9/11 Commission Report: "Osama offered to Clinton by Sudan" Claim is Bogus

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

By Scott C. Smith

Regular viewers of Hannity and Colmes on Fox News have heard Sean Hannity say on numerous occasions that the government of Sudan wanted to hand Osama bin Laden over to the United States "on a silver platter," only to have the offer rejected by the Clinton administration.

Hannity says this a lot. If the topic of the day is terrorism, it's a sure thing Sean Hannity will mention the alleged offer by Sudan to turn Osama bin Laden over to the United States.

Fox News analyst Mansoor Ijaz has made the claim that he brokered the deal to turn over bin Laden, as a sort of freelance diplomat.

Ijaz claims that in 1996, he opened talks with the government of Sudan. According to the December 5, 2001 Los Angeles Times, Ijaz says, "From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas."



Was this a legitimate offer? According to the 9/11 Commission's final report, the answer is no.

In the 567-page report, the 9/11 Commission mentions Ijaz only once, as an end note on page 480: "In February 1997, the Sudanese sent letters to President Clinton and Secretary of State Allbright, extending an invitation for a U.S. counterterrorism inspection mission to visit Sudan. The Sudanese also used private U.S. citizens to pass along offers to cooperate...but these offers were dismissed because the National Security Council viewed Sudan as all talk and little action...U.S. officials also feared that the Sudanese would exploit any positive American responses..."

What about the claim, as articulated by Hannity on hundreds of occasions, that we were offered Osama bin Laden on a silver platter? The 9/11 Commission report says it never happened. From page 110 of the report:

"Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. The commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. U.S. Ambassador Timothy Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel bin Laden. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment outstanding."

For years now, conservatives have battered Clinton over his "failure" to accept bin Laden on a "silver platter." Ijaz has made the cable news circuit on many occasions with his claim that he brokered a deal to hand over bin Laden.

Of course, conservatives have always believed the Ijaz story and never accepted the Clinton administration's explanation of the "offer." As Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger wrote in the July 13, 2002 Washington Post: "Although less was known about Osama bin Laden in 1996, when he left Sudan, than has been learned since, U.S. officials pressed the Sudanese to end their support and sanctuary for bin Laden. But no senior Clinton administration official -- from the State Department, the CIA, the Defense Department or the National Security Council -- is aware of any offer by the Sudanese to turn bin Laden over to the United States..."

Berger also adds, "...that he (Ijaz) was not used as a channel of communication by the U.S. government to the Sudanese reflects the disinclination of any administration to use self-appointed diplomats to conduct official U.S. business -- given uncertainties over motivation and interest. Indeed, other governments complained to U.S. officials that Ijaz represented himself -- incorrectly -- as acting on behalf of the U.S. government."

To be fair, attempts were made in 1998 to capture bin Laden, and government agencies developed plans to do so. Following the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa, the Clinton administration decided to attack the camps bin Laden used with cruise missiles. The missiles were fired on August 20, 1998. According to the 9/11 report, bin Laden was missed by a few hours.

Conservatives like Hannity have said for years that the Clinton Administration did nothing to stop terrorism. The 9/11 Commission report shows the administration did take action against terrorists, and describes the Clinton Administration as being "obsessed" with capturing bin Laden.

Of course, in the world according to Sean Hannity and other conservatives, Bill Clinton took no action against terrorism, and it's doubtful the 9/11 report will change their minds.

[Captain_Poncho]

I'm kind of wondering why, in another thread, you'd post a pic of the 9/11 Commission's report with "Handjob" edited in, defame it, mock it, and then quote from it to back up Bubba when it suits you.

Not actually "wondering" per se, because I already know the answer:

You're a lunatic.

[Rascal]

I'm kind of wondering why, in another thread, you'd post a pic of the 9/11 Commission's report with "Handjob" edited in, defame it, mock it, and then quote from it to back up Bubba when it suits you.

Not actually "wondering" per se, because I already know the answer:

You're a lunatic.

LOL

[Blueflame]

I'm kind of wondering why, in another thread, you'd post a pic of the 9/11 Commission's report with "Handjob" edited in, defame it, mock it, and then quote from it to back up Bubba when it suits you.

Not actually "wondering" per se, because I already know the answer:

You're a lunatic.

LABF is not the only American who believes that 9/11 has not yet been investigated thoroughly enough. However, that does not automatically signify that the report contains no facts... and it's disingenuous to suggest that criticism of the scope of the report is equivalent to discrediting every item included in the findings.

[Spider]

.

Not actually "wondering" per se, because I already know the answer:

You're a lunatic.
LOL
I have yet to agree with anything you have posted yet , But that was funny

[Captain_Poncho]

LABF is not the only American who believes that 9/11 has not yet been investigated thoroughly enough. However, that does not automatically signify that the report contains no facts... and it's disingenuous to suggest that criticism of the scope of the report is equivalent to discrediting every item included in the findings.

Actually, Sweetiekins, LABS dismissed the entire report as bunk:

From the "Questions about the 9/11 commission... " thread:

The commission was nothing but a sham whose purpose was to create an appearance of accountability (rather than genuine accountability) with the aim of assuaging the American people.

http://www.bartcop.com/911-handjob.jpg

Now if the entire commission is a sham, why would he quote from its report when it suits his defense of Bubba Clinton? I'd submit it's disingenuous of you to come barrelling to LABS' defense without actually finding out whether or not he discredited the entire report. Once you call the entire commission a "sham," how is it intellectually honest to use that "sham" source as backing for someone you like?

I'm sure interested in your reply on this one.

[Captain_Poncho]

LOL
I have yet to agree with anything you have posted yet , But that was funny

I'm all about bringing everyone together through comedy.

[RaiderH8r]

I'm all about bringing everyone together through comedy.
He'll ramble on about repukes and neo-cons. All the while avoiding the question. Get your galoshes, this is going to be a BIG pile of BS. Hold your nose.

[Taco John]

Anyone else actually reading the book? I've started it... So far I've found out that the FAA and NORAD were pretty much jokes. This CAPPS system is hilarious... They flag the person who is a suspected terrorist... and they hold the bags that he checked in until he gets on the plane. Apparently, that was supposed to do something to prevent hijackings...

NORAD apparently has been sitting on their thumbs since the Cold War ended... But even if they were doing anything worthwhile since then, they'd need authorization from the National Command Authority before they could take any action against hijacked flights...

...and this National Command Authority?


This is half the team. He was too busy reading books to give that authorization.
http://www.thespoof.com/picstore/GeorgeBush/911_bush_reaction_a_a_a.jpg

The other half was in a meeting a Denny's or something and was out of reach until the third plane crashed...

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/issue53pics/rumsfeld.jpg

The biggest failures on 9/11 were the FAA, NORAD, and The National Command Authority.

[Rascal]

I've skipped around a bit, but I yes I agree with you. But I would add CIA and FBI.

FAA, NORAD, and the NCA dropped the ball on 9/11 but the CIA and FBI had dropped their ball long before that.

[Blueflame]

Actually, Sweetiekins, LABS dismissed the entire report as bunk:

From the "Questions about the 9/11 commission... " thread:
"The commission was nothing but a sham whose purpose was to create an appearance of accountability (rather than genuine accountability) with the aim of assuaging the American people."


Note that his criticism of the report is not that there are no facts included; it's in the perception that the report assigns no genuine accountability... or reassurance that measures taken since 9/11 will be adequate to prevent a similar tragedy from being perpetrated in the future.


Now if the entire commission is a sham, why would he quote from its report when it suits his defense of Bubba Clinton? I'd submit it's disingenuous of you to come barrelling to LABS' defense without actually finding out whether or not he discredited the entire report. Once you call the entire commission a "sham," how is it intellectually honest to use that "sham" source as backing for someone you like?

I'm sure interested in your reply on this one.

Your argument appears to be that if (a) LABF regards the commission's goal to be a whitewash of all culpability for 9/11, then (b) he also believes that the report also contains no facts or relevant information, when in fact, he has not indicated that (a) necessarily equals (b). Your position assumes an extension of another individual's beliefs that may or may not exist and because it is an assumption, is it logical to assign infallibility to the theory? I'd say no.

[Captain_Poncho]

Note that his criticism of the report is not that there are no facts included; it's in the perception that the report assigns no genuine accountability... or reassurance that measures taken since 9/11 will be adequate to prevent a similar tragedy from being perpetrated in the future.

First off, I'd like to thoroughly and heartily congratulate you on one of the finest attempts at backpeddaling I've ever seen. Truly a masterful performance. Just re-reading through it fortifies my faith that lefties have the seemingly inborn ability to try to "reason" their way out of a hole ("It depends on what your definition of "is" is...").

Your argument appears to be that if (a) LABF regards the commission's goal to be a whitewash of all culpability for 9/11, then (b) he also believes that the report also contains no facts or relevant information, when in fact, he has not indicated that (a) necessarily equals (b). Your position assumes an extension of another individual's beliefs that may or may not exist and because it is an assumption, is it logical to assign infallibility to the theory? I'd say no.

My position is simple, and doesn't necessitate a long explanation. I'll bullet point it for you so it can serve as an easy reference when you make your second attempt to explain your way out of this:

• LABS called the entire commission a sham. Meaning the WHOLE COMMISSION.

• LABS used this source, whom he had earlier labelled a sham as backing for a point he was trying to make about Slick Willie.

How does this make sense on your planet?

[Rohirrim]

http://www.thespoof.com/picstore/GeorgeBush/911_bush_reaction_a_a_a.jpg
Boy, talk about your "deer in the headlights" look.

[Rohirrim]

• LABS called the entire commission a sham. Meaning the WHOLE COMMISSION.

Who cares? The point is the Sudan/OBL to Clinton handover that neocons have been waving like some kind of victory flag for months on this board - was complete :bs:
rofl

[Rascal]

How about you let LABF answer for himself since the comment was addressed to him and neither of you.

[Rascal]

Who cares? The point is the Sudan/OBL to Clinton handover that neocons have been waving like some kind of victory flag for months on this board - was complete :bs:
rofl


Have you read the entire report?

Until you have all you are going on is this article written by some Scott C. Smith. I have no idea who he is do you? Or are you simply buying into what he says because its against Bush?

Personally I haven't finished reading it the 9/11 report, but I guarantee I will before I put a whole of lot of weight into what somebody else says about it.

[Spider]

I wont read the 9-11 report , I will just ask Michael Moore about it , he has a fair and balanced Point of view ............

[Rascal]

I wont read the 9-11 report , I will just ask Michael Moore about it , he has a fair and balanced Point of view ............

:bs:

thwack

:pigsfly:

[Taco John]

http://www.thespoof.com/picstore/GeorgeBush/911_bush_reaction_a_a_a.jpg
Boy, talk about your "deer in the headlights" look.



For the life of me, I can't understand why he just sat there. It makes me wonder how many lives he could have saved if he would have gotten up and acted like the Commander-in-Chief.

[Mile High Shack]

For the life of me, I can't understand why he just sat there. It makes me wonder how many lives he could have saved if he would have gotten up and acted like the Commander-in-Chief.

what could he have done in 7 minutes that shouldn't have already been done?

[Blueflame]

First off, I'd like to thoroughly and heartily congratulate you on one of the finest attempts at backpeddaling I've ever seen. Truly a masterful performance. Just re-reading through it fortifies my faith that lefties have the seemingly inborn ability to try to "reason" their way out of a hole ("It depends on what your definition of "is" is...").



My position is simple, and doesn't necessitate a long explanation. I'll bullet point it for you so it can serve as an easy reference when you make your second attempt to explain your way out of this:

• LABS called the entire commission a sham. Meaning the WHOLE COMMISSION.

• LABS used this source, whom he had earlier labelled a sham as backing for a point he was trying to make about Slick Willie.

How does this make sense on your planet?

Would you have preferred that LABF choose a different source than the 9/11 report, then? He could have... Richard Clarke said the same thing in his book, Against All Enemies, page 142:

"In recent years, Sudanese intelligence officials and Americans friendly to the Sudan regime have invented a fable about bin Laden's final days in Khartoum. In the fable the Sudanese government offers to arrest bin Laden and hand him over in chains to FBI agents, but Washington rejects the offer because the Clinton administration does not see bin Laden as important or does and cannot find anywhere to put him on trial.

The only slivers of truth in this fable are that a) the Sudanese government was denying its support for terrorism in the wake of the U.N. sanctions, and b) the CSG had initiated informal inquiries with several nations about incarcerating bin Laden, or putting him on trial. There were no takers. Nonetheless, had we been able to put our hands on him then we would gladly have done so. U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White in Manhattan could, as the saying goes, "indict a ham sandwich." She certainly could have obtained an indictment for bin Laden in 1996 had we needed it. In the spring of 1998, she did so. The facts about the supposed Sudanese offer to give us bin Laden are that Turabi was not about to turn over his partner in terror to us and no real attempt to do so ever occurred."

This leaves one with the conclusion that you're criticizing the source; not the substance, of LABF's article.

[Spider]

:bs:

thwack

:pigsfly:
Well Reading Michael moores version would be no different then reading Coulters , Hannitys , Rush's Version .............

[Taco John]

what could he have done in 7 minutes that shouldn't have already been done?



There were two planes in the sky aiming for the Pentagon and the Whitehouse at the time that the president was told "America is under attack." Could the commander-in-chief save the pentagon from it's fate? Who knows? Maybe not. Probably not.

But sitting there incapable of thinking on his feet wasn't going to get it done if it could be done.

Whether he could have prevented it or not isn't as important to me as the fact that he's not capable of thinking on his feet. This commission is telling us that we are going to experience another attack... an attack in which every minute... nay, every second will count.

Watching our commander-in-chief floundering at one of the most crucial moments in American history was gut wrentching.

[Exile_In_SJ]

For the life of me, I can't understand why he just sat there. It makes me wonder how many lives he could have saved if he would have gotten up and acted like the Commander-in-Chief.


I find this type of attitude to be the most humorous. 7 minutes? Just what could he have done in those 7 minutes other than leave for Air Force One earlier? First of all, not all the information was in and one agency didn't know what the other was doing. So the correct answer is nothing different than what he did.

As far as some here saying he looked like a deer in the headlights... where does that come from other than personal bias and opinion. Worthless as anything else.

It's as silly as saying, 'I wonder how many lives could have been saved if WJC didn't have his privates occupied with Monica instead of attempting to get Osama?'

[Exile_In_SJ]

and now, thanks to Sandy Berger the final report from the 9/11 commission is suspect. What did he steal? Did he steal documents that linked Clinton to Sudan and the offering of OBL?

Sandy Berger is a smart man and would not risk Prison time to not have stolen damaging documents to Clinton, or even planted something exculpatory..

[Exile_In_SJ]

There were two planes in the sky aiming for the Pentagon and the Whitehouse at the time that the president was told "America is under attack." Could the commander-in-chief save the pentagon from it's fate? Who knows? Maybe not. Probably not.

But sitting there incapable of thinking on his feet wasn't going to get it done if it could be done.

Whether he could have prevented it or not isn't as important to me as the fact that he's not capable of thinking on his feet. This commission is telling us that we are going to experience another attack... an attack in which every minute... nay, every second will count.

Watching our commander-in-chief floundering at one of the most crucial moments in American history was gut wrentching.


I'm just curious about what evidence you have that he wasn't thinking on his feet? How can you possibly know what he was thinking? I think it's just your bias speaking. You can't possibly know what he was thinking nor can I or anyone here. Now there'll be some halfwits here try and appear funny and insult his thinking ability, but that just illustrates their own limitations in that regard..

I don't see floundering or even indecisiveness... But that's my opinion

[Exile_In_SJ]

I'd like to see a scenario for those 7 minutes. Did the aide tell him that they had the jet that eventually hit the pentagon targeted by the air force and his 7 minute delay prevented the shootdown of said aircraft? Did he even have that information? So what would any of you critics done in that 7 minutes and can you prove that the President had the same opportunity as presented in your imagination? show us something other than Bias. Show us your theory and then back it up.

[Taco John]

I'm just curious about what evidence you have that he wasn't thinking on his feet? How can you possibly know what he was thinking? I think it's just your bias speaking. You can't possibly know what he was thinking nor can I or anyone here. Now there'll be some halfwits here try and appear funny and insult his thinking ability, but that just illustrates their own limitations in that regard..

I don't see floundering or even indecisiveness... But that's my opinion


George Bush is incapable of thinking on his feet. That much has been made clear over the years of his service to America.

The fact that you want to make a case is amusing to me, because you're the first person I've seen even try. I think the general perception among Bush supporters that I know is that Bush might not be the best at on the spot thinking, but he's a good moral man who is against abortion and prays.

[Taco John]

I'd like to see a scenario for those 7 minutes. Did the aide tell him that they had the jet that eventually hit the pentagon targeted by the air force and his 7 minute delay prevented the shootdown of said aircraft? Did he even have that information? So what would any of you critics done in that 7 minutes and can you prove that the President had the same opportunity as presented in your imagination? show us something other than Bias. Show us your theory and then back it up.



Personally, I would have got up, excused myself, and then demanded to speak to Donald Rumsfeld immediately.

Whether I would have prevented any further damage is beside the point. At least I'd be acting like a Commander in Chief.

[Exile_In_SJ]

Really? Hmmm did you know Bush was a fighter pilot? Did you know while flying at supersonic speeds you have to make split second decisions? Did you know hat the fighter he flew was considered to be one of the most difficult planes to fly of that era?
To me, that says he's perfectly capable of thinking on his feet. I have absolutely no problems with his leadership and his capabilities as Commander in Chief, I give him high marks on both counts.

Personally, I could care less if he's against abortion and prays, it makes absolutely no difference to me.

[Taco John]

Really? Hmmm did you know Bush was a fighter pilot? Did you know while flying at supersonic speeds you have to make split second decisions? Did you know hat the fighter he flew was considered to be one of the most difficult planes to fly of that era?
To me, that says he's perfectly capable of thinking on his feet. I have absolutely no problems with his leadership and his capabilities as Commander in Chief, I give him high marks on both counts.

Personally, I could care less if he's against abortion and prays, it makes absolutely no difference to me.



And then out of the blue, he refused to take a physical...

What would you say if tomorrow, Mike Anderson said he refused to take a physical?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Note that his criticism of the report is not that there are no facts included; it's in the perception that the report assigns no genuine accountability... or reassurance that measures taken since 9/11 will be adequate to prevent a similar tragedy from being perpetrated in the future.

Careful, Blueflame:

You're asking Panocha to make the sort of logical distinction of which his Fox News mind has proved incapable time and time again.

But it is fun to watch him and his buddies knee-jerk to Resident Gigglekill's defense. :)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You're a lunatic.

This sort of overreaching response merely underscores just how nervous Panocha and his fellow passengers on the sinking ship that is BushCo are becoming.

[watermock]

By Scott C. Smith

Regular viewers of Hannity and Colmes on Fox News have heard Sean Hannity say on numerous occasions that the government of Sudan wanted to hand Osama bin Laden over to the United States "on a silver platter," only to have the offer rejected by the Clinton administration.

Are you even slightly familiar with Sudan? The Arabs have killed the Christians, and have moved with knives against the more moderate Muslims in the south. There is plenty of evidence that it is of significant interest because of "yellowcake uranium" to several countries, including Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan. Get a clue. There has been mass genocide there and the UN has, as usual, been totally ineffective. This year alone, perhaps as many as another 100,000 will die. Go look it up.

Hannity says this a lot. If the topic of the day is terrorism, it's a sure thing Sean Hannity will mention the alleged offer by Sudan to turn Osama bin Laden over to the United States.

More baloney. It's right there in the report if you really want to look for it.

Fox News analyst Mansoor Ijaz has made the claim that he brokered the deal to turn over bin Laden, as a sort of freelance diplomat.

More bullcrap. Ijaz isn't a Fox News Analyst. He is an interview. While I don't know if Fox pays him, I know he doesn't have his own "show". All of sudden they interview someone, like any other network, and it discredits him?

Ijaz claims that in 1996, he opened talks with the government of Sudan. According to the December 5, 2001 Los Angeles Times, Ijaz says, "From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas."

So they wanted terrorist sanctions lifted! Why do you think terrorist sanctions were in place? Because Sudan had great strawberries? God you people are naive. Sudan has Uranium. It was taken over by Arab militants as a base, and Usama Bin Laden was there. These are freaking facts you osteriches.

Was this a legitimate offer? According to the 9/11 Commission's final report, the answer is no.

No it isn't if you manage to read between the lines.

In the 567-page report, the 9/11 Commission mentions Ijaz only once, as an end note on page 480: "In February 1997, the Sudanese sent letters to President Clinton and Secretary of State Allbright, extending an invitation for a U.S. counterterrorism inspection mission to visit Sudan. The Sudanese also used private U.S. citizens to pass along offers to cooperate...but these offers were dismissed because the National Security Council viewed Sudan as all talk and little action...U.S. officials also feared that the Sudanese would exploit any positive American responses..."

Read that paragraph again.

these offers were dismissed because the National Security Council viewed Sudan as all talk and little action...U.S. officials also feared that the Sudanese would exploit any positive American responses...

This means that Clinton dismissed Sudanese as untrustworthy, not that they didn't have Bin Laden. The fact of the matter is they were willing to turn over Bin Laden to cool the heat on their ethnic cleansing that is still going on. They wanted to throw Bin Laden off as a sacrificial lamb. It's right there in your own post.

What about the claim, as articulated by Hannity on hundreds of occasions, that we were offered Osama bin Laden on a silver platter? The 9/11 Commission report says it never happened. From page 110 of the report:

"Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. The commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. U.S. Ambassador Timothy Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel bin Laden. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment outstanding."

Timothy Carney? He's certainly under the rug. What about Clarke who has been proven to be a liar.

What about Mr. Burger prominently mentioned that was found stuffing top secret documents with side notes out of top security archives in his underwear and socks? This is rediculous and is even more important than Watergate.

For years now, conservatives have battered Clinton over his "failure" to accept bin Laden on a "silver platter." Ijaz has made the cable news circuit on many occasions with his claim that he brokered a deal to hand over bin Laden.

Richard Clarke and Berger have both been shown as liars. The 9/11 commision was never about Iraq anyway. That is just where they spent alot of time wasting money. The issue was about Iraq being a military threat in the region.

Of course, conservatives have always believed the Ijaz story and never accepted the Clinton administration's explanation of the "offer."

Again, just because the Clinton Administration dismissed it, doesn't make it real. Read above. It totally fits into his story. Fact is, he was ignored. Read it again.

As Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger wrote in the July 13, 2002 Washington Post: "Although less was known about Osama bin Laden in 1996, when he left Sudan, than has been learned since, U.S. officials pressed the Sudanese to end their support and sanctuary for bin Laden. But no senior Clinton administration official -- from the State Department, the CIA, the Defense Department or the National Security Council -- is aware of any offer by the Sudanese to turn bin Laden over to the United States..."

Well Duh. It was on non diplomatic channels, and totally ignored. This is so redundant. Berger and Clarke seem to have a little explaining to do.

Clarke has been caught in flat out lies, and Berger was seen taking top secret documents, the originals, out of the archives in his unerwear. Well, that sounds "inadverdent" I always stuff documents next to my balls when I am sweating.

