storm1977

China has been doing the same thing to the US and the rest of the world for quite some time now. It is called capitalism..... That is the way the system works ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

How about we look at unemployment rates for 2003 of some of our competitors: USA - 5.6% UK - 5.2% France - 8.5% Germany - 9.8% Russia - 7.9% Spain - 11.3% Japan - 5.4% All data from: CIA world Factbook http://www.photius.com/rankings/unemployment_rate_1.html This puts the UK, US, and Japan in the top. Doesn't seem to me we have a big problem, but France, anf Germany do..... Not to mention spain. Looks like Russia is making its way back. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

What kills me is that unemployment keeps going down, but you hear... "It isn't going down Fast enough" Fast enough for What????? It is sure as shit better than if Unemployment was going up right? And even if id did go up slightly, it would still be below the 30 year running average. Shit, go to Germany where there unemployment is around 10% and you will see how good we have it here. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

There was almost too much information on this page http://bls.gov/. Search it I am sure you can find what you are looking for!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

I have a question.... I hear so much on the news about unemployment being bad and I hear the Democrats talking about how Bush has lost all these jobs, so I went and searched for the numbers online. I ended up at The Bureau of Labor web page. (Clicky page below) The Facts: Current unemployment rate = 5.6% (Feb 2004) So far in 2004 aprrox = 6%. The 30 year average unemployment rate in the USA is 6.55%. So, we are below average. (Seems good to me) The 10 yr low occurred in 2000 with 4.0%. This is when the DOW (a key market indicator) was trading at/ around 11K and the Nasdaq was at its peak 5K. In other words right before the bubble burst. So, given that there was a Market bubble and then recession due to its bursting and then terror fears after 9/11 and still unemployment in the USA is below the 30 year average.... I don't know, but to me it that seems pretty damn good. Not to mention Home Ownership is at an all time high.... So, why is everone claiming unemployment is so bad??? Chris http://bls.gov/ and the yearly stats: http://bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Are those tatoos and if they are what are they? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

I don't believe that Kerrry has an advantage over Bush when it comes to terrorism and this is why I feel that way. No matter what happens, no matter how bad intelligence was leading up to 9/11 or what ever. This is what I ask myself.. Who would UBL rather see elected in the USA? Kerry or Bush? My guess is that UBL would rather see Kerry elected, and therefore my vote goes the other way. Kerry is a thinker and a sympathizer.... Bush like him or not is a doer. Shoot first ask questions later. And, IMO when it comes to Terrorism, that is the only effective way to handle it. (My opinion of course). chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

I thought Farmer McNasty was at the Ranch!!!!!!!!!!!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

I will give you most of that, however sometimes I wonder if Bush is really thinking.... Ok he says he will give amnisty to mexicans in the south. My first thought was that he was doning that for votes, but then I realized that doing that would piss off his southern voters. Chances are good that more of his southern voters would vote than the mexican minority. So, isn't he killing himself doing that? Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

I hear you .... Clinton used to say (Ka-sovo) Kosavo alll the time.... IT's (Kos-a-vo) He put the wrong emphas-sis on the wrong sylab-le. It kills me when high ranking or popular people mispronounce words.... Anyway I just found out the sharp difference between the words proscribed and prescribed. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Yes but when one of the guys on the commity holds up Clarks book at the beginning of the seccion and says "Everybody Needs to read this book..." It smacks of partisan BS!!!!! Is he the terrorism Czar? Is he credible???? I sure as shit don't trust his words anymore than you trust the presidents words. Is he the ultimate authority in this matter? Maybe I don't know.... But you can't take what he says as truth because he is either Lying now or was Lying in 2002... So which is it? On a different note, has anyone realized that everything that is good for america is bad for the Democrats. Things the Democrats don't want to happen in the next 6-8 months. 1) The don't want the economy to improve. 2) they don't want UBL to be caught. 3) They don't want unemployment to go down 4) They don't want Iraq to become peaceful 5) They don't want gas prices to drop. The list goes on..... Why is that? Is it because they are more interested in their own gain then they are in the prosperity of the USA? Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Sorry, but I don't see the need to publically testify when she has been more than willing to answer any questions the panel asjks behind closed doors. You don't have the right to hear that info... You can read the final report on what was found. To say this is a NONpartisian commity is INSANE. This thing has become some politically charged it is stupid. And Clark..... Trying to sell books....That is SAD. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Consipracy theories say the magnetic drive is already functional..... According to a show on Tech TV the Sweedish military detected an aircraft on radar at Mach 9. Almost one year to the date later they detected another aircraft on radar at Mach 12. Not sure I can believe it although I find it difficult to imagine the Blackbird built in the 50's and 60's with slide rules are still the fastest manned aircraft on earth ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Sorry, I know that seemed a bit strange.... Anyway she testified a while ago, but for the past week most meadia outlets have been saying "Rice refuses to talk with commity" blaa blaa blaa .... I call that Spin .... They hadn't been saying she already met privately and refuses to talk publically. Today was the first metion of it in the major news organizations I read. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/26/911.commission/index.html Notice under the title it says "ANOTHER" ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

WRONG Rice spoke with the Commision already for 4 hours.... But the media doesn't tell you that does it. She answered quests in a closed door seccion because of a confidence with the president. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Off the subject, but still very interesting is what was mentioned about the Iraq Al Queda connection during the Clinton Administration. I won't post really anything until I get my hands on the transcripts from the past few days of meetings, but did anyone here the main reason for Clinton Bombing in Sudan???? Anyway tha guy they were going after was a an AlQueda operative whom the week before had met with SH and his #2 and recieved funding from them..... Interesting.... Anyone know a good place to get the transcripts??? Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

EXTREAMELY left coast liberal.... That is all i know (or think anyway). ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

During testimony yesterday Clark said the Bush administration didn't do enough during the first 8 months. He also implied that THe Bush administration did not continue where The Clinton administration left off. Yet in this transcript he said quite the opposite and in fact the Bush adminitration put in 5 FOLD the money the Clinton administration did toward covert operations... ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

On that theme Quade stop using money since it is only a symolic representation of the gold backing it. Paper money and checks have not true value ... They are just symbols. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

You can find the article here: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,115085,00.html THis interview was with Jim Angle of Fox News. It is interesting that his story has changed in such a short time.... Maybe it could be bitterness for being "Demoted".... Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02 Wednesday, March 24, 2004 WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003. RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years. And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent. And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided. So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda. The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals. Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance. And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline. QUESTION: When was that presented to the president? CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process. QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president? CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think. QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy? CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me. JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct? CLARKE: All of that's correct. ANGLE: OK. QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested? CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on. QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ... CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on. ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented? CLARKE: In October of '98. QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing? CLARKE: Right, which was in September. QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ... CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table. QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort? CLARKE: There was no new plan. QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ... CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new. QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ... CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations. QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000? CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably. ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues? CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate? One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions. ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ... CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started. QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had? CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that. (Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.) ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office? CLARKE: You got it. That's right. QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals? CLARKE: That's right. QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD — the actual work on it began in early April. CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel. ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something? CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away. QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget? CLARKE: Yes it did. QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later? CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination. QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct? CLARKE: No, it was March. QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops — now we haven't completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda? CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don't know what we would have done. QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground? CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we'd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

OK, I googled everything possible and don't see anything except for an article which say: If there was a extiction asteroid about to hit earth, NoOne would be notified including the White House. Oh well.... ignorance is bliss. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

I know.... I know.... I said.." not to be stupid or anything" .... It is hard to say Nostradamus predicticed this to happen and not sound stupid. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Not to get stupid on you guys but Nostradamus has a recently dicovered proverb of a meteor to hit near the mediteranian during august/sept of this year. There was an article in a reputable New york Newspaper about it. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

You Know btter than that SKYBYTCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Taken out of Context Let's see the real Quote -> That looks better.... Maybe you missed the IMO right before the statement. Stop Spinning!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty