Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Real Story! Sandy Berger WARNED Condi January 2001 About Al-Qaeda!!!!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 01:34 PM
Original message
The Real Story! Sandy Berger WARNED Condi January 2001 About Al-Qaeda!!!!
There is some more of condi's memory lapses here. I really don't think she should be working at all what with her terrible case of amnesia. :puke:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html

<snip>

One such meeting took place in the White House situation room during the first week of January 2001. The session was part of a program designed by Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, who wanted the transition between the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations to run as smoothly as possible. With some bitterness, Berger remembered how little he and his colleagues had been helped by the first Bush Administration in 1992-93. Eager to avoid a repeat of that experience, he had set up a series of 10 briefings by his team for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley.

Berger attended only one of the briefings—the session that dealt with the threat posed to the U.S. by international terrorism, and especially by al-Qaeda. "I'm coming to this briefing," he says he told Rice, "to underscore how important I think this subject is." Later, alone in his office with Rice, Berger says he told her, "I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject."

The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen during the Clinton years to become the White House's point man on terrorism. As chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG), Clarke was known as a bit of an obsessive—just the sort of person you want in a job of that kind. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000—an attack that left 17 Americans dead—he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security "principals" on Dec. 20. But Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. "We would be handing a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to happen." Now it was up to Rice's team to consider what Clarke had put together.

Berger had left the room by the time Clarke, using a Powerpoint presentation, outlined his thinking to Rice. A senior Bush Administration official denies being handed a formal plan to take the offensive against al-Qaeda, and says Clarke's materials merely dealt with whether the new Administration should take "a more active approach" to the terrorist group. (Rice declined to comment, but through a spokeswoman said she recalled no briefing at which Berger was present.) Other senior officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations, however, say that Clarke had a set of proposals to "roll back" al-Qaeda. In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, "Response to al Qaeda: Roll back." Clarke's proposals called for the "breakup" of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble—Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen—would be given aid to fight the terrorists. Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to "eliminate the sanctuary" where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime. The Taliban had come to power in 1996, bringing a sort of order to a nation that had been riven by bloody feuds between ethnic warlords since the Soviets had pulled out. Clarke supported a substantial increase in American support for the Northern Alliance, the last remaining resistance to the Taliban. That way, terrorists graduating from the training camps would have been forced to stay in Afghanistan, fighting (and dying) for the Taliban on the front lines. At the same time, the U.S. military would start planning for air strikes on the camps and for the introduction of special-operations forces into Afghanistan. The plan was estimated to cost "several hundreds of millions of dollars." In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11."

<snip>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. PLEASE LINK TO THREAD THIS CAME FROM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2092846&mesg_id=2093520

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html


They Had A Plan

Long before 9/11, the White House debated taking the fight to al-Qaeda. By the time they decided, it was too late. The saga of a lost chance


By Michael Elliott


Posted Sunday, Aug. 4, 2002; 2:31 a.m. EST
Sometimes history is made by the force of arms on battlefields, sometimes by the fall of an exhausted empire. But often when historians set about figuring why a nation took one course rather than another, they are most interested in who said what to whom at a meeting far from the public eye whose true significance may have been missed even by those who took part in it.

One such meeting took place in the White House situation room during the first week of January 2001. The session was part of a program designed by Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, who wanted the transition between the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations to run as smoothly as possible. With some bitterness, Berger remembered how little he and his colleagues had been helped by the first Bush Administration in 1992-93. Eager to avoid a repeat of that experience, he had set up a series of 10 briefings by his team for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley.

Berger attended only one of the briefings—the session that dealt with the threat posed to the U.S. by international terrorism, and especially by al-Qaeda. "I'm coming to this briefing," he says he told Rice, "to underscore how important I think this subject is." Later, alone in his office with Rice, Berger says he told her, "I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject."

The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen during the Clinton years to become the White House's point man on terrorism. As chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG), Clarke was known as a bit of an obsessive—just the sort of person you want in a job of that kind. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000—an attack that left 17 Americans dead—he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security "principals" on Dec. 20. But Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. "We would be handing a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to happen." Now it was up to Rice's team to consider what Clarke had put together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I hadn't seen that thread
excellent! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. Amazing how good the "liberal media" is at helping the GOP rewrite history
:(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. just saw on MSRNC
condiliar will be tweety's special guest tonight on a special edition of hardball. Incredible!

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
5. Richard Clarke said Bush Gang told him to forget Al Qaeda...
...They were goin' after Iraq and Star Wars.

Thanks for hitting the nails on the head, leftchick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I read his book
Now there is a real patriot! And back atcha Octafish! Nobody hits those nails better than you.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-11-06 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #5
16. Condi has a way of revealing things. Anyone else remember her
comment about the roll-out of the Bush Administration's own brand spanking new counter-terrorism program was planned for the September 12, 2001 principals meeting?

I do, and it tells me most of what I need to know about why the al-Qaeda cells known to be inside the U.S. late that summer were ignored, even after the 08/06 PDB.

"Don't worry about that Clarke guy, he's history. We have our own program coming out in the Fall."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-11-06 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. LIHOP/MIHOP
has never looked more conceivable to me after all of their behavior is examined in the 9/11 Press For Truth Video.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-11-06 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. The key fact is on public record: BushCo cancelled "Catchers Mitt",
Edited on Mon Sep-11-06 08:36 AM by leveymg
the highly classified ongoing CIA operation that tracked al-Qaeda operatives known to be inside the U.S. This was part of the planned revamping of Clinton's counter-terrorism program, and ongoing operations were put on hold or cut off entirely while Rice and Hadley worked with Tenet on the Administration's new al-Qaeda strategy.

The cancellation of Catchers Mitt was revealed in a single article in Newsweek on March 21, 2004 which was never followed-up on. A press release highlighting Catchers Mitt was scrubbed from the publication's website. That report was, fortunately, noted on April 2nd by American Progress: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=43926 A mirror is still hosted at Wayback:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040401142034/http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040321/nysu007a_1.html

NEWSWEEK: In the Months Before 9/11, Justice Department Curtailed Highly Classified Program to Monitor Al Qaeda Suspects in the U.S.
Sunday March 21, 10:51 am ET
'They Came in There With Their Agenda and was not on it,' Says Former Counterterrorism Chief Clarke of Bush Administration


NEW YORK, March 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Newsweek has learned that in the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called "Catcher's Mitt" to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States, after a federal judge severely chastised the FBI for improperly seeking permission to wiretap terrorists. During the Bush administration's first few months in office, Attorney General John Ashcroft downgraded terrorism as a priority, choosing to place more emphasis on drug trafficking and gun violence, report Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff and Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas in the March 29 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, March 22).
(Photo: http://web.archive.org/web/20040401142034/http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20040321/NYSU003 )
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.

In the meeting, says Clarke, Wolfowitz cited the writings of Laurie Mylroie, a controversial academic who had written a book advancing an elaborate conspiracy theory that Saddam was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Clarke says he tried to refute Wolfowitz. "We've investigated that five ways to Friday, and nobody believes that," Clarke recalls saying. "It was Al Qaeda. It wasn't Saddam." A spokesman for Wolfowitz describes Clarke's account as a "fabrication." Wolfowitz always regarded Al Qaeda as "a major threat," says this official.

Clarke tells Newsweek that the day after 9/11, President Bush wanted the FBI and CIA to hunt for any evidence that pointed to Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. Clarke recalls that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was also looking for a justification to bomb Iraq. Soon after the 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld was arguing at a cabinet meeting that Afghanistan, home of Osama bin Laden's terrorist camps, did not offer "enough good targets." "We should do Iraq," Rumsfeld urged.


****

According to the testimony of Dan Marcus, the General Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, Richard Clarke who was still in charge of the CSG, the counter-terrorism working group, wasn't told about changes that occurred in early August 2001 to the program to monitor al-Qaeda cells inside the U.S.: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20349-2004Mar24.html

MARCUS: I will try to wind up quickly, because we're running late.

Clarke asked on several occasions for early principals meetings on these issues, and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled.

No principals committee meetings on Al Qaida were held until September 4th, 2001. Rice and Hadley said this was because the deputies committee needed to work through many issues relating to the new policy on Al Qaida.

The principals committee did meet frequently before September 11th on other subjects, Rice told us, including Russia, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East peace process.

Rice and Hadley told us that, although the Clinton administration had worked very hard on the Al Qaida program, its policies on Al Qaida, quote, "had run out of gas," and they therefore set about developing a new presidential directive and a new, comprehensive policy on terrorism.

As spring turned to summer, Clarke was impatient for decisions on aid to the Northern Alliance and on the Predator program, issues managed by Hadley and the deputies committee.

Clarke and other perceived the process as slow, and Clarke argued that the policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan did not need to be settled before moving ahead against Al Qaida.

Hadley emphasized to us the time needed to get new officials confirmed and in place. He told us that they moved the process along as fast as they could and the deputies committee met seven times from April until September 10th on issues related to Al Qaida, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Rice recalled that in May 2001, as threats of possible terrorist attacks came up again and again in the director's morning discussions with the president, the president expressed impatience with, quote, "swatting flies," and pushed his advisers to do more.

And Rice and Tenet met at the end of May, along with their counterterrorism advisers, to discuss what Rice at the time called "taking the offensive against Al Qaida."

MARCUS: Within the NSC staff, Clarke was asked to put together a broad policy to eliminate Al Qaida to be codified in the presidential directive.

Clarke and his staff regarded the new approach as essentially similar to the proposal they had developed in December 2000 and put forward to the new administration in January 2001. Clarke's staff produced a draft presidential directive on Al Qaida, Hadley circulated it to his counterparts in early June as, quote, "an admittedly ambitious program." The draft had the goal of eliminating the Al Qaida network as a threat over a multiyear period. It had headings such as "No Sanctuaries" and "No Financial Support."

From April through July alarming threat reports were pouring in. Clarke and the CSG were consumed with coordinating defensive reactions. In late June Clarke wrote Rice that the threat reporting had reached a crescendo.

On July 2nd, the FBI issued a national threat advisory. Rice recalls asking Clarke on July 5th to bring additional law enforcement in domestic agencies into the CSG threat discussions, and that was done.

On July 27th, Clarke reported to Rice and Hadley that the spiked intelligence indicating a near-term attack appeared to have ceased, but he urged them to keep readiness high. Intelligence indicated that an attack had been postponed for a few months.

In early August the CIA prepared an article for the president's daily intelligence brief on whether or how terrorists might attack the United States. Neither the White House nor the CSG received specific credible information about any threat of attacks in the United States. Neither Clarke nor the CSG were informed, however, about the August 2001 investigations that produced the discovery of suspected Al Qaida operatives in the United States, nor did the group learn about the arrest or FBI investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui in Minnesota.

At the beginning of August, Rice and Hadley again reviewed the draft presidential directive on Al Qaida. Rice commented it was very good and principals needed to discuss it briefly before it was submitted to President Bush. This meeting was scheduled for September 4.

The policy streams converged at a meeting of the principals committee, the administration's first such meeting on Al Qaida, issues on September 4.


Before this meeting Clarke wrote to Rice summarizing many of his frustrations. He urged policy-makers to imagine a day after a terrorist attack with hundreds of Americans dead at home and abroad and ask themselves what they could have done earlier. He criticized the military for what he called its unwillingness to retaliate for the Cole or to strike Afghan camps. He accused senior CIA officials of trying to block the Predator program. He warned that unless adequate funding was found for the planned effort, the directive would be a hollow shell. He feared, apparently referring to Bush's earlier comment, that Washington might be left with a modest effort to swat flies relying on foreign governments while waiting for the big attack.

Rice chaired the meeting of principals. They apparently approved the draft directive. They agreed, as discussed earlier, that the armed Predator capability was needed, leaving open issues relating to command and control of the Predator. Director Tenet was pressed to reconsider his opposition to starting immediately with reconnaissance flights, and after the meeting Tenet agreed to proceed with such flights.

Various follow-up activities began in the following days, including discussions between Rice and Tenet, directives on September 10 from Hadley to Tenet to develop expanded covert action authorities, and that same day further deputies committee considerations of policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And then came the attacks of September 11th.

KEAN: Thank you all very much.


****

Now, here's the key fact to keep in mind about what the Bush Administration knew about the al-Qaeda threat before 9/11. One of the very first things that incoming President and the Bush transition team was told in January 2001 was the fact that U.S. intelligence was tracking al-Qaeda cells known to be inside the country.

Washington Post reporter Gellman first revealed this on January 20, 2002, a fact that's been forgotten by the major media: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8734-2002Jan19?language=printer

In his first week on the job, deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley instructed NSC team leaders to propose subjects for high-level review. Much of the incoming staff was still finding its way around the 553 rooms and two miles of corridors in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, once the world's largest.

Clarke did not need a map, or a second invitation. He had a three-page proposal on Hadley's desk that day.

The Jan. 25 memorandum spoke starkly. Clarke and (Gen.) Cressey had just navigated through the most intensive period of counterterrorist activity in American history. The millennium year marked its start with al Qaeda plots – stopped by improbable good fortune – to mount synchronized strikes on airports in Boston and Los Angeles, and on American tourists in Jordan. It ended with a suicide attack that killed 17 sailors and crippled the USS Cole in Yemen three weeks before the presidential election.

More attacks had almost certainly been set in motion, Clarke and Cressey wrote. American intelligence believed there were al Qaeda "sleeper cells" in America – not a potential problem but "a major threat in being," according to people who read their proposal.


________________________________
2006. Mark G. Levey



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Humor_In_Cuneiform Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
7. Remember Richard Clarke testifying before the 911 commission?
He indicated that Clinton was obsessed with Al Queda and Bin Laden.

And that he, Richard Clarke the expert on counter-terrorism, wasn't listened to by Dub Bush.

Clarke didn't say Clinton did it perfectly, but Clarke did say the Clinton admin worked it very hard and indicated that there was a real handoff to the new administration regarding the high priority of Bin Laden et al, which was ignored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Clarke: Bush didn't see terrorism as 'urgent'
the best testimony of the whole whitewash...

<snip>

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's former counterterrorism chief testified Wednesday that the administration did not consider terrorism an urgent priority before the September 11, 2001, attacks, despite his repeated warnings about Osama bin Laden's terror network.

"I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue," Richard Clarke told a commission investigating the September 11 attacks.

Clarke has ignited a firestorm with his assertions that the Bush administration failed to recognize pending terror attacks against the United States and that the president focused too much on Iraq after September 11 -- charges the White House has vigorously disputed. (Full story)

Clarke's testimony, while foreshadowed by his new book assailing Bush's stewardship on national security, was gripping, and marked the climax of an extraordinary two days of nationally televised hearings by the commission. (Bush, Clinton figures defend terrorism policies)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/911.commission/index.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Humor_In_Cuneiform Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. It was the best! He even apologized for 9/11.
The other truly great moment came when Condi was there and Ben Veniste was questioning her. They were discussing the Aug 6 PDB, which I guess was still classified at that point.

Ben Veniste asked her if she recalled the title of that Presidential Daily Briefing, and Condi blurted it right out "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." Ben Veniste couldn't say it, so he asked her if she knew.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. "I believe it was called......"
<blink> <blink> <blink> "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." <blink>

she was dreadful. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Humor_In_Cuneiform Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. She always is dreadful. Blinking, twitching between or along with
her skill with the language.

