Pictures of Caskets

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

The George Jr administration is hyping nonsense about pictures of flag draped caskets.

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.

Ted Koppel 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.

The bodies of seven CIA officers killed in Afghanistan by a suicide bomber were returned to the U.S. today in a private ceremony as authorities confirmed that the assailant was a Jordanian informant who turned against his CIA handlers.

Seven flag-draped coffins were handed over to the officers' families in a ceremony at Dover Air Force Base attended by CIA Director Leon Panetta and other agency and national security officials, CIA spokesman George Little told ABC News.

"These patriots courageously served their nation," Little said.

No cameras were allowed in the ceremony and the names of the fallen officers were not released, although the names of several of the dead have been made public by their families.

Link

Two of the victims were female officers and at least one of them had been part of the unit hunting Osama bin Laden since the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

I guess we did go after him after all.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

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.

[Undertoad]

Even on 12 Sept 2001, George Jr was trying to blame the WTC on Saddam.

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

[classicman]

The truth however sheds a different light on Clinton and the chances he had as president to get Bin Laden.

The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time,
why was no action taken against them?

“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.
“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says
the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue:
The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

One Clinton Cabinet official said, looking back,
the military should have been more involved, “We did a lot, but we did not see the gathering storm that was out there.”

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.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

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.

.” It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm

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.

the Pentagon's inspector general issued a report that concluded that Feith's office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

Originally Posted by classicman

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.

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."

The National Security Archive today posted the widely-debated, but previously unavailable, January 25, 2001, memo from counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to national security advisor Condoleezza Rice - the first terrorism strategy paper of the Bush administration. The document was central to debates in the 9/11 hearings over the Bush administration's policies and actions on terrorism before September 11, 2001. Clarke's memo requests an immediate meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss broad strategies for combating al-Qaeda by giving counterterrorism aid to the Northern Alliance and Uzbekistan, expanding the counterterrorism budget and responding to the U.S.S. Cole attack. Despite Clarke's request, there was no Principals Committee meeting on al-Qaeda until September 4, 2001.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...#original_post

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

The truth however sheds a different light on Clinton and the chances he had as president to get Bin Laden.

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

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.

Later on the evening of the 12th, ... wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. ... He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look", he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all ... but I want you , as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way ...."

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr President, al Qaeda did this."

"I know, I know, but ... see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred ..."

"Absolutely, we will look ... again." I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. "But you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen."

"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.

Paul Kurtz walked in, passing the President on the way out. Seeing our expressions, he asked, "Geez, what just happened here?"

"Wolfowitz got to him," Lisa said, shaking her head.

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?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Redux

"We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."

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?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

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.

Great plan. Are you against this option?

And later the DoD created its own intel office to find the connection between Saddam and al Queda, even though none existed.

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?

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.

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

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.

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.

[classicman]

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

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

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

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?

Originally Posted by classicman

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

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.

Originally Posted by classicman

The truth however sheds a different light on Clinton and the chances he had as president to get Bin Laden.

To accuse Bush and not Clinton is revisionist and an extremist's attempt at rewriting history. It is nothing short of irresponsible and inaccurate.

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.