Replies

The part the meadie will continue to ignore - the factual refutation of Clarke's primary lie:

One of Clarke's most damaging allegations is that he crafted an anti-terrorism plan -- a National Security Presidential Directive -- to take on al-Qaida in January 2001. The NSPD was not approved until Sept. 4, and neither was it substantially changed in the intervening months, according to Clarke. He has challenged the White House to release both documents to allow for a side-by-side comparison.

The notes address this matter, saying the plan to attack the Taliban existed before Sept. 4.

"The NSPD wasn't signed till Sept. 4 but had an annex going back to July (with) contingency plans to attack Taliban," the notes say.

That point is related to another in the notes. The briefing says commission member Jamie Gorelick, a former general counsel of the Defense Department under President Clinton, was pitting Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage against Rice. Under sworn testimony, Armitage contradicted Rice's claim the White House had a strategy before Sept. 11 that called for military operations against al-Qaida and the Taliban.

Dickie Clarke whines, but no one is listening.

Here's the truth:

This plan, NEVER ENACTED BY KLINTON, was to be implemented over THREE YEARS, beginning with dialogue with the Taliban.

Fact is nothing other than CIA & FBI intelligence could have detected and stopped the 9/11 hijackers after Bush took office. Nothing.

However, Klinton's avoidance of the 1st WTC terrorist bombing in 1993, a disgraceful and shameless act, was directly linked to the eventual attack.

Eight years under Klinton vs. Eight months under Bush.

Bush launched an offensive that saw the American military conquer invincible Afghanistan and walk the streets of Kandahar only 59 days after the 2nd WTC attack.

OT observation: I've have yet to get an answer to why it is that Jamie Gorelick is even on this commission. This is a woman who should be answering questions...not asking them. Her positions within the Clinton administration are very relevant to both the policy and the inaction we saw against OBL and AQ...prior to 9/11.

Think about this...this is a woman who was both a Deputy AG under Clinton...and now I see, a General Counsel for the Defense Department. This is important because as we've seen, the Clinton administration engaged in extreme legalese in its efforts to avoid confrontation with these terrorist groups. Whether it was the PC politics of the DOJ that prevented them from targeting Muslim groups and charities in this country, for fear of being labeled racists...to commanders in the military having to consult "lawyers" before they took any military action.

If, as Dick Morris has even said, that this was an overriding "political" concern for Clinton, than Jamie Gorelick is the one witness who should be in the hotseat by virtue of her 2 positions in the Clinton administration that put her at the heart of these questions. Were domestic political concerns and PC policies more important than national security...especially since this administration treated terrorism as a legal matter? I'm beginning to think that her appoitment to this position, was to keep her from becoming a witness.