Skip to comments.
Panel to reconsider Clarke statements
THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^
| 4-7-04
| James G. Lakely
Posted on 04/06/2004 10:20:52 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:14:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
The September 11 commission will look at the discrepancy between the testimony of Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered the threat of al Qaeda "urgent" and its final national-security report to Congress, which gave the terror organization scant mention.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911commission; clarke; clintonpapers; dipwad; jamesglakely; richardclarke
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-104 next last
To: oolatec
***No overriding external threats abroad ***
That's the phrase for every one of us to remember.
NO OVERRIDING EXTERNAL THREATS ABROAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tell everyone you know that that is what Ciinton put in his report. And tell them that Clinton was responsible for 9/11.
81
posted on
04/07/2004 9:18:55 AM PDT
by
kitkat
To: Indy Pendance
Ha!
That is all I have to say........................
82
posted on
04/07/2004 9:25:46 AM PDT
by
Cold Heat
(Notice! Looking for a replacement lawyer with only one hand! (who can't say "on the other hand")
To: bondjamesbond
"The country was just not in the right place for that kind of action back then. We were in our fat-dumb-and-happy phase"I have to agree. If either Clinton or Bush had taken any significant steps to defeat terrorists, e.g. boots on the ground, the majority of the American people would have been screaming their heads off.
83
posted on
04/07/2004 9:27:41 AM PDT
by
MEGoody
(Kerry - isn't that a girl's name? (Conan O'Brian))
To: Howlin
Jim Robinson needs to buy us a shrink We can call him/her the resident FRink!
Unfortunately it would have to be in the chat room.
84
posted on
04/07/2004 9:29:47 AM PDT
by
Cold Heat
(Notice! Looking for a replacement lawyer with only one hand! (who can't say "on the other hand")
To: ALOHA RONNIE
Thanks for the ping!
85
posted on
04/07/2004 9:32:17 AM PDT
by
Alamo-Girl
(Glad to be a monthly contributor to Free Republic!)
To: DaiHuy
The WH had to check the book, but not for accuracy. They can't stop a book because there are lies in it.
They can only stop a book if nothing in there reveals national security secrets etc.
86
posted on
04/07/2004 9:33:14 AM PDT
by
rwfromkansas
("Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" -- Abraham Lincoln)
To: DaiHuy
The WH had to check the book, but not for accuracy. They can't stop a book because there are lies in it.
They can only stop a book if something in there reveals national security secrets etc.
87
posted on
04/07/2004 9:33:20 AM PDT
by
rwfromkansas
("Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" -- Abraham Lincoln)
To: wirestripper
88
posted on
04/07/2004 9:33:51 AM PDT
by
Howlin
(I'm a monthy donor..........wouldn't you like to be a monthly donor, too?)
To: DaiHuy
I meant to say if something is in there, not if nothing is in there.....I tried to fix it in time, but still double posted. THe second post is correct.
89
posted on
04/07/2004 9:34:01 AM PDT
by
rwfromkansas
("Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" -- Abraham Lincoln)
To: alwaysconservative
***That quote [NO OVERRIDING EXTERNAL THREATS ABROAD] should be the caption for the photo of the burning towers that was up thread a bit.***
You are absolutely right! Let's use it every time that picture is shown.
90
posted on
04/07/2004 9:36:44 AM PDT
by
kitkat
To: Howlin
LOL!
Reminds me of the VA.
91
posted on
04/07/2004 9:47:35 AM PDT
by
Cold Heat
(Notice! Looking for a replacement lawyer with only one hand! (who can't say "on the other hand")
To: Indy Pendance
Good.
I posted yesterday when I learned the commission asked the WH for a transcript of the speech Rice was scheduled to give on 9/11---but never gave, (they refused), that I hoped they would consider documents that are in fact in the public record like this Clinton report.
Very good, indeed.
92
posted on
04/07/2004 9:59:23 AM PDT
by
cyncooper
("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
To: All
The movie says it all.
Support Free Republic. Click pic.
93
posted on
04/07/2004 10:00:47 AM PDT
by
Lady Jag
(I dreamed I surfed all day in my monthly donor wonder bra.)
To: dansangel
The Clinton administration's final document was 45,000 words long and titled "A National Security Strategy for a Global Age," but it hardly mentioned bin Laden and his terrorist network. Mr. Clinton wrote in the preface, "We are blessed to be citizens of a country enjoying record prosperity with no deep divisions at home, no overriding external threats abroad,and history's most powerful military ready to defend our interests around the world." If the Commission tries to nail Clinton & Gore on this statement, he'll probably point out that it's technically correct since the terrorists were already in this country and not abroad.
To: MEGoody
***If either Clinton or Bush had taken any significant steps to defeat terrorists, e.g. boots on the ground, the majority of the American people would have been screaming their heads off.***
Pres. Bush spent fourteen months (14) before the U.N. trying to get them to give approval to attack Iraq. Germany and France fought it all the way. Even now, the dems are calling it a "unilateral" action. (I just heard Kerry on radio saying that.)
But remember, we were attacked during Clinton's reign of terror, i.e. the Cole, the 1993 attack on the WTC, our foreign embassies. If an attack against us was necessary to get the American people behind a presidential action against the terrorists, then Clinton should have acted, and DID NOT. As Bush said during his run for the presidency, "THEY HAVE NOT LED. WE WILL." And he has.
95
posted on
04/07/2004 10:10:00 AM PDT
by
kitkat
To: DaiHuy
A guy I work with keeps saying that Clarkes book was given to the White house for approval before it was released, and the White house approved the book just the way it is, ergo what Clarke is saying is all true.I see others have informed you that WH lawyers review for classified information and that's it.
You might point out to your friend that the WH reviews Rice's comments too, so by his logic, she is telling the truth (which she is),
96
posted on
04/07/2004 10:13:48 AM PDT
by
cyncooper
("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
To: Attillathehon
If the Commission tries to nail Clinton & Gore on this statement, he'll probably point out that it's technically correct since the terrorists were already in this country and not abroad.Using the "whatever the definition of *is* is" approach, you are probably right.
The fact remains, the terror cells are formed, backed and financed abroad, then put into place here in the states.
97
posted on
04/07/2004 10:13:48 AM PDT
by
dansangel
(Do your part to drive the 'rats to distraction - You *too* can be a monthly donor!)
To: VRWC_minion
Thank you for the information about Condit being appointed to Homeland Security. I didn't even know about that. And Gephardt did it? SLIME! The dems don't care about our national security. If it weren't for Free Republic and others protesting Condit's re-election, he'd still be sitting on a committee for Homeland Security.
98
posted on
04/07/2004 10:23:32 AM PDT
by
kitkat
To: Attillathehon
If the Commission tries to nail Clinton & Gore on this statement, he'll probably point out that it's technically correct since the terrorists were already in this country and not abroad.Except he completely left out a warning of an internal threat.
The spin you suggest would fall since the commission wanted a copy of a speech Rice never gave that did in fact talk about domestic terrorism (suitcase bombs, sarin in the subway, etc) but focused mainly on the need for a Missile Defense System. The libs were poised to say that the emphasis alone was damning and it made front page news in the Washington Post last week (excerpts leaked by "former officials" doncha know).
Seeing as Clinton did not raise the red flag of terrorists striking from within at all....well, there goes the entire argument the left had constructed against the Bush administration.
99
posted on
04/07/2004 10:37:50 AM PDT
by
cyncooper
("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
To: piasa
Kerry looks like death warmed over in that photo... must be pre-botox That's because the Bushes have him surrounded.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-104 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson