O'Reilly Wants Terrorist Attack
Psychic Democrat
By David Neiwert
Bill O'Reilly devoted his leadoff Talking Points Memo segment and the
following conversation with Dick "The Troll Who Lives Under the Bridge"
Morris to the notion that, if another terrorist attack occurs on President
Obama's watch, he's gonna be all washed up.
Oh, that's right -- they were busy proclaiming that any blame-laying against
Bush was beyond the realm of acceptable discourse. If you suggested back
then that Bush had been asleep at the wheel on terrorism on 9/11, you were
accused of being a traitor who hated America.
Oh, and let's just remember exactly what George W. Bush's record on
terrorism was:
Afterward, of course, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told
the press: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people
would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another
one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as
a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." (As a matter of fact, just
such a scenario had been foreseen by intelligence officials in 1998, as Rice
later admitted.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020920-5.html
Then there was the Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing titled "Bin
Laden determined to strike in US," which concluded:
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat
reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden
wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar
Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of
suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for
hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of
federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations
throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are
investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or
bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
We also remember that New York Times report, summed up by Eric Alterman:
Tenet briefed Condi Rice about a potentially catastrophic terrorist attack
on the United States on July 10, 2001. Rice ignored the briefing, just as
she and Bush both ignored the August 6 "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in
US" memo, when Bush told the CIA briefer who delivered the memo to him that
he had "covered his ass" and then went fishing for the rest of the day. Rice
not only ignored the briefing, but also misled the 9-11 Commission and then
lied when confronted with the evidence by Bob Woodward.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washington/03ricecnd.html?ex=1317441600&en=5b2729634605a9e1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Rice and the Bush administration also went to great measures to cover up
their own incompetence, too.
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004/04/incompetence-coverup.html
Then there was the Hart-Rudman Commission report, which warned the White
House in May 2001 that it needed to take serious steps to prevent a
terrorist attack. The report was ignored.
So was Richard Clarke's memo of January 2001 warning of the terrorist
threat.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf
All this is consistent with what Clarke and other insiders reported about
the Bush White House's pre-9/11 approach to terrorism: They viewed it as a
"Clinton thing," and thus dismissed it as a minor concern for largely
ideological reasons.
That's borne out by the Bush White House's pre-9/11 actions on a pure policy
level:
The Bush Administration actually reversed the Clinton Administration's
strong emphasis on counterterrorism and counterintelligence. Attorney
General John Ashcroft not only moved aggressively to reduce DoJ's
anti-terrorist budget but also shift DoJ's mission in spirit to emphasize
its role as a domestic police force and anti-drug force. These changes in
mission were just as critical as the budget changes, with Ashcroft, in
effect, guiding the day to day decisions made by field officers and agents.
And all of this while the Administration was receiving repeated warnings
about potential terrorist attacks.
Bush may have done everything right and the 9/11 terrorists might still have
succeeded -- though taking some concrete steps (particularly heightening
awareness and security at airports, given the specific nature of the
warnings) would have increased our chances of catching them.
What was never excusable was that Bush and Co. were asleep at the wheel on
9/11 regarding their duty to "keep us safe" -- and no amount of historical
revisionism by wistful dolphin ladies will erase that fact.
Nevermind that, of course, no one has yet died from a terrorist attack on
Obama's watch.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/03/b39039.html
Pug amnesia is astounding.
O'Reilly - Mr. Obama will BE the president until he leaves office when his
term ends.
buzz
terrorist attack.
Barack Hussein Obama...mmm mmm mmm
Send HIM to Pakistan to fight Osama...mmm mmm mmm
Simple-minded lying dummycrats (the party that birthed the KKK) and
liberals...morons electing morons.
Psychic Democrat
"buzz" <bu...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hi5c84$alf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
So lets see - you cannot read, don't know how to use a computer and you are
a tard who parrots Limpballs. I'll bet you are proud to be an Okie on dope
at the Klan meetings.
