Thursday, March 25, 2004
RICHARD CLARKE EITHER IS .. OR WAS .. A LIAR
The proceedings of the committee to elect John Kerry President continued
yesterday, this time with walking contradiction Richard Clarke testifying. This
is the guy that wrote the book blaming 9/11 on President Bush and praising Bill
Clinton's 8 years of inaction on terrorism as somehow better. What an
absolute crock...perhaps he's been hired to revise the Clinton legacy because
the facts just aren't on this guy's side.
Surprisingly, this egomaniac's head actually fit through the door of the
hearing room. Clarke kicked off his testimony with an apology to "the loved
ones of the victims of 9/11....your government failed you. Those entrusted
with protecting you failed you and I failed you." His statement
should have more truthfully been "to the loved ones of the victims of
9/11...the Clinton administration failed you. Prior to the slaughter of
your loved ones on 9/11 by Islamic terrorists, Bill Clinton turned down the
direct handover of Osama Bin Laden on numerous occasions. The Clinton
administration refused to allow the CIA to kill Bin Laden, with only capture as
the stated policy. Those entrusted with protecting you, including
myself, were abject failures who viewed terrorism as a law enforcement
problem. And don't forget to buy my book."
Well ... let's get to the rest of Clarke's testimony. We can basically
wrap it up this way. Clarke told the commission, as he told America in his
book, that the Bush administration did virtually nothing to address the threat
of Al Qaeda until the attacks of 9/11. Nothing. He said that Bush
was virtually unprepared to act as though it's a major problem.
Uh oh. Small problem. The White House was a few steps ahead of
Clarke yesterday ... as was Fox News Channel. Jim Angle is a reporter for
Fox. As the news about Clarke's book started to hit Angle remembered a
briefing he received from a White House spokesman in August of 2002. That
briefing was for background. That means that the seven reporters on the
telephone conference call could not identify who their source was .. .only what
their source said. Angle remembered that the person who delivered that
briefing was ... Richard Clarke.
As luck would have it, Angle had a recording of that briefing. He
listened to it and found that what Clarke was saying then was markedly different
from what Clarke was saying now. So Angle went to the White House to seek
permission to release a transcript of that 2002 briefing, and to identify
Richard Clarke as the source. The White House, after conferring with the
National Security Council, agreed.
So what did Clarke have to say in the 2002 briefing?
Let's start with a statement Clarke made to the 9/11 Commission
yesterday. Clarke told the commissioners that early on in the Bush
administration he told the president: " ... and I said, well, you
know, we've had this strategy ready ... ahh ... since before you were
inaugurated. I showed it to you. You have the paperwork. We
can have a meeting on the strategy anytime you want."
So .. there's Clarke telling the media and the commissioners yesterday that
he had presented paperwork to Bush on a strategy for dealing with Al Qaeda and
was ready to discuss it. But what did he say to Jim Angle in 2002?
This: "I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda
that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush
Administration."
Lying then? Or lying now?
And what about this "Bush did virtually nothing" claim?
In the 2002 background briefing Clarke said: "When President Bush told
us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was
the strategic direction that triggered the NSPD (National Security Presidential
Directive) from one of roll back to one of elimination." "NSPD"
is National Security Presidential Directive. So Clark was telling
reporters in August of 2002 that the directive from the president in March of
2001 was to stop swatting at flies ... to eliminate Al Qaeda. This is what
calls doing virtually nothing?
In the 2002 briefing Clarke also told Angle and the rest of the reporters
that Bush had ordered an increase in CIA resources by five times .. .including
funding for covert actions against Al Qaeda. Again ... doing virtually
nothing?
Here's the kicker. It comes from the transcript of the 2002 Clarke
briefing ... near the end.
Jim Angle: "So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're
saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay;
and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the months
just after the administration came into office?
Richard Clarke: "You got it. That's right.
So .. while the terrorist threat was increasing Clinton made no changes in
his plan of action against terrorism during the last two years of his
presidency, but Bush got on the stick immediately. That is what Clarke is
now describing as "doing virtually nothing."
Obviously Clarke is lying. We just have to figure out which statements
are the lies? Was he lying in 2002 when he was working in the Bush White
House? Or is he lying now when he's trying to sell a book?
Figure it out.
There's much more on the show today ... including audio. Be sure to be
tuned in.
CLINTON STOPPED CIA FROM KILLING BIN LADEN
This has been out there for awhile, but the 9-11 commission is finally
confirming it as fact. This should tell you everything you need to know about
the Clinton administration and their policy of terrorist appeasement for 8
years.
Announcing some of its preliminary findings yesterday, the commission
confirmed that President Clinton ordered the CIA to take Osama Bin Laden alive
or not at all. The following statement read at yesterday's session says it
all: "CIA senior managers, operators and lawyers uniformly said that they
read the relevant authorities signed by President Clinton as instructing them to
try and capture Bin Laden." A former CIA station chief said "We
always talked about how much easier it would have been to try to kill
him." A former CIA official told NBC News last week that White House
orders to spare Bin Laden's life cut the chances of getting him in half.
Once again, they viewed terrorism as a law enforcement problem, worrying about
Bin Laden's rights instead of just unleashing the CIA to exterminate him.
If this commission wants to lay blame for policy failures that led to 9/11,
then they need to do it where it belongs, with the Clinton administration and
Richard Clarke.
IN CASE YOU NEEDED FURTHER CONFIRMATION THESE PEOPLE ARE NUTS
Yesterday a Palestinian terrorist suicide bomber approached soldiers at an
Israeli checkpoint in the West Bank. The soldiers were on high alert,
because they had captured an 11-year-old boy with a bomb hidden in his bag
just last week. They noticed the teenager had something under his sweater
and pointed their rifles at 14-year-old Hussam Abdo.
The soldiers ducked behind a concrete barrier, and with guns pointed at Abdo,
ordered him to remove his sweater, revealing the standard-issue gray vest used
by Palestinian suicide bombers. Now, at this point, what do you think
happened? From everything the media reports about the evil Israelis and
their incursions into the "occupied territories," it leaves the
impression that the Israeli Army would have just shot the boy, right on
site. Of course, that is not what happened.
After the boy told soldiers he did not want to blow up, the Israelis then
sent a robot with a pair of scissors toward the 14-year-old terrorist, allowing
him to cut the bomb-laden vest off, and drop it to the ground. He was then
ordered to strip to his underwear, and was detained by soldiers who detonated
the bomb in a controlled explosion.
Wearing a jacked provided by the Israelis, the kid was escorted back to the
other side of the checkpoint. A military spokesman said "He's a
frightened little boy. Our interest right now is to find out who sent
him." Can you imagine what would happen in this country if Al-Qaeda
was sending teenage suicide bombers to our cities? Wouldn't we
retaliate? Of course we would.
So why can't Israel?
READING ASSIGNMENTS
Peggy
Noonan. Read it.
Dick
Morris. Read this too.
Ann
Coulter writes that the chair-warmer was on the hot seat yesterday, as
Richard Clarke testified. She wonders why someone nobody has ever heard of is
getting so much media coverage?
Former Navy Secretary and 9/11 commission member John Lehman unloaded on
Richard Clarke yesterday with both barrels. Check
it out here.
Here's Richard
Clarke profusely praising President Bush for pursuing issues that President
Clinton had left on the table since 1998.
According
to the U.S. Military, Al-Qaeda is now leading the insurgency in Iraq.
I thought Al-Qaeda had no link to Saddam Hussein and Iraq? Right.
The U.N. is stalling
the Iraqi government probe of a secret oil account used in their "Food
for Saddam's Palaces" program. You won't be surprised to learn it involved
a French bank.
John
Kerry showed up for Mass on Sunday in a ski suit. Nothing like using the
Church as a photo opportunity to reinforce your faith. Such class
displayed by the Democratic nominee.
Dick
Morris says the 2004 election is a blowout in the making, with President
Bush poised to win in a landslide.
William
F. Buckley says Richard Clarke wants to have it all ways. He could
trump Kerry's record for the most flip-flops in a two-year period.
David Hill says that
Jean Kerry not only looks French, but is starting to actually sound French
here lately.
Larry
Elder criticizes former "counterterrorism czar" Richard Clarke as
a born-again critic of the Bush administration and analyzes his shifting
stances.
Robert
Novak, writing from Haiti, reports on that country's progress after Haitian
dictator Jean Bertrand-Aristide was ousted.
Ben
Shapiro writes that after the 2000 election, Clinton stole the White House
silverware, but left the appointees. President Bush should have cleaned
house.
It's so nice to know that the wonderful men and women of the Georgia House of
Representatives are looking out for us. They couldn't bring themselves to
pass a law saying that a sixteen-year-old will be treated as an adult under the
law if they commit a crime while driving an automobile, but
they damn sure can ban genital piercings... but only for women. Good
going guys!
There's a new website that is supposed to launch today: johnkerryflipflops.com.
Give it a try! | 
Search Boortz.com
