And the Chutzpah of the Year Award goes to...

[Zhukov]

Clarke's lies win him 2004


By Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post columnist

WASHINGTON -- It is only March but the 2004 Chutzpah of the Year Award can be safely given out. It goes to Richard Clarke, now making himself famous by blaming the Bush administration for 9/11 -- after Clarke had spent eight years in charge of counterterrorism for a Clinton administration that did nothing.

The 1990s were al-Qaida's springtime: Blissfully unmolested in Afghanistan, it trained, indoctrinated, armed and, most fatally, planned. For the United States, this was a catastrophic lapse, and in a March 2002 interview on PBS' "Frontline," Clarke admitted as such: "I believe that had we destroyed the terrorist camps in Afghanistan earlier, that the conveyor belt that was producing terrorists sending them out around the world would have been destroyed." Instead, "now we have to hunt (them) down country by country."

What should we have done during those lost years? Clarke answered: "Blow up the camps and take out their sanctuary. Eliminate their safe haven, eliminate their infrastructure. ... That's ... the one thing in retrospect I wish had happened."

It did not. And who was president? Clinton. Who was the Clinton administration's top counterterrorism official? Clarke.


for the rest of the article...

http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/04/3/26/18393026.cfm

 

[DKSuddeth]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4619346/

WASHINGTON - Richard Clarke, the former chief counterterrorism adviser at the White House, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday that he “would welcome” the attempt by leading Republicans to declassify his two-year-old testimony before Congress.

Clarke, who has criticized the Bush administration’s preparedness for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, also said Rice’s private testimony before the commission should be declassified, as well as e-mails, memos and all other correspondence between Rice and Clarke.

“Let’s declassify all of it,” Clarke said to NBC's Tim Russert, moderator of the program, “ ... because the victims' families have no idea what Dr. Rice has said. There weren't in those closed hearings where she testified before the 9-11 Commission. They want to know.”

 

[William Joyce]

The Jewish neocons themselves, including spokesman "Krauthammer," for telling us this was anything but a war for Israel.

More here:

http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=23078

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4619346/

WASHINGTON - Richard Clarke, the former chief counterterrorism adviser at the White House, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday that he “would welcome” the attempt by leading Republicans to declassify his two-year-old testimony before Congress.

Clarke, who has criticized the Bush administration’s preparedness for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, also said Rice’s private testimony before the commission should be declassified, as well as e-mails, memos and all other correspondence between Rice and Clarke.

“Let’s declassify all of it,” Clarke said to NBC's Tim Russert, moderator of the program, “ ... because the victims' families have no idea what Dr. Rice has said. There weren't in those closed hearings where she testified before the 9-11 Commission. They want to know.”

I'm not interested in any of that.

Clarke, the man in charge of counter-terrorism for the United States from 1998-2001, has publically admitted that the course of action he suggested to the Bush administration in January 2001 would not have prevented 9/11, and yet he is criticizing the Bush administration for not acting fast enough to put into effect his recommendations that wouldn't have prevented 9/11.

It's his fault, he knows it, he's lied, and I believe he'll be prosecuted for perjury.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I'm interested because one wonders what more can come of this.

Clarke can say whatever he wants, to me that doesn't matter, but what could come out is what more, if any, could have been or should have been done.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I'm interested because one wonders what more can come of this.

Clarke can say whatever he wants, to me that doesn't matter, but what could come out is what more, if any, could have been or should have been done.

Well I think by this point it should be fairly obvious that what should have been done was never even proposed by the counter-terrorism chief, until now.

The only thing that could have stopped 9/11 when Bush came into office would have been the immediate design and implementation of something akin to the Patriot Act. Nobody proposed that, that I know of. Does anyone think Bush would have gotten away with that pre-9/11, even if it were technically possible? Of course not.

What could maybe have prevented 9/11 would have been some form of military action in Afghanistan before 1999, perhaps even earlier. Clarke has more or less admitted to this as well.

I don't understand why he seems to be placing a large amount of the 'blame' on Bush now for not acting quickly enough.

It's nonsense.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Well I think by this point it should be fairly obvious that what should have been done was never even proposed by the counter-terrorism chief, until now.

and we know this how? All I've heard from members of the administration, namely rice, is that they listened and rejected. Who knows what he recommended and if it had not been rejected would said actions have helped or hindered?

The only thing that could have stopped 9/11 when Bush came into office would have been the immediate design and implementation of something akin to the Patriot Act.

and what evidence do we have that this works when Justice is unwilling to disclose to congress the specifics?

What could maybe have prevented 9/11 would have been some form of military action in Afghanistan before 1999, perhaps even earlier. Clarke has more or less admitted to this as well.

And when one attempt was made what was the cry from the republicans? WAG THE DOG!!!!!!!

I don't understand why he seems to be placing a large amount of the 'blame' on Bush now for not acting quickly enough.

I don't either, so lets find out, shall we?

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
and we know this how? All I've heard from members of the administration, namely rice, is that they listened and rejected. Who knows what he recommended and if it had not been rejected would said actions have helped or hindered?

