Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House Relents Somewhat (CBS quotes Washington Post as saying Pres. Bush was informed in 1998!)
CBS News ^ | May 18th, 2002 | Staff

Posted on 05/18/2002 6:03:53 PM PDT by BJClinton

The White House dug in for a protracted political battle as new details emerged about a 1999 report to U.S. intelligence that predicted terrorists might try to fly airliners into government buildings. And the FBI learned in 1996 of similar planning by terrorists, according to The New York Times.

The Times also says in its Saturday editions that the FBI had been aware for several years that Al Qaeda-linked men were training as pilots in the United States and elsewhere.

The Washington Post said Saturday that a top-secret briefing memo presented to President Bush in 1998 focused on efforts by Osama bin Laden to strike at targets in the U.S.

And the Los Angeles Times on Saturday named the Phoenix FBI agent who became suspicious about Middle Eastern men taking flying lessons in the U.S., and quotes colleagues as saying Kenneth Johnson is such a good agent that his warnings should have been heeded.

The F.B.I. knew by 1996 of a specific threat that terrorists in bin Laden's network might use a plane in a suicide attack against the headquarters of the C.I.A. or another large federal building in the Washington area, law enforcement officials acknowledged to The New York Times.

In his 1996 confession, a Pakistani terrorist, Abdul Hakim Murad, said he planned to use the training he received at flight schools in the U.S. to fly a plane into C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va., or another federal building, the Times reports.

Murad, who was captured in the Philippines in 1995 and convicted in New York on charges of conspiring to blow up 12 American jumbo jets over the Pacific at the same time, received flight training at schools in New York, North Carolina, California and Texas, the Times says.

Information from that confession formed a basis for the analysis prepared for U.S. intelligence agencies in 1999 warning that bin Laden-associated terrorists could hijack a jet and fly it into government buildings such as the Pentagon, the Times adds.

But the officials told the newspaper that the FBI had discounted the possibility of a suicide attack using planes, partly because it had largely failed to draw together evidence gathered piecemeal over time that Al Qaeda pilots were training here.

Last week, the F.B.I. acknowledged the existence of a memo written last summer in which an agent in its Phoenix office (the agent identified by the Los Angeles Times as Johnson) urged his superiors to investigate Middle Eastern men who had enrolled at American flight schools and who might be connected to bin Laden, the New York Times says.

The Washington Post reports that a 1998 memo to the president was entitled, “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S” and focused mainly on past efforts by the alleged terrorist mastermind to infiltrate the U.S. and hit targets here.

The document, known as the President's Daily Briefing, underscored that bin Laden and his followers hoped to "bring the fight to America," in part as retaliation for U.S. missile strikes on al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998, the Post quotes knowledgeable sources as saying.

Mr. Bush had specifically asked for an intelligence analysis of possible al Qaeda attacks within the U.S., because most of the information presented to him over the summer about al Qaeda focused on threats against U.S. targets overseas, sources told the Post.

But one source said the White House was disappointed because the analysis lacked focus and did not present fresh intelligence.

Federal law enforcement sources told the Los Angeles Times that the FBI agent who wrote the memo warning about Islamic extremists in U.S. flight schools is a mild-mannered 10-year veteran with a gift for counterterrorism.

The Phoenix-based agent, named by the Times as Kenneth Williams, couldn’t be reached for comment by the newspaper about the July 2001 warning, and FBI spokesmen in Phoenix and Washington would not confirm that Williams was the one who wrote the memo.

But his former colleagues at the FBI told the L.A. Times that Williams' knowledge of terrorism alone should have been enough for superiors to immediately act on his suspicions. "Nobody listened to him," the Times quotes one top former FBI official as saying.

In Washington, while Democrats demanded answers about possible administration missteps in handling early warning signs, the administration sought to put related criticism of Mr.Bush out of bounds.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Friday: “I think that any time anybody suggests or implies to the American people that this president had specific information that could have prevented the attacks on our country on September 11, that crosses the lines.”

But reports surfaced that two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, during the Clinton administration, an analysis prepared for U.S. intelligence warned, “Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA or the White House.”

Until the 1999 report became public, the Bush administration had asserted that no one in government had envisioned a suicide hijacking before it happened.

Democrats suggested an expansion of inquiries into what the White House and federal law enforcement knew about possible terror attacks and when they knew it.

