so according to Slag, it’s right that they did nothing.
Comment by Zooey
You know what, Zoo? Maybe the specific info Manslagt was talking about was this one:
ALERT. ALERT. 9/11/2001 Al-Qaeda members will kidnap planes and crash them on WTC, Pentagon and the Capitol. ALERT. ALERT.
But Bush would say after 9/11:
Well, they told me they have new info about terrorists attacks, but they didn’t tell me what the report was about. Hehehehe.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:56 pmjust a little coincidence that the attack on the world trade center delivered that national catastrophy the PNAC said was needed to galvanize the AMerican public behind an illegal and criminal war for control of resources. Just another little coincidence that the patriot act was already written when we needed it .
January 4th, 2008 at 12:01 amStrange is all like the only senator to speak truth to power after 911 and one of two who actually read the patriot act dying in an accident within days .
Curiouser and curiouser … I’m with Alice on this one.
So a year from now, when the Bush administration packs up its bags and heads out the door, and bin Laden and most of al Qaeda’s upper management is still operational, will Bush still be considered to have been more successful at fighting terrorism?
Oh sure, if the US , hopefully, makes it to January of 2009 without another terrorist attack on our soil the Bush supporters will say that he has kept us from having another 9/11. But that still leaves those animals that committed the worst attack on US soil since the War of 1812 pretty much free from justice.
Considering that Clinton is, rightly so or not, criticized for not getting bin Laden during his administration, shouldn’t Bush be held to that same standard when he leaves office?
January 4th, 2008 at 12:27 amThis is a nightmare for Chris Matthews as he sees history being made with a black man winning with White votes and a female getting votes. Chris loves Grampa Fred’s smell and lovefest with cross dresser Rudy. Now Chris has to push McCain to the front of the line as if we didn’t see the election. Now Chris will have to bring out his race card. Where is Karl Rove when you need him to fix the voting machines and deny minorities votes.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:31 amWell, they told me they have new info about terrorists attacks, but they didn’t tell me what the report was about. Hehehehe.
Comment by Juan C. — January 3, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
Perfect. :-D
January 4th, 2008 at 12:32 amClinton was successful in preventing a major terrorist attack inside the USA. Bush wan’t. Case closed. manslag has nothing.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:46 amJust waterboard the SOB with the blood of the people he’s killed.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:01 am“The FBI agents were unable to examine Moussaoui’s lap top or obtain a search warrant or even question his ties to Al Qaeda and his reason for wanting to learn how to take off in a 747 until it was too late.”
Comment by Starve-A-Bush_Feed-A-Beaver — January 3, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
Sorry I’m so late to the party! I’d like to point out that Herr Bush’s illegal domestic surveilance program with the telecoms was in full operation around February 2001. Manslagt would like to know what any of us Progressives would have done with the info in Bush’s daily PDBs. Hmm, maybe tracking Moussaoui’s e-mails/telephone conversations instead of spending all of your time data mining blackmail dirt against your political rivals, taking month long vacations, drawing up war plans for an unjustified attack on Iraq and hunkering down with your treasonous VP and his “lawyers” devising every way possible to shred the Constitution and gain as much unchecked power as you can. THESE were the activities occupying the Deciderer during the first 9 months of his presidency.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:38 amBack to the actual TOPIC of this thread which Manslagt so industriously managed to derail, it seems highly credible that Addington’s fingerprints are all over the destruction of the torture tapes. Cheney and his henchman Addington are clearly the brains and muscle behind George the Clueless. They are outspoken in their intentions of NOT leaving a papertrail that could lead back to their crimes. Are we Americans to believe that these two traitors to our Country would not destroy evidence that could be traced back to them and their complicity in these crimes once they were made aware that these tapes existed? Not making these tapes available to the 9/11 Commision when they were well aware as back as 2004 is in itself criminal obstruction. Cheney and Addington both deserve long prison sentences for this and their many criminal interpretations of the laws of our Country. It was a dark day for our Nation the day these two thieves set foot in our White House. Hopefully one day, justice will be served to these two.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:57 amWhich one do you think? He’s talking about 9/11.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:58 amSorry, my post is no longer relevant. I underestimated how active this thread was when I responded to post # 180-something.
Anyway, here’s hoping that the truth comes out of this investigation, whereever it may lead.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:00 amManslagt,
As has been pointed out before, the first World Trade Center bombing occured some 35 days after Clinton took office. The first President Bush did not make any attempt to forewarn his successor, nor was any infrastructure in place specifically to combat terrorism on the scale that Al-Qaida represented. On 9/11, Bush Jr. had ample time to assess and ignore the threat of terrorism. In fact, the topic of the speech that then National Security Advisor Condi Rice was scheduled to give on 9/11 dealt with a space based missile defense program. No doubt an attempt to steer Defense spending to friends and contributors.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:13 amSorry for the O/T but Manslagt, your strawman arguements are so full of shit! You act as if the ONLY thing Bush had to go on was this August 6 PDB and that is all you will allow us to base our actions on if we were in his shoes. The 9/11 Commision states many various pieces of intel that should have raised more than a few red flags with this incompetent boob. His ILLEGAL data mining operations should have been ALL he needed if he was at all concerned about the intel available on Bin Laden or Moussoui. You also persist on pointing out that although a president is on vacation it doesn’t stop him from carrying out his responsibilities. Can you cite ONE instance where george did anything on his recordbreaking number of vacations (during a war on terror mind you) other than clearing brush and running away from horses? Maybe if your Dear Leader carried out HIS responsibilities while he was ACTUALLY in the White House, the attacks on 9/11 would never have happened. Manslagt also loves quoting Richard Clarke as proof of his lame assertions. Get this straight Manslagt, Richard Clarke’s book is nothing short of an exercise in history revisionism coupled with a heaping pile of CYA. “Slam dunk”, anyone? I notice manslagt has done everything he can to steer clear of the actual topic: Cheney and Addington’s involvement in the destruction of evidence that could have proved their criminal complicity in illegal torture.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:16 amOur Congress should have taken this quack on a long time ago. The congress does not have the guts or the political will to do the bidding of a majority of the people. It is willing to allow this criminal and Bush and Gonzales as well as others believe they are immune. This is the worst kind of malfeasance on the part of our national legislature I could ever imagine. The President is a loose cannon, his Vice President is all over the map doing just what the hell he wants to, this government has lied to its own people about the reason for the war, spied on its people by killing the fourth amendment, captures people, spirits them away for torture and has created an Auschwitz in Cuba where Habeus Corpus has been destroyed. Cheney should be indicted and jailed and the rest of them with him. All it would take is a little work by a special prosecutor, the crimes are right there for the picking. What’s wrong with a little work for a change Congress!
January 6th, 2008 at 9:36 pm