In article et,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

news:c3dhc2g=.5f5982983e66f57c73dbc7e7b7389ddb@108 0046738.nulluser.com...

Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11? After
9/11 the F.B.I. requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism
operations,
but the White House slashed this by two-thirds.

Krugman will be the next journalist to come out of the closet and admit
to
making stuff up. This statement is absolute bull****.


This statement is absolute truth. The records are there to prove it.

Yeah, sure it is. "The records are there to prove it". LOL. What records?
And where?

Do a little research nobby. Google works just fine.

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message


news:c3dhc2g=.5f5982983e66f57c73dbc7e7b7389ddb@108 0046738.nulluser.com...

Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11?
After
9/11 the F.B.I. requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism
operations,
but the White House slashed this by two-thirds.

Krugman will be the next journalist to come out of the closet and
admit
to
making stuff up. This statement is absolute bull****.


This statement is absolute truth. The records are there to prove it.

Yeah, sure it is. "The records are there to prove it". LOL. What
records?
And where?

Do a little research nobby. Google works just fine.

Just as I thought. To use basskisser's logic (an oxymoron if I ever heard
one!)...you made the allegation, so you provide the proof.

"NOYB" wrote in message
.net...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

"Harry Krause" wrote in
message


news:c3dhc2g=.5f5982983e66f57c73dbc7e7b7389ddb@108 0046738.nulluser.com...

Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11?
After
9/11 the F.B.I. requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism
operations,
but the White House slashed this by two-thirds.

Krugman will be the next journalist to come out of the closet and
admit
to
making stuff up. This statement is absolute bull****.


This statement is absolute truth. The records are there to prove
it.

Yeah, sure it is. "The records are there to prove it". LOL. What
records?
And where?

Do a little research nobby. Google works just fine.

Just as I thought. To use basskisser's logic (an oxymoron if I ever heard
one!)...you made the allegation, so you provide the proof.


If you do some research, not only won't you find proof of your allegation,
you'll find that spending *increased*.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

CLARKE: And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed
on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues
that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know,
mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy,
including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made
public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in
effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the
administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those
issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them
decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in
February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing
Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert
action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything
that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these
decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert
action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

"NOYB" wrote in message k.net...
"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message


news:c3dhc2g=.5f5982983e66f57c73dbc7e7b7389ddb@108 0046738.nulluser.com...

Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11?
After
9/11 the F.B.I. requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism
operations,
but the White House slashed this by two-thirds.

Krugman will be the next journalist to come out of the closet and
admit
to
making stuff up. This statement is absolute bull****.


This statement is absolute truth. The records are there to prove it.

Yeah, sure it is. "The records are there to prove it". LOL. What
records?
And where?

Do a little research nobby. Google works just fine.

Just as I thought. To use basskisser's logic (an oxymoron if I ever heard
one!)...you made the allegation, so you provide the proof.

Do you think that is bad logic for some reason? If so, do tell, why?
Now, are you going to comment on the Bush flip-flops? You asked for
them, and I posted them.

In article . net,
says...

"NOYB" wrote in message
.net...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

"Harry Krause" wrote in
message


news:c3dhc2g=.5f5982983e66f57c73dbc7e7b7389ddb@108 0046738.nulluser.com...

Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11?
After
9/11 the F.B.I. requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism
operations,
but the White House slashed this by two-thirds.

Krugman will be the next journalist to come out of the closet and
admit
to
making stuff up. This statement is absolute bull****.


This statement is absolute truth. The records are there to prove
it.

Yeah, sure it is. "The records are there to prove it". LOL. What
records?
And where?

Do a little research nobby. Google works just fine.

Just as I thought. To use basskisser's logic (an oxymoron if I ever heard
one!)...you made the allegation, so you provide the proof.


If you do some research, not only won't you find proof of your allegation,
you'll find that spending *increased*.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

CLARKE: And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed
on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues
that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know,
mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy,
including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made
public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in
effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the
administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those
issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them
decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in
February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing
Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert
action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything
that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these
decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert
action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

Do the words counter terrorism and covert action mean the same thing to
you?

Anyone with a brain can discern that covert action is just one tactic in
a counter terrorism strategy.

Does the phrase "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" mean
anything to you?

jps

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"NOYB" wrote in message
.net...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article
et,
says...

"Harry Krause" wrote in
message



news:c3dhc2g=.5f5982983e66f57c73dbc7e7b7389ddb@108 0046738.nulluser.com...

Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after
9/11?
After
9/11 the F.B.I. requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism
operations,
but the White House slashed this by two-thirds.

Krugman will be the next journalist to come out of the closet
and
admit
to
making stuff up. This statement is absolute bull****.


This statement is absolute truth. The records are there to
prove
it.

Yeah, sure it is. "The records are there to prove it". LOL.
What
records?
And where?

Do a little research nobby. Google works just fine.

Just as I thought. To use basskisser's logic (an oxymoron if I ever
heard
one!)...you made the allegation, so you provide the proof.


If you do some research, not only won't you find proof of your
allegation,
you'll find that spending *increased*.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

CLARKE: And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was
briefed
on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of
issues
that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know,
mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing
policy,
including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made
public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still
in
effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the
administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those
issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them
decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in
February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the
existing
Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert
action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop
anything
that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these
decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert
action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

Do the words counter terrorism and covert action mean the same thing to
you?

Yes. Especially in the text that it was used. Here are Clarke's own words
from 2002:

....add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources...for
covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.




Anyone with a brain can discern that covert action is just one tactic in
a counter terrorism strategy.

Since al Qaeda was the main terrorist threat, increasing funding for covert
actions against them *is* count-terrorism. You're not really that obtuse,
are you?



Does the phrase "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" mean
anything to you?

Does the phrase "increasing funding five-fold to buy more life boats on the
Titanic" mean anything to you.

In article t,
says...

Anyone with a brain can discern that covert action is just one tactic in
a counter terrorism strategy.

Since al Qaeda was the main terrorist threat, increasing funding for covert
actions against them *is* count-terrorism. You're not really that obtuse,
are you?

Obtuse? Oh, so you think covert action can exist in a vacuum?

Everything required in order to *do* covert action is required before
you know what covert action to take.

Cart, horse? Heard of that one?

jps