Pictures of Caskets
 

The George Jr administration is hyping nonsense about pictures of flag draped caskets. Why? Ted Koppel was quite blunt about this tonight. The ban was created because George Sr was upset when Gulf War caskets were removed, live, from a plane as he was airing a news conference.

If those caskets were Columbia astronuts, then it is Ok to take a picture? But then Koppel finishes his "Last Thought' with a damning video closing. He replays a George Jr campaign video that shows Iraq war caskets draped in the American flag.

Double standard. Why is it wrong to take and publish pictures of caskets from the Iraq invasion - and yet it is right for George Jr to put those same pictures in his presidental campaign advertisement? Yes Koppel was rather blunt when he started his "Last Thought" about this flag draped casket pictures as something really quite trivial.

TedKoppel was right on the money. Honor our dead. Let their caskets and honor guard be shown live and in pictures as they arrive home. George Jr is so ashamed of those good dead men; therefore George Jr hides behind nonsensical political spin. Banning pictures of their caskets is wrong, blemishes their supreme sacrifice, and is only for the greater good of George Jr - and his self serving agenda.

By George, I think your right, TW.:beer:
Why hide the real cost of war? Any war.

I think it gives us a real visualization of the cost of war. We know it's costing kabillions of dollars and that soldiers are dying...now it's in our faces.

Just as in the other thread on this topic, I think they should stop censoring footage of our troops in action over there. What we mostly get to see looks pretty abstract, and doesn't bring the reality of the war home to us. I have a friend who was a tank commander in the first wave of the invasion in the first Gulf War. He told me about alot of things that were never shown on film back here in the States. I also agree that the heroism of our soldiers gets over looked because the Bush administration wants everything to look all clean and tidy. I guess I have a real problem with a president who has never seen combat happily sending our boys off to fight and then covering up the reality of what our soldiers in Iraq are facing.

Re: Pictures of Caskets
 

Lets not forget the most damning part of that Ted Koppel 'Last Thought'. George Jr even put those flag draped casket pictures in his TV campaign advertisement - but reporters cannot display them on TV or in the newspapers?
Ted Koppel was unusually blunt about this. So blunt that he even stated an opinion about this 'flag draped casket - no pictures permitted' nonsense.

Re: Pictures of Caskets
 

Well, that's simple, silly...it is right to do it in a GWB campaign ad because someone thought it would help him somehow. If we just saw it as news, someone might put a negative spin on it, and that wouldn't help him at all. This way, it is spoon-fed to us in a healthy, moral context which is deemed to be suitable for our fragile minds and morals to digest.

Summary: Flag-draped coffins in GWB campaign commercial = GOOD.

Flag-draped coffin on news programs that GWB does not control = BAD

The flag-draped coffins in Bush's commercial were from 9/11 (an already-public event) and not from Iraq (a private event awaiting the families).

Also noticed: CNN plays the video of the still images that were published over and over and over again, multiple days of the non-story punditry question, until they are the flag-draped-coffin channel, all coffins all the time. In the name of "journalism". Fox refuses to show them, also in the name of "journalism".

Iraq is a public event.

You started out correct and then strayed ...

"Casket" is the correct term here.

A "Coffin" is oddly-shaped box (8 sides seen from overhead, plus top and bottom making a 10 sided solid), popularlized by Count Dracula and by Old West coffin-makers who have them ready to be filled in Clint Eastwood "Man with No Name" movies.

(My neighbor is a funeral director. Oh, and another little funeral director tidbit ... "Milk expires. People die.")

pedant
 

I think you mean 6-sided, for 8 sides total.
http://www.embroideryaccentsofaz.com/images/coffin.gif

Use stronger nails next time!

:haha:

Whatever. I can't count ...

They both rot.;)

This is suppose to tell us something? Fox News also does not report a massive demonstration in Washington against extremist conservative opinions forced upon the majority. They fail to report it because the demonstration is contrary to Fox News purpose - to promote a political agenda. Therefore anything that Fox News does or does not show has significance? Of course not. Fox News was mentioned in a desperate attempt to post a reply.

Yes, Fox News has as much credibility as Pravada - another news service that had same purpose. What Fox News chooses to show or not show only represents political rhetoric; has nothing to do with credibile and responsbile news.

Maybe Fox News should take up the name Pravada - which means "truth" in Russian. That way, Fox News would be better understood. In the meantime, what Fox News does has no significance to this discusson - other than to say what their political leaders order everyone to believe.

Who has far more credibility? Fox News or Ted Koppel? The latter said George Jr will even put those flagged draped caskets in his Presidental campaign ads. Ted Koppel showed that ad. What does Fox News do? Avoid criticizing the president they exist to promote.

I thought the whole concept was to be sensitive to the families? What makes the need to be sensitive to the families of 9-11 less pressing than the need to be sensitive to the families of dead soldiers?

I don't think a hair will split that thinly... :)

That may be, but it's a hair they're trying to split on the conservative talking point circuit.

Juan Williams kicks ass...he's a reporter for NPR.

If we can't tell whose caskets those are, what does it really matter?

I love the guy who stated that they should not show pictures and that it did not matter anyway, because Americans already knew the number lost and the pictures would not be giving them any more information. This is obvious false, since almost anyone knows that an image can convey information much more powerfully than numbers.

Anyone who has seen pictures from 9/11 knows that if those images were never shown and the incident was reduced to numbers, it would not convey the anguish of the situation. How anyone who represents people who splash these images into their campaign ads can sit there and make that statement is ludicrous.

BTW, I really am trying to be non-partisan about this. If I ever caught a spokesman for my point of view in this kind of bald-faced lie, I'm pretty sure I'd call him on it.

Why do you suppose the Pentagon does not have a problem showing bodies of US Citizens hanging from a bridge above a band of cheering Iraqis, but they do have a problem with the remains of men and women who died in a war that we claim to be proud of being treated with dignity and respect?

(yes that was one sentence – leave me alone)

"Quite frankly, we don't want the remains of our service members who have made the ultimate sacrifice to be the subject of any kind of attention that is unwarranted or undignified"
John Molino, a deputy undersecretary of defense

How is this unwarranted or undignified: http://www.thememoryhole.org/.

As I said, Koppel was quite blunt. He started with WHY we are not allowed to photograph arriving flag draped caskets. Because during a George Sr press conference, a freshly arrived C-130 was shown being unloaded of those caskets as George Sr spoke.

It has nothing to do with respect for families. That is administration rhetoric - better called lies. They don't want pictures shown for reasons political. And considering history of this administration, no one should have any doubt about their reasons.

Who are we to believe? Some nonsense myth about respect for families? For all we know, the casket may even be Columbia astronauts - and those pictures are permitted. Pictures of flags over boxes do not disprespect anyone - except maybe George Jr's approval polls.

Taking pictures of flag draped caskets that, for all we know, contains Saddam's $millions, show no disrepect to anyone. Koppel said, quite bluntly, why we are not permitted to see those caskets. Politics. Getting the right spin. It has nothing to do with the myths from an administration that has a long history of lying to have their way - such as five orange threat alerts that only help the administration's approval polls and don't stop terrorists. Furthermore - direct from Ted Koppel: One - we don't show caskets for reasons political.
Two - George Jr used those pictures in his campaign TV advertisements. Koppel even made sure we saw those flag draped caskets behind a portrait of George Jr. - in a George Jr TV ad.

I know why the Bush Administration is up in arms about that particular shot -- the way it is composed suggests an endless line of caskets.

671 caskets to date in the 2nd Gulf War. If you want names and pictures of the deceased, go to http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html
The military seems to have no problem with honoring its war dead. Why does George Bush?

typical grandstanding
 

Don’t forget that Chaney was the one who tearfully talked about how he saw the sea of crosses at Arlington National Cemetery whenever he landed at the Pentagon.

Do you see any crosses in this picture?

Shameful. If we're going to send soldiers to die we shold at least show them some respect .

This reminds me of a remembrance day ceremony at the Cenotaph in London. It was a little after the Falklands war and the government of the day ( Thatcher's lot) refused to allow the injured Falkland's veterans to attend. There were men still suffering the agonies of healing burns and plastic surgery and men who hadnt yet been fitted with their prosthetic limbs who were refused a presence at a remembrance for the war dead of Britain in two world wars, because it would have made uncomfortable airplay for the government in the run up to a general election. They were far too busy using the pomp and glory of those boys' victory to allow the pain of those that made the sacrifice to be shown.

For about every three dead, another comes home missing limbs. Just another statistic that 'blood and guts' Cheney would rather we forget. They also don't want us to know the number of missing limbs and permenantly disabled. After all, the entire war is based entirely on lies in the highest office. Best to suppress more facts. Facts that Koppel was quite blunt about. And Koppel was only discussing the dead.

In the meantime, anyone notice there still is no exit strategy? The expression is well understood - "light at the end of the tunnel".

Just for the sake of completeness, your number is a tad high (by 50-75 or so) because it includes non-combat / non-hostile related deaths.

It's also a little low because it doesn't count people who die from battle wounds later in the hospital.

We are now at 697 per US Central Command.

In the end, war dead are war dead.

It often strikes me that logic isn't really the Bush administration's strong suit.

No! Are you serious? Stop playing!

I read this account, at EHOWA.com, of a Marine's escorting the body of another Marine from Dover Air Force Base in DE, to the funeral in Dubois, Wyoming. Very interesting but gave me the lump in the throat, too. :(

We are now at 717 per US Central Command

Is this where it should be pointed out that in World War II the average death toll for the US alone was 202/DAY. (295K/4 yrs/365 days. It's a very rough estimate).

Korea ... 30/day

Vietnam ... 19/day

So, based on these numbers, we're not doing too bad.

Yes, every life is precious. I think the difference is the immediacy of the modern news media ... every dead soldier is being personalized to the whole country this time out.

Koppel will be reporting more on this tonight - Friday - on Nightline:
Why are those lives not important when they die in a war created by a Pearl Harbor type attack, a war justified by lies, from a president who fears we might honor these soldiers?

First we have leaders who would deny the dead be remembered in the pictures and videos. Then they fear we would honor their names.

When Koppel was blunt about the ban on flagged draped caskets, he exposed the hypocracy of the same leaders who even lied to invade another sovereign nation - a classic Pearl Harbor type attack.

If the way they run their ABC affiliate in St. Louis is indicative of their company as a whole, then Sinclair sucks to the nth degree. Fuck them...stupid ass 1st amendment haters.

I recently read an article that said Sinclair is trying to out-Fox Fox ... (oh, I mean outconservative. They're starting their own news service, etc.)

Sinclair Broadcasting previously tried to get the current HDTV format eliminated because (and they were correct) the format used in NA is different and inferior to HDTV format used virutally everywhere else in the world. Sinclair lost that fight. Major players had already decided on that inferior format to protect American TV manufacturers such as Zenith. Then Zenith sold out anyway.

Seven Sinclair Broadcasting stations including Springfield MA, Asheville & Winston-Salem NC, Columbus OH, Pensacola FL, St Louis, and Charleston WV. All are said to be inundated on phone and by e-mail by good Americans who don't want their news censored - no matter what the broadcasters or FCCs opinion is of that broadcast. Basic facts are basic facts - regardless of what Sinclair thinks they might be used for. Kudos to Nightline for providing basic information that our president fears we would see.

Actually, in the 3 days since I've been keeping a tally on this thread, 36 men have been killed. That makes a current rate of 13 a day. If this trend continues, we WILL be approaching Vietnam era casualties.

US deaths in Vietnam: about 58,000

US deaths in Iraq: 717

# of days it would take to catch up at a rate of 13/day: 4400

# years that would be: 12

Happy numeracy, or something.

US casualties in Vietnam in 1965 - the first year we entered the war - 512. More than that number have already died in the second round of Gulf fighting. Note that I said at the CURRENT RATE, meaning if this rate were to continue. How about a little historical literacy around here?

We have the same exit strategy as 1965 Vietnam - just put in more troops. Also Vietnamize (Iraqize) the conflict. (But the Vietnamese and Iraqi soldiers often ran away during a battle). In both wars, the enemy was really the invading nation. Liberating people who did not want to be liberated - as in both wars.

No one believed in 1965 that we would be in Vietnam ten years later - even though David Halbersham's 1963 book "Making of a Quagmire" demonstrated why we would be there. We have an oppurtunity in a few months (November) to avoid being in Iraq for ten more years. We will never leave if American political leaders openly lie. Exactly same as in VietNam when the liar and crook Richard Nixon (and his corrupt VP Agnew) would even attack sovereign nations without a declaration of war. Its called a Pearl Harbor attack.

Do we vote for a President who lied about Iraq and lied about the impending 11 September attacks? Or do we innovate - get rid of something clearly failed to try something new? Do we dare seek a real exit strategy? Do we dare vote out a leader with a long history of outright lying?

Any light at the end of that tunnel? (for those who don't remember - the daily expression in Vietnam). Some are looking through aluminum tubes and saying they see WMDs. But that is not the tunnel nor the light. Just like in Vietnam - same people with different names - they still see a mythical reason in some mythical tunnel. Therefore we still have no exit strategy - just like 1965 Vietnam.

Doonesbury got started by telling us what we now know to be the truth of Vietnam. This administration would rather we don't know who got killed or even how many lost limbs. In Doonesbury, B.D. lost his leg to an RPG. He calls his wife. "Well the good news is that I am finally down to my ideal weight." As Vietnam progressed, these became the daily humor of most popular comic strips. We relive history.

Don't learn history and be doomed to repeat it. History says repeatedly that wars without the smoking gun turn bad. Here we are again because so many hyped the emotion of "right verses wrong" (or doing god's will) rather than first demand the irrefutible fact - the smoking gun. But then so many reading this never even existed during Nam. They just did not appreciate those warnings. History repeats. And just like in Nam, the large media owners (ie Time Magazine in 1965, CBS News in 1967, and now Fox News / Sinclair Broadcasting in 2004) censor news they fear.

I'm with you on Bush lying about Iraq, but I'm not sure I understand the second part. Are you saying he lied to us before 911 or are you talking about the CYA ever since?

He CYAed big time. Details:
Now for some details. Was it UT who tried to promote the administration's lie that flag draped caskets in his TV ad were not dead soldier's from Iraq? Promote the propaganda daily pumped out to Rush Limbaugh, et al, so that the public will not believe the 'later revealed' truth. President fears the press to show flag draped coffins - but the president will use same pictures in his campaign ads. The point is that this president (and his supporters) know the public will believe lies if they are promoted before the truth. Unfortunately many still believe his lies about 11 September - as the truth slowly leaks out to expose administration propaganda.

Now for the lies about 11 September: The administration wanted to stifle the 11 September commission. So much that all four Jersey Girls (two whom voted for this president) now openly criticize George Jr. Presidental stifling explains why the commission did not start for 13 months AND why the entire commission threatened to resign when this administration intentionally stonewalled.

Hid facts that they feared voters might learn. Among those facts is a Presidental Daily Briefing (PDB) that said Al Qaeda was planning a major attack on something in the US (who and where), would involve planes and buildings (how), and would occur soon (when). This is what a president and Conduleezza Rice says is not "actionable"?

Had the president done as the Economist defines from a responsible leader, then at least three FBI offices (in IL, MN, and AZ) could have been empowered to continue their stifled investigations on what we now know was the 11 September attack. Instead, those agents were bluntly ordered not to investigate. Had the president done his job - been actionable - then John O'Neill, who had names of 11 September and USS Cole attackers, could have discovered the CIA knew those terrrorist had been in the US for months.

Ok. The commission beats up Condi Rice publically - demanding that PDB be publically released. She says they read it and therefore don't need it declassified. The commission wins only because they made a public stink about that 6 Aug 2001 PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the U.S." Because PDB was publically released, the commission is informed of two more (hidden) PDBs that also bluntly warned George Jr of same Al Qaeda attack. Now that is three PDBs that say quite bluntly the Al Qaeda attack is coming. But George Jr and Condi Rice see nothing actionable.

George Jr does nothing. Clinton previously took similar warning so seriously that even Custom Officer Debra(?) in WA is warned and discovers the LA Airport bomber. With backup, she runs him down. As a result, Millenium terrorist attacks on NYC, LA Airport, the Hilton(?) in Amman Jordan, Toronto, and I forget where else are also discovered and stopped. The King of Jordan visited a suburban house where Amman explosives were stored. So much explosives that the King said this was not a terrorist attack; it was a war! BTW, the USS The Sullivans attack was not discovered. It also did not happen because terrorists overloaded their boat; boat sunk. But Clinton did his job. He was actionable. Where was George Jr? Vacationing in Crawford? Could not find anything actionable in warnings that said "who, where, when, and how"?

No wonder the Jersey Girls are angry. The White House repeatedly atttempted to stifle the 911 Commission. It withheld facts that show the George Jr administration KNEW attacks were coming and did nothing. The George Jr administration refuses to admit they screwed up. EVen worse, they lie. They say information was not actionable - while they drove this nation's best anti-terrorism investigator into retirement - and a new job that would kill him on his first week as head of WTC Security.

In his last press conference, George Jr was asked three times if he had made mistakes. In the last question, he hemmed and hawwed for a full minute seeking just one mistake he had made. Clueless? He was informed of the 11 September attacks - and did nothing. Lying to CYA. This is god's choosen president? Sounds more like Satan's choosen man. he lies about things that men should never lie about. Lies and damnable lies.

Why are damnable lies acceptable and specific PDB facts not actionable? No wonder he must lie to CYA.

Things are getting worse for the White House, Bremer Faulted Bush Before Terror Attacks. It appears that Paul Bremer, the man Bush picked for Iraq, said this 6 months before 9/11.

Wow.

Link

I guess we did go after him after all.

Clinton did. George Jr all but protected bin Laden. Even on 12 Sept 2001, George Jr was trying to blame the WTC on Saddam. George Jr's political agenda was to blame Saddam. To refuse to acknowledge the attacker was bin Laden - as ABC News in conjunction with Richard Clarke made so painfully obvious.

She was an early member of Alec Station. Created by Clinton in 1996 to get bin Laden. Honest presidents defend America. Subverted and eventually disbanded by George Jr on or after 2004. George Jr all but protected bin Laden. Literally put this CIA lady and others out of job #1.

Honest Americans back then were asking, "When are we going after bin Laden?" Reality for the same reason what White House lawyers rewrote science papers. The political agenda was more important.

A political agenda with contempt for America disbanded Alec Station. That painful reality - to all but protect bin Laden - was discussed repeatedly:
In May 2008 Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone
In Jan 2010 Accomplishments of President Obama
In Feb 2009 Obama spanks Wall Street.
In Dec 2007 Long Distance Phone Call Execution
In March 2008 DoD Report on Captured Iraqi Documents
In May 2007 Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone
In April 2009 Stolen plane
In Jun 2007 Terror Plot 'One Of The Most Chilling Imaginable'

And still the same people deny reality – as bin Laden still runs free – and it now even harder to find. All but protected by America's political extremists.

Do you have a cite for this that isn't one of your own posts.

The truth however sheds a different light on Clinton and the chances he had as president to get Bin Laden.
Link
There are plenty more. To accuse Bush and not Clinton is revisionist and an extremist's attempt at rewriting history. It is nothing short of irresponsible and inaccurate.

It is a stretch to say that Bush blamed 9/11 on Saddam....but he did say that we would not only retaliate against the terrorists...but any country that harbors terrorists.

And that gave the neo-cons all they needed to start planning for regime change in Iraq. Within a week, the PNAC was calling for the invasion of Iraq.
And later the DoD created its own intel office to find the connection between Saddam and al Queda, even though none existed. By 2003, the DoD Office of Special Plans "intel" was used to justify the invasion...and according to the later DoD IG investigation, it was bogus.

In fact, Clinton went after Bin Laden in both Afghanistan and Sudan. He authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him...and they failed. And ultimately could not get approval from the Republican House to do more.

He (through his counter terrorism coordinator) also provided Bush with memos identifying Bin Laden and al Queda as the greatest national security/terrorist threat the day Bush took office..and it was ignored for nine months.

"We urgently need . . . a Principals level review on the al Qida network."
How soon we forget that Condi Rice had a major foreign policy/national security addressed scheduled for Sept. 11, 2001. It was to promote "missile defense" as the number one priority for US national security.

Bush/Rice dropped the fucking ball right from the start...and dropped the fucking ball again in 2003 when they virtually abandoned the pursuit of al Queda in Afghanistan for their folly in Iraq.

bin Laden attacks America in NYC, Washington DC, and embassies in Africa. So what do the wackos do? Disband Alec Station - the group that has only one purpose - to get bin Laden. So who does Classicman blame? Clinton.

Extremists will never ask this question. "When are we going after bin Laden?" Extremists conveniently forget that when bin Laden was public enemy #1, George Jr simply eliminated the organization tasked to get him. Then blame Clinton?

