Replies

He said that Gorelick did not respond to Ashcroft's accusation.

Matthews is so off on these things; it has to be purposeful.

Now he's talking about Clinton maybe trying to assassinate OBL:

MON: Memorandum of Notification

Matthews is saying that Ashcroft is wrong, that Bill Clinton approved a plot against OBL and that when Ashcroft said today that he didn't have approval to kill OBL -- or that he didn't get it -- he was wrong; that Clinton had left them wide open for it.

I think Matthews is wrong.

BTW, in case you're wondering, Chrissy's guests tonight are - tada -- BV and "The Wives," as he now calls them.

Lester Holt is actually discussing Gorelick's "The Wall" memo with former VA gov Jim Gilmore. Was actually spinless.

Will the lunatic Widow Mariani be amongst them?

BTW, in case you're wondering, Chrissy's guests tonight are - tada -- BV and "The Wives," as he now calls them.

Oh, barf! Are they all going out for drinks after?

the secret legal authorizations Clinton signed after this failed missile strike required the CIA to make a good faith effort to capture bin Laden for trial, not kill him outright.

Beginning in the summer of 1998, Clinton signed a series of top secret memos authorizing the CIA or its agents to use lethal force, if necessary, in an attempt to capture bin Laden and several top lieutenants and return them to the United States to face trial.

snip

Tenet and his senior CIA colleagues demanded that the White House lay out rules of engagement for capturing bin Laden in writing, and that they be signed by Clinton. Then, with such detailed authorizations in hand, every one of the CIA officers who handed a gun or a map to an Afghan agent could be assured that he or she was operating legally.

This was the role of the Memorandum of Notification, as it was called. It was typically seven or eight pages long, written in the form of a presidential decision memo. It began with a statement about how bin Laden and his aides had attacked the United States. The memo made clear the president was aware of the risks he was assuming as he sent the CIA into action.

Some of the most sensitive language concerned the specific authorization to use deadly force. Clinton's national security aides said they wanted to encourage the CIA to carry out an effective operation against bin Laden, not to burden the agency with constraints or doubts. Yet Clinton's aides did not want authorizations that could be interpreted by Afghan agents as an unrestricted license to kill. For one thing, the Justice Department signaled that it would oppose such language if it was proposed for Clinton's signature.

The compromise wording, in a succession of bin Laden-focused memos, always expressed some ambiguity about how and when deadly force could be used in an operation designed to take bin Laden into custody. Typical language, recalled one official involved, instructed the CIA to "apprehend with lethal force as authorized."

At the CIA, officers and supervisors agonized over these abstract phrases. They worried that if an operation in Afghanistan went badly, they would be accused of having acted outside the memo's scope. Over time, recriminations grew between the CIA and the White House.

It was common in Clinton's cabinet and among his National Security Council aides to see the CIA as too cautious, paralyzed by fears of legal and political risks. At Langley, this criticism rankled. The CIA's senior managers believed officials at the White House wanted to have it both ways: They liked to blame the agency for its supposed lack of aggression, yet they sent over classified legal memos full of wiggle words.

I am not boycotting Chris,I simply find him unwatchable.I don't mind doing opposition research on occasion,but I am glad someone else is doing it on Chris!Thanks!