Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR: BUSH ADMIN WAS DISCUSSING BOMBING IRAQ FOR 9/11 DESPITE KNOWING AL QAEDA WAS TO BLAME
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11??? They trained the bad guys for YEARS! So, they had nothing to do with it? Why after over two years is this fool just now coming out with this tale?
3 posted on
03/19/2004 3:15:57 PM PST by
RetiredArmy
(We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American Way! Toby Keith)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
, I was sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection,'" says Clarke. The day after 9/11 he had been looking at the Iraq connection to 9/11 for years?
4 posted on
03/19/2004 3:16:02 PM PST by
lasereye
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
There is no loyalty left in America.
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Because Clarke also worked in the Klintoon White House, Begala was screaming about this upcoming 60 Minutes piece when he was on the Imus program this morning.
Clinton is behind this.
8 posted on
03/19/2004 3:17:37 PM PST by
leadpenny
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
There are lots of targets in France too.
9 posted on
03/19/2004 3:17:48 PM PST by
Stew Padasso
(F Martha! There is rampant corruption and downright theft going on with government.)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Well, My suspicion sensor goes up when someone leaves an administration and then writes a book with some stories and tales hostile to the administration and guaranteed to excite the lib press. It guarantees the author lots of publicity (and instant hero status) and it allows the writer to get even with the people who fired him.
That's not to say that his story MIGHT be true -- it's just to say that I start out very suspicious.
12 posted on
03/19/2004 3:19:11 PM PST by
WL-law
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
15 posted on
03/19/2004 3:19:54 PM PST by
Michael.SF.
(One Clinton in politics is 'probably more then enough'- b. clinton" (for once, I agree with him))
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
OK, let's turn on the FACT o meter. Fact, we attacked Afghanistan first, not Iraq. Fact, Iraq was an enemy and it was already US policy to get rid of Sadaam Hussein. fact, this guy could not have known on September 12 that we knew "for years" that Sadaam had no connection to September 11. Final fact: The administration never justified the Iraq war on a direct connection with 9-11.
SoI ask again, should we give Iraq back to Sadaam?
16 posted on
03/19/2004 3:19:54 PM PST by
Williams
To: Tumbleweed_Connection; marron
"They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," says Clarke. So what? They were probably "talking" about a lot of places. More word games.
What's Clarke's history with the Iraq Liberation Act in the '90's?
19 posted on
03/19/2004 3:20:39 PM PST by
Shermy
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
A hit piece paid for by the Kerry's!
25 posted on
03/19/2004 3:21:57 PM PST by
Lucky2
(Before I die, I want Bill and Hillary tried for treason and jailed (executed) for their crimess.)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Clarke goes on to explain what he believes was the reason for the focus on Iraq. "I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection [between Iraq and Al Qaeda] but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection,'" says ClarkeIf he'd been looking at the issue for years then he should have seen September 11 coming. Given he didn't he has no right to be confident in his knowledge of the scope and depth of terrorism and its state sponsorship.
27 posted on
03/19/2004 3:22:55 PM PST by
Dolphy
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
28 posted on
03/19/2004 3:23:15 PM PST by
mass55th
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Say, you ever heard of Salmak Pak?
30 posted on
03/19/2004 3:23:27 PM PST by
txhurl
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
This guy is an a**hole. Of course you discuss bombing Iraq. You discuss a lot of things during a time like this. But the question is what they *did*, not what they discussed.
A**hole. Period.
31 posted on
03/19/2004 3:23:38 PM PST by
zook
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
For years we've looked and there's just no connection,'" says Clarke. How do you spell Salmon Pak?
Do you suppose that Rumsfeld knew about Salmon Pak? You bet he did. Was it a resonable assumption at the time and even now that the Salmon Pak facility was used to train airplane hijackers? Is a stretch to think that some of the 9/11 hijackers were trained at Salmon Pak. I think so. I'm betting that Rumsfeld thinks so too.
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
I don't care why we took out Iraq/Saddam. We shoulda took out Syria and Iran also (still should). Taking out the Taliban and Saddam sent a strong message to other terror supporting countries.
34 posted on
03/19/2004 3:23:57 PM PST by
umgud
(speaking strictly as an infidel,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Richard Clarke is trying to sell his book....
Would you like some sour grapes with your whine and fromage, monsieur Clarke?
35 posted on
03/19/2004 3:24:10 PM PST by
adam_az
(Call your state Republican party office and VOLUNTEER FOR A CAMPAIGN!!!)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection; All
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Was he even a "terrorism" advisor? I thought he was CYBERSECURITY CZAR!!!
39 posted on
03/19/2004 3:26:07 PM PST by
adam_az
(Call your state Republican party office and VOLUNTEER FOR A CAMPAIGN!!!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson