Intel Officials: Rice’s July 2001 Briefing Described Urgent Threat, ‘10 On a Scale of 1 to 10′
Intel Officials: Rice’s July 2001 Briefing Described Urgent Threat, ‘10 On a Scale of 1 to 10′
Condoleezza Rice describes her briefing with CIA officials George Tenet and Cofer Black on July 10, 2001 as relatively unremarkable. Here’s how her spokesman Sean McCormack described it yesterday:
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack [said]… the information Rice got “was not new” and didn’t amount to an urgent warning. “Rather, it was a good summary from the threat-reporting from the previous several weeks,” McCormack said in a statement from Saudi Arabia where Rice is traveling.
Earlier in the day, Rice questioned whether the meeting even happened and said that it was “incomprehensible” the meeting included a warning that U.S. interests faced an imminent threat from al-Qaeda.
Here’s how the briefing was described by the officials who prepared it, according to McClatchy:
One official who helped to prepare the briefing, which included a PowerPoint presentation, described it as a “10 on a scale of 1 to 10″ that “connected the dots” in earlier intelligence reports to present a stark warning that al-Qaida, which had already killed Americans in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and East Africa, was poised to strike again…
“The briefing was intended to `connect the dots’ contained in other intelligence reports and paint a very clear picture of the threat posed by bin Laden,” said the official, who described the tone of the report as “scary.”
Rice also considered the August 6 President’s Daily Brief, entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike US,” an historical document.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
what do they call lying under oath? I think it’s called “perjury”??
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:42 amThere goes any political future Condi/gal may have envisioned for herself! Ker-plunk!!
Things will get so bad that they all will begin “eating their own”….time to pop the popcorn….
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:43 amNo, no, no. According to Republikillers,
The real threat is Conservationalists.
Good to see their priorities are in the right place.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:44 amAnything that harms these people is good for me.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:45 amI always say that she is the most incompetent in an incompetent administration. This is one reason why the president likes her so much. Next to her, he looks able.
How she got her Ph.D. in political science is and will remain a mystery to me.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:46 amCan an institution retract a Ph.D? Rice certainly hasn’t lived up to her credentials.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:51 amAll this speculation and “he said, she said”. We need a real investigation, with subpoena power and witnesses under oath. Talk about obstruction of justice.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:53 ami thought you have to earn your pay. then i ask has anyone earned their pay and spot in this administration? how sweeeeet it is to see it all fall apart when they thought they were to smart or smarter than anyone else.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:55 amThis has all of the ingredients of a smoking gun. Haul them all before an open hearing in Congress and put them all under oath and see where it all leads. I would suggest a knowledgable attorney on the inner working of government be the lead attorney. Someone like John Dean. Wholesale resignations and impeachment are the logical outcome should testimony support this report.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:00 amBut what could she have done? It wasnt specific enough : )
Give me a break.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:01 amRice’s expertise was Russia, cold war policy. Send her back in time where she might have done some good.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:01 amI’m she didn’t think the meeting meant anything. She didn’t want to hear it, so she didn’t.
She still lied about it. She’s still incompetent. She’s still totally evil.
She needs to resign, immediately.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:03 amthe best part? she received a promotion! cronyism rules!
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:09 amanother camera bites the dust , damn ugly thing
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:09 amAs much as I wish this criminal family running our country would all land in jail, I’m a realist. This country is so partisan that crimes will go unpunished. I’ve been around longer than I ever expected and have never seen such hatred left against right, right against left. Everyone protects themselves as if they were angels and the other side, devils. The thing is, I’m having problems seeing any politician as anything but a devil.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:12 amSo how can she claim she did a better job then Clinton at going after Al Qaeda, when she can’t even remember ever meeting about them?
Caught up in her lame lies.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:12 amInspired by Jim Croce
Spin, spin, spin
Spin around, spin around
The trolls and their masters dance in costumes of red
Spin around
But under their masks their truth won’t be said
Spin around
But where are you spinnin’
When will you know
That America’s for all
That it isn’t your show?
Spin, spin, spin
Spin around, spin around
You look out on the country from your pedestal so high
Spin around
And you denounce all those just trying to get by
Spin around
But where are you spinnin’
When will you know
That America’s for all
That it isn’t your show?
Spin, spin, spin
Spin around, spin around
Your Kool-Aid is your conscience
It makes your choices seem all right
Spin around
Toast all the money you made today
Toast all the guilt you avoid on the way
To spin around
But where are you spinnin’
When will you know
That America’s for all
That it isn’t your show?
Spin, spin, spin
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:12 amSpin around, spin around
Spin, spin, spin
Spin away, spin away
Spin, spin, spin
Spin around, spin around
Good Morning Zooey and all,……Ahhhhhh just what I wanted to see another thread on dead eyed, reluctant to do anything right rice…..Not….
Had hoped TP would finelly put up a post on all the dreadful bill’s this bunch rushed through last week or some of the war stuff going on. Well it’s not going to happen, just more on the Foley crap……
You all have a great day….I’m leaving for awhile and going to ferret out the info elsewhere…….Blessings and Peace
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:14 amThe government we have, is the government we deserve.
What has happened to US? Time to look in the mirror.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:16 amI wonder if there isn’t a larger picture emerging. I can count four times this administration was warned about this attack on American soil: 1.) Clinton warned them as he was leaving office, 2.) Tenet and Black warned them, 3.) someone flew to Texas to warn Bush, and 4.) the PDB. Now, the questions is: did they ALLOW the attack to happen, because they knew the attack would be a catalyst to jumpstart their longed-for War with Iraq and that it would aid their attempt to expand the authority of the exectutive office?
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:22 amOkay… Condi says it didn’t amount to an urgent warning.
But she also told the briefers to go speak to Rummy and Ashcroft.
In conclusion then, Condi is either lying about the seriousness of the report, passing the buck, or wasting other people’s time.
Heckuva job.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:23 amHow long before this astounding revelation joins it’s brethren in the memory hole? I’ve learned to temper my excitement.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:25 amArticle II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states that “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Many people are under the mistaken belief that the article dealing with impeachment only affects the president. As the article puts forth, ALL civil Officers of the United States can be held accountable for their actions and that would include Condolleeza Rice, among others, for not doing their duty in protecting this couintry from being attacked. If, as John Dean has pointed out, the people in this country will have finally reached an epiphany in November by voting out the Republicans, one of the first orders of business for the Democrats will be to have John Conyers introduce Articles of Impeachment against this corrupt and evil regime.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:26 amThey.just.can’t.stop.lying
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:27 am“It’s inconcievable that (Condi) would forget about this meeting. It didn’t happen.” Hahahahahhahahhahhahahhahahha
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:28 amHer ears were covered.
Dear Progs, Let me get this straight. You’re upset that National Security Advisor Rice didn’t take the looming AlQuaeda threat seriously? Let’s see - the report contained NO information on the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, and HOW of an attack and you’re ANGRY?? This is an excellent example of why your political opponents:
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:28 ama.) don’t take you seriously
b.) bash the dismantled intelligence community (thank you , Mr. Jimmeh!)
c.) contend your political persuasion has little if any concrete ideas regarding National Security.
d.) applaud your “kindness” and are dismayed by your naivete.
Aren’t they all alike? Hastert claims he knew nothing about what Foley was up to until last Friday. Rice says she was never briefed of immeninent danger from Al Quaida. They claim to have not known the glaring truth because they didn’t want to know it. Bush does the same thing all the time. This bunch thinks that the American People such as the idiots who elected them in a fruadulent election with Supreme Court complicity are too stupid to see what they are doing. It is overdue for the American People to rise up and throw this bunch to hell out of office. It is time for a Democratic Congress that will hold them accountable and press criminal charges where they apply. My dream is to see this whole crowd sitting in cells for the next twenty years in Leavenworth. Condi, Hastert and Bush will look great in Orange jump suits. And if torture is necessary to get the truth out of them, then so be it. What was all that crap we heard in the last election cycle about “FLIP-FLOPPERS?”
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:31 amAs an ex CEO of a big oil company, all she saw in those reports were: Mideast, Turmoil, Rising Prices. That’s why corporate execs should not be in public office, they are so biased by their bussines enviroments that they cannot govern for the common will.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:31 am.
“THE 9/11 STAKESâ€
A horse racing analogy.
And now we take you to the “911 Stakes,” already in progress…
“AND DOWN THE STRETCH THE COME…
…with “Surprised” giving up the early lead to “Let It Happen,†driving hard along the rail – and “Made It Happen†moving up on the outside! It’s “Let It Happen†and “Made It Happen,†neck and neck now, with seven lengths on the rest of the field - with “Surprised,†“Shocked†and “Faulty Intelligence†rounding out the field…
It’s “Let It Happen†and “Made It Happen†in a PHOTO FINISH!
And the winner is…
…Israel, by a nose!â€
.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:33 amDear MA, How did you get the specifics about the briefings? Do you have knowledge of what was said and shown to Ms. Rice? I’m tempering this with a variety of other bits of information but to jump out and say this is not only premature but partisan. Why would I expect any less of you.
Interesting point the Phoenix memo comes out the same day as this meeting.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:34 amDear Neocons, Let me get this straight. You’re glad that BushCo attacked Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a looming threat? Let’s see - the intelligence contained NO information on the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, and HOW of any possession of WMD, delivery methods, or imminent danger to the U.S. and you were BELLICOSE?? This is an excellent example of why Americans:
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:36 ama.) shouldn’t take you seriously
b.) should question any comments you make about intelligence or the intelligence community (thank you , W for “wrong”!)
c.) should recognize that your political persuasion has little if any real concern regarding National Security.
d.) should be dismayed by your selfish arrogance.
Rice:”The idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible.”
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:36 amIt sounds as if the U.S. intellegence community was doing a pretty good job. The problem was the leadership. How much time and money has been wasted reorganizing something that was working pretty well?
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:36 amEvidently, Truth is incomprehensible for Condi!
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:39 amDoes this mean we’ll never have to address her as President Rice in the future? Whew …
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:40 amKapow! PLC. Nice retort.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:42 amTP perpetuates the lie that Condi ignored Tenent’s warnings. TP even linked to the NYT article that debunks this lie. Repeating it doesn’t make it true. From the NYT:
Mr. Tenet told members of the Sept. 11 commission about the July 10 meeting when they interviewed him in early 2004, but committee members said the former C.I.A. director never indicated he had left the White House with the impression that he had been ignored.
“Tenet never told us that he was brushed off,†said Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the commission. “We certainly would have followed that up.â€
Mr. McCormack said the records showed that, far from ignoring Mr. Tenet’s warnings, Ms. Rice acted on the intelligence and requested that Mr. Tenet make the same presentation to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Atttorney General John Ashcroft.
But Mr. Ashcroft said by telephone on Monday evening that he never received a briefing that summer from Mr. Tenet.
“Frankly, I’m disappointed that I didn’t get that kind of briefing,†he said. “I’m surprised he didn’t think it was important enough to come by and tell me.â€
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:43 am#30 - “Dear MA, How did you get the specifics about the briefings? Do you have knowledge of what was said and shown to Ms. Rice? I’m tempering this with a variety of other bits of information but to jump out and say this is not only premature but partisan. Why would I expect any less of you.” - Comment by hellinabucket
*******Dear Ms. Helen Bucket - Let me say that I did not waltz in and stuff documents in my pantyhose….ala Berger….But yes, knowing what I know, I would not condemn the previous administration for not aborting attacks with so little specific information. THAT, my dear Ms. Bucket,is the difference between an few prog hacks and rational people……
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:46 amThis was a calculated act of willful blindness. The only assumption one can make from this obvious disconnect from reality is that members of this administration intended to make their own reality and that reality required not just inaction on a clear and present threat to America but action intended to obstruct its prevention and possibly even enhance the effects of the eventual attack.
There is only one word to describe this behavior. It is not incompitence. It is not stupidity. It is treason.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:50 amAre you liberals for real, ONE anonymous source claims that the briefing between Tenent and Rice was as Bob Woodward claims in his book and you guys believe it.
So did Tenent lie under oath while he was testifying with the 9/11 Commission? Why did he tell Bob Woodward this and not the 9/11 Commission? Why didn’t the anonymous source tell this to the 9/11 Commission?
I wonder if you Liberals would have accepted such great anonymous source if he would have spoken against the lefts god, William Slickie Clinton.
By the way, how come none of you Liberals make a stink about the Daily Briefing that Clinton and his administration received in 1998.
I dare one Liberal to take this matter on in a respectful way, without insults.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:50 amhttp://www.fas.org/ irp/ cia/ product/ pdb120498.pdf#search=%22December%204%2C%201998%20PDB%22
This is part of the briefing given to President Clinton in 1998! I thought Hillary said that ifi Clinton would have received a Daily Brieifing like the one that Bush received titled similarly, Clinton would have taken Osama down.
On Friday, December 4, 1998, the CIA included an article in the Presidential Daily Brief describing intelligence, received from a friendly government, about a threatened hijacking in the United States. This article was declassified at our request.
The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.
SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and OtherAttacks
1. Reporting [—] suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing forattacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release ofShaykh ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq‘Awda. One source quoted a senior member of the Gama’at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that, as of late October, the IG had completed planning for an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin, but that the operation was on hold. A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soon thereafter to discuss options—perhaps including an aircraft hijacking.
• IG leader Islambuli in late September was planning to hijack aUS airliner during the “next couple of weeks†to free ‘Abd al-Rahman and the other prisoners, according to what may be adifferent source.
• The same source late last month said that Bin Ladin mightimplement plans to hijack US aircraft before the beginning ofRamadan on 20 December and that two members of the operationalteam had evaded security checks during a recent trialrun at an unidentified New York airport. [—]
2. Some members of the Bin Ladin network have received hijack training, according to various sources, but no group directly tied to Bin Ladin’s al-Qa’ida organization has ever carried out an aircraft hijacking. Bin Ladin could be weighing other types of operations against US aircraft. According to [—] the IG in October obtained SA-7 missiles and intended to move them from Yemen into Saudi Arabia to shoot down an Egyptian plane or, if unsuccessful, a US military or civilian aircraft.
• A [—] in October told us that unspecified “extremist elementsâ€in Yemen had acquired SA-7s. [—]
3. [—] indicate the Bin Ladin organization or its allies are moving closerto implementing anti-US attacks at unspecified locations, but we do notknow whether they are related to attacks on aircraft. A Bin Ladin associate in Sudan late last month told a colleague in Kandahar that he had shipped a group of containers to Afghanistan. Bin Ladin associates also talked about the movement of containers to Afghanistan before the East Africa bombings.
• In other [—] Bin Ladin associates last month discussed pickingup a package in Malaysia. One told his colleague in Malaysiathat “they†were in the “ninth month [of pregnancy].â€
• An alleged Bin Ladin supporter in Yemen late last monthremarked to his mother that he planned to work in “commerceâ€from abroad and said his impending “marriage,†whichwould take place soon, would be a “surprise.â€â€œCommerce†and“marriage†often are codewords for terrorist attacks. [—]
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:52 amcan we see that ppt doc? please?
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:53 amAnd TP debunks another liberal myth: The CIA provided actionable intelligence to the WH. From the McClatchy link:
David Ayres, who was Ashcroft’s chief of staff at the Justice Department, said that the former attorney general also has no recollection of a July 17, 2001, terrorist threat briefing. Later, Ayres said that Ashcroft could recall only a July 5 briefing on threats to U.S. interests abroad.
He said Ashcroft doesn’t remember any briefing that summer that indicated that al-Qaida was planning to attack within the United States.
The CIA briefing didn’t provide the exact timing or nature of a possible attack, nor did it predict whether it was likely to take place in the United States or overseas, said three former senior intelligence officials.
They spoke on condition of anonymity because the report remains highly classified.
The briefing “didn’t say within the United States,” said one former senior intelligence official. “It said on the United States, which could mean a ship, an embassy or inside the United States.”
Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief, Ben-Veniste and the former senior intelligence officials all challenged some aspects of Woodward’s account of the briefing given to Rice, including assertions that she failed to react to the warning and that it concerned an imminent attack inside the United States.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:53 amI dare one Liberal to take this matter on in a respectful way, without insults.
Comment by liberalsarefakes
How oxymoronic.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:53 amI knew all these assholes were gonna be thrown under the bus. Do you think they believed they would get away with their lies forever?
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:54 ami’m pretty sure i heard ashkroft lie about this to meredith this morning on today… he said there was no meeting… something like that…
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:55 amI have been saying for 5 YEARS that the person MOST RESPONSIBLE for 9/11 is Condi Rice. SHE was the National Security Advisor (NSA) before & on 9/11. What is the MAIN JOB of the NSA? To advise on national security! Does anyone besides George Bush Jr. think that she did a GOOD JOB advising on national security before 9/11???
By: caferide on October 03, 2006 at 10:34am
Don’t you get it?
Rumsfeld was insisting that any information pertaining to Bin Laden should be treated is if it were mere “Conspiracy Theory.”
THESE GUYS WANTED IT TO HAPPEN.
THEY MADE IT HAPPEN.
GET IT?
Tue, October 3, 2006
Rice unable to recall terror alert
UPDATED: 2006-10-03 01:53:51 MST By AP
SHANNON, Ireland — U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says she can’t recall then-CIA chief George Tenet warning her of an impending al-Qaida attack in the U.S., as a new book claims he did two months before the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
“What I am quite certain of is that I would remember if I was told — as this account apparently says — that there was about to be an attack in the United States, and the idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible,” Rice said.
Bob Woodward’s book State of Denial outlines a July 10, 2001 meeting among Rice, then President George W. Bush’s national security adviser,Tenet and the CIA’s top counterterror officer.
“What I’m quite certain of, is that it was not a meeting in which I was told there was an impending attack,” Rice said.
http://calsun.canoe.ca/ News/ World/ 2006/ 10/ 03/ 1942072-sun.html
Rice added to the confusion Monday by strongly suggesting that the meeting may never have occurred at all — even though administration officials had conceded for several days that it had. A State Department spokesman said later that while the meeting definitely happened, Rice and Tenet disputed Woodward’s characterization of her response.
Rice acknowledged that the White House was receiving a “steady stream of quite alarmist reports of potential attacks” during that period but said the targets were assumed to be in the Middle East.
Her use of the word “alarmist†rather than “alarming” is the tell.
This is her admission that she put these reports under the category of “conspiracy theory†– in line precisely with Rumsfeld’s instructions:
“Mr. Woodward writes that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill Osama bin Laden,” wrote Sanger. “Mr. Rumsfeld questioned the electronic signals from terrorism suspects that the National Security Agency had been intercepting, wondering whether they might be part of an elaborate deception plan by Al Qaeda.”
http://www.rawstory.com/ news/ 2006/ State_of_Denial_Two_months_before_0930.html
Viewed in the light of Bush ordering that all investigation of Bin Laden – including the Able Danger Operation – all be shut down in the months prior to 9/11 – it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that 9/11 was 100% an inside job, with GHW Bush at the helm, Cheney in Command of NORAD (the first time in history for a civilian), Mossad as the triggermen, Rumsfeld and the ISI as the financial backers, Chertoff batting “Coverup†(google: Operation Greenquest) and W in a position of plausible deniability.
.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:55 amDear Trolls Under the Bridge - Let me say that it is quite entertaining to have you waltz into TP with stuff leaking from your pantyhose….i.e. brains….But yet, knowing that you don’t know what you know or don’t know and that you don’t have the personal insight to try to know, I will condemn the current administration for contemplating attacks with so little specific information and for manipulating our country for their own personal gain. THAT, my dear trolls, is the difference between a few self-serving, grandiose neocons and rational, compassionate, patriotic people……
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:55 amWhy does anyone feel safer with these clowns? The “We haven’t been attacked since 9/11″ mantra of the Bush groupies is analogous to the guy who falls off an 80-floor building and insists everything is just fine for the first 79 floors.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:56 amNow it seems that the WH may have “allowed†9/11 to happen.
This is a far more important issue than the question of Hassert’s resignation; the answer to that one is simple.
The Neocons, in ignoring the warning of the CIA, may have said, just wait, if an attack comes we will have the tools and power we need to dominate this country and the world. They probably didn’t expect something as big as 9/11, just some little bombing that would kill a few dozen people in each of a few dozen locations across America.
One thing that I have always considered is just how active Bush 41 was in all of this. After all, Dubya could not have ascended (not elected twice) to office without lots of help, and George senior with his CIA and other connections is the only person who could have and would have provided such help to his little woodenhead son of a bitch.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:58 amWow, the trolls are out early today. We must have struck a nerve. Poor little guys; they’re just completely lost when confronted with facts.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:58 amAmerica’s Least Wanted
Hi Liberalsarefakes,
That’s all well and good but the WH confirmed the meeting yesterday.
Thanks for playing.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:59 amBut … but this completely contradicts the image the Republicans have crafted for themselves as strong defenders of America! Why would they lie about something as important as that?
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:59 amNow it seems that the WH may have “allowed†9/11 to happen.
This is a far more important issue than the question of Hassert’s resignation; the answer to that one is simple.
The Neocons, in ignoring the warning of the CIA, may have said, just wait, if an attack comes we will have the tools and power we need to dominate this country and the world. They probably didn’t expect something as big as 9/11, just some little bombing that would kill a few dozen people in each of a few dozen locations across America.
One thing that I have always considered is just how active Bush 41 was in all of this. After all, Dubya could not have ascended (not elected twice) to office without lots of help, and George senior with his CIA and other connections is the only person who could have and would have provided such help to his little woodenhead son of a bitch.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:59 amRegarding Condi’s July 2001 Meeting.
WHAT CAN’T WE KNOW?
Why is the content of this meeting still secret? Why can’t we know exactly what the CIA told her and Rummy and Ashcroft? 9/11 happened already!
Did they “connect the dots†on the phoenix memo dated July 10, 2001 regarding OBL followers enrolling in US flight training schools? I think we all got that memo: 19 terrorist fly hijacked planes into WTC. I believe it was covered by most major networks on the morning of 9/11.
Did they mention cells in the United States and not just overseas? I think we all got that one during 9/11 commission hearings.
Did they mention it being a coordinated attack, yep, we got that one too, see watching it on TV morning of 9/11 above.
Did they mention that this was a pack of mostly Saudi’s being funded by Saudi royalty, yep, we got that memo too in numerous books, articles and blogs, even if we can’t read the redacted house 9/11 report.
WTF is still too top secret to tell us about this meeting? Perhaps, the only secret is that all of this was laid at the feet of Condi, and Rummy, and Ashcroft. Perhaps the only thing to keep secret is that they were given a window into what was coming and THEY DID NOTHING. That’s the only secret I can discern.
What tatical or intelligence information can be in the minutes of this meeting that we have not all already lived through?
RELEASE THIS INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC
So we can know who is running OUR government and how they are running it.
THAT’S DEMOCRACY.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:01 am“What they will do is stagger along until there’s a major incident and then suddenly say, ‘Oh my God, shouldn’t we be organized to deal with this?”
Fmr. Nat. Comm. On terrorism chairman Paul Bremer (Feb. 26. 2001)
CUI BONO? [Answer: The neocons]
RICE: “I do not believe to this day that it would have been a good thing to respond to the Cole, given the kinds of options that we were going to have. … We really thought that the Cole incident was passed, that you didn’t want to respond tit-for-tat. …Just responding to another attack in an insufficient way we thought would actually probably embolden the terrorists — they had been emboldened by everything else that had been done to them — and that the best course was to look ahead to a more aggressive strategy against them.”
CLARKE: “I suggested, beginning in January of 2001, that … there was an open issue which should be decided about whether or not the Bush administration should retaliate for the Cole attack [which occurred in October 2000].
Unfortunately, there was no interest, no acceptance of that proposition. And I was told on a couple of occasions, “Well, you know, that happened on the Clinton administration’s watch.” I didn’t think it made any difference. I thought the Bush administration, NOW that it had the CIA saying it was al Qaeda, should have responded.”
January 26, 1998: PNAC sends a letter to President Clinton urging military action to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power. A key passage states that if America continues its containment policy, “…the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.”
Read more here: http://www.uruknet.info/ ?p=m23024&hd=0&size=1&l=e
Rice mentioned Al Qaeda in her speeched from 1993 to 9/11 number of times: 0
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:02 amRice mentioned Iraq during the same time period: Atleast 1000 times:
http://www.antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=9705
Man, you Liberals are so blind and so full of hate.
Badmoodman, it is n ot mantra that the mainland USA hasn’t been attacked since 9/11, it is a FACT! you guys are so full of hate and are so blinded by your hate that you can’t see beyond it.
Once again, you guys are basing your attacks on Dr. Rice on ONE anonymous source and Bob Woodward’s book. if Mr. Woodward’s book is true than Tenant lied to the 9/11 commission, he lied underoath, right?
I just find it amazing that ONE anonymous source backs up tenant and you guys go crazy.
9/11 was the fault of the terrorists , Liberals. Say it guys, 9/11 was the faut of the terrorist, not that of your fellow Americans.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:02 amLast night a poster CONNECTED+THE+DOTS on the emergency meeting.
IT WAS TRIGGERED BY THE PHOENIX MEMO IN WHICH
AN FBI AGENT REALIZED TERRORISTS WERE TRAINING
TO FLY PLANES.
THEY KNEW ALL ALONG
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:04 amThe White House confirmed the meeting? I am not sure if that happened, but the fact is that NONE OF YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT MEETING!!!!!! if it really happened!
you guys are basing your, once again, fake outraged on Bob Woodward’s book and ONE anonymous source.
None of you guys were at that meeting right? were you? did you guys record any exchanges between Tenant and Dr. Rice?
Honestly guys, amazing how quick all of you to attack this administration based on ONE anonymous source.
I seem to remember that during the Clinton years the media and the left loved, loved to destroy the credibility of anonymous sources and anyone that spoke against Clinton.
and still no one here dares address the Daily briefing that President Clinton received in 1998 warning him about possible attacks on the USA by Bin Laden.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:06 amDear Mouthy Pouty - Please go back and read President Clinton 1998 Bill to get rid of the infamous Saddam with the U.N., financial support to opposition, oversight, and consideration of trial for war crimes but NOT with an unnecessary war. Then, go read PNAC’s manifesto - get back with me then - You’re about as factual as vanilla ice…..
Noodles….
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:06 am“liberalsarefakes,” you’re awfully brave to be out today insulting liberals when your sorry-ass side is going down in a fiery wreck as we speak, having been proven to have sold out or failed on everything they ever claim to have stood for. take a good hard look in the mirror and ask yourself why you keep letting them fool you.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:09 amMs. “Goodie Two Shoes” will just never get it, will she?
SHE SCREWED UP!
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:10 amyou guys are INCREDIBLE
now it’s time to find out WHO ELSE WAS AT THIS MEETING
who else stood down
who else is in derliction of duty
WHO?
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:11 amyou guys are INCREDIBLE!
now we need to find out who else was at that meeting
we need to find out who else stood down
we need to find out who else is in derliction of duty
WHO?
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:14 amtherightisalwayswrong….
tell me, what did Clinton do from 1993 until 2001 to prevent 9/11? I await your intelligent and insightful response.
President Clinton had 96 months to get rid of Osama Bin Laden, why didn’t he?
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:16 amNULL @ 64
The Grand Ole Perverts are the PARTY OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ..
The only attendee we need to no about is Princess Ferragamo.
Her title was NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR.
Remember the reference to ‘GEORGE TENET RUNNING OUT OF THE ROOM WHITH HIS HAIR ON FIRE !!!” ???
I feel quite safe saying that this would be the smoking follicle !!!
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:16 am#60 a Google Monkey can answer that question.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609280001
And the Bush Administration’s response:
“All right, now you’ve covered your ass”
Thanks for playing LAF… next troll please, this one is broken.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:16 amtherightisalwayswrong,
by the way, do tell me where I have insulted any Liberal on this thread.
why do you lie?
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:17 amBadmoodman, it is n ot mantra that the mainland USA hasn’t been attacked since 9/11, it is a FACT! - - You guys can’t help but cherry-pick information, be it an NIE or a post on a message board. Geeze.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:17 amCondi:
“Hair afire? My hair will never be on fire. I have the perfect coif and no amount of terrorism will unbend my perfect curls. I am Miss Perfect!”
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:22 amBadmoodman, it is n ot mantra that the mainland USA hasn’t been attacked since 9/11, it is a FACT!
Not so. The anthrax attacks that killed more than ten people, I believe happened after 9/11. This administration never found out who did that either. Another sad example of the incompitence of our leadership.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:22 amDereliction of duty! Crimes against “The People”! Treason!
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:24 amThrow this criminal culture to the wolves, with no remorse.
Badmoodmand,
Have we been attackes since 9/11? Has the mainland of hte USA been attacked by terrorist since 9/11?
how is a fact of history a mantra? how is stating the truth that we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 mantra?
that you are full of hate for this administration and republicans is another thing.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:25 amwe don’t have to explain anything about why clinton didn’t stop 9/11 or didn’t kill OBL. The hearings and investigations you’ll be seeing in the next year will all involve Republicans in the hot seat. Bush has had 5 years to kill OBL, with all branches of government Republican, a nation grieving from 9/11, and after all that, all he can say is OBL isn’t that important after all. He says THAT and you’re blaming Clinton for not killing him? Get real. That argument isn’t vaguely credible. As for Condi not acting on memos in the month for 9/11, as a New Yorker I’m a bit more interested in that than I am in some memo that Bill Clinton got in 1998.
The more important question is how any self-respecting conservative (and I’ll just assume, for the sake of argument, that’s what you are) could vote for these rubes. They aren’t truly conservative– that is, in conserving what he have– in any way except maybe in brain power.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:28 amCome on, someone please tell me that the way they govern has to be on purpose. They can’t really be that stupid and incompetent, can they? I mean, it’s across the board, Iraq, Katrina, legislating…,
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:31 amdlet,
wow…..the point is that for over 5 years there have been no terrorist attacks on mainland USA, right?
and I hope you believe the same thing about President Clinton and his administration in the 1990s. I hope you use the same measuring stick that you use to judge Bush and his administration.
Clinton and his administration is the true example of incomitence and leadership.
they had 96 months to get Bin Laden, to prevent 9/11, please tell us all why didn’t Clinton do more?
what none of you liberals think about is that the falling of the WTC was intended to happen in the first WTC attack in 1993, 1993!!!!!!! and Clinton did nothing to go after Bin laden because his administration was so incompetent, they supposedly couldn’t connect the dots to Bin Laden.
and once again, amazing how you guys based your “facts” on ONE anonymous source and Bob Woodward’s book.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:31 am>>therightisalwayswrong,
by the way, do tell me where I have insulted any Liberal on this thread.
why do you lie?
Comment by liberalsarefakes — October 3, 2006 @ 11:17 am>>
“Liberalsarefakes.” Um, hmm, aren’t you calling us fakes? Idiot.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:32 amThe only urgent warning Condi paid attention to was the shoe sale at Macy’s.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:32 am#66, and Chimpy has had 6 years with the full capability of the US military behind him and full support of the American people to get Bin Laden….
Your points are not relevant to the discussion, but then you know that already - why don’t you stick to Condi ‘incompetent liar’ Rice and defend that?
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:32 amma
did you conveniently forget about the memo that was delivered before 9/11 saying alquaeda will attack by using planes? did you. so they did have an idea of what was about to happen. these pricks knew and it wasn’t in there best interest to do anything about it.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:34 amcheney showed up in billings montana to support repub. rehberg and burns. plate=$250. and only 150 showed up. that should tell ya something. burns light is out and that is priceless
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:35 amtherightwingisalwayswrong,
wow, that is the left, they don’t want to answer any questions about the Democrats and Clinton yet they are desperate for investigations against the Republicans.
Incredible your hypocrisy. Either investigate both parties and administrations or shut up!
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:37 amThe facts speak for themselves:
Clinton admin response: ‘that same day…Clarke…’
Condi response: maybe you should show that PPT to Rummy, George
Bush response: now you’ve covered your ass, watch this drive
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:37 amThe Anthrax letters aren’t an attack? Also, had a visual thanks to MA talking about her panties……..uggggghhhh.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:37 am#83 the 9/11 commission has already investigated both administrations and until other information comes up that’s what we get. Both are at fault. But both are hindsight. To blast Clinton alone ignores the facts that the Bush admin didn’t jump on the limited information either.
Why does the right ignore what has happened since?
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:41 amNotice the clever construction? It was a good summary of threat reporting from “the previous weeks.”
Apparently, these people don’t think any intelligence is worthwhile unless it is fresh and unopened. Like there’s some expiration date on intelligence. Well, my goodness, gracious — it’s not like we had intelligence FROM THAT DAY that said Bin Laden was determined to strike. All we had was yucky old stuff that said Bin Laden was determined to strike. You don’t expect us to act on stinky yucky OLD intelligence, do you? The kind of intelligence that you have to sniff suspiciously when you pull it out of the fridge?
No, no; we’re the Bush administration. We only want the freshest intelligence money can buy. Someone get Chalabi on the line….
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:41 amWow, Liberalsare fakes has got to be the most misinformed, crazy, off-the-wall, attack-dog troll in a long time. I don’t think he intends to read the facts about the history of al-Queda and the knowledge the past and present administrations have had.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:43 amCondi never could have predicted that this meeting would be discussed again!
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:43 am# 72
FBI & BUSH ADMINISTRATION SUED OVER ANTHRAX DOCUMENTS
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_1967.shtml
“…for White House staff, and President Bush as well, to begin taking Cipro nearly a month before anthrax was detected on Capitol Hill.”
“it is n ot mantra that the mainland USA hasn’t been attacked since 9/11, it is a FACT!” But the neocons have said that it’s inevitable that another attack will happen, it’s just a question of time…Straussian neocons want you scared into submission and completely unaware what is really happening.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:43 amTerrytheturtle….
Yeap, that is Liberals, calling for all types of investigations against Republicans and Bush and his administration, but you guys lash out on anyone that dares ask what did Clinton do to stop 9/11….increbile the Liberal hypocrisy.
hey terrytheturtle, where is Bin Laden, hidden, too afraid to even show his face on television, right?
now what did he say about the United States while Slickie billy was our Commander in Chief? that the USA was a paper tiger!
under bush Bin Laden is running scared, under clinton bin laden was embolden!
see the difference, I very much doubt it!
now liberals let us try this again, say it with me, 9/11 is the fault of Islamic terrorist, not the fault of our fellow Americans.
can you say it?
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:46 amDear, dear Liberalsarefakes, this is a matter of PUBLIC RECORD, not based on “ONE anonymous source and Bob Woodward’s book”; a matter that has just been declassified. (Not all of the contents of the meeting, mind you, just the date, subject and the people involved). Why can’t you republicans get that through your head? PUBLIC RECORD. PROVEN. ADMITTED TO THIS MORNING BY MS. RICE”S OFFICE. Please try to research a topic that makes you so passionately “full of hate” for the messenger before you spout off your talking points (even if they are inaccurate).
So let me get this right. You would rather NOT know if the administration you so loudly proclaim is perfect, was aware of the coming 9/11 attack. Even if they didn’t know WHAT, WHERE, or WHEN. It seems to me that if they had connected the dots in the FBI memo of July 10th, about Al Quaida learning to fly planes in AZ, but not how to take off or land, with a “very serious threat” intercepted by the CIA and reported to you in some urgency, you would have to at least be able to figure out the HOW. No?? Then you would think you could at least put the airports under surveillance. Then in August you get the Presidential Daily Brief and it says the same thing, well something seems just a little fishy here. No?? Wouldn’t you think that would be the National Security Advisor’s job? If not, then Tenet and his top aides could just have easily told a Capital Hill policeman of their concerns.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:49 amAs far as the “FACT” of no attacks on the U.S. since 9/11. What does that really prove. Sure, it’s a fact we haven’t been attacked, but we were not attacked for 9 YEARS before we were attacked on 9/11. So, what is your underlying reasoning here?
So, please, Liberalsarefakes, don’t come around here and start spouting off your phoney facts, when you don’t really know what you are talking about. Really. Just go away and get some studying done. That way you may have some intelligent things to say, instead of how anyone who disagrees with you is “full of hate”. No??
liberals are fake says: “and still no one here dares address the Daily briefing that President Clinton received in 1998 warning him about possible attacks on the USA by Bin Laden.”
This is just silly. According to the 9-11 report, after this daily briefing, Clinton went nuts. He demanded that the heads of the CIA, FBI and NSA meet with him every week and report on what they had done to “shake the trees” in their respective orginizations.
And of course Mighty Aphro is rushing to defend her darling Condi, arguably the worst National Security Advisor in the history of the country. This is an adviser who testified under oath that she failed to read a 90-page security report on a country we were planning to invade??!! According her own testimony, she is either spectacularly incompetent or a bald-face liar.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:50 amTerrorist attacks have increased since 9/11 and there is growing evidence that the situation in Iraq is fueling the fires. So to say no new attacks on US soil is correct but world wide terrorist attacks have increased.
Bush gave Al Qiada exactly what they wanted, a prolonged US presence in a Muslim country to use as a recruiting tool.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:51 amShes bush’s girlfriend , she’s not going anywhere . All you have to do is think about that Thanksgiving trip to Iraq . The way they sneaked out of town like a couple of horny teenagers . Go back and read the discription of the trip . They slumped down in the back of a government suv with baseball caps on so they could sneak off to airforce one . I saw the signs a long time ago , she’s his ho .
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:51 amterrytheturtle and other Liberals,
You guys mean that President Clinton put together our military, over 100,000 troops and sent them to Afghanistant WHERE THEY NEW BIN LADEN WAS?! really?
wow, when in the 1990s did this happen? i guess everyone missed it.
oh wait, sorry, my bad, it wasn’t thousands of our soldiers that went after bin laden during the 1990s, it was rather a few cruise missles that were sent, right? and which Clinton warned the Pakistanis about and in turn the Pakistanis warned Bin laden.
As I said, either criticize and investigate BOTH administrations or you liberals need to shut up.
and the 9/11 commission, pleasae that wasa a pathetic joke.
Gorelick was a member of this commission and this stupid woman is the one that created the wall between the FBI and the CIA, she was the one that demanded that the FBI and CIA not share any information with each other!
not to mention that Sandy Burgler stole documents from the National Archieve that were certain to show how little Clinton did to stop Bin Laden.
LIberals, your hatred for Bush and the right blinds you all.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:52 am[…] Intel Officials: Rice’s July 2001 Briefing Described Urgent Threat, ‘10 On a Scale of 1 to 10′ […]
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:53 amThis mindless troll has been brainwashed into thinking Clinton did nothing about terrorism. The record shows otherwise:
· CLINTON developed the nation’s first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
· Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda throughÂ
preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
· Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
· Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first WTC bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively - and successfully - to stop future terrorist attacks.
· Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
· Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
· Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
· Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
· Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
· Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
· Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
· Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
· Of Clinton’s efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: ”Overall, I give them very high marks” and “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama”.
· Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had “correctly focused on bin Laden.
· Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, “By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him” and was the “first administrationÂ
to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort”.
Clarence Swinney,
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:53 amPolitical Historian
Every damned last one of them in the bush administration, including the lying imbecile himself, should be charged with treason and hanged.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:54 amAll nice and legal mind ya.
We could all get a good laugh when the worthless coward begs for his life, the same way Karla Faye Tucker did while bush was governor of texas and thought her pleadings were a laugh riot.
91
there should be an investigation into the high crimes of this administration. clinton tried and failed. how did bushwhack try? huh, huh. before the war he stuck p.eyes in iraq to guard the oil fields for him(bush). what did this have to do with afghan. o’ then he pulled back our forces when he had him circled and let the mickey mouse club take over. don’t forget that. then he said he is not worried about bin laden, remember that speach? i bet the 9/11 families had cake and icecream over that. then he stopped all funding and canceled his bin laden team that was set up to find him. he must have lost him in the sunset. what happened? big badass bush, cowboy up, ya know. long neckin and two steppin is what he is doin. f. nazi.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:56 amhellinabucket,
we are at war, during war attacks usually increase, correct?
Bluedog49,
you are completly and utterly lying!!! Clinton barely ever met with George Tenant, head of the CIA under Clinton as well as under bush.
Clinton didn’t go nuts or do anything of what you are claiming.
some of you liberals leave in fantacy worlds.
and please do tell me about that incredible USA military force that Clinton ordered to be sent to Afghanistant to get Bin Laden. Was it in the thousands?
is this how crazy Clinton went that he didn’t sent our troops to afghanistant to get Bin Laden? right? Clinton sent thousands of our men and women in uniform to get Bin Laden,r ight? that is how serious he took the bin Laden threat, correct? Please! stop fooling yourselves.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:56 ambluedog,
I am sorry that you have been brainwashed to believe that Clinton took terrorism seriously. I am sorry that you have been brainwahsed into believing that your god Clinton cared about you and your family. I am sorry that you habe been brainwashed into believing that Clinton cared about gettin Bin Laden.
I mean he cared so much that he sent thousands of troops to Afghanistan to catch him, right? that is how much he did to stop terrorism, correct?
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:59 amWhen “liberalsarefakes” gets a dose of real history from a real historian, information which is backed up by the text of the 9-11 report, his inciteful response is this: “Bluedog49, you are completly and utterly lying!!!”
There is absolutely no reason to argue with an inbred, illogical, brainwashed cultist who has no intrest in the truth. Time to move on.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:01 pmRice: “No one could have imagined….”
If anybody has ever seen a bigger liar lying about more important things I’d like to hear about it.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:04 pm101
you are a typical nazi. the only folks that are lying is you. and everything bluedog said is absolutely correct. do some research and you’ll find it. and simply what does it matter. bushwhack had 6 fricken years and what? this is now. and all you cons went for impeachment over a blowjob and so why can’t the liberals call for impeachment over high crimes, lies, treason, etc….something far more serious then getting you’re willy stroked in the oval office. the only daylight you see is when bushy yawns.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:04 pmVery interesting and insightful comments. We, your northern neighbours, look on with a combination of concern and consternation.
Concern because of the damage being done, not just to America, but to the entire planet, by the reckless actions of the Gush administration.
Consternation because, although the bush-s..t is so evident, it is still not clear that this bunch will be tossed. How can there still be somewhere between 30 - 40% who still buy the blatant falsehoods?
How can we turn a blind eye to the damage already done, and the continuing damage? How could such a great country stand by and see its principles flushed down the drain? How could you allow one person to so shamefully - and successfully - beg, cajole and then threaten the houses - to allow him to detain and torture people at will? Why has there been no public outrage at this global humiliation visited on the country be one person’s unseemly behaviour. To quote him from his war on words “fool me …. bluster, bluster, ahhhm, ahhmm …. can’t get fooled again”?
To quote the actual saying “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me”. The saying is silent on “Fool me a third time ………???
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:05 pmLAF - I’m LAFFING at you. “what did Clinton do to stop 9/11″ - Last time I looked, Bush was president on 9/11, not Slick Willie and Mr Bluedog49 has done a fine job of listing what Clinton did.
And then this is even funnier:
Never said that - you can stop lying about what I said or did not say. I said that 8 years of Clinton and 6 years of Bush and most of Bush’s 6 he had approval of the American people and all the military power he needed and he has failed miserably. Clinton, well, read Bluedog49 again…
Bin Laden running scared? I doubt that - Bin Laden is many things but scared he is not. He’s a powerful man Bin Laden is - he’s managed to get the United States to suspend habeas corpus indefinitely, the oldest and most important law in liberal democratic civilization. Pretty good going for a ’scared man in a cave’, I’d say.
