Bush gets skewed on 60 minutes tonight
- Thread starter shamrock
- Start date
sorry ...sopranos and deadwood break for me
sorry ...sopranos and deadwood break for me
bobby........let me state that i`m not a staunch bush supporter....i`m actually on the fence...i do believe that the guy is being unfairly vilified by partisans...much as clinton was raked over the coals for the lewinsky fiasco......just providing some counterpoint to the many here that hate bush and the administration...
.thanks for the link.....i`ve still never heard anyone from the administration try and state publicly that they directly blamed iraq for active parcipitation in 9/11....
from the links that you`ve provided,it sure looks like they are trying to provide, at least,an indirect link to terrorism and iraq....and even 9/11..Rice`s comments were particularly interesting..maybe it`s all fabrication....and maybe there`s SOME modicum of truth to her statements...
the rice comments are particularly interesting to me...
"We know too that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development," Rice said.
"So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad," she said. "There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented."
......this is more to the point:
At the same time, she cautioned that "no one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11th, so we don't want to push this too far."......................
Rice added: "This is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clear, and we're learning more. ... When the picture is clear, we'll make full disclosure about it."
"There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented," Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday in a PBS interview.....
admittedly,i`ve never seen the proof firsthand...
and i find this very important....
"With the administration trying to build support at the United Nations and in Congress for possible military action against Iraq, the White House in recent days has sought to place its push to depose Saddam in the context of the war on terrorism, "warning that Iraq ""could"" give nuclear, biological or chemical weapons to terrorist groups like al Qaeda -- the group responsible for the deaths of more than 3,000 Americans in four attacks September 11, 2001."
this i can agree with...it`s actually a theory that i`ve always believed had a great deal to do with rationalizing the invasion of iraq...even though it probably wouldn`t wash as far as public consumption here in the states and definitely not abroad...as israel is loathed by much of europe...this is what i believe..........................
"saddam hussein is on record as saying,""my biggest mistake was not having nuclear weapons when going into kuwait""...if he`d had nukes when he invaded kuwait,he`d probably still have kuwait....
if saddam`s osirak nuclear plant(french provided and built,btw) had not been bombed out of existence in the early "80`s" by israel,he would probably have had nuclear weapons when he went into kuwait....which means,he either still has kuwait to this day,or,we roll the dice and maybe start a nuclear conflagration in the middle east...those scuds he lobbed into israel while we were extricating him from kuwait could have easily been nukes....he would have liked nothing better than to start a holy war vs the israelis.....it`s what he wanted to do...he`s stated as much...this is without a doubt the one thing that the terrorists and the rest of the middle east DO have in common...the destruction or removal of israel...
The Osirak research reactor was supplied by the french,
with hot cells supplied to Iraq by the germans for reprocessing its HEU irradiated fuel with the clearly stated intention by saddam of developing nuclear weapons to destroy israel and make iraq the main power in the mideast & arab world.
Saddam had referred to his having nuclear weapons circa 1980 as the "sword of Nebuchadnezzar" to be used to destroy Iraq's foes and restore the splendor of babylon to the arab world.
well,israel either gets obliterated or retaliates...then the whole middle east is engulfed in an all out conflict that more than likely seriously impairs a good portion of the world`s oil supply and obviously causes tremendous hardship and possibly ww3....and that hardship would be felt in the u.s. as badly as anywhere in the world...
this country doesn`t work without oil...i know we get oil from venezuela and canada....but,the middle east is the hub....
.i like driving to work....i like having heat in wintertime.....i`m not interested in seeing our economy collapse...
to me "no war for oil" is the most short-sighted,stupid catch phrase ever adopted....we can`t come out and say "war for oil" or the "war for the security of ours and the world`s energy supply"......it just won`t wash....because people are idealistic and unrealistic,for the most part....that is,until they have to ride a bike to work or use space heaters in their living rooms...
but that is,imo,the crux of the matter...
these issues were seen as being jeopardized by the one dictator in the middle east crazy and ballsy enough to try and annihilate israel or assist in it`s demise,invade neighbors to secure a dominant position as middle eastern oil and power broker,the one willing to "mass-murder" his own people ...and the guy willing to throw the middle east and much of the world into an all out conflagration... .
the world is becoming rife with black market nuclear processing material and some say,actual nuclear weapons(the soviet union cannot account for all of their cold war weapons)....
n. korea has already been caught secretly shipping missiles to terrorist nation yemen on unmarked vessels....fortunately,china is now putting the economic clamps on n. korea as we speak....you haven`t heard much from n.korea lately....that`s because china isn`t ready to have this tin pot dictator sh-tting all over their backyard....this,and the fact that n. korea ALREADY HAS.....I REPEAT,ALREADY HAS nuclear weapons is why we did not address the n. korean situation first...they pose no threat to the world`s oil supply and economic well being....and we have assistance from china,in keeping them in line....but they DO have nuclear weapons....that effectively ties the hands of any country trying to deal with them....unless we are willing to see s.korea and/or japan go up in a puff of smoke...
i`m not a big proponent of the war...but for all those that cry,"no war for oil",well,they are either stone cold stupid or totally uninformed....their may not be a better reason to get rid of a dangerous dictator than to secure the world`s energy supply....
if you can`t assuredly get the knife away from jack the ripper,then you must get rid of jack....
it`s not hard to understand why we are doing what we are doing....i don`t like it....but i understand it......saddam had proven he`s willing to do what your average despot will not do.......
and strangely enough,if he didn`t have weapons(chemical,biological or nuclear),he felt it was in his best interest to play the bluff and make us and his neighbors think he was more powerful than he really was....if he was shown to be much weaker than anticipated,he loses a certain amount of credibility....
he could have thrown open the doors and come totally clean....he chose not to...
he gambled....and he lost..banking that his friends from france,russia and germany could cross block the U.S. at the U.N......
as it turns out,the bluff didn`t work....
.hopefully in the near future,it will be to the benefit of the iraqi people....
how we extricate ourselves from iraq and still ensure that some sort of democracy(or republic) takes hold is the rub and the reason why i always was reticent to embrace the invasion...we obviously didn`t have this thing completely thought out....
sorry for the rant....
thanks again for the links...very interesting...
sorry ...sopranos and deadwood break for me
bobby........let me state that i`m not a staunch bush supporter....i`m actually on the fence...i do believe that the guy is being unfairly vilified by partisans...much as clinton was raked over the coals for the lewinsky fiasco......just providing some counterpoint to the many here that hate bush and the administration...
.thanks for the link.....i`ve still never heard anyone from the administration try and state publicly that they directly blamed iraq for active parcipitation in 9/11....
from the links that you`ve provided,it sure looks like they are trying to provide, at least,an indirect link to terrorism and iraq....and even 9/11..Rice`s comments were particularly interesting..maybe it`s all fabrication....and maybe there`s SOME modicum of truth to her statements...
the rice comments are particularly interesting to me...
"We know too that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development," Rice said.
"So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad," she said. "There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented."
......this is more to the point:
At the same time, she cautioned that "no one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11th, so we don't want to push this too far."......................
Rice added: "This is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clear, and we're learning more. ... When the picture is clear, we'll make full disclosure about it."
"There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented," Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday in a PBS interview.....
admittedly,i`ve never seen the proof firsthand...
and i find this very important....
"With the administration trying to build support at the United Nations and in Congress for possible military action against Iraq, the White House in recent days has sought to place its push to depose Saddam in the context of the war on terrorism, "warning that Iraq ""could"" give nuclear, biological or chemical weapons to terrorist groups like al Qaeda -- the group responsible for the deaths of more than 3,000 Americans in four attacks September 11, 2001."
this i can agree with...it`s actually a theory that i`ve always believed had a great deal to do with rationalizing the invasion of iraq...even though it probably wouldn`t wash as far as public consumption here in the states and definitely not abroad...as israel is loathed by much of europe...this is what i believe..........................
"saddam hussein is on record as saying,""my biggest mistake was not having nuclear weapons when going into kuwait""...if he`d had nukes when he invaded kuwait,he`d probably still have kuwait....
if saddam`s osirak nuclear plant(french provided and built,btw) had not been bombed out of existence in the early "80`s" by israel,he would probably have had nuclear weapons when he went into kuwait....which means,he either still has kuwait to this day,or,we roll the dice and maybe start a nuclear conflagration in the middle east...those scuds he lobbed into israel while we were extricating him from kuwait could have easily been nukes....he would have liked nothing better than to start a holy war vs the israelis.....it`s what he wanted to do...he`s stated as much...this is without a doubt the one thing that the terrorists and the rest of the middle east DO have in common...the destruction or removal of israel...
The Osirak research reactor was supplied by the french,
with hot cells supplied to Iraq by the germans for reprocessing its HEU irradiated fuel with the clearly stated intention by saddam of developing nuclear weapons to destroy israel and make iraq the main power in the mideast & arab world.
Saddam had referred to his having nuclear weapons circa 1980 as the "sword of Nebuchadnezzar" to be used to destroy Iraq's foes and restore the splendor of babylon to the arab world.
well,israel either gets obliterated or retaliates...then the whole middle east is engulfed in an all out conflict that more than likely seriously impairs a good portion of the world`s oil supply and obviously causes tremendous hardship and possibly ww3....and that hardship would be felt in the u.s. as badly as anywhere in the world...
this country doesn`t work without oil...i know we get oil from venezuela and canada....but,the middle east is the hub....
.i like driving to work....i like having heat in wintertime.....i`m not interested in seeing our economy collapse...
to me "no war for oil" is the most short-sighted,stupid catch phrase ever adopted....we can`t come out and say "war for oil" or the "war for the security of ours and the world`s energy supply"......it just won`t wash....because people are idealistic and unrealistic,for the most part....that is,until they have to ride a bike to work or use space heaters in their living rooms...
but that is,imo,the crux of the matter...
these issues were seen as being jeopardized by the one dictator in the middle east crazy and ballsy enough to try and annihilate israel or assist in it`s demise,invade neighbors to secure a dominant position as middle eastern oil and power broker,the one willing to "mass-murder" his own people ...and the guy willing to throw the middle east and much of the world into an all out conflagration... .
the world is becoming rife with black market nuclear processing material and some say,actual nuclear weapons(the soviet union cannot account for all of their cold war weapons)....
n. korea has already been caught secretly shipping missiles to terrorist nation yemen on unmarked vessels....fortunately,china is now putting the economic clamps on n. korea as we speak....you haven`t heard much from n.korea lately....that`s because china isn`t ready to have this tin pot dictator sh-tting all over their backyard....this,and the fact that n. korea ALREADY HAS.....I REPEAT,ALREADY HAS nuclear weapons is why we did not address the n. korean situation first...they pose no threat to the world`s oil supply and economic well being....and we have assistance from china,in keeping them in line....but they DO have nuclear weapons....that effectively ties the hands of any country trying to deal with them....unless we are willing to see s.korea and/or japan go up in a puff of smoke...
i`m not a big proponent of the war...but for all those that cry,"no war for oil",well,they are either stone cold stupid or totally uninformed....their may not be a better reason to get rid of a dangerous dictator than to secure the world`s energy supply....
if you can`t assuredly get the knife away from jack the ripper,then you must get rid of jack....
it`s not hard to understand why we are doing what we are doing....i don`t like it....but i understand it......saddam had proven he`s willing to do what your average despot will not do.......
and strangely enough,if he didn`t have weapons(chemical,biological or nuclear),he felt it was in his best interest to play the bluff and make us and his neighbors think he was more powerful than he really was....if he was shown to be much weaker than anticipated,he loses a certain amount of credibility....
he could have thrown open the doors and come totally clean....he chose not to...
he gambled....and he lost..banking that his friends from france,russia and germany could cross block the U.S. at the U.N......
as it turns out,the bluff didn`t work....
.hopefully in the near future,it will be to the benefit of the iraqi people....
how we extricate ourselves from iraq and still ensure that some sort of democracy(or republic) takes hold is the rub and the reason why i always was reticent to embrace the invasion...we obviously didn`t have this thing completely thought out....
sorry for the rant....
thanks again for the links...very interesting...
Last edited:
I kept on telling you guys I was a moderate merely exposing a felon. I'm a fiscal conservative who does not like big government. My distain for Bush and the Boys goes to the fact that they are out and out criminals doing the bidding of their corporate friends and benefactors.
Bush has reacted to his fathers mishandling of the Gulf war with his obsession with Iraq and Hussein. Other than creating the window-dressing Patriot Act which has as its major objective to inconvenience average Americans, legalize incursions into the private affairs of American citizens and whittle away American citizens personal freedoms, what has this puppet done to locate and try the perpetrators of 9-11.
Bush has put about as much effort into locating Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden as OJ has put into finding Nicoles killers.
Ed
P.S. Also GW, the Clinton shit is getting real old. Whats it been now............... 4 years. We all know, if you look hard enough you can trace a current failing or bad policy to a past administrations actions (or inactions). Depends on your persuasion.
Hell, we could probably finding some action or inaction Bush, Sr. took that led to the rise of Al Queda. Like I said, blaming former administrations doesn't really get either side anywhere. To me, its a smokescreen. All the counts today is how the current administration is handling things.
My grade. An emphatic F.
Bush has reacted to his fathers mishandling of the Gulf war with his obsession with Iraq and Hussein. Other than creating the window-dressing Patriot Act which has as its major objective to inconvenience average Americans, legalize incursions into the private affairs of American citizens and whittle away American citizens personal freedoms, what has this puppet done to locate and try the perpetrators of 9-11.
Bush has put about as much effort into locating Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden as OJ has put into finding Nicoles killers.
Ed
P.S. Also GW, the Clinton shit is getting real old. Whats it been now............... 4 years. We all know, if you look hard enough you can trace a current failing or bad policy to a past administrations actions (or inactions). Depends on your persuasion.
Hell, we could probably finding some action or inaction Bush, Sr. took that led to the rise of Al Queda. Like I said, blaming former administrations doesn't really get either side anywhere. To me, its a smokescreen. All the counts today is how the current administration is handling things.
My grade. An emphatic F.
Last edited:
Yes Eddie you keep telling but fortunately there are many that can read and think for themselves--I suggest you get back to the projects and solicit those that listen to your diatribe.
You and yours contributions to war on terror are quite obvious.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ap/20040322/ap_on_re_eu/terror_and_the_courts
You and yours contributions to war on terror are quite obvious.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ap/20040322/ap_on_re_eu/terror_and_the_courts
Ah yes....Dogs. I've missed your incessant rant against lawyers. We should get rid of all the lawyers and let your buddy Bush and the boys tell us what is right. Who needs the legal system when we have the Republicans telling us what is right and how we should live.
We probably should cut the schwantzs off of any gay guy and seal up there butts with superglue. Republican answer to the homosexual "problem".
Ed
We probably should cut the schwantzs off of any gay guy and seal up there butts with superglue. Republican answer to the homosexual "problem".
Ed
Eddie Haskell said:
I think this is a bad option.
We would be adding to the criminal element of our society because many would have too much time on their hands without the ability to enjoy previous social activities with others. And, it wouldn't be a good answer for female golfers:tongue :tongue
BobbyBlueChip said:
Saddam Hussein supplied financial support, training and shelter for an array of deadly terrorist organizations right up until the onset of the Iraq war a year ago, including such notorious groups as Hamas, Ansar al-Islam, the Palestinian Liberation Front, the Abu Nidal Organization and the Arab Liberation Front.
Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was indicted for mixing the chemicals for the bomb used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six New Yorkers and injured over 1,000. Yasin fled to Baghdad after the attack, where he was given sanctuary and lived for years afterward.
Khala Khadar al-Salahat, a top Palestinian deputy to Abu Nidal, who reportedly furnished Libyan agents with the Semtex explosive used to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988. The attack killed all 259 passengers, including 189 Americans. Al-Salahat was in Baghdad last April and was taken into custody by U.S. Marines.
Abu Nidal, whose terror organization is credited with dozens of attacks that killed over 400 people, including 10 Americans, and wounding 788 more. Nidal lived in Baghdad from 1999 till August 2002, when he was found shot to death in his state-supplied home.
Abu Abbas, who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, during which wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer was pushed over the side to his death. U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad on April 14, 2003. He died in U.S. custody last week.
Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who ran an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and reportedly arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan. Al Zarqawi is still at large.
Ramzi Yousef, who entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport and was the architect of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as well as Operation Bojinka, a foiled plot to explode 12 U.S. airliners over the Pacific. Bojinka was later adopted by Yousef's cousin Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as the blueprint for the Sept. 11 attacks. Arrested in Pakistan in 1995, Yousef is currently serving a triple life sentence in Colorado's Supermax federal lockup.
Mahmoud Besharat, the Palestinian businessman who traveled to Baghdad in March 2002 to collect funding from Saddam for the Palestinian Intifada. Besharat and others disbursed the funds in payments of $10,000 to $25,000 to West Bank families of terrorists who died trying to kill Israelis.
After Saddam announced his Intifada reward plan, 28 Palestinian homicide bombers killed 211 Israelis in attacks that also killed 12 Americans. A total of 1,209 people were injured.
I think this may be proof enough for most that he aided the terrorist.
Nice to here the TRUTH. And once again it's not such a complete put down of Bush. But his great idiots Rummy and Cheney. I new truth would always come out. But I thought for sure at least another 5 to 10 years. Lets see So Paul O Niell is a liar and now Clark. Everyone lies but Bush, Cheney and Rummy. And if everyone wants to believe that. Well? About one more im sure will come forward. Not right now but in next couple of years. Then we will all say. I'll be dam so they were really telling it like it was.
Now Clinton could have done more to. Lets not forget that. But I did like that they did stop the bombing of LA airport with some good work. Oh well im been saying for 3 years here now when we have these chats. They all if not out right lie. They strech the truth as far as possiable. Now I know all you total in love with Bush guys just cant believe that. But Believe it.
Now Clinton could have done more to. Lets not forget that. But I did like that they did stop the bombing of LA airport with some good work. Oh well im been saying for 3 years here now when we have these chats. They all if not out right lie. They strech the truth as far as possiable. Now I know all you total in love with Bush guys just cant believe that. But Believe it.
if clarke was truly interested in exposing the bush administration then why didn't he come forward in early 2003 when he left his job. instead he goes on tv 1 day before his book hits the market. even if he is telling the truth, this interview smacks from grandstanding for the sole purpose of selling his book.imo, that loses credibility.
White House Fires Back at Former Terrorism Advisor
By Jeff Gannon
Talon News
March 22, 2004
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- The White House responded to charges made Sunday by former terrorism advisor Richard Clarke on the CBS "60 Minutes" program. During a promotional appearance on the newsmagazine for his book "Against All Enemies" due to be released on Monday, Clarke said that Bush has done "a terrible job" fighting the war on terrorism.
Clarke and a colleague, Rand Beers, both holdovers from the Clinton years, left the administration in early 2003 and taught together at Harvard University. Beers is now a foreign policy advisor to the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).
Following Clarke's appearance, the White House issued a point-by-point refutation of Clarke's most serious claims.
Clarke said that President Bush didn't treat al Qaeda as a serious threat before September 11, but the White House replied, "The president recognized the threat posed by al-Qaeda, and immediately after taking office the White House began work on a comprehensive new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda. The President specifically told Dr. Rice that he was 'tired of swatting flies' and wanted to go on the offense against al Qaeda, rather than simply waiting to respond."
The White House also said, "Contrary to Dick Clarke's assertion that he was not able to brief senior officials until April 30, the first deputies-level meeting on al Qaeda was held on March 7, and Dick Clarke conducted the briefing. Deputies agreed that a National Security Policy Directive on al Qaeda should be prepared."
The statement reported that the president's team completed the new strategy in less than six months and had the strategy ready to go to the president on September 4.
Clarke's claim that the administration didn't listen to him about a plan to launch missiles from an armed Predator or modestly increase assistance to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan that would have prevented 9-11 but that these plans were not acted upon was also dismissed.
The White House said, "At Dr. Rice's request, in January 2001, Dick Clarke presented her with a number of ideas to address the al Qaeda threat. The administration acted upon the ideas that made sense. For example, the administration approved increased assistance to Uzbekistan, a frontline state in opposing al Qaeda, and pushed hard to develop a weaponized Predator unmanned aerial vehicle."
The statement also said, "Although the administration pushed development of the Predator, the Predator was not available to be used against bin Laden before September 11. Extensive work and testing was required to develop a warhead that would be effective, and NSC Deputies were told that testing would not be completed until August at the earliest. Even if the Predator had been available, the Intelligence Community never presented senior officials with specific intelligence regarding bin Laden's location. At the same time, the Intelligence Community also told senior Administration officials that killing bin Laden would not destroy al Qaeda. Moreover, we know now that, according to the FBI, 16 of the 19 hijackers were in the United States by June 2001; there is no reason to believe that killing bin Laden would have affected their plan."
The White House added, "Clarke never advocated any plan of action to address al Qaeda's presence in the United States, such as the need to improve collection of intelligence information by the FBI and to reverse longstanding statutory restrictions and Department of Justice policies limiting sharing of domestic intelligence on terrorism between the CIA and FBI; or to take actions to root out al-Qaeda cells in the United States and to make our borders less porous for al-Qaeda and other terrorists. He also never made us aware of any intelligence assessments from the preceding Administration concerning the use of aircraft as weapons to attack the homeland."
The statement disagreed with Clarke's claim that he was never allowed to brief the president on the threat posed by al Qaeda.
"Dick Clarke was the president's principal counterterrorism expert," the White House asserts. "If he had asked to brief the President on any counterterrorism issue, Clarke could have done so. Instead, the only time Dick Clarke asked to brief the President was during the height of the terrorism threat spike in June 2001, when he asked to brief the President not on al Qaeda, but on cybersecurity. He did so."
Clarke also charged that the Bush administration did not treat the intelligence chatter about an imminent attack during the spring and summer of 2001 with sufficient urgency.
But the administration said, "The president and his NSC Principals received intelligence reports about the intelligence "chatter" during this period, but none of the intelligence was specific as to time, place, or manner, and was focused overseas."
"Unlike President Clinton, President Bush met every morning with his Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet for an intelligence briefing," the White House said. "Card, Dr. Rice, and the Vice President sat in on the briefings. The threat posed by al-Qaeda and the need for a response was discussed regularly at these high-level meetings, as well as in frequent, regular discussions between Dr. Rice and Tenet. Dr. Rice and Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld also have a 7:15 am phone call every morning and talk frequently during the day, and in this period they discussed actions to respond to the threat during these calls."
The administration asserts that in July 2001, Dr. Rice specifically directed Dick Clarke and his CSG to meet to consider possible threats to the homeland and to coordinate actions by domestic agencies, including the FAA, FBI, Secret Service, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration, to increase security and surveillance.
The White House also disputed Clarke's claim that after the 9/11 attacks, the president ignored the evidence and tried to pin responsibility for 9/11 on Iraq.
"The president sought to determine who was responsible for the 9-11 attacks," the White House said. "Given Iraq's past support of terror, including an attempt by Iraqi intelligence to kill a former President, it would have been irresponsible not to ask if Iraq had any involvement in the attack."
The statement added, "When the President and his senior advisers met at Camp David on September 15-16, 2001, to plan a response to September 11, the DCI told the President that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack. The President then advised his NSC Principals on September 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda, and that the initial US response to 9/11 would be to target al-Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan."
Clarke asserted that his memo for the president regarding links between Iraq and 9/11 was returned with a note saying "wrong answer," but Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley said he returned the memo to Dick Clarke on September 25 asking Clarke to "please update and resubmit," to add any new information that might have appeared.
The White House reiterated that Clarke's request to hold a Cabinet meeting early in the administration to discuss the threat posed by al Qaeda was unnecessary since, "the threat was already well understood by the principals and because Dr. Rice had already asked that a comprehensive new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda be prepared."
The statement took issue with Clarke's claim that he was demoted and "stripped of his Cabinet rank" by President Bush.
"Dick Clarke never had Cabinet rank," the White House said. "Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President's principal counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did."
The White House cited the Clarke's different roles in the two administrations saying, "During the Clinton Administration, Dick Clarke regularly briefed President Clinton because President Clinton did not meet regularly with his DCI. Since the beginning of his administration, President Bush has met daily with his DCI for his intelligence briefing. President Bush believes he should get his intelligence principally not from White House staff, but from those directly responsible for US intelligence."
Clarke became the chief counterterrorism advisor in 1992 and held that position until his departure in 2003. During that time, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, destroyed the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1995, and United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were destroyed in simultaneous attacks. The assault on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 and the 9/11 tragedies also occurred on his watch.
Clarke didn't comment on the opportunity presented to the Clinton administration by Sudan in 1996 to take custody of Usama bin Laden.
Richard Clarke is scheduled to appear this week before the 9/11 commission.
White House Fires Back at Former Terrorism Advisor
By Jeff Gannon
Talon News
March 22, 2004
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- The White House responded to charges made Sunday by former terrorism advisor Richard Clarke on the CBS "60 Minutes" program. During a promotional appearance on the newsmagazine for his book "Against All Enemies" due to be released on Monday, Clarke said that Bush has done "a terrible job" fighting the war on terrorism.
Clarke and a colleague, Rand Beers, both holdovers from the Clinton years, left the administration in early 2003 and taught together at Harvard University. Beers is now a foreign policy advisor to the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).
Following Clarke's appearance, the White House issued a point-by-point refutation of Clarke's most serious claims.
Clarke said that President Bush didn't treat al Qaeda as a serious threat before September 11, but the White House replied, "The president recognized the threat posed by al-Qaeda, and immediately after taking office the White House began work on a comprehensive new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda. The President specifically told Dr. Rice that he was 'tired of swatting flies' and wanted to go on the offense against al Qaeda, rather than simply waiting to respond."
The White House also said, "Contrary to Dick Clarke's assertion that he was not able to brief senior officials until April 30, the first deputies-level meeting on al Qaeda was held on March 7, and Dick Clarke conducted the briefing. Deputies agreed that a National Security Policy Directive on al Qaeda should be prepared."
The statement reported that the president's team completed the new strategy in less than six months and had the strategy ready to go to the president on September 4.
Clarke's claim that the administration didn't listen to him about a plan to launch missiles from an armed Predator or modestly increase assistance to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan that would have prevented 9-11 but that these plans were not acted upon was also dismissed.
The White House said, "At Dr. Rice's request, in January 2001, Dick Clarke presented her with a number of ideas to address the al Qaeda threat. The administration acted upon the ideas that made sense. For example, the administration approved increased assistance to Uzbekistan, a frontline state in opposing al Qaeda, and pushed hard to develop a weaponized Predator unmanned aerial vehicle."
The statement also said, "Although the administration pushed development of the Predator, the Predator was not available to be used against bin Laden before September 11. Extensive work and testing was required to develop a warhead that would be effective, and NSC Deputies were told that testing would not be completed until August at the earliest. Even if the Predator had been available, the Intelligence Community never presented senior officials with specific intelligence regarding bin Laden's location. At the same time, the Intelligence Community also told senior Administration officials that killing bin Laden would not destroy al Qaeda. Moreover, we know now that, according to the FBI, 16 of the 19 hijackers were in the United States by June 2001; there is no reason to believe that killing bin Laden would have affected their plan."
The White House added, "Clarke never advocated any plan of action to address al Qaeda's presence in the United States, such as the need to improve collection of intelligence information by the FBI and to reverse longstanding statutory restrictions and Department of Justice policies limiting sharing of domestic intelligence on terrorism between the CIA and FBI; or to take actions to root out al-Qaeda cells in the United States and to make our borders less porous for al-Qaeda and other terrorists. He also never made us aware of any intelligence assessments from the preceding Administration concerning the use of aircraft as weapons to attack the homeland."
The statement disagreed with Clarke's claim that he was never allowed to brief the president on the threat posed by al Qaeda.
"Dick Clarke was the president's principal counterterrorism expert," the White House asserts. "If he had asked to brief the President on any counterterrorism issue, Clarke could have done so. Instead, the only time Dick Clarke asked to brief the President was during the height of the terrorism threat spike in June 2001, when he asked to brief the President not on al Qaeda, but on cybersecurity. He did so."
Clarke also charged that the Bush administration did not treat the intelligence chatter about an imminent attack during the spring and summer of 2001 with sufficient urgency.
But the administration said, "The president and his NSC Principals received intelligence reports about the intelligence "chatter" during this period, but none of the intelligence was specific as to time, place, or manner, and was focused overseas."
"Unlike President Clinton, President Bush met every morning with his Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet for an intelligence briefing," the White House said. "Card, Dr. Rice, and the Vice President sat in on the briefings. The threat posed by al-Qaeda and the need for a response was discussed regularly at these high-level meetings, as well as in frequent, regular discussions between Dr. Rice and Tenet. Dr. Rice and Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld also have a 7:15 am phone call every morning and talk frequently during the day, and in this period they discussed actions to respond to the threat during these calls."
The administration asserts that in July 2001, Dr. Rice specifically directed Dick Clarke and his CSG to meet to consider possible threats to the homeland and to coordinate actions by domestic agencies, including the FAA, FBI, Secret Service, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration, to increase security and surveillance.
The White House also disputed Clarke's claim that after the 9/11 attacks, the president ignored the evidence and tried to pin responsibility for 9/11 on Iraq.
"The president sought to determine who was responsible for the 9-11 attacks," the White House said. "Given Iraq's past support of terror, including an attempt by Iraqi intelligence to kill a former President, it would have been irresponsible not to ask if Iraq had any involvement in the attack."
The statement added, "When the President and his senior advisers met at Camp David on September 15-16, 2001, to plan a response to September 11, the DCI told the President that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack. The President then advised his NSC Principals on September 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda, and that the initial US response to 9/11 would be to target al-Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan."
Clarke asserted that his memo for the president regarding links between Iraq and 9/11 was returned with a note saying "wrong answer," but Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley said he returned the memo to Dick Clarke on September 25 asking Clarke to "please update and resubmit," to add any new information that might have appeared.
The White House reiterated that Clarke's request to hold a Cabinet meeting early in the administration to discuss the threat posed by al Qaeda was unnecessary since, "the threat was already well understood by the principals and because Dr. Rice had already asked that a comprehensive new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda be prepared."
The statement took issue with Clarke's claim that he was demoted and "stripped of his Cabinet rank" by President Bush.
"Dick Clarke never had Cabinet rank," the White House said. "Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President's principal counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did."
The White House cited the Clarke's different roles in the two administrations saying, "During the Clinton Administration, Dick Clarke regularly briefed President Clinton because President Clinton did not meet regularly with his DCI. Since the beginning of his administration, President Bush has met daily with his DCI for his intelligence briefing. President Bush believes he should get his intelligence principally not from White House staff, but from those directly responsible for US intelligence."
Clarke became the chief counterterrorism advisor in 1992 and held that position until his departure in 2003. During that time, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, destroyed the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1995, and United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were destroyed in simultaneous attacks. The assault on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 and the 9/11 tragedies also occurred on his watch.
Clarke didn't comment on the opportunity presented to the Clinton administration by Sudan in 1996 to take custody of Usama bin Laden.
Richard Clarke is scheduled to appear this week before the 9/11 commission.
eddie
eddie
i agree that the clinton repartee gets old...i was just making an observation on what i believe is an obvious media bias...
my problem with the softball interview(it wasn`t really an interview,it was another choreographed bush bash....and that`s getting old) stahl had with clarke was mainly the timing of it...
it coincides with the book he`s writing....and although this obviously makes sense for clarke,it also tends to make you wonder why the guy didn`t come forward before this...these are serious allegations...you don`t wait for a book to come out or hearings to take place if you see a murder committed or any sort of negligence that has the repercussions of a large scale terrorist attack....... or say, heinous war crimes committed(groan)......and it strikes me that clarke`s allegations against clinton dropping the ball with bin laden,also corresponded with the writing of another book(not his).....oddly enough,i saw no media interviews regarding that issue.... .....is
that what it takes for this guy to state the important facts regarding our national security?...a book?
and it`s interesting that it appears to be a pinpoint attack on the one phase of bush`s presidency that the public seems to feel most comfortable with....the war on terror...since 9/11,which came shortly after bush`s election,this country has basically been terror free... i think on the terror front bush has been pro-active and effective..if someone had come out bashing bush on the economy or the jobs situation,i`d be much more amenable to hearing the allegations...
as i said,i`m not a bush guy...i`d actually be very interested to see how drastically things would change under kerry....
i think this issue is an economic(for clarke)and a political ploy(for the dems).......and maybe a little sour grapes from a guy that was essentially eased out of his position by the bush administration...
and as i said before,i believe the invasion of iraq had much more to do with oil accessability and perpetuity and the security of israel than terrorism...
don`t like the "timely" piling on.....coming just prior to an election...i guess it`s par for the course... .... ..
much like i was disgusted by the thought of impeaching a president over a blow job......
eddie
i agree that the clinton repartee gets old...i was just making an observation on what i believe is an obvious media bias...
my problem with the softball interview(it wasn`t really an interview,it was another choreographed bush bash....and that`s getting old) stahl had with clarke was mainly the timing of it...
it coincides with the book he`s writing....and although this obviously makes sense for clarke,it also tends to make you wonder why the guy didn`t come forward before this...these are serious allegations...you don`t wait for a book to come out or hearings to take place if you see a murder committed or any sort of negligence that has the repercussions of a large scale terrorist attack....... or say, heinous war crimes committed(groan)......and it strikes me that clarke`s allegations against clinton dropping the ball with bin laden,also corresponded with the writing of another book(not his).....oddly enough,i saw no media interviews regarding that issue.... .....is
that what it takes for this guy to state the important facts regarding our national security?...a book?
and it`s interesting that it appears to be a pinpoint attack on the one phase of bush`s presidency that the public seems to feel most comfortable with....the war on terror...since 9/11,which came shortly after bush`s election,this country has basically been terror free... i think on the terror front bush has been pro-active and effective..if someone had come out bashing bush on the economy or the jobs situation,i`d be much more amenable to hearing the allegations...
as i said,i`m not a bush guy...i`d actually be very interested to see how drastically things would change under kerry....
i think this issue is an economic(for clarke)and a political ploy(for the dems).......and maybe a little sour grapes from a guy that was essentially eased out of his position by the bush administration...
and as i said before,i believe the invasion of iraq had much more to do with oil accessability and perpetuity and the security of israel than terrorism...
don`t like the "timely" piling on.....coming just prior to an election...i guess it`s par for the course... .... ..
much like i was disgusted by the thought of impeaching a president over a blow job......
Last edited:
GW:
Hey don't talk about timing an announcement like Clarks with the release of a tell-all book. We don't do those kinda things here in Pete Rose country.
Ed
Hey don't talk about timing an announcement like Clarks with the release of a tell-all book. We don't do those kinda things here in Pete Rose country.
Ed
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON MARCH 22, 2004 12:04:25 ET XXXXX
NEWS FOR SALE: CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT
CBSNEWS did not inform its viewers last night that its parent company owns and has a direct financial stake in the success of the book by former White House terror staffer turned Bush critic, Dick Clarke, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
60 MINUTES aired a double-segment investigative report on the new book "Against All Enemies" -- but did not disclose how CBSNEWS parent VIACOM is publishing the book and will profit from any and all sales!
ETHICAL BREACH
CBS even used heavy promotion for the 60 MINUTES/book launch during its Sunday sports shows.
It is not clear who made the final decision at CBSNEWS not to inform the viewer during 60 MINUTES how they were watching a news story about a VIACOM product.
60 MINUTES pro Lesley Stahl is said to have been aware of the conflict before the program aired.
[CBSNEWS.COM did add a disclaimer to its Internet coverage of the book over the weekend: "Against All Enemies," which is being published Monday by FREE PRESS, a subsidiary of SIMON & SCHUSTER. Both CBSNews.com and SIMON & SCHUSTER are units of VIACOM." And CBS RADIO did carry a disclaimer in its news coverage of the book.]
SIMON & SCHUSTER INFO-COMMERCIAL
Earlier this year, it was Stahl who also profiled another author on 60 MINUTES -- for another book owned by VIACOMCBS -- without any disclaimer!
"The Price of Loyalty" by former Treasury Secretary, turned Bush critic, Paul O'Neill was financed, produced and released [and rolled-out at CBSNEWS] by VIACOM's SIMON & SCHUSTER.
Coming in future weeks, best-selling author Bob Woodward is set to release his PLAN OF ATTACK, a fresh look at the Bush White House.
Will the Woodward VIACOMSIMON&SCHUSTER product debut on: VIACOMSIMON&SCHUSTERCBS's 60 MINUTES?
NEWS FOR SALE: CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT
CBSNEWS did not inform its viewers last night that its parent company owns and has a direct financial stake in the success of the book by former White House terror staffer turned Bush critic, Dick Clarke, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
60 MINUTES aired a double-segment investigative report on the new book "Against All Enemies" -- but did not disclose how CBSNEWS parent VIACOM is publishing the book and will profit from any and all sales!
ETHICAL BREACH
CBS even used heavy promotion for the 60 MINUTES/book launch during its Sunday sports shows.
It is not clear who made the final decision at CBSNEWS not to inform the viewer during 60 MINUTES how they were watching a news story about a VIACOM product.
60 MINUTES pro Lesley Stahl is said to have been aware of the conflict before the program aired.
[CBSNEWS.COM did add a disclaimer to its Internet coverage of the book over the weekend: "Against All Enemies," which is being published Monday by FREE PRESS, a subsidiary of SIMON & SCHUSTER. Both CBSNews.com and SIMON & SCHUSTER are units of VIACOM." And CBS RADIO did carry a disclaimer in its news coverage of the book.]
SIMON & SCHUSTER INFO-COMMERCIAL
Earlier this year, it was Stahl who also profiled another author on 60 MINUTES -- for another book owned by VIACOMCBS -- without any disclaimer!
"The Price of Loyalty" by former Treasury Secretary, turned Bush critic, Paul O'Neill was financed, produced and released [and rolled-out at CBSNEWS] by VIACOM's SIMON & SCHUSTER.
Coming in future weeks, best-selling author Bob Woodward is set to release his PLAN OF ATTACK, a fresh look at the Bush White House.
Will the Woodward VIACOMSIMON&SCHUSTER product debut on: VIACOMSIMON&SCHUSTERCBS's 60 MINUTES?
ya right, I'm quite sure the fiscal future of Viacom hangs on this book
coincidentally is there anything Viacom doesn't own??
coincidentally is there anything Viacom doesn't own??
eddie
eddie
lol......
funny you should mention rose...another guy that always gets slammed....people don`t hear about the good things rose does...
like the promise he made and kept to that kid in the hospital......
"I'm putting 50 bucks on
today's game for you, son."...........
a national treasure...
eddie
lol......
funny you should mention rose...another guy that always gets slammed....people don`t hear about the good things rose does...
like the promise he made and kept to that kid in the hospital......
"I'm putting 50 bucks on
today's game for you, son."...........
a national treasure...
Edward I am getting tired of reporting the errors of your accusations and suggest you start posting info instead of opinions. Most people here are informed and do not take opinions at face value
your opinion
"Bush has reacted to his fathers mishandling of the Gulf war with his obsession with Iraq and Hussein. Other than creating the window-dressing Patriot Act which has as its major objective to inconvenience average Americans, legalize incursions into the private affairs of American citizens and whittle away American citizens personal freedoms, what has this puppet done to locate and try the perpetrators of 9-11."
here are few I found in short time--I will do list later on those captured that you idiots try to free with your "personal freedoms"
These are just the big boys mind you--however you might want to scratch those on 10 most wanted list pending out come of Nov election-- as we know the liberals have no objections to pardoning them if price is right
The facts
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan ? Name, nationality and status of some major Al Qaeda figures:
USAMA BIN LADEN, Saudi, supreme leader: At large, on FBI Most Wanted Terrorists list.
AYMAN AL-ZAWAHRI, Egyptian, bin Laden's doctor, spiritual adviser: At large, on FBI Most Wanted Terrorist list.
MOHAMMED ATEF, Egyptian, military chief: Killed in U.S. airstrike.
KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED, Kuwaiti, suspected mastermind of Sept. 11 attacks: Captured.
ABU ZUBAYDAH, Palestinian-Saudi, terrorist coordinator: Captured.
SAIF AL-ADIL, Egyptian, bin Laden security chief: At large, on FBI Most Wanted Terrorist list.
SHAIKH SAIID AL-MASRI, Egyptian, bin Laden chief financier: At large.
ABD AL-RAHIM AL-NASHIRI, Saudi, Persian Gulf operations chief: Captured.
TAWFIQ ATTASH KHALLAD, Yemeni, operational leader, suspected mastermind of USS Cole bombing in October 2000: At large.
QAED SALIM SINAN AL-HARETHI, Yemeni, Yemen operations chief: Killed in U.S. airstrike.
OMAR AL-FAROUQ, Kuwaiti, Southeast Asia operations chief: Captured.
IBN AL-SHAYKH AL-LIBI, Libyan, training camp commander: Captured.
SAAD BIN LADEN, Saudi, bin Laden's son: At large.
ABU MOHAMMAD AL-MASRI, Egyptian, training camp commander: At large, on FBI Most Wanted Terrorist list as Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah.
TARIQ ANWAR AL-SAYYID AHMAD, Egyptian, operational planner: Killed in U.S. airstrike.
MOHAMMED SALAH, Egyptian, operational planner: Killed in U.S. airstrike.
ABD AL-HADI AL-IRAQI, training camp commander: Captured.
ABU MUSAB ZARQAWI, Jordanian, operational planner: At large.
ABU ZUBAIR AL-HAILI, Saudi, operational planner: Captured.
ABU HAFS THE MAURITANIAN, operational and spiritual leader: At large.
SULAIMAN ABU GHAITH, Kuwaiti, al-Qaida spokesman: At large.
MOHAMMED OMAR ABDEL-RAHMAN, Egyptian, operational planner and trainer: At large.
MIDHAT MURSI, Egyptian, chemical and bioweapons researcher: At large.
MOHAMMED JAMAL KHALIFA, Saudi, financier: At large.
SAAD AL-SHARIF, Saudi, financer: At large.
MUSTAFA AHMED AL-HISAWI: Sept. 11 financer: At large.
HAMZA AL-QATARI, financier: Killed.
AHMAD SAID AL-KADR, Egyptian-Canadian, financier: At large.
ZAID KHAYR, operational leader: At large.
ABU SALAH AL-YEMENI: logistics, Killed.
ABU JAFAR AL-JAZIRI, aide to Abu Zubyadah: Killed.
ABU BASIR AL-YEMENI, Yemeni, aide to Osama bin Laden: At large.
ABD AL-AZIZ AL-JAMAL, aide to al-Zawahri: At large.
RAMZI BINALSHIBH, Yemeni, planner and organizer of Sept. 11 attacks: Captured.
ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI, charged as conspirator with Sept. 11 hijackers: Captured.
ZAKARIYA ESSABAR, member of cell with chief Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta: At large.
SAID BAHAJI, member of cell with chief Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta: At large.
Now get back to your seminar on cashing in on new class action course on food industry that has been so popluar of late.
might I suggest the following for your CE credit. :tongue
"If you need to stay on top of the latest developments in class action litigation, look no further than Mealey's Litigation Report: Class Actions from LexisNexis. This title focuses exclusively on the hottest trends, rulings, verdicts, and settlements in class action litigation and covers mass torts and beyond, including consumer law, employment law, securities litigation, and e-commerce disputes."
your opinion
"Bush has reacted to his fathers mishandling of the Gulf war with his obsession with Iraq and Hussein. Other than creating the window-dressing Patriot Act which has as its major objective to inconvenience average Americans, legalize incursions into the private affairs of American citizens and whittle away American citizens personal freedoms, what has this puppet done to locate and try the perpetrators of 9-11."
here are few I found in short time--I will do list later on those captured that you idiots try to free with your "personal freedoms"
These are just the big boys mind you--however you might want to scratch those on 10 most wanted list pending out come of Nov election-- as we know the liberals have no objections to pardoning them if price is right
The facts
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan ? Name, nationality and status of some major Al Qaeda figures:
USAMA BIN LADEN, Saudi, supreme leader: At large, on FBI Most Wanted Terrorists list.
AYMAN AL-ZAWAHRI, Egyptian, bin Laden's doctor, spiritual adviser: At large, on FBI Most Wanted Terrorist list.
MOHAMMED ATEF, Egyptian, military chief: Killed in U.S. airstrike.
KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED, Kuwaiti, suspected mastermind of Sept. 11 attacks: Captured.
ABU ZUBAYDAH, Palestinian-Saudi, terrorist coordinator: Captured.
SAIF AL-ADIL, Egyptian, bin Laden security chief: At large, on FBI Most Wanted Terrorist list.
SHAIKH SAIID AL-MASRI, Egyptian, bin Laden chief financier: At large.
ABD AL-RAHIM AL-NASHIRI, Saudi, Persian Gulf operations chief: Captured.
TAWFIQ ATTASH KHALLAD, Yemeni, operational leader, suspected mastermind of USS Cole bombing in October 2000: At large.
QAED SALIM SINAN AL-HARETHI, Yemeni, Yemen operations chief: Killed in U.S. airstrike.
OMAR AL-FAROUQ, Kuwaiti, Southeast Asia operations chief: Captured.
IBN AL-SHAYKH AL-LIBI, Libyan, training camp commander: Captured.
SAAD BIN LADEN, Saudi, bin Laden's son: At large.
ABU MOHAMMAD AL-MASRI, Egyptian, training camp commander: At large, on FBI Most Wanted Terrorist list as Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah.
TARIQ ANWAR AL-SAYYID AHMAD, Egyptian, operational planner: Killed in U.S. airstrike.
MOHAMMED SALAH, Egyptian, operational planner: Killed in U.S. airstrike.
ABD AL-HADI AL-IRAQI, training camp commander: Captured.
ABU MUSAB ZARQAWI, Jordanian, operational planner: At large.
ABU ZUBAIR AL-HAILI, Saudi, operational planner: Captured.
ABU HAFS THE MAURITANIAN, operational and spiritual leader: At large.
SULAIMAN ABU GHAITH, Kuwaiti, al-Qaida spokesman: At large.
MOHAMMED OMAR ABDEL-RAHMAN, Egyptian, operational planner and trainer: At large.
MIDHAT MURSI, Egyptian, chemical and bioweapons researcher: At large.
MOHAMMED JAMAL KHALIFA, Saudi, financier: At large.
SAAD AL-SHARIF, Saudi, financer: At large.
MUSTAFA AHMED AL-HISAWI: Sept. 11 financer: At large.
HAMZA AL-QATARI, financier: Killed.
AHMAD SAID AL-KADR, Egyptian-Canadian, financier: At large.
ZAID KHAYR, operational leader: At large.
ABU SALAH AL-YEMENI: logistics, Killed.
ABU JAFAR AL-JAZIRI, aide to Abu Zubyadah: Killed.
ABU BASIR AL-YEMENI, Yemeni, aide to Osama bin Laden: At large.
ABD AL-AZIZ AL-JAMAL, aide to al-Zawahri: At large.
RAMZI BINALSHIBH, Yemeni, planner and organizer of Sept. 11 attacks: Captured.
ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI, charged as conspirator with Sept. 11 hijackers: Captured.
ZAKARIYA ESSABAR, member of cell with chief Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta: At large.
SAID BAHAJI, member of cell with chief Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta: At large.
Now get back to your seminar on cashing in on new class action course on food industry that has been so popluar of late.
might I suggest the following for your CE credit. :tongue
"If you need to stay on top of the latest developments in class action litigation, look no further than Mealey's Litigation Report: Class Actions from LexisNexis. This title focuses exclusively on the hottest trends, rulings, verdicts, and settlements in class action litigation and covers mass torts and beyond, including consumer law, employment law, securities litigation, and e-commerce disputes."
Last edited:
Like I said above. Im sure Paul O 'Niell and now Clark are just big liears. I can tell the way the attack dogs hit the street yesterday already. They know they need to cover fast. Both these guys cant be full of chit. With the only folks telling the truth are Cheneny Rummy and Bush. I know the American people are not all that dump to buy that. There will be one more leaker still to come.
DJV No doubts the truth is somewhere in the middle. I am always skeptical when a person is pushing a book. Classic example is DickMorris--long time insider with the Clintons--turned against them-wrote book that I believe sold near as many Hilliary's--He is interesting to listen to--but you have to read between the lines and try and seperate fact from fiction.
DTB agree. My grandad said they always come in threes. One with a little weight. One with alittle more. And one that does not add much but tries to make the most noise. Im not about to put this all on Bush. It's some of those that are with him that always scared me. I'll give Clark this much. He is right. Cheney and Rummy are both from the cold war age. And seem to think that way to much.