“Our nation is not well served when the charges of `partisan politics' is leveled at those who simply seek information that the American people need and deserve to know,” said House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, a Democrat from Missouri.

Democrats insisted their motive was simply to help avoid Sept. 11-like attacks in the future.

Fleischer said the administration was aware of the 1999 report prepared by the Library of Congress for the National Intelligence Council, which advises the president and U.S. intelligence on emerging threats.

He said the document did not contain direct intelligence pointing toward a specific plot, but rather included assessments about how terrorists might strike.

“What it shows is that this information that was out there did not raise enough alarm with anybody,” Fleischer acknowledged.

Former President Clinton, golfing Friday in Hawaii, also played down the intelligence value of the 1999 report.

“That has nothing to do with intelligence,” he said. “All that it says is they used public sources to speculate on what bin Laden might do. Let me remind you that's why I attacked his training camp and why I asked the Pakistanis to go get him, and why we contracted with some people in Afghanistan to go get him because we thought he was dangerous.”

Fleisher reprimanded Democratic members of Congress by name, but singled out a speech by Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Senate floor Thursday for particular criticism.

Mr. Bush commented on the controversy for the first time Friday, calling Washington “the kind of place where second guessing has become second nature.”

"Had I know that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people," Mr. Bush told U.S. Air Force Academy football team members who were visiting the White House on Friday.

CBS News Senior White House Correspondent Bob Schieffer reports that other top officials were less forthcoming. The usually talkative Attorney General John Ashcroft just stared when reporters asked him about the terror warnings. FBI Chief Robert Mueller also refused to comment.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a Democrat from South Dakota, said the president was missing the point. “I think the question is, why didn't he know? If the information was made available, why was he kept in the dark? If the president of the United States doesn't have access to this kind of information, there's something wrong with the system.”

More details also surfaced revealing the White House was in the midst of plotting a strike against al-Qaida when the terrorist attacks occurred.

The White House acknowledged publicly for the first time this week that before the attacks Mr. Bush's foreign policy team had devised a strategy to dismantle Osama bin Laden's network with military and intelligence operations. The plan was finished Sept. 4, but it never got to the president's desk for approval.

A proposed presidential directive outlined an extensive CIA program to arm anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. The plan, which later became the cornerstone of Mr. Bush's response to the attacks, was approved by the president's team Sept. 4 and was awaiting his review after a trip to Florida that began Sept. 10.

White House officials say there were vague, uncorroborated threats of hijackings in the spring and summer of 2001, but they insist there was no reason to believe terrorists would slam hijacked planes into buildings.

Democrats noted that suicide hijackings were not unthinkable before Sept. 11. There has been evidence of plots to slam planes into the Eiffel Tower, U.S. targets and even an economic summit in Genoa, Italy, attended by Mr. Bush last year.

As the administration dealt with the growing criticism, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said more terrorist attacks on America are probable.

“The likelihood is - because it's not possible to defend at every place at every moment - that there will be another terrorist attack. We should just face that reality,” he said.


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; cbs; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last
By the time I had cut-n-pasted the article they had corrected it. But the article is still quite loaded. They don't even mention Clinton was the President for most of this time frame until the very end. I'm still searching for the Washington Post error.
1 posted on 05/18/2002 6:03:54 PM PDT by BJClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
The Washington Post said Saturday that a top-secret briefing memo presented to President Bush in 1998 focused on efforts by Osama bin Laden to strike at targets in the U.S.

Bush wasn't president in 1998 Clinton was
2 posted on 05/18/2002 6:08:31 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON

Who do we blame?

Once more, folks:

CLINTON
DIVERTED AND STUPEFIED AT THE HELM
COUNTING HIS CHINESE COINS DAY BY DAY

3 posted on 05/18/2002 6:08:33 PM PDT by GretchenEE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
I wish Bush would abondon his "new tone" and b!+(h-slap those lying SOB's over this. Use this opportunity to show the American sheeple what they really are. I wish 50 dollar bills grew on vines, too.
4 posted on 05/18/2002 6:10:28 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
The Washington Post said Saturday that a top-secret briefing memo presented to President Bush in 1998 focused on efforts by Osama bin Laden to strike at targets in the U.S.

With all due respects, the original article did not say "President Bush," but rather, "the President." They conveniently leave out Clinton's name so that the association is with Bush.

