Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: HundredDollars

You are exactly right on action, and I have little doubt that is what we will see if the democrats try for a third time to run on this losing strategy.

Sometimes I wonder if the RNC holds back too much too, but the longer and louder the D-team gets away with it, the dumber they will look when the hammer comes down.


22 posted on 11/03/2005 12:15:29 AM PST by EERinOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: EERinOK
The 9/11 commission was a real boon-doggle as well.

All those accusations against the Bush admin never covered any of the failures of the Clinton Admin. The RNC never made those public, and of course MSM wouldn't expose their rat friends.

THE OSAMA FILES BY DAVID ROSE

A snip from this tell all article buried away.

"From the autumn of 1996 until just weeks before the 2001 attacks, the Sudanese government made numerous efforts to share this information with the United States all of which were rebuffed. On several occasions, senior agents at the F.B.I. wished to accept these offers, but were apparently overruled by President Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, and her assistant secretary for Africa, Susan Rice, both of whom would not comment for this story after repeated requests for interviews. Vanity Fair has obtained letters and secret memorandums that document these approaches. They were made directly to the State Department and the F.B.I., and also via a series of well-connected U.S. citizens who tried to warn America that the Sudanese offers were serious and significant.

By definition, September 11 was an intelligence failure. As the C.I.A. man puts It, We didn't know it was going to happen." Some of the reasons for that failure were structural, systemic: the shortage of Arabic-speaking agents, the inability of C.I.A. officers to go underground in Afghanistan.

This one was more specific. CE Had U.S. agencies examined the AF Mukhabarat files when they first REI had the chance in 1996, the prospects of preventing al-Qaeda's subsequent attacks would have been much greater. Tim Carney, the last U.S. ambassador to Sudan, whose posting ended in 1997, says: "The fact is, they were opening the doors, and we weren't taking them up on it. The U.S. failed to reciprocate Sudan's willingness to engage us on serious questions of terrorism. We can speculate that this failure had serious implications-at the least for what happened at the U.S. Embassies in 1998. In any case, the U.S. lost access to a mine of material on bin Laden and his organization."

How could this have happened? The simple answer is that the Clinton administration had accused Sudan of sponsoring terrorism, and refused to believe that anything it did to prove its bona fides could be genuine. At the same time, perceptions in Washington were influenced by C.I.A. reports that were wildly inaccurate, some the result of deliberate disinformation. The problem, Carney says, was "inadequate vetting and analysis by the C.I.A. of its own product." That, in turn, was being conditioned by the Clinton administration's hostility to Sudan's Islamic regime: "Despite dissent from the State Department's own Bureau of Intelligence and Research, U.S. intelligence failed be- cause it became politicized."

Worth keeping before it dissapears. I just don't know why the RNC doesn't throw these issues back at the RATS along with everything else.

23 posted on 11/03/2005 12:34:46 AM PST by Forte Runningrock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson