KKK endorses McCain

[kcshocker11]

Mad about Poo, that "actionable intelligence" report or "PDB" did NOT specify that Osama wanted to attack with airplanes. It simply stated that he wanted to attack the US.
If democRAT Jamie Gorelick had not made it illegal for FBI and CIA to share intel, we would have know that Mohammad Attah was in the states.

Funny how these democRATS can create monumental problems like 9/11 intel failures and Fannie Mae then turn around with the help of our Socialist Media and blame Republicans. We can even go back to the Clinton administration era and show video of ALL the major democRAT players claiming that Saddam had WMD's. Yet now they try to convince us it was a big Bush lie.

Someone still should read life long Republican Richard Clarks book

Clarke argues that he made numerous urgent requests for a meeting about dealing with terrorism, had CIA Director George Tenet include numerous details about Al-Qaeda in daily briefings, found an unprecedented level of terrorist "chatter" before September 11.

Soon after 9/11, he says that defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld wanted to bomb Iraq, even though there was no evidence of their involvement, because they had more "good targets" than Afghanistan, which was actually involved.

Clarke also says that on September 12, 2001, President Bush asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was absolutely no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies (the FBI, the CIA, etc.). The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit," apparently unshown to the President.

Clarke also recalls a meeting where then Defense Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz expressed doubt that Osama bin Laden could have carried out the attacks on September 11 without state sponsorship — a theory based on the writings of Laurie Mylroie that Clarke says has been exhaustively investigated and disproven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

8)

[double dribble]

nice try KC, Dick Clark was discredited long ago after he was proven to be a liar. His imaginary meetings with Cheney and Rummy turned out to be just that, imaginary. He was bitter over being fired so he comes up with a tell all book that the Socialist Bush Hating Media could not wait to promote. However after a little vetting, it was discovered that he was more full of crap than Joe Wilson. So they sent him back to American Bandstand where he belonged.

[kcshocker11]

nice try KC, Dick Clark was discredited long ago after he was proven to be a liar. His imaginary meetings with Cheney and Rummy turned out to be just that, imaginary. He was bitter over being fired so he comes up with a tell all book that the Socialist Bush Hating Media could not wait to promote. However after a little vetting, it was discovered that he was more full of crap than Joe Wilson. So they sent him back to American Bandstand where he belonged.

Sorry Dribble your wrong again

Just before and after Clarke appeared before the 9/11 Commission, defenders of the Bush Administration tried to attack his credibility. They charged that he exaggerated perceived failures in the Bush Administration's counterterrorism policies while exculpating the former Clinton administration from its perceived shortcomings.[17]

According to some reports, the White House tried to discredit Clarke in a move described as "shooting the messenger."[18] New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was more blunt, calling the attacks on Clarke "a campaign of character assassination."[19]

Conservatives inside and outside the Bush Administration vigorously attacked both Clarke's testimony and his tenure during the hearings. In the furor over Clarke's revelations before the 9/11 Commission, Senate Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist immediately took to the Senate floor to make a speech accusing Clarke of telling "two entirely different stories under oath", pointing to congressional hearing testimony Clarke gave in 2002, but Frist later admitted to reporters that he was unaware of any actual discrepancies in Clarke's testimony.[20] Some White House attempts to discredit Clarke were inconsistent, specifically, the day after Clarke's revelations Vice President Dick Cheney went on the Rush Limbaugh radio program to claim that Clarke's account of the events leading to the 9/11 attacks was not credible because Clarke "wasn't in the loop" on pre-9/11 counter-terrorism planning, while at the same time National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was telling reporters that Clarke was the center of all counter-terrorism efforts.[6]

8) :whistle:

[SB Shock]

what was mr. clarke doing under the 8 years under clinton? Was he recommending that pharmaceutical factories be bombed in Sudan, the targeting of empty camps to send Bin Ladin a message?

Richard Clarke actually praises the Bush administration in 2002 compared to the inaction of the Clinton administration

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

The real truth is he was pushing that the next terrorist attack was going to be from cyber-terrorist. He was wrong, but he was an opportunist.

[kcshocker11]

One should read his entire book! Also if possible a conversation with him is quite eye opening!

I believe your local libary has a copy, if you can stand going into that socialist organization.

[SB Shock]

[rrshock]

No matter who was in control on 9/11, it doesn't change the fact that our government had information about the possibility of it happening. Whether that info was collected when Clinton was president or when Bush was, it doesn't change the fact that our intelligence showed it was a very good possibility.

