PDA

View Full Version : 9/11 INCOMPETENCE! CIA Fucked Up!



Nickdfresh
06-10-2005, 02:29 PM
June 10, 2005

Memo on 9/11 Plotters Blocked
New disclosures show that CIA information in 2000 about two Al Qaeda operatives in San Diego was squelched before reaching the FBI.

By Josh Meyer, Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror10jun10,0,1243278.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines) Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — A chilling new detail of U.S. intelligence failures emerged Thursday, when the Justice Department disclosed that about 20 months before the Sept. 11 attacks, a CIA official had blocked a memo intended to alert the FBI that two known Al Qaeda operatives had entered the country.:mad:

WTF!

The two men were among the 19 hijackers who crashed airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.

If the FBI had received the official communique from the CIA's special Osama bin Laden unit when it was ready for transmittal in January 2000, its agents likely could have tracked down the men, according to U.S. intelligence officials familiar with a newly declassified report of the Justice Department's inspector general.

Officials involved in the case of alleged would-be hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui had attempted to block release of the report, asserting that it would compromise the outcome of his case. But Inspector General Glenn A. Fine went to court and won release of the report after deleting the section on Moussaoui.

The report does not draw major new conclusions or disclose significant new episodes about the months and years leading up to Sept. 11. Rather, it fills in blanks and provides new details about previously known matters — notably the failure to learn sooner about Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, the so-called San Diego hijackers.

An 18-month delay in the CIA's handing over of information about the two hijackers to the FBI and other domestic law enforcement agencies had been well-publicized. But the report's conclusion that an agent had written a memo specifically designed for transmittal to the FBI to alert the bureau to the men's presence — and that a supervisor deliberately had prevented it from being sent — is new.

The reason the CIA official, identified by the fictitious name "John," put a hold on the communique remains a mystery, the report said. It said the officials involved didn't recall the incident. Even when the author of the memo followed up a week later with an e-mail asking if it had been sent to the FBI, nothing was done.

The memo was written by an FBI agent on assignment to the CIA's special Bin Laden unit. According to the report, rather than send his memo directly to the FBI, he sent it to the deputy chief of the CIA unit because only supervisors were authorized to send such memos to the FBI.

Fine's report contains extensive new detail about that incident, as well as several already reported missed opportunities by the FBI to track down the two men.

The report stops short of concluding that any of the failures was responsible for allowing the Sept. 11 attacks to move forward. But it is sharply critical of the FBI and CIA, laying out in 371 pages a series of systemic and individual failures by the FBI in particular — both internally and when dealing with other U.S. and foreign government agencies.

The report was compiled after Congress and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III asked the inspector general to evaluate how the FBI had handled intelligence before the Sept. 11 attacks. More extensive inquiries were done by a joint House-Senate committee and by the federal 9/11 commission, which reached similar broad conclusions.

The report disclosed Thursday is an abbreviated version of a top-secret report submitted in July to the FBI, CIA, Congress and the commission that investigated Sept. 11.

In an interview Thursday, Fine said it would be "too speculative" to conclude that the attacks could have been prevented had it not been for the failures outlined in his report, which was based on interviews with dozens of FBI and CIA officials and a review of thousands of top-secret internal documents.

"But there were very significant failures, both systemic and individual, and we lay out the details behind them," Fine said.

His report made 16 recommendations to improve the FBI, including better training and management of intelligence analysts, integrating FBI lawyers into counterterrorism investigations, and creating clear procedures on how to document intelligence information received in informal briefings with other agencies.

In a statement, the FBI said it generally agreed with the inspector general's findings and was already carrying out most of them.

"We enhanced our cadre of intelligence analysts with hundreds of new hires, new training and a clear career path," the FBI statement said. "We changed the criteria by which special agents, field offices and investigative programs are evaluated to emphasize intelligence-related functions."

The report identifies five junctures, from March 2000 to August 2001, when there were opportunities for the FBI to learn about Almihdhar and Alhazmi and their presence in the U.S. Each episode has been previously reported, but not in such great detail.

The report documents day-to-day contacts among FBI, CIA and other officials — identifying them with names such as "John," "Mary" and "Rob" and, in many cases, assessing their performance. It quotes extensively from e-mails they sent and handwritten notes they kept of meetings.

Typical was the mild criticism of an FBI employee, "Lynn," for failing to respond to an e-mail from colleague "Jane" about the now-famous Phoenix memo. That memo by an agent in the Phoenix bureau urged the FBI to investigate the enrollment of Middle Eastern men in aviation schools, but it was never acted upon.

"A response from Lynn may have prompted Jane to take some other step…. Instead … the [memo] languished," the report said.

One of the well-known missed opportunities was the fact that Almihdhar and Alhazmi had rented a room in the Lemon Grove home of a well-established local FBI informant. In a footnote, the report discloses that the informant was paid $100,000 in 2003 for his work over the years. However, he never told his FBI handler important details about Almihdhar and Alhazmi, and said afterward that he had known nothing about their terrorist connections or plans.

ADVERTISEMENT
The report does not name the informant, but he has been identified elsewhere as Abdussattar Shaikh.

The report's findings come as the FBI faces continued criticism of its intelligence-gathering efforts, with some lawmakers and others calling for those functions to be taken over by another agency or by the new national intelligence director.

CIA officials had little comment, noting that the focus of the report was on the FBI's performance before Sept. 11. Fine also noted that his scope did not include evaluating the CIA's handling of pre-Sept. 11 intelligence.

Then-CIA Director George J. Tenet has vigorously disputed some of the criticisms of his agency, but Thursday attributed the CIA's failure to turn over information about Alhazmi and Almihdhar to his agents' being overwhelmed, exhausted and understaffed.

Days after a meeting of Al Qaeda operatives in Malaysia in January 2000, the CIA's Bin Laden specialists drafted a flurry of memos about the two men, their suspected terrorist connections and Almihdhar's possible ties to the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. Some of the memos were based in part on intelligence provided by the National Security Agency. The CIA was also in possession of a photocopy of Almihdhar's Saudi passport and valid multi-entry visa to the U.S.

Several cables from the CIA's Bin Laden desk disseminated the information to agency officials around the world — including to one of the unit's special agents detailed to the FBI's Washington field office, according to Fine's report.

That employee, "Dwight," began drafting a memo addressed to the FBI's Bin Laden unit chief at bureau headquarters and to its New York field office. The memo contained virtually all of the details known to the agency, including Almihdhar's passport and visa information, which listed his intention to stay in New York.

But at 4 p.m. that day, another CIA Bin Laden desk officer, "Michelle," added a note to the memo: "pls hold off on [memo] for now per [the CIA deputy chief of Bin Laden unit]."

Eight days later, in mid-January, "Dwight" sent an e-mail to "John," asking why it hadn't been sent: "Is this a no go, or should I remake it in some way."

The CIA was unable to locate a response to the e-mail. Fine's report concludes that the CIA didn't turn over documentation of the electronic memo until Fine's investigators came across a reference and specifically asked for it in February 2004. That came so late in the investigation that it delayed release of the report and caused many more CIA and FBI officials to be interviewed, the report says.

Ultimately, Fine's investigators gave up trying to find an explanation.

Records show that the CIA didn't forward the information about Almihdhar and Alhazmi to domestic law enforcement officials until late August 2001, when it asked that the men be put on watch lists.

Times staff writer H.G. Reza contributed to this report from Orange

Warham
06-10-2005, 02:43 PM
This is really all Bush's fault, right?

LoungeMachine
06-10-2005, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Warham
This is really all Bush's fault, right?

Yes.

What a stupid fucking question.

Nickdfresh
06-10-2005, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Warham
This is really all Bush's fault, right?

No. it's actually part of the CCE, or THE CLINTON CRIMINAL EMPIRE...

Warham
06-10-2005, 03:04 PM
But according to FORD, Clinton is really a BCE operative.

Nickdfresh
06-10-2005, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Warham
But according to FORD, Clinton is really a BCE operative.

That's just to throw you off from his CCE agenda...;)
http://www.bestcareanywhere.net/img/flagg.jpg http://www.idcomm.com/personal/n0vse/clinton%20elian.jpg

Warham
06-10-2005, 03:08 PM
Ohhhhh...

Damn all these groups that have three letters in their acronym.

CIA, FBI, BCE, CCE, DOA, UFO, DLR... :D

Nickdfresh
06-10-2005, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Warham
This is really all Bush's fault, right?

Getting back to the point, I would say that while CLINTON/BUSH SR./REAGAN are not completey blameless, YES! The BUSH Administration has a far greater claim to the shame and the blame.

I wish I could scan portions of RICHARD CLARK's book, which is my current summer reading, but I just have a crappy little printer and no scanner.:(

FORD
06-10-2005, 03:24 PM
Let's not forget that the CIA has been a branch office of the BCE from day one.

Warham
06-10-2005, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Getting back to the point, I would say that while CLINTON/BUSH SR./REAGAN are not completey blameless, YES! The BUSH Administration has a far greater claim to the shame and the blame.

I wish I could scan portions of RICHARD CLARK's book, which is my current summer reading, but I just have a crappy little printer and no scanner.:(

I can't believe you would think that an administration that had been in office for 8 months would shoulder most of the blame.

Clinton to blame for intelligence failures

Jonah Goldberg (archive)

Yes, "everyone" is to blame for 9/11. "Everyone" is also to blame for the outrageous, silly and counterproductive nonsense coming out of the 9/11 commission's quest to assign blame.

Let's take the second point first. Bush made a strategic blunder by essentially insisting he would not do anything differently if he could relive the pre-9/11 months over again. This is not only obvious nonsense, it's politically dumb.

The Bush campaign wants to run on its post-9/11 leadership not its pre-9/11 leadership. But by refusing to acknowledge, even rhetorically, the obvious fact that the government failed when the terrorists succeeded, they created the perfect incentives for political posturing, moral preening and partisan grandstanding from the 9/11 commission, the media, a tiny number of "9/11 families," the Democrats and, yes, the public.

An example: The New York Times editorialized this week, "No reasonable American blames Mr. Bush for the terrorist attacks, but that's a long way from thinking there was no other conceivable action he could have taken to prevent them."

"Conceivable"? Yes, there were all sorts of conceivable actions the president could have taken. He could have interned Muslim-Americans like FDR did with the Japanese. He could have grounded the airlines. He could have declared war on Afghanistan. All of these thing were "conceivable." But since when is "conceivable" the standard for governmental conduct, even in hindsight? The fair - or at least fairer - question is, did Bush take every reasonable action to prevent the 9/11 attacks?

The Times went on to offer some "conceivable" actions the president might have taken after receiving that notorious Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing, namely he should have flown back to D.C. and demanded that airlines start "screening passengers" to fit their "threat profiles."

Considering that it'd been reported in Time magazine in 1998 that government officials believed Osama bin Laden was determined to attack inside the United States, I'm not sure the president should have raced back to Washington from his ranch in August 2001.

But I am 100 percent sure that the folks at The New York Times editorial board would have snapped their pencils in rage if the president had suggested increased "profiling" of passengers in August 2001, let alone proposed the Patriot Act - which the Times detests - and never mind doing everything "conceivable."

This blame game stuff is counterproductive and dangerous when Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq. But if that's the game we're stuck with, it's an indisputable scandal that the Clinton Administration is getting off scot-free.

From the day George W. Bush was elected president, he reinstituted the policy of having daily meetings with the head of the CIA, a tradition Bill Clinton canceled. Indeed, Clinton never met privately at all with his first CIA Director James Woolsey after the initial job interview. When a plane crashed on the White House lawn in 1994, the joke in Washington was that it was Woolsey trying to get an appointment.

According to a New Yorker article, FBI Director Louis Freeh considered Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, to be a "public relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press."

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton despised Freeh and could barely stomach talking to him. Whoever was to blame for the sour relationship is irrelevant. Clinton was to blame for letting a spat get in the way of national security.

As we've heard from so many witnesses, throughout the 1990s the CIA, FBI and Justice Department were actively - not passively - impaired in their work to a scandalous extent. The CIA was told that it couldn't work with individuals with dubious "human rights" records. Unfortunately, people with ties to terrorists are not captains of their Mormon bowling leagues.

And, of course, there was Clinton's string of underwhelming, ineffectual and largely counterproductive responses to a string of attacks on America, starting with the first World Trade Center bombing.

The one recurring theme in the 9/11 hearings is the unanimous agreement that the "wall" between intelligence gathering and criminal prosecutions was too high and too thick, and that this was the single most obvious explanation for our failure to stop the 9/11 attacks.

Well, as we learned from John Ashcroft's testimony, the Clinton Administration took its trowel and cemented a new layer of bricks to that wall of separation. In 1995, the FBI was instructed that intelligence and criminal investigations had to be separated even further than "what is legally required" to avoid "the unwarranted appearance" that our intelligence operatives were - shriek! - sharing their information with prosecutors, and vice versa.

The author of this directive? Clinton's Deputy Attorney General (and Al Gore confidant) Jamie Gorelick, who now sits in self-righteous judgment on the 9/11 commission - when she should be called before it to explain herself.

The Bush team may not have done everything it could have prior to 9/11. But, for the previous team, not doing everything they could was policy.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20040414.shtml

Warham
06-10-2005, 03:34 PM
Clinton was too busy under the desk with Ms. Lewinsky to speak with the head of the CIA on a semi-regular basis.

Good job, Slick Willy!

LoungeMachine
06-10-2005, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I can't believe you would think that an administration that had been in office for 8 months would shoulder most of the blame.


At exactly WHAT POINT does he START to accept responsibility???????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????

If not 8 months?

1 year?

2 years?

8 years?????


Too bad he never bothered to hold ONE meeting on terrorism with his terror Czar Clarke

:rolleyes:

LoungeMachine
06-10-2005, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Clinton was too busy under the desk with Ms. Lewinsky to speak with the head of the CIA on a semi-regular basis.

Good job, Slick Willy!

Yeah, instead he should have COME INTO OFFICE with a plan to invade and occupy Iraq FIRST, and then wait for the opportunity he knew was coming:rolleyes:

Satan
06-10-2005, 03:44 PM
The BCE created Al Qaeda. Therefore they are ultimately responsible no matter how you look at it.

Warham
06-10-2005, 04:00 PM
How about blaming the guys that actually crashed into the tower, Satan?

I could say that God is ultimately responsible for your sinful nature, but that's not painting the most acurate picture, is it?

LoungeMachine
06-10-2005, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Warham
How about blaming the guys that actually crashed into the tower, Satan?


Good point.

They were Saudis

Why didnt we invade and topple THAT regime?????

They had a helluva lot more to do with it than Iraq [ which had NOTHING to do with it]

I wonder why we haven't invaded Saudi Arabia....hmmmmmmm:rolleyes:

Warham
06-10-2005, 04:12 PM
Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. He was born in the United States.

A terrorist's place of birth does not necessarily imply anything about the government of said country.

I don't remember Saudi Arabia murdering hundreds of thousands of their citizens and throwing them in mass graves, or gassing their own people, or giving terrorists a $25,000 bonus if they destroy a home in a rival country. Or trying to create various kinds of chemical or biological weapons.

Nickdfresh
06-10-2005, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I can't believe you would think that an administration that had been in office for 8 months would shoulder most of the blame.

Clinton to blame for intelligence failures

Jonah Goldberg (archive)



Goldberg is a sycophanting little hack!



http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/10/911commission.faa.ap/index.html

9/11 commission: FAA had al Qaeda warnings
Report's post-election release date questioned
Thursday, February 10, 2005 Posted: 10:51 PM EST (0351 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months prior to September 11, 2001, about al Qaeda and its desire to attack airlines, according to a previously undisclosed report by the commission that investigated the terror attacks.

The report by the 9/11 commission detailed 52 such warnings given to FAA leaders from April to September 10, 2001, about the radical Islamic terrorist group and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

The commission report, written last August, said five security warnings mentioned al Qaeda's training for hijackings and two reports concerned suicide operations not connected to aviation. However, none of the warnings pinpointed what would happen on September 11.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown on Thursday said the agency received intelligence from other agencies, which it passed on to airlines and airports.

But, she said, "We had no specific information about means or methods that would have enabled us to tailor any countermeasures."

Brown also said the FAA was in the process of tightening security at the time of the attacks.

"We were spending $100 million a year to deploy explosive detection equipment at the airports," she said. The agency was also close to issuing a regulation that would have set higher standards for screeners and, for the first time, give it direct control over the screening work force.

Questions about timing
Al Felzenberg, former spokesman for the 9/11 commission, which went out of business last summer, said the government had not completed a review of the 120-page report for declassification purposes until recently.

Carol Ashley of Rockville Centre, New York, whose daughter died in the attacks, said the report should have been released sooner.

"I'm just appalled that this was withheld for five months. That contributes to the idea that the government knew something and didn't act, it contributes to the conspiracy theories out there. We need to rebut those with the actual facts, but we need the facts to do that," she said.

California Rep. Henry Waxman, ranking Democrat on the Government Reform Committee, asked for a hearing on whether the Bush administration played politics with the report's release. The letter, also signed by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, said the committee should probe whether the report was delayed until after the November elections and the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state.

The unclassified version, first reported by The New York Times, was made available by the National Archives Thursday.

Specific findings
According to the report:


Aviation officials were "lulled into a false sense of security" and "intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures."


Of the FAA's 105 daily intelligence summaries between April 1, 2001 and September 10, 2001, 52 mentioned bin Laden, al Qaeda, or both, "mostly in regard to overseas threats."


The FAA did not expand the use of in-flight air marshals or tighten airport screening for weapons. It said FAA officials were more concerned with reducing airline congestion, lessening delays and easing air carriers' financial problems than thwarting a terrorist attack.


A proposed rule to improve passenger screening and other security measures ordered by Congress in 1996 had been held up by the Office of Management and Budget and was still not in effect when the attacks occurred, according to the FAA.

Information in this report was available to members of the 9/11 commission when they issued their public report last summer. That report itself contained criticisms of FAA operations.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

academic punk
06-10-2005, 04:40 PM
Warham -

I'm just curious. If you had stock in a company, and it was going well, at a good price, you're happy with your return and dividend, etc.

Then suddenly, you open your mail to find that the company has gone bankrupt. Your investment is down the toilet.

You look into it a little bit, and you find out that a new CEO had been in charge for the past NINE months (not including the two months of preparation beforehand). Now you hear that there were rumblings of a hostile takeover for years beforehand, but it never happened. Fact is, this massive failure occurs on the new guys watch.

Do you still say that it's the fault of the previous guy???

Warham
06-10-2005, 04:43 PM
Goldberg took shots at Bush in that article. He's not pro-Bush in that piece at all. That's why I posted it.

Warham
06-10-2005, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by academic punk
Warham -

I'm just curious. If you had stock in a company, and it was going well, at a good price, you're happy with your return and dividend, etc.

Then suddenly, you open your mail to find that the company has gone bankrupt. Your investment is down the toilet.

You look into it a little bit, and you find out that a new CEO had been in charge for the past NINE months (not including the two months of preparation beforehand). Now you hear that there were rumblings of a hostile takeover for years beforehand, but it never happened. Fact is, this massive failure occurs on the new guys watch.

Do you still say that it's the fault of the previous guy???

I'd blame my stockbroker.

BigBadBrian
06-10-2005, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh


WASHINGTON — A chilling new detail of U.S. intelligence failures emerged Thursday, when the Justice Department disclosed that about 20 months before the Sept. 11 attacks, a CIA official had blocked a memo intended to alert the FBI that two known Al Qaeda operatives had entered the country.

The two men were among the 19 hijackers who crashed airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.

If the FBI had received the official communique from the CIA's special Osama bin Laden unit when it was ready for transmittal in January 2000.




January of 2000...

Who was in office?

Enough said.

:gulp:

Nickdfresh
06-10-2005, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Good point.

They were Saudis

Why didnt we invade and topple THAT regime?????

They had a helluva lot more to do with it than Iraq [ which had NOTHING to do with it]

I wonder why we haven't invaded Saudi Arabia....hmmmmmmm:rolleyes:

They have our weapons...

http://www.global-defence.com/1997/Saudi.html

And a high number of angry, unemployed young males willing to 'martyr' themselves.

Nickdfresh
06-10-2005, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
January of 2000...

Who was in office?

Enough said.

:gulp:

I'm not the one that spun this article that way...

I never said this particular instance was BUSH's or CLINTON's fault.

But....


The report by the 9/11 commission detailed 52 such warnings given to FAA leaders from April to September 10, 2001, about the radical Islamic terrorist group and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

Warham
06-10-2005, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
January of 2000...

Who was in office?

Enough said.

:gulp:

Don't tamper with the liberals' intentions of blaming this all on Bush, Brian!

Shame on trying to expose the truth!

Nickdfresh
06-10-2005, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Don't tamper with the liberals' intentions of blaming this all on Bush, Brian!

Shame on trying to expose the truth!

Kindly show how this "LIBERAL" blamed BUSH previous to you politicizing this thread.

And why do you claim that CLINTON was "under the table with MONICA" while failing to acknowledge that BUSH took more vacations than any previous President?

Warham
06-10-2005, 05:20 PM
No, all I have to do is google the words: Bush, 9/11, and blame to get a number of liberal blogs that are seething with rage over Bush's total failure at security, yet giving Bill Clinton a footnote in the whole saga.

As for vacations:

'No recent president loved vacation more than Ronald Reagan. The history books may say he spent eight years in the White House, but they are wrong. In fact, he spent nearly one full year of his tenure on vacation - 335 days, to be exact, totaling more than 11 months.'

Reagan is regarded as one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century.

'Of recent presidents, Jimmy Carter spend the least time on vacation. He took only 79 days off during four years in office, which averages less than three weeks a year.'

Shows that the amount of time you spend on vacations doesn't really mean a hill of beans when it comes to how well you do the job, eh?

academic punk
06-10-2005, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Warham
No, all I have to do is google the words: Bush, 9/11, and blame to get a number of liberal blogs that are seething with rage over Bush's total failure at security, yet giving Bill Clinton a footnote in the whole saga.

As for vacations:

'No recent president loved vacation more than Ronald Reagan. The history books may say he spent eight years in the White House, but they are wrong. In fact, he spent nearly one full year of his tenure on vacation - 335 days, to be exact, totaling more than 11 months.'

Reagan is regarded as one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century.

'Of recent presidents, Jimmy Carter spend the least time on vacation. He took only 79 days off during four years in office, which averages less than three weeks a year.'

Shows that the amount of time you spend on vacations doesn't really mean a hill of beans when it comes to how well you do the job, eh?


This is actually a damn good comeback...

Nickdfresh
06-10-2005, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by Warham
No, all I have to do is google the words: Bush, 9/11, and blame to get a number of liberal blogs that are seething with rage over Bush's total failure at security, yet giving Bill Clinton a footnote in the whole saga.

As for vacations:

'No recent president loved vacation more than Ronald Reagan. The history books may say he spent eight years in the White House, but they are wrong. In fact, he spent nearly one full year of his tenure on vacation - 335 days, to be exact, totaling more than 11 months.'

Reagan is regarded as one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century.

'Of recent presidents, Jimmy Carter spend the least time on vacation. He took only 79 days off during four years in office, which averages less than three weeks a year.'

Shows that the amount of time you spend on vacations doesn't really mean a hill of beans when it comes to how well you do the job, eh?

And KENNEDY received a lot of blowjobs, and still checkmated the SOVIETS during the CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS....

But you keep spinning the CLINTON under the desk myth when the constant harrassment from subversive right-wing elements (i.e. KEN STARR and the WHITEWATER myths) trying to overturn democracy was the real distraction!

Warham
06-10-2005, 05:52 PM
About Ken Starr, Nick...

'First, Ken Starr did not suddenly start this investigation on his own. He didn't just get bored with Whitewater (which yielded over a dozen indictments, incidentally) and decide "Hey! Let me see if I can investigate who the President had sex with. That would be cool." Ken Starr is a duly constituted investigator, appointed by Janet Reno to investigate this particular case of possible perjury and obstruction of justice by President Clinton. He was chosen to investigate White Water, and then, Janet Reno also appointed him to investigate this case. What is he supposed to say, "No, Ms. Reno. I can't investigate this. I investigated Whitewater, so I can't do this too"?

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/aug3098.html

It's funny how 'harrassments' usually have something to do with mistakes you've made in the past, people you've worked with, deals that are shady...

http://www.gargaro.com/clintonconvicts.html

Warham
06-10-2005, 05:57 PM
Also from said article...

'Now, some may say that the Independent Counsel shouldn't even exist, and that the counsel has way too much power. Well guess what - I agree. And guess what - most conservatives agree. And guess what - Clinton was could have prevented the Independent Counsel from existing! In fact, the existence of the Independent Counsel has to be re-approved every 5 years. In 1992, the Independent Counsel was not re-approved because of Republican opposition, but in 1994, Clinton signed the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994, which restored the Independent Counsel!!

The Republicans considered the Independent Counsel to be unconstitutional, but our President felt differently. In fact, Clinton stated, "The Independent Counsel statute has been in the past and is today a force for government integrity and public confidence" and, "is good for American people and good for their confidence in Democracy" (Bennett, The Death of Outrage pg. 79).'

Guitar Shark
06-10-2005, 06:06 PM
Keep drinking that Kool-Aid, War... :)

Satan
06-10-2005, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Warham
How about blaming the guys that actually crashed into the tower, Satan?

I could say that God is ultimately responsible for your sinful nature, but that's not painting the most acurate picture, is it?

That all depends....

Did God create me to specifically to be an agent of evil, or was that my choice?

I answer that question by my famous quote "it is better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven"

However with Al Qaeda, this is not the case. Al Qaeda were specifically trained to be terrorists. That was the CIA's purpose for them from day one.

So comparing their situation to mine really doesn't fit.

Warham
06-10-2005, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Keep drinking that Kool-Aid, War... :)

Show me where I'm wrong, GS!

;)

Warham
06-10-2005, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Satan
That all depends....

Did God create me to specifically to be an agent of evil, or was that my choice?

I answer that question by my famous quote "it is better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven"

However with Al Qaeda, this is not the case. Al Qaeda were specifically trained to be terrorists. That was the CIA's purpose for them from day one.

So comparing their situation to mine really doesn't fit.

Remember, according to FORD, Al Qaeda doesn't really exist.

academic punk
06-10-2005, 06:13 PM
Ahhh...but when mark Felt reveals himself, the right say he's a complete goon. When Starr does it, that's a job well done. Got it.

Warham
06-10-2005, 06:16 PM
Starr was put on the job by Janet Reno.

Satan
06-10-2005, 06:20 PM
Actually, Starr was originally hired by the Bush campaign in 1992. Then he was appointed by a three (right wing) judge panel. Janet Reno actually appointed Robert Fiske.

Warham
06-10-2005, 06:24 PM
From said article...

'The point is, under the law, Ken Starr must investigate the President. Ken Starr did not choose his position - he was appointed by President Clinton’s Attorney General and a three judge panel. In fact, in 1993, the Senate Ethics committee during the Bob Packwood case, chose Judge Starr to determine which parts of the Packwood diaries were relevant to the case and which should be kept private. Starr was seen as fair and not driven by ideology, and they were so confident in his fairness that the committee waived the right to appeal his decisions in the Packwood matter! Even Arthur Spitzer, legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has said if he had to be investigated, he'd prefer Starr over almost anyone else he could think of. And suddenly, people are claiming in 1998 that Starr is some right-wing fanatic?! Again, people are spouting rhetoric rather than looking at facts!'

Nickdfresh
06-10-2005, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Remember, according to FORD, Al Qaeda doesn't really exist.

And according to you, CLINTON has superforces of black helicopters and assassins at his disposal!

Guitar Shark
06-10-2005, 06:28 PM
Love the sig, Nick! That Star Wars kid video is priceless.

Warham
06-10-2005, 06:28 PM
The government's always had black helicopters, Nick!

When did you discover this? Recently?

:D

Clinton doesn't need assassins. He's got guys willing to go to the slammer for him. Why kill them when they take themselves out?

Nickdfresh
06-10-2005, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Warham
About Ken Starr, Nick...

'First, Ken Starr did not suddenly start this investigation on his own. He didn't just get bored with Whitewater (which yielded over a dozen indictments, incidentally) and decide "Hey! Let me see if I can investigate who the President had sex with. That would be cool." Ken Starr is a duly constituted investigator, appointed by Janet Reno to investigate this particular case of possible perjury and obstruction of justice by President Clinton. He was chosen to investigate White Water, and then, Janet Reno also appointed him to investigate this case. What is he supposed to say, "No, Ms. Reno. I can't investigate this. I investigated Whitewater, so I can't do this too"?

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/aug3098.html

It's funny how 'harrassments' usually have something to do with mistakes you've made in the past, people you've worked with, deals that are shady...

http://www.gargaro.com/clintonconvicts.html

Really, are those the right-wing blogs where you got that CLINTON had his ninja commandos shoot down an Air Force jet full of generals heading to arrest him?;) You'll forgive me if I don't buy all of "rightgirls" facts.

Nickdfresh
06-10-2005, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Warham
The government's always had black helicopters, Nick!

When did you discover this? Recently?

:D

Clinton doesn't need assassins. He's got guys willing to go to the slammer for him. Why kill them when they take themselves out?

And you still will make fun of FORD for his BCE assertions, with a straight face?:D

Warham
06-10-2005, 06:32 PM
Well, I guess I'll just have to google up some more facts for you then, OK?

Nickdfresh
06-10-2005, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Love the sig, Nick! That Star Wars kid video is priceless.

Thanks. That is sort of the new and improved STAR WARS KID 2.0.:D

Warham
06-10-2005, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And you still will make fun of FORD for his BCE assertions, with a straight face?:D

I don't take FORD seriously anymore.

As a matter of fact, how many of us take each other seriously?

Nickdfresh
06-10-2005, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Well, I guess I'll just have to google up some more facts for you then, OK?

You mean selectively GOOGLE up some "facts" for me.:D

Warham
06-10-2005, 06:34 PM
When I google in this case, I use three words: Clinton, Starr, and history.

Gives you all kinds of fun stuff!

Nickdfresh
06-10-2005, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Warham
When I google in this case, I use three words: Clinton, Starr, and history.

Gives you all kinds of fun stuff!


partisan, biased, and least reliable sites to quote.

BONO once said, "information is not truth."

I can GOOGLE too (BTW, I just heard on the radio that GOOGLE owns all of the copyrights to our search topics and results, interesting and disconcerting fact I think):

LINK (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000360.php)


Bush Resumes Pathetic Lies Blaming Clinton For His Poor Economy
Dana Milbank continues to earn his reputation as the Washington Post reporter the Bushies like least this morning. Milbank runs a story that basically points out several examples of Bush flat-out lying, in his recent comments on the economy (three years into his administration it is still Clinton’s fault), anti-sodomy laws, and the University of Michigan law school affirmative action case. But of course to apologists like the Times’ David Rosenbaum, Bush cannot be accused of lying if he actually believed what he was saying, even if he had been shown to be wrong.

With the start of his reelection campaign in the past two weeks, President Bush has revived his pastime of blaming his predecessor, Bill Clinton, for the economic recession.

"Two-and-a-half years ago, we inherited an economy in recession," he told donors at a Bush-Cheney '04 reception yesterday in Miami. He has raised the same accusation in fundraising appearances since mid-June in Washington, Georgia, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

It's a good applause line for a crowd of red-meat political supporters. The trouble is it's a case of what the president has called, in another context, revisionist history. The recession officially began in March of 2001 -- two months after Bush was sworn in -- according to the universally acknowledged arbiter of such things, the National Bureau of Economic Research. And the president, at other times, has said so himself.

The bad news came on Nov. 26, 2001. The NBER, led by an informal economic adviser to Bush, Martin Feldstein, pronounced that economic activity peaked in March 2001, "a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began."

At the time, Bush accepted the verdict with perfect accuracy. "This week, the official announcement came that our economy has been in recession since March," he said in his radio address the next weekend. "And unfortunately, to a lot of Americans, that news comes as no surprise. Many have lost jobs or seen their hours cut. Many have seen friends or family laid off. The long economic expansion that started 10 years ago, in 1991, began to slow last year. Many economists warned me when I took office that a recession was beginning, so we took quick action."

That quick action has led to three tax cuts that have done nothing to stop the loss of nearly three million jobs. Since Bush wanted to be seen as having taken “quick action” to spur the economy back into positive territory, which it did, the resulting sluggish and job-less performance of the economy is squarely his responsibility, as are the ballooning deficits that followed. Oh sure, he can claim 9/11, but even Bush isn’t claiming 9/11 as a reason any more. He is blaming it all on Clinton.

It does make it easy for any Democrat to follow Bush around the country and call him a liar on stuff like this, doesn’t it? But I doubt the New York Times would call Bush on his lies. They are too busy kissing the GOP’s ass since Howell Raines resigned.

What does it say about a man who is unable to accept responsibility for his own screw-ups? Can you think of one instance where Bush took responsibility for something that has not gone well since he got into office, or in Texas for that matter?

Tell Dana Milbank you appreciate his efforts to point out Bush’s lies. You can reach him at milbankd@washpost.
com

Hmmm...when in doubt, blame CLINTON.

Warham
06-10-2005, 06:50 PM
You repudiate the info I've posted?

Most of which are facts, such as dates, people involved, which can be easily found on ANY website, not just a blog.

And jumping on my case about partisan sources? Isn't the LA Times your favorite place to quote from?

Warham
06-10-2005, 06:50 PM
...

Warham
06-10-2005, 06:53 PM
Hmmm, so the economy started going south in March of 2001, about two months after he took office...and that's Bush's fault?

I think with you liberals anything that happened after Jan 20, 2001 is Bush's fault, no matter how much time it took to get to that point beforehand.

Nickdfresh
06-10-2005, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Hmmm, so the economy started going south in March of 2001, about two months after he took office...and that's Bush's fault?

I don't believe that was the point. I think it was more of as case of BUSH saying it was all CLINTON's fault.


I think with you liberals anything that happened after Jan 20, 2001 is Bush's fault, no matter how much time it took to get to that point beforehand.

And you guys fail to hold any one accountable for their fuckups unless he/she is a "blue."

Nickdfresh
06-10-2005, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Warham
You repudiate the info I've posted?

Most of which are facts, such as dates, people involved, which can be easily found on ANY website, not just a blog.

Yes, but dates and facts can be easily manipulated. They also leave out other "facts' that don't support their positions.


And jumping on my case about partisan sources? Isn't the LA Times your favorite place to quote from?

Oh give me a break, you're comparing a major newspaper that reports on current events and a partisan blog solely focused on the evil that is CLINTON? :rolleyes:

Guitar Shark
06-10-2005, 07:17 PM
Warham, do you EVER stray from the conservative talking points on ANY issue?

Serious question.

LoungeMachine
06-10-2005, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I don't take FORD seriously anymore.

As a matter of fact, how many of us take each other seriously?

None whatsoever.

You and Brie carry as much weight with me as the Gay Escort Reporter Jeff Gannon.

:cool:

In fact, the more you post, the stronger I feel I'm on the correct side.

LoungeMachine
06-10-2005, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Warham


I think with you liberals anything that happened after Jan 20, 2001 is Bush's fault, no matter how much time it took to get to that point beforehand.


And YOU think EVERYTHING was Clinton's fault because he got at least ONE blow job, which is one more than you.


Nothing is Bush's fault.:cool:

There, that should end it.

LoungeMachine
06-10-2005, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Warham
When I google in this case, I use three words: Clinton, Starr, and history.

Gives you all kinds of fun stuff!

Funny, when I google Warham and Women NOTHING comes up.

Guess it's FACT:rolleyes:

Bottom line?

