It took 6 weeks to formulate a plan and engage in the invasion of Afgahnistan - not 6 months. Defending a country is even easier especially when the plan was already in place!. No intel to gather, no shifting of resources half-way around the world, no plan to formulate...

From what I heard from Richard Ben-Veniste during the testimony of George Tenet this week, the PDB was written by a woman of whom he did not name.
As I recall (I may be wrong) I don't think Clarke saw it at the time.
Mark

[ 04-17-2004, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

I gave My summation of President Clinton as a leader on another thread, I'm to lazy to find it ;) I believe I rated him as about 65% leader. As President, Bill Clinton did some good things Wefare reform, NAFTA, shutting down the Gov't over the budget, Slapping Sodamn Insane when he was implicated in the 1992-93 plot to kill George H. Bush in Kuwait. I believe he was right on the Ellan Gonzales(sp?) issue, the boy should have gone back to his father no matter where his father lived or what political form the country his father had. I wasn't hot on His methods in Kosovo, I think the European Countries should have taken a larger role. National Healthcare was and is a joke, it must be paid for some way, and that means more taxes, the more money you take out of the economy for taxes is less money the people earning the money have to spend. The tax increases of 1993 prolonged the recovery(check the figures) it was not until after the 1994 revolt of angry white men that elected a Rep. House of Representatives that started holding down spending that the deficit started to shrink and the economy really started to move. He screwed the pooch in Waco. He was correct in hitting Iraq in 1998 for WoMD's and the problems SH was giving the inspectors. He failed in following up the attacks in Saudi Arabia, Africa, and Yemmen. He failed to give what was needed in Mogadeshu(sp?) and with the Israeli/Palestian peace( not that anybody could do a damn thing there). He failed to deliver the promised middleclass tax cut, saying "I never worked harder on anything but couldn't come up with one." I don't give a rat's rear end about him feeling my pain, I wanted him to not put obsticals in my way of sloving my own problems. He cut a deal with Indoniasia(sp?) to harvest their coal, the seconded largest coal deposits in the world, yet closed off most of our coal deposits out west, the LARGEST coal deposits in the world, with an executive order making us more dependant on foriegn sources for energy.

On a personal note he was a lying SOB, based on a couple of 1992 New Hampshire primary interviews he gave, in which he was asked about what he had to say when people accused him of AVOIDING going to Veitnam His reply was he did nothing to avoid Veitnam. The very next day the same reporter asked him how he could say that when they had the letter he wrote to his ROTC instructor trying to get out of ROTC and his loathing of the military. ROTC is Voluntary a person is not made to join ROTC one must Volunteer for it. When confronted by this Mr. Clinton said, "he said he did nothing to avoid the draft, not service in Veitnam", which was not what he had said the day before, and then went on the say anybody that said otherwise was lying. He said one thing, then said he didn't say it, and anybody that said he did was lying. That told me all I needed to know about the man right there. And he has piss poor taste in women, with the execption of Jennifer Flowers, the rest of them were last call ladies.

Now for your summation on President Bush.

From what I heard from Richard Ben-Veniste during the testimony of George Tenet this week, the PDB was written by a woman of whom he did not name.
As I recall (I may be wrong) I don't think Clarke saw it at the time.
Mark </font>[/QUOTE]You maybe correct, but a couple of weeks ago this was the memo that Mr Clarke supposibly warned the Bush WhiteHouse about Al Quada attacks or so it was reported. Or RB-V may have been refering to the memo writen by the 9/11 commision committee member Jammie Garrara(sp?) when she was an AAG.

First of all John, I asked the question because I feel that I and others have taken hits for criticism of Bush and I wanted to know if there was a balance in regards to your feelings about Clinton. I did suspect you had no great love for the him.

I do believe that you are a better man than I am, because I do not find myself as charitable toward the current POTUS as you are toward Bill.

I think my summation of Mr. Bush has been predetermined by others due to my long list of past critcisms on various incidents over GWB's term.

In his last press conference he had candidly stated that he could not come with any examples of his past mistakes. I by contrast can't come up with anything that wasn't a mistake. So in saying this I am sure members here will be able to fill me in about my ignorance.

That said I will keep it general, because it is merely opinion and not dated facts.

1)I don't like his take on the environment (air and water quality standards, snow mobiles in parks etc).
2)I don't like his Faith Based plans.
3)I don't like the tax cuts. I personally don't want them and would rather balance the budget.
4)I do not want drilling in the ANWAR.
5)I don't like how he has handled Iraq.
6)I don't like the non-funding of Police, Firemen, and No Child Left Behind.
7)I don't like his proposal top amend the Constitution to stop Gay Marriage.
8)I don't like how he can't get along with many other World Leaders.
9)I don't like his Patriot Act.
10) I don't like that he feels that anyone who disagrees with him is unpatriotic if they are Americans or are our enemies if they are from somewhere else.

I could go on, but all of this is old news. Everyone here knows what I think and they either really like or really dislike me because of it.

What really irks me is that whenever I or someone else says anything less than satisfactory about Bush, or by extension, what the USA does, the individual becomes the target and is attacked or insulted. This really does need to stop, because the people that speak critically about these issues are not attacking members of this forum and it is grossly unfair.

I note the way you feel about Clinton and I would say that I would catch "Holy Hell" if I called Bush a "lying SOB", but I have not yet said that. I do not hold that against you because that's how you feel and it is your right to say so. Please reciprocate the next time I'm less than charitable toward Dubya.

Just because we are on the opposite sides does not mean either of us are wrong or the badguy. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Mark

Here is part of the transcript from that hearing:

The full 9/11 Commission Transcript: George Tenet is here.

Skywalker, I believe you'll find I stated both the professional and personal feelings I had and have for Mr. Clinton, before, during, and after his term in office as President of the U.S.A. As for calling President Bush a "Lying SOB" on the personal front as I did to Mr. Clinton, you know good and well I would have no problem with that. I've been screaming from the Mountain tops for a long time here on the board, you don't have to like anybody. You can dislike them for what ever reason your heart desires, I don't care. Just don't try to sell me your dislike without following through with logical reasons.

Just a side note do you know who wrote the education budget for the last fiscal year? He is a Senator from the State to your South/South East, his brother was once the President of the U.S.A. You might want to blame him on not funding properly the "No child left behind". Which by the way is one of the reasons I have for complaining about President Bush, his handling of the budget, and on that issue I've said President Bush has no balls, But in terms that don't violate the board rules. ;)

It took 6 weeks to formulate a plan and engage in the invasion of Afgahnistan - not 6 months. Defending a country is even easier especially when the plan was already in place!. No intel to gather, no shifting of resources half-way around the world, no plan to formulate... </font>[/QUOTE]That's not what I asked Skunk! BUT you are wrong! the plan used in the attack on Afgahnistan WAS the plan that is in question that took the Bush White House 6 months or more to formulate. THAT PLAN WAS the basis, the Blueprint, the model, the foundation for the actions taken in Afganhistan. A fact that your post testifies to and I quote your post again: What the "Hale" do you mean no shifting of resourses half way around the world?????? Last Time I checked Afganhistan was halfway arround the world from the U.S.A. unless you are using one of those teleportation devices I was asking about!

Even if they used a new plan, you are trying to compare a plan for a possibility, a "WHAT IF" to a plan for a certainty "THIS IS", anybody that has ever even attempted that understands a "what if" plan will take longer to create by it's very nature.