Lamont Cranston
news:hi5btl$di$1...@news.eternal-september.org
EARLY 2001 - WHITE HOUSE DEPARTS FROM EFFORTS TO
TRACK TERRORIST MONEY: The new Bush Treasury
Department "disapproved of the Clinton
Administration's approach to money laundering
issues, which had been an important part of the
drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden."
Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed
Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7
and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development that targeted countries with "loose
banking regulations" being abused by terrorist
financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration
provided "no funding for the new National
Terrorist Asset Tracking Center." [Source: The Age
of Sacred Terror, 2003]
APRIL 30, 2001 - BUSH ADMINISTRATION SAYS BIN
LADEN FOCUS WAS "MISTAKE": The Bush Administration
released the government's annual report on
terrorism, but unlike previous Administrations, it
decided to specifically omit an "extensive mention
of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official told CNN the U.S.
government made a mistake in focusing so much
energy on bin Laden." Similarly, AP reported in
2002 that the Bush Administration's "national
security leadership met formally nearly 100 times
in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet
terrorism was the topic during only two of those
sessions." [Source: CNN, 4/30/01; AP, 6/29/01]
The federal government was rapidly increasing its
counter-terrorism efforts at the time President
Bush took office. As the New York Times reported,
Attorney General Janet Reno ended her tenure as
"perhaps the strongest advocate" of
counterterrorism spending. Similarly, Newsweek and
the Washington Post reported National Security
Adviser Sandy Berger was "totally preoccupied"
with the prospect of a domestic terror attack,
telling his replacement that they need to be
"spending more time on this issue" than on any
other. The focus changed dramatically when the
Bush Administration took office.
ADMINISTRATION SHIFTED LAW ENFORCEMENT'S FOCUS
OFF OF COUNTER-TERRORISM: The New York Times
reported that in the lead-up to 9/11, Attorney
General John Ashcroft "said fighting terrorism was
a top priority of his agency," yet upon entering
office, "he identified more than a dozen other
objectives for greater emphasis within the Justice
Department before the attacks." On Aug. 9, the
Administration distributed a strategic plan to the
Justice Department highlighting its new goals from
a list of Clinton Administration goals. The item
that referred to intelligence and investigation of
terrorists was left un-highlighted. [Source: NY
Times, 2/28/02]
ASHCROFT OVERRULED EFFORTS FOCUSED ON
COUNTER-TERROR: Newsweek reported that "in the
spring of 2001, the attorney general had an
extraordinary confrontation with the then FBI
Director Louis Freeh at an annual meeting of
special agents." The two talked before appearing,
and Ashcroft laid out his priorities for Freeh:
"basically violent crime and drugs," recalls one
participant. Freeh replied bluntly that those were
not his priorities, and began to talk about terror
and counterterrorism. "Ashcroft didn't want to
hear about it," says a former senior
law-enforcement official." [Source: Newsweek, 5/27/02]
BUSH ADMINISTRATION TERMINATED PROGRAM THAT
TRACKED AL QAEDA: "In the months before 9/11, the
U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly
classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to
monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States."
[Source: Newsweek, 3/21/04]
SO LITTLE CONCERN FOR COUNTER-TERROR THAT A WHITE
HOUSE TASK FORCE NEVER MET: In January of 2001,
the U.S. Government's bipartisan Commission on
National Security gave the White House a report
that warned of an attack on the homeland and urged
the new Administration to implement its specific
"recommendations to prevent acts of domestic
terrorism. The Administration rejected the
Commission's report, "preferring to put aside the
recommendations." Instead, the Administration
waited until May of 2001 to appoint Vice President
Cheney to head a task force "to combat terrorist
attacks on the United States." But according to
the Washington Post, neither "Cheney's review nor
Bush's took place." Meanwhile, Newsweek reported
that when senators "sent a copy of draft
legislation on counterterrorism and homeland
defense to Cheney's office on July 20," they were
told by Cheney's top aide "that it might be
another six months before he would be able to
review the material." [Source: Salon, 9/12/04;
White House release, 5/8/01; Washington Post,
1/20/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]
WHITE HOUSE BEGAN EFFORT TO CUT COUNTER-TERRORISM
PROGRAMS: The New York Times reported that in its
final 2003 budget request, the Administration
"called for spending increases in 68 programs,
none of which directly involved
counterterrorism...In his Sept. 10 submission to
the budget office, Ashcroft did not endorse FBI
requests for $58 million for 149 new
counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence
analysts and 54 additional translators. Ashcroft
proposed a $65 million cut for a program that
gives states and localities counterterrorism
grants for equipment, including radios and
decontamination suits and training." By
comparison, "Under Janet Reno, the department's
counterterrorism budget increased 13.6% in the
fiscal year 1999, 7.1% in 2000 and 22.7% in 2001."
