CHRIS WALLACE is Dishonestly SPINNING his Clinton Interview [Archive] - The Orange Mane

View Full Version : CHRIS WALLACE is Dishonestly SPINNING his Clinton Interview

BroncoBuff

09-28-2006, 02:32 AM

Normally I'd just assume that Chris Wallace and his right-wing point of view were understood and accepted as fact by everybody, including Wallace himself. But in the endless round of interviews he's been giving, basking in his newfound "notoriety," he has shown himself to be dishonest in recounting the conversation, and dishonest in ackowledging his bias.

On NBC News he said, "I certainly thought it was a reasonable question, to ask any president, 'could you have done more?'"

Well, "could you have done more?" would have been a reasonable and respectful question on this very important issue. But that was NOT what he said. What he actually said was:

"why didn’t you do more ...?"

A NOT-so-subtle difference. The word choice "why didn't you do more" assumes several hostile facts - 1) You COULD have done more, 2) You SHOULD have done more, and 2) You CHOSE not to do more. Saying "Why didn't you," is hostile, assumptive and a dead giveaway of Wallace's negative bias. It's a more subtle vesrion of the old saw: "have you stopped beating your wife?" ... think about it. If he had actually said what he FALSELY QUOTED HIMSELF as saying: "Could you have done more?" ... none of those 3 implications would be present."Could you have ..." would have been a respectful, basically unbiased question."Why didn't you ..." is assumptive, hostile and biased.This might seem like mincing words to you - but it's a clear and obvious exposure of his bias. And this hostile wording cleary contributed to Clinton's angry reaction. I can state from experience that, if an attorney asked a witness a question that began "why didn't you...?" I would rise and object "assuming facts not in evidence."

.

BroncoBuff

09-28-2006, 02:34 AM

MORE ...

This part is even more telling - though harder to communicate in written word. The next time you see the interview, watch for this very telling exchange:

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?
CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him ...
WALLACE: Right!
CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some....
It doesn't translate here in written words well, but starting with parts bolded, the temperature was rising. The 2 bolded Clinton lines were actually one answer, with Wallace's "Right" inserted in defiant interruption of that answer.

An unbiased jounalist, a Cronkite or whomever, would have NO CAUSE to insert a defiant "Right!" in the middle of any answer to a question, and Wallace's insertion thereof is POSITIVE EVIDENCE of his bias, and imo, of his intent with the entire interview.

Instead of saying the word "Right," he might as well have said:
See? Exactly! or...

THAT'S MY POINT! or...

Ah-HA!!

It makes me nauseaous to watch Chris Wallace portraying hinself as an "honest journalist," who merely asked "reasonable questions" while he basks in the (admitteldy) strong reaction he provoked. Nauseaous.

broncocalijohn

09-28-2006, 02:40 AM

And Clinton blaming Bush in recent comments is over the line too. Seems past presidents dont come out with statements about current presidents. And I jsut dont mean the Mister. Seems the NY misses has been flaping her jaws. There were many instances that could have put Al Quida on our sights. I am not going to blame one president over the other on this whole matter. Intelligents were screwed. Clinton, though, showed his hot head in that interview. Buff, you are correct as the two statements are different. When they are spoken in a certain matter, that is when the differences come out. I wonder how far this interview will go.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-28-2006, 02:43 AM

Yep.

Wallace also ambushed WJC in that he claimed he wanted to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative when the Faux News interview was in its planning stage.

Instead, the smarmy little presstitute sandbagged Clinton with the typical right-wing sneak attack.

Wallace certainly learned one thing from the encounter...something about messing with the bull and getting the horns... ;)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-28-2006, 02:45 AM

And Clinton blaming Bush in recent comments is over the line too.

Not when he's simply stating the facts.

Fact: Media whores like Wallace refuse to hold Bush accountable for his monumental screw-ups.

broncocalijohn

09-28-2006, 02:48 AM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-28-2006, 03:02 AM

yep, and Clinton saw the signs and didnt do enough.

That's a bold-faced lie.

Completely contrary to the facts.

But facts have never concerned you, have they?

Dont try and pull this one on Bush and Bush only.

Like hell I won't.

9/11 happened on Bush's watch.

Bush, in spite of warning after warning, did NOTHING in an attempt to prevent the attacks.

What part of this don't you get?

Clinton is your hero and did nothing wrong.

There you go with the deflections again.

Bush did nothing in response to all those warnings about a major attack on U.S. soil, and you're trying to blame Clinton.

Pathetic! :pity:

What was somalia about? Humanitarian help or going after a war lord? Got the hell out regardless of what he was there for.

Poppy Bush sent American troops into Somalia. The "humanitarian" mission was a face-saving effort whose purpose was to distract public attention from Poppy's Iran-Contra troubles, e.g., his pardons of the Iran-Contra felons whose testimony could have sent him and Red Ink to prison.

BroncoBuff

09-28-2006, 03:08 AM

yep, and Clinton saw the signs and didnt do enough. Dont try and pull this one on Bush and Bush only. Oh wait, that is all you do. Clinton is your hero and did nothing wrong. What was somalia about? Humanitarian help or going after a war lord? Got the hell out regardless of what he was there for.

Well .... that's a different issue.

This thread merely exposes Wllace's bias, his intent going into the interview , and his nauseatingly sanctimoneous and dishonest recounting of his words and his bias.

Imo, there's enough blame to go around. Before 9/11 happened, only one person seems to have appreciated the gravity of the threat posed by bin-Laden - Richard Clarke. Everybody else - you, me, everybody - was shocked.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-28-2006, 03:14 AM

Before 9/11 happened, only one person seems to have appreciated the gravity of the threat posed by bin-Laden - Richard Clarke.

Yet even Reagan's former CT czar criticized Clinton for being 'too obsessed' with Bin Laden.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-28-2006, 03:16 AM

there's enough blame to go around.

Yikes!

Where have I heard that before?

BroncoBuff

09-28-2006, 03:21 AM

Well ... before you call me a "mollifying eunuch" again ;D .... go here: http://orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=1291334#post1291334

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-28-2006, 03:33 AM

Well ... before you call me a "mollifying eunuch" again ;D .... go here: http://orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=1291334#post1291334

OK, I went there, and I have to say that the facts don't support this assessment:

I think there's probably enough blame to go around for not PREVENTING 9/11 ...

That is, if, by "enough blame to go around," you mean Clinton didn't try harder to destroy al Qaeda and Bin Laden than Bush, or that Clinton and Bush were equally responsible for the failure to prevent the attacks.

Not sure if this is what you're suggesting here, but, if so, then the facts do not support such an assessment.

BroncoBuff

09-28-2006, 03:44 AM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-28-2006, 03:53 AM

All I'm saying is: EIGHT MONTHS is about the perfect length of time in, to say that both administrations can swear off the balme game altogether.

There are FAR more important issues. Like the Chimp's failure to catch OBL ...

Could you imagine the outcry from the right-wing peanut gallery and the "liberal" media if Clinton had received numerous warnings about a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil and ignored those warnings? Or if he had responded to such warnings by going on vacation for a month?

Can you imagine if, after 9/11, Clinton had said "I don't know where Bin Laden is, and I really don't give a f_ck?"

It's double standards like these that make me want to throw up.

24champ

09-28-2006, 04:27 AM

Well .... that's a different issue.

This thread merely exposes Wllace's bias, his intent going into the interview , and his nauseatingly sanctimoneous and dishonest recounting of his words and his bias.

Imo, there's enough blame to go around. Before 9/11 happened, only one person seems to have appreciated the gravity of the threat posed by bin-Laden - Richard Clarke. Everybody else - you, me, everybody - was shocked.

Speaking of Richard Clarke, former President Clinton mentioned him in the interview as saying everything in his book is as quoted by Clinton himself, "Read his book and read his factual assertions. Not opinions, assertions. He said we took vigorous action after the African embassies, we probably nearly got bin Laden." Ok so in Clarke's book he actually rips Clinton-

"Because of the intensity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had always been heavily criticized for bombing Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in Wag the Dog tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. For similar reasons he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI director who had failed to fix the bureau or to uncover terrorists in the US. He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they didn't want to conduct.

"He had tried that in Somalia. The military had made mistakes and blamed him. In the absence of a bigger provocation from Al-Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he couldn't do anymore."

From reading Richard Clarke's book and its quite the opposite of what you tried to potray it sir.

24champ

09-28-2006, 04:31 AM

Could you imagine the outcry from the right-wing peanut gallery and the "liberal" media if Clinton had received numerous warnings about a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil and ignored those warnings? Or if he had responded to such warnings by going on vacation for a month?

Can you imagine if, after 9/11, Clinton had said "I don't know where Bin Laden is, and I really don't give a f_ck?"

It's double standards like these that make me want to throw up.

You know what makes me want to puke is when Clinton did not take up the offer on Bin Laden from Sudan. Mansour Ijaz of the Los Angeles Times, has written of the attempts that Sudan made to offer bin Laden to Clinton. Both presidents have many failures, Tora Bora was a mistake on Bushes watch by letting the so called tribes go into the mountain, that pissed me off but in a war mistakes happen, however with Clinton he ignored the warning bells even when Bin Laden declared war on us in 1996.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-28-2006, 05:35 AM

You know what makes me want to puke is when Clinton did not take up the offer on Bin Laden from Sudan.

It makes me want to puke when people like you keep repeating lies and disinformation like the above.

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

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.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-28-2006, 05:45 AM

Ok so in Clarke's book he actually rips Clinton-

Hardly.

The excerpts you posted are more an indictment of the opposition party that repeatedly thwarted Clinton in his efforts to destroy al Qaeda.

Here are just a few examples of what I'm talking about:

Clinton sponsored legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network - identical to orders given by Bush after 9/11 - but it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas (Enron's go-to guy in Washington.)

Clinton sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 9/11.) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

Clinton sent anti terrorism and airport security measures to the house in 96, 97, 98, 99 and 2000.

Every single measure was killed by the house Republicans without even bringing them up for debate.

(The republi-cons were too busy being perverts, trying to look into the president's bedroom window.)

Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

Funny how I can't get a Bush monkey to deny or defend any of the above.

Spider

09-28-2006, 07:43 AM

You know what makes me want to puke is when Clinton did not take up the offer on Bin Laden from Sudan.
you should be puking if you believe that .... but not at Clinton , but at yourself ........It seems the right want so bad for this to be true ......... But back to the topic of the thread ....... Yeah Buff , O'Reilly last night , Spencer Hughes yesterday , John Gibbson , all went on a tear about how Fox isnt Bush's mouth piece , how they are fair and Balanced , thee more these guys prostested , the more I know Clinton hit a nerve ........... Whats realy Funny is Spencer Hughes now claiming to be a Independent ........... that one cracked me up

Barry Ramey

09-28-2006, 07:51 AM

I don't know who lies more: Clinton or his supporters. Clinton agreed to the interview with Wallace as long as there were guidelines since he's a coward. But it was for 15 minutes, half of it was to talk about the global initiative deal and the other half was OPEN TO WHATEVER WALLACE WANTED TO ASK. But poor Billy didn't expect to be asked about bin laden and terrorism for some reason. Apparently thinking Wallace will be like most others who interview him and toss him softball questions. Clinton is defensive about his actions or in his case lack of action against terrorism. He spouts read Richard Clarke's boo though in it says Clinton didn't give the order to the CIA to go after bin laden and both Clarke and Berger both testifying to the 9/11 Commission there was no plan given to the Bush admin. about terrorism. So someone is lying.

Spider

09-28-2006, 07:55 AM

Barry Ramey

09-28-2006, 08:14 AM

Spider

09-28-2006, 08:18 AM

Nice spin and not able to respond to what I just posted, so go to the usual "duh, you have your head up Bush's ass." Wow. I hope you didn't hurt yourself with such deep thinking. You lefties are good for a laugh though since you seem to think you're so much smarter than everyone else and when I see what lefties post, it's like, where is the intellect they think they have? They are defending a sexual harrassing pervert, "yeah, looky how smart I am." Geez.

LOL , sure thing , there are 2 ways of doing things , 1 is be upfront 2 nd is sneaky and underhanded ........oh and you dont want ot go down the road of Sexual prevert ............ But in case you do http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=26393
Unless of course you see nothing wrong with Molesting Kids ..............

Spider

09-28-2006, 08:20 AM

Clinton chaesed women , some very ugly women , but they was female and over 21 ....... Cant say the same for alot , I mean alot of republicans

BroncoBuff

09-28-2006, 08:20 AM

Could you imagine the outcry from the right-wing peanut gallery and the "liberal" media if Clinton had received numerous warnings about a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil and ignored those warnings? Or if he had responded to such warnings by going on vacation for a month?

Can you imagine if, after 9/11, Clinton had said "I don't know where Bin Laden is, and I really don't give a f_ck?"

It's double standards like these that make me want to throw up.

Well, yes ... they DEFINITELY would've reacted with far, FAR more outrage. But the cause for the disparioty between the two parties' reactions is that Democrats are spineless - truly.

And re: your other post, yes - Clarke said Clnton was "obsessed." And, yes. If Clinton had received the same PDB Bushco did, he wouldda reacted differently and more responsibly than the chimp. BUT .... imo, 9/11 still wouldda happened the way it did.

Plus - it's that TONE thing we argued about last week. I find it unseemly to "blame" either side for "failing to prevent 9/11." It's too important an event, too traumatic and too painful to be pointing fingers over. Personally, I think we are lucky as a nation - think about it - that we cannot clearly lay "blame" on either party. If we could (eg, attack came 1 yr earlier or 4 years later), our nation would be suffering even more greatly.

Spider

09-28-2006, 08:24 AM

Well, yes ... that is DEFINITELY what would've happened. But the cause for the disparioty between the two parties' reactions is that Democrats are spineless - truly.

And re: your other post, yes - Clarke said Clnton was "obsessed." And, yes. If Clinton had received the same PDB Bushco did, he wouldda reacted differently and more responsibly than the chimp. BUT .... imo, 9/11 still wouldda happened the way it did.

Plus - it's that TONE thing we argued about last week. I find it unseemly to "blame" either side for "failing to prevent 9/11." It's too important an event, too traumatic and too painful to be pointing fingers over.
I wont go down if 9-11 could have ben prevented , but where I will go is the aftermath , it is clear to everyone or it should be , that Bush screwed the pooch ..... I have always said going into Afghanistan was the right move , still say it is today , but pulling out and going after Iraq was about as stupid as you can get ...............Bush will go down as the worst president we have had ...... Nice mark on the republicans :welcome:

BroncoBuff

09-28-2006, 08:38 AM

Rohirrim

09-28-2006, 08:38 AM

I don't know who lies more: Clinton or his supporters. Clinton agreed to the interview with Wallace as long as there were guidelines since he's a coward.

I wonder what your opinion of Bush is, given that he has never appeared at any function where the audience isn't handpicked and his performance isn't totally scripted? Hell, even in the debates he had to wear some communication device under his jacket so Rove could coach him. Please don't bring up the WH press corps. They're a bunch of trained poodles whose only care in the world is, "Where's the next buffet?"

But it was for 15 minutes, half of it was to talk about the global initiative deal and the other half was OPEN TO WHATEVER WALLACE WANTED TO ASK. But poor Billy didn't expect to be asked about bin laden and terrorism for some reason. Apparently thinking Wallace will be like most others who interview him and toss him softball questions. Clinton is defensive about his actions or in his case lack of action against terrorism. He spouts read Richard Clarke's boo though in it says Clinton didn't give the order to the CIA to go after bin laden and both Clarke and Berger both testifying to the 9/11 Commission there was no plan given to the Bush admin. about terrorism. So someone is lying.

I was going to go after you for ignoring the numerous posts and quotes that completely disprove this... I was even going to get angry about how you continually ignore the facts just to spew your Fox lessons like a good little parrot. Then I stopped myself. I realized, "He must have ADHD." I am no longer going to argue with you. I understand now. You might find some interesting info at this site: http://www.athealth.com/Consumer/farticles/Rabiner.html
It's important to know that help is available.

Rohirrim

09-28-2006, 08:55 AM

I wont go down if 9-11 could have ben prevented , but where I will go is the aftermath , it is clear to everyone or it should be , that Bush screwed the pooch ..... I have always said going into Afghanistan was the right move , still say it is today , but pulling out and going after Iraq was about as stupid as you can get ...............Bush will go down as the worst president we have had ...... Nice mark on the republicans :welcome:

Lawrence Wright, who wrote "Looming Towers," stated in a New Yorker article last month that Al Queda was 80% destroyed after Tora Bora. Not only that, Bin Laden was being discredited in some fundamentalist circles for sacrificing the Taliban controlled government of Afghanistan for his own "personality cult." The leadership of fundamentalist Islam was filled with dissension. Not only that, Imams across the Islamic world were horrified by the 911 attacks and decreed that the killing of innocents was against Islam. The entire, fundamentalist movement was teetering on the edge of destruction and only needed one, last, final push and it would have been destroyed and discredited in the eyes of Muslims around the world.

What did Bush do? He invaded Iraq. He pulled troops away from the pursuit of Al Queda (THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY ATTACKED THE U.S.) and he diverted them to Iraq. He gave Al Queda breathing room. He let Bin Laden, the symbol of the entire movement, escape. Now, they have rebuilt and are stronger than ever. Bin Laden has become a hero to Islamic fundamentalism because he warned them that the U.S. would invade an oil rich Arab country and Bush did exactly that. Bush couldn't have done any worse than if he was on the payroll of Bin Laden.

And BTW, 911 could have easily been prevented. There are numerous sources available (start with Lawrence Wright) that contain the testimony of numerous FBI and CIA agents regarding what they knew after the Cole bombing and how that info wasn't collated and matched, but could have been. One can only assume that the completely lackadaisacal, unfocused nature of the leadership thwarted those efforts. They were asleep at the wheel, or as Bush himself put it, "I wasn't on point." No s***, Sherlock.

Spider

09-28-2006, 08:56 AM

I been missing you, Cledus! :welcome:

And we're definitely on the same page there! 'Aftermath' is a Commander-in-Chimp mega-failure: http://orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=1291334#post1291334

another thing that doesnt get pointed out much is Bush telling us the Iraqi oil will pay for this ......... But now it is clear to everyone or Should be that Bush cant run this war , he is a piss poor war president ............ we have to fix Iraq and get out fast we have to see the rpoblem and the cause ...... hard to do but here is how I would approach the problem ....
1. Insurgence , whatfuels this is , isnt so much us but Religion ....... This we cant fix, it is up to the religious leaders ........
2. Send the Iraqis that want ot serve in the military out of the country for training , the Soviets have a good system ......
3. we have to find an important leader in this civial war , capture him , see if he will be our guy , if so let him run us out of Iraq , appear to be a hero , but still under our control ........

Spider

09-28-2006, 08:59 AM

Lawrence Wright, who wrote "Looming Towers," stated in a New Yorker article last month that Al Queda was 80% destroyed after Tora Bora. Not only that, Bin Laden was being discredited in some fundamentalist circles for sacrificing the Taliban controlled government of Afghanistan for his own "personality cult." The leadership of fundamentalist Islam was filled with dissension. The entire movement was teetering on the edge of destruction and only needed one, last, final push and it would have been destroyed and discredited in the eyes of Muslims around the world.

What did Bush do? He invaded Iraq. He pulled troops away from the pursuit of Al Queda (THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY ATTACKED THE U.S.) and he diverted them to Iraq. He gave Al Queda breathing room. He let Bin Laden, the symbol of the entire movement, escape. Now, they have rebuilt and are stronger than ever. Bin Laden has become a hero to Islamic fundamentalism because he warned them that the U.S. would invade an oil rich Arab country and Bush did exactly that. Bush couldn't have done any worse than if he was on the payroll of Bin Laden.

And BTW, 911 could have easily been prevented. There are numerous sources available (start with Lawrence Wright) that contain the testimony of numerous FBI and CIA agents regarding what they knew after the Cole bombing and how that info wasn't collated and matched, but could have been. One can only assume that the completely lackadaisacal, unfocused nature of the leadership thwarted those efforts. They were asleep at the wheel, of as Bush himself put it, "I wasn't on point." No s***, Sherlock.

Im not saying that 9-11 wasnt preventable , but I dont know if Clinton could have got these guys either , the air port security should have asked the question , why are 5 guys getting on this Plane with Box cutters ? each plane had a x amount of terrorist on them .......... so many points we could point to ...... But you are dead on about Afghanistan and OBL ........... Bush lacked the balls to finish the job .........

TailgateNut

09-28-2006, 09:02 AM

Rohirrim

09-28-2006, 09:06 AM

Im not saying that 9-11 wasnt preventable , but I dont know if Clinton could have got these guys either , the air port security should have asked the question , why are 5 guys getting on this Plane with Box cutters ? each plane had a x amount of terrorist on them .......... so many points we could point to ...... But you are dead on about Afghanistan and OBL ........... Bush lacked the balls to finish the job .........

Two of the hijackers were known to the CIA. They had met with the Cole bomber mastermind in Malaysia and the Phillipines and those meetings had been photographed. In 2000, the CIA knew that they were in San Diego taking flying lessons. They didn't pass on that info to the FBI, who had an open warrant, given them by Clinton, to wiretap, trail, investigate and intercede with any suspected terrorists within the U.S. This was just the kind of bureaucratic stupidity that Clarke realized was his number one obstacle. Had he been in a cabinet level position with executive power behind him, it's pretty easy to imagine that he would have been able to shake this info loose.

Bush likes to compare himself to Churchill (what a joke!). He should read Churchill's "While England Slept." Maybe he'll learn something. Too late now, I guess.

Spider

09-28-2006, 09:06 AM

Do you have someone who pre-screens the news for you to insure what you read doesn't upset your love for Bush! It is obvious you see only what the right wants you to believe!

LOL Barrey is in his own little world ........

Spider

09-28-2006, 09:09 AM

Two of the hijackers were known to the CIA. They had met with the Cole bomber mastermind in Malaysia and the Phillipines and those meetings had been photographed. In 2000, the CIA knew that they were in San Diego taking flying lessons. They didn't pass on that info to the FBI, who had an open warrant, given them by Clinton, to wiretap, trail, investigate and intercede with any suspected terrorists within the U.S. This was just the kind of bureaucratic stupidity that Clarke realized was his number one obstacle. Had he been in a cabinet level position with executive power behind him, it's pretty easy to imagine that he would have been able to shake this info loose.

Bush likes to compare himself to Churchill (what a joke!). He should read Churchill's "While England Slept." Maybe he'll learn something. Too late now, I guess.
see this I didnt know ........it was my understanding that the 19 terrorist were pretty much unknown .. pawns if you will ........ ( I never known you to lie or put down bad info , so your cred is very high with me ) I will take this as truth ..............

Rohirrim

09-28-2006, 09:09 AM

Spider

09-28-2006, 09:11 AM

I wouldn't say he lacked the balls. My guess (based on mucho evidence) is that he was obsessed with Saddam, and had been since 1991.
He lacked Balls , he needed Bin Laden more back then alive then dead , the 2006 Elections have a different outcome if OBL is dead ......... He lacked Balls in the sence of campaigning without the fear factor ........

Rohirrim

09-28-2006, 09:15 AM

see this I didnt know ........it was my understanding that the 19 terrorist were pretty much unknown .. pawns if you will ........ ( I never known you to lie or put down bad info , so your cred is very high with me ) I will take this as truth ..............

