Jump to content
Dr. Joe B.

Liberalism Versus Conservatism

Recommended Posts

Atta was a known Al Qaeda activist enjoying video games in Jeb Bush's Florida just prior to his piloting the hijacked plane into one of the twin towers. The salient fact is that the PNAC bunch knew they needed a Pearl Harbor to justify their invasion of Iraq. So, they looked the other ways and let the terrorists romp in our country.

LOL! You really are stuck on stupid, *genius*. You have absolutely no proof of that. But what there is proof of is Iraq’s involvement in a plot to bomb multiple airplanes, a plot to bring down the WTC towers with bombs, the plot to fly planes into the targets of 9/11 and the anthrax attack that followed 9/11. The proof was sufficient to convince a court in the US of Iraq’s involvement.

 

Let’s look at some of that evidence.

 

An article was published by a newspaper owned by Saddam's son just months before 9/11 that predicted the targets of 9/11 and hinted at the means of their destruction. Do you remember that, *genius*? The author was an Iraqi, Mulhalhal, with ties to Iraqi intelligence, who stated bin Laden would “demolish the Pentagon after he destroys the White House and” that bin Laden would strike America “on the arm that is already hurting” (a clear reference to the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993). Another reference to New York was “[bin Laden] will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs.” (e.g., “New York, New York”) which identified New York City as a target. Mulhalhal also stated, “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer," which clearly suggests an airplane attack was planned. How could these Iraqis have had such foreknowledge of the attack details without Iraq being involved at some level in 9/11 or being told by Osama what was planned?

 

We know that the Hamburg cell of al-Qaeda was involved in 9/11 and included Mohammed Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers. His travel documents into Czechoslovakia identified him as a "Hamburg Student". A meeting with a "Hamburg Student" was mentioned in the Day Calendar of Iraqi intelligence officer "al-Ani" on the exact date when he purportedly (according to Czech intelligence, who still stand by this claim) met with Atta in Prague shortly before 9/11. al-Ani was known for handling “special projects”. What could be more special than 9/11? The ONLY facts ever offered to prove Atta was not in Prague at the time, is the use of his cell phone in the US during that time and the fact that there is no record of his movements overseas. But his cell phone wouldn't have worked overseas and since he shared everything with his US associates (including apartments, bank accounts, etc) he could have just left the cell phone in the US and let them use it. And while there is no record of his movements in Europe, there is also no record of his movements in the US during that time. For a 7 day period he simply disappeared from the US … immediately after withdrawing thousands of dollars in cash from his bank account … just the amount of money he'd have needed for a clandestine trip to Europe. We know that Atta had access to bogus passports and other documents that would have been needed to travel incognito and while there is only one eyewitness saying he was in Prague, there are NO eyewitnesses to his presence in the US at the time.

 

So what if Atta did go to Europe and meet al-Ani? Eh, *genius*? Then the question is why? Why would he do so, just a short time before the all important 9/11 date? Atta didn’t need more funding for the plot at that point. The plot was all set to go. The people were trained. The pieces were all in place. It was just a matter of staying below the radar and waiting for the right moment. What could have spurred Atta to take the risk of returning to Europe? Eh, *genius*? Well perhaps Iraq decided to make a last minute add-on to the plot … the addition of anthrax. The anthrax attack certainly looked like an add-on. It wasn’t very well thought out if you think about it. It seemed to be something done in haste and without much planning. And what a coincidence that Atta and other 9/11 hijackers just happened to be living only miles from the first case of anthrax (Bob Stephens, photo editor of The Sun, a subsidiary of American Media located in Boca Raton, Florida). What a coincidence that the letters were mailed from areas the hijackers were in before 9/11 … Delray Beach, Boca Raton and Fort Lauderdale. In fact, there was even contact between two of the hijackers and the wife an American Media editor. She rented an apartment to them. Seems like an awful lot of coincidences to simply ignore, don’t you think, *genius*?

 

Can we be sure Atta wasn't handed the anthrax used in 9/11 by al-Ani? We know the Iraqis had the means to produce that sort of anthrax. In fact, few other likely suspects did have that means. The government’s case for a domestic source for that anthrax completely fell apart. First the government spent almost 7 years unsuccessfully trying to nail Dr Stephen Hatfill as the source of the attack. The FBI threw everything but the kitchen sink at him. They got him fired from his job. They lifted his security clearance. They blackballed him from other employment. They released confidential information to the press about him to smear him. They exerted relentless pressure but throughout all that, Hatfill remained cooperative (he voluntarily allowed the FBI to search his home and computers). He consistently proclaimed his innocence, volunteered for polygraph tests and took his case to the public. AND HE WON. Eventually the FBI settled a lawsuit that gave Hatfill a $5.8 million dollar settlement. Obviously, for 7 YEARS the FBI didn't know the source of the anthrax. Didn't have a clue. They were barking up the wrong tree all along. And destroyed a man's life in their haste to find a domestic culprit ... any domestic culprit. Because domestic terrorism was the meme in that case.


After the Hatfill disaster, they went looking for another domestic source (instead of looking at the obvious, which was staring them in the face all along). They picked out Bruce Ivins (a poor scientist at Fort Detrick who was seeking methods to immunize populations against anthrax). They declared him the sole perpetrator of the anthrax attack. And then they began to do the same thing to him as they did to Hatfill. But Ivins wasn't as strong at Hatfill and in the end the pressure got to him. A colleague who worked in the bacteriology division of the Fort Detrick research facility said FBI agents "hounded" Ivins by twice raiding his home and that Ivins had been hospitalized for depression earlier in the month. He ended up committing suicide in 2008 shortly after being told he was going to be indicted on charges with a death penalty. His suicide made him the perfect patsy for the attack … one who couldn't fight back in court with facts. In fact, being dead, the FBI didn't even have to file formal charges to get their man. They just declared him the culprit.

 

But the FBI's case against Ivins wasn't very strong. It was PURELY circumstantial. It was based on the "similarity" of the anthrax strain he was working on to that found in the letters mailed shortly after 9/11. That's all. And the case hinged on the claim that he had access to the specialized equipment needed to weaponize anthrax (turn it into a very fine dry powder). The FBI claimed he did before he died and that was that. Case closed. He was the domestic perpetrator. But Richard Spertzel, former deputy commander of USAMRIID, said that the anthrax was too sophisticated to be produced by a lone researcher without relevant training. He said "In my opinion, there are maybe four or five people in the whole country who might be able to make this stuff, and I'm one of them. And even with a good lab and staff to help run it, it might take me a year to come up with a product as good." The spores in the Daschle letter were many times smaller than the finest known grade of anthrax produced by either the U.S. or Soviet bioweapons programs. The presence of the anti-clumping additive silicon in the anthrax samples also suggested a high degree of sophistication since specialists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory were unable to duplicate this property despite many attempts. Even some of the anthrax victims expressed doubt about Ivins being the culprit.

