PDA

View Full Version : Bush Admin was Warned about al Qaeda 5 Days After Taking Office


BushGaveMeApplePie
02-14-2005, 03:33 AM
...but did nothing.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4494777

Clarke Memo Warned of Al Qaeda Threat

'Morning Edition, February 11, 2005 · A newly released memo from former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke warned then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that al Qaeda was an "active, major force" that needed immediate attention. The communiqué was written five days after President Bush....'

Read all 41 related stories here. (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://npr.streamsage.com/google/programlist/srfeature.php%3Fwfid%3D://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php%3FstoryId%3D4494777)

KCWolfman
02-14-2005, 05:17 AM
I would go back and read posts regarding topics before you started posted a few hundred half truths.

This one has already been hashed to death. We know that Richard Clarke said something bad could happen sometime soon about 27 times before it actually happened over the course of several years.

Your obsession is disturbing.

alnorth
02-14-2005, 06:49 AM
Translation:

Clarke told the administration that Al`Qaeda was full of mean people who would like to hurt America in some way, some how, some where, at some time.

The Bush administration replied with "no sh** Sherlock, have any details to share for us?"

Hercules Rockefell
02-14-2005, 07:00 AM
You'd think if it was such an "active, major force" that needed immediate attention, the outgoing Administration would have done something about it over the previous 8 years? Did anything change from Jan. 19, 2001 to Jan. 20, 2001? Seems a memo like that would show the lack of attention that was paid to AQ before the date Clarke wrote his memo.

BushGaveMeApplePie
02-14-2005, 08:56 AM
Translation:

Clarke told the administration that Al`Qaeda was full of mean people who would like to hurt America in some way, some how, some where, at some time.

The Bush administration replied with "no sh** Sherlock, have any details to share for us?"
More like the administration said, "Hang on, Clarke, I know it's January but I'll pencil you in for September. Then we can discuss your 'immediate threat'."

Soupnazi
02-14-2005, 08:59 AM
Let me guess, Bush had rough sex with your girlfriend before you had your penis cut off and turned into a vagina, right?

Watching you post is like seeing the neighbors idiot dog run into the sliding glass door over and over again.

memyselfI
02-14-2005, 09:03 AM
Hey, give him credit, it wasn't five MINUTES. ;)

RINGLEADER
02-14-2005, 09:13 AM
Clarke also wrote a plethora of memos and urged in various staff meetings that Al Qaeda be addressed for years during the Clinton administration. The guy was a hawk on Al Qaeda and good for him for being one. Luckily, the Bush admin didn't continue the Clinton admin's policy towards Al Qaeda.

Iowanian
02-14-2005, 09:29 AM
I guess this shows that Something could have/shoud have been done about Al Queda during one of the many other attacks on the US prior to Bush taking office.

Cochise
02-14-2005, 09:46 AM
I bet if there are animals in heaven, they don't poop all over the yard.

HC_Chief
02-14-2005, 09:46 AM
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam
Spam Spam Spam Spam

Bwana
02-14-2005, 09:50 AM
Game Duck Soup
with Plums and Wild Rice

<HR>There is no whipping this one up quickly--but it is really something special in the end, perfect for an elegant luncheon or light supper, followed by a rich dessert. And it's easy--just time consuming to make the stock...which you should do the day before. Serve hot to 4 people with excellent, crusty bread, a salad, and a good light wine.

<HR> 1 whole duck (http://www.soupsong.com/fmeat.html) 8 cups water 2 teaspoon salt (http://www.soupsong.com/fsalt.html) 1 onion (http://www.soupsong.com/fonion.html), unpeeled and chopped 1 leek (http://www.soupsong.com/fleek.html), trimmed and washed 2 carrots (http://www.soupsong.com/fcarrot.html), scrubbed and chopped 2 celery stalks (http://www.soupsong.com/fcelery.html) with leaves, chopped 6 sprigs parsley (http://www.soupsong.com/fparsley.html) 1 teaspoon thyme (http://www.soupsong.com/fthyme.html) 10 peppercorns (http://www.soupsong.com/fpiper.html) 4 whole cloves (http://www.soupsong.com/fclove.html) 1/4 cup wild rice (http://www.soupsong.com/fwrice.html), cooked in salted water for 45 minutes and drained 1/2 pound mushrooms (http://www.soupsong.com/fmushroo.html), trimmed and quartered 1 large onion (http://www.soupsong.com/fonion.html), cut in chunks the size of the mushroom quarters 3 plums (http://www.soupsong.com/fplum.html), peeled and cut in chunks the size of the mushroom quarters salt (http://www.soupsong.com/fsalt.html) and pepper (http://www.soupsong.com/fpiper.html) to tasteGarnish: thinly sliced green onions (http://www.soupsong.com/fgronion.html) Put the whole duck (liver removed from giblets and used for something else*) in a Dutch oven and cover with the water and salt. Bring to a boil very slowly, skimming. When it reaches a boil, reduce the heat and add the leek, onion, celery, parsley, thyme, peppercorns, and cloves. Keep the stock at a simmer for 2 hours. After two hours, remove the duck and let cool til you can handle it. At that point, strip off the skin and discard. Remove the meat and reserve. And return the bones back into the stockpot, to let simmer for another 30 minutes or so. Cook the wild rice for about 45 minutes, then strain and reserve. Strain the stock through cheesecloth or wet paper towels, cool, then refrigerate overnight. When you're ready to start the soup, you will remove and reserve all the fabulous duck fat that congeals on the top (saving most of it for other decadent meals). To make the soup, melt a Tablespoon or two of the duck fat in a large saucepan, then toss in the mushroom quarters and onion chunks to saute over medium heat. When the onion is transparent, add the duck stock (which should be gelatinous); cooked wild rice; and the duck meat, cut into hearty chunks. Bring to a boil, then reduce heat and simmer for about 10 minutes. When ready to serve, stir in the plums. Ladle into bowls and garnish each serving with thinly sliced green onions.
* If you wanted to be just horribly decadent, you could saute the liver with finely chopped onions, salt and pepper it, even flame it in brandy, and puree it--then cool it to room temperature, whip it into 1/4 to 1/2 cup of butter and serve it with the bread. Heaven!)

Warrior5
02-14-2005, 10:22 AM
I was just mentioning to my wife that we really don't have any good recipes for duck. Duck is an enigma to me...not real common on restaurant menus, and the few times I've had it, I was disappointed.

Thanks again.

Bwana
02-14-2005, 10:36 AM
I was just mentioning to my wife that we really don't have any good recipes for duck. Duck is an enigma to me...not real common on restaurant menus, and the few times I've had it, I was disappointed.

Thanks again.

My pleasure..........enjoy. :thumb:

mlyonsd
02-14-2005, 12:43 PM
...but did nothing.



Somebody ban this idiot.

Brock
02-14-2005, 12:44 PM
Somebody ban this idiot.

Already done. Something tells me we haven't seen the last of this crazy kid.

mlyonsd
02-14-2005, 12:45 PM
Already done. Something tells me we haven't seen the last of this crazy kid.

Thanks. Stupid yes, crazy maybe.

BIG_DADDY
02-14-2005, 12:58 PM
Already done. Something tells me we haven't seen the last of this crazy kid.

What a wack job the guy should just move to China.

ClearVision1234
08-13-2005, 01:04 PM
so true.

penchief
08-14-2005, 09:41 AM
Translation:

Clarke told the administration that Al`Qaeda was full of mean people who would like to hurt America in some way, some how, some where, at some time.

The Bush administration replied with "no sh** Sherlock, have any details to share for us?"

