The Scum Also Rises...Chapter 4

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2004
5,849
384
48
Columbus, OH
<center><h1><a href=http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1683175&l=28143 >Ashcroft's Record of Lying to Congress About 9/11</a></h1></center>


<blockquote>With Attorney General John Ashcroft testifying before the 9/11 Commission today, a quick analysis of his previous statements shows he has repeatedly lied to Congress about the Bush Administration's counterterrorism record. Specifically, when questioned by Congress in 2002 about why he tried to de-prioritize and slash funding for counterterrorism before 9/11, Ashcroft resorted to dishonest denials -- even in the face of budget documents that proved he was not telling the truth.

For instance, in testimony before the House of Representatives, Ashcroft said that before 9/11, his "number-one goal" at the Justice Department "was the prevention of terrorist acts" and that he immediately "began to shape the department and its efforts in that respect"1. But according to the Washington Post, internal Administration documents from before 9/11 "show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did"2. The documents "indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs."

Ashcroft tried to blame his negligence of counterterrorism on the previous Administration, telling Congress that "the five-year plan that had been put in place by my predecessor didn't mention counterterrorism"3. But according to the New York Times, "the plan issued by Attorney General Janet Reno in 2000 said the Justice Department would have to devote more attention and resources to terrorism, citing sophisticated computer and bomb-making technology and the 'emerging threats of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons'"4.

Ashcroft has even been dishonest about events after 9/11, telling Congress that when the Administration was writing the emergency counterterrorism funding bill after the attacks, the FBI "came to me with a $670 million request, and we counseled them to take that to $1.1 billion"5. But according to the Washington Post, "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI... The document, dated Oct. 12, 2001, shows that the FBI requested $1.5 billion in additional funds to enhance its counterterrorism efforts with the creation of 2,024 positions. But the White House Office of Management and Budget cut that request to $531 million"6. Ashcroft "cut the FBI's request for items such as computer networking and foreign language intercepts by half, cut a cyber-security request by three quarters and eliminated entirely a request for 'collaborative capabilities.'"

Sources:

1. Attorney General John Ashcroft testimony, 02/28/2002.

2. "FBI Budget Squeezed After 9/11", Washington Post,
02/22/2004.

3. Attorney General John Ashcroft testimony, 02/28/2002.

4. New York Times, 03/01/2002.

5. Attorney General John Ashcroft testimony, 02/28/2002.

6. "FBI Budget Squeezed After 9/11", Washington Post,
02/22/2004.</blockquote>
 
The link does not work, but the article is there in full with full citation. Ashcroft and Bush have both tried to blame the Clinton administration for 9/11. As I've said before, Janet Reno is the worst attorney general we've had, second only to John Ashcroft.
We've had, for the past 12 years, a Justice Department run by two complete idiots.

acludem
 
That about says it all, MtnBiker! This fool hangs his hat on anything those pricks take out of context. I chalk it up to all the urine fumes he inhales.
 
Really, and you and the rest of the right-wingers in here don't post B.S. from the Washington Times, Drudge Report and other right-wing propaganda sources?

acludem
 
Originally posted by acludem
Really, and you and the rest of the right-wingers in here don't post B.S. from the Washington Times, Drudge Report and other right-wing propaganda sources?

Articles that go out of their way to twist the facts, no, I don't post those. Nor do I see any other conservatives posting these types of articles. I rarely, if ever read anything from the Washington Times (unless another site links to an article). Drudge report collects new from around the world and links to it from their page. Rarely, if ever, does Matt Drudge actually post anything that he has written himself.
 
Originally posted by acludem
Really, and you and the rest of the right-wingers in here don't post B.S. from the Washington Times, Drudge Report and other right-wing propaganda sources?

acludem
You know what Acludem, I'm of the impression that you even find moveon.org fringe. I know there are right fringe sources that I do not care for, Micheal Savage comes to mind. That guy is wacko.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
Articles that go out of their way to twist the facts, no, I don't post those. Nor do I see any other conservatives posting these types of articles. I rarely, if ever read anything from the Washington Times (unless another site links to an article). Drudge report collects new from around the world and links to it from their page. Rarely, if ever, does Matt Drudge actually post anything that he has written himself.

You may not post them, but many others do. As for MoveOn, they must be doing something right...The RNC is so worried about them that they're petitioning the FEC to shut them down. The RNC just hates it when their own tactics are turned against them.
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
You may not post them, but many others do. As for MoveOn, they must be doing something right...The RNC is so worried about them that they're petitioning the FEC to shut them down. The RNC just hates it when their own tactics are turned against them.

Point out the articles. If many post them here it should be very easy for you to link me to them.

Also, what sites are the RNC accused of giving soft money to in order to help with their campaign?
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
Point out the articles. If many post them here it should be very easy for you to link me to them.

Also, what sites are the RNC accused of giving soft money to in order to help with their campaign?

DO your own legwork. And it's the RNC leveling the accusations, whining crybabies don't want to play on a level field.
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
DO your own legwork. And it's the RNC leveling the accusations, whining crybabies don't want to play on a level field.

Typical! You make the accusations and then refuse to back them up. NOBODY posts the equivalent of moveon.org conspiracies from the conservative side. The RNC hasn't been accused of giving soft money to any websites - or anything equivalent. You have nothing and you know it. Put up or shut up, pissboy.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
Typical! You make the accusations and then refuse to back them up. NOBODY posts the equivalent of moveon.org conspiracies from the conservative side. The RNC hasn't been accused of giving soft money to any websites - or anything equivalent. You have nothing and you know it. Put up or shut up, pissboy.

Who said anything about conspiracies? Just putting the facts up for public display.
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Who said anything about conspiracies? Just putting the facts up for public display.

Actually, no, you haven't posted ANY facts. Here are the questions for you, again:

Point out the articles. If many post them here it should be very easy for you to link me to them.

Also, what sites are the RNC accused of giving soft money to in order to help with their campaign?
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
Actually, no, you haven't posted ANY facts. Here are the questions for you, again:

Point out the articles. If many post them here it should be very easy for you to link me to them.

Also, what sites are the RNC accused of giving soft money to in order to help with their campaign?

I love it when you get all angry and indignant. ;)
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
I love it when you get all angry and indignant. ;)

Not angry, just posting a follow up to see if you planned on being a bit more forthcoming this afternoon or not. It appears not.
 

Forum List

Back
Top