So why don’t we start discussing the thread about what the Bush Admin did about Bin laden, starting with Condi’s response to the conclusion that the Cole bombing was Al Qaeda. What did Condi do, LAF, you tell us now…?
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:06 pmBluedog,
that is what I thought. You are corned like a wounded, pathetic, drooling dog and all you can do is lash out with laughable, pathetic, two year old playground insults.
You liberals are so predictable.
I am sorry that your god clinton cared so much about you and your family that he DIDN’T SEND TROOPS TO AFGHANISTANT TO GET BIN LADEN.
I am sorry that reality hurts so much that all you can do is run away like a poor wounded puppy with your tail between your legs.
I am sorry the truth hurts, but someone has to beat it into to you liberals.
Or am I wrong? Is my history incorrect and President Clinton did send thousands of American troops to Afghanistan to kill or capture Bin Laden?
hey, I’ll tell you a little secret, Clinton cared about getting Bin Laden as much as he cared about staying faithful to his wife.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:06 pmWhen was war declared? Is there a declaration of war somewhere? I guess we missed that one. 100,000 troops in Afghanistan hunting down OBL? Missed that too. In fact, our current President has stated he’s not that important to get even though OBL was the director of the attacks on 9/11. So did Clinton do enough? No. Has Bush? No. Point the finger all you want at Clinton for not doing enough, I have no problem with that. I’ll just point out that after all the destruction OBL has caused our current leader hasn’t done enough.
Hasn’t come close and I hold him accountable. You don’t then you still live in the “I have to hate Clinton at all costs” world.
Must suck to be you.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:07 pmok better yet, terrytheturtle,
what did Billy boy do to stop….
1993 terrorist attack on the WTC
1996 terrorist bombing of our troops in Saudi Arabia
1998 terrorist bombing of two American embassies in Africa
2000 terrorist attack on the Cole
9/11/2001 Destruction of WTC and part of the Pentagon and flight 93.
better? tell me what Clinton did to stop these attacks?
and don’t try to compare anything that is going on today with Bush since we are at a full blown war and we weren’t in the 1990s. Well the terrorist were, but Clinton was sleeping at the wheel.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:09 pm#106, Greg Palast call living in the US being ‘Behind the Electronic Berlin Wall’. Have you seen the media south of the border? I guess Fox is broadcast on your airwaves now - can you imagine a populace bombarded with that nonsense 24hours a day? There is a narcacistic belief in the ‘myth of American Exceptionalism’ in that 35% that will not admit the possibility of error. And if they are wrong, well who cares, they are ‘right with Jesus’.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:10 pmConcernedNorthernNeighbour, please remember that Americans are subject to a corporate-controlled media unlike anything in the rest of the industrialized world. The central message of our corporate media is always fashioned to make republicans look as good as possible and to cast democrats in as negative light as possible. There are only a few exceptions to this process.
The corporations which run media know that democratic control of congress will bring more media regulation, possibly higher corporate taxes and possibly high-end taxes restored to Clinton levels. The people in news that we see on television get hundreds of thousands to millions per year in compensation. Most of them will do absolutely nothing that threatens this compensation which is set by corporate boards. Americans don’t get the news that you and the rest of the world gets. Please keep that in mind.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:12 pmhellinabucket,
so, after 9/11, we have had thousands of Americans die on American soil again? really? wow…when did that happen?
after 9/11 Bin Laden has bodly gone on television and once again said that the USA is a paper tiger like he so bodly said in the 1990s about the USA under Clinton’s watch? really?
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:12 pmThe only way any of this makes sense is that they knew it was coming and they wanted it. Simple. How is that no investigation asked the question: Who Benefits? If 9/11 happened because of gross incompetence, how come no heads have rolled? Say the heads of the FAA and NORAD for starters. The only people that benefited from this is BushCo and his corporate buddies. Why was the money trail, the put options, not followed? How could the air force intercept 67 off course airliners successfully during the 9 months prior to 9/11 and miss all 4 on 9/11? Where did the molten steel beams come from under the rubble of all 3 WTC buildings? If a 757 really hit the Pentagon, why don’t they release the 84 videos that are known to show what happened that day? So many unanswered questions and liberalsarefakes above has a serious case of cranial rectal inversion. All the rightwing can do is attack the messenger because their arguments against the left have zero merit.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:13 pmAgain, for the mindless cultists who haven’t been exposed to real history here is a historians rundown of Clinton and terrorism:
· CLINTON developed the nation’s first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
· Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda throughÂ
preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
· Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
· Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first WTC bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively - and successfully - to stop future terrorist attacks.
· Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
· Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
· Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
· Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
· Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
· Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
· Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
· Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
· Of Clinton’s efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: ”Overall, I give them very high marks” and “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama”.
· Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had “correctly focused on bin Laden.
· Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, “By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him” and was the “first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort”.
Clarence Swinney,
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:15 pmPolitical Historian
In the current context, it’s worth going back and reading Chapter 8 in the 9-11 report again, the chapter titled: “THE SYSTEM WAS BLINKING RED.”
There were in fact warnings about threats INSIDE the U.S., but as the report notes on page 264: “domestic agencies did not know what to do, and no one gave them direction … the domestic agencies did not have a game plan. Neither the NSC (including the CSG) nor anyone else instructed them to create one.”
The NSC would be Dr. Rice.
Regarding the August 6th Presidential Briefing, the Commission report notes at page 262: “No CSG or other NSC meeting was held to discuss the possible threat of a strike in the United States as a result of this report. … We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States.”
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:16 pmlaf,
you are full of shit. do you know the history of the bushwhacks? why is bush seeing holding hands with the sauds. maybe because the bushes are in business with the sauds and bin ladens since the 70’s. do lyou think bush is going to kill the man that put his ass in the oil business. sounds like you need a history lesson. so why are we in iraq when 19 of the so called hijackers were from saud. everyone knows that the sauds are not our friends. they are bushes friends, friends of oil. bush cared so lmuch about getting binladen he sent in the afghan folks to kill him when in fact our forces had him circled, why smarty? why did bush cancel his binladen unit? binladen the boogie man is still lurking. why were the oil fields the first thing secured when goin into iraq? not because iraq was going to get the proceeds. that went to halliburton, carlyle. why didn’t condi read the book report on binladen. she admitted that. why did bush ignore the memo reading binladen to strike with planes? so get off clinton lyour just mad because clinton has the record of trying and your own party is failing miserably. if he put more time in office ins