Posted on 05/19/2006 4:04:56 PM PDT by genefromjersey
I could use a bit of help !
NBC is running another "Bush-bash" this weekend:the claim being the President thrice refused to act against Abu Musab Zarqawi in June 2002 "when he was vulnerable".
NBC is relying on Michael O'Hanlon of the (liberal Democrat) Brookings Institution,and ROGER CRESSY , their Counter-terrorism "expert".
I know Cressy once worked with Richard Clarke,on the Critical infrastructure protection board (computer security),and is said to have been a member of the National Security Council.
I'm interested in learning when Cressy last worked for the gov't,and anything anyone knows about O'Hanlon.
Thanks !
Why do they say the President refused to act against him?
This is just too easy.
This is the cover story or "projection" upon the President for not going after Zarquawi - but they don't have any problem with Bubba Clinton's refusal to go after Osama - even when he was handed to Bubba on a silver platter.
'Cressy once worked with Richard Clarke'
Geez, probably did work on improving airport security with AlGore, too. what a pair of losers, NBC is pullin' a
C-BEEESS....
http://www.themoderntribune.com/casualties_of_war_truth_-_the_2004_presidential_election.htm
"According to Newsweek, "Clarke portrays the Bush White House as indifferent to the al-Qaeda threat before 9/11, then obsessed with punishing Iraq, regardless of what the evidence showed about Saddam's al- Qaeda ties, or lack of them."
According to Clarke, he was called into the White House Situation Room (Roger Cressy was present) by Bush on September 12th, and was in effect asked to find a link between Iraq and 9/11. He informed the President that Iraq had not been involved in any terrorism against the US in eight years. Bush has no recollection of the meeting and Bush representatives initially disputed that it ever occurred.
Six days later he submitted a report to that affect. It was apparently rejected with a notation "update." The Bush administration dismisses the accusation that the President pressed for an Iraq-9/11 link as the President's duty to investigate all potentials.
Woodward provides even more support for the Bush focus on Iraq and the potential for the Bush administration to shape or disregard evidence in order to. According to Woodward, Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, were of the opinion that Iraq should be included in the first round of the war. As early as Sept. 12 Rumsfeld argued that the United States should take advantage of the terrorist attacks to go after Iraq's Saddam Hussein immediately. "
Look here:
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/advindsea.shtml
He's a true blue 'rat. Just follow the money.
O'HANLON, MICHAEL
Because they didn't want to be distracted from Iraq (!!)
So he's admitting that saddam ordered the bombing of the WTC in 93. How interesting.
Wasn't Zarqawi in Iraq already in 2002?
Are they saying that we should have gone into Iraq in 2002?
IRAQ: FORMER PM REVEALS SECRET SERVICE DATA ON BIRTH OF AL-QAEDA IN IRAQ
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.169852178&par=0
The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period.
The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq secretly in the same period," Allawi affirmed, "and began to form a terrorist cell, even though the Iraqi services do not have precise information on his entry into the country," he said.
Allawi's remarks come after statements to al-Hayat by King Abdallah II of Jordan over Saddam's refusal to hand over al-Zarqawi to the authorities in Amman.
On this question Allawi said: ''The words of the Jordanian King are correct and important. We have proof of al-Zawahiri's visit to Iraq, but we do not have the precise date or information on al-Zarqawi's entry, though it is likely that he arrived around the same time."
In Allawi's view, Saddam's government "sponsored" the birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, coordinating with other terrorist groups, both Arab and Muslim. "The Iraqi secret services had links to these groups through a person called Faruq Hajizi, later named Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and arrested after the fall of Saddam's regime as he tried to re-enter Iraq. Iraqi secret agents helped terrorists enter the country and directed them to the Ansar al-Islam camps in the Halbija area," he said.
So you're saying because Clinton didn't do it - it's OK for Bush to not do it?! This new "liberal" attitude amongst conservatives is sickening!
No! that's not what I'm saying at all. You're just ready to bite my head off for your unwarranted perception of what I said.
Read what I wrote. The democrats have a psychological technique - it's called "projection" - that they use all the time, and it's the democrats who are trying to make the public believe that Bush is to blame for not catching Zarqawi - but that's only because THEY WANT TO HIDE THE FACT THAT A DEMOCRAT, BILL CLINTON, did not catch Osama.
Here's another example of "projection". During the 2000 campaign, Bush was constantly called stupid, dumb cowboy, an idiot .. however, it was Gore who barely graduated from Yale, FLUNKED out of Yale Law School, and was thrown out of Divinity school for drug use. While it was Bush who not only graduated from Yale, but has an MBA from Harvard Business School. So .. just who is the "dumb" person here - it's not Bush. But .. the statements by the democrats were said to COVER UP the bad record by Gore.
The dems have been doing this for years and years. The most recent is the NSA "spying" stuff - where it turns out IT WAS THE DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED FOR THIS LEGISLATION AND BILL CLINTON WHO SIGNED IT INTO LAW - but they weren't doing any "spying" - or so they want the public to believe.
Okay now .. do you finally understand what I was saying - the charge against Bush is just another attempt by the democrats to HIDE THE GROSS ERRORS OF THE CLINTON ADMIN.
Couldn't we all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.