CDIH

(screen.width/2)){this.width = (this.width/2)}" onclick="javascript:if(this.width > (screen.width/2)){this.width = (this.width/2)} else {this.width = (this.width*2)}" border="0" alt='Posted image: Click to resize'>

I saw that NY Post. Incredible. Meanwhile, the Daily News isn't a liberal outlet...it leans to the Right, as well...but the Post is super-ultra Conservative. Scary, huh?

Also...in a CNN poll, majority of Americans believe Richard Clarke over Rice.

The views of the paper depends solely upon the views of the majority stockholder.

I think the steinbrenner headline is hysterical.

i find it more strange that the ny post used that headline yet kept the picture of her so dark looking, while the daily news used a picture and either brightened it or left her looking "brighter"

or maybe thats just the way the picture is that sleeper posted

the conspiracy theory that anyone in the administration knew about the attacks and didn't care enough, or intentionally allowed them to happen is just insane. Politics aside, how retarded do you have to be to think that would happen? What human would think "yeah, let's have this happen just so we can use it to attack another country"

Does anyoen else think the victim's families are getting WAY too much power here? 3000 people died, awful, so sorry. But why should the wife of a firefighter be more entitled to have their opinion heard around the country than some guy who actually WORKED in those buildings or watched it on TV in Arkansas? I feel really sorry that your husband died, but shut up already, it affected us all and was an attack on all of us, not on your family.

That being said, I think Brown Sugar did a splendid job, no matter what The Post says

She does remind me of Omorosa, and so I hope she gets fired.

an unbiased washington research group did a study during the last presidential campaign and found that the myth of the "liberal media was untrue. there were more positive george w articles and more negative gore articles. the ratio was something like 2/1 in favor of positive george w articles to positive gore articles.

there is no such thing as an "unbiased" anything. Just because they say they are unbiased doesn't make it so. Look at "FAIR", who is anything but.

Simpleton.

by unbiased i meant that they were not funded by either party or claim to have any affiliation with any government agenda.

idiot

Galt Wrote:the conspiracy theory that anyone in the administration knew about the attacks and didn't care enough, or intentionally allowed them to happen is just insane. Politics aside, how retarded do you have to be to think that would happen? What human would think "yeah, let's have this happen just so we can use it to attack another country"

The PATRIOT act gave the United States government nearly unlimited power when it comes to certain facets of control, such as surveillance, investigation, prosecution and punishment. The PATRIOT act could never have passed if 9/11 never happened, as there was simply no justification for the government to have that much power outside of the bounds of the courts. Im not suggesting in any way that the government helped plan 9/11, but if they knew it was going to happen, and they knew that the PATRIOT act could be passed with little or no difficulty because of it, I could see how a argument linking the two can be made.

Check your definition of unbiased. You meant "independent". There's a big difference. Try and communicate effectively.

The Patriot Act wouldn't have been approved. But I still think it is horrible to actually think that people in power would allow something like that to happen for any reason. Only if a psycho were in power would they make that ocnnectiion ahead of time and allow it to happen.

Think about what that is saying about the people in power. You are saying they are monsters. Disagree with the politics and what not, but Holy Shit, I refuse to believe that anyone that could reach such a level of authority in the government is that much of an ogre.

i meant unbiased. you are clearly reading with a bias and are therefore unable to comprehend the point.

Quote:Disagree with the politics and what not, but Holy Shit, I refuse to believe that anyone that could reach such a level of authority in the government is that much of an ogre.

any human being in that's in a positon in which they can do something wrong but have a high probability of getting away with it will probably try, especially if it benefits them in some way - as heinous as it sounds. I don't wanna believe it either, but god only knows what the hell goes on behind closed doors, especially behind those of government officials.

I have no governmental backing and am not tied (registered) to any political party. Does that make me unbiased? No.

Can't you ever admit when you are wrong? You used the wrong word and it completely changed the point you were trying to make. Just admit it.

They are an independent research company. Great.

Now, point two. I call bullshit. Cite your source. What is their criteria for what is standard for what is positive/negative and what sites/sources did they use for their research? (i.e, were they using the National Review, Rush Limbaugh, becuase that's obviously going to be slanted toward Bush, but those sources don't try and come accross as "unbiased", though they are "independent"...see how I used the proper words there, chief?)

as to being unable to admit when you are wrong, you need to say that out loud while looking in a mirror.

now the other matter, they surveyed articles written by the top 2 newspapers in terms of circulation in the top 50 cities in terms of population.

as soon as I'm wrong, I'll happily own up to it.

And CITE YOUR SOURCE

Quote:Rice: There Was No Silver Bullet to Avert Attacks
1 hour, 16 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - National security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) told the Sept. 11 commission on Thursday that four U.S. presidents including George W. Bush failed to fully mobilize against terrorism, but there was no "silver bullet" that could have averted the deadly attacks on America.


Reuters Photo


AFP
Slideshow: September 11

Rice Testifies, Defends Administration
(Reuters Video)



In highly charged testimony that has taken on enormous political importance, Rice, under oath and broadcast live to a national television audience, clashed with Democratic members of the bipartisan commission over whether the Bush administration was negligent in the summer before the hijacked airliner attacks.


"The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them. For more than 20 years, the terrorist threat gathered, and America's response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient," Rice said.


"Tragically, for all the language of war spoken before September 11, this country simply was not on a war footing ... There was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks."


Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democrat, was the first to take on Rice, focusing on a briefing given Bush on Aug. 6, 2001, at which a document was presented entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."


As members of the audience, including some family members of 9/11 victims applauded, Ben-Veniste demanded the report be declassified.


Commissioner Bob Kerrey, a former U.S. Democratic senator, revealed some of the still-classified memo.


"This is what the August 6 memo said to the president -- that the FBI (news - web sites) indicates patterns of suspicious activity, and I'd say it's consistent with preparations for hijacking," Kerrey disclosed.


The White House said later it was actively looking into declassifying the 1 1/2-page document.


Bush called Rice, who will return to testify before the panel in private, from his pickup truck on his Texas ranch after the three-hour hearing to congratulate her.


"She feels as though she was given fair treatment, that she was treated with respect," National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said.


But some family members of victims of the attacks expressed anger. "No one wants to take any responsibility. Three thousand people died and all they want to talk about is structural problems. They should be ashamed of themselves," said Bob McIlvaine, whose son died when the World Trade Center towers were destroyed in New York.


Rice's calm and determined testimony came in the midst of a bitter presidential campaign and in a week that has seen heavy and widespread fighting in Iraq (news - web sites).


Bush had opposed creation of the commission and resisted calls for public testimony by Rice until public and political pressure grew too strong.


RESPONDS TO CLARKE


Rice responded to damaging testimony by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, who told the panel Bush ignored warnings about al Qaeda before the attacks and focused mistakenly on Iraq afterward.


She sharply denied Clarke's assertion that Bush pushed him to find an Iraqi connection to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York and outside Washington. "I'm quite certain that the president never pushed anybody to twist the facts," she said.





The 10-member commission split largely on partisan lines, with the five Democrats sharply challenging Rice. Questions from the Republicans sought to share responsibility for the attack with the previous Clinton administration.

Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, another Democrat, described the FBI's response to the threat in the weeks before the attack as "feckless."

"Yes, the attorney general was briefed but there was no evidence of any activity by him about this," she said. "Have you actually looked at the messages that the FBI put out? To me, and you're free to comment on them, they are feckless. They don't tell anybody anything. They don't bring anyone to battle stations."

Rice said on entering office in January 2001, the Bush administration fully understood al Qaeda posed a serious threat. She said Bush was regularly briefed by CIA (news - web sites) chief George Tenet and began working immediately to shape a strategy to combat the organization.

"President Bush (news - web sites) understood the threat, and he understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was 'tired of swatting flies'," Rice said.

That drew a sharp response from Kerrey. "Can you tell me one example where the president swatted a fly when it came to Al Qaeda prior to 9/11?" he asked.

Rice: "I think he felt that what the agency was doing was going after individual terrorists here and there and that's what he meant by swatting flies."

During what has become known as the "summer of threat," Rice said the government moved to a "high state of alert and activity." But she said the threats were not specific and most indicated the attack would come overseas, especially in the Middle East and North Africa.

It looks like there were enough warning signs that something like 9/11 could happen and not enough was done about it or shadiness took priority over stopping the attack.

That memo says that Bin Laden wanted to attack in the US. He already had ('93), so it's not like it was earth shattering news.

The memo also gave no indication of how, when, or where he intended to do anything.

What are they going to do, make it a police state in advance of the threat? People would not have stood for it UNTIL, As the fake Gonzo said, after something happened.

I still stand pat that had any person democrat, republican, or communist, had an inkling of what the terrorists had intended to do, how, when, or where, they would have acted on it. The alternative is just horrifying, and would honestly break my spirit about this country and any leader it has.