PDA

View Full Version : Neck Deep: The Real 9/11 Scandal


L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-19-2007, 09:58 PM
By Robert, Sam and Nat Parry
September 11, 2007

Editor’s Note: As George W. Bush tries to squeeze 16 more months of political advantage from America’s 9/11 memories, it is worth recalling how different history might have been had the Bush administration heeded intelligence warnings in the summer of 2001.

Bush’s supporters have worked mightily to foist off blame for the attacks on the Clinton administration, but the truth is that the key developments in the emergence of Osama bin Laden and his terrorist band date back to the Reagan-Bush years of the 1980s – and the missed opportunities to stop the attacks fell heavily on George W. Bush’s watch.

That reality is recalled in this excerpt from the new book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush:

During the lazy summer of 2001, relatively few Americans had even heard of al-Qaeda, which in Arabic means “the base.” This organization of Islamic extremists had taken shape during the CIA-supported war against the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

In the years of the late Cold War, CIA Director William J. Casey and other anti-Soviet hard-liners viewed Islamic fundamentalism as a tool to pry historically Muslim territories in the southern Soviet Union away from Moscow and its atheistic communist government.

So, besides arming a multinational force of Islamists to fight in Afghanistan, the CIA printed thousands of copies of the Koran and smuggled them into the Soviet Union.

In another trade-off for the Afghan war, the CIA looked the other way while Pakistan was developing its nuclear bomb. The CIA wanted nothing to interfere with the vital cooperation that Pakistani intelligence was providing in funneling weapons to the anti-Soviet Afghan rebels and their Islamic allies, including bin Laden.

But after the Soviets were driven from Afghanistan in 1989, many of the CIA-trained Islamist guerrillas turned their fury against other infidels encroaching on Muslim lands. The most obvious intruder was their old patron, the United States.

Bin Laden, the scion of a wealthy Saudi family which controlled much of the construction in the oil-rich kingdom, disdained the Saudi princes for their decadent ways and their reliance on the Americans for their security. The acetic and religious bin Laden grew more alienated from the Saudi power structure in 1990 when Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

Bin Laden despised Hussein as a secular leader of an Arab country and wanted him driven from Kuwait, but bin Laden was disgusted at the thought of non-Muslims setting up military bases near Islamic holy sites in Saudi Arabia.

He volunteered to raise an Islamic army of mujahedeen to push Hussein out of Kuwait. But the Saudi royals threw in their lot with the Americans, the British and a multinational force that succeeded in routing the Iraqi army in early 1991.

But, just as bin Laden had feared, the Americans did not dismantle their military bases in Saudi Arabia. They made them more permanent.

In the early 1990s, bin Laden moved his fledgling al-Qaeda organization to Sudan and built up an array of interrelated businesses as a framework for his political activities.

He reached out to Islamic extremists from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Oman, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Somalia and Eritrea. Many were exiles from losing battles against the power structures in their home countries.

During this transition period, bin Laden intensified his anti-American rhetoric and issued a fatwa – or religious order – in 1992 against U.S. “occupation” of Islamic lands. U.S. intelligence began to suspect that al-Qaeda was responsible for scattered attacks against U.S. targets in the Middle East and East Africa.

Escalation

By 1996, pressure from the United States and other countries persuaded the Sudanese government to expel bin Laden and his organization. Bin Laden left Sudan on May 19, 1996, and returned to his old sanctuary in Afghanistan.

Though in a weakened position, bin Laden began reviving al-Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan, with the protection of the Pakistani intelligence services and the fundamentalist Taliban government in Kabul.

Bin Laden rebuilt his financial structure, set up training camps and forged alliances with other extremist organizations, such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad led by exile Ayman al-Zawahiri. On Feb. 23, 1998, a resurgent bin Laden issued another fatwa against the United States, specifically authorizing his followers to kill Americans whether they were civilian or military.

Five months later, on Aug. 7, 1998, al-Qaeda militants struck at the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The bombing of the Nairobi embassy killed 12 Americans and 201 others.

In Dar es Salaam, 11 people died. Bin Laden declared publicly that if inciting attacks intended to drive Americans and Jews from the Islamic holy lands is a crime, “let history be a witness that I am a criminal.”

After the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, President Bill Clinton ordered heightened attention on bin Laden and al-Qaeda, looking for ways of getting the terrorist leader expelled from Afghanistan or killed.

On Aug. 20, 1998, the United States launched a missile strike against bin Laden’s Afghan base, killing about two dozen people but missing bin Laden, who was believed to have left the compound a few hours earlier.

Besides failing to kill bin Laden, Clinton earned the derision of Republicans and many Washington pundits, who accused him of a “wag-the-dog” attempt to distract attention from the scandal over his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky.

Millennium Plot

In the months that followed, as the U.S. government weighed additional countermoves, bin Laden’s operatives prepared for another strike inside the United States, this one to coincide with the Millennium celebrations at the end of 1999.

An intelligence report from the National Intelligence Council, which advises the President on emerging threats, warned that al-Qaeda should be expected to “retaliate in a spectacular way” for the 1998 cruise missile attack on Afghanistan.

Tipped by Jordanian intelligence on al-Qaeda’s plans, the Clinton administration ordered tightened security and got lucky when alert border guards at Port Angeles, Washington, apprehended Ahmed Rassam, who was on his way to Los Angeles to plant bombs at the international airport.

At the height of Campaign 2000, al-Qaeda took aim at another U.S. target, the destroyer USS Cole, as it docked in the port of Aden. On Oct. 12, 2000, al-Qaeda operatives piloted a small boat laden with explosives against the Cole’s hull, blasting a hole that killed 17 crew members and wounded another 40.

Back in Afghanistan, bin Laden anticipated – and desired – a retaliatory strike. He hoped to lure the United States deeper into a direct conflict with al-Qaeda, which would enhance his group’s reputation and – assuming a clumsy U.S. response – would radicalize the region’s Muslim populations.

Bin Laden evacuated al-Qaeda’s compound at the Kandahar airport and fled into the desert near Kabul and then to hideouts in Khowst and Jalalabad before returning to Kandahar where he alternated sleeping among a half dozen residences.

But lacking hard evidence proving who was behind the Cole bombing, Clinton didn’t order a retaliatory strike. Only during the transition to the Bush presidency did U.S. intelligence reach a conclusion that the attack was “a full-fledged al-Qaeda operation” under the direct supervision of bin Laden.

However, Clinton left a decision on what do next up to the incoming administration – and it didn’t agree with Clinton’s assessment that al-Qaeda ranked at the top of the U.S. threat list. From his opening days in office, Bush rebuffed recommendations from almost anyone who shared Clinton’s anxiety about terrorism.

On Jan. 31, 2001, just 11 days after Bush’s Inauguration, a bipartisan terrorism commission headed by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman unveiled its final report, bluntly warning that urgent steps were needed to prevent a terrorist attack on U.S. cities.

“States, terrorists and other disaffected groups will acquire weapons of mass destruction, and some will use them,” the report said. “Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers.” Hart specifically noted that the nation was vulnerable to “a weapon of mass destruction in a high-rise building.”

The 9/11 Commission later wrote, “in February 2001, a source reported that an individual whom he identified as the big instructor (probably a reference to bin Laden) complained frequently that the United States had not yet attacked. According to the source, bin Laden wanted the United States to attack, and if it did not he would launch something bigger.”

By then, Muhamed Atta and other al-Qaeda operatives were moving into position for their next deadly operation. From safe houses in California and Florida, they enrolled in American flight schools and took lessons on how to fly commercial jetliners.

When congressional hearings on the Hart-Rudman findings were set for early May 2001, the Bush administration intervened to stop them. The presumed reasoning was that the Bush administration didn’t have much to show either in terms of accomplishments or plans of its own.

Instead of embracing the Hart-Rudman findings and getting to work on the recommendations, Bush set up a White House committee, headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, to examine the issue again and submit a report in fall 2001.

“The administration actually slowed down response to Hart-Rudman when momentum was building in the spring,” said former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Alarm Bells

By late spring 2001, other alarm bells were ringing, frequently and loudly. Credible evidence of an impending attack began pouring in to U.S. intelligence agencies.

“It all came together in the third week of June,” said Richard Clarke, who was the White House coordinator for counterterrorism. “The CIA’s view was that a major terrorist attack was coming in the next several weeks.”

In late June, CIA Director George Tenet was reported “nearly frantic” about the likelihood of an al-Qaeda attack. He was described as running around “with his hair on fire” because the warning system was “blinking red.”

On June 28, a written intelligence summary to Bush’s national security adviser Condoleezza Rice warned that “it is highly likely that a significant al-Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks.”

On July 5, 2001, at a meeting in the White House Situation Room, counterterrorism chief Clarke told officials from a dozen federal agencies that “something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it’s going to happen soon.”

But instead of sparking an intensified administration reaction to the danger, the flickering light of White House interest in the terror threat continued to sputter.

By July 10, senior CIA counterterrorism officials, including Cofer Black, had collected a body of intelligence that they presented to Director Tenet.

“The briefing gave me literally made my hair stand on end,” Tenet wrote in his memoir, At the Center of the Storm. “When he was through, I picked up the big white secure phone on the left side of my desk – the one with a direct line to Condi Rice – and told her that I needed to see her immediately to provide an update on the al-Qa’ida threat.”

After reaching the White House, a CIA briefer, identified in Tenet’s book only as Rich B., started his presentation by saying: “There will be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months!”

Rich B. then displayed a chart showing “seven specific pieces of intelligence gathered over the past 24 hours, all of them predicting an imminent attack,” Tenet wrote. The briefer presented another chart with “the more chilling statements we had in our possession through intelligence.”

These comments included a mid-June statement by Osama bin Laden to trainees about an attack in the near future; talk about decisive acts and a “big event”; and fresh intelligence about predictions of “a stunning turn of events in the weeks ahead,” Tenet wrote.

Rich B. told Rice that the attack will be “spectacular” and designed to inflict heavy casualties against U.S. targets.

“Attack preparations have been made,” Rich B. said about al-Qaeda’s plans. “Multiple and simultaneous attacks are possible, and they will occur with little or no warning.”

When Rice asked what needed to be done, the CIA’s Black responded, “This country needs to go on a war footing now.” The CIA officials sought approval for broad covert-action authority that had been languishing since March, Tenet wrote.

Despite the July 10 briefing, other senior Bush administration officials continued to pooh-pooh the seriousness of the al-Qaeda threat. Two leading neoconservatives at the Pentagon – Stephen Cambone and Paul Wolfowitz – suggested that the CIA might be falling for a disinformation campaign, Tenet recalled.

But the evidence of an impending attack continued to pour in. At one CIA meeting in late July, Tenet wrote that Rich B. told senior officials bluntly, “they’re coming here,” a declaration that was followed by stunned silence.

[b]Stem Cells

Through the sweltering heat of July, Bush turned his attention to an issue dear to the hearts of his right-wing base, the use of human embryos in stem-cell research.

Medical scientists felt stem cells promised potential cures for debilitating and life-threatening injuries and illnesses, from spinal damage to Alzheimer’s disease. Yet, despite this promise, the Christian Right objected on moral grounds to the extraction of cells from embryos, even if they were destined for destruction as waste at fertility clinics.

Bush also was eyeing a month-long vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

While Atta and his team made final preparations, the U.S. press corps also missed the drama playing out inside the U.S. intelligence agencies. The hot stories that steamy summer were shark attacks and the mystery of a missing Capitol Hill intern Chandra Levy, who’d had an affair with Representative Gary Condit, a California Democrat.

The news media pretended that its obsession with Levy’s disappearance was a heartfelt concern to help her parents find their missing daughter; the sexual gossip about Levy and Condit proved to be a fortuitous byproduct.

Yet, as cable news played the Chandra Levy case 24/7, a far more significant life-or-death drama was playing out inside the FBI and CIA.

At the FBI’s Phoenix field office, FBI agent Kenneth Williams noted the curious fact that suspected followers of bin Laden were learning to fly airplanes at schools inside the United States.

Citing “an inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest” attending American flight schools, Williams sent a July 10, 2001, memo to FBI headquarters warning of the “possibility of a coordinated effort by Usama Bin Laden” to send student pilots to the United States. But the memo produced no follow-up.

National FBI officials seemed paralyzed at the thought of taking proactive measures. Instead they concentrated on what to do after an anticipated terror attack.

Then-acting FBI Director Thomas Pickard later told the 9/11 Commission that he discussed the intelligence threat reports with FBI special agents from around the country in a conference call on July 19, 2001. But Pickard said the focus was on having “evidence response teams” ready to respond quickly in the event of an attack.

CIA officials encountered similar foot-dragging at the White House. At least two officials in the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center were so apoplectic about the blasé reactions from the Bush administration that they considered resigning and going public with their concerns.

Instead, the CIA hierarchy made one more stab at startling Bush into action.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-19-2007, 09:58 PM
(Cont.)

Blunt Warning

On Aug. 6, 2001, the CIA dispatched senior analysts to brief Bush near the beginning of his month-long vacation at his Crawford ranch. They carried a highly classified report with the blunt title “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.”

This Presidential Daily Brief summarized the history of bin Laden’s interest in launching attacks inside the United States and ended with a carefully phrased warning about recent intelligence threat data:

“FBI information … indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.”

Bush was not pleased by the CIA’s intrusion on his vacation nor with the report’s lack of specific targets and dates. He glared at the CIA briefer and snapped, “All right, you’ve covered your ass,” according to an account in author Ron Suskind’s The One Percent Doctrine, which relied heavily on senior CIA officials.

Putting the CIA’s warning in the back of his mind and ordering no special response, Bush returned to a vacation of fishing, clearing brush and working on a speech about stem-cell research.

Yet, inside the FBI as the month wore on, there were more warnings that went unheeded. FBI agents in Minneapolis arrested Zacarias Moussaoui in August because of his suspicious behavior in trying to learn to fly commercial jetliners when he lacked even rudimentary skills.

FBI agent Harry Samit, who interrogated Moussaoui, sent 70 warnings to his superiors about suspicions that the al-Qaeda operative had been taking flight training in Minnesota because he was planning to hijack a plane for a terrorist operation.

But FBI officials in Washington showed “criminal negligence” in blocking requests for a search warrant on Moussaoui’s computer or taking other preventive action, Samit testified more than four years later at Moussaoui’s criminal trial.

Another big part of the problem was the lack of urgency at the top. Counterterrorism coordinator Clarke said the 9/11 attacks might have been averted if Bush had shown some initiative in “shaking the trees” by having high-level officials from the FBI, CIA, Customs and other federal agencies go back to their bureaucracies and demand any information about the terrorist threat.

If they had, they might well have found the memos from the FBI agents in Arizona and Minnesota.

Clarke contrasted President Clinton’s urgency over the intelligence warnings that preceded the Millennium events with the lackadaisical approach of Bush and his national security team.

“In December 1999, we received intelligence reports that there were going to be major al-Qaeda attacks,” Clarke said in an interview. “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.”

In his book, Against All Enemies, Clarke offered other examples of pre-9/11 mistakes by the Bush administration, including a downgrading in importance of the counterterrorism office, a shifting of budget priorities, an obsession with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and an emphasis on conservative ideological issues, such as Reagan’s 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.

Possible Prevention

The chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission – New Jersey’s former Republican Governor Thomas Kean and former Democratic Indiana Representative Lee Hamilton, respectively – agreed that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented.

“The whole story might have been different,” Kean said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on April 4, 2004. Kean cited a string of law-enforcement blunders including the “lack of coordination within the FBI” and the FBI’s failure to understand the significance of Moussaoui’s arrest in August while training to fly passenger jets.

Yet, as the clock ticked down to 9/11, the Bush administration continued to have other priorities. On Aug. 9, Bush gave a nationally televised speech on stem cells, delivering his judgment permitting federal funding for research on 60 preexisting stem-cell lines, but barring government support for work on any other lines of stem cells that would be derived from human embryos.

Scientists complained that the existing lines were too tainted with mouse cells and too limited to be of much value. But the national news media mostly hailed Bush’s split decision as “Solomon-like” and proof that he had greater gravitas than his critics would acknowledge.

CIA Director Tenet said he made one last push to focus Bush on the impending terrorism crisis, but the encounter veered off into meaningless small talk.

“A few weeks after the August 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure the President stayed current on events,” Tenet wrote in his memoir. “This was my first visit to the ranch. I remember the President graciously driving me around the spread in his pickup and my trying to make small talk about the flora and the fauna, none of which were native to Queens,” where Tenet had grown up.

Bush and his senior advisers continued their hostility toward what they viewed as the old Clinton phobia about terrorism and this little-known group called al-Qaeda.

On Sept. 6, 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld threatened a presidential veto of a proposal by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, seeking to transfer money from strategic missile defense to counterterrorism.

Also on Sept. 6, former Sen. Hart was still trying to galvanize the Bush administration into showing some urgency about the terrorist threat. Hart met with Condoleezza Rice and urged the White House to move faster. Rice agreed to pass on Hart’s concerns to higher-ups.

http://consortiumnews.com/2007/091107.html

W*GS
09-19-2007, 10:04 PM
We all know why Bush didn't act - his cabal's plans for 9/11 could have been disturbed, right?