Here's an interview with the writer, discussing some of the facts:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/060710on_onlineonly01

Spider

09-28-2006, 09:23 AM

Here's an interview with the writer, discussing some of the facts:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/060710on_onlineonly01

interesting ........

alkemical

09-28-2006, 09:42 AM

either true coincidence or more sinister

but the 9/11 hijackers were on jack abramoff's casino boat - why no more investigation into that?

BroncoBuff

09-28-2006, 09:46 AM

Lawrence Wright, who wrote "Looming Towers," stated in a New Yorker article last month that Al Queda was 80% destroyed after Tora Bora. Not only that, Bin Laden was being discredited in some fundamentalist circles for sacrificing the Taliban controlled government of Afghanistan for his own "personality cult." The leadership of fundamentalist Islam was filled with dissension. Not only that, Imams across the Islamic world were horrified by the 911 attacks and decreed that the killing of innocents was against Islam. The entire, fundamentalist movement was teetering on the edge of destruction and only needed one, last, final push and it would have been destroyed and discredited in the eyes of Muslims around the world.

What did Bush do? He invaded Iraq. He pulled troops away from the pursuit of Al Queda (THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY ATTACKED THE U.S.) and he diverted them to Iraq. He gave Al Queda breathing room. He let Bin Laden, the symbol of the entire movement, escape.

That's it .... I wish Kerry had run on that alone. "Bush is WEAK on terror - he failed to avenge 9/11!"

As far as post-9-11 rifts in Islam ... I read where bin-Laden's son left him in Afghanistan in protest of 9-11 ... and there were many others, as you say, who were horrified about the act - even some in radical Islam...

Apparently, violent Jihad requires several steps be taken before you may kill, and OBL "skipped" a few of these before 9/11.

One of them is a mandate that you offer your target the chance to "convert to Islam" before you kill.

The scary part about this, according to Irshad Manji: http://muslim-refusenik.com/ , is that OBL recently made very overt blanket offers to some if his target infidels (Western Europe mostly) to convert to Islam. According to her and to Christiane Amanpour in the CNN special "In Footsteps of Bin-Laden" .... OBL now has acquired - very recently - Islamic "permission" to kill up to 11 million infidels.

This sounds weird .. but apparetntly it's true. Prolly deserves a thread if somebody knows more about it.

bendog

09-28-2006, 10:03 AM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-28-2006, 10:07 AM

That's it .... I wish Kerry had run on that alone. "Bush is WEAK on terror - he failed to avenge 9/11!"

No sh!t.

He should have called me.

I could have hooked him up with this:

http://www.izzyguaal.com/ws/pol/bin/2faces/2faces_thmb.jpg

Spider

09-28-2006, 10:15 AM

thinking of tangents (-: or in tangents, did y'all have access to Jill Carroll's series on being a hostage.... I'm not sure hostage is the right word .... potentially headless corpse is prolly closer

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0814/p13s01-woiq.html

As for Chris Wallace, I suspect it may be that this story follows him forever, and you're right, not only did he attempt to sandbag a former potus, but his question was loaded. It was improper.

What made Dan Rather the darling of the left was when in a press conference somebody asked Nixon a question, and Nixon backpeddled and didn't really answer, so Rather then asks "I'd like to to answer that guy's question." The left loved the guy and the right hated him.

the difference is what Dan Rather did was on a open platform , non scripted ...... Clinton went in on a one on one interview , spend half the time talking about whatever and the other time talking about Clintons new project ( what ever that is ) .......
it was a loaded question that hasnt been asked of the republicans , but I am not so sure this wasnt a set up by Clinton , let me explain , Clinton was hoping for the loaded question , so he could fire off on Fox , get the attention of the fense riders middle of the road people , get them energized to vote Dems ......... in a way fox news and Chris Wallace may have helped Clinton alot more then they wanted to .........
They must have forgot how sharp Clinton is , Clinton wasnt a political force by accident ......... you know somthing else , Clinton draws more of a crowd at a speaking then Nascar , Football , Concerts ...............

bendog

09-28-2006, 11:20 AM

Both were disrespectful imo. Wallace will be a hero to the uber-right like Barry.

Actually I'm not sure how to "lable" the 'we will hear no evil about any goper' group. I mena the RR are murmering that they're so ticked at bushii they'll stay home in Nov. Guys like me who are social libertarians, moderate on govt intrusions on us in biz and taxes, and deficit hawks were cast off before the 04 vote. But there does seem to be a sizeable minority who simply will hear no evil of the gop party. I figure they never voted before 1980. They seem to be caracitures of my father. He thought after FDR he just had to vote Dem no matter what cause the gop was for the rich guys and the dems for the workers.

24champ

09-28-2006, 01:11 PM

It makes me want to puke when people like you keep repeating lies and disinformation like the above.
Now now... Clinton says the 9/11 commission was just a political tool and doesn't even cite the commision as factual evidence in the interview.

"Now, the 9/11 Commission was a political document, too. All I'm asking is, anybody that wants to say I didn't enough, you read Richard Clark..."

As I have said in an earlier post Richard Clarke didn't exactly give high remarks to Clinton.

Rohirrim

09-28-2006, 01:26 PM

Now now... Clinton says the 9/11 commission was just a political tool and doesn't even cite the commision as factual evidence in the interview.

"Now, the 9/11 Commission was a political document, too. All I'm asking is, anybody that wants to say I didn't enough, you read Richard Clark..."

As I have said in an earlier post Richard Clarke didn't exactly give high remarks to Clinton.

If I was to quantify it, I'd say Clarke gave Clinton a B- while giving Bush an F. Of course, in the neocon politics of relativity, those are equal. ;D

bendog

09-28-2006, 01:34 PM

Bush and osama and iraq, my theory.

The pentagon warned bush that inserting delta force and spec forces into tora bora, and the 82nd between tora bora and Pak, would result in heavy casualties. That's a fact, which if I must I can retrieve. I believe natl geographic did a mutlipabe story on what all went wrong in bin laden getting away. Politically, he was advised he needed bin laden's body. Being a neophyte with little ability to make decisions, he did what gopers have said they'd do since Nixon, go with the prof military's advice. It was tragically wrong. We should have chanced it.

Bushii was infatuated with capturing Saddam. That's well documented. It was personal, and bushii intended to avoid his Dad's major mistakes - raising taxes and not getting a final victory in Iraq. Avoiding that is both almost oedipial in nature, in that he desperately wanted to "succeed" where Poppy failed, and he actually believed naively that these two issues were important to his success. He was looking for an excuse.

Post 9-11, Wolfowitz spins his fairy tale. There's the underground Iraqi middle class wanting computers and coffee houses, and who'd love to have Ahmad Chalibi as their president. That there's something noble in using the military to secure natural resources, rather than to only be used when we're looking at a loaded gun pointing at us. And the oil will let the Iraqis pay for the war, and they'll do so happily since we got Saddam. And we'll all be happy campers in capitalism, the neocon way

Cheney's the first to lock in. It's wonderful. Halliburton will ejaculate with joy. His old boss, Rummy, quickly hops on board.

The pentagon and Powell tell Bush 1) it's not consistent with the Weinberger Powell doctrine, and they need a lot more troops. Having been burned by the prof military on Tora Bora, bushii goes with those telling him what he wants to hear............ and we sliped into qWagmire.

24champ

09-28-2006, 01:36 PM

If I was to quantify it, I'd say Clarke gave Clinton a B- while giving Bush an F. Of course, in the neocon politics of relativity, those are equal. ;D

Actually it would be the other way around and many people in the intel community would feel the same.The reason Clinton was powerless was because he had a little aversion to the military because of his Vietnam experiences, his letter that he wrote to Colonel Holmes, Lewinsky situation. Clinton was handcuffed in his own mind. He was handcuffed by his previous behavior. He was in a straitjacket, he couldn't operate without threatening the approval rating and the legacy and so forth. Former CIA agent Scheuer who disagrees with many of Bush policies on terrorism said this on CBS early morning show-

"The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden."

Harry Smith: "Alright, is the Bush administration any less responsible for not finishing the job in Tora Bora?"

Michael Scheuer: "Oh, I think there's plenty of blame to go around, sir, but the fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration had one chance that they botched, and the Clinton Administration had eight to ten chances that they refused to try. At least at Tora Bora our forces were on the ground. We didn't push the point. But it's just, it's an incredible kind of situation for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."

bendog

09-28-2006, 01:44 PM

TailgateNut

09-28-2006, 01:53 PM

The bush admin had 9 mos after the Cole. And instead of keeping the WJC embargo on pipeline negotiations, they let Jim Baker go in and play 'let's make a deal."

Stop that shameless spinning.

And, it's not the left trying to blame bushii, it's the bushii spinners trying to deflect that in FIVE years they've failed to kill bin laden, and instead qWagmired the best army in the world in a ****ing **** hole of a desert, and they're scared to death that it'll be a dem congress.

It's about time we turn the tables on their "fear" tactics. They are scrambling to avoid being locked up for their crimes and lies. Not only did the administration lie every time the open their trap, but their consortium of spin doctors keep the dummyfication of America rolling along.

Rohirrim

09-28-2006, 02:13 PM

Actually it would be the other way around and many people in the intel community would feel the same.The reason Clinton was powerless was because he had a little aversion to the military because of his Vietnam experiences, his letter that he wrote to Colonel Holmes, Lewinsky situation. Clinton was handcuffed in his own mind. He was handcuffed by his previous behavior. He was in a straitjacket, he couldn't operate without threatening the approval rating and the legacy and so forth. Former CIA agent Scheuer who disagrees with many of Bush policies on terrorism said this on CBS early morning show-

"The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden."

Harry Smith: "Alright, is the Bush administration any less responsible for not finishing the job in Tora Bora?"

Michael Scheuer: "Oh, I think there's plenty of blame to go around, sir, but the fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration had one chance that they botched, and the Clinton Administration had eight to ten chances that they refused to try. At least at Tora Bora our forces were on the ground. We didn't push the point. But it's just, it's an incredible kind of situation for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."

Michael Scheuer has proved to be something of loose cannon since he left the CIA in 2004. He’s attacked pretty much every president and every CIA and NSC head he worked under for the last 20 years. He has developed into one of those guys who thinks he's right and everybody else (of both parties) is wrong. Plus he has some pretty wild ideas about how to fight. Is his position right?

O'REILLY: I'm bringing it up to be - to show the Islamic world and those Muslims who are watching us right now, the inconsistency of their thought that, if there was a - you know, a God that was actually wanting them to do whatever, how could he possibly want them to...
SCHEUER: No, I don't quite follow it, sir, because I -- as much as I'd like to believe that human life is sacred in all instances, war, whether it's conducted by Americans or by British or by Chinese or by Muslims, war is just war. And it kills innocent people. And that's the way it is.
O'REILLY: But there's a way to wage it. And the way that the al Qaedas are waging it is by killing civilians. They're not waging war in a conventional way, as you know. Now...
SCHEUER: Well, they are waging war in the conventional way that we waged war until 1945, sir, which is the last war we've won. Once we stopped waging war in the American fashion, we haven't won a war since....
O'REILLY: Is there anything we can do to win it?
SCHEUER: Yes, sir. We certainly have to kill more of the enemy. That's the first step.
O'REILLY: Any way we can?
SCHEUER: Anywhere we can, whenever we can, without a great deal of concern for civilian casualties. As I said, war is war. The people who got killed when they were hosting Zawahiri to dinner were not the friends of the United States.
O'REILLY: All right, Mr Scheuer, always a pleasure to talk with you.

Many of those opportunities to kill Bin Laden came before the embassy bombings. After the embassy bombings, I have no doubt Scheuer would have received the go-ahead to whack Bin Laden.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-28-2006, 07:38 PM

BUT .... imo, 9/11 still wouldda happened the way it did.

I just don't understand how you can look at all the facts and come to this conclusion.

Remember: Clinton tried for years to implement most of the same security and intelligence measures Bush implemented after 9/11, but he was thwarted by the republi-cons at every turn.

