9/11 Comission

[NousDefionsDoc]

Anybody watching?

[Team Sergeant]

Why to watch the clinton clowns lie to the world?

[Radar Rider]

I've seen many of the "highlights". Unfortunately, most of it is about fingerpointing and avoiding blame (from those in office prior to 2001, anyway). Those that came aboard after 20 January 2001 have been more likely to say something logical, while accepting responsibility for their shortcomings (real or imagined).

I keep coming back to the question in my mind: "If you knew so much in 1998, why didn't you do something about it?" The previous administration claims to have had a lot of knowledge, yet in so many words admit that they just sat on it and tossed it all to George W. Bush to handle.

There is plenty of blame to go around. However, as far as intelligence is concerned, it not a science (Intel). Unless someone had an infallible crystal ball, I don't see where there was an "intelligence failure" as regards 911.

[DanUCSB]

It's a thorny-enough issue as it is. Toss in about a million people, all pointing fingers at someone else, and it's just a mess.

Was listening to someone on the radio the other day (Roger Hedgecock, I think), and he said something that made a lot of sense. Play the Devil's advocate and say, 'Okay, well, what if George Bush knew what was going to happen beforehand, and he had grounded all the flights that day. What would have happened then?" The answer, of course, is that the same people that are standing on their soapboxes today and wailing about how bad the administration is, would have been up in arms wailing about how he shut down the nation for a day, and nothing happened. It's a no-win proposition, with everyone running around playing 'cover your ass'.

--Dan, sick of conspiracy theorists

[Radar Rider]

Dan, kindred spirit here, brother. Let us not forget "pre-911" days. Let us assume that President Bush HAD authorized a strike on Osama Bin Laden and Afghanistan on 10 September 2001. We all know what the outcry would have been from the left. Most of the world's lefties would have condemned our acts, and made the USA a pariah (they're the same f*cks that complain today).

There are two things about this situation that are EXTREMELY SICK:

One: It took a direct attack on the US and killed 3,000 people to realize that the enemy ain't fuckin' around.

Two: People STILL don't realize what happened, what our response was all about, and how much danger STILL exists.

911 was bad enough. I pray to God that it doesn't take a nuclear attack on an American city for the sheeple to wake up.

[Team Sergeant]

As an American, sick of politics and politicians I say we try a novel approach to 9/11 and blame the terrorists that flew the planes, the nations that financed them, and the countries that sheltered them.

I’m sick of the finger pointing. Let’s just get to work and make more dead terrorists.

Team Sergeant

[QRQ 30]

I would ask one question. Did ANYONE (other than the actual participants), have any idea that four airliners would be simultaneously commandeered and flown into three (intended) targets in a matter of an hour? Is there one person now pointing fingers who would not have scoffed and laughed off such a suggestion? It was a brilliant move which I can admire. OBL is not your common everyday terrorist. His operations are innovative and well planned. It took five years to mount a new operation against the WTC when he failed the first time. I respect that. He is more than a camel riding bandit as some seem to think.

A trite statement, but : hind sight is always 20/20.

All of the finger pointing is just a bunch of ghoulish politicians trying to gain from a tragedy.

[DunbarFC]

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
As an American, sick of politics and politicians I say we try a novel approach to 9/11 and blame the terrorists that flew the planes, the nations that financed them, and the countries that sheltered them.

I’m sick of the finger pointing. Let’s just get to work and make more dead terrorists.

Team Sergeant

Outstanding post

As I was watching late yesterday I kept hoping Rumsfeld would snap and say something just like this

It's amazing how partisan on both sides this has become and how this hearing will not try to find out why things went wrong and fix them but will be a witch hunt that would make the folks from Salem back in the day proud

[NousDefionsDoc]

I agree about the partisanship, but listen to what's being said in the background. From the soundbytes (no C-Span here DAMN!), the Clintonistas appear to be making the Iraq-AQ connection for POTUS.

I see the VP and SECDEF's hands in this and can hear them laughing from here.

Don't Mess with Texas and for sure Don't Mess with Uncle Dick Cheney. LOL

[NousDefionsDoc]

General Powell certainly has his moments as well.

He said something about Richard Clarke should have been doing his job instead of making Power Point presentations. LOL

[DunbarFC]

You can find transcripts from yesterday's testimony here

9/11 Commission Hearing 8 (http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing8.htm)

[Surgicalcric]

Watching DICK Clarke dance the Potomac 2-step right now on FOX news.