 

So due to the criticism, the FBI requested a panel of the National Academy of Science review it's work on the case. And in 2011 that panel concluded that "the Bureau overstated the strength of genetic analysis linking the mailed anthrax to a supply kept by Bruce E. Ivins." In fact, the panel's primary finding was that it "is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion about the origins of the B. anthracis in the mailings based on the available scientific evidence alone." In short, Ivins might not have been guilty after all. But the FBI showed no more interest in the case … in looking for the real culprit. Time to move on and avoid further embarrassments. Besides in 2011, during a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of the first anthrax victim against the government, the DOJ admitted that Ivins did NOT have access to the type of equipment needed to weaponize the anthrax (http://www.propublica.org/article/judge-allows-feds-to-revise-filing-in-anthrax-case ). So the FBI had LIED in it's haste to get Ivins, too. They ended up (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/anthrax-files/government-settles-anthrax-suit-for-2-5-million/ ) paying the family of the anthrax victim $2.5 million dollars to settle that wrongful death suit. Of course they denied making any mistakes in their investigation and as noted in the article above, were even allowed by the judge to amend their filing in order to eliminate their original admission that Ivins didn't have access to the equipment needed to weaponize the anthrax. You see, the government was desperate to close out the most expensive case in FBI history (costing over $100 million dollars to investigate and prosecute) and "move on" before further questions were asked about the case … questions that would point to Iraq and the 9/11 hijackers being involved. Because NONE of what the government claimed about Hatfill or Ivins explained the coincidences I mentioned above,

 

Now, *genius*, it’s a fact that a doctor and a pharmacist who treated Atta and another hijacker for a skin problem prior to 9/11, said later that the two had anthrax and a group of John Hopkin doctors issued a statement agreeing with that conclusion. When the contents of the John Hopkins memo became public, the conclusion was endorsed by D.A. Henderson, the top bioterrorism official at the Department of Health and Human Services, and Richard Spertzel, who presided over the inspection of Iraq's bio-weapons program as part of a United Nations team. Now how could they have contracted anthrax if they weren’t involved in the anthrax plot? And if they were, where did they get the anthrax? That’s the million dollar question. And the truth is that no other source than Iraq seems to fit the bill. So I suggest that al-Ani handed Atta a container full of anthrax for transport back to the US … a last minute add on by the Iraqis to the plot. It’s circumstantial evidence of Saddam’s connections because there is no way al-Ani handed over anthrax to Atta without Saddam’s approval. This scenario might also explain why Atta then inquired about renting a crop duster from a local airport … something the government has never explained. Atta was looking for some means to deliver this new addition, but time was a problem at that point and the group didn’t want to take their eyes off the ball. They didn’t have a good way of distributing the anthrax. Even asking about crop dusters might risk the whole operation. So I suggest they just stuffed envelopes with it and hoped for the best. There are no facts that contradict this possibility. If you have one, I’m all ears. BUT I KNOW YOU DON’T, *genius*.

 

Now let’s look at the precursor plots. A man named Abdul Rahman Yasin helped build the bombs used on the World Trade Center in 1993. He was born in the US but he was of Iraqi by heritage and shortly after his birth, his family moved back to Iraq. He grew up in Baghdad. The only reason he was in the US when he helped build the bomb is that he used his American birth citizenship to obtain a US passport from our embassy in Amman in 1992 and then used that to enter the US … just in time to take part in the WTC bombing. After the WTC attack, he immediately fled back to Baghdad. Documents found in Iraq after the invasion show he was put on the Iraqi government payroll and given a home. In addition, an ABC news stringer saw him there in 1994, outside his father's house, and learned from neighbors that he worked for the Iraqi government. He has not been seen since 2002. The FBI still has him on their most wanted list (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/abdul-rahman-yasin ), so if you happen to see him, be sure to do the patriotic thing, *genius*.

 

Ramzi Yousef, thought to be the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing plot, was known to his associates as "Rashid the Iraqi". Do you know why? Maybe this will give you a clue. When he arrived in the US he lacked a passport or visa that would allow him to enter the country. Instead, he presented an Iraqi passport (say it ain’t so!), that he told inspectors was phony and then claimed to be fleeing Saddam and needed asylum. And stupidly, the US officials allowed him to enter, where upon he met with the other conspirators and began assembling the bomb. After the bombing, authorities believe Yousef escaped first to Iraq (of course) and then Pakistan. He turned up again during the Bojinka plot ... the precursor to 9/11 … where they planned to bomb half a dozen or so passenger planes over the Pacific all at once. In December of 1994, Yousef personally conducted a trial run of Bojinka by smuggling aboard and assembling a bomb that exploded on the second leg of a commercial flight (after he'd disembarked). The bomb didn't bring down the jet but it was a close thing and it did kill one man. He then began assembling another dozen bombs, each with even more explosive power. But fortunately just a few weeks before the planned attack, a fire started in his apartment, forcing him to flee, leaving behind all the materials which were then discovered by firemen and police. And thus ended the Bojinka plot. But you might call that the second predecessor of the 9/11 plot (the WTC bombing being the first), as one might theorize that NOT capturing Yousef within a week after the WTC bombing eventually led to 9/11.

 

Think about it. Iraq would have been the perfect source of information on how to conduct the 9/11 attack because they'd previously been involved in plots involving the hijacking/destruction of US commercial jets. During the invasion we even found a mockup where they practiced such hijackings. And Iraq still considered itself at war with the US, so they had the motive to make such an attack. Iraq's leaders discussed the use of WMD against the US … against Washington DC in the late 90s. Furthermore, they discussed the use of 3rd parties to conduct such an attack. Is it at all a stretch to believe that they picked al-Qaeda to be that surrogate? And since they didn’t have WMD (at least that’s what you folks on the left keep insisting), is it a stretch to believe they decided to use planes instead? Certainly Saddam seem proud of the attack and the way it was carried out. He even put of murals glorifying it, with HIS image, not bin Laden’s, displayed by the result:

 

3rd-infantry-saddam-911.jpg

 

Now Yousef was caught in Pakistan in 1995 and sent to prison in the US. He was convicted to life in prison for his role in the Bojinka plot. And do you know what? He wasn't the only terrorist with ties to Iraq involved in that plot. The plot involved an Iraqi named Ahmad Hikmat Shakir. He worked at the airport in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia starting in 1999. And guess what? On January 5, 2000, he was videotaped meeting two of the 9/11 hijackers ... Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi ... at the Kuala Lampur airport. He then escorted them to a hotel where he stayed with them for several days. He was arrested in Qatar in September 2001. When interrogated, he claimed he got his job through Ra'ad al-Mudaris, another Iraqi (of course!) embassy employee in Malaysia. In Shakir's possession and in his apartment at the time of his arrest were documents on Operation Bojinka and the WTC bombing, as well as contact information for a number of high ranking al-Qaeda terrorists, including the brother of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a man named Abu Hajer al Iraqi (more on him in a moment). He also had contact information for Musab Yasin and Ibrahim Suleiman from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. At the time of that attack, Yasin lived in New Jersey with his brother, Abdul Rahman Yasin. Small world, isn't it?

