LGF

-RetweetBerger Nixed Attacks on Bin Laden

Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 9:52:53 am PDT

The New York Sun identifies some absolutely damning passages of the 9/11 report, on Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy “Docs in My Socks” Berger, and his deliberate, repeated failures to take action against Osama bin Laden: The Boldness of the President.

Well, look now to what the 9/11 report has to say about the man to whom President Clinton, under attack by an independent counsel, delegated so much in respect of national security, Samuel “Sandy” Berger. The report cites a 1998 meeting between Mr. Berger and the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, at which Mr. Tenet presented a plan to capture Osama bin Laden.

“In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted,” the report says, citing a May 1, 1998, Central Intelligence Agency memo summarizing the weekly meeting between Messrs. Berger and Tenet.

In June of 1999, another plan for action against Mr. bin Laden was on the table. The potential target was a Qaeda terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. The commission report released yesterday cites Mr. Berger’s “handwritten notes on the meeting paper” referring to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties.”According to the Berger notes, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”

On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: “In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’ ”

In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden.This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. Reports the commission: “In the memo’s margin,Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’ ”

In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times — Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today.

Advertisement

261 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 7:55:35am
2 J.D.  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 7:58:45am

It's all the fault of the VRWC, though, y'all keep in mind.

3 mbruce  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:01:56am

An inescabable conclusion,#1AI,unless you suffer from the malady known as LLLism.

4 BIG  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:03:06am

I didn't know "Berger" was a French name???

5 jgold  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:03:13am

This story will not go away even if Lanny Davis leaks it before 9/11 comm. paper and Dem. Convention. Berger was caught stuffing his pants (i keep flashing back to the scene is spinal tap with the airport screener and cucumber) and hopefully the investigation report will come out before the election and nail the Dems.

6 Powderfinger  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:03:28am

It's not surprising that neither Berger's nor Clinton's testimony got anywhere near the screeching coverage as Bush's and Condi's.

Clinton testified the same day Condi did. Anyone remember hearing about that?

7 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:03:44am
8 Poitiers-Lepanto  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:03:47am

I wonder if all these mistakes and lies and omissions are just random leftist stupidity or something entirely different. . .
The saudis can move a lot of money. . .


(docs in my socks ? hilarious)

9 ajf  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:03:47am

I won't be surprised if Berger is found in Fort Marcy Park someday soon...

10 lawhawk  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:04:17am

Everyone who suspected that the Clinton Administration didn't do enough to stop terrorism is justified in their beliefs. Now, it also appears, however, that the Clinton Administration wasn't just ambivalent on the matter (pushing other initiatives instead of counter-terrorism), but nixed the counter-terrorism ops being proposed.

And this is the same guy that Kerry was using in his campaign for the Presidency. It's yet another reason to question the Democratic party leadership's committment to protecting this country against all threats, foreign and domestic, when their own advisors nix the idea of going after terrorists.

The worry about collateral damage superseded the need to eliminate the terrorists and that the US would be blamed for those casualties. So, those plans were shelved. And two planes went through the shelves and cubes, corridors and offices at the WTC, not to mention the halls of the Pentagon - obliterating nearly 3,000 Americans at work.

11 Glen Wishard  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:04:36am

How many years will it be before we're rid of these Clinton-era cretins? How many decades will it take before the last one is flushed out of public life?

Sandy Berger will be back. Hell, get one Democrat in the White House again, and they'll all be back.

12 Mike  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:05:06am

This is Carter/Clinton foreign policy at its finest - don't do anything pre-emptive unless you are absolutely, positively 100% sure you are right (which you will never be) and then pretend our enemies are our friends, in the hope that they will also start thinking that they are our friends.

What scares the living sh*t out of me is that this guy was on the short list to be Kerry's Secretary of State!

This is more proof that we need to continually hammer Kerry to specifically lay out a plan for dealing with Iran. No "nuances", no flip-flops - tell us what he is going to do, period.

It also shows that those who think that Kerry and Bush will approach terrorism in an equivalent fashion should think again.

13 schroedinger's other cat  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:05:59am

I wonder if he advised John F'n Kerry that the fight against terrorism was a "law enforcement problem"? Seems to be the approach he preferred.

14 andrew  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:09:25am

I wonder if ol' Sandy has a camera-phone.

15 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:09:40am
16 mpax  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:09:51am

The NY Sun. The indispensable NY paper.

17 scaramouche  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:10:11am

Docs in Socks: isn't that by Dr. Seuss?

18 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:11:12am
19 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:12:13am
20 RIP Ford  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:12:23am

And lest anyone forget, Berger was working with Kerry as a "informal" foreign policy advisor.

21 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:13:00am

What a load of garbage.

You guys can desperately wish that Bush and his cronies didn't go asleep and reduce the urgency which the Clinton Gov treated the threat, but it doesn't make it so.

I think the facts are quite alarming for those supporters of Bush and co. They went asleep from the moment they took office to that fateful day.

Face facts, they screwed up.

The report said: "The 9/11 attacks were a shock, but they should not have come as a surprise.
"The United States government was simply not active enough in combating the terrorist threat before 9/11,"
22 Geepers  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:13:08am

Glen Wishard (#11),

How many years will it be before we're rid of these Clinton-era cretins?

It's gonna be like a bad burrito I'm afraid.

Hazel O'Leary Questioned by the FBI

O'Leary disputes report she was loud and abusive

"I was NOT LOUD and ABUSIVE, that's BULLSHIT!

23 RebeccaH  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:14:02am

So Berger comes across as a timid little wuss, afraid to take action because he might get blamed for something if it all went wrong. And then he stole the documents that would show him up for what he is.

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. And tragic.

24 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:16:14am
25 scaramouche  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:16:54am
26 RIP Ford  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:17:04am
You guys can desperately wish that Bush and his cronies didn't go asleep and reduce the urgency which the Clinton Gov treated the threat, but it doesn't make it so.

So, Bush should have done in 8 months what Clinton failed to do for 8 years? How very generous of you.

27 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:18:01am
28 VRWC  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:18:30am

Thank God the major media are all over this story. The fact that the self proclaimed "paper of record" has highlighted the duplicitous evil of this appeasing scumbag means that all Americans will now see the true nature of the Democrat's approach to foreign policy. After all, if The New York Times is...

...oh wait, it's The New York Sun. Circulation 324. Great.


Thank f---ing God for LGF, Drudge, Instapundit and the likes. In another 5 years, shitrag papers like NYT will be obsolete. Can't wait for that magical day.

29 Baldy  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:18:35am

Besides WTC I (1993), aborted attack on GHW Bush in Kuwait, there was also the attack on the CIA headquarters (by a Pakistani, IIRC), the shooting on the Empire State Bldg obsevatory (1996?), Khobar Towers, 2 US EMbassies bombed, the aborted Millenium Plot, aborted Op Bojinka, the USS Cole... there were many indications Al-Q and others were out to get us. I must say, I agree that trying Osama could have resulted in an acquital. Why try him, though? Why not blast away? I can't just blame the Clinton Administration, but they sure dropped the ball in a big way.

30 scaramouche  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:20:18am

OT: Another good one from Krauthammer today on tackling Iran.

31 Doss  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:21:25am

So Sudan offered us Osama a couple times which Clinton turned down and we had a bead on Osama a few other times which we didn't use to kill him and the Clinton admin. set up a barrier between the FBI and the CIA and Clinton was so lackadasical about national security that he rarely met with the head of the CIA and never once visited the WTC site after the first bombing...arrrghhh!!!
Also...Sandy Berger oughtta be known as "Footnote."

32 HULUGU  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:23:48am

former mcgovernite berger is just as "sloppy" in his policy decisions as in his research practices--that laughable narcissist clinton is trying to put out the meme of the absent minded profeesor to cover story this crap-the same clinton who cons twenty year old chicks to blow him while never reciprocating unless accompanied by a cigar--btw bush's speech to the urban league compared to kerry's was like a baptist preacher at a funeral oration compared to the corpse--look at kerry's eyes--they are the eyes of a dead man--who has sold his soul--and his body--to advance over his fellows to get to the finish line--yecch

33 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:24:29am

#26

Eh, no...

Bush and his team reduced the urgency that the threat demanded. Briefings were cut back as everyone knows. Even republicans must admit that Bush did not do enough and they did in fact take their eye off theball.

Now everybody lets try and have a reasonable debate without getting personal and lets try and cut out insults. Debate the topic not the poster.

34 Jakester  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:27:24am

Berger was just another hairbag leftist with VC flags and Huey Newton posters in his dorm room!

35 dazoid81  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:29:05am

I'm just curious... If the United States had no reason to bring Osama in... then why in the world would they be paying attention to where he is, and what he's doing? Isn't conspiracy to harm/kill americans a good reason to arrest someone, and most likely the same reason why we were watching him... he needs to have hurt people in order to be brought here?

36 Free Speech Is Only For über-Libs  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:30:27am

I'm sure Katie Couric will get to the bottom of it.

Dan Rather-biased -too.


:-/ *pfft*

37 Yankee Zionist  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:32:37am

Lafayette, you wrote:

"Debate the topic not the poster. "

Okay, please respond to the suggestion that we shouldn't expect Bush to do in eight months what clinton failed to do in eight years.

38 kelly  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:33:37am

it sounds like berger did not want the US to be held responsible for the collatoral damge that would occur when removing OSB at the locations that he was "believed" to be held at.

considering all the greef and shit this nation has had to contend with because of collatoral damage this concern sounds very resonable considering the time and attitudes.

this focus on berger is a distraction. Lets focus. No more overpriced independent counsels witch hunts.

39 [Mark]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:36:13am

What I want to know is whether Berger took the documents to cover-up Clarke's perjury:


John Lehman:

"I think we were mugged by Viacom," Lehman told NRO in a phone interview on Thursday afternoon. "Because they changed the release date of the book and geared up 60 Minutes to launch his book to time them with his testimony and they edited his book to take out all of the criticisms of Clinton from his [original private] testimony. Because they wanted to make it a jihad against Bush."

Lehman says that Clarke's original testimony included "a searing indictment of some Clinton officials and Clinton policies." That was the Clarke, evenhanded in his criticisms of both the Bush and Clinton administrations, who Lehman and other Republican commissioners expected to show up at the public hearings. It was a surprise "that he would come out against Bush that way." Republicans were taken aback: "It caught us flat-footed, but not the Democrats."

Clarke's performance poisoned the public hearings, leading to weeks of a partisan slugfest. Lehman says Republican commissioners felt they had to fight back, adding to the partisan atmosphere. "What triggered it was Dick Clarke," says Lehman. "We couldn't sit back and let him get away with what he wanted to get away with." He adds, "We were hijacked by a combination of Viacom and the Kerry campaign in the handling of Clarke's testimony."

40 Radian  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:37:31am

38

The question is was this post or pre uss cole. The "war on terror" should have started then. Except POTU was concerned about hiding his affair, not affairs of state.

Because of the Clinton white house taking no steps after the bombings in Africa, and The Cole attack (an act of war) 3000 americans died. They were the collateral damage.

They should have startted flattening Afganastan the DAY after the Cole attack.

41 Yankee Zionist  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:37:50am

"this focus on berger is a distraction. "

No, it isn't.

If the president wasn't making these decisions because he was distracted, it was his own damn fault. He's the commander in chief and needs to behave as such.

42 lawhawk  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:38:27am
Bush and his team reduced the urgency that the threat demanded. Briefings were cut back as everyone knows. Even republicans must admit that Bush did not do enough and they did in fact take their eye off theball.

You mean reduced beyond where the prior Administration placed it.

The order of business in the prior adminstration was:

1) maintain and expand political influence of the DNC and democratic party in general - especially the Clinton wing of the party

2) ensure that Clinton's legacy includes a lasting Palestinian-Israeli peace deal (which is what he spent most of 2000 working on)

xx) somewhere way down on that list is counter-terrorism. In light of the restrictions placed on the CIA to act by the Administration, the way that the NSA acted in the most risk adverse manner possible, and how prior actions on the subject were half-assed at best, your 'argument' is laughable.

BTW, explain how Bush should have acted decisively and immediately if terrorism was such a threat as posited by the outgoing administration, when the outgoing administration did next to nothing to actually improve counter-terrorism efforts.

Show us one example of improved counter-terrorism in the prior administration. All eight years of it.

In the eight months the current administration had before 9/11, they didn't so much as drop the ball as never get handed one. A review was underway, but nothing was fully developed.

It took 9/11 to get the current administration to act - and they were decisive. Arming Predator drones, a process that normally takes years (in fielding new weapons systems), was done in less than 6 months. Special forces teamed up with CIA in the field (harkening back to the OSS days).

Bush could have (and should have) done more. Clinton absolutely and positively should have done more. In the eight years he had to work with.

43 Radian  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:38:32am

POTUS
PIMF

44 Model4  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:39:01am

Still waiting to hear how many times Berger's "sloppiness" caused him to "inadvertently" steal classified national security documents while he was serving as Nat Sec Advisor. Surely the story isn't that only once he was no longer in the administration that these "understandable errors" were able to happen.

#6 Powderfinger: Remember the howling fuss about how Clinton refused to testify alone? Oh wait, Clinton isn't a Republican. It's ok then, and doesn't imply corruption or incompetence.

#33 Lafayette: Actually, it's been documented that the Bush administration decided to scrap the previous policy of avoiding confrontation with Al Qaeda in favor of one of wiping the group out. Sorry, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Does it trouble you that you have to lie in order to have a chance of getting someone to think as you do?

45 Mary  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:40:27am

OT but somewhat related:

Rolling Stone interviews Bill Clinton

I think every American ought to see it (Fahrenheit 9/11). As far as I know, there are no factual errors in it, but it may connect the dots a little too close -- about the Saudis and the Bushes, and the terror and all. I'd like to see it again before making a judgment about whether I think it's totally fair.
As somebody who's been in the business of making decisions, to me the most powerful question presented was whether it was appropriate to send the bin Ladens [out of the country] -- and the other Saudis -- without interrogating them first. There's no question that most of [Bin Laden's] family deplores what he did. But, on the other hand, it's highly likely that somebody knew something that could be of value.

I'll go out on a limb here and say Bill wasn't making enough decisions during his 2 terms as President. We might actually be in a different position today had he made a decision or two with regard to WoT.

46 Axiom  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:40:57am

#31 Doss

I question the Sudan offer. Why? Iraq offerred Abul Yasin after 9/11 but their demands were ludicrous and the US promptly rejected them right away. The US reply was essentially "We will not meet conditions to hand over a previously convicted criminal.".

I've never read a full account of the Sudan offer, but I bet they were asking for the US to look the other way while they participated in arms transactions with Iran.

47 sgt tom  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:41:03am

slightly OT
the kerry lpan for strengthening our defenses at home rather than taking the war to the enemy sounded familiar to me... i did a little reading... it in style copies the strategy plan of another famous politician.
and will probably yield the same results, since it is always possible to mass forces to overwhelm defenders at a given point, when the defender is only allowed to passively defend.
who was this famous politician you ask?

jefferson davis.

how well did he do with his plan?

if you don't know, i'd recommend reading shelby foote's the civil war, an american iliad.

48 TMF  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:41:51am

The-Media-is-the-enemy

still not reporting this in the mainstreams. At least without a hefty dose of Anti-Bush spin

49 Axiom  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:42:08am

To add, I wouldn't negotiate with the Sudan. I would have just sent in Spec Forces and apprehended Bin laden without consent.

50 kelly  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:42:54am

#31 Doss

partisan attacks are hurting and taking away resources. Lets stop letting this political hacks push elected officials away from what they are supposed to be doing. With each of these attacks people are being forced to waste valuable time defending their actions instead of doing the jobs they were placed in office to do.

You seem to have forgotten that clinton was out of office durring the Sept 11 mass murder. It was not appropreate for him to visit the site. The focus should and was on Bush as the leader of our country at the time. We do know know that clinton has not had a quiet visit on his own at the site. its not un reasonable to assume that he avoided making a visit without the press being around. They are no always watching him.

51 sgt tom  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:42:54am

40 radian
i think potus was more concerned with hiding the salami

the war dates from obl's fatwa declaring jihad against the us in 1996... we just didn't respond in kind until after 9-11

52 Radian  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:44:21am

49

Exactly, What the hell could they do about it.

We should begin doing things the way we did in the old days. No questions, no coverage, act quickly, silently, and weath deadly results.

53 Palandine  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:44:25am

#38 Kelly

The Berger situation is NOT a distraction. It is a cover-up on the level of Watergate.

Back in my college days, I was doing a paper on the Book of Kells. My university library had a perfect reproduction of the book in their rare manuscripts room. (Keep in mind, this wasn't even the real book.) I was taken into a private room, all of my own pens were taken away and I was given a pen by the librarian. She then brought in the book and a pair of white gloves. I was searched after I did my research,

Somehow, I imagine the National Archives are just a LITTLE more important than a University library, and a former national security advisor just walks out with classified documents, which he then loses.

You call it a sitraction--I call it stealing classified documents with the intention of influencing a presidential election. Berger should be tried and, if found guilty, should do hard time, just like the participants in Watergate.

"Sloppiness" my royal Irish butt.

54 TMF  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:44:35am

Mary

Rolling Stone. Possibly the lamest excuse for a magazine ever. I see on the recent cover they are pushing Kerry/Edwards reaaal hard. And Doonesbury comics.

SO rebellious. When your done w/ your copy, send it to me. I just ran out of t.p.

55 Axiom  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:44:39am

Heh, how do you like that? I mention Abdul Yasin and Iraq and then I see that Rich Lowry is asking about his absence in the 911 Report.

This report is useless in making recommendations for the future.

56 Tupsox  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:45:22am

Model4:

Actually, it's been documented that the Bush administration decided to scrap the previous policy of avoiding confrontation with Al Qaeda in favor of one of wiping the group out.

I seem to remember this too, but do you have a source on it?

57 Tupsox  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:46:24am

#54

Don't knock Rolling Stone...years of quality PJ O'rourke material through them, no?

58 Victory Now Please  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:46:40am

Does anyone really think that Burgler would have received anywhere near the blame and scrutiny for his and Bill Criminalinton failing to fight al-Qiada compared to what he (and hopefully Criminalinton) will, now that he tried to cover it up in a scandle worse than watergate?

59 Jim in Virginia  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:46:45am

This sounds like WJC trying to get Berger to take the fall for Clinton administration errors. If only Sandy had told Bill about our chances to get bin Laden, he would have sprung into action.
There is a lot we don't know yet on pantsgate.

OT- Kerry’s approach to Iran: (No joke.)
Brokaw interviewed JFK last night on NBC evening news. Kerry suggested we discourage Iran‘s nuclear program by offering to supply them with nuclear power plants and agreeing to take the waste products too. (And transport them to Yucca Mtn., I assume.)
Horror of horrors, he apparently plans to do this unilaterally.

60 RIP Ford  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:46:56am

#33 Lafayette

Bush and his team reduced the urgency that the threat demanded. Briefings were cut back as everyone knows.

Links?

Even republicans must admit that Bush did not do enough and they did in fact take their eye off theball.

Agreed. You can always do more. But, hindsight is 20/20. I can't lay down too much vitriol with regards to Clinton for the same reason. But responsibility rests mostly with him. The responses to previous attacks where half hearted at best, and a clear indication that the US was a soft target. Which, I believe, still is.

61 Axiom  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:47:34am

#53 Palandine

I agree. Mr. Berger's actions were surreptitious to the point where I know the tactics.

I once took a magazine from a newstand by folding my newspaper and then wrapping it around the magazine. I also then read the magazine by unfolding it within the newspaper. I was 12 years old and the magazine was Playboy.

:)

62 kelly  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:48:01am

#41 Yankee Zionist

he was distracted because a bunch of rabbid republican right wingers were focusing on the fact that clinton could not keep his pants zipped because they could not find that he did anything wrong with whitewater.

instead of just bitching and complaining about the past lets leave the elected and appointed individuals some time to focus on make the fixes that need to be made so that these sorts of things don't repeat in the future.

63 TMF  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:48:59am

Tupsox

And Hunter Thompson when he was still funny and talented and had at least a few remaining neurons

64 Radian  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:50:13am

re 59

Kelly this is why partisan is good.

Because Democrats in National Politics are morons and will get us killed.

Clinton was a foreign policy moron, and coward, so was Carter.

Kerry should just ship them a few b-61 and w-86 units to save them the trouble of developing their own.

What an assclown.

65 RIP Ford  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:50:35am

#57 Tupsox

You should make a trip down Austin way in September.
:P

P.J. O'Rourke
Thursday, September 16, 2004 @ 7:30 pm
Hogg Memorial Auditorium [UT campus]

Link

66 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:50:44am

*37

You don't really want me to answer that do you?

Bush stands accused of ignoring warnings before the attacks because of his fixation on Iraq.

Bush was told "dozens of times" that there was an urgent terror threat during 2001.

According to Clarke,

"There was a process under way to address al-Qaeda, but although I continued to say it was an urgent problem, I don't think it was ever treated that way,"

We have Tent admitting that warnings had "lit up" in the weeks before 11 September.

"They indicated that multiple spectacular attacks were planned and that some of the plots were in their final stages.

#44

He acted after 9/11. He hardly deserves credit for that surely. And he still concentrated on Iraq even thiough as the commission reported there was NO connection between Iraq and AQ.

So where am I exactly lying? Is the truth what you say?

Good one.

67 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:51:20am
68 brent  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:51:35am

#10 And this is the same guy that Kerry was using in his campaign for the Presidency.

That should be on all his campaign propoganda - "I used the guy that nixed any attempt to get Bin Laden".

"Really, I'm proud of it."

I think it makes freeking Kucinich look good.

69 kelly  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:53:10am

#53 Palandine

you are making assumptions about how the archives are run without ever being there. Not a good thing to do. this is a man that had a very high government security clearance who was reading document that he created. Its very "possible" that he would be treated differently than a student in a university library.

Please explain how his "removal" of these documents can affect the current presidential campaign? So far the only way I have seen its effect is because of policial hacks from both parties are raising the issue instead of focusing the public's attention on issues in the present.

70 sharona  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:53:36am

#33 Lafayette:

Bush and his team reduced the urgency that the threat demanded. Briefings were cut back as everyone knows. Even republicans must admit that Bush did not do enough and they did in fact take their eye off theball.

I wouldn't agree that "Bush and co. reduced the urgency" - we all decided that it was more important to us to pay attention to non-issues like celebrities, having really nice cars, and the latest 'Trial of the Century' to care much about terrorism and the imminent threat it held for us. I see many paralells, not so much in the Bush administration, but rather in our society to that period of ignorance that predated September 11th.

I do, however, believe that Bush and his administration understand the threat we face and have taken decisive steps to deal with it. Have they taken all the steps they possibly could to prevent another attack? No. But I do believe that they are doing more, so very much more, than a Kerry administration would do under these same circumstances.

Terrorism is not going to be dealth with successfully if one approaches it as a police action, to be followed up with standard judicial processes. It requires military action of the swiftest and most decisive sort. We know who finances terrorism, we know who provides the psychological support, and we know which countries are providing safe harbor to those who have or are intent on committing terrorist acts. The average citizen of this country knows more about the threat this nation faces than the Democratic challenger to our current president, whom cannot be troubled to sit for a security briefing when Goldberg, Henley, Affleck and other pseudo-luminaries are waiting to fete him.

Intially, Bush may not have categorized the threat as highly as we would prefer. It is inane to futher exposit that he has somehow failed to acknowledge this threat in the time since the attacks. Kerry's people -- among whom we can count tendentious sorts like Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke and Joseph Wilson -- have shown that, even with the benefit of hindsight, they will honor short-term political gain before the long-term safety of US citizens both here and abroad. That is the key point of the majority of posts in this thread, not that ad hominym about which you complain.

71 Axiom  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:53:55am

Anyone else agree with me here?

People that voted for Nixon, supported Nixon and then commended Nixon for resigning did so because he knew he was wrong and did what was best for the country - remove himself from office.

In the end people knew that would color Nixon's legacy, yet rightfully so. However, his strong belief that resigning rather than fighting the Watergate commission was "in the best interest of the country".

I still think that Clinton was worse than Nixon, though I've retreated a little bit as the civilian Clinton has been much more to my liking than the politician Clinton. But, I fault him entirely for not resigning from office when he perjured himself and then obstructed justice by ordering his close WH confidants to lie, cheat, steal and leak to save his legacy.

I felt this way back then. But these latest revelations make those emotions return and have me faulting Clinton even more. I never wanted him to resign because he was an asshole and a liar; he was both. I wanted him to resign for the integrity of the White House. In hindsight, I'm fairly certain that Gore would have been worse.

72 Baldy  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:54:09am

Hey everyone, give Clinton a break. He identified the enemy: Right Wing Talk Radio /sarcasm off

73 Radian  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:54:51am

Kelly,

I presume his entire staff wasn't banging her. So some of them could do thier jobs?

Clinton ignored an attack on a capitol warship. Fuck a few dead civillians in Afganastan if it wipes out Bin-Laden. He ran away from Somolia, ignored Rawanda, and laid the groundwork for 9-11 by not responding to attacks on US interests.

I know plenty of people who cheat on their wives and still get their jobs done. Clinton was an incompotent boob, that is the real reason for the attack. You cant blame a blowjob for his level of incompotence.

74 Dirk Diggler  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:55:30am
Actually, it's been documented that the Bush administration decided to scrap the previous policy of avoiding confrontation with Al Qaeda in favor of one of wiping the group out. Sorry, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Does it trouble you that you have to lie in order to have a chance of getting someone to think as you do?

I think I have a source on that. From August 2002:

They Had A Plan: Long before 9/11, the White House debated taking the fight to al-Qaeda

It was Bush who broke the deadlock. Each morning the CIA gives the Chief Executive a top-secret Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) on pressing issues of national security. One day in early spring, Tenet briefed Bush on the hunt for Abu Zubaydah, al-Qaeda's head of international operations, who was suspected of having been involved in the planning of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. After the PDB, Bush told Rice that the approach to al-Qaeda was too scattershot. He was tired of "swatting at flies" and asked for a comprehensive plan for attacking terrorism. According to an official, Rice came back to the NSC and said, "The President wants a plan to eliminate al-Qaeda." Clarke reminded her that he already had one.
75 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:55:47am
76 kelly  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:56:39am

#64 Radian

using the same partisan argument it can be argued that the republicans that have sent us off to war are such cowards that they are unwilling to go into battle themselves.

its not cowardly to want to avoid shooting an innocent child standing near a criminal. Our police officers are ordered not to shoot at criminals who are not at the moment endangouring the lives of those around them. the police are obligated to wait for "the clear shot".

77 Daybrother  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:57:53am

#66 Lafayette

Lehman stated 7/22 that Clarke's testimony in secret was the exact opposite of what he said publicly.
Tenet's "warnings" were that "something" was going to happen "somewhere".
Exactly what would you do?

78 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:58:43am
79 Radian  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:58:54am

69

Kelly, Have you ever had clearance of any type?

It is not like speeding. This is very serious.

The source of the document is not the issue. The fact that he STOLE classified documents that relate to 9/11 is relevant if he passed them on to Kerry or any other DNC member. If he passed them on to people who are not cleared he is looking at Felony charges with mandatory jail time.

80 Palandine  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 8:59:35am

The National Archives are one of the most secure places in the planet. Glenn Beck did an interesting bit a couple of days ago about the fact that it's built to withstand a direct nuclear hit because the schematics for building just about anything are in there, as well as the founding documents of this country. I know the place is full of cameras, and I wish the Bush Adminstration would release the footage of Berger stealing from it.

I expect people with high security clearances to be scrutinized heavily, too, perhaps more heavily than the average person. I myself have one and I know that for the rest of my life my actions will be watched. Reports are now saying that archive officials were aware that Berger was stealing, but were unable to stop it.

How can it influence this election? Against all current evidence, the Democrats are trying to run as tough on terror, when they are anything but. If you steal the documents that SHOW that you were unwilling to be tough on terror, it makes it easier to re-write history, as the Clinton Legacy Rehabilitation crew seems to be trying to do.

If nothing else, those documents are a part of our shared history. This man destroyed part of that history. It is far from a distraction--it is a crime against all of us.

81 Millie Woods  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:00:00am

Lafayette, if you want credibility learn to use the English language properly - went asleep (deux fois encore in your post) is not English. I'd explain why but thickies understand nothing so it would be a waste of time.

82 Baldy  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:00:12am

The FIRST attack on the WTC was the largest terrorist attack in the US, up to that time. WJC never even visited.

83 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:02:24am
84 Daybrother  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:03:49am

Wilson lied, Berger stole national security documents to cover his ass, Clarke lied, Clinton lied, thousands died but the only one to do anything is Bush who now = Hitler?

85 J.D.  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:04:03am
Lopez: This amazes me every time I hear it: You write, "When a small plane accidentally crashed into the White House lawn in 1994, West Wing staffers joked that it was [Jim] Woolsey trying to see the president..." How could the CIA director have that bad a relationship with his president? And this, after the first WTC attack. Did no one in the West Wing get it?

Miniter: Never once in his two-year tenure did CIA director James Woolsey ever have a one-on-one meeting with Clinton. Even semiprivate meetings were rare. They only happened twice. Woolsey told me: "It wasn't that I had a bad relationship with the president. It just didn't exist."

One of the little scoops in the book is the revelation that Clinton froze Woolsey out because the CIA director refused to put a friend of Bill on the agency's payroll. This account was confirmed by both Woolsey and the Clinton's consigliore Bruce Lindsey.

Considering the Justice Department's experience with Webster Hubbell, another Friend of Bill, Woolsey's decision may have done the CIA a great deal of good. But Clinton's pique did not make America any safer from bin Laden.

Another Clinton intelligence failure involved a refusal to help the CIA hire more Arabic language translators. In 1993, Woolsey learned that the agency was able to translate only 10 percent of its Arabic intercepts and badly wanted more translators. But Sen. Dennis DeConcini refused to approve the funds unless Clinton phoned him and said it was a presidential priority. Despite entreaties, Clinton never phoned the Democratic senator and the CIA didn't get those translators for years.

Lopez: In sum, how many times did Bill Clinton lose bin Laden?

Miniter: Here's a rundown.


Clinton’s Loss?

86 kelly  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:04:40am

#73 Radian

most of your friends that have had extramerital affairs were not obligated to defend themselves in front of Grand Juries which apparently requires a great deal of preperation. this is time that he should have been focusing on reading all the reports and being able to make those all important decissions that you are holding him responsible for. I suspect that that your friends that have cheated on their spouses were able to leave their jobs at home at the end of their 8 hours and not be required to made decissions at three o'clock in the morning.

#75 American Infidel

Again how does this effect the election. If the papers were never removed no one would have made an issue of things and attached his behavior to kerry. Just like Bush can not be held responsible for each and every infraction that somebody that sits next to him nether should the guy from the other party. Unless of course the infraction was ordered by the guy officially incharge.

87 Radian  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:06:36am

76

Sorry child. War is a mechanical process that requires overhead. I would personally sign off on a strike that would kill women and children that would also kill bin laden. The deaths of civillians to prevent the world trade center attack is an easy choice.

In war there are no criminals, the millitary are not police. There are only targets. Killing is part of the process. The ROE for the millitary is to kill the enemy, if the enemy hides behind women and children, the millitary fires through them. The logical outcome is the enemy is dead and the civillians were killed because of the enemy tactics. The North Koreans tried leading their charges on US emplacements with children. We machine gunned them. They stopped using children because the TACTIC did not work.

See:
Carthage
Destruction of Rome
Sherman's Attack on the South
Burning of Atlanta
Shelling of Towns in WW1
Dresden
Tokyo
Hiroshima
Nagasaki

Wa

88 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:06:45am

#81

What a pathetic post. It's a colloquial saying used in common speech today as I suspect you know...

I wasn't aware that the Queens English was the form of communication on this board.

Play the ball and not the man please.

Are people who disagree with the right wing majority on this board always subjected to abuse? Is it not possible to have a civilised debate here?

89 brent  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:09:02am

#80 ... makes it easier to re-write history, as the Clinton Legacy Rehabilitation crew seems to be trying to do.

What is that expression - "The future is known, the past is unwritten"...? I think it's Stalin, anyone?


Seems to hold true, and that disappoints me greatly here.

90 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:09:11am

#11 Glen

Before the "docs in my socks" flap, Berger's name had been floated as a possible Sec of State nominee in a Kerry cabinet.

91 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:09:53am
92 Radian  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:11:19am

73

Nope, wrong again. One runs a Fortune listed company. Works 18hrs a day, gets woken up all the time and never gets a vacation. But he doesn't complain. Eventually he had to go before a judge and fight to keep all the money he earned from being taken by his wife.

The lesson is the same for both of these people. If you are married, don't fuck around on your wife. Especially if you are the president. BTW he shamed the entire nation by using the high office to nail a fat chick. A true disgrace.

93 kelly  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:14:15am

#79 Radian

Yes I do have a Federal Government Security Clearance that I use on a daily basis (Hint: I work in Atlanta).

I know that each individual is innocent until proven guilty and this focus on berger, his notes and views about things in the past while he worked for clinton are distracting from the recommendations of the commission about what should be done to prevent a repeat of an event that was so horrible that no healthy person had ever thought it would have happened.

It has been stated that berger is not going to be involved in the kerry campagin any longer nor is he going to hold any sort of office if kerry is elected.

Did you have a problem with olly north shreading the documents that he admitted to? if you don't have a problem then you can't in complain about the other guy doing it.

its time to move on over a relatively minor issue and focus on the real shit that is happening. Like the Jews that were attacked in Germany as they left Friday night services.

94 sharona  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:16:45am

#69 Kelly:

Please explain how his "removal" of these documents can affect the current presidential campaign? So far the only way I have seen its effect is because of policial hacks from both parties are raising the issue instead of focusing the public's attention on issues in the present.

If you want the testimony of your presidential candidate (and any other persons who would reflect the opinion(s) of your candidate - up to and including the former President of the US), removing &/or eradicating any evidence, i.e. documentation, to the contrary will mean that your candidate/party's testimony cannot be challenged. Berger believed that the after-action documentation relating to the "Millenium Plan" would provide support for the perception that Clinton, and by extension the Democrats (read: Kerry), did not take the threat of terrorism seriously. Berger and the DNC want you to think that Clinton didn't take his eye off the ball, and that Kerry would continue Clinton's proactive approach to terrorism.

Documents like those that Berger stole are critical pieces of information in determining whether or not the Democrats can be trusted to take over the reigns in the War on Terror. The Millenium Plan documents showed that the Dems didn't take the approach to the problem of terrorism as they would now ask you to believe that they did. If you destroy them, you are hoodwinking the public and electing your candidate based on subversion of the truth.

Seems to me that's a good way of affecting the outcome of an election.

95 GulGnu  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:17:52am

"Yes I do have a Federal Government Security Clearance that I use on a daily basis (Hint: I work in Atlanta). "

Curious, what would happen to you if you swiped some top-secret stuff and destroyed it? (I mean, if your best defense is "Hey, it's not worse than Iran-Contra, you really don't have much to say in Berger's defense...)

96 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:18:00am
97 Moishe Pipick  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:19:06am

OT:

Palestinian Family Pays the Price for Asking Militants to Leave

"This is part of a growing trend where residents are exasperated with gunmen," one official said. "We saw it in Rafah where people were angry at the militants building tunnels under their houses. And in Nablus, where the residents weren't sorry that we were arresting the bad guys in their neighborhood."


[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

98 Baldy  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:19:54am

#66 Lafayette

as the commission reported there was NO connection between Iraq and AQ.

I thought the report said there was no connection between Iraq and 9-11. Which doesn't mean a lot to me. They had contacts before & after 9-11. So maybe if we could just track down the 19 hijackers on 9-11 and try them, we'll be OK. The only problem is: They are dead.

99 kelly  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:20:26am

#87 Radian

you are looking at things in "hindsight". That is something is very safe to do and very popluar amongst "arm chair quater backs" after a football game.

However, you have to remember that at the time of those decissions the WTC had not been attacked with plans and at the time berger was making his advise they did not know that it "would happen". Its was standard practice throughout the world with the exception of Israel to treat terrorism as a crime. Technically its still a crime.

If you have any documentation that you can link to that shows that the Republicans at the time knew differently and had evidence to show that their plans would have stopped it from happening then please show me.

Otherwise lets focus and what needs to be fixed in the present.

100 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:20:27am
101 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:24:46am

#98

No, they're not really dead, they're drifiting on a cloud somewhere in paradise with their 99 virgins or whatever it is...

Or so they were told by the cowardly imman's...

102 Daybrother  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:25:24am

#95 GulGnu 

I think she may be CDC. In that position she should understand how important it is not to destroy information pertinant to a political course of action. People can die further down the road. CDC or USMIL she should know better.

103 Buck  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:25:55am

Berger's appointment did not require Senate confirmation.

Berger was advised by White House lawyers in 1994 to sell a longtime family stock in the Amoco oil company. After initially questioning the advice, Berger agreed to sell the stock, but forgot to do so until reminded by White House lawyers to do so more than one year later

Berger, a friend of Clinton's from college.

---

Berger has been asked to give up his membership in the ultra secret jewish cabal that is planning to take over the world. "He just isn't paying enough attention to the goal, he gets distracted too easily" said a member who prefers to remain (for easy to understand reasons) secret.

104 Radian  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:26:25am

93


My old man worked at the CDC had clearance. My uncle worked on Satalite Imaging Systems for a contractor. He held Top Secret clearance on different code word projects. He was told point blank you will serve 20 years and we will take everything you own if you disclose this information.

Berger knew the rules and broke them. His motives are only mitigating or aggravating factors in his CRIME.

North is the same. If he destroyed documents without authorzation that is criminal. Never liked Ollie that much any way. Did he destroy his own documents or did he steal them first from a secure location and then destroy them?

Any method that is legal to prevent Kerry from being elected should be used. The Halliburton Candidate and Farenheight Fat11 are the other sides propoganda so I see no harm in pointing out that Democrats are weak on defending the country, and Berger's stealing documents that support that fact is a great opportunity to point that out.

The people we are fighting would love to lay hands on Smallpox (pick your poision) and kill us in droves and you are concerned about vaporizing some terrorists wife and kids. Wake up.

105 'Nam Grunt  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:28:36am

Hi guys,

As I have mentioned before, I'm not the shiniest spoon in the drawer, compared to most of my friends on here, but I think the time has finally come for the democrats to fold up their tents and move to oblivion, GWH has proven that he can stay focused and keep his eye on the ball and he IS going to win it all, and lead this country down roads that will be something like America has never seen before.

106 kelly  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:29:58am

#95 GulGnu

i have not been trying to defend what berger has been accused of doing.

I have been trying to say that the views at the time that the report was edited people were thinking differently because the events of September 11 had not occured.

Additionally I have pointed out that the only reason that the issues related to the accusation against berger is relevent is because all of the political hacks in both parties are making it an issue instead of focusing on the issues of fixing the problems of our nation's defense as it stands now.

107 Daybrother  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:32:01am

#103 Buck  
Berger has been asked to give up his membership in the ultra secret jewish cabal that is planning to take over has taken over the world. Said Bill Clinton, "Sandy's just too sloppy with his paperwork for the Elders. We've been told to cut him loose."

108 J.D.  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:34:11am

Group May Attack Media at Democrats Convention: FBI

"The FBI has received unconfirmed information that a domestic group is planning to disrupt the Democratic National Convention by attacking media vehicles with explosives or incendiary devices," the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Boston field office said in a statement.
109 Radian  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:34:19am

99

Wrong again..

Attack on a capitol ship is an act of war.

The problem is a mindset problem. The vast majority of Democrats are unable to construct effective foreign policy pertaining to defense. The problem would be one being elected. Im sure if JK is elected he will crawl to the french and UN and beg forgiveness and help Iran become a nuclear power, making the middle east safer.

110 Millie Woods  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:34:21am

Dear me, Lafayette, your pretensions are showing. I'm glad I got up your nose. People of your ilk seem to believe they have a monopoly on all learning and therefore what they say and believe should go forever unchallenged while we of the great unwashed proletariat should clutch our forelocks and mutter amen massa. You are the pathetic poseur and hiding behind the everyone knows that the expression is blah, blah proves the point.

111 Palandine  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:34:32am

#106 Kelly

So, if I'm following you, if one is going to commit the crime of stealing and "losing" classified documents from the National Archive, one should definitely do it during wartime because there's more important things for the authorities to be concerned with.

Funny, I think the current timing makes him more, not less, culpable.

112 TMF  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:37:19am

Lafeyette

And he still concentrated on Iraq even thiough as the commission reported there was NO connection between Iraq and AQ.

When you take the time to stop lying and check the ACTUAL COMMISSION REPORT, liar, instead of swallowing some biased New York Times synopsis,

you would know that the ACTUAL REPORT notes extensive ties, contacts and connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda dating to the early 90's.

So, liar, why dont you read THIS and then come back when you've educated yourself.

113 Mary  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:37:23am

#86 Kelly

You are kidding right? You can't possibly think that preparation time for hearings was in anyway responsible for preventing Clinton from fulfilling his obligations and duties to the American people. Clinton was responsible for his actions not the people asking the questions. Where is your line?

114 TMF  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:38:27am

Did I mention, by the way, that Lafayette is a liar?

115 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:39:39am

#110

Good god!!

Calm down before you burst something! You don't get up my nose and it's quite funny that you pull me up for a pedantic grammatical error and then accuse me of belonging to some "ilk" that believes we have a monopoly on all learning!!!

lol

A bit sensitive aren't you?

116 Axiom  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:39:43am

Kelly: You're in non-sequitur land. No offense, but I advise you to stop while you're only down this much.

I know that each individual is innocent until proven guilty and this focus on berger, his notes and views about things in the past while he worked for clinton are distracting from the recommendations of the commission about what should be done to prevent a repeat of an event that was so horrible that no healthy person had ever thought it would have happened.


Are they a distraction? Who decides? The government wasn't capable of preventing 9/11 despite a 2 trillion dollar budget in 2001; is that same government unable to address recommendations of the 9/11 commission and investigate Berger's "inadvertant" "knowingly" made actions?

The reality is, the commission doesn't make any striking recommendations that have not already previously been made by congressional committees, the executive branch or non-governmental organizations. In fact the comission specifically highlights many previous independent commission's whose recommendations were never carried out. Is this commission different? Yes. Is Berger's actions a distraction? No. But it certainly does raise an eyebrow.

It has been stated that berger is not going to be involved in the kerry campagin any longer nor is he going to hold any sort of office if kerry is elected.


It's been stated that Berger was an "adviser", a "senior adviser", a "top level adviser", an "experienced key adviser"; but only now is Berger reported as an "unpaid informal adviser"(see David Sanger's reporting for examples). It's relevent because Berger understood that if he was cooperating with the FBI, DoJ and NARA then it would all be kept quiet. The ethical choice would have been to remove yourself from the campaign for "personal reasons". True, Berger could disclose the investigation to Kerry, but he wouldn't have to. The admission that Kerry knew nothing about Berger's mishap is evidence of either Kerry Campaign incompetency, incommunicado staff or Kerry lied and actually knew about it.

Did you have a problem with olly north shreading the documents that he admitted to? if you don't have a problem then you can't in complain about the other guy doing it.


The biggest non-sequitur of them all. The misdirection speaks for itself. However, Ollie North was no more a criminal than Adolph Schimmer, only Adolph was pardoned, North was not.

117 Partizaner  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:40:54am

#9 AJF:

Outstanding point about Ft. Marcy. I thought along those lines also, that Sandy may be overwhelmed with remorse for one thing or another and do a Vincent Foster, or, more likely, as was done to Vincent Foster.

118 'Nam Grunt  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:42:32am

Since we are at war folks, sandy and billyboy methinks, are going to be indicted for treason against the United States of America...sigh I may only wish they get their just do and maybe that traitor Kerry will go down with them.

119 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:44:11am

#112

"Educate" myself by reading something from the National Review!

lol

I may as well just read the Koran, they're about equal on the credibility scale!

120 kelly  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:44:34am

all i am trying to say is that these elected officials and their hacks are wasting valuable time attacking this party and that party instead of working together to get things fixed.

the focus should be the "issues" not getting into petty personal attacks.

#102 Daybrother

very good deduction. And at the location the focus is "the mission" not playing party politics.

121 Athos  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:45:08am

#99 kelly

However, you have to remember that at the time of those decissions the WTC had not been attacked with plans and at the time berger was making his advise they did not know that it "would happen". Its was standard practice throughout the world with the exception of Israel to treat terrorism as a crime. Technically its still a crime.

If you have any documentation that you can link to that shows that the Republicans at the time knew differently and had evidence to show that their plans would have stopped it from happening then please show me.

1993 WTC Attack 1
1995 Ramzi Yousef - Bojinka plot - AQ plan to bomb a dozen airliners over the Pacific - first discussions to use airliner to crash into building (CIA HQ)
1998 al Qaeda bombs US Embassy in Tanzania and Kenya - kills over 200 injures 2500
2000 - al Qaeda planned Millennium plan disrupted by "lucky catch" at US - Canada border.
2000 - al Qaeda attacks USS Cole in Yemen

All of those occurred on the Clinton - Berger watch. After 1996, UBL was in Afghanistan. UBL declared war on America in early 1998. There were attacks made, there were talks of attacks made, and not suspecting further attacks was irresponsible.

And what was the response of the Administration to these? 3 weeks after the 1998 embassy bombings, the Administration launched about 50 cruise missiles against AQ bases in Afghanistan, and against an aspirin factory in the Sudan where, according to Berger, Iraq and al Qaeda were jointly producing VX nerve gas. That was it.

4 requests made by Richard Clarke since 1998 for Administration to take further action against AQ were all squashed by Berger.

BTW - part of the problem with fighting terror prior to 9/11 was that the Administrations believed that it was criminal - not warfare. We were nothing but reactionary. That has been proven to be the WRONG tactic.

Combine this with an ineffective FBI, an ineffective CIA, a wall between the 2 established by 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick, and an unwillingness to address the growing threat, and 9/11 was unstoppable unless we had a stroke of luck tenfold to that which tripped up the Millennium plan.

122 Axiom  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:45:21am
and lead this country down roads that will be something like America has never seen before.


A jewish friend of mine said that he knew jews that supported Bush, but they were afraid that his open christian views was a sign that he's on the path to becoming the next Hitler so they were going to vote against him. I thought it was crazy until a Jewish couple up the street from me presented a similar view. Basically that there was another Holocaust on the horizon, but this time it would be led by Bush.

I wanted to recommend them a shrink, but they're both shrinks themselves. Instead I invited them to a a barbeque, ie a Bush Derangement Syndrome De-programming session.

123 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:47:11am
124 Athos  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:48:06am

#106 Kelly

Additionally I have pointed out that the only reason that the issues related to the accusation against berger is relevent is because all of the political hacks in both parties are making it an issue instead of focusing on the issues of fixing the problems of our nation's defense as it stands now.

Yes, it's irrelevant that a former National Security Advisor, and an advisor on national security to candidate Kerry - admitted he broke the law by removing and destroying classified documents - something that he above all others should have known the impact of.

It's time to step away from the koolaid.

125 Geepers  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:48:09am

Lafayette,

"Educate" myself by reading something from the National Review!

lol

I may as well just read the Koran, they're about equal on the credibility scale!

Okay then.

Buh bye, have a nice return flight.

126 Spiny Norman  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:49:14am

#88 Lafayette

Play the ball and not the man please

We are. However, whenever anyone responds to any of your claims, all you have to say is:

What a pathetic post.

In most forums, your behaviour would be called trolling. I'm just offering some constructive critisism.

127 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:51:05am
128 Mary  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:51:44am

#54 TMF
You got it! RS in the mail. You got a litter box you can line with my Mother Jones?
LOL

#57 Tupox and #65 RIP Ford
I saw PJ a month ago in NYC (new book) at Cato luncheon - he was terrific as usual. Tupox - go if you can!!!

129 Laurence Simon  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:52:14am

"Berger stalls, towers fall."
"Berger spurns, towers burn."

130 Athos  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:52:34am

Lafayette is another that needs to step away from the koolaid.

Guess if it isn't published in 'The Nation' it isn't correct or credible and take the easy way out as opposed to factually fisking the "inaccuracies" in Byron York's article.

Enjoy your stay in scroll over country.

131 foreign devil  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:53:29am

You mean that plump little "Blix" of a man was actually making the decisions about whether to strike Bin Laden or not? Because that's what his pencilled "no"s on those memos boils down to. HE was making the actual decision, not Clinton.

No wonder he wanted to retrieve some of the material from the archives. I thought it was because of this information which surfaced yesterday in Rich Lowry's piece at the National Review:

"Mugged”
A 9/11 commissioner unloads on Richard Clarke and his “jihad against Bush.”

"It is a day of 9/11 Commission unanimity, but one commissioner, looking back at its public work, is remembering the partisan past. "We were mugged by Viacom," Republican commissioner John Lehman says, referring to the owner of the publisher of Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, and the owner of CBS, which broadcast a long, loving segment devoted to Clarke just prior to the release of his book.

"I think we were mugged by Viacom," Lehman told NRO in a phone interview on Thursday afternoon. "Because they changed the release date of the book and geared up 60 Minutes to launch his book to time them with his testimony and they edited his book to take out all of the criticisms of Clinton from his [original private] testimony. Because they wanted to make it a jihad against Bush."

Lehman says that Clarke's original testimony included "a searing indictment of some Clinton officials and Clinton policies." That was the Clarke, evenhanded in his criticisms of both the Bush and Clinton administrations, who Lehman and other Republican commissioners expected to show up at the public hearings. It was a surprise "that he would come out against Bush that way." Republicans were taken aback: "It caught us flat-footed, but not the Democrats."

Clarke's performance poisoned the public hearings, leading to weeks of a partisan slugfest. Lehman says Republican commissioners felt they had to fight back, adding to the partisan atmosphere. "What triggered it was Dick Clarke," says Lehman. "We couldn't sit back and let him get away with what he wanted to get away with." He adds, "We were hijacked by a combination of Viacom and the Kerry campaign in the handling of Clarke's testimony."...

Read it all. I thought Berger was trying to hide the evidence of Clarke's criticism of Clinton.

With the Democrats in charge of things, who needs enemies?

132 doppelganglander  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:55:41am

I am continually amazed at what people will do to help cover up for Clinton. Aside from protecting his own reputation, the only reason for Berger to do what he did was to destroy the paper trail in preparation for Clinton's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Remember, Berger was right at Clinton's side during that testimony. So Berger should, and probably will, go to jail, while Bill sits up in Chappaqua counting the royalties from his autobiography and chuckling about what a slob ol' Sandy always was.

133 'Nam Grunt  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:57:55am

AI,

I read somewhere last night that some of the documents taken were to protect billy from a faux, if I'm wrong I apologize.

134 Axiom  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:58:33am
all i am trying to say is that these elected officials and their hacks are wasting valuable time attacking this party and that party instead of working together to get things fixed.


The Democrats are not very good historians. They should know that attacking a President on all fronts during war time is a great way to do your party in for at least 25 years.

The Republicans learned the hard way when they were attacking FDR in WWII for Domestic matters that just wouldn't fly at the time. It hurt the Republicans pretty bad in the Congress and solified the Democratic Party for the next 25 years.

As with the Arab-Israeli 'Peace' process you cannot have a working partner if you don't have a partner that seeks the same goal. Democrats have expressed that they do not share the same foreign policy view as that of President Bush. Some Democrats have supported the President, but they are the least noticed of the party(Biden, Lieberman, Bayh). Politically they have no traction at all.

135 comment #17.1  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:58:58am

Lafayette

on the credibility scale!

Interesting comment coming from someone who cited Richard Clarke in an earlier post.

Yes, Lafayette, step away from the LLL echo chamber and educate yourself.

136 kelly  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 9:59:31am

#122 Axiom

it appears that you made the assumption that Jews all vote only for issues that relate to Israel.

First and formost most, the majority of American Jews consider themselves Americans. As individuals living in America they want a government policy that is in line with their own values. The Jews you are refering to probably did not like the idea of Bush creating domestic policys that would force his personal religous beliefs into Government policy.

As example:

Pro-choice
Pro sex education (where all the options are taught)
Religious prayer in the home and in the church, not in the public school.

137 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:00:10am
138 paul in Va  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:00:24am

If Berger/Clinton didn't seem to be in a hurry to kill Bin Laden around 99 or '00, could it be because Clinton was trying to establish his legacy with the "peace" plan with Arafat in '00? Killing Bin Laden would have caused a bit of seething in the "Arab street" and shot his plans.
This is from Debka, but still:

According to DEBKAfile’s sources, Berger removed his notes from Middle East peace talks from the National Archives in view of the unfortunate sequels of the Clinton presidency’s two central, mutually supportive policies. On the one hand, Clinton pushed hard for accommodations between Israel, the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors, while at the same time nurturing American ties in the Arab and Muslim world. He hoped to gain the trust of Arab and Muslim leaders for peace with Israel while persuading the Jewish state to be forthcoming with concessions.
...
In deciding to go to war in 1998 on the Muslim Albanian side of the Balkans against the Christian Serbs, Clinton may have been influenced by the atrocities committed there but he was in essence pursuing his global strategy. He chose to elide the fact that Iranian Revolutionary Guards and al Qaeda cells - most Saudi-dominated - were fighting alongside Albanian and Bosnian Muslims – as did his advisers, especially Berger and secretary of state Madeline Albright. Islamic extremists and Arab terrorists as well as the Saddam regime prospered unnoticed in the Clinton years. Al Qaeda was allowed to build up in the Balkans a central logistical base for operations in Europe, from which the Hamburg cell later derived back-up for plotting the 9/11 attacks against America.
139 Axiom  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:02:23am

#127 American Infidel

If I had the resources and the minions I would construct a mini mt. rushmore in my backyard with Bush Administration effigies. They'd be like the Mountain of Truth and their heads would nod in agreement when I'd raise my hands in the air and shout "Is this the only way?".

140 Mary  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:02:33am

#120 Kelly

all i am trying to say is that these elected officials and their hacks are wasting valuable time attacking this party and that party instead of working together to get things fixed.
the focus should be the "issues" not getting into petty personal attacks.

How about a little attention to how one conducts himself? You can't excuse EVERYTHING Kelly. Bill Clinton did not conduct himself in a manner fitting of the President of the US. Perjury, Monica Lewinsky are behaviors unbecoming to the President of the US. You need a moral compass and a line Kelly. It really helps.

141 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:03:31am
142 TMF  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:06:35am

Yeah, Laughayette, good move in not reading the NRO article.

It only has about 10 VERBATIM (as in "word for word") citations from the 9-11 Commission Report in it that confirm that you are a liar, and we wouldn't want our lying world view to be shattered, now would we?

If lying is the only way you can promote your lying agenda, could it be that maybe your agenda isnt worth promoting, liar?

143 Athos  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:06:51am

#136 Kelly

The Jews you are refering to probably did not like the idea of Bush creating domestic policys that would force his personal religous beliefs into Government policy.

Oh, the JINOs?

The real funny part of the post was the fact that Bush is creating domestic policies that force his personal religious beliefs into Government policy.

Which of these policies have been forced on a majority of Americans?

Pathetic.

144 Dirk Diggler  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:08:16am
"Educate" myself by reading something from the National Review!

Okay then why don't you download the actual report. Start on page 66. After listing a multitude of contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in 1998 and 1999. The report concludes:

But to date we have seen no evidence that these or earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative relationship.
145 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:08:20am
146 Moishe Pipick  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:11:24am

I think many people are forgetting the individuals who are actually responsible for 9/11.

If you all stopped arguing, you might realize that Osama is hiding in Berger's pants.

147 RickZ  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:11:24am

# 29 Baldy:

Mir Aimal Kasi was executed by VA on 11/14/02, much to the consternation of the Pakistani population, and they expressed that consternation in the only way they know how.

"Fairfax County Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan said, 'If he wasn't a terrorist, I've got to get a new definition.' Four Americans were killed in Pakistan in apparent response to Kasi's 1997 trial. 'I've tried an awful lot of killers in my life, and I think he's the only one I've run into that is absolutely proud of what he did. You get a lot of killers who don't feel all that bad about what they did, but he's proud of it,' said Horan. At Kasi's trial, an FBI agent testified that Kasi confessed he wanted to punish the U.S. government for bombing Iraq, for what he saw as its involvement in the killing of Palestinians, and because the CIA was too deeply involved in the internal affairs of Muslim countries. After the slayings, he fled the country and spent most of the next 4 and a half years traveling in Afghanistan."

Afghanistan. Sounds familiar.

148 dazoid81  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:11:33am

134 - Axiom

Some Democrats have supported the President, but they are the least noticed of the party(Biden, Lieberman, Bayh). Politically they have no traction at all.


funny you should mention this. I was chatting with my sister earlier, and I said something about politicians having a stance. How I would have been MUCH more likely to vote for Joe Lieberman, than I am to vote for Kerry, simply because Lieberman has a stance! Even if you don't agree with his stance, he has one. My sister (a solid ABB supporter) brushed it off, and said "no stance is better than the wrong stance"... I dropped it there, I didnt really feel like asking what exactly the "wrong" stance is, and how one would know if it's not actually a better stance than the one that you have no clue about...
When I heard Lieberman stand up and support the war, I threw my support behind him in the primaries... sadly he didn't last a week past that moment... As far as I'm concerned he was the last actually electable Democrat in those primaries. I wouldn't feel so bad if half the country supported him, he's got cojones! But Kerry? blech! stupid people are so stupid...

149 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:11:56am

#126

Spiny, how is it trolling?? I came on this thread to try and have a discussion and challenge some of the cozy viewpoints being expressed here. How is that trolling?

Are people allowed to attack me freely over my posts but when I say something in return I'm accused of trolling?

You have to admit, that's pretty unfair!

Seriously does this message board genuinely welcome differing viewpoints? Surely you don't just want a message board full of people who agree on everything?

This country is pretty much split down the middle, Democrat and Republican. Surely both sides should be allowed on here.

150 'Nam Grunt  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:12:26am

AI,

No problem bud and yes 26 months in combat and 10 yrs of dedicated service in the Army.

151 Axiom  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:12:40am

Kelly: If that were the case for American Voting Jew, why are these not cited in conversation when discussing your vote?

As I stated, their votes were based on the assumption that Bush would become Hitler and Bush's Christian views were their example of a sign. This is a CLASSIC BDS symptom.

#143 Athos

The other point is that the Executive Branch wields such powers to support or oppose many views merely by their personal convictions as President. Religious or not, they are still the views of the President and the fact that opposition to the President must cite his religion as their defense is the acknowledgement of bigotry.

152 foreign devil  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:12:45am

#137 American Infidel:

When I heard about Sandy's "docs in soxs" escapade I wondered, WHY? Then I read Rich Lowry's piece in the National Review yesterday and I said, "Aha! He was falling on his sword to cover Clarke's criticism of Clinton in the documents." Then I read today about all the pencilled comments Berger had made and I lost my focus for a second and thought, "maybe he wanted to cover his own boo-boos" but, you're right. I think he was covering (as all the Dems. do) for Bill Clinton.

What do the Clinton's have that they can get people to ruin their careers to cover for them? Astonishing!

But it's also a major weakness in the Democratic party. A fatal weakness, as it turns out.

153 Moishe Pipick  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:17:05am

Lafayette: Don't pay too much attention to TMF. He appears to enjoy shouting "liar"; confusing that with legitimate forms of debate.

154 kelly  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:17:11am

#140 Mary

i am not excussing those activities that you refer to. I am complaining that people are focusing on issues because of political party affiliations and petty issues that distract from major issues.

#143 Athos

Its pathetic alright that some people just are not paying attention to domestic policy changes that have occurred under the Bush administration.

Separation of Church and State where the Federal government does not give tax dollars to religious organizations. (Bush's faith based programs violate this practice that most Jews prefer).

Denial of funds to sex education classes that teach that there are other methods of birth control besides the the Bush religiously inspired belief that only marriage is acceptable.

these and many more issues are what the Jews you know probably were thinking about when they said they did not want to vote for your favorite Christian candidate.

155 J.D.  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:17:21am

Look who liked the report.
Iran, Saudis Feel Vindicated After Report

And look at this.
HAMZA: CASE ADJOURNED

156 NY Nana  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:18:24am

I had read the article, and what gets to me is that there is no outrage, no real news in any 'major media outlet'...and again I ask what would be happening if there was a schmuck like Berger in the Republican hierarchy, who did far less?

Nightline's feature tonight, when what may be as egregious an act as has ever been committed by any official of the US Government is studiously avoided, is the all-important, news headline :

Nightline Daily E-Mail July 23, 2004

TONIGHT'S FOCUS: Surfers are often considered a breed apart. There are all the clichés and all, but for some, surfing becomes the center of their lives. And even among them, there is a very small group who do what no one else dares to... ride the monsters.

The article also points out that john f*ing kerry had the poor (or total lack of) judgement, to use this indictable putz as a security adviser..I wonder if he asked for the magical pair of socks? It was also a case of 'Eat my shorts'/ channeling Bart Simpson.

Yes, I totally believe that the 'missing' papers had the info that would have caught bubba. I only hope that there are people in Congress, on both sides, to make sure that Berger gets what he has coming to him. Give him the benefit of the doubt? Not bloody likely.

And to show what a Dhummocracy Boston is, BATTLE OVER PRO-BUSH SIGN AT BOSTON PIZZERIA

157 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:18:47am

#142

Wow, 5 mentions of "lies and lying" in one post. That is impressive.

So what is your "agenda"?

158 Motti  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:20:06am

Excellent article in The New Republic Online Engagement Announcment by Lawrence F. Kaplan.

It notes that Kerry's campaign has correctly claimed that the Bush administration's policies have done little to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program. Kaplan states that while Bush's policies have been contradictory and ineffective, Kerry's policy is coherent but delusional.


Kerry's calls for a rapprochement with Teheran come at a rather inopportune moment. The very regime that Kerry demands we engage, after all, has just been certified as an Al Qaeda sanctuary--and by the very commission in which the Kerry campaign has invested so much hope. The report's finding, moreover, counts as only one of Teheran's sins. Lately its theocrats have been wreaking havoc in Iraq and Afghanistan, aiding America's foes along Iran's borders in the hopes of expanding their influence in both countries, even as they continue to fund Palestinian terror groups. Then, too, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has amassed a mountain of evidence pointing to Iranian violations of the Nonproliferation Treaty. With two nuclear power plants slated to go online in Iran, and IAEA inspectors stumbling across designs for sophisticated centrifuges, even the Europeans and the United Nations have nearly exhausted their efforts to engage the Islamic Republic.
So why hasn't anyone told John Kerry? To begin with, it's not so clear the Bush team has abandoned engagement, either. Deputy National Security Adviser Robert Blackwill refuses to surrender hopes for a nuclear deal, as does Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who lauds Iran as a "democracy." To be sure, the president vows Washington will side with Iran's pro-democracy movement and that the "development of a nuclear weapon in Iran is intolerable." But long gone from the administration's rhetoric is any talk of regime change. As with so much else, when it comes to Iran, the administration finds itself divided between hawks at the Defense Department and Undersecretary of State John Bolton, on the one hand, and America's diplomatic corps and National Security Council staffers, on the other.
Put another way, the administration has two Iran policies, and the result has been a mix of good and bad. Kerry, by contrast, boasts a single, coherent, and--to judge by the description of Teheran's activities in yesterday's report--utterly delusional Iran policy. Now, if only the Bush team could sort out its own, it might have an opportunity to draw a meaningful distinction

[Link: www.tnr.com...]

159 AngryDumbo  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:21:11am

#39 [Mark]

Your point is well taken. Lehman has being criticized along with the other Republican members of the 9/11 Commission for being sand bagged by Clarke.

Its undisputed now that Clarke's public testimony did not match up with the testimony he gave in private to the Commission. Further, the private testimony was far more critical of the Clinton administration than of the Bush administration (only logical, given that Bush was only in office 8 months and had a full cabinet for less than two months before 9/11).

That said, the real story is not only how Clarke pulled punches with the Commission during his public - televised - testimony, but if other members of the Democratic party knew of his testimony in advance.

This seems to be the logical implication now that we know that Berger tried to deep six some top secret NSA "bad docs." Clinton is on record saying that he knew of Berger's "inadvertant removal" of the docs from the National Archives . . . and thought it was no big deal. (Liddy's comments that he wishes he received as much sympathy as Berger is receiving in the press are great and remind us what sorry partisan hacks the US press corp has become.)


Is it a stretch to say that other Democrats in Clinton's inner circle also knew? Why did Kerry's campaign scramble to pull down those policy speeches?

At the VERY LEAST this should take us back to the infamous Rockefeller memo.

Hey who wants to go to Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight?

$100 Million bucks in the bank and "Catwoman" is more realistic. Who said Micheal Moore is not a genius.

He sure as hell couldn't have released his movie next year!

160 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:21:17am
161 Moishe Pipick  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:22:30am

157

#142

Wow, 5 mentions of "lies and lying" in one post. That is impressive.

So what is your "agenda"?

Apparently, it's similar to Al Franken's...

162 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:25:21am
163 kelly  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:27:10am

#156 NY Nana

from the looks of the drudge report the resturant owner is pissed that he will not have access to the potential DNC customers that will be getting their food in the convention center.

its rather petty of the city employees wanting the sign removed. i guess its that any city that has that many out-of-towners bringing money to the city would not want to offend those same out-of-towners causing them to spend less money while in the city.

its not a political party issue. Its about MONEY.

164 Model4  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:28:05am

#66 Lafayette: See Dirk's post #74 for documented proof refuting your claim that "Bush and his team reduced the urgency that the threat demanded."

Interesting too that you would cite Richard Clarke, a discredited partisan hack. Note that during the Clinton administration he believed in a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. To sell his book now, he has rewritten his own history to say he believes there was no evidence to this.

More facts? Why not? Before 9/11, the "preoccupied with Iraq president" did not topple Hussein's regime. Wasn't that long ago, remember? When we learned of Al Qaeda culpability and Afghan sanctuary we took out... yes that's right... Al Qaeda and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan first. Really, doesn't it bother you that these well-known public domain facts refute your claim completely?

the commission reported there was NO connection between Iraq and AQ.

Another falsehood (who could ever decipher this pattern?). There was one preliminary statement in writing that contradicted other parts of their findings if taken out of context. Much like the dowdification of turning "I don't like spinach" into "I ... like spinach." Fact 9/11 commissioners from both parties went on television after some started abusing their wording to state, unequivocably, for the record, that there were connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Sorry, known facts and events reduce to rubble your stated wishes and opinions. What happened to you, if you don't mind my asking, that caused you to go beyond partisanship and into a realm so thoroughly detached from reality? And worse, to laughably attempt to drag others with you through the looking glass?

165 American Infidel[deleted]  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:30:46am
166 Athos  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:32:31am

#154 Kelly,

Frankly, most of the Jews that I know are deciding on whom to vote for based on something other than the fact that President Bush is proud of his faith and beliefs.

They are basing their votes on who will be the best to protect the country since islamofasicsts have declared war against us. They are basing their votes based on who has the best vision for the economy - one based on the traditional American values of rewarding those who work to achieve as opposed to wealth redistribution or bigger government equals better government.

Frankly, when it comes to sex education, why is the concept of marriage (responsibility) and abstinence so horrifying as opposed to teaching 5th graders how to put condoms on vegetables? Does an unending supply of condoms really educate people on sex and the responsibilities / risks that accompany it?

Funny, in Africa, the UN and NGO's want to flood the continent with condoms to stop the spread of AIDS, yet, the countries that combine this with the teachings on the responsibilities, and abstinence are the only ones starting to get a handle on the pandemic.

Then you bash the "faith based initiatives" because of the clause of Separation of Church and State. Where in the constitution is this clause?

Typical L³ whinging.

Just like tossing the phrase "most Jews prefer" - how about some facts that support "most Jews prefer"? I think that you are only referencing a few JINO's that are vocal in their beliefs.

167 Mary  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:33:40am

#154 kelly

Where is your line though - what's petty and what's not (hint: perjury, theft)?

168 NY Nana  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:36:03am

#155 J.D.

Re 'the hook'? In a way it is better that it be adjourned, as extraditing him to the USA would only embolden the RoP to try and free him, as the UK has far better security, sadly, than we do. Can you imagine if he arrived any time near the election?

Maybe we will get lucky, and the 'ill' prisoner will drop dead.

Here is more info on this bastard:FANATIC SHEIKH'S VIDEOS OF TERROR

169 Spiny Norman  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:36:33am

#157 Lafayette,

Wow, you're still trolling! That is impressive.


Whining about other's ad hominems, but not his own, in 5... 4... 3...

170 Moishe Pipick  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:39:00am

Interesting too that you would cite Richard Clarke, a discredited partisan hack. opinion

Note that during the Clinton administration he believed in a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. source?

To sell his book now, he has rewritten his own history to say he believes there was no evidence to this. opinion

"When we learned of Al Qaeda culpability and Afghan sanctuary we took out... yes that's right... Al Qaeda and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan first. Really, doesn't it bother you that these well-known public domain facts refute your claim completely?"

lafayette believes thats Bush only began to decenter his focus on Iraq *after* 9/11. Objectively, your "facts" really do nothing to weaken this position.

171 TMF  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:39:32am
Lafayette: Don't pay too much attention to TMF. He appears to enjoy shouting "liar"; confusing that with legitimate forms of debate.

There is no legitimate debate with a poster, like Laughayette, who has repeatedly posted complete distortions of the truth, such as "the 9-11 Commission denied any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda".

Which of course has been debunked per the excellent and accurate post of Model 4, at #164 above.

My admittedly low brow responses are therefore more than appropriate as it is Laughayette who is uninterested in debating based on FACTS and THE TRUTH as opposed to DNC talking points.

Or are you a moron too and I am therefore wasting finger energy on you?

172 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:45:56am

But there were no link between SH and AQ with regards to 9/11. The report does say that. Are you trying to second guess their conclusions? Do you know something that they don't?

Speaking of Al Franken and his little pow-wow with Fox, Fox are facing a legal challenge over the use of their slogan "Fair and Balanced" It was filed by AlterNet,

So why did AlterNet go out on this limb? Mainly, because we were angry. Really angry. We felt that Fox's false and misleading claim of being "fair and balanced'" was an affront, a slap in the face, to us and to all the other honest and hardworking journalists who devote their lives (sometimes even lose their lives) to the gathering and reporting of news that truly is "fair and balanced."
173 Moishe Pipick  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:46:39am

Also Model4

"Fact 9/11 commissioners from both parties went on television after some started abusing their wording to state, unequivocably, for the record, that there were connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

There is a "connection" between al Qaeda and Florida.

Apparently however, the connection did not represent a real "relationship". One that note, does anyone know if any higher-ups in Iran knew that they were giving Quaeda agents safe passage/refuge?

174 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:53:30am

TMF,

My middle finger is full of energy at the moment, guess where it's pointed?!

175 Moishe Pipick  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:54:43am

"Or are you a moron too and I am therefore wasting finger energy on you"

Well TMF, I don't think I'm a moron but then again I don't think with my finger.

I thought L was claiming that the 9/11 commission's report suggests that there was not a relationship between Iraq and al Quaeda that would justify a war on these grounds. Certainly, al Qaeda has connections with many nations? What exactly is your point in accentuating the "connections" between Iraq and al Quaeda then?

Although, it may have to wait...I need to go make salads for Shabbos.

cheers...

176 RickZ  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:54:46am

# 152 Foreign Devil:

I think [Berger] was covering (as all the Dems. do) for Bill Clinton.

I also have a sneaky suspician that by covering for Billy Bob, they're also protecting a run at the presidency by Billy Bob's wife, Hitlery. If his "legacy" goes down in appropriate flames, so, too, do her grand aspirations.

177 'Nam Grunt  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:56:32am

I've watched and read things these dem's are saying and doing and I really think that they believe they are celebrities, so that they can get on the Fox, CNN, and other media stations in order to write or proclaim their books and appear that they are trying to make a difference to get rid of our beloved President, if you ask me they are all a bunch of shallow people that don't even have a life, how dare they say things about a man that is trying to look out for the welfare of this country, it seems to me that if they would want to help, then volunteer to go and fight for their country as I and many of my friends did in Vietnam, but nooo they are to afraid.

178 AngryDumbo  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:56:42am

How long will it be after this partisan pissing match we call an election will it take before the media and academics are forced to acknowledge the following:

- President George W. Bush picked up the batton dropped since Reagan left office and re-established the United States as the moral leader of the world

- the post 9/11 era was the golden age of U.S. foreign policy

- peace with radical jhiadis was only acheivable through the unrelenting exertion of political and military force


The answer is never.

We shouldn't whine about the media and academics, they live in a different world and are pre-programmed to believe the following:

Republicans are either rich or ignorant,

supply side economics benefits only the wealthy,

the fall of Communism was inevitable,

the Cold War didn't exist,

and the unilateral use of military force is never justified.

179 NY Nana  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:57:46am

#166 Athos

Frankly, most of the Jews that I know are deciding on whom to vote for based on something other than the fact that President Bush is proud of his faith and beliefs.

They are basing their votes on who will be the best to protect the country since islamofasicsts have declared war against us. They are basing their votes based on who has the best vision for the economy - one based on the traditional American values of rewarding those who work to achieve as opposed to wealth redistribution or bigger government equals better government.

Hey, have you got magical powers that allow you to read my mind??? :)

Bingo! That is exactly why we are voting for him, and did in 2000.

#163 As a Bostonian by birth, there is a reason that everyone who can has planned ahead of time to be on holiday, just as New Yorkers are:Ones convention is anothers ticket to escape the jam.

Re the owner of the pizza restaurant? Security would be the reason he has to close..location, location, location! Apparently you 'missed' the following:

The 24-foot-long sign at Halftime Pizza across the street from Boston's FleetCenter isn't exactly welcoming to the Democratic National Convention: "Say!!! D.N.C. Thanks for Nothing!!! Go Bush."

Security measures and the availability of free food for delegates led Mark Pasquale, owner of Halftime, to shut his restaurant down for the week of the convention and erect the sign. Just possibly the owner is intelligent enough to be a Republican?

Just as in NYC,the City of Boston must have let him know way in advance, but Mayor Menino, of Boston, is an asshole, and a dhummicrat...

180 TMF  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 10:59:10am

Laughayette

But there were no link between SH and AQ with regards to 9/11. The report does say that. Are you trying to second guess their conclusions? Do you know something that they don't

Uhhh, actually, yeah I do.

Try checking THIS out and tell me there is no basis for asserting a tie between Sadaam and 9-11.

Oh yeah and THIS re: Iraq and ties to terrorism, including Al Qaeda going way, way back.

181 sefton  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:01:43am

Y'all fight nice now.

182 TMF  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:02:27am

#174

Ummm, I'll assume it's pointing at your reflection in the monitor?

Or do you have some "friends" you might want to tell your shrink about?

183 'Nam Grunt  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:05:34am

I'm behind your post's all the the way TMF, get him and don't give any quarter, after all the middle of his name is Fay.

184 sefton  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:07:21am

I know you are ,but what am I?
I know you are ,but what am I?
I know you are ,but what am I? Infinity!!
NYAAAH!!

185 'Nam Grunt  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:11:07am

One thing I have learned here, since becoming a member, is if you don't have the fact's then STFU!

186 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:11:40am
how dare they say things about a man that is trying to look out for the welfare of this country

That's a pretty provocative thing to say, all Americans are free to comment on the POTUS. It's not only a right but an actual obligation.

And the last 4 letters of your name are??!!

187 Axiom  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:12:50am

Weird.

You know how Lanny Davis is rumored to be the source of the leak of the Berger investigation? Lanny Davis is also a member of Skull & Bones. He also was George W. Bush's fraternity brother at Yale.

Lanny's legal specialty is "Legal Crisis Management" according to his bio at Orrick LLP.

188 sefton  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:14:33am

Booger eater.

AM NOT!


ARE TOO!!
NYAAAH!!!

189 'Nam Grunt  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:16:09am

Fay,

bwahahaha, I'll just follow the prayer, but FOAD anyway.

190 NY Nana  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:17:19am

#183 'Nam Grunt

G-d bless you for your service.

BTW, 'lafayette' not only has a 'Fay' in the middle, but is a fwench name!

191 Dirk Diggler  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:19:32am
My middle finger is full of energy at the moment, guess where it's pointed?!

I believe it's time to relegate Lafayette's posts to that mystical, magical land known as scrollover country. He has ceased even the pretense of any meaningful debate.

192 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:20:05am
but FOAD anyway.

No, why don't you?

193 quark2  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:21:37am

@38 kelly

So, breaching the security of the United States and breaking federal laws are just a distraction?
How ingenious of you!

194 sefton  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:22:20am

HEY, YOU TWO!!
DON'T MAKE PULL THIS CAR OVER AND COME BACK THERE!

195 Axiom  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:26:00am

#194 sefton

Where are we headed? If it's to the end of dhimmitude, a NY Times mea culpa claiming "we're incompetent" or an the end of the WoT then it's gonna be a long trip.

196 sefton  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:27:01am

" Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue. "

197 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:27:57am

Oh I see Dirk, so again, people are free to attack the likes of me and Moishe, get called a moron and told to F**k off and other choice little insults but I can't respond to that?

It seems the trolls on this board are those who respond to anybody disagreeing with them with foul language and abuse and then when they get a response they ludicrously cry foul!!!

Actually it seems a not so clever way to stifle debate, bring the conversation down to gutter level to deflect from the real issues and then dismiss the poster for matching like with like!!!

198 'Nam Grunt  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:29:18am

Thankyou Nana.

199 RickZ  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:30:37am

# 190 NY Nana:

Not to stick up for "lafayette" the poster, but I will stick up for the Frenchman, the Marquis de Lafayette. He was around, though, when the French had a pair. Can't knock somebody who was a "friend of George."

200 TMF  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:31:05am

Im sorry, did I just hear something?

201 Moishe Pipick  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:32:04am

Funny, posts 170, 173, 175 contain actual questions/information, however they have not been acknowledged.

You may continue flaying the french faggot.

202 Mojo Jojo  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:34:48am

Berger is also one of the founding members of American Jews for Peace Now. I very bad guy. I hope this guy does some hard time & gets "butt-raped". Now that's Justice.

203 sefton  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:35:48am

TMF- You are never going to change the mind of Laffy-boy.

Laffy- Stooping to name calling (even in response to same ) will never gain you any points here.

I've been trying to use humor to get the debate back to a civil tone, but to no avail.

In about three hours this will make a fine drinking thread though!

204 Dirk Diggler  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:37:33am
Oh I see Dirk, so again, people are free to attack the likes of me and Moishe, get called a moron and told to F**k off and other choice little insults but I can't respond to that?

Well you could ignore them. Or perhaps you could respond to Model4, myself, and all the other posters here presenting evidence that refutes your wild assertions. Perhaps you could even present evidence and arguments in support of your positions? If I'm not mistaken that constitutes a 'debate'.

205 TMF  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:38:08am

Moishe Pipick

Funny, post #180 contains actual LINKS to an enormous quantity of information and evidence establishing ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Obliterating the claim by many that a "secularist"' like Sadaam would never link up with a "jihadist" like Osama, and establishing the real dangers of state sponsorship of terrorism.

However it has not been acknowledged.

You may go back to fellating yourself, which I assume is your euphamism for "making salads for shabbos".

206 RickZ  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:41:11am

# 205 TMF:

You may go back to fellating yourself, which I assume is your euphamism for "making salads for shabbos".

ROTFLMAO!!!

207 Model4  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:42:21am

Lafayette: Let's show the class how you're engaging in a little more dishonesty. In post #172 you said

But there were no link between SH and AQ with regards to 9/11. The report does say that. Are you trying to second guess their conclusions?

What you said in post #66 was

the commission reported there was NO connection between Iraq and AQ.

That little game is called "moving the goalposts." You made a claim, and it was refuted. Now an honest person would at that point have said "Yes, you're right, what I had meant to say was..." Instead, as mentioned previously, you have to hope for a befuddled person to not notice your attempt at the switcheroo. I never claimed there was a link between "SH and AQ with regards to 9/11," so it's a strawman for you to pretend I did. Notice, no reference to SH or 9/11 was made in your earlier assertion.

As to "second guessing their assertions" (which it seems you at least are allowed), there is no need. As stated before, when partisans started to quote their report out of context, members of the commission from both parties went on national television on multiple outlets to state for the record that there were links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Is this personal with you? At no point did I say that I'm smarter than you, better than you, and gosh darnit, people like me more. All I've said is that you have been saying things that are untrue. Repeatedly. You could own up to it, or not. I don't know of a person here that has my respect who hasn't posted something erroneous. But they earned and kept their credibility by owning up to their mistakes and working with their challengers to find the truth. Those that habitually lie and then refuse to come clean when caught are spit out by most readers here in short order.

208 Artisticulated  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:45:49am

pssst, hey, over here…
lost of room in the prayer closet.

Plus a good view for when Charles trims the rolls. heh ;-)

209 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:46:42am

What wild assertions? I refered to the conclusion in the report that stated there was no operational link between al-Qaeda and ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. I also referred to Richard Clark's testimony as well. Everything I have said with regards to those are facts, they made these statements in front of the world.

Model4 has given some very subjective opinions like saying Clark is a "discredited partisan hack" discredited by who?

So my arguments represent actual statements from the commissions report as well as actual testimony from Clark.

210 sefton  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:47:15am

Model4

Dats what I'm talkin' about!
Civil debate, reasonable questions.
A civil, reasoned response?
We shall see.

211 AngryDumbo  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:51:06am

Micheal Moore cashing in on liberal angst at a theatre near you.

212 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:54:16am

Model4, I meant to say in the original statement I made that I was talking about the link regarding SH and AQ with regards to 9/11. Mea culpa, I was too damn fast on the keyboard! Apologies for that.

I would just like to debate these issues in a good healthy manner. I just hope centerist guys like myself are genuinely welcome here.

As for the report, it's clear that the commission believes both Clinton and Bush made errors with regards to terrorism. REpublicans and Democrats at least seem to agree on that.

213 Snake Plissken  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:54:27am

#62

No.

What, Clinton wasn't able to multi-task with his law degree and rhode scholar background?

BULLSH*T.

214 sefton  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 11:57:08am

Clark has been discredited by his own statements. When in the Bush admin. all kudos and flowers for GWB.
When fired by same admin. all snarles and backbiting.
Looks like sour grapes.
So, tell me, was he lying then or is he lying now?
Sounds discredited to me.

215 quark2  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:00:15pm

@99 Kelly

Regardless of you having a security clearance or not, it's rather obvious you are of a do nothing stance.
You are insinuating that the "distraction" of Berger is just that. The. Man. Broke. Laws.
Yet you keep dancing around that fact like it's not even there.
Kind of tells the lie of the land where you stand, doesn't it.

216 Snake Plissken  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:00:49pm

#212

I would just like to debate these issues in a good healthy manner. I just hope centerist guys like myself are genuinely welcome here.

Well when you equate the Koran with National Review I hardly think you are a centrist.

IDIOT is more apt.

217 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:08:28pm

:(

218 RIP Ford  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:09:35pm

#209 Lafayette

Model4 has given some very subjective opinions like saying Clark is a "discredited partisan hack" discredited by who?

Washington Times


The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.

The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it.

How 'bout drawing your own conclusions. This is just one piece in an ever growing pile of contradictions.

You have come here spouting off other peoples opinions, and as of yet, provided no links to credible news sources to back your claims.

219 Model4  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:11:50pm

#212 Lafayette: Agreed (except for the centrist part, but that's a different issue).

Model4 has given some very subjective opinions like saying Clark is a "discredited partisan hack" discredited by who?

A high-ranking government official. His name? Richard Clarke

Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. ...
The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided. ...
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda. ...
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

Do you understand what's going on now? In order to advance your "centrist" agenda, you've blurted out things that are false again and again, and got upset with people who, like them or not personally, have reputations for being accurate and fair.

Seriously, why? Were you trying to trick the readers here? Or were you yourself tricked. If the latter, it would be a fascinating story to hear how you were taken in, by whom, and how you now feel about those who mislead you so thoroughly that you were willing to embarrass yourself in public to further their aims. Now don't take that too harshly, we all get taken in, fed bad info, etc. At that point we use it as a teaching tool on who out there is spreading bad info, and how the rest of us can recognize and avoid it in the future.

P.S. If you have any centrist ammo for taking down the Bush administration that was sourced to Joe Wilson, do a little digging before firing any of those rounds off. That's a freebie.

220 RIP Ford  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:14:25pm

#212 Lafayette

I just hope centerist guys like myself are genuinely welcome here.

As an Independent myself, please, spare us this persecution complex. If you don't like the rhetoric of someone's post, ignore it. Don't fan the flames.

You'll find a lot of Independents and Democrats here, especially when subject matters switch to Domestic policy. This is by no means and Republican controlled venue. We happen to agree on certain subjects, Clark the discredit fool, is one of them. The WoT is why we are all here.

221 RIP Ford  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:15:54pm

#215 quark2

Are you joining us in Austin on the 1st?

222 J.D.  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:18:00pm

Richard Clarke was discredited by Bob Kerrey of 9/11 Commission.
The Search for Answers - Richard Clark is wrong about Iraq.

Hows about that?

223 J.D.  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:21:54pm

And Laurie Mylroie discredited Richard Clarke.
Very Awkward Facts

224 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:28:36pm

Gentlemen, I have just stated actual factual statements that were readily available for all to see. Again, I'll say it, Clark's testimony and the conclusion from the commissions report on 9/11.

There is nothing false in what I have said, saying I'm lying is a sly way of tring to promote your viewpoints as being accurate. And posting links from some right wing Op-Ed's doesn't make it right either. Face it, the media is as partisan as the rest of us and trying to weed out the truth is a tricky business.

I'm not upset with anyone, it would be better though if we could leave the personal jibes at the front door.

225 PostalWorker  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:29:10pm

#62 kelly

Just because Clinton squeeked by a lot of laws and his associates took the fall for him, doesn't mean that his ethics should not have been questioned. It was increadibly stupid of Billy Jeff to have illicit sex in the Oval Office. Even more stupid to lie about it. If he had come out with the truth, there would have been no need for the investigation.

Whitewater had to be investigated. Any time a President's business associates are commiting crimes, the connections need to be followed.

All the more reason to fully know a candiate's moral standing before electing them.

226 NY Nana  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:29:32pm

#202 mojo jojo

Re the traitor, berger? From 1 May, 1999 Restart Drive for Peace

The thing that has Jewish leaders here the most riled up is a speech earlier this month by Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel "Sandy" Berger, to the American Muslim Council, a group that compares Israel to Nazis and that Jewish leaders say defends terrorists.

"I'm proud to speak with you today," Mr. Berger told the American Muslim Council. "The president and first lady have sought to learn more about Islam and the Muslim world in a variety of ways. ...Last October's Wye agreement came about in no small measure because of the president's insistence that Palestinians, whether Muslim or Christian, be treated as full and equal partners."

Mr. Berger continued: "In December, [Mr. Clinton] delivered a historic address in Gaza to members of the Palestinian National Council. And just last week, he wrote to Chairman Arafat to reaffirm our support for the aspirations of the Palestinian people to determine their own future on their own land."

There are a number of articles re his association with the LLL 'peace now' menace:J.J. Goldberg's Attack on Natan Sharansky was Based on a Serious Factual Error

Goldberg wrote: "Beyond his political obtuseness, Sharansky had a key fact wrong. There are no Peace Now members currently working in the Clinton administration."

In fact, it is Goldberg who has a key fact wrong. Clinton's National Security Adviser, Samuel (Sandy) Berger, has been described by the Jerusalem Post (Jan.20, 1993) as "a financial contributor to Americans for Peace Now." Regarding Berger's role in U.S. Mideast policy, The New Republic has reported (April 13, 1998): "The administration's line--under Berger's direction--has been to up the pressure on the Netanyahu government..." The New Republic quoted a colleague of Berger's as saying that Berger "is chief coordinator and adviser to the president...the glue that holds the foreign policy team together. He is very much the quarterback calling a lot of the plays and sending people charging off to set policy." Yet Goldberg's column made no mention whatsoever of Samuel Berger.

Goldberg did acknowledge that Sara Ehrman and two other Peace Now members previously served in the Clinton administration, but Goldberg dismissed the significance of that fact, by writing: "None was involved in foreign policy." Yet Ehrman served as Clinton's liaison to the American Jewish community, and as such was among those who shaped the President's perception of American Jewry's views. That perception undoubtedly affected U.S. foreign policy toward Israel.

I hope that berger gets put on trial, and pays for his perfidy. Damned Court Jew...and john f*ing kerry had him in place as an advisor to continue the evils of oslo, brought to us by bubba? May G-d help us all.

227 J.D.  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:30:02pm

And here's another, with a highly developed sense of humor.

In October 2000, Clarke and Special Forces Colonel Mike Sheehan leave the White House after a meeting to discuss al-Qa'eda's attack on the USS Cole: "'What's it gonna take, Dick?' Sheehan demanded. 'Who the s*** do they think attacked the Cole, f*** Martians? The Pentagon brass won't let Delta go get bin Laden. Does al-Qa'eda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?'"


Bush has nothing to fear from this hilarious work of fiction

228 RIP Ford  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:31:42pm

224 Lafayette

Gentlemen, I have just stated actual factual statements that were readily available for all to see

That's the problem. It's not. Did you read any of the provided links? Facts, they ain't.


I give up.

229 quark2  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:36:00pm

@209 Lafayette

"What wild assertions? I refered to the conclusion in the report that stated there was no operational link between al-Qaeda and ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein."


What kind of a move do you call this?

'What wild assertiosn? I refered to the conclusion in the report that stated there was no operational link between al-Qaeda and ousted Iraqi Presidenet Saddam Hussein'...

Keyword here inserted...operational

That was not a sly move on your part, just dishonest.

230 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:38:08pm

Come on RIP Ford, I took statements made in a testimony to Congress by the former counter terrorism chief and the Conclusions reached in the commission investigating 9/11. I didn't get them from some extremist left wing rag.

I mean they are pretty reliable sources.

231 RIP Ford  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:43:56pm

PBS Interview
March 20, 2002

Because one of the things that surprises a lot of the public, I think, is that immediately after Sept. 11, the administration knew exactly who had done it. Was that why?
No. On the day of Sept. 11, then the day or two following, we had a very open mind. CIA and FBI were asked, "See if it's Hezbollah. See if it's Hamas. Don't assume it's Al Qaeda. Don't just assume it's Al Qaeda." Frankly, there was absolutely not a shred of evidence that it was anybody else. The evidence that it was Al Qaeda began just to be massive within days after the attack.

CBS Interview

the 60 Minutes interview and the book, Clarke tells what happened behind the scenes at the White House before, during and after Sept. 11.


March 21, 2002

After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.
232 quark2  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:44:35pm

@221 RIP Ford

So far it's planned. :) How about you? :)
How many have decided to come?

233 RIP Ford  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:47:46pm

#232 quark2

I'm cutting my trip to Port Aransas short to make it back to Austin by 1 pm. So, yes, I'll be there. I dunno who else is coming though. I can't seem to get a list, and Ms. Andi is AWOL again... :P

If y'all in Houston/East Texas can't make it, I'd like to set something up for next month in your area.

234 Model4  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:49:22pm

#224 Lafayette:

And posting links from some right wing Op-Ed's doesn't make it right either.

Uh, you do realize the quotes I posted are Clarke's own documented words, right? The audio of that interview was released and aired as well. The interview itself was conducted over conference call with multiple reporters from various news organizations. Not one of them, nor Clarke himself, has disputed that's his own voice, his own words, accurately played and transcribed.

I'm not quoting an opinion piece from some flamethrowing partisan hack (although you should be cautious in assailing the factuality found in the WSJ's editorials, that's a serious-as-a-heart-attack team). I'm showing you how Clarke himself provided the evidence that his later assertions were false and incomplete.

At least Clarke got a big payday peddling his latest version of events to the centrist ABB crowd while ignoring his recent past. I trust you're doing this out of a misplaced sense of charity.

235 'Nam Grunt  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:55:59pm

I don't know if my fighting in Vietnam had anything to do with Israel, but as I learn and listen more on here maybe some how it really did, were we a test pattern for weapons and tactics? I honestly do not know, but I do know that Moshe Dayan did visit our position in the jungle accompanied by our Brigade Commander, I saw him and actually shook hands with him, I must say I was impressed with the short conversation we had. I was a platoon sergeant and from then on I respected Israel and would gladly go and fight with the IDF anytime anywhere.

The years have passed by, and I still feel the same. We can bounce all of this political stuff back and forth all day and argue who is best and whom is not, but I will say this our brave young men are giving their lives everyday for America, you see, we soldiers don't give a damn about politics, we care about each other, that is what everyone is missing, I know this isn't a perfect world, nor has it ever been but those of us that defend our country are doing so because we are Proud Americans.

Arguments can be had everyday as to who did what or who didn't, but the bottom line is that the soldiers fighting to defend our country believe in what they are doing with the utmost in professionalism, just keep your eye on the ball as our President is doing.

236 RIP Ford  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:57:15pm

quark2,

I'm leaving work, pop me an email.
G'night, y'all.

Lafayette,

If your truly interested in the facts behind our beliefs, stick around. I did, and got pounded royally by the regulars. But, I learned a lot. Just make sure to be able to back up your assertions with links, and shrug off the personal digs. It's the internet, and anonymous. At the end of the day, you go home to your real life...

237 EyesRight  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:59:26pm

OT (via Drudge)

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon (news - web sites) on Friday released payroll records from President Bush (news - web sites)'s 1972 service in the Alabama National Guard, saying its earlier contention the records were destroyed was an "inadvertent oversight."

This 'inadvertent' stuff is gittin' ri-God-damn-diculous...

238 quark2  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 1:01:59pm

@233 RIP Ford

Does the meetup place have a website? I will need to find a map, so that I know where I'm headed for.
I'm looking forward to meeting my member minions. :)

239 quark2  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 1:07:35pm

@236 RIP Ford

Right on...check yer mail when you've arrived home. :)

240 Billy Hank  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 1:24:06pm

#85 JD - Interesting. Hadn't heard those incidents explained in detail before. Makes perfect sense that BJ froze Woolsey out from pique. Always let your petty personal vendettas rule your actions. Woolsey probably compounded his error in not hiring the FOB by telling BJ it would be illegal. Wonder who the FOB was? Any inkling?

#187 Axiom - Lanny Davis is Phi Deke? Boy, that's news. Bush must have given him a wedgie during Hell Week.

#191 Dirk Diggler - You're right. Still, it had all the moves; accusation, challenge, goad, duck and weave, never answer the question, ignore responses. It has done this before. Mush OTOH is a weak trail. Probably on OJT.

Gotta' commend folks here for their gentleness to the willfully obtuse Kelly. Seems to me she wants folks to forget about this silly Bergler stuff, applaud the 9/11 report, and immediately start implementing its various recommendations. Intelligence Czar? I don't think so. Anyone ever had a groupthink moment? She reminds me of that Dorothy Parker line, "You can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her think."

241 bender  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 1:29:15pm

anyone who has read Ghost Wars knows about this allready.

242 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 1:29:48pm

RIP Ford,

I am certainly interested in the truth, that's why I visit places like this, I like to try and get as many sides to stories as possible and try and glean the truth. After all, we all have to rely on the media because where else can we get the information? Unfortunatley I don't have access to politicians so the closest I can get to the truth is to look at as many sources as possible and make my best judgement...

It ain't perfect, but it's the best I can do.

I am a liberal Democrat, but I wouldn't want to spend all my time on left wing sites, I want to hear what republicans have to say, I want to hear what everyone has to say.

243 quark2  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 1:48:57pm

@240 Billy Hank

Great post. :)

244 Cam  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 2:17:45pm

#243 quark2:

There is an LGF meetup group on Yahoo! I'm looking for the URL for you but damned if I can find it.

I'll keep looking though.

245 gymnast  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 2:18:04pm

And what would we call Sandy the Burgler if he had a wooden leg?

246 Billy Hank  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 2:23:21pm

#235 Nam Grunt - I had 21 months in the SEAWG. Played for the Zoomie team. We had a couple of Israeli Army guys come through the then super secret Task Force Alpha, aka the Infiltration Surveillance Center, Igloo White, Mussel Shoals, MacNamara line. This was the prototype of the electronic battlefield, sensors planted to track movement, relays, couple of IBM 360-65s to crunch numbers, and air assets to interrupt progress. Pretty kludgy at first, but it got better. Understand Israel implemented one also and still has some variant in operation. Quiet about it, though.

We were really impressed by the IAF in '67. Looks like they haven't lost their edge.

247 Model4  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 2:29:04pm

#242 Lafayette:

I am certainly interested in the truth, that's why I visit places like this, I like to try and get as many sides to stories as possible and try and glean the truth.

So why haven't you read the link I provided that proves Clarke is discredited? Or is that a truth you're not interested in? Pretty deceptive to explicity me ask me for the information (you did in post #209) and then pretend the answer, addressed to you and linked, never arrived.

I am a liberal Democrat
I just hope centerist guys like myself are genuinely welcome here.

I'd like to say I'm interested in which of those statements are true, but when you hear someone cry "Wolf!" too many times, you start to lose interest.

248 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 2:37:16pm

Model4,

Give me time, I am reading all these links, they're all open in the background of my superb Opera browser. I'm trying to eat some dinner as well, I've been at this computer for hours at this stage...(Must get out more)

I am a liberal Democrat, i.e. occupying the center ground.

249 Cam  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 2:43:51pm

#248 Lafayette:

A liberal democrat would, by definition, be to the left of the party politically - a la Howard Dean. A conservative Democrat would be on the right of the party, like Joe Lieberman.

250 gymnast  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 2:52:52pm

Lafayette, #248, If you read a map like you percieve your political position, you're lost.

251 skoi  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 3:01:47pm

Lafayette:

You're a liberal democrat? I thought you said you were a centrist?

I don't post much, because by the time I get to a thread all the points I'd make have been made by the witty regular posters. But I will add my quiet little voice to the others when they say-- read the primary sources.

Kelly-- most of the Jews in my big city ghetto are pro-life, pro chastity based sex ed by the family, and all for everyone praying whenever and wherever they want. In the 2000 election they voted D-- saying they were voting for President Leiberman-- but are strongly looking to Bush and not afraid of some auto de fey to come to a town near them as long as there's a strong military response to Islamism.

252 Lafayette  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 3:03:28pm

#250

Not really, I am very liberal on social issues but more right of center on economic policy, so the best way I can describe my position is a liberal Democrat occupying the center ground.

253 quark2  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 3:20:12pm

@244 Cam

I have it. :) Thanx for the efforts, it's appreciated. :)

254 Athos  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 4:49:10pm

#209 Lafayette

So my arguments represent actual statements from the commissions report as well as actual testimony from Clark.

Is this the same Richard Clarke who justified sending a dozen tomahawks into an aspirin factory in the Sudan because Iraq and al-Qaeda were using it to jointly manufacture VX gas?

Then there is the Lafayette statement -

I am a liberal Democrat, but I wouldn't want to spend all my time on left wing sites, I want to hear what republicans have to say, I want to hear what everyone has to say.

but dismisses the NRO at hand and wouldn't take the time to fisk the "inaccuracies" of Byron York.

Scroll-over country is where Lafayette lives. Troll-dom is it's motto.

NYNana -

no mind reading - just spend as much time listening to my friends as I spend pontificating.

255 Athos  Fri, Jul 23, 2004 4:52:23pm

#252 Lafayette

Oh, please do inform us of your right of center economic views...if they are right of center - or just right of Karl Marx and Hillary Clinton.

256 Lafayette  Sat, Jul 24, 2004 2:49:07am
Oh, please do inform us of your right of center economic views

Why? You're not really interested, no mater what I'd say you'd just come right back with a petty inaccurate observation totally unrelated to the matter at hand so...

I'm under no obligation to answer you or anyone else on this messageboard.

Got that?

You have the brass neck to ask me to take the NRO seriously when so many here prounounce the likes of the NYT as being in league with the Saudi's!! You don't give these publications any credence why should I give an incredibly partisan publication like NRO and attention?

257 Geepers  Sat, Jul 24, 2004 5:22:54am

Lafayette says:

You have the brass neck to ask me to take the NRO seriously when so many here prounounce the likes of the NYT as being in league with the Saudi's!! You don't give these publications any credence why should I give an incredibly partisan publication like NRO and attention?

Well that's the difference isn't it?

We regularly read the NY Times, review what they write, fault them for their errors, criticize them for their bias and discredit them for their glaring omissions and inaccuracies.

You won't even read the NRO.

You claim you want to look at both sides, sounds like talk to me.

258 Lafayette  Sat, Jul 24, 2004 6:34:46am

Geepers I never said I don't read the NRO, I don't give what they say much attention I have to say because all they do is trot out the same old partisan line on every topic they write about.

Do you give The Nation or Counterpunch much credence?

Very few are interested in hearing other sides to stories. For example we have it claimed by a poster or two above that Bush had a plan to deal with AQ prior to 9/11 but...

The Bush administration did not develop new diplomatic initiatives on al Qaeda with the Saudi government before 9/11. Vice President Cheney called Crown Prince Abdullah on July 5, 2001, to seek Saudi help in preventing threatened attacks on American facilities in the Kingdom. Secretary of State Powell met with the crown prince twice before 9/11. They discussed topics like Iraq, not al Qaeda.U.S.-Saudi relations in the summer of 2001 were marked by sometimes heated disagreements about ongoing Israeli-Palestinian violence, not about Bin Ladin.

Even when the Bush administration eventually finalized a "three-phase, multiyear plan to pressure and perhaps ultimately topple the Taliban leadership"--on September 10, 2001--the plan was not ready for implementation. The report notes, "Funding still needed to be located. The military component remained unclear. Pakistan remained uncooperative. The domestic policy institutions were largely uninvolved."

And how can we dismiss the warnings that Bush and co were give in 2001?

On June 25, Clarke warned Rice and Hadley that six separate intelligence reports showed al Qaeda personnel warning of a pending attack. An Arabic television station reported Bin Ladin's pleasure with al Qaeda leaders who were saying that the next weeks "will witness important surprises" and that U.S. and Israeli interests will be targeted. Al Qaeda also released a new recruitment and fund-raising tape. Clarke wrote that this was all too sophisticated to be merely a psychological operation to keep the United States on edge, and the CIA agreed. The intelligence reporting consistently described the upcoming attacks as occurring on a calamitous level, indicating that they would cause the world to be in turmoil and that they would consist of possible multiple--but not necessarily simultaneous--attacks.

On June 28, Clarke wrote Rice that the pattern of al Qaeda activity indicating attack planning over the past six weeks "had reached a crescendo." "A series of new reports continue to convince me and analysts at State, CIA, DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency], and NSA that a major terrorist attack or series of attacks is likely in July," he noted. One al Qaeda intelligence report warned that something "very, very, very, very" big was about to happen, and most of Bin Ladin's network was reportedly anticipating the attack. In late June, the CIA ordered all its station chiefs to share information on al Qaeda with their host governments and to push for immediate disruptions of cells. The headline of a June 30 briefing to top officials was stark: "Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks." The report stated that Bin Ladin operatives expected near-term attacks to have dramatic consequences of catastrophic proportions. That same day, Saudi Arabia declared its highest level of terror alert. Despite evidence of delays possibly caused by heightened U.S. security, the planning for attacks was continuing.

TBC below...

259 Lafayette  Sat, Jul 24, 2004 6:43:21am

On July 2, the FBI Counterterrorism Division sent a message to federal agencies and state and local law enforcement agencies summarizing information regarding threats from Bin Ladin. It warned that there was an increased volume of threat reporting, indicating a potential for attacks against U.S. targets abroad from groups "aligned with or sympathetic to Usama Bin Ladin." Despite the general warnings, the message further stated, "The FBI has no information indicating a credible threat of terrorist attack in the United States." However, it went on to emphasize that the possibility of attack in the United States could not be discounted. It also noted that the July 4 holiday might heighten the threats. The report asked recipients to "exercise extreme vigilance" and "report suspicious activities" to the FBI. It did not suggest specific actions that they should take to prevent attacks...

With regards to Tenet the commission writes:

[CIA director George] Tenet told us that in his world "the system was blinking red." By late July, Tenet said, it could not "get any worse." Not everyone was convinced. Some asked whether all these threats might just be deception. On June 30, the SEIB [Senior Executive Intelligence Brief] contained an article titled "Bin Ladin Threats Are Real." Yet Hadley told Tenet in July that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz questioned the reporting. Perhaps Bin Ladin was trying to study U.S. reactions. Tenet replied that he had already addressed the Defense Department's questions on this point; the reporting was convincing. To give a sense of his anxiety at the time, one senior official in the Counterterrorist Center told us that he and a colleague were considering resigning in order to go public with their concerns.

With regards to Dick Clarke, discredited here, (I wonder why?!) Within the first few days after Bush's inauguration, Clarke approached [national security adviser Condoleezza] Rice in an effort to get her--and the new President--to give terrorism very high priority and to act on the agenda that he had pushed during the last few months of the previous administration. After Rice requested that all senior staff identify desirable major policy reviews or initiatives, Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached to it his [anti-al Qaeda] 1998 Delenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper. "We urgently need ...a Principals level review on the al Qida network," Clarke wrote.

The national security advisor did not respond directly to Clarke's memorandum. No Principals Committee meeting on al Qaeda was held until September 4, 2001 (although the Principals Committee met frequently on other subjects, such as the Middle East peace process, Russia, and the Persian Gulf ).

I can go on and on like this, I can give you details of Ashcroft's inaction and negligence, we can discuss the Memo, the meeting that took place in the WH on 9/12/2001, the "links" between SH and OBL etc

260 Geepers  Sat, Jul 24, 2004 6:50:46am

Lafayette,

I can go on and on like this,

Please don't.

Because to be quite honest I really don't know what points your trying to make. If any at all.

Bushco could have prevented 911 if he had acted sooner on intelligence given to him by Clinton and Clark?

261 Model4  Sat, Jul 24, 2004 7:13:20am

#259 Lafayette: I specifically was asked by you to provide information backing up the assertion that Richard Clarke was discredited. After you asked for it and didn't like what you saw, you pretended it didn't exist. So I pointed it out, so there'd be no chance a casual reader would think you were debating this fairly. You then claimed to "not have time to read the link." Problem with that being, Richard Clarke's own words were included in the post itself. And, obviously, you've had plenty of time, yet still continue to ignore those inconvenient facts.

Let's quote Clarke again, in case honest posters who actually will evaluate the information missed it:

changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

Regarding your lengthy posts (plenty of time spent on those, eh?), who denied there were warnings of possible terrorism? But let's see if you believe what might possibly be your point: Call up your city's police and fire chiefs. Tell them each that you expect there will be a violent crime and a fire in the near future. You don't know when or where they'll occur, nor how they'll take place. After taking these actions, your locale should be 100% fire and crime-free. If not, well obviously "The chief lied! People died!" Their decisions to "ignore the threat and allow it to happen" obviously mean incompetence, unless they were in on it all along. Right?


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

  • Loading...

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

We have flipped and are scary now.

Follow Lizardoid on Twitter

 Frank says:

It began with lyrics, but even looking at the PMRC fund raising letter in the last paragraph, at the bottom of the page, it starts looking like it's branching into other areas when it says 'We realize that this material's pervaded other aspects of society' and it's like 'What, you gonna fix it all for me?'

PC & Video Games