Mr. Clarke and the 9-11-01 hearings...

[E40FDNYL35]

March 28, 2004 -- A group of New York families of 9/11 victims came out swinging against Richard Clarke yesterday, accusing the former White House anti-terror chief of cashing in on the tragedy with his explosive book. In a scathing open letter, the furious families also ripped Clarke for releasing the controversial tome to coincide with his appearance before the 9/11 commission on Wednesday.
"It was very disturbing to learn that Mr. Clarke would be releasing his book immediately before his scheduled public testimony before the 9/11 commission," they said in their emotional "Open Letter to America." "The notion of [Clarke] profiteering from anything associated with 9/11 is particularly offensive to all of us."
In "Against All Enemies," Clarke accuses President Bush of not doing enough to thwart the terror strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The fuming families said Clarke's motivations are also political and called the book - which has become an overnight best seller - divisive and mean-spirited. "We find Mr. Clarke's actions all the more offensive especially considering the fact that there was always a high possibility that the 9/11 commission could be used for political gain . . . with the presidential election less than eight months away," they wrote. "Surely, Mr. Clarke knew this. Yet, he decided to risk the actual and perceived impartiality of this important process to maximize book sales," they added. "We believe it inappropriate for [him] to profit from and politicize 9/11 and further divide America by his testimony before the 9/11 commission."
Retired FDNY firefighter Jim Boyle, who lent his name to the letter, ripped into Clarke, who served as a counterterrorism adviser to the past four presidents. "Richard Clarke is doing all of this to sell his book," said Boyle, whose Bravest son, Michael Boyle, died in the WTC. "What he's doing isn't right. He's trying to make money off our pain. This was all orchestrated to benefit him," Boyle told The Post.

Retired FDNY Capt. John Vigiano Sr. said he's "incensed" with Clarke. "He's all about promoting his book, plain and simple," said Vigiano Sr., whose sons John, a firefighter, and Joseph, a police officer, died in the WTC attacks. "It's all about greed. He shouldn't be doing this. He's showing a lack of loyalty to the president. It's awful."
The blistering letter, signed by more than 36 people who lost loved ones in the WTC, came a day after the Senate's top Republican, Bill Frist, accused Clark of an "appalling act of profiteering."
Meanwhile, a Newsweek poll released yesterday found that 65 percent of Americans say Clarke's testimony hasn't affected their opinion of the president. Fifty percent of those polled said they believe Clarke is motivated by personal and political reasons. Clarke, who retired early last year after 30 years in government service, has said he provided dire warnings to the Bush White House in the months leading up to 9/11 but that little was done.

[BucksEng91]

The guy is a mutt, plain and simple. He's a whore, and he's standing squarely on the bodies of the dead of 9-11.

His whole grandstanding "apology" made my skin crawl. "I'm really sorry that we failed. Now buy my book." You self-centered, self-serving, lying b*stard.

I really hope the Republicans in Congress succeed in getting his 2002 testimony declassified and have him tried on perjury charges. That would make my freakin' day.

[Robertsc]

He claims that the book was waiting for white house checks before it could be published and it was released when they were done checking it. Is this a posibility, seems possible to me has anyone found anythign on this?

[firespec35]

I think y'all know how I feel about this schmuck. I truly feel that this is politically motivated because I've heard rumblings that if Kerry gets into office this schmuck will get some sort of high ranking position (Cabinet level?). Gee is that some Kerry slime behind you Mr. Clarke

[DaSharkie]

Is this a posibility, seems possible to me has anyone found anythign on this?

Many times in government service much of the book must be reviewed due to the possibility of sensitive or classified information being released. National security is the priority, not necessarily politics. In either event, I think he has bead timing when it comes to publishing the book, knowing he was going before the panel.

I remember watching the investigation last week and a panel member holding up the book and a brief he released a few years ago and he was asked point blank which one was the truth? He squirmed for a second and said he was ordered to write the brief.

So you signed your name to a document that was a fabrication or that you knew had qualiteies that were atently untrue? Talk about a credibility gap.

This, not to mention, on top of withering criticism of 8 months of Bush in office, but little of teh 8 years of the Clinton administration that was "Obsessed" with Bin Laden (Clinton's own word there.)

[BucksEng91]

From the EIB Network...good questions, don't you think?

--------------------------------------------------------
Did you notice how soft Lesley Stahl’s gloves were in the 60 Minutes interview with Richard Clarke? Charlie Gibson’s pitches were equally soft on Good Morning America. Well, I have ten questions that could have been asked of Richard Clarke, but weren’t. You can read them below or listen to the audio link. See if my questions change your perception or opinion of Clarke's answers based on what you heard in either of these interviews.

Question number 1: Mr. Clarke, the first time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

Question number 2: Mr. Clarke, the second time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

Question number 3: Mr. Clarke, the third time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

Question number 4: When Al-Qaeda attacked our barracks in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Clarke, what exact advice did you give Clinton for striking back at them?

Question number 5: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, what advice did you give Clinton for striking back at them?

Question number 6: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in 2000, what advice did you give President Clinton for striking back at them?

Question number 7: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the two U.S. embassies in North Africa, weren't you one of the experts who advised Clinton to bomb the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan?

Question number 8: Mr. Clarke, when Clinton was slashing the defense budget in the face of these Al-Qaeda attacks, did you advise him against it?

Question number 9: Mr. Clarke, when Clinton undermined the CIA in the face of all these takers, did you advise him against doing that?

Question number 10: Mr. Clarke, isn't it true that you and your colleagues in the Clinton administration generally were complete and miserable failures in defending this nation for eight years, and isn't it a little weak of you to now come forward and say that what Bush didn't do in the first nine months of his term, is pathetic?

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

When Clinton sent some missles headed towards Al-Queda, he, due to his lack of morals was accused of "wagging the dog". Fair enough. But what exactly did GWB do to try and prevent an attack on this country?

[BucksEng91]

Originally posted by MIKEYLIKESIT
When Clinton sent some missles headed towards Al-Queda, he, due to his lack of morals was accused of "wagging the dog". Fair enough. But what exactly did GWB do to try and prevent an attack on this country?

Why don't we listen to Richard Clarke's own words? (this is from a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle):

"Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. 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.

>>EDITORIAL COMMENT: Yeah, Clinton was really tough on Al Qaeda, right Dickie?

"The Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. 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.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

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.”

That good enuff for ya, Mikey? When was Dickie lying? When he gave the briefing in 2002, or now in 2004 just before his book comes out? What does it take for libs to admit that this guy is a total and irretrievable scumbag? Does he need to actually dig up 9-11 victims' bodies and "apologize" to them in person?

This is a loser, Mikey. In the end, the only thing that's going to come from this is a final acknowledgment that the Clinton administration did virtually nothing to stop Al Qaeda beyond TALKING about it. They were good at that, talking.

The Bush administration increased CIA funding FIVE FOLD, for the express purpose not of "rolling back" Al Qaeda (which means, essentially, launching a couple of cruise missiles at camels) to one of active and "rapid elimination". The planning for the 9-11 attacks had already begun during the Clinton administration, and there is little doubt in any reasonable person's mind that the reason that those animals were emboldened to try such a huge and catastrophic attack was the limp response of the Clinton administration to terror over the EIGHT F-ING YEARS that he was in office, with Dickie Clarke as his anti-terror specialist.

And THAT is the only thing that will come out of this three-ring circus. What is really important is how the President reacted to the 9-11 attack. He took the fight right to Al Qaeda. No cruise missiles into aspirin factories, no scowling at the camera and telling us how he "feels the victims' pain". We went right after those f-ing animals and KILLED them.

Now THAT is a leader.

[BucksEng91]

The thing that really p*sses me off about this whole thing, beyond the fact that Clarke is a bald-faced partisan liar, and he's doing it during a time of war, and he's selling books over the bodies of the 9-11 dead, is that liberal hacks, rather than face up to the fact that their boy Clinton did nothing for eight years...didn't even have a STRATEGY on Al Qaeda to hand off to the Bush administration (by Dickie Clarke's own words), now demand to know WHAT BUSH DID.

As if Bush came in with greater access to intelligence and information than the Clinton administration had, or somehow were privy to secret info that the Clinton administration simply didn't have for eight long years. We know that's not the case, so the real question becomes not what did Bush do to prevent 9-11, but what did Clinton do?

Can Democrats and liberals have the intellectual honesty and integrity to answer that question? I don't know. Doesn't seem like it, does it?

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Let me set the record straight Joe. I never voted for Clinton. I thought then, as I do now that he was a disgrace. I asked a simple question. I still cant quite figure out why our President kept the CIA Director. Both sides in this debate are partisan. If you think that the current administation is blameless, well thats your opinion. The fact remains that 9-11 occured during President Bush's watch. Yes he did react and I support that reaction and the subsequent invasion of Iraq. I personally believe that Saudi Arabia has a lot more AMERICAN blood on its hands then Iraq ever did. I would love to see democracy take hold in the entire Middle East. But when you have forces strapping bombs to CHILDREN, its going to be a struggle that lasts long after you and I meet our maker. Actually I wouldnt mind seeing us make a vist to Syria. You have REPUBLICAN members of the 9-11 commission questioning the administration's refusal to let Ms. Rice testify under oath. In a matter of this much importance she should. It would clear things us for some of us Midwestern Rubes.

[BucksEng91]

Originally posted by MIKEYLIKESIT
Let me set the record straight Joe. I never voted for Clinton. I thought then, as I do now that he was a disgrace. I asked a simple question. I still cant quite figure out why our President kept the CIA Director. Both sides in this debate are partisan. If you think that the current administation is blameless, well thats your opinion. The fact remains that 9-11 occured during President Bush's watch. Yes he did react and I support that reaction and the subsequent invasion of Iraq. I personally believe that Saudi Arabia has a lot more AMERICAN blood on its hands then Iraq ever did. I would love to see democracy take hold in the entire Middle East. But when you have forces strapping bombs to CHILDREN, its going to be a struggle that lasts long after you and I meet our maker. Actually I wouldnt mind seeing us make a vist to Syria. You have REPUBLICAN members of the 9-11 commission questioning the administration's refusal to let Ms. Rice testify under oath. In a matter of this much importance she should. It would clear things us for some of us Midwestern Rubes.

First off, Mike, I never said you voted for Clinton, so let's get THAT straight while we're "setting the record straight". I personally don't care who you voted for. That's your business.

Yes, you asked a simple question. And I believe I gave a pretty simple answer...or rather Dickie Clarke did. Let's recap.

1. According to Mr. Clarke, the Clinton administration did not have an Al Qaeda strategy to hand off to the Bush administration. This despite the fact that there was no doubt that it was the organization behind the first WTC attack, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, and the Mogadishu fiasco, just to name a few. We can assume that since there was no Al Qaeda strategy to hand off, that the Clinton administration not only was not anticipating 9-11, but that they did nothing with whatever information they MIGHT have had about airliner attacks.

2. The Bush administration immediately (we're talking January / February time frame, again according to Mr. Clarke) decided that the threat from Al Qaeda was much graver than the Clinton administration had treated it, and specifically changed the strategy from rolling back Al Qaeda to ELIMINATING it, both by killing terrorists and actively sh*t-listing terror supporting states, up to and including attacking them if they refused to stop harboring and training terrorists.

3. As the Clinton administration had cut military funding and gutted the US' human intelligence assets, the Bush administration increased CIA funding FIVE HUNDRED PERCENT (again, according to Mr. Clarke) with the express purpose of seeking out Al Qaeda and killing it.

4. Richard Clarke was supposed to be the expert who could make this argument with a straight face - that BUSH DID NOTHING! And, indeed, his week started well. The media were very taken by this passage from his book, in which he alerts Mr Bush's incoming National Security Adviser to the terrorist threat: "As I briefed Rice on al-Qa'eda, her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before, so I added, 'Most people think of it as Osama bin Laden's group, but it's much more than that. It's a network of affiliated terrorist organisations with cells in over 50 countries, including the US.' " As it turns out, Clarke's ability to read "facial expressions" is not as reliable as one might wish in a "counter-terrorism expert". In October the previous year, Dr Rice gave an interview to WJR Radio in Detroit in which she discoursed authoritatively on al-Qa'eda and bin Laden - and without ever having met Richard Clarke!

So, your best argument is that 9-11 happened on "Bush's watch". As if the President had some special knowledge that Clinton didn't have, or that Clinton ignored, and allowed the attacks to happen. I could make the argument, using this logic, that the planning for the attacks happened on "Clinton's watch" - to me, that's a lot more devastating indictment. In any case, neither of them makes any sense unless you assume that either president had foreknowledge of 9-11, and did nothing. Tell me, and this is an important point, so I'm going to bold it: Do you believe that the President had prior knowledge of the attacks, and did nothing?

I can't figure out why Bush kept Tenet in as CIA director either, but let me ask you another question: Do you believe that George Tenet had prior knowledge of the attacks, and did nothing?

You're a believer that Saudi Arabia should somehow pay for 9-11. Let me ask you this, and be specific: Should the US attack Saudi Arabia, and on what grounds? What UN resolutions has Saudi Arabia broken? What specific US demands have they refused?

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

THE leading harborer of terrorists. One of THE most brutal and repressive regimes on the planet.

[BucksEng91]

Here's an excellent op-ed from the Wall Street Journal that puts all the partisan bullsh*t in perspective:

----------------------------------------------------------
A President's Job
The 9/11 hearings: We're all Bush Doctrine believers now.

Friday, March 26, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

Give President Bush's critics credit for versatility. Having spent months assailing him for doing too much after 9/11--Iraq, the Patriot Act, the "pre-emption" doctrine--they have now turned on a dime to allege that he did too little before it. This contradiction is Mr. Bush's opportunity to rise above the ankle biting and explain to the American public what a President is elected to do.

Any President's most difficult decision is how and when to defend the American people. As the 9/11 hearings reveal, there are always a thousand reasons for a President not to act. The intelligence might be uncertain, civilians might be killed, U.S. soldiers could die, and the "international community" might object. There are risks in any decision. But when Presidents fail to act at all, or act with too little conviction, we get a September 11.

This is the real lesson emerging from the 9/11 Commission hearings if you listen above the partisan din. In their eagerness to insist that Mr. Bush should have acted more pre-emptively before 9/11, the critics are rebutting their own case against the President's aggressive antiterror policy ever since. The implication of their critique is that Mr. Bush didn't repudiate the failed strategy of the Clinton years fast enough.

The bias in these columns has long been to support forceful Presidential leadership on national security. Even when skeptical about a military intervention, as we were about Haiti in 1994, we saluted once Bill Clinton sent in the troops. We supported Mr. Clinton in Bosnia and Kosovo, and we were among the few who didn't pile on Jimmy Carter after the hostage-rescue fiasco in Iran.

We likewise support Mr. Bush's antiterror leadership, despite the inevitable missteps of planning or WMD intelligence. Whatever lapses may have occurred in the eight months of his Presidency before 9/11, since that day Mr. Bush has had the courage to act, and forcefully. He has turned 20 years of antiterror policy on its head, going on offense by taking the war to the terrorists, toppling state sponsors in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now attempting to "transform" the Middle East through a democratic beachhead in Iraq. This is leadership.

Democrats now claim that any President would have responded this way, save for invading the "distraction" of Iraq. But would they really? Their strategy in power was to play defense and prosecute terrorists after they'd struck. Even Richard Clarke admits this. Madeleine Albright attributes that failure to a general "mindset" that prevailed everywhere before September 11, and she has a point.

But in her 9/11 testimony this week, Ms. Albright blamed the Bush Administration detentions at Guantanamo for creating more terrorists. "It is possible and perhaps probable that anger over these detentions has helped bin Laden succeed in recruiting more new operatives," she said. So the detention of Taliban fighters caught while fighting Americans and harboring terrorists will only help the terrorists? This is the same "mindset" that blocked strong U.S. action against al Qaeda for half a decade.

Or consider this episode from the 9/11 Commission's staff report on the U.S. response to news that terrorists linked to Iran had killed 19 Americans at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996:

"Albright emphasized to us, for example, that even if some individual Iranian officials were involved, this was not the same as proving that the Iranian government as a whole should be held responsible for the bombing. National Security Adviser Berger held a similar view. He stressed the need for a definitive intelligence judgment. The evidence might be challenged by foreign governments. The evidence might form a basis for going to war."

Yes, it might. But the failure to act without "definitive" evidence and "foreign" agreement might also encourage the terrorists to think that they can get away with it and so hit us again.

The idea that every President would have toppled the Taliban after 9/11 is also wishful thinking. The press at the time was full of hand-wringing about the dangers. The establishment consensus, even so soon after 9/11, was that the U.S. could end up bogged down in Kabul like the British and Soviets. President Bush is the one who took the risk of using force to rout the Taliban and the al Qaeda camps they were protecting.

All of this is what we ought to be debating this election year, not how selective Dick Clarke's memory is. Even if everything Mr. Clarke says is true--and he's already contradicted himself numerous times--it is beside the point. What matters is which strategy against terrorism the U.S. should pursue now and for the next four years.

This is also the case that Mr. Bush needs to make, rising above the Lilliputians who want to fight over intelligence and yellowcake uranium in Niger. Mr. Bush should tell Americans that he too is disappointed that U.S. intelligence in Iraq wasn't as good as it might have been, though even Bill Clinton was convinced Saddam Hussein had WMD.

But this election is about leadership. And a President who takes the oath to protect America has to make difficult, often life-or-death, decisions based on imperfect information. In a world of terrorism and (still unsolved) anthrax attacks on the U.S. Capitol, a President doesn't have the luxury of waiting for French approval or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In Iraq, the burden was on Saddam--a proven supporter of terrorists, user of WMD and enemy of America--to show he had destroyed the weapons we know he once had. He didn't, and so Mr. Bush acted to protect America and prevent another September 11.

[BucksEng91]

Originally posted by MIKEYLIKESIT
THE leading harborer of terrorists. One of THE most brutal and repressive regimes on the planet.

Is the Saudi government harboring terrorists? Hmmm...news to me. Repressive regime? Yep. So's Iran, Syria, Somalia...

But my question stands - what do you suggest we do with the Saudis? Should we attack them, right now? Take a stand, don't just tell me that the Saudis are @ssholes. We know that already.

But here's an even better question - should we have attacked the Saudis prior to 9-11? Is that what you're faulting the President for? Is that why you brought up Saudi Arabia?

All great questions, and you're not answering a one.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

If I was smart enough to have all the answers, I would run for President. At the very least, our government should do everything they can to persuade the Saudi Royal family to effect some REAL change in the way things are done there. I probably shouldnt have used the word "harbored" when referring to terrorists in Saudi Arabia.. A better word(s) is "breeding ground".

