Condi=Liar

[919]

Condi Lied: Declassified Memo from Clarke



Although then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice wrote a March 22, 2004 column in The Washington Post that "No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration," a newly declassified document [image below the fold] tells the story.

U.S. media haven't got this yet, but Australian papers have: US al-Qaeda warning revealed
11feb05

EIGHT months before the September 11 attacks the White House's then counterterrorism adviser urged then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to hold a high-level meeting on the al-Qaeda network, according to a memo made public today.

"We urgently need such a principals-level review on the al-Qaeda network," ... Richard Clarke wrote in the January 25, 2001 memo.

Mr Clarke, who left the White House in 2003, made headlines in the heat of the US presidential campaign ... when he accused the Bush White House of having ignored al-Qaeda's threats before September 11. Mr Clarke testified before inquiry panels and in a book that Rice ... had been warned of the threat.

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
Ninth Public Hearing
Thursday, April 8, 2004

Testimony of national security advisor Condoleezza Rice:

MR. BOB KERREY, Committee Member: Well, I think it's an unfortunate figure of speech because I think -- especially after the attack on the Cole on the 12th of August -- October 2000. It would have been a swatting a fly. It would not have been -- we did not need to wait to get a strategic plan. Dick Clarke had in his memo on the 20th of January overt military operations as a -- he turned that memo around in 24 hours, Dr. Clarke. There were a lot of plans in place in the Clinton administration, military plans in the Clinton administration. In fact, just since we're in the mood to declassify stuff, he included in his January 25th memo two appendixes: ...

So I just -- why didn't we respond to the Cole? Why didn't we swat that fly?

MS. RICE: I believe that there is a question of whether or not you respond in a tactical sense or whether you respond in a strategic sense, whether or not you decide that you are going to respond to every attack with minimal use of military force and go after every -- on a kind of tit-for-tat basis. By the way, in that memo, Dick Clarke talks about not doing this tit for tat, doing this on a time of our choosing.

...

Yes, the Cole had happened. We received, I think, on January 25th the same assessment or roughly the same assessment of who was responsible for the Cole that Sandy Berger talked to you about. It was preliminary. It was not clear. But that was not the reason that we felt that we did not want to, quote, "respond to the Cole."

We knew that the options that had been employed by the Clinton administration had been standoff options. The President had -- meaning missile strikes, or perhaps bombers would have been possible, long-range bombers, although getting in place the apparatus to use long-range bombers is even a matter of whether you have basing in the region.

[WHAT IN THE HELL DOES THIS MEAN?] We knew that Osama bin Laden had been, in something that was provided to me, bragging that he was going to withstand any response, and then he was going to emerge and come out stronger. We --
...We simply believed that the best approach was to put in place a plan that was going to eliminate this threat, not respond to it, tit-for-tat.

...

MS. RICE: The fact is that what we were presented on January the 25th was a set of ideas -- and a paper, most of which was about what the Clinton administration had done, and something called the Delenda plan, which had been considered in 1998 and never adopted.

...

We decided to take a different track. We decided to put together a strategic approach to this that would get the regional powers -- the problem wasn't that you didn't have ...

In the memorandum that Dick Clarke sent me on January 25th, he mentions sleeper cells. There is no mention or recommendation of anything that needs to be done about them. ... The National Security Archive




From The National Security Archive, a number of salient quotes:

Document Central to Clarke-Rice Dispute on Bush Terrorism Policy Pre-9/11

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 147

Edited by Barbara Elias

February 10, 2005

Washington, D.C., February 10, 2005 - The National Security Archive today posted the widely-debated, but previously unavailable, January 25, 2001, memo from counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to national security advisor Condoleezza Rice - the first terrorism strategy paper of the Bush administration. The document was central to debates in the 9/11 hearings over the Bush administration's policies and actions on terrorism before September 11, 2001. Clarke's memo requests an immediate meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss broad strategies for combating al-Qaeda by giving counterterrorism aid to the Northern Alliance and Uzbekistan, expanding the counterterrorism budget and responding to the U.S.S. Cole attack. Despite Clarke's request, there was no Principals Committee meeting on al-Qaeda until September 4, 2001.

The January 25, 2001, memo, recently released to the National Security Archive by the National Security Council, bears a declassification stamp of April 7, 2004, one day prior to Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission on April 8, 2004. Responding to claims that she ignored the al-Qaeda threat before September 11, Rice stated in a March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."

Two days after Rice's March 22 op-ed, Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, "there's a lot of debate about whether it's a plan or a strategy or a series of options -- but all of the things we recommended back in January were those things on the table in September. They were done. They were done after September 11th. They were all done. I didn't really understand why they couldn't have been done in February."

Also attached to the original Clarke memo are two Clinton-era documents relating to al-Qaeda. The first, "Tab A December 2000 Paper: Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects," was released to the National Security Archive along with the Clarke memo. "Tab B, September 1998 Paper: Pol-Mil Plan for al-Qida," also known as the Delenda Plan, was attached to the original memo, but was not released to the Archive and remains under request with the National Security Council. Below are additional references to the January 25, 2001, memo from congressional debates and the 9/11 Commission testimonies of Richard Clarke and Condoleezza Rice. The National Security Archive




Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 Commission:

Testimony of Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism coordinator:

TIMOTHY ROEMER, Commission Member: On January 25th, we've seen a memo that you've written to Dr. Rice urgently asking for a principals' review of Al Qaida. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight Al Qaida and a response to the USS Cole. You attach to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000.

Do you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these? And how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

CLARKE: I did get a response, and the response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-Cabinet level committee, and not to the principals and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals' meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

ROEMER: So does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group as you had previously done?

CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn't meet urgently in January or February. Then when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of Al Qaida as part of a cluster of policy issues. ...

ROEMER: You then wrote a memo on September 4th to Dr. Rice expressing some of these frustrations several months later, if you say the time frame is May or June when you decided to resign. A memo comes out that we have seen on September the 4th. You are blunt in blasting DOD for not willingly using the force and the power. You blast the CIA for blocking Predator. You urge policy-makers to imagine a day after hundreds of Americans lay dead at home or abroad after a terrorist attack and ask themselves what else they could have done. You write this on September the 4th, seven days before September 11th.

CLARKE: That's right.

ROEMER: What else could have been done, Mr. Clarke?

CLARKE: Well, all of the things that we recommended in the plan or strategy -- there's a lot of debate about whether it's a plan or a strategy or a series of options -- but all of the things we recommended back in January were those things on the table in September. They were done. They were done after September 11th. They were all done. I didn't really understand why they couldn't have been done in February.

..... TIMOTHY J. ROEMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Having served on the joint inquiry, the only person of this 9/11 panel to have served on the inquiry, I can say in open session to some of Mr. Fielding's inquiries that as the joint inquiry asked for information on the National Security Council and we requested that the National Security Adviser Dr. Rice come before the joint inquiry and answer those questions. She refused. And she didn't come. She didn't come before the 9/11 commission. And when we asked for some questions to be answered, Mr. Hadley answered those questions in a written form. So I think part of the answer might be that we didn't have access to the January 25th memo. We didn't have access to the September 4th memo. We didn't have access to many of the documents and the e-mails. We're not only talking about Mr. Clarke being before the 9/11 commission for more than 15 hours, but I think in talking to the staff, we have hundreds of documents and e-mails that we didn't previously have, which hopefully informs us to ask Mr. Clarke and ask Dr. Rice the tough questions. The National Security Archive





The slings and arrows of the GOP towards Richard Clarke:

Congressional Record: March 25, 2004 (Senate) [Page S3122-S3123]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [DOCID:cr25mr04-92]

Excerpt from the Senate floor on March 26, 2004, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY):

Also in this August 2002 interview, Clarke noted the Bush administration, in mid-January of 2001--before the 9/11 attack--decided to do two things to respond to the threat of terrorism: "One, to vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all the lethal covert action finds which we have now made public, to some extent; the second thing the administration decided to do was to initiate a process . ...''

In other words, what Clarke was saying in 2002 to members of the press was that the Bush administration's response to the war on terror was much more aggressive than it was under the Clinton years. Now he is singing an entirely different tune. This is a man who lacks credibility. ... he has a grudge of some sort against the Bush administration. If he was unable to develop a more robust response during the Clinton years, he would only be able to blame himself. ... How could the Bush administration be to blame in 8 months for the previous administration's failure over 8 years to truly declare war on al-Qaida?
The National Security Archive

 

[TheRightWing]

Oh oh another anti Bush admin document......this looks like 919 and Rather are bored again!!!

 

[bblight]

919, What's the point?
You cut and pasted an article that rehashes a lot of old crap about who knew what, and when they knew it.

If I wanted to take the time, I could cut and paste a bunch of similar crap about Clinton and Albright and other prominent Democrats - but what's the point?

I think the salient factor would be what's been done to prevent a recurrence of any mistakes that might have been made. Have they tried to make the necessary adjustments and focus on the areas that would minimize any repeats of 911.

Since AlQuaida has been severely wounded and there have been no terror attacks in the US since 911, and the Middle East terror networks are focusing on Iraq and their own self preservation, I would judge that the US government has been successful in it's approach.

Whether you agree with that approach, or not, is a different matter.

 

[JinnRikki]

I still am amazed at the rights lack of concern about how badly our government let it's citizens down on and leading up to 9/11. With enough warnings bells and whistles going off to deafen most people our government took a lackadaisical attitude. The tired old tale that they thought the threats pertained to foreign attacks just sounds ridiculous now in retrospect. The "we never imagined someone would fly planes into a building" is equally laughable. To not even put the airlines on alert for suspicious activity, is criminal.
And then to add insult to injury the bush apologists say "well, we'll know better next time."

 

[docmercer--banned]

Rice is running a very close race with Cheney as the most embarrassing Cabinet member in the history of this country ...

 

[919]

919, What's the point?
You cut and pasted an article that rehashes a lot of old crap about who knew what, and when they knew it.

ask the families of 9/11 victems if they care or not.....



[/QUOTE]Since AlQuaida has been severely wounded and there have been no terror attacks in the US since 911[/QUOTE]

please explain how they have "been severely wounded"....is it because Bush claims that some incorrect % has been killed?...he's talking about the number that we "knew" of before the war in iraq and afgan...no telling how many recruits there have been since the wars....so that theory is null....

as for there being no more attacks here...well thank the lord...but if you think it's because we are more secure, i disagree...ports and borders are not secure...planes are still not secure...how long do you think they plotted before they attacked on 9/11?....ive seen reports that say they were gearing up since at least '96....lets hope it never happens again, but to think they just go out and attack without proper planning is a bit naive....

 

[kburiss001]

please explain how they have "been severely wounded"....is it because Bush claims that some incorrect % has been killed?...he's talking about the number that we "knew" of before the war in iraq and afgan...no telling how many recruits there have been since the wars....so that theory is null....

as for there being no more attacks here...well thank the lord...but if you think it's because we are more secure, i disagree...ports and borders are not secure...planes are still not secure...how long do you think they plotted before they attacked on 9/11?....ive seen reports that say they were gearing up since at least '96....lets hope it never happens again, but to think they just go out and attack without proper planning is a bit naive....

Since the terrorists have earned recruits such as yourself, I will grant you that there are more terrorists today than before 9/11. How are you not a supporter of terrorists when you support every single objective they do?

Even though I must agree about the porous borders (how in the hell Democrats are tougher on this issue than Republicans beats the hell out of me), maybe there have been less terrorists attacks on this country because they are preoccupied with staying alive in the streets of the Middle East. If all bank robbers are involved in shootouts with police they can't very well rob banks. Of course, I am sure there will be another terrorist attack (with your full support as we deserve it, right) and it will be blamed on Bush by the reality detached morons.

 

[docmercer--banned]

Burris: finally using a slogan which describes the Bushies:

"the reality detached morons"

Good job!

 

[kburiss001]

Maybe I should have said the patholigical lying morons.

I don't mind morons, but I do mind morons that believe they are brilliant.

Are you still 32 or did you vote for Reagan at the age of 8.

 

[919]

Since the terrorists have earned recruits such as yourself, I will grant you that there are more terrorists today than before 9/11. How are you not a supporter of terrorists when you support every single objective they do?

Even though I must agree about the porous borders (how in the hell Democrats are tougher on this issue than Republicans beats the hell out of me), maybe there have been less terrorists attacks on this country because they are preoccupied with staying alive in the streets of the Middle East. If all bank robbers are involved in shootouts with police they can't very well rob banks. Of course, I am sure there will be another terrorist attack (with your full support as we deserve it, right) and it will be blamed on Bush by the reality detached morons.

hey fvckface...explain how i am "a supporter of terrorists"....

what "objective" am i supporting you ignorant piece of ****....

or is it that anyone who disagrees with your God (Bush) is a traitor....

you can walk blindly in step with him if you like....i prefer to be a free thinker....

now, let's see if you can back up or accusations....:monsters-

 

[919]

of course...you'd probably call the guy who wrote this a traitor

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation...

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

-Thomas Jefferson

 

[bblight]

Hey Jinn, are you going to take 919 to task for starting the name calling - or is it just the conservatives that you monitor for this?

919 - So you've cut and pasted, and edited an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence - congratulations on your cut and paste abilities. I wonder if you understand the references from such a great document.

What's your point?

Are you saying that the Democrats should split off from the United States and form their own country? "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

Why did you cut out the first two sentences to the second paragraph? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

I won't continue beyond this, but it seems to me that you want to edit the Declaration to fit your rationalization. It's wrong of you to treat such a great document in such a demeaning way.

I won't say that kburiss is right when he accuses you of supporting the terrorists, but you're giving him the bullets to shoot you with.

Now you can call me names, or you can continue this debate with an adult response - that choice is an inalienable right of yours!

 

[919]

my POINT bblight is that i don't like people calling me a terrorist for having a dissenting view...

also, i copied it from another person's post...didn't get it straight from the source of the dec of ind....that's why lines were omitted....like it better WITH those lines....my apologies....

i am not comparing myself, my view, my party to the content of these two paragraphs....i am simply pointing out that the dec of ind, gives cause for such radical action...and if ANYONE thinks that someone is unamerican, unpatriotic, or even traitorous for voicing these dissenting opinions they are DEAD WRONG!

as for my "name-calling", i was a little pissed at being called a terrorist for NO reason...


<CENTER>IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

</CENTER>

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. --And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

--John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

 

[JinnRikki]

Hey Jinn, are you going to take 919 to task for starting the name calling - or is it just the conservatives that you monitor for this?

919 - So you've cut and pasted, and edited an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence - congratulations on your cut and paste abilities. I wonder if you understand the references from such a great document.

What's your point?

Are you saying that the Democrats should split off from the United States and form their own country? "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

Why did you cut out the first two sentences to the second paragraph? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

I won't continue beyond this, but it seems to me that you want to edit the Declaration to fit your rationalization. It's wrong of you to treat such a great document in such a demeaning way.

I won't say that kburiss is right when he accuses you of supporting the terrorists, but you're giving him the bullets to shoot you with.

Now you can call me names, or you can continue this debate with an adult response - that choice is an inalienable right of yours!

I think "moron" and "traitor" qualifies as name calling so who started it? As far as I could tell the belligerent responses weren't directed at you bb.


"If all bank robbers are involved in shootouts with police they can't very well rob banks."
Good to see mr. hubris the master of bad analogy is back.
I do hope you don't believe that all the anti-U.S. terrorists in the world are dumb enough to be fighting in Iraq? For that matter many at all.

 

[docmercer--banned]

919:

Your one sentence says it all: "or is it that anyone who disagrees with your God (Bush) is a traitor...."

That is the problem that exsists in this country right now