Extremists subverted and halted efforts after effort to get bin Laden. When bin Laden was identified in Tora Bora, the entire 10th Mountain Division was nearby ready to go. Thanks to extremists, the 10th Mountain never moved. Was never permitted to get bin Laden. Eventually bin Laden escaped using the same trail that Special Forces wanted to use to get him. But again, same wackos also would not let Special Forces go in. Protecting bin Laden means extremistins always had a boogey man - besides Rush Limbaugh.

Classicman routinely forgets that reality. Otherwise he would have to admit extremist are that slimmy, that dumb and that anti-American.

The only reason Alec Station was disbanded - extremists are that wacko anti-American. A political agenda is always more important.

I saw it live on Peter Jennings. Jennings did something unusual that night - a live interview with a White House spokesman. Jennings challenged the White House spokesman (I don't remember his name) with Richard Clarke's testimony. Clarke said the President encountered him in the hallway on the 12 Sept. Making a comment that Saddam did this. Clark said no sir. bin Laden did this. The president then said to see if Saddam did it.

That spokesman denied what Jennings reported. Then Jennings said ABC News also had testimony from a military officer who was standing next to Clark and who confirmed the entire conversation. The White House spokesman then went silent - would not say any more.

From where we all sit today, that story is not new. It is what we expect from them who also loved torture, intentional lying about Saddam's WMDs, and ... well their overt lies would more than double this post.

Of course they wanted 11 September blamed on Saddam. History is quite clear about that - and why.

They are still iunwilling to acknowledge or accept any accountability for their own failures:

"We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."
- former Bush press secretary Dana Perino on Sean Hannity's show last month

Classic denial?

Because there was no other attempt. Terrorist 2 George Jr administration 0.

Meanwhile we know Clinton successfully stopped at least one and problably more attacks by simply telling all Federal employees to watch for an impending attack. And so Deana Deans found and stopped the attacker. Which attack did Clinton not stop? The attack on the USS The Sullivans. Why was that attack averted? Terrorists put too many explosive on the boat. The boat sank.

Told that bin Laden was planning an attack, what did George Jr do? Nothing. Instead he moved the CounterTerrorism Security Group out of the White House. And demoted it from Cabinet level to Assistant Cabinet level. And some here deny extremists are dumb?

What did he and everyone in his administration do on 11 Sept? He sat in a child's chair for 15 minutes after being told, "A second plane has just struck the World Trade Center. America is under attack". He sat there and did nothing. He did not even ask one question. He waited to be told what to do. And some here deny extremists are dumb?


Nobody else did anything that day. Finally a man in VA, without any authority to do so, took it upon himself to order all planes landed. Nobody in the administration could even make that decision - because extremism is another word for dumb.

No one in the administration even authorized fighters to shot down an attacking airliner. Even though Cheney said he did. Reality - no he did not. As the 911 Commission bluntly states.

On 11 Sept he does not even give the Air Force authority to protect America. But he sure can shot his hunting partners. Who was the enemy?

Great plan. Are you against this option?

And you have some source to back up the notion that the intel office formed was solely to find a connection between Saddam and AQ? Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Was it that or "Slam Dunk!" faulty intel from the CIA Chief? There was no love between the CIA and the DOD, and to some extent this remains a problem.

Trying to re-write history again I see. Clinton dropped the ball when he failed to give the order to fire on Bin Laden in Yemen. Sooner or later your party will have to accept some of the responsibility for 9/11. Bush was in office months before 9/11. Clinton was in office for 8 years. Clinton and his team were inept and failed to act on good intel repeatedly. Ok, well they did bomb a pharmaceutical company and fire some cruise missiles at a deserted desert outpost.

Blaming Bush for 9/11 is like blaming Obama for the financial meltdown.

I agree that you have again taken this to a personal level. Why is that tommy?

I agree with you on this point though. "extremist are that slimmy, that dumb and that anti-American."
Your problem is that you are just as much an extremist. Wake up and smell the coffee.

And what is this fascination YOU have with Rush Limbaugh, anyway?

Que
 

Dont put words in my mouth.

I said Bush dropped the ball...twice, regarding al Queda, He ignored the warnings from Clarke and, as TW noted, he killed the unit charged with seeking out Bin Laden.

Facts.

To ignore the Clinton "finding" to kill Bin Laden, the Clarke memo, and the disbanding of Alec Station and the diversion of resources from Afghanistan to Iraq.....is the revisionist history and is nothing short of irresponsible and inaccurate.