I'm not convinced that they believe their lies at all. I think that they may say them because they get us so blinded by outrage that we waste our energy complaining about it while they pursue their agenda unchallenged.

I've been re-reading the last few chapters of Clarke's Against All Enemies as a companion to Suskind's The One Percent Doctrine. It is amazing to see how well the interpretations of events jibe. Perhaps this is because the reported main source for 1% was George Tenet, but it also gives a sense of just how the history of just the past few years has already been distorted.

Even events such as Tenet's "slam dunk" comment are not what the Bushies would have you believe.

The facade of events pre- and post- 9/11 are already a carefully painted dramatic interpretation of reality rather than a plain recitation of facts.

I would be interested in hearing how Clarke responds to Michael Scheuer's claim on Fux that he had given them 10 opportunites that they rejected. He went so far on 60 minutes I think, as to say that our leadership abetted OBL.

stated, that Clinton had 10 opportunities to catch Bin Laden but “refused to pull the trigger.”

---- Just say no to 0 ratings. Especially from petey, the ratings abuser.

Jerry: further to my last...corporations are not said to have been involved in Millenium plots. (What sense would that make?)

available on line:
2000 millennium attack plots

The terrorist organization al-Qaeda encouraged attacks against Jordan and the United States on or around January 1, 2000. The different attacks were planned around that date, although there is no evidence that the three were coordinated in any way. Two of them were foiled by law enforcement agencies and the third was aborted after a mistake occurred.

Does anyone else remember, as I believe I do, that there was considerable agonizing in the Clinton administration about what to do about the Cole attack, given that there would be a new administration in January?

I remember there was quite a fury of investigation, and determination not to assume anything about those who were responsible, intermingled with the foregoing concerns. Yet the rabid Clinton detractors blame him for "doing nothing" to pursue the bombers.

(Would that Mr. Bush would apply the same courtesy to his successor, rather than "stay the course" up to noon on January 20th!)

Thanks for putting that so well, OC. I absolutely agree. In some ways the whiny Dems make me crazier than the Republicans. Especially when they go around crying that Rove is some kind of genius because he uses exactly the same tactics as every high school bully. (Well, every very rich high school bully).

What the hell is their problem? Near as I can figure they rather think of themselves as "nice" than succeed in doing the jobs they were hired to do.

Unlike true dramas about current events like "Syriana" or "The Constant Gardener", "The Path to 911" doe snot seek to raise questions. I proposes to answer them with its own rendition of the "truth", even as it prints disclaimers and admissions about the fictionalizing of certain events. I agree with Mr. Clarke. This message this movie sends is no different from the "Wille Horton" campaign ad dressed up as a modern day Dirty Harry with Harry and the good guys fighting terrorists whoich the wimpy upstairs bureacrats (portrayed as Democrats) prevent them doing.

Quoth the poster:
...why hasn't there been a repeat attack?

Answer: after 9/11, the USA is again on high alert.

REMEMBER THE MILLENIUM PLOT. WE STOPPED IT.

We SHOULD remember the Millenium Plot, but there is a more important meme to remember. The whole "we've not been attacked since 9/11/2001" statement is utter bullshit.

I'm sure the victims of the antrax attacks would agree, and yet those attack have been disappeared down the memory hole.

I guess Democrats and the National Enquirer don't count to the mainstream media.

--MAB

your link does not workwhen cut and pasted into a browser

Sorry. The man's name is Robert"Buzz"Paterson who wrote "Dereliction of Duty" He carried the " football" for Mr. Clinton from 96-98.

Patterson told WND he recognizes the television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it's "100 percent factually correct," he said.
Patterson told WND he recognizes the television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it's "100 percent factually correct," he said.

In another "missed opportunity," Patterson writes, Clinton was watching a golf tournament when Berger placed an urgent call to the president. Clinton became irritated when Patterson approached him with the message. After the third attempt, Clinton coolly responded he would call Berger on his way back to the White House. By then, however, according to Patterson, the opportunity was lost.

That's just some of the article.

Perhaps the fact that Patterson's book was so widely disputed by everyone else who was in the Clinton White House there is enough evidence to dismiss him out of hand as a partisan hack with an agenda. (and someone who enjoyed his royalty checks from Regenry)

You can't prove a negative. Neither can you argue with uncorroborated impressions.

I saw Scheuer interviewed on C-span awhile ago in which he was asked if he had actually been present in any of the meetings with Clinton in which the decision was made not to do attacks on Bin Laden, and his answer was no - he had not been in any of those meetings, and in fact had never directly briefed Clinton on Bin Laden. Clarke, however, was in those meetings, and told the 9/11 commission that it was George Tenet, not Clinton or Sandy Berger, who recommended not doing the attacks because the intelligence on Bin Laden's wherabouts wasn't good enough.

Exactly.

If Clarke's versions of this are to be believed, the transition team was handed a plan to attack Al Qeada almost as soon as the Supremes ruled in Bush v Gore. He was told by Condi Rice that W didn't want to "swat flies."

I'm interested in how you gentleman are going to discredit this individual.Please, read the whole article before you start the flame fest.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp? ARTICLE_ID=51898

Uhm, that's easy - posted at "worldnetdaily". Which is German for FascistFictionNetDaily.

Don't have to discredit this, it discredits itself.

Are you sure about the book title? HR McMaster wrote Dereliction of Duty, which I consider the best book yet on US decisionmaking during Viet Nam. Two books with the same title?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

The administration did abet OBL.

First of all, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Even after Clinton, Rudman, Clark, and the Intellegence agencies warned him. BUSHED ALLOWED FOR IT TO HAPPEN. Second, Bush heard of the attack BEFORE entering the grade school that morning - but he didn't lift a finger to save American lives. He just went on with his day. He could have ordered the evacuation of the other towers in the area, but he didn. He didn't lift a finger to save lives the day of the attack, except his own - where he got in Air Force One and headed to Nebraska like the coward that he is.

OBL's goal wasn't just to kill Americans. American's are all over the globe. If he wants to kill American's its easy enough.

OBL real goal was to scare American's stupid, rally Muslims to his side, and bleed America white while hopefully riding out any counter-attack deep in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan while America was bled white by the cost. After all Britain twice in the 19th century, Russia once in the 19th century and again under Soviets all found controling Afghanistan futile.

Bush has helped bleed America white, while letting OBL off the hook. Bush, Rove, Cheney, all are doing their best to keep America affraid. That alone aids and abetts OBL. Second Bush let OBL off the hook. He cut and ran from Afghanistan, and charged into Iraq.

Bush, head of the only super-power, is 0-2 in fighting third world battles against non-state actors. Imagine what would happen if he pissed off the Mafia, we'd all be speaking Italian by breakfast.

In essence, OBL's strategy was taken straight from Mohammed and his attacks against Mecca back in 629 ad. Mohammed provoked the Meccan's by raiding their trade caravans. This caused the Meccan's to Attack Mohammed at Medina. Mohammed set up baricades defenses that reduced the Meccans to seige warfare. In a society based on raiding, in a hostile climate, the Meccan's didnt have the staying power for seige warfare. A year later Mohammed walked into Mecca and took control. This strategy worked against the Soviets. Bin Laden was doing the same thing with the U.S. when he attacked the trade towers. Face it, you don't knock down the World Trade center and not expect a reaction. Its the reaction they want. And Bushed stepped right into... but not in Afghanistan, in Iraq. And he did it on purpose.

Bin Laden would have been wrong about his safety in Afghanistan had any other person in the world, other than a Neocon, been President.

The U.S. didn't want to control Afghansitan. We could have gone in as we did, but instead of setting up Karzai, set up the King, implement parliamentary constitutional monarchy relying on an existing institution, the loya jurga, set up the war lords as 'fief-doms' using a similar model, and then pump in funds, reconstruction and academic advisors and by now Afghanistan would be a free standing prosperous democracy in 95% of its territory.

Both of Afghanistan's neighbors to the west and east, Pakistan and Iran, would themselves be Islamic dictatorships pinned between functioning democracies that were either Muslim or had large numbers of Muslims in it (India and Turkey). The presure of being surrounded by democratic rivals would have put pressure on Iran and Pakistan to liberalize and Modernize. At that point you'd have a belt of liberal democracies stretching from Istanbul to Singapore with only Burma the exception. Of course that didn't happen.

Bush's strategy has aided and abetted Bin Laden's scheme and plan. First, Bush let Bin Laden off the hook. Second, like the Soviets in Afghanistan, Bush is bleeding America white in Iraq. Bush cut and ran from Afghanistan. Pure and simple.

He is purposely losing both those wars.

It's unfathonable. If Bush would have been President in 1940, the U.S. east of the rockies would be speaking German, and the U.S. west of the Rockies would be speaking Japanese. Of course, just as his family has strong business connections with the Bin Ladens, his family back then had strong business connections with the Nazis.

He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin

I caught parts of it tonight while doing other stuff (just like last night.) Mho, they bashed the Bushies equally.

There were substantial liberties taken with facts again; especially glaring to me was the Masood stuff.

The parts I saw with Condi, they really played up a depiction as wicked witch of the west. Really, she got no break from this film, no way; she looked horrible, and she did horrible and dumb things, a villianess.

Interesting that ex-FBI agent Colleen Rowley got some major positive play, they portrayed her up as a tough really smart cookie really friendly with O'Neill. She's running for Congress now as a dem, so that shoots the idea that the film is a 2006 GOP election plot.

Honestly, the only bias I saw was against creating a good factual docudrama, they didn't care about facts, they wanted to get across an idea of grand government incompetence in the face of evil bureaucrats torturing good honorable gumshoes who care about protecting their country. Overall, from the portions I saw (about half of the thing) I would call it a melodrama about John O’Neill, martyr-hero working against the slovenly stupid government bureaucracy. It reminded a bit in that of Oliver Stone's "JFK" albeit a very poorly done imitation. It really stressed O'Neill's story, he was basically the protagonist. From what I've read of him, they weren't that accurate on that, either. Mr. Clarke would probably know, I wonder if he is going to comment on the 2nd portion, as he is definitely given a major role, they did make a big show of him taking over the response after the attacks.

Of course, the version broadcast was after they were forced to make a lot of changes from all the complaints. But the end product I saw was not partisan, it was equal-opportunity bashing. And they made a big display at the end on the 9/11 Commission recent F & D grading of Homeland Security. If any political effect at all, it will be anti-incumbment, mho.

 Second, Bush heard of the attack BEFORE entering the grade school that morning -

What is your source for this?

Let’s see. An U.S. Customs agent pulls over Ressam because he was acting suspicious. So they search his car thinking they’re going to find drugs, but lo and behold it’s explosives.

We got lucky with the millennium bomber. We didn’t know who he was, we didn’t know what he was doing and we didn’t even know what he was going to try to bomb.

Let’s see. An U.S. Customs agent pulls over Ressam because he was acting suspicious. So they search his car thinking they’re going to find drugs, but lo and behold it’s explosives.

We got lucky with the millennium bomber. We didn’t know who he was, we didn’t know what he was doing and we didn’t even know what he was going to try to bomb.

If Dubya and Zhainee have been doing such a great job, then he'd have put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial by now.

Why hasn't the acknowledged mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks faced justice after all this time in custody?

Why can't we get any justice around here?

Fascist is as fascist does, or believes, then does.

I've read worldfascistdaily.net, how else would I know that it's fascist? That didn't make me a fascist nor more than reading Mien Kampf would make me a Nazi, though reading them does tend to make me ill. But that's because I'm a Liberal Democrat or a social democrat (I fluctuate back and forth on those two).

My credentials? I've read history. I've also read "The anatomy of fascism" by Robert Paxton.

Now, considering the following attributes of past Fascist regimes and tell me who you think the real fascists are:
(1) A loathing of international institutions;
(2) A loathing of science, academia and intelligentsia;
(3) Engaging the politics of a persecuted majority (Germans, Christians);
(4) Engaging in stab-in-the-back rhetoric;
(5) Scapegoating adversaries;
(6) Engaging the politics of resentment;
(7) Using government to advancing corporate interest;
(8) Confusing patriotism with militarism;
(9) Pursuing authoritarian culture through conflation of religion and politics;
(10) Waging preemptive war;
(11) Obsession with crime and punishment while overlooking cause and affect;
(12) Rampant corruption and cronyism;
(13) Undermining the labor movement to avoid fair wages;
(14) Concentrating wealth and power;
(15) Fraudulent elections evidenced by a persistent pattern of narrow majority victories;
(16) Employment of `Orwellian' nomenclature;
(17) Racism and sexism (overt or implicit);
(18) Constriction of free press as a form of propaganda (overt or implicit);
(19) Constriction of free expression of opinion (overt or implicit);
(20) Unwarranted searches and seizures;
(21) Constriction of civil rights;
(22) A need to identify enemies as a unifying and mobilizing force, even if there aren't any;
(25) Attacking opponents, not their arguments;
(26) Concentration Camps;
(27) Diplomacy characterized by bullying and coercion;
(28) The use of terrorist events as a pretext for compromising the rule of law and civil rights;
(29) The application of torture;
(30) Labeling criticism of war as defeatist;
(31) Resentment of and reaction against modernism.
(32) Unwilling or unable to admit mistakes.
(33) Labeling anyone who isn't a fascist as a communist (or the inability to distinguish liberal democrats from soical democrats from rational conservatives [ie. democratic conservatives] from socialist from communist).

What I don't understand about Fascist such as Bush, is that they want to disown the fact that they are fascist. You are what your are. If you believe the above, or love Bush as he does the above, then you are fascist. Why be ashamed? Why not be proud of who and what you are?

If you read that site and you are a fascist, why not revel in your fascistosity? Shouted from the highest roof tops.

One more word. It doesn't have a good track record: not compared to liberal democracy - see Japan before and after WWII, See Germany before and after WWII, See Italy before and after WWII, See Spain before and after the death of Franco. Also see Mexico, or any other Banana Republic - they are what we would be if not for FDR/Truman.

He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin

Thank you for the giving me Mr. Paxton's name. I'll see if I can find it and give it a read. After I've done some checking on my own( you'll forgive me if I don't believe your list outright),I'll let you know if I'm a fascist. Am I wrong to surmise that a conservative republican = fascist to you? The only reason I went to that site is because I googled a name and that's where I looked. Personally, this is only the 2nd polically driven site I've been to. Too much anger and divisiveness for me.I'm sure you understand.I'm hear because I'm honestly trying to see and understand other peoples views. I may not agree, but at least I'm making an attempt.

That is a very impressive list. It hits every liberal democrat's talking point I've ever heard. I'll see if I can find your list in Mr. Paxton's book. You might have forgotten something.

I must ask you something. Do you believe captured foreign enemy combatants,not in uniform,deserve the full rights of a US citizen in our civilian courts of law? Do you believe that the USS Cole bombing and 9/11 should have gone unanswered.Do you believe an immenant threat to the US should be dealt with before or after a strike? Do you believe that the UN should be in charge of the defense of the US? Your answers will be very enlighting.I thank you very much for your time if you choose to answer those questions honestly.

Do you believe captured foreign enemy combatants,not in uniform,deserve the full rights of a US citizen in our civilian courts of law?

The question is - do they have any rights at all? Why would we want to afford them rights? My answer is because American reputation of how it handles its prisoners is more than two centuries old. George Washington believed in handling prisoners of war humainely and civilized - the idea that enemy combatants would give themselves up easier if they thought they would be well treated. We did this for two hundred years and it paid off big time on the Western Front in World War II.

Now you may say that this doesn't work with these guys. And maybe it doesnt. YOu know what? It didn't work always in the past either - Germans and Italians surrendered, Japanese did not - But it is the hallmark of our civilization - we are the light of the world.

Our current enemies are not the last set of enemies we will ever have. If we treat them with barbarism it means that god forbid, we fight a war against Chinese, they will inflict barbarism on our boys, and furthermore, Chinese will fight harder to avoid being captured by us. We are the light of the world, we don't put that light out because we have a particularly dark enemy this time.

At the begining of the Iraq war I recall a marine general saying 'you have to make sure that your idea is better than their idea'. We already know how to win an ideological war - see the cold war - and in that war, the side avoiding fighting typically did better than the side that initiated combat - see Vietnam for the U.S. and Afghanistan for Russia.

Do you believe that the USS Cole bombing and 9/11 should have gone unanswered.

I believe that they both went unanswered and both times went unanswered by Bush. Bin Laden is alive and well. Bush says he doesn't care about him and eliminated the CIA unit involved in seeking him out. But then again I recall that the Bin Laden's are friends of the Bush family and that Bush went to great lengths to fly them out of the country on 9/12 when no Americans were allowed to fly, even if it was to connect with their dead reletives in Pennsylvania, D.C. or New York. The record shows, that Clinton held up on reacting to the USS Cole in order to defer to the president elect. When the Supreme Court appointed Bush the winner, Clinton released all information regarding the Cole to Bush and defered to him for a response, as a courtesy, because Bush would be responsible for following through. Bush did nothing in response to the USS Cole. Clinton then warned Bush upon handing over power, that terrorism would be his biggest problem, Bush did nothing. The Bipartisan Hart Rudman report warned Bush, he still did nothing. Dick Clark warned Bush, he still did nothing. In August Bush received an intellegence briefing warning him again - he did nothing. On 911 Bush was told of the attack before entering the grade school - he could have checked into the situation first, and at least ordered all the building evacuated, saving the lives of thousands of people - instead he did nothing. Yes he attacked Afghanistan, but he failed to succeed there. Five years after Pearl Harbor Tojo, Hitler and Mousollini were all dead. Bin Laden the Dictator of a cave dwelling some how succeeds in attacking America, where Tojo, Musollini and Hitler all failed, yet he still remains at large. How can Bush not be viewed in this light as anything other than a failure. I can help that had Bin Laden could control Bush's thoughts and actions, that he would have Bush do much different than he is doing now or has done since 9/11. In fact, Bush, with no knowledge of history, especially of Islam and the middle east, quite simply, doesn't know what he's doing other wise he wouldn't be doing it. Also, if he did know what he was doing it would be easier to admit a mistake, but he doesnt and he cant because then he'd have to come up with something new, and if you don't know what you are doing in the first place, its really hard in the second place, that and also he's a neocon fascist and as a rule they don't like to admint mistakes.

Do you believe an immenant threat to the US should be dealt with before or after a strike?

That's a false question. Is it a threat or a strike I have a choice of reacting to?

There are six billion people in the world. At any point in time any one could choose to kill the person next to them. 99.9% of the time they don't. Does the fact that they still could mean that I have to start killing anyone I might suspect not liking me? Or how about people who shun me and call me names? If I can't tell for sure what they are thinking, should I just torture them first to find out whether or not they like me? Now if some one draws a knife, in a way that a reasonable person would find threatening, I have a right to respond accordingly to defend myself. But in most states, our ancient tradition of common law has left a legacy thats bias towards not starting violence - meaning I can't take any proactive steps unless someone threatens me in a way a reasonable, rational person would find threatening - of real and immediate harm, and it can't just be words either and it can't be a promise to kill me tomorrow - that's the way the law works, and it works that way for a reason - its ancient and time tested.

You can't walk through your life fearing everyone and everything and preparing for every scary thing you imagine in your fear ridden head. Instead of conjuring fear, why not conjure courage, faith, hope, wisdome and charity. In the face of real and immenent and daily terror, Churchill summoned his nations courage, not their fear. No doubt had he simply just gone to code red, we'd be speaking German today. Its a scary world out there. The reaction to it is not to be a piss-in-your-pants-fraidy-cat, but it is to instead conduct yourself with quiet dignified courage and wisdom.

