Instapundit Takes Gorelick Smear To New Lows
Instapundit Takes Gorelick Smear To New Lows
At Instapundit.com, Glenn Reynolds continues to smear Jamie Gorelick by pushing the theory that her 1995 prevented the Department of Defense from sharing Able Danger data with the FBI. Here is his post today:
DEFENDERS OF JAMIE GORELICK seem to have mostly succeeded in raising her profile with regard to Able Danger matters.
Instapundit links to a post on Captain’s Quarters by a guy named Captain Ed which notes that a copy of Gorelick’s 1995 memo was sent the Justice Department’s Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR). Captain Ed speculates that because the OIPR sometimes provided legal advice to the Department of Defense, they advised the DoD that the 1995 Gorelick memo prevented Able Danger info from being shared with the FBI.
This argument is an embarrassment. Gorelick’s 1995 memo would never be used to provide legal guidance to the Department of Defense. It was a memo that laid out procedures between the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department. It imposed no restrictions on information sharing between the DoD and the FBI.
But don’t take my word for it. Here is what 9/11 Commissioner Slade Gordon, a Republican, had to say about it:
The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else.
Contact Glen Reynolds at pundit@instapundit.com and tell him to remove the link to Captain’s Quarters.
Contact Captain Ed at captain@captainsquartersblog.com and ask him to provide evidence that the OIPR used Gorelick’s 1995 memo to advise the Department of Defense.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Judd – explain Mary Jo White’s warning. Explain the partisan anti-Bush 9/11 commisssion conveniently leaving out key finding such as this. Explain Warren Christopher’s silence.
You can’t. They are schilling for Gorelick who was particularly embraced by the hard left factions trying to pin all of 9/11 on Bush. You liberals started this fight with the commission in the first place. Now, don’t cry when it backfires in your face.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:24 pmNortheast Dilemma,
The 911 Commission was so partisan that the report that they issued was unanimous. I suppose it all depends on your definition of partisan.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:27 pm#2 – The commission was exploited by liberals to attack the President. The MSM made sure of that as did left wingers like MoveOn.
Watch inside 9/11 on National Geographic and maybe you’ll learn something.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:28 pmThis issue is a simple question of fact, Northeast Dilemma. Did the Gorelick memo prohibit info-sharing between the FBI and Defense? Yes or no. Everything else is irrelevant.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:35 pmYES!
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:35 pmOMG–poor President Bush–so surrounded by partisan Bush-haters that he can’t even appoint a bipartisan commission without it instantly becoming the “partisan anti-Bush commission”
So shocking that those partisan liberals would exploit the facts to attack our beloved president . . .
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:38 pmNortheast, please post evidence to back up your “yes”, like actual text forbidding info-sharing between the FBI and the DoD.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:39 pmNortheast’s scrawlings are a textbook example of the right wing’s “up is down, down is up” propaganda strategy. These are the folks Orwell warned us about.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:45 pmTND –
Please pay attention:
SEC. 603. COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION.
(a) Members.–The Commission shall be composed of 10 members, of
whom–
(1) 1 member shall be appointed by the President, who shall serve as chairman of the Commission;
(2) 1 member shall be appointed by the leader of the Senate (majority or minority leader, as the case may be) of the Democratic Party, in consultation with the leader of the House of Representatives (majority or minority leader, as the
[[Page 116 STAT. 2409]]
case may be) of the Democratic Party, who shall serve as vice chairman of the Commission;
(3) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the Senate leadership of the Democratic Party;
(4) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the leadership of the House of Representatives of the Republican Party;
(5) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the Senate leadership of the Republican Party; and
(6) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the leadership of the House of Representatives of the Democratic Party.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/107-306.title6.htm
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:48 pmCan we please get SOME reputable, civil conservative in here to talk with us.
ne dementia is just making you bushies look stupid.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:48 pmWith no due respect, NeD, you haven’t a clue. This Gorelick memo doesn’t mean sh*t with regard to 9/11. To use an analogy you’ll understand, saying that the Gorelick memo contributed to the intel failure on 9/11 is like saying that Gonzales “Geneva-conventions-are-quaint” memos led to the insurgency in Iraq.
These guidelines on info-sharing between intel agencies and law enforcement agencies are are essential and commonplace to help ensure successful prosecutions. If this Gorelick memo is causing such shock to you, you should file a FOIA request to the DoJ and see how many similar memos are in existence… You might also find out how they HELP the law enforcement process, rather than hinder it.
If there are relevant questions coming out of Able Danger, they include: How was Shaffer co-ordinating with the likes of Richard Clarke and Mike Scheuer? And why was AD disbanded in Spring 2001?
The answer to the second question in particular would be very, very interesting.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:49 pmSo your story is that Bush and the Republic Congress conspired to set up a partisan Anti-Bush commission where Republican former governor Tom Kean and Right Wing Republicna former Senator Slade Gorton and Reagan appointee Jim Lehman, not to mention staff director Zelikow (Bush II NSC appointeed) are all left wing conspirators! Golly! Them left wingers sure are powerful.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:50 pmHey, Northeast, try reading this commentary again, this time slowly enough so that you actually comprehend it. Go to the very end. See if you can find these paragraphs:
“But don’t take my word for it. Here is what 9/11 Commissioner Slade Gordon, a Republican, had to say about it:
“The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else.”
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:50 pm#9
I can write down on a piece of paper that I am a right wing NeoCOn Republican and hand it to somebody. Does that mean anything? It is actions not paper that matter here.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:50 pmThe Mary Jo White details why Jaime “the Wall” Gorelick was part of the problem. It was highlighted in a article by JPod – which everyone in here wrote off as a lie because all you people do is smear.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:55 pm#13 -
See #11
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:55 pmYes clearly right after 9/11 happened, everyone and their mother started blaming President Bush for what happened. The anti-Bush cries drowned out any message that Bush and his Adminstration were saying about something called a “War on Terror.” Why I remember not being able to walk down the street without almost being hit by a burning effigy of the President. Thank goodness the covert underground neoconservative movement was able to prevent the country from marching on Washington and burning the White House down. And that nasty, nasty partisan anti-Bush commission said those mean things. Its no wonder that President Bush needs to escape to Texas to get away from all the mean liberals that run everything.
(This comment made possible by the RNC rectal-cranial inversion (RCI) process. To perform a self RCI, simply bend over and insert your head as far as possible up your own ass)
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:56 pmI figure NeD is just playing dumb for attention. He loves confrontation and accusing everyone here of being “haters.” *giggle* No one is that stupid and one-sided; he is just lonely.
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:06 pm#17 – “No one is that stupid and one-sided”
(ahem!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:08 pmWow! TND’s so strung out from ignoring reality that he can’t even get Gorelick’s first name right.
I’m in the habit of saving examples of rightwingers’ attempts at “logic” — and how badly they flounder (like Bush’s 36% approval ratings) when it comes to having to defend their assertions with facts in their proper context, instead of endlessly repeated slanders. I use the rightwingers’ own comments to show the few Republican rellies I have what they’ve been voting for all these years. So far, I’ve managed to convert six of them to either registering as Independents or full-blown Democrats.
This comments thread will make a very fine weapon in my arsenal. :-)
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:12 pm“and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else.”
However, in invisible ink, between the lines, it read:
‘Tell anyone the truth and we bury you’
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:15 pmI just love this stuff. When the downing street memo came out the right wingers were so quick to say, “its just a memo”. “It means nothing”.
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:21 pmTo The Northeast Dilemma: Curt Schilling plays for the Red Sox and provides a Northeast Dilemma for the Yankees. The word you were looking for is shilling.
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:23 pmSo, this guy Cap’n Cubicle, is he a real Captain? I mean, did he actually earn that rank, or is he just another chickenhawk doesn’t-really-wannabe in the 101st Fighting Keyboarders?
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:28 pmNED, Cabin Boy Ed, and Instaputz:
Larry, Moe and Curly.
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:30 pm“Think Progress is a project of the American Progress Action Fund. The American Progress Action Fund is a nonpartisan organization. With the blog, APAF seeks to provide a forum that advances progressive ideas and policies.”
Maybe I’m nuts, but I would think that a truly nonpartisan organization would be as concerned as anyone else about the national security implications of the both the 1995 Gorelick memo and the reports about Able Danger. I would think that a truly nonpartisan organization would be as concerned as anyone else about the political implications of the omission of Able Danger from the 9/11 report. And I would think anyone with a passing knowledge of the English language might find it strange that the mere act of commenting on such concerns somehow constitutes a “smear” of Jamie Gorelick in the eyes of a truly nonpartisan organization.
Of course, TP does provide a forum for discussion (although some of the discussion gets abit ragged and vulgar at times). But it is worth noting that John Podesta is a major name behind this site. The same John Podesta, that is, who served with Jamie Gorelick in the Clinton administration. As a matter of ethics and full disclosure, I believe that TP should include a disclaimer to that effect on every post about Ms. Gorelick or any other member of the Clinton administration. That would put hysterical posts like Judd’s (this must be his umpteenth attempt to shield Ms. Gorelick from criticism by using the word “smear”) in their proper context: partisan, and highly skewed to the left.
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:34 pmHe’s just the cabin boy
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:36 pmNon-partisan “terrist” sympathizers and traitors!
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:37 pmOnce again we get another conservative who refuses to read a full article.
Ta know, posting to you guys is like debating the mentally challenged, you don’t know you’ve been seen by one and all as an idiot and you think you won….
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:46 pmblue state red–
not an unreasonable point you make. but it wouldn’t be utterly worthless if you could become the very first conservative to actually either a) attempt to or b) actually just…refute what TP is saying. John Podesta could be Satan’s minion who drinks baby’s blood for breakfast, it could be so. he should probably put that on top of every post, maybe even stencil it on to his forehead.
but, that aside, is what TP is claiming true? are various right-wing outlets propagating a lie that redounds to their benefit while trying to retroactively destroy the reputation of Jamie Gorelick? if your answer is no, back it up. bring evidence. if that evidence itself is from the mouths of those on the right, or who have interests, acknowledge them.
i’ve seen nothing to suggest you or anyone else living “Red” will do such a thing. when confronted with evidence of perfidy by your side, you bitch moan whine and complain, you try to change the subject, but you do nothing to provide a factual counter-argument.
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:49 pmBS Red may have a point. Why can’t TP be a real non-partisan, fair and balanced organization like, oh, say, Fox News? I just love how Fox mentions head honcho Roger Ailes’ ties to the Republican party every time they do a story concerning said party.
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:51 pmJosh wrote
“This issue is a simple question of fact, Northeast Dilemma. Did the Gorelick memo prohibit info sharing between the FBI and Defense? Yes or no. Everything else is irrelevant.â€
You see I don’t see this as the issue at all. I have read all of these posts and I am not concerned about Gorelick.
Worst case lets assume that her memo was accidentally sent to the wrong department, and misread by several people who then set up a wall (that was already there) between DOD and FBI. At worst she is a symptom of the disease we already know about, the lack of communication between different agencies. She didn’t start any of this.
The thing I want to know is did Able Danger pick up the 9/11 plot ahead of time. I don’t want to know about it so that I can blame Clinton or Gorelick. I want to know so that we can make improvements in our systems. I am willing to bet that somewhere in the vast intelligence gathering mechanism that we have that we had that information somewhere. When you have a failure (especially of this magnitude) you need to investigate that failure to help prevent the next one. If new information pops up about the failure after the investigation you need to investigate it again.
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:55 pmYes, I want F*X News to provide me with a header next to the anchors name indicating how much they donated to the GOP campaign fund. I’m sure they’ll get right on that.
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:59 pmIt’s all Clinton’s fault. Clinton and his evil willie!
Clinton’s willie has destroyed America!
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:04 pmQuestion for Clinton blamers: Is GHW Bush responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing?
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:08 pmI just read an Iraq war veteran’s memoirs. There was a detailed account about an Iraqi getting his willie shot off. That’s one willie that will no longer threaten America.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:09 pmI don’t know Ed Morrissey’s military background. He’s in his mid-40s, so unless he volunteered for duty around 1983 he would never have been compelled to serve – and he likely would not have seen combat if he did.
Of course, one might ask, what are Judd’s military credentials? Mipe’s? Nico’s? Christy’s? How about the two Johns? When and where did they serve, and with what distinction?
It’s all irrelevant in any event. The First Amendment protects the free speech of all Americans, not just those who have served in the military, or in combat. So if we are going to give special weight in the court of public opinion to the military service record of each commenter, then this site should never post on any matter relating to war or national defense matters without prominently listing those credentials, and linking to the many milblogs that also address these subjects.
But be careful what you wish for. There is a lot of highly qualified military opinion out there that the left doesn’t want to hear.
By the way, Ed Morrissey got the nickname “Captain Ed” years ago in the form of a vanity license plate from some friends. In 2003, with his wife (”the First Mate”) suffering from kidney failure, Captain Ed started the “Captain’s Quarters” blog.
Captain Ed’s first big story was the publication of explosive testimony about a scandal involving Canadian government officials. The testimony had been banned from publication in Canada, but as an American Captain Ed was immune from the ban. So even if he has never served a day in the military, Captain Ed already has been on the front lines of the fight to protect free speech. Can anyone else here claim as much?
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:11 pmhttp://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/K/htmlK/keeshanbob/keeshanbob.htm
Bob Keeshan is the actor and producer responsible for the success of the long-running children’s program, Captain Kangaroo. As the easy-going Captain with his big pockets and his bushy mustache, Keeshan lured children into close engagement with literature, science, and especially music, adopting an approach which mixed pleasure and pedagogy. Children learned most easily, he argued, when information and knowledge became a source of delight. Keeshan’s approach represented a rejection of pressures towards the increased commercialization of children’s programming as well as a toning-down of the high volume, slapstick style associated with earlier kid show hosts, such as Pinky Lee, Soupy Sales and Howdy Doody’s Buffalo Bob.
Upon his retirement, Keeshan became an active lobbyist on behalf of children’s issues and in favor of tighter controls over the tobacco industry.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:18 pm#36,
Yes, I’m doing it now as I have since I was first able to speak. I’ll check wikipedia the next time I need to find out his biography though, thanks.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:25 pmNo, BSR, nobody else has ever fought for free speech. You got us there. ;)
Ferris Beuler you’re my hero!
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:25 pm#36 – “There is a lot of highly qualified military opinion out there that the left doesn’t want to hear.”
You mean like this:
WASHINGTON – The war in Iraq is stretching U.S. military forces and equipment toward a “meltdown” that could require force reductions in Iraq by next summer, retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Monday.
“The United States Army and Marine Corps are incapable of sustaining this campaign,” McCaffrey said, adding that similar stresses are being imposed upon equipment. “We are running our capital fleet into the ground.”
Or maybe like this?
Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division.. when asked whether he believes the United States is losing, he said, “I think strategically, we are.”
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:27 pmOr military opinion like this?
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:31 pmhttp://www.ivaw.net/index.php?id=1
What TP is saying, in this instance, is that anyone who questions the origins and effect of the Gorelick memo vis-a-vis the war on terror is guilty of trying “smear” Jamie Gorelick, or of blaming the Clinton administration. But that is not the issue here. The Able Danger revelations raise serious questions about how the policies we have had, and the policies we ought in the future to avoid or adopt, with respect to fighting terrorism.
We don’t yet know the answers to those questions, but Judd and others won’t even permit the questions to be asked without calling it a “smear.” That is an absurd charge, given all that we don’t yet know about this unfolding story. That’s why I urged, several days ago, that everyone should just chill, and let the story play out.
The worst that can happen at this late date is that Jamie Gorelick and a few other former members of the Clinton administration may be embarrassed. The best that can happen is that we will understand the importance of coordinated data mining and information sharing in fighting the war on terror, and that could save lots of lives in the future.
So for those like Judd who are clearly nervous about this issue, the choice is simple: should we investigate, and try to save lives in the future; or should we “Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil” about Jamie Gorelick? You make the call.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:32 pmOf course, one might ask, what are Judd’s military credentials? Mipe’s? Nico’s? Christy’s? How about the two Johns? When and where did they serve, and with what distinction?
I’ll ask them that as soon as I find any evidence they ever promoted war, or referred to themselves by a military rank.
It’s all irrelevant in any event. The First Amendment protects the free speech of all Americans, not just those who have served in the military, or in combat. So if we are going to give special weight in the court of public opinion to the military service record of each commenter, then this site should never post on any matter relating to war or national defense matters without prominently listing those credentials, and linking to the many milblogs that also address these subjects.
As always, you miss the point, BS. Being a chickenhawk doesn’t give Cap’n Cubicle’s opinions less weight. (That he doesn’t know what he’s talking about does, but that’s as may be.) What it does do is mark him as a hypocrite for supporting war but not being willing to make the kind of sacrifices for it that he expects from others. Now, he certainly has a Constitutional right to be a hypocrite, but that doesn’t mean I can’t consider him a clown and a blowhard because of it.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:39 pmbsr – you’re repeated denials of what the limitations of the memo and the value of Able Danger show you to be a person who isn’t credible. Yes you can complain about it. You have for many days now. But don’t be upset with us because we place so little merrit in your words or analysis.
There just is no “there” there.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:41 pmWas Jamie Gorelick elected (selected) President in 2000?
I seem to recall that the world class vacationer GW Bush was installed by the Supreme Court. Did I miss something? Wouldn’t 9 months be enough time for this administration to fix these problems? I assume that there must have been some executive action to address this. No? Or is this just more typical RW after-the-fact blame assigning to avoid responsibility?
I guess we need to reopen the investigation and get GW Bush under oath this time to explain this(and no holding hands with Dick Cheney, either).
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:43 pm#40: You make my point. I mean ALL of it – not just a few cherry-picked comments like the two you mentioned above. By the way, in the interest of full disclosure let’s be honest: Barry McCaffery is a retired general and Vietnam veteran who has been a critic of the Iraq war since it began. Before that he served as Clinton’s drug czar. So if we are weighting opinions here, his political bias is outweighed by the knowledge and experience of the commanders in the field and the troops on the ground.
Gen. Swannack commanded troops on the ground in western Iraq during 2003-2004, so he has more credibility in terms of his more recent observations. I also note that he has frequently contradicted both the Bush administration and his fellow commanders in his public comments during the last two years.
Sorting all this out requires more debate, not less. Let’s have as many military opinions as possible, and see what the warrior class thinks. My guess is that they support the mission and their commander in chief, and that, for that reason alone, Judd and others will never give them a forum here.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:50 pmBefore that he served as Clinton’s drug czar. So if we are weighting opinions here, his political bias is outweighed by the knowledge and experience of the commanders in the field and the troops on the ground.
Once touched by the “clenis” (Clinton’s willie) or even in the same room with it, any 100% conservative is sullied for life!
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:55 pmWhatever BSR. Its an open forum, thats why YOU are here.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:56 pm#45 – “Barry McCaffery is a retired general and Vietnam veteran who has been a critic of the Iraq war since it began.”
To borrow from a famous jailed reporter, “He was proved fucking right!”
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:57 pm#45 – “see what the warrior class thinks.”
In response to “‘Because we gave our word’” (letter, April 6), about people who are dodging military service and refuse to serve overseas: Yes, I did give the oath, I did swear to uphold the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies. I swore to preserve freedom, but what they left out was to preserve freedom of other countries. Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11. I understand fighting for freedom when it’s necessary, and Afghanistan was necessary, but not Iraq.
Don’t bash others because they think this mission is complete crap, because it is. It’s stupid and we’re risking other soldiers’ lives. For what? Iraqi liberation? Weapons of mass destruction? Neither one of those has been even close to being found.
Pfc. Bradley Robb
Camp Striker, Iraq
LETTER PUBLISHED IN “STARS AND STRIPES”
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:58 pmhttp://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=28400
I think I have read somewhere ebfore that this supposed “wall” that NED and JPOD tie to Gorelick was actually instituted in the Reagan White House. Is this true?
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:00 pm#50 – apparently so (from MediaMatters):
REPORT OF THE JOINT INQUIRY INTO THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
BY THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
DECEMBER 2002
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24jul20031400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf
In sum, we think that the FISA as passed by Congress in 1978 clearly did not preclude or limit the government’s use or proposed use of foreign intelligence information, which included evidence of certain kinds of criminal activity, in a criminal prosecution. In order to understand the FISA court’s decision, however, it is necessary to trace developments and understandings within the Justice Department post-Truong as well as after the passage of the Patriot Act. As we have noted, some time in the 1980s–the exact moment is shrouded in historical mist–the Department applied the Truong analysis to an interpretation of the FISA statute.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:04 pmUNITED STATES FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE COURT OF REVIEW
BSR – “mission”
LIke, making Iraq safe for an Islamic Republic?
“The draft also stipulates that Iraq is an Islamic state and that no law can contradict the principles of Islam, Shiite and Kurdish negotiators said. Opponents have charged that last provision would subject Iraqis to religious edicts by individual clerics.
The Shiite and Kurdish negotiators also said draft calls for the presence of Islamic clerics on the court that would interpret the constitution. Family matters such as divorce, marriage or inheritance would be decided either by religious law or civil law as an individual chooses — a condition that opponents say would likely lead to women being forced into unfavorable rulings for them by opponents demanding judgments under Islamic law.”
from today’s WaPo
“
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:10 pmAmerican Kids are dying in Iraq and all I got was this lousy Fundamentalist Islamic Theocracy!
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:07 pmLet Freedom Rain!
Free-Dumb is on the March!
Can’t pedal while I’m choking on this pretzel!
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:08 pmThere is a lot of highly qualified military opinion out there that the left doesn’t want to hear.
may I add here: aha ha ha ha ha! I think not.
also, BSR – the worst that could happen is that Jamie Gorelick gets made a scapegoat, has her career and life ruined, and no changes are made to stop another terrorist attack. But I am glad that you are on board with “she might be embarrassed” – way to really see what is going on.
Finally – BSR I am glad to hear you say that a man is “biased” and tainted because he served in the Clinton adminstration. Are you then willing to apply that same standard to everyone? somehow I doubt it.
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:12 pmdeegahl, there’s a link to a media matters report on that subject in this post.
Check it out, long, but it speaks to the REAL failure of a leader who is in over his head.
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:18 pmDon’t forget, the 1995 Gorelick memo was merely a re-emphasis of policies already in place, enacted post-Watergate to prevent buttwipes like Nixon from using the DoJ to go after private citizens with info provided by the FBI. Thank God for that too, just imagine what this administration would be doing to anyone who disagrees with them if they had the full power and force of the FBI behind them.
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:20 pm#50 Hell yeah, if she wants to divorce me, you bet I’m dragging her butt through Islamic court!
Then we’ll see who gets the Corvette, dammit.
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:35 pmHey Blue State, check out how Capt. Crunch, er Ed, got his name. I’m sure you fact checked first. Right?
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:54 pm[...] That being the case, you could almost predict what would happen once Weldon opened his mouth about his mythical chart—i.e. such comic moments as his apparently bogus claim that he gave his one and only copy of the chart to Stephen Hadley at the NSC (Hadley: “No comment”), or the hearsay evidence from an alleged “whistleblower” that would be hyped to the skies by the conservative media, but never substantiated (can you say “Bill Burkett”?) And of course, let’s not forget the relentless, repetitive sliming of Jamie Gorelick and the 9/11 Commission—which still hasn’t stopped, even though the entire story has pretty much fallen apart. [...]
August 22nd, 2005 at 10:59 pmSlade Gorton, not Gordon.
August 23rd, 2005 at 2:50 am58: I know, Fox is stll running with this Able Danger thing even after the GOP memebers of the 9-11 commish have said it is bogus and the Pentagon has said the same…
But this is the same folks who say they are pro-military but they sure bashed the Naval records that said John Kerry was a hero in Vietnam. The double talk is stagering.
August 23rd, 2005 at 11:24 amJamie Gorelick turned out to be one phenomenal frigging incompetent based on her 1995 memo ….. whether it went to the DOD or not. Remember that the first WTC bombing had occurred in ‘93. But whether she was any more incompetent than the rest of Billy Buttafucco Clintoon’s fools, it is hard to say. Don’t forget about the lying Sandy Burglar. Or Clintoon himself who admitted turning down Sudan’s offer to transfer bin Laden to our custody in ‘96. The “mainstream” media liars of course will continue covering all this up or it could hurt the cattle-futures scammer’s chances of being the Democrat candidate in ‘08.
August 23rd, 2005 at 1:07 pm#61: Republicanism is more and more similar to alcoholism.When you get down and start taking responsibility for your own actions and lack of them, you will be on the path to redemption. Until then, you are just some fool weeping in the back of the bar about how everyone else is to blame.
August 23rd, 2005 at 1:33 pmStatement by Joe Yowsa
“Or Clintoon himself who admitted turning down Sudan’s offer to transfer bin Laden to our custody in ‘96.”
From the 9/11 commission’s report, I’ll quote the relevant passage for you and leave the link, if you’re interested in learning the truth of the matter.
“To test Sudan’s willingness to cooperate on terrorism the United States presented eight demands to their
Sudanese contact. The one that concerned Bin Ladin was a request for intelligence information about Bin Ladin’s contacts in Sudan.”
“These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a source of controversy. Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.”
…….
“Yet both Berger and Clarke also said the lack of an indictment made no difference. Instead they said the idea was not worth pursuing because there was no chance that Sudan would ever turn Bin Ladin over to a hostile country. If Sudan had been serious, Clarke said, the United States would have worked something out.
“However, the U.S. government did approach other countries hostile to Sudan and Bin Ladin about whether they would take Bin Ladin. One was apparently
interested. No handover took place.”
Probably a waste of time on my part though. I don’t know what’s worse about your side, your mindless certainty or your laziness. Actually, I’m coming to realize that your mindless certainty is just a product of your laziness. The biggest workout your brains get is listening to Rush for 3 hours a day, which is to say no workout at all.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf
August 23rd, 2005 at 3:38 pmThroatwarbler Mangrove,
Read. Try to learn.
Sandy Burglar to the Compost’s Barton Gellman -
“The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States.”
Susan Rice, an assistant secretary of state under Clintoon, to the Village Voice -
“They [the Sudanese] calculated that we didn’t have the means to successfully prosecute bin Laden. That’s why I question the sincerity of the offer.”
Billy Buttafucco Clintoon, in his own words, at a fund-raiser in 2002 -
“At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.”
Good luck. :-|
August 25th, 2005 at 11:08 pm[...] Kind of a convenient coincidence. I was hoping to come across something with a little humor in it today and I had been thinking for the last couple days about how many conservatives are still stuck in unthinking parrot mode. A frequent reframe on a political message board I frequented over at Yahoo a month or so before the 2004 elections was that John Kerry was a communist. Almost like clockwork a poster, who others guessed to be around 15 or 16, would on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays declare Senator Kerry’s far left alligence, but on Tuesdays and Thurdays he would admittedly maintain that the distinquished Senator was a rich elitist. Perhaps I’m not as politically savy as I would like to think since I could never figure out how one could be both a communist and a rich elitest. That the poster could never manage to make any valid arguments to either claim didn’t stop him from his self repudiating obsession. When commenters on his posts pointed out the vast and overwhelmingly unearned wealth of the members of the current administration, their incestuous ties to certain business interests, and the elite schools and social connections which they have, teen conservative waved off the obvious hypocrisy as irrelevant. So he was just a kid with a computer and an internet connection. The thing is what he said and deeply believed was no different then fringe right adults like Sean Hannity, Glenn Reynolds, or John Gibson. Time after time on the internet and the airwaves conservatives show themselves to be capable of not much more then punkish conservative teen level ideological hypocrisy and lies. Which brings me to another conundrum besides the communists versus elitest question; how can conservatives claim to have values if most of what conservatives say is a lie or riddled with contradictions. [...]
April 30th, 2006 at 3:38 amHi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! 7DLus8O2v6rDY
January 12th, 2007 at 1:25 amTeen Girls Teen Chat Teen Panties
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 8:58 pmarmy retirement
One notable blogging tool that does not support trackback yet is Blogger. Some weblog software programs, such as Wordpress, Movable
March 28th, 2008 at 8:40 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 6:20 amTeen Girls Teen Titans Raven Tiffany Teen
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 1st, 2008 at 4:24 pmTeen Girls Black Teens Kiss Lesbian Teen
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:44 amYoung Girls Young Girl Models Young Puffy Nipple
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 5th, 2008 at 10:30 pm