[Source: NY Times, 2/28/02]
ADMINISTRATION LEFT "GAPS" IN MILITARY'S REQUEST
FOR COUNTER-TERROR FUNDS: The Washington Post
reported that in its first budget, the White House
left "gaps" between "what military commanders said
they needed to combat terrorists and what they
got." Newsweek noted that, among other things,
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld elected not to
re-launch a Predator drone that had been tracking
bin Laden. When the Senate Armed Services
Committee tried to fill those gaps, "Rumsfeld said
he would recommend a veto" on September 9.
[Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Newsweek,
5/27/02; NY Times, 2/28/02]
ADMINISTRATION STOPPED PREDATOR FLIGHTS TRACKING
AL QAEDA IN AFGHANISTAN: AP reported "though
Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as
three times in late 2000, the Bush administration
did not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan
during its first eight months." Additionally, "the
military successfully tested an armed Predator
throughout the first half of 2001" but the White
House "failed to resolve a debate over whether the
CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed
Predators" and the armed Predator never got off
the ground before 9/11. [Source: AP, 6/25/03]
WHILE CUTTING COUNTER-TERROR, THE WHITE HOUSE SENT
FUNDING TO THE TALIBAN: At the same time the White
House was trying to cut counter-terrorism funding,
it gave "$43 million in drought aid to Afghanistan
after the Taliban began a campaign against poppy
growers." As the 5/29/01 edition of Newsday noted,
the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan "are a decidedly
odd choice for an outright gift of $43 million
from the Bush Administration. This is the same
government against which the United Nation imposes
sanctions, at the behest of the United States, for
refusing to turn over the terrorist mastermind
Osama bin Laden." [Washington Post, 9/23/01;
Newsday, 5/29/01]
MAY 2002 - BUSH ADMINISTRATION MOVES TO PREVENT
INDEPENDENT INQUIRY OF 9/11: Months after 9/11,
Vice President Cheney went on Fox News to announce
the Administration's full opposition to an
independent 9/11 commission. As CBS News noted,
the White House "opposed a commission" from the
start, claiming "it would tie up officials waging
the war on terror - and endanger U.S. secrets."
[Source: Fox News, 5/19/02; CBS, 9/20/02]
"The new administration seems to be paying no
attention to the problem of terrorism. What they
will do is stagger along until there's a major
incident and then suddenly say, "Oh my God,
shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?" --
Paul Bremer, George W. Bush's future administrator
in Iraq, Feb. 26, 2001.
buzz
he wanted another terrorist attack because he never said it, so I will
just make a typical wet pantie lib insult as that's all I have".
Your ignorance noted.
Barack Hussein Obama...mmm mmmm mmm
Send HIM to Pakistan to fight Osama...mmm mmm mmm
Simple-minded LYING dummycrats (the party that birthed the KKK) and
liberals...morons electing morons.
Psychic Democrat
.....PLONK!
buzz
they do when they continually get slapped down time after time because
they cannot back up their lies.
Killing, Inc.
> Psychic Democrat wrote:
> > "buzz" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >news:hi5epi$iu4$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Psychic Democrat wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't worry. He didn't really plonk you. He's too desperate for
attention to do that. He won't even let you plonk him, with all the
nym shifting.
RD (The Sandman)
Nope, just want to see you back up your cite.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?