No, I think the Bush Administration responded more like, "Yeah, right. bin Laden? Do you mean Clinton's Ghost? Why should we worry about him? My daddy and me have always known how to deal with him. The real threat is Saddam. We gotta' figure out how we're gonna' invade Iraq. We gotta' figure out how we're gonna' get the country behind it........now get outta' here!"

mlyonsd
08-14-2005, 09:58 AM
No, I think the Bush Administration responded more like, "Yeah, right. bin Laden? Do you mean Clinton's Ghost? Why should we worry about him? My daddy and me have always known how to deal with him. The real threat is Saddam. We gotta' figure out how we're gonna' invade Iraq. We gotta' figure out how we're gonna' get the country behind it........now get outta' here!"

There's no doubt both of the last administrations wish they could use a 'mulligan' on OBL.

penchief
08-14-2005, 10:04 AM
There's no doubt both of the last administrations wish they could use a 'mulligan' on OBL.

I'll agree with that.

jAZ
08-14-2005, 10:52 AM
There's no doubt both of the last administrations wish they could use a 'mulligan' on OBL.
Yes, that's certainly true.

Yet there is still a difference between the Administration's handling of AQ prior to 9/11.

Using your golf analogy, Clinton pulled out his Big Birtha driver and hit his drive 250 yards off the T-box and into a Bunker. Bush - from the same t-box - pulled out his putter and dribbled one up to the ladies T-box.

mlyonsd
08-14-2005, 11:19 AM
Yes, that's certainly true.

Yet there is still a difference between the Administration's handling of AQ prior to 9/11.

Using your golf analogy, Clinton pulled out his Big Birtha driver and hit his drive 250 yards off the T-box and into a Bunker. Bush - from the same t-box - pulled out his putter and dribbled one up to the ladies T-box.

ROFL Relax jAZ, just think, you've only got a little more then 3 years to put up with W. I sincerely hope you make it.

RINGLEADER
08-14-2005, 12:50 PM
I seem to remember Bush opening a dialogue with Musharef about Al Qaeda weeks after he took office and instructed the development of a plan to take out Bin Laden that was being approved the week before the 9/11 attacks.

Liberals seem to think that if they just ignore half the facts they'll find a truth supporting their beliefs. I wish life worked this way. I really do. The Chiefs would have won the Super Bowl the last couple seasons if that were the case.

go bowe
08-14-2005, 03:05 PM
I seem to remember Bush opening a dialogue with Musharef about Al Qaeda weeks after he took office and instructed the development of a plan to take out Bin Laden that was being approved the week before the 9/11 attacks.

Liberals seem to think that if they just ignore half the facts they'll find a truth supporting their beliefs. I wish life worked this way. I really do. The Chiefs would have won the Super Bowl the last couple seasons if that were the case.see?

it's all your fault we haven't even made the damned play-offs... :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

if you would have only told dick vermiel about this technique, we would be where new england is... :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

Electric
08-14-2005, 03:29 PM
I seem to remember Bush opening a dialogue with Musharef about Al Qaeda weeks after he took office and instructed the development of a plan to take out Bin Laden that was being approved the week before the 9/11 attacks.

Liberals seem to think that if they just ignore half the facts they'll find a truth supporting their beliefs. I wish life worked this way. I really do. The Chiefs would have won the Super Bowl the last couple seasons if that were the case.

What we cannot do is convince the ID-10-T's that the threat, although not defined, was present not only when GWB took office but when Clinton took office. The difference between the two is that GWB reacted after we were attacked, Clinton did nothing after repeated attacks.

When you hate someone as much as these people hate Bush there is no way to reason with them.

Henry
08-14-2005, 05:08 PM
I guess this shows that Something could have/shoud have been done about Al Queda during one of the many other attacks on the US prior to Bush taking office.

For example?

WTC I - Yousef & others captured, tried, and sentenced. Yousef is now doing natural life in solitary.

OKC - McVeigh is roasting in hell.

Your point?

Henry
08-14-2005, 05:09 PM
What we cannot do is convince the ID-10-T's that the threat, although not defined, was present not only when GWB took office but when Clinton took office. The difference between the two is that GWB reacted after we were attacked, Clinton did nothing after repeated attacks.


Except capture the responsible parties. When he tried to do more than that, everyone bitched about an aspirin factory...and let's not forget Newt Gingrich killing the terrorism section of Clinton's crime bill, basically asserting that Bill needed a tinfoil hat.

BigOlChiefsfan
08-14-2005, 05:33 PM
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05226/553271.stm

mlyonsd
08-14-2005, 05:35 PM
Except capture the responsible parties. When he tried to do more than that, everyone bitched about an aspirin factory...and let's not forget Newt Gingrich killing the terrorism section of Clinton's crime bill, basically asserting that Bill needed a tinfoil hat.

I have no objection to the way Clinton handled OBL, other then he didn't have the nads to do the job as presented to him as CIC.

Henry
08-14-2005, 05:49 PM
I have no objection to the way Clinton handled OBL, other then he didn't have the nads to do the job as presented to him as CIC.

For example?

jAZ
08-14-2005, 06:08 PM
I have no objection to the way Clinton handled OBL, other then he didn't have the nads to do the job as presented to him as CIC.
Prior to the attack that killed 3000 Americans... any comparison of Clinton's use of force against Bin Laden versus Bush's use of force against Bin Laden is a total cluster-**** for Bush.

That's why Bush backers only talk about what he did AFTER 9/11. And pretend that it was merely an "attack" like any other attack when comparing him to Clinton.

They someone forget that Bush was commander in chief months after an al Queda terrorist attack. And you know what he did? Not a damn thing.

Nothing.

Zero.

Zip.

Nada.

It's almost like he didn't get it. Which is of course pretty much par for this administration's course.

Oh wait, but after waiting and doing nothing until his back was against the wall, and he could no longer do nothing... he did something. He started 1 war in Afganistan, and then pulled the cord on that so he could start another war in Iraq.

Now he's considering doing the same thing again with Iran.

War makes for great politics for the Republicans, so it's no suprise that we might invade another nation just in time for another round of elections... As Bush absolutely LOVES to tell us... "(He's) a WAR PRESIDENT."

:rolleyes:

Electric
08-14-2005, 06:58 PM
Except capture the responsible parties. When he tried to do more than that, everyone bitched about an aspirin factory...and let's not forget Newt Gingrich killing the terrorism section of Clinton's crime bill, basically asserting that Bill needed a tinfoil hat.

You may look at what Clinton did as effective, I do not. I would compare his actions overall to throwing a rock at a Battleship!!

Clinton was a president that did not have the nuts to do what had to be done (other than with Monica).

Henry
08-14-2005, 06:59 PM
You may look at what Clinton did as effective, I do not. I would compare his actions overall to throwing a rock at a Battleship!!



Or invading Iraq to capture a guy in Afghanistan? :)

Electric
08-14-2005, 07:00 PM
Prior to the attack that killed 3000 Americans... any comparison of Clinton's use of force against Bin Laden versus Bush's use of force against Bin Laden is a total cluster-**** for Bush.

That's why Bush backers only talk about what he did AFTER 9/11. And pretend that it was merely an "attack" like any other attack when comparing him to Clinton.

They someone forget that Bush was commander in chief months after an al Queda terrorist attack. And you know what he did? Not a damn thing.

Nothing.

Zero.

Zip.

Nada.

It's almost like he didn't get it. Which is of course pretty much par for this administration's course.

Oh wait, but after waiting and doing nothing until his back was against the wall, and he could no longer do nothing... he did something. He started 1 war in Afganistan, and then pulled the cord on that so he could start another war in Iraq.

Now he's considering doing the same thing again with Iran.

War makes for great politics for the Republicans, so it's no suprise that we might invade another nation just in time for another round of elections... As Bush absolutely LOVES to tell us... "(He's) a WAR PRESIDENT."

:rolleyes:
What are the facts on the First al Queda attack when GWB was president? I believe you are fabricating stories to justify your hatred for a republican president, any republican president.

Just to appease your desire for controversy, Clinton must have been the sex president.

Henry
08-14-2005, 07:09 PM
What are the facts on the First al Queda attack when GWB was president?

