Posted on 03/23/2004 8:52:48 PM PST by Steven W.
"The administration does not want the victims of Sept. 11 interfering with its foreign policy," says Peter M. Leitner, director of the Washington Center for Peace and Justice (WCPJ). Leitner says the Bush administration may be concerned that if other victims of the Sept. 11 attacks also filed lawsuits and won civil-damage awards it would reduce Iraqi resources that the administration wants to use to rebuild the country. Leitner and others say this explains Bush's reticence at this time to report the convincing evidence linking Saddam and al-Qaeda that has been collected by U.S. investigators and private organizations seeking damages. "The [Bush] administration is intentionally changing the topic," claims Leitner, and sidestepping the issue that "Iraq has been in a proxy war against the U.S. for years and has used al-Qaeda in that war against the United States."
Did you watch Hannity last night? He had a tape of Condi talking about Al Qaeda from the fall of 2000, before the Bush admin even took office. Clarke is a liar.
I personally think that the sinking of Pres. Bush's second term has seriously been in the works since Dec. 2000. Who has the most motive to derail this commission? Clinton and his ever-elusive legacy. So I assume that he carefully sought a holdover in this administration with an ax to grind and brought him on board. I'm sure that Clinton has known from 9-11 that his complicity in our nation's lack of security would be examined and that he set out to attack whatever anyone may find. Even though his negligence is becoming clearer, he knows that the Bush adm. has the most to lose. So all he has to do is throw some dirt out there to cloud the total picture. We need to be vigilant and expose the truth.
See the thread Did I just hear Hannity bop Clarke over the head 2000 Condi interview???
There is an audio clip in post #12. I was beginning to think last night that the Dems have been handing out Thorazine at their meetings...they sure are shuffling around this commission thing now on the talk shows. All of a sudden after finger pointing at Bush for so long, they are resorting to "Oh, we should not point fingers, there is enough blame to go around".
"...The problem is not combating Al Qaeda's inherent appeal, for it has none. The problem is changing the fact that major components of American foreign policy are either opposed or misunderstood by much of the world...."
Delusional denial of jihadi appeal coupled with ritualistic anti-american self-flagellation.
"The Cleaning Lady" just doesn't get it. I remember watching her on The Charlie Rose show some months ago. Maddy kept saying, in regard to various aspects of Bush's foreign policy (at the time registering unprecedented gains in the historically intractable problem of limiting WMD proliferation) that she "didn't understand" this, "couldn't fathom" the motivation for that, and was "mystified" by the other. Sad as it was, she kept repeating this theme enough that it soon got funny as well. I was laughing out loud by the time a pizza delivery guy came to the door. He did a double take of the television with that boring PBS guy at the oak table, and musta thought that I'd either just switched over from The Comedy Channel, or that I was crazy.
Clarke, on page 95 of his book, which I've just been reading, has at least three important misstatements. First of all, he does not seem to recognize at all that one of the major plotters in the '93 attack on the World Trade Center was an Iraqi citizen, went back to Iraq after the attack, was seen by ABC News in Baghdad outside his father's home and was told that he was being taken care of by the Iraqi government. And reports of documents we captured during the invasion indicate that Yassin was on a monthly stipend from the Iraqi government and was given a house. Why would the Iraqis do that with one of the World Trade Center bombers of '93 unless they had some kind of relationship with him. Clarke doesn't even seem to be curious about something like that.
I'm not sure if this list was intended to include all three misstatements, or if he never got around to the second and third misstatements in the Dobbs interview.
But what Woolsey specified here were errors of omission, not misstatements.
Does anybody know what Clarke's misstatements were? Woolsey is careful with his words, and if he says there were three misstatements, we should be able to point to three things Clarke said that Woolsey says are false.
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.