Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Deleted message

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-09-04 04:58 PM
Original message
Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-09-04 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm glad to see this one debunked in such great detail!!
There are a lot of variations of it going around, it seems. Good job by the Kerry camp once again! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-04 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-04 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
3. Here's Some Flip-Side Resources
Here's Cheney's crony, Paul Woflowitz in 2003:

I gave a quite substantial briefing to Secretary Cheney and what was then called I guess the Defense Resources Board on a post-Cold War defense strategy, the essence of which was to shift from a strategy for being prepared to fight a global war, to being focused on two possible regional conflicts. And to downsize the U.S. military by some 40 percent.

When we did a revised draft that in fact I had reviewed carefully, the State Department initially didn't want us to put it out, I think because it was a little too much. But in January of 1993 as we were about to leave, I said to Cheney don't you think we should publish it? And he said yes, we should. So it's available in the full text as the Regional Defense Strategy of January, 1993.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-...

From Seymour Hersh's "Did Bush Let Taliban & Al-Qaeda Escape?":

American intelligence officials and high-ranking military officers said that Pakistanis were indeed flown to safety, in a series of nighttime airlifts that were approved by the Bush Administration. The Americans also said that what was supposed to be a limited evacuation apparently slipped out of control, and, as an unintended consequence, an unknown number of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters managed to join in the exodus. "Dirt got through the screen," a senior intelligence official told me.

The Bush Administration may have done more than simply acquiesce in the rescue effort: at the height of the standoff, according to both a C.I.A. official and a military analyst who has worked with the Delta Force, the American commando unit that was destroying Taliban units on the ground, the Administration ordered the United States Central Command to set up a special air corridor to help insure the safety of the Pakistani rescue flights from Kunduz to the northwest corner of Pakistan, about two hundred miles away. The order left some members of the Delta Force deeply frustrated.

http://www.rense.com/general19/al.htm

And, of course, you have the quote from my signature line about Bush's cheapskate debacle at Tora Bora.

Bush talk of being "tough on terrorism" is a house of cards. This is taken as a given only because it was established during the media's suck-ass phase, and never questioned since. The truth is that Bush has run a completely incompetent campaign agaist (stateless) terrorism from Tora Bora straight to Baghdad, largely the result of the failures of the Rumsfeld Doctrine.

Kerry's fight against terrorism is not flashy like a peacock, it is competent. That's what a "war on terror" requires - not tough talk, but competence.



By the way, you're doing a great job, PeteNYC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RDObran Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-04 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
4. Why isn't Kerry using this??
I've not heard much Kerry response to the Bush campaign questioning Kerry's military senate votes. Why isn't Kerry responding with these facts???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-04 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. uh, HE IS , these are from the Kerry campaign
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheelhombre Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-04 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. He needs to put it in some Ads
Uh,the DNC needs to, I mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-04 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
6. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC