Kara wrote:Sorry, ican, it doesn't parse. The latest stuff to hit the fan from the 9/11 commission was withheld until after the election. Every source, even conservative, admits that.
That stuff you refer to is a falsity at best and at worst a damn lie. The President's 1st inauguration was in January 2001. His 2nd inauguration was in January 2005. As I previously posted, the following was known and
not withheld until after the President's 2nd inauguration; it was published, 9/20/2004 in the 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 6.3, and known by everyone who cared including me prior to the President's election in November 2004 (
boldface added by me):
Quote:Early Decisions
Within the first few days after Bush's inauguration, Clarke approached 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 1998 Delenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper. "We urgently need . . . a Principals level review on the al Qida network," Clarke wrote.172
He wanted the Principals Committee to decide whether al Qaeda was "a first order threat" or a more modest worry being overblown by "chicken little" alarmists. Alluding to the transition briefing that he had prepared for Rice, Clarke wrote that al Qaeda "is not some narrow, little terrorist issue that needs to be included in broader regional policy." Two key decisions that had been deferred, he noted, concerned covert aid to keep the Northern Alliance alive when fighting began again in Afghanistan in the spring, and covert aid to the Uzbeks. Clarke also suggested that decisions should be made soon on messages to the Taliban and Pakistan over the al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan, on possible new money for CIA operations, and on "when and how . . . to respond to the attack on the USS Cole."173
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 ).174 But Rice and Hadley began to address the issues Clarke had listed. What to do or say about the Cole had been an obvious question since inauguration day. When the attack occurred, 25 days before the election, candidate Bush had said to CNN, "I hope that we can gather enough intelligence to figure out who did the act and take the necessary action. There must be a consequence."175 Since the Clinton administration had not responded militarily, what was the Bush administration to do?
Kara wrote:We are being and have been fed stuff that is totally political, untrustworthy, and fitting the agenda of this administration. We have never before, since people have had access to widespread systems of information and communication, been so manipulated, so undernourished of information, and so in danger of losing our ability to reason for ourselves and express that in the public forum.
You are being fed stuff all right. You are being fed stuff by an incompetent or lying news media and not by the administration. All this Clarke-Rice stuff was known from the 9/11 Commission several months prior to President Bush's 2nd election. To allege President Bush blundered in the 1st 8 months of his 1st term may or may not be valid. To say President Bush knowingly withheld information or otherwise knowingly deceived the voters is irresponsible.
Here's more, Chapter 4.2, to show that President Clinton back in the 1990s planned to invade Iraq by air well before President Bush 1st ran for election in 2000:
Quote:... Air strikes were threatened in October 1998;a full-scale NATO bombing campaign against Serbia was launched in March 1999. 55
In addition, the Clinton administration was facing the possibility of major combat operations against Iraq. Since 1996, the UN inspections regime had been increasingly obstructed by Saddam Hussein. The United States was threatening to attack unless unfettered inspections could resume. The Clinton administration eventually launched a large-scale set of air strikes against Iraq, Operation Desert Fox, in December 1998. These military commitments became the context in which the Clinton administration had to consider opening another front of military engagement against a new terrorist threat based in Afghanistan. ...
Iraq and terrorism were on President Bush's mind prior to his inauguration in 2001 because President Clinton put Iraq plus terrorism there. Again from chapter 6.3:
Quote:... In December, Bush met with Clinton for a two-hour, one-on-one discussion of national security and foreign policy challenges. Clinton recalled saying to Bush, "I think you will find that by far your biggest threat is Bin Ladin and the al Qaeda." Clinton told us that he also said, "One of the great regrets of my presidency is that I didn't get him [Bin Ladin] for you, because I tried to."159 Bush told the Commission that he felt sure President Clinton had mentioned terrorism, but did not remember much being said about al Qaeda. Bush recalled that Clinton had emphasized other issues such as North Korea and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.160
That is almost as funny as the following: 
Well, Foxfyer, we've blundered along so far and our democracy has survived more or less intact. Perhaps a tad of optimism on our part is justified. Maybe those folks you referred to will eventually come to accept reality and finally put away their versions of "Mother Goose" and "Frankenstine Meets the Wolfman." :wink:
