Conservatives are continuing their assault on former Bush
counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, a man who President Bush
personally praised
(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...hxp2psc_photo0)
.. The right-wing attack machine is now resorting to unsubstantiated
claims and even racially charged rhetoric to try to change the subject.
On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) demanded that
Clarke's 2002 private testimony to the congressional 9/11 commission be
declassified claiming that Clarke "has told two entirely different
stories (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/26/po...6CND-PTEX.html) ."
Frist specifically recounted details of what he said was Clarke's
closed-door testimony. But as questions were raised about the legality
of Frist's disclosure of still-classified testimony
(http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4674261)
, Frist quickly "retreated" from his claims, admitting "that he
personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies
(http://slate.msn.com/id/2097884/) between" Clarke's 2002 testimony and
his testimony last week. On the talk shows, Ann Coulter disparaged
Clarke, saying he was just " upset a black woman took his job
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4608258/) " while Robert Novak asked a
guest "Do you believe Dick Clarke has a problem with this
African-American woman
(http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/25/cf.00.html) , Condoleezza Rice?"
But in all of the huffing and puffing, not one Bush official or
right-wing pundit has addressed the fundamental question: why was the
Bush Administration asleep at the wheel before 9/11?

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Conservatives are continuing their assault on former Bush
counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, a man who President Bush
personally praised

(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...pl_afp/0403290
72322_nhxp2psc_photo0)
. The right-wing attack machine is now resorting to unsubstantiated
claims and even racially charged rhetoric to try to change the subject.
On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) demanded that
Clarke's 2002 private testimony to the congressional 9/11 commission be
declassified claiming that Clarke "has told two entirely different
stories (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/26/po...6CND-PTEX.html) ."
Frist specifically recounted details of what he said was Clarke's
closed-door testimony. But as questions were raised about the legality
of Frist's disclosure of still-classified testimony

(http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...WECRBAE0CF EY
?type=topNews&storyID=4674261)
, Frist quickly "retreated" from his claims, admitting "that he
personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies
(http://slate.msn.com/id/2097884/) between" Clarke's 2002 testimony and
his testimony last week. On the talk shows, Ann Coulter disparaged
Clarke, saying he was just " upset a black woman took his job
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4608258/) " while Robert Novak asked a
guest "Do you believe Dick Clarke has a problem with this
African-American woman
(http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/25/cf.00.html) , Condoleezza Rice?"
But in all of the huffing and puffing, not one Bush official or
right-wing pundit has addressed the fundamental question: why was the
Bush Administration asleep at the wheel before 9/11?


What would you be saying if President Bush had said lets preemptively attack
Afghanistan, because Mr. Clarke says that Al Quaida is going to be attack
the USA sometime and we need to get rid of them. And he did this 3 months
after taking office? Would you not be in line as a loyal Liberal calling
for his impeachment?

Calif Bill wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...

Conservatives are continuing their assault on former Bush
counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, a man who President Bush
personally praised


(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...pl_afp/0403290
72322_nhxp2psc_photo0)

. The right-wing attack machine is now resorting to unsubstantiated
claims and even racially charged rhetoric to try to change the subject.
On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) demanded that
Clarke's 2002 private testimony to the congressional 9/11 commission be
declassified claiming that Clarke "has told two entirely different
stories (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/26/po...6CND-PTEX.html) ."
Frist specifically recounted details of what he said was Clarke's
closed-door testimony. But as questions were raised about the legality
of Frist's disclosure of still-classified testimony


(http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...WECRBAE0CF EY
?type=topNews&storyID=4674261)

, Frist quickly "retreated" from his claims, admitting "that he
personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies
(http://slate.msn.com/id/2097884/) between" Clarke's 2002 testimony and
his testimony last week. On the talk shows, Ann Coulter disparaged
Clarke, saying he was just " upset a black woman took his job
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4608258/) " while Robert Novak asked a
guest "Do you believe Dick Clarke has a problem with this
African-American woman
(http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/25/cf.00.html) , Condoleezza Rice?"
But in all of the huffing and puffing, not one Bush official or
right-wing pundit has addressed the fundamental question: why was the
Bush Administration asleep at the wheel before 9/11?



What would you be saying if President Bush had said lets preemptively attack
Afghanistan, because Mr. Clarke says that Al Quaida is going to be attack
the USA sometime and we need to get rid of them. And he did this 3 months
after taking office? Would you not be in line as a loyal Liberal calling
for his impeachment?


Do you beLIEve attacking Afghanistan would have prevented 9/11? I'd
rather see some less drastic measures like tightened security at
airports, Checking into registration at flight school, Follow up on
reports of subversive activity, maybe even putting armed marshals back
on airplanes; Genuine counter terrorism measures. remember this attack
was pulled off by less than 20 very lightly armed men.

"Jim" wrote in message
...


Calif Bill wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...

Conservatives are continuing their assault on former Bush
counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, a man who President Bush
personally praised



(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...pl_afp/0403290
72322_nhxp2psc_photo0)

. The right-wing attack machine is now resorting to unsubstantiated
claims and even racially charged rhetoric to try to change the subject.
On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) demanded that
Clarke's 2002 private testimony to the congressional 9/11 commission be
declassified claiming that Clarke "has told two entirely different
stories (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/26/po...6CND-PTEX.html) ."
Frist specifically recounted details of what he said was Clarke's
closed-door testimony. But as questions were raised about the legality
of Frist's disclosure of still-classified testimony



(http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...WECRBAE0CF EY
?type=topNews&storyID=4674261)

, Frist quickly "retreated" from his claims, admitting "that he
personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies
(http://slate.msn.com/id/2097884/) between" Clarke's 2002 testimony and
his testimony last week. On the talk shows, Ann Coulter disparaged
Clarke, saying he was just " upset a black woman took his job
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4608258/) " while Robert Novak asked a
guest "Do you believe Dick Clarke has a problem with this
African-American woman
(http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/25/cf.00.html) , Condoleezza Rice?"
But in all of the huffing and puffing, not one Bush official or
right-wing pundit has addressed the fundamental question: why was the
Bush Administration asleep at the wheel before 9/11?



What would you be saying if President Bush had said lets preemptively
attack
Afghanistan, because Mr. Clarke says that Al Quaida is going to be
attack
the USA sometime and we need to get rid of them. And he did this 3
months
after taking office? Would you not be in line as a loyal Liberal
calling
for his impeachment?


Do you beLIEve attacking Afghanistan would have prevented 9/11? I'd
rather see some less drastic measures like tightened security at
airports, Checking into registration at flight school, Follow up on
reports of subversive activity, maybe even putting armed marshals back
on airplanes; Genuine counter terrorism measures. remember this attack
was pulled off by less than 20 very lightly armed men.


Yup, lightly armed men. The airlines following the FAA rules of letting the
hijackers take over airplane. No planes had ever been intentionally crashed
ala 9/11. This happened 7 months into the Presidency of Bush. Where was
Clarke for the previous 8 years under the former President? Why did not the
former administration do anything? It was planed and the training done
under the former administration. 9/11 would have happened under the watch
of Al Gore! The planning was several years in the making. Probably soon
after the first WTC attack via truck bomb. The former administration who
paid Clarke's salary did nothing!!!! Now that Clarke was fired by the Bush
administration, probably because he did not do a good job of figuring out
9/11, he is selling a tell all book, that does not jibe (boat ref) with his
reports, etc under the former and present administrations.

Calif Bill wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...


Calif Bill wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
...


Conservatives are continuing their assault on former Bush
counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, a man who President Bush
personally praised



(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...pl_afp/0403290

72322_nhxp2psc_photo0)


. The right-wing attack machine is now resorting to unsubstantiated
claims and even racially charged rhetoric to try to change the subject.
On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) demanded that
Clarke's 2002 private testimony to the congressional 9/11 commission be
declassified claiming that Clarke "has told two entirely different
stories (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/26/po...6CND-PTEX.html) ."
Frist specifically recounted details of what he said was Clarke's
closed-door testimony. But as questions were raised about the legality
of Frist's disclosure of still-classified testimony



(http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...WECRBAE0CF EY

?type=topNews&storyID=4674261)


, Frist quickly "retreated" from his claims, admitting "that he
personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies
(http://slate.msn.com/id/2097884/) between" Clarke's 2002 testimony and
his testimony last week. On the talk shows, Ann Coulter disparaged
Clarke, saying he was just " upset a black woman took his job
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4608258/) " while Robert Novak asked a
guest "Do you believe Dick Clarke has a problem with this
African-American woman
(http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/25/cf.00.html) , Condoleezza Rice?"
But in all of the huffing and puffing, not one Bush official or
right-wing pundit has addressed the fundamental question: why was the
Bush Administration asleep at the wheel before 9/11?



What would you be saying if President Bush had said lets preemptively

attack

Afghanistan, because Mr. Clarke says that Al Quaida is going to be

attack

the USA sometime and we need to get rid of them. And he did this 3

months

after taking office? Would you not be in line as a loyal Liberal

calling

for his impeachment?



Do you beLIEve attacking Afghanistan would have prevented 9/11? I'd
rather see some less drastic measures like tightened security at
airports, Checking into registration at flight school, Follow up on
reports of subversive activity, maybe even putting armed marshals back
on airplanes; Genuine counter terrorism measures. remember this attack
was pulled off by less than 20 very lightly armed men.



Yup, lightly armed men. The airlines following the FAA rules of letting the
hijackers take over airplane. No planes had ever been intentionally crashed
ala 9/11. This happened 7 months into the Presidency of Bush. Where was
Clarke for the previous 8 years under the former President? Why did not the
former administration do anything? It was planed and the training done
under the former administration. 9/11 would have happened under the watch
of Al Gore! The planning was several years in the making. Probably soon
after the first WTC attack via truck bomb. The former administration who
paid Clarke's salary did nothing!!!! Now that Clarke was fired by the Bush
administration, probably because he did not do a good job of figuring out
9/11, he is selling a tell all book, that does not jibe (boat ref) with his
reports, etc under the former and present administrations.


The article above says Bush praised him -- not Bush Fired him!. I'll
grant you

9/11 MIGHT have happened under Gore or even Nader, but the fact
remains Bush had
from Jan 20 to Sept. 10 to correct things. (I figure a little more
than 7 months as
you claim)
The buck stops at the top. Bush had been briefed before taking
office, Clark had written memos to Rice. Plenty of warning that
something was afoot, yet ashcroft cut the budget for counter terrorism.

"Jim" wrote in message
...


Calif Bill wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...


Calif Bill wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
...


Conservatives are continuing their assault on former Bush
counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, a man who President Bush
personally praised




(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...pl_afp/0403290

72322_nhxp2psc_photo0)


. The right-wing attack machine is now resorting to unsubstantiated
claims and even racially charged rhetoric to try to change the
subject.
On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) demanded that
Clarke's 2002 private testimony to the congressional 9/11 commission
be
declassified claiming that Clarke "has told two entirely different
stories (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/26/po...6CND-PTEX.html)
.."
Frist specifically recounted details of what he said was Clarke's
closed-door testimony. But as questions were raised about the legality
of Frist's disclosure of still-classified testimony




(http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...WECRBAE0CF EY

?type=topNews&storyID=4674261)


, Frist quickly "retreated" from his claims, admitting "that he
personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies
(http://slate.msn.com/id/2097884/) between" Clarke's 2002 testimony
and
his testimony last week. On the talk shows, Ann Coulter disparaged
Clarke, saying he was just " upset a black woman took his job
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4608258/) " while Robert Novak asked a
guest "Do you believe Dick Clarke has a problem with this
African-American woman
(http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/25/cf.00.html) , Condoleezza
Rice?"
But in all of the huffing and puffing, not one Bush official or
right-wing pundit has addressed the fundamental question: why was the
Bush Administration asleep at the wheel before 9/11?



What would you be saying if President Bush had said lets preemptively

attack

Afghanistan, because Mr. Clarke says that Al Quaida is going to be

attack

the USA sometime and we need to get rid of them. And he did this 3

months

after taking office? Would you not be in line as a loyal Liberal

calling

for his impeachment?



Do you beLIEve attacking Afghanistan would have prevented 9/11? I'd
rather see some less drastic measures like tightened security at
airports, Checking into registration at flight school, Follow up on
reports of subversive activity, maybe even putting armed marshals back
on airplanes; Genuine counter terrorism measures. remember this attack
was pulled off by less than 20 very lightly armed men.



Yup, lightly armed men. The airlines following the FAA rules of letting
the
hijackers take over airplane. No planes had ever been intentionally
crashed
ala 9/11. This happened 7 months into the Presidency of Bush. Where
was
Clarke for the previous 8 years under the former President? Why did not
the
former administration do anything? It was planed and the training done
under the former administration. 9/11 would have happened under the
watch
of Al Gore! The planning was several years in the making. Probably
soon
after the first WTC attack via truck bomb. The former administration
who
paid Clarke's salary did nothing!!!! Now that Clarke was fired by the
Bush
administration, probably because he did not do a good job of figuring
out
9/11, he is selling a tell all book, that does not jibe (boat ref) with
his
reports, etc under the former and present administrations.


The article above says Bush praised him -- not Bush Fired him!. I'll
grant you

9/11 MIGHT have happened under Gore or even Nader, but the fact
remains Bush had
from Jan 20 to Sept. 10 to correct things. (I figure a little more
than 7 months as
you claim)
The buck stops at the top. Bush had been briefed before taking
office, Clark had written memos to Rice. Plenty of warning that
something was afoot, yet ashcroft cut the budget for counter terrorism.


Yes, Bush had the watch. But a lot of years from the first WTC, Kobar
Towers, USS Cole, couple of embassy. And the Counter Terrorism dept did not
know anything? Or do anything? How were they to come up with a plan in 7-8
months?