Can anyone say: "media bias????"

5 posted on 05/18/2002 6:15:17 PM PDT by Betteboop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
BREAKING NEWS: The Washington Post will report in its Sunday edition that President Bush and his Attorney General John Ashcroft were indeed behind the massacre at Waco on April 19, 1993. Sources within the Bush administration have told the Wash. Post that they did it because "those folks were nuts".
6 posted on 05/18/2002 6:15:42 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
You mentioned cut-and-paste. Was the bit about Bush a direct quote from the article, or did it get transformed in the cutting and pasting?

If it was a direct quote, didn't they know that Bush wasn't President in 1998? Didn't they know who was?

7 posted on 05/18/2002 6:21:04 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Betteboop
Actually, the original report stated exactly what I cut-n-pasted. They have since changed it to what's on the page now. I'm still digging around to see if they've archived it anywhere.
8 posted on 05/18/2002 6:21:43 PM PDT by BJClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
We should post "CLYMER ALERTS".......for these type of things
9 posted on 05/18/2002 6:21:58 PM PDT by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius
Direct cut-n-paste. They've changed their website. It was probably a typo, they were quoting a WP article. Perhaps a Freudian slip?
10 posted on 05/18/2002 6:24:02 PM PDT by BJClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
The dumbing down of America!! Compliments of the liberal way of teaching our children nothing!!
11 posted on 05/18/2002 6:24:09 PM PDT by CyberAnt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
If that's so, they are utterly shameless!!!!!
12 posted on 05/18/2002 6:29:22 PM PDT by Betteboop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
Mr. Clinton ... said he knew about the dangerous potential of bin Laden, but discounted the suggestion that the 1999 analysis should have alerted his administration to the possibility of a terrorist attack on the scale of the September 11 attacks.

"That has nothing to do with intelligence," Mr. Clinton told the Associated Press while in Hawaii on a two-day stopover on the way to East Timor. "All that says is they used public sources to speculate on what bin Laden might do. That doesn't have anything to do with what the intelligence people, the CIA or the FBI, tell the administration."

The implications of this line of thinking are chilling. Does anyone think that a position paper on national security threats contracted by intel agencies would only use information in the public domain? These folks get high level clearances and see it all to make their threat assessments. If Clinton had ever met with his National Security team he may have understood this.

13 posted on 05/18/2002 6:33:20 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
The insipid enemy continues his spite-filled attacks. Flee from the donkey! Flee! --- Or just point out these stupid errors and prove to your doubting friends what really is going on in our media. Am I the only who finds it humorous when media pinheads call Bush & Co. 'corrupt'? I sure hope not...
14 posted on 05/18/2002 6:34:40 PM PDT by MrRepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
Exactly! Talk about misplaced modifiers. Sheesh. And these are supposed to be reporters.
15 posted on 05/18/2002 6:37:19 PM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
You are correct that this is loaded. First the Washington Post states that they learned that in '98 President Bush was given a top secret report.

Do they mean former President Bush? Why would the then Governor Bush, who may not have even announced he was running for President have been given a top secret report? I could see his father getting one for 2 reasons, 1. The first President Bush had been President, and 2. The first President Bush had been in charge of the CIA.

Something else I noticed was a place where they talked about intelligence that indicated that Al Queada were planning on flying planes loaded with explosives into buildings somehow got turned into, Bush knew that suicide bombers were going to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. The first sentence I would have thought might mean use small planes with lots of explosives, as oppossed to hijacked planes.

Hindsight is 20/20. Until September 11th I never would have thought that the fuel from a jumbo jet would be used as a missile at a building.

16 posted on 05/18/2002 6:39:39 PM PDT by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrRepublic
...and prove to your doubting friends what really is going on in our media.

That's how this started. A Dim friend of mine sent me an email with the link saying "See! He let all of those Americans die for his political career." Or some nonsense like that. I pointed out that error but before I could post it to FR they'd corrected that error.
17 posted on 05/18/2002 6:39:47 PM PDT by BJClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Betteboop
With allllll due respect the original article, which has now been corrected, did indeed refer to President Bush in 1998...........
18 posted on 05/18/2002 6:40:26 PM PDT by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
The editor responsible for letting this garbled article ever get published needs to return to school:

The Washington Post reports that a 1998 memo to the president was entitled, “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S” and focused mainly on past efforts by the alleged terrorist mastermind to infiltrate the U.S. and hit targets here.

The document, known as the President's Daily Briefing, underscored that bin Laden and his followers hoped to "bring the fight to America," in part as retaliation for U.S. missile strikes on al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998, the Post quotes knowledgeable sources as saying.

Mr. Bush had specifically asked for an intelligence analysis of possible al Qaeda attacks within the U.S., because most of the information presented to him over the summer about al Qaeda focused on threats against U.S. targets overseas, sources told the Post.


The writer appears to be mixing dates relevant to the previous administration in with references to the current administration. Is this to confuse or imply?
19 posted on 05/18/2002 6:42:53 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Betteboop
Perhaps the media could use an intellegence department. They certainly don't seem to have any!
20 posted on 05/18/2002 6:44:54 PM PDT by DrDavid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
They've replaced it with:

The Washington Post reported Saturday that a 1998 top-secret briefing memo to the president was entitled, “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S” and focused mainly on past efforts by the alleged terrorist mastermind to infiltrate the U.S. and hit targets here.

Still, no mention that my namesake was President at the time. While not outright dishonest, it is still misleading. When one says "the President" the current President usually comes to mind.
21 posted on 05/18/2002 6:46:07 PM PDT by BJClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrDavid
LOL....YES, media intelligence is an oxymoron!
22 posted on 05/18/2002 6:48:06 PM PDT by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Is this to confuse or imply?

While I would like to believe this is proof of bias, I'm not sure. Whoever wrote this appears incapable of independent thought. I've cruised through CBSNEWS, WP and the LA Times and I've noticed that almost every single paragraph is ripped off, verbatim, from one of the other websites.
23 posted on 05/18/2002 6:49:55 PM PDT by BJClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
Democrats insisted their motive was simply to help avoid Sept. 11-like attacks in the future.

The smear is not taking "on the street." They are backing off. lol
24 posted on 05/18/2002 6:50:36 PM PDT by SICSEMPERTYRANNUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SICSEMPERTYRANNUS
"Democrats insisted their motive was simply to help avoid Sept. 11-like attacks in the future."

I predicted they'd be backpedalling SUNDAY.....hmmmm, if this is their new "mantra" then why the H*LL didn't they do this months ago.....and WHY are we not PROFILING certain Middle Eastern types.......I want to see a Senator or Representative stand up and call for PROFILING.....and watch the Dems......

25 posted on 05/18/2002 6:53:29 PM PDT by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Is this to confuse or imply?
Two partial truths, adding up to a lie.

26 posted on 05/18/2002 6:54:47 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
This is my story and I'm sticking to it:

It is time to connect the dots for some of our less cerebral friends from the left.

Bush and Co were working on plans for the elimination of the Taliban. There were a couple of problems though.

1. Clinton and the military staff had made no effort to update the cold war organizational structure of the military. Hence the top down (out of cycle) review of the DOD. I feel sure this review was in response to the initial threat analysis provided by his national security team. The necessary changes took time and could not be accomplished prior to 9/11. If they could have been, then the action plan that was delevered to Bush on 9/9 would have been there months sooner.

2. Bush accelerated production of new generation of weapons systems (halted by Clinton) which are now being used to route out the enemy. Had Clinton not halted development, these weapons systems would have been operational in time to be part of a proactive move against Ben Laden. Even given those problems (and against all odds), the Bush National Security Team almost had a mechanism in place before 9/11.

But now comes the really troubling part.

Today we know the Airlines were notified of general threats and intel committees of both houses of Congress briefed on the same issue. The only thing we don't know is who else knew of the President's plan to take on and take out Osama and Co.? There are indications that the attack dates were moved up (This from Ben Laden himself who on tape expressed surprise that the attack happened when they did, expecting it to be at a later date). Were any of the intellegence committees briefed in this? We know that a few Dems are hard wired into radical Islamic groups. Dissemination of information like this among those groups could have worked its way to one or more of the participants and could have changed the time table for the attack. It appears that the President was moving quickly to eliminate the threat. Who gave away the plan?

27 posted on 05/18/2002 6:58:28 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: OldFriend
Thanks, OF.....I didn't see the original article....whoops, hubby heard about it....duhhhhh....I guess that blondness is coming through again!!!!!!!
29 posted on 05/18/2002 7:02:19 PM PDT by Betteboop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
While I would like to believe this is proof of bias, I'm not sure.

Vague, misleading writing by professionals. Are we to believe that such a construct would see print if it cast a favorable misimpression of GW?

Oh, come on now!

30 posted on 05/18/2002 7:03:16 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
Based on the information received by Clinton why the hell didn't he, supposedly the smartest president Americans were ever blessed to have elected according to his pals in the press, investigate flight school attendees of Middle Eastern background?

Oh, I forgot, the king of PC couldn't inspire himself to do something like his job description requires such as protecting and defending Americans and her borders, but would rather run around while working hard for the American people in the oval office with a loose cigar with his pants falling around his knobby knees in between fundraising, entertaining in the Lincoln Bedroom, serving coffee and posing for Esquire Magazine.

Mrs. Clinton perhaps instead of appearing like such a sainted politician who is only asking the questions your constituents want asked why did you not ever ask your own dear husband back in the good old days when you co-presidents occupied the White House "what he knew, when did he know it and what did he do about it?"

31 posted on 05/18/2002 7:03:24 PM PDT by harpo11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
Direct cut-n-paste. They've changed their website. It was probably a typo, they were quoting a WP article. Perhaps a Freudian slip?

I dont know about the typo theory. The current article has several paragraphs discussing the controversy about President Bush. Bush this, Bush that. Then they slip in a reveltion that "the president" had been briefed back in 1998. Originally it had said President Bush and it was at the front of the article. Now it was moved to the end (after all the Bush discussion) and rather than change "President Bush" to "President Clinton" they just made it "the president". If that isnt blatant bias to create a perception that Bush has known far more than he tells then it is certainly incredible sloppiness. Calling it a typo doesnt cut it.

32 posted on 05/18/2002 7:03:54 PM PDT by pepsi_junkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
I pity your friend, BJ, but someone must provide us with the opportunity to prove our superiority.
33 posted on 05/18/2002 7:04:32 PM PDT by MrRepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
I think it's deliberately misleading and confusing. Cbsnews.com is referring to what the WP is reporting:

The Washington Post reported Saturday that a 1998 top-secret briefing memo to the president was entitled, “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S” and focused mainly on past efforts by the alleged terrorist mastermind to infiltrate the U.S. and hit targets here.

The document, known as the President's Daily Briefing, underscored that bin Laden and his followers hoped to "bring the fight to America," in part as retaliation for U.S. missile strikes on al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998, the Post quotes knowledgeable sources as saying.

Note their use of "the president"; president not being capitalized. Who are their "knowledgeable sources" ?????

34 posted on 05/18/2002 7:06:17 PM PDT by NCEaglette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
If I were Bush, I would demand back pay.
35 posted on 05/18/2002 7:08:03 PM PDT by gunshy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Betteboop
Clinton, in the article, claims that he bombed bin Laden's training camp because of the 1999 analysis. Clinton, of course, bombed bin Laden's training camp in 1998 when That Woman was testifying before a Grand Jury. The bombing was ostensibly in response to the bombing of American embassies in east Africa, in case any of us have forgotten.

My suspicion is that the real reason for bombing bin Laden's training camp was that it was bombed in retaliation for all those burnings of black churches in Arkansas during Clinton's youth....

36 posted on 05/18/2002 7:10:13 PM PDT by bagman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: bagman
"My suspicion is that the real reason for bombing bin Laden's training camp was that it was bombed in retaliation for all those burnings of black churches in Arkansas during Clinton's youth...."

LOL :)

37 posted on 05/18/2002 7:12:15 PM PDT by Betteboop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SICSEMPERTYRANNUS
The smear is not taking "on the street." They are backing off. lol

Not only is it not taking, many core Dims are being turned off. I hope the GOP keeps most of this on tape and keeps replaying it up to the election. It might keep more than a few Dims away from the polls. Or, even better, make 'em vote Green.
38 posted on 05/18/2002 7:13:27 PM PDT by BJClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: trooth
trooth member since May 18th, 2002


Things a little slow at DUh today?
39 posted on 05/18/2002 7:17:35 PM PDT by BJClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Betteboop
I guess that blondness is coming through again!!!!!!!

LOL. Hardly a blonde moment. You did what all good FReepers do, question everything you can't confirm.
40 posted on 05/18/2002 7:20:01 PM PDT by BJClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
Are we to believe that such a construct would see print if it cast a favorable misimpression of GW?

I doubt it. I was just pointing out the "writer" of this article did little to no actual writing.
41 posted on 05/18/2002 7:22:34 PM PDT by BJClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
The short version is that we've all known about the possibility of using planes as a weapon since Tom Clancy wrote about it in the early 90's. It shouldn't surprise anyone that terrorists would have thought about it both before and after Clancy's book was published. In the late 90's, there were warnings. Some of them were little more that government elaborations on Clancy's story. Others were specific concerns that were ignored by the administration in power at that time. The Clinton FBI probably couldn't find the time to pass along terrorist warnings when it was so busy cross-referencing people who bought guns and Bibles and delivering Repubican files to the Clinton White House. When the time came to transition to the Bush administration, they couldn't be bothered with passing along active tips because they were too busy selling pardons and stealing the furniture.

WFTR
Bill

42 posted on 05/18/2002 7:24:03 PM PDT by WFTR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trooth
has everyone here gone insane?
No, just you. And how is that? You have not gone through deprogramming after many years of propaganda indoctrination from the acolytes of "objective journalism."

You probably think that journalism exists to tell you what's happening in the world; that is after all what journalists promise. However, you must ask yourself one question: how many journalists write boring facts?

The correct answer is: none that will keep their jobs. Because the first requirement of commercially successful journalism is entertainment value. The standard descriptions of journalism "If it bleeds, it leads" and "there's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper" trace to that business fundamental of journalism.

Consequently journalism is negative and superficial, thus anticonservative. The upshot is that reporters are just as liberal as movie stars.

trooth member since May 18th, 2002

Figures . . ..


43 posted on 05/18/2002 7:25:28 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: pepsi_junkie
Calling it a typo doesnt cut it.

I did modify it with "FReudian slip?". It flowed so well in their minds they couldn't catch their mistake. I doubt they would intentionally tell an outright Gorism.
44 posted on 05/18/2002 7:25:35 PM PDT by BJClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: NCEaglette
Note their use of "the president";

I caught that, it is quite misleading considering how often they jump around the timeline.
45 posted on 05/18/2002 7:28:07 PM PDT by BJClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
Yes, they corrected it all right. They corrected it to read "the president." They clearly are hoping that the attention spans of the readers are limited enough to think that that refers to Bush.
46 posted on 05/18/2002 7:29:29 PM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gunshy
If I were Bush, I would demand back pay.

Especially considering how poorly we pay our governor down here.
47 posted on 05/18/2002 7:29:59 PM PDT by BJClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
Finally we have hard evidence against Bush. Not only did he fail to act on the 1998 briefing but there is hard evidence that he failed to send the CIA orders to deliver the air support for the Bay of Pigs.

Then there was his inaction during those harrowing days when he failed to lead the lost battalion from there redoubt in Bella Woods.

Did I mention the Second Battle of Bull Run!

Of course there is incontroverible evidence that he failed to stop the Turks at the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

Yep the Democraps have him dead to rights. However, their grade in History is F- and they are sent to the corner with a Dunce Cap! You too Hildebeast!

48 posted on 05/18/2002 7:42:40 PM PDT by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton;trooth
Did you catch trooth's posting history today? The same comment on 2 different threads about this and then a comment that Ozzy Osbourne is God, followed by a comment that conservatives 'twist words'. I think he/she is a genuine disruptor.

Note to trooth...spread yourself around a little bit and try not to be so bloody obvious next time.
49 posted on 05/18/2002 7:46:33 PM PDT by constitutiongirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: trooth
"Who are you kidding. You made up this whole story. And these suckers believe you. Yeah, some CBS leftist staffers must be watching FreeRupblic posts. And changed it instantly so only one person saw it, you. Man, has everyone here gone insane?"

Many Freepers saw it trooth; the CBS.com article was reproduced many hours earlier on Free Republic at:
96 Hint Of Suicide Hijack Scheming [see Bush frame-up bolded in article]

After several e-mails and feedback complaints, CBS.com wiped the egg off their lying face and changed their article.

50 posted on 05/18/2002 7:50:53 PM PDT by Hipixs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson