Hi Matt or Mark, this is to let you know I have nominated you for a “Thinking Blogger Award”. This, of course, is a sign of my appreciation of your blog - consistently interesting and making me think! All the details are available on my blog:

http://ldesign.wordpress.com/2007/04/17/memes-awards-and-the-50-post-milestone

Enjoy if you so care!

Karl

Yo, Karl! Thanks for publicly acknowledging what we here have known for years.

Mark, it won't be "water over the dam" till the Dems quit whining about Bush dropping the ball on intelligence reports. We are still regularly treated to a fever-swamp rendition of how Bush (for whatever reprehensible reason) simply ignored the warnings he received. When they get a grip and quit digging up this often-debunked old canard, then it will be "water over the dam".

Almiranta

How and when was Bush's dropping the ball on intelligence reports, debunked?

It is because of tie to the MSM that the democrats are as corrupt as they are. They have no one challenging thier ethics, no one taking them to task for thier actions. One of thiers gets caught with $90K in thier freezer he gets a standing ovation. Sandy Berger not only steals classified documents but shredds them and where is the outrage.

This is the corruption you are going back to if you elect Hillary Clinton.

Wait..No i thought libs here were at an argeement that he manipulated intelligence? No he just dropped the ball? Make up your mind

President Bush was inaugurated on what? January 20th or so 2001. Yet you think a French report coming 15 days before was the smoking gun that "Clinton knew!"?
Yet, from the article you linked:
"CIA spokesman George Little said Le Monde's article "merely repeats what the U.S. government knew and reported before Sept. 11 -- that al-Qaida was interested in airliner plots, especially hijackings."

"The article does not suggest that U.S. or foreign officials had advance knowledge of the details surrounding the Sept. 11 plot," he said. "Had the details been known, the U.S. government would have acted on them."

There is a reason the administration and your support of it is still limping around the 32% favorable mark. This post exemplifies that reason.

Car,
When he briefed Bush, Clinton described al Qaeda and OBL as, "the single most serious threat to national security. Still, Bush held not one high-level meeting on terrorism prior to 911 -- somebody dropped the ball, but it wasn't Clinton -- it must have been the French, eh?

Indeed. We've been treated for years to a GOP whining-point that the available intel (even including Rice's legendary PDB) wasn't sufficient evidence to stop the 9-11 plotters, but NOW, now that the FRENCH say they gave warnings that could, possibly, have gotten to Washington before Bush was sworn in, should have warned Clinton to do something about AQ at best 2 weeks before he left office!

And yet these same idiots still claim there was nothing _Bush_ could have or should have done prior to 9-11. It's amazing how your brains don't explode from all the logical impossibilities you keep in there...

Oh, and let's not forget while you're throwing around the blame game scenarios:
The USS Cole was bombed on October 12, 2000. As Clinton noted in his interview with Fox, “The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible” until early 2001 which foreclosed the possibility of a full response during his administration.

The Bush administration, on the other hand, had 8 months prior to 9/11/01 to respond to the USS bombing and did nothing.

The Bush administration, on the other hand, had 8 months prior to 9/11/01 to respond to the USS bombing and did nothing.

Posted by carsick at April 17, 2007 01:53 PM

Carsick, if you go back and watch the interviews, news clips and videos of Bush at that time, he appears to have not a care in the world. He has just 'won' the election and it's party time.

Clinton did not care nor did he have the stomach to hunt Bin Laden. Many times did he have him in the cross hairs and failed to act. Clinton allowed 9/11 to happen

Now Republicans want us to believe the French are the most credible source when it comes to 911. The very same people for which Republicans forbid the purchase of their wine and French fries.

The reality is your story is nothing new. The 9/11 commission said that, as the year began (2001), the CIA started receiving "frequent but fragmentary" threat reports. Among other warnings, the intelligence community sent out a March 2001 terror threat advisory about a heightened threat of Sunni extremist attacks against U.S. facilities, personnel and other interests.

EXTRA, EXTRA - read all about it!

The Clinton administration was told specific info by the sudanese govt that UBL was being expelled & flying outta that country.

This was BEFORE he established operational HQ in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

"No controlling legal authority" was the excuse Gore provided as to why UBL's flight was NOT intercepted, forced to land, boarded, & UBL arrested.

No controlling legal authority...

Tragically pathetic.

These lefties have such short memories.

If...and that's a big if, a lib wins the WH, these kooks will say the dem congress was responsible for our booming economy.

The truth is in the facts, and the facts say the left is weak on security, weak on the economy and short on brains. As Jim Moran (D)proved this morning.

BTW, how many months did Clinton have to retaliate for the Cole bombing?

Your kook arguments are....losers!

First off, the claim that Clinton “the single most serious threat to national security” is a lie. According to Clinton himself he claims he told Bush the “biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden." Those attending the meetings refute Clinton’s lie; “if al Qaeda came up at all, it was in passing as President Clinton lobbied Bush on other matters, most importantly North Korea.”

FYI, CNN reported the OBL/USS Cole connection on October 23, 2000; the State Department confirmed al Qaeda operatives were to be tried by Yemen in November 2000.

If you remember Secretary Rice's reason for not responding to the information about the responsibility for the Cole bombing she said, "We simply believed that the best approach was to put in place a plan that was going to eliminate this threat, not respond to it, tit-for-tat."
So they had a meeting about a new plan. It was on Sept. 4th, 2001.
More than eight months before Richard Clarke wrote to Secty. Rice ""We urgently need . . . a Principals level review on the al Qida network."

Well carsick, what DID the Clinton appeasers do prior to that to counter Al Qaeda?

One thing he did was called "Wag the Dog" by the Republicans in Congress. That kind of set the tone for congressional support for the president's initiatives against bin Laden.

Help, Lord, for no one loyal remains; the faithful have vanished from the human race

Those who tell lies to one another speak with deceiving lips and a double heart.
May the Lord cut off all deceiving lips, and every boastful tongue,
Those who say, "By our tongues we prevail; when our lips speak, who can lord it over us?"
"Because they rob the weak, and the needy groan, I will now arise," says the Lord; "I will grant safety to whoever longs for it."
The promises of the Lord are sure, silver refined in a crucible, silver purified seven times.
Lord, protect us always; preserve us from this generation.
On every side the wicked strut; the shameless are extolled by all. - Psalm 12

That Psalm, I think, should be memorised not just by Mr. Berger, but by all of those who have the courage in these evil times to stand up for what is right. The plain fact of the matter is that we are hated (and for we Christians, this is no surprise - Our Lord said we would be hated) - hated by rightwing ideologues; hated by those who have grown fat off the corruption of our times; hated by the cowards who demand we all go into the gutter with them.

Sorry for this OT post, but I posted it in an older thread and was worried that kblack/tom Al-jeffie might miss it.

kblack,

Did you know that Saddam and his sons, Ebay and Cujo, were on a U.S. airliner that they had planned to hijack, on 9/11, but that the plane was grounded once the attacks started. It's true, kblack; Saddam, Ebay, and Cujo had been in the U.S. for months. Mohammed Atta got them a job, in St. Louis, working at Ghandi's gas station. From there, they helped coordinate the attacks.

Efforts were underway, prior to Saddam's execution, to have him rendered to Git'mo, where a confession would be beaten out of him by our torture machine. The man was a sucker for Doritos and Froot Loops, so the torture would have been successful. Alas, the hangman's noose could wait no longer, and Saddam's secret died with him.

But now you know, kblack--Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. And those fires he set in the oil fields of Kuwait in '91? They caused global warming...er, climate change.

The truth has set you free...

How and when was Bush's dropping the ball on intelligence reports, debunked?

It wasn't, moron, because it was never proved that he did drop the ball. Just as Almiranta said, "It's a canard." The DBM and the leftists in Congress keep repeating the same ol' b/s, ala Goebbels, and you loons lap it up like good doggies.

Clinton didn't have time to drop the ball--he was too busy droppin' his pants...

Clinton didn't have time to drop the ball--he was too busy droppin' his pants...
Posted by: keefer at April 17, 2007 05:55 PM

keefer

I didn't think you would ever admit that while Clinton was having fun in the oval office, he was, at the same time, able to keep the ball in the air.

Bush doesn't even know what a ball is.

I didn't think you would ever admit that while Clinton was having fun in the oval office, he was, at the same time, able to keep the ball in the air.

I didn't. Clinton ignored the ball. The only balls in the air were..well..you know.

Bush doesn't even know what a ball is.

Now this was profound, Professor Piled high and Deep. I'm sure you know what a ball is.

btw, kblack, I was listening to President Bush yesterday, giving a speech about funding for the war on terror, or, as you libs prefer to call it these days, the disagreement with some really naughty guys. Anyway, Bush mentioned Iraq and 9/11, in the same sentence, again!

I told you that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, but no, you wouldn't listen to me. Who's sorry now, ball-boy?

Sorry LiBS, but your Golden Boy dropped the ball...

The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.
The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it.
The Clinton document, titled "A National Security Strategy for a Global Age," is dated December 2000 and is the final official assessment of national security policy and strategy by the Clinton team.

You can find it here among others:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nss/nss_dec2000_contents.htm

From the FIRST sentence of the Introduction...
"As we enter the new millennium, we are blessed to be citizens of a country enjoying record prosperity, with no deep divisions at home, NO OVERRIDING EXTERNAL THREATS ABROAD, and history's most powerful military ready to defend our interests around the world. Americans of earlier eras may have hoped one day to live in a nation that could claim just one of these blessings. Probably few expected to experience them all; fewer still all at once."

Hmmmm......and golden boy described OBL to Bush as an URGENT THREAT....yeah right. Cover your ass time.

Most powerful military? and after the devastating cuts to the military.....somebody trying to rewrite history?

Sandy Burglar knew what he was taking...it is a shame the the lib media ignored that cover up.

Karl,

Thanks much for the vote of confidence...we'll try not to have any boneheaded posts for the next few weeks.

:o)

Thanks much for the vote of confidence...we'll try not to have any boneheaded posts for the next few weeks.

So, Mark, how are you going to do this? Are you going to suspend kblack, tomjeff, Cyber, conscriptor, CO, Canuckguy, Whisperwolf, et.al.?

Just kidding--you'd probably have to suspend me too...:(

Sandy Berger . . . I grow most weary of hearing that name. What could he have possibly stolen from the National Archives that would matter to the families or those who died on 9/11? It was the responsibility of the FBI, CIA NSA, DIA and the NCTC to do their best possible job to prevent terror attacks from taking place within the borders of the United States. They, under the current administration, failed to accomplish that task and thousands of lives were lost. Sandy Berger had nothing as I have read to do with the carrying out of the 9/11 attacks and I would challenge anyone here to show me that he did.

So unless someone can tell me what exactly Berger tried to remove from the archives I would suggest you devote your time to figuring out why Condi Rice still has a paid government job after being the key to the success of the al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington DC?

Ohio Orrin, Navydad et al, I understand your bloodlust for all things especially bin Laden now but what exactly was on your minds back when Clinton could have taken out bin Laden's flight in 1996? Could it have been the upcoming presidential election and the work of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr as he blew $60 million probing for indictments in the Whitewater mess? The words Osama bin Laden were not on the lips of a single supporter of the GOP. Regulars at this site who support the GOP were too busy trying to reason out why Hillary had Vince Foster killed to blame Clinton for the 1993 WTC bombing, the prevention of which of course was bungled by the FBI.

This still hardly trumps the meeting with Condi Rice in late January 2001 where she was literally told that bin Laden wanted to use civilian aircraft to carry out terror attacks in the US and against US interests abroad. The current administration had everything it needed to stop the attack and they did nothing because the briefer Richard Clarke was a holdover from the Clinton administration. (Read the Clarke memo here: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm) Somewhere I am sure there is a CIA transcript in the Bush 41 archives that shows there were whispers about the first attempt at the WTC to blow them up using truck bombs. That doesn't place the blame on Bush 41 that places the blame on the administration that did not see the signs on their watch, and that would be the Clinton team. Fortunately 3,000 people didn't die on that terrifying day as they did in 2001, on the Bush 43 watch.

You were in the Navy Noonan you know you cannot reach back to the other watch stander and blame them for something that happens on your watch. Go back and read your Bluejacket's Manual.

What is this guy SMOKIN?

Ya know Cav, you really need to take a comprehensive reading course that isn't written in just blue ink, cause everything you've just posted is as biased as it gets....give it up!

To start with, you’re not a lawyer, so that “esquire” makes you look even more foolish than you are, if that were possible.

Next, the Richard Clarke memo discussed two distinct motives of al Qaeda; both directed on interests within the Middle Eastern region. The fanciful conspiracy theory that Dr. Rice was at a meeting where she was “literally told that “bin Laden wanted to use civilian aircraft to carry out terror attacks in the US and against US interests abroad” is a left wing lie that has been discredited numerous times , even the Senate Reports don't buy into this line of dung.

Bin Laden was expelled from Saudi Arabia to Sudan in 1991 after commanding a mujahedeen in Afghanistan. It was there after 1991 that the terrorist training camps sprung up at bin Laden’s direction and the “enemy” was selected as the US and not the USSR as was his previous target. So your “theory” about George H. W. Bush having CIA reports relative to bin Laden’s desire to attack the WTC with truck bombs is just more liberal bull$hit, unless time travel is also within your delusional purview.

Burger took incriminating evidence, that would have implicated he and the Clinton Administration on perjury charges for lying to Congress on their history of dealing with terrorism. The loony left continues to propagate the lie that Clinton told Bush about bin Laden but Bush ignored the warnings; crap! According to Clinton, he claims he told Bush the “biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden." Yet, those attending the meetings refute Clinton’s lie; “if al Qaeda came up at all, it was in passing as President Clinton lobbied Bush on other matters, most importantly North Korea.”

So, it's the Republicans fault that Clinton didn't act in 1996?

Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton and after "months of debating how to respond to the Sudanese offer, the Clinton administration simply asked Sudan to deport him. Where to? Ambassador Carney told the Sudanese: "Anywhere but Somalia."

In May 1996 bin Laden was welcomed into Afghanistan by the Taliban. It could not have been a better haven for Osama bin Laden.

Steven Simon, Clinton's counterterrorism director on the National Security Council thought that kicking bin Laden out of Sudan would benefit U.S. security since "It's going to take him a while to reconstitute, and that screws him up and buys time." Buys time? Oh yeah, 1996 was an election year and team Clinton did not want to deal with bin Laden until after it was safely reelected."

It's all the fault of those e-vile Republicans that made Clinton have to get re-elected.

Rathaven

I ask myself quite often, if it's worth the heartburn, and most times the answer is "yes". But it becomes laughable to read posts from morons like Cav that are so dishonest, intellectually, that it appears to have been created in a mental institution.

Esquire....eh? Sounds like a Seinfeld character.

Wikipedia: "The suffix "Esq." has no legal meaning (except in some states), and may, in theory, be given to anyone (usually a man). In practice, it is applied primarily to lawyers. Although not officially regulated, this title is considered evidence of unauthorized practice of law in many states when used by a non-lawyer."

So, Cav could be charged with impersonating a lawyer, and if he gives out any legal advice; he could be sued for misrepresenting himself.

As if anyone would take advice from this know-nothing and his minions of semiliterates.

The B4B consensus is in: Clinton, Gore, Reno, Albright, Berger, Reisch, and the rest of that administration were a bunch of liars and hypocrites, concerned not with the American people, but with their own advancement.

Remember this in '08 when the Beyotch in pants heads up the DemocRAT ticket...

I am truly sorry Navydad and Rathaven. I feel I must apologize for confusing you. I am not a citizen of the United States of America so I am not subject to its laws. My title comes from my study of the law in my homeland and is a reference to the nobility of my family and its House.

As an editor and manager of a both a blog and a newspaper I wear my honorific with pride and take my family name and its honor seriously. It seems that such matters may not be as important as others.

Getting back to the debate about the blame for the 9/11 attacks I think it is imperative that those who were on watch be held accountable for their errors. The FBI and the CIA still have trouble sharing information. Warnings were not heeded by the FBI during the Clinton administration before the bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993 and equally warnings were not heeded within the Bush administration prior to 9/11. Now it is plain which of these two attacks was better planned by their outcomes and thus I would feel as a casual observer of history that the greater details were placed upon the latter, more successful (for al Qaeda) events.

To say that Clinton's administration was responsible for the 9/11 events because most of the planning took place under that administration would be to admit that Bush 41 bears the burden of the 2/93 WTC attack. One can see clearly that the only standard for blame for the failures inherent in the FBI and CIA at these times for those on the Right is that the burden fall on a Democratic administration.

I would fail to believe that rational men would be quick to blame George W Bush for a terror attack that would take place within the first year of the 44th president's administration. That responsibility would lie with the appointed officials at FBI CIA and DIA that failed to organize their offices and mandate strict cooperation between each organ.

As difficult as it is to ensure public safety gentlemen politics are the last thing you wish to use as a touchstone for competence as can be witnessed in the mess of the US Attorney scandal. The simple answer would have been to say we wanted to put our own people in these political plum jobs instead of trying to punish public servants for not doing the political bidding of those who surround the current US president.

Navydad and Rathaven,

And a final thing on points of honor, I do not particularly like Mark Noonan's political leanings but I do respect him as a human being. If I want to call him names I will do it in my own space in my own blog and treat him respectfully in his own place. To you gentlemen I will not call names I would just suggest that you start your own blogs, or come over and read where my writers engage the human public in all manner of high spirited discourse and feel free to comment with any insults you would like to fling.

Good day!

Cavalor Epthith,

A very well reasoned response and, equally an argument without merit.

As a self proclaimed editor I would have expected you to read carefully the earlier posts prior to commenting. Particularly your statement, “ admit that Bush 41 bears the burden of the 2/93 WTC attack” indicates that you did not absorb the facts therein. Rathaven had tried to enlighten you to the fact that the al Qaeda organization had not had time or wherewithal to plan the 1993 attack on the WTC prior to George H. W. Bush leaving office; that, sir is a fact. By your own logic we would be better served to blame Carter for creating the circumstances by which bin Laden and his cohorts were created.

Your latest response lacks the vitriol you displayed in previous post, with such sophomoric comments as, “why Condi Rice still has a paid government job after being the key to the success of the al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington DC?” and “Fortunately 3,000 people didn't die on that terrifying day as they did in 2001, on the Bush 43 watch” but shows the same disregard for facts in favor of partisan natter and conspiratorial fervor.

When caught in a lie, you would be better served to admit to your hackery then try to misdirect assuming the readers are as weak-minded as those to whom you normally pontificate. At least that would allow you to walk away with what little respect you might have had. There was no such meeting in which Dr. Rice was informed of bin Laden’s desire to use civilian aircraft to attack locations within the United States, and to continue to proffer this falsehood betrays your agenda.

Because you are a foreigner and by definition inferior, I’ll take the time to explain to you what you have colorfully referred to as the “mess of the US Attorney scandal.” US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President; the Attorneys are charged with fulfilling the obligations of their assignments which does not, nor has it ever consisted of “political bidding.” Your cavalier use of that pejorative belittles the persons in those positions, our legal system and all that serve this country and our president honorably. As a non-citizen you have neither the right, nor the intelligence to make such pronouncements.

As to your “study of the law” I strongly suggest you get a refund; as you have a diminutive understanding of the basic tenants of our system or of Common Law. We do not anoint ourselves with frivolous unearned titles simply because an ancestor was whore to a land owner. I am descended from German royalty, but the titles I carry in this America are the accolades I earned. Using "esquire" shows that you earned nothing and are stupefying proud of no accomplishments.

Finally, you perpetrate yet another lie with your pretense of civility; lest we forget that it you that earlier responded to my writing, both here and at your quasi-pornographic website, with "You just spout hot air and feces and expect other to walk away annoyed they are covered in your stains.” Yes, you’re a real class act, don’t presume to lecture my friend Rat and Navydad on civility; you are ill-prepared and a hypocrite.

Now, go away until you have something of value to contribute.

One final note on George H. W. Bush’s complicity/knowledge of the 1993 WTC bombing; According to the Center for Cooperative Research:

“An internal FBI report finds that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) played a role in the bombing of the World Trade Center. According to the report, KSM wired $660 from Qatar to a bank account of Mohammed Salameh, one of the key bombers, on November 3, 1992. This is apparently the first time KSM has come to the attention of US law enforcement. Transaction records show the money was sent from “Khaled Shaykh” in Doha, Qatar, which is where KSM is living openly and without an alias at the time. KSM also frequently talked to his nephew Ramzi Yousef on the phone about the bombing and sent him a passport to escape the country, but apparently these details are not discovered until much later. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 147, 488]