Posted on 06/04/2002 6:51:28 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax
MM
You are right. I stand corrected.
If I was Karl Rove, I would have Dubya address the nation (so the major media would be FORCED to cover it and "discuss" it) and announce that he was signing a new Executive Order to REVERSE this Clinton EO.
I would have Bush discuss the specifics of Clinton's EO, (without bashing) and explain that he feels it's in the nations interest to rescind it.
IMHO, that would end the lib media speculation about WHO was to blame for 9/11.
Still looking for the citation on this. Let's make sure we have our facts straight. See my post # 38. Let's get the document.
"Jeffrey H. Smith was general counsel of the CIA from 1995 to 1996, during which time he was instrumental in drafting new regulations governing the conduct of U.S. intelligence activities. ...
You're responsible for the regulation, as I understand it, that restricts the Central Intelligence Agency from recruiting or paying people who are guilty of murder or human rights violations?
That is not an accurate representation of the regulations.
Are you responsible for the regulation?
In 1995, when I became general counsel of the CIA, there were a series of investigations about CIA activity, largely in Central and South America. There were a series of allegations in public that were being investigated by the Congress... the agency was under huge pressure from the Congress and from the press about, how could you deal with these horrible people? ... So we put those guidelines in place. Essentially, they require that if the CIA wishes to recruit a source of human intelligence information, that is to say, a human being, outside the United States--excuse me--with a bad record, that is to say, someone who's committed murders, someone who's a drug dealer, someone who's a terrorist... ...Congress has directed George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, to look at and rescind these regulations that require headquarters approval to recruit someone with serious human rights problems. "
Clinton made the State Dept. "the lead agency for managing and coordinating counterterrorism policy and operations abroad"!
state.gov
"the President has designated the Department of State, in keeping with its overall responsibility for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, as the lead agency for managing and coordinating counterterrorism policy and operations abroad, whereas the Department of Justice has been designated the lead agency for domestic terrorism. These responsibilities were reaffirmed recently in Presidential Decision Directive 39, signed by President Clinton on June 21, 1995. "
It sure caught my attention! I was wondering...EX-VP??? This was the first FR article I clicked on this morning! Talk about Marketing!
"The first thing you have to remember is that (Clinton) issued an executive order that said.... you can't use an individual who has terrorist connections in order to develop information about terrorist organizations, which is a huge bungle."
Well, these guys lose more credibility every day. I sure do not see a Clinton "exective order" (his words), and the best anyone can come up with are some vague CIA "agency guidelines" or "regulations" which of course are classified.
The more these clowns open their mouths, the more I think that we need to completely eliminate the FBI and CIA and start from scratch all over. And I'm a leaning libertarian. The FBI seems to be adding about as much value to the fight against terrorism as my grandma. I think that "The FIBBIES" are little more than a leftover Hoover "image machine", a huge paper tiger dedicated to promoting this thought among the populace that everything is under control when in fact it's like the wizard of oz -- whole lotta smoke, not much action. (/rant)
Well, if I was making excuses I'd point out that "executive order" wasn't capitalized so it could refer to any order by the Executive Branch- but I'm probably even more frustrated by 'mis-speaks' than you are so heck with him.
Here's a more informative link on those guidelines (June 6, 2000): Wash post
Basically recruitments had to be pre-approved by headquarters- if you've ever worked in a company where things had to first be approved by 'headquarters' you know what that means.
The irony I see in these guidlines is that they were a response to criticism of the 'free hand' Reagan gave the CIA in Latin America.
Considering the great harm an asset in Al-Queda would have saved us from, IMHO Reagan was right once again.
The more I think about the eight years (eight years ! ) of Clintbilly rule the angrier I get. Kissing Islam's ass in Serbia for years, wagging the dog over Monica, kissing Arafat's wife, etc etc. What a goofball. The adults are back in town, too bad the media is stuck in adolescence.
If the R's had been running the show from '92 to '00, we would be in a HELL of a better position to root out this problem, maybe even would have nipped it in the bud.
That doesn't make it right. And every president does not sign a farm bill expanding socialist farm subsidies by 80%, now do they?
But then, go right ahead and spin your little socialist fairy tale. Facts mean nothing to you. Just whatever little factoid you can spin to attack the President. Pfui.
Conservatism 101:
Drastically reduced socialist program = Good
Drastically expanded socialist program = Bad
Any questions?
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.