ANY OF US CAN GOOGLE TO FIND WHATEVER WE NEED TO SUPPORT OUR BELIEFS

[ that doesnt make it FACT]

Warham
06-10-2005, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Warham, do you EVER stray from the conservative talking points on ANY issue?

Serious question.

Yes, I have made my opinion on Bush's lax position on illegal immigration well known around here.

Warham
06-10-2005, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Funny, when I google Warham and Women NOTHING comes up.

Guess it's FACT:rolleyes:

Bottom line?

ANY OF US CAN GOOGLE TO FIND WHATEVER WE NEED TO SUPPORT OUR BELIEFS

[ that doesnt make it FACT]

That's not my real name, Lounge! ;)

As far as googling, I google no less than Nick or anybody else here, and we ALL use it to our advantage. Nobody here is non-partisan. That's why it's so much fun!

Warham
06-10-2005, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
And YOU think EVERYTHING was Clinton's fault because he got at least ONE blow job, which is one more than you.


Nothing is Bush's fault.:cool:

There, that should end it.

LOL.

Shows how little we all know about each other around here.

:D

academic punk
06-10-2005, 07:37 PM
But warham -

that support of illegal immigration is the only thing tnat's keeping California's economy from completely collapsing.

Guitar Shark
06-10-2005, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Yes, I have made my opinion on Bush's lax position on illegal immigration well known around here.

LOL! Wow, one area of disagreement with Bush and what a surprise -- you only disagree because he's less conservative than you are on that issue.

Life isn't black or white man... :cool:

Satan
06-10-2005, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
LOL! Wow, one area of disagreement with Bush and what a surprise -- you only disagree because he's less conservative than you are on that issue.

Life isn't black or white man... :cool:

Only the Sith deal in absolutes :cool:

academic punk
06-10-2005, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Warham
LOL.

Shows how little we all know about each other around here.

:D

Warham -

Don't you know oral sex is a mortal sin? Jesus is very disappointed with you. See you in hell.

Guitar Shark
06-10-2005, 07:58 PM
LOL!

Nickdfresh
06-10-2005, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Satan
Only the Sith deal in absolutes :cool:

Very true! And their actions are based on their emotions, not logic.

Warham
06-10-2005, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by academic punk
Warham -

Don't you know oral sex is a mortal sin? Jesus is very disappointed with you. See you in hell.

Tell me where it's a sin in the Bible, AP!

;)

academic punk
06-11-2005, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Tell me where it's a sin in the Bible, AP!

;)

Sodom and Gomorrah. The specific creation of the organs for specific purposes. Face it: you may as well have taken it in the ass.

But fear not! Soon Satan and his minions will be making you do that very thing!

Warham
06-11-2005, 04:18 PM
Sodom and Gamorrah doesn't talk about oral sex, AP.

If any inferences from S&G, it's about homosexuals, not people who use their mouth.

Nickdfresh
06-11-2005, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Sodom and Gamorrah doesn't talk about oral sex, AP.

If any inferences from S&G, it's about homosexuals, not people who use their mouth.

Actually many interperet the abomination as about homosexual rapists, not gays in general.

Satan
06-11-2005, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by academic punk
Sodom and Gomorrah. The specific creation of the organs for specific purposes. Face it: you may as well have taken it in the ass.

But fear not! Soon Satan and his minions will be making you do that very thing!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/smiley_evilGrin.gif

academic punk
06-11-2005, 06:48 PM
stop retreating from it warham...accept your destiny...spread those ass-cheeks...Satan compels you...

LoungeMachine
06-11-2005, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by academic punk
stop retreating from it warham...accept your destiny...spread those ass-cheeks...Satan compels you...

Satan and roughly half the gay male population of New Hamphire:D

He'll get to the other half eventually I suppose:cool:

Warham
06-11-2005, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by academic punk
stop retreating from it warham...accept your destiny...spread those ass-cheeks...Satan compels you...

If you would be able to actually interpret Bible verses correctly, I might accept my destiny.

I'm still waiting.

Satan
06-11-2005, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Warham
If you would be able to actually interpret Bible verses correctly, I might accept my destiny.

I'm still waiting.

You'll have all eternity to wait, sinner :D

academic punk
06-12-2005, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Warham
If you would be able to actually interpret Bible verses correctly, I might accept my destiny.

I'm still waiting.

For the same reason as the Church does not condone the use of birth control: the purpose of sex is to pro-create. what do you think, it's for pleasure and recreation? Nope.

Oral sex is a manifestation of lust. You are a sinner.

Burn, baby.

BigBadBrian
06-12-2005, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
None whatsoever.

You and Brie carry as much weight with me as the Gay Escort Reporter Jeff Gannon.

:cool:

In fact, the more you post, the stronger I feel I'm on the correct side.

I'm sure Warham will be losing alot of sleep over that. I know I will.

:rolleyes:

Warham
06-12-2005, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by academic punk
For the same reason as the Church does not condone the use of birth control: the purpose of sex is to pro-create. what do you think, it's for pleasure and recreation? Nope.

Oral sex is a manifestation of lust. You are a sinner.

Burn, baby.

The church never said that sex was just for procreation, and the Bible never says that either.

Again, WRONG!

academic punk
06-12-2005, 05:53 PM
You're just afraid of all these nasty demons sticking their forked tongues in your bunghole.

Relaaaax. If you wanna play, you gotta pay.