April is a month of weather extremes. Go back and look at the link I posted a couple of weeks ago, which lists the highs and lows month by month in various regions of the country, state by state.
Grandpa Dan linked to an MSNBC article and excerpted a few paragraphs about the Clinton administration's supposed lack of action after a high-flying drone took pictures of someone who was probably bin Laden in Afghanistan. By the way, that was before the attack on the Cole, if you read carefully. Here's an excerpt from yesterday's article in that same series:
Cressey is speaking out for the first time. He says in the early days of the Bush administration, al-Qaida simply was not a top priority, "There was not this sense of urgency. The ticking clock, if you will, to get it done sooner rather than later."
Cressey and other witnesses have told the 9/11 commission of long gaps between terrorism meetings and greater time and energy devoted to Russia, China, missile defense and Iraq than al-Qaida. [Remember that the incoming administration was told that bin Laden and al-Qaida would be Job One]
For example: One document shows a key high-level National Security Council meeting on Iraq on Feb. 1, 2001. Yet, there was no comparable meeting on al-Qaida until September.
Is Cressey saying that some senior members of the Bush administration viewed Saddam Hussein as a greater threat to the United States than Osama bin Laden? "Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. It was inconceivable to them that al-Qaida could be this talented, this capable without Iraq, in this case, providing them real support."
That spring, President Bush learned bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the USS Cole, which killed 17 sailors. Why was there no retaliation?
"You would think after an attack that almost sank a U.S. destroyer there would have been [a mandate] for some type of action. Yet we never saw that from the Pentagon," Cressey answered.
There is plenty of woulda/coulda/shoulda to go around. I'm really curious why the 9/11 commission hasn't said a word about the Hart-Rudman commission report or interviewed any members of that commission; that's the most glaring oversight of all.
Really. jethro and jethro alone decides what is truth and what is not, I think you do a find job in that area.which often bears no relation to what is put before his face, plain as day. I do not cotton to lies apparently you do.
Grandpa Dan linked to an MSNBC article and excerpted a few paragraphs
You see Crabgrass? I told you back in February that I get chastized for not posting whole articles. Both Fold and Pieter are now making claims that I am trying to hide something by not posting the entire article. Damned if you do-damned if you don't.
about the Clinton administration's supposed lack of action after a high-flying drone took pictures of someone who was probably bin Laden in Afghanistan.
No "supposed" about it. It was verified that it couldn't have been anyone else, but nothing was done.
By the way, that was before the attack on the Cole, if you read carefully.
But after many other attacks on U.S. interests as well as a Declaration of Jihad against us.
As for the rest of the post, why did you stop after "a few paragraphs"? You made an effort to point out that I only posted part of an article, so why not finish with the rest of the story?
You see Crabgrass? I told you back in February that I get chastized for not posting whole articles. link Both Fold and Pieter are now making claims that I am trying to hide something by not posting the entire article. Damned if you do-damned if you don't.
as long as you link it, there's no hiding going on. It frees the other to post other excerpts or the entire thigh if they feel that you took something out of context.
I don't think he was damning you for it though...he only said what you did. He didn't damn it, only state it so it would be understood that he was using different points from that same article to refute your point. He didn't actually accuse you fo doing anything wrong, only pointing out what you did and what he was doing.
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney answered every question on Thursday from the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, a meeting that both the White House and the 9/11 commission had billed as historic.
The Oval Office session began at 9:30 a.m. and ended at 12:40 p.m., but two Democrat commission members -- Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman, and Bob Kerrey -- walked out before it was over!
The stunning walk out -- after Democrats had complained that Bush was not alloting enough time for questions -- has ignited talk throughout official Washington.
In a written statement, Kerrey said he left an hour early to attend a previously scheduled meeting with Senator Pete Domenici on Capitol Hill.
Kerrey: "My office has received several calls asking why I left the White House prior to the conclusion of the session with the President and the Vice President. The reason is I had a previously scheduled meeting with Senator Pete Domenici on Capitol Hill."
Kerrey explained to reporters: "Yeah, it's a little awkward to leave early. But the president certainly understood what we were doing."
Hamilton left Bush/Cheney 70 minutes early to meet with the Canadian Prime Minister.
Sorry Mr. President. I know it's the 9-11 commision and all and yea, this is really important I guess, but I really need to go meet with Pete Dominici, yea I know he works down the hall from me and I can meet next week but hey a date is a date. Ooh me too Mr. President, I have this thingy with some Canadien Minister guy, he's got some Labatt Blue on Ice, later dude.
Perception is everything, especially to those who haven't made up their minds already. Seems Bush did very well.
Panel: 'Forthcoming, candid' testimony The commission, for its part, thanked the president and vice president in a statement, adding that they were "forthcoming and candid" in their testimony. "The information they provided will be of great assistance to the commission as it completes its final report."
Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the commission, said he was satisfied the panel had enough time to ask questions and that nothing was lost from having a joint meeting. “It was a very cordial meeting,” he said afterward. “Everyone got to ask his or her questions of the president and vice president. I’m not going to characterize the substance.”
Republican Jim Thompson said the questions included everything “across the board” that had been in public hearings. “The president was asked the vast majority of the questions and he answered them. There was no question the president or vice president did not answer.”
Bush appeared before reporters shortly after the joint testimony in the Oval Office to say the session was "wide-ranging, important ... it was just a good discussion."
While he declined to say what the questions focused on, Bush said “I was never advised by my counsel not to answer anything. I answered every question they asked.” Commissioners "had a lot of good questions," he added. "I enjoyed it."
The president said he felt the testimony “helped them understand how I think and how I run the White House.”
Asked about critics who claim he and the vice president wanted to testify together in order to present the same story, the president responded: “Look, if we had something to hide we wouldn't have met with them in the first place.”
“It was important for them to see our body language, how we work together,” he added.
Ashcroft, Justice rebuked In opening remarks before commissioners began their inquiry, Bush told commission members he was disappointed with the Justice Department and its treatment of Jamie Gorelick, a commission member and a former Justice Department official.
NBC's David Gregory reported that Bush specifically criticized Attorney General John Ashcroft in connection with Gorelick's treatment. The president told commissioners he did not approve of the “fingerpointing.”
Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the commission, said he was satisfied the panel had enough time to ask questions and that nothing was lost from having a joint meeting.
Never was really. I think Bush quieted some (not all) critics today. From all accounts he was gracious and forthcoming, answered questions without counsel and answered all that was asked.
"Support for the war in Iraq has eroded substantially over the past several months, and Americans are increasingly critical of the way President Bush is handling the conflict, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
" After initially expressing robust backing for the war, the public is now evenly divided over whether the United States military should stay for as long as it takes to stabilize Iraq or pull out as soon as possible, the poll showed.
" Asked whether the United States had done the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, 47 percent of respondents said it had, down from 58 percent a month earlier and 63 percent in December, just after American forces captured Saddam Hussein. Forty-six percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq, up from 37 percent last month and 31 percent in December."
"Support for the war in Iraq has eroded substantially over the past several months, and Americans are increasingly critical of the way President Bush is handling the conflict, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
Is this surprising since almost every report from Iraq is negative?
I was not dissing you for posting a few paragraphs, I was posting a few from the next day's article, which had a different focus.
As far as what Clinton should have done when OBL was spotted, it was very close to the end of his term; he'd been slammed once already for missing OBL with cruise missiles, if only by a couple of hours, and the alternative would have been to put boots on the ground, which is not something you want to leave your successor with. Remember that when he came into office, his first crisis was Waco, which was a bequest from Bush I. In hindsight, there's lots of coulda/woulda/shoulda to go around
Quote from Arrogant Fellow: "Remember that when he came into office, his first crisis was Waco, which was a bequest from Bush I."
Federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) tried to execute a warrant for Koresh on February 28, 1993, part of an investigation into allegations of illegal weapons and child abuse. A shoot-out ensued that left ten dead: four BATF agents and six Branch Davidians. Koresh and his followers holed up in their compound and a confused state of negotiations went on for 51 days, ending on April 19, 1993 when the compound burned to the ground, killing Koresh and 74 followers, including 21 children
The warrant service five weeks into Clinton's first term was the culmination of a BATF investigation that had been going on since May of 1992, when a package addressed to the Branch Davidian compound broke open in transit, revealing a number of empty hand-grenade casings. The operation was not put together in a month by the Clinton administration.
By early December, the BATF was planning the raid on a seventy-seven acre property outside Waco, the Mount Carmel Center, which the Branch Davidians called their communal home. Source: U.S. Dept. of Treasury, Report of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Investigation of Vernon Wayne Howell also known as David Koresh 32, 37 (Sept. 1993) [hereinafter Treasury Report].
The warrant service five weeks into Clinton's first term was the culmination of a BATF investigation that had been going on since May of 1992, when a package addressed to the Branch Davidian compound broke open in transit, revealing a number of empty hand-grenade casings. The operation was not put together in a month by the Clinton administration.
When did they try to serve the warrant, smart guy? It was under Clinton's watch. The entire fiasco was under his watch. But instead you imply the seige started under Bush's administration which is untrue. Just another exammple oy your dishonesty.
By early December, the BATF was planning the raid on a seventy-seven acre property outside Waco, the Mount Carmel Center, which the Branch Davidians called their communal home. Source: U.S. Dept. of Treasury, Report of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Investigation of Vernon Wayne Howell also known as David Koresh 32, 37 (Sept. 1993) Another typical left wing response. The Clinton administration was entirely responsible for what happened.
I think David Koresh is responsible for what happened.
No, it was the mismanagement of the incident. The government should have went immediately after attempting to serve the warrant. The 51 day interval just gave the people inside time to make plans.
using that logic, Bush is entirely responsible for not getting Osama after the the drones spotted him.
Since I don't recall when he was spotted I can't specifically answer that question. But Osama wasn't surrounded as the Davidians were. But the facts are that the decision to serve the warrant was made in February. That happens all the time no big deal. After the shootings the Clinton Administration dicked around for 50 some days before they took action. It was the same attitude they took the entire 8 years.
With Fold, it's always sarcasm, pete.
Yeah and there's still snow on the ground here. It equals out. No warming. Which the left doesn't seem to understand.
Yeah and there's still snow on the ground here.
Speaking of which...
I saw on the news this AM that it was 9 degrees up North MN somewhere, and 80+ in Western MN.
Talk about extremes.
that's correct
April is a month of weather extremes. Go back and look at the link I posted a couple of weeks ago, which lists the highs and lows month by month in various regions of the country, state by state.
Grandpa Dan linked to an MSNBC article and excerpted a few paragraphs about the Clinton administration's supposed lack of action after a high-flying drone took pictures of someone who was probably bin Laden in Afghanistan. By the way, that was before the attack on the Cole, if you read carefully. Here's an excerpt from yesterday's article in that same series:
link
There is plenty of woulda/coulda/shoulda to go around. I'm really curious why the 9/11 commission hasn't said a word about the Hart-Rudman commission report or interviewed any members of that commission; that's the most glaring oversight of all.
Really. jethro and jethro alone decides what is truth and what is not, I think you do a find job in that area.which often bears no relation to what is put before his face, plain as day. I do not cotton to lies apparently you do.
Grandpa Dan linked to an MSNBC article and excerpted a few paragraphs
You see Crabgrass? I told you back in February that I get chastized for not posting whole articles. Both Fold and Pieter are now making claims that I am trying to hide something by not posting the entire article. Damned if you do-damned if you don't.
about the Clinton administration's supposed lack of action after a high-flying drone took pictures of someone who was probably bin Laden in Afghanistan.
No "supposed" about it. It was verified that it couldn't have been anyone else, but nothing was done.
By the way, that was before the attack on the Cole, if you read carefully.
But after many other attacks on U.S. interests as well as a Declaration of Jihad against us.
As for the rest of the post, why did you stop after "a few paragraphs"? You made an effort to point out that I only posted part of an article, so why not finish with the rest of the story?
as long as you link it, there's no hiding going on. It frees the other to post other excerpts or the entire thigh if they feel that you took something out of context.
I don't think he was damning you for it though...he only said what you did. He didn't damn it, only state it so it would be understood that he was using different points from that same article to refute your point. He didn't actually accuse you fo doing anything wrong, only pointing out what you did and what he was doing.
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney answered every question on Thursday from the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, a meeting that both the White House and the 9/11 commission had billed as historic.
The Oval Office session began at 9:30 a.m. and ended at 12:40 p.m., but two Democrat commission members -- Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman, and Bob Kerrey -- walked out before it was over!
The stunning walk out -- after Democrats had complained that Bush was not alloting enough time for questions -- has ignited talk throughout official Washington.
In a written statement, Kerrey said he left an hour early to attend a previously scheduled meeting with Senator Pete Domenici on Capitol Hill.
Kerrey: "My office has received several calls asking why I left the White House prior to the conclusion of the session with the President and the Vice President. The reason is I had a previously scheduled meeting with Senator Pete Domenici on Capitol Hill."
Kerrey explained to reporters: "Yeah, it's a little awkward to leave early. But the president certainly understood what we were doing."
Hamilton left Bush/Cheney 70 minutes early to meet with the Canadian Prime Minister.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
Sorry Mr. President. I know it's the 9-11 commision and all and yea, this is really important I guess, but I really need to go meet with Pete Dominici, yea I know he works down the hall from me and I can meet next week but hey a date is a date. Ooh me too Mr. President, I have this thingy with some Canadien Minister guy, he's got some Labatt Blue on Ice, later dude.
I still think it was a bad move to have Bush and Cheney testify together.
Perception is everything. And that's not lost on people.
I agree, and yelling for weeks to get them to testify claiming how important it was and then leaving early won't be perceived well.
Luv2Fly 4/29/04 7:05pm
::slams head on desk::
"Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman, and Bob Kerrey -- walked out before it was over! "
The world will little note, nor long remember, the actions of Lee Hamilton and Bob Kerrey.
But the president should not be seen as a sock puppet for the vice president.
Rick 4/29/04 7:20pm
It's not the world that counts. US voters do count however. I for one, was not impressed when I heard about the 2 walk outs. Not impressed at all.
I get the impression that those 2 committee members are not taking this committee as seriously as they should be.
"It's not the world that counts. US voters do count however."
They're in this world, too.
Cute. Lame, but cute.
It didn't look good, Rick.
After bitching and complaining about time, they walk out early.
Zero credibility!
The Democrats have nothing to lose, but everything to gain from the perception of a weak president, Rich.
Rick 4/29/04 7:25pm
And where are you gettng this perception?
"It didn't look good, Rick."
And it's irrelevant. Kerrey isn't holding office. Is Lee Hamilton?
What Dubya needs to do, is get on TV and shake his finger at the American public.
And it's irrelevant. Kerrey isn't holding office. Is Lee Hamilton?
It's relevant.
Zero credibility!
"And where are you gettng this perception? "
My own common sense and political instincts.
My own common sense and political instincts.
You're probably right that Dubya and Cheney going it together instead of separately will be remembered more than those two bailing early.
Panel: 'Forthcoming, candid' testimony
The commission, for its part, thanked the president and vice president in a statement, adding that they were "forthcoming and candid" in their testimony. "The information they provided will be of great assistance to the commission as it completes its final report."
Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the commission, said he was satisfied the panel had enough time to ask questions and that nothing was lost from having a joint meeting. “It was a very cordial meeting,” he said afterward. “Everyone got to ask his or her questions of the president and vice president. I’m not going to characterize the substance.”
Republican Jim Thompson said the questions included everything “across the board” that had been in public hearings. “The president was asked the vast majority of the questions and he answered them. There was no question the president or vice president did not answer.”
Bush appeared before reporters shortly after the joint testimony in the Oval Office to say the session was "wide-ranging, important ... it was just a good discussion."
While he declined to say what the questions focused on, Bush said “I was never advised by my counsel not to answer anything. I answered every question they asked.” Commissioners "had a lot of good questions," he added. "I enjoyed it."
The president said he felt the testimony “helped them understand how I think and how I run the White House.”
Asked about critics who claim he and the vice president wanted to testify together in order to present the same story, the president responded: “Look, if we had something to hide we wouldn't have met with them in the first place.”
“It was important for them to see our body language, how we work together,” he added.
Ashcroft, Justice rebuked
In opening remarks before commissioners began their inquiry, Bush told commission members he was disappointed with the Justice Department and its treatment of Jamie Gorelick, a commission member and a former Justice Department official.
NBC's David Gregory reported that Bush specifically criticized Attorney General John Ashcroft in connection with Gorelick's treatment. The president told commissioners he did not approve of the “fingerpointing.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4862296/
"It's relevant."
Not in the world of politics.
We're talking about the the CinC.
Tell that to Kerrey and Hamilton.
Time for me to get some stuff done before bed.
Catch ya guys later.
"Tell that to Kerrey and Hamilton. "
Are you worried about Kerrey and Hamilton?
You should worry about the two men who draw their paycheck and hold office by the Good Graces of the American people.
You should worry about the two men who draw their paycheck and hold office by the Good Graces of the American people.
Ooooh, I'm marking this one.
Someday I'll be able to use this.
I'm not worried about it.
THX 1138 4/29/04 7:34pm
G'Night JT :)
Luv2Fly 4/29/04 7:35pm
Why should you be? Just cuz Rick thinks so?
Rich T 4/29/04 7:41pm
Never was really. I think Bush quieted some (not all) critics today. From all accounts he was gracious and forthcoming, answered questions without counsel and answered all that was asked.
Luv2Fly 4/29/04 7:44pm
Some Bush critics will never be satisfied IMO.
There partisanship runs too deep to allow it.
Lucky 7 Joe for John Kerry!
Rich T 4/29/04 7:47pm
Agreed.
Luv2Fly 4/29/04 7:50pm
Many Clinton critics were/are the same way.
All things considered Clinton did a decent job overall IMO.
Rob Sez:
Im not worried about it.
By itself, probably no reason to be.
But things are trending differently.
"Support for the war in Iraq has eroded substantially over the past several months, and Americans are increasingly critical of the way President Bush is handling the conflict, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
" After initially expressing robust backing for the war, the public is now evenly divided over whether the United States military should stay for as long as it takes to stabilize Iraq or pull out as soon as possible, the poll showed.
" Asked whether the United States had done the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, 47 percent of respondents said it had, down from 58 percent a month earlier and 63 percent in December, just after American forces captured Saddam Hussein. Forty-six percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq, up from 37 percent last month and 31 percent in December."
I still think it was a bad move to have Bush and Cheney testify together.
Everything Bush does is a bad move to Rick. Why should this be any different?
"Support for the war in Iraq has eroded substantially over the past several months, and Americans are increasingly critical of the way President Bush is handling the conflict, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
Is this surprising since almost every report from Iraq is negative?
Grandpa Dan:
I was not dissing you for posting a few paragraphs, I was posting a few from the next day's article, which had a different focus.
As far as what Clinton should have done when OBL was spotted, it was very close to the end of his term; he'd been slammed once already for missing OBL with cruise missiles, if only by a couple of hours, and the alternative would have been to put boots on the ground, which is not something you want to leave your successor with. Remember that when he came into office, his first crisis was Waco, which was a bequest from Bush I. In hindsight, there's lots of coulda/woulda/shoulda to go around
And let's not forget about those Sudanese police. They offered Clinton OBL's "head on a platter."
Those Sudanese police must be One Crack Unit. Clinton opponents have a lot of faith in them.
They must always get their man.
Quote from Arrogant Fellow: "Remember that when he came into office, his first crisis was Waco, which was a bequest from Bush I."
You sure about what you wrote, smart guy?
The warrant service five weeks into Clinton's first term was the culmination of a BATF investigation that had been going on since May of 1992, when a package addressed to the Branch Davidian compound broke open in transit, revealing a number of empty hand-grenade casings. The operation was not put together in a month by the Clinton administration.
http://www.adrich.com/OPN/Sep99opn/sep99bd.htm
The warrant service five weeks into Clinton's first term was the culmination of a BATF investigation that had been going on since May of 1992, when a package addressed to the Branch Davidian compound broke open in transit, revealing a number of empty hand-grenade casings. The operation was not put together in a month by the Clinton administration.
When did they try to serve the warrant, smart guy? It was under Clinton's watch. The entire fiasco was under his watch. But instead you imply the seige started under Bush's administration which is untrue. Just another exammple oy your dishonesty.
By early December, the BATF was planning the raid on a seventy-seven acre property outside Waco, the Mount Carmel Center, which the Branch Davidians called their communal home. Source: U.S. Dept. of Treasury, Report of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Investigation of Vernon Wayne Howell also known as David Koresh 32, 37 (Sept. 1993) Another typical left wing response. The Clinton administration was entirely responsible for what happened.
I think David Koresh is responsible for what happened.
He wasn't some innocent party that was intruded upon by the big evil gub'ment.
He was firing on BATF agents, trying to serve a warrant. The Davidians were killers.
I think David Koresh is responsible for what happened.
No, it was the mismanagement of the incident. The government should have went immediately after attempting to serve the warrant. The 51 day interval just gave the people inside time to make plans.
using that logic, Bush is entirely responsible for not getting Osama after the the drones spotted him.
using that logic, Bush is entirely responsible for not getting Osama after the the drones spotted him.
Since I don't recall when he was spotted I can't specifically answer that question. But Osama wasn't surrounded as the Davidians were. But the facts are that the decision to serve the warrant was made in February. That happens all the time no big deal. After the shootings the Clinton Administration dicked around for 50 some days before they took action. It was the same attitude they took the entire 8 years.