Skip to comments.
CIA Shakeup
ABC News ^
| May 17
| Terry Moran, Linda Douglass, Brian Ross and Lisa Sylvester
Posted on 05/17/2002 9:04:21 AM PDT by nimc
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
To: nimc
Listening to a snippet of GWB's speech on Rush a moment ago...GWB does not sounds happy. Maybe he'll finally take off the gloves and start confronting the Dems.
21
posted on
05/17/2002 9:25:09 AM PDT
by
TomGuy
To: syriacus
The American public was defrauded by both the CIA and the FBI. That's why there should be laws protecting citizens against the government. The CIA and the FBI contracted to obtain information and protect all American citizens. Their invoice was $30 billion. They withheld that protection. We should seek the return of that $30 billion from the individuals employed by those agencies.
To: Bonaparte
All Bush had to do was close all the airports and air fields, permanently ground all civilian American aircraft and deny airspace entry to all foreign aircraft. A piece of cake.Not true. He could have forbid darked skinned males with arab sounding names or passports from boarding planes bound for US air space. He then could have spent the rest of his tenure fighting the ACLU and the leftest news media, which would have immobilized his administration and ensured a one term presidencey.
To: hobbes1
"Targets were named."Yes, I know they were. A number of them. How many were red herrings, tossed to our intelligence people to decoy them and divert their efforts from the intended targets? How many flights, domestic and foreign, come into a place like NYC in one day? What would it take to ensure the security of each and every one of these flights? How well tolerated would such measures be by the passengers and businesses who rely on air travel to conduct their affairs? Questions like these are not addressed by Mr. Push.
I have to agree with Cheney -- there is no substitute for destroying the enemy, and nobody ever won a war by following a strictly defensive strategy.
To: Bonaparte
Actually, the information was probably not thoroughly investigated. The Administration IIRC , around 95, was in the beginning of the Paula Jones flap....NO time for terrorists.
25
posted on
05/17/2002 9:46:33 AM PDT
by
hobbes1
To: Labyrinthos
I know you realize I was being facetious in post 11.
To: SteamshipTime
"Alas, the average American thinks back no further than who won the WWF last month."Hell, the average American watches West Wing and still thinks the DNC is in the White House. This may just backfire on the Demmos.
27
posted on
05/17/2002 9:46:56 AM PDT
by
spald
To: Bonaparte
If the Info had been thouroughly vetted, perhaps in 96,the administration would have snapped up
Bin Laden when the Sudan offered him up....
28
posted on
05/17/2002 9:52:58 AM PDT
by
hobbes1
To: *Espionage_list
Check the
Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.
To: syriacus
Now they blame him for not taking enough decisive steps to prevent 9/11. They will get results, but not what they expect. Green light for national security.
To: nimc
"In 1995, al Qaeda confessed that they were planning to slam planes into the United States." [said Mr. Push]
Excuse me, WHO WAS PRESIDENT IN 1995!?!?!?!? All roads lead to Rome, in this case, all evidence points to the PREVIOUS administration!
31
posted on
05/17/2002 10:04:47 AM PDT
by
WIMom
To: hobbes1
" The Administration IIRC , around 95, was in the beginning of the Paula Jones flap....NO time for terrorists."I know you're not suggesting that the Jones suit, which went on for years, tied up Clinton and all the resources of the executive branch, including the intelligence agencies. Bennett and his staff are the ones who had to put their time into that project, not Clinton -- and even Bennett somehow found the time to squeeze in lots and lots of work for other clients. All Clinton had to do was consult with his attorneys on an occasional basis and show up for one or two depositions. And the intelligence agencies weren't even involved in any of that. Go back and check Clinton's daily itineraries in 1995. They did not read --
7 AM: Meeting with Paul Jones attorneys. Cancel golf with V. Jordan.
8 AM: Jones deposition. Cancel Lewinsky BJ.
9 AM: Phone consultation re Jones suit. Cancel fundraiser.
10 AM: Submit Jones affadavit. Cancel WH sleepover with Latin American drug dealers.
11 AM: Make televised speech denying Jones matter. Cancel another fundraiser.
Noon: Court appearance re continuance in Jones matter. Cancel Oval Office fundraising telethon with Gore.
1 PM: Submit motion re Jones suit. Cancel meeting with Blair.
And so on, until midnight.
To: Bonaparte
No, Clinton had to have time to actually...Think. Between managing media relations, laundering chinese money, and Fundraising every night of his miserable life.....He never had time to meet with
Woolsey when he ran CIA
33
posted on
05/17/2002 10:11:30 AM PDT
by
hobbes1
To: hobbes1
I agree that it's very likely Clinton missed a golden opportunity to neutralize bin Laden. He probably turned it over in his mind and concluded that it would be way too costly, necessitating that he forego 3 trysts with Lewinsky and as many pizzas.
To: nimc
tasked with finding indicted terrorist Osama bin Laden.Another "Elvis Bin Laden" thread award winner!
35
posted on
05/17/2002 10:15:07 AM PDT
by
ASA Vet
To: Bonaparte
Of course :-)
To: hobbes1
Clinton ignored security matters, including terrorist threats, because he wanted to -- not because the Jones suits monopolized his attention.
To: Bonaparte
know you're not suggesting that the Jones suit, which went on for years, tied up Clinton and all the resources of the executive branch, including the intelligence agencies. Clinton's the one who made the legal proceedings drag on, through his lying and his obstruction.
He may have made only one unwavering (unwaffling?) decision during his presidency... That his legacy was more important than the well-being of his fellow countrymen.
38
posted on
05/17/2002 10:21:13 AM PDT
by
syriacus
To: henderson field
Your#22........AND,...The "Brits", NO NOTHING,.....KNOW NOTHING??.........come on.
</sarcasm
39
posted on
05/17/2002 10:21:38 AM PDT
by
maestro
To: WIMom
Excuse me, WHO WAS PRESIDENT IN 1995!?!?!?!? You're not expecting to win a point with logic are you? You're debating with a liberal. It has to be Bush's fault. It just has to be. So therefore, it is.
40
posted on
05/17/2002 10:21:57 AM PDT
by
Utopia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 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