Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cheney Interview on the Rush Limbaugh Show

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • dv6y
    replied
    Originally posted by dvyyyyyy+Mar 22 2004, 02:30 PM-->
    QUOTE (dvyyyyyy @ Mar 22 2004, 02:30 PM)
    Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 02:28 PM

  • dv6y
    replied
    Originally posted by Moe_Szyslak@Mar 22 2004, 05:15 PM
    Anybody heard or read administration quotes specifically rebutting Clarke's claims? I know there's plenty of innuendo and spin, but any direct refutation? I haven't seen any, yet.

    Moe
    Moe, here you go:


    Q Scott, this morning, you said the President didn't recall the conversation in the Situation Room on September 12th that Mr. Clarke said he had, where the President asked Dick Clarke three times to pursue links between 9/11 and Iraq. And you said he doesn't -- I had two questions. So did the President tell you or somebody in the White House over the weekend, he doesn't recall?

    MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I talked to him. He doesn't recall that conversation or meeting.

    Q And that was -- he said it this morning, or this weekend? When did he say that?

    MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this weekend and this morning, yes.

    Q Okay. And secondly, Clarke now says that he has three eyewitnesses, and he repeated it again this morning, and he named them -- to the conversation.

    MR. McCLELLAN: Let's just step backwards -- regardless, regardless, put that aside. There's no record of the President being in the Situation Room on that day that it was alleged to have happened, on the day of September the 12th. When the President is in the Situation Room, we keep track of that. But put all that aside, let's go to the heart of the matter. This was supposedly the day after the September 11th attacks. And, of course, you want to look at all possibilities of who might be responsible. It would be irresponsible not to consider all responsibilities.

    And, in fact, I would point out that Mr. Clarke himself said in a "Frontline" interview, he emphasized the importance of officials having a very open mind. On the -- quote: "On the day of September 11th, then the day or two following, we had a very open mind." Those are words from Dick Clarke. He went on to say: "The CIA and FBI were asked, see if it's Hezbollah, see if it's Hamas, don't assume it's al Qaeda. Don't just assume it's al Qaeda." So I think that --

    Q Well, so are you saying that while the President doesn't recall that conversation, are you leaving open the possibility that there's these three eyewitnesses that Clarke says, therefore it may have happened?

    MR. McCLELLAN: Well, but let's go even beyond that. One, in the immediate aftermath of an attack like that, you want to explore all possibilities. And that's what this administration did. Of course, you want to do that. But just days later, the President met with his National Security Council; the Director of Central Intelligence informed him that there was no link between the September 11th attacks and Iraq. And at the National Security Council meeting, what happened? There was a map that was unrolled on the table, and it was a map of Afghanistan. And what did the President do? The President directed that we go into Afghanistan, and we go after al Qaeda, and we go after and remove the Taliban from power so that al Qaeda would no longer have a safe harbor from which to plan and plot their attacks on the American people.

    Q Okay, Clarke is now saying that the -- your response this morning was an example of how the Bush administration just goes after -- just uses ad hominem attacks and tries to suppress the truth.

    MR. McCLELLAN: Well, when someone uses such charged rhetoric that is just not matched by the facts, it's important that we set the record straight. And that's what we're doing. If you look back at his past comments and his past actions, they contradict his current rhetoric. I talked to you all a little bit about that earlier today. Go back and look at exactly what he has said in the past and compare that with what he is saying today. And ask yourself why, one-and-a-half years later, after he left the administration, he's, all of a sudden, coming forward with these grave concerns? If he had had such grave concerns, why didn't he come out with them sooner?

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20040322-4.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Damtoft
    replied
    Why should they bother?

    Leave a comment:


  • Moe_Szyslak
    replied
    Anybody heard or read administration quotes specifically rebutting Clarke's claims? I know there's plenty of innuendo and spin, but any direct refutation? I haven't seen any, yet.

    Moe

    Leave a comment:


  • lazydaze
    replied
    n/m

    Leave a comment:


  • dv6y
    replied
    Originally posted by Damtoft@Mar 22 2004, 04:22 PM
    There is no way our military could have been stretched to "contain" Iraq AND invade Iran at the same time.

    Besides, IF Hussein had deadly stuff, he could have lobbed it over the border.

    The key was that Bush really didn't know what he had.

    Everyone thought they knew, but nobody really did.
    Still if you want to get rid of more nutballs per capita, Iran would have been a better target.

    Leave a comment:


  • dv6y
    replied
    Originally posted by Arch Card@Mar 22 2004, 04:19 PM
    Wolfowitz is crazy, don't think about throwing any chin music his way.
    Steve Kline's cousin, undoubtedly.

    Leave a comment:


  • nick2
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • dredbyrd
    replied
    Originally posted by Damtoft@Mar 22 2004, 04:22 PM
    There is no way our military could have been stretched to "contain" Iraq AND invade Iran at the same time.

    Besides, IF Hussein had deadly stuff, he could have lobbed it over the border.

    The key was that Bush really didn't know what he had.

    Everyone thought they knew, but nobody really did.
    The UN Inspectors knew what he didn't have.

    Leave a comment:


  • Damtoft
    replied
    There is no way our military could have been stretched to "contain" Iraq AND invade Iran at the same time.

    Besides, IF Hussein had deadly stuff, he could have lobbed it over the border.

    The key was that Bush really didn't know what he had.

    Everyone thought they knew, but nobody really did.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arch Card
    replied
    Rumsfeld is great in middle relief. Indeed he gets the hold.

    You want to keep Cheney in the undisclosed location and keep him for the 9th. His forkball is murder.

    Rice is a great leadoff hitter, great speed.

    Wolfowitz is crazy, don't think about throwing any chin music his way.

    Leave a comment:


  • dv6y
    replied
    Originally posted by Arch Card@Mar 22 2004, 03:50 PM
    Box Scores:

    US 14 Taliban 0

    WP: Bush (1-1) LP: binLaden (1-1)
    DP: Marines (2)
    HR: Infantry (106)
    Save: Pakistanis (binLaden)


    US 25 Iraq 0 (5 inning rule)
    WP: Bush (2-1) LP: Hussein (0-2, POW)
    DP: British/Polish
    HR: 82nd Airborne( 516), Army Rangers (756)


    Moe, when frustrated with Arch both you and SLUBLUE resort to name calling. I will take that as a sign I won this argument, congratulate you on a decent effort, and move on.
    I think Rumsfeld gets a "hold."

    Leave a comment:


  • Arch Card
    replied
    You fellahs gotta read this:

    Reuters on the French ( :o ) tracking Bin Laden:

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...eda_france_dc_2

    "The United States claims Al Quaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks".

    I mean, c'mon Reuters.

    They wonder why we listen to Rush!

    Leave a comment:


  • nick2
    replied
    This war is much cheaper than many others
    There is so much wrong with this statement, I am astonished that anyone would seriously make it-- and continue to argue it!

    This same person, BTW, stated
    No, what I am saying is once 9/11 came around everyone knows he was a dumbass(Clarke).
    If Richard Clarke was such a dumbass, why is George Tenet still around? :rolleyes:

    Leave a comment:


  • Arch Card
    replied
    Box Scores:

    US 14 Taliban 0

    WP: Bush (1-1) LP: binLaden (1-1)
    DP: Marines (2)
    HR: Infantry (106)
    Save: Pakistanis (binLaden)


    US 25 Iraq 0 (5 inning rule)
    WP: Bush (2-1) LP: Hussein (0-2, POW)
    DP: British/Polish
    HR: 82nd Airborne( 516), Army Rangers (756)


    Moe, when frustrated with Arch both you and SLUBLUE resort to name calling. I will take that as a sign I won this argument, congratulate you on a decent effort, and move on.

    Leave a comment:

  • Working...
    X