Berger also adds, "...that he (these offers were dismissed because the National Security Council viewed Sudan as all talk and little action...U.S. officials also feared that the Sudanese would exploit any positive American responses...quote]

When was Ijaz official? He was a medium! [quote]The Clinton Administration didn't have a clue. They refused his honest offer to help. just because, and I

That doesn't mean it's untrue, it simply means the Administration didn't follow leads out of channels, and that is the responsibility of the CIA. Jesus Christ.

given uncertainties over motivation and interest. Indeed, other governments complained to U.S. officials that Ijaz represented himself -- incorrectly -- as acting on behalf of the U.S. government."

Wrong. Ijaz never claimed he was representing the US Government. If he had, his head would probably be being used as a soccer ball. WTF are you talking about.

To be fair, attempts were made in 1998 to capture bin Laden, and government agencies developed plans to do so. Following the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa, the Clinton administration decided to attack the camps bin Laden used with cruise missiles. The missiles were fired on August 20, 1998. According to the 9/11 report, bin Laden was missed by a few hours.

This is a pathetic apology. The fact is the attacks were delayed while Clinton was defending himself on the Monica hearings, when he was declaring "That woman is a Liar, soon to be followed by 'depends on how you define sex'"

At that point, he was more concerned with bombing Bosnia to take attention off his personal cum stain and lobbed some missles not at Sudan, but at Bosnia which enabled Islamic Militants to get a foothold in Europe.

Conservatives like Hannity have said for years that the Clinton Administration did nothing to stop terrorism. The 9/11 Commission report shows the administration did take action against terrorists, and describes the Clinton Administration as being "obsessed" with capturing bin Laden.

What actions? Want to be specific there buddy? There was no obsession. There was nothing while the Kobe Towers, the WTC was bombed the first time, the Cole. What did he do exactly? I am obsessed watching Gauge in Porn, but if I masterbate what good does it do? What an assertive joke.

Of course, in the world according to Sean Hannity and other conservatives, Bill Clinton took no action against terrorism, and it's doubtful the 9/11 report will change their minds.

Again, what did Clinton do? You call "obsession" action? What a line of crap.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Hilarious!

The 9/11 Commission Report is conspiring against watercrock and his Clinton/Sudan delusions.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

One more time, slowly, for Denial Boy:

What about the claim, as articulated by Hannity on hundreds of occasions, that we were offered Osama bin Laden on a silver platter?

The 9/11 Commission report says it never happened.

From page 110 of the report:

"Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. The commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. U.S. Ambassador Timothy Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel bin Laden. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment outstanding."

[watermock]

The 9/11 Commission report says it never happened.

From page 110 of the report:

"Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. The commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. U.S. Ambassador Timothy Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel bin Laden. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment outstanding."

Look you dimwit. It was back door. Carney had instructions to onlypush to expell.

You simply didn't read what I said. They didn't listen to him. You simply don't get it. Go to remidial class and read it again once you get thru 6th grade.

It is talking about official channels. Do you think all these cockroaches didn't flee?

Good God, your quoting Berger for Christ Sake.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"You tell 'em, Mock! Everybody knows the 9/11 Commission hates America and their dumb ol' report is just liberal propaganda from bartcop.com!"
http://www.bartcop.com/ho-coulter.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Let's recap the issue here:

Sean Insannity and countless other right-wingnut commentators have repeated, ad infinitum, the charge that "Sudan offered Clinton Osama bin Laden on a silver platter."

From page 110 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

"Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States."

"The commission has found no credible evidence that this was so."

[watermock]

It doesn't matter.

I explained the dynamics of the situation several times in several ways.

If your a Demwit, your a Demwit.

I went right thru everything, laying it out like a kindergarten teacher. Go read my response again rather than cut and pasting an Ann Coulter.

I know your trying to bury the response. Your an idiot that can't really respond point by point. I have beaten you up so bad it's almost like kicking a retard.

I don't play the post game often.

Now that the season has started I expect more coherent arguments. This is a request. Cease and desist from your ranting.

there are other fights to be made.

I understand it's an election year.

God you are literally comedic.

You don't even know my political views because your so busy bee cut and paste.

Dude, you should look twice from where you post from.

The other day you were claiming the Associated Press was some Right Wing Conspiracy.

Your an idiot that posts from BartCop.com

Dude, give it a rest and go get your GED.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Hey jackass:

Your basic premise, in lockstep w/ Hannity, Limbaugh, and others, has always been "Sudan offered Osama bin Laden to Clinton on a silver platter."

Page 110 of the 9/11 Commission report says, unequivocally:

"The commission has found no credible evidence that this was so."

Game, set, match, chump.

[watermock]

I have gone thru this 12 times.

Clarke was shown to be a liar.

Yellow cake was being sold to rouge nations.

This is silly. This was a partisan investigation. You ignore the rape of Sudan by terorists, the fact that Clarke was a liar, the theft of classified documents by Berger. You just ignore reality.

You even continue to act like terrorists are not in Iraq when 100 died this very day.

Your an idiot.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Who are you gonna believe? The 9/11 Commission Report or your lyin' eyes?"
http://www.bartcop.com/ho-rush.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You said:

"Sudan offered Osama bin Laden to Clinton on a silver platter."

Page 110 of the 9/11 Commission report says, unequivocally:

"The commission has found no credible evidence that this was so."

Do I have to draw you a picture, numbskull?

[Rascal]

For the life of me, I can't understand why he just sat there. It makes me wonder how many lives he could have saved if he would have gotten up and acted like the Commander-in-Chief.

To what evidence are you pointing too? I'm guessing the 9-11 report but what page specifically.

[Captain_Poncho]

Pinhead, I never got an answer...

Which is it? Is the Commission a "sham," or, since its report had something you like to hear about Bubba Clinton, is it not a "sham?"

Note: Re-posting the OH so very hilarious prostitute pics for the 50th time is not an answer.

[Spider]

they can go Cheney themselfs , they all support Al Qadea and no Bush .....Cheney them all

[Exile_In_SJ]

that's all LABF has, posting pictures. Mock cleaned his clock..

[Exile_In_SJ]

And then out of the blue, he refused to take a physical...

What would you say if tomorrow, <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/187481" target="_blank">Mike Anderson</a> said he refused to take a physical?

wow, what a deflection. What's this got to do with thinking on his feet? And out of the blue, Clinton got a beej from Monica...what's the relevance?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Which is it? Is the Commission a "sham," or, since its report had something you like to hear about Bubba Clinton, is it not a "sham?"

Um, actually Blueflame beat me to the answer on this one, Snapperhead.

I guess what she had to say just sailed right over your amazingly small cranium--as usual.

Mock cleaned his clock..

Hilarious!

Either you have some serious reading comprehension problems or you're smoking some really strong sh*t.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/911-pics.gif

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/gwbliar.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"More serious by an order of magnitude was the administration's dishonesty concerning pre-9/11 terror warnings. As questions first arose about the country's lack of preparedness in the face of terrorist assault, Condoleezza Rice was dispatched to the
pundit arenas to assure the nation that "no one could have imagined terrorists using aircraft as weapons." In fact, terrorism experts had warned repeatedly of just such a calamity. In June 2001, CIA director George Tenet sent Rice an intelligence report warning that "it is highly likely that a significant Al Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks." Two intelligence briefings given to Bush in the summer of 2001 specifically connected Al Qaeda to the imminent danger of hijacked planes being used as weapons. According to The New York Times, after the second of these briefings, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside United States," was delivered to the president at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, in August, Bush "broke off from work early and spent most of the day fishing." This was the briefing Dr. Rice dismissed as "historical" in her testimony before the 9/11 Commission."

--Ron Reagan

http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/040729_mfe_reagan_1.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"...But image is everything in this White House, and the image of George Bush as a noble and infallible warrior in the service of his nation must be fanatically maintained, because behind the image lies . . . nothing? As Jonathan Alter of Newsweek has pointed out, Bush has "never fully inhabited" the presidency. Bush apologists can smilingly excuse his malopropisms and vagueness as the plainspokenness of a man of action, but watching Bush flounder when attempting to communicate extemporaneously, one is left with the impression that he is ineloquent not because he can't speak but because he doesn't bother to think. "

--Ron Reagan

[watermock]

Ronald Reagan: He was damned impressive in the role of leader of the free world. A sign in the crowd, spotted during the slow roll to the Capitol rotunda, seemed to sum up the mood—a portrait of my father and the words NOW THERE WAS A PRESIDENT.

Reagan wasn't even cold before Ron Jr. started wrapping himself in his fathers persona. He was a constant embarrasment to the family, often going public about his "disagreements" with his father. While the level of hypocracy is in perfectly consistent behavior of the left, it's quite astounding.

When did Ron Reagan say when he was posturing on stage that he dissagreed with virtually everything his father stood for? He was simply used by the Dems to subtily promote abortion as some sort of lifesaver, possibly the most incredible and rediculous assertion in the history of mankind.

He might as well said "We must kill the unborn to save the elderly for 10 years".

Of course, he brought up "5 day old zygotes and embreyos". Now while I feel early termination can happen with the day after pill, the idea that women know they are pregnant in 5 days is totally ludicrous. His comment there is no hearbeat, no brain function and no fingers is true at 5 days.

The fundamental flaw in this *****'s logic is that women don't know they are even pregnant for 45 days unless they get a test. I would guess that over 90 percent of women find out they are pregnant after they miss their cycle.

Finally, stem cell research hasn't stopped whatsoever, and it's problematic if stem cells would of even helped an 83 year old man anyway.

They simply drug this major league liberal around to thrash his father. It's literally embarrasing for a person who's only claim to fame is being popped out by Nancy Davis.

The only one with half a brain is their adopted son, Michael.

[Captain_Poncho]

Captian Poncho is getting some strikes in on the 9-11 commision report ...........
Actually cap is winning that debate

Um, actually, Blueflame handed Panocha his ass in that particular contest before I even had a chance to respond to his silly fundie-speak.

Letting someone else fight for you, eh Pinhead?

Blueflame's "response" to me was circlespeak and attempts at justification of your idiocy via backpeddaling. I know that's what you'd consider sound debate, but that's probably why most everyone else thinks you're a nut roll.

[Captain_Poncho]

Um, actually Blueflame beat me to the answer on this one, Snapperhead.

So, you're letting someone else fight for you now? Classic.

I'm not interested in Blueflame's goofy attempt at justification anymore. It was just so much fluff, although quite better than I suspect you can come up with.

So how about it, Pinhead?

Can't you answer?

Or do you want Blueflame to try to dash to your rescue again?

[Rohirrim]

http://www.bartcop.com/gwbliar.jpg

I call that going too far.

[Captain_Poncho]

It's from Bartcop, LABS' holy altar.

Whatever they post over there is gospel to him, no matter how tasteless.

[Blueflame]

Letting someone else fight for you, eh Pinhead?

Blueflame's "response" to me was circlespeak and attempts at justification of your idiocy via backpeddaling. I know that's what you'd consider sound debate, but that's probably why most everyone else thinks you're a nut roll.

There was no "circlespeak" or "backpeddaling" about my reply to you, Captain. Your argument depended on the projection of LABF's beliefs from a) the Commission's goals were a whitewash to b) the Commission's report therefore is 100% discredited and contains no facts. That second thought does not necessarily automatically follow thought #1.

[Captain_Poncho]

There was no "circlespeak" or "backpeddaling" about my reply to you, Captain. Your argument depended on the projection of LABF's beliefs from a) the Commission's goals were a whitewash to b) the Commission's report therefore is 100% discredited and contains no facts. That second thought does not necessarily automatically follow thought #1.

Blue, your post was nothing but an attempt at justification via classic grasping-at-straws reasoning.

My point, as I said, was simple:

LABS discredited an entire commission as a sham. The whole thing.

He then used the commission he just discredited as a whole to support a point he was trying to make.

The fact that you're trying to justify this train of thought as sane speaks volumes to me about your desire to back up what a lefty says no matter how clearly loopy it is.

But we can certainly keep this discussion on the original thread instead of allowing it to seep into this one.

[Blueflame]

Blue, your post was nothing but an attempt at justification via classic grasping-at-straws reasoning.

My point, as I said, was simple:

LABS discredited an entire commission as a sham. The whole thing.

He then used the commission he just discredited as a whole to support a point he was trying to make.

The fact that you're trying to justify this train of thought as sane speaks volumes to me about your desire to back up what a lefty says no matter how clearly loopy it is.

But we can certainly keep this discussion on the original thread instead of allowing it to seep into this one.

From my perspective, LABF's intention in reference to the commission as a "sham" was that he believes that the purpose of the commission was to whitewash things; not to assign any accountability. And in that regard, it appears to have served precisely that end. No heads of intel agencies or government officials have been fired, or disciplined in any manner, Tenet's resignation notwithstanding. This does not "discredit" the findings of the commission or state that no facts were included in their report. Again, Clarke states the same thing (that the Sudan offer of bin Laden was a "fable") in his book. Whether LABF considered the commission a "sham" or not, the facts do not cease to be true, no matter which source is cited.

As to the thread hijack, I agree. I'll move the 9/11 commission posts to the proper thread.

[patteeu]

Note that his criticism of the report is not that there are no facts included; it's in the perception that the report assigns no genuine accountability... or reassurance that measures taken since 9/11 will be adequate to prevent a similar tragedy from being perpetrated in the future.




Your argument appears to be that if (a) LABF regards the commission's goal to be a whitewash of all culpability for 9/11, then (b) he also believes that the report also contains no facts or relevant information, when in fact, he has not indicated that (a) necessarily equals (b). Your position assumes an extension of another individual's beliefs that may or may not exist and because it is an assumption, is it logical to assign infallibility to the theory? I'd say no.

Assuming LABF does see the report as a mixture of fact and fiction that, on the whole, is a sham, on what rational basis does he (or do we) distinguish between the facts (that can be quoted authoritatively) and the fiction (that makes it all such an obvious "handjob")?

[Captain_Poncho]

Assuming LABF does see the report as a mixture of fact and fiction that, on the whole, is a sham, on what rational basis does he (or do we) distinguish between the facts (that can be quoted authoritatively) and the fiction (that makes it all such an obvious "handjob")?

Easy.

The information that he likes is "fact," while the stuff he doesn't like is a "sham."

[Blueflame]

Assuming LABF does see the report as a mixture of fact and fiction that, on the whole, is a sham, on what rational basis does he (or do we) distinguish between the facts (that can be quoted authoritatively) and the fiction (that makes it all such an obvious "handjob")?

Before this question can be answered, first we have to ascertain whether or not LABF does, in fact, view the report as "a mixture of fact and fiction". Again, it's my opinion that he questions the purpose of the commission and not necessarily their findings. What's so objectionable about wanting a bit of accountability for the security lapses that allowed 9/11 to occur?

Again, however, this is my interpretation of what LABF meant... if it's inaccurate, I'm sure he'll correct the misconception.

[Captain_Poncho]

Before this question can be answered, first we have to ascertain whether or not LABF does, in fact, view the report as "a mixture of fact and fiction". Again, it's my opinion that he questions the purpose of the commission and not necessarily their findings. What's so objectionable about wanting a bit of accountability for the security lapses that allowed 9/11 to occur?

Again, however, this is my interpretation of what LABF meant... if it's inaccurate, I'm sure he'll correct the misconception.

If their overall purpose is to be a sham, then why would the information be valuable? Do you often consider "shams" sources of accurate information?

This whole line of reasoning is hysterical. I'm just amazed you continue to try to mine it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Blueflame's "response" to me was circlespeak...

Not at all, Panocha.

Flame hit the proverbial nail right on the head.

That is, what I perceive to be a "sham" is the failure of the report to hold Resident Gigglekill and his criminal junta accountable for their actions and omissions leading up to 9/11. This is an altogether different proposition than a statement suggesting the report itself contained no facts or valid conclusions (which you erroneously claim I made.)

I guess it's all part and parcel of your typical right-wing fringe/fundamentalist loon mentality that you would fail to make this distinction.

...that's probably why most everyone else thinks you're a nut roll.

You can always tell a ditto monkey is out of ammo when he has to resort to this sort of bandwagon appeal.

Panocha thinks that his hysterical views will somehow acheive legitimacy if he can just find enough of his fellow wingnuts to co-sign w/ them.

[Blueflame]

If their overall purpose is to be a sham, then why would the information be valuable? Do you often consider "shams" sources of accurate information?

This whole line of reasoning is hysterical. I'm just amazed you continue to try to mine it.

An "investigation" that is intended to assuage the citizens' demand for accountability while at the same time, assigning no genuine accountability can nonetheless yield much valuable information, Captain. Furthermore, other sources also support the contention that the claim of Sudanese offers to turn over bin Laden are, in fact, inaccurate. On the one hand we have the 9/11 commission and Richard Clarke stating that it didn't happen... on the other, we have the likes of Rush and Fix News saying it did. I'd say Clarke and the 9/11 commission (which no doubt relied significantly on Clarke's testimony) are more likely to have the accurate facts than rightwing media talking heads.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Furthermore, other sources also support the contention that the claim of Sudanese offers to turn over bin Laden are, in fact, inaccurate.

Which was the original topic of this thread (before Panocha's red herring.)

[patteeu]

An "investigation" that is intended to assuage the citizens' demand for accountability while at the same time, assigning no genuine accountability can nonetheless yield much valuable information, Captain.


Flame hit the proverbial nail right on the head.

That is, what I perceive to be a "sham" is the failure of the report to hold Resident Gigglekill and his criminal junta accountable for their actions and omissions leading up to 9/11. This is an altogether different proposition than a statement suggesting the report itself contained no facts or valid conclusions (which you erroneously claim I made.)

The commission said from the beginning that the investigation WAS NOT intended to "assuage the citizens demand for accountability" or find someone to hold accountable for their "actions and omissions leading up to 9/11."

Here is a quote from their final report:

Our aim has not been to assign individual blame. Our aim has been to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned.

They said this from the very beginning (although to be fair they didn't act like it in the public hearings). So if you were hoping for some kind of smear job I can understand why you were disappointed.

Furthermore, the idea that it is consistent to declare the report a sham and then turn around and use it as an authoritative document is laughable. The report has no value if you find credibility in the "facts" you like and none in the "facts" with which you disagree.

[Blueflame]

The commission said from the beginning that the investigation WAS NOT intended to "assuage the citizens demand for accountability" or find someone to hold accountable for their "actions and omissions leading up to 9/11."

Here is a quote from their final report:



They said this from the very beginning (although to be fair they didn't act like it in the public hearings). So if you were hoping for some kind of smear job I can understand why you were disappointed.

Furthermore, the idea that it is consistent to declare the report a sham and then turn around and use it as an authoritative document is laughable. The report has no value if you find credibility in the "facts" you like and none in the "facts" with which you disagree.

Exactly, Patteeu... what good is an investigation that states from the very start that they are not interested in assigning any culpability for the tragedy? The fact is that without any responsibility or sanctions being demanded, the very same people (with the exception of Tenet and his subordinate who resigned) who failed to connect the dots on September 11 are still at their jobs today... and what reassurance do Americans have that they have miraculously gained the dot-connecting ability? Oh, that's right... we now have Tom Ridge and his sporadic, color-coded alerts to nonspecific, vague threats. Does homeland security share intel with the FBI and CIA... and do they share intel with each other yet? To tell you the truth, I feel less; not more... safe knowing that the same people who failed to prevent 9/11 are still in charge of national security.

IMO, thorough, exhaustive investigations of 9/11 should have started no later than 9/12. And everyone who had any information should have been deposed under oath. A "smear job" wouldn't have been my ideal result from a thorough investigation... but those who dropped the ball should have been demoted or fired, because anything less does a huge disservice to the memory of those who lost their lives as a result of a "failure to connect the dots".

As to the report, I don't think anyone has challenged the accuracy of the findings... or cherry-picked any facts. The criticism is that the investigation did not delve deeply enough into the tragedy and while it gave the American public the illusion of "an investigation", it's my perception that the commission was hogtied by limitations on its scope right from the get-go.

[patteeu]

Exactly, Patteeu... what good is an investigation that states from the very start that they are not interested in assigning any culpability for the tragedy?

Being interested in assigning blame is not the mark of a good investigation. It is more important that they uncover as many facts as possible about the circumstances surrounding the attack.

The fact is that without any responsibility or sanctions being demanded, the very same people (with the exception of Tenet and his subordinate who resigned) who failed to connect the dots on September 11 are still at their jobs today... and what reassurance do Americans have that they have miraculously gained the dot-connecting ability? Oh, that's right... we now have Tom Ridge and his sporadic, color-coded alerts to nonspecific, vague threats. Does homeland security share intel with the FBI and CIA... and do they share intel with each other yet? To tell you the truth, I feel less; not more... safe knowing that the same people who failed to prevent 9/11 are still in charge of national security.

IMO, thorough, exhaustive investigations of 9/11 should have started no later than 9/12. And everyone who had any information should have been deposed under oath. A "smear job" wouldn't have been my ideal result from a thorough investigation... but those who dropped the ball should have been demoted or fired, because anything less does a huge disservice to the memory of those who lost their lives as a result of a "failure to connect the dots".

What facts did the commission fail to uncover that keep you from figuring out who dropped the ball(s)? What is missing from this investigation that keeps it from being thorough?

As to the report, I don't think anyone has challenged the accuracy of the findings... or cherry-picked any facts. The criticism is that the investigation did not delve deeply enough into the tragedy and while it gave the American public the illusion of "an investigation", it's my perception that the commission was hogtied by limitations on its scope right from the get-go.

The commission was not restricted in scope. They chose not to draw conclusions as to blame because they knew that such an attempt would cripple the commission and split it along partisan lines. Instead, they chose to attempt to uncover the facts and draw conclusions on what could be done in the future. They leave the rearward-looking conclusions to the readers.

[Blueflame]

Being interested in assigning blame is not the mark of a good investigation. It is more important that they uncover as many facts as possible about the circumstances surrounding the attack.

Uncovering the facts is obviously goal #1, but if it's demonstrated that some agencies failed to adequately do their jobs, failure to hold those agency heads responsible for that ineptitude leaves the possibility of a recurrence of subpar job performance.

What facts did the commission fail to uncover that keep you from figuring out who dropped the ball(s)? What is missing from this investigation that keeps it from being thorough?

How am I supposed to know what facts may have been uncovered through a real investigation? Since key witnesses were deposed informally (not under oath)... and in a limited time frame at that, I'm not convinced that all possible information was, in fact, gleaned from those witnesses. For example, I still question why fighter planes were not dispatched to intercept the hijacked planes....

The commission was not restricted in scope. They chose not to draw conclusions as to blame because they knew that such an attempt would cripple the commission and split it along partisan lines. Instead, they chose to attempt to uncover the facts and draw conclusions on what could be done in the future. They leave the rearward-looking conclusions to the readers.

The fact that key witnesses were allowed to dictate when, how, and for how long they would testify before the commission speaks volumes about the limited scope of the investigation. What does it say about the US as a nation when more taxpayer dollars are spent on uncovering every salacious factoid surrounding a presidential affair than on the worst terrorist attack in American history?

[Rohirrim]

Being interested in assigning blame is not the mark of a good investigation. It is more important that they uncover as many facts as possible about the circumstances surrounding the attack.

Tell that to your local homicide detective or DA.

What facts did the commission fail to uncover that keep you from figuring out who dropped the ball(s)? What is missing from this investigation that keeps it from being thorough?

At every stage that they found incompetence which directly led to the deaths of 3,000 Americans, somebody's head should roll. The idea that we could suffer this kind of failure of duty and no one loses their job over it, is just ludicrous. The message is: Hey, you can miserably fail at just about every level, and still not lose your job. I don't think that's the message the American taxpayer wants to send to our government for the future. Just as in our lives and jobs, in government there must be personal accountability.

The commission was not restricted in scope. They chose not to draw conclusions as to blame because they knew that such an attempt would cripple the commission and split it along partisan lines. Instead, they chose to attempt to uncover the facts and draw conclusions on what could be done in the future. They leave the rearward-looking conclusions to the readers.

I don't know whether or not this commission was restricted in scope. I do know that Bush/Cheney were fighting against the inception of this commission tooth and nail until the 9/11 families politically embarrassed them into endorsing it. What do I know about what compromises were reached in order to get it going? The idea that they couldn't have operated due to partisanship is a side-step, IMO. The American people should demand results from their politicians, not excuses. Let the chips fall where they may. Whatever the fault of the Clinton administration, let them pay. Whatever the fault of the Bush administration, same thing. That's justice. This commission seems to have come up with some good ideas, but the idea that nobody loses their jobs is a joke.

When I think of what one BJ cost Clinton, I just have to laugh.

[Taco John]

http://www.bartcop.com/gwbliar.jpg



I'm no fan of Bush... But man, you make being Anti-Bush look like the equivalent of being a Klu Klux Klan member in your crazy hateful rhetoric.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm no fan of Bush... But man, you make being Anti-Bush look like the equivalent of being a Klu Klux Klan member in your crazy hateful rhetoric.

Let's not confuse personal hatred w/ moral outrage and demand for accountability.

For some, that pic might be hard to take, but its message is on-target, IMO: the bush administration has lied to us about 9/11 since the get-go, and has yet to be held accountable for these lies.

When I think about all the BushCo statements to the effect that "we had no idea this was coming" or "no one could have imagined aircraft used as weapons," etc., I see red--as would any person of conscience, IMO.

[Taco John]

At every stage that they found incompetence which directly led to the deaths of 3,000 Americans, somebody's head should roll.



Bingo. I find it so amusing the Bush supporters rhetoric prior to the 2000 election when they all preached about accountability for school teachers. And then 3000 people died in an attack on our soil, and all of a sudden nobody should be held accountable. Except for Clinton, of course.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

At every stage that they found incompetence which directly led to the deaths of 3,000 Americans, somebody's head should roll.

My point exactly.

Not only incompetence--but outright lies and perjury, IMO.

[Taco John]

I'm no fan of Bush... But man, you make being Anti-Bush look like the equivalent of being a Klu Klux Klan member in your crazy hateful rhetoric.

Let's not confuse personal hatred w/ moral outrage and demand for accountability.

For some, that pic might be hard to take, but it's message is on-target, IMO: the bush administration has lied to us about 9/11 since the get-go, and has yet to be held accountable for these lies.

When I think about all the BushCo statements to the effect that "we had no idea this was coming" or "no one could have imagined aircraft used as weapons," etc., I see red--as would any person of conscience, IMO.



Whatever. I, for one, have no respect for the message or the tactic. Your expressions of ourtage are neither moral, nor conscionable. It's just hateful political rhetoric that makes you look unreasonable.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Whatever. I, for one, have no respect for the message or the tactic. Your expressions of ourtage are neither moral, nor conscionable. It's just hateful political rhetoric that makes you look unreasonable.

This from the same guy who used to start threads with titles like "Slimy Republicans and their Trashy Politics" on the old DPO?

Gimme a break, dude.

[Taco John]

I think Republicans are the kings of trashy politics and hypocrisy, largely because they claim to be the moral authority due to the parties religious bent, but only bring religion into their politicking when it suits them.

The right, IMO, are far better attack dogs than the left.

But you're easily supplanting them in terms of trash. You run some of the ugliest politics I've ever seen in my life. Is it any doubt why people scratch and claw their way to the center to try and distance themselves from you. You're not only off the deep end, but you're on the bottom of the ocean with a shovel...

And it's you that I wish would be giving the breaks around here... Breaks from your hateful rhetoric

[Taco John]

And for what it's worth, back at the DPO I was a lost soul looking for a party that fit my socially liberal, fiscally conservative leanings. I had been courting the Libertarian party at that time, but wasn't educated enough on their platform to buy in.

I'm bought in now, and have a better understanding of why my politics lean in the way that they do.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But you're easily supplanting them in terms of trash. You run some of the ugliest politics I've ever seen in my life. Is it any doubt why people scratch and claw their way to the center to try and distance themselves from you. You're not only off the deep end, but you're on the bottom of the ocean with a shovel...

I still think you're not really seeing the difference between "hate" and moral outrage/demand for accountability.

I guess it's ultimately a matter of perception.

It's interesting that the right uses this same tactic, i.e., uses the broad brush to paint all BushCorp/GOP critics as "haters."

And it's you that I wish would be giving the breaks around here... Breaks from your hateful rhetoric

What about the "hateful rhetoric" coming from watermock and other right-wing extremists on the forum?

Do the same standards apply to them as well?

[Taco John]

I still think you're not really seeing the difference between "hate" and moral outrage/demand for accountability.


Yes I do. It's the difference between you, and me.




I guess it's ultimately a matter of perception.

Indeed. The unfortunate thing is that the shared perception among a great deal of posters on both sides of the aisle on this board is that you are a hateful liberal who can't be reasoned with whatsoever.


It's interesting that the right uses this same tactic, i.e., uses the broad brush to paint all BushCorp/GOP critics as "haters."


Blah blah blah, you're a victim, and I'm using a GOP tactic... Blah blah blah...

I'm calling it like I see it. Note that I'm not using a broad brush to paint "all BushCorp/GOP critics as 'haters.'" I'm actually using a very fine point.

And it's you that I wish would be giving the breaks around here... Breaks from your hateful rhetoric

What about the "hateful rhetoric" coming from watermock and other right-wing extremists on the forum?

Do the same standards apply to them as well?



What is this? A race to be the craziest most whacked out poster on the politics forum?

You're winning.

[watermock]

People are totally unable to even see the scope of what the investigation was about, yet alone understand it's purpose. How sad. Now this isn't a blanket statement, but Pat has come the closest to the truth on this issue.

First, the Commission wasn't created to find out if Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein destroyed the WTC. It's pretty simple since UBL has allready bragged about it.

The purpose of the investigation was to see what parts of our terrorism deterrance was inadequate and to give recomendations on how to strengthen our ability to defend our country against a variety of terrorist threats, obviously, Islamic Terrorists take center stage here, and no, that isn't profiling, it's stone cold fact dating back over 20 years.

If you don't think the Balkan war was another Religious War, or the Cole, or the Embassy Bombings, or the Indonesian bombings, or the Sudanese massacres are not all interrelated, that's your business. They declared war on us decades ago.

Usama Bin Laden made it a reality. Funny, I haven't seen to much of this clown lately. Have you?

Now to a couple other points, I could make a hundred.

The recommendations. Bush was taking them and studying the commisions report all during the week of the Dem Convention. And why not? While Kerry was "implement them all immediately" as a war cry, I doubt he has even read the conclusions. Giving a blanket approval is simply a failsafe mechanism.

Fact is, we allready created the Dept. of Homeland Security. Now they want to create a Dept. of overseas Terrorism?

Man, excuse me, but that sounds a hell of alot like the FBI domestic and the CIA overseas.

Bush has said he continues to look at the conclusions. The last thing we need right now is to totally shake up the beaurocracy right before an election the enemy has vowed to disrupt.

Just like Bush had to spend time replacing W's off keyboards and all the transitional issues during a vicious electoral battle for the very Presidency, he had begun to take a total review of an intelligence network that was seriously ignored all thru the Clinton Administration. It's allways so amusing that attacks were happening regularly during the Clinton Administration, and there was no percieved threat whatsoever. Essentially 6 months into a new Administration, we got caught with our pants down. No question. But you wont find them blaming Clinton or Bush, because this issue is so God Damn important even these clowns for the most part managed to set aside differences, but they sure got long winded about it.

I see the problems as pretty damn simple, similiar to the attitude the British had about "fortress England" before WW2.

Even now, while 70 year old mothers from Nebraska are strip searched, to provide for "Political Correctness", we are told to watch for suspicious behavior, yet they cry like a stuck pig. Well that's too freaking bad buddy.

I could go on, but LABF will simply spam over this, if anyone is even comming here anymore.

One last parting shot. This LABF and the clan he has dragged in to suck his balls doesn't impress me much.

He's not even a Broncos Fan. He's a radical that wants to hijack a forum for a pathetic mouthpiece. He doesn't even post on the Sports Area and probably doesn't know a Football from a Soccer Ball.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Is it any doubt why people scratch and claw their way to the center to try and distance themselves from you?

the shared perception among a great deal of posters on both sides of the aisle on this board is that you are a hateful liberal who can't be reasoned with whatsoever.

Hmm...I was wondering what all those positive reps I've been getting on a daily basis were all about.

Bottom line:

I say a lot of the things that a lot of left-leaning people here would like to say but can't or won't for various reasons (hence all the positive reps.)

What is this? A race to be the craziest most whacked out poster on the politics forum? You're winning.

This comment really underscores just how far to the extreme right the pendulum and the political narrative have swung over the last 20 years or so.

The republican noise machine has been working overtime for 20 years to demonize liberals and to make the word "liberal" a political cuss word which elicits a specific Pavlovian response.

It elicits hatred in the rethug heart and makes a lot of liberals feel embarrassed or ashamed to admit who they are.

The GOP did its best to demonize Clinton even though, by all objective measures, Clinton was more of a centrist than any Democratic president we'd had in a long time.

So, naturally, anyone to the left of Clinton is "crazy" under this new paradigm.

I guess the question is to what extent do you let the mass media and the pop culture dictate your perceptions.

[patteeu]

Uncovering the facts is obviously goal #1, but if it's demonstrated that some agencies failed to adequately do their jobs, failure to hold those agency heads responsible for that ineptitude leaves the possibility of a recurrence of subpar job performance.

We agree on goal #1. If the facts demonstrate that some agencies failed to adequately do their jobs, then corrective action should be taken whether that action is firing/demoting someone or changing processes. Commissions don't fire people or change processes. They provide facts to the decision makers who make those changes if they believe they are warranted. If voters don't like the changes or lack of changes then they have the opportunity to replace the decision makers. This is how it is supposed to work and this is the way it is working. It is unreasonable to expect a commission to come back with recommendations for firing individuals. When was the last time a commission recommended a firing? Ever?

How am I supposed to know what facts may have been uncovered through a real investigation? Since key witnesses were deposed informally (not under oath)... and in a limited time frame at that, I'm not convinced that all possible information was, in fact, gleaned from those witnesses. For example, I still question why fighter planes were not dispatched to intercept the hijacked planes....

So if you think the investigation was flawed and you don't know what facts were missed, how can you put any stock into the "facts" that were reported. If the investigation had been performed in the manner you describe isn't it possible that some of the new evidence gleaned would contradict the "facts" reported? You can't have it both ways. Either you credit the investigation with being credible and the report with being factual or you discredit the investigation as lacking thoroughness and view the report with skepticism.

The fact that key witnesses were allowed to dictate when, how, and for how long they would testify before the commission speaks volumes about the limited scope of the investigation. What does it say about the US as a nation when more taxpayer dollars are spent on uncovering every salacious factoid surrounding a presidential affair than on the worst terrorist attack in American history?

There is a big difference between a commission having a limited scope based on its charter (imposed by the creators of the commission) and one whose scope is limited only by the choices it makes.

[patteeu]

Tell that to your local homicide detective or DA.

Was I talking about criminal investigations? You must have just misunderstood the context of the conversation. This wasn't a special prosecutor or a district attorney or even a police investigation. This was a fact finding commission.

At every stage that they found incompetence which directly led to the deaths of 3,000 Americans, somebody's head should roll. The idea that we could suffer this kind of failure of duty and no one loses their job over it, is just ludicrous. The message is: Hey, you can miserably fail at just about every level, and still not lose your job. I don't think that's the message the American taxpayer wants to send to our government for the future. Just as in our lives and jobs, in government there must be personal accountability.

The commission doesn't hire and fire government employees. They uncover the facts so that decision makers can make those kinds of decisions. If you don't like the decisions that the decision makers make, then you get a chance to replace the decision makers at the next vote.

[patteeu]

Bingo. I find it so amusing the Bush supporters rhetoric prior to the 2000 election when they all preached about accountability for school teachers. And then 3000 people died in an attack on our soil, and all of a sudden nobody should be held accountable. Except for Clinton, of course.

I find it sadly amusing to see Bush haters making this kind of argument. IMO, reasonable people blame Al Quaeda, Osama Bin Laden, and Islamic extremism for 9/11. Kerry supporters want to blame George Bush instead. Pathetic.

[Taco John]

I find it sadly amusing to see Bush haters making this kind of argument. IMO, reasonable people blame Al Quaeda, Osama Bin Laden, and Islamic extremism for 9/11. Kerry supporters want to blame George Bush instead. Pathetic.




Bah. Blame for Al Queda and all that other stuff you mentioned is inherent.

But that was a nice try to pull an escape hatch for accountability in this administration for their failure to prevent the attack. Put it on me for being an Al Queda sypathizer. Oh, I'm just so pathetic for letting them off the hook while holding Bush's feet to the fire... *YAWN*

Whatever. Accountability isn't just about who attacked us. Accountability is also about who was asleep at the wheel... Sadly, for all that beauty sleep Condi Rice got, it's not working.

[Blueflame]

We agree on goal #1. If the facts demonstrate that some agencies failed to adequately do their jobs, then corrective action should be taken whether that action is firing/demoting someone or changing processes. Commissions don't fire people or change processes. They provide facts to the decision makers who make those changes if they believe they are warranted. If voters don't like the changes or lack of changes then they have the opportunity to replace the decision makers. This is how it is supposed to work and this is the way it is working. It is unreasonable to expect a commission to come back with recommendations for firing individuals. When was the last time a commission recommended a firing? Ever?

The facts, as reported by the commission, do demonstrate that some agencies failed to adequately do their jobs. Yet no corrective action appears to be imminent, other than the creation of yet another bureaucratic position in an already-bloated intel system in which the left hand has no clue what the right hand is doing. With the creation of the new position, we'll have a Secretary of Defense, an NSA, an Attorney General, the head of the CIA, a "terrorism czar" and whatever they call this new bureaucrat... and we're supposed to believe that this will result in better cooperation among our intel agencies? It sounds like too many chiefs to me.

So if you think the investigation was flawed and you don't know what facts were missed, how can you put any stock into the "facts" that were reported. If the investigation had been performed in the manner you describe isn't it possible that some of the new evidence gleaned would contradict the "facts" reported? You can't have it both ways. Either you credit the investigation with being credible and the report with being factual or you discredit the investigation as lacking thoroughness and view the report with skepticism.

If a thorough investigation yielded new information that contradicted parts of the existing report, then it would be up to the commission to determine which data was accurate. For example, suppose the testimony of the president, vice president, or former president changed after the administration of the oath... would one believe the information gleaned from the sworn testimony or from the informal, unsworn one?

Nonetheless, the sworn testimony of witnesses like Richard Clarke would not be likely to change, and if it did, he'd be subject to perjury charges.

There is a big difference between a commission having a limited scope based on its charter (imposed by the creators of the commission) and one whose scope is limited only by the choices it makes.

Yes, there is a big difference. I think the American people wanted and deserved a full, unlimited investigation and many feel shortchanged because so many unaddressed issues and unanswered questions still remain, nearly 3 years after the attacks.

[patteeu]

Bah. Blame for Al Queda and all that other stuff you mentioned is inherent.

But that was a nice try to pull an escape hatch for accountability in this administration for their failure to prevent the attack. Put it on me for being an Al Queda sypathizer. Oh, I'm just so pathetic for letting them off the hook while holding Bush's feet to the fire... *YAWN*

Whatever. Accountability isn't just about who attacked us. Accountability is also about who was asleep at the wheel... Sadly, for all that beauty sleep Condi Rice got, it's not working.

First, let me reverse what my post appears to say. I don't count you among the Bush haters I consider "pathetic." I recognize that you come by your anti-Bush POV without the baggage of being predisposed to find only bad in a Republican administration. When I replied to your post, I was thinking about that particular argument rather than you personally.

Second, I think it is fine to be open to the possibility that someone on our side (as opposed to Osama et al) was so seriously negligent that they deserve to be punished for allowing 9/11 to happen. I'm open to that possibility but so far I haven't seen any convincing evidence that it was the case. To want heads to roll (poor choice of words given recent history but I'll stick with it) without having any reason other than a suspicion that someone must have failed is what I'm calling pathetic. Keep your eyes on the prize; our enemy is international terrorism (primarily islamist) and their potential alliances with rogue nationstates. Our enemy is not Condi Rice or Sandy Berger.

I'm interested to hear about it if you have the smoking gun that proves 9/11 could have been prevented absent negligence.

[patteeu]

The facts, as reported by the commission, do demonstrate that some agencies failed to adequately do their jobs.

Which ones and how did they "fail?"

Yet no corrective action appears to be imminent, other than the creation of yet another bureaucratic position in an already-bloated intel system in which the left hand has no clue what the right hand is doing. With the creation of the new position, we'll have a Secretary of Defense, an NSA, an Attorney General, the head of the CIA, a "terrorism czar" and whatever they call this new bureaucrat... and we're supposed to believe that this will result in better cooperation among our intel agencies? It sounds like too many chiefs to me.

I don't agree with the idea of an intelligence czar and a cabinet level bureacracy either.

If a thorough investigation yielded new information that contradicted parts of the existing report, then it would be up to the commission to determine which data was accurate. For example, suppose the testimony of the president, vice president, or former president changed after the administration of the oath... would one believe the information gleaned from the sworn testimony or from the informal, unsworn one?

Nonetheless, the sworn testimony of witnesses like Richard Clarke would not be likely to change, and if it did, he'd be subject to perjury charges.

So how can you tell the difference between conclusions based on sworn testimony and those which are based on informal interviews? You can't. So we are back at the point that you try to have it both ways. If you like a "fact" then it is a fact if you don't then the report is a sham.


Yes, there is a big difference. I think the American people wanted and deserved a full, unlimited investigation and many feel shortchanged because so many unaddressed issues and unanswered questions still remain, nearly 3 years after the attacks.

The howling from the left that we heard when this commission started it's work was that the report needed to be released before the election. If it were held until after the election then it would be because the republicans were supressing information. That was what Americans wanted at that time, or so we were told by the left. Now that the report is out and the conspiracy theories fostered by the left haven't been born out, you complain that the investigation wasn't thorough enough.

This investigation wasn't limited in any practical way other then the deadline for the report. Your side asked for that deadline, not Karl Rove or Dick Cheney.

[Taco John]

I'm interested to hear about it if you have the smoking gun that proves 9/11 could have been prevented absent negligence.


Absent negligence? Obviously negligence is the biggest part of the problem.

When on January 31, 2001 (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/01/31/terrorism.report/) a report came out from the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, it stated "Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers," there was only one president who could have done anything in response to that report. That president's name is not Bill Clinton.

What did Bush do in for nine months after that report came out? He took month long vacations (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/august01/2001-08-03-bush-vacation.htm) while a report entitled " Bin Laden determined to strike in US. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/) crossed his desk. (and Bush supporters want bash Kerry for his record... gimme a break)

I find that rather unacceptable. I've heard the rationalization thas says that I should just let it slide. He shouldn't be held accountable. How could he have known? Well. I'll tell you how he could have known. He could have read the report (http://www.nssg.gov/PhaseIIIFR.pdf):



<b>Page 8</b>
The combination of unconventional weapons proliferation with the persistence of international terrorism will end the relative invulnerability of the U.S. homeland to catastrophic attack. A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter century. <I>The risk is not only death and destruction but also a demoralization that could undermine U.S. global leadership</i>. In the face of this threat, our nation has no coherent or integrated governmental structures.


<b>Page 23</b>
<i>Failure to prevent</i> mass-casualty attacks against the American homeland will jeopardize not only American lives but U.S. foreign policy writ large. It would undermine support for U.S. international leadership and for many of our personal freedoms, as well. Indeed, the abrupt undermining of U.S. power and prestige is the worst thing that could happen to the structure of global peace in the next quarter century, and nothing is more likely to produce it than devastating attacks on American soil.


<b>Page 27</b>
One of this Commission’s most important conclusions in its Phase I report was that attacks against American citizens on American soil, possibly causing heavy casualties, are likely over the next quarter century. This is because both the technical means for such attacks, and the array of actors who might use such means, are proliferating despite the best efforts of American diplomacy.


<b>Page 30</b>
First is the development of new transportation security procedures and practices designed to reduce the risk that importers, exporters, freight forwarders, and transportation carriers will serve as unwitting conduits for criminal or terrorist activities. Second is bolstering the intelligence gathering, data management, and information sharing capabilities of border control agencies to improve their ability to target high-risk goods and people for inspection. <i>Third is strengthening the capabilities of border control</i> agencies to arrest terrorists or interdict dangerous shipments before they arrive on U.S. soil.




Do you even think Bush read the report? "Mr. President, this report says people will die en masse on American soil if something isn't done quickly to prepare for it." How many pages of that report do you honestly think he read?

If he did read it, he'd have no doubt caught on to the fact that we should be strengthening our border security, not making it more lax (http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/regulation/2004-06-07-bush-trucks_x.htm). And what is the deal with while [url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040311-113623-8745r.htm]Border Patrols take an $18million dollar cut? (]funding the arts an extra $18 million[/url) Are we going to decorate the border so that when terrorists (or illegal aliens) cross it (http://www.indystar.com/articles/6/166161-6506-010.html), they can appreciate some culture?

I think the guy is nuts. I think the vision that he has for this country is zany. It's awfully damned liberal. As far as I'm concerned, he's a sheep dressed up in wolfs clothing.

He's created a welfare program for churches. What kind of sense does that make? Religion should exist based on the market of ideas, and who are willing to support those ideas with their tithing. Government should not take money out of my pocket and force my tithing. It's ridiculous and wholly unethical. Not to mention, it's liberal, even if it is perceived as conservative because it's funding a church. It's NOT conservative. It's fiscally liberal.

Or what about the welfare for farmers program that he got going, as if farmers don't get enough tax breaks already. Now don't get me wrong, I was raised in a farming family. My grandfather homesteaded some land in Idaho, and that farm was the bedrock of that side of my family. But America didn't pass a harware store subsidy to protect Ma and Pa kettle from the Walmarts of the world... Why should farming be any different? Whether American farms are family farms, or a corporate farms, we'll still eat. And while I'm all for the family farm concept, I can't help but notice the hypocrisy in which we pick and choose who is worthy of government help, and who isn't. The same people who will protect this handout, and feel disgruntled when anyone attacks it, are a lot of the same people who won't think twice about criticizng a "welfare mama" for not being able to make it on her own.

And you know, I'm all for cutting taxes. But not while you're growing government. All we're doing of opening up another credit card for our children to pay off... And giving our bankers, China and Japan, a political chip over our heads as we grow our debt. And for what reason? Economic stimulation? We significantly cut the governments funding while at the same time we were growing government. We gave monsterous tax cuts to businesses. What have they done with those savings? The Tax cuts started in 2001, and it's now 2004. That's three years of tax savings. You think the American worker is seeing those tax savings? (http://www.cfo.com/article/1,5309,10348%7C%7CA%7C93%7C,00.html)

[patteeu]

Absent negligence? Obviously negligence is the biggest part of the problem.

That's not obvious at all. Your post contains nothing that would lead me to think that Bush (or the government in general) should have prevented 9/11. The idea that terrorism was a threat wasn't a mystery to anyone so your report with it's general warnings regarding attacks on US soil isn't very incriminating.

When on January 31, 2001 (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/01/31/terrorism.report/) a report came out from the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, it stated "Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers," there was only one president who could have done anything in response to that report. That president's name is not Bill Clinton.

What did Bush do in for nine months after that report came out? He took month long vacations (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/august01/2001-08-03-bush-vacation.htm) while a report entitled " Bin Laden determined to strike in US. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/) crossed his desk. (and Bush supporters want bash Kerry for his record... gimme a break)

I find that rather unacceptable. I've heard the rationalization thas says that I should just let it slide. He shouldn't be held accountable. How could he have known? Well. I'll tell you how he could have known. He could have read the report (http://www.nssg.gov/PhaseIIIFR.pdf):





Do you even think Bush read the report? "Mr. President, this report says people will die en masse on American soil if something isn't done quickly to prepare for it." How many pages of that report do you honestly think he read?

If he did read it, he'd have no doubt caught on to the fact that we should be strengthening our border security, not making it more lax (http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/regulation/2004-06-07-bush-trucks_x.htm). And what is the deal with while [url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040311-113623-8745r.htm]Border Patrols take an $18million dollar cut? (]funding the arts an extra $18 million[/url) Are we going to decorate the border so that when terrorists (or illegal aliens) cross it (http://www.indystar.com/articles/6/166161-6506-010.html), they can appreciate some culture?

I think the guy is nuts. I think the vision that he has for this country is zany. It's awfully damned liberal. As far as I'm concerned, he's a sheep dressed up in wolfs clothing.

He's created a welfare program for churches. What kind of sense does that make? Religion should exist based on the market of ideas, and who are willing to support those ideas with their tithing. Government should not take money out of my pocket and force my tithing. It's ridiculous and wholly unethical. Not to mention, it's liberal, even if it is perceived as conservative because it's funding a church. It's NOT conservative. It's fiscally liberal.

Or what about the welfare for farmers program that he got going, as if farmers don't get enough tax breaks already. Now don't get me wrong, I was raised in a farming family. My grandfather homesteaded some land in Idaho, and that farm was the bedrock of that side of my family. But America didn't pass a harware store subsidy to protect Ma and Pa kettle from the Walmarts of the world... Why should farming be any different? Whether American farms are family farms, or a corporate farms, we'll still eat. And while I'm all for the family farm concept, I can't help but notice the hypocrisy in which we pick and choose who is worthy of government help, and who isn't. The same people who will protect this handout, and feel disgruntled when anyone attacks it, are a lot of the same people who won't think twice about criticizng a "welfare mama" for not being able to make it on her own.

And you know, I'm all for cutting taxes. But not while you're growing government. All we're doing of opening up another credit card for our children to pay off... And giving our bankers, China and Japan, a political chip over our heads as we grow our debt. And for what reason? Economic stimulation? We significantly cut the governments funding while at the same time we were growing government. We gave monsterous tax cuts to businesses. What have they done with those savings? The Tax cuts started in 2001, and it's now 2004. That's three years of tax savings. You think the American worker is seeing those tax savings? (http://www.cfo.com/article/1,5309,10348%7C%7CA%7C93%7C,00.html)

Lots of reasons to not like the guy, but no sign of the kind of negligent behavior that I was asking about.

FWIW, your position that there should be no tax cuts as long as government is growing is no different than saying that you are against ALL tax cuts, IMO. I doubt that either of us will ever see a shrinking federal governemnt during our lifetimes.

[watermock]

Page 8
The combination of unconventional weapons proliferation with the persistence of international terrorism will end the relative invulnerability of the U.S. homeland to catastrophic attack. A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter century.

Since that allready happened in 1993 they seem a little behind the curve wouldn't you say?

And the report says next 25 years, does it not? And why do they say the persistence of international terrorism will end the relative invulnerability of the US Homeland.

Shouldn't of they of been shouting even louder? How do they make the assumption that it "would end the relative invulnerability" in the future.

This is what they call a "white paper" to be studied. I am not sure they even give any specific scenarios other than "unconventional" and "persistent". Considering Usama Bin Laden had allready declared war to kill every infadel globally in 1998, I am not sure that they were living in the present, given the "next 25 years" quote.

As I had mentioned, Britan had the same delusions of the Island Fortress destroyed.

And once again I have to stress the reason for the commision was NOT TO FIND OUT IF IRAQ WAS BEHIND THE BOMBINGS, as the left constantly asserts.

Look at the major recommendation. A terrorist czar. Didn't we just create one and he's so tired of arranging the agency he likely will retire from fatigue.

We need another one? I thought we needed coordination between domestic FBI and Foriegn CIA because their wires were crossed. I am not sure what another level of government will accomplish.

Seems like Ridge is on his job since he has picked up the latest warnings. Now they might be red herrings, who knows.

Obviously the enemy's strategy is to foster discontent in Iraq and US policy regarding it, to get Americans and others forced out so they can create a full blown terrorist state to attack the Saudi Crown, which has always been the ultimate objective, and they think it's in their reach.

My prediction is they will rachet up attacks in Iraq but not attack the US, instead, letting "intercepts" create fear in the economy.

That would be my plan. Attacking the US would hand the election to Bush.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bingo. I find it so amusing the Bush supporters rhetoric prior to the 2000 election when they all preached about accountability for school teachers. And then 3000 people died in an attack on our soil, and all of a sudden nobody should be held accountable. Except for Clinton, of course.

Reminder:

With Clinton & Monica, it was "The flag is falling," if we didn't get every detail.

With Bush and the bin Ladens and 9-11 and four thousand dead, it's "What good would it do to look backwards and assign blame?"

If you ask the American media, oral sex is worse than 4,000 dead.

http://www.bartcop.com/bush-yellow.JPG

[Blueflame]

Which ones and how did they "fail?"

We could probably start with this...

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4904237.html

I don't agree with the idea of an intelligence czar and a cabinet level bureacracy either.



So how can you tell the difference between conclusions based on sworn testimony and those which are based on informal interviews? You can't. So we are back at the point that you try to have it both ways. If you like a "fact" then it is a fact if you don't then the report is a sham.

It's not rocket science... we know who testified under oath and who didn't.

The howling from the left that we heard when this commission started it's work was that the report needed to be released before the election. If it were held until after the election then it would be because the republicans were supressing information. That was what Americans wanted at that time, or so we were told by the left. Now that the report is out and the conspiracy theories fostered by the left haven't been born out, you complain that the investigation wasn't thorough enough.

This investigation wasn't limited in any practical way other then the deadline for the report. Your side asked for that deadline, not Karl Rove or Dick Cheney.

"My" side, eh? The howling you would have heard from me is that the investigation was a day (actually 2+ years) late and a dollar short, the election (politics) be damned. And more was limited than time... when key witnesses dictate when, how, and for how long they will testify (as opposed to being subpoenaed and compelled to testify under oath) and which testimony will be deemed "classified" and which items of information the public can be trusted to see, then there most certainly are "practical" limitations. And, IMO, the investigation should have continued until no further unanswered questions remain... it should have been delved into at least as thoroughly as Clinton's infidelity was... meaning an independent counsel with unlimited power and an unlimited budget... you know... like Ken Starr.

[watermock]

First, while terrorists are blowing up Chuches (and please, spare me this is a new phenom), and New York and Washington are bracing for more terrorist attacks, spare me the hysterics.


"My" side, eh? The howling you would have heard from me is that the investigation was a day (actually 2+ years) late and a dollar short, the election (politics) be damned. And more was limited than time... when key witnesses dictate when, how, and for how long they will testify (as opposed to being subpoenaed and compelled to testify under oath) and which testimony will be deemed "classified" and which items of information the public can be trusted to see, then there most certainly are "practical" limitations.

Well that's a real neat thought process consistent with congress. While the Department of Homeland Security was made despite objections, now we need yet another "coordinator and department"? Bush might fold for political reason, not because the Cabinet Position has allready been created. What do you expect from the new one? More Civil Rights? Good God what is wrong with these people.

And, IMO, the investigation should have continued until no further unanswered questions remain... it should have been delved into at least as thoroughly as Clinton's infidelity was... meaning an independent counsel with unlimited power and an unlimited budget... you know... like Ken Starr.

As allready stated, they wanted the investigation done before the election. Also, the testimony of Bush was historically a total abberation, and when your under oath to protect National Security, to demand your sources would of been tantamount to treason, but the 9/11 commision saw no reason to think that we shouldn't disclose any and all operatives, even tho they were just starting to get into the asshole of the enemy after Clinton dismboweled the intelligence community with his satellite intelligence theory supported by the idiot Clark.

While the democrats are still back in 2001, Ridge has been busy trying to get intelligence on the next attacks.

I think I finally got thru your heads that this wasn't an investigation if Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. That finally died out, just like more blather.

Nothing came out of the recommendations other than to put another layer of Government to assess the problem.

Pouring out 600 page reports and 30 pages of recommendations is helpfull, but to assert that they didn't have time to do their job, your simply buying into more conspiracy theory, and it's a long way out of the bunny hole. I have been there and back.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why so many little lies? Perhaps it is desensitization--getting us used to being lied to.

There is a fascist flavor to the Neocon tactics. Hiltler lied his way into power. The Soviet controlled press continually lied. The populace did not revolt, under either government.

People can even prefer being lied to, as our Wingnuts and the Nazi fanatics have shown us. Reality can be boring. A political soap opera, complete with good and bad guys, can be ever so much more entertaining. Fox News, for example.

The Bushies and Neocons have no choice but to lie, IMO. The tax cuts are not good for the average person- they are good for the elite. The war in Iraq is not necessarily good for the average person- alternative energy research is much more likely to be of benefit to the common man, and is much cheaper than our hundreds of billions spent in Iraq.

What is good for the international banks (lots of debt, both public and private) is not good for the rest of us. What is good for the Military/Industrial Complex (a permanent state of limited warfare) is not good for the rest of the world. What is good for the oil giants like Exxon/Mobil (invading Iraq and getting exclusive access to trillions of dollars worth of light, sweet crude, producable at less than a dollar per barrel) is not necessarily good for the rest of the world, which may do much better with decentralized (solar, wind) energy production and distribution. In short, what is good for the elite is not necessarily good for the rest of us.

For an administration that is acting directly against the self-interest of the majority of Americans to remain so popular teaches us the value of lies. Because this administration is doing irreversible things, they don't even need to stay in power to vastly benefit the elite- the debt we are incurring is permanent, our reliance on oil is increasing, the unequal distribution of wealth is increasing, Bush cronies are reaping billions. That money will never be paid back. The chances of Kenny Boy Lay ever paying back any significant fraction of what he stole by lying are very remote, for example.

The Bush Kleptocracy continues, and some of our fellow citizens apparently LIKE being raped, so long as they can be lied to at the same time.

[watermock]

Your a hysterical communist that is unable to even see the topic at hand.

What is so funny is your a Facist and don't even know it.

The Bushies and Neocons have no choice but to lie, IMO. The tax cuts are not good for the average person- they are good for the elite. The war in Iraq is not necessarily good for the average person- alternative energy research is much more likely to be of benefit to the common man, and is much cheaper than our hundreds of billions spent in Iraq.

What is good for the international banks (lots of debt, both public and private) is not good for the rest of us. What is good for the Military/Industrial Complex (a permanent state of limited warfare) is not good for the rest of the world. What is good for the oil giants like Exxon/Mobil (invading Iraq and getting exclusive access to trillions of dollars worth of light, sweet crude, producable at less than a dollar per barrel) is not necessarily good for the rest of the world, which may do much better with decentralized (solar, wind) energy production and distribution. In short, what is good for the elite is not necessarily good for the rest of us.

For an administration that is acting directly against the self-interest of the majority of Americans to remain so popular teaches us the value of lies. Because this administration is doing irreversible things, they don't even need to stay in power to vastly benefit the elite- the debt we are incurring is permanent, our reliance on oil is increasing, the unequal distribution of wealth is increasing, Bush cronies are reaping billions. That money will never be paid back. The chances of Kenny Boy Lay ever paying back any significant fraction of what he stole by lying are very remote, for example.

The Bush Kleptocracy continues, and some of our fellow citizens apparently LIKE being raped, so long as they can be lied to at the same time.

[watermock]

I can see this idiot spinning like a top.

[patteeu]

We could probably start with this...

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4904237.html

First, the point of the congressman quoted in the article is that NORAD lied about what happened after the fact. If true, then this deserves remedial attention, but even if NORAD had been bluntly honest about what happened that day, it wouldn't have saved a single life on 9/11.

Second, it seems like the commission did it's job with flying colors if they provided this congressman with the facts he needed to uncover a lie by NORAD. (Again, I'm assuming for the sake of discussion that the congressman's accusation is well-founded).

It's not rocket science... we know who testified under oath and who didn't.

Other than a small amount of unclassified testimony that was taken in front of television cameras, you have no idea how the testimony relates to the conclusions of the report. Therefore you have no way of distinguishing between the claims that you would put faith in (those derived from sworn testimony) and those you would take with a fair bit of skepticism (those derived from informal interviews). Maybe it is a little closer to rocket science than you realized.

"My" side, eh? The howling you would have heard from me is that the investigation was a day (actually 2+ years) late and a dollar short, the election (politics) be damned. And more was limited than time... when key witnesses dictate when, how, and for how long they will testify (as opposed to being subpoenaed and compelled to testify under oath) and which testimony will be deemed "classified" and which items of information the public can be trusted to see, then there most certainly are "practical" limitations. And, IMO, the investigation should have continued until no further unanswered questions remain... it should have been delved into at least as thoroughly as Clinton's infidelity was... meaning an independent counsel with unlimited power and an unlimited budget... you know... like Ken Starr.

If by key witnesses you mean President Bush and Vice President Cheney, then the commission had no choice. The president and vice president cannot be compelled to testify to congress (whether it is a congressional committee or a commission created by congress).

There will always be practical limitations on any investigation. The key here is that in this case the limitations other than the deadline were placed on the commission by it's own members (and by the constitution wrt not being able to compell sworn testimony from the president).

The independent counsel law was allowed to sunset. There is no such thing anymore. Republicans never favored the independent counsel law and democrats changed their tune after the Clinton years.

[Taco John]

FWIW, your position that there should be no tax cuts as long as government is growing is no different than saying that you are against ALL tax cuts, IMO. I doubt that either of us will ever see a shrinking federal governemnt during our lifetimes.



Well, I'm certainly not "against ALL tax cuts," as you infer, so I'll politely disagree with your analysis. I'd rather see program cuts before tax cuts. And I'm well aware that voting for either Republicans or Democrats will ultimately lead to larger government. Faced with that, I'm either forced to vote for a third party candidate, or the more fiscally conservative between the two parties. Based on what we've seen in recent history, that would be the Democrats, suprisingly enough..

[patteeu]

Well, I'm certainly not "against ALL tax cuts," as you infer, so I'll politely disagree with your analysis. I'd rather see program cuts before tax cuts. And I'm well aware that voting for either Republicans or Democrats will ultimately lead to larger government. Faced with that, I'm either forced to vote for a third party candidate, or the more fiscally conservative between the two parties. Based on what we've seen in recent history, that would be the Democrats, suprisingly enough..

Actually, I didn't infer that you were "against ALL tax cuts," I inferred that you made a misstatement when you said that you were against tax cuts as long as government continued to grow. I was just pointing out that if you stick to that principle you will be opposing all tax cuts for the foreseeable future (and probably for the rest of your life).

[Taco John]

Well, that's just basics of fiscal responsibility. I'm not against Tax cuts. But I am against fiscal irresponsibility. Cutting taxes while growing government is fiscally irresponsible. I don't buy this notion that tax cuts for the sake of tax cuts is a good thing. Especially not the way it's being done.

Cutting taxes without cutting programs is the essence of the credit card mentality, asking future generations to pay our bill for us. ESPECIALLY if the Administration is not going to operate on a balanced budget. All that is going to happen is a repeat of Bush I, and taxes will eventually have to be raised to compensate for shortfall.

Tax cuts are dessert. They're not the main course.

Just like a mountain lake, our National budget is drained by government spending rivers and program tributaries in which that tax revenue flows. When we cut our supply of that budget "water," we are forced to borrow from China and Japan to keep our reservoir full and continue funding these rivers. Without cutting down the flow of the subsequent rivers, we're not helping ourselves. We're just spending other people's money. Money that will have to be paid back with interest.

Without cutting programs, cutting taxes is fiscally irresponsible.

[Blueflame]

First, the point of the congressman quoted in the article is that NORAD lied about what happened after the fact. If true, then this deserves remedial attention, but even if NORAD had been bluntly honest about what happened that day, it wouldn't have saved a single life on 9/11.

Second, it seems like the commission did it's job with flying colors if they provided this congressman with the facts he needed to uncover a lie by NORAD. (Again, I'm assuming for the sake of discussion that the congressman's accusation is well-founded).



Other than a small amount of unclassified testimony that was taken in front of television cameras, you have no idea how the testimony relates to the conclusions of the report. Therefore you have no way of distinguishing between the claims that you would put faith in (those derived from sworn testimony) and those you would take with a fair bit of skepticism (those derived from informal interviews). Maybe it is a little closer to rocket science than you realized.



If by key witnesses you mean President Bush and Vice President Cheney, then the commission had no choice. The president and vice president cannot be compelled to testify to congress (whether it is a congressional committee or a commission created by congress).

There will always be practical limitations on any investigation. The key here is that in this case the limitations other than the deadline were placed on the commission by it's own members (and by the constitution wrt not being able to compell sworn testimony from the president).

The independent counsel law was allowed to sunset. There is no such thing anymore. Republicans never favored the independent counsel law and democrats changed their tune after the Clinton years.

Here's another link that illustrates why some may believe the commission's report was not extensive enough. (note: lengthy, but worth the read)

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0802-06.htm

[Captain_Poncho]

Nothing on commondreams.org is worth any reading.

[Blueflame]

Nothing on commondreams.org is worth any reading.

The FBI whistleblower's (Sibel Edmonds) letter is.

[Captain_Poncho]

I love how you complain about Fox News being too biased to use as a resource and then you point everyone to commondreams.org as if it were viable.

Classic.

[Blueflame]

I love how you complain about Fox News being too biased to use as a resource and then you point everyone to commondreams.org as if it were viable.

Classic.

While it's not my usual habit to post commondreams.org articles here on the Mane, it was my opinion that this particular letter posted on that site contained valuable information, the website's bias notwithstanding.

And Fix is still biased, too. :pfbbt: ;D

[patteeu]

Here's another link that illustrates why some may believe the commission's report was not extensive enough. (note: lengthy, but worth the read)

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0802-06.htm

That is certainly an interesting letter and I'm mildly impressed. It was worth reading, but I think it is still prudent to take the charges with a grain of salt. To believe everything in the letter (including the author's conclusions and opinions stated as facts), one would have to believe that there is a massive conspiracy by both major parties to cover up not only past mistakes, but ongoing security vulnerabilities that could be easily addressed. This doesn't seem entirely plausible so I'd like to hear the "other side of the story" before I draw my own conclusion. OTOH, I don't just dismiss the letter as being baseless.

Here are some of my thoughts regarding the letter:


I was under the impression that the critics of the commission in this thread thought that there was misconduct or negligence in the Bush administration that was being whitewashed. This letter talks about problems in the bureaucracy but very little if anything that can be attributed to the political administration.
Some of the things the author criticizes are the kinds of inefficiencies you can find in any large bureacracy. For example, letting work pile up so that you can increase your department's budget. That's not to say that these problems shouldn't be corrected, it just means that it isn't surprising to find some of these things going on. IMO, these kinds of things can't be laid at the feet of the Bush administration.
The bipartisan commission heard this testimony (and presumably the "other side of the story" as well) and made a unanimous determination that it didn't merit mention in their report.


You originally said that the facts in the commission report indicate that some agencies failed to adequately do their jobs. This letter doesn't really address that claim since these facts were rejected by the commission. We are left to wonder whether the facts were left out because they weren't believed to be relevant, accurate, or important or whether they were left out because the commission was a bipartisan whitewash. If it was the former, then IMO the bipartisan unanimous commission's judgement should be taken over this individual's judgement. If the commission was a whitewash and they are suppressing this information then I think you have to question all the facts in the report. This brings us back to where we started. Either the commission report can be relied upon as a fair representation of the facts or it is a whitewash, not both.

[Blueflame]

That is certainly an interesting letter and I'm mildly impressed. It was worth reading, but I think it is still prudent to take the charges with a grain of salt. To believe everything in the letter (including the author's conclusions and opinions stated as facts), one would have to believe that there is a massive conspiracy by both major parties to cover up not only past mistakes, but ongoing security vulnerabilities that could be easily addressed. This doesn't seem entirely plausible so I'd like to hear the "other side of the story" before I draw my own conclusion. OTOH, I don't just dismiss the letter as being baseless.

Here are some of my thoughts regarding the letter:


I was under the impression that the critics of the commission in this thread thought that there was misconduct or negligence in the Bush administration that was being whitewashed. This letter talks about problems in the bureaucracy but very little if anything that can be attributed to the political administration.
Some of the things the author criticizes are the kinds of inefficiencies you can find in any large bureacracy. For example, letting work pile up so that you can increase your department's budget. That's not to say that these problems shouldn't be corrected, it just means that it isn't surprising to find some of these things going on. IMO, these kinds of things can't be laid at the feet of the Bush administration.
The bipartisan commission heard this testimony (and presumably the "other side of the story" as well) and made a unanimous determination that it didn't merit mention in their report.


You originally said that the facts in the commission report indicate that some agencies failed to adequately do their jobs. This letter doesn't really address that claim since these facts were rejected by the commission. We are left to wonder whether the facts were left out because they weren't believed to be relevant, accurate, or important or whether they were left out because the commission was a bipartisan whitewash. If it was the former, then IMO the bipartisan unanimous commission's judgement should be taken over this individual's judgement. If the commission was a whitewash and they are suppressing this information then I think you have to question all the facts in the report. This brings us back to where we started. Either the commission report can be relied upon as a fair representation of the facts or it is a whitewash, not both.

The letter was presented to illustrate my contention that the commission's report was perhaps not thorough enough. If the head of the FBI's translation unit encourages a delay in translation of possibly-timesensitive messages... and continues to employ personnel who: a) are allegedly unqualified for the job and b) could be sharing information with hostile operatives, it would seem that such ineptitude should not be rewarded. And as Ms. Edmonds observes repeatedly, the changes recommended by the commission will not be likely to correct the serious problems she cites.

As to the reliability of her testimony, if it were not deemed credible and reliable, why did Ashcroft place her under a gag order?

I'm just one American, Patteeu... but even in my mind, a plethora of unanswered questions remain.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

While it's not my usual habit to post commondreams.org articles here on the Mane, it was my opinion that this particular letter posted on that site contained valuable information, the website's bias notwithstanding.

You just don't get Panocha's logic, Flame:

You see, the statement "2+2=4" is false if it's made on commondreams.org ;)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/del-ny.JPG