 

Now amazingly, despite all this incriminating evidence, Shakir was released from custody. He was detained again on October 21, 2001, in Amman, Jordan, where he was scheduled to catch a flight to … guess where? … Baghdad. The Jordanians held Shakir for three months. The Iraqi regime took a great deal of interest and either requested or demanded--depending on who you ask--his release. The Jordanians finally set him free in late January 2002, at which point he returned to … guess where? … Baghdad, of course. Another man, Abu Hajer al Iraqi, was caught in Munich and tried in an American court ( http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/296fmttq.asp) under the name Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim. He was described by one detainee as Osama bin Laden's 'best friend.'" Now, why do you think Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim was also called Abu Hajer al Iraqi … ("the Iraqi")? Hmmmmm? Because he was an Iraqi. And according to that link, the Treasury Department found that he shared a bank account in Hamburg, Germany, with a man thought to have provided financing to three of the September 11 hijackers. Small world, isn't it? You starting to see the connection here, *GENIUS*?

 

So you want to try and tell us again that Iraq wasn’t involved in 9/11?

 

Go ahead, show us how much “common sense” you really have, Mr "right stuff".

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bush's administration was so serious about national security, Why did they wait until 9-4-2001 to meet with Richard Clarke?

What? Are you European, SM? By “9-4-2001”, you must mean April, 2001, because that is indeed when Clarke met with members of Bush administration on the topic of terrorism. But Clarke was so self important (goodness gracious, he thought he was of Presidential caliber, folks :rolleyes:) that he wanted to bypass the entire chain of command that had been established by the Clintons to deal with terrorism. And you can see given events NOW how difficult it is to get the chain of command re-established after an election when the other party is fighting your doing so (as the Clinton organization did where Bush was concerned). In response to Clarke’s concerns, he was told by Condoleezza Rice that the issue of terrorism would be addressed after it was framed by the “Deputies” (of the Principals Committee). That doesn't seem reasonable. And he was invited to the very first meeting of the Deputies Committee during the Bush Administration ... in April 2001. Everyone can see that you want to make a mountain out of a molehill and ignore everything that Clarke had said about what the Bush administration actually did regarding terrorism … that is, before he decided to write a book and run for President as a Democrat. Just saying …

 

And by the way, snowflake, Clarke has a very sorted past for you to be using him as a source for claims Bush dropped the ball.

 

Do you know (https://digwithin.net/2014/02/02/real-clarke/ ) that he

 

was personally behind the failure of two CIA attempts to kill or capture Bin Laden in 1999. The first of these occurred just a few days after Clarke’s visit to the UAE. The CIA obtained information that OBL was hunting with UAE royals in Afghanistan at the time, and President Clinton was asked for permission to attack the camp. According to author Steve Coll in his book Ghost Wars, Clarke voted down that plan and others within the U.S. government speculated that his ties to the UAE [bAC - you can read the details about that in the above link] were behind his decision.

 

The next month, when the CIA had tracked Bin Laden’s location again and was prepared to take him out during another of the Afghanistan hunting trips, Clarke took it upon himself to alert his UAE friends about the CIA monitoring their meetings with Bin Laden. Of course, the UAE royals tipped off Bin Laden and the U.S. lost another opportunity to kill or capture its number one enemy. Considering that CIA plans are top secret national security priorities, and that OBL was wanted for the bombings in East Africa, Clarke’s action should have been seen as treason.

 

When questioned by Congressman Richard Burr as part of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, Clarke was evasive about his actions to protect his UAE friends and bin Laden. The fact that Clarke was allowed to testify without being under oath, in a special agreement in which his comments were considered only a “briefing,” was itself telling.

 

Regarding the second attempt that Clarke had foiled, Burr asked, “Did the CIA, in fact, brief you that the camp was an ideal situation, that they did have real time intelligence, that the collateral damage would be extremely limited, involving only the camp facility? And as a follow-up [to] my last question, Mr. Clarke, did, in fact, you call the royal family and inform them of the information we had about the intelligence of that camp and that exercise?” Clarke replied, “I think those facts are slightly wrong,” clarifying that the information the CIA had was not exactly real-time yet essentially admitting that he tipped off the UAE royals.

 

Somehow, Clarke’s two efforts to keep OBL from being captured or killed in 1999 slipped his mind when he testified to the 9/11 Commission. Apparently, those events were also not important enough to mention to Bill Maher when suggesting that Bin Laden relied on such tips from rogue, retired intelligence officials.

 

Whether he was protecting his UAE friends or not, Clarke failed to act on information about al Qaeda operatives living in the United States. After an al Qaeda “millennium plot” was said to be broken up in Jordan, Clarke authorized an investigation of one of the plotters, Khalil Deek, who lived in Anaheim, California for most of the 1990s. The investigative team reported to Clarke and the NSC directly in December, 1999, stating that Deek’s next door neighbor was operating an al Qaeda sleeper cell in Anaheim. No action was taken by Clarke or the NSC.

 

A few months later, in April 2000, Clarke was quoted in the Washington Post as saying that terrorists “will come after our weakness, our Achilles Heel, which is largely here in the United States.” Although this was a bold statement, it was unfortunate that Clarke did not have time to arrest the terrorists that he knew were living and plotting in the United States.

 

In late May 2001, Clarke wrote a memorandum to Condoleezza Rice and her assistant, Stephen Hadley. The title of the memo was “Stopping Abu Zubaydah’s Attacks.” Cited as part of the evidence that the “System was Blinking Red,” the 9/11 Commission said the memo claimed that Zubaydah was preparing to launch “a series of major terrorist attacks” and, when they occurred, “we will wonder what more we could have done to stop them.”

 

Clarke went on to write in his 2004 book Against All Enemies that Zubaydah, whose torture testimony presumably led to the capture of KSM and others, was one of “al Qaeda’s top operational managers.”

 

Apparently, all of those claims were false as the U.S. government said in 2009 that Zubaydah was never associated with al Qaeda in any way. Clarke has not said a word about Zubaydah since that time.

 

Some might wonder why Clarke never thought of his good friends within the UAE royal family, who met with OBL regularly, as sources on al Qaeda. Surely people who met with OBL personally in the two years before 9/11, and were big supporters of al Qaeda like Clarke’s friend Al-Maktoum, might have had some information to provide. Another reason to suspect such knowledge is that, although only two of the alleged 9/11 terrorists were said to be citizens of the UAE, nearly all of the alleged hijackers arrived in the United States by traveling through the UAE.

Looks like both you and the *genius* need to get a clue, snowflake.

 

Joe, I thought your post on finding the optimal Minimum wage was spot on. I'm sorry it skipped the heads of others.here.

LOL!

 

julien-berthier-love-love-sinking-ship-1

 

^^^^^ ScottMoN is aboard the USS *Dr*JoeB.

 

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr.joeb plans on dusting off his copy of "Against All Enemies" and make quotes from it that show what Richard Clarke was really thinking. The cherry picked questions that Clarke answered were only designed to illicit from Clarke what they wanted to hear. Clarke carefully avoided saying anything that could be interpreted as libelous. However, his book gives an accurate account of his actual experience when he transferred from being the Anti-Terrorist chief for Clinton to the same job for the Bush/Cheney administration. He was totally ignored working for the Bush/Cheney administration. And that motivated him to write the book to clear the air regarding the negligent behavior of the Bush/Cheney administration that no doubt made it easy to create their much wanted Pearl Harbor in the USA. Clarke explains that all the Bush/Cheney consortium wanted him to do was implicate Hussein in the 9-11 knowing very well that it simply was not so. Hussein's people had no contact with Atta unlike a false report generated through supporters of the Bush/Cheney liars. They lied thousands of good people to death. According to the prosecutor Bugliosi what they did was prosecutable as murder. But big presidential power gets away with most anything . Witness the Trump abomination on our democracy, for example. Hopefully, things will be reversed and like Nixon there will be an impeachment of Trump and prosecution with no pardons like what happened with Nixon.

 

Dr.joeb feels an obligation to tell the truth to the lies perpetrated by whoever took the time to write up a sanitized interview conducted probably by Fox Network with Clarke. Clarke tells you exactly what he confronted in his experience in the White House. He was totally ignored despite knowing that Al Qaeda was planning a big event. Bush/Cheney were part of the Project for A New American Century (PNAC) that had meetings that strategized on how to trump (no pun intended) up a war in Iraq. The Saudis who actually blew up our twin towers were very close to the PNAC group. Oil interest was behind the real objective of PNAC. Ousting Iraq opened the door to a sole source contract for saving Halliburton from bankruptcy while funneling profits into the Texas/Saudi oil interests. Capping Iraq's oil wells created demand that was mostly satisfied by Texas/Saudi oil interests. Venezuela also became an enemy because of its oil production. Pat Robertson considered it his mission to find a way to get the president of Venezuela assassinated. That was funny objective for a man who considered himself a great Christian leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Are you European, SM? By “9-4-2001”, you must mean April, 2001, because that is indeed when Clarke met with members of Bush administration on the topic of terrorism. But Clarke was so self important (goodness gracious, he thought he was of Presidential caliber, folks :rolleyes:) that he wanted to bypass the entire chain of command that had been established by the Clintons to deal with terrorism. And you can see given events NOW how difficult it is to get the chain of command re-established after an election when the other party is fighting your doing so (as the Clinton organization did where Bush was concerned). In response to Clarke’s concerns, he was told by Condoleezza Rice that the issue of terrorism would be addressed after it was framed by the “Deputies” (of the Principals Committee). That doesn't seem reasonable. And he was invited to the very first meeting of the Deputies Committee during the Bush Administration ... in April 2001. Everyone can see that you want to make a mountain out of a molehill and ignore everything that Clarke had said about what the Bush administration actually did regarding terrorism … that is, before he decided to write a book and run for President as a Democrat. Just saying …

 

And by the way, snowflake, Clarke has a very sorted past for you to be using him as a source for claims Bush dropped the ball.

 

Do you know (https://digwithin.net/2014/02/02/real-clarke/ ) that he

 

 

Looks like both you and the *genius* need to get a clue, snowflake.

 

 

LOL!

 

julien-berthier-love-love-sinking-ship-1

 

^^^^^ ScottMoN is aboard the USS *Dr*JoeB.

 

:P

Your lies are duly noted! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk man

Trump has done more good than any potus lately

Killed the TPP

According to the reports on the last g20 meeting, he isn't lying about tariffs

I'm a protectionist

I am excited to see tariffs raised

Slashing UN funding is fantastic

 

If he does absolutely nothing else then he still has done more good for We the People than has been done in 40 years

 

I didn't even vote trump

I just call it how I see it

 

So not sure if a trump contaminated GOP is a bad thing

 

 

 

YOUR BLIND

 

 

TO ORIGIONAL POST

 

IT'S SIMPLE:..............DEMOCRATCS ARE FOR PEOPLE

 

REPUBLICANS ARE FOR CORPORATIONS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr.joeb plans on dusting off his copy of "Against All Enemies" and make quotes from it that show what Richard Clarke was really thinking.

By all means, do so.

 

Of course, what I quoted him saying was said BEFORE he wrote that book and before he decided to run for President … as a DemocRAT …

 

... in other words, before he decided his interests lay with trying to smear Bush, like a good little DemocRAT for personal gain.

 

However, his book gives an accurate account of his actual experience when he transferred from being the Anti-Terrorist chief for Clinton to the same job for the Bush/Cheney administration.

LOL! You seem intent on digging a hole for your credibility.

 

No one can stop you from believing that. Truthers will be Truthers.

 

But just how accurate is his book, *genius*?

 

How do you *know* it is accurate?

 

The following certainly doesn’t inspire confidence.

 

In it, for example, he states (at least 3 times) that Pan Am 103 was destroyed in 1989 “during the first Bush’s presidency.” Is that an statement accurate? Because I clearly recall Pan Am 103 being blown up in December of 1988 … during Reagan’s presidency. And in wasn’t just in his book that he made this false claim. In testimony before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the US in March of 2004 (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4595173/ns/us_news-security/t/richard-clarke-prepared-testimony/#.WNFgKbQ-Ci4 ) he stated “In 1989, 259 people were killed on Pan Am 103.” In a Salon interview the same year (http://www.salon.com/2004/03/25/clarke_moveon/ ) he stated “It was relatively few compared to the 259 dead on Pan Am 103 in the first Bush administration”. If he can get something that easy to check wrong, over and over, why should we trust anything he had to say in his book? It just proves that his motive was to attack Bush regardless of the facts. That he would make up *facts* to do it … just like you, *genius*.

 

Clarke also claims in his book that the 1982 US intervention in Lebanon was due to concerns about Iran. That's false. Israel had invaded Lebanon to expel the PLO. The US mediated a deal for the withdrawal of Palestinian guerrillas in exchange for an end to the Israeli siege of Beirut. We intervened to monitor/aid that withdrawal. That’s was the reason for the intervention. Iran didn’t have a damn thing to do it ... not with the initial intervention. So strike 2 for the so-called *accuracy* of Clarke's book. And Clarke makes many other factual errors in his book.

 

For example, he claims that El Sayyid Nosair murdered Jewish leader Meir Kahane in New York in 1992. Sorry, but that occurred in 1990. To bolster his claim after 9/11 that he had vigorously pursued the possibility of Iraq’s involvement in World Trade Center bombing, Clarke wrote a memo stating that “[W]hen the bombing happened,” he “focused on Iraq as the possible culprit because of Iraqi involvement in the attempted assassination of President Bush in Kuwait in the same month.” But again he has his dates wrong. As Wolfowitz noted during the 9/11 Commission hearings, Iraq’s attempted assassination of Bush was two months AFTER the Trade Center bombing. I hate to tell you Joe, but this guy’s a charlatan whose only purpose in writing that book was to create a hit piece against Bush with which he could launch his presidential campaign.

