FLASHBACK: Days After 9/11 Commission Testimony, Wallace Doesn’t Ask Rice About Infamous PDB
FLASHBACK: Days After 9/11 Commission Testimony, Wallace Doesn’t Ask Rice About Infamous PDB
One of the most poignant moments of President Clinton’s interview with Fox News was when he called out Chris Wallace for giving the right a free pass on terrorism. An excerpt:
WALLACE: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?
CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked: Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole? I want to know how many you asked: Why did you fire Dick Clarke? I want to know…
WALLACE: We asked…Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday sir?
CLINTON: I don’t believe you ask them that.
WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of…
CLINTON: You didn’t ask that did you? Tell the truth.
WALLACE: About the USS Cole?
CLINTON: Tell the truth.
WALLACE: I…with Iraq and Afghanistan there’s plenty of stuff to ask.
Chris Wallace interviewed then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on April 18, 2004, just days after she testified before the 9/11 Commission. Wallace didn’t ask her about the USS Cole or the decision to demote Richard Clarke. He also didn’t ask Rice about the notorious August 6 Presidential Daily Brief entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.”
Instead Wallace perpetuated a smear against 9/11 Commissioner and former Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, falsely claiming she was responsible for creating a “wall” between the F.B.I. and the CIA:
WALLACE: When commission member Jaime Gorelick was questioning you about that, did you know that when she was the deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, that she had issued an order that, in fact, helped build the so-called wall even higher?
RICE: I did not know that, Chris. I did know, of course, that she’d been deputy attorney general. I did know that there were responsibilities there for issues concerning counterterrorism, but no, I did not know.
This smear was rebutted by 9/11 Commission member Slade Gorton (R) who called the charge “ridiculous.” Gordon wrote the Washington Times, “She had nothing to do with any ‘wall’ between law enforcement and our intelligence agencies.”
Wallace has been a source of right-wing misinformation about 9/11 for years. Bill Clinton finally called him on it.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
It’s about time we started standing up to the Rightwing in solid ways. With the truth, not by playing their game. It takes the Big Dog to do it. Maybe others will catch on.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:04 amThey’ve all been a source of misinformation.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:09 amFunny how the real information is slipped into the least expected of places, like SNL…http://cloaknswagger.blogspot.com/2006/09/video-snl-911-truth.html
Pray that people continue to come forth and bring testimony and evidence of all the criminal wrongdoing of this Administration. May the “October Surprise” be an onslaught of irrefutable evidence of knowing violations of the law by Bush and Co.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:13 amNote how carefully worded is Rice’s answer: she does not repeat the lie about Gorelick, but says she “didn’t know.”
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:16 amThis is an example of how expert they are at letting distortions and misinformation (if not outright lies) continue to go around the country — allowing them to reply to any future questions about the veracity of any claim — that they never said those words.
Slick.
If my child “matures” to be as unethical and inept as Mike Wallaces son I will hang my head in shame. If I had the platform as Mike Wallace does, I would announce to the world how terribly sorry I was that I did such a bad parenting job that I have raised such a vicious hatemonger. However, Mikes son would then go on the air and repeat the smear that his father is senile!!!
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:18 amBnF
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:21 amDaniel Ellsberg recently said that the nation needs more whistleblowers. He regrets that he didn’t come forward with his information about the Nixon administration sooner. Ellsberg did acknowledge that there is a great deal of testimony out there confirming corruption and lies in the Bush administration, but without actual hard copy (Emails, tapes, letters, etc.) it will be extremely hard, if not impossible, for anything to hold up in a court.
It is no wonder that so much that is questioned now is unavailable for national security reasons — I think the security of one GWBush (and his company) is the true reason.
Isn’t Chris Wallace the little squirt of MiKe Wallace? Chris Wallace, the Faux News toady of the Right wing? The same Chris Wallace who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and who wouldn’t have amounted to a hill of beans in the literary world except for his father’s contacts and superior reputation?
Yeah, that’s the same lame-assed, shallow and biased Chris Wallace all right.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:25 amTo be that ugly and a compulsive liar too;what a combo platter for a Canadian diplomat.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:27 amWhat the ‘heil’ is that guy thinking?
#5 Mikes son would then go on the air and repeat the smear that his father is senile!!! Thanks for the reminder.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:37 amTwerp with a smirk, Chris Wallace, sold out his own father with his loyalty to the corrupted Fox News.
I wonder why Chris Wall-ass didn’t ask Secretary of State Condoleezza “Condi” Rice if there was any truth to the rumor that Canadian Foreign Minister Peter MacKay might be getting into her pants?
I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he and Faux News program spend years dogging President Clinton on his sex life?
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:37 amChris isn’t fit to use the “Wallace” name. What a hack.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:43 amI never knew about this, and it’s simply stunning.
I remember watching Ben-Veniste grill that woman about the PDB. She was sitting there shrugging her shoulders, shaking her head, and using a tone of voice clearly meant to minimize the gravity of the title of the PDB, and my only thought was, this is the most evil woman in existence.
She has only continued to confirm my suspicions of that day.
Mike Wallace must be so ashamed of his spawn…
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:43 am#6, Marie, I saw Mr. Ellsberg make that request, and I agree wholeheartedly.