Do you believe that the UN should be in charge of the defense of the US?

That's a false question now isn't it?

And now you are sounding like a Nazi or a fascist. Fascist have a loathing of international institutions - one of the first things fascist did upon taking power was walk out of the League of nations. In the U.S. fascist have an irrational loathing of any institution created by FDR or Truman - the U.N. being one of them. Not republicans mind you, but fascist. Most of my familiy are republicans and they don't hate the U.N.

Really your question is kind of stupid, its irrelevent - Perhaps you haven't read the U.N. charter.

It's not a defense treaty, or perhaps you have it confused with NATO.

Its an institution meant to foster peace where it can. Understanding where it can, and discussion between states to help diffuse crisis where it can. Its a round the clock deliberative body for states around the world, for good and for ill. All of these functions have to take place to some extent some way, in this sense, it's fairly efficient. Through the years its managed to save thousands, maybe millions of lives by helping with vaciniations in poor areas. For millions of people in the third world the U.N. is the best institutional organization that they have a tie to - so its a simble ofhope for many of the truly unfortanate. Also, in areas where concensus is almost universal, the U.N. can advance an intenrational norm to become international law much quicker than before the U.N.existed. For international communications it can help set standards, like making English the language for all pilots. It can't nor won't do everything, but it can do somethings, and somethings it can do better than any other proposed idea so far. Need reform? Probably. Elimination? NO, not unless you have another idea to perform the same functions. Otherwise your demonstrating the behavior that suggest that you are just another anti-international organization fascist that resents anything and everything created by FDR/Truman. When you think of it, it was America first, Coolidge Republicans that kept America out of the League of Nations, which meant a whole new organization had to be created in its stead to allow American republicans to save some face, when you combine the Republican's anti league of nations attitude with their laisse-faire economic policies in the 20s you can pretty well blame them for paving the way for the great depression, the rise of hitler, World War II and holocaust. when you think of it, had republicans been a little more enlightened and a little less greedy, the great depression would never have occurred, Hitler would never have come to power, and even if he did, the league of nations, backed by all the worlds great powers, might have contained him to stay more within international norms (as it did Stalin) and perhaps prevented the deaths of tens of millions of people.

And now we have a republican party that longs to take us back to those great days before Roosevelt existed. Its not just irrational, its irrational beyond all reconing. As if those sets of policies didn't cause enough deaths back in the first half of the 20th century. Bush and the republicans are playing with fire that they just plain don't understand.

Lets face it, by your questions, you are not a traditional conservative - you know, fiscal restrait, America first, all of that. You are a reactionary conservative. Your angry and affraid. Or your affraid and that makes you angry, and that makes you want to react -do something.

Yeah its a rough and tumble world out there: get a grip on yourself, control your emotions, grit your teeth, give it a stiff upper lip, and go about your day with quiet courage and wise but compassionate determination. Read up on the battle of Britain and learn about real terror and real courage and how to respond. Also the meditations of Marcus Aurelius.

And don't listen to Bush - he's a moral coward - remember he was for the war in Vietnam, but not willing to serve in it -his words - that's the very definition of coward. On 9/11 he froze up, then got in his limosine ran and hid in air force one, I think he ended up in Nebraska or some place like that. Infact all of the piss-in-their-pants-chicken-hawks basically dodged service. And that reflects in their policy. The war in Iraq is spinning out of control and Afghanistan is floundering. A so called war for civilization is floundering because we have too few troops, too many tax breaks and too little wisdom on how to fight wars. The war for civilization is floundering but at least the rich are getting richer. Also Read Sun Tzu's "Art of War" - as he says, all wars are lost or won before the fighting begins. Oh, one last thing: courage.

There, now you are enlightened. Live long and prosper my friend. And remember: courage.

He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin