[TomGuy]

Tenet testimony

[Puddleglum]

What pretty did they offer you in exchange for this slander, Mr Clarke? A cabinet post? Twenty virgins? Disgusting weasel. And the press is up to their eyeballs complicit in all of this.

[Stultis]

Geez, Clarke not only fails to substantively flesh out or back up any of his "sexy" anti-Bush(Rice/Wolfowitz/etc) spin and rhetoric, he's toppling lefty myths one after the other. E.g. Michael Moore's dark conspiracy about the Saudi evacuation flight is bunk, and preemption is good policy. He's even called for a "secret police" (domestic security service -- not that I agree with that one).

I think we're going to see a lot of leftists backing away from their new hero (even while absurdly and selectively trying to hype and maintain exactly those of his claims which have the least substance and policy import).

[1Old Pro]

How many Dems are complaining about the "cost" of this investigation?

[TomGuy]

I wonder how much the DNC had to pay Clarke. Was he given a 'guaranteed number sales' or some other form of payoff?

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Someone should tell Mr. Ben-Clintonista that Iraq is not within the scope of the 911 Commission -- unless he thinks al-Qaida is linked to Iraq ...

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Reuters spin:

Anti-Terror Aide Says Bush Downplayed Threat

[TomGuy]

Hannity is talking to a lady who said she actually worked in/with Sudan during the timeframe that OBL was offered to Clinton.

Hannity is wanting her to give him copies of the documentation she has. She says she has alot of documentation.

[I didn't catch her association, except that she was a consultant, I think she said, in Sudan.]

[TomGuy]

The unbelievable thing is this:

Some official can make a statement, even in print or on tape. A liberal says the statement is wrong, and the rest of the media buys it.

A liberal can make a statement. Mounds of documentation, printed and taped, contradict the statement. We see it on FR and some nets like FoxNews play some of it, but the liberals somehow get away with and continue to repeat the 'lie.'

The Pubs on the Commission should start exercising their right and charge some of those testifying with perjury, as there seems to be some clear and definite lying. If the Pubs don't get tough, we all might as well just give up.

[Wolverine]

 

For those that are interested in how Pearl Harbor was investigated beginning in late 1945 and lasting till May 1946. 

 

A chronological chart of the investigations from the "Dorn Report".
Use a hyperlinked map of the Investigations to navigate or scroll down.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/file_map.html

The "NINE INVESTIGATIONS" in chronological order:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/invest.html

 

The Knox Investigation http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/knox/knox_0.html
Dec. 9-14, 1941. 

The Roberts Commission http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/roberts/roberts.html
Dec. 18-January-23, 1941
 
The Hart Investigation http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/hart/hart-00.html
Feb. 12-June 15, 1944
 
The Army Pearl Harbor Board http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/army/chap_0.html
Jul. 20-Oct. 20, 1944
 
The Navy Court of Inquiry http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/navy/navy_0.html
Jul. 24-Oct. 19, 1944. 
 
The Clarke Investigation http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/clarke/clarke_0.html
Aug. 4-Sep 20, 1944 
 
The Clausen Investigation
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/clausen/clausen.html
Jan. 24-Sep. 12, 1945 
 
The Hewitt Inquiry http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/hewitt/hewitt-0.html
May 14-July 11, 1945
 
The Joint Congressional Committee
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/congress/part_0.html
Nov. 15, 1945-May 23, 1946 
==========================
Suggested research path:

The Joint Congressional Committee
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/congress/part_0.html
Table of Contents gives a good over-view of the Report
and the Report itself refers back to the previous reports.

The Pearl Harbor Investigation Listing
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/invest.html
including the Joint Congressional Committee report and
the other eight official investigations
into the attack.

The Listing of Additional Files
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/extra.html
Holds several items that are of interest but weren't included in all of the
proceedings.

Naval Historical Center Images of Pearl Harbor
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/pearlhbr/pearlhbr.htm

Photographic collections related to Pearl Harbor
http://ibiblio.org/pha/images/index.html

A Chronological Collection of Documents Relating to the U.S. Entry Into WWII
http://ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/  (Four parts)
    Magic intercepts listed in the Pearl Harbor Attack Hearings.
    Communications between Washington and the US embassy in Tokyo, other
    relevant US documents.
    International chronology, listing various documents from around the world
    Military document chronology, listing important military plans, studies and   communications.

Japanese Operational Monograph  No. 97  PEARL HARBOR OPERATIONS:

General Outline of Orders and Plans http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/myths/jm-097.html
was rewritten in English by the Japanese Research Division, Military History
Section, Headquarters, Army Forces Far East and is based on the translation
of the Japanese original.

Pearl Harbor Revisionism
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3682/phrevisionism.html
First Order revisionism holds President Franklin D. Roosevelt personally
responsible for the debacle at Pearl Harbor and regards him as having used
the incident as a means to get the United States involved in the War and
subsequently used the Hawaiian commanders as scapegoats to shift public
attention away from the activities of the Administration.

[mondonico]

This is very depressing. The power of the Clintonistas left-wing media to lie and distort seems overwhelming.

[TomasUSMC]

Part of Clarke's blah blah transcript.

In 1993, when the truck bomb exploded at the World Trade Center, we didn't know there was an al Qaeda. No one had ever said that. In the initial reports, and I mean initial by the sense of about a year or two, the initial reports from the FBI's investigation of that attack, suggested that the attackers were somehow a gang of people from five or six different countries who had found each other and come together almost like a pick-up basketball team, that there was no organization behind it.

Eventually, in retrospect, the FBI and CIA were able to discover that there was an organization behind it and that organization is what we now call al Qaeda. Most of the people directly involved in that conspiracy were identified and tracked down by the FBI and CIA, were arrested or snatched and brought back to the United States. Mr. Yasin was the one who wasn't. And the reason he wasn't was he was an Iraqi. He was the only Iraqi in the group. There were Egyptians and there were other nationalities. He was an Iraqi and therefore when the explosion took place and he fled the United States, he went back to Iraq.

And we were, obviously, for obvious reasons, unable to either snatch him or get him to be extradited to the United States.

But the investigation, both the CIA investigation and the FBI investigation, made it very clear in '95 and '96 as they got more information, that the Iraqi government was in no way involved in the attack.

And the fact that one of the 12 people involved in the attack was Iraqi hardly seems to me as evidence that the Iraqi government was involved in the attack. The attack was al Qaeda; not Iraq. The Iraqi government because, obviously, of the hostility between us and them, didn't cooperate in turning him over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists.

But the allegation that has been made that the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center was done by the Iraqi government I think is absolutely without foundation.
-----
WHAT?
Unbelievable. The Iraqis refuse to give up a terrorist to us and we just shrug our shoulders? This WAS proof that Iraq was aiding and abetting the Terrorist in the FIRST 911.

This showS the mindset of Dumbocrats. One of the bombers of the WTC in 1993, fled to Iraq and the United States Government under Democratic Control tried to - EXTRADITE HIM! Were talking less than 2 years after the Gulf War! We had Iraq totally decimated and we could have given Iraq the same Ultimatum we gave Afrubblestan concerning Osama, Give him up or give up your country.

Thats the difference between Dumbocrats and Republicans. When our country is attacked, the Dumbocrats ask the U.N., they ask for extraditions, and they ask politely. Thats how you lose - in the War on Terror.

Republicans DEMAND WITH ULTIMATUMS. Thats how you win - in the War on Terror.