Now it just so happens that Bush was president at the time. That made him in charge. The person in charge is always going to get the blame, even if they did nothing wrong.

Now I think that his administrations non-actions played a part in this. But it is irrelevant now, because it is over, it started a war, and Bin Laden still hasn't been captured. That all came under Bush's administration too. And he is directly responsible for both situations.

[SB Shock]

No matter who was in control on 9/11, it doesn't change the fact that our government had information about the possibility of it happening.

Everyday they have information of potential threats. There is a difference between knowing the "possibility" and having actionable intelligence.

The problem is most people like you have no real clue because you get your ideas of what intelligence operations from Hollywood.

[WstateU]

No matter who was in control on 9/11, it doesn't change the fact that our government had information about the possibility of it happening. Whether that info was collected when Clinton was president or when Bush was, it doesn't change the fact that our intelligence showed it was a very good possibility.

Now it just so happens that Bush was president at the time. That made him in charge. The person in charge is always going to get the blame, even if they did nothing wrong.

Now I think that his administrations non-actions played a part in this. But it is irrelevant now, because it is over, it started a war, and Bin Laden still hasn't been captured. That all came under Bush's administration too. And he is directly responsible for both situations.

Thank you Mr. Obama.

[rrshock]

Everyday they have information of potential threats. There is a difference between knowing the "possibility" and having actionable intelligence.

The problem is most people like you have no real clue because you get your ideas of what intelligence operations from Hollywood.

And I suppose you have a clue too? Because your ever so beloved Republican party is always right? Give me a break. Bush f'd up when he started the war and you know it. And I get my info from where all of you get it too. Some of you Republicans refuse to accept the fact that Bush messed up.

[rrshock]

No matter who was in control on 9/11, it doesn't change the fact that our government had information about the possibility of it happening. Whether that info was collected when Clinton was president or when Bush was, it doesn't change the fact that our intelligence showed it was a very good possibility.

Now it just so happens that Bush was president at the time. That made him in charge. The person in charge is always going to get the blame, even if they did nothing wrong.

Now I think that his administrations non-actions played a part in this. But it is irrelevant now, because it is over, it started a war, and Bin Laden still hasn't been captured. That all came under Bush's administration too. And he is directly responsible for both situations.

Thank you Mr. Obama.

Call me what you want, but you would have gladly said it was Clinton's fault for not acting on the info had he been president when it happened.

It's a two-way street, yet some of you super conservatives on here refuse to accept that. The person in charge IS ALWAYS TO BLAME! It is their watch and it happened, so they are to blame whether or not it was directly their fault or not. That's how things work in this country. When you run for President and win, you have to accept the blame for things that happen because you are in charge.

Let me ask you this: If two Wichita Police officers beat the heck out of a criminal, who is going to take some of the blame? Of course the officers, but the Chief will be as well, because they are his officers and he should have better control of them.

[kcshocker11]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...rke%20memo.pdf Declassified memo from Clark to Rice Jan25 2001 on Al Queda threat.

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

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

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.
"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

By June 2001, there still hadn't been a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism, even though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented level of ominous chatter.

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

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

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

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35744-2002May17?language=printer

The top-secret briefing memo presented to President Bush on Aug. 6 carried the headline, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," and was primarily focused on recounting al Qaeda's past efforts to attack and infiltrate the United States, senior administration officials said.

The document, known as the President's Daily Briefing, underscored that Osama bin Laden and his followers hoped to "bring the fight to America," in part as retaliation for U.S. missile strikes on al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998, according to knowledgeable sources.

8) 8) 8)

[Denny Crane]

The opinion that domestic terrorism is a bigger threat to this country's national security than Islamic Jihadism qualifies them for Larned. Seriously.
As a man in uniform that has been on five deployments, that offends the hell out of me. If you don't know something about a subject matter, please don't speak on it, just for the sake of posting a counter argument.

[double dribble]

KC, I tried to get a meeting with Clinton to warn him about the USS Cole being bombed but he refused to meet with me.
Oh and I tried to get a meeting with Ray "school bus" Nagin to warn him that the levy would break, but he refused to meet with me.
Oh yea I also tried to get a meeting with Schaus to tell him Turgeon might leave, but he refused to meet with me.
Man this is easy, I wonder if I should write a book or try to get on MSNBC.

[shock10]

I thought Obama was a Islamic terrorist.