 

The book is so dishonest that he claims that Clinton’s attack on the Iraqi intelligence headquarters in June 1993 ended Iraq’s involvement in terrorism. EVERYONE, except perhaps you and him, know that to be absolutely false. The book is so dishonest that he claims the WTC 1993 bombing was an al Qaeda operation. Al Qaeda had nothing to do it. Osama denied even knowing Yousef before the bombing … and he was never shy about claiming responsibility for attacks. The Justice Department did not indict bin Laden for the crime. There are very few connections to Saudis but there are plenty of connections to Iraq, which Clarke ignored. Clarke mentions the guy who helped build the WTC bombs (Abdul Rahman Yasin) but fails to mention that he was Iraqi and grew up in Baghdad. Then Clarke makes the false claim that Yasin was “incarcerated by Saddam Hussein’s regime” upon returning to Baghdad. NOT TRUE. Documents found in Iraq after the invasion show he was put on the Iraqi government payroll and given a home. In fact, an ABC news stringer saw him there in 1994, outside his father's house, and learned from neighbors that he worked for the Iraqi government. All of this was public knowledge when Clarke wrote his book. Rather than Google the truth, he just made up *facts* to fit his dishonest anti-Bush, anti-War meme. Indeed, given his position in the Clinton counter terrorism community, he must have known the truth when he wrote his book. So he outright lied. Indeed, Clarke admitted to the the 9/11 Commission that "The Iraqi government didn't cooperate in turning him [Yasin} over, and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists." He knew the truth when he wrote his book but the truth didn't fit the meme SO HE LIED because lying made the hit piece more in line with what his would be voter base wanted to see.

 

He was totally ignored working for the Bush/Cheney administration. And that motivated him to write the book to clear the air regarding the negligent behavior of the Bush/Cheney administration that no doubt made it easy to create their much wanted Pearl Harbor in the USA.

Yeah, repeat the meme, *genius*. Because that's all you have. What you’re really doing now is digging that hole for your credibility even deeper. Sad but true. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

YOUR BLIND

 

 

 

TO ORIGIONAL POST

 

IT'S SIMPLE:..............DEMOCRATCS ARE FOR PEOPLE

 

REPUBLICANS ARE FOR CORPORATIONS

really?

Dems are for all of this corporate WTO run free trade

Good god man

Obama didn't even want an anti slavery clause in that disgusting TPP

So you are just being biased hoping I couldn't point out your bullshit

Wake up

Grow up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, repeat the meme, *genius*. Because that's all you have. What you’re really doing now is digging that hole for your credibility even deeper. Sad but true. :D

^^^ Doesn't know that Dr Rice finally scheduled a meeting with Richard Clarke for September 4, 2001.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! You really are stuck on stupid, *genius*. You have absolutely no proof of that. But what there is proof of is Iraq’s involvement in a plot to bomb multiple airplanes, a plot to bring down the WTC towers with bombs, the plot to fly planes into the targets of 9/11 and the anthrax attack that followed 9/11. The proof was sufficient to convince a court in the US of Iraq’s involvement.

 

Let’s look at some of that evidence.

 

An article was published by a newspaper owned by Saddam's son just months before 9/11 that predicted the targets of 9/11 and hinted at the means of their destruction. Do you remember that, *genius*? The author was an Iraqi, Mulhalhal, with ties to Iraqi intelligence, who stated bin Laden would “demolish the Pentagon after he destroys the White House and” that bin Laden would strike America “on the arm that is already hurting” (a clear reference to the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993). Another reference to New York was “[bin Laden] will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs.” (e.g., “New York, New York”) which identified New York City as a target. Mulhalhal also stated, “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer," which clearly suggests an airplane attack was planned. How could these Iraqis have had such foreknowledge of the attack details without Iraq being involved at some level in 9/11 or being told by Osama what was planned?

 

We know that the Hamburg cell of al-Qaeda was involved in 9/11 and included Mohammed Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers. His travel documents into Czechoslovakia identified him as a "Hamburg Student". A meeting with a "Hamburg Student" was mentioned in the Day Calendar of Iraqi intelligence officer "al-Ani" on the exact date when he purportedly (according to Czech intelligence, who still stand by this claim) met with Atta in Prague shortly before 9/11. al-Ani was known for handling “special projects”. What could be more special than 9/11? The ONLY facts ever offered to prove Atta was not in Prague at the time, is the use of his cell phone in the US during that time and the fact that there is no record of his movements overseas. But his cell phone wouldn't have worked overseas and since he shared everything with his US associates (including apartments, bank accounts, etc) he could have just left the cell phone in the US and let them use it. And while there is no record of his movements in Europe, there is also no record of his movements in the US during that time. For a 7 day period he simply disappeared from the US … immediately after withdrawing thousands of dollars in cash from his bank account … just the amount of money he'd have needed for a clandestine trip to Europe. We know that Atta had access to bogus passports and other documents that would have been needed to travel incognito and while there is only one eyewitness saying he was in Prague, there are NO eyewitnesses to his presence in the US at the time.

 

So what if Atta did go to Europe and meet al-Ani? Eh, *genius*? Then the question is why? Why would he do so, just a short time before the all important 9/11 date? Atta didn’t need more funding for the plot at that point. The plot was all set to go. The people were trained. The pieces were all in place. It was just a matter of staying below the radar and waiting for the right moment. What could have spurred Atta to take the risk of returning to Europe? Eh, *genius*? Well perhaps Iraq decided to make a last minute add-on to the plot … the addition of anthrax. The anthrax attack certainly looked like an add-on. It wasn’t very well thought out if you think about it. It seemed to be something done in haste and without much planning. And what a coincidence that Atta and other 9/11 hijackers just happened to be living only miles from the first case of anthrax (Bob Stephens, photo editor of The Sun, a subsidiary of American Media located in Boca Raton, Florida). What a coincidence that the letters were mailed from areas the hijackers were in before 9/11 … Delray Beach, Boca Raton and Fort Lauderdale. In fact, there was even contact between two of the hijackers and the wife an American Media editor. She rented an apartment to them. Seems like an awful lot of coincidences to simply ignore, don’t you think, *genius*?

 

Can we be sure Atta wasn't handed the anthrax used in 9/11 by al-Ani? We know the Iraqis had the means to produce that sort of anthrax. In fact, few other likely suspects did have that means. The government’s case for a domestic source for that anthrax completely fell apart. First the government spent almost 7 years unsuccessfully trying to nail Dr Stephen Hatfill as the source of the attack. The FBI threw everything but the kitchen sink at him. They got him fired from his job. They lifted his security clearance. They blackballed him from other employment. They released confidential information to the press about him to smear him. They exerted relentless pressure but throughout all that, Hatfill remained cooperative (he voluntarily allowed the FBI to search his home and computers). He consistently proclaimed his innocence, volunteered for polygraph tests and took his case to the public. AND HE WON. Eventually the FBI settled a lawsuit that gave Hatfill a $5.8 million dollar settlement. Obviously, for 7 YEARS the FBI didn't know the source of the anthrax. Didn't have a clue. They were barking up the wrong tree all along. And destroyed a man's life in their haste to find a domestic culprit ... any domestic culprit. Because domestic terrorism was the meme in that case.


After the Hatfill disaster, they went looking for another domestic source (instead of looking at the obvious, which was staring them in the face all along). They picked out Bruce Ivins (a poor scientist at Fort Detrick who was seeking methods to immunize populations against anthrax). They declared him the sole perpetrator of the anthrax attack. And then they began to do the same thing to him as they did to Hatfill. But Ivins wasn't as strong at Hatfill and in the end the pressure got to him. A colleague who worked in the bacteriology division of the Fort Detrick research facility said FBI agents "hounded" Ivins by twice raiding his home and that Ivins had been hospitalized for depression earlier in the month. He ended up committing suicide in 2008 shortly after being told he was going to be indicted on charges with a death penalty. His suicide made him the perfect patsy for the attack … one who couldn't fight back in court with facts. In fact, being dead, the FBI didn't even have to file formal charges to get their man. They just declared him the culprit.

 

But the FBI's case against Ivins wasn't very strong. It was PURELY circumstantial. It was based on the "similarity" of the anthrax strain he was working on to that found in the letters mailed shortly after 9/11. That's all. And the case hinged on the claim that he had access to the specialized equipment needed to weaponize anthrax (turn it into a very fine dry powder). The FBI claimed he did before he died and that was that. Case closed. He was the domestic perpetrator. But Richard Spertzel, former deputy commander of USAMRIID, said that the anthrax was too sophisticated to be produced by a lone researcher without relevant training. He said "In my opinion, there are maybe four or five people in the whole country who might be able to make this stuff, and I'm one of them. And even with a good lab and staff to help run it, it might take me a year to come up with a product as good." The spores in the Daschle letter were many times smaller than the finest known grade of anthrax produced by either the U.S. or Soviet bioweapons programs. The presence of the anti-clumping additive silicon in the anthrax samples also suggested a high degree of sophistication since specialists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory were unable to duplicate this property despite many attempts. Even some of the anthrax victims expressed doubt about Ivins being the culprit.

 

So due to the criticism, the FBI requested a panel of the National Academy of Science review it's work on the case. And in 2011 that panel concluded that "the Bureau overstated the strength of genetic analysis linking the mailed anthrax to a supply kept by Bruce E. Ivins." In fact, the panel's primary finding was that it "is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion about the origins of the B. anthracis in the mailings based on the available scientific evidence alone." In short, Ivins might not have been guilty after all. But the FBI showed no more interest in the case … in looking for the real culprit. Time to move on and avoid further embarrassments. Besides in 2011, during a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of the first anthrax victim against the government, the DOJ admitted that Ivins did NOT have access to the type of equipment needed to weaponize the anthrax (http://www.propublica.org/article/judge-allows-feds-to-revise-filing-in-anthrax-case ). So the FBI had LIED in it's haste to get Ivins, too. They ended up (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/anthrax-files/government-settles-anthrax-suit-for-2-5-million/ ) paying the family of the anthrax victim $2.5 million dollars to settle that wrongful death suit. Of course they denied making any mistakes in their investigation and as noted in the article above, were even allowed by the judge to amend their filing in order to eliminate their original admission that Ivins didn't have access to the equipment needed to weaponize the anthrax. You see, the government was desperate to close out the most expensive case in FBI history (costing over $100 million dollars to investigate and prosecute) and "move on" before further questions were asked about the case … questions that would point to Iraq and the 9/11 hijackers being involved. Because NONE of what the government claimed about Hatfill or Ivins explained the coincidences I mentioned above,

 

Now, *genius*, it’s a fact that a doctor and a pharmacist who treated Atta and another hijacker for a skin problem prior to 9/11, said later that the two had anthrax and a group of John Hopkin doctors issued a statement agreeing with that conclusion. When the contents of the John Hopkins memo became public, the conclusion was endorsed by D.A. Henderson, the top bioterrorism official at the Department of Health and Human Services, and Richard Spertzel, who presided over the inspection of Iraq's bio-weapons program as part of a United Nations team. Now how could they have contracted anthrax if they weren’t involved in the anthrax plot? And if they were, where did they get the anthrax? That’s the million dollar question. And the truth is that no other source than Iraq seems to fit the bill. So I suggest that al-Ani handed Atta a container full of anthrax for transport back to the US … a last minute add on by the Iraqis to the plot. It’s circumstantial evidence of Saddam’s connections because there is no way al-Ani handed over anthrax to Atta without Saddam’s approval. This scenario might also explain why Atta then inquired about renting a crop duster from a local airport … something the government has never explained. Atta was looking for some means to deliver this new addition, but time was a problem at that point and the group didn’t want to take their eyes off the ball. They didn’t have a good way of distributing the anthrax. Even asking about crop dusters might risk the whole operation. So I suggest they just stuffed envelopes with it and hoped for the best. There are no facts that contradict this possibility. If you have one, I’m all ears. BUT I KNOW YOU DON’T, *genius*.

 

Now let’s look at the precursor plots. A man named Abdul Rahman Yasin helped build the bombs used on the World Trade Center in 1993. He was born in the US but he was of Iraqi by heritage and shortly after his birth, his family moved back to Iraq. He grew up in Baghdad. The only reason he was in the US when he helped build the bomb is that he used his American birth citizenship to obtain a US passport from our embassy in Amman in 1992 and then used that to enter the US … just in time to take part in the WTC bombing. After the WTC attack, he immediately fled back to Baghdad. Documents found in Iraq after the invasion show he was put on the Iraqi government payroll and given a home. In addition, an ABC news stringer saw him there in 1994, outside his father's house, and learned from neighbors that he worked for the Iraqi government. He has not been seen since 2002. The FBI still has him on their most wanted list (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/abdul-rahman-yasin ), so if you happen to see him, be sure to do the patriotic thing, *genius*.

 

Ramzi Yousef, thought to be the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing plot, was known to his associates as "Rashid the Iraqi". Do you know why? Maybe this will give you a clue. When he arrived in the US he lacked a passport or visa that would allow him to enter the country. Instead, he presented an Iraqi passport (say it ain’t so!), that he told inspectors was phony and then claimed to be fleeing Saddam and needed asylum. And stupidly, the US officials allowed him to enter, where upon he met with the other conspirators and began assembling the bomb. After the bombing, authorities believe Yousef escaped first to Iraq (of course) and then Pakistan. He turned up again during the Bojinka plot ... the precursor to 9/11 … where they planned to bomb half a dozen or so passenger planes over the Pacific all at once. In December of 1994, Yousef personally conducted a trial run of Bojinka by smuggling aboard and assembling a bomb that exploded on the second leg of a commercial flight (after he'd disembarked). The bomb didn't bring down the jet but it was a close thing and it did kill one man. He then began assembling another dozen bombs, each with even more explosive power. But fortunately just a few weeks before the planned attack, a fire started in his apartment, forcing him to flee, leaving behind all the materials which were then discovered by firemen and police. And thus ended the Bojinka plot. But you might call that the second predecessor of the 9/11 plot (the WTC bombing being the first), as one might theorize that NOT capturing Yousef within a week after the WTC bombing eventually led to 9/11.

