digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Rice: Bush’s Pre-9/11 Anti-Terror Efforts Were "As Aggressive" As Clinton

thinkprogress.org — The 9/11 Commission report proves she's wrong.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cynicalgirl, on 10/12/2007, -28/+121Does anyone believe anything this woman says anymore?
    • da5idblacksun, on 10/12/2007, -26/+90I don't. Never did. She's a hardcore liar.
    • allanpat, on 10/12/2007, -22/+36why did the Kieth Olberman video slamming Bush get buried, but this makes it to the homepage instead?

      http://www.digg.com/videos_people/MSNBC_s_Keith_Olbermann_SLAMS_President_Bush
    • antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -46/+19Don't agree with = liar. Got it!
    • chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -14/+43so doing nothing counts as doing something now?

      can't wait 'til I tell that to my boss.
    • mrfoos, on 10/12/2007, -28/+17"Liar!"

      I swear sometimes I think six year olds are posting here. The arguments are generally the same I hear my children make when they don't like something that happened.
    • halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -18/+24@cynicalgirl

      Conservative Extremists swallow everything she says like a porn starlet in a bukkakke flick.

      Don't dismiss her. Doing so will allow the Conservatives to paint you as an "Elitist Liberal" and write you off just as dismissively.
    • piper999, on 10/12/2007, -13/+24@cynicalgirl

      Unfortunately and depressingly there are people who believe it. Rice and people like her say whatever the hell they want and somehow it becomes 'true' for a large percentage of the population.

      "The first casualty of war is truth" - George Orwell
    • natey1, on 10/12/2007, -23/+6News Flash: 9/11 Commision Report now can PROVE things! Commision Report now end-all be-all of the war on terror, Bush stepping down so the 585 Document can lead our country with absolute truths.
    • razor150, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15I'd have to wonder as well, since the 9/11 commission and the facts disagree with her.
    • Highborn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Who even knows if the 9/11 reports are truthful. There is so much deciet and people trying to cover their won asses right now, not to mention the elections coming up.
    • piper999, on 10/12/2007, -12/+13@Highborn

      The 9/11 Commission Report was written a long time before the start of the current election campaign.

      It's also a very thorough, very honest and very non-political document. I'd recommend reading it but not if you want to believe wholeheartedly what members of the current administration now claim.
    • razor150, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Highborn, the 9/11 commission was made up of republicans and democrats who were no longer in office. There are political bits in it, but from the very nature of the commissions make-up it couldn't skew to far right or left.

      So, is it truthfull? I don't see why any one of them had reason to lie since all of them are out of politics.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5antoniojvr has lost the basic perspective on reality, much like other idiots everywhere, so that he doesn't recognize that there is an actual truth. rather, morons of his ilk would have you 'believe' that everything is a matter of opinion. The key concept here is 'believe'...they are all about mere beliefs / ASSumptions, rather than any semblance of reason.
    • labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10@mcfoo
      Rice has been caught before contradicting President Bush directly. An example of this was dugg last week.
      http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/CAUGHT_ON_TAPE_Administration_Misleads_America_on_Iraq_Al_Qaeda_Link

      While name calling is childish, it is accurate in this scenario. Rice has been caught lying and therefore her creditability has been compromised.
    • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Didn't Clinton say that the 9/11 commission's report had "errors" in it?

      Funny how it's preached as gospel by people who don't even believe everything it says...
    • lebaige, on 10/12/2007, -11/+0Sure do!
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13Bush was on vacation most of the time pre 9/11..
      well you can argue his brain is still on vacation but i was talking physically.
    • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4No more of a liar than Clinton is.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Funny how the liberals focus on how "passionate" Clinton was during that interview but miss the fact where he said the 9/11 commision report wasn't "factual".

      Hmm....and maybe they missed the part where the commision critizied BOTH presidencies for not taking a more aggressive action against terrorism....

      9/11 Panel Critical of Clinton, Bush
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18972-2004Mar23.html
    • tthomas1529, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7No more of a liar than Clinton is.
      as i'm sure you've seen on many a bumper sticker [doesn't make it any less true] at least clinton's lies didn't kill anyone.
    • garthvh, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Why does digg allow stories in the opinion section to be marked inaccurate?

      What a stupid design decision, opinions are opinions not true or false.
    • peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@garthvh

      While I agree with the spirit of your remark, there are false opinions, and just because someone may have the right to hold their own opinion does not give any validity to that opinion.

      No matter how tolerant you try to be, someone who thinks the earth revolves around the moon is holding a false opinion, just like someone who thinks that George W. Bush is ordinary, man of the people, cowboy-rural-type. I can't prevent someone from holding such an opinion, but those opinions are, nevertheless false and inaccurate.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"why did the Kieth Olberman video slamming Bush get buried, but this makes it to the homepage instead?"

      Wrong category maybe? Video vs. article?
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Here's the history of Al Qaeda summarized so anyone can easily remember:

      1. HW Bush started the Mujahedeen, with Pakistan and Saudi help.
      2. Members of the Mujahedeen became Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
      3. Clinton continued the US policy of supporting the Taliban (not Al Qaeda).
      4. 9/11 made it impossible to continue to support them.
      5. Bush decided to attack Iraq for the hell of it.

      Yes, Bush did just about as much as Clinton. But the real story is that they were both following policy set down by Bush-Reagan.

      REMEMBER THAT!
    • akzidenzgrotesk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2did you ever actually believe anything she's ever said? or anyone in this administration? not to be a cynic, but im pretty sure they all care (and have since the beginning) more about covering each others backs than telling the american public the truth. god forbid people should be able to make well informed decisions and not just run on blind faith and fear.
    • Armando57, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0Who cares? She's hot, I'd do her.
    • steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Can't trust a woman who has an oil ship named after her.
  • zzleezz, on 10/12/2007, -15/+7I don't.
  • Tollboi, on 10/12/2007, -14/+34I want to know who the right wing uses for PR under bush. I mean who's ridiculous idea was it to try and blame Clinton for 9/11. I suppose its just one more political bomb that has blown up in republicans faces.
    • FluxHarmonic, on 10/12/2007, -23/+7I think there's a Democratic mole in the Rupublican party who is giving Bush and his administration really bad advice, but somehow convincing them that it's good advice.
    • wild, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Well, the mole is doing a terrible job, because people are actually buying some of this *****.
    • 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16It's sad, though, that so many believe the administration's line on these matters.

      Hell, there's a massive percentage of we U.S. citizens who still "know" that Iraq attacked on on 9/11 so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that these same people are willing to swallow the somewhat smaller lie of "it's that adulterer Clinton's fault and not the fault of our current Commander and Chief."
    • halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15@Tollboi

      I don't know. The whole "Blame Clinton" routine seems to be working nicely. By the time November comes around, they'll be blaming the Iraq war and all it's subsequent disasters on Clinton. At that point, the Democrats will be doomed, unable to get elected because "This mess is all their fault."

      It's a sinister plan, and it looks like it's working.
    • MysticSavage, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Proof that if you say something loud enough and often enough, people will accept it as truth.
    • 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not quite certain why people keep modding you down, FluxHarmonic. For what it's worth, I got it and I modded you up (not that it helped much).
  • davenp35, on 10/12/2007, -29/+24Actually if you watch the interview she proves her point by quoting the very 9-11 Commission Report you mention above. Nice try though.
    • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -28/+18Shh, the anti-Bush crowd only likes to cite the 9/11 Commission report when it supports their arguments.
    • bs101, on 10/12/2007, -26/+9@chriskzoo and are you implying that the dems don't do that same damn thing. Both parties do it. Everybody is out to protect their own ass.

      I love Condy. I would definitly vote for her to be the first legit female president. We all no Hillary was president while bill was in office, but she wasn't elected.

      Dr. Condolezza Rice for President!!!
    • fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Why don't you do us all a favor and buy and read the report.

      In the pre-9/11 section there is not even a mention of actions taken by the Bush administration. That section ends with the Clinton administration!

      It isn't even intellectually honest to report that the Bush administration did nothing, it just makes no mention of the Bush administration.
    • keitho, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@davenp35
      got a link to the full interview where she provides said proof?
    • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@bs101

      That's what I'm saying! Clinton wants to cite the 9/11 report and Richard Clarke like they are the de facto sources for information when they support his argument, yet they (the Dems) refute arguments using the 9/11 report as a source or when Richard Clarke himself said there was no transition plan on Al Qaeda.
    • medication, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13riiight... Here's what "condy" told the commission: "After President Bush was elected, we were briefed by the Clinton administration on many national security issues during the transition. The president-elect and I were briefed by George Tenet on terrorism and on the al Qaeda network." (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/)

      Here's what she's quoted saying in the Post this morning:"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda" (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/rice_boils_over_at_bubba_nationalnews_ian_bishop____________post_correspondent.htm)

      Granted that the briefing may not have provided a "comprehensive" plan but the quote was in response to Clinton's statement that his administration "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy". (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/rice_boils_over_at_bubba_nationalnews_ian_bishop____________post_correspondent.htm)

      So the insinuation that I read was that al Qaeda was not covered.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5chris:

      >Richard Clarke himself said there was no transition plan on Al Qaeda.

      No, that's false. Quote the paragraph in question where you claim he said that.

      Someone told you that's what he said, and you believed it.
    • medication, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4as a side note, here's one of the documents that Clinton is speaking about the Bush administration ignoring:
      http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm
    • cwcentral, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"That section ends with the Clinton administration!"

      That's interesting, cause back in 1993, during the *first* WTC attack, the Republicans today still blame Clinton on that too, whom was only in office for like a month at the time. No one, I repeat, no one blamed the HWB administration for that failure when really, the planning was done under his watch and as a result of [the failed] Operation Desert Storm.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_WTC_Bombing
      (Funny thing, no one's smart enough to say that the guys responsible for 1993, are actually caught and convicted! Can I say that again--*all* the masterminds were brought to justice. Look at the 2nd (2001) WTC attack, no OBL? who have we brought to justice?)

      This fingerpointing, but taking credit for the last 6 years attitude is completely ridiculous!
  • zaibatsu, on 10/12/2007, -9/+42All I can say is:

    BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

    RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States. Now, the ...

    BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

    RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste ...

    BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the ...

    RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

    BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.

    RICE: Given that - you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

    BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -21/+12Uhhhh... apparently he can't keep track of his questions:

      BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country?
    • bort901, on 10/12/2007, -26/+11Rice totally owned that guy! Hilarious. That was the only tolerable point in the 9/11 hearings.
    • teeheehee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@bort901

      "Rice totally owned that guy! Hilarious. That was the only tolerable point in the 9/11 hearings."

      Right. Because -anything- was funny during the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Especially the Commission proceedings.

      Nothing was tolerable about the hearings, and that's the point. They were meant to find the faults so that they could be fixed. Did anyone get fired? Have we fixed all of the problems yet - or even addressed them?

      In those times a lot of people were damned sad and angry, and a lot of people still are. It does a great disservice to the country, and this concerns all sides of the political spectrum, to bicker and one-up when there are real threats to be concerned with.

      Seriously, where did our dignity go?
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Sweet! I got modded down for making a factual statement that doesn't involve insulting Rice. Imagine that.
    • afpunk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5If you want to get into semantics, then technically speaking, the fact that she answered the second question implies the answer the first was yes. I might not expect Bush to realize this when speaking, but I sure do expect it from anyone with a doctorate level of education.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5"If you want to get into semantics, then technically speaking, the fact that she answered the second question implies the answer the first was yes."

      Isn't it a fact that you're homosexual? And I ask you, what was the name of your dog?

      Convinced your argument is stupid yet?
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@TubaTechno

      Ya beat me too it, but I'm glad. Your response was much more humerous than mine would have been :)
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1No Barge, you got modded down, because you stopped at the first question. If someone said what he said to me, I would answer the last question that was asked, and assume that the first question had an implied answer.
    • zim312, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2>>Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in >>this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

      Who cant figure this out? the title itself is even a warning.. you already know its a warning of attacks just from the title, much less the contents of said daily briefing that Condie/W/other neocons conveniently ignore.So yes.. the Aug 6th PDP warned against attacks.. Aren't all of her degrees past Bachelor' pretty much honorary/paid for/gifted anyways?
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@bemenaker

      What are you talking about? I didn't stop after the first question. I was pointing out that there were TWO questions, and he stopped her after she answered the second one before she could answer the first one. Why would you imply the answer to the second question would also be the answer to the first? See Tuba's comment above.
    • avidlinuxuser, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@thebarge, TubaTechno Wow, I hope you never take something like Discrete Math for Computing. The answer to the second implies the answer in the first. You see he asked if there was an article warning of an attack. If you know the name of the article, it is safe to assume the article exists. Otherwise, you would say you did not of such an article date August 6th. He asked for the title.
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@avidlinuxuser

      She said "I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." She believes she may know the title. Does that mean she read it? No. I can name book titles right now that I've never read.
    • GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1No TubaTechno, it would be more like:
      "Isn't it a fact that your dog is a homosexual? And I ask you, was the name of your dog 'GayLover'?
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I've never really heard interrogation equated with math....

      "Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?"

      By recalling the name of the PDB does not confirm that first question is true.

      Ahh the good old double horned question...i see it now. Kind of like this one:

      Isn't it a fact, that your science text book confirms and supports that creationism is a fact? And I ask you, what was the name of that text book?

      Or this one:

      Is it a fact, that this person said you were gay? And I ask you, what was the name of that person?
    • avidlinuxuser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@theBarge That the title is Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the U.S. says a lot. Unless the August 6th PDB was an exercise in satire, it's safe to assume it talked about Bin Laden wanting an attack on U.S. soil.

      @TubaTechno Interesting questions. However, they don't quite work the same as the questions given to Rice. If I ask you to recall the title of an article, it is safe to assume the article exists unless you were lying. I have no reason to believe Rice lied about the title. Therefore, the article must exists. Ben-Veniste does not ask whether she read the article. He asks did it exist. If so, what was the title? In C++, it would be
      if(articleExists)
      {
      articleName = recallPDB("08/06/01");
      cout >> articleName;
      }

      Now, this is a little clearer. One cannot recall an article that does not exist without lying. Now, your example starts with a false assumption. Therefore, it follows that the conclusion will not occur. The person did not call me gay so I will assume you are mistaken about whose name you wish me to recall and inform you of the false information. If the person did call me gay, I would tell you.
    • afpunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@TubaTechno

      "Isn't it a fact that you're homosexual? And I ask you, what was the name of your dog?

      Convinced your argument is stupid yet?"

      Wow. I haven't checked this thread in a while, so chances are you will never read this, but damn, that's quite possibly the worst and most idiotic analogy I have ever heard in my entire life. And that includes all of the joke ones on Conan. Those two question have nothing to do with each other, so no, answering the second does not imply the first.

      Let me give you an analogy much like the questions asked to Rice. You're talking to someone and realize you have a mutual friend. You then ask "Oh, you know Bill then? Where did you meet?" An answer to the second implies the first is true. I hope you now see the difference, and I will now end this before I enter into an even more derogatory rant.
  • hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -16/+44More lies from the most untrustworthy Administration in US History.
    • right75, on 10/12/2007, -33/+14You must be talking about the Clinton Administration. Now HE was a liar, and a good one at that. In fact, here he is doing it again, again waving his finger in our faces while he lied to us:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/deny012798.htm

    • Lososaurus, on 10/12/2007, -14/+32@right75: Clinton lied about getting a _blowjob_ from an intern, not lead us into a _false war_ and create a decifit like never before AND make the entire world totally ***** hate the US.
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -20/+14I.... did not... have sexual relations.. with that... woman.
    • mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Clinton?
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -15/+16I've said it before and I'll say it again. The democrats agreed to the Iraq war, Bush did not make the decision on his own. Plain and simple. Now go ahead, mod me down, even though it's a fact.
    • dahat, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10@Lososaurus

      While Clinton lied about something that was slightly less important than war (assuming Bush lied)... Clinton did so under oath (you know... perjury?)... has Bush?
    • right75, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9@Lososaurus:

      If this guy couldn't be honest to the person to whom he is married, do you really expect him to be honest to you? Face it, the guy has a character flaw and that is that he is a pathological liar.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Barge:

      >I've said it before and I'll say it again. The democrats agreed to the Iraq war, Bush did not make the decision on his own. Plain and simple. Now go ahead, mod me down, even though it's a fact.

      Well, sort of. They agreed, IF Iraq posed a threat. They also based their agreement on the NIE supplied to them which had quite a few words deleted. Words like "maybe" and "probably."

      So please stop that.
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6@bigdavediode

      You were there? You have access to ALL the information that was presented to them? Them, of course, being all the politicians who made the decision. No? I didn't think so.

      There was no "IF" Iraq posed a threat. By continually not allowing UN weapons inspectors in the country, they posed a threat.

      So please stop that.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I constantly see diggers continue to spew left wing talking points "Bush lied, people died."

      Thats perfectly acceptable for you to say that he lied, but atleast bring evidence. Saying that he had more intelligence doesn't make that he lied, that intelligence could have supported the decision.

      Please give us evidence and come to intelligent conclusions instead of regurgitating words such as "truthiness" and "wake up America"
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Barge:

      >You were there? You have access to ALL the information that was presented to them? Them, of course, being all the politicians who made the decision. No? I didn't think so.

      The NIE's are now public record. You can follow that they were changed here:

      http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/

      How do you go about ignoring this? Pretend it doesn't exist?

      >There was no "IF" Iraq posed a threat. By continually not allowing UN weapons inspectors in the country, they posed a threat.

      Well that's what Bush said, he said this:

      "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." -- Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

      But in fact, UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003. They were ordered out by Bush for their "safety."

      You can look it up. They were already there, and he lied about it later because it was inconvenient to the story he was telling you.
    • willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2What do you expect
      According to the GOP, Bush doesn't make a very good republican.
      Republican Principles:
      http://www.gop.com/About/AboutRead.aspx?AboutType=3&Section=19

      Does Bush support any of the Republican principles?
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@bigdavediode

      "The NIE's are now public record. You can follow that they were changed here:

      http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/

      How do you go about ignoring this? Pretend it doesn't exist?"

      I have no idea how credible a George Washington University hosted file is, and whether it's exactly what the politicians were given. I can also guarantee you there were other documents, possibly still classified, that neither you nor I have ever seen.

      "But in fact, UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003. They were ordered out by Bush for their "safety."

      You can look it up. They were already there, and he lied about it later because it was inconvenient to the story he was telling you."

      I have looked it up, maybe you should:

      * Dec. 7 (2002) - Iraq provides UN weapons inspectors with 12,000 pages of information comprising a "complete declaration" of the regime's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. Iraq states in the declaration that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
      * Dec. 19 (2002) - UNMOVIC Chairman Hans Blix tells UNSC members that the declaration "is essentially a reorganized version" of information Iraq provided UNSCOM in 1997.
      * Jan. 16 (2003) - In their first significant discovery, UN weapons inspectors find 12 warheads designed to carry chemical weapons. The inspectors suggest the warheads were not accounted for in Iraq's 12,000-page report.
      * Jan. 16 (2003) - Weapons-inspections chiefs report to the Security Council that, while Iraq has provided access to facilities, concerns remain regarding undeclared material, inability to interview Iraqi scientists, inability to deploy aerial surveillance during inspections, and harassment of inspectors.
      * Mar. 1 (2003) - UNMOVIC orders Iraq to destroy all its illegally imported Al Samoud 2 missiles and 380 rocket engines.

      http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030320-iraqtimeline01.htm
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Barge:

      >I have no idea how credible a George Washington University hosted file is, and whether it's exactly what the politicians were given. I can also guarantee you there were other documents, possibly still classified, that neither you nor I have ever seen.

      THAT'S your defense? First that I couldn't have seen the NIE, then when I point out that it's already public record, that "well, there must have been other secret documents that I don't know about, and can't argue with, but dammit they exist. They're just secret."

      >I have looked it up, maybe you should:

      >* Jan. 16 (2003) - In their first significant discovery, UN weapons inspectors find 12 warheads designed to carry chemical weapons. The inspectors suggest the warheads were not accounted for in Iraq's 12,000-page report.

      Unlike you, I don't like my information predigested. Here's a direct quote from UNMOVIC in that exact report: "Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field."

      http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

      Right before your timeline which shows UN inspectors doing their jobs and being cooperated with in (your own example) destruction of weapons, you wrote:

      "By continually not allowing UN weapons inspectors in the country, they posed a threat."

      You have just now cited facts that directly contradict your own assertion.

      Maybe you should try a different hobby. Politics and fact checking isn't your game.
    • dswinscoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@dahat: Bush is under oath:

      "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

      faithful: true to the facts.

      Did Bush lie under oath? TBD, hopefully.
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@bigdavediode

      "THAT'S your defense? First that I couldn't have seen the NIE, then when I point out that it's already public record, that "well, there must have been other secret documents that I don't know about, and can't argue with, but dammit they exist. They're just secret.""

      I never said you couldn't have seen the NIE. I said there were documents you may not have seen. There could be documents that haven't been released to the media. Wow, you trust your government so much that you believe that release everything to the media in it's unadulterated form? By the way, I have no need for a "defense," I'm just stating facts.

      "Unlike you, I don't like my information predigested. Here's a direct quote from UNMOVIC in that exact report: "Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field.""

      I can find UN documents that support my view too, here ya go:

      "Seeking truthful information through interviews with scientists, administrators or engineers was, for example, always somewhat problematic, as the persons might be influenced by an awareness of what the brutal regime wanted them to say."

      http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/bxSC22april.html

      "You have just now cited facts that directly contradict your own assertion."

      Semantics. They were allowed to come back in for a couple months as a joke to stall the US invasion. They were not given truthful interviews with scientists or given proper access to all requested locations.

      "Maybe you should try a different hobby. Politics and fact checking isn't your game."

      My politics and fact checking are perfectly fine. Truthfulness is not a hobby. And how about having a civil discussion without throwing out your personal attacks, thanks.
    • GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"while Clinton lied about something that was slightly less important than war"

      Now I understand why the right is not so outraged about the war. They just don't see war as being all that bad! And since we are fighting against people that would kill an adulterer, perhaps they just don't see any point in fighting them. Sick... very very sick.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Barge:

      >I never said you couldn't have seen the NIE. I said there were documents you may not have seen. There could be documents that haven't been released to the media. Wow, you trust your government so much that you believe that release everything to the media in it's unadulterated form? By the way, I have no need for a "defense," I'm just stating facts.

      Ah yes, the "How do you know that the Civil War ever happened? Were you there?" defense. You know, there's these things called "documents" and you look especially silly when the documents you claim I couldn't have seen have already been made public.

      >I can find UN documents that support my view too, here ya go:

      Haha! So YOU bring up the UNMOVIC report that YOU referenced and now YOU want to just shuffle away to Buffalo away from it. It's the report that YOU referenced, showing that inspectors were allowed in, right after YOU claimed that inspectors weren't allowed in!

      Intellectually dishonesty, thy name is deBarge!

      >Semantics.

      Semantics?!? You claimed that the UN inspectors weren't there, they were. For months. Bush even cited the reason that Saddam "wouldn't let them in" as a justification for war after HE ordered them out. Was that semantics too?

      >They were allowed to come back in for a couple months as a joke to stall the US invasion. They were not given truthful interviews with scientists or given proper access to all requested locations.

      Well I won't even bother to ask you what locations they weren't allowed into, since you'll just say that that's secret too.
    • Lososaurus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Clinton may have lied under oath, but he didn't needlessly cause thousands of deaths over a non-existant threat. Nor did Clinton totally drop the ball on a major catastrophe(Katrina). Yes, he lied under oath, but lying over an affair with an intern ranks just a little bit lower on the scale of naughty things than starting a pointless war resulting in over 2700 Americans and something to the note of 43000 Iraqi's.
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@bigdavediode

      "You know, there's these things called "documents" and you look especially silly when the documents you claim I couldn't have seen have already been made public."

      I'll state it again, maybe you need to learn to read, but I never said you never read the NIE document. I said there could be other documents that you didn't read.

      "Haha! So YOU bring up the UNMOVIC report that YOU referenced and now YOU want to just shuffle away to Buffalo away from it. It's the report that YOU referenced!"

      I'm not shuffling anything away. I'm saying that it contains points that support both of our arguments, but it still remains valid. Also, I didn't reference UNMOVIC, I referenced a timeline published by globalsecurity.org. Again, learn to read.

      "Well I won't even bother to ask you what locations they weren't allowed into, since you'll just say that that's secret too."

      Try searching around and you'll find many news reports stating that the inspectors were denied entry to locations in Iraq. But I suppose all those reports are lies right?
    • GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Barge,
      I love your name. It is quite apropos. A barge is a big dumb piece of floating metal that often is used to haul trash and is pushed around and told where to go by other boats and river currents. I know that this is not helpful to the discussion, but I just kept laughing each time I saw your name.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1debarge:

      >Try searching around and you'll find many news reports stating that the inspectors were denied entry to locations in Iraq. But I suppose all those reports are lies right?

      How about if we bypass Fox and the Republican noise machine and refer directly to the UN. Specifically, the report of UNMOVIC Executive Chairman's Statement to the UN Security Council -- here:

      http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/blix-report-7march.html

      Where the chairman says that they have encountered "relatively few difficulties" obtaining access to sites.

      Now show us your quotes from the "press" from that period. You know, where Bush said that the inspectors weren't allowed in. The press repeated that as if it were true.

      How many people have died now, just because Bush had a hardon for a war with Iraq? Upwards of 50,000? 3000 of our guys? How many of our guys have been crippled and maimed? The last count I saw was about 20,000 have lost limbs or been seriously maimed. 20,000. How much money has been spent, just so far? Over 317 billion at last count. A few billion a week.

      I admire sacrifice for an excellent cause -- removing the Taliban in Afghanistan was an excellent cause. Having a hardon for a war isn't an excellent cause.

      So the question for you is: do you support impeachment, or prosecution for war crimes? I only support impeachment, myself, although I'm confident that given the Democrats uselessness that won't happen, but if you support war crimes prosecution I will listen to your arguments with discernment.
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@bigdavediode

      "Where the chairman says that they have encountered "relatively few difficulties" obtaining access to sites."

      "Relatively" is quite an objective term. Iraq was supposed to give unfettered access to any requested sites. How do you define relatively few? Does that mean they weren't allowed access to 1, 2, or 10 sites? Or does that mean they got access to all the sites but had to press very hard to get access?

      "How many people have died now, just because Bush had a hardon for a war with Iraq? Upwards of 50,000? 3000 of our guys? How many of our guys have been crippled and maimed? The last count I saw was about 20,000 have lost limbs or been seriously maimed. 20,000. How much money has been spent, just so far? Over 317 billion at last count. A few billion a week."

      It's terrible, and I can't dispute that. Loss of life, and serious prolonged injury is a horrible thing. The amount of money is ridiculous. But the fact is, we're there. As I said before, the democrats also agreed to enter into this war. They were presented with the same intelligence as Bush was. We can't just leave now, and that's a terrible situation to be in.

      "I admire sacrifice for an excellent cause -- removing the Taliban in Afghanistan was an excellent cause."

      I agree.

      "So the question for you is: do you support impeachment, or prosecution for war crimes? I only support impeachment, myself, although I'm confident that given the Democrats uselessness that won't happen, but if you support war crimes prosecution I will listen to your arguments with discernment."

      I definitely support war crimes prosecution. If facts (not speculation) come to light that prove without a doubt that Bush has committed war crimes in this war with Iraq, then he deserves the harshest punishment possible.

      I'm really not some moronic Bush loving neocon as I'm sure you think I am. I just see faults on both sides of this. I think mistakes have been made by the politicians as a whole. I definitely wish we would have used more diplomatic pressure while we attempted to gather irrefutable evidence that Iraq had WMD's or was supporting Al Qaeda. But the politicians *together* decided on this war, and now we're caught in it. I believe just pulling out and leaving would be a poor decision at this time. Let's get the Iraqis in there so they can run their own country ASAP, then get the hell out.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1TheBarge:

      >"Relatively" is quite an objective term. Iraq was supposed to give unfettered access to any requested sites. How do you define relatively few? Does that mean they weren't allowed access to 1, 2, or 10 sites? Or does that mean they got access to all the sites but had to press very hard to get access?

      I admire your method of "argument." I cite a fact, show a citation, and a statistic, and you wave your hands.

      You don't even try to cite anything in response to the facts. You just wave your hands and try to sow doubt about the statistics that I provide. You should work for Fox.
  • markormesher, on 10/12/2007, -16/+9Wow, this is going to turn into a democratic vs. republican digg down contest...

    And anyone with brains doesn't give a *****.
    • wild, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9And the sad reality is, whether people are getting into a lame push for one side of the aisle or the other, at least they give a *****. And that puts them above your apathy.
    • Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@ wild

      No, you're confusing apathy with frustration. Anyone who's educated on the subject doesn't give a ***** because partisan bickering of which president was more "aggressive" is ***** retarded in its own right.

      There is no evidence for Clinton being more/less aggressive than Bush was. For the GOP'ers out there, there's no evidence that Bush was more effective than Clinton. So while both parties may want to dismiss everyone that understands this as 'apathetic', we simply have no need of reading *****, amateur "evidence" about who didnt do what.

      Actions speak louder than words. What Clinton or Bush say right now mean nothing to anyone who witnessed Clinton's ineffective foreign policy and Bush start an illegal and unnecessary war. Keep spinning those facts though, boys.

      Someone Capable/Someone Capable '08
  • amoirae, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17And the pseudo conservative zealots will have this marked as inaccurate in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...
    • phreakintheroom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I don't see how anything that is both a direct quote and an opinion can be "inaccurate"...
    • fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Sadly, it doesn't have to BE inaccurate to be marked inaccurate. Since content is left up to the users, there should be a way for users to dispute the marking of inaccurate.
    • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3No different than the lefty-lemmings pumping up the diggs on "convenient" stories.
  • edifus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8It doesn't matter if people believe it now. All they have to do it keep repeating it over and over and the masses of people will eventually believe it.. because they said so. Just like all the other propaganda they've spewed out about 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq and soon to be Iran.

    Most people watch the news or read the newspaper and think they're getting all the news. I like to read the foreign press just to see what news the mainstream US media isn't reporting on due to their corporate/political alliances.
  • antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -16/+13But why would President Clinton say they weren't? He's never lied before...
  • FFpixel, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Sorry, what was aggressive about Clinton's office? Anyone remember the failed attempt in the basement?

    "Oh, you didn't succeed, we'll just ignore it and move on hoping that you won't try again."

    Politics is spelled '*****' no matter how poor your English skills are. Who can believe either party about the other or even itself? Who bothers believing the mainstream media? You could fuel the world for 10 years from all the ***** that is dumped on the American people every 4 years.
  • radixus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Yes after 9/11 Bush was Aggressive. Sending troops to Afghanistan and going after the ones responsible. The point she is neglecting is that Bush suddenly pulled the reigns and went after Iraq instead of finishing the Afghanistan job.

    He pretty much let them run to safety with this invasion plan, which last time I checked has not disrupted the Terror Network as he claimed.
    • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Afghanistan is a NATO operation. We don't have to "finish" the job there.
  • kipperBugg, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8If she thinks sitting on her butt and doing nothing for 9 months is being active then rice is as nuts as her boyfriend aaa I mean as the president
  • edrift101, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17I don't believe anyone in the government anymore. Rice is a lying shoe whore.
    • grendelboogie, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8"lying shoe whore"

      very nice.
    • fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3I don't get it, do you mean she is a lying shoe horn? People don't even use shoe horns anymore, but Kindasleezy Lice is clearly used frequently.
    • rpatrick2282, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Name calling great way to get your point across........if you don't have anything intelligent to add then keep it to yourself...
    • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1And the sad fact is that he is getting diggs for his puerile comment.

      See what I mean about digg needing to be ***** regarding all things political?
  • fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13I have a question. If as the right claims, clinton did nothing, then how can being "as agressive as Clinton" mean anything?
    • spraguep, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

      They can't even keep up with their own lies anymore...
    • pwolfe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I thought I was gonna have to post that thought, looks like you beat me to it.
  • veersite, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9"Rice: Bush’s Pre-9/11 Anti-Terror Efforts Were "As Aggressive" As Clinton"

    Ummm... I don't think I would put it quite that way. I guess that means they were as incompetent and as asleep at the wheel as Clinton?

    What a bunch of jerks - totally consumed with C.Y.A. (cover your a$$) Of course Clinton dropped the ball - he had 8 years to do the job compared to 8 months. But then Bush decides on invading Iraq instead of simply going in and checking for WMD's by force (then getting the hell out afterwards and letting Iran destroy what was left).

    I am getting disenchanted with my Republican party. Thank God the Dems have no message to steal me away other than "bash Bush."
    • fleischner, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4That's the most succinct, truthful summation of this whole mess I've read in a while. Everyone should look at this and try to -- honestly -- refute this.
    • rpatrick2282, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Isn't that the truth!
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Okay fleisch, I accept:

      >What a bunch of jerks - totally consumed with C.Y.A. (cover your a$$) Of course Clinton dropped the ball - he had 8 years to do the job compared to 8 months.

      False. Show me any reports in 1992, 1993, 1994 that Al Qaeda was a serious threat.

      Okay, now that you're caught in that lie about eight years, you have to start actually looking at the details.

      Let's pick one attack and focus on that: the Cole bombing. It happened just six or so weeks before Bush took over. The report linking it to Al Qaeda came out after Clinton left office.

      Please detail Biush's response to that attack. (You see? Talking points can't hold a candle to facts.)
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
      http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm

      Al Qaeda absent from final Clinton report
      http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040406-121654-1495r.htm

      Bush Administration's First Memo on al-Qaeda Declassified
      http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm

      “I don’t want to comment on what happened on President Bush’s watch. That’s for the 9/11 Commission to do. We not only attacked his training camp in ’98 and tried to get him. I signed several authorizations to use lethal force against bin Laden and his top lieutenants,” says Mr. Clinton.
      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/18/60minutes/main624848.shtml
      (The report critizied BOTH Clinton and Bush for not doing enough.)


      "Mr. Clinton denies that his decision to launch missiles against bin Laden in Afghanistan and in the Sudan was an attempt to divert attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. He also told 60 Minutes that he launched the Afghanistan attack after the CIA told him bin Laden was in a training camp. It turns out he wasn’t." --------- Acting on bad intelligence? How many people died then?

      To quote Clinton again:
      “In terms of the launching of the war, I believe we made an error in not allowing the United Nations to complete the inspections process. Now, having said that, we are where we are,” says Mr. Clinton. “And I think the most important thing now is for all of us to support a stable, peaceful, and pluralistic Iraq. And it looks to me like the administration is moving in that direction.”

      Hows that?
    • tucsonwc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yeah dude. Stay the course with Karl Rove. You'll let him and the RNC sell you and the rest of America down the river.
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@bigdavediode

      "False. Show me any reports in 1992, 1993, 1994 that Al Qaeda was a serious threat."

      What about the members of Al Queda? From Wikipedia:

      * In 1990 al-Zawahiri returned to Egypt, where he continued to push Islamic Jihad in more radical directions employing knowledge and tactics learned in Afghanistan.
      * In 1996, he was considered the most credible threat and a highly lethal terrorist who could strike against the USA.

      So he was obviously doing something that the US knew about, and thats ONE member of Al Queda. What about the rest?

      "Let's pick one attack and focus on that: the Cole bombing. It happened just six or so weeks before Bush took over. The report linking it to Al Qaeda came out after Clinton left office."

      For one, the keyword here is "CAME OUT." You have no way of knowing how long they had the report prior to releasing it to the media. It also happened 3 months before Bush took office, not 6 weeks. The Cole was attacked on October 12th, 2000, and Bush was inaugurated into the office on January 20, 2001.

      So I'm not exactly sure what your point was in bringing up the Cole bombing.
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1The report "coming out" means, it was put on the bosses desk signed as completed. The president can not act on that memo until then. Until it was signed by the FBI and the CIA stating investigation finished, it is not lawful to act on any information contained. Up until then, it is speculation, not official position. That happened after Clinton left office.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2deBarge:

      >"False. Show me any reports in 1992, 1993, 1994 that Al Qaeda was a serious threat."

      >What about the members of Al Queda? From Wikipedia:

      What about them? Do they work in any administration? Here why not cite some quotes from individuals, maybe from different groups that aren't Al Qaeda such as Islamic Jihad or from the wrong year, and...

      >* In 1990 al-Zawahiri returned to Egypt, where he continued to push Islamic Jihad in more radical directions employing knowledge and tactics learned in Afghanistan.
      >* In 1996, he was considered the most credible threat and a highly lethal terrorist who could strike against the USA.

      Nicely done!

      >So he was obviously doing something that the US knew about, and thats ONE member of Al Queda. What about the rest?

      Wow! So Islamic Jihad is Al Qaeda now. Hey, is the KKK Al Qaeda too? How about the Church of Later Day Saints, I bet they're Al Qaeda too. Someone told me that.

      >For one, the keyword here is "CAME OUT." You have no way of knowing how long they had the report prior to releasing it to the media. It also happened 3 months before Bush took office, not 6 weeks. The Cole was attacked on October 12th, 2000, and Bush was inaugurated into the office on January 20, 2001.

      So in your estimation, despite the report not even being completed until Clinton had left office, Clinton should just have assumed that Al Qaeda was behind that particular attack and gone off and started an invasion based on his assumption. We all know how smart that is.

      >So I'm not exactly sure what your point was in bringing up the Cole bombing.

      Well first I caught him in a lie. Then I used that to discredit his opinion and force people to examine the facts about specific details under Clinton and Bush. You want to know why I did that? To show that these talking points have little or no credibility and the facts are much harsher on Bush than any opinion ever could be.

      And I didn't have to reference "secret documents" to do it.
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@@bigdavediode

      "You know, there's these things called "documents" and you look especially silly when the documents you claim I couldn't have seen have already been made public."

      I'll state it again, maybe you need to learn to read, but I never said you never read the NIE document. I said there could be other documents that you didn't read.

      "Haha! So YOU bring up the UNMOVIC report that YOU referenced and now YOU want to just shuffle away to Buffalo away from it. It's the report that YOU referenced!"

      I'm not shuffling anything away. I'm saying that it contains points that support both of our arguments, but it still remains valid. Also, I didn't reference UNMOVIC, I referenced a timeline published by globalsecurity.org. Again, learn to read.

      "Well I won't even bother to ask you what locations they weren't allowed into, since you'll just say that that's secret too."

      Try searching around and you'll find many news reports stating that the inspectors were denied entry to locations in Iraq. But I suppose all those reports are lies right?
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@bigdavediode

      *previous reply was at the incorrect location*

      "What about them? Do they work in any administration? Here why not cite some quotes from individuals, maybe from different groups that aren't Al Qaeda such as Islamic Jihad or from the wrong year, and..."

      They were terrorists wanting a jihad against the US. Is that not enough to investigate them?

      "Wow! So Islamic Jihad is Al Qaeda now. Hey, is the KKK Al Qaeda too? How about the Church of Later Day Saints, I bet they're Al Qaeda too. Someone told me that."

      Jesus you like putting words into people's mouths. I never said the Islamic Jihad == Al Queda you idiot. LEARN TO READ.

      "Well first I caught him in a lie. Then I used that to discredit his opinion and force people to examine the facts about specific details under Clinton and Bush. You want to know why I did that? To show that these talking points have little or no credibility and the facts are much harsher on Bush than any opinion ever could be."

      No, it doesn't show that.

      "And I didn't have to reference "secret documents" to do it."

      No, but you had to missread and missquote my wording to try and prove a baseless point. Good job.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1debarge:

      >They were terrorists wanting a jihad against the US. Is that not enough to investigate them?

      The original false assertion was that Clinton had eight years to fight Al Qaeda, and presumably prevent 9/11, when at the time no one even knew that Al Qaeda existed or was even a going concern, as Clinton aptly pointed out. Additionally you referred to Islamic Jihad, as "other members of Al Qaeda."

      >Jesus you like putting words into people's mouths. I never said the Islamic Jihad == Al Queda you idiot. LEARN TO READ.

      Then why did you cite something that has nothing to do with either the 1) original assertion, or 2) Al Qaeda? Just thought you'd toss it in?

      >No, but you had to missread and missquote my wording to try and prove a baseless point. Good job.

      Well the original accusation was that Clinton had "eight years" while Bush had "eight months."

      Since no one knew anything about Al Qaeda until years later, the eight years statement is just silly. Then you tried to buttress it by referencing not Al Qaeda, but Islamic Jihad, and referring an Al Qaeda reference from 1996. For those watching at home, and eating popcorn, you'll note that 1996 is not 1992.

      I can't prove that that eight years is false any more obviously.
    • veersite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@bigdavediode,

      Okay, since you failed to bring up the biggie (small wonder), I'll do it for you: How about the first bombing of the WTC? Was it Islamic fundamentalists or the Irish Repulican Army Numb-nuts? You make the call! So the big defense Clinton has for not going after Al Qaeda was that it hadn't been defined as a terrorist group yet? Well, I guess somebody dind't connect the friggin dots then did they? Clinton personally isn't responsible, but the liberal paranoia towards any and all things military sure didn't lead to the CIA being beefed-up during his tenure. I dare you to prove that one, big daddy. In fact, didn't all those "roadblocks" and "firewalls" set up to keep the CIA and FBI from sharing info get built during his terms... to "protect" us? And I seem to remember the military wasnt' in the middle of a huge build-up during his time in office either... quite the contrary. Gee, it sure is nice to have an economic boom and our major military rival in the world imploding (thanks to Reagan) so you can balance that ol' budget. Unless you count Serbia in league with the former USSR, that is...

      Bush gets a mild recession to start his term (nobodies fault - including Clinton) but boy does he get blasted for it. Then pot full of Islamic assholes finally boils over on 911 and he get's blamed for that (after 8 months in office). A string of natural disasters hits us (yes, probably due to some type of global warming). And guess what? All those greenhouse emmissions that have been building up since the first internal combustion engine was fired up - yes, you have it - they are Bush's fault too! And Haliburton - don't forget to be a good little dem and throw Haliburton in there if you get a chance! Let's get this straight, you granola chewing, Birkenstock wearing, tree huggin, US bashing, stooge of the left, Reagan and those before him fought a proxy war in Afganistan and "made" bin Laden. Bush 1 and Clinton sat around and let it build up Bush II was in office when we took it on the chin and didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of stopping 911 other than pure dumb luck. I give him credit for fighting back pretty good in round 1 but since then its been "WTF???" ever since we didn't pack our asses up and leave Iraq to sort itself out after "Mission F*cking Accomplished!" When there were no WMDs found, it should have been "Well, Saddam, I bet you wished you'd have let Hans F*cking Blix drive that lil white SUV where ever he f*cking wanted to now, dontcha? Well, we're outta here... Peace Out!" If we had done that, the last Sunni in Iraq would be dead and buried by now leaving the Shia with the central portion of Iraq, the Northern Kurdish Union would be trying to get into the UN, and any Iranian plane tank or boat that got within 1 mile of the Iraq border would/should be a flaming husk.

      You leftist extemeist punks and your right wing counterparts are tearing this ***** country apart. Thanks a lot, assholes.

      Give me McCain/Lieberman in 08 any day. Now go piss off.
  • jbrevik, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Soon to be branded possibly inaccurate. Like any article that contradicts what the Bush administration have said or done in the past.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Maybe people should post from less biased sources so the stories are more credible.
    • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Consider it a balance to Fox and privately held media conglomerates who have a vested interest in being administration lap dogs.

      Speaking of lap dogs, how about that Tony Blair, at least the british have some damn sense.
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/26/rice.clinton/index.html
    CNN's version. Why does this biased think progress crap keep getting posted.
  • CrazyZ, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8Wow, the liberals are really trying to "turn up the heat" again right before election. Just like the previous two. Problem is, they are going about it all wrong, just like the previous two. Bash Bush, bash conservatives, bash the entire administration, completely ignore the issues that the American people relate to, do not offer any real alternatives, etc. etc...

    No wonder why they keep losing.....
    • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3If you call going to war and occupying a foreign country under false pretenses an alternative I think I'll vote for any other party than Republican. ANYTHING is better than what we got right now.

      And don't give me no he had WMD's crap. I want hard evidence that there are WMD's before you go to war. America was NEVER EVER EVER built to preemptively act countries. We are in TOTALLY uncharted and dangerous waters when we decide to offensively start attacking countries that never attacked us.
    • CrazyZ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Your reply would hold water if the Dems didn't vote to go to war too! Takes two to tango...

    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0as a promised last resort. Not, oh *****, the UN Weapons Inspectors can't find anything, I had better pull them out of Iraq and invade.

      Yes, it was BUSH who pulled out the weapons inspectors. Saddam was cooperating as much as he ever would.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"And don't give me no he had WMD's crap."

      The intelligence was crap. But Bush wasn't the first president to attack other countries on bad intelligence......*cough* Clinton. So to say its purely Republican ideals would be false.

      So gonna vote Democrat now?
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/26/rice.clinton/index.html
    CNN's version. Less biased, but still makes the jlegum's point. Posting from these left-wing blogs is not a good way to convince people of anything. Please use more reliable sources and people will be more likely to believe you.

    Think about it from the other perspective. If you don't believe anything Rush Limbaugh or even Fox News says, why do you expect people to believe you when you post from thinkprogress.org
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thats the problem, they don't think about that when they post ThinkProgress articles. Their usual rebutle is "facts are facts no matter who says them." But post an article from Fox News.....watch out!!
    • lobotomy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I believe in the facts http://limbaugh.com/?q=Vicodin
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/26/rice.clinton/index.html
    CNN's version. Less biased, but still makes the jlegum's point. Posting from these left-wing blogs is not a good way to convince people of anything. Please use more reliable sources and people will be more likely to believe you.

    Think about it from the other perspective. If you don't believe anything Rush Limbaugh or even Fox News says, why do you expect people to believe you when you post from thinkprogress.org
    • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The words "CNN" and "less biased", on the same page, would indicate an oxymoron.
  • dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Interesting. The whole "blame Clinton" swift boat effort seems to be falling flat. In fact, I think it actually backfired when Clinton unloaded on Fox. So condi has to step in cover the lie with more lies and it draws attention to the fact the Bush administration had 9 months to do something about bin Laden and did exactly bupkis.

    Olberman calls out you Bushies:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004160/

    "The nation’s freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as al Qaida;"

    And a good recap of the trail of lies that some of you seem determined to support.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So even when Clarke and the 9/11 commision report critizied Clinton for not doing enough, are those lies too?
    • youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Hey dumb ass Clinton even said he didn't do enough. That doesn't mean would should repeat the same mistakes which is exactly what clintons point was.

      The biggest fault this administration has is the inability to accept failure/mistakes and learn from them.
  • jhusband, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11I'm amazed at how politically one sided DIGG is. All you have to do is say I like Bush and you'll get dugg down. The truth is many DIGGERs are liberal dems. There's nothing wrong with that. But there's nothing wrong with being a Conservative Republican either. DIGGING someone down doesn't enhance understanding. It only proves your bias.
    • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6digg is starting to become a haven for Clintonista shills it seems.
    • Enchirito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Politics aside, i've come to realize that a lot of diggers just don't understand the comment moding system's purpose. It's not "do you agree with this comment?" It's more "Is this comment a valid contribution to the discussion of the article".
    • minorthreat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6No, I think it is the fact that DIGG readers are above average intelligence when compared to the masses who are easily deceived by Bush and Co.
    • spraguep, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7The problem is that most republicans just don't get it. They make themselves look like total misinformed morons on this site; and I just dig them all down because I get bored of reading the same stupid *****.

      Say something intelligent, that's well thought out and back it up with facts.

      In this thread alone there are people equating Clinton's lying about a blowjob to Bush lying about starting a war. This is of course a totally insane comparison. No one ***** died from Clinton getting his dick polished.
    • razor150, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2The Conserative Diggers are marking this article as inaccurate if though it isn't. Guess we can ignore that since everyone here is a Lib, right? This isn't as onesided as you are trying to say.

      @jogeda, good to see a conservative shill here. To bad you download your opinions from Sean Hannity.
    • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@zaror150, good to see a conservative shill here. To bad you download your opinions from Sean Hannity.

      ASSuming a bit much there big boy.
    • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Politics aside, i've come to realize that a lot of diggers just don't understand the comment moding system's purpose. It's not "do you agree with this comment?" It's more "Is this comment a valid contribution to the discussion of the article"."

      Yes, I've seen this happen too, and I can only see a metamoderation system helping against that in the long run. If you think the people doing what you describe will listen to you, you're unfortunately talking to deaf ears.
    • razor150, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@gojeda Yes, but you started the ASSuming, I guess you don't like it when it is turned back on you. Typical.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Say something intelligent, that's well thought out and back it up with facts."

      Bush liked, people died. Am I supposed to back that up with facts?
    • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@razor Yes, but you started the ASSuming, I guess you don't like it when it is turned back on you. Typical.

      What, exactly, did I start assuming? My observation is based on what I see on the site. Your "Sean Hannity" quip was an ASSumption and, furthermore, pretty wrong as well as I do not care for the guy.
  • umdigger, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Who here thinks Rice is one of the ugliest women on the planet. The first time I saw her on TV I thought I was watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer. No joke.
    • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Nice ad hominem attack there umdigger. YOU WIN!
    • j.carcinogen, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2SMG is hot, what are you talking about?
    • umdigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I just think she looks like a vampire.
  • rafgar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Personally, I've gotten to the point where I don't believe a damn thing anyone says about 9/11 unless they can back it up with hard evidence. Between people trying to cover thier own asses, people who think little green men were involved, and people spouting lies that no one with 2 brain cells to rub together would believe (I'll leave it to the reader to decided who falls in what catagory), I've come to regard the whole thing as one big mess with no one telling the whole truth.
  • hakz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Why is it that any story that is put up on Digg that talks about President Bush is always reported as inaccurate?
    • MethosVk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This one actually isn't very misleading in its title, yet got flagged as inaccurate. There are many stories that are VERY misleading in their title. There really should be a "Flag as inaccurate title" option, because the contents of the story may not be inaccurate, and it's a shame to call them so when it is the linker who creates the inaccuracy.

      For this one though, it's pretty clear what will be in the article, are people flagging it as inaccurate because they don't think the 9/11 commission proves her wrong? I don't think so, but that's the logical interpretation of the matter.
  • angrybulldog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5But Rice's is such an elegant piano player. We should trust her because of that ... so talented, so elegant

    >

    we're so much more worse off with her in State ....
  • Pureeviljester, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Wait, first the Clinton administration didn't do enough and now Bush was as aggressive as him?

    Boo politicians.
  • zaibatsu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I like this part of the 9/11 report:

    BEN-VENISTE: ...Did you tell the president, at any time prior to August 6th, of the existence of Al Qaida cells in the United States?

    RICE: First, let me just make certain...

    BEN-VENISTE: If you could just answer that question, because I only have a very limited...

    RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but it's important...

    BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president...

    RICE: ... that I also address... (APPLAUSE) It's also important that, Commissioner, that I address the other issues that you have raised. So I will do it quickly, but if you'll just give me a moment.

    BEN-VENISTE: Well, my only question to you is whether you...

    RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but I will...

    BEN-VENISTE: ... told the president.

    RICE: If you'll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions that you've asked. First of all, yes, the August 6th PDB was in response to questions of the president -- and that since he asked that this be done. It was not a particular threat report. And there was historical information in there about various aspects of Al Qaida's operations. Dick Clarke had told me, I think in a memorandum -- I remember it as being only a line or two -- that there were Al Qaida cells in the United States. Now, the question is, what did we need to do about that? And I also understood that that was what the FBI was doing, that the FBI was pursuing these Al Qaida cells. I believe in the August 6th memorandum it says that there were 70 full field investigations under way of these cells. And so there was no recommendation that we do something about this; the FBI was pursuing it. I really don't remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president.

    BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

    RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don't remember the Al Qaida cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.

    BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

    RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States. Now, the ...

    BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
    • Metman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thank you. At least I have some faith now that at least one person who comments here actually read the 9/11 Commission Report. Judging by a lot of the other comments it is obvious those that have not are far greater then those that have. I would also like to point out that that same report also criticizes President Clinton as well for not taking more action against the threat.

  • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Thinkprogress.org? HAHAHahAHAhAHa - nice source....about on par with the National Enquirer.

    What's next, Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon extolling the virtues of Hillary? Pffttt...
    • keitho, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6would you believe it more if bill oreilly, sean hannity or ann coulter said it?
    • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@kietho: would you believe it more if bill oreilly, sean hannity or ann coulter said it?

      Nope....I do not care for politcal today's political commentators, and therefore, tune them out as they, quite frankly, do not enlighten nor add to the discourse.
    • tucsonwc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Should we belive Faux News then?

      Face it. Bush and Cheney's number one goal on assuming office was to invade Iraq.
      9/11 gave them a pretext to do so.

      Bush's Sect of War had under 100 US troops at Tora Bora. Why was that?

      The Taleban is resurgent in Afghanistan, rather than obliterated. Why is that?

      Bush's Sect of War overrode the JOC about troops needed to secure Iraq and demoted him for saying so. Why is that?

      Iraq is now a complete and utter disaster. Why is that?

      Is Bill Clinton at fault for all of those actions? Or is the Republican controlled Government and by that I mean ALL branches with no checks or balances to blame?

      Just how does your brain work?
    • bs101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@keitho actually, I would have a tendancy to believe it out of Hannity or O'Reilly, but Coulter is a little bit off the edge.

      Also, doesn't Thinkprogress.org just sound like a whacked out liberal website. It does to me and since I have never heard of it, but Hannity and O'Reilly happen to be in the National media and are Internationally recognized I will have to believe them over this insignificent website.
    • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@tusconwc Should we belive Faux News then?

      That would be your decision. Should be believe the Communist News Network? I mean, what kind of question is this?

      @tusconwc Face it. Bush and Cheney's number one goal on assuming office was to invade Iraq.
      9/11 gave them a pretext to do so.

      Actually, there were two pretexts:

      1. WMD
      2. Non-compliance

      #1 has not panned out as planned. #2 is undeniable and is, in and of itself, enough of a pretext to go to war.


      @tusconwc Bush's Sect of War had under 100 US troops at Tora Bora. Why was that?

      Because he goofed. So why did Clinton say "nyet" to the Sudanese when Bin Laden was offered to him?

      @tusconwc The Taleban is resurgent in Afghanistan, rather than obliterated. Why is that?

      Because they have sympathetic friends in Pakistan.

      @tusconwc Bush's Sect of War overrode the JOC about troops needed to secure Iraq and demoted him for saying so. Why is that?

      Actually the demotion was about an army complaint of the nature of the Haliburtion contract.

      @tusconwc Iraq is now a complete and utter disaster. Why is that?

      It was a disaster before the war.

      @tusconwc Is Bill Clinton at fault for all of those actions?

      Depends on your prespective. Does Clinton deserve some of the blame for 9/11? Ask 10 people and you will get 10 different answers.

      @tusconwc Or is the Republican controlled Government and by that I mean ALL branches with no checks or balances to blame?

      Sure, they are to blame for certain things. Democrats are to blame for other things as well. Your point?

      @tusconwc Just how does your brain work?

      It works quite well as long as I stay away from the rose-colored glasses. Try it sometime.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"@tusconwc Is Bill Clinton at fault for all of those actions?

      Depends on your prespective. Does Clinton deserve some of the blame for 9/11? Ask 10 people and you will get 10 different answers."

      Ask the 9/11 commission and they'll say yes, but his administration is not soley to blame.
  • bjmarte, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Ok, seriously, enough with the inaccurate crap.
  • grendelboogie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3See related digg article:

    http://digg.com/political_opinion/What_Did_Bush_Do_About_The_Cole
  • nixr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Regardless of what this or the previous administration did or did not do, the bottom line is that NEITHER of them did enough. Now, rather than admit that our government had severely underestimated the threat that Al Queda posed and move forward, they are trying to politicize the issue and benefit from it by making us feel as though the other guy is to blame. It is becaue of this behaviour that I am convinced that we will see another event on the scale of 9/11 before too long. Our government has lost the ability to govern because it is obsessed with turning every issue into a right vs. left / republican vs. democrat pissing contest. They can't even agree on what reality is, let alone act on it. Disgusting.
  • starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3this is just the way karl rove works. spin, obfuscate... repeat until the under informed and easily led start repeating it as fact.

    they don't need to convince those of us that aren't likely to support bush and the neocon agenda- they just want to give their constituency a new version of history to stop the hemorrhaging.
    • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Yea, as if Clinton shied away from his little spin fit during his little interview with Wallace.
  • moebis, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Warning: The Content in this Article is Inaccurate
    Readers have reported that this story contains information that is not even close to accurate.
  • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2You always know politicians are under heavy pressure when they feel a need to start talking about other presidents to remove the focus and justify their own actions.
    • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2As opposed to former presidents who have becoming incredibly defensive since leaving office and losing their footrace with history you mean?
    • youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Defensive? You haven't been following clinton have you? For the most part he hasn't been very critical at all, in fact he has been very careful not to criticize bush and when given the opportunity to say what he would have done he always prefaces with how he thinks bush got point x right before saying what he would have done.

      The only reason he got defensive was because he went on a show to talk about his fund raiser and instead of addressing that first Wallace cuts right into him.
  • zaibatsu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1In late 2000, the CIA and the NSC staff began thinking about the coun=
    terterrorism policy agenda they would present to the new administration.The
    Counterterrorist Center put down its best ideas for the future, assuming it was
    free of any prior policy or financial constraints.The paper was therefore inforFROM
    THREAT TO THREAT 197
    mally referred to as the “Blue Sky” memo; it was sent to Clarke on December
    29.The memo proposed
    • A major effort to support the Northern Alliance through intelligence
    sharing and increased funding so that it could stave off the Taliban
    army and tie down al Qaeda fighters.This effort was not intended to
    remove theTaliban from power, a goal that was judged impractical and
    too expensive for the CIA alone to attain.
    • Increased support to the Uzbeks to strengthen their ability to fight
    terrorism and assist the United States in doing so.
    • Assistance to anti-Taliban groups and proxies who might be encour=
    aged to passively resist the Taliban.
    The CIA memo noted that there was “no single ‘silver bullet’ available to
    deal with the growing problems in Afghanistan.”A multifaceted strategy would
    be needed to produce change.153
    No action was taken on these ideas in the few remaining weeks of the Clin=
    ton administration. Berger did not recall seeing or being briefed on the Blue
    Sky memo.Nor was the memo discussed during the transition with incoming
    top Bush administration officials.Tenet and his deputy told us they pressed these
    ideas as options after the new team took office.154
    As the Clinton administration drew to a close, Clarke and his staff devel=
    oped a policy paper of their own, the first such comprehensive effort since the
    Delenda plan of 1998.The resulting paper, entitled “Strategy for Eliminating
    the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects,”
    reviewed the threat and the record to date, incorporated the CIA’s new ideas
    from the Blue Sky memo, and posed several near-term policy options.
    Clarke and his staff proposed a goal to “roll back” al Qaeda over a period
    of three to five years. Over time, the policy should try to weaken and elimi=
    nate the network’s infrastructure in order to reduce it to a “rump group” like
    other formerly feared but now largely defunct terrorist organizations of the
    1980s. “Continued anti-al Qida operations at the current level will prevent
    some attacks,” Clarke’s office wrote,“but will not seriously attrit their ability
    to plan and conduct attacks.” The paper backed covert aid to the Northern
    Alliance, covert aid to Uzbekistan, and renewed Predator flights in March
    2001. A sentence called for military action to destroy al Qaeda command-andcontrol
    targets and infrastructure andTaliban military and command assets.The
    paper also expressed concern about the presence of al Qaeda operatives in the
    United States
    • RCinBigD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What about Iraq? Don't see it mentioned even once. I thought there was an obvious link to al Qaeda. And with all those weapons of mass destruction, they had to be considered the biggest threat. And yet, not a word. Hmmm....

      /sarcasm
  • strebormj, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1The 9/11 Commission report was about as credible as the Warren Commission report.
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And the WTC was brought down by explosive charges.
  • davenp35, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Innacurate for the following reasons (judge for yourself):
    http://digg.com/political_opinion/Did_Clinton_Really_Give_Bush_A_Comprehensive_Anti_Terror_Strategy
    http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006/09/more-of-what-you-wont-read-in-nyt.html
    http://digg.com/political_opinion/Did_Hillary_Like_Bill_s_Outburst_on_Sunday_Probably_Not
    http://digg.com/political_opinion/Video_Napolitano_fact_checks_the_hell_out_of_Clinton_s_legal_argument
  • jjmac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1How much time, energy, resources and arguing has America put into trying to figure out who's to blame? I already know with whom the fault lies, Bin Laden.

    I would love to see America put the same kind of tenacity towards hanging him, instead of ourselves.
  • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Bury.
  • jart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Thank you neo con diggers for marking everything posted from Think Progress as innacurate. I mean, clearly a man who vacations for four months in his first year in office cares about stopping terrorism. Liberals just need to pull the sheep skin from their eyes and stop eating all the liberal propaganda the NY Times and BBC feeds the public and watch some more O-Reilly, a man who has been proven by "our feelings" to be fair and balanced; ya know, a hard hitter who looks out for the little man.
    • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@jart Thank you neo con diggers for marking everything posted from Think Progress as innacurate.

      When you have the same credibility as Michael Moore and George Soros, these kinds of things tend to happen.

      Oh well....cry me a river.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Where do i begin?

      First, if you honestly believe that the president "vacations" then there is no hope in having an intelligent discussion with you.

      Secondly, Fox news is hard right and therefore puts into question its validity. Therefore, ThinkProgress.com is hard left and therefore puts into question their validity.

      I didn't mark it as inaccurate, but I can see why people did.
    • jart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"First, if you honestly believe that the president "vacations" then there is no hope in having an intelligent discussion with you."

      Obviously the president doesn't leave his duties entirely, it simply isn't possible. I don't care how much business the president is conducting and how many people are following him around, a ranch is not an office for the president. It is a less productive work environment and conveys and embarassing image to Americans as well as foreign countries.

      Secondly, this sort of thing isn't a question of "hard-left" vs "hard-right". The neo cons have shifted the political spectrum so far right-wing to the point where it's facism vs non-facism. The topics that come up aren't just innocent differences of opinion on the best ways to serve the public and promote freedom, stuff like less taxes vs. more welfare. The debates seem to be moving more along the lines of torture vs. not torturing, spying on everyone vs. not spying on everyone. The neo cons are so ridiculously far right that it has completely marginalized any rational viewpoint previously regarded as moderate (or maybe even conservative) as 'hard-left terrorist supporting liberalism'.
  • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2someone should document every single spin and lie and self-contradiction that has been made over time with this administration and formulate them into questions, so that they are there in stone for everyone to see and ask
    • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Absolutely, and I propose doing the same with the Clinton administration as well.
  • diggfraud, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1LMAO! this article comes from the ***** called a liberals mouth - liberals /democraps have no right to open their ***** mouths after clinton lied to us for 8 years and yes it wasa lie about a blow job you stupid freaks - he also lied about thousands of other things like national security - so stfu you liberals i'll let you know when you can speak again about issue's regarding "lying"
    THIS NEO CON BURIED THIS STORY! JUST LIKE AMERICA IS GOING TO BURY LIBS IN NOV>
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You make everyong who is NOT a liberal look bad.....please stop.
  • akumaryuu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2the unfortunate thing here is that for the most part, people can't make up their own minds. Many liberals say that we went to Iraq for the wrong reasons, that he didn't have WMDs. The simple fact is he used them on his own people, but that's not the point. The point is, it doesn't really matter why the President says he is going into Iraq, it matters if you believe there are enough reasons to do so. I'd argue that since Sadam is a mass murderer who just kills people for the hell of it, and who's sons are pure evil, we should get rid of him. Some people say, well there will just be someone worse once we get rid of Sadam. Unfortunately that approach says this, if all the evil leaders in the world put forward the #2 evil man of them all, then we will never take the evil person down because of the fear that #1 will come in and be even worse. That argument is just insane. As far as the 9/11 report goes, it has been twisted and politicized so badly that it doesn't matter if the original members were bipartisan. Clinton sat in the interview and contradicted himself a number of times. He said that in 1996 when the Sudanese wanted to give us UBL's head on a plate that UBL wasn't a big threat. Then he said he did treat UBL as a big threat then and did things to kill him. Under the Clinton administration there were at least 2 knows instances where we had UBL's head on a plate and Clinton's administration let him go. As far as whether we can blame Bush in part or in whole for the attacks of 9/11. If you look closely, you will see that terrorists take advantage of our election cycle because of the termoil it creates. Look at the 1993 bombing of the towers, that was soon after Clinton took office. Should I blame him entirely because it happened on his watch? No. He should share some responsibility, as Bush does for 9/11, but not the full weight of it. Frankly, finger pointing at Clinton or Bush for who is to blame for 9/11 is just rediculous. It carries the same mark of ignorance as when President Bush's poll numbers go up and down based on gas prices. Bush has no way of directly controlling gas prices, just like all any president can do is continue the hunt for UBL. We all know he is illusive, but I won't fault any administration that at least tries. I find problems when an administration knowingly allows a man like UBL to be set free.
  • zaibatsu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3To the people that said I took Rice's comments out of context with 9/11 Commission:

    Did you tell the president, at any time prior to August 6th, of the existence of Al Qaida cells in the United States?

    RICE: First, let me just make certain...

    BEN-VENISTE: If you could just answer that question, because I only have a very limited...

    RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but it's important...

    BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president...

    RICE: ... that I also address... (APPLAUSE) It's also important that, Commissioner, that I address the other issues that you have raised. So I will do it quickly, but if you'll just give me a moment.

    BEN-VENISTE: Well, my only question to you is whether you...

    RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but I will...

    BEN-VENISTE: ... told the president.

    RICE: If you'll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions that you've asked. First of all, yes, the August 6th PDB was in response to questions of the president -- and that since he asked that this be done. It was not a particular threat report. And there was historical information in there about various aspects of Al Qaida's operations. Dick Clarke had told me, I think in a memorandum -- I remember it as being only a line or two -- that there were Al Qaida cells in the United States. Now, the question is, what did we need to do about that? And I also understood that that was what the FBI was doing, that the FBI was pursuing these Al Qaida cells. I believe in the August 6th memorandum it says that there were 70 full field investigations under way of these cells. And so there was no recommendation that we do something about this; the FBI was pursuing it. I really don't remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president.

    BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

    RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don't remember the Al Qaida cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.

    BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

    RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States. Now, the ...

    BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

    RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste ...

    BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the ...

    RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

    BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.

    RICE: Given that - you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

    BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.

    RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.

    BEN-VENISTE: Now, you knew by August 2001 of al-Qaida involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, is that correct?
    You knew that in 1999, late '99, in the millennium threat period, that we had thwarted an al-Qaida attempt to blow up Los Angeles International Airport and thwarted cells operating in Brooklyn, New York, and Boston, Massachusetts. As of the August 6th briefing, you learned that al-Qaida members have resided or traveled to the United States for years and maintained a support system in the United States. And you learned that FBI information since the 1998 blind sheik warning of hijackings to free the blind sheik indicated a pattern of suspicious activity in the country up until August 6th consistent with preparation for hijackings. Isn't that so?

    RICE: Do you have other questions that you want me to answer as a part of the sequence?

    BEN-VENISTE: Well, did you not -- you have indicated here that this was some historical document. And I am asking you whether it is not the case that you learned in the PDB memo of August 6th that the FBI was saying that it had information suggesting that preparations -- not historically, but ongoing, along with these numerous full field investigations against Al Qaida cells, that preparations were being made consistent with hijackings within the United States?

    RICE: What the August 6th PDB said, and perhaps I should read it to you...

    BEN-VENISTE: We would be happy to have it declassified in full at this time, including its title. (APPLAUSE)

    RICE: I believe, Mr. Ben-Veniste, that you've had access to this PDB. But let me just...

    BEN-VENISTE: But we have not had it declassified so that it can be shown publicly, as you know.

    RICE: I believe you've had access to this PDB -- exceptional access. But let me address your question.

    BEN-VENISTE: Nor could we, prior to today, reveal the title of that PDB.

    RICE: May I address the question, sir? The fact is that this August 6th PDB was in response to the president's questions about whether or not something might happen or something might be planned by Al Qaida inside the United States. He asked because all of the threat reporting or the threat reporting that was actionable was about the threats abroad, not about the United States. This particular PDB had a long section on what bin Laden had wanted to do -- speculative, much of it -- in '97, '98; that he had, in fact, liked the results of the 1993 bombing.

    RICE: It had a number of discussions of -- it had a discussion of whether or not they might use hijacking to try and free a prisoner who was being held in the United States -- Ressam. It reported that the FBI had full field investigations under way. And we checked on the issue of whether or not there was something going on with surveillance of buildings, and we were told, I believe, that the issue was the courthouse in which this might take place. Commissioner, this was not a warning. This was a historic memo -- historical memo prepared by the agency because the president was asking questions about what we knew about the inside.

    BEN-VENISTE: Well, if you are willing...

    RICE: Now, we had already taken...

    BEN-VENISTE: If you are willing to declassify that document, then others can make up their minds about it. Let me ask you a general matter, beyond the fact that this memorandum provided information, not speculative, but based on intelligence information, that bin Laden had threatened to attack the United States and specifically Washington, D.C. There was nothing reassuring, was there, in that PDB?

    RICE: Certainly not. There was nothing reassuring. But I can also tell you that there was nothing in this memo that suggested that an attack was coming on New York or Washington, D.C. There was nothing in this memo as to time, place, how or where. This was not a threat report to the president or a threat report to me.

    BEN-VENISTE: We agree that there were no specifics. Let me move on, if I may.

    RICE: There were no specifics, and, in fact, the country had already taken steps through the FAA to warn of potential hijackings. The country had already taken steps through the FBI to task their 56 field offices to increase their activity. The country had taken the steps that it could given that there was no threat reporting about what might happen inside the United States.

    BEN-VENISTE: We have explored that and we will continue to with respect to the muscularity and the specifics of those efforts. The president was in Crawford, Texas, at the time he received the PDB, you were not with him, correct?

    RICE: That is correct.

    BEN-VENISTE: Now, was the president, in words or substance, alarmed or in any way motivated to take any action, such as meeting with the director of the FBI, meeting with the attorney general, as a result of receiving the information contained in the PDB?

    RICE: I want to repeat that when this document was presented, it was presented as, yes, there were some frightening things -- and b