preempting more SubGenius Spam

[corplinx]

here is the latest on the former advisor saying Bush did a bad job on terror (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=544&u=/ap/20040320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorism_adviser_14&printer=1)

What I found interesting about the Drudge story that Sub posted in all those threads last night was the fact that this guy said Bush wanted to bomb Iraq two days after 9-11 even though it was clear it was the work of Bin Laden.

However, I was under the impression that Bin Laden was the best guess that first week after 9-11 until the hijackers were indentified.

Does anyone know if this is that same guy who made the powerpoint presentation about terror and told time magazine he had given the Bush admin a real plan to fight terror and it had been ignored?

Edited to Add: I am sure there is some validity to some of his claims, but I'm not buying his new tell-all book since my BS detector is beeping.

[dsm]

Will you hold it against him for being the subject of a chapter or two in Al Franken's book?

:book:

[subgenius]

I see you did follow my advice and start a thread with your own special sauce.

Ah, a retroactive pre-emptive strike. Interesting.
You would have made a better counter terrorism advisor than that BSer, advisor to four presidents with 30 years of government service.

Spam.....indeed.....

Beep beep......oops I think someone's paging me.

Meanwhile please share with us what portions you are sure have some validity......maybe we're in complete agreement. It could happen.
You may even be in agreement with Al Franken.

[subgenius]

I've taken my Dramamine buddy, go for it.

[crackmonkey]

The NERVE of Bush to inquire as to whether Saddam had a role in 9/11.

[WildCat]

Isn't anyone going to post about the 60 Minutes interview?

I couldn't watch it because my girlfriend was finishing viewing Season 4 of Little House on the Prairie on DVD. Asking her to pause the Mary-goes-blind episode so I could watch 60 Minutes would only guarantee that I don't "get any" for a long time. ;) Especially after I hogged the TV all weekend to watch the NCAA Tournament.

[clk]

Originally posted by WildCat
Isn't anyone going to post about the 60 Minutes interview?

I couldn't watch it because my girlfriend was finishing viewing Season 4 of Little House on the Prairie on DVD. Asking her to pause the Mary-goes-blind episode so I could watch 60 Minutes would only guarantee that I don't "get any" for a long time. ;) Especially after I hogged the TV all weekend to watch the NCAA Tournament.

I think alot of what Clarke said was pretty damning. I'm surprised that nobody has commented on it yet.

I find it interesting that everytime the Bush administration is confronted with criticism, it writes it off as 'politics' and doesn't address the issue at hand. They claimed that Clarke wrote his book because he was partisan. However, Clarke had been in the White House since Reagan, so I find it hard to believe that he is motivated by political interests. All in all, it was just another damning critique of the Bush administration. First it was O'Neill, now it's Clarke...I wonder who will be next?

[DavidJames]

The JEF Bush apologists have responded to the Clark comments here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37476)

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The NERVE of Bush to inquire as to whether Saddam had a role in 9/11.
Inquire?

Funny how that "inquiry" somehow led to a majority of the US population believing Saddam was directly connected to 9/11.

[dsm]

Originally posted by subgenius
I've taken my Dramamine buddy, go for it.

Off topic alert.

Subby, where'd you get your avatar? I recently saw it come up as part of the Red Hat 8.0 screensaver (and on fire, no less!). Did you have something to do with that?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by clk


I think alot of what Clarke said was pretty damning. I'm surprised that nobody has commented on it yet.

I find it interesting that everytime the Bush administration is confronted with criticism, it writes it off as 'politics' and doesn't address the issue at hand. They claimed that Clarke wrote his book because he was partisan. However, Clarke had been in the White House since Reagan, so I find it hard to believe that he is motivated by political interests. All in all, it was just another damning critique of the Bush administration. First it was O'Neill, now it's Clarke...I wonder who will be next?
This thread was started as a retroactive pre-emptive strike. Its a not so new new technique.
Hey it takes time to wind the old top up.
The title of the thread certainly doesn't attract attention to the issue. Could that have been the point?
Go ahead and start one, I wouldn't want to be accused of spamming. I am thoroughly intimidated. I'll be cowering in my corner pretending all is right with the world.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DavidJames
The JEF Bush apologists have responded to the Clark comments here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37476) :D Ok, I got it. There IS nothing to say. Good one.

And now for something completely different. A message to sub,

Ohhhhhhhhappy happy joy joy. http://forum.racesimcentral.com/images/smilies/woohoo.gif

In our last episode (Empire Strikes Back) the dark lord had invaded the peace loving nation of Iraq.

Now the Jedi will return and bring sound economic and foreign policy to the world. Commies...er coming this January to a Country near you. See JFKerry as Han Solo, Dennis Kucinich as Yoda and Hillary Clinton as Princess Leia Organa.

http://forum.racesimcentral.com/images/smilies/jedi.gif

[subgenius]

Originally posted by dsm


Off topic alert.

Subby, where'd you get your avatar? I recently saw it come up as part of the Red Hat 8.0 screensaver (and on fire, no less!). Did you have something to do with that?
Nothing I say or do is original.

http://www.subgenius.com/

You will pay to know what you really think.
Pull the wool over your own eyes.
Act like a dumbsh*t and they'll treat you as an equal.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius

This thread was started as a retroactive pre-emptive strike.

Whatever, you posted the drudge story on the cbs show to a bunch of different threads, one of which I started and your post was not directly on topic.

Mind you, thats not the first time you went on a posting spree with a story. You did the same thing with a Halliburton scandal story once before.

Noone does this to your threads do they?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
:D Ok, I got it. There IS nothing to say. Good one.

And now for something completely different. A message to sub,

Ohhhhhhhhappy happy joy joy. http://forum.racesimcentral.com/images/smilies/woohoo.gif

In our last episode (Empire Strikes Back) the dark lord had invaded the peace loving nation of Iraq.

Now the Jedi will return and bring sound economic and foreign policy to the world. Commies...er coming this January to a Country near you. See JFKerry as Han Solo, Dennis Kucinich as Yoda and Hillary Clinton as Princess Leia Organa.

http://forum.racesimcentral.com/images/smilies/jedi.gif
You're way off my friend. I am sad.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx


Whatever, you posted the drudge story on the cbs show to a bunch of different threads, one of which I started and your post was not directly on topic.

Mind you, thats not the first time you went on a posting spree with a story. You did the same thing with a Halliburton scandal story once before.

Noone does this to your threads do they?
Very pithy.

[subgenius]

Here, I'll give you a hand. Here's Condi's response:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13881-2004Mar21.html

And another "he was never any good anyway" point of view:


The retirement of Richard Clarke is appropriate to the reality of the war on terror. Years ago, Clarke bet his national security career on the idea that electronic war was going to be real war. He lost, because as al Qaeda and Iraq have shown, real action is still of the blood and guts kind.

In happier times prior to 9/11, Clarke -- as Bill Clinton's counter-terror point man in the National Security Council -- devoted great effort to convincing national movers and shakers that cyberattack was the coming thing. While ostensibly involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict.
....
Thanks for everything, Mr. Clarke.
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/143

There that took care of that. We can move on there's nothing to see here.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
You're way off my friend. I am sad. Oh sub,

You couldn't be sad if we paid you. This is like the return of Richard the Lionheart who siezed the kingdom back from his Evil brother Prince John. Richard was the rightful King and John the interloper who ruled without true authority. I don't buy your humility. In all honesty , you're a good guy sub, don't bull sh*t us. It's offensive.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by WildCat
Isn't anyone going to post about the 60 Minutes interview?

I couldn't watch it because my girlfriend was finishing viewing Season 4 of Little House on the Prairie on DVD. Asking her to pause the Mary-goes-blind episode so I could watch 60 Minutes would only guarantee that I don't "get any" for a long time. ;) Especially after I hogged the TV all weekend to watch the NCAA Tournament.

WTF?!?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
Oh sub,

You couldn't be sad if we paid you. This is like the return of Richard the Lionheart who siezed the kingdom back from his Evil brother Prince John. Richard was the rightful King and John the interloper who ruled without true authority. I don't buy your humility. In all honesty , you're a good guy sub, don't bull sh*t us. It's offensive.
If you say so.
Do you give his view any weight? Are you happy?
You can't read my mind. What you are saying is insulting.
But apparently it gives you some comfort, and distracts from the issue. And says more about you than me.

[subgenius]

Here's more spam that I'm taking glee in:
NEWSWEEK: In the Months Before 9/11, Justice Department Curtailed Highly Classified Program to Monitor Al Qaeda Suspects in the U.S.
Sunday March 21, 10:51 am ET


NEW YORK, March 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Newsweek has learned that in the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called "Catcher's Mitt" to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States, after a federal judge severely chastised the FBI for improperly seeking permission to wiretap terrorists. During the Bush administration's first few months in office, Attorney General John Ashcroft downgraded terrorism as a priority, choosing to place more emphasis on drug trafficking and gun violence, report Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff and Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas in the March 29 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, March 22).

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040321/nysu007a_1.html

And yes, I'll be posting it on other threads, if I choose, where issues overlap, even though, according to our hall monitor, it may not be "directly on topic".
Lights out nobody home.

[crackmonkey]

... but your zeal in posting every rumor casting Bush in a poor light, regardless of corroborating evidence, tells us quite a bit about you.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
... but your zeal in posting every rumor casting Bush in a poor light, regardless of corroborating evidence, tells us quite a bit about you.
Make a list of every rumor that I posted without corroborating evidence, or your accusation may tell "us" quite a bit about you.

[subgenius]

You may note that I'm the only one who has posted criticisms of Clarke thus far.
You see and hear what you expect to see and hear.

[subgenius]

And more of the other side, from of all places, the other side! Those nasty Dems what evil do they have up their sleeves?

"Sen. Joe Lieberman (news - web sites), D-Conn., said Sunday he doesn't believe Clarke's charge that the Bush administration — which defeated him and former Vice President Al Gore (news - web sites) in the 2000 election — was focused more on Iraq than al-Qaida during the days after the terror attacks.

"I see no basis for it," Lieberman said on Fox News Sunday. "I think we've got to be careful to speak facts and not rhetoric."

And Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that while he has been critical of Bush policies on Iraq, "I think it's unfair to blame the president for the spread of terror and the diffuseness of it. Even if he had followed the advice of me and many other people, I still think the same thing would have happened."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=544&u=/ap/20040322/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorism_adviser_18&printer=1

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
If you say so.
Do you give his view any weight? Are you happy?
You can't read my mind. What you are saying is insulting.
But apparently it gives you some comfort, and distracts from the issue. And says more about you than me. Your actions belie your words. That you would make such an effort to get everyone to see the shows makes clear your views. You disagree with the administration. Also, You're posts are almost always witty and you love to poke fun at the administration. To suggest that you are not happy at the prospect of getting rid of Bush is IMHO disingenuous on your part. I can't read your mind but I can read your posts. If you want to insist that you take no pleasure in the fact that you are being proved right (assuming that you are) then fine. I will leave you alone. I don't have to buy it though.

Too much fun.

[subgenius]

I happened to think it was a matter of national importance. So did you watch, and what do you think?
It might be better to discuss in the GWB Better Terror Fighter thread......we seem to be avoiding the point here.

[RandFan]

Richard Clarke's Legacy of Miscalculation (http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/143)
In 1986, as a State Department bureaucrat with pull, he came up with a plan to battle terrorism and subvert Muammar Qaddafi by having SR-71s produce sonic booms over Libya. This was to be accompanied by rafts washing onto the sands of Tripoli, the aim of which was to create the illusion of a coming attack. When this nonsense was revealed, it created embarrassment for the Reagan administration and was buried.

In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke "played a key role in the Clinton administration's misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan." The pharmaceutical factory was, apparently, just a pharmaceutical factory, and we now know how impressed bin Laden was by cruise missiles that miss. [/b]

[subgenius]

Beat you to it above. Fair and balanced all the time. :)

[subgenius]

It was all Clarke's fault anyway. He was supposed to be the expert and develope the plans.
The buck stops with him.

And I never liked American Bandstand.

[Troll]

Bad job on terror? haha. Yes they did a bad job on terror prior to 9/11. They totally sucked at it.

But then they did follow the previous administration's policies until 9/11. after 9/11 they opted for a different sort of response.

I wonder who has a response that had more meaning? Clinton and the "send a tomahawk their way", or Bush and the "go in and kill or capture them" methods

Personally, if you swing at me I'll swing back and beat your ass down before getting nailed in the back by your wussified ass as I turn to call the cops (UN) who may in fact side with you anyhow

[subgenius]

NEWS FOR SALE: CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT

CBSNEWS did not inform its viewers last night that its parent company owns and has a direct financial stake in the success of the book by former White House terror staffer turned Bush critic, Dick Clarke, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
http://drudgereport.com/cbsrc.htm

Seems I'm way ahead of the administration supporters here.

I guess we can all ignore this story now. Carry on.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius
NEWS FOR SALE: CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT

CBSNEWS did not inform its viewers last night that its parent company owns and has a direct financial stake in the success of the book by former White House terror staffer turned Bush critic, Dick Clarke, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
http://drudgereport.com/cbsrc.htm

Seems I'm way ahead of the administration supporters here.

I guess we can all ignore this story now. Carry on.

That as it may be, I don't think Mike Wallace would let 60 minutes shill a book for Viacom's sake. However, the segment did remind me more of a Dateline book segment (which barely qualify as news imho).

If Leslie Stahl hadn't been lazy I don't think anyone would be thinking that there was a real conflict of interest. Mass media being what it is, its hard to avoid media incest.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
... but your zeal in posting every rumor casting Bush in a poor light, regardless of corroborating evidence, tells us quite a bit about you.

Got even one yet?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
... but your zeal in posting every rumor casting Bush in a poor light, regardless of corroborating evidence, tells us quite a bit about you.
Care to issue a correction yet? Your refusal to admit that you might be wrong tells us quite a bit about you.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey

I'd forgotten all about the rumors thing. I'll look into it if it'll make you feel better...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It actually might restore my faith in humanity....that people generally don't make baseless accusations.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by subgenius
It was all Clarke's fault anyway. He was supposed to be the expert and develope the plans.
The buck stops with him.

And I never liked American Bandstand.

That's crap!
Frankie and Annet were..uh......um....Where's my prozac