 

Think about it. Iraq would have been the perfect source of information on how to conduct the 9/11 attack because they'd previously been involved in plots involving the hijacking/destruction of US commercial jets. During the invasion we even found a mockup where they practiced such hijackings. And Iraq still considered itself at war with the US, so they had the motive to make such an attack. Iraq's leaders discussed the use of WMD against the US … against Washington DC in the late 90s. Furthermore, they discussed the use of 3rd parties to conduct such an attack. Is it at all a stretch to believe that they picked al-Qaeda to be that surrogate? And since they didn’t have WMD (at least that’s what you folks on the left keep insisting), is it a stretch to believe they decided to use planes instead? Certainly Saddam seem proud of the attack and the way it was carried out. He even put of murals glorifying it, with HIS image, not bin Laden’s, displayed by the result:

 

3rd-infantry-saddam-911.jpg

 

Now Yousef was caught in Pakistan in 1995 and sent to prison in the US. He was convicted to life in prison for his role in the Bojinka plot. And do you know what? He wasn't the only terrorist with ties to Iraq involved in that plot. The plot involved an Iraqi named Ahmad Hikmat Shakir. He worked at the airport in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia starting in 1999. And guess what? On January 5, 2000, he was videotaped meeting two of the 9/11 hijackers ... Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi ... at the Kuala Lampur airport. He then escorted them to a hotel where he stayed with them for several days. He was arrested in Qatar in September 2001. When interrogated, he claimed he got his job through Ra'ad al-Mudaris, another Iraqi (of course!) embassy employee in Malaysia. In Shakir's possession and in his apartment at the time of his arrest were documents on Operation Bojinka and the WTC bombing, as well as contact information for a number of high ranking al-Qaeda terrorists, including the brother of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a man named Abu Hajer al Iraqi (more on him in a moment). He also had contact information for Musab Yasin and Ibrahim Suleiman from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. At the time of that attack, Yasin lived in New Jersey with his brother, Abdul Rahman Yasin. Small world, isn't it?

 

Now amazingly, despite all this incriminating evidence, Shakir was released from custody. He was detained again on October 21, 2001, in Amman, Jordan, where he was scheduled to catch a flight to … guess where? … Baghdad. The Jordanians held Shakir for three months. The Iraqi regime took a great deal of interest and either requested or demanded--depending on who you ask--his release. The Jordanians finally set him free in late January 2002, at which point he returned to … guess where? … Baghdad, of course. Another man, Abu Hajer al Iraqi, was caught in Munich and tried in an American court ( http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/296fmttq.asp) under the name Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim. He was described by one detainee as Osama bin Laden's 'best friend.'" Now, why do you think Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim was also called Abu Hajer al Iraqi … ("the Iraqi")? Hmmmmm? Because he was an Iraqi. And according to that link, the Treasury Department found that he shared a bank account in Hamburg, Germany, with a man thought to have provided financing to three of the September 11 hijackers. Small world, isn't it? You starting to see the connection here, *GENIUS*?

 

So you want to try and tell us again that Iraq wasn’t involved in 9/11?

 

Go ahead, show us how much “common sense” you really have, Mr "right stuff".

 

:D

Let me get this straight B.. You are saying Bush knew 9-11 was going to happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ Doesn't know that Dr Rice finally scheduled a meeting with Richard Clarke for September 4, 2001.

 

LOL! I knew that Rice met with Clarke in September 2001, but you claimed the Bush administration did not meet with Clarke until 9-4-2001. That’s what I was responding to and that's false. I, unlike you, apparently knew that Clarke met with the "Bush administration" in APRIL of 2001 to discuss national security. Clarke himself told Newsweek that he attended “a top level” meeting in April 2001 to discuss terrorism ( http://web.archive.org/web/20040401142034/http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040321/nysu007a_1.html ). This meeting is also confirmed by CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-fights-terror-claims/ ) which states “In April 2001, Clarke met with deputy secretaries.” I suggested that you meant April by 9-4-2001 to give you the benefit of the doubt. It seemed possible given that in Europe they put the day first, followed by the month, and they also sometimes use dashes “-“ instead of slashes “/“ between the parts of the date. But if you meant September, then you apparently didn’t know when Clarke first meet with the Bush administration. Then you just made a fool of yourself again. What’s it like making a fool of yourself nearly every time you post, snowflake? :D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

LOL! I knew that Rice met with Clarke in September 2001, but you claimed the Bush administration did not meet with Clarke until 9-4-2001. That’s what I was responding to and that's false. I, unlike you, apparently knew that Clarke met with the "Bush administration" in APRIL of 2001 to discuss national security. Clarke himself told Newsweek that he attended “a top level” meeting in April 2001 to discuss terrorism ( http://web.archive.org/web/20040401142034/http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040321/nysu007a_1.html ). This meeting is also confirmed by CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-fights-terror-claims/ ) which states “In April 2001, Clarke met with deputy secretaries.” I suggested that you meant April by 9-402001 to give you the benefit of the doubt. It seemed possible given that in Europe they put the day first, followed by the month, and they also sometimes use dashes “-“ instead of slashes “/“ between the parts of the date. But if you meant September, then you apparently didn’t know when Clarke first meet with the Bush administration. Then you just made a fool of yourself again. What’s it like making a fool of yourself nearly every time you post, snowflake? :D

 

 

Let me rephrase. Clarke didn't get to discuss Al-Qeada with Dr Rice until 9-4-2001. As per your link.

 

Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism chief of the national-security staff, tells Newsweek that at an April 2001 top-level meeting to discuss terrorism, his effort to focus on Al Qaeda was rebuffed by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. According to Clarke, Wolfowitz said, "Who cares about a little terrorist in Afghanistan?" The real threat, Wolfowitz insisted, was state-sponsored terrorism orchestrated by Saddam Hussein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To JTZILLA find a nice mental institution that will medicate you and keep you from harming yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr.joeb fetched his copy of Clarke's book "Against All Enemies". Let us begin with the dust jacket first because it gives a poignant description of what Clarke was thinking during the Bush 9-11 period.

 

BEGIN QUOTE: Wolfowitz fidgeted and scowled....."Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden."

"We are talking about a network of terrorist organizations called al Qaeda, that happens to be led by bin Laden, and we are talking about that network because it and it alone poses an immediate and serious threat to the United States, " I answered.

Wolfowitz turned to me. "You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist." I (Clarke) could hardly believe it, but Wolfowitz was actually spouting the totally discredited Laurie Mylroie theory that Iraq was behind the 1993 truck bomb at the World Trade Center, a theory that had been investigated for years and found to be totally untrue.

END QUOTE

 

Wolfowitz was one of the big players in the PNAC group that planned the second war on Iraq.

 

Here is another quote from the dust jacket.

 

BEGIN QUOTE: "The (Bush) administration has squandered the opportunity to eliminate al Qaeda.... A new al Qaeda has emerged and is growing stronger, in part because of our own actions and inactions. It is in many ways a tougher opponent than the original threat we faced before September 11, and we are not doing what is necessary to make America safe from that threat."