[BucksEng91]

Originally posted by MIKEYLIKESIT
If I was smart enough to have all the answers, I would run for President. At the very least, our government should do everything they can to persuade the Saudi Royal family to effect some REAL change in the way things are done there. I probably shouldnt have used the word "harbored" when referring to terrorists in Saudi Arabia.. A better word(s) is "breeding ground".

Agreed. Which is why it's so important that our democratic beachhead in Iraq succeeds. A successful democracy in Iraq will be the critical mass that the entire Middle East needs to finally move out of the 4th century, whether they need to be dragged or not.

But you still haven't said what you think the President should have done to prevent the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Let's get back to the basics:

1. Did the President (either one - Clinton or Bush) have prior knowledge of 9-11?

OK, only go on if you answered "yes", because if you answered "no" then your original question - (what did Bush do to prevent the terrorist attacks?), is completely meaningless. So let's assume you answered "yes".

2. If Clinton did nothing, why, if he knew that the US was going to be attacked with airliners flown into buildings?

3. If Clinton knew about it and did nothing, but told Bush about it, why did Bush do nothing?

4. Did Bush have some super-secret Illuminati knowledge about the 9-11 attacks that Clinton didn't have, and kept it secret?

5. If you answered "yes" to number 4, what size tin foil hat do you wear to keep the Halliburton secret police from reading your mind?

OK, now just for fun let's assume that you believe that neither Clinton nor Bush had specific knoweldge of the 9-11 attacks beforehand. What would you have proposed that President Bush, in office all of about 8 months, have done to prevent an attack that he didn't know was coming? Your answer would seem to be, "Bomb Saudi Arabia".

[BucksEng91]

Look, it comes down to this - are you going to blame the entirety of 9-11 on the Bush administration by holding it to an unreasonably higher standard than you would hold the Clinton administration? I don't care who you voted for, although in some cases it does speak to people's motivations for making scurrilous charges.

Reasonable people just cannot look at 8 years of impotent Clinton administration response (or lack thereof) to terror attacks, cutting of defense spending and gutting of strategic and human intelligence programs, then turn around and blame it on a President who was in office for about 8 months, and still did not have his "team" completely in place due to the acrimony following the Florida recount, and the delay of transition planning while the recount proceeded.

It's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Dickie Clarke is a liar and an opportunist. It's clear that he gave wildly DIFFERENT accounts of the Bush administration's actions against terror in 2002 and 2004. This is a partisan attack conveniently timed to make Mr. Clarke a rich man.

He's a mutt. And so is John Kerry, who tried his damndest in 1994 to slash defense and intelligence spending. Was THAT an appropriate response to the rising tide of terrorism in the world?

[BucksEng91]

No Thanks, Mr. Clarke

By September 11th Families
New York Post | March 29, 2004

We are all in agreement that a review of what happened leading up to 9/11 is important for many reasons. As families and friends of loved ones killed by the terrorists that day, we want to know if 9/11 realistically could have been prevented, whether justice is being brought to those behind this attack, and, most important, that our government is taking the right action to stop future attacks.
A meaningful review as to what happened on 9/11 and the aftermath can only happen if it is truly nonpartisan. Unfortunately, this week much of the non-partisanship was taken from us when Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism advisor, decided to use his testimony before the 9/11 Commission to showcase the release of his tell-all book.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was an overwhelming outpouring of support from all corners of America. New Yorkers, non-New Yorkers, Democrats, Republicans - none of that mattered. We were all joined together as a country to share our grief over what the terrorists did to America that day.

Of course, even then, a small number of individuals tried to take advantage of the situation and emotions exposed by 9/11, from looters of shops destroyed in the attack to those who filed bogus insurance claims. We realized then that the likelihood of exploitation would only increase as the distance of time began to separate us from that horrible day.

It was very disturbing, then, to learn that Mr. Clarke would be releasing his book immediately before his scheduled public testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

We are well aware that the friends and family members of those killed in 9/11 do not speak with a single voice on all issues. Nonetheless, the notion of profiteering from anything associated with 9/11 is particularly offensive to all of us.

We find Mr. Clarke's actions all the more offensive especially considering the fact that there was always a high possibility that the 9/11 Commission could be used for political gain, especially now, with the presidential election less than eight months away.

Surely, Mr. Clarke knew this. Yet he decided to risk the actual and perceived impartiality of this important process to maximize book sales.

As family and friends of those killed on 9/11, we believe it inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to profit from and politicize 9/11, and further divide America, by his testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

Indeed, we are now seeing some partisans more interested in somehow laying blame for 9/11 at the feet of President Bush - even though what we heard from both Bush and Clinton administration officials confirms what we already believed: that while al Qaeda was a known threat, no one could have known that 19 terrorists already in the United States would hijack domestic aircraft and fly them in to the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Had there been real evidence, "actionable" or otherwise, that this was being planned, we believe that President Bush, President Clinton - indeed, any president of the United States - would have done everything possible to prevent it.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it was President Bush who helped unite America and guide us through that devastating time. Since 9/11, he has taken the fight to the terrorists abroad. He recognizes that America is at war and has made the difficult choices necessary to destroy the terrorists and confront those who harbor them.

Despite Mr. Clarke, we are hopeful that the 9/11 Commission will be able to continue its investigation in a nonpartisan way. More important, we must never lose sight of the fact that the attacks of 9/11 were perpetrated on this country by foreign terrorists committed to destroying our way of life.

In the end, we will be judged on whether we successfully continue pursuing the ongoing war on terror so that we never again face another 9/11.

Sincerely,

Jim Boyle (father of Michael Boyle, FDNY)

Madeline Bergen (wife of John Bergen, FDNY)

Rosemary Cain (mother of George Cain, FDNY)

Carol & Vincent Coakley (parents of Steve Coakley, FDNY)

Marie Corrigan (wife of Jim Corrrigan, FDNY)

Susan Cronin (sister of Thomas Strada, Cantor Fitzgerald)

Chris & Lisa Della Pietra (brother and sister of Joseph Della Pietra, Cantor Fitzgerald)

Sandra Della Pietra (mother of Joseph Della Pietra)

Sam & Rose Esposito (parents of Michael Esposito, FDNY)

Joe & Sal Esposito (brothers of Michael Esposito, FDNY, and cousins of Frank Esposito, FDNY)

Tom & Patricia Farragher (brother-in-law and sister of FDNY Capt. Walter Hynes)

Barbara Haskell (wife of Tom Haskell, FDNY)

Dawn Haskell Carbone (sister of Tom and Tim Haskell, FDNY)

Maureen Haskell (mother of Tom and Tim Haskell)

Ken Haskell (brother of Tom and Tim Haskell)

Frank Haskell (cousin of Tom and Tim Haskell)

Paulette & Joseph J. Hasson, Jr. (parents of Joe Hasson, Cantor Fitzgerald)

Virginia Hayes (wife of Phil Hayes, FDNY ret.)

Bernie Heeran (father of Charles Heeran, Cantor Fitzgerald)

Mike Heffernan (brother of John Heffernan, FDNY)

Arlene Howard (mother of George Howard, Port Authority PD)

Jennifer Iannotti (sister of Thomas Strada)

John Leavy (father of Neil Leavy, FDNY)

The McAleese family (family of Brian McAleese, FDNY)

Bart Mitchell (father-in-law of Ronnie Bucca, FDNY)

Richard & Terry Otten (parents of Michael Otten, FDNY)

Frank Siller (brother of Stephen Siller, FDNY)

Ernest & Mary Ann Strada (parents of Thomas Strada)

Terry Strada (wife of Thomas Strada)

Joseph & Michael Strada (brothers of Thomas Strada)

Ed Sweeney (father of Brian Sweeney, FDNY)

John & Janet Vigiano (parents of Joseph Vigiano, NYPD, and John Vigiano, FDNY)

[StoveBolt]

Question 11 for Richard Clarke.. when u worked for the Clinton admin. for 8 years and Clinton said publicly Sadam had WMD's, why didn't you correct him and tell him he was wrong? SB (Local 1355 retired)

[firespec35]

Wow I don't even get to have any fun with MIKEY. Y'all beat me to the punch. To do any more would be like kicking a dead dog. Good job guys points well made.:cool:

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Kick away Spec. What special insight do you have ? I am posing question as an average American. Not someone that watches hours and hours of Fox News. I would like to know if all of Clarkes testimony was a lie. According to Bucks91 it was. Well then Clarke should be charged with perjury. The President must have liked him because he kept him on after he was elected.
Bucks says. Look, it comes down to this - are you going to blame the entirety of 9-11 on the Bush administration by holding it to an unreasonably higher standard than you would hold the Clinton administration? I don't care who you voted for, although in some cases it does speak to people's motivations for making scurrilous charges.
I never said that. Only that it occured while President Bush was in office.

Bucks asks ...5. If you answered "yes" to number 4, what size tin foil hat do you wear to keep the Halliburton secret police from reading your mind? I say. Come on Joe dont be a meany. These are your opinions. I would never claim to be as smart as you are. However, it seems that whenever anyone questions our government lately theres that thinly veiled " You are crazy" or some how "unpatriotic". I welcome Spec and his kicking a dead dog. I am a FIRM believer that most politicians are less then forthcoming when it suits them. Both Democrats and Republicans. Usually the REAL truth lies somewhere in the middle. Only time will tell.

[ThNozzleman]

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it was President Bush who helped unite America and guide us through that devastating time. Since 9/11, he has taken the fight to the terrorists abroad. He recognizes that America is at war and has made the difficult choices necessary to destroy the terrorists and confront those who harbor them.
With 10,000+ dead and thousands wounded and maimed, war in Iraq (a country who had nothing to do with 9/11 in the first place) really makes sense, huh? All this to invade a country that was zero threat to anyone. Bush is an idiot.

[TillerMan25]

war in Iraq (a country who had nothing to do with 9/11 in the first place)

Well, Mr. National Security Advisor, why do you think Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11? It only harbored Al Quaeda Members, funded A.Q. operations and rewarded members after the operations were completed. Wasn't there admission of a top terrorist leader assasinated by the Iraqi government when it became known he was hiding there?

All this to invade a country that was zero threat to anyone.

Let's ask the Kurds if Iraq was a threat to anyone....oh wait, we can't Saddam and his government gassed them to death. :rolleyes:


Bush is an idiot.

I didn't know you changed your name to "Bush." :D :rolleyes:


Just admit that you are a pacifist who is afraid you will be called to fight if the Draft were ever reinstated! God forbid you leave the serene hills of Tennessee to fight for a government that you expect to take care of you. Typical Liberal, take, take, take....but give nothing back. I bet you are praying, woops, forgot you are godless, wishing on stars that Uncle John Kerry gets to the White House to save you from aggression and leave our military matters to the United Nation ( An organization full of cowards like yourself.)

I cannot wait til November to see Uncle John and the DNC go down in flames.

[DaSharkie]

(a country who had nothing to do with 9/11 in the first place)

And whoe ever siad that it did? I never once heard the President or the current administration say that Iraq had anything to do with murders that occurred.

The only things I have heard is that Iraq supported terrorist organizations adn terrorism. This has been a known fact for years.

I suppose that I am wasting my breathe here because this has been pointed out to you before.

All this to invade a country that was zero threat to anyone

Uh, huh. What about Israel - paying a monetary "gift" to families of homicide bombers. He invaded Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. He launched missiles against Israel (Spare teh cock and bull story - I know how you feel about Israel), had training areas for terrorist groups (remember those airliner fuselages we found with bullet holes inthem?)

He gassed his own citizens, tortured his own citizens, still no record of a downed US Naval Aviator - Lt. Cmdr. Spicher form the first Gulf War, weekly locking of radar sites on U.S. and British aircraft in the no fly zones.

This, not mention that he had possession and the capability to manufacture biological and chemical weapons systems. Oh yeah, teh oil for food program where Hussein bribed UN officials and administrators instead of supplying food and medical supplies to his countrymen.

Oh yeah he was a zero threat.

Bush is an idiot.

Uh huh. Whatever you say.

[stm4710]

I think people need to get out of the starbucks and stop debateing wether or not we should have gone to war. We are there, lets focus on way to bring home our troops in reltivly the same condition they left in and finish what we started. We welcomed back a member of our department yesterday who came home from Iraq. Lets just pray our troops get the chance to come to home to there familys.

[BucksEng91]

Originally posted by MIKEYLIKESIT
Kick away Spec. What special insight do you have ? I am posing question as an average American. Not someone that watches hours and hours of Fox News.

That's a shame - you'd be a lot better informed on issues as important as your family's safety, for example, if you paid more attention to the news. Not trying to be nasty, but you should probably inform yourself a bit if you're going to make assertions about something as vital as national security. In fact, I think it's your duty as a citizen to be well-informed. That's what makes a representative republic work.

By the way, you don't have to watch Fox to get this stuff. There are articles on Clarke's two-facedness everywhere you look. Read a newspaper.

Glad you're still barking, by the way. :D

I would like to know if all of Clarkes testimony was a lie. According to Bucks91 it was. Well then Clarke should be charged with perjury. The President must have liked him because he kept him on after he was elected.

The President kept him because there wasn't much time for transition planning in the aftermath of the Florida recount SNAFU. But Clarke did get denied a promotion that he wanted, which is likely one of the personal reasons he's lying and telling half-truths now. One of the other personal reasons is money. Lots of it.

But I'd like to know which are the lies, too...which is why his 2002 testimony should be declassified, at least in part, and he should absolutely be charged with perjury if he lied at either time. Then we could square what he says now, which is basically:

1. "Terrorism was the top priority of the Clinton administration."

2. "Prior to Sept. 11, the Bush administration did not take terrorism seriously enough."

3. "The liberation of Iraq was a 'distraction' from the war on al Qaeda."

with statements like these:

"There was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. . . .

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. . . . In January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent. . . . 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."

Bucks says. Look, it comes down to this - are you going to blame the entirety of 9-11 on the Bush administration by holding it to an unreasonably higher standard than you would hold the Clinton administration? I don't care who you voted for, although in some cases it does speak to people's motivations for making scurrilous charges
I never said that. Only that it occured while President Bush was in office.

...with the implication that it was somehow Bush's fault, or his administration's. Nice try. Come on, Mikey; now you're playing word games. Libs love to do this. "Hey, I'm not saying anything, I'm just asking a question." Right. Well, you have yet to tell us what you think about any of this, Mikey. Do you think that Bush knew about 9/11 and did nothing? This is, what, the third time I'm asking? Or do you just want to ignore it again? I picture you sitting with your back turned, fingers in ears, eyes closed, saying "La la la...I'm not listening!! I'm not listening!!!"

You don't want to answer, because if you give the rational, sane answer, ("No") then your original question ("What did Bush do to prevent 9-11?", to paraphrase) has no meaning.

Bucks asks ...5. If you answered "yes" to number 4, what size tin foil hat do you wear to keep the Halliburton secret police from reading your mind? I say. Come on Joe dont be a meany. These are your opinions. I would never claim to be as smart as you are.

Hey, give yourself a little credit here. You're certainly able to recite Democrat party talking points at the drop of a hat. That takes a little bit of smarts...I guess...You at least have to be able to read! :D

However, it seems that whenever anyone questions our government lately theres that thinly veiled " You are crazy" or some how "unpatriotic".

Waa waa waa. I answered your question, refuted your (implied) argument, and now you want to whine about "Bucks called me unpatriotic!!" Come on. Grow up. How about starting by telling us what you believe the President knew about 9-11 ahead of time? Let's see...I think that's four times I'm asking now.

I welcome Spec and his kicking a dead dog. I am a FIRM believer that most politicians are less then forthcoming when it suits them. Both Democrats and Republicans. Usually the REAL truth lies somewhere in the middle. Only time will tell.

Way to take a stand. Care to go back and answer any of the questions I brought up? Or do you want to stay in the corner with your fingers in your ears? :p

[BucksEng91]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman

Bush is an idiot.

And there you have it, folks, more nuanced and well-thought out reasoning from your friends the Democrats. :D

I know I'M convinced now.

Well, John Kerry is a poopy-pants. Nyah. :p

[stcommodore]

I know its a moot point now but if Clinton hadn'd sat in the oval office and had job done to him instead of doing his job this may have been stopped. Also, why are we putting ourselves on trial when there are still men and women in the battle field and enemys in the homeland.

[oldman21220]

Because, it's an election year.

[ThNozzleman]

And whoe ever siad that it did? I never once heard the President or the current administration say that Iraq had anything to do with murders that occurred.
Oh, please; it is obvious they were itching to invade Iraq and used the anger and the pain of our nation after 9/11 to justify it. I'm still wondering why we haven't "libertated" China or N. Korea, two nations far more brutal towards their own people and the people of other nations than Iraq EVER thought about being. Two nations with FAR more WMD and military might than pitiful little Iraq. Surely, being on the side of the angels, you would have no problem sending our military personnel there tomorrow morning, would you? Following your train of thought, that's what we should do, right? Just declare war on everybody that you don't agree with? Do you really think that some puppet government we prop up in Iraq is going to solve a damn thing? The problem of terrorism will NOT be solved with bombs and bullets. It's time all the chickenhawks got that through their heads.

[ThNozzleman]

And there you have it, folks, more nuanced and well-thought out reasoning from your friends the Democrats.
FYI; I'm NOT a Democrat.:eek:

[gordoffemt]

Posted by ThNozzleman:

I'm still wondering why we haven't "libertated" China or N. Korea, two nations far more brutal towards their own people and the people of other nations than Iraq EVER thought about being. Two nations with FAR more WMD and military might than pitiful little Iraq.

Does this mean that you and your dem, lib, athiest, pacifist, whatever you are today, buddies would support a unilateral strike against one of these countries using your points? If we went to China and liberated 1 billion people from the "brutal" (your word) regime in power, you'd still be whining the same sad story about how America is the bully of the world and somehow it's our own fault.

I'm sure there's plenty of blame to be spread around about 9/11, most of it landing squarely in the lap of Slick Willie Clinton. However, pointing fingers should not be the goal of the 9/11 commission. This partisan, politically motivated crap will not change the outcome of that horrible day in our nation's history. The commission's goal should be to make recommendations to our leaders on how to close the gaps in our systems to be sure that this does not happen again.

In the end, appeasment will only embolden the offenders. We could not afford to treat those behind 9/11 as criminals and let law enforcement handle the case, as was the order of the day of the Clinton administration. Pres. Bush has shown he is a leader. I have faith in the American people to be able to see past the political double-talk of John F. Kerry and return GWB to the office of the President.

BucksEng91: You are all over it! From here forward, I think I'll sit back and let you make my points for me. I certainly could not have said anything you have said, better myself. Keep up the good work!

ThNozzleman: Are you sure you're American?

[rfcmitch]

I really dont care what he said, what he did and who he offended. Thats only a minor glitch.

Debate all you want people but there are some facts... we are at war. Its took late to back out. Nothing else matters. It really no longer matters why we went to war, cause we did.

You people need to just sit back and let things roll a little bit more. It takes all kinds to make the world, and we sure do see it all. But hey its a book, not a brainwashing.

I just dont even really care anymore about any of it, politics, 9/11, why we went to war, nothing. Cause its all happened.

Which brings me to my other opinion, which I am sure is going to be unpopular, we need to move on from 9/11. We need to stop revisiting it. It happened, people died, lets try to prevent it from happening again. That does not mean to beat it to death. Im frankly sick of hearing about it...

[firespec35]

Wow beat me to it again. I gotta get off of 3rd shift so I can have some fun too. Bucks seems to be taking it all. Once again any political answer would be like kicking a dead dog or at least one who is CTD:cool:

Oh and stm4710 you just got yours back and I just lost one for a year hey we're running a good record though we've sent out 3 now and already got 2 back safe so hopefully the same for the third one

Good Luck Sgt Jerome Colon US Army

[firespec35]

Wow I read too fast I missed this the first time.

Lets move on from 9-11?????????????????

Are you nuts? I will never forget the sacrifices made by the 343+ of our bretheren not to mention the other people killed in new york and at the pentagon. And what about the absolute bravery and gall shown by those above Pennsylvania. God knows how many lives they saved that day where was the third one headed The Capitol, The White House. OMG people like you just frustrate me.

Just remember those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

George Santayana

[BucksEng91]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman

FYI; I'm NOT a Democrat.:eek:

FYI; I DON'T care. :eek:

You use ad hominem attacks like a Democrat; your argument consists mainly of simply disagreeing with anything the President does (like a Democrat); and you fail to bring much of anything of substance to the conversation (like a Democrat).

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

So maybe you'll answer the question that Mikey won't - do you believe that President Bush had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks, and did nothing? Or that President Clinton had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks, and did nothing?

Oh, and here's some more, while we're at it: Did Iraq have WMDs? Did it support terrorists? Did it comply with the UN cease-fire agreement and subsequent Security Council resolutions?

I'll wait for your replies.

[DaSharkie]

Oh, please; it is obvious they were itching to invade Iraq and used the anger and the pain of our nation after 9/11 to justify it.

Ah, but haven't offered any evidence supporting your claim that the administration ever said there were ties between Iraq and those who killed in NYC, D.C., and PA. I believe my point still stands. Iraq wasn't brought up for at least a year after the murders, so much of the pain and stunning feelings had passed from most in this country - though it was still in our minds and hearts.

I'm still wondering why we haven't "libertated" China or N. Korea, two nations far more brutal towards their own people and the people of other nations than Iraq EVER thought about being. Two nations with FAR more WMD and military might than pitiful little Iraq.

North Korea is not a threat to the United States, though it is a threat to Japan, China, Taiwan, Russia, and South Korea. North Korea has been kept in check for 51 years through the military forces of the ROK, a faltering economy, lack of support for over a decade from China and Russia, a reinforced division of the United States Army, two additional divisions of Army and Marine Corps warriors in Japan / Okinawa, two air wings in Japan / Okinawa, a few carrier battle groups, and a few million land mines, missiles, rifles, and artillery pointed directly across the 38th parallel.

China is a threat, not as much as one might think, but I do feel that they are waiting for an opportunity to pounce, however they have a better weapon in their possession - our economy, look at how much stuff we buy is made there and look at the trade deficit with them. Hmmm, why attack militarily when doing so financially is much more effective, and much less bloody. I'd much rather fight them this way, and get jobs back here in our country, btu those in favor of globalization will have none of that.

Surely, being on the side of the angels, you would have no problem sending our military personnel there tomorrow morning, would you?

ANd you berate others for making comments like this? What the heck does my faith have to do with it? I would have a problem sending our soldiers there, they are not a threat to us, read the above paragraph.

Following your train of thought, that's what we should do, right? Just declare war on everybody that you don't agree with?

It has nothing to do with whom I agree with and who I do not. I do nto agree with most of Europe's take on socialism and governemnt being the end all be all, but I do not wish to go to war with them. Don't feign a lack of intelligence. It has to do with a country who is a threat militarily to me and my nation.

Which reminds me, why no response to the slam of your statement that Iraq was no threat to anybody?

Do you really think that some puppet government we prop up in Iraq is going to solve a damn thing?

I do not think it will be a puppet government. And if you think there is so much fighting and violence because we are there you are mistaken, that is only part of it. As I said in another thread, democracy and personal liberty adn freedom is a threat to every nation in the middle east becasue they are run by dictators, despots, tyrants, and thugs who rule with iron fists and offer very few personal liberties. A true democracy there is a threat to their very power and existance, this is a partial reason as to why they do not sstop the flow of terrorist dirtbags across their borders into Iraq, it is in their interest to get rid of the radicals from their own country, all better if they destroy a fledgling democracy.

The problem of terrorism will NOT be solved with bombs and bullets.

Nor will the terrorists' goals. However, those that rule through violence or wish to gain ruling authority through violence only understand violence. A sad but true statement. Equate it on a simpler level with the playground bully. He threatens you with violence, and will only cease when violence is used or threatened upon them in sufficient strength.

It's time all the chickenhawks got that through their heads.

It's time all of the hippies / protestors got that through their heads.

[ThNozzleman]

ANd you berate others for making comments like this? What the heck does my faith have to do with it? I would have a problem sending our soldiers there, they are not a threat to us, read the above paragraph.
That statement has nothing to do with faith; surely you know that. Of course, religion DOES have a lot to do with it, right or wrong. We KNEW how the people in the Middle East view the history of American/European meddling in that part of the world. Our presence in that area will do nothing to stem terrorism; quite the opposite, actually. Invading Iraq was a bone-headed thing to do, and will cost us in foreign relations for years to come. As for the rest of my statements; no one has responded with anything except right-wing propaganda. Again, I require facts stating WHY Iraq was any more of a threat to the U.S. than any other nation. Nobody has provided me with this, yet. All the aggressions you mention happened years ago, and Iraq was no real threat to any surrounding nation. They had no operating air force to speak of. They couldn't even topple Iran in a war that lasted YEARS at their strongest. They've been living under sanctions for years. Their economy was dismal. They were under constant military check by our forces in Saudia Arabia and other places. Yet, you posted the following:
North Korea is not a threat to the United States, though it is a threat to Japan, China, Taiwan, Russia, and South Korea. North Korea has been kept in check for 51 years through the military forces of the ROK, a faltering economy, lack of support for over a decade from China and Russia, a reinforced division of the United States Army, two additional divisions of Army and Marine Corps warriors in Japan / Okinawa, two air wings in Japan / Okinawa, a few carrier battle groups, and a few million land mines, missiles, rifles, and artillery pointed directly across the 38th parallel.
I fail to see your logic.
Hmmm, why attack militarily when doing so financially is much more effective, and much less bloody.
Hmmm...I wonder why the chickenhawks didn't take this approach with Iraq? I mean, it's OK to do business with one brutal regime, but not another? You guys are making this too easy for me. :rolleyes:

[TillerMan25]

If you are referring to the comment I made to him about Iraq not being threat, it will fall on deaf ears. He has ignored me since I made him look like an idiot on another thread.

This is a typical Nozzleman Argument

disagree, bash your character, bash your faith, bash the president, bash this country and it's values, throw out completely false statements and then ignore you when make him look like an idiot...


He was even ridiculous enough to say that Iraq was "Right Next to Russia" when questioned about why they had Soviet-Bloc style weapons. and the most ridiculous thing about it, was his defense of the statement. check out the "Unofficial War in Iraq" thread. It's a hoot. This guy is a complete socialist. I wouldnt even stoop to calling him a democrat.

[BucksEng91]

Still waiting, Noz...

1. Did the President have foreknowledge of 9-11 and do nothing to stop it?

2. Did the former President have foreknowledge of 9-11 and do nothing to stop it?

3. Did Iraq have WMDs?

4. Did Iraq support terrorists?

5. Did Iraq comply with the UN cease-fire agreement from Gulf War I and subsequent Security Council resolutions?

6. And here's another, for good measure - if terrorism can't be defeated with "bombs and bullets" (I happen to agree, but probably not for the same reasons as you), how exactly is it to be defeated?

...we can't wait to hear your responses. :p

[ThNozzleman]

1. Did the President have foreknowledge of 9-11 and do nothing to stop it?
Specific knowledge? Who knows. Have we known for years that airliners were potential targets of highjacking? Yes. Have we known for years of the possiblity that they could be used as "missles", once highjacked? Yes. Has the government done anything to force the airline corporations (who we have no problem bailing out with our tax dollars) to adopt REAL security measures? No. Has our government ceased supporting brutal, totalitaristic, regimes when they serve our current purpose? No. Have we ceased supporting Israel with our taxpayer billions because they run roughshod over the Palestinians and steal their land? No. Does our government ever stop and ask, "Just why do these people hate us, so much?" No.
2. Did the former President have foreknowledge of 9-11 and do nothing to stop it?
Same answer.
3. Did Iraq have WMDs?
No. That should be pretty obvious, by now. Should we invade every nation that has WMD's? Pretty hypocritcal, coming from the nation that developed most of the technology, and has had no trouble using them, ourselves.
4. Did Iraq support terrorists?
I do not believe that there was any massive effort made by Saddam's regime to support terrorist operations. He viewed them as much a threat, as we do. Much of the known "terrorist" activities in Iraq took place in areas not controlled by Saddam, such as the Kurdish terrorist groups that are in conflict with Turkey. At any rate, Iraq has far less involvement in "terrorist" activities, than do many other nations in that area, none of whom we have "liberated", including Saudia Arabia, a nation ran by a brutal dictatorship of one family, the Sauds.
5. Did Iraq comply with the UN cease-fire agreement from Gulf War I and subsequent Security Council resolutions?
Again, a UN resolution to be handled by the UN. Iraq has made no act of aggression, deserving of a full-blown invasion by the U.S. It is obvious that the UN did not approve of our invasion of Iraq.
6. And here's another, for good measure - if terrorism can't be defeated with "bombs and bullets" (I happen to agree, but probably not for the same reasons as you), how exactly is it to be defeated?
First of all, the security measures at airports and other places we have known them to be needed for years, should be fully implemented. Secondly, we must realize that invading Iraq had nothing to do with stopping terrorism. Period. That was NOT the motive behind this war. If anything, it has only served to prove the terrorists right, in their own mind, as well as anger millions of other Arabs who normally would not support such actions. Also, our support (in billions of dollars, each year) of Israel because it's the "only democratic nation in the Middle East" needs to stop, until they make major concessions in the area of rights for the Palestinians, who are living life as third class citizens, under the thumb of the Israeli military. This, along with better handling of Arab relations, in general. We should be an equal advocate for all peoples, and quit playing games for oil. Of course, there is no way to stop every group, no matter what nationality or cause, from doing some damage. But, improving our relations with the Middle East is the important thing to do; and starting a war is NOT the smartest way to do this, especially if the rest of the world does NOT agree with us on this matter.

[ThNozzleman]

Attitudes like yours are why the problem exists in the first place.

[ThNozzleman]

Again, any President who opens American national security to a world vote will never get mine, and I will do everything in my power to make sure he/she is tossed out on their kiester.
Yet, once again, it is quite apparant that Iraq was NOT a threat to the U.S. Your arguments are baseless.

[BucksEng91]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman

Specific knowledge? Who knows.

Way to go out on a limb with that one. Let's say that the Presidents both DID have specific knowledge of 9-11. Why do you suppose they'd do nothing about it?

Have we known for years that airliners were potential targets of highjacking? Yes. Have we known for years of the possiblity that they could be used as "missles", once highjacked? Yes.

Yes, because it's happened so many times before. Cripes, you'd think with all the airplanes flying into buildings for the last ten years, the evil Bush administration would have seen 9-11 coming.

Another non-answer answer. You're batting 1000, chief.

Has the government done anything to force the airline corporations (who we have no problem bailing out with our tax dollars) to adopt REAL security measures? No.

Yep, it's those eeeeevil corporations. It's not that there are real, evil Islamofascists in the world who would slit your and your family's throat as soon as look at you because you won't submit to the will of Allah. It must be capitalism. Holy crap, the commies were right! America is eeeeevil. We deserved 9-11, right Noz?

Has our government ceased supporting brutal, totalitaristic, regimes when they serve our current purpose? No.

So, 9-11 was our fault, huh? Care to tell the father of a dead NYC firefighter that the reason that his son is dead is because we deserved it because we support "brutal, totalitaristic (is that even a word, chief?), regimes"? It had nothing to do with Islamofascism. It was OUR fault.

Have we ceased supporting Israel with our taxpayer billions because they run roughshod over the Palestinians and steal their land? No.

Ohhhh, wait. It's the JEWS' fault! Now I see.

SIDEBAR: The Palestinian people never had land to "steal"; they've always lived as nomadic tribes, and been driven from all of the Arab nations who supposedly support their cause. The reason that they're poor, impoverished, desperate, and angry is because the rulers of the Palestinian Authority are murderers, thieves, and thugs, Arafat being the head murderer/thief/thug. The Palestinians, if they had responsible leadership, could negotiate a deal with the Israelis tomorrow that would net them their own sovereign state, and the foreign investment would come pouring in - within 10 years, "Palestine" would be a paradise, relatively speaking. But they don't want that. It's inconvenient to Noz' worldview, but the Palestinian terror groups that run the "Authority" don't want a compromise. They want every Jew dead, and the nation of Israel "pushed into the sea". Period. Noz, you should read the manifestos of the people you claim your heart bleeds for.

Does our government ever stop and ask, "Just why do these people hate us, so much?" No.

Again, you need to read, Noz. In their own words, the reason "these people hate us, so much" is because we stand in the way of the establishment of the worldwide caliphate - the entire world under Sharia law.

They would walk right up to you, Noz, and slit your throat and your family's throats from ear to ear while you struggled to understand these poor, misunderstood, lost souls...victims of the American fascist juggernaut. And then they'd laugh, and videotape it to show their Jihad buddies.

No. That should be pretty obvious, by now.

Obvious, huh? Gee, it wasn't so obvious to the 5,000 Kurdish civilians that were murdered with chemical munitions dropped from Iraqi aircraft. Have you ever seen the pictures, Noz? Women desperately trying to cover their babies, trying to keep the gas away, using their own bodies as shields. Liitle kids, looking about the age of 5 or so, with their lungs leaking out their noses, their faces grey/blue, contorted with pain.

Now you tell me that Iraq didn't have WMDs.

Should we invade every nation that has WMD's? Pretty hypocritcal, coming from the nation that developed most of the technology, and has had no trouble using them, ourselves.

Nope. Not hypocritcal. Realistic. I know you'd love for us to live in Happy Land, with cotton candy clouds and chocolate rivers. But that doesn't protect me and my family. Remember...ear to ear, Noz. Ear to ear.

I have no doubt that the second one of these animals gets their hands on WMDs, they will attempt to use them right away. They have no concept of deterrence or humanity. They're not the Soviets, or the Chinese, or even the wacky North Koreans, all of whom were or are still not crazy enough not to have some sense of self-preservation. The Islamofascists don't care if they die; in fact they pine for death because they think that God has promised them 72 virgins to rape in Heaven once they die in his service.

I do not believe that there was any massive effort made by Saddam's regime to support terrorist operations.

Again, this would be much of a surprise to the Israeli families whose children were murdered while riding on the bus, or getting a slice of pizza. Saddam paid homicide bombers. This is not in dispute.

Oh, that's right. The Jews deserve it, right Noz? I almost forgot.

Much of the known "terrorist" activities in Iraq took place in areas not controlled by Saddam, such as the Kurdish terrorist groups that are in conflict with Turkey. At any rate, Iraq has far less involvement in "terrorist" activities, than do many other nations in that area, none of whom we have "liberated", including Saudia Arabia, a nation ran by a brutal dictatorship of one family, the Sauds.

Ever heard of Salam Pak? The terrorist training camp complete with jet fuselage, train cars, etc.? How about the Fedayeen Saddam, Saddam's own little ninja squad?

And if the swine that are currently murdering American servicemen and Iraqis aren't 'terrorists', then what are they? Did they just suddenly know, by osmosis, how to make bombs? Did the bomb-making materials spontaneously appear?

Again, a UN resolution to be handled by the UN. Iraq has made no act of aggression, deserving of a full-blown invasion by the U.S. It is obvious that the UN did not approve of our invasion of Iraq.

Please. The UN passed 1547, which called for the immediate disarmament of Saddam's WMD programs, and a full and open accounting of the WMD programs. Saddam did not comply, and 1547 specified "serious consequences" for non-compliance. In any case, 12 years is quite long enough. Gulf War I never ended, because Saddam never complied with the cease-fire agreement. The latest action was a continuation of hostilities, plain and simple.

If you're such a supporter of the UN, you'd realize that it makes itself a paper tiger when it threatens and threatens for 12 LONG YEARS, and never lifts a finger to enforce its OWN resolutions.

But then again, I've thought that the UN is useless for years now. There isn't one thing, beyond famine relief, that the organization does well. It certainly doesn't do peace-keeping, its primary function, well at all.

First of all, the security measures at airports and other places we have known them to be needed for years, should be fully implemented. Secondly, we must realize that invading Iraq had nothing to do with stopping terrorism. Period. That was NOT the motive behind this war. If anything, it has only served to prove the terrorists right, in their own mind, as well as anger millions of other Arabs who normally would not support such actions. Also, our support (in billions of dollars, each year) of Israel because it's the "only democratic nation in the Middle East" needs to stop, until they make major concessions in the area of rights for the Palestinians, who are living life as third class citizens, under the thumb of the Israeli military. This, along with better handling of Arab relations, in general. We should be an equal advocate for all peoples, and quit playing games for oil. Of course, there is no way to stop every group, no matter what nationality or cause, from doing some damage. But, improving our relations with the Middle East is the important thing to do; and starting a war is NOT the smartest way to do this, especially if the rest of the world does NOT agree with us on this matter.

Blah, blah, blah. <yawn> Blood for oil, Bush is Hitler, it's the Jews' fault, and I want to live in the land of candy cotton clouds and chocolate rivers.

The US must act in its own national interests, protect its own people, and worry about the rest of the world second. I will not support any President who subordinates the safety of my family to the whim of the UN, and I'd hazard a guess that most of the US feels that way.

Anyway, the subject of this forum was Dickie Clarke at one time.

He's still a mutt, a liar, and a self-serving worm. Prove me wrong.

[rfcmitch]

Did I say forget? No. Dont read into my statements.

I wont ever forget 9/11. But I will move on.

[glowpop]

Nozzleman,

"Have we known for years that airliners were potential targets of highjhacking? Yes. Have we known for years of the possiblitiy that they could be used as "missles", once highjacked? Yes."

And apparently VP Gore was well aware of the potential for terrorist action on airlines. It also appears that he ransomed the American publics safety for donations from the airlines to the DNC.

© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

MIAMI – The classified reports used by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety, chaired by Vice President Al Gore and appointed by President Clinton in the wake of the TWA Flight 800 disaster, are still being withheld from a dissenting member of the panel despite a lawsuit to obtain copies, WorldNetDaily has learned.

The Gore commission produced what most observers considered to be a tough preliminary report unveiled Sept. 9, 1996 – one that included extensive counter-terrorism procedures.

But within days, according to Victoria Cummock, a whistleblower commission member, the airline industry jumped all over Gore with concerns about costs. As a result, 10 days later, Gore sent a letter to airline lobbyist Carol Hallett promising that the commission's findings would not result in any loss of revenue.

The Democratic National Committee received $40,000 from TWA the next day. Within two weeks, Northwest, United and American Airlines ponied up another $55,000 for the 1996 campaign. In the next two months leading up to the November elections, American Airlines donated $250,000 to the Democrats. United donated $100,000 to the DNC. Northwestern contributed $53,000. Other reports suggest even more airline money was poured into the election campaign that year.

Following the election, in January, Gore floated a draft final report that eliminated all security measures from the commission's findings, according to Cummock. Two commission members balked, as did CIA Director John Deutch.

Fearing more political heat, Gore pulled back the draft report. A month later, the final report was issued – one that included requirements that would cost the airlines money for new security measures.

The report's requirements included:

high-tech bomb detectors;
more training for airport security;
criminal background checks for security personnel; and,
increased canine patrols.

But there were two things missing from the report, said Cummock – there was no deadline by which those requirements would have to be implemented and no funding mechanism for ensuring that they were. In the 1970s, for instance, when security checkpoints at airports were first implemented, the government provided tax credits as a funding mechanism. No such measures were mandated or offered as part of the Gore commission recommendations.

Thus, the requirements were not in place Sept. 11 of this year when terrorists hijacked four airliners, crashing two into the World Trade Center, another into the Pentagon and crashing a fourth in Pennsylvania. In fact, they are still not in place.

In a meeting with other commission members Feb. 12, 1997, Gore said he would leave room for a dissent by those who opposed the report. Cummock expressed her strong dissent. But within minutes, she says, Gore was announcing to the president and the public that the report was the work of a unanimous commission.

Cummock filed suit to gain access to files she and the public were denied. She won the case, but the material still has not been made available to her.

Cummock was appointed to the commission by Clinton because her husband was killed in the terrorist downing of Pan Am Flight 103 in Lockerbie, Scotland, and because of her work in counseling victims of such disasters.

Hallett now also agrees that the original 31 recommendations of that commission might have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks.

"In our hearts, everyone must realize that failure to use the (profiling) techniques that are available today may be directly responsible for the events of Sept. 11," she said in a speech to the Travel Industries Association in Atlanta.

The FAA issued a statement saying the security improvements mandated by the report were slowed by "often conflicting and time-consuming" federal rule-making procedures and by efforts to protect civil liberties.

As of last month, days after the terrorist attack, according to a Los Angeles Times report, the agency was still collecting research on how to keep intruders from slipping past airport perimeter fences and into restricted areas. The FAA had not launched an effort to assess the vulnerability to terrorists of the nation's 450 commercial airports. Measures to improve detection of explosives in baggage were still being considered by various agencies. The FBI was still working on a plan to protect civilian airliners from surface-to-air missiles. The FAA was negotiating with intelligence agencies for access to confidential information about potential terrorists and plots.

Before Sept. 11, the FBI knew that at least two men with ties to Osama bin Laden had entered the country. But authorities did not notify the airlines, despite bin Laden's threats to bring down U.S. airliners.

The commission report, despite its lack of teeth, acknowledged the threat of terrorism.

"People and places in the United States have joined the list of targets," it said. "It is becoming more common to find terrorists working alone or in ad hoc groups, some of whom are not afraid to die in carrying out their designs."

Even Gerald Kauvar, staff director of the Gore commission, admits the government had more than enough information and time to act.

"It's a government failure," he told the Los Angeles Times. "We specifically said the FAA had to change, and they've proved resistant to change."

But Cummock insists that the change would have taken place if the Gore commission had simply provided deadlines for action. She believes Gore sold out airline security for campaign cash.

"They buried it," she says. "And it's disgraceful that Gerry Kauvar would blame government failure. If anyone has blood on his hands, it's Gerry Kauvar. He was an impediment to getting to the truth."

Unlike most Americans, Cummock says she was not surprised by the terrorism of Sept. 11.

"We were briefed that it would happen," she says. "These scenarios of terrorists using our assets was part of the fact-finding process we looked at. It was inevitable with such lax security procedures."

Hmmmm...seems to me that if anyone had a chance to prevent the murder of our citizens at the hands of terrorists, its the Clinton Administration. Clarke was a part of that wasn't he? Seems that if he was and it was such a high priority of the Clinton administration as Clarke now testifys to, then why wasn't change in the FAA made in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, by the Clinton/Gore/Clarke administration?

[BucksEng91]

The Causes of 9-11

By Ann Coulter
April 1, 2004

We don't need a "commission" to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline:

PRESIDENT CARTER, DEMOCRAT

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage.

Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert.

PRESIDENT REAGAN, REPUBLICAN

The day of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released.

In 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Muslim extremists.

President Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Beirut.

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by Muslim extremists.

Reagan said the U.S. would not surrender, but Democrats threw a hissy fit, introducing a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. Reagan caved in to Democrat caterwauling in an election year and withdrew our troops – bombing Syrian-controlled areas on the way out. Democrats complained about that, too.

In 1985, an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was seized and a 69-year-old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists.

Reagan ordered a heart-stopping mission to capture the hijackers after "the allies" promised them safe passage. In a daring operation, American fighter pilots captured the hijackers and turned them over to the Italians – who then released them to safe harbor in Iraq.

On April 5, 1986, a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen was bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, killing an American.

Ten days later, Reagan bombed Libya, despite our dear ally France refusing the use of their airspace. Americans bombed Gadhafi's residence, killing his daughter, and dropped a bomb on the French Embassy "by mistake."

Reagan also stoked a long, bloody war between heinous regimes in Iran and Iraq. All this was while winning a final victory over Soviet totalitarianism.

PRESIDENT BUSH I, MODERATE REPUBLICAN

In December 1988, a passenger jet, Pan Am Flight 103, was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Muslim extremists.

President-elect George Bush claimed he would continue Reagan's policy of retaliating against terrorism, but did not. Without Reagan to gin her up, even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went wobbly, saying there would be no revenge for the bombing.

In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

In early 1991, Bush went to war with Iraq. A majority of Democrats opposed the war, and later complained that Bush didn't "finish off the job" with Saddam.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, DEMOCRAT

In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.

Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.

In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.

On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.

Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.

On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.

Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."

The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 – when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.

In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, REPUBLICAN

Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was "tired of swatting flies" – he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.

On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.

Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all – except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.

What a surprise.

[ThNozzleman]

Your right-wing banter is baseless. Calling my answers "nonanswers" is ridiculous. I am not on the side of the terrorist, and your insinuations that I am sicken me. I have answered your questions in a rational manner. Your assumptions about Israel and Palestine prove your ignorance of true history. Every other point you have made is nothing but biased, anger-driven right wing hysterics. These people hate us for a reason; and your ignoring the truth does no good to anyone. You constantly justify our actions in Iraq based on information that is fifteen years old. Not too smart. Iraq was a beaten nation, and has been for years. The terrorist problem will NOT be solved by military might. All that will bring is more needless deaths of Americans every day.
Oh, that's right. The Jews deserve it, right Noz? I almost forgot.
Holy crap, the commies were right! America is eeeeevil. We deserved 9-11, right Noz?
Your stupid, outlandish, baseless, misdirected comments hurled at me, has now earned you a spot on my ignore list with several other arrogant, angry, bigoted jerks.

[BucksEng91]

Not such a slam dunk...

This is an article by Richard Miniter, senior fellow at the Center for the New Europe.

The Iraq -- Al Qaeda Connections

By Richard Miniter Published 09/25/2003

Every day it seems another American soldier is killed in Iraq. These grim statistics have become a favorite of network news anchors and political chat show hosts. Nevermind that they mix deaths from accidents with actual battlefield casualties; or that the average is actually closer to one American death for every two days; or that enemy deaths far outnumber ours. What matters is the overall impression of mounting, pointless deaths.

That is why is important to remember why we fight in Iraq -- and who we fight. Indeed, many of those sniping at U.S. troops are al Qaeda terrorists operating inside Iraq. And many of bin Laden's men were in Iraq prior to the liberation. A wealth of evidence on the public record -- from government reports and congressional testimony to news accounts from major newspapers -- attests to longstanding ties between bin Laden and Saddam going back to 1994.

Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:

* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.

(Why are all of those meetings significant? The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which "emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.")

* As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports.

* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'"

* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.

* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.

* In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was 'good,'" according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.

* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.

* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.

*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.

* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq."

* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam's regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.

* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.

* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by "Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad."

* After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam's strongholds inside northern Iraq.

Some skeptics dismiss the emerging evidence of a longstanding link between Iraq and al Qaeda by contending that Saddam ran a secular dictatorship hated by Islamists like bin Laden.

In fact, there are plenty of "Stalin-Roosevelt" partnerships between international terrorists and Muslim dictators. Saddam and bin Laden had common enemies, common purposes and interlocking needs. They shared a powerful hate for America and the Saudi royal family. They both saw the Gulf War as a turning point. Saddam suffered a crushing defeat which he had repeatedly vowed to avenge. Bin Laden regards the U.S. as guilty of war crimes against Iraqis and believes that non-Muslims shouldn't have military bases on the holy sands of Arabia. Al Qaeda's avowed goal for the past ten years has been the removal of American forces from Saudi Arabia, where they stood in harm's way solely to contain Saddam.

The most compelling reason for bin Laden to work with Saddam is money. Al Qaeda operatives have testified in federal courts that the terror network was always desperate for cash. Senior employees fought bitterly about the $100 difference in pay between Egyptian and Saudis (the Egyptians made more). One al Qaeda member, who was connected to the 1998 embassy bombings, told a U.S. federal court how bitter he was that bin Laden could not pay for his pregnant wife to see a doctor.

Bin Laden's personal wealth alone simply is not enough to support a profligate global organization. Besides, bin Laden's fortune is probably not as large as some imagine. Informed estimates put bin Laden's pre-Sept. 11, 2001 wealth at perhaps $30 million. $30 million is the budget of a small school district, not a global terror conglomerate. Meanwhile, Forbes estimated Saddam's personal fortune at $2 billion.

So a common enemy, a shared goal and powerful need for cash seem to have forged an alliance between Saddam and bin Laden. CIA Director George Tenet recently told the Senate Intelligence Committee: "Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb making to al Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two al Qaeda associates; one of these [al Qaeda] associates characterized the relationship as successful. Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources."

The Iraqis, who had the Third World's largest poison-gas operations prior to the Gulf War I, have perfected the technique of making hydrogen-cyanide gas, which the Nazis called Zyklon-B. In the hands of al Qaeda, this would be a fearsome weapon in an enclosed space -- like a suburban mall or subway station.

[SPFDRum]

Hey Brother Bucks, can I join you "out on a limb"?
Is it just me, or do all these terrorist activities have the common denominator of Muslim Extremist?

Of course I could be wrong and it would be much easier to bury my head in the dirt a pretend that none of this affects me. But just maybe because I get my news from sources other than the mainstream liberal media, I may be a little more realistic on what the true intent of these extremists is- that being the complete destruction of the American People and our way of life. PS, to the bleeding hearts; don't try to convince me I'm wrong, racist, or mean, while you were here, I was there in Gulf War Round 1. My opinions are not based on what I heard or read, but of what I saw.

[BucksEng91]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman
Your stupid, outlandish, baseless, misdirected comments hurled at me, has now earned you a spot on my ignore list with several other arrogant, angry, bigoted jerks.

Proud to be there.

Waa, waa, waa again. Methinks thou dost protest too much, brother. Am I hitting a little too close to home?

Your answers ARE non-answers, my moderate friend. Let me give you an example.

Quote from you: "Specific knowledge? Who knows."

Why is this a non-answer? Let me illustrate.

IDIOT #1: I heard some people saying that Nozzle dude is a child molester and a wife beater. Do you believe that?

IDIOT #2: Well, I have no specific knowledge, so who knows?

Please read the Coulter op-ed I posted. In fact, read up on WWII history, the Stalin-Roosevelt alliance, Al Qaeda's statements of purpose, and the charter of Hezbollah, just for starters. Then explain to me how being nice to the terrorists will keep them from shoving a knife in your guts with a big smile.

If there's one lesson of history that 'moderates' like yourself have never learned, it's that when someone says they want to kill you, you should probably believe them.

[BucksEng91]

All too typical response from Noz, I'm afraid. Get up where he lives a little bit, and all of a sudden the name-calling begins.

This is the liberal M.O. - when confronted with the real implications of your worldview, don't have a self-searching moment, don't question your beliefs, or re-evaluate. Not when there's an easier way to make yourself feel better:

Simply yell any number of PC epithets: bigot, racist, fascist...

You get the picture. This usually happens right at the point when you reveal their argument for the nonsense that it really is.

In Noz's case, it's quite evident that he blames the US for 9-11. No amount of name-calling, blustering, and "ignore listing" people will change that. Only a serious re-evaluation of his views, maybe some soul-searching, maybe some reading of history, will have an effect. Unfortunately, it's much easier just to yell "bigot" and stick your proverbial fingers in your ears.

<sigh>...well, I tried.



Richard Clarke is still an opportunist, a liar, and a partisan hack who did *nothing* in the approximately 10 years he was in a position of power in the government's anti-terrorist apparatus. And now he's engaging in some legacy-building, on the backs of the victims of 9-11.

Mutt, mutt, mutt.

[glowpop]

Nozzleman posted...

"Have we ceased supporting Israel without taxpayer billions because they run roughshod over the Palestinians and steal their land? No."

What lands have the Israelis stolen? The Golan Heights, the West Bank or the Gaza Strip? Please see http://jewishinternetassociation.org/historynutshell/conflict.html

Some real good information about the history of the place. Israel, the only Democracy in the area is surrounded by Arab States who have tried to destroy Israel three (3) times since 1947. Arafat and the PLO want only the destruction and elimination of Israel, and cannot come to terms with the existence of that nation state.

Yet Arafat and his terrorists continue to kill. And they don't care who they use to accomplish that goal. Even 16 year old BOYS. Tell me if bombs and bullets aren't going to solve the problem, what is your answer to those who would commit such evil?

[TillerMan25]

Bucks, I told you he would do that.

He cannot argue with fact and it shows. I think he is looking for the "Cotton Candy Clounds and Choclate Rivers" as we speak. (BTW, I thought that was hilarious.)

Pretty soon his ignore list is going to be so big, he is gonna be talking to himself. Maybe he can argue the point that because there is a Mexican Restaraunt in Chatanooga Tenn, that Tennessee is "right next to" Mexico?! :D :rolleyes:

[BucksEng91]

Originally posted by TillerMan25
Bucks, I told you he would do that.

He cannot argue with fact and it shows. I think he is looking for the "Cotton Candy Clounds and Choclate Rivers" as we speak. (BTW, I thought that was hilarious.)

Pretty soon his ignore list is going to be so big, he is gonna be talking to himself. Maybe he can argue the point that because there is a Mexican Restaraunt in Chatanooga Tenn, that Tennessee is "right next to" Mexico?! :D :rolleyes:

:D

I picture people like him (in my wild imagination, of course), walking up to an Islamofascist terrorist, with his arms extended outward in a hug, saying, "I just want to understand you. We're all just people on this big old blue marble, and you know what? I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me. I'd really like to apologize for being an American, if it offends you, sir."

Then the terrorist kills him and laughs while his buddy videotapes it so they can give it to Al Jazeera.

Like I've already said, one of the most important lessons of history is that if someone says they're going to kill you, it's a good idea to believe them.

[BucksEng91]

Originally posted by glowpop
Nozzleman posted...

"Have we ceased supporting Israel without taxpayer billions because they run roughshod over the Palestinians and steal their land? No."

What lands have the Israelis stolen? The Golan Heights, the West Bank or the Gaza Strip? Please see http://jewishinternetassociation.org/historynutshell/conflict.html

Excellent point, glow. All of the lands that leftists claim the Israelis "stole" came as a result of Arab nations attacking Israel, unprovoked. Those areas are spoils of war, and buffers between Israel and a demonstratedly hostile group of neighbors.

But what do you expect from a guy that blames the US for 9/11 and has no problem with children being blown to pieces because of their race?

[xploded]

Seems Mr. nozzle's ignore list is swelling. Strange to see how these extreme left wingers do not have a patience or understanding of the truth. OOps guess I am just another dumb right winger who couldn't possibly have a rational thought in my head.

[gordoffemt]

Posted by ThNozzleman:

These people hate us for a reason

Can somebody tell me why any of us should give a damn if these morons hate us or not? Who cares what they think?

Dick Clarke is a jackass, plain and simple.

And why, if this was just about oil, am I paying $1.80/gal for gas when we could control Iraq's oil fields any time we saw fit?

That Democratic, John Kerry, kool-aid must be some sweet stuff. But for God's sake, and the rest of the free world's, DON'T DRINK IT!!!

[jasper45]

I really wish there was more to be said. All of the previous posts have covered the bases quite well. I will say just 1 thing though, and this isn't pointed directly at nozzleman. In most liberal's attempts to become more open and "accepting" of other people, sometimes they tend to become more close minded and unwilling to listen or tolerate those who disagree with them. It sounds here as if someone happens to not like Israel, an accepted democracy and would rather side with savages who send children wired up with explosives to pass along their point.

[ThNozzleman]

What lands have the Israelis stolen? The Golan Heights, the West Bank or the Gaza Strip? Please see...
The Jewish Internet Association?? No way these guys are biased! I think you need to do your research on the British/Zionist connection a little harder. :rolleyes:

[BucksEng91]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman

The Jewish Internet Association?? No way these guys are biased! I think you need to do your research on the British/Zionist connection a little harder. :rolleyes:

Yes, you know they own the media, those Jews. We've already heard your theories on 9/11 (we deserved it!!) and the Middle East (it's the JEWS!!), Noz.

Thank you, drive through.