Skip to comments.
Bush Aides Deny Getting Plan to Fight Al Qaeda [Another 'BUSH-KNEW!!' campaign]
Reuters via WorldNetDaily.com ^
| Monday, August 5, 2002
Posted on 08/05/2002 5:10:59 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
To: JohnHuang2
Had there been a real plan, Clinton and the gang wouldn't have waited a year to air it.Absolutely. And Hillary and Chelsea would have capitalized on that plan rather than their lame "tax cut" story.
21
posted on
08/05/2002 6:09:25 AM PDT
by
Quilla
To: Quilla
And Hillary and Chelsea would have capitalized on that plan rather than their lame "tax cut" story.Bingo.
To: JohnHuang2
I quit taking TIME seriously a long time ago. Too bad Hugh Sidey is still around to see what's become of it.
To: Eric in the Ozarks
Re: #23 -- My sentiments exactly re: Hugh Sidney. He's one of the few good guys left in journalism.
To: Oldeconomybuyer
So why would the Clinton administration wait until their final days to develop this "aggressive" plan to strike al Qaeda when they recognized the threat as far back as 1993?Bingo. Further, why haven't any of the news articles that I've read about this raised that painfully obvious point?
25
posted on
08/05/2002 6:28:53 AM PDT
by
alnick
To: Quilla
Had there been a real plan, Clinton and the gang wouldn't have waited a year to air it. Absolutely. And Hillary and Chelsea would have capitalized on that plan rather than their lame "tax cut" story. Good point. Chelsea would have immediately thought about that on 9/11 instead of her first thoughts after the attacks being about the tax cuts, as she claims.
26
posted on
08/05/2002 6:35:14 AM PDT
by
alnick
To: JohnHuang2
According to Time, the proposals were developed by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush administration and became the point man on terrorism in the Clinton White House.
We wonder if Clarke, as "point man on terrorism" ever spoke to or had a meeting with Clinton or Berger, bet his work and warnings were ignored before Jan 2001.
27
posted on
08/05/2002 6:41:03 AM PDT
by
11x62
To: JohnHuang2
This was probably the opportune time for heralding this "plan". They're hoping for a feeding frenzy during the August recess and wanted this to be the only morsel on which to chew.
I've read criticism of President Bush for the past 19 months for not giving Clinton & Co. their just due. No one would be happier than I to see them get their come-uppance, but just imagine how this "plan" ploy would play if President Bush had spent ONE MINUTE of his time exposing the garbage of the Clintons. The "plan" would be accompanied by accusations of "if he'd spent his time looking out for our security instead of investigating Clinton,etc....". I'm convinced our president chooses his course wisely.
Now, to wait for the next item in the dem arsenal and hope it is recognized for what it is.
To: alnick
Further, why haven't any of the news articles that I've read about this raised that painfully obvious point?Neal Boortz has mentioned that over 90% of the mainstream media are democrats. As there are so few true investigative journalists left, today's reporters simply read their DNC faxes and repeat the spin. They don't want to lose what paltry sums they receive for this effortless kneejerk "news" so they back the party of unlimited socialist welfare programs. I consider the media even more dangerous than Hillary! and that's pretty dangerous.
29
posted on
08/05/2002 6:54:33 AM PDT
by
Quilla
To: Quilla
"today's reporters simply read their DNC faxes and repeat the spin"
Correct. The talking points item I've heard this morning are, "President Bush was concerned with strategic missle defense and" ....I can't remember the other item. I'm sure it'll be repeated.
To: JohnHuang2
So, this aggressive plan was not implemented by Semenstain? I guess it was not a big deal then, because Clinton was the most devoted combatant ever in the war on terrorism.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
To: JohnHuang2
We know this is bogus. If it were of such importance that the incoming president be informed, then why did the Clinton administration delay the NORMAL briefing of the Bush transition team until after the Florida election scam played out?
We need to ask these self-important sycophants why they didn't think this "plan" was of such magnitude involving the very safety of our country that they went outside the normal routine and did not allow Bush the courtesy of information as every other president's administration has done. Wouldn't an incoming president have benefited from knowing this earth shattering information in November and December?
How stupid do these people think we are?
32
posted on
08/05/2002 8:06:17 AM PDT
by
IVote2
To: finnman69
"So, this aggressive plan was not implemented? I guess it was not a big deal then, because Clinton was the most devoted combatant ever in the war on terrorism...."He was too busy getting ready to jump into the trenches, fight and die for Israel when Iran and/or Iraq crossed the Jordan...so much for "intelligence"!!!!
BWAHAHAHA, back!! ;)
33
posted on
08/05/2002 8:12:07 AM PDT
by
88keys
"this "story" has ZERO credibility" Still.
34
posted on
03/24/2004 5:20:53 PM PST
by
mrsmith
("Oyez, oyez! All rise for the Honorable Chief Justice... Hillary Rodham Clinton ")
To: brbethke
Take the gloves off harder than THAT.
During the transition, the Clinton Administration was more concerned about prying the freakin' "W's" off of keyboards than global terrorism and Osama bin Laden.
35
posted on
03/24/2004 5:25:06 PM PST
by
cincinnati65
(Rooting for the Panthers since 1995.......)
To: lonestar
36
posted on
03/24/2004 5:28:21 PM PST
by
Helms
To: XBob
But there was no plan, no implementation, only a few unimplemented recommendations. I've been in enough bureaucracies to know that an action plan is hundreds, even thousands of pages long, has many branching decision trees, and lots of contingency plans.
37
posted on
03/24/2004 5:33:17 PM PST
by
js1138
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Actually, Clarkes behind the scene testimony pretty much says there was a plan, but it was never carried out. At the end of the administration they reviewed the plan, and did nothing. So this is more lies again.
38
posted on
03/24/2004 5:36:08 PM PST
by
ladyinred
(democrats have blood on their hands!)
To: windchime
Chris Matthews is Talking Points Central. Isikoff and Alter and Fineman are in the soup too. Don Imus is losing it and shilling for his boss.
39
posted on
03/24/2004 5:37:27 PM PST
by
Helms
To: js1138
Thanks for the ping on this old thread, which I had forgotten. Apparently there has been no change, and xlintons still can't come up with anything they did, other than bomb an asperin factory and a few tents, and what I said still stands - As I said in #3:
"I read a bit about this so far, and as far as I can determine, the Clinton administration, particularly the NSA idiot, Sandy Berger, never developed a plan, and apparently an old Bush 1, holdover, developed some recommendations finally at the end of the 8 years of inaction by xlinton, and turned it in to Berger, who ignored it.
But there was no plan, no implementation, only a few unimplemented recommendations."
It only reinforces my belief that the whole xlinton administration from top to bottom was composed of absolute idiots.
40
posted on
03/24/2004 7:20:40 PM PST
by
XBob
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson