WWICM...

Thanks for responding. The message wasn't in my inbox, but in the SPAM folder. You should have a response.

Later

quote:

Originally posted by NWI:
The only problem I have is that I know there are 60-70 million people going to the polls this November, and the vast majority of them are going to go in with the firm belief that it's the other guy that's the problem and their guy is the solution. The thing is...what they don't realize is that BOTH are part of the problem and NEITHER is the solution to said problem.

This once-great nation is on the fast track to disaster, and I'm not about to support either party's candidates in their efforts to keep us on that track. I just wish I could convince enough people to see this and make the intelligent choice this November, but I've accepted the fact that this is not going to happen and I'm going to, instead, focus my efforts on praying that SOMETHING is done that will turn things around.

Our nation is being run by a bunch of crooks. How much longer are we going to let the foxes guard the henhouse?

Truth.

As always though, what are WE as a society going to do about it? What are the solutions to the problem? Anyone? I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how to change our current state of affairs. It might be too difficult of a task until a major fracture occurs in our country, and hopefully that doesn't happen in my lifetime. But it very well could......

What ARE we going to do? We're going to go to the polls this November and do the same thing we've done for so many years -- vote for change and get more of the same. As long as people vote Republican OR Democrat (or a little of each), that is what we will get.

"What SHOULD we do?" is the question that needs to be asked. We need to take back our country from the greedy scum now in charge (both inside AND outside the halls of Congress). How we go about doing that, I don't know -- all I do know is I'm not going to be held responsible for those who ARE elected this November because neither the Democrats NOR the Republicans represent me, which is why you'll see me casting a straight independent/third party ballot.

As promised, another historical, head-scratching, very sad fact:

On April 8, 2004, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission that there was "nothing that suggested there was going to be a threat to the United States" in the Presidential Daily Briefing Document on August 6, 2001. However, Rice proceeded to admit that the title of the document was "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

Nice.

acute vs. chronic... not a contradiction!

In 2001, Richard Clarke, the government's senior counterterrorism expert when Bush took office, urged the administration to get more aggressive with al Quaeda, which he viewed as the primary threat to American security. Bush's national security advisor Condoleeza Rice responded by downgrading his status and refusing to let him speak directly to the president or secretary of defense. Clarke resigned in 2003.

When General Eric Shinseki, four-star army chief of staff, told the president he should double the number of troops in Iraq, Rumsfeld appointed the general's successor an unprecedented 14 months before the end of Shinseki's term. Equally unprecedented, at Shinseki's resignation ceremony, customarily attended by the secretary of defense, no senior administration official was present.

I'm not sure what the point of your post is SlvrHwk. The statements you made are not entirely true. Matter of fact, one is blatantly false. With respect, I must ask, do you support revisionist history or just lose objectivity because of your anti-Bush sentiment?

First, Rumsfeld and Shenseki obviously had their disagreements, and as far as the troop levels that Shenseki advocated for post-war(containment and rebuilding efforts) proved to be right on the money. Rumsfeld was absolutely wrong on that part and is accountable for that error in judgment. But for you to say that "when" Shenseki testified about higher troop levels, Rumsfeld appointed his successor (as payback) is fallacious. First of all, Shenseki testified for higher troop levels in Feb. 2003, the 'leak' of Shenseki's successor occurred in April, 2002, which was never officially attributed to Rumsfeld, not to mention the 'leak' mentioned the wrong name. Secondly, you said that Shinseki had a "resignation" ceremony in which Rumsfeld never attended. It was actually a retirement ceremony because he retired as scheduled after his term as Chief of the Army ended. While, I agree that Rumsfeld should have attended the ceremony, did Shenseki really want him to be there? Rumsfeld claims he wasn't invited.

As far as Clarke is concerned, instead of wasting time trying to criticize the Bush administration, you should ask the more pertinent question... why was Clarke urging the new administration to get more aggressive with al-Qaeda in the first place?

Thanks, Vader. Allow me to re-read from the source. To be fair, I didn't say it was payback in a literal sense. I also did not state that Shenseki testified.

Yes, in fairness, I agree you didn't say it was payback in a literal sense. However, the way you phrased the sentence definitely connotes the idea.

Yes, to some it does. Some would construe this event in such a manner. And my bad, retirement, not resignation.