Guiliani Claims Clinton’s Response To U.S.S. Cole Terror Attack Was ‘Let It Go’
Guiliani Claims Clinton’s Response To U.S.S. Cole Terror Attack Was ‘Let It Go’
Last night on Fox News, former mayor Rudy Giuliani repeated the myth that President Clinton failed to respond adequately to the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, claiming that Clinton’s response to the terrorist attack was “let things go.”
During an interview with Fox’s Sean Hannity to promote his new “12 Commitments” to America, Giuliani said that Americans are being lured by the “very appealing” idea that the U.S. should “kind of act the way Clinton did in the ’90s.” Giuliani described this mentality as “don’t react, let things go,” and charged, “You know, we get attacked on the Cole. We don’t do anything about it.”
Watch it:
In fact, President Clinton was eager — at the recommendation of his counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke — to retaliate against al Qaeda for the U.S.S. Cole. But that attack took place in October 2000. As Clinton explained in a 2006 interview, both the CIA and FBI “refused to certify that it was Bin Laden was responsible” for the attack on the Cole until early 2001 which foreclosed on the possibility of a full response during the Clinton administration.
Further, while Giuliani asserted that “America needs leadership to remain on the offense,” on national security issues, his “12 Commitments” to America doesn’t contain a single reference to the war in Iraq. Giuliani defended the omission, claiming “the fluid situation there makes it hard to speak in specifics about the war.”
“Iraq may get better; Iraq may get worse. We may be successful in Iraq; we may not be. I don’t know the answer to that. That’s in the hands of other people.”
Guiliani’s comments demonstrate exactly how far out of touch with the American people he truly is. As a spokesman for American Against Escalation in Iraq said, “The notion that the war in Iraq does not need to be addressed by presidential candidates because it is ‘in the hands of other people’ is simply preposterous.”
Transcript:
HANNITY: That’s your first of 12 promises. Are they in any particular order?
GIULIANI: Well, that’s the preeminent challenge of our generation that’s been imposed on us by the terrorists. I mean, they’ve been at war with us for a long time. Unfortunately, tragically, we didn’t recognize it until September 11th, or America didn’t, but now we do. And we have to remain on offense against them. We have to be doing the things that you do to keep yourself safe and get this over with as quickly as possible, meaning the use of our military, Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation, the things that were at the core of these two plots that were just uncovered.
It’s a frustrating thing, and America needs leadership to remain on offense. We can fall back easily into what the Democrats are talking about. It sounds very appealing, you know? Don’t react, let things go, kind of act the way Clinton did in the ’90s. You know, we get attacked on the Cole. We don’t do anything about it. We got attacked in (INAUDIBLE) we have a very inadequate response.
HANNITY: Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings.
GIULIANI: Khobar Towers, Tanzania, USS Cole. What you see there is, in some cases, no reaction, and in each case an inadequate reaction. The first attack on the World Trade Center, where we dealt with it as if it were a criminal act. And when you listen to the Democratic rhetoric, it sounds like they want to go back to dealing with it as if these are criminal acts and not acts of war, acts of terror.
HANNITY: You know, I’m listening to everything you’re saying, in terms of the Patriot Act, and NSA surveillance, and interrogations, and all these different issues. It almost seems what is emerging for the general election. And I know you want to get through the primary. But the differences in the two parties now, when you listen to the Democrats debate, the Republicans debate, they’re against these things. You’re for these things.
Going back to your first commitment that you’re laying out here today, you know, we’re going to stay on offense. In that sense, are they on defense?
GIULIANI: Well, I think that this election has accelerated real quick. Three Republican debates, two Democratic debates. You do get a pretty good idea of what the two parties are about. We’re about — or I am — certainly about being on offense on terrorism. They’re about going back to defense on terrorism. And there are stark differences on the domestic economy. People haven’t paid as much attention to that yet. But if you pay attention to the debates, it’s emerged dramatically.
HANNITY: Right.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Republicans can only possibly compete in the electoral sphere with massive lying, now that Bush has left the party in ruins.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:38 pmGuiliani is Bush on steroids.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:40 pm12 Committments??? How many neocons are running for President now - I didn’t think it was THAT many?
June 13th, 2007 at 2:40 pmif clinton’s response was more than nothing - what was it?
June 13th, 2007 at 2:41 pmGuiliani is a typical mealy-mouthed politician. He can survive for the time-being while lurking in the shadows and taking pot-shots at others. He will never be able to survive the cold, hard light of day when his own unremarkable record is under scrutiny.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:41 pmI guess if Bill Clinton had chutzpah, he could blame the traitor Jimmy Carter for gutting national intelligence. Nah! So what DID Mr. Bill DO after the USS Cole???
June 13th, 2007 at 2:43 pmDangerous man, Rudy.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/060407O.shtml
June 13th, 2007 at 2:43 pmdo these people ever stop the propaganda and the lying? i guess not. Giuliani is showing himself to be even worse than what we have.
But, that’s the nature of the beast, right? Politicians and wars, and profiteering - and lying - have gone hand in hand forever.
American politicians are no different and are no better.
Some follow up reading:
“Politicians Lie? Say it Ain’t So!”
June 13th, 2007 at 2:43 pmhttp://www.populistamerica.com/ politicians_lie___say_it_ain_t_so
once you get over the sickness to your stomach, the various gopper candidates are just so weird. each of them has something well known about them that is going to make half their precious base vote against them, or not vote for them. I can’t actually watch any of them, I just like the facts in their resume’s, and the things that they say they didn’t mean it yesterday about what they are doing and going to say tomorrow.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:43 pmthe unifying factor is their desire to kill for jesus. comforting to know they hate everybody.
We must destroy Giulliani!
June 13th, 2007 at 2:43 pmHe is a threat to our Great Mother Hillary.
With our control of the Media and the blogosphere we can defeat him.
Then our Great Mother can be Chairwoman for life!
They will rethink this retaliation scheme when we’re outnumbered 100 to 1.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:44 pmActually Number 1 in Rudy’s 12 step program is to “keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us”.
I think that includes Iraq, the future war with Iran, the future war with North Korea, and a future war to be named later.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:45 pmTrudi Giuliani.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:45 pmMr. Roboto=valiantthehater
June 13th, 2007 at 2:45 pmThuffrin’ thuckitash Rudy, when is the right going to go on the offenthive againthst the home of the terrorithts, Thaudi Arabia?
June 13th, 2007 at 2:45 pmSo what DID Mr. Bill DO after the USS Cole???
Comment by valiant venus — June 13, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
Umm… he had the intelligence agencies determine who was actually behind it (bin Laden), and then he turned THAT information over to the incoming president, George W. Bush, three months after the attack.
And what did George W. Bush do about it?
*crickets*
June 13th, 2007 at 2:47 pmCrump’s Brother,Why do you attack a fellow Democrat.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:48 pmAs followers of the Great Mother Hillary we are on the same team.
The first attack on the World Trade Center, where we dealt with it as if it were a criminal act. And when you listen to the Democratic rhetoric, it sounds like they want to go back to dealing with it as if these are criminal acts and not acts of war, acts of terror.
_________________________________
THIS IS DESPICABLE!! Haven’t we all read news headlines saying a rapist was loose, terrorizing a neighborhood? Terror is a result of an action. Trying to blow up a building is a criminal act. And Clinton had more success bringing the first mastermind and attackers on the WTC to justice than Bush has with the second - with less “collateral damage”. So, tell me why the military approach of also blowing up stuff is so much better!!!
June 13th, 2007 at 2:48 pmRudi Three-wives making 12 commitments??? The guy has stones, I’ll give him that, but honestly, this is Daily Show gold.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:48 pmGiuliani is a smelly tool.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:48 pmThe notion that the United States today is in grave danger of sitting back and going on the defensive is bizarre. In the last five and a half years, with bipartisan support, Washington has invaded two countries and sent troops around the world from Somalia to the Philippines to fight Islamic militants. It has ramped up defense spending by $187 billion—more than the combined military budgets of China, Russia, India and Britain. It has created a Department of Homeland Security that now spends more than $40 billion a year. It has set up secret prisons in Europe and a legal black hole in Guantánamo, to hold, interrogate and—by some definitions—torture prisoners. How would Giuliani really go on the offensive? Invade a couple of more countries?
June 13th, 2007 at 2:49 pmGuiliani is american’s worst nightmare. His personal life is a trainwreck and his political life is rife with organized crime. Let’s begin asking Rudy some tough questions regarding his affiliation with the makers of Oxycontin who lied to the people about the drug’s addictability….he sits on the board of directors there and he should have known that what his comany was parroting was a bold-faced lie. Talk about lack of credibility??
June 13th, 2007 at 2:49 pmI watched PBS last night about the 6 Day War. Let me tell ya this world would be a different place if Israel had not taken out the air forces of all the Arab states in one fell swoop.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:49 pmI’m afraid we’re forever going to be torn between the reality that the Arabs are inferior to Western dominance and it’s contrary to American values of justice and righteousness.
So what DID Mr. Bill DO after the USS Cole???
Comment by valiantly mighty aphroditus venus — June 13, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
ummm, you do read the complete thread, dontcha?
Or do you just post to see your name?
June 13th, 2007 at 2:51 pmYeah The Commitments? Weren’t they a made for cable movie band?
June 13th, 2007 at 2:51 pmWell said Rudy! Call that reprobate on his interest in blow jobs and lying under oath over America’s national defense.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:51 pmTrudi Giuliani is a lying sack of crap.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:51 pmCheck Rudy’s “rise to success”…. being in the right place at the “appointed time to be annointed”, as the case may actually be…..mayor of NY during the attack on 911….and being the next “annointed one” in line….no such thing as coincidence, people….keep looking further….and it’s right there before your very eyes; that is, if you desire to really see it.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:51 pmTrudi Giuliani is a liar and a crook.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:52 pmGulliani is telling lies, lies, lies, yeee-ahhh! (Thompson Twins)
“Both the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration have been criticized for failing to respond militarily to the attack on the USS Cole before September 11, 2001. The 9-11 Commission Report cites one source who said in February 2001, “[bin Laden] complained frequently that the United States had not yet attacked [in response to the Cole]… Bin Ladin wanted the United States to attack, and if it did not he would launch something bigger.”" http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch6.htm
The USS Cole Bombing happened on 12 October 2001. With 90 days left in office, what was Pres. Clinton supposed to do? Attack and kill citizens in Sudan for the attack? Or, if we are to follow Pres. Bush’s logic, we should have attacked Norway for the bombing, right? Norway had nothing at all to do with the attack, but neither did Iraq have anything to do with the Sept. 11th attack.
Neo-con logic (or lack thereof) states that Pres. Clinton should have attacked Mexico for the suicide attack against the USS Cole.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:52 pmZooey: you definitely nailed it this time! He’s one smelly tool of the GOP - now if we simply backtrack to precisely “how” Rudy got into the front of the line, we will see that Rudy, like a host of other things wrong with this nightmare, was probably put in place by the powers that be to assume “center stage” as the next one annointed to be “puppet president”.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:53 pmRudi’s 12 committments should be:
June 13th, 2007 at 2:53 pmCommit me to Bellevue,
repeat 11 times.
LandSurveyor ,
June 13th, 2007 at 2:53 pmOur Islamic allies are winning everywhere and control the media.
Don’t you see that Iran is the most popular country in America.
Ahmadinejadis idolized in this nation.
Iran is beacon towards humanity.
Granted they’re not Arab, but their Muslims.
All Muslims are brothers regardless of race.
I hope Iran exterminated Israel.
8 Million more dead will lead to World peace!
Actually, the CIA didn’t know who did the Cole attack until after Chimpy took office. They then identified it as Al Quaeda.
Chimpy was the one who did nothing to Al Quaeda and this was before 9-11.
Repukes love to blame Clinton for Chimpy’s massive failures.
Repukes are lying scumbags.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:53 pmLa-La-LIAR
Bush let it go Rudy, no Clinton.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:53 pmTrudi Giuliani just loves that Kerik guy.
He’s all mobbed up.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:54 pmPres. Bush has STILL failed to respond to the USS Cole Attack!
Pres. Bush has STILL failed to respond to the USS Cole Attack!
Pres. Bush has STILL failed to respond to the USS Cole Attack!
Pres. Bush has STILL failed to respond to the USS Cole Attack!
Pres. Bush has STILL failed to respond to the USS Cole Attack!
NOW, who’s the bigger failure? Pres. Clinton for not responding in the 90 days he had left in office, or Pres. Bush who has refused to respond to the USS Cole attack in Sudanese waters for the past 2,000 plus days?
June 13th, 2007 at 2:55 pmRudi is a puppet of Israeli interestes.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:56 pmAs progressives wew must stop him at all costs.
If not he’ll Nuke Iran and we can’t allow that!
Interesting you should say that robot. Nassir and all the other Arab liars were propgandizing through controlled radio, telling the people they were downing Israeli jets and so on. The Arabs never had the heart to defend Palestinian refugees. They only thought they did. And when the dream died they went and bought Levis and Marlboros. :-)
June 13th, 2007 at 2:56 pmTrudi Giuliani.
Comment by Tom3
I don’t understand the left’s infatuation with Guiliani dressing in drag for comedic purposes a couple of times. If people are upset with republicans always talking about Clinton’s sex life, why do they obsess about this?
June 13th, 2007 at 2:58 pm.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:58 pmI don’t think accurately knowing who did the Cole is the issue. When Americans are attacked you attack Muslims. That’s the policy they want (and have actually).
June 13th, 2007 at 2:58 pmHere’s the timeline and scenario: Stolen election 2000 ushers in faux president, 911 happens (despite some 43 warnings during the weeks just prior to it by foreign intel agencies), Rudy (the annointed) Guiliani just “happens” to be Mayor of the city of the horrendous attack (violins, please)…. usher in almost immediately “The Patriot Act” (trumpets sounding now)…..Attack the sovereign country of Iraq (for no reason, BTW) (sound the drums)….and then comes our illustrious “Patriot Act” - hatched at a moment’s notice to “save us” from our worst fears (sound the cymbals)….then once the rubble has cleared and the sad fact that they’ve legally stolen all of our personal freedoms (huge swindle of the people), we are left standing here fearing our own shadow and empty-handed, empty-countried, and SOL! Imagine that scenario…..as the sun sets in the west, a few stragglers are seen scratching their heads and wondering what the hell happened to their democracy, their rights, and their country….(elevator music begins)…..and Team Bush sits perched in their ivory tower smirking and giving each other the “high five” as the cameras bring the scene to it’s timely close. Curtain falls….The END….are the last words flashed upon the screen as the movie theatre goes dark.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:58 pmRudy’s a typical lisping asp in bed with the likes of Kerik and organized crime. Everyone in NY knows that!
June 13th, 2007 at 2:59 pmPres. Bush has STILL failed to respond to the USS Cole Attack!
Pres. Bush has STILL failed to respond to the USS Cole Attack!
Pres. Bush has STILL failed to respond to the USS Cole Attack!
Pres. Bush has STILL failed to respond to the USS Cole Attack!
Pres. Bush has STILL failed to respond to the USS Cole Attack!
NOW, who’s the bigger failure? Pres. Clinton for not responding in the 90 days he had left in office, or Pres. Bush who has refused to respond to the USS Cole attack in Sudanese waters for the past 2,000 plus days?
Comment by Democrat Soldier
So Bush has done nothing to respond to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qeada?
June 13th, 2007 at 3:00 pmMr. Roboto sounds more like “President Clinton” to me. I lost track of who that clown was. We need some sort of troll-identity database.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:01 pmAnd as the weary moviegoers skulk out of the theatre, Bugs Bunny hits the screen and utter’s his famous phrase: “TH, Th, TH, Th, That’s all, folks!” But wait a minute……rewind a moment, please. With that lisp, it can’t be Bugs Bunny after all…..of course, It’s Rudy, The Lisp, Guiliani in a rabbit costume!
June 13th, 2007 at 3:02 pmGiuliani asserted that “America needs leadership to remain on the offense�
I think he’s almost right: America needs Republican leadership to remain offensive.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:03 pmThe USS Cole Bombing happened on 12 October 2001.
Comment by Democrat Soldier
Actually it was 2000, not 2001.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:04 pmJust like Bush has never been to a funeral of a soldier who served in Iraq Rudy has never been to a funeral of a WTC clean-up worker who has died because of his failed leadership during the and after the crisis. Both know they can’t go because of their f-ups but they both still use those subjects as personal badges of honor. They are both fake, evil and very dangerous subhumans.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:04 pmYep: Why would Bush respond to his old chum,Osama, in the first place? They were childhood sweethearts (oops, I mean friends) and their families vacationed together. Read “house of Bush/House of BinLaden” if you want an eye opener.
Also, guess who was Bush’s first business partner in his tanked oil company?? Three guesses and the first two don’t count….yep, none other than Bin Laden’s brother!
What webs we weave when our intention is to deceive! Why do you think that Bush didn’t heed the warnings from the 43 intel agencies in the days and weeks before 911? He didn’t want his business dealings with the Bin Laden family outed…..because he’d already intended to label Osama as the “perpetrator”.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:04 pmBush has never been to a military funeral because he never served legitimately in the military. He was a draft dodger of the first magnitude whose father’s dinero managed to pull strings and get him into a national guard unit, that’s why.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:06 pmBerger rejected four plans to kill or capture bin Laden
THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | July 24, 2004 | James G. Lakely
President Clinton’s national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, rejected four plans to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, worrying once that if the plans failed and al Qaeda launched a counterattack, “we’re blamed.”
According to the September 11 commission’s 567-page report, released Thursday, Mr. Berger was told in June 1999 that U.S. intelligence agents were confident about bin Laden’s presence in a terrorist training camp called Tarnak Farms in Afghanistan.
Mr. Berger’s “hand-written notes on the meeting paper,” the report says, showed that Mr. Berger was worried about injuring or killing civilians located near the camp.
Additionally, “If [bin Laden] responds” to the attack, “we’re blamed,” Mr. Berger wrote.
The report also says that Richard Clarke, Mr. Berger’s expert on counterterrorism, presented that plan to get bin Laden because he was worried about the al Qaeda leader’s “ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”
These revelations come as Mr. Berger is under investigation by the Justice Department for smuggling several copies of classified documents that dealt with the Clinton administration’s anti-terror policies out of the National Archives.
Commission Co-chairman Lee Hamilton said Thursday, however, that the missing documents Mr. Berger has acknowledged taking doesn’t affect “the integrity” of the final report.
According to the report, the first plan of action against bin Laden presented to Mr. Berger was a briefing by CIA Director George J. Tenet on May 1, 1998. Mr. Berger took no action, the report says, because he was “focused most” on legal questions.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com …
June 13th, 2007 at 3:06 pmCondumb Trolls need another B*tch Slap of Facts.
Actually, it was the GOP congress who cut the military budget. Clinton was quite strong on defense:
CLINTON Developed the nation’s first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
CLINTON Stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
CLINTON Stopped cold the planned attack to kill the Pope
CLINTON Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously
CLINTON Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters
CLINTON Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters
CLINTON Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington
CLINTON Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport
CLINTON Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY
CLINTON Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge
CLINTON Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania
– Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
– Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
– Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively — and successfully — to stop future terrorist attacks.
–Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
- Clinton sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 9/11) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
- 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.
- 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.
- Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
- Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism
-Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries
-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, Bush’s appointed leader (Civilian Administrator) of Iraq disagreed slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Clinton Administration had “correctly focused on bin Laden.
-Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, “By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him” and was the “first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort”
June 13th, 2007 at 3:06 pmhttp://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/clinton2.html http://nsi.org/Library/Terrorism/policy.html http://forwardamerica.blogspot.com/ 2005_08_01_forwardamerica_archive.html http://www.mikehersh.com/ Clinton_vs_Terror_Republicans_vs_Clinton.shtml http://www.milnet.com/terract/whfs_ter.htm
http://www.eriposte.com/politics/bush/bush.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ index.php?title=Clinton_administration_anti-terrorism_law&redirect=no
http://clinton5.nara.gov/ WH/ Accomplishments/ eightyears-02.html http://www.cdt.org/headlines/594
http://www.opednews.com/ hersh_080404_republicans_sabotaged.htm
It was a “hatched plan” all the way. Of course, he knew that Osama was in Afghanistan which is precisely why he attacked Iraq! Makes perfect sense to a deceiver - only makes horse sense to one with a logical mind.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:07 pmThe planner of the USS Cole bombing is in Gitmo. The people who carried out the attack are in jail in Yemen and the guy who supplied the materials for the bombing was killed by a U.S. drone in Afghanistan in 2002.
Glad Bush hasn’t done anything.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:07 pmUnvarnished Truth: Isn’t it also true that Bin Laden was an agent for the US; we trained him when we wanted to get the Russians out of Afghanistan?? Of course, it’s true. We’ve always known where Osama’s been located.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:08 pm“Read more at washtimes.com”
comedy gold.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:09 pmUnvarnished Truth: P.S. George Tenet is as complicit and as guilty as hell in all of this which is precisely why he’s written his book - to rewrite history (Tenet version, that is). He’s a scoundral and liar just like the rest. Anyone notice how squirrely Tenet became when he was accused of having the blood of all of our dead military and the innocent people in Iraq on his hands? That guy probably doesn’t sleep at night. Next thing we know, Tenet will come down with some terminal illness….that’s what happens when one is consumed by evil.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:11 pmThere has been some discussion on what the Bush Administration should have done about the Cole despite the fact that the attack occurred during the Clinton Administration. But, the information below shows how Osama bin Laden was identified as the prime suspect, very quickly, after the attack while the Clinton team was still in office.
Despite the fact that bin Laden had declared war on America in 1998 the Clinton Administration never countered that we were at war with terrorists. In a radio address on October 14, two days after the attacks, Bill Clinton said “even when America is not at war, the men and women of our military risk their lives every day.” In an October 18 memorial service, Clinton only devoted one small paragraph to the terrorists. He never mentioned any grave threat by name, not even Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda. In a “Meet the Press” interview just 3 days after the attack, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger did not even bring up Al Qaeda or the risk it posed to Americans. His neglect to address the subject of our biggest enemy came just one month before the 2000 election. Top officials like Madeleine Albright and William Cohen ignored Richard Clarke’s calls for attacking Al Qaeda targets for fear of derailing the Arab-Israeli peace process and creating perceptions that America is indiscriminately bombing Muslims. All of this despite the fact there was a foiled attempt on 3 U.S. targets on January 3, 2000, including an attack on “The Sullivans” in, of all places, the port of Aden, Yemen.
In fact, the Clinton Administration should have had knowledge of bin Laden’s desire to carry out attacks on American forces. Osama bin Laden and members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad appeared in a Qatar TV tape on September 22, 2000 making specific threats to attack American ships. Osama bin Laden followed through on his promise on October 12, 2000, killing 17 Americans. . . . .
June 13th, 2007 at 3:13 pm“In fact, Rice overlooked al-Qaeda in every public speech she made between Jan. 20, 2001, and Sept. 11, 2001, a Nexis search reveals. Even stretching all the way back to early 1993, when the World Trade Center was first hit, Rice mentions al-Qaeda not a single time in any speech, article or media interview.”
By comparison, she cites Iraq more than 1,000 times from 1993 to 2001.”
http://www.antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=9705
_____________
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.
______________
Richard 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.
On February 26, 2001, Paul Bremer said of the administration, quote, “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?”
June 13th, 2007 at 3:14 pmOBL was funded by the Saudis during the Afghan war against the Soviets. The United States trained and funded the Northern Alliance to fight the Soviets not OBL. But it makes for yet another liberal urban myth.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:15 pmGuiliani is such a shameless sack of crap. Clinto should lay the smack down on him and fast.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:16 pm“Republicans can only possibly compete in the electoral sphere with massive lying
Comment by VerbalKint — June 13, 2007″
And just what lying are you referring to?
June 13th, 2007 at 3:19 pm…
June 13th, 2007 at 3:20 pm“Guiliani is Bush on steroids.
Comment by mark — June 13, 2007″
You mean he will stand up to the terrorists unlike the spineless liberals?
June 13th, 2007 at 3:21 pmI just had a thought. Is Guiliani trying to find fault with BILL, the President, or HILLARY, the presidential candidate, Clinton?
June 13th, 2007 at 3:21 pmAnd just what lying are you referring to?
Comment by michaelnondebator — June 13, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
…and just what referral are you lying to?
Care to debate without asking silly, stupid a$$ questions?
June 13th, 2007 at 3:21 pmmmmmmkay?
“So what DID Mr. Bill DO after the USS Cole???
Comment by valiant venus — June 13, 2007″
NOTHING!
June 13th, 2007 at 3:22 pmAm an observer from afar, and am very curious to see, what new strategies the republican brains trust come up with, now that the Iraq Debacle has absolutely backed them into a corner, and Bush is a ver lame duck
What new take on the lets go get osama game plan, they are going to try this week.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:22 pmYou mean he will stand up to the terrorists unlike the spineless liberals?
Comment by michael
___________________________
No, he will stand up with a Bull horn and shout his Bull sh** in order to win the votes of the brainless, yellow-spined, fearful neoconservatives.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:23 pmI’m so proud of him! He’s hitting all the GOP talking Lies!
June 13th, 2007 at 3:23 pm“Care to debate without asking silly, stupid a$$ questions?
mmmmmkay?
Comment by DRxJ — June 13, 2007″
And are you going to make an attemp to answer my question or are you going to continue to change the subject?
June 13th, 2007 at 3:23 pmWhy don’t we talk about his own response to the first World Trade Center bombing. Compare & contrast, if you will.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2006/ 08/ 31/ AR2006083101160_pf.html
June 13th, 2007 at 3:24 pmKilled the planner. 6 others sentenced, including two to death with one in Gitmo. That even included the guy who videotaped the attack which was comprised of a boat and 2 suicide bombers.
Yeah how about those myths about a lack of a response to the Cole bombing eh.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:24 pm“he will stand up with a Bull horn and shout his Bull sh** in order to win the votes of the brainless, yellow-spined, fearful neoconservatives.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — June 13, 2007″
Like I said, I know he will continue the fight against terrorists unlike you spineless liberals!
June 13th, 2007 at 3:26 pmKilled the planner.
Comment by Kilo
When did Bush kill Osama bin Laden?
Shit, that should have been headline news! Damned liberal media!
June 13th, 2007 at 3:27 pmSo Bush has done nothing to respond to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qeada?
Comment by yep — June 13, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Invading Iraq, increasing by 10 fold the amount of anti-west, and anti-US anger, and helping to quadruple membership for Al-Qeada, while NOT going after its leaders, money, and communication is responding. Then he has done perfectly well.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:27 pmOsama bin Asset
-According to Mike Ruppert, an expert on CIA involvement with the drug trade: “Historically, it is extremely well documented that Osama bin Laden is and was a creation of the Central Intelligence Agency in the 1980’s when he joined with Mujahedeen Freedom fighters in Afghanistan. He worked with Gulbadin Hekmatyar who was running six heroin factories under CIA protection in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
-In 1995, Bin Laden was known to be working in cooperation with the US government, supplying arms to Muslim fighters in Bosnia. The US Senate Republican Policy Committee explicitly names the US government as a partner of Osama bin Laden in covert arms sales to Bosnia through Croatia.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:27 pmBin Laden has maintained a close relationship with the Pakistani Secret Service, a subsidiary of the CIA.
Crazy as batshit and a lying son of a beetch, like the thugs in the crime family.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:28 pmSince Clinton only had a few days left in his presidency when the Cole attack was certified as al Qaeda one would think that Rudy would want to focus on what Bush did in response to the Cole attack during the 9 months he was President before 9/11. Oh, that’s right, Richard Clarke couldn’t even get an audience to present recommendations. According to O’Neill Bush was using that time to focus on Saddam. Now how smart was that?
June 13th, 2007 at 3:29 pmAnd like I said, he will stand up with a Bull horn and shout his Bull sh** in order to win the votes of the brainless, yellow-spined, fearful neoconservatives.
Gee, that was fun!
June 13th, 2007 at 3:30 pm2008 Republican messege..The boogie man is comming and am the only one who can save you. Doom and gloom. They can’t win on the issues so they must scare the s%$# out of you and force you to do something stupid like..VOTE FOR A DAMN REPUBLICAN!!!!!
June 13th, 2007 at 3:31 pmEvery morning when Guiliani looks in the mirror he says, “I love me, I am the best, the world can’t resist me, I am so handsome, the world revolves around me.” Sounds just like boy Bush. Ever notice how the boy Bush always talks about himself during press conferences? He says things like “I call him/her… I do… you must do as I say… if I say a lie often enough, it becomes the truth because I said it… etc… “.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:32 pmGee, that was fun!
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
Heh.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:32 pmFor the record (heh): the trolls constantly claim that “Clinton did nothing about the Cole” in the last three months of his term and they carefully avoid any mention of the first attack on the WTC and the thorough and complete response by the Clinton administration that caught, convicted and imprisoned the people responsible. Like the polar bears, this attack must not be mentioned because the facts have a nasty habit of getting in the way of the Republic message.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:34 pmyeah, rudy’s tough and awesome! i bet he could fix iraq!
or not:
“Iraq may get better; Iraq may get worse. We may be successful in Iraq; we may not be. I don’t know the answer to that. That’s in the hands of other people.”
rudy! rudy! rudy! [sean astin runs onto field]
June 13th, 2007 at 3:35 pmAnd lets not forget the part, where the debt has been run up to beyond record levels, and the very military we need to defend ourselves has been stretched to the breaking point.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:38 pmAfter the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military personnel, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1996 al-Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 US military personnel, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 257 and injured 5,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured three US sailors, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
Maybe if Mr Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 7,000 more people would be alive today.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:41 pmBut, the information below shows how Osama bin Laden was identified as the prime suspect, very quickly, after the attack while the Clinton team was still in office.
Identified by which agency?
He may have been identified as a suspect (probably one of several), but was he certified, beyond reasonable doubt, as the attacker?
In fact, the Clinton Administration should have had knowledge of bin Laden’s desire to carry out attacks on American forces. Osama bin Laden and members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad appeared in a Qatar TV tape on September 22, 2000 making specific threats to attack American ships. Osama bin Laden followed through on his promise on October 12, 2000, killing 17 Americans. . . . .
You want to talk about knowledge of a terrorist’s desire to carry out an attack on America? Does the PDB of 8/8/01 ring a bell? Hmmm?
The planner of the USS Cole bombing is in Gitmo. The people who carried out the attack are in jail in Yemen and the guy who supplied the materials for the bombing was killed by a U.S. drone in Afghanistan in 2002.
Glad Bush hasn’t done anything.
And in two of the situations you list, these terrorists are in custody due to…hmmm, let’s see…good old fashioned police work. Gosh, the Republicans say that this is no way to conduct the “war” on terror.
The topic is this: what did Bush do to retaliate for the bombing? Now answer the question. And no, you can’t count the “war” on terror as his reaction. Go check out the FBI’s Most Wanted list on their web site. Bin Laden hasn’t been specifically charged in connection with the attacks on 9/11.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:43 pm“NOT going after its leaders
Comment by Krazny — June 13, 2007″
Who says we are not?
June 13th, 2007 at 3:43 pmWho says we are not?
Comment by michael — June 13, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
Anyone got the quote were Bush says he doesn’t think much about Bin Laden anymore?
June 13th, 2007 at 3:44 pmnot true, Rudy… he pursued it, but time ran out… this was in the last days of his presidency, as you will recall… he talked about it recently…
June 13th, 2007 at 3:44 pm“They can’t win on the issues
Comment by marcus robinson — June 13, 2007″
Which are?
June 13th, 2007 at 3:45 pmYou mean he will stand up to the terrorists unlike the spineless liberals?
Comment by michael — June 13, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
—–
Name 25 “liberals” who have specifically stated or indicated in some manner that they will not stand up to the terrorists. Please provide links to your sources.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:45 pm“Anyone got the quote were Bush says he doesn’t think much about Bin Laden anymore?
Comment by Krazny — June 13, 2007″
So what! That doesn’t mean that we don’t have troops actively looking for him now!
June 13th, 2007 at 3:46 pmGuiliani = SICKO
June 13th, 2007 at 3:48 pm“Name 25 “liberals†who have specifically stated or indicated in some manner that they will not stand up to the terrorists. Please provide links to your sources.
Comment by WC — June 13, 2007″
Any liberal who dragged our military through the mud over Abu Grhaib and that’s a whole lot more than 25!
June 13th, 2007 at 3:49 pmThat doesn’t mean that we don’t have troops actively looking for him now!
Comment by michael no debate — June 13, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
How so?
June 13th, 2007 at 3:50 pmThey did recently shut down the CIA group looking for him (Bin Laden) as well. I am sorry your vapid attack isn’t working michael, maybe change the subject really quick to something else, that way no one will notice just how idiotic you are. Oh wait too late for that.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:50 pm6 others sentenced, including two to death with one in Gitmo. That even included the guy who videotaped the attack which was comprised of a boat and 2 suicide bombers.
Yeah how about those myths about a lack of a response to the Cole bombing eh.
Comment by Kilo — June 13, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
————
So he used police work? But I thought the Republicans said you can’t fight the terrorists with police work.
Oh wait…that’s only if a Democrat wants to utilize police work.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:50 pmMichael is plagiarizing again. Bad Michael. And, as usual, he’s full of it.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
June 13th, 2007 at 3:51 pmAny liberal who dragged our military through the mud over Abu Grhaib and that’s a whole lot more than 25!
Comment by michaelthemasterdebater — June 13, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
really? What’s Abu Grhaib?
June 13th, 2007 at 3:51 pmmore than 25? how much more?
And what did George W. Bush do about it?
*crickets*
Comment by mikey — June 13, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
SPOT ON! Of course the *$%^# (Guliani, Hannity) would never utter that thruth … and Colmes still hasn’t grown a spine or a pair.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:54 pm#94 ~ No, you’re right, it doesn’t mean that.
It is an entirely separate fact that we don’t have troops looking for Bin Laden now. You see, Bin Ladin isn’t in Iraq. He’s in Pakistan.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:54 pmGuliani is starting to sound like Bush with glasses, I think he MIGHT (just might) be dumber…
June 13th, 2007 at 3:55 pmComment by pgw — June 13, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
——–
In other words…
“I don’t think much about Iraq. I’m really not that concerned.”
Gee…sounds familiar.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:56 pmhey mikey, it wasn’t the liberals who “dragged the military through the mud over Abu Ghraib”. It was the military and political leaders who set the tone for the actions of the individual soldiers and the individual soldiers themselves.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:58 pmThanks, Mike! I knew OSB was a creation of our own CIA in the 80’s. Thanks for the validation and the verbatim data.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:59 pm.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:00 pmComment by michael — June 13, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
————
After the attacks on 9/11, President Bush promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
And on Dec. 14, 2003, Saddam Hussein was hunted down and captured.
And on Dec. 30, 2006, he was punished via execution in Iraq.
Go Team Bush!
June 13th, 2007 at 4:01 pmk
June 13th, 2007 at 4:02 pmNOT going after its leaders
Comment by Krazny
Are you saying that no leaders of Al Qaeda have been killed under Bush’s watch?
June 13th, 2007 at 4:02 pmmichael,
“Any liberal who dragged our military through the mud over Abu Grhaib and that’s a whole lot more than 25!”
After crossing the Delaware and winning the Battle of Trenton on Christmas Day, 1776, George Washington famously ordered his troops to give refuge to hundreds of surrendering Hessian soldiers. “Treat them with humanity,” Washington instructed his lieutenants, noting that accepting the German mercenaries as prisoners of war wasn’t just the right thing to do, it might even sway them to abandon their British paymasters and join the American side in the War of Independence. “Let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British army.”
Abu Graihb was an American catastrophe. We should all be ashamed of what happened there and our country will not live it down for a generation. You and your ilk that support such techniques are no different than the radicals we are trying beat. We don’t torture because it doesn’t work, it lowers us to their level, and it stops enemies from surrendering to us. Why surrender if you know your going to worked over like that.
You are a schmuck
June 13th, 2007 at 4:06 pmhey, could we get a cleaning crew in here to clean up all the troll sh!t? It looks like “michael” (aka Jake) got hit with a case of diarrhea. And of course he missed his litter box.
Go change your undies, michael.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:06 pmWC,
Saddam Hussein did not attack us. I hope you were being ironical.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:07 pm“Let it go”?
Wasn’t that St. Reagan’s response to having our soldiers killed in Beirut?
“Let it go”?
Wasn’t that St. Bush’s response to Osama regarding 9/11? Either that, or his master plan is to let old age kill Osama.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:07 pmAre you saying that no leaders of Al Qaeda have been killed under Bush’s watch?
Comment by yep — June 13, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
So far the best Bush can come up with is Bin Ladens driver or something like that. I suppose you could count Al Zaqwari, but it hasn’t changed the situation in Iraq much. As for the other so called leaders, it seems much like the broken up terror plots, to be overblowing the importance a the suspect has. And the big fish Mr. Bin Laden is still on the loose. But hey bush doesn’t think about him much.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:07 pmAny liberal who dragged our military through the mud over Abu Grhaib and that’s a whole lot more than 25!
Comment by michael — June 13, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
Since you are just full of logic (and yourself), explain how the events at Au Ghraib directly relate to an unwillingless to stand up to terrorists.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:08 pmAbu Graihb was an American catastrophe. We should all be ashamed of what happened there and our country will not live it down for a generation. You and your ilk that support such techniques are no different than the radicals we are trying beat. We don’t torture because it doesn’t work, it lowers us to their level, and it stops enemies from surrendering to us. Why surrender if you know your going to worked over like that.
Comment by Crump’s Brother — June 13, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
Excellent point, Crump’s Brother. I understand that in WWII, German soldiers would fight to the death against Russians, but when facing defeat they would surrender to Americans because they knew they’d be treated humanely. There’s no telling how many American lives this saved.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:10 pmSince you are just full of logic (and yourself), explain how the events at Au Ghraib directly relate to an unwillingless to stand up to terrorists.
Comment by WC
Mikey ain’t gonna answer that, WC, but I’m looking forward to the five word question he’ll have for you, and I’m totally excited to see how many exclamation points he’ll use.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:13 pmWC,
Saddam Hussein did not attack us. I hope you were being ironical.
Comment by Crump’s Brother — June 13, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
—————–
Yes, I was. : )
June 13th, 2007 at 4:14 pmMikey ain’t gonna answer that, WC, but I’m looking forward to the five word question he’ll have for you, and I’m totally excited to see how many exclamation points he’ll use.
Comment by Zooey — June 13, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
Obviously putting a dog collar on a prisoner and having him stand on the ground on his hands and knees, while a female soldier holds the leash and points at him and smiles for the camera, puts enormous fear in the terrorists.
Hell, we probably would have been able to draw down 50% of our troops by now if those damned liberals would have kept their mouths shut and the press would have put a lid on the events at Abu Ghraib and allowed our troops to continue making the prisoners stand around naked for hours on end.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:22 pmclinton did nothing. everybody knows it. why these poor regressives spend so much energy trying to re-write his pathetic time in office is beyond the who gives a sh%t limit
sandy burgler who, in an attempt to cover up his boss’ incompetence in these matters. committed crimes 1000 times more offensive than the bogus crap Libbywent down for. but the burgler roams free.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:22 pm#124 ct, if you can reach the buzzer, call your nurse. You’re overdue for your anti-psychotic meds. And don’t hide them under your tongue and then spit them out whens she turns her back this time.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:24 pmAllah
June 13th, 2007 at 4:27 pmMe so horny please provide virgin.
clinton did nothing. everybody knows it. why these poor regressives spend so much energy trying to re-write his pathetic time in office is beyond the who gives a sh%t limit
sandy burgler who, in an attempt to cover up his boss’ incompetence in these matters. committed crimes 1000 times more offensive than the bogus crap Libbywent down for. but the burgler roams free.
Comment by ct — June 13, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
You got a source for “Clinton did nothing,” smart ass?
Everybody knows it? Who is “everybody?”
Sandy Burgler. Cute. What are you…10 years old?
From CNN.com:
They watched him take the documents and just let him walk out and did nothing to stop him. Didn’t even follow him outside.
What do ya think about that, CT?
June 13th, 2007 at 4:32 pmKnowing what we now know about the political motives of many government officials, it’s plausible that Clinton’s hands were tied . If Republicans were intent on showing Clinton in a weakened state after impeachment, they wanted to wait for the Bush administration to come in and go after Bin Laden. The sad fact is that Bush wasn’t even interested in absorbing the critical problem of this ticking bomb. Ergo, 9/11 on Giuliani’s and Bush’s watch.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:32 pmMikey ain’t gonna answer that, WC, but I’m looking forward to the five word question he’ll have for you, and I’m totally excited to see how many exclamation points he’ll use.
Comment by Zooey — June 13, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
And I can’t wait for him to announce how smart he is and how no one here approaches his debate prowess. That part always cracks me up
June 13th, 2007 at 4:36 pmsandy burgler who, in an attempt to cover up his boss’ incompetence in these matters. committed crimes 1000 times more offensive than the bogus crap Libbywent down for. but the burgler roams free.
Comment by ct — June 13, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
You seem to have a hatred and a distaste for our justice system.
Libby was found guilty of the following crimes:
Count 1 - Obstruction of Justice: Libby intentionally deceived the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,†information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA.
Count 2 - Making a False Statement: Libby intentionally gave FBI agents false information about a conversation he had with NBC’s Tim Russert regarding Valerie Plame Wilson, who is married to Joseph Wilson.
Count 4 - Perjury: Libby knowingly provided false testimony in court about a conversation he had with Russert.
Count 5 - Perjury: Libby knowingly provided false testimony in court about his conversation with reporters regarding Valerie Plame Wilson’s CIA employment.
Please name some of the crimes committed by Berger that are thousands of times more offensive.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:37 pmAnd I can’t wait for him to announce how smart he is and how no one here approaches his debate prowess. That part always cracks me up
Comment by dbadass
See how you are? You’re ruining the surprise for the newbies. :)
I love it when he asks me if I’m in 6th grade, or if daycare let out early. He could cut butter with that wit!
June 13th, 2007 at 4:38 pm*snort*
Comment by WC — June 13, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
Sheesh…..liberals.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:39 pmSeptember 18, 2003–Bush says, “We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11″ attacks. (Apparently the Dick said something similar about the same time??)
Hear, see, and read it at: http://www.cbsnews.com/ stories/ 2003/ 11/ 18/ iraq/ main584234.shtml
–Sandy
June 13th, 2007 at 4:41 pmComment by Jo-Ann — June 13, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
————–
Good point, Jo-Ann. I recall that Clinton tried to persuade Congress (Republican majority) to expand wiretapping (legally) and they refused. He also tried to get them to allow tagents — used in explosives to help track where they were sold and, ultimately, who bought them — but again Congress refused. These two actions could have assisted the government in the tracking of terrorists.
And speaking of terrorists, after the bombing in Oklahoma City, I saw an interview of a man who said he had developed an additive for fertilizer that would make it useless as an ingredient in the making of bombs. I believe he was a retired chemist. Anyway, seems he had contacted either the government or the fertilizer industry (can’t recall) and they weren’t interested.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:45 pmSo what! That doesn’t mean that we don’t have troops actively looking for him(Osama) now!
Comment by michael
In your own feeble words of so-called “debate”, PROVE IT!!!
June 13th, 2007 at 4:46 pmSheesh…..liberals.
Comment by Zooey — June 13, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Heh.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:49 pm..
June 13th, 2007 at 4:55 pm;]
June 13th, 2007 at 4:56 pmPlease name some of the crimes committed by Berger that are thousands of times more offensive.
Comment by WC
The problem is that we don’t know because it is not being looked into. He stole documents from the national archive and we don’t know if all the documents were recovered or not. Why was it that he was stealing these documents during the 9/11 commission’s search for answers? What was he trying to hide?
June 13th, 2007 at 4:59 pmAnother possiblity Yep, is like the thing where bush and his people released a statement about Clinton breaking things in the Whitehouse when it wasn’t true. I wonder if perhaps These were lies to make the 9/11 commission report appear to not have all the facts? I can’t believe that if Berger had stolen something, that the FBI woulnd’t have gone after him and jailed him. Did he even have to pay a fine? It ends up sounding unbelievable, except to ditto heads such as yourself.
June 13th, 2007 at 5:03 pmMy YouTube video:
Bush ignored USS Cole bombing (Jan 9, 2001) - 01:06
June 13th, 2007 at 5:06 pm.
Another possiblity Yep, is like the thing where bush and his people released a statement about Clinton breaking things in the Whitehouse when it wasn’t true. I wonder if perhaps These were lies to make the 9/11 commission report appear to not have all the facts? I can’t believe that if Berger had stolen something, that the FBI woulnd’t have gone after him and jailed him. Did he even have to pay a fine? It ends up sounding unbelievable, except to ditto heads such as yourself.
Comment by Krazny
We know that he took documents out of the archive in his clothes. First he lied about it then he said he did take it. I can tell you this, if it were a Bush official that did this people here would be up in arms.
June 13th, 2007 at 5:08 pmThen I am just curious yep why he wasn’t charged with anything or put in jail. Seems to me stealing documents from the national archives is a serious thing. would you not agree? He should have taken anything, but why has no one acted on his supposed theft?
June 13th, 2007 at 5:10 pmMugsy, you rule!!
June 13th, 2007 at 5:14 pm“Anyone got the quote were Bush says he doesn’t think much about Bin Laden anymore?
Comment by Krazny — June 13, 2007″
So what! That doesn’t mean that we don’t have troops actively looking for him now!
Comment by michael — June 13, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
Wow, this fu*ker just makes the sh!t up as he goes.
They closed the damn CIA department whos sole purpose was to track down and find bin Laden.
Fu*king crazy a$$ed Republicans.
June 13th, 2007 at 5:15 pmWe know that he took documents out of the archive in his clothes. First he lied about it then he said he did take it. I can tell you this, if it were a Bush official that did this people here would be up in arms.
Comment by yep — June 13, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
And, since it was a Clinton official, the right wing WAS up in arms.
But the facts of the case don’t add up to much. Apparently, he took some documents out of the archives, and when he was notified they were missing, found them in his briefcase. He returned those documents. Archive officials said that one set of copies were not in the documents he returned, and Berger admitted that he had probably destroyed them.
Read that? Copies. Not original documents. No information was lost.
Berger was fined, lost his security clearance for three years and lost his license to practise law.
Karl Rove was involved in outing a CIA agent during wartime. When does he lose his security clearance?
June 13th, 2007 at 5:17 pmThe problem is that we don’t know because it is not being looked into. He stole documents from the national archive and we don’t know if all the documents were recovered or not. Why was it that he was stealing these documents during the 9/11 commission’s search for answers? What was he trying to hide?
Comment by yep — June 13, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
————
Well then…if the crimes are not being looked into, how can you or CT or any other Clinton hater claim that they have been committed?
Why did staff members at the archives watch him put the documents in his clothing and watch him walk out of the building without trying to stop him? Seems to me a dereliction of duty and grounds for dismissal for knowingly allowing federally protected documents to be removed from the archives.
Removing these documents has caused no harm to our national security nor has it put anyone’s life in danger.
Outing a CIA agent which has led to the shutdown of a front company being used to investigate the proliferation of WMDs in a foreign country, and putting at risk the lives of other undercover agents…both from America and foreign countries…seems a hell of a lot more serious.
It’s just as serious a crime when someone tries to cover up for it.
If you disagree, I’m looking forward to your argument.
June 13th, 2007 at 5:25 pmAnd, since it was a Clinton official, the right wing WAS up in arms.
But the facts of the case don’t add up to much. Apparently, he took some documents out of the archives, and when he was notified they were missing, found them in his briefcase. He returned those documents. Archive officials said that one set of copies were not in the documents he returned, and Berger admitted that he had probably destroyed them.
Read that? Copies. Not original documents. No information was lost.
Berger was fined, lost his security clearance for three years an