[pulque]

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
As an American, sick of politics and politicians I say we try a novel approach to 9/11 and blame the terrorists that flew the planes, the nations that financed them, and the countries that sheltered them.

I’m sick of the finger pointing. Let’s just get to work and make more dead terrorists.

Team Sergeant

agree completely.

I have made a list of my own priorities:
1)destruction
2)policy
3)blame (i wont be around for #3)

[DunbarFC]

This is interesting

Biased of course but interesting

'Madam' Albright's Not-So-Surprising Rhetoric before the 9/11 Commission (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=3372)

Makes me hate this sea hag even more than I did before if that is possible.

[DanUCSB]

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
try a novel approach to 9/11 and blame the terrorists that flew the planes

Exactly. Do we need a commission to tell us this, at, of course, great expense? The facts are A, nobody predicted it (in any meaningful/accurate sense) and B, even if they had, nobody pre-9/11 would have believed them.

Everything else? Election-year tapdancing.

--Dan

[ghuinness]

Originally posted by DanUCSB
It's a thorny-enough issue as it is. Toss in about a million people, all pointing fingers at someone else, and it's just a mess.

Was listening to someone on the radio the other day (Roger Hedgecock, I think), and he said something that made a lot of sense. Play the Devil's advocate and say, 'Okay, well, what if George Bush knew what was going to happen beforehand, and he had grounded all the flights that day. What would have happened then?" The answer, of course, is that the same people that are standing on their soapboxes today and wailing about how bad the administration is, would have been up in arms wailing about how he shut down the nation for a day, and nothing happened. It's a no-win proposition, with everyone running around playing 'cover your ass'.

--Dan, sick of conspiracy theorists

Heard a theory analogous to yours from some radio show
this morning.

Suppose Bush had taken some pre-emptive strike against
OBL prior to 9/11 and got him. Would that have stopped 9/11?
Doubt it. It was planned for years. Under those circumstances,
the group currently accusing Bush of no-action would probably
say Bush caused 9/11. They would argue his actions created
more terrorism, just like they are now with respect to Iraq.


On a side note, Martha was convicted for lying under oath, so what about Clarke?

[Radar Rider]

Originally posted by Surgicalcric
Watching DICK Clarke dance the Potomac 2-step right now on FOX news. Booyah! I saw a questioner hold up Clarke's book and a memo that he wrote while still serving. His book totally contradicts his position from while he was active. The questioner asked him which one was true. I didn't catch his response, but I'm sure that Clarke was squirming over that one.

[DunbarFC]

Clarke flip flops more than Kerry does it seems

This is a biased news source ( I found the link via GOPUSA.COM ) but very interesting facts within nonetheless regarding an interview Clarke gave PBS in 2002

Clarke's PBS Interview Indicates Bush Focused on Terrorism (http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/march/0325_clarke_contradiction.shtml)

[pulque]

Based on the way I have felt for the past 2 years, I can only imagine what it feels like for the family of those that lost their lives in those towers and in the pentagon If nothing else comes out of the public hearing, at least they got to hear a public apology from a government official.

"We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed."

[QRQ 30]

Let's keep the apology in context and not take it as an admission of culpability. There are many things for which I am sorry but also of which I was powerless to prevent or control.

Failure to forsee future events or consequences happens everyday.

[Surgicalcric]

After having watched a good portion of the public testamony I can honestly say I dont know that we could have prevented it based on testamony given. The attacks were several years in the making. Just getting OBL would not, IMHO, have stopped this from happening.

The simple fact is we were lax and they outwitted us, no more, no less.

[pulque]

An apology is an expression of regret, not more, but not less.

For those who see a connection between 9/11 and Sadaam, would removing Sadaam earlier have prevented the situation?

No easy answers here.

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

-- George Herbert Walker Bush, from his memoir, A World Transformed
(1998)

[brownapple]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/21756.htm

[Radar Rider]

First, I believe there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Second, removing Saddam earlier would not have affected 9-11. AQ's main base was in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Saddam was simply a kindred spirit who probably sent a little financial support and maybe some intel.

Speaking of Intel: The "community" was so downsized after the Cold War that we didn't have the capability we should have had to prevent 9-11. To put it another way, put a blindfold on a sharpshooter and see how well he fires. :mad:

[QRQ 30]

Actually Radar it was "The Peanut Man" who blinded our intelligence. "Gentlemen don't look in other's windows.":mad:

[Radar Rider]

Originally posted by QRQ 30
Actually Radar it was "The Peanut Man" who blinded our intelligence. "Gentlemen don't look in other's windows.":mad: Sir, I imagine that the "Peanut Man" is Jimmy Carter? Even so, it is the democRATs that ruined our intelligence community.

[Team Sergeant]

QRQ-30 is right.

Our ability to gather intell was destroyed by one moron and one moron only. He goes by the name of jimmy carter. A side note to this story is that people also (unnecessarily) lost their lives due to this decision. carter is an idiot that got a lot of people killed due to his stupidity.

I once heard a story that when he (carter) was briefed on the Iran raid the first question he asked was "Is anyone going to get hurt?"

Team Sergeant

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
QRQ-30 is right.

Our ability to gather intell was destroyed by one moron and one moron only. He goes by the name of jimmy carter. A side note to this story is that people also (unnecessarily) lost their lives due to this decision. carter is an idiot that got a lot of people killed due to his stupidity.

I once heard a story that when he (carter) was briefed on the Iran raid the first question he asked was "Is anyone going to get hurt?"

Team Sergeant

I don't remember whether it was Beckwith or Haney, but one of those two books on the non-existent anti-terror unit with an airline name mentions that the author was impressed by Carter during the hostage rescue operation. I don't recall whether it was in being decisive about ordering it or in being cool to people after it failed.

I was very surprised to read anything positive about Carter from a member of the military.

[QRQ 30]

RL: Nobody can be wrong ALL OF THE TIME!!

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by QRQ 30
RL: Nobody can be wrong ALL OF THE TIME!!

You haven't met Jawbreaker yet, have you?

Just kidding. Even he is right about some things. :D

[Sacamuelas]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
You haven't met Jawbreaker yet, have you?

Just kidding. Even he is right about some things.

DOH!!!!
LOL, hahaha:D


Hell, from you RL, that is about as kind as I could ever expect. Damn near brought a tear to my eyes!!! LOL

[DunbarFC]

For those who can't watch or hear Dr. Rice today

National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice Opening Remarks (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/099/wash/_National_Security_Advisor_Dr_:.shtml)

[Gypsy]

BZ to Senator Miller from Georgia...here's his take on the 9/11 Commission.

http://miller.senate.gov/floor/03-30-04sept11com.html



U.S. Senator Zell Miller
Floor Statement: 'A House Divided Cannot Stand'
Remarks as Delivered on the Senate Floor

After watching the harsh acrimony generated by the September 11 Commission – which, let me say at the outset, is made up of good and able members – I’ve come to seriously question this panel’s usefulness.

I believe it will ultimately play a role in doing great harm to this country, for its unintended consequences, I fear, will be to energize our enemies and demoralize our troops.

After being drowned in a tidal wave of all who didn’t do enough before 9/11, I have come to believe that the Commission should issue a report that says: “No one did enough in the past. No one did near enough.�

Then thank everyone for serving, send them home and let’s get on with the job of protecting this country in the future.

Tragically, these hearings have proved to be a very divisive diversion for this country. Tragically, they have devoured valuable time, looking backwards when we should be looking forward.

Can you imagine handling the attack on Pearl Harbor this way? Can you imagine Congress, the media and the public standing for this kind of political gamesmanship and finger pointing after that “day of infamy� in 1941?

Some partisans tried that ploy, but they were soon quieted by the patriots who understood how important it was to get on with the war and take the battle to America’s enemies, and not dwell on what FDR knew when.

You see, back then the highest priority was to win a war, not win an election. That’s what made them “The Greatest Generation.�

I realize that many well-meaning Americans see the hearings as “democracy in action.� Years ago, when I was teaching political science, I probably would have had my class watching it live on television and using that very phrase with them.

There are also the not-so-well-meaning political operatives who see these hearings as an opportunity to “score cheap points.�

Then, there are the Media Meddlers who see this as “great theater� that can be played out on the evening news and on endless talk shows for a week or more.

Congressional hearings have long been one of Washington’s most entertaining pastimes. Joe McCarthy. Watergate. Iran Contra. They all kept us glued to the TV, and made for conversation around the water coolers and arguments over a beer at the corner pub.

A Congressional hearing in Washington, D.C. is the ultimate aphrodisiac for political groupies and partisan punks.

But, it’s not the groupies, punks and television-sotted American public that I’m worried about. This latter crowd can get excited and divided over just about anything. Whether it’s some off-key wanna-be dreaming of being the American Idol, or what brainless bimbo The Bachelor or Average Joe will choose or who will Donald Trump fire next week.

No, it is the real enemies of America that I’m concerned about.

These evil killers who right now, right now are gleefully watching the shrill partisan finger pointing of these hearings and grinning like a mule eating briars.

They see this as a major split within the Great Satan America. They see anger, they see division, instability, bickering, peevishness and dissension.

They see the President of the United States hammered unmercifully. They see all this and they are greatly, greatly encouraged.

We should not be doing anything to encourage our enemies in this battle between good and evil. Yet, these hearings, in my opinion, are doing just that.

We are playing with fire. We’re playing directly into the hands of our enemy by allowing these hearings to become the great divider they have become.

Dick Clarke’s book and its release coinciding with these hearings have done this country a tremendous disservice, and someday we will reap its whirlwind.

Long ago, Sir Walter Scott observed that revenge is “the sweetest morsel that ever was cooked in hell.�

The vindictive Clarke has now had his revenge, but what kind of hell has he, his CBS publisher and his axe-to-grind advocates unleashed?

These hearings, coming on the heels of the election the terrorists influenced in Spain, bolster and energize our evil enemies as they have not been energized since 9/11.

Chances are very good that these evil enemies of America will attempt to influence our 2004 election in a similar dramatic way as they did Spain’s. And to think that could never be in this country is to stick your head in the sand.

That is why the sooner we stop this endless bickering over the past and join together to prepare for the future, the better off this country will be. There are some things - whether this city believes it or not - that are just more important than political campaigns.

The recent past is so ripe for political second-guessing “gotcha� and Monday morning quarter-backing. And it is so tempting in an election year. We should not allow ourselves to indulge that temptation. We should put our country first.

Every administration from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush bears some of the blame. Dick Clarke bears a big heap of it because it was he who was in the catbird’s seat to do something about it for more than a decade. Tragically, it was the decade in which we did the least.

We did nothing after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, killing six and injuring more than 1,000 Americans.

We did nothing in 1996 when sixteen U.S. servicemen were killed in the bombing of the Khobar Towers.

When our embassies were attacked in 1998, killing 263 people, our only response was to fire a few missiles on an empty tent.

Is it any wonder? Is it any wonder that after that decade of weak-willed responses to that murderous terror, our enemies thought we would never fight back?

In the 1990's is when Dick Clarke should have resigned. In the 1990's is when he should have apologized. That is when he should have written his book. That is, if he really had America’s best interest at heart.

Some will say, “We owe it to the families� to get more information about what happened in the past and I can understand that. But no amount of finger-pointing will bring our victims back.

So, now we owe it to future families and all of America now in jeopardy not to encourage more terrorists, resulting in even more grieving families, perhaps many more over the ones of 9/11.

It’s obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into two camps: the wimps and the warriors.

The ones who want to argue and assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to our enemies and kill him them before they kill us. And, in case you haven’t figured it out, I proudly belong to the latter.

This is a time like no other in the history of this country, and this country is being crippled with petty partisan politics of the worst possible kind. In time of war, it is not just unpatriotic; it is stupid, and it is criminal.

So, I pray that all this time, all this energy, all this talk and all this attention could be focused on the future instead of the past.

I pray we would stop pointing fingers, assigning blame and wringing our hands about what happened on that day David McCullogh has called “the worst day in our history� more than two years ago.

And instead, pour all of our energy into how we can kill these terrorists before they kill us - again.

For make no mistake about it. They watch these hearings. They are scheming and smiling about the distraction and the divisiveness they see in America. And while they may not know who said it years ago in America, they know instinctively that a house divided cannot stand.

There is one other group that we should remember is listening to all of this - our troops.
I was in Iraq in January and one day when I was meeting with the 1st Armored Division, a unit with a proud history known as Old Ironsides, we were discussing troop morale, and the Commanding General said it was top notch.

And I turned to the Division’s Sergeant Major, the top enlisted man in the division, a big, burly, 6-foot-3, 240 pound African American and I said, “That’s good, but how do you sustain that kind of morale?�

Without hesitation he narrowed his eyes, and he looked at me and said “The morale will stay high just as long as these troops know the people back home support us.�

Just as long as the people back home support us. What kind of message are these hearings and the outrageously political speeches on the floor of the Senate yesterday sending to those marvelous young Americans in the uniform of our country?

I say Unite America! Before it is too late! Put aside these petty partisan differences when it comes to the protection of our people.

Argue and argue and argue and debate and debate and debate over all the other things – jobs and education and the deficit and the environment – but please, please do not use the lives of Americans and the security of this country as a cheap-shot political talking point.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Did you guys see Cofer Black's opening statement today?

"I have the honor of accepting full responsibility for the actions of the men and women assigned to the DCI's CTC." Or words to that effect.

Very nice.

[BMT (RIP)]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/18736.htm

BMT

[Solid]

Tenet seemed almost amused by most of the questions, and bored with the others. What do you lawyers think of his approach to the questions? It seems to me that he was dodging too many of them for his own good, but then again I'm a highschool student.

Solid

[D9 (RIP)]

The ridiculous thing about this commission is that it is completely focused on the wrong thing.

It's as if a man moves into your neighborhood, and you discover he is a child molester. Later, a child is flashed by this man in a park. The police hold a news conference, announce that he is a danger, warn the public to be on the lookout for him, and even call him to tell him that there will be "consequences," at the appropriate time. A security guard is hired to walk the park and help prevent flashers. Months go by.

Later, the same man fondles a child at the playground. The police again make announcements about the danger of this man to the community. At the request of the police department, the child molester is put under surveillance, and broadcasts are made on local media warning the community of the danger. The police commissioner promises to step up security around the playground, so that no more molestations will occur there. In a televised news conference, the police deliver a message to the molester: if he continues, there will be severe consequences. They even write him a parking ticket as a demonstration of their resolve. More months go by.

Eventually, the man is being reported by members of the community to be spending more and more time hovering around the schoolyard during reccess. The police scramble to keep him under constant surveillence, and even bring in some confidants of the molester to attempt to ascertain when he will strike again so that they can foil him. On a few occassions when it appears he is about to grab a child the police intervene, barring his way and chasing him away with stern language.

But a day finally comes when the man snatches a little girl off the playground and runs into the woods with her before the police can intervene. By the time they arrive the little girl has been savagely raped and strangled, and is lifeless at the feet of the giggling savage standing over her.

He is put in a holding cell while they determine what to do with him. The citizens are naturally horrified and shocked at such an attack, and are even more shocked to discover that a records check reveals that there are several other child molesters living in the area. They decide a committe will convene to investigate the failures in government that permitted this horrible murder to occur.

The commission convenes and spends all of its time addressing the question of how, on the day the murder occurred, the police:

1. failed to detect in advance that he had chosen that day to strike

2. had an escape route into the woods accessible so that they could not get to him before he made it there

3. did not have security in place to intervene immediately as soon as it was obvious that he was going to grab a child

The huge question in the example above that is obviously both relevant and conspicuous by its absence is: why wasn't he arrested after the first incidents? Why was he allowed to continue to exist among the community after the very first incident?

Al Qaeda was responsible for numerous terrorist incidents before 9/11/01, and any of them should have been enough to start the GWOT. IMO, any commission that focuses on how we could've prevented 9/11 without directing 99% of its attention to the question of why we never killed the bastards after they perpetrated the bombings in Africa, of the USS Cole, etc., is absurd on its face.

[NousDefionsDoc]

D9,
You forget who POTUS was and the strategy on terrorism when all that happened. Do not hold your breath waiting for them to blame Saint Bill. They have to protect Hillary (the Clinton Legacy) for '08.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by BMT
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/18736.htm

BMT

Great editorial!

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
You forget who POTUS was and the strategy on terrorism when all that happened. Do not hold your breath waiting for them to blame Saint Bill. They have to protect Hillary (the Clinton Legacy) for '08.

True, but there are some Republicans on this commission. I would think they would be shouting from the rooftops to get Clinton in public testimony if they got it.

