[Jewels1091]

With all the crap coming out, those who DON'T want to believe won't

[Citizen Soldier]

Pretty good rapid response after the 60 Minutes show!

[texasflower]

She has certainly written a good article for those that care enough to read it and learn.

Just as you said, those who DON'T want to believe it, won't.

I'm bookmarking this one anyway. I have the feeling this may be useful. I have a couple of friends that need to hear this.

[jwalsh07]

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the president, like all Americans, wanted to know who was responsible. It would have been irresponsible not to ask a question about all possible links, including to Iraq -- a nation that had supported terrorism and had tried to kill a former president. Once advised that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11, the president told his National Security Council on Sept. 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda and that the initial U.S. response to Sept. 11 would be to target al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

And that is indeed what happened contrary to the lies put forth by one Mr Clarke and 60 Minutes.

[endthematrix]

I'd say Bush is unleashing the dogs, but Condie is NO dog! However, she just chomped down hard on those willy lovers!

[Starve The Beast]

I spent Saturday at the ANSWER rally in San Francisco, just to check out the loonies. This sign sums up the attitude of pretty much everyone there. Three thousand people dead, and the Left is gleeful.

Please feel free to use this pic (it's mine, no copyright).

[ladyinred]

Excellent . Didn't like having to register to read the entire thing, especially because they require too much information, but it was worth it so I could print it to give to my co worker. He is devoted to 60 minutes, believes anything that is on that leftist show so I want to be armed in the morning with a rebuttal or two.

[nutmeg]

find later bump

[fiftymegaton]

Condoleeza Rice shouldn't have to defend herself. Richard Clarke is an imbecile.

[risk]

Glad she's on our side.

[Tall_Texan]

It needs to be pointed out that if the drones were not armed until sometime in 2001, then the NBC video of a drone zeroed in on bin Laden at one of his terror camps could have only looked at and not shot at Osama. This seems to let Clinton off the hook a bit.

Hated as al Qaeda is today, remember too the sort of international outcry either president would have had for blowing up a foreign armed cap prior to 9-11. While it would be defensible, it would probably be swiftly condemned by the same Euroweenies who thought we had no right to invade Iraq.

[evm]

I had two thoughts in reading this:

- why is she giving credit to the Clinton administration for being strong against terror?

- if they started to institute a plan nearly 3 years ago to go after Al Qaeda, then why now does Al Qaeda still have the strength to mount a coordinated, sophisticated attack as they did in Spain?

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT