Home | Community | Message Board


World Seed Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Richard Clarke Testimony
    #2467686 - 03/24/04 03:10 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

they are broadcasting it live at http://www.cnn.com

look for the CNNRadio link to the right of his photo
at the top of the page.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesir tripsalot
Administrator
 Arcade Champion: Skeleton Park

Registered: 07/10/99
Posts: 6,486
Re: Richard Clarke Testimony [Re: afoaf]
    #2467709 - 03/24/04 03:20 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

watching it, this guys got a great memory. Good stuff.


--------------------

"Little racoons and old possums 'n' stuff all live up in here. They've got to have a little place to sit." Bob Ross.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Richard Clarke Testimony [Re: sir tripsalot]
    #2467795 - 03/24/04 03:58 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

do you have a subscription to cnn?

where did you get the video link?


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OnlineLearyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 30,093
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 5 minutes, 22 seconds
Re: Richard Clarke Testimony [Re: afoaf]
    #2468010 - 03/24/04 05:12 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

It was funny. I was watching "The Daily Show" last night, and they were playing the recording of Dick Cheney on the Limbaugh show. Dick Cheney tried to downplay Clarke's knowledge of what went on in The White House by saying of Clarke "he wasn't in the loop".

John Stewart said something like "Um.....why wasn't the top counterterrorism advisor 'in the loop'?"

Cheney and Bush always seem to make things worse for themselves each time they open their mouth.






--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: Park Avenue Playground - The Trip



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Richard Clarke Testimony [Re: afoaf]
    #2468271 - 03/24/04 06:30 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I really liked Dick Clark on American Bandstand. Where would American music be without him?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Richard Clarke Testimony [Re: Swami]
    #2468291 - 03/24/04 06:37 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)



--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesir tripsalot
Administrator
 Arcade Champion: Skeleton Park

Registered: 07/10/99
Posts: 6,486
Re: Richard Clarke Testimony [Re: afoaf]
    #2468342 - 03/24/04 06:58 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I was watching it on T.V. I got my computer and T.V going at the same time. I multi-task.


--------------------

"Little racoons and old possums 'n' stuff all live up in here. They've got to have a little place to sit." Bob Ross.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: Richard Clarke Testimony [Re: afoaf]
    #2469110 - 03/24/04 10:48 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

"I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11. To them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask -- once all the facts are out -- for your understanding and for your forgiveness."

Richard Clarke, March 24, 2004.




That takes some guts, I can't picture Bush ever doing that.


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 11 days, 4 hours
Re: Richard Clarke Testimony [Re: Edame]
    #2469134 - 03/24/04 10:53 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Richard Clark for President!


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: Richard Clarke Testimony [Re: sir tripsalot]
    #2469439 - 03/25/04 12:02 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

sir tripsalot writes:

watching it, this guys got a great memory.

Uh huh.

I wonder if his great memory recalls this press conference from August of 2002 --


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.


--------------------

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesir tripsalot
Administrator
 Arcade Champion: Skeleton Park

Registered: 07/10/99
Posts: 6,486
Re: Richard Clarke Testimony [Re: Phred]
    #2469744 - 03/25/04 01:25 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

There should be a rule in this forum that if you reply to someone it shouldn't be more than 20 times the size of the post you are replying to.


--------------------

"Little racoons and old possums 'n' stuff all live up in here. They've got to have a little place to sit." Bob Ross.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
Re: Richard Clarke Testimony [Re: Phred]
    #2469870 - 03/25/04 02:23 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I read the entire transcript and don't feel edified in any way. Could you point out where the major discrepancies are?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: Richard Clarke Testimony [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2472441 - 03/25/04 10:28 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Heh. I was preparing to do a lot of typing on this, then got distracted by someone at the door. For whatever reason I decided to check a few other websites before getting back to The Shroomery. I came across this at Boortz.com. So I can now answer with a quick cut and paste. Serendipity.

-------------------------------------

Clarke told the commission, as he told America in his book, that the Bush administration did virtually nothing to address the threat of Al Qaeda until the attacks of 9/11.? Nothing.? He said that Bush was virtually unprepared to act as though it's a major problem.

Uh oh.? Small problem.? The White House was a few steps ahead of Clarke yesterday ... as was Fox News Channel.? Jim Angle is a reporter for Fox.? As the news about Clarke's book started to hit Angle remembered a briefing he received from a White House spokesman in August of 2002.? That briefing was for background.? That means that the seven reporters on the telephone conference call could not identify who their source was .. .only what their source said.? Angle remembered that the person who delivered that briefing was ... Richard Clarke.?

As luck would have it, Angle had a recording of that briefing.? He listened to it and found that what Clarke was saying then was markedly different from what Clarke was saying now.? So Angle went to the White House to seek permission to release a transcript of that 2002 briefing, and to identify Richard Clarke as the source.? The White House, after conferring with the National Security Council, agreed.

So what did Clarke have to say in the 2002 briefing??

Let's start with a statement Clarke made to the 9/11 Commission yesterday.? Clarke told the commissioners that early on in the Bush administration he told the president:? " ... and I said, well, you know, we've had this strategy ready ... ahh ... since before you were inaugurated.? I showed it to you.? You have the paperwork.? We can have a meeting on the strategy anytime you want."

So .. there's Clarke telling the media and the commissioners yesterday that he had presented paperwork to Bush on a strategy for dealing with Al Qaeda and was ready to discuss it.? But what did he say to Jim Angle in 2002?? This:? "I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush Administration."

Lying then?? Or lying now?

And what about this "Bush did virtually nothing" claim??

In the 2002 background briefing Clarke said: "When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that triggered the NSPD from one of roll back to one of elimination."? "NSPD" is National Security Presidential Directive.? So Clark was telling reporters in August of 2002 that the directive from the president in March of 2001 was to stop swatting at flies ... to eliminate Al Qaeda.? This is what calls doing virtually nothing?

In the 2002 briefing Clarke also told Angle and the rest of the reporters that Bush had ordered an increase in CIA resources by five times .. .including funding for covert actions against Al Qaeda.? Again ... doing virtually nothing?

Here's the kicker.? It comes from the transcript of the 2002 Clarke briefing ... near the end.?

Jim 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 months just after the administration came into office?

Richard Clarke:? "You got it.? That's right.

So .. while the terrorist threat was increasing Clinton made no changes in his plan of action against terrorism during the last two years of his presidency, but Bush got on the stick immediately.? That is what Clarke is now describing as "doing virtually nothing."

Obviously Clarke is lying.? We just have to figure out which statements are the lies?? Was he lying in 2002 when he was working in the Bush White House?? Or is he lying now when he's trying to sell a book?


---------------------------------------


pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: Richard Clarke Testimony [Re: Phred]
    #2472570 - 03/25/04 11:38 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I'm not entirely sure of this guy Richard Clarke myself, but I'd like to see him vindicated, if only because it would hurt Bush's chance of reelection.

Richard Clarke claims that his 2002 interview was not factually inconsistent with his present position, and that the difference is primarily one of tone.

To address the two examples in the boortz article:
Today: " ... and I said, well, you know, we've had this strategy ready ... ahh ... since before you were inaugurated. I showed it to you. You have the paperwork. We can have a meeting on the strategy anytime you want."
Back then: "I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush Administration."

These are not inconsistent. All the second point says is that the Bush administration did not continue any plan from the Clinton administartion, not that Bush never heard of any Clinton strategy. In fact, the first implies that there never was actually the meeting he asked for, therefor, no chance to pass the strategy into the Bush administration.
You can see further clarification of what his "no plan passed" on statement made later in the transcript:

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.

As you can see, Clarke never directly denies that "the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus", but dodges the question.


Back then:
Question: "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 months just after the administration came into office?
Richard Clarke: "You got it. That's right.

However, looking at the transcript, "there was no plan" obviously refers to the previous statement by 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."
and the "there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the months just after the administration came into office?" refers to the previous statement that "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, the "no new plan since 1998" turns out to be "no new plan to use ground forces", and the "on the stick immediately" is "began to change Pakistani policy".


There was a third point in the article, dealing with "Bush did nearly nothing". However, this quote is out of context, and doesn't include a direct quote saying what "Bush did nearly nothing" about.
I'm too lazy to go get the recent transcripts, so I'll leave that one be, for now.


My point is, that what Richard Clarke claimed in testimony, under oath, that his present testimony and his 2002 press briefing are inconsistent in tone rather than fact, is a tenable claim.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/12/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Richard Clarke Testimony [Re: phi1618]
    #2472969 - 03/25/04 02:52 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Does anyone have a link to the transcripts of his testimony yesterday?


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefalcon
In the green

Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 6,928
Last seen: 1 day, 9 hours
Re: Richard Clarke Testimony [Re: afoaf]
    #2473333 - 03/25/04 04:57 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I think Clark was asked to do this by the adminstration so these issues would be addressed now and Bush would not have to answer any questions that related to
to what Clark reveals. I also have a green monkey that lives in the wheel well of my car and makes it go. No, really, Clark is much too sweet and such an easy target that it seems like he's acting as a pressure releif valve. sssssss


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: Richard Clarke Testimony [Re: falcon]
    #2473356 - 03/25/04 05:01 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

What? Are you serious? The only reason clark seems an easy target is because the administration is so damn good at ad hominem attacks. Clark is revealing, or claiming, things that are surprising and new, regardless of your politics.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Richard Clarke Testimony [Re: afoaf]
    #2473574 - 03/25/04 05:46 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I'd love to see Dr. Rice and Dumb Furor testify before committee...

just to set the record straight, of course.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefalcon
In the green

Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 6,928
Last seen: 1 day, 9 hours
Re: Richard Clarke Testimony [Re: phi1618]
    #2475957 - 03/26/04 08:51 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I am serious and he is revealing new things.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Interesting story on Clark. luvdemshrooms 823 8 01/16/04 05:00 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* What is Wesley Clark doing with NED? (Weird shit)
( 1 2 all )
PsiloKitten 1,713 32 10/15/03 09:28 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Clark to Run
( 1 2 all )
EchoVortex 1,208 21 09/18/03 10:42 AM
by shakta
* Latest Poll: Clark Tied With Bush EchoVortex 477 1 09/23/03 01:37 AM
by PsiloKitten
* Wesley Clark Is Right
( 1 2 all )
dill705 1,621 34 07/03/08 12:48 AM
by DieCommie
* Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment
( 1 2 all )
Chemy 1,396 25 06/24/08 07:09 PM
by johnm214
* HR 799 - The Impeachment of Richard B. Cheney danknugz81 1,560 15 05/01/08 07:58 PM
by zappaisgod
* Wes Clark? Anyone heard of this guy? medicinebag 714 12 12/14/03 05:10 AM
by havatampa

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
1,683 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
MushroomCube.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.061 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 19 queries.