That isn't what he said.

jAZ
08-14-2005, 07:31 PM
Clinton was a president that did not have the nuts to do what had to be done (other than with Monica).
He had more nuts than Bush... right up until Bush was backed into a corner and given a permission slip from 3000 families to go to war. Invading Afganistan after 9/11 really took balls. Bush = American Hero for that choice.

And in the face of such obstacles. Can you imagine the blow back from invading Afganistan? It must have been the hardest decision of his life. Amazing he is still with us after such an extraordinary challenge. He's superhuman, I tell ya!

jAZ
08-14-2005, 07:35 PM
That isn't what he said.
Shocking that he can't read.

I wonder if he can read this any better?

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/

Washington, D.C., February 10, 2005 - The National Security Archive today posted the widely-debated, but previously unavailable, January 25, 2001, memo from counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to national security advisor Condoleezza Rice - the first terrorism strategy paper of the Bush administration. The document was central to debates in the 9/11 hearings over the Bush administration's policies and actions on terrorism before September 11, 2001. Clarke's memo requests an immediate meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss broad strategies for combating al-Qaeda by giving counterterrorism aid to the Northern Alliance and Uzbekistan, expanding the counterterrorism budget and responding to the U.S.S. Cole attack. Despite Clarke's request, there was no Principals Committee meeting on al-Qaeda until September 4, 2001.

Electric
08-14-2005, 07:59 PM
He had more nuts than Bush... right up until Bush was backed into a corner and given a permission slip from 3000 families to go to war. Invading Afganistan after 9/11 really took balls. Bush = American Hero for that choice.

And in the face of such obstacles. Can you imagine the blow back from invading Afganistan? It must have been the hardest decision of his life. Amazing he is still with us after such an extraordinary challenge. He's superhuman, I tell ya!

Your head is so far up your ass that you choke when you try to swallow!!!

If Clinton or Gore had of been president when 9/11 happened, we would still be recovering from the ongoing attacks as they would have done absolutely nothing to stop them. At least the administration had a plan in effect that stopped any additional hijackings and inhibited any further suicide crashes that day.

You will never see the light of what happened as you do not want to know what actually transpired. If you were open minded enough to research the day in question you would find out that we did what had to be done to react to a situation that was unprecidented in the history of the world.

jAZ
08-14-2005, 08:03 PM
...a situation that was unprecidented in the history of the world.
But yet you still chant that Bush did something and Clinton would have done nothing. Even though prior to 9/11 (the attack on America that was "unprecidented in the history of the world"), Bush did nothing and Clinton did something.

Talk about head-up-ass thinking.

Are you sure you can read?

Electric
08-14-2005, 08:03 PM
Shocking that he can't read.

I wonder if he can read this any better?

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/

Washington, D.C., February 10, 2005 - The National Security Archive today posted the widely-debated, but previously unavailable, January 25, 2001, memo from counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to national security advisor Condoleezza Rice - the first terrorism strategy paper of the Bush administration. The document was central to debates in the 9/11 hearings over the Bush administration's policies and actions on terrorism before September 11, 2001. Clarke's memo requests an immediate meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss broad strategies for combating al-Qaeda by giving counterterrorism aid to the Northern Alliance and Uzbekistan, expanding the counterterrorism budget and responding to the U.S.S. Cole attack. Despite Clarke's request, there was no Principals Committee meeting on al-Qaeda until September 4, 2001.

Your highlighted comments above seem to indicate that al Queda had a free run until Sept. 4, 2001. The USS Cole was attacked prior to President Bush taking office, why didn't the Clinton Administration do what should have been done? (I know they did, it's just that nobody knew of any action and no action was reported by the press, right?)

Your attempt to divert the fact that the Clinton Administration has equal blame for the lack of security inside our shores as any. If you had one lick of common sense you would have seen that from day one. If you had been outraged at the attacks during Clintons administration you would have voted for Bush in the election in 2000, but we all know where your loyalty lies, blindly with the democratic party.

Electric
08-14-2005, 08:06 PM
But yet you still chant that Bush did something and Clinton would have done nothing. Even though prior to 9/11 (the attack on America that was "unprecidented in the history of the world"), Bush did nothing and Clinton did something.

Talk about head-up-ass thinking.

Are you sure you can read?

Are you blind or just stupid? Clinton did what after any one of the four attacks during his administration? What effort went into firing one missile up a camels butt?

Bush reacted after 9/11, THE FIRST ATTACK INSIDE OUR SHORES SINCE WWII.

Why do I argue with an idiot?

jAZ
08-14-2005, 08:16 PM
Your highlighted comments above seem to indicate that al Queda had a free run until Sept. 4, 2001.
No, they had free run after Sept 4, 2001 as well. Bush did NOTHING, ask Clarke.
The USS Cole was attacked prior to President Bush taking office
Yes, just month's before. That's what I said before. And yes, Richard Clarke asked him to at least TALK about doing something. Bush refused to even TALK about doing something until Sept 4th. 1 week before Bush's back was against the wall and circumstances FORCED him to respond with force.

jAZ
08-14-2005, 08:18 PM
What effort went into firing one missile up a camels butt?
About 1,000,000 times more than Bush did prior to Sept 11th. Pay attention.

1 might be a small number, but it is and forever will be greater than 0.

Clinton might = 1 in your mind.

Bush = 0.

Then blam! 9/11.

jAZ
08-14-2005, 08:43 PM
About 1,000,000 times more than Bush did
Or maybe it's 2,000,000... What's 2 million times zero anyway? IIRC, it's still zero.

How about 10,000,000 x 0?

Damn, still zero.

100,000,000?

:banghead:

How about this one...

187,544,012,995 (http://costofwar.com/) x 0?

Logical
08-14-2005, 08:47 PM
So what is the the terrorist act post Jan 20 2001 and prior to Sep 11 2001 that Bush was supposed to react to jAZ?

jAZ
08-14-2005, 08:53 PM
So what is the the terrorist act post Jan 20 2001 and prior to Sep 11 2001 that Bush was supposed to react to jAZ?
According to Richard Clarke it was a terrorist attack prior to Jan 20 that Bush was supposed to react to. I'm pretty sure Bush had the option open to him of doing SOMETHING prior to 9/11 since he was in fact President and CIC during the aftermath of a terrorist attack. Especially if Bush was so fundamentally more tough on terorrism than Clinton (which everyone here wants me to believe).

If that's the case, then any justification for going after bin Laden, would be plenty of justifcation for going after bin Laden. That is if you are one tough SOB on terrorism like I'm told Bush was.

Unless of course, 9/11 actually changed everything. And prior to 9/11 it was actually a different political world. One in which neither Clinton nor Bush could do THAT much (ie, invade Afganistan). And if that's the case, then comparing apples to apples... Bush did NOTHING, and Clinton did at least SOMETHING.

stevieray
08-14-2005, 09:04 PM
This is hilarious. You're running out of angles.

Logical
08-14-2005, 09:33 PM
According to Richard Clarke it was a terrorist attack prior to Jan 20 that Bush was supposed to react to. I'm pretty sure Bush had the option open to him of doing SOMETHING prior to 9/11 since he was in fact President and CIC during the aftermath of a terrorist attack. Especially if Bush was so fundamentally more tough on terorrism than Clinton (which everyone here wants me to believe).

If that's the case, then any justification for going after bin Laden, would be plenty of justifcation for going after bin Laden. That is if you are one tough SOB on terrorism like I'm told Bush was.

Unless of course, 9/11 actually changed everything. And prior to 9/11 it was actually a different political world. One in which neither Clinton nor Bush could do THAT much (ie, invade Afganistan). And if that's the case, then comparing apples to apples... Bush did NOTHING, and Clinton did at least SOMETHING.Anything prior to Jan 20th was Clinton's responsibility to react to as President. So the person you should be implicating for failure is Clinton not Bush. Perhaps Clinton was too busy supervising the vandalizing of White House keyboards to take care of the terrorism on his watch.

jAZ
08-14-2005, 09:52 PM
Anything prior to Jan 20th was Clinton's responsibility to react to as President.
Anything that happened on Clinton's watch, Clinton is responsible for. Anything that happened on Bush's watch, Bush is responsible for. But the laws of time, physics and politics place Bush in the position of Command In Chief of the US Military just months after the bombing of the USS Cole. Bush had the same access to troops, the same access to information and the same access to Clarke's plan for bin Laden. And while Clinton chose not to attack Afganistan (for any number of justified or unjustified reasons), the inescapable fact is that no matter when the Cole happened, Bush came into office fully capable of responding.

He didn't.

No matter how the Bush backers try to spin it, Bush didn't do anything more than Clinton did after innaguration. In fact, history shows that prior to 9/11 Bush did LESS. Your little (not so) logical cherade not withstanding.
Perhaps Clinton was too busy supervising the vandalizing of White House keyboards to take care of the terrorism on his watch.
You are aware that those allagations were found to be entirely false (and likely more lies directly from the Bush administration (http://www.penceland.com/NoVandals.html)), right?

Henry
08-14-2005, 09:56 PM
Anything that happened on Clinton's watch, Clinton is responsible for. Anything that happened on Bush's watch, Bush is responsible for.

Unless it's a bad thing. Then it reads: "Anything that happened on Clinton's watch is Clinton's fault. Anything that happened on Bush's watch is Clinton's fault."

Logical
08-14-2005, 09:59 PM
You cannot blame Bush and say that Clinton did more, it just makes no sense. jAZ you are ranting tonight and you got yourself into a bind.

jAZ
08-14-2005, 10:10 PM
You cannot blame Bush and say that Clinton did more, it just makes no sense. jAZ you are ranting tonight and you got yourself into a bind.
What are you talking about?

What bind?

I've said the same thing each and every time tonight. You need to play closer attention (both to what I've posted and what has happened in this Administration).

Bush was without a doubt in a position to respond to the Cole. He was being pressured to do so by his Director of Counter Terrorism. For you to pretend that this option not only didn't exist for Bush, but ONLY existed for Clinton is a total joke.

Clinton chose not to respond. I freely admit that.

Bush chose not to respond. You and everyone else here refuse to admit that.

Clinton's days to numbered, and a preemptive invasion of Afganistan would have meant shakling Bush with a war Clinton started. You and I both know that's taboo. Though if you replace the USS Cole with 9/11... well then we have a different story.

However, 9/11 didn't happen until long after Bush become President, but only 1 week after Bush decided to TALK about fighting terrorism.

History isn't blind on this subject. And it's not very kind to Bush either.

jAZ
08-14-2005, 10:11 PM
You cannot blame Bush and say that Clinton did more, it just makes no sense.
Oh and yes you can... it makes perfect sense.

Logical
08-14-2005, 10:41 PM
What are you talking about?

What bind?

...

Clinton chose not to respond. I freely admit that.

Bush chose not to respond. You and everyone else here refuse to admit that.

.....

About 1,000,000 times more than Bush did prior to Sept 11th. Pay attention.

1 might be a small number, but it is and forever will be greater than 0.

Clinton might = 1 in your mind.

Bush = 0.

Then blam! 9/11.


That bind, you are not being logical tonight. Sorry you lose, from your own posts.

jAZ
08-14-2005, 10:46 PM
That bind, you are not being logical tonight. Sorry you lose, from your own posts.
You are confused.

Clinton's "1" doesn't come from the USS Cole. That would have given him a "2" or a "10" or something more. It comes from launching missles into Afganistan in an attempt to kill bin Laden.

Bush's "0". Well, we know where that comes from.


And for the record... 1 is still infinately times greater than 0. Agreed?

Henry
08-14-2005, 10:57 PM
You are confused.

Clinton's "1" doesn't come from the USS Cole. That would have given him a "2" or a "10" or something more. It comes from launching missles into Afganistan in an attempt to kill bin Laden.

Bush's "0". Well, we know where that comes from.


And for the record... 1 is still infinately times greater than 0. Agreed?

He missed. That goes in the loss column for Clinton.

But you also forgot the capture of Yousef, the guy behind the first WTC attack.

Clinton 1/1/0

Bush 0/2/0

Bush gets two in the loss column, because we never caught the anthrax terrorist, either.

jAZ
08-14-2005, 11:04 PM
He missed. That goes in the loss column for Clinton.

But you also forgot the capture of Yousef, the guy behind the first WTC attack.

Clinton 1/1/0

Bush 0/2/0

Bush gets two in the loss column, because we never caught the anthrax terrorist, either.
Though your measures are accurate as well, as I've said all along, my scoring is merely on effort. Because my criticism is focused on Bush's LACK of EFFORT prior to 9/11.

At least Clinton tried SOMETHING. Bush couldn't even bring himself to do that. Hell we've still got RWNJ's on this very site trying to suggest that Clinton going after bin Laden was just a political wag the dog.

Can you believe that? 4 years after 9/11, and some nut jobs STILL think trying to kill Bin Laden was nothing more than wag the dog.

Henry
08-14-2005, 11:09 PM
Though your measures are accurate as well, as I've said all along, my scoring is merely on effort. Because my criticism is focused on Bush's LACK of EFFORT prior to 9/11.

At least Clinton tried SOMETHING. Bush couldn't even bring himself to do that. Hell we've still got RWNJ's on this very site trying to suggest that Clinton going after bin Laden was just a political wag the dog.

Can you believe that? 4 years after 9/11, and some nut jobs STILL think trying to kill Bin Laden was nothing more than wag the dog.

1. How about Bush's lack of effort AFTER 911?

2. Of course. If Clinton did it, it was just an attempt to distract us. If Bush did it, it's heroic. Get with the program, man!

Logical
08-14-2005, 11:15 PM
You are confused.

Clinton's "1" doesn't come from the USS Cole. That would have given him a "2" or a "10" or something more. It comes from launching missles into Afganistan in an attempt to kill bin Laden.

Bush's "0". Well, we know where that comes from.


And for the record... 1 is still infinately times greater than 0. Agreed?Oh so Bush was responsible for something that happened not only before he took office but before he was elected.

The Cole
The last act of terrorism during the Clinton administration came on October 12, 2000, when bin Laden operatives bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen American sailors were killed, 39 others were wounded, and one of the U.S.'s most sophisticated warships was nearly sunk.

Henry
08-14-2005, 11:15 PM
Oh so Bush was responsible for something that happened not only before he took office but before he was elected.


That's okay. Clinton has been held accountable for everything that has gone wrong since he left, so it all works out.

:)

stevieray
08-14-2005, 11:22 PM
That's okay. Clinton has been held accountable for everything that has gone wrong since he left, so it all works out.

:)

Try harder, Henry.

Henry
08-14-2005, 11:23 PM
Try harder, Henry.

You know, there are brands of coffee that taste just as good as the caffienated stuff.

:p

Electric
08-15-2005, 04:01 AM
No, they had free run after Sept 4, 2001 as well. Bush did NOTHING, ask Clarke. Sept 4 - 11; yep there was time to stop what was about to happen. That attack had been in the planning stages from the failed WTC I in 1993 (Clintons time in office)

Yes, just month's before. That's what I said before. And yes, Richard Clarke asked him to at least TALK about doing something. Bush refused to even TALK about doing something until Sept 4th. 1 week before Bush's back was against the wall and circumstances FORCED him to respond with force.

Again, unprecidented attacks doing the unthinkable. No matter how soon we might have figured out there were going to be hijackings there was no way to see the outcome of the hijackings.

jaz, you are a liberal tool.

Electric
08-15-2005, 04:03 AM
About 1,000,000 times more than Bush did prior to Sept 11th. Pay attention.

1 might be a small number, but it is and forever will be greater than 0.

Clinton might = 1 in your mind.

Bush = 0.

Then blam! 9/11.

While Clinton was president we were attacked 4 times, he responded once!!!! ONE F'KING TIME!!!!!! HE WAS PRESIDENT 8 YEARS!!!!!

Bowser
08-15-2005, 07:14 AM
While Clinton was president we were attacked 4 times, he responded once!!!! ONE F'KING TIME!!!!!! HE WAS PRESIDENT 8 YEARS!!!!!

Not true. There was at least two attempts to take out OBL that have been made public. There is no telling how many covert actions took place.

Electric
08-15-2005, 07:55 AM
Not true. There was at least two attempts to take out OBL that have been made public. There is no telling how many covert actions took place.

We won't go into depth with that one, but you are wrong.

jAZ
08-15-2005, 08:23 AM
Oh so Bush was responsible for something that happened not only before he took office but before he was elected.
Was he "responsible for (the Cole attack)"? No, just like Clinton.
Was he "responsible for (failling to act after the attack"? Yes, just like Clinton.

But like I said, you can explain away Clinton's (lack of) military action. Bush had no such excuse.

He was commander in chief. He and his people were running the military only months after a bin Laden terrorist attack. He did NOTHING. Did he do any less than Clinton in response to the Cole? No, he did exactly the same thing as far as I can tell. Nothing. That's the point.

Now compare the rest of the activities of the two men as it relates to bin Laden, al Queda and terrorism, prior to the big bang.

Clinton did infinately more than Bush.

There's no getting around that fact, as ugly as it is.

jAZ
08-15-2005, 08:24 AM
While Clinton was president we were attacked 4 times, he responded once!!!! ONE F'KING TIME!!!!!! HE WAS PRESIDENT 8 YEARS!!!!!
However you view Clinton's record... "ONE F'KING TIME!!!!!!" is still infinately more than what Bush did prior to 9/11.

Stop trying to ignore that fact... embrace it... and move past it. I'm sure you will feel better knowing you were honest in your assessment of Bush.

jAZ
08-15-2005, 08:27 AM
Sept 4 - 11; yep there was time to stop what was about to happen.
Bush shoulda started sooner, huh? Like say, as soon as he had the opportunity? Maybe January 20th or even February 10th? I guess you are getting at least a little more intellectually honest. Kudos.

jAZ
08-15-2005, 08:30 AM
We won't go into depth with that one, but you are wrong.
God forbid you "go into depth" on anything you believe and assert as fact like this. The horror!

stevieray
08-15-2005, 08:35 AM
ROFL

funny how you've waited how many years to proclaim this?

yup, you know you're running out of angles, when you've gone from saying that it isn't about clinton to being your poster boy for the castigation sideshow.

Next thing you'll know, is you'll have wasted all these years for NOTHING.

Logical
08-15-2005, 09:59 AM
Was he "responsible for (the Cole attack)"? No, just like Clinton.
Was he "responsible for (failling to act after the attack"? Yes, just like Clinton.

But like I said, you can explain away Clinton's (lack of) military action. Bush had no such excuse.

He was commander in chief. He and his people were running the military only months after a bin Laden terrorist attack. He did NOTHING. Did he do any less than Clinton in response to the Cole? No, he did exactly the same thing as far as I can tell. Nothing. That's the point.

Now compare the rest of the activities of the two men as it relates to bin Laden, al Queda and terrorism, prior to the big bang.

Clinton did infinately more than Bush.

There's no getting around that fact, as ugly as it is.What that says to me is that Clarke did a lousy job for both Presidents providing convincing evidence that something should have been done. Amazingly he is the weak link in common.

rnslouise
08-15-2005, 10:01 AM
Was he "responsible for (the Cole attack)"? No, just like Clinton.
Was he "responsible for (failling to act after the attack"? Yes, just like Clinton.
I don't think some people will ever admit it.

jAZ
08-15-2005, 10:59 AM
What that says to me is that Clarke did a lousy job for both Presidents providing convincing evidence that something should have been done. Amazingly he is the weak link in common.
Clarke wasn't allowed to talk with Bush until 1 week before 9/11. Oddly enough, Clarke was 100% right and Bush was 100% wrong. Clinton was somewhere in the middle.

But like I said before, even 1 > 0.

Area 51
08-15-2005, 11:08 AM
Clarke wasn't allowed to talk with Bush until 1 week before 9/11. Oddly enough, Clarke was 100% right and Bush was 100% wrong. Clinton was somewhere in the middle.

But like I said before, even 1 > 0.
The arguments provided here seem to indicate that your equation is somewhat slanted to the direction you belive.

Did Bush have the opportunities to do something before September 4? Some argue yes some argue no. Did Clinton have opportunity to do something within days of his attacks? Yes!!! Did he? Four attacks on his watch and one response? Bush had one attack on his watch and reacted, he is 1 for 1, Clinton was 1 for 4. And your argument that 1 is greater than zero is a falsehood. Clinton reacted AFTER one of the four attacks in the same manner as Bush. If I can recall history since 9/11 there hasn't been another attack in our country since 9/11. That would put Bush up on Clinton by at least 3.

You seem to be trying to bait everyone into thinking that everything is Bush's fault and you could not be further from the facts.

Al-Queda has been around since at least 1993. What did Clinton do to stop the activity? Not much, but in his defense we were not directly attacked inside our boundaries. I could argue that the Cole, the Marine Barracks and the Embassy were on our soil, but I doubt that you would concur with that analogy.

Is Bush the second coming? No, but he is at least 3 attacks better than Clinton was. Was Clinton the anti-Christ? No, but he could have done a better job when he was in office regarding the threat to the country.

jAZ
08-15-2005, 11:24 AM
The arguments provided here seem to indicate that your equation is somewhat slanted to the direction you belive.

Did Bush have the opportunities to do something before September 4? Some argue yes some argue no. Did Clinton have opportunity to do something within days of his attacks? Yes!!! Did he? Four attacks on his watch and one response? Bush had one attack on his watch and reacted, he is 1 for 1, Clinton was 1 for 4. And your argument that 1 is greater than zero is a falsehood. Clinton reacted AFTER one of the four attacks in the same manner as Bush. If I can recall history since 9/11 there hasn't been another attack in our country since 9/11. That would put Bush up on Clinton by at least 3.

You seem to be trying to bait everyone into thinking that everything is Bush's fault and you could not be further from the facts.

Al-Queda has been around since at least 1993. What did Clinton do to stop the activity? Not much, but in his defense we were not directly attacked inside our boundaries. I could argue that the Cole, the Marine Barracks and the Embassy were on our soil, but I doubt that you would concur with that analogy.

Is Bush the second coming? No, but he is at least 3 attacks better than Clinton was. Was Clinton the anti-Christ? No, but he could have done a better job when he was in office regarding the threat to the country.
You no read good?

Everything changed on 9/11. Bush's back was against the wall starting that day. We all agree everything changed that day, and the public quite literrally demanded action.

No such political evironment existed when Clinton was President. Comparing Bush's post-9/11 response to Clinton's pre-9/11 response is entirely apples & zuchinni.

However Bush's first 9 months in office was quite comparable to Clinton's time. We (the American people) had no idea what was coming. The only person in the Bush Administration who DID seem to have a clue was Richard Clarke. And he was quite litterally kept at bay by this President.

Can you imagine? The arrogance or total failure that lead to such a choice by the President?

Was Clinton perfect in dealing with Terrorism? Not just no, but hell no.

But my point continues to be this: compared to Bush deliberately choosing to do nothing, Clinton's efforts (however ineffective) are nearly super-human.

jAZ
08-15-2005, 11:25 AM
Not much
... is still more than "nothing".

Agreed?

KCTitus
08-15-2005, 11:44 AM
Didnt we dance this dance last week? Here's Jaz implying that the Bush WH knew but didnt do anything to prevent 9/11 without 'saying' it...yet again.

:thumb:

jAZ
08-15-2005, 11:45 AM
Didnt we dance this dance last week? Here's Jaz implying that the Bush WH knew but didnt do anything to prevent 9/11 without 'saying' it...yet again.

:thumb:
Stick to what I'm saying... your Jedi powers are very weak.

KCTitus
08-15-2005, 11:52 AM
Stick to what I'm saying... your Jedi powers are very weak.

Feh...It's unavoidable, Jaz. I realize that feigning ignorance is a special talent for you, but even you cant ignore the elephant in the living room as it were.

Area 51
08-15-2005, 12:02 PM
You no read good?

Everything changed on 9/11. Bush's back was against the wall starting that day. We all agree everything changed that day, and the public quite literrally demanded action. 2)

No such political evironment existed when Clinton was President. Comparing Bush's post-9/11 response to Clinton's pre-9/11 response is entirely apples & zuchinni.

However Bush's first 9 months in office was quite comparable to Clinton's time. We (the American people) had no idea what was coming. The only person in the Bush Administration who DID seem to have a clue was Richard Clarke. And he was quite litterally kept at bay by this President.

Can you imagine? The arrogance or total failure that lead to such a choice by the President?

Was Clinton perfect in dealing with Terrorism? Not just no, but hell no.

But my point continues to be this: compared to Bush deliberately choosing to do nothing, Clinton's efforts (however ineffective) are nearly super-human.


That last comment is purely your speculation. Do you have an inside track to the administration other than the media? When did Bush decide not to do anything? Sept. 4 when your boy Clarke gave out his information?

I would compare WTC I to 9/11. That was al-Queda's first attempt to bring down the WTC, and that attack was inside our country. If you compared that one incident in Clinton's time with 9/11 in Bush's time you will see clearly that it was Apples to Apples and that Clinton miserable failed to react accordingly. Catching the guys that actually set the bombs were chump change, why wasn't OBL put on notice at that time? That would have given us 8 years between then and 9/11 to do something. Clinton's failure for 7+ years and Bush's failure for 9 months were both clearly less than we needed, but I would place blame for 9/11 squarely on Clinton's shoulders. His inaction opened the door for more attacks inside our outer shores.

2) The rules actually should have changed in 1993 when the WTC I happened. Check out placement of the bombs in that attack. It was meant to topple the building and create a domino effect. Not only would that have been worse than 9/11 there would have been uncountable additional deaths from the resulting destruction. Push 110 stories of building over into other buildings and see if you can figure the casualties.

Again, you seem to be only pimping your point of view without attempting to face reality. Clinton invited all future attacks after not responding in 1993.

Area 51
08-15-2005, 12:03 PM
... is still more than "nothing".

Agreed?

Absolutely not!!! 1 out of 4 is not comparable to 1 out of 1 for reaction to the events at hand!!!

jAZ
08-15-2005, 12:38 PM
Absolutely not!!! 1 out of 4 is not comparable to 1 out of 1 for reaction to the events at hand!!!
Clinton was never faced with a post 9/11 world. HUGE difference. Even you can admit that. Or not.

mlyonsd
08-15-2005, 01:08 PM
Clinton was never faced with a post 9/11 world. HUGE difference. Even you can admit that. Or not.

Exactly. Which is why Saddam had to be addressed after 911. Even you can admit that. Or not.

Area 51
08-15-2005, 01:20 PM
Exactly. Which is why Saddam had to be addressed after 911. Even you can admit that. Or not.

You beat me to it!!!

jAZ
08-15-2005, 01:33 PM
Exactly. Which is why Saddam had to be addressed after 911. Even you can admit that. Or not.
Yeah, wasting our time, money, lives, political capital and international goodwill fighting "The Ghost of Daddy's past" was a brilliant move on Bush's part!

:rolleyes:

jAZ
08-15-2005, 01:35 PM
You beat me to it!!!
You were going to grasp at tanget, disconnected straws too?

I figured you would at least attempt to stay on topic. Silly me.

Boyceofsummer
08-15-2005, 01:37 PM
I seem to remember Bush opening a dialogue with Musharef about Al Qaeda weeks after he took office and instructed the development of a plan to take out Bin Laden that was being approved the week before the 9/11 attacks.
Liberals seem to think that if they just ignore half the facts they'll find a truth supporting their beliefs. I wish life worked this way. I really do. The Chiefs would have won the Super Bowl the last couple seasons if that were the case.

This administration that you continually apologize for has been in office almost five years and is coddling Bin Laden, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. No major effort short of Tora Bora has ever been employed to get the perpetrator of 911. Can you imagine the price of oil if a major terrorist act occurs now? At least Clinton lobbed some missles this guys direction. What the **** are we doing today? NOTHING!

mlyonsd
08-15-2005, 01:45 PM
Yeah, wasting our time, money, lives, political capital and international goodwill fighting "The Ghost of Daddy's past" was a brilliant move on Bush's part!

:rolleyes:

I just find it typical of you to give Clinton a pass for basically doing nothing to AQ but bashing Bush when he addresses a perceived threat after 911.

I'm not blaming Clinton here btw, I do think 911 made us look at things differently.

jAZ
08-15-2005, 01:46 PM
I just find it typical of you to give Clinton a pass for basically doing nothing to AQ but bashing Bush when he addresses a perceived threat after 911.

I'm not blaming Clinton here btw, I do think 911 made us look at things differently.
I give Clinton credit for trying, even when political pressure was totally AGAINST him doing anything.

Bush did NOTHING until political pressure FORCED him into doing something.

Area 51
08-15-2005, 02:23 PM
This administration that you continually apologize for has been in office almost five years and is coddling Bin Laden, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. No major effort short of Tora Bora has ever been employed to get the perpetrator of 911. Can you imagine the price of oil if a major terrorist act occurs now? At least Clinton lobbed some missles this guys direction. What the **** are we doing today? NOTHING!

correction: one missile, killed one camel and destroyed one tent.

Area 51
08-15-2005, 02:24 PM
I give Clinton credit for trying, even when political pressure was totally AGAINST him doing anything.

Bush did NOTHING until political pressure FORCED him into doing something.

We were attacked in 1993, why was the political pressure against him?

Bush had nothing to back up anything until we were attacked, at least when attacked he DID do something!

Area 51
08-15-2005, 02:26 PM
Yeah, wasting our time, money, lives, political capital and international goodwill fighting "The Ghost of Daddy's past" was a brilliant move on Bush's part!



GWB could end world hunger, catch and eliminate OBL, lower gas prices and you would still claim that he is doing a bad job.

It's a no win situation in your eyes. It's a shame that you haven't the ability to look beyond your politics and see what is happening.

jAZ
08-15-2005, 02:28 PM
GWB could end world hunger, catch and eliminate OBL, lower gas prices and you would still claim that he is doing a bad job.

It's a no win situation in your eyes. It's a shame that you haven't the ability to look beyond your politics and see what is happening.
Do you realize how you just bitch-slapped Bush with this suggestion?

Claiming that even if he did the opposite of everything he's done to date, and made everything back to normal... I'd still be critical.

ROFL

jAZ
08-15-2005, 02:39 PM
We were attacked in 1993, why was the political pressure against him?

Bush had nothing to back up anything until we were attacked, at least when attacked he DID do something!
Maybe you are merely ignorat.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14770

Or maybe you are deliberately ignoring history...

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=TSHA,TSHA:2005-19,TSHA:en&q=%22no+war+for+monica%21%22

Area 51
08-15-2005, 03:23 PM
Do you realize how you just bitch-slapped Bush with this suggestion?

Claiming that even if he did the opposite of everything he's done to date, and made everything back to normal... I'd still be critical.

ROFL

You actually have no credibility in this area. As far as you can see the oceans have no water.

Area 51
08-15-2005, 03:26 PM
Maybe you are merely ignorat.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14770

Or maybe you are deliberately ignoring history...

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=TSHA,TSHA:2005-19,TSHA:en&q=%22no+war+for+monica%21%22

I'm deliberately ignoring your history. The source you cite seems to be some what biased as well as having many of the facts that are basically unfounded and unprovable.

Keep arguing though, it gives you something to do.

stevieray
08-15-2005, 03:31 PM
fighting "The Ghost of Daddy's past"

:rolleyes:

how's that going for you?

jcl-kcfan2
08-15-2005, 03:32 PM
I just find it typical of you to give Clinton a pass for basically doing nothing to AQ but bashing Bush when he addresses a perceived threat after 911.

I'm not blaming Clinton here btw, I do think 911 made us look at things differently.

remember, clinton attacked our ally and fought with alqaeda...

jAZ
08-15-2005, 03:42 PM
I'm deliberately ignoring your history. The source you cite seems to be some what biased as well as having many of the facts that are basically unfounded and unprovable.

Keep arguing though, it gives you something to do.
Yeah, that's pretty much Par for the Republican media outlet's course. Or did you not know that WorldNetDaily is a RNC shill outlet?

Eye Patch
08-15-2005, 03:47 PM
9/11 Coverup Commission By Ben Johnson and Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu

Recent revelations about covert “Able Danger” operations are forcing certain people to deal with subjects that they had thought swept under the rug. Despite apparent attempts to conceal the fact, the 9/11 Commission has had to admit it was informed that government agents knew of Mohammed Atta’s affiliation with al-Qaeda two years before 9/11, that Clinton-era policies prevented intelligence officials from sharing that information with the FBI, that the amended time frame would allow Mohammed Atta to have made contacts with Iraqi intelligence, and – most damningly – that it kept all this out of its final report.

Rep. Curt Weldon, R-PA, has done praiseworthy work in drawing attention to the recently released “Able Danger” report. Former CIA operative and terrorism expert Wayne Simmons has described the “Able Danger” operation as “one of our best covert operations” run by the intelligence community. The operation, he continues, was expert at “using open source intelligence,” including data mining techniques, “to locate and identify Islamic terrorists,” specifically al-Qaeda operatives in the United States. This operation identified 9/11 mastermind Mohammed Atta and three of his fellow hijackers as members of an al-Qaeda cell located in New York City (and codenamed “Brooklyn”) in 1999. We can only surmise that a gold mine of information lies yet unrevealed.

Weldon noted with exasperation that this information had been delivered to the 9/11 Commission in at least two separate briefings, possibly three, proving the incredible ineptitude of the commission. Weldon says staffers of the 9/11 Commission did not share – and Commissioners did not request – information about these “Able Danger” reports. This would have been indispensable to uncovering how 9/11 happened and what could be done to prevent a repeat performance, allegedly the commision's task..

Faced with these revelations, commissioners first claimed Rep. Weldon was not telling the truth, that the 9/11 Commission had never been presented with this vital information. Early last week, commission spokesman Al Felzenberg said, “The name ‘Atta’ or a terrorist cell would have gone to the top of the radar screen if it had been mentioned.” Former Congressman and commissioner Lee Hamilton, D-IN, echoed Felzenberg, saying last Monday: “The September 11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell. Had we learned of it obviously it would’ve been a major focus of our investigation.” The New York Times notes that just a few days later, “Mr. Felzenberg said the uniformed officer who briefed two staff members in July 2004 had indeed mentioned Mr. Atta.” Hamilton, too, quickly “readjusted” his initial comments to admit that, indeed, the commissioners heard of Atta after all. Felzenberg acknowledged the commission had been briefed on this information but rejected the testimony of a uniformed officer on the grounds that his evidence did not match their preconceived timeline; it indicates Atta was active from February-April 2000, whereas the commission believed Atta entered the United States for the first time that June.

There are several factors – none flattering to the Commission – that might explain this appalling lapse. John Podhoretz neatly summaries them: “So was the [9/11 Commission] staff a) protecting the Atta timeline or b) Jamie Gorelick or c) the Clinton administration or d) itself, because it got hold of the information relatively late and the staff was lazy?”

The really upsetting issue is contained in Podhoretz's first note. It requires a deeper reading because understanding it fully opens the entire mindset of the hard Left toward terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Podheretz notes that the Commission was “protecting” its interpretation of Mohammad Atta's international and domestic U.S. travels. Key in this “interpretation” in the minds of Clinton supporters and Bush haters of all stripes is the necessity to deny all ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaeda. After all, in the endless cacophony of criticism against the Iraq War, the two steady drumbeats have been the failure to find WMDs, and the assertion that there were no links between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the September 11 attacks. Until now the Left has issued a series of deliberate misinterpretations of a series of reports – including that of the 9/11 Commission, and WMD reports by David Kay and Charles Dueffler. However the unimpeachable “Able Danger” report was at first denied by 9/11 spokesman Al Felzenberg, then was reluctantly confirmed to be correct. Felzenberg said that “the information that [the “Able Danger” briefing officer] provided us did not mesh with other conclusions that we were drawing.” (Emphasis added.)

======================================================
And here we get to the crux of the matter. The movements of Atta prior to the terrorist attack as detailed by “Able Danger,” if acknowledged, would support statements by the Czech Republic that link Atta, and hence the al-Qaeda attack on America, irrefutably to Saddam's covert intelligence operatives. This is something that surfaced shortly after 9/11. A former Czech deputy foreign minister, later ambassador to the UN, gave statements that he personally expelled a high raking Iraqi embassy official in Prague for being a covert foreign intelligence agent after the latter was discovered to have met with Mohammed Atta in the international lounge at the Prague airport in August 2001. There the Iraqi transferred a large amount of cash to Atta, sufficient to fund the completion of the September 11 attack. Despite cruel pressure from mainstream media, the hard Left, the U.S. State Department, and the CIA, the Czechs insisted that their report was correct. Former Congressman John LeBoutellier was furious at the Bush administration for bowing to CIA pressure to discount the Czech report because it verified a vital deadly connection within the covert terrorist community. Now it appears as if the Czechs – and those who supported their account – were right.
======================================================

This Atta-Iraqi meeting did not track well with some of the 9/11 Commission's pre-ordained agenda and had to be firmly discounted. They were able to accomplish this through a lame credit card receipt that could have been signed by any of Atta's cell. But a report with the weight of the Department of Defense and highly credible intelligence operatives behind it would expose the flimsy nature of the evidence that Atta was in the States. Hence, as Flzenberg said, with unflappable arrogance, “if we missed anything we will say so, but we doubt that we did.”

The possible motives of protecting Commissioner Jamie Gorelick and her former employer, President Bill Clinton, are also closely related. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft testified at the 9/11 Commission’s grandstanding hearings that one of its own commissioners, former high-ranking Clinton Justice Department appointee Jamie S. Gorelick, had been the prime architect of one of the problems for which the commissioners regularly denounced the Bush administration: the wall between intelligence agencies. Her infamous 1995 “wall” memo produced much of the harmful lack of intelligence coordination that the Commission then used to criticize the Bush administration. As FrontPage Magazine’s Jean Pearce wrote last May, the intelligence wall Deputy Attorney General Gorelick put in place smothered ongoing investigations into Chinese contributions to Bill Clinton’s presidential campaigns. Specifically the Department of Defense and the CIA were prohibited from exchanging relevant information with the FBI.

Not all were happy at the time with Gorelick's action. Gutsy New York City-based U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White was appalled by the Gorelick directive, sending two of her own memoranda back to Janet Reno and Gorelick protesting, “The most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating.” Her recommendations were ignored. According to the New York Post, White was so incensed by their actions that she wrote a second, scathing memorandum warning that the “wall” hindered law enforcement efforts to combat terrorism. “It will cost lives,” she reportedly warned. This second memo is still kept secret.

Her prophecy proved accurate; in 2000, members of the Department of Defense knew of an al-Qaeda operative in the United States, but the DoD – hands tied by Gorelick’s policy – declined to alert the FBI, a step that might have prevented the 9/11 attacks. At this time, al-Qaeda had already, either directly or through its affiliates, killed American soldiers in Somalia, detonated the Khobar Towers, and bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In the summer of 2000, they attacked the U.S.S. Cole.

This inaction seemed to fall into line with the Clinton administration’s general disregard for terrorism. Although the discredited former National Security Council staffer Richard Clarke presented President Clinton as an anti-terrorism warrior, former intelligence officer Ralph Peters tells a much different story. “Admitting that [terrorist] threats were real.threatened to destroy the belief system the Clintonites had carried into office,” Peters detailed. In regards to the entire terrorist network, methodology, and ideology, the Clintons were “a textbook case of denial.” It was bad enough, as the “Able Danger” reports indicate, that the Clintons were willfully ignorant of the threat but their criminal negligence was compounded by a sleazy attempt to pass the buck on the Bush administration. Bill Clinton never made any serious retaliation for any of these provocations, nor the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, emboldening these terrorists, assuring through his “intelligence wall” that 9/11 terrorists could not be properly identified and apprehended, and passing the blame for the inevitable outcome of his policies to the nascent Bush administration.

If there was, in fact, covert direction from the top of the Commission to key members of its staff to cloak any link between Saddam and the September 11 attacks, to obfuscate evidence tying the Iraqi regime to al-Qaeda and Mohammed Atta, and to paint the most positive possible picture of the Clintons as implacable terror-warriors, then “Able Danger” had to be ignored and covered up. It fits the pattern of revisionist historical interpretations that seems to be the only authentic legacy from the Clinton years. Further, in Washington staffers tell their bosses what the latter want to hear. They are not rewarded for initiative. As Peters says, when told to think outside the box by a superior, a subordinate knows his job is to “come back with fresh reasons why the in-house position was right all along.”

By acknowledging the Iraq/al-Qaeda ties, not only to terrorism in general but to the September 11 attack, the war becomes completely justifiable as exactly what the Bush administration claimed it was: a defensive, if preemptive, war to protect the United States from a regime with cordial ties to anti-American terrorists. This outcome is so repugnant to the hard Left that it will justify even the most extraordinary suppression of evidence or promulgation of an outright lie in order to achieve its ends.
This is a critically important story that demands public attention. It will not be seriously investigated by many reporters, because the mainstream (read: leftist) media is not interested in exposing how its favorite president in decades enabled terrorists to pull off the worse act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history.

Area 51
08-15-2005, 04:15 PM
Yeah, that's pretty much Par for the Republican media outlet's course. Or did you not know that WorldNetDaily is a RNC shill outlet?

I would say that anything you use as a reference is wholly self-serving. You only see one side of the argument, it's a shame too. You almost seem like you have some intelligence at times.

It would be great if you could confront GWB himself and ask your questions. (It would also be great to see you in Atlanta's USP after the meeting!!!)

Stinger
08-17-2005, 09:21 AM
:hmmm:

August 17, 2005

State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996

By ERIC LICHTBLAU (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=ERIC LICHTBLAU&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=ERIC LICHTBLAU&inline=nyt-per)


WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show.

In what would prove a prescient warning, the State Department intelligence analysts said in a top-secret assessment on Mr. bin Laden that summer that "his prolonged stay in Afghanistan - where hundreds of 'Arab mujahedeen' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate - could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum," in Sudan.

The declassified documents, obtained by the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act request and provided to The New York Times, shed light on a murky and controversial chapter in Mr. bin Laden's history: his relocation from Sudan to Afghanistan as the Clinton administration was striving to understand the threat he posed and explore ways of confronting him.

Before 1996, Mr. bin Laden was regarded more as a financier of terrorism than a mastermind. But the State Department assessment, which came a year before he publicly urged Muslims to attack the United States, indicated that officials suspected he was taking a more active role, including in the bombings in June 1996 that killed 19 members American soldiers at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Two years after the State Department's warning, with Mr. bin Laden firmly entrenched in Afghanistan and overseeing terrorist training and financing operations, Al Qaeda struck two American embassies in East Africa, leading to failed military attempts by the Clinton administration to capture or kill him in Afghanistan. Three years later, on Sept. 11, 2001, Al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in an operation overseen from the base in Afghanistan.

Critics of the Clinton administration have accused it of ignoring the threat posed by Mr. bin Laden in the mid-1990's while he was still in Sudan, and they point to claims by some Sudanese officials that they offered to turn him over to the Americans before ultimately expelling him in 1996 under international pressure. But Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had "not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

The newly declassified documents do not directly address the question of whether Sudan ever offered to turn over Mr. bin Laden. But the documents go well beyond previous news and historical accounts in detailing the Clinton administration's active monitoring of Mr. bin Laden's movements and the realization that his move to Afghanistan could make him an even greater national security threat.

Several former senior officials in the Clinton administration did not return phone calls this week seeking comment on the newly declassified documents.

Adam Ereli, a spokesman for the State Department, said the documents should be viewed in the context of what was happening globally in 1996, rather than in the hindsight of events after the Sept. 11 attacks.
In 1996, Mr. Ereli said, "the question was getting him out of Sudan."
"The priority was to deny him safe haven, period, and to disrupt his activities any way you could," he continued. "There was a lot we didn't know, and the priority was to keep him on the run, keep him on guard, and try to maximize the opportunities to nail him."

Before the East Africa bombings in 1998, however, Mr. bin Laden "wasn't recognized then as the threat he is now," Mr. Ereli said. "Yes, he was a bad guy, he was a threat, but he was one of many, and by no means of the prominence that he later came to be."

The State Department assessment, written July 18, 1996, after Mr. bin Laden had been expelled from Sudan and was thought to be relocating to Afghanistan, said Afghanistan would make an "ideal haven" for Mr. bin Laden to run his financial networks and attract support from radicalized Muslims. Moreover, his wealth, his personal plane and many passports "allow him considerable freedom to travel with little fear of being intercepted or tracked," and his public statements suggested an "emboldened" man capable of "increased terrorism," the assessment said.

While a strategy of keeping Mr. bin Laden on the run could "inconvenience" him, the assessment said, "even a bin Laden on the move can retain the capability to support individuals and groups who have the motive and wherewithal to attack U.S. interests almost world-wide."

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said the declassified material released to his group "says to me that the Clinton administration knew the broad outlines in 1996 of bin Laden's capabilities and his intent, and unfortunately, almost nothing was done about it."

Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, was highly critical of President Clinton during his two terms in office. The group has also been critical of some Bush administration actions after the Sept. 11 attacks, releasing documents in March that detailed government efforts to facilitate flights out of the United States for dozens of well-connected Saudis just days after the attacks.

Michael F. Scheuer, who from 1996 to 1999 led the Central Intelligence Agency unit that tracked Mr. bin Laden, said the State Department documents reflected a keen awareness of the danger posed by Mr. bin Laden's relocation.

"The analytical side of the State Department had it exactly right - that's genius analysis," he said in an interview when told of the declassified documents. But Mr. Scheuer, who wrote a book in 2004 titled "Imperial Hubris," under the pseudonym "Anonymous," that was highly critical of American counterterrorism strategies, said many officials in the C.I.A.'s operational side thought they would have a better chance to kill Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan than they did in Sudan because the Sudan government protected him.

"The thinking was that he was in Afghanistan, and he was dangerous, but because he was there, we had a better chance to kill him," Mr. Scheuer said. "But at the end of the day, we settled for the worst possibility - he was there and we didn't do anything."



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/international/asia/17osama.html?ei=5065&en=8abb945bc6bab23d&ex=1124942400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print