Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer [TRANSCRIPT]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/print/20020517-6.html ^ | May 17, 2002 | Ari Fleischer

[Quilla]

Amen to your 'big bucks' comment. The White House Press Corp is a motley brew of liberal swill (with the exception of Fox correspondents). Their bias is as apparent with Fleisher as it was with Lockhart. I swear, if I looked hard enough I could probably find this question asked during the infamous period often referred to as 'the last eight years':

HELEN: Joe, tell me, I know Mr. Clinton is extremely busy masterfully and brilliantly handling all affairs of state, but could you provide us with the name of his preferred cigar? Oh, and this is a two part question. Do you know if we can have any of those he is through with?

[Mark de New Brighton]

Bump for later

[InfraRed]

And in 1998, Time Magazine narrowed the targets to DC and New York. How much more information did this administration think was necessary before it acted?

When did Israel first become aware that suicidal Islamic extremists wanted to kill innocent civilians by detonating bombs in public places? Quite a while back, right? Why then have there been so many bombings in Israel this year? The Palistenians caught everybody off guard, day after day after day?

I guess all the bombings in Israel this year could have been prevented, if only the Israeli government would have issued daily warnings that palestinians are dangerous. Maybe our government should have started issuing warnings during the Clinton eons years?

All of this political maneuvering is a distraction that will probably end up costing yet more American lives.

It is extremely unlikely that September 11 was the last time we will see terrorist activities inside of our borders. Why isn't the left-wing media warning the country about potential future attacks, rather than jabbing sticks at a very busy administration? Are they going to blame themselves for the next attack? I sure will! Actually, they already carry a large share of the responsibility for 9/11. If the media had been asking questions, rather than glorifying the StainMaker's victory over an aspirin factory, maybe our fellow Americans would have scrutinized the no-takeoff/no-landing/box-cutter carrying/expired visa-holding/peaceful islamic hijackers more closely.

[uncbob]

1. The American public needed a disaster to wake them up
The bombing of the WTC in 93 if it had been successful would have had a higher death toll. But because it didn't work the outrage was minimal
In addition Clinton did ZILCH to prepare for a war against OBL as a result of the bombing

2. The American public should have been outraged and demanded action from Clinton when the USS Cole was attacked but becaise it was military doing the dying they were complacent
Again Clinton did ZILCH

[MJY1288]

"HELEN: Joe, tell me, I know Mr. Clinton is extremely busy masterfully and brilliantly handling all affairs of state, but could you provide us with the name of his preferred cigar? Oh, and this is a two part question. Do you know if we can have any of those he is through with?"

ROFLMAO

[wheezer]

If the media had been asking questions, rather than glorifying the StainMaker's victory over an aspirin factory,...

I like your style!

[Tactical Thunder]

Hey Demidog I am so impressed with your investigative skills, Mind telling us the next prime targets in America so we can see that brilliant mind of your working! As we know you Dems are all seeing..... Just ask the Chinese.....Opps I am sorry you do share our national secrets with them.

[altayann]

No, shutting down all air transportation wouldn't have been realistic.

But developing a plan to deal with hijacked passenger flights certainly was.

The instant the FAA realised that 4 airplanes had SIMULTANEOUSLY been hijacked in US airspace, notifications should have gone out to the Pentagon, New York City, the White House, the US Air Force, etc.

Had this happened, it might have given the Pentagon enough time to evacuate. It might have given fighter aircraft enough time to bring down the passenger jet if necessary, thus saving the lives of those in the WTC and in the Pentagon.

It may not have prevented the first plane from hitting the North Tower, but it might have prevented the South Tower from being destroyed.

[SwatTeam]

And if the dog hadn't stop to take a shit, he might have caught the rabbit.

[toenail]

"Ari sure is good at putting the old wench down. He does it so well! I marvel at his anger-management too."

Ari's Helen Thomas Commemorative Anger Management Seminar
Chicago, IL -- June 3
St. Louis, MO -- June 7
...

He could clean up.

[Tactical Thunder]

So why haven't the Dems and your buddy Bill and Al have taken of this they had 8 years.... ops i know call Hillary......

[alnick]

I don't know how he does it. I'd have jumped down off that stage and started hitting people. Some of those questions today were so blatantly geared to one thing, and that is to smear this administration. The truth is the last thing that these people were after.

[Demidog]

Why then have there been so many bombings in Israel this year?

Good question. Tell me how effective bulldozing homes and turning off electricity and water has been.

[Demidog]

Hey Demidog I am so impressed with your investigative skills

Don't give me any credit. The time magazine article was quoting intelligence officials. Officials that I presume did not lose their jobs between 1998 and 2001.

[Jerez]

In 1998? THIS administration was not in place yet. The Governor of Texas was not in charge. The ____ who was in charge did nothing. He did nothing the whole time he was in office. Bush started working on it the minute he could. The fact is, there was a workable plan, ready to be presented on 9/10 -- sadly, not in time to do anything to prevent the bombing, but at least in time to quickly respond to it. This in itself is far more than his predecessor ever did.

Perhaps part of the reason was that PC thinking blinded the previous administration to the reality of terrorism. This kind of thinking is still around, preventing Bush from taking the measures needed to secure our country. The Left is saying, why didn't Bush DO SOMETHING back then? Listen, the Left doesn't want Bush/Ashcroft/Rumsfeld to DO SOMETHING even now, after the horrible events of 9/11. Secure the borders, go after suspects, and guard airports and other potential targets. They don't want us to do it EVEN NOW. What makes anyone think they would have ALLOWED Bush to do it BEFORE 9/11?

[Demidog]

And what, exactly, could they have added to the article that was PUBLISHED IN 1998???

It wasn't just an article. The article's information was gleaned from the statements of US intelligence officers and officials. What do you think the Bush administration (and the Clinton administration for that matter) might have done to prevent hijackings?

[Demidog]

In 1998? THIS administration was not in place yet.

Ari Fleischer says that Bush was aware of terrorist threats and specifically Al Queda in 1999 and produces a speech where bush says he will make it a high priority.

Obviously not these specific threats, but the information came from the intelligence community. Thus, in order for Bush NOT to have known about this, the entire intelligence community would have had to have turned its back on Bush when he came into office.

Clearly, this is not the case.

[Demidog]

Where did Time's information come from? The government. Sorry, but Fleischer is spinning faster than a top. This government for the last 9 years has known about a specific plan to target major installations with airplanes. This plan was known as early as 1993. Bush steps into office after making campaign promises that refer to Clinton's mishandling of the situation. Then.....drops the ball.

[Huck]

bump for later

[seamus]

This government for the last 9 years has known about a specific plan to target major installations with airplanes

You sure have an interesting definition of "specific." All we knew was that al-Qaida was planning to attack America -- which we've known since the Khobar Towers bombing, the attack of our embassies in Africa, and the Cole attack. All those happened, by the way, on Clinton's watch and he did absolutely nothing to prevent them, or even in response (which is inexcusable).

Yet you slam Bush for not doing something to stop al-Qaida terrorists when he was given no "specific" details of anything. All we knew was that terrorists under the leadership of Osama bin Laden were out to get us. Big Freepin' newsflash, there. We didn't know when, we didn't know where (though we suspected NYC and DC, since they are logical targets), and we didn't know exactly who. We also didn't know how it would be done. Hijacking planes has been a terrorist tactic for more than 30 years. Of course we suspected that. But we also thought it was just as likely that we'd be attacked by a suitcase nuke, or a car bomb, as in the first WTC attack.

Sure, Bush could have stopped this by racially profiling every Arab immigrant in the country -- and your Dem friends would have crucified him for it. He could have prevented it by making the lines we now endure at airports seem like the express lane at the supermarket. Your Dem friends would have ridiculed him for it, accused him of turning the country into a paranoid police state, and the American public would have never stood for it.

For cripes sake, Algore's ballyhooed Airline Security Task Force suggested several ways to tighten security, but he shelved every single one of those potentially life-saving measures because the airline lobby filled his campaign coffer.

These are all things the American people know to be true. As a result the Dems' attempt to spin this as a "what did he know and when did he know it" game of gotcha will not work.