Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Richard Clarke to be on Maher's show tonight

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: fossten

Questions Michael Scheuer Hopes Bill Maher Will Ask Richard Clarke Tonight

Posted by Noel Sheppard on October 6, 2006 - 09:47.

A few days ago, I alerted Michael Scheuer – the former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit – that former Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke was scheduled to be Bill Maher’s guest tonight on “Real Time”. Of course, this is the same Richard Clarke that refused to participate in last weekend’s “Fox News Sunday” panel discussion that Scheuer was a part of as addressed here. After all, why should Clarke go on a real news program where he can be asked real questions when there are hard-hitting journalists like Bill Maher around?

Anyway, this morning, Mr. Scheuer e-mailed me a list of questions that he would like to see Maher ask Clarke. This is the actual text supplied with his permission:

The available documentation supports what I have said about missed opportunities. I have written below a set of questions that would force Clarke to either tell the truth, lie, or obfuscate, and the latter would amount to a lie. They are all yes or no answers. The very least Maher should ask him follows:

1.) Did you or did you not call the UAE government in March 1999, at the direction of President Clinton, and advise them to get their hunting camp out of the desert southwest of Khandahar, and thereby cost the United States a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?

2.) And did you not write a memorandum of conversation with your UAE interlocutor that confirms you did indeed make that call, and likewise confirms the substance of the previous question?

3.) And is there not overhead imagery that confirms your warning to the UAE caused them to urgently close the hunting camp, an action that cost America an excellent opportunity to kill bin Laden?

4.) Why would you have warned the UAE if you, Mr. Berger, and Mr. Clinton, did not think that the intelligence about the target was so good that President Clinton would have to order a U.S. military attack on bin Laden if the target remained viable?

5.) And, finally, is there a chance that President Clinton authorized you to warn the UAE -- and perhaps save bin Laden's life -- because he was trying to protect the sale of $6-plus billion worth of U.S. fighter planes to the UAE?

I have held and read the memorandum of conversation noted above, Noel. I provided it to the 9/11 Commission, and, while I was working, I filed it in the official CIA records system -- which means it has a registration number in that system.

Noel, I am not eager to play any politics with this issue. But I think it is an important one for the American people to learn the truth about it. Selfishly, I also want to protect -- using truth as an avenging angel -- the CIA men and women who worked for me and who went in harm's way to give President Clinton chances to protect American lives.

Posted by: Calabrio

Bill Maher is an advocate, but not necessarily for the truth or even clarity. At best he's a hard left-leaning libertarian, more accuratey he's a libertarian leaning liberal.

I too hope those questions are asked.

Quote:

Selfishly, I also want to protect -- using truth as an avenging angel -- the CIA men and women who worked for me and who went in harm's way to give President Clinton chances to protect American lives

Posted by: fossten

And he's clearly a Bush-basher. Nothing Bush does can be right in his book. That makes him an idiot.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

And he's clearly a Bush-basher. Nothing Bush does can be right in his book. That makes him an idiot.

Kinda like you feel about Clinton......

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Kinda like you feel about Clinton......

Hey, Clinton doesn't need me to defend him. The entire liberal media and Democrats are corruptly circling the wagons to protect his pathetic legacy.

And now that you've brought up the subject, let's do a comparison:

ABC runs ONE LITTLE SERIES that shows SOME of Clinton's mistakes on 9/11, and Chris Wallace asks him one innocuous question, and your boy squeals like a stuck pig. I've never seen such a lack of class.

What a whiny, complaining baby.

On the other hand, millions of leftists, the media, and the Dems scream at the top of their lungs a bunch of lies about Bush, calling him every name in the book, and he doesn't say a critical word back, nor does he complain.

What a man.

Take your pick, Joey.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

On the other hand, millions of leftists, the media, and the Dems scream at the top of their lungs a bunch of lies about Bush, calling him every name in the book, and he doesn't say a critical word back, nor does he complain.

It's because they are NOT LIES.

AND you are full of

BuSh has never been slow to strike back at critics.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

And he's clearly a Bush-basher. Nothing Bush does can be right in his book. That makes him an idiot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Kinda like you feel about Clinton......

LOL.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

He doesnt say much - nope. Like all the WMD we're fighting a war to stop. Yup - I agree with you. He doesnt have much to say about that does he.

I gotta admit - he's doing a great Job. Iraq - that was great man, especially when he landed on the carrier to announce "Mission Completed". Boy was I impressed at that campaign ad, errr, I mean, Important mission.

I gotta admit - he doesnt complain when after boasting that he'll fire anyone involved with the leaks - and the VPs Chief of Staff turs out to be the leak - with authorization from the VP. GW didnt compain whatsoever about the critics.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

First of all, Joey, you sound like a lemming who listens with one ear to Keith Olbermann. Bush didn't even say, "Mission Completed." Look it up. LOL what a maroon.

Secondly, you just made a bunch of old assertions that we've disproven time and time again. You are wrong wrong wrong. The VP's Chief of Staff? Libby? DEE DEE DEE wrong wrong wrong! It was Richard Armitage - or DON'T YOU READ THE NEWS?

Further, WMDs HAVE BEEN FOUND IN IRAQ. Nice try.

You've just exposed yourself (Clintonesque) as a kook. Nice to meet you.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

I gotta admit - he doesnt complain when after boasting that he'll fire anyone involved with the leaks - and the VPs Chief of Staff turs out to be the leak - with authorization from the VP. GW didnt compain whatsoever about the critics.

Sniffing too many paint fumes I see.

Just to bring you up to speed with who this Richard Armitage guy is:

Richard Armitage...United States Deputy Secretary of State. Making him second in command at the STATE DEPARTMENT.

Last time I checked, the State Department was NOT PART of the Executive Branch of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION. So whom should Bush have fired? Does this mean you are longer mad at Bushy?

I remember you criticizing all the money spend on the Clinton Blue Dress Scandal. How 'bout all the money spent on Plamegate when the prosecuter knew the day after he started the investigation who the leaker was?

Make sure you put the lid back on the paint can when your finished.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

He doesnt say much - nope. Like all the WMD we're fighting a war to stop. Yup - I agree with you. He doesnt have much to say about that does he.

You act as though he was the ONLY person convinced of it. And short of finding a huge stock pile of WMDs, we did find components, plans, and discovered that the system was in place ready to be activated the moments sanctions were lifted.

The story has been politicized and distorted. We may not have found enormous stockpiles of warheads armed with bio-weapons on them. We have found weapon caches and WMD reserves, but liberals seem to think "they were too old to count." We do know that they had the biological agents. We know they had the technical know how to develop bio and chemical agents, and we know he had a nuclear program in place ready to go active. He wasn't sitting, displaying good intention.

Quote:

I gotta admit - he's doing a great Job. Iraq - that was great man, especially when he landed on the carrier to announce "Mission Completed". Boy was I impressed at that campaign ad, errr, I mean, Important mission.

Why concern yourself with troop moral? That was the point. And for the 1000th time, the mission that was accomplished was the regime changing part of the mission, not the nation building. Further more, the only "mission accomplished" refrenced at any point during that visit was the banner as the carrier returned to port from Iraq.

Quote:

I've got to admit, you don't have a damned idea what you're talking about.
The VP Chief of Staff WAS NOT THE SOURCE OF THE LEAK!!!

It was Richard Armitage, a guy who wasn't particularly friendly with the administration. And it wasn't an illegal leak either.

Try again, but next time, post regarding something you know about.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

First of all, Joey, you sound like a lemming who listens with one ear to Keith Olbermann. Bush didn't even say, "Mission Completed." Look it up. LOL what a maroon.

Nuff said....

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Secondly, you just made a bunch of old assertions that we've disproven time and time again. You are wrong wrong wrong. The VP's Chief of Staff? Libby? DEE DEE DEE wrong wrong wrong! It was Richard Armitage - or DON'T YOU READ THE NEWS?

Your right - I havent been following it - I have better things to do. But, Libby was indicted in October 2005 on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to investigators looking into the July 2003 exposure of Plame.

Libby also testified he was "authorized to disclose information about the National Intelligence Estimate to the press by his superiors."

Yeah - he's a stellar guy, nothing from GW on him though. Nobody has been fired on these incidents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Further, WMDs HAVE BEEN FOUND IN IRAQ. Nice try.

The United States is taking steps to determine how it received erroneous intelligence that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was developing and stockpiling nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

It was Richard Armitage, a guy who wasn't particularly friendly with the administration. And it wasn't an illegal leak either.

Then why an investigation? Why didnt GW stand up and say - "We authorized the leak" - Nothing to investigate because the leak was legal --Why would Libby be charged with Obstruction of Justice and Perjury ? Wht was he obstructing and lying about if it was all legal anyway?

What BS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

I remember you criticizing all the money spend on the Clinton Blue Dress Scandal. How 'bout all the money spent on Plamegate when the prosecuter knew the day after he started the investigation who the leaker was?

On this point Bryan, we agree completely. Too much time and money is spent on this kind of political garbage. As far as im concerned, Plamegate is no more an issue then Clintons BJ fiasco. Its a waste of time, money and our credibility as a world power.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Nuff said....

No.... you're still wrong. Fossten's point still stands. The words "Mission accomplished" never were stated by Bush. Do you think Bush stayed up late the night before painting that banner so that Laura and Dick Cheney could get up on the ladder and hang it for him??

Quote:

First of all, whether he's actually convicted of anything is relatively doubtful. Second, regardless what he did, he still wasn't the leak. Unfortunately, he's a guy who was indicted on a procedural crime in the course of a frivolous investigation. Too bad.

Quote:

Libby also testified he was "authorized to disclose information about the National Intelligence Estimate to the press by his superiors."

I'm not recognizing the quote, but for the sake of discussion, I'll take your word. The President has the authority to DECLASSIFY anything he wants.

Quote:

Yeah - he's a stellar guy, nothing from GW on him though. Nobody has been fired on these incidents.

Why should he have been fired? Here's another thing you probably didn't know, he resigned.

Quote:

One more time.... LIBBY WASN'T THE SOURCE OF THE so-called LEAK.
ARMITAGE WAS. He revealed the information in the course of a casual conversation. IT WAS NOT A SECERET, people all over D.C. knew this information.

Quote:

The Clinton fiasco was NOT about a BJ. It was about perjury, obstruction of justice, and a conspiracy to obstruct justify by the President of the United States in a civil case.

"Plamegate" was an investigation of an event that wasn't illegal, where the source of the leak was already known, but was continued anyway for political reasons.

Entirely different.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Absolutely.

Posted by: Marcus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Actually that's not far from what happened, although it's not clear who did the painting and who hung it up. From an October 29th, 2003 press conference:

Quote:

Q He also said that his advance team hadn't had any part in it. And you're now -- you're now saying that you actually did create the banner.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's not what he said. That is not what he said. Look back at what he said. We said all along, and we said previously that it was the idea -- that the idea of the banner -- for the banner was suggested by those on board on ship. And they asked --

Q So who ordered --

MR. McCLELLAN: And they asked -- they asked if we could help take care of the production of the banner. And we more than happy to do so because this is a very nice way to pay tribute to our sailors and aviators and men and women in the military who are on board that ship for a job well done.

McClellan tries to make it sound like it was all simply about honoring the troops onboard the Lincoln, but that is a bunch of B.S. When you look at nearly all of his previous speeches during that time period, he was always placed in front of carefully placed props or huge backdrops with the same words repeated over and over, like some creepy Orwellian attempt at subliminal advertising. I can provide plenty of examples in case you've forgotten what those bizarre days were like.

Never mind that fact that the ship had to be stopped and positioned so that the camera wouldn't catch the California coastline just a few miles away. Bush could have easily taken a chopper to the ship, but having him photographed landing in a war plane like he's Chuck frigging Yeager was just too much for his marketing team to resist.

If you want to buy their version of the story, fine. But you cannot deny that the White House had more than a little to do with it being there. It's all right there in the press conference. For those of us who aren't so easily manipulated by the Bush team's amateur marketing tactics, the intention of the banner was clear.

By the way, while you are correct that he didn't utter those words in the speech aboard the Lincoln, he did use those exact words in a speech a few days later while addressing troop in Qatar:

Quote:

I am happy to see you, an so are the long-suffering people of Iraq. America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished.

Oh, and just for the hell of it...

Posted by: Calabrio

This thread isn't about the mission accomplished banner that Democrats have been crying for years now. When Bush did it they complained that it was unfair. And when the perception of the Iraq War in the public started to go south, they brought the event up again in order to use it against the President.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

Actually that's not far from what happened, although it's not clear who did the painting and who hung it up.

I presented a parody scenario of George Bush with a paint brush and Cheney and Laura standing on a step ladder hanging a banner... clearly an absurdity. And you said "that's not far from what happened."

Quote:

Never mind that fact that the ship had to be stopped and positioned so that the camera wouldn't catch the California coastline just a few miles away. Bush could have easily taken a chopper to the ship, but having him photographed landing in a war plane like he's Chuck frigging Yeager was just too much for his marketing team to resist.

I forgot, Republicans aren't supposed to be media savy. It's also wrong for a Republican President to engage in anything designed to enhance the moral of soldiers. And it's unforgivable if a Republican does anything to help rally and inspire the country.

Quote:

If you want to buy their version of the story, fine. But you cannot deny that the White House had more than a little to do with it being there. It's all right there in the press conference. For those of us who aren't so easily manipulated by the Bush team's amateur marketing tactics, the intention of the banner was clear.

What was the intention of the banner? To trick people into thinking all operation in Iraq had concluded? You tell me.

Quote:

By the way, while you are correct that he didn't utter those words in the speech aboard the Lincoln, he did use those exact words in a speech a few days later while addressing troop in Qatar:

I am happy to see you, an so are the long-suffering people of Iraq. America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished

So what are you taking issue with? The troops had accomplished their mission of overthrowing the government of Hussein.

Quote:

Oh, and just for the hell of it...

Please, do us all a favor and don't use that ridiculous smiley. It is so obnoxious.

Second, if you insist upon using it, use it at the appropriate time. A couple links that don't even support your claims is far from "ownage."

This "issue" just brings to the surface how miserable, void of ideas, and petty the political left in this country has become. They employ fiscal and social policy that has been conclusively proven a failure for a half century. They cling to failed foriegn policy theories as well. So, rather than develop an agenda or policy that might actually work, they just snipe at the Republicans, engage in this silly "gotcha" stuff, and obstruct the Congressional Republicans. It's pathetic.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

This "issue" just brings to the surface how miserable, void of ideas, and petty the political left in this country has become.

"Petty"?? This:

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

First of all, Joey, you sound like a lemming who listens with one ear to Keith Olbermann. Bush didn't even say, "Mission Completed." Look it up. LOL what a maroon.

And your defense:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

No.... you're still wrong. Fossten's point still stands. The words "Mission accomplished" never were stated by Bush.

.....isn't "petty"??? ROTFLMAO, not only are you guys petty, but pathetic.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

"Petty"?? This:

And your defense:

.....isn't "petty"??? ROTFLMAO, not only are you guys petty, but pathetic.

Thank you, Johnny, for your usual trolling noncontribution to this forum. I am sure you meant well, but the quality of your posts do not rise to the level necessary to gain reasonable credibility.