 

No one has more authority to make that claim than Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar for both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The one person who knows more about Usama bin Laden and al Qaeda than anyone else in this country, he has devoted two decades of his professional life to combating terrorism. Richard Clarke served seven presidents and worked inside the White House for George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush until he resigned in March 2003. He knows, better than anyone, the hidden successes and failures of the Clinton years. He knows, better than anyone, why he failed to prevent 9/11. He knows, better than anyone, how President Bush reacted to the attack and what happened behind the scenes in the days that followed. He knows whether or not Iraq presented a terrorist threat to the United States and whether there were hidden costs to the invasion of that country.

 

Most disturbing of all are Clarke's revelations about the Bush administration's lack of interest in al Qaeda prior to September 11. From the moment the Bush team took office and decided to retain Clarke in his post as the counterterrorism czar, Clarke tried to persuade them to take al Qaeda as seriously as had Bill Clinton. For months, he was denied the opportunity even to make his case to Bush. He encountered key officials who gave the impression that they had never heard of al Qaeda; who focused incessantly on Iraq; who even advocated long-discredited conspiracy theories about Saddam's involvement in previous attacks on the United States.

 

Clarke was the nation's crisis manager on 9/11 running the Situation Room--a scene described here for the first time---and then watched in dismay at what followed. After ignoring existing plans to attack al Qaeda when he first took office, George Bush made disastrous decisions when he finally did pay attention. Coming from a man known as one of the hard-liners against terrorists, Against All Enemies is both a powerful history of our two-decades-long confrontation with terrorism and a searing indictment of the current (Bush/Cheney) administration

 

END QUOTE FROM DUST JACKET

 

We all know now who finally put the al Qaeda group to rest. Obama made the decision that cut the funding for al Qaeda when he allowed our Navy Seals to assassinate Osama bin Laden. Without a funding source al Qaeda still exists but is not any where close to being the danger that it once was.

 

The dust jacket totally obliterates the foolish message that gave the cherry picked questioning interview of Clarke. Clarke's book gives his real thoughts on the Bush/Cheney lack of real effort to stop 9/11 despite over 50 warnings from a variety of sources. They lied us into an unnecessary war and gave Osama bin Laden free hand to commit multiple terrorist acts by his supporters. Bugliosi makes a good case for convicting George Bush jr. of murder. Bugliosi points out that he prosecuted and convicted Charlie Manson for murder without him even being present at the murder. I.e. you don't even have to be at the murder and know who was murdered to be convicted of murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me rephrase.

LOL! You’re so transparently dishonest, SM. And such a weasel. :D

 

Clarke didn't get to discuss Al-Qeada with Dr Rice until 9-4-2001. As per your link.

No, that’s only what Clarke claimed per the link. Time Magazine reported (http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,603224,00.html ) that “a spokesperson for Wolfowitz told TIME that "The allegation that [Wolfowitz] dismissed the threat from al-Qaeda is false," and a senior Administration official present at the meeting insisted that "Wolfowitz couldn't possibly have said it, because it goes directly counter to what he believed.”” Wolfowitz was quoted by NBC News saying “It just seems to be another instance where Mr. Clarke's memory is playing tricks.”

 

Fact is, snowflake, that Richard Clarke is a self serving liar. He told the 9/11 Commission and the media in 2004 that at the beginning of Bush’s first term, he had presented paperwork to Bush on a strategy for dealing with al Qaeda. He testified that he told Bush: " ... and I said, well, you know, we've had this strategy ready ... ahh ... since before you were inaugurated. I showed it to you. You have the paperwork. We can have a meeting on the strategy anytime you want." But in August 2002, TWO YEARS EARLIER, he told Jim Angle of Fox News this: "I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush Administration." And Jim Angle had an audio tape of the interview that proved Clarke said that (http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/03/24/transcript-clarke-praises-bush-team-in-02.html ). Only one of those statements can be true, and it’s far more likely to have been the first one, don’t you think, snowflake?

 

And keep in mind that Clarke also told Angle that the Bush administration had decided in mid-January 2001 to do two things to respond to the threat of terrorism: "One, to vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all the lethal covert action finds which we have now made public, to some extent; the second thing the administration decided to do was to initiate a process to look at these issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.” In other words, Clarke was saying in 2002 that the Bush administration's response to the war on terror was more aggressive than it was during the Clinton years and that Bush was NOT ignoring the terrorism problem. Clarke only began singing a different tune when in 2004 he decided to write a book for personal gain.

 

In the August 2002 briefing to Angle, Clark also stated that “When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that triggered the NSPD (National Security Presidential Directive) from one of roll back to one of elimination." In other words, the directive from the President in March of 2001 was to stop swatting at flies and to eliminate al Qaeda. This is what Clarke called ignoring al Qaeda and doing “virtually nothing” in 2004. :rolleyes:

 

And at the very end of the 2002 Clarke interview with Angle (which I linked above), Jim Angle said “So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the months just after the administration came into office?” And Clarke responded “You got it. That’s right.” That right there proves that Clarke’s 2004 book is not reliable AT ALL, SM. It’s a lie filled hit piece on Bush that Clarke’s own words prove is untrue. He apparently forgot he said those words just like he forget when the Pan Am bombing occurred. And beside, he personally was in charge of counterterrorism for 8 years under Clinton. I ask you ... why should the Bush administration be to blamed for Clarke’s failure to deal with al-Qaida the previous 8 years? Have YOU “got it”, snowflake? :D

image_20170131_073829_3888.png

 

You, I think I'll just ignore at this point. Besides, what I wrote to SM above proves Clarke's book is nothing but a pile of manure. You should read it. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

\


 

You, I think I'll just ignore at this point. Besides, what I wrote to SM above proves Clarke's book is nothing but a pile of manure. You should read it. :D

You proved nothing other than the fact that you can't handle having your opinions challenged, "Snowflake." :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You proved nothing other than the fact that you can't handle having your opinions challenged, "Snowflake." :D

 

 

Weak, SM. WEAK. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon folks.. Dr Joe's thread shouldn't be trashed with oneliners.. (Sorry Dr Joe.. wanted to get that one liner in)

 

I am incapable of debating with Dr Joe.. He is smart and he is always right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon folks.. Dr Joe's thread shouldn't be trashed with oneliners.

 

 

LOL! I trashed it with several very long posts filled with facts, logic and linked sources proving he's a complete fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

LOL! I trashed it with several very long posts filled with facts, logic and linked sources proving he's a complete fool.

No, You wanted to but you offered opinions and dubious links.

 

Dr Joe posts require CAREfUL reading. How you utterly and completely missed the point he made about finding the optimal minimum wage is a classic example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, You wanted to but you offered opinions and dubious links.

Thanks, snowflake. Now anyone comparing what I wrote to the way you characterized my posts will know you for what you are ... A LIAR. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, snowflake. Now anyone comparing what I wrote to the way you characterized my posts will know you for what you are ... A LIAR. :D

Feelings mutual. You're a self deceiving self important self promoting asshat who shows the keen intellectual skills of a dying hippo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're a self deceiving self important self promoting asshat who shows the keen intellectual skills of a dying hippo.

Now if only you could only prove Richard Clarke didn't change his views 180 degrees between 2002 and 2004, you might have something. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...