Clinton tried to enact the same airport security measures Bush enacted after 9/11, but the House rethugs shot the measures down due to opposition from the airlines. The House republi-cons killed every single one of these measures without even bringing them up for debate.

Clinton tried to enact the same measures to track terrorists' funding that Bush enacted after 9/11, but he was thwarted by rethugs (particularly Enron's go-to guy Phil Gramm of Texas) due to opposition from banking interests.

You indicated that you believed Clinton wouldn't have just ignored the August PDB and all those other warnings and gone on vacation.

We know bush and his capos lied when they said "no one could have imagined that anyone would use aircraft as weapons."

Put all these facts together, and you have a much higher probability that the attacks would not have succeeded on Clinton's watch.

Atlas

09-29-2006, 06:40 AM

Normally I'd just assume that Chris Wallace and his right-wing point of view were understood and accepted as fact by everybody, including Wallace himself. But in the endless round of interviews he's been giving, basking in his newfound "notoriety," he has shown himself to be dishonest in recounting the conversation, and dishonest in ackowledging his bias.

On NBC News he said, "I certainly thought it was a reasonable question, to ask any president, 'could you have done more?'"

Well, "could you have done more?" would have been a reasonable and respectful question on this very important issue. But that was NOT what he said. What he actually said was:

A NOT-so-subtle difference. The word choice "why didn't you do more" assumes several hostile facts - 1) You COULD have done more, 2) You SHOULD have done more, and 2) You CHOSE not to do more. Saying "Why didn't you," is hostile, assumptive and a dead giveaway of Wallace's negative bias. It's a more subtle vesrion of the old saw: "have you stopped beating your wife?" ... think about it. If he had actually said what he FALSELY QUOTED HIMSELF as saying: "Could you have done more?" ... none of those 3 implications would be present."Could you have ..." would have been a respectful, basically unbiased question."Why didn't you ..." is assumptive, hostile and biased.This might seem like mincing words to you - but it's a clear and obvious exposure of his bias. And this hostile wording cleary contributed to Clinton's angry reaction. I can state from experience that, if an attorney asked a witness a question that began "why didn't you...?" I would rise and object "assuming facts not in evidence."

.

Your right is was a very loaded question and totally biased. Clinton was right and this year the Dems aren't going to sit back and take it.

24champ

09-29-2006, 10:24 AM

I just don't understand how you can look at all the facts and come to this conclusion.

Remember: Clinton tried for years to implement most of the same security and intelligence measures Bush implemented after 9/11, but he was thwarted by the republi-cons at every turn.

Clinton tried to enact the same airport security measures Bush enacted after 9/11, but the House rethugs shot the measures down due to opposition from the airlines. The House republi-cons killed every single one of these measures without even bringing them up for debate.

Clinton tried to enact the same measures to track terrorists' funding that Bush enacted after 9/11, but he was thwarted by rethugs (particularly Enron's go-to guy Phil Gramm of Texas) due to opposition from banking interests.

You indicated that you believed Clinton wouldn't have just ignored the August PDB and all those other warnings and gone on vacation.

We know bush and his capos lied when they said "no one could have imagined that anyone would use aircraft as weapons."

Put all these facts together, and you have a much higher probability that the attacks would not have succeeded on Clinton's watch.
If he was criticized for being obsessed (as you democrats try to redo history here to preserve his fake legacy) then I have no doubt he would have nabbed him, killed him etc. Problem is that Clinton ignored the CIA. He did not have daily meetings with the CIA Director like Bush did before 9/11. The Clinton administration charged the FBI and other domestic law enforcement agencies with combating terrorism, not exactly the most effective means of fighting cave dwellers. The 1993 U.S. intervention in Somalia further demonstrated the administration’s unwillingness to protect the national interest. Bin Laden himself said of this incident, “The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat.”

It’s well known that Clinton didn’t meet with his CIA chief James Woolsey who said, “the intelligence agencies during the Clinton administration were told they were not to give policy advice.” Read the Gorelick memo and it shows where the faults lie. The Gorelick memo was made so Clinton would not face any retribution from the fact Clinton was EXPORTING our defense mechanisms to China and the PLA.

As the 9/11 Commission tries to uncover what kept intelligence agencies from preventing September 11, it has overlooked two vital factors: Jamie Gorelick and Bill Clinton. Gorelick, who has browbeaten the current administration, helped erect the walls between the FBI, CIA and local investigators that made 9/11 inevitable. However, she was merely expanding the policy Bill Clinton established with Presidential Decision Directive 24. What has been underreported is why the policy came about: to thwart investigations into the Chinese funding of Clinton’s re-election campaign, and the favors he bestowed on them in return.

In April, CNSNews.com staff writer Scott Wheeler reported that a senior U.S. government official and three other sources claimed that the 1995 memo written by Jamie Gorelick, who served as the Clinton Justice Department’s deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997, created "a roadblock" to the investigation of illegal Chinese donations to the Democratic National Committee. But the picture is much bigger than that. The Gorelick memo, which blocked intelligence agents from sharing information that could have halted the September 11 hijacking plot, was only the mortar in a much larger maze of bureaucratic walls whose creation Gorelick personally oversaw.

It’s a story the 9/11 Commission may not want to hear, and one that Gorelick – now incredibly a member of that commission – has so far refused to tell. But it is perhaps the most crucial one to understanding the intentional breakdown of intelligence that led to the September 11 disaster.

Nearly from the moment Gorelick took office in the Clinton Justice Department, she began acting as the point woman for a large-scale bureaucratic reorganization of intelligence agencies that ultimately placed the gathering of intelligence, and decisions about what – if anything – would be done with it under near-direct control of the White House. In the process, more than a dozen CIA and FBI investigations underway at the time got caught beneath the heel of the presidential boot, investigations that would ultimately reveal massive Chinese espionage as millions in illegal Chinese donations filled Democratic Party campaign coffers.

When Gorelick took office in 1994, the CIA was reeling from the news that a Russian spy had been found in CIA ranks, and Congress was hungry for a quick fix. A month after Gorelick was sworn in, Bill Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 24. PDD 24 put intelligence gathering under the direct control of the president’s National Security Council, and ultimately the White House, through a four-level, top-down chain of command set up to govern (that is, stifle) intelligence sharing and cooperation between intelligence agencies. From the moment the directive was implemented, intelligence sharing became a bureaucratic nightmare that required negotiating a befuddling bureaucracy that stopped directly at the President’s office.

First, the directive effectively neutered the CIA by creating a National Counterintelligence Center (NCI) to oversee the Agency. NCI was staffed by an FBI agent appointed by the Clinton administration. It also brought multiple international investigations underway at the time under direct administrative control. The job of the NCI was to “implement counterintelligence activities,” which meant that virtually everything the CIA did, from a foreign intelligence agent’s report to polygraph test results, now passed through the intelligence center that PDD 24 created.

NCI reported to an administration-appointed National Counterintelligence Operations Board (NCOB) charged with “discussing counterintelligence matters.” The NCOB in turn reported to a National Intelligence Policy Board, which coordinated activities between intelligence agencies attempting to work together. The policy board reported “directly” to the president through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

The result was a massive bureaucratic roadblock for the CIA – which at the time had a vast lead on the FBI in foreign intelligence – and for the FBI itself, which was also forced to report to the NCOB. This hampered cooperation between the two entities. All this occurred at a time when both agencies were working separate ends of investigations that would eventually implicate China in technology transfers and the Democratic Party in a Chinese campaign cash grab.

And the woman charged with selling this plan to Congress, convincing the media and ultimately implementing much of it? Jamie Gorelick.

Many in Congress, including some Democrats, found the changes PDD 24 put in place baffling: they seemed to do nothing to insulate the CIA from infiltration while devastating the agency’s ability to collect information. At the time, Democrat House Intelligence Chairman Dan Glickman referred to the plan as “regulatory gobbledygook." Others questioned how FBI control of CIA intelligence would foster greater communication between the lower levels of the CIA and FBI, now that all information would have to be run through a multi-tier bureaucratic maze that only went upward.

Despite their doubts, Gorelick helped the administration sell the plan on Capitol Hill. The Directive stood.

But that wasn’t good enough for the Clinton administration, which wanted control over every criminal and intelligence investigation, domestic and foreign, for reasons that would become apparent in a few years. For the first time in Justice Department history, a political appointee, Richard Scruggs – an old crony or Attorney General Janet Reno’s from Florida – was put in charge of the Office of Intelligence and Policy Review (OIPR). OIPR is the Justice Department agency in charge of requesting wiretap and surveillance authority for criminal and intelligence investigations on behalf of investigative agencies from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. The court’s activities are kept secret from the public.

A year after PDD 24, with the new bureaucratic structure loaded with administration appointees, Gorelick drafted the 1995 memo Attorney General John Ashcroft mentioned while testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The Gorelick memo, and other supporting memos released in recent weeks, not only created walls within the intelligence agencies that prevented information sharing among their own agents, but effectively walled these agencies off from each other and from outside contact with the U.S. prosecutors instrumental in helping them gather the evidence needed to make the case for criminal charges.

The only place left to go with intelligence information – particularly for efforts to share intelligence information or obtain search warrants – was straight up Clinton and Gorelick’s multi-tiered chain of command. Instead, information lethal to the Democratic Party languished inside the Justice Department, trapped behind Gorelick’s walls.

The implications were enormous. In her letter of protest to Attorney General Reno over Gorelick’s memo, United States Attorney Mary Jo White spelled them out: “These instructions leave entirely to OIPR and the (Justice Department) Criminal Division when, if ever, to contact affected U.S. attorneys on investigations including terrorism and espionage,” White wrote. (Like OIPR, the Criminal Division is also part of the Justice Department.)

Without an enforcer, the walls Gorelick’s memo put in place might not have held. But Scruggs acted as that enforcer, and he excelled at it. Scruggs maintained Gorelick’s walls between the FBI and Justice's Criminal Division by threatening to automatically reject any FBI request for a wiretap or search warrant if the Bureau contacted the Justice Department's Criminal Division without permission. This deprived the FBI, and ultimately the CIA, of gathering advice and assistance from the Criminal Division that was critical in espionage and terrorist cases.

It is no coincidence that this occurred at the same time both the FBI and the CIA were churning up evidence damaging to the Democratic Party, its fundraisers, the Chinese and ultimately the Clinton administration itself. Between 1994 and the 1996 election, as Chinese dollars poured into Democratic coffers, Clinton struggled to reopen high-tech trade to China. Had agents confirmed Chinese theft of weapons technology or its transfer of weapons technology to nations like Pakistan, Iran and Syria, Clinton would have been forced by law and international treaty to react.

Gorelick’s appointment to the job at Justice in 1994 occurred during a period in which the FBI had begun to systematically investigate technology theft by foreign powers. For the first time, these investigations singled out the U.S. chemical, telecommunications, aircraft and aerospace industries for intelligence collection.

By the time Gorelick wrote the March 1995 memo that sealed off American intelligence agencies from each other and the outside world, all of the most critical Chinagate investigations by American intelligence agencies were already underway. Some of their findings were damning:

* In an investigation originally instigated by the CIA, the FBI was beginning its search for the source of the leak of W-88 nuclear warhead technology to China among the more than 1,000 people who had access to the secrets. Despite Justice Department stonewalling and the Department’s refusal to seek wiretap authority in 1997, the investigation eventually led to Wen Ho Lee and the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
* The FBI first collected extensive evidence in 1995 linking illegal Democratic Party donations to China, according to the Congressional Record. But Congress and the Director of the CIA didn’t find out about the Justice Department’s failure to act upon that evidence until 1997, safely after the 1996 election.
* According to classified CIA documents leaked to the Washington Times, between 1994 and 1997, the CIA learned that China sold Iran missile technology, a nuclear fission reactor, advanced air-defense radar and chemical agents. The Chinese also provided 5,000 ring magnets to Pakistan, used in producing weapons-grade uranium. The Chinese also provided uranium fuel for India's reactors.

In many cases the CIA resorted to leaking classified information to the media, in an effort to bypass the administration’s blackout.

Gorelick knew these facts well. While Clinton may have refused to meet with top CIA officials, Gorelick didn’t. According to a 1996 report by the legal news service American Lawyer Media, Gorelick and then-Deputy Director of the CIA George Tenet met every other week to discuss intelligence and intelligence sharing.

But those in the Clinton administration weren’t the only ones to gain from the secrecy. In 1994, the McDonnell Douglas Corporation transferred military-use machine tools to the China National Aero-Technology Import and Export Corporation that ended up in the hands of the Chinese army. The sale occurred despite Defense Department objections. McDonnell Douglas was a client of the Miller Cassidy Larroca & Lewin, L.L.P. (now called Baker Botts), the Washington, D.C., law firm where Gorelick worked for 17 years and was a partner. Ray Larroca, another partner in the firm, represented McDonnell in the Justice Department’s investigation of the technology transfer.

In 1995, General Electric, a former client of Gorelick’s, also had much to lose if the damaging information the CIA and the FBI had reached Congress. At the time, GE was publicly lobbying for a lucrative permit to assist the Chinese in replacing coal-fired power stations with nuclear plants. A 1990 law required that the president certify to Congress that China was not aiding in nuclear proliferation before U.S. companies could execute the business agreement.

Moreover, in 1995, Michael Armstrong, then the CEO of Hughes Electronics – a division of General Electric and another client of Miller Cassidy Larroca & Lewin – was publicly lobbying Clinton to switch satellite export controls from the State Department to the Commerce Department. After the controls were lifted, Hughes and another company gave sensitive data to the Chinese, equipment a Pentagon study later concluded would allow China to develop intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles aimed at American targets. Miller Cassidy Larroca & Lewin partner Randall Turk represented Hughes in the Congressional, State Department, and Justice Department investigations that resulted.

The Cox Report, which detailed Chinese espionage for Congress during the period, revealed that FBI surveillance caught Chinese officials frantically trying to keep Democratic donor Johnny Chung from divulging any information that would be damaging to Hughes Electronics. Chung funneled $300,000 in illegal contributions from the Chinese military to the DNC between 1994 and 1996.

It was this web of investigations that led Gorelick and Bill Clinton to erect the wall between intelligence agencies that resulted in the toppling of the Twin Towers. The connections go on and on, but they all lead back to Gorelick, the one person who could best explain how the Clinton administration neutered the American intelligence agencies that could have stopped the September 11 plot. Yet another high crime will have been committed if the September 11 Commission doesn’t demand testimony from her.

Put all these facts together, and you have a much higher probability that the attacks would not have succeeded on Clinton's watch.

I highly doubt it.

Rohirrim

09-29-2006, 10:39 AM

Gorlick is responsible for the misinterpretation of the "Wall?" That's a new one. Wow! What a big post. I wonder who wrote it? As far as the "redoing" of history by the Dems, they obviously aren't alone in that. Haven't you heard? Bubba is responsible for 911. As far as linking Clinton, through Gorelick, and through various corps, to the Chinese, I imagine we could do the exact same thing right now with the present administration and numerous corporations. Lord knows we can certainly link them to the Sauds, who provided the majority of the funding to Al Queda and 911 and Saddam.

Of course, the purpose of all this drivel is to keep the country from asking Bush, "What do you intend to do about Iraq?" I've got to admit, the campaign is working beautifully.

BTW, that avatar keeps reminding me of that CSI episode with the people dressed up in animal costumes "skitching" each other. Are you a skitcher too? ;D

BroncoBuff

09-29-2006, 10:44 AM

Rohirrim

09-29-2006, 11:19 AM

bendog

09-29-2006, 11:58 AM

I've read about Gorlick before. Curiously, this stuff happened around the same time she was on the 9-11 commission or something, but that's blaming the messenger. However, I think "the wall" has been in place one way or another for years ... back way into the cold war. In fact, that's how the CIA agent who was a soviet mole was ferretted out. The FBI found him. The wall isn't/wasn't a bad idea. The CIA has less restrictions upon searching than does the FBI.

Inevitably, the warrantless tapping will result in info to prosecute people for stuff other than terrorism. Our current focus should be on how to limit govts use of intell.

It's also still unknown as to whther the FBI and the CIA (and NSA) are sharing intell.

One of the lovely ironies of 9-11, imo, is that Clinton was truly a domestic issue potus. Maybe the first since LBJ. He simply was not interested in for policy. He 'focused like a laser on the economy,' and oh how my bank accounts loved him for that. Yet, by the end of his term, he pulled down the facade around arafat and the PLO. Both Israel and the Pales had to look at the facts: Israel cannot hold the territories without either becoming a minority Jewish population or doing genocide to the Pales; the Pale leadership wasn't (isn't even now) interested peace because it views a Palestine where the arabs simply outbreed the Jews; every progressive Arab state is sick of the Pales, and all that profess any allegience to them are just using them to deflect their citizens' attention from their own corrupt and incompent governance.

And the true criticism of Clinton for some reason, and I really don't understand it, the Gop really, really hated him ... personally. Scafide and the Ahmundson (sp) familes spent a fortune to ruin him. It's some huge culture war for them .... we're all gonna turn homo and worship satan or something. Whatever WJC did would be unacceptable. At the end of his term, he was completely isolated from compromising with the GOP congress, which he'd done successfully for 6 years. So, with no Congress to play with, the GOP forced him into foreign policy. LOL

Bushii's admin came in arrogantly, but all admins are arrogant. Their true failure was they came in determined that ANY policy or initiative of the WJC years was not the way to go. As with Clarke, there's no looking at the merits or competence. Rather, there was 'OK we're gonna change that cause we don't do in Clinton's way.' (welfare reform, education shifting from the fed to the states, healthcare, etc ... It's all the same.) So, in 6 years the only movement in Palestine was Kadima, which really was just Sharon accepting the lessons of Barak's failure, with Barak at the time stated required a unilaterl withdrawl, keeping some of the WB and negotiating later if a Pale desire for peace ever came about.

And bushii now has the same antipathy. Or he's still got the mellon-scafide and ahmundson folks, but he couldn't win an election except maybe as dog catcher in Crawford.

Atlas

09-29-2006, 04:21 PM

I think Clinton was significantly more aware and more concerned about OBL and Al-Quaeda .... but 9/11 was gonna happen either way ...

LABF - Do you really believe that, had Clinton's 2nd term ran until '02 or somthing, that 9/11 would have been thwarted? That's a real stretch my man.
.

Clinton was meeting with his Osama advisors every month. They had heard the rumors about Al-Queada using planes in attacks. I think there is a chance Clinton might have been able to stop the attacks. Clinton warned Bush and told them about Osama and the threat he posed but Bush did not have ONE meeting about him or terroism in general.

Remember Mausaoui was arrested months before 911 for trying to get a flying license so he could fly an airplane into buildings.

Maybe Clinton couldn't have stopped the attacks BUT it's not out of the realm of possibilities that he could have.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-29-2006, 06:29 PM

LABF - Do you really believe that, had Clinton's 2nd term ran until '02 or somthing, that 9/11 would have been thwarted? That's a real stretch my man.

But I just gave you quite a few facts and sound arguments to support this belief.

I have to wonder if you even read my last post on the subject.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-29-2006, 06:33 PM

If he was criticized for being obsessed (as you democrats try to redo history here to preserve his fake legacy) then I have no doubt he would have nabbed him, killed him etc.

You obviously have no clue.

It was Reagan's former CT chief who criticized Clinton for being too obsessed with Bin Laden - not the Democrats.

The rest of the right-wing propaganda in your post has already been debunked and/or runs completely contrary to the facts.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-29-2006, 06:38 PM

I believe if Gore had been allowed to take office, 911 would have been prevented. Why? Because Clarke would have retained cabinet status and had the backing of the Commander in Chief right out of the gate. We now have numerous indications of the types of evidence that were available to thwart 911. I feel confident Clarke would have shaken some of that loose. There would have been a seamless transfer of power as opposed to bringing in a new administration which all evidence shows was absolutely obsessed with cold war issues and Saddam. In other words, an administration in a time warp which completely discounted anything and everything the previous administration tried to tell them - an administration wrapped up in its own arrogance right from the start.

Agreed.

All of the same considerations would hold true had Clinton somehow been allowed to serve a third term.

Clinton would not have ignored warning after warning from intelligence sources both foreign and domestic that al Qaeda was planning suicide attacks inside the U.S.

Clinton wouldn't have responded to that infamous PDB by going on vacation for a month (Clinton wouldn't take that much time off for any reason.)

24champ

09-29-2006, 06:45 PM

\

Clinton would not have ignored warning after warning from intelligence sources both foreign and domestic that al Qaeda was planning suicide attacks inside the U.S.

But he did during his 8 years in office.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-29-2006, 06:49 PM

Clinton would not have ignored warning after warning from intelligence sources both foreign and domestic that al Qaeda was planning suicide attacks inside the U.S.[/QUOTE]

But he did during his 8 years in office.

He ignored multiple warnings from both domestic and foreign intelligence sources that al Qaeda was planning suicide attacks inside the U.S.?

That's bullsh_t.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-29-2006, 06:53 PM

Clinton, 9/11 and the Facts

Leaving aside the wretched truth that the far right is once again using September 11 to score political points, the facts regarding the still-lingering effort to blame the Clinton administration for the attacks must be brought to the fore. Nowrasteh, at several points in his miniseries, rolls out a number of oft-debunked allegations that Clinton allowed Osama bin Laden to remain alive and free before the attacks.

Roger Cressy, National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism in the period 1999-2001, responded to these allegations in an article for the Washington Times in 2003. "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda," wrote Cressy. "As President Bush well knows, bin Laden was and remains very good at staying hidden. The current administration faces many of the same challenges. Confusing the American people with misinformation and distortions will not generate the support we need to come together as a nation and defeat our terrorist enemies."

Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:

* Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
* Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
* Passenger Profiling: $10 million
* Screener Training: $5.3 million
* Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
* Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million
* Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
* Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
* Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
* Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
* Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
* Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
* Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
* Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
* Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
* Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
* Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million
* Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
* Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
* Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
* Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
* Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million

The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.

Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."

In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that Gramm's wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors.

Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al-Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement.

According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same.

In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and the Bush administration pulled out of the plan. The Time article stated, "Without the world's financial superpower, the biggest effort in years to rid the world's financial system of dirty money was short-circuited."

ABC's miniseries skates right over this, and likewise refuses to address the myriad ways in which the Bush administration failed completely to defend this nation from attack. All the efforts put forth by the Clinton administration were cast aside when Bush took office, simply because they wanted nothing to do with the outgoing government. Condoleezza Rice, by her own admission, did not even bother to look at the massive compendium of al-Qaeda data compiled by Sandy Berger until the morning of September 11.

After the attacks, virtually every member of the Bush administration put forth the talking point that, "No one could have anticipated anyone using airplanes as bombs." The facts tell a different story.

In 1993, a $150,000 study was undertaken by the Pentagon to investigate the possibility of airplanes being used as bombs. A draft document of this was circulated throughout the Pentagon, the Justice Department, and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In 1994, a disgruntled Federal Express employee invaded the cockpit of a DC10 with the intention of crashing it into a company building. Again in 1994, a pilot crashed a small airplane into a tree on the White House grounds, narrowly missing the building itself. Also in 1994, an Air France flight was hijacked by members of a terrorist organization called the Armed Islamic Group, who intended to crash the plane into the Eiffel Tower.

The 1993 Pentagon report was followed up in September 1999 by a report titled "The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism." This report was prepared for the American intelligence community by the Federal Research Division, an adjunct of the Library of Congress. The report stated, "Suicide bombers belonging to Al Qaida's martyrdom battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House."