Based on Clarke's testimony. He said his recommendations had been approved by the principals by Sept 4, 2001, and only needed the President to sign it. His only complaint is that it took seven months to go through committee. My point is "so what" considering it wouldn't have accomplished anything had it been implemented immediately.

and what evidence do we have that this works when Justice is unwilling to disclose to congress the specifics?

I'm not talking about the Patriot Act specifically. In this instance I'm referring to increased sharing between intelligence agencies. One of Clarke's criticism was that the FBI and CIA were not conversing with one another. If they had been in early 2001 perhaps, he suggested, they may have been able to catch the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

[qoute]And when one attempt was made what was the cry from the republicans? WAG THE DOG!!!!!!![/quote]

Politics. I never thought that (of course, I'm not a republican) and I wished he had done more. Alot more. I had been concerned about the growing terrorist threat for years by that point, since they first tried to topple the WTC.

so lets find out, shall we?

We'll see what happens...

 

[NewGuy]

All you have to do is answer 3 questions:

1. How does ANYONE enter pentagon airspace without being shot down miles in advance (as policy has dictated for more than 10 years)

2. How does a cel phone operate high above all towers when the current technology required to have them below or parallel.

3. How does that downed airliner end up with less wreckage than can fit into your pocket while big luggage and loose socks are in trees. -no flames or anything. -all inside of 10 minutes when the local emergency teams arrived on the scene.


I will let you decide what it means.

 

[Zhukov]

 

[DKSuddeth]

all valid questions I think. especially number one.

"1. How does ANYONE enter pentagon airspace without being shot down miles in advance (as policy has dictated for more than 10 years)"

has this been answered by anyone in the government?


"2. How does a cel phone operate high above all towers when the current technology required to have them below or parallel."

I'm no wireless expert but I will ask you to provide documentation that this is a valid and documented limitation of the technology.


3. How does that downed airliner end up with less wreckage than can fit into your pocket while big luggage and loose socks are in trees. -no flames or anything. -all inside of 10 minutes when the local emergency teams arrived on the scene.

This is also a good question, are there explanations that don't include anything inflammatory regarding the persons patriotism, intelligence, or sexual orientation?

 

[Zhukov]

*sigh*

Well, for one, there is an airport not too far from the Pentagon.

For two, don't airplanes have cellular phones built into the first-class seats, and you can just slide your credit card through it? (I don't fly much)

I have no idea how much wreckage was found in Pennsylvania. COuld you provide a source that says all the plane wreckage found could be placed in a suitcase? A normal sized suitcase.

And if it wasn't the plane, what happened to plane and the people on board it? And the airport personnel involved with air traffic control?

 

[Zhukov]

RRWNA isn't far from the Pentagon, and Dulles isn't much farther.

 

[OCA]

That plane took off from Dulles and the time it takes to get from there to the Pentagon at 4-500 mph is seconds rather than minutes, wouldn't have had time to scramble fighters and get it down. Now I can't remember if they made a u turn or went straight in but either way impossible to get it down in that little of time.

 

[DKSuddeth]

being a former air traffic controller I can tell you that washington airspace is a roller coaster of flight routes designed to prevent overflying areas such as the white house and pentagon. I don't know if the said airliner was on or off this particular course.

airplanes do have cell phones, however, if I remember right, some of the victims family members said that a personal cellphone had been used to call them on the flight. Thats why I asked about wireless limitation. I DO know that electronics that use RF technology damage circuits in the cockpit so that would be telling somewhere.

And if it wasn't the plane, what happened to plane and the people on board it? And the airport personnel involved with air traffic control?

very good question

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by OCA
That plane took off from Dulles and the time it takes to get from there to the Pentagon at 4-500 mph is seconds rather than minutes, wouldn't have had time to scramble fighters and get it down. Now I can't remember if they made a u turn or went straight in but either way impossible to get it down in that little of time.

the plane that hit the pentagon and pennsylvania were in another state before they turned around and headed for washington, were they not?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
the plane that hit the pentagon and pennsylvania were in another state before they turned around and headed for washington, were they not?

This I don't remember, let me look.

 

[Zhukov]

I think the ones that hit the WTC came from Logan in Boston, and the other two came from the two airports in NYC.

 

[NewGuy]

As for the phones, on board phones use a different system than the personal ones used to place the calls.

As fas as the plane wreckage, I will have to try to dig up some of the old articles on that.

 

[OCA]

Ok found it, the WTC planes took off from Boston, the PA plane took off from Newark and the Pentagon plane took off from Dulles, mad a u turn over the Virginia mountains and came back in leaving me to believe that we are still talking a relatively few minutes from there to the Pentagon, so my theory is that they probably were in radio contact with the plane probably not even fathoming what its final destination was and with however many Americans were on board their absolute last option would be to drop it which I believe they never even got to.

Also what is with all this "was there even a flight 77" conspiracy crap? While looking for this info I had to wade through mountains of this junk. Have these people not seen the video footage of the plane going over the 395 bridge downtown and clipping all those poles? People are crazy sometimes!