In a Dictatorship, the Dictator is the State, therefore everything which is done to protect the Dictator is done to protect the State, hence everything which is incriminating to the Dictator must therefore be kept from the light of day as a “national security” issue.
And it’s nice to see how you’re picking up on the nuanced language of obfuscation.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:43 am
Let’s not forget who preceeded Chris W***** as FNS host: Tony Snow.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:46 amCan someone, anyone, explain to me why trolls are so ignorant? Can anyone explain to me why these “people” would back an administration who does not care about American people? They cannot ALL have IQ’s under 100. Perhaps half of them have bank accounts as large as Bush’s and half have IQ’s as low?
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:52 amWALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of…
CLINTON: You didn’t ask that did you? Tell the truth.
WALLACE: About the USS Cole?
CLINTON: Tell the truth.
…
…i LOVED that part!
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:55 amPresident Clinton, you’re the best. Joisting with the giant republican lie machines, Faux News and ABC. Only one problem, the sheeple can’t remember what they had for dinner last night let alone what happened or who said what on 9/12/01 (day after 9/11). The sheeple have two pathologies, poor long term memory and who cares, doesn’t effect my world syndrome.
Liberty moves down the slope a little more each month. Congress does nothing, Democrats do nothing, sheeple do nothing. Yes, there is the occassional patriot, the rare whistleblower. The small individuals willing to face embarishment for heckling or causing a pause to make a point before his lord our King George. Far not though, our Congress even passed legislation to limit the ability of the government whistleblower, so the slave of the machine has no voice, all is good. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, you need to worry about were the money will come from for gas tomorrow to get to your losy I can’t make ends meet job.
Yes, thanks President Clinton for taking on the propaganda machines, the term Don Quiote seems to apply.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:56 amExcellent TP! This is EXACTLY how we will fight the corrupt neocons and defeat them.
It’s something I’ve also been trying to teach my students – that in order to be taken seriously and credibly, they must back up their opinions with facts and experience. That no one says “Well, Susie, in 3 weeks I’m going to ask you a question about your project. That exact question will be”How is your project coming along?”, and the options will be a) great, b) good, or C) just okay…
I’m beginning to understand why so many bright children become stupid adults. We aren’t teaching them how to be relevant or valid…
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:01 pmI mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he and Faux News program spend years dogging President Clinton on his sex life?
Comment by Joe+Sixpack — September 23, 2006 @ 11:37 am
You’re not wrong… :) And, supposedly, what’s good for the gander is also good for the goose.
In fact, I think they need to broadcast Bush trying to fondle Angela Merkle a few dozen times a day.
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:03 pmYet all this time Democrats go on FOX because they think they have more to gain than is lost by doing so. A comfy Democrat secure in their district doesn’t care about FOX disinformation because their jobs aren’t at risk.
FOX is successful because of Democrats. Otherwise it would just be a Country Club for Neocons.
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:05 pmhttp://cloaknswagger.blogspot.com/2006/09/video-snl-911-truth.html
Comment by Cloak&Swagger — September 23, 2006 @ 11:09 am
that doesn’t seem to work for me… i get a “not found” page…
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:07 pm…
In fact, I think they need to broadcast Bush trying to fondle Angela Merkle a few dozen times a day.
Comment by unbelievable
OMG, that just makes the hair on the back of my neck stand on end when I see that. GWB is just horrible.
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:13 pmmarie
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:18 pmEllsberg blew the whistle on the Johnson administration, not the Nixon administration. You’re confused as to the subject of the Pentagon Papers. They revealed how Johnson trumped up the Gulf of Tonkin affair to get Congressional approval to bomb north vietnam. It was Nixon who later had Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office broken into to try to discredit ellsberg. I realize you don’t like to speak ill of Democrats, but it is important to keep your facts straight. No?
Off topic, but I didn’t want this to get lost on an older thread:
I believe I have found the text of the “compormise†on the Military Commissions.
See: http://thomas.loc.gov/
search “military commissions†then hit the link to “S 3930 IS.”
Note:
and
The President will have dictatorial powers in certain areas:
Finally, a definition of Torture the NeoCons and Evangelical Christians can live with:
Note that the term `serious physical pain or suffering’ in A above is not defined in the bill. However if the provisions defining the term for B above apply, then techniques which do not cause bodily injury will be permissible, ergo, stress positions, waterboarding, microwaving, plasma weapons, all designed to cause excruciating pain without bodily injury.
Confessions obtained through these methods will be admissible to put a person to death, whether it is a self-confession, or evidence obtained by another coerced to name names.
Appeal will be limited to questions of law, not evidence. This bill takes us back to the “good old days†of the Spanish Inquisition and the the Tower of London.
This bill was introduced:
Frankly, I fail to see much of a “compromise.â€
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — September 23, 2006 @ 10:25 am
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:23 pmplasma weapons? do you have more info on them
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:27 pmViva, Bill!
Chris Wallace is one of those typical shits who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:27 pmwhat are plasma weapons?
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:27 pmbriseadh na faire
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:28 pmyou mention plasma weapons. What are they?
OMG, that just makes the hair on the back of my neck stand on end when I see that. GWB is just horrible.
Comment by Zooey — September 23, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
Agreed…
But I think this is a reminder that while Bill Clinton might have had contact with a woman who wasn’t his wife, at least it was consensual. Bush just grabbed this poor woman without her permission, and at his will, regardless of who is watching. Doesn’t it make his actions worse that Clinton’s? At least Clinton’s actions were wanted. Just saying…
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:32 pmBriseadh na Faire,
You’re right, that doesn’t look like any sort of compromise at all. It’s disgusting. This is not what we are. This cannot be allowed to continue.
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:33 pmTorture is, on any level, inhumane. Those who try to sell it are simply inhuman themselves. No matter what they ’say’ to the contrary. Their horrific actions speak louder than their words.
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:38 pmPlasma weapons shoot a stream of ions or charged particles.
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:40 pmTorture
Many Americans, myself included, wanted to bust Muslim heads into the next century. Instead, Bush is spending billions on Muslims and giving our ports over to Dubai.
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:40 pmTorture is how Bush maintains an image of a stud. Smoke and mirrors.
unbelievable,
You’re right. Monica at least had the chance to consent to what happened between her and Bill.
Merkel looked like she have gladly slugged GWB, but had the presence of mind to remember where she was — unlike GWB.
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:42 pmIt is amazing some of the information that is still floating on the internet:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/03/us_plasma_weapon/
and
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7077
Maximum pain is aim of new US weapon
02 March 2005
Notice the date. And recall the recent revelations about the Military’s new Microwave weapon, where the General suggested using it on civilians in the United States.
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:44 pmThese media asholes are shocked when a progressive refuses to play patty-cake and attacks them on their constant shit storm.
The Big Dog has shown how. Who cares if they call us shrill and rude? How could anything be worse than being called a traitor? They have blown their wad on attacking us; now is the time to hit back!
IF NOT NOW, WHEN?
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:46 pmMerkel looked like she have gladly slugged GWB, but had the presence of mind to remember where she was — unlike GWB.
Comment by Zooey — September 23, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
Next time she sees him, she should haul off and slug him, hard. She could then say that it was a pre-emptive strike, and no one could hold her anymore accountable than they’ve held Bush’s for using such tactics.
Did you see Chavez say that the UN podium still smelled like sulphur from Satan Bush’s appearance the day before? That was hilarious… even if a bit melodramatic.
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:51 pmCondi is a welterweight on the world stage and has no more business assisting with foreign policy than the Good Humor Man! She’s been caught telling outright lies and, when cornered, puts on her “He-Women/S/M” attitude which only further convinces the viewing public that she’s got something to hide.
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:53 pmIF NOT NOW, WHEN?
Comment by Toes — September 23, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
We’re with you.
This week I showed my students some French Renaissance architecture and told them what it cost to build it – human lives. I asked them how it made them feel and they said angry, of course. I said “Good, now go out and vote, because your government is going to do the same thing to you if you let them.”
(The Bastille is now at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.)
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:54 pmclinton lied and monica sighed/Bush lied and human beings died….the new Mantra.
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:56 pmDid you see Chavez say that the UN podium still smelled like sulphur from Satan Bush’s appearance the day before? That was hilarious… even if a bit melodramatic.
Comment by unbelievable
I saw that last night on the Daily Show, but I thought they were doing funny things with the translation again. Chavez actually said that? Dude’s crazed, but ya gotta love him.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:03 pmChavez entire speech can be read here:
http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/news/patriotnews/stories/un_chavez_0920.html
He does make many good points, especially if you are aware about the neocon agenda.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:10 pmChavez actually said that? Dude’s crazed, but ya gotta love him.
Comment by Zooey — September 23, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
I think he did. And that that’s why Jon Stewart was pointing out that he’s crazy. Only Chavez would say what everyone else is thinking… :)
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:11 pmtypical Rice idiocy…”I did not know”….”I don’t think so”….”Something like”….”I don’t recall”…..
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:28 pmzooey – he did say it, and probably had good reasons – i mean, it’s not often you get an assassination attempt on your life videotaped for proof!
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:32 pmbut a good many of the statesmen here admonished his remarks, basically saying, “hey, he’s our idiot, and you’re a guest and shouldn’t say those kinds of things.”
but the audience was laughing in approval…
…
#15 Jules,
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:59 pmJohn Dean has quite lengthy explanations of why people still defend Bush&Co in his book Without Conscience.
I won’t go into it here because it is too much but essentially, there are authoritarian, conservative personalities being studied for fifty years. Those who support Bush – indeed Bush and the conservatives themselves – all fit into certain personalities that project into political authoritarianism.
In reading the book, it hasn’t changed my low estimation of those blind idolators, but it does explain them in sociological terms.
There are conservatives with conscience and those without — you can guess which are the ones without.
Many however, simply find comfort in not having to think too deeply and are able to compartmentalize the contradictions.
#23 tureen
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:13 pmI did read the Pentagon Papers, and I remember when it happened in real time too. I was cheering for Ellsberg.
Ellsberg did expose the lies of the Viet Nam war of course — and I recall my joy when Johnson announced he would not seek reelection because I despised the man.
But I do not have my facts mixed up – I simply did not speak clearly.
You are not defending Nixon or Johnson are you? Or McNamara for that matter? Or the Nixon White House?
45, you forgot “No one could have anticipated . . . ” (my all time favorite).
September 23rd, 2006 at 4:20 pmThe KGB can be expected to try to plant its agents among American experts on the Soviet Union, as official or unofficial advisers on national security affairs…..
…….
In the long run, American acceptance of Perestroika as a genuine, spontaneous process entailing the abandonment of that strategic objective will divide the American nation. The United States might well slide into a political morass comparable to the Weimar Republic in Germany in the 1920s. That would make Soviet victory through convergence coupled with war blackmail a realistic prospect. The risk of war might in any case increase.
The current joke among Soviet bureaucrats in Moscow is said to be that Perestroika will be followed by ‘perestrelka’ – that is to say, a shootout ending in a blood-bath in the Lenin-Stalin style…..
KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, Memoranda to the CIA, January 4, 1988, published in The Perestroika Deception [page 62]
September 23rd, 2006 at 4:40 pmThe world knows EL DIABLOCO are proven criminals from their actions.
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:47 pmThe world does not believe a word ever uttered by these compulsive liars or any other cohorts like congress or the house of MIS-representives,ALL CORRUPTED.
AMERICA will never be trusted again for very good reasons, NO DOUBT.
AMERICA SHOULD BE ASHAMED FOR WHAT THEY DO TO THE WORLD.
SICKENING AMERICA WITHOUT A SOUL.
UNIVERSAL LAW OF KARMA WILL BE DESERVED
WALLACE: When commission member Jaime Gorelick was questioning you about that, did you know that when she was the deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, that she had issued an order that, in fact, helped build the so-called wall even higher?
RICE: I did not know that, Chris. I did know, of course, that she’d been deputy attorney general. I did know that there were responsibilities there for issues concerning counterterrorism, but no, I did not know.
Which one is the dog and which is the pony?
I’ve heard republicans use this tactic when talking before an empty chamber, and I’ve seen it on late-night infomercials, where the actors talk about sexual disfunction – is there a connection?
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:00 pmPersonally, I’ve always been bothered by the free pass Rice has been given about her comment that “We learned on 9/11 that our oceans no longer protected us.” This was from an alleged expert on the Soviet Union, which had several thousand intercontinental ballistic missiles which they could launch over the North Pole at us. Truthfully, did she really believe that prior to 9/11 our oceans protected us? Really? Because if she didn’t really believe that, then why did she lie and say it? And if she really did believe that, why was she given a job in our government?
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:03 pmThere are people who mean us ill and we employ people like
Condoleezza Rice, who’s Soviet Union “exchange student” visit in 1978
is not included in her official biography, and as she always claims that
Russia [run by Russian communist criminals -ed. note] is our strategic
partner in the war on terror, we have to seriously question her ideology
and life’s philosophy, or perhaps only her own “Sovietologist expertise”.
http://www.anti-communistanalyst.com/Ricefiasco.html
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:13 pmYou lefties shouldn’t be too hard on Rice. After all, she’s one of yours.
Research on Rice should include study of the political views of her father, which you will find, contrary to conventional wisdom, were not of a conservative bent.
One must also include in their study of Rice an in-depth investigation into her self-admitted mentor, a man named Josef Korbel, who, evidence suggests, was a false defector and a commuist operative, in addition to being the father of (probable) commnist operative and this nation’s first female secretary of state, Madelaine Albright.
It cannot be overlooked and indeed must be viewed with great suspicion that Rice spent 1978 as a Soviet exchange student in Moscow, a time when the only foreign students allowed study there were either communists, had communist leanings, or were viewed by the communists as able to be manipulated, coerced, or entrapped to become agents of the Soviet regime at a future point in time.
Then there are Rice’s publications completed as a graduate student which are not only of inferior quality but are replete with reliance on the word of Soviet KGB agents, and are therefore full of inaccuracies and disinformation.
If you think it impossible an agent of a foreign power could rise to the level of secretary of state, then you’ve never heard of Alger Hiss, a proven Soviet agent who held that post under FDR.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was staged.
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:33 pm“There is one evil I dread, and that is their spies.”
Quote by George Washington
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:01 pmNote how carefully worded is Rice’s answer: she does not repeat the lie about Gorelick, but says she “didn’t know”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I only need to see the desperation on her face.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:45 pmYou lefties shouldn’t be too hard on Rice. After all, she’s one of yours.
POST IT THEN!!
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:52 pmYou lefties shouldn’t be too hard on Rice. After all, she’s one of yours.
Then ask yourself why bush and Cheney appointed her
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:54 pmBush appointed her because he was deceived, just as Reagan and Thatcher were deceived. Just as you are deceived. Whether he is aware of who she is now is debatable, but the likely case is that she has been “turned.” If she hasn’t, then it is the case that Bush is still being deceived. But there are ample indications that this is no longer the case.
America has had its back against he wall since the Soviets gained strategic superiority in the mid 1980’s, a fact of which very few are aware.
Anatoliy Golitsyn tried to warn us, but we didn’t listen. We are now in The Final Phase.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:58 amION,
Cibulka is trying to be a man of mystery. Don’t ruin the moment…
:)
September 24th, 2006 at 1:00 amExactly at what point did the broke ass Soviets gain the upper hand in the mid 80’s? Just curious. I wasn’t aware garage sales of tanks and subs were “gaining the strategic advantage.”
September 24th, 2006 at 2:03 am[...] [link][more] [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 5:53 amIt took the “broke ass Soviets” only 18 months after the U.S. first did it to detonate a hydrogen bomb.
The “broke ass Soviets” launched the world’s first satellite, 4 months before the U.S. was able to send up its first orbital machine.
The “broke ass Soviets” put a man in space 23 days before America accomplished this feat.
The “broke ass Soviets” put more than 5 times as many satellites in space during the 1960’s and 1970’s than did the U.S., more than 80% of which exclusively served military purposes.
The “broke ass Soviets” put offensive weapons in space orbit in the 1970’s. The U.S. still has no such weapons.
The “broke ass Soviets” achieved nuclear weapons parity with the U.S. in 1978.
The “broke ass Soviets” achieved strategic superiority over the U.S. soon after.
By 1985 the “boke ass Soviets” had a 7-1 numerical advantage in nuclear weapons over the U.S.
Today the “broke ass Soviets” have more than 20 times more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world (including the U.S.) combined.
Today the “broke ass Soviets” are the number 1 producer of both crude oil and natural gas in the world.
Today the “broke ass Soviets take comfort in the fact that during the Cold war they built more than 200 cities the size of Washington, D.C., complete with entertainment complexes and shopping centers and capable of housing more than 40 million people, dep enough underground to be impervious to nuclear attack.
.
.
.
The question was how the “broke ass Soviets” were able to accomplish such things. The answer is simple: By spending more than 20% of GDP on such things year after year, their military economy was also able to benefit from their highly effective intelligence operation which saved them countless billions of dollars in research and development costs, as they were able to steal the West’s secrets with near impunity. In Japan, for example, two pallets loaded with sophisticated electronic gear were loaded onto Soviet planes each week, bound for Soviet labs.
The Soviets, being in a contiuous state of war with the U.S. since 1917, intent on establishing the “worldwide dictatorship of the proletariat,” have during all this time operated a war economy. The needs of the average Soviet citizen have always een and always will be subordinate to the wants and needs of the military.
The idea that Reagan broke the back of the Soviet Union by outspending them is a carefully crafted myth that the West was only too eager to believe and declare victory. The “collapse” of the Soviet Union was staged, planned and orchestrated at the highest level of the Soviet government as part of a strategic deception begun in 1958 and which is in what Anatoliy golitsyn termed the “Final Phase” today.
What is the Final Phase? Click on my name and find out.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:41 amI blame the democrats for electing Harry Reid as Leader for the Senate. His mealy mouth appeasing the Republicans has gotten on my last nerves. For a Senator from Nevada, to be elected the Leader of the Senate, who can’t stop CHILD ABUSE in Nevada, Arizona and UTAH…should be the Leader is shameful.
YES! I’m calling out all those Senators who take money from polygamist and you better believe that’s why the government doesn’t put a stop to it with strong prison terms….All those child abusers getting away with it…they should get a mandatory 10 year prison term in state or federal prison, no jail time.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:04 pmAnyone who has actually read the “infamous” August 6 PDB knows that it contained absolutely no new intelligence about possible terrorist attacks. It did refer to the possible hijacking of planes. However, the information was from an uncorroborated 1998 report that said extremists planned to hijack planes to win the release of fellow extremists in prison in the U.S. It said nothing about using planes as missiles. (Obviously, if you use a plane as a missile, you have destroyed your only bargaining chip in winning such releases.)
It is simply dishonest of John Podesta and Think Progress to present the August 6 PDB as any more than it was (i.e., a historical document of little or no intelligence value).
September 24th, 2006 at 2:36 pm“I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked: Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole?” – Bill Clinton
The Cole was attacked in October 2000, i.e., on CLINTON’S WATCH. Clinton did nothing about the Cole.
His excuse for inaction is that they weren’t sure al Qaeda was responsible. However, Clinton attacked (albeit ineffectively) al Qaeda just two weeks after our embassies in Africa were bombed in August 1998. Apparently, the intelligence process works more quickly when there is a sex scandal involving the White House.
Why did Clinton need confirmation before responded to the USS Cole attack? There was already the indictment against bin Laden in 1998 (which, among other things, claimed Saddam was cooperating with al Qaeda) and, of course, the bombings of our embassies. Clinton already had reason enough to go after al Qaeda after the attack on the Cole. His failure to do so only gave more credence to bin Laden’s believe that the U.S. would not come after him.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:42 pmIf Clinton had gone after OBL after the Cole incident before it was proven to be him, wouldn’t that have been preemptive? Wouldn’t that have appeared to be that Clinton ws stirring up a hornet’s nest to afflict the new President Bush, when Clinton didn’t even have proof of guilt?
September 24th, 2006 at 5:32 pmAnd — when it was proven that the attack came from OBL, why did Bush ignore it? Why did he waste 8 months in going after OBL?
We had 8 years under Clinton without terrorist attack after the 1993 WTC bombers were prosecuted and imprisoned.
BTW, that 1993 WTC bombing came within a couple of weeks of Clinton’s inauguration — I don’t recall his blaming Bush I for dereliction of duty.
“If Clinton had gone after OBL after the Cole incident before it was proven to be him, wouldn’t that have been preemptive?”
No. It was already established that al Qaeda was behind the bombings of our embassies in Africa two years prior to the attack on the USS Cole. In other words, Clinton ALREADY had a reason to go after al Qaeda. He failed to do so.
Also, Clinton launched a preemptive strike against Iraq in December 1998. Richard Clarke in October 1998 said the U.S. had the right to strike first to stops threats. So, clearly, the Clinton administration had no problem with preemptive strikes.
“We had 8 years under Clinton without terrorist attack after the 1993 WTC bombers were prosecuted and imprisoned.”
That’s not a true statement. There was a terrorist attack outside CIA hq IN 1993, the attack on the Khobar Towers, the bombing of two U.S. embassies (i.e., U.S. soil) in Africa, and the USS Cole.
In addition, not all of the 1993 WTC bombers were prosecuted and imprisoned. Abdul Rahman Yasin escaped to Iraq. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/60minutes/main510795.shtml
September 24th, 2006 at 6:02 pm[...] var flvclintoninterview320240 = new SWFObject(’http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/plugins/flvplayer.swf?file=http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/flv/2006/09/clintoninterview.320.240.flv&autoStart=false’, ‘em-flvclintoninterview320240′, ‘320′, ‘260′, ‘6′, ‘#ffffff’); flvclintoninterview320240.addParam(’quality’, ‘high’); flvclintoninterview320240.addParam(’wmode’, ‘transparent’); flvclintoninterview320240.write(’flvclintoninterview320240′); We fact-check Wallace’s claim that he asked Bush administration officials tough questions about their pre-9/11 efforts to combat terrorism here, here and here. [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 6:12 pm[...] var flvclintoninterview320240 = new SWFObject(’http://www.jefferysaddoris.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/flvplayer.swf?file=http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/flv/2006/09/clintoninterview.320.240.flv&autoStart=false’, ‘em-flvclintoninterview320240′, ‘320′, ‘260′, ‘6′, ‘#ffffff’); flvclintoninterview320240.addParam(’quality’, ‘high’); flvclintoninterview320240.addParam(’wmode’, ‘transparent’); flvclintoninterview320240.write(’flvclintoninterview320240′); We fact-check Wallace’s claim that he asked Bush administration officials tough questions about their pre-9/11 efforts to combat terrorism here, here and here.Transcript here. [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 6:43 pmI saw the exchange between Chris Wallace and Bill Clinton this morning on Fox, and I must say that it was one of those rare dramatic and memorable TV spectacles. After setting up a trap to embarras the former president, smirking and laughing, Chris then lied repeatedly when confronted if he had ever asked the same hard questions he ambushed Clinton with on Osama bin Laden and the Cole ship bombing in interviews with Bush Administration like State Secretary Rice. Huffington Post later fact-checked Chris’ lies and confirmed that he did not do so but let Rice get away with not only easy questions, but even provided leading questions that led to the government’s public misininformation on the Middle East crisis. That makes Chris Wallace a leading candidate to replace Press Secretary Snow as the official White House spokesman in case the latter ever quit his post to escape from the “rudeness†and “harassment†by skeptical reporters who regularly bombard him with hard ball questions during their White House press conferences. — Gene, Los Angeles, California
September 24th, 2006 at 6:46 pmI will grant you your points, because I have not done sufficient research to learn just who had the right to preemptively attack whom and when.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:00 pmUntil Bush, I don’t think it was USA practice to do so.
However, I think Bush’s claim that we have not had a terrorist attack in the US in 5 years is his justification to go around the world invading and bombing the enemies’ suspected homes in Iraq and neighboring civilians, in fairness should be compared to Clinton’s 8 years of not having a strong>domestic terrorist attack within our borders.
I won’t even go into the fact that Iraq was not a threat to us, nor did Iraq have the WMDs, nor did Saddam have a part in the 9/11 attacks.
If there is to be a discussion about terrorist attacks around the world, I believe that Bush loses that one too because the 2760 dead in Iraq are to be counted, and I have not included the European targets that have been hit.
It’t time for people to stop whining about the propaganda channel, and do something. I rarely watch FOX, but in the future I will be making an effort to do so from time to time so that I can make note of which companies’ products are advertised there, and avoid buying them when I go to the store.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:10 pmI can’t put into words how proud I was of President Clinton when I saw (on NBC) the clip of his interview with Chris Wallace.
We democrats have sat by and let the republicans dictate who we are and we don’t speak up (think SwiftBoat and Kerry).
I can’t imagine how “W” would have handled such an interview without a script and his brain, Karl Rove.
PGJudy
September 24th, 2006 at 8:45 pm[...] Yet for all Clinton’s passion, the debate and analysis surrounding these two events has been influenced by conservative ignorance on both sides of the political aisle – one that even Clinton fell into in his interview. [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 10:21 pmI can’t belive the way he was treated! President Clinton deferred to Richard Clarke’s book for answers for the American public several times, and Wallace/FOX treated it like the work of fiction it is!
September 24th, 2006 at 11:10 pmI saw this interview, and President Clinton did get angry. The interview does not make him look good. However, I sympathized with him. First of all Wallace’s facial expression was a sort of smirk, he repeatedly interrupted the former president as he spoke, and he continually laughed at the former president of the United States as he got angrier. Wallace was clearly pleased by his ability to get under President Clintons skin.
Next, were these questions really new? Haven’t we been asking questions for 5 years? Wasn’t that a major portion of the 9/11 commission report? Was this supposed to be the focus the interview? Reports have come out that the interview was in fact supposed to be about the presidents Global Initiative, and when he got there he was ambushed with questions about what he may or may not have done 15 years ago.
I think that what also made Clinton angry is the fact that he has been facing this misinformation campaign for several months. Just last month there was an ABC feature with incorrect information about Clinton’s antiterrorism policies. If you were repeatedly accused of causing 9/11 what would your reaction be?
After failures by the current administration in Afghanistan and the debacle in Iraq they have changed strategies. Now they are saying it is all Clintons fault, and more broadly it is all the liberals fault. Despite controlling all three branches of government they still are blaming the democrats. And still everyday there are huge mistakes being made. If we can not take responsibility for our mistakes how can we correct them?
It is as if the enemy is not Al Qaeda at all, but instead it is the liberals. It is as if the threat of America being more liberal is more of a threat in the minds of conservatives then the actions of Al Qaeda.
But this ideology can not lead to the defeat of Al Qaeda. In order to win this war we will need both liberals and conservatives. Whoever the next president is, he must unify the country, or we will find the war on terrorism to be a very very very long war.
Lao Tzu who was an ancient Chinese Philosopher once said.
A Great Nation is like a great man:
September 24th, 2006 at 11:45 pmWhen he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted, he corrects it.
He considers those that point out his mistakes as his most benevolent teacher.
He considers his enemy as the shadow that he himself casts.
Chris Wallace did ask the Bush Administration’s Secreatry of Defense Donald Rumsfeld the SAME question.
http://patterico.com/2006/09/24/5187/chris-wallace-has-indeed-grilled-bush-officials-about-failing-to-get-osama-before-911/
September 25th, 2006 at 1:53 amMy God, the pretzel-like contortions you all must go through to escape Clinton’s failure. Clinton had years to kill Laden. Bush had eight months. There’s plenty of blame to go around, but Clinton’s peevish response to Chris Wallace simply underscores the fact that he feels responsible, as we all should.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:12 amHahaha. Fox got caught with their pants down on this.
Fox network. By and for losers.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:47 am[...] Clinton is right about the context of the interview as well. The recent ABC special that attacked his record on anti-terrorism contradicted the factual record. Chris Wallace was eager to attack Bush’s anti-terrorism record, but failed to confront Bush administration officials in the past (link link link). And all of these one-sided, counterfactual attacks come as the election season starts to heat up. In short, what Clinton said was correct. [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 10:19 am[...] ThinkProgress fact-checked Wallace’s claim that he asked Bush administration officials tough questions about their pre-9/11 efforts to combat terrorism here, here and here. Media Matters debunks Wallace here. [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 12:12 pm“I said that I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman, and I stand by the truth of that statement.” – President Bill Clinton
September 25th, 2006 at 3:39 pmJoe Free, #80, nobody claims that Bush’s major failure happened in his first 8 months of office. Ok, so he didn’t hold a single meeting in that entire period to discuss the threat of bin Laden. But can anyone deny that in the days and years since 9/11, his legacy will be that he single-handedly squandered an unprecidented level of worldwide support for the U.S. by using the tragedy to create fear and support a corrupt war based on repeated lies?
September 25th, 2006 at 8:14 pmGet over it. Clinton just fell flat on his Global Ass, and you guys can’t take it.
You don’t really want those people back in the White House, do you? I mean, for God’s sake, they stole the freakin’ furniture.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:06 pmOne thing Former President Clinton’s interview proved is the level of intellect in his little head far surpasses what if any is contained in George W’s cranium. Speaking of thefts, as of yesterday 2700 of our nation’s best young men and women have been robbed of their lives to support a war based on lies, mis-information, misrepresentations, and selective disclosure. This does not include the thousands who have been permanently maimed and the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have also lost their lives.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:05 pmOh, Cibulka, Come off it and get a life! The apple CAN fall far from the tree. ie Mike Wallace-Chris Wallace!
September 26th, 2006 at 3:16 pmPresident Bush just declassified some intelligence reports to cover his butt.
What a man of character.
I am sure Bin Laden is going to be reading that, assuming he hasn’t died from eating spinach.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:46 pmSo, If I understand the moronic truth-twisting right….
1. Clinton was supposed to be a freakin psychic
2. Bush worked hard day and night to get OBL from day one of his “presidency”.
3. Iraq was a serious threat and had to be bombed.
4. Iraqi’s understand why we had to destroy their country and kill their families.
5. Fox news is “fair and balanced”
6. We are winning the war on terrorism
Bull manure… they live in a fantasyland. Republicans are the real threat to this country and the world. They MUST go. This is war, and they will do whatever it takes to “win”. Including calling war heroes “cowards”, lying about their record and Clinton’s record. They will stoop to anything, and must be stopped before the psychotic morons win any more elections.
Democrats must fight to defend the truth, as it will be under attack by the cons from now until the 2008 elections. Stop the lying, sick, psychotic bastards before they permanently damage America, and it’s reputation (if it’s not already too late).
Oh… and our main concern is that this will be a (another?) fraudulent election where we won’t know who voted for who, because the Republican-owned companies who make the electronic voting machines made sure there will be no paper record to verify voting results. Will we let them steal another election? WATCH THE EXIT POLLS IN KEY BATTLEGROUND STATES…. IF THEY SHOW DEMOCRATS AHEAD, BUT AT THE END OF THE NIGHT, REPUBLICANS WIN… NOTICE IT WILL HAPPEN IN STATES THAT USE ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES.
This is what appeared to happen in the last election in three decisive states… exit polls showed John Kerry ahead by around 5 points, but the electronic voting machines gave it to Bush. Funny how this happened in states that use the “suspect” machines. We’ll be watching this time, cons.
Oh, I forgot to add… Bush is now responsible for getting more Americans killed then OBL.
Bush knew about the possibility of suicidal hijackers, yet failed to inform the public, which would have likely thwarted the 9/11 disaster. So, I blame him and his criminal clowns for 9/11.
Bush and his bloodthirsty war-mongers are also responsible for killing more innocent civilians than any terrorist group (by a factor of 20 or more), making him the world’s “greatest” terrorist.
Republicans may be stupid and deliberately blind, but Democrats and the rest of the world are not.
Hugo Chavez calls Bush the devil. I don’t know if it’s true, but it’s hard to dispute isn’t it? Wasn’t he reading a book about a goat when the terrorists struck N.Y.?
September 26th, 2006 at 5:35 pmSorry folks, but I just don’t get it. All Chris Wallace did was ask one question that he explained was the most popular question FOX News received in e-mails. Again, the simple question was, “Do you think you did enough to try and capture Bin Laden while you were President?”
Why did Clinton go berserk? I believe that Clinton’s image of himself was threatened. He acted as if he were responsible and was trying to defend himself. Most of what he said in his rage was not true, but it sounded good. Richard Clarke was not demoted or fired, he quit. There was no comprehensive anti-terrorist plan. (At least not written.) Clinton had several years to organize a plan to capture or kill Bin Laden. Yet, he claims the Bush Administration has had three times the amount of time Clinton had to do this. Clinton claims he ordered Bin Laden’s death, but that would be illegal without a true declaration of war. Even then, the order would have to be to capture first.
Sorry, but what Clinton did just motivates the Right Wing to point out how desperate the Democrats are, and how the Democrats believe that if you say it enough times, maybe someone will believe it.
September 26th, 2006 at 6:41 pmOh! Just wanted to mention… I see a lot of statements by the left. Things like Bush attacked Iraq based on lies, mis-information, mis-representations, etc. Sounds good, but based on what facts? The Democrats seem to think that if they throw out a bunch of these words with no facts to back them up, then they have proven the ignorance of the Republicans.
You don’t have to belong to either party to realize that Republicans think, consider, then respond in a civil manner. They investigate and put all of the facts on the table, then use a “common sense” approach to resolve issues. On the contrary, Democrats use a “knee-jerk” reation technique to any issue. This portrays them as barbaric and uncivilized. By using this approach, the Democrats seem to side with other barbaric groups such as all the terrorist groups in the world today.
Example… The Pope reads the writings from the 14th Century. Terrorist say, “How dare you say we (Islamics) are violent. We will kill you for this!” Then they go on to kill a Nun in Germany and bomb Churches. I do not see the Left Wing groups getting upset over this. Of course, Clinton did appear to be very threatening to Chris Wallace for asking that simple question. (That was actually asked by the majority of his viewers.) Sounds parallel to me.
September 26th, 2006 at 7:12 pm[...] Let’s also take a look back to the past to see what exactly Bush was doing before and after 9/11 when Bush was president: FLASHBACK: Days After 9/11 Commission Testimony, Wallace Doesn’t Ask Rice About Infamous PDB [...]
September 27th, 2006 at 8:23 amConservatives don’t know how to think.
“You don’t have to belong to either party to realize that Republicans think, consider, then respond in a civil manner. They investigate and put all of the facts on the table, then use a “common sense†approach to resolve issues. On the contrary, Democrats use a “knee-jerk†reation technique to any issue. This portrays them as barbaric and uncivilized. By using this approach, the Democrats seem to side with other barbaric groups such as all the terrorist groups in the world today”
Two words for you: Ann Coulter
This spokeswoman for the Republican party has advocated the assasination of government official such as potus and supreme court justices. She has advocated the bombing of buildings in NYC. And I am just getting started.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:56 amAbout Time President Clinton! I have been getting in the face of the neo-cons for the last few years refusing to listen to their lies about ME. As a Democrat all they do is lie about ME and all other Dems. I have had enough and can’t praise you enough for taking control of that interview and putting Chris Wallace in his place. No one should subject themselves to the ridiculous banter of the kool-aid drinking neo-cons. It is obvious that the mental sanity of our country is extremly compromised by the sheer number of numbskulls that run around without supervision. Thank you President Clinton for standing up for what we have all been saying all along. It’s good to have you back!
September 28th, 2006 at 12:47 pmExcellent show, President Clinton. Your time is so precious and you did it right!
I so dislike all the republican documents in form of books or news. Once I had a look at Ann Coulter’s book and it was terrible. It was agains obvious common sense and how a publisher could do that? The republicans turned the green light!
September 29th, 2006 at 12:21 pmPresident Clinton is still the best politician and thinker this country has. No one is even close specially not among republicans.
September 29th, 2006 at 7:11 pmKalina
I am very impressed with your site. The quality of the design and content makes it a real winner! Thanks again for a great site and a great resource on the net.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:53 pmKyle
I love your site. They really look very nice. The articles provided are long enough to provide great content but not so long as to be totally engrossing, if you know what I mean.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:49 am