Ramzi Yousef was one of the planners and participants in the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Yousef's right-hand man, Abdul Hakim Murad, was captured and interrogated in 1995. During that interrogation, Murad described a detailed plot to hijack airplanes and use them as weapons of terrorism. The primary plan was to commandeer eleven commercial planes and blow them up over the Pacific Ocean. The secondary plan was to hijack several planes, which would be flown into CIA headquarters, the World Trade Center, the Sears Tower, the White House and a variety of other targets.

Ramzi Yousef eluded capture until his final apprehension in Pakistan. During his 1997 trial, the plot described by Murad resurfaced. FBI agents testified in the Yousef trial that, "The plan targeted not only the CIA, but other U.S. government buildings in Washington, including the Pentagon."

Abdul Hakim Murad described plans to use hijacked commercial airplanes as weapons in 1995. Ramzi Yousef's trial further exposed the existence of these plans in 1997. Two reports prepared by the American government, one from 1993 and another from 1999, further detailed again the existence and danger of these plots. The Federal Express employee's hijacking attempt in 1994, the attempted airplane attack on the White House in 1994, and the hijacking of the Air France flight in 1994 by terrorists intending to fly the plane into the Eiffel Tower provided a glaring underscore to the data.

This data served to underscore the efforts made by the Clinton administration to combat international terrorism and attacks against the United States. Unfortunately, the data and the work that inspired it was not followed up on.

A mission statement from the internal FBI Strategic Plan, dated 5/8/98, describes the FBI's Tier One priority as 'counterterrorism.' The FBI, under the Clinton administration, was making counterterrorism its highest priority. The official annual budget goals memo from Attorney General Janet Reno to department heads, dated 4/6/2000, detailed how counterterrorism was her top priority for the Department of Justice. In the second paragraph, she states, "In the near term as well as the future, cybercrime and counterterrorism are going to be the most challenging threats in the criminal justice area. Nowhere is the need for an up-to-date human and technical infrastructure more critical."

Contrast this with the official annual budget goals memo from Attorney General John Ashcroft, dated 5/10/2001. Out of seven strategic goals described, not one mentions counterterrorism. An internal draft of the Department of Justice's plans to revamp the official DoJ Strategic Plan, dated 8/9/2001, describes Ashcroft's new priorities. The areas Ashcroft wished to focus on were highlighted in yellow. Specifically highlighted by Ashcroft were domestic violent crime and drug trafficking prevention. Item 1.3, entitled "Combat terrorist activities by developing maximum intelligence and investigative capability," was not highlighted.

There is the internal FBI budget request for 2003 to the Department of Justice, dated late August 2001. This was not the FBI's total budget request, but was instead restricted only to the areas where the FBI specifically requested increases over the previous year's budget. In this request, the FBI specifically asked for, among other things, 54 translators to transcribe the backlog of intelligence gathered, 248 counterterrorism agents and support staff, and 200 professional intelligence researchers. The FBI had repeatedly stated that it had a serious backlog of intelligence data it has gathered, but could not process the data because it did not have the staff to analyze or translate it into usable information. Again, this was August 2001.

The official Department of Justice budget request from Attorney General Ashcroft to OMB Director Mitch Daniels is dated September 10, 2001. This document specifically highlights only the programs slated for above-baseline increases or below-baseline cuts. Ashcroft outlined the programs he was trying to cut. Specifically, Ashcroft was planning to ignore the FBI's specific requests for more translators, counterintelligence agents and researchers. It additionally shows Ashcroft was trying to cut funding for counterterrorism efforts, grants and other homeland defense programs before the 9/11 attacks.

Along with these new priorities, which demoted terrorism significantly, there were the warnings delivered to the Bush administration about potential attacks against the United States. Newspapers in Germany, France, Russia and London reported in the months before September 11th a blizzard of warnings delivered to the Bush administration from a number of allies.

The German intelligence service, BND, warned American and Israeli agencies that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack important American targets. Egypt warned of a similar plot to use airplanes to attack Bush during the G-8 summit in Genoa in June of 2001. This warning was taken so seriously that anti-aircraft missiles were deployed around Columbus Airport in Italy.

In August of 2001, Russian intelligence services notified the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots had been trained for suicide missions, and Putin himself confirmed that this warning was delivered "in the strongest possible terms," specifically regarding threats to airports and government buildings.

In that same month, the Israeli security agency Mossad issued a warning to both the FBI and the CIA that up to 200 bin Laden followers were planning a major assault on America, aimed at vulnerable targets. The Los Angeles Times later confirmed via unnamed US officials that the Mossad warnings had been received.

On August 6, 2001, George W. Bush received his Presidential Daily Briefing. The briefing described active plots to attack the United States by Osama bin Laden. The word "hijacking" appeared in that briefing. Bush reacted to this warning by continuing with his month-long vacation in Texas.

Richard Clarke, former Director of Counter-Terrorism for the National Security Council, has worked on the terrorist threat for the Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. administrations, amassing a peerless resume in the field. He became a central figure in the commission investigating the September 11 attacks. Clarke has laid bare an ugly truth: The administration of George W. Bush did not consider terrorism or the threat of al-Qaeda to be a priority prior to the attacks.

Clarke, along with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who as a member of the National Security Council was privy to military strategy meetings, indicated that the Bush administration was obsessed with an invasion of Iraq from the day it arrived in Washington. This obsession continued even after the attacks, despite the fact that the entire intelligence community flatly declared that Iraq was not involved.

Five years later, the questions surrounding what exactly happened on September 11, and why they were allowed to happen, remain unsettled. A recent national poll conducted by Scripps Howard/Ohio University states that more than one third of Americans believe that Bush's government either actively assisted in the 9/11 attacks, or allowed them to happen so as to create a justification for war in the Middle East.

The New York Post, reporting on this poll, stated, "Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Seventy percent of people who give credence to these theories also say they've become angrier with the federal government than they used to be."

"Thirty-six percent of respondents overall," continued the Post, "said it is 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them 'because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.' 'One out of three sounds high, but that may very well be right,' said Lee Hamilton, former vice chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also called the 9/11 Commission). His Congressionally-appointed investigation concluded that federal officials bungled their attempts to prevent, but did not participate in, the attacks by al-Qaeda five years ago. 'A lot of people I've encountered believe the U.S. government was involved," Hamilton said. 'Many say the government planned the whole thing.'"

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/083006J.shtml

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-29-2006, 07:28 PM

http://www.bartcop.com/condi-liar-aggressive.jpg

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-29-2006, 07:53 PM

Problem is that Clinton ignored the CIA. He did not have daily meetings with the CIA Director like Bush did before 9/11.

That's a bold-face lie.

In fact, just the opposite is true:

During an appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live" on March 24, Clarke also compared the two cases. "In December 1999, we received intelligence reports that there were going to be major al-Qaeda attacks," Clarke said. "President Clinton asked his national security adviser Sandy Berger to hold daily meetings with the attorney general, the FBI director, the CIA director and stop the attacks.

"Every day they went back from the White House to the FBI, to the Justice Department, to the CIA and they shook the trees to find out if there was any information. You know, when you know the United States is going to be attacked, the top people in the United States government ought to be working hands-on to prevent it and working together.

"Now, contrast that with what happened in the summer of 2001, when we even had more clear indications that there was going to be an attack. Did the president ask for daily meetings of his team to try to stop the attack? Did Condi Rice hold meetings of her counterparts to try to stop the attack? No."

The 9/11 commission is also reviewing these missed opportunities. The chairman and vice chairman, New Jersey's former Republican Gov. Thomas Kean and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on April 4 that their panel will conclude that the Sept. 11 attacks were preventable. "The whole story might have been different," Kean said, citing a string of law-enforcement blunders including the "lack of coordination within the FBI" and the FBI's failure to understand the significance of suspected hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui's arrest in August while training to fly passenger jets.

In his book, Clarke offers other examples of pre-Sept. 11 mistakes by the Bush administration, including a downgrading in importance of the counter-terrorism office, a shifting of budget priorities, an obsession with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and an emphasis on conservative ideological issues, such as Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars missile defense program. A more hierarchical White House structure also insulated Bush from direct contact with mid-level national security officials who had specialized on the al-Qaeda issue.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/092706.html

clarker

09-29-2006, 09:22 PM

That's a bold-face lie.

In fact, just the opposite is true:I'm not a big Clinton and don't think he did as wonderful a job on terrorism as you do, I do find it hard to believe that he or any other President for that matter did not meet with the director of the CIA or had some sort of intelligence brief on a daily basis.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-30-2006, 12:39 AM

9/11: Internal Government Documents Show How the Bush Administration Reduced Counterterrorism

March 22, 2004
Center for American Progress
www.americanprogress.org

Since September 11, President Bush and his supporters have repeatedly intimated that many of the President's political opponents are soft on terrorism. In his State of the Union address, the President declared: "We can go forward with confidence and resolve, or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us." In comments aimed at those who seek changes in the Patriot Act, Attorney General John Ashcroft said: "Your tactics only aid terrorists." One recent ad asserts, "Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others."

But the real story is far different, as the following internal Department of Justice (DoJ) documents obtained by the Center for American Progress demonstrate. The Bush Administration actually reversed the Clinton Administration's strong emphasis on counterterrorism and counterintelligence. Attorney General John Ashcroft not only moved aggressively to reduce DoJ's anti-terrorist budget but also shift DoJ's mission in spirit to emphasize its role as a domestic police force and anti-drug force. These changes in mission were just as critical as the budget changes, with Ashcroft, in effect, guiding the day to day decisions made by field officers and agents. And all of this while the Administration was receiving repeated warnings about potential terrorist attacks.

PRE-SEPTEMBER 11 - Reno Makes Counterterrorism DoJ's Top Priority

5/8/98 – FBI Strategic Plan: Mission statement from internal FBI Strategic Plan dated 5/8/1998 in which the Tier One priority is counterterrorism. This document clearly proves that the FBI under the previous Administration was making counterterrorism its highest priority. As the document states "Foreign intelligence, terrorist, and criminal activities that directly threaten the national or economic security...To succeed we must develop and implement a proactive, nationally directed program."

4/6/00 – DoJ Budget Goals Memo: Official annual budget goals memo from Attorney General Janet Reno to department heads dated 4/6/2000 detailing how counterterrorism is her top priority for the Department of Justice. In the second paragraph, she states, "In the near term as well as the future, cybercrime and counterterrrorism are going to be the most challenging threats in the criminal justice area. Nowhere is the need for an up-to-date human and technical infrastructure more critical."

PRE-SEPTEMBER 11 – Ashcroft Shifts Direction Away From Counterterrorism

5/10/01 – Ashcroft New DoJ Budget Goals Memo: Official annual budget goals memo from Attorney General Ashcroft dated 5/10/2001 (directly compares to the 4/6/2000 Reno memo). Out of 7 strategic goals described, not one mentions counterterrorism, a serious departure from Reno.

8/9/01 – Internal Draft of New Ashcroft DoJ Strategic Plan: Internal draft dated 8/9/2001 of DoJ's plans to revamp the official DoJ Strategic Plan strategic in which Attorney General Ashcroft's new priorities for DoJ were highlighted in yellow (because of color constraints with PDF, the items with black boxes were the ones actually highlighted). As it says, highlighted items equal the specific goals of the new Attorney General. Specifically highlighted by Ashcroft are domestic violent crime and drug trafficking prevention. Item 1.3 entitled "Combat terrorist activities by developing maximum intelligence and investigative capability" is passed over. After September 11, Ashcroft quickly amended his plans for DoJ's reorganization. The final strategic mission, which was released in November looks starkly different than Ashcroft's pre-September 11 draft. (to see this reversal, you can compare "stragicplan.pdf" attached to this email with the final strategic mission that is found on the web at http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/mps/strategic2001-2006/chapter2.pdf).

Late August 2001 – Internal FBI FY2003 Budget Request to Ashcroft: Internal FBI FY03 budget request to DoJ dated roughly late August 2001 (FBI submits its request to DoJ, DoJ adjusts and sends a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) which then puts it into the final budget). This is not FBI's total request - but only the areas where FBI is specifically requesting increases over the previous year's baseline. In this request, FBI specifically asks for, among other things, 54 translators to translate backlog of intelligence gathered (line 3 under Foreign Language Services, cost of $5.1 million), 248 counterterrorism agents and support staff (line 14 entitled CT field investigations, cost of $28 million), and 200 professional intelligence researchers (line 16, entitled Intelligence Production, at a cost of $20.8 million). FBI has repeatedly stated that it has a serious backlog of intelligence data it has gathered but simply does not have the staff to analyze or translate it into usable information.

9/10/2001 – Official FY2003 Dept. of Justice Budget Request To White House: Official FY03 DoJ budget request from Attorney General Ashcroft to OMB Director Mitch Daniels, dated September 10, 2001. This document specifically highlights only the programs slated for above-baseline increases or below-baseline cuts. On page 29 of the PDF, Ashcroft outlines the programs he is trying to cut. Comparing this document to FBI's request to DoJ, it shows that Ashcroft ignored FBI's anti-terrorism requests (detailed in this internal FBI document). More specifically, this document shows that Ashcroft was planning to ignore the FBI's specific requests for more translators, counterintelligence agents and researchers, mentioned above. It additionally shows Ashcroft was trying to slash funding from counterterrorism and grants and other homeland defense programs before 9/11.

POST-SEPTEMBER 11: Ashcroft Still Ignores FBI Counterterrorism Requests

Post 9/11 – Budget Document Detailing OMB Rejection of FBI Counter-Terror Request: Internal document showing that FBI requested $1.499 billion for counterterrorism for the post-September 11 emergency supplemental but received just $530 million from the White House, despite serious counterterrorism needs.

24champ

09-30-2006, 03:05 AM

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=244335998192705
The Blame Game: Hillary stands by her man, not bothering to explain why, as president, Bill Clinton granted clemency to terrorists to aid the political fortunes of his wife and vice president.

Doing her best Tammy Wynette imitation, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who owns the copyright on the phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy," on Tuesday joined in defending her husband's reaction to Fox News anchor Chris Wallace's simple question of why Mr. Clinton didn't do more to get Osama bin Laden.

Taking a direct shot at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Mrs. Clinton opined: " I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the U.S.,' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team."

She was referring to a classified Aug. 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing, or PDB, that was used by 9/11 Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste to badger Rice during her testimony in an attempt to prove the Bush administration was asleep at the switch.

Mrs. Clinton obviously does not know what a PDB is or what it's used for. This particular PDB wasn't used to warn the president of anything. And PDBs in general are not threat alerts. A PDB is a president's morning intelligence newspaper summarizing important developments over the prior 24 hours, often in raw form.

All that one might surmise on that morning in 2001 was that an unknown number of terrorists from an unknown country might hijack an unknown number of aircraft at unknown airports and fly them toward unknown destinations for an unknown purpose.

Compared with what Bill Clinton knew, this was hardly what is called actionable intelligence.

It's true that Hillary's husband never got such a briefing. According to the 9/11 Commission report: "There was no National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism between 1995 and 9/11. There was no comprehensive review of what the intelligence community knew and what it did not know and what it meant."

But we didn't need a PDB to tell us bin Laden wanted to kill Americans. On Clinton's watch he'd killed them on three continents. And on Feb. 23, 1998, bin Laden issued a religious fatwa urging all Muslims to kill Americans wherever they could be found.

Killing "the Americans and their allies — civilian and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it," the fatwa said. Any country — whether it be Yemen or the U.S. Which part of that did Bill Clinton not understand?

We have another simple question perhaps Hillary could answer: If your husband was so intent on fighting terrorism and killing bin Laden, why did he, on Aug. 11, 1999, grant clemency to 16 members of the hard-core Puerto Rican terrorist group Armed Forces for National Liberation (FALN)? And to repeat a question former Clinton guru Dick Morris asked earlier this year: "Did (you) know that Bill was pardoning the FALN terrorists to help (you) win Puerto Rican votes in New York?"

FALN terrorists carried out more than 150 bombings in the U.S., including the lunchtime bombing of Fraunces Tavern in New York on Jan. 24, 1975, that killed four. Before this pardon, Clinton had denied clemency in 3,039 out of 3,042 cases. Why this one, if he was serious about fighting terrorism?

As recounted in a Nov. 10, 1999, Washington Post story, this politically motivated pardon of terrorists was also designed to help Al Gore's 2000 presidential bid.

A White House memo written by Jeffrey Farrow, co-chairman of the White House's interagency working group on Puerto Rico, said on March 6, 1999: "The VP's Puerto Rico position would be helped" if the terrorists were granted clemency. The memo noted that clemency was also a priority for three congressional Democrats with large Puerto Rican constituencies.

We wonder if this was part of the comprehensive anti-terrorism strategy Bill Clinton claimed to have left George Bush.

What a fckin joke.

24champ

09-30-2006, 03:13 AM

I'm not a big Clinton and don't think he did as wonderful a job on terrorism as you do, I do find it hard to believe that he or any other President for that matter did not meet with the director of the CIA or had some sort of intelligence brief on a daily basis.

I know it is a suprise but Clinton did not meet his CIA director for two years.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-30-2006, 05:27 AM

I know it is a suprise but Clinton did not meet his CIA director for two years.

:rofl:

Is that what Oxycontin Boy said?

BroncoBuff

09-30-2006, 10:26 AM

But I just gave you quite a few facts and sound arguments to support this belief.

I have to wonder if you even read my last post on the subject.

Of course I read it .... I just don't meekly accept very rosy 20/20 hindsight about what might've happened IF ONLY ... BTW ... The "if only" part always envisions everything going right. For heaven's sake, it was just 7 months and 3 weeks after inauguration. That window is WAY too tiny.

The box cutters are the key, guys .... and nothing indicates that any SERIOUS effort was underway that would have or could have interdicted this scenario. PLUS: this unforeseen scenario also includes the wild-card that - suicide terrorists had learned to fly large Boeing jets?!

Sorry .... thay attack was brilliant, and imo, 99% nothing Gore or Clinton did, said, or advocated would have stopped it. If so, then just exactly what would Clarke's cabinet-level meetings have "shaken loose," Rohirrim? Don't forget, box cutters and commercial jet suicide pilots were fringe ideas. I heard that Clarke had discussed a scenario where terrorists would "fly planes into buildings," but that scenario did not envision commercial jets being hi-jacked and then PILOTED in buildings. Gimme a link if you think it did.

I'll even go one step further ... Rohirrim says there were "monthly" counter-terror meetings. Well, I heard Clarke was actually having WEEKLY high-level counter-terror meetings in the WH. Just 7 months, 21 days before 9/11 ...

Play2win

09-30-2006, 11:23 AM

Spider

09-30-2006, 01:38 PM

I'm sorry to say, but you shoot those jets out of the sky the minute they become a serious threat. You have take the loses (of life), which would have been much less than the over 6,000 American lives that it has now cost us.

I agree with this take I also like DS49;D

broncocalijohn

09-30-2006, 05:22 PM

Spider

09-30-2006, 06:38 PM

Spider

09-30-2006, 06:39 PM

Not saying Clinton is perfect , he is far from it , several issues I have with Clinton Like Nafta , China getting MFN Status , the whole white sands New Mexico screw up etc .... But on Terrorism Clinton was pretty spot on ......

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-30-2006, 09:53 PM

WTC 93 happened 1 month after Clinton took office , the Cole was when Clinton was on his way out the door , Samalia was Poppy Bush , clinton got the left over mess...... But the 2 embassy bombings are clearly on Clinton , while they didnt happen in the borders of the USA , Clinton clearly should have been aware of what was going on in Africa , as well as the rest of the world , it isnt like the embassy bombings happened here in America while Clinton was fishing ......... That would be bad .............

The fact that you have to break all this down for him shows just how uninformed and misinformed he really is.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-02-2006, 02:00 AM

"The idea of trying to cast blame for 9-11 on President Clinton is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don't think he deserves it..."

- Rudy Giuliani

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_re_us/giuliani_clinton;_ylt=AjzFA0OnwEw3tL2H2J8rE8yyFz4D ;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

.

broncocalijohn

10-02-2006, 04:49 AM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-02-2006, 07:12 AM

So to LABF, the attacks on WTC in 93, The cole attack in the ME, somalia and two embassy bombings are who to blame? In your theory, it must be the president at the current time. So, I guess it was CLinton's fault. But we dont expect you to follow your rules. Clinton, PERFECT! Bush, ALL HIS FAULT! We know how you work. I dont even blame everything on Clinton as I believe most americans dont. You, on the other hand LABF, blame nothing on clinton and everything on Bush. ANd you wojnder how many dont take much from your opinions. You are a talking head for the Anti Bush crowd.

:oyvey:

In the foregoing, idiotic, semi-literate tripe, you're overlooking an important difference:

Clinton didn't receive warning after warning from a whole host of intelligence sources - both foreign and domestic - in advance of those attacks, only to respond by DOING NOTHING and by taking a month's vacation as Bush did before 9/11.

And, FYI, the first WTC bombing happened only 30 days after Bush 41 left office, but you didn't hear Clinton blaming Poppy. If I were to apply the same "logic" bushbots like you apply when assigning blame for the 9/11 attacks, I would be within my rights, according to your rules, to blame Poppy for the first WTC attack. Furthermore, the perps of the first WTC attack were hunted down, tried, convicted, and jailed. Under the incompetent pinhead you support, Bin Laden has remained at large since 9/11, thumbing his nose at us and cranking out videotapes.

The Cole attack was another instance in which advance warnings were ignored - this time by Barbara Bodine, the U.S. Ambassador to Yemen, who, coincidentally enough, was an old Bush family/oil industry crony from way back. When Clinton sent an FBI team (headed by John O'Neil, the bureau's top Bin Laden expert) to Yemen to investigate the Cole attack, Bodine thwarted the team's every move. Bush 43 took office shortly thereafter, and his administration didn't do jack sh*t about the Cole incident - didn't continue the investigation, didn't respond...nada.

Rohirrim

10-02-2006, 08:57 AM

Of course I read it .... I just don't meekly accept very rosy 20/20 hindsight about what might've happened IF ONLY ... BTW ... The "if only" part always envisions everything going right. For heaven's sake, it was just 7 months and 3 weeks after inauguration. That window is WAY too tiny.

The box cutters are the key, guys .... and nothing indicates that any SERIOUS effort was underway that would have or could have interdicted this scenario. PLUS: this unforeseen scenario also includes the wild-card that - suicide terrorists had learned to fly large Boeing jets?!

Sorry .... thay attack was brilliant, and imo, 99% nothing Gore or Clinton did, said, or advocated would have stopped it. If so, then just exactly what would Clarke's cabinet-level meetings have "shaken loose," Rohirrim? Don't forget, box cutters and commercial jet suicide pilots were fringe ideas. I heard that Clarke had discussed a scenario where terrorists would "fly planes into buildings," but that scenario did not envision commercial jets being hi-jacked and then PILOTED in buildings. Gimme a link if you think it did.

I'll even go one step further ... Rohirrim says there were "monthly" counter-terror meetings. Well, I heard Clarke was actually having WEEKLY high-level counter-terror meetings in the WH. Just 7 months, 21 days before 9/11 ...

Two of the hijackers were identified by the CIA and known to be in San Diego 18 months before 911. That information was not passed on to the FBI, who had standing warrants that would have allowed them to tap and surveil any suspected terrorists within the U.S. The CIA stopped following the suspects because their jurisdiction ends at our borders. Within that 18 month period, the post 911 investigation shows, those two hijackers contacted the rest of the hijackers, including Atta, numerous times. An FBI agent, who was investigating the Cole bombing, specifically asked for any and all info the CIA had in its possession regarding anyone linked to the Cole bombing. The CIA refused to divulge that info.

And THAT is the kind of info that Clarke might have been able to shake loose.

PS. I don't remember saying anything about "monthly" meetings. I understood they were daily meetings with Clinton. Maybe you could post the source where you "heard" Clarke was having meetings with the Bush WH 7 mos. before 911. As I understand it, he wasn't given his first meeting until 1 week before 911. Also, according to Woodward's book, Tenet was warning Rice about terrorist attacks in the U.S. in July of 2001, and got the "brush off." So, is your argument that Rice was listening to Clarke, but ignoring Tenet?

Rohirrim

10-02-2006, 09:11 AM

:oyvey:

In the foregoing, idiotic, semi-literate tripe, you're overlooking an important difference:

Clinton didn't receive warning after warning from a whole host of intelligence sources - both foreign and domestic - in advance of those attacks, only to respond by DOING NOTHING and by taking a month's vacation as Bush did before 9/11.

And, FYI, the first WTC bombing happened only 30 days after Bush 41 left office, but you didn't hear Clinton blaming Poppy. If I were to apply the same "logic" bushbots like you apply when assigning blame for the 9/11 attacks, I would be within my rights, according to your rules, to blame Poppy for the first WTC attack. Furthermore, the perps of the first WTC attack were hunted down, tried, convicted, and jailed. Under the incompetent pinhead you support, Bin Laden has remained at large since 9/11, thumbing his nose at us and cranking out videotapes.

The Cole attack was another instance in which advance warnings were ignored - this time by Barbara Bodine, the U.S. Ambassador to Yemen, who, coincidentally enough, was an old Bush family/oil industry crony from way back. When Clinton sent an FBI team (headed by John O'Neil, the bureau's top Bin Laden expert) to Yemen to investigate the Cole attack, Bodine thwarted the team's every move. Bush 43 took office shortly thereafter, and his administration didn't do jack sh*t about the Cole incident - didn't continue the investigation, didn't respond...nada.

Not only that. In February of 2001, Bush was given the complete dossier on the Cole attack. Definitive information had been uncovered by the FBI that Bin Laden had carried out the Cole attack. Bush's response?

Absolutely nothing.

BroncoBuff

10-02-2006, 09:29 AM

Also, according to Woodward's book, Tenet was warning Rice about terrorist attacks in the U.S. in July of 2001, and got the "brush off." So, is your argument that Rice was listening to Clarke, but ignoring Tenet?

That's new since my post (and btw - I don't think I believe it. Thatr's dynamite, and we're just hearing it now? Cofer Black has issues, too.)

And the 'monthly' meeting quote came I think for an article you quoted.

I just can't see that the FBI vs. CIA competitive mess wouldda been cleared up in that 8 months, regardless what Clarke did... and that's what your post implies. That their failure to share info wouldda somehow been fixed ... ?

BroncoBuff

10-02-2006, 09:38 AM

Cofer Black was quoted - about that warning - as saying "we practically held a gun to her head. We did everything but pull the trigger."

If all this is true, why didnt he tell Congress or the 9/11 commission?:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092602black.html

Rohirrim

10-02-2006, 09:47 AM

That's new since my post (and btw - I don't think I believe it. Thatr's dynamite, and we're just hearing it now? Cofer Black has issues, too.)

And the 'monthly' meeting quote came I think for an article you quoted.

I just can't see that the FBI vs. CIA competitive mess wouldda been cleared up in that 8 months, regardless what Clarke did... and that's what your post implies. That their failure to share info wouldda somehow been fixed ... ?

Yes, the 911 Commission seems to be shocked about it as well. For over thirty years now, Woodward has been proved right when he reports something. We'll see if his record holds up.

As far as the 911 thing goes, I think it would have gone exactly as stated by Clarke at his 911 Commission testimony and in his book. He realized that the number one obstacle to getting information was bureaucratic obstinacy, so his focus would have been to shake loose information that we now know was available (ie. hijackers in San Diego, hijackers taking flying lessons, etc.). The goal would not have been to repair the bureaucracy, but to bypass it, as he has stated. To do that, he would have needed power and support. The two things he did not get from the Bush cabal.

Of course, it's hypothetical, but given what we know about the Bush cabal's first 9 months in office and their (in hind-sight) completely lackadaisical attitude toward terrorism, it's not a huge stretch of the imagination to hypothesize that 911 could have been stopped given a rigorous focus from the leadership. If you set off the alarm bells, people tend to respond. If you send the message that there's no reason to be alarmed, people tend to act like it's business as usual.

BroncoBuff

10-02-2006, 09:56 AM

Is that book worth a read? In PRACTICAL terms I mean .... I have lots of things stacked up. Fiasco, Bush on the Couch, etc...

Rohirrim

10-02-2006, 10:22 AM

BroncoBuff

10-02-2006, 10:28 AM

Asking Henry Kissinger for advice on Iraq is like asking Mark Foley for advice on setting up your Instant Messenger software. :~ohyah!:

BroncoBuff

10-02-2006, 10:30 AM

I still have The 1% Doctrine and Fiasco on my nightstand. I’m currently working on Looming Towers. One thing about the Bush cabal; they generate reading material. I don’t know when I’ll get to Woodward’s book.
Woodward has reported that Bush will continue to follow his own policy on Iraq if the only people left on Earth who support him are his wife and his dog. Now he’s got Kissinger (who did such a fine job on Vietnam) coaching him on Iraq. It’s déjà vu all over again. I feel like I’m watching a national tragedy unfold and there’s nothing I can do about it. It’s like Runaway Train. The locomotive is loose, so clear the tracks and hang on. Maybe if the Dems can take the House and the Senate, they can throw the brakes on this reckless cabal, but right now, I don’t have a lot of hope that’s going to happen.

I thought "Plan of Attack" was pretty boring ... so 'antiseptic' as to be boring.

However ... MORE BOMBSHELLS from "State of Denial"

On Imus this morning... apparently the book details, with no less a source than Brent Scowcroft - that daddy George is "crushed," even apoplectic over his son's invasion of Iraq. It is SO SAD how the "good Republicans," ie: Colin Powell, George Sr., Rudy Giuliani, keep getting steamrolled by this theocratic megalomaniacal power-mad cabal.

And speaking of "Runaway Trains" ... did you get my PM about the actor Danny Trejo and that movie? Probably blathered on ... but it was interesting to ME !Booya!

Rohirrim

10-02-2006, 10:47 AM

Yeah, thanks. I still like that movie. I don't really care what the critics say. ;D

bendog

10-02-2006, 11:01 AM

I love the pundits who say the Kissinger advice is a good thing. Kissinger is/was a wonk genius, but politically he is/was a nightmare. Bushii is getting advice to suit what he already wants to hear: "stay the course." Because in reality, the neocons NEVER want peace or to leave Iraq.

In vietnam our allies never understood why we stayed, and when we left wondered what took us so long. Politically, however, Nixon's base were those who had to be able to pt to some "positive outcome" from the war. Victory was no longer acheivable, so they opted for "peace with honor," and to this day some will say 'had the demorcrats given S.Vietnam the funding we promised they'd not have lost.' poppycock, but that's their view.

Conversely, bushii invaded saying we'd get rid of saddam, and those pesky womd, and give em democracy ..... Welllllllllll, they've had an election, saddam's in the dock, and over 70% of em want us gone, sooooooooo..... Declare victory and go home.

Rohirrim

10-02-2006, 11:21 AM

I guarantee you, the massive failures in Iraq will someday be blamed on the Dems, just like the GOP is now trying to blame 911 on Clinton. You can bet on it.

bendog

10-02-2006, 11:45 AM

I guarantee you, the massive failures in Iraq will someday be blamed on the Dems, just like the GOP is now trying to blame 911 on Clinton. You can bet on it.

Without question. Of course, the Dems will be in a tough place if they actually have to tell the truth: democracy's a dangerous thing, esp when it's given to a group without a common history, differing agendas, tribal hatreds, and dubious sectarian education. Like that'll fly with voters.

defenseman

10-02-2006, 01:09 PM

no labf, i was pointing out how u think. All that I said happened in his presidency. I was just using your logic or lack of. I never stated i blame it all on Clinton. You seem to not blame any on him. But quote me for something and put a spin on it. You still cant answer the question. Question though, if the Cole attack happened on his way out, does that mean he just throws all things related to terrorist out the door and let Bush find his own information and reports?

You can hang it on whomever you desire depending on which way you spin it. Ultimately, I blame the terrorists. I say, Kill them all. All of them. Don't stop until they are all D-E-A-D , dead. It'll take a while, but, has to be done. They aren't going away anytime soon. Go soft on terrorism, standby to be nuked...dman

broncocalijohn

10-02-2006, 04:49 PM

:oyvey:

In the foregoing, idiotic, semi-literate tripe, you're overlooking an important difference:

Clinton didn't receive warning after warning from a whole host of intelligence sources - both foreign and domestic - in advance of those attacks, only to respond by DOING NOTHING and by taking a month's vacation as Bush did before 9/11.

And, FYI, the first WTC bombing happened only 30 days after Bush 41 left office, but you didn't hear Clinton blaming Poppy. If I were to apply the same "logic" bushbots like you apply when assigning blame for the 9/11 attacks, I would be within my rights, according to your rules, to blame Poppy for the first WTC attack. Furthermore, the perps of the first WTC attack were hunted down, tried, convicted, and jailed. Under the incompetent pinhead you support, Bin Laden has remained at large since 9/11, thumbing his nose at us and cranking out videotapes.

The Cole attack was another instance in which advance warnings were ignored - this time by Barbara Bodine, the U.S. Ambassador to Yemen, who, coincidentally enough, was an old Bush family/oil industry crony from way back. When Clinton sent an FBI team (headed by John O'Neil, the bureau's top Bin Laden expert) to Yemen to investigate the Cole attack, Bodine thwarted the team's every move. Bush 43 took office shortly thereafter, and his administration didn't do jack sh*t about the Cole incident - didn't continue the investigation, didn't respond...nada.

First Clinton didnt blame George the first as George the 2nd didnt blame Clinton. It is the way it has been in most instances with past presidents until now. Clinton started the blame game on the Wallace interview. The first attack was backed by Laden and he is still out there since 1993. We were able to convict the ones who werent suicidal and killed themselves. THere were actual players here in the USA. It isnt the fact that I support Bush as I didnt on the Iraq war, it is just myu opinion that you seem to blame one and not the other. Most dont hold your position. I and others here can be rational about this discussion. You seem to have trouble not being biased.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-02-2006, 06:46 PM

First Clinton didnt blame George the first as George the 2nd didnt blame Clinton.

Hilarious!

You're trying to tell us that Bush II and his minions haven't tried to deflect blame for 9/11 onto Clinton?

What freakin' planet have you been living on for the past five years?

Oh, that's right: BushWorld.

You seem to have trouble not being biased.

You seem to have trouble with facts, truth, and logic.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-02-2006, 06:47 PM

Not only that. In February of 2001, Bush was given the complete dossier on the Cole attack. Definitive information had been uncovered by the FBI that Bin Laden had carried out the Cole attack. Bush's response?

Absolutely nothing.

That's correct.

And then Rice lied about this, i.e., claimed she didn't receive anything.

BroncoBuff

10-04-2006, 07:05 AM

Hey ... that was funny:

Asking Henry Kissinger for advice on Iraq is like asking Mark Foley for advice on setting up your Instant Messenger software. :~ohyah!:

Dudeskey

10-12-2006, 10:19 PM

Not saying Clinton is perfect , he is far from it , several issues I have with Clinton Like Nafta , China getting MFN Status , the whole white sands New Mexico screw up etc .......

and the Telecommunications act of 1996... other than that Clinton was ok in my book