Most of the stuff in this long excerpt was covered in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Bronco Bob
09-19-2007, 10:04 PM
So if 9/11 was an inside job anyway, why does it matter that GWB didn't do anything about al-Queda?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-19-2007, 10:14 PM
So if 9/11 was an inside job anyway, why does it matter that GWB didn't do anything about al-Queda?

If you believe the official account, then wouldn't this article trouble you?

Bronco Bob
09-19-2007, 10:39 PM
If you believe the official account, then wouldn't this article trouble you?

It's because I believe the official 9/11 account that this has troubled me.
I honestly believe if Al Gore had not been blocked by the Supreme
Court from being president, 9/11 wouldn't have happened because
Al Gore would have acted on the intelligence. And instead today the
right wingers would be making jokes about looney old Gore and his
flying Arabs right along with their Gore invented jokes.

{Al Gore puts America on alert today to watch out for flying carpets
headed toward the Empire State Building. By the way, Al Gore invented
flying carpets.}

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-19-2007, 10:48 PM
I honestly believe if Al Gore had not been blocked by the Supreme
Court from being president, 9/11 wouldn't have happened because
Al Gore would have acted on the intelligence. And instead today the
right wingers would be making jokes about looney old Gore and his
flying Arabs right along with their Gore invented jokes.

{Al Gore puts America on alert today to watch out for flying carpets
headed toward the Empire State Building. By the way, Al Gore invented
flying carpets.}

No argument there. :thumbsup:

R8RH8R
09-19-2007, 11:52 PM
It's because I believe the official 9/11 account that this has troubled me.
I honestly believe if Al Gore had not been blocked by the Supreme
Court from being president, 9/11 wouldn't have happened because
Al Gore would have acted on the intelligence. And instead today the
right wingers would be making jokes about looney old Gore and his
flying Arabs right along with their Gore invented jokes.

{Al Gore puts America on alert today to watch out for flying carpets
headed toward the Empire State Building. By the way, Al Gore invented
flying carpets.}

Why are you convinced Gore would've acted on the intelligence? His boss President Clinton was well aware of Al Qaeda and sat on his hands for 8 years. Did Bush drop the ball? Sure he did, but no worse than the previous administration for 8 years..Bush haters really need to find a healthier hobby than obesessing about stuff they can't change.

Rohirrim
09-20-2007, 12:42 AM
Why are you convinced Gore would've acted on the intelligence? His boss President Clinton was well aware of Al Qaeda and sat on his hands for 8 years. Did Bush drop the ball? Sure he did, but no worse than the previous administration for 8 years..Bush haters really need to find a healthier hobby than obesessing about stuff they can't change.

Ha! Look at me! I've made up a fantasy world. It's where I live. Isn't it cool?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-20-2007, 02:11 AM
Ha! Look at me! I've made up a fantasy world. It's where I live. Isn't it cool?

Ha! :yep:

R8RH8R
09-20-2007, 08:39 PM
You can laugh but you know it's true..The facts speak for themselves-the Clinton administration took no steps whatsover to act on intel against Al Qaeda. Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and the Embassy bombings in Kenya and Sudan all took place on Clinton's watch and he did ...NOTHING....That's another reason I can't be a Democrat anymore. No balls at all..It's always take the path of least resistance with you guys. Easier to crap on a President you don't like because there are no consequences, as opposed to realizing there are some very bad people out there who want you just as dead as they want me. Liberals live in the fantasy world-the world as they think it should be, not as it is.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-20-2007, 08:52 PM
The facts speak for themselves-the Clinton administration took no steps whatsover to act on intel against Al Qaeda.

:rofl:

I also heard that the chocolate ration had been increased from three grams two grams.

Spider
09-20-2007, 09:01 PM
You can laugh but you know it's true..The facts speak for themselves-the Clinton administration took no steps whatsover to act on intel against Al Qaeda. Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and the Embassy bombings in Kenya and Sudan all took place on Clinton's watch and he did ...NOTHING....That's another reason I can't be a Democrat anymore. No balls at all..It's always take the path of least resistance with you guys. Easier to crap on a President you don't like because there are no consequences, as opposed to realizing there are some very bad people out there who want you just as dead as they want me. Liberals live in the fantasy world-the world as they think it should be, not as it is.
..........

R8RH8R
09-21-2007, 11:44 PM
Care to elaborate on the "precautions" taken by the Clinton administration, beyond spending 8 years gutting our intelligence agencies?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-21-2007, 11:48 PM
Care to elaborate on the "precautions" taken by the Clinton administration, beyond spending 8 years gutting our intelligence agencies?

:oyvey:

It's staggering how you could get things so bass-ackwards.

Here are 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.'"

The passage of time will, in all likelihood, finally expose the truth behind exactly what happened on September 11, and why. Until the moment of final revelation comes, however, we are all best served by a systematic analysis of the facts surrounding that dark day. Efforts such as this ABC miniseries to use 9/11 as a partisan club should be shunned, and hard data should be highlighted instead.

Back in 2003, CBS was forced to pull its miniseries "The Reagans," after conservative groups lambasted the network for crossing the line into advocacy against the Reagan administration. A similar effort should perhaps be undertaken to compel ABC to pull "The Path to 9/11." At no time should a conservative producer with an anti-Clinton axe to grind be allowed to use public airwaves to broadcast a rank distortion of the truth, especially on the anniversary of the worst day in our history.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/63/22170

W*GS
09-21-2007, 11:51 PM
R8RH8R, don't ever besmirch Clinton's efforts against terrorism and al-Qaeda. LABF's pants will tent up double-time whenever anyone attacks his object of worship!

Bronco Bob
09-21-2007, 11:52 PM
And R8RH8R vanishes in a puff of smoke, never to be seen again.

Bravo, LABF.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-22-2007, 12:02 AM
And R8RH8R vanishes in a puff of smoke, never to be seen again.

Bravo, LABF.

:~ohyah!:

It's scary to think there are people in this country who are as uninformed and/or misinformed as R8RH8R re: such history.

Bronco Bob
09-22-2007, 12:07 AM
R8RH8R, don't ever besmirch Clinton's efforts against terrorism and al-Qaeda. LABF's pants will tent up double-time whenever anyone attacks his object of worship!

LABF wouldn't have had to if you had done your job and posted that list in rebuttal to R8RH8R's misinformation.

W*GS
09-22-2007, 12:08 AM
LABF wouldn't have had to if you had done your job and posted that list in rebuttal to R8RH8R's misinformation.

Pity for Clinton al-Qaeda wasn't defeated by memos and meetings.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-22-2007, 12:12 AM
Don't ever acknowledge Clinton's efforts against terrorism and al-Qaeda. W*GS' panties will get in terrible twist whenever anyone mentions his object of loathing's accomplishments as president.

Fixed it for you. :thumbsup:

Bronco Bob
09-22-2007, 12:16 AM
Pity for Clinton al-Qaeda wasn't defeated by memos and meetings.

Pity for the country and especially for the thousands that died in the WTC,
the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania that Bush never bothered to call
any meetings or acted on any of the memos.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-22-2007, 12:24 AM
Pity for the country and especially for the thousands that died in the WTC,
the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania that Bush never bothered to call
any meetings or acted on any of the memos.

Yep.

Fact: Counterterrorism was not a priority for BushCo prior to 9/11 - despite urgent warnings from the outgoing Clinton administration that OBL and al Qaeda should be a top priority, and despite repeated warnings that a major attack on U.S. soil was imminent.

W*GS continues to deflect blame for all of the above to Clinton, and then he wonders why people "mistake" him for a Bush apologist?

W*GS
09-22-2007, 01:02 AM
Pity for the country and especially for the thousands that died in the WTC, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania that Bush never bothered to call any meetings or acted on any of the memos.

Bush and his cabal deserve blame, certainly - and so does Clinton and his cabal. Clinton had 8 years to attack al-Qaeda (and al-Qaeda obliged him with plenty of provocation, or have you forgotten that they did attack us) and he didn't engage in any effective action against them.

OBL kept waiting and waiting for the American counterattack, which never took place. It was that passivity that enabled al-Qaeda to plan 9/11 for months beforehand without any impedance by the Clinton administration.

Regurgitate all the pro-Clinton spin you want, but thems the facts.

W*GS
09-22-2007, 01:04 AM
It's so odd to see LABF jumping to Clinton's defense at every opportunity when real hardcore left-wingers (those whose views he reposts all the time) despised Clinton for being GOP-lite. Methinks LABF has a mancrush...

R8RH8R
09-22-2007, 04:51 PM
And R8RH8R vanishes in a puff of smoke, never to be seen again.

Bravo, LABF.

No, Bronco Bob. I’ve not disappeared to never be heard from again. I actually have a job, other things to do than argue with irrational people who evidently have no other diversions in life other than to write anti-Bush screeds on their websites and hate diatribes against those who don’t share the same views. So, to the “facts” presented. No source is noted, and there’s a definite spin to them from a Clinton White House official. So you’ll pardon me if I don’t accept them as etched-in-stone “facts” on your word. That said, yes President Clinton proposed the bill, but what did he actually DO about terrorism. When the Khobar Towers were attacked, The USS Cole bombed and our Embassies in Sudan and Kenya attacked, why did he not hit the attackers and hit them HARD?
Platitudes and bill proposals do not deter terrorism, but military action can. You guys are SO blinded by hate for Bush that you have no objectivity in the matter. “If Bush did it, it MUST be wrong, because I hate him. “ You’d rather listen to known tyrants and dictators like Hugo Chavez, and would rather take the word of Saddam Hussein that he’s really a good guy and got rid of his WMDs years ago. I don’t begrudge you your beliefs. I just feel bad that you all are so consumed with hate that this has become an obsession for you. I also got a kick out of LAB citing a FOX News story to back him up on an earlier discussion. Aren’t they a pack of Neo-con Right Wing liars? I’m sure Air America was much more objective, but since almost no one listed to it, we’ll never know.
Seriously, I can picture you guys typing these responses and I can almost feel the anger in your posts. I’m sitting here entertained, because it’s an interesting discussion, but I don’t take any of this personally. I see responses when I come to the Mane and if I feel like replying I do, but I let this stuff go. You guys should really find a hobby, something healthy that makes you feel good. You’ll live longer and be happier than if you continue this hateful, angry existence that you seem to live for. There will always another guy with an ® after his name, but is it really productive to hate them all? Life is too short, guys. Lighten up and enjoy it a little bit.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-22-2007, 07:37 PM
So, to the “facts” presented. No source is noted, and there’s a definite spin to them from a Clinton White House official.

:bs:

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artm...w.cgi/63/22170

And anyone can verify that the GOP-controlled Congress thwarted almost every CT measure Clinton asked for - measures which, ironically enough, Vacation Boy adopted after 9/11.

That said, yes President Clinton proposed the bill, but what did he actually DO about terrorism.

I just gave you a list. If you choose not to read it, then that's not my fault.


When the Khobar Towers were attacked, The USS Cole bombed and our Embassies in Sudan and Kenya attacked, why did he not hit the attackers and hit them HARD?


The Khobar Towers perps were caught (as were the perps behind just about every other attack that happened on Clinton's watch.) The Cole happened during the 2000 election season, and the Clinton administration was unabe to prove that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack. When Bush took office, he decided the Cole attack wasn't significant enough to investigate further, and he dropped the whole matter.

BTW, Bush has taken the measures right-wingers like you castigate Clinton for not taking, i.e., has "hit them hard," and he still hasn't captured or killed Bin Laden, and he has has created numerous new terrorists for every terrorist killed since his ill-advised invasion of Iraq.

-Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"

-Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.

-Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort"

W*GS
09-23-2007, 08:50 PM
The Khobar Towers perps were caught (as were the perps behind just about every other attack that happened on Clinton's watch.)

Really. When was Osama Bin Laden in US custody?

alkemical
09-23-2007, 11:23 PM
Probably working with the CIA via the muslims we helped in Europe.

W*GS
09-24-2007, 10:54 AM
Why would OBL work with the CIA? He wants America destroyed, remember?

alkemical
09-24-2007, 03:26 PM
Ask the CIA, they have the receipts, remember....

R8RH8R
09-25-2007, 07:29 AM
Nice dodge to my question. I said what did Clinton do? Same list of proposals and inaction. And as for the most ridiculous statement you made, fighting Nazis during WWII didn't create more Nazis, killing Communists during Korea, Vietnam, et al didn't create more Communists and killing terrorists doesn't create more terrorists. Ignorance, poverty and unchecked provocations by terrorist pieces of garbage like Ahmadinejad and his terrorist pals in Syria creates more terrorists. Americans who try at every turn to destroy any type of framework(i.e. Patriot Act) to keep on eye on the scumbags over partisanship creates more terrorists. Masterminds behind the lion's share of attacks were caught AFTER Clinton was out of office. He and his wife were too busy stealing furniture from the White House and selling pardons to worry about petty things like attacks on the country. And you'll have to cite something more credible than "truthout.org"- you might as well have cited MorOn.org -they're equally "objective and unbiased.

Rohirrim
09-25-2007, 10:22 AM
Defend Dubya's first eight months in office.

R8RH8R
09-25-2007, 05:33 PM
Defend Dubya's first eight months in office.

Can't. I've said in other posts, both parties dropped the ball. The current administration as well as the previous allowed 9/11..

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-25-2007, 10:48 PM
Nice dodge to my question. I said what did Clinton do?

Just answered this in a previous post - it's not my fault if you can't read or comprehend the information.

W*GS
09-26-2007, 01:08 AM
It's staggering how you could get things so bass-ackwards.

Here are the facts:

How come you don't credit William Rivers Pitt for this? It's a bit biased, coming from someone who frequents the "Democratic Underground" (wasn't that in your profile at one time, LABF) and who worked for "Progressive Democrats of America"?

Methinks we're not getting the entire truth here. Imagine that - a half-truth coming from LABF...

Rohirrim
09-26-2007, 09:07 AM
Can't. I've said in other posts, both parties dropped the ball. The current administration as well as the previous allowed 9/11..

I can sum it up for you. Clinton did a large number of things; Fired missiles, launched investigations, prosecuted terrorists, sent out the FBI and CIA, created a terrorism czar, etc.

What did Bush do? Absolutely nothing.

(Richard Clarke on 60 Minutes)
"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

I don't particularly like Clinton, but I really dislike when partisans try to rewrite history to benefit their own "side." I hope Americans don't pick up the Chinese habit of rewriting their history every hundred years or so to make themselves look better. The truth is, for 8 months George Bush and his cabal sat on their hands, ignoring the numerous warnings that might have allowed us to stop 911. And that's a fact.

R8RH8R
09-26-2007, 09:25 PM
How come you don't credit William Rivers Pitt for this? It's a bit biased, coming from someone who frequents the "Democratic Underground" (wasn't that in your profile at one time, LABF) and who worked for "Progressive Democrats of America"?

Methinks we're not getting the entire truth here. Imagine that - a half-truth coming from LABF...

My point exactly. Fox News is a bunch of liars, but them DUers are a straight-shootin' bunch. :oyvey: I'm not a huge Bush supporter(although I shudder to think what state this country would be in under a far-left extremist nut like Howard Dean or someone of that ilk), but I do like to play devil's advocate to those who are so blinded by impotent, foot-stamping Bush-hate/rage. This is where the laughable 9/11 conspiracies come from-people who hate the guy so bad that they want..no, crave...better yet NEED to believe that Bush was behind it. and if you don't subscribe to their enlightened way of "progessive" thinking, you must be some right-wing Christian gun-nut homophobe racist. Any thing they can do to demonize anyone who doesn't agree with them. My parents are as Democrat as they come and don't like Bush at all, but even they think these conspiricies are a bunch of garbage. LABF is passionate, and I can respect that, but he's also blinded by his hatred, so he has no objectivity. And that's why I can't take these "facts" he posts from left-wing advocacy groups as fact.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-27-2007, 02:49 AM
How come you don't credit William Rivers Pitt for this? It's a bit biased, coming from someone who frequents the "Democratic Underground" (wasn't that in your profile at one time, LABF) and who worked for "Progressive Democrats of America"?

Methinks we're not getting the entire truth here. Imagine that - a half-truth coming from LABF...

Your efforts at subterfuge would be amusing had we not already seen them before ad nauseum.

The facts presented in the piece I posted are matters of public record that can be confirmed by anyone via any number of sources.

Take the GOP-controlled Congress' efforts to block practically every CT measure Clinton asked for, for example.

If you want to confirm this fact, you're not limited to DU when it comes to sources.

Deflect, obfuscate, spin, repeat: That's the only game you've got.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-27-2007, 02:52 AM
I can sum it up for you. Clinton did a large number of things; Fired missiles, launched investigations, prosecuted terrorists, sent out the FBI and CIA, created a terrorism czar, etc.

What did Bush do? Absolutely nothing.

(Richard Clarke on 60 Minutes)
"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

I don't particularly like Clinton, but I really dislike when partisans try to rewrite history to benefit their own "side." I hope Americans don't pick up the Chinese habit of rewriting their history every hundred years or so to make themselves look better. The truth is, for 8 months George Bush and his cabal sat on their hands, ignoring the numerous warnings that might have allowed us to stop 911. And that's a fact.

Bingo. :thumbsup:

Try as they may, W*GS and the rest of the bush faithful can't spin or obfuscate these facts away.