Says yes yes it is so as she shakes her head no, or no no no as she nods yes.

She is wound as tight as an over-wound watch.

Stretched that tight, one wonders if she might snap one day and realize what she's done.

Not holding my breath waiting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. They got the PDB and then Bush went on vacation for a month. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
13. I've read this about a dozen times over the years
Edited on Sun Sep-10-06 07:22 PM by Canuckistanian
And the gall, the chutzpa, the nerve of this woman, Condi, to say that she "recalled no briefing where Berger was present".

Face it, from the time she was appointed into that office, she had been "calling it in", as it were. She expected a nice, comfy high-prestige job without the bother of doing any actual work.

9/11 snapped her back into reality with a vengeance.

It's incomprehensible how this woman managed to keep her job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kskiska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Her mind was elsewhere
…on more important things, such as her wardrobe, and whether to buy new shoes to go with her beige suit. I've read where she keeps two mirrors in her desk, so as to view the back of her hair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elperromagico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-11-06 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. She didn't just keep her job.
She got promoted. That's the way it works in this administration. Fuck up and you get moved to a nicer office. Or, like Franks, Bremer, and "Slam Dunk" Tenet, you get a shiny medal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
countryjake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
14. K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-11-06 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
20. Hopefully, this becomes more public during the defamation suit
I so hope they go for it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-11-06 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eviltwin2525 Donating Member (269 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-11-06 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
22. umm....except....!
"The proposals amounted to everything we've done since 9/11."

EXCEPT for the bit about invading Iraq. I'm pretty sure that wasn't part of Clinton & Berger's plan. Yup, pretty darn sure.

Oh, I get it....maybe the reason they aren't counting invading Iraq as part of the response to al Qaeda is that IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH FIGHTING AL QAEDA.

Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-11-06 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. excellent observation eviltwin!
and welcome to DU. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-12-06 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
24. Bush slept aboard US warship at Genoa G8 summit...
...because OBL threatened to drop a hijacked jetliner on the hotel.

Here's the full story, the last ever published by Jim "Fortunate Son" Hatfield:



Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill Dubya, his former business partner?

By James Hatfield

Editor's note: In light of last week's horrific events and the Bush administration's reaction to them, we are reprising the following from the last column Jim Hatfield wrote for Online Journal prior to his tragic death on July 18:

July 3, 2001—There may be fireworks in Genoa, Italy, this month, too.

A plot by Saudi master terrorist, Osama bin Laden, to assassinate Dubya during the July 20 economic summit of world leaders, was uncovered after dozens of suspected Islamic militants linked to bin Laden's international terror network were arrested in Frankfurt, Germany, and Milan, Italy, in April.

German intelligence services have stated that bin Laden is covertly financing neo-Nazi skinhead groups throughout Europe to launch another terrorist attack at a high-profile American target—his first since the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen last October.

According to counter-terrorism experts quoted in Germany's largest newspaper, the attack on Dubya might be a James Bond-like aerial strike in the form of remote-controlled airplanes packed with plastic explosives.

Why would Osama bi Laden want to kill, Dubya, his former business partner?

I knew that bombshell would whip your heads around. So here's the straight scoop, folks.

In June 1977, Dubya formed his own drilling company, Arbusto Energy ("arbusto" means "bush" in Spanish), in Midland, Texas. Like his father before him, Dubya founded his oil business with the financial backing of investors, including James R. Bath, a Houston businessman whom Dubya apparently first met when they were in the same Texas Air National Guard unit. (Interestingly, both Dubya and Bath were both suspended from flying in August and September 1972, respectively, for "failure to accomplish annual medical examination.")

CONTINUED...

http://www.onlinejournal.org/Special_Reports/Hatfield-R-091901/hatfield-r-091901.html



Oh yeah. James R Bath, a decent fellah trapped by the BFEE.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC