OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Thu 4 Dec, 2008 07:28 pm
http://www.bjacked.net/LuvToHunt/forums/phpBB2/modules/gallery/albums/album01/Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg
okie
 
  0  
Thu 4 Dec, 2008 09:23 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
The spin meisters are never done, Bill, so the horse will continue to be beaten until its carcass has been turned into the bones of history. The history books are probably already being formulated by leftie professors to show that Barack Obama helped end the Iraq war by successfully proposing his 16 month withdrawal plan. Count on it.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Fri 5 Dec, 2008 05:28 am
@OCCOM BILL,
Hi all! Just found where these threads went since there's no notification that a reply has arrived. Anyway, Hoping you all had a great Thanksgiving and soon, a Merry Christmas! As they say, "The torch has been passed" and I hope Obama stays the course on "change"! I hope to check in, but if not, contact me at [email protected]. Be well!
Teeny
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Fri 5 Dec, 2008 08:28 am
@okie,
Richard Clark is a respected man who served as a counter intelligence under, Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton. You might like to ignore reality and call it spin, but the facts are that the Bush administration just simply didn't want to deal with AQ or Bin Laden until they were forced to after 9/11. I don't know that they could have prevented 9/11 but they didn't treat the AQ threat as seriously as they should have.

Quote:
Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.

"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

When Stahl pointed out that some administration officials say it's still an open issue, Clarke responded, "Well, they'll say that until hell freezes over."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By June 2001, there still hadn't been a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism, even though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented level of ominous chatter.

The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August."

Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.

Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden.



source

okie
 
  0  
Fri 5 Dec, 2008 10:01 am
@revel,
revel wrote:

Richard Clark is a respected man who served as a counter intelligence under, Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton.

I think a self serving man as well.

Quote:
Quote:
Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden.


Then how come Clinton didn't take custody of Osama Bin Laden when he was offered by Sudan, if he was recognized as a grave threat?
revel
 
  1  
Fri 5 Dec, 2008 10:37 am
@okie,
The 9/11 commision could find no evidence that Sudan offered Bin Laden to the United States.

Quote:
Sudan’s minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to
hand Bin Ladin over to the United States.The Commission has found no credible
evidence that this was so
.Ambassador Carney had instructions only to push
the Sudanese to expel Bin Ladin.Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask
for more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment outstanding.

source

If you are referring the Clinton interview of 2002 where he is said to have he truned down an offer of Sudan to accept Bin Laden, this is what he said.

Quote:

Much of the controversy stems from claims that President Clinton made in a February 2002 speech and then retracted in his 2004 testimony to the 9/11 Commission. In the 2002 speech Clinton seems to admit that the Sudanese government offered to turn over bin Laden:

Clinton: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got " well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

Clinton later claimed to have misspoken and stated that there had never been an offer to turn over bin Laden. It is clear, however, that Berger, at least, did consider the possibility of bringing bin Laden to the U.S., but, as he told The Washington Post in 2001, "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." According to NewsMax.com, Berger later emphasized in an interview with WABC Radio that, while administration officials had discussed whether or not they had ample evidence to indict bin Laden, that decision "was not pursuant to an offer by the Sudanese."

So on one side, we have Clinton administration officials who say that there were no credible offers on the table, and on the other, we have claims by a Sudanese government that was (and still is) listed as an official state sponsor of terrorism. It’s possible, of course, that both sides are telling the truth: It could be that Erwa did make an offer, but the offer was completely disingenuous. What is clear is that the 9/11 Commission report totally discounts the Sudanese claims. Unless further evidence arises, that has to be the final word.

Ultimately, however, it doesn’t matter. What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 " at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.


http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 5 Dec, 2008 11:02 am
@revel,
okie's posts are never based on facts; only his tainted imagination that can never be supported by any of the "real" information in web land. The guys a loser with no credibility; he opines with abandon as if he makes sense to anybody but himself and people like mm and ican.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Fri 5 Dec, 2008 12:28 pm
@revel,
Revel, it is no surprise the 9/11 Commission came to that conclusion, as they whitewashed some evidence they did not wish to consider, they ignored it. The fact remains, Clinton himself said he had a chance to bring him here, and at the time he said it he had no reason to lie, but later he did, so he equivocated, but he had already spilled the beans. Surely you do not believe Bill Clinton any time it serves his interest to lie, do you? And surely you do not believe Sandy Burglar, that was smuggling papers out of the archives in preparation for the commission. No honest person is going to be caught doing that.

Also, "the wall," was largely ignored by the commission, because Jamie Gorlick was on the commission, but instead she should have been brought before the commission to testify. She should have resigned from the commission, as she had a huge conflict of interest. Yes, the same Jamie Gorlick that has also been part of the Fannie Mae disaster, on top of her disaster as Deputy Attorney General under the worst Attorney General of all time, Janet Reno. Reno spent most of her time protecting the Clintons.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1118214/posts
old europe
 
  1  
Fri 5 Dec, 2008 12:43 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
Revel, it is no surprise the 9/11 Commission came to that conclusion, as they whitewashed some evidence they did not wish to consider, they ignored it.


It's really kinda sad to see how you're reducing yourself to a conspiracy nutjob...
okie
 
  0  
Fri 5 Dec, 2008 12:52 pm
@old europe,
No conspiracy, facts, oe.

In regard to the wall, Jamie Gorelick's directive preventing sharing of intelligence information between agencies:

"In his public testimony before the 9/11 Commission the other day, Attorney General John Ashcroft exposed Commissioner Jamie Gorelick's role in undermining the nation's security capabilities by issuing a directive insisting that the FBI and federal prosecutors ignore information gathered through intelligence investigations. But Ashcroft pointed to another document that also has potentially explosive revelations about the Clinton administration's security failures."

http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200404151634.asp

There is lots of information on this, oe, if you care, but you probably do not because it does not support your template.

In regard to Clinton taking Osama Bin Laden, I merely use what Clinton himself said, now if you wish to call that buying into a conspiracy without any evidence, then you are the nutjob, oe.

I suppose Berger smuggling papers out of the archives was merely another conspiracy made up, is that correct, oe?
okie
 
  0  
Fri 5 Dec, 2008 12:58 pm
On a different note, Limbaugh predicted yesterday that Obama will not close Gitmo. I think this will be interesting to watch, because Obama said this was a most definite course of action to be taken up right away. But what will he do with the people, and after he finds out all the stuff we have found out by interrogating these guys, hmmmm. And then he may ponder how many people some of the guys may kill or maim after their release, or the chaos thrust upon the courts here if they are brought into the states. This will be interesting, but I think he is locked into closing Gitmo. As president, he will have definite powers and responsibilities to protect Americans, a responsibility that Bush did not take lightly. We will see how Obama takes the responsibility.
revel
 
  1  
Fri 5 Dec, 2008 01:26 pm
Here we go again with that famous "wall" thing. The guidelines of the memo from Gorlick were only applied to the internal justice department and not sent to any other agency. Moreover the guidelines were already in place before she sent the memo. (I guess they felt the need to reenforce the guidelines) The 9/11 commission was not in any way compromised by Jamie Gorelick's memo except in the fevered imaginations with people such as yourself.
media matters debunked this myth with supporting links

Quote:
As Media Matters has noted, even Ashcroft acknowledged that it was actually a "culture" that developed from the memo, not the memo itself, that severely restrained intelligence sharing.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 5 Dec, 2008 01:46 pm
@old europe,
okie could never see the forest for the trees.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Fri 5 Dec, 2008 05:10 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
No conspiracy, facts, oe.


That's what all conspiracy nutjobs say.

See, what you're claiming is that the other nine members of the 9/11 Commission - 4 Democrats and 5 Republicans - all agreed on protecting Gorelick, falsifying the report and presenting a untruthful version of events and failures in the intelligence community that eventually led to 9/11.

That's pretty nuts.

You're saying that there's a lot of material out there. Fine. I don't doubt that. There's also a lot of material out there that explains in great detail how the Bush administration and the Mossad were behind 9/11.

That doesn't mean that people have to believe in it.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 5 Dec, 2008 06:28 pm
@old europe,
okie is "never" able to support his opinions with facts or evidence. Loser.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Fri 5 Dec, 2008 06:56 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Limbaugh predicted yesterday that...


Of course Okie can support his positions with very credible sources...
okie
 
  0  
Fri 5 Dec, 2008 07:09 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

okie wrote:

Limbaugh predicted yesterday that...


Of course Okie can support his positions with very credible sources...

rjb, you mis-understand. I mentioned it as an interesting prediction from a guy that studies politics all the time. I think Limbaugh is a pretty credible source, but he is not right all the time, just as nobody else is right all the time. He deals in opinions and analysis of politics, which all of us do. I don't know what to predict, in fact I doubt Obama would not make good on his pledge to close Gitmo, however, I do believe that when Obama learns more about Gitmo, I suspect closing it will not be as simple or as quick as he thought. I think it may happen, but probably not soon. What do you think? All we are dealing with here is opinions, thats all.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Fri 5 Dec, 2008 07:18 pm
@revel,
revel wrote:

Here we go again with that famous "wall" thing. The guidelines of the memo from Gorlick were only applied to the internal justice department and not sent to any other agency. Moreover the guidelines were already in place before she sent the memo. (I guess they felt the need to reenforce the guidelines) The 9/11 commission was not in any way compromised by Jamie Gorelick's memo except in the fevered imaginations with people such as yourself.
media matters debunked this myth with supporting links

Quote:
As Media Matters has noted, even Ashcroft acknowledged that it was actually a "culture" that developed from the memo, not the memo itself, that severely restrained intelligence sharing.


revel, I do not take any analysis by Media Matters seriously. It is clearly a liberal organization with an agenda.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150
okie
 
  0  
Fri 5 Dec, 2008 07:22 pm
@old europe,
oe, I followed the 9/11 Commission closely when it happened, as you probably did, but I thought then as I do now that they did much less than a thorough job.
Opinions that Clinton dropped the ball is not a case of being a nut job, and in fact only a nut job would believe the Clintons did not drop the ball in regard to terrorist activities.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 5 Dec, 2008 08:11 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

revel wrote:

Here we go again with that famous "wall" thing. The guidelines of the memo from Gorlick were only applied to the internal justice department and not sent to any other agency. Moreover the guidelines were already in place before she sent the memo. (I guess they felt the need to reenforce the guidelines) The 9/11 commission was not in any way compromised by Jamie Gorelick's memo except in the fevered imaginations with people such as yourself.
media matters debunked this myth with supporting links

Quote:
As Media Matters has noted, even Ashcroft acknowledged that it was actually a "culture" that developed from the memo, not the memo itself, that severely restrained intelligence sharing.


revel, I do not take any analysis by Media Matters seriously. It is clearly a liberal organization with an agenda.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150


The National Review is clearly a Conservative organization as an agenda. Yet you quote them as an authoritative source. They are no more so than media matters. Levin in particular is a pundit, not a reporter, not a factual writer. He deals in opinion. So linking to his characterization of Ashcroft's testimony, as if it some sort of positive evidence about Clinton or anyone, is foolish. Media matters at least provides supporting links to document their claims; your source does not.

Your above link, Discover the Connections, is run by FrontPageMag, a notorious Republican smear site with a penchant for fabricating smears and making up outright lies. The fact that you consider them to be an authoritative or truthful source for anything is ludicrous.

You might be tempted to say, 'Oh Cyclo, you just don't like them b/c they are Conservative, obviously'; but that's a ridiculous argument as well, for there is no objective difference between the right and left wing when it comes to trustworthiness. Both sides have people who fabricate information and make false arguments. You haven't shown a single thing that Media Matters has claimed which was false; you've just asserted they were, and backed your assertion with a link to a website as questionable as the one you criticized.

Do you honestly not see the irony, or the hypocrisy, in your posts? I find it somewhat hard to believe.

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1120
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.22 seconds on 03/17/2025 at 10:22:54