Peter Bergen's Questions (for Condi Rice)

Open book questions for Condi.

Let the liberals cling to their myths of Camelot: Free Republic supports fidelity and family values!
Compare	Contrast

* Pro-Life * Commitment	- Pro-Abortion - Annulment
'nuff said?
Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to: FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 Or you can use: PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-- Found in the breaking news sidebar! Fawnn

After reading what an ass this writer was in just #1, I would no read further.

But there are recorded reviews before 9-11 where she is talking about al Qaeda and Osama. These writers know this, so what is the motive here, to help lose a war for the sake of politics?

Both Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" and Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" show that shortly after 9/11 there was considerable focus by the Bush cabinet on Iraq's possibly being the perpetrator of the attacks.

Considering that there is evidence that there were ties between Iraq and those who bombed the WTC in 1993, it would have been negligent NOT to question Iraq's possible involvement with the 9/11 attack.

I agree, I stopped at question 1, since it was so totally inaccurate and uninformed. There was no reason to continue.

Question #5 jumped out at me as the most galling:

"5. According to the interrogations of detainees held as suspected Al Qaeda operatives, the lack of response to the attack on the destroyer Cole made the group feel that it could act with impunity. Early in your administration Al Qaeda was identified as the principal suspect in that attack. In addition, Osama bin Laden released videotapes in January and June of 2001 more or less taking credit for his role in it. Why was there no response of any kind from your administration to the Cole attack, an act of war against the United States that killed 17 sailors and nearly sank one of the most advanced destroyers in the American fleet?"

Why, sir, was there no response from THE ADMINISTRATION THAT WAS IN OFFICE AT THE TIME that those Sailors were murdered? You act as if President Bush was in office when it happened; HE WASN'T, you kneepad-wearing jerk!

....so what is the motive here, to help lose a war for the sake of politics?

Yes, that IS the agenda of the NY Times, and all liberals democrats.

If anyone should lose a job I think it will be George Tenet, a rat holdover.

Just because someone is my apparent enemy doesn't mean I never listen to them. You can wind up getting blindsided that way.

Mr. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism director, has said that of the 100 or so meetings held by cabinet-level officials before 9/11 only one was about terrorism. Is this true? If so, was this emblematic of the Bush administration's posture on terrorism?

Okayyyyy....Here's a better question: In the EIGHT YEARS that Mr. Clarke was working with the feckless Clinton administration, (1) how many bazillions of cabinet-level meetings were held, and (2) how many were about Islamofascist terrorism? Even after Mogadishu, embassy bombings, USS Cole, etc. (3) Add those up and give me the percentage and we'll see how committed Spot was to crushing Al Qaeda.

I think the UN forced Bush #1 to be weak in not removing Saddam.

Clinton came in and unanswered many acts of terror which made us look weak, so we became an attractive target for constantly bigger and better things.

Later Osama declared war, Clinton had him and he let him go.
Meanwhile the UN never did anything about Saddam and mass graves number 1-270.

This has nothing to do with Bush, except for him coming in to bat clean-up and to remove the mess.

The Dems has the ability to do something and being they didn't they are crying foul at Hush #2 with full responsibility for this mess in their behavior.

Sorry was tired in that last phrase.

Dems had the ability to do what ever and they screwed up.

Bush #2 is a good man and is stuck with the Democrat mess he was left in so many ways.

Don't know about Tenet, but Clinton never saw CIA director James Woollsey during his tenure.

Clinton couldn't have cared less.

Right off the bat, Question #1 is based on a LIE!

1. A search of all your public statements and writings reveals that you apparently mentioned Osama bin Laden only once and never mentioned Al Qaeda at all as a threat to the United States before 9/11. Why?

A: Thanks you for the question Congresswoman Opportunistic
Slut. My answer is that I most assuredly did mention Al Qaeda on numerous occasions that you simply choose not to recognize for reasons of grandstanding to benefit your poverty pimp running for President at this time.. But even if you could never find a single note on these commentaries, it would be no big surprise. There are more than a few reasons why a Dolt, such as yourself, would not be privy to important National Security information; as it is classified and way over your head. There is little doubt that if you did have such information you would blab it all over the media, thus there is no way you could ever be trusted with secrets of such importance.

2. Both Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" and Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" show that shortly after 9/11 there was considerable focus by the Bush cabinet on Iraq's possibly being the perpetrator of the attacks. Why was Iraq considered a suspect when there was no evidence that it was involved in any act of anti-American terrorism for a decade — other than a failed attempt to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush in 1993 — while there was overwhelming evidence that it was the Al Qaeda network that attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, tried to blow up Los Angeles International Airport in 1999, blew up American embassies in Africa in 1998 and attacked the destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000? After all, the cabinet did not discuss the possibility that the attacks were the work of Iran, Libya or Syria, all countries that have a history of terrorism directed at Americans.

A: First and foremost Cogressman RINO, I'd like to ask if any one of your panel have ever had an original thought? 9/11 was over two years ago and the whole lot of you can only cite recent books, written for shock value and profit, as your entire basis for questioning. Isn't that a wee bit embarrassing? Nonetheless, here goes: It is not a foregone conclusion that Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC bombing in 1993, since one of the prime suspects was actually allowed to leave the United States and subsequently attempted to go directly to Bagdad. If not for the Jordanians, and I hate to say it, but no thanks to WJClinton and Richard Clarke, we would never have been able to prosecute him. Furthermore, since Iraq did seem to have a WTC fettish, it does seem reasonable to examine the possibility that it might have been them, genius. But I assure you, we already knew Alqaeda played a role in 9/11 from the inteligence we had on hand within days of the attack, but we wanted to be sure there was, or was not an Iraqi connection for the reasons I've stated. I'd also like to add that making an attemp on the life of a POTUS should be no joke to anyone, even if he was a Republican.

3. Mr. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism director, has said that of the 100 or so meetings held by cabinet-level officials before 9/11 only one was about terrorism. Is this true? If so, was this emblematic of the Bush administration's posture on terrorism?

A: No, there were numerous meetings dealing with terrorism. Mr Clarke was taken off the invitation list when he continuously and purposely missed the meetings I called. I can only assume that he did this because he was insulted that he couldn't meet with the President exclusively. As you know, he should never be second guessed by anyone. Later on, since we knew we could'nt get him into a room with secondary players, such as deputies, we decided he could ride a desk in cyber crapola. He was a Dick, and we reciprocated. I guess he just couldn't handle answering to ME, if you know where I'm going with this.

4. The Bush administration's position, and your own, has been that it would not have been possible to conceive that planes might be used as missiles against the United States. Yet during the 1996 Olympics countermeasures were taken for just that eventuality. How do you reconcile this discrepancy?

A: It's no discrepancy at all. Richard Clarke, perhaps rightfully, called for air secuirty over the Olympics. There are many reasons why someone would do that. Small planes with exposives to drop, crop dusters with poisions aboard etc. But I have never heard, or read a report that said he was worried about a passenger airliner crashing into the games, and furthermore, aside from closing airspace, what was his proposal? Missle batteries. Were those things intended to shoot down passenger airliners in 1996? I don't think that was his intention. But only Mr Clarke is allowed to revise history, so I'll not extrapolate his intentions on that one.

5. According to the interrogations of detainees held as suspected Al Qaeda operatives, the lack of response to the attack on the destroyer Cole made the group feel that it could act with impunity. Early in your administration Al Qaeda was identified as the principal suspect in that attack. In addition, Osama bin Laden released videotapes in January and June of 2001 more or less taking credit for his role in it. Why was there no response of any kind from your administration to the Cole attack, an act of war against the United States that killed 17 sailors and nearly sank one of the most advanced destroyers in the American fleet?

A: Well Congressman GoodfornothingbutPR,

First, as we've heard before from that "scribe of truth telling", Mr Clarke, i.e. the writer of your commision bible, The President had never intended to go tit for tat with Alqaeda. You heard the testimony that the President asked for a comprehensive review on how to roll back Alqaeda into non-existance, or to quote "Stop swatting at flies" That comprehensive report was delivered on 6 September. As you know, too late for real action, but the planning made us much more responsive to the action we later took in kicking the Taliban off thier perches.

Second, It should be pretty clear by now that the Clinton Administration, pussies that they were, also knew, within reason, that Alqaeda had been behind the USS Cole bombing. I hesitate to say this, but it may be that one tally wacking soon-to-be former President was a wee bit to concerned about getting Ahud Barak and that terrorist, Arafat to shake hands on TV, in the belief that he would get the Nobel Peace Prize if he could pull it off. You may want to consider that at some point during this "non-partisan" (wink, wink) committee.

6. On Aug. 6, 2001, President Bush was briefed that members of Al Qaeda might plan to hijack a plane in order to secure the release of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a spiritual leader of Al Qaeda jailed in the United States. Given what you now know of the importance of Sheik Rahman to Al Qaeda — as well as the fact that two of his sons played key roles in the group — how would you now characterize this piece of intelligence?

A: Do you know how many planes are in the air right now, as we speak? Let me help you, about 5,000. Now tell me how to get the CIA to profile a single Arab, pre 9/11 without one of you ninnies screaming for the ACLU? You might want to also consider the fact that most of our people had just started their jobs after that fiasco you called a justice department finally turned evrything over to us. You might also re-read your question, cause I didn't hear crap about flying planes into buildings. Aw, forget it! We'll take the hit on this one, just move on you RATfaced punk!

7. Why did you have no plan in place on 9/11 to immediately attack Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies? The United States government had repeatedly put the Taliban on notice that they would be held responsible for any attacks by Al Qaeda. By delaying the military response for a month, the Taliban and Al Qaeda had time to disperse, regroup and fight another day.

A: You know shit about logistics. Furthermore Congresswoman Gash, I thought you abhored preemption? Oh nevermind. What you call delaying, we call mount out. Besides, who was it that repeatedly put the Taliban on notice and did nothing? I think you got your parties mixed up, freak.

8. When you came into office some two dozen members of Al Qaeda, including several senior commanders of the group, had already been indicted. What plans did you have to bring these men to justice?

A: Just so you know, Einstien, Indicted doesn't mean "in custody" That's more of a Clinton word, I think, than a Bush word. And I already explained to you that we were developing a comprehensive plan to role back Alqaeda. It was ready on September 6th. Are you deaf, or just stupid?

9. Why has there been no public apology or resignation by any Bush administration official over the most catastrophic intelligence and national security failure of the past five decades?

A: Simple Bastard. You ask me that insulting question with a straight face knowing that we were knee deep in crap piles left over from your hero, Bill Clinton? That stupid game you jerk-offs played in Florida cost us over a precious month of organization and planning. Do you recall that while we were trying to make space at vacant government offices, your people were busy swiping the china and whiting out "W"s on White House computers? Are you for real? You might want to ask him why people in the Clinton administration, including Richard the Great (in his own mind) didn't leap off tall buildings that day in recognition of what puss boys they had turned out to be in fighting terror.

Any further questions Mr Chairman?

bump!

They also dumped superglue on WH computer keyboards, wrecked hard drives, and trashed offices.

9. Why has there been no public apology or resignation by any Bush administration official over the most catastrophic intelligence and national security failure of the past five decades?
Because those responsible were in the Clinton administration. No matter how much it's deserved, those who are out of office can't be fired.

Your response in #14 is funny and factual. I emailed it to my brother for his enjoyment. The subject line reads "pithy responses."

More than a few LOL. I hope Condi reads it.

Mr Bergan, since you wrote about the "secret world of OBL", are a sophisticated prof, and more importantly WORK FOR CNN;

why then sir, did YOU not know that on September 11, 2001, between 8:30 and 9 am, that four planes with 19 highjackers, would commit suicide after piloting those planes into buildings????????????

If you know OBL "secret" world, why did you not know that these Islamic death cults were IN the US taking flying lessons, and planning this for years????????????????

This is your entire field of study, you have interviewed OBL, and you claim to be an expert on terrorism, and you could not predict this????

I'd say YOUR obsession with OBL, did us absoluted NO GOOD at all.