I think it's not brought up for one of two reasons: 1.) they don't think it has any traction with the American public, or 2.) and unfortunately more likely, they share the opinion of the Clintons that there was not a mandate or moral basis for a GWOT before 9/11. After all, how many of them want their own voting records and archived speeches from those times periods put under the same microscope.

[NousDefionsDoc]

"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. "

[Roguish Lawyer]

I'm tuning this whole thing out. It disgusts me.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. "

Uhhh, how about in 1999? 2000?

[NousDefionsDoc]

Well, the opportunity had passed. UBL was no longer in Sudan.

This one statement to me defines the root cause of 9/11. Treating terrorism as a criminal issue instead of a war. Yesterday, time and time again, I heard people say "We weren't on a war footing" or "We were on a war footing". Well, the policy at the time is that it was a criminal issue, so I can see where the confusion comes from. Inconsistant message.

If there any doubt in the present administration as to what the "footing" is?

The criminal issue thing is probably the reason the Agency had 20 translators, etc.

I think the FBI is going to take the majority of the intel failure blame. At least that is the way I see it shaping up. And personally, I think they should. The FBI needs to get out of the International terrorist catching business. They aren't good at it. They think like prosecutors.

Why was UBL not implicated in the first WTC bombing?

Why did the investigation of OKC end with Nichols?

Evidence and IMO conviction rates.

They were at war with us and we were trying to investigate them for jail.

Its like investigating Yamamoto for conspiracy after Pearl Harbor.

Scary thing is, Kerry is talking about doing it again.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Well, the opportunity had passed. UBL was no longer in Sudan.

IMHO, it didn't take 9/11 to justify what we had to do eventually in Afghanistan. After it was obvious that he was responsible for those others attacks, we should have demanded he be turned over or given the govt's shielding him an ulitmatum of the form that came after 9/11. I agree about the criminal interpretation of terrorism. It is that interpretation that justified our govt throwing up their hands at the futility of pursuing him once he had retreated behind the border of a nation like Afghanistan.

[NousDefionsDoc]

No, they didn't go after him in 'Stan because they never tied him to WTC 1. They blamed it on that blind cleric and he's in jail. Case closed. I think you're right, they wouldn't have done an invasion of 'Stan to arrest one man. Arrest being the key word.

Its about the legacy. The Dem Presidents all want the Nobel Peace Prize. Its what they live for. Its why they meet with Arafat and the Israeli PM at Camp David. Did you know Gorbachav won it for "helping end the Cold War"? LOL - Reagan had nothing to do with it?

The Nobel Peace Prize is the epitome of Europhilia and UN approval. Why do you think Clinton sent troops to Kosovo and Haiti? You think he gave a shit about those people? Those are the kinds of actions that get you the prize.

If he had taken UBL from Sudan, I think he would have sent him to The Hague.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
No, they didn't go after him in 'Stan because they never tied him to WTC 1. They blamed it on that blind cleric and he's in jail. Case closed. I think you're right, they wouldn't have done an invasion of 'Stan to arrest one man. Arrest being the key word.

Its about the legacy. The Dem Presidents all want the Nobel Peace Prize. Its what they live for. Its why they meet with Arafat and the Israeli PM at Camp David. Did you know Gorbachav won it for "helping end the Cold War"? LOL - Reagan had nothing to do with it?

The Nobel Peace Prize is the epitome of Europhilia and UN approval. Why do you think Clinton sent troops to Kosovo and Haiti? You think he gave a shit about those people? Those are the kinds of actions that get you the prize.

If he had taken UBL from Sudan, I think he would have sent him to The Hague.

I agree with everything above. My point was that it is high treachery to be this way.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I think more than treachery it is stupidity and a failure to understand the world. Root cause - liberal professors in Universities and the closed nature of their society.

[BMT (RIP)]

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=123-04142004

This will go over like a turd in the punch bowl!!!

BMT

[Solid]

The committee keeps trying to blame the hands for the mistake the head (Clinton admin.) made. Even if some information was withheld (from Tenet questions- OBL was involved somehow in Operation Restore Hope etc), the fact that an coherent organization was willing to attack America was still conferred to the POTUS. As has been said here, it was policy which reduced the abilities of the intelligence community, not their own pig-headedness.

Do you think reforms should be made to the agencies in question?

That's all IMO, not a statement,

Solid