|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
ABC Sunday Night 9-11 movie is Repub Propaganda
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| ABC Sunday Night 9-11 movie is Repub Propaganda
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Oz |
Just a few facts to pass on before anyone gets all weepy about a B.S. movie on Sunday night.....
"But we still know enough, thanks to news accounts and crack research, to fact check "The Path to 9/11" as a biased, irresponsible mess. Here's what you need to know:
* Richard Clarke -- the counterterrorism czar for the Clinton administration, now himself a consultant to ABC News -- describes a key scene in "The Path to 9/11" as "180 degrees from what happened." In the scene, a CIA field agent places a phone call to get the go ahead to kill Osama Bin Laden, then in his sights, only to have a senior Clinton administration official refuse and hang up the phone. Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor, called the same scene "a total fabrication. It did not happen." And Roger Cressey, a top Bush and Clinton counterterrorism official, said it was "something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It's factually wrong. And that's shameful."
* Another scene revives the old right-wing myth that press reporting made it impossible to track Osama bin Laden, accusing the Washington Post of blowing the secret that American intelligence tracked his satellite phone calls. In reality, responsibility for that blunder -- contrary to "The Path to 9/11" -- rests with none other than the arch-conservative Washington Times.
* The former National Security Council head of counterterrorism says that President Clinton "approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda," and the 9/11 report says the CIA had full authority from President Clinton to strike Bin Laden. Yet chief "Path to 9/11" scriptwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh, a friend of Rush Limbaugh, says the miniseries shows how President Clinton had "frequent opportunities in the '90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks -- but lacked the will to do so."
* ABC asked only the Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean, Sr., to advise the makers of "The Path to 9/11". The producers optioned two books, one written by a Bush administration political appointee, as the basis of the screenplay -- yet bill the miniseries as "based on the 9/11 Commission Report." " |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Oz,
The Clinton Administration did turn down attacks on bin Laden. It had him in their sites and called off the strike. |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
| Quote: The Clinton Administration did turn down attacks on bin Laden. It had him in their sites and called off the strike. |
thats a lie,clinton approved every order to kill bin-laden,and it was never carried out....its in the 911 commision report |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Oz,
The Clinton Administration did turn down attacks on bin Laden. It had him in their sites and called off the strike. |
source? |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
| 911 commision report...i just love even after 6 years the right still blaming clinton for the bush failures....you'll have to excuse me i forgot what page number thom hartman said it was on...he was reading parts out of the findings to prove the new abc ,911 its all clintons fault movie,was a lie....but he was giving page numbers for the info he was reading out of the report |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
| jesus christ what like the micheal moore movie arnt "propaganda", oh thats right its all fact and real, lolz |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
source? |
It's in the 9/11 Report.
Quote: The CIA reported on December 18 that Bin Ladin might be traveling to Kandahar and could be targeted there with cruise missiles. Vessels with Tomahawk cruise missiles were on station in the Arabian Sea, and could fire within a few hours of receiving target data.116
On December 20, intelligence indicated Bin Ladin would be spending the night at the Haji Habash house, part of the governor's residence in Kandahar. The chief of the Bin Ladin unit, "Mike," told us that he promptly briefed Tenet and his deputy, John Gordon. From the field, the CIA's Gary Schroen advised: "Hit him tonight-we may not get another chance." An urgent teleconference of principals was arranged.117
The principals considered a cruise missile strike to try to kill Bin Ladin. One issue they discussed was the potential collateral damage-the number of innocent bystanders who would be killed or wounded. General Zinni predicted a number well over 200 and was concerned about damage to a nearby mosque. The senior intelligence officer on the Joint Staff apparently made a different calculation, estimating half as much collateral damage and not predicting damage to the mosque. By the end of the meeting, the principals decided against recommending to the President that he order a strike. A few weeks later, in January 1999, Clarke wrote that the principals had thought the intelligence only half reliable and had worried about killing or injuring perhaps 300 people. Tenet said he remembered doubts about the reliability of the source and concern about hitting the nearby mosque. "Mike" remembered Tenet telling him that the military was concerned that a few hours had passed since the last sighting of Bin Ladin and that this persuaded everyone that the chance of failure was too great.118
Some lower-level officials were angry. "Mike" reported to Schroen that he had been unable to sleep after this decision. "I'm sure we'll regret not acting last night," he wrote, criticizing the principals for "worrying that some stray shrapnel might hit the Habash mosque and 'offend' Muslims." He commented that they had not shown comparable sensitivity when deciding to bomb Muslims in Iraq. The principals, he said, were "obsessed" with trying to get others-Saudis, Pakistanis, Afghan tribals-to "do what we won't do." Schroen was disappointed too. "We should have done it last night," he wrote. "We may well come to regret the decision not to go ahead."119 The Joint Staff's deputy director for operations agreed, even though he told us that later intelligence appeared to show that Bin Ladin had left his quarters before the strike would have occurred. Missing Bin Ladin, he said, "would have caused us a hell of a problem, but it was a shot we should have taken, and we would have had to pay the price.120 |
9/11 Report
There is more where that came from, unfortunately. Download the .pdf file at the site and do a search for "Berger". |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
jesus christ what like the micheal moore movie arnt "propaganda", oh thats right its all fact and real, lolz |
English, bitch, please. You're so damn dumb you're making words up. |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
| Quote: jesus christ what like the micheal moore movie arnt "propaganda", oh thats right its all fact and real, lolz |
bush wants the whole population...just like that :stupid: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: UAE royals, bin Laden's saviours
The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.
Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.
The 10-member bipartisan commission is investigating the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US.
A host of Clinton and Bush administration officials have testified before the commission.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Amritage told the commission that it was impossible to send troops to Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda without Pakistan's cooperation and building a new relationship with India.
"US sanctions against Pakistan on the nuclear and other issues complicated the matter and these had to be dismantled," Armitage said.
He also suggested if the US Congress wanted to show displeasure with any country, it should think of other methods than imposing sanctions.
Former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke has charged that fighting terrorism was not the top priority with the Bush administration. The top priority, he suggested, was Iraq, not Al Qaeda, a claim refuted by the White House.
Clarke alleged that the White House delayed implementing the proposals he had made for eight months and adopted them only after 9/11.
Link |
|
|
|
| incoherent |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
It's in the 9/11 Report.
Quote: The CIA reported on December 18 that Bin Ladin might be traveling to Kandahar and could be targeted there with cruise missiles. Vessels with Tomahawk cruise missiles were on station in the Arabian Sea, and could fire within a few hours of receiving target data.116
On December 20, intelligence indicated Bin Ladin would be spending the night at the Haji Habash house, part of the governor's residence in Kandahar. The chief of the Bin Ladin unit, "Mike," told us that he promptly briefed Tenet and his deputy, John Gordon. From the field, the CIA's Gary Schroen advised: "Hit him tonight-we may not get another chance." An urgent teleconference of principals was arranged.117
The principals considered a cruise missile strike to try to kill Bin Ladin. One issue they discussed was the potential collateral damage-the number of innocent bystanders who would be killed or wounded. General Zinni predicted a number well over 200 and was concerned about damage to a nearby mosque. The senior intelligence officer on the Joint Staff apparently made a different calculation, estimating half as much collateral damage and not predicting damage to the mosque. By the end of the meeting, the principals decided against recommending to the President that he order a strike. A few weeks later, in January 1999, Clarke wrote that the principals had thought the intelligence only half reliable and had worried about killing or injuring perhaps 300 people. Tenet said he remembered doubts about the reliability of the source and concern about hitting the nearby mosque. "Mike" remembered Tenet telling him that the military was concerned that a few hours had passed since the last sighting of Bin Ladin and that this persuaded everyone that the chance of failure was too great.118
Some lower-level officials were angry. "Mike" reported to Schroen that he had been unable to sleep after this decision. "I'm sure we'll regret not acting last night," he wrote, criticizing the principals for "worrying that some stray shrapnel might hit the Habash mosque and 'offend' Muslims." He commented that they had not shown comparable sensitivity when deciding to bomb Muslims in Iraq. The principals, he said, were "obsessed" with trying to get others-Saudis, Pakistanis, Afghan tribals-to "do what we won't do." Schroen was disappointed too. "We should have done it last night," he wrote. "We may well come to regret the decision not to go ahead."119 The Joint Staff's deputy director for operations agreed, even though he told us that later intelligence appeared to show that Bin Ladin had left his quarters before the strike would have occurred. Missing Bin Ladin, he said, "would have caused us a hell of a problem, but it was a shot we should have taken, and we would have had to pay the price.120
9/11 Report
There is more where that came from, unfortunately. Download the .pdf file at the site and do a search for "Berger". |
Stonewall is WRONG AGAIN!
THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION DID NOT CALL OFF THE STRIKE! THE CIA CALLED OFF THE STRIKE!
In Stonewall's very own quote from the 911 commission: "By the end of the meeting, the principals decided against recommending to the President that he order a strike. "
So Stonewall LIED when he said: "The Clinton Administration did turn down attacks on bin Laden. It had him in their sites and called off the strike."
In fact:
"Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda."
That is from an editorial in the RIGHT-WING Washington Times! By Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism!
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/2003...90026-8355r.htm
We're all laughing at Stonewall's desperate lie to impugn President Clinton. What a transparent load of excrement. Too bad Stonewall's nose is rubbed in it!
Stonewall, why do you lie? |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
| I dont know whats funnier, this movie coming out and all the liberal screaming murder or the irony. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Incoherent,
When the term "principles" is used, that means Administration officials. National Security Advisor, etc.. |
|
|
| oxygen man |
| All the administrations from Carter till now have blood on their hands and are all responsible for incompetence in our gov. just watch triple cross on Nat Geographic channel |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by oxygen man
All the administrations from Carter till now have blood on their hands and are all responsible for incompetence in our gov. just watch triple cross on Nat Geographic channel |
No doubt. |
|
|
| GyroPyro |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
I dont know whats funnier, this movie coming out and all the liberal screaming murder or the irony. |
It's the irony. |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by GyroPyro
It's the irony. |
why yes it is....
|
|
|
| Stonewall |
The mini-series is not correct.
Republican New Jersey Governor Thomas H. Kean and former 9/11 Commission co-chair, "however, is an official adviser; he says the incident was a fictionalized composite. It was 'representative of a series of events compacted into one,' he replied to Ben-Veniste at the time. In a phone interview a few days later, he added, 'It’s reasonably accurate.' And he offered a prediction that the show will 'get just as many howls from Republicans.'"
The scene that bothers most is a "fictionalized composite. It was 'representative of a series of events compacted into one,'" and, 'It’s reasonably accurate.'.
They could have added these events into the show instead of a "fictionalized composite". By adding this they ruin the whole thing. |
|
|
| Kill Van Kull |
he repukes have been saying for years that Clinton "passed" on nailing Osama Bin Laden. That was proven to be a lie the first time they said it -- but they just keep on saying it and the dopey kool-aid guzzlers believe it!
No wonder they have no credibility. |
|
|
| artiel |
| I like all the arguing over Clinton and whether or not he called off the assassination of OBL... I don't give 2 shits if he did or not, because he wasn't the one that flew BL's entire family out of the country the morning of September 11th. Fuck Bush, fuck the lying corporate government that murdered 3000 people and fuck you. (Yes, I'm losing it.) |
|
|
| JTProcess |
Quote: Originally posted by artiel
I like all the arguing over Clinton and whether or not he called off the assassination of OBL... I don't give 2 shits if he did or not, because he wasn't the one that flew BL's entire family out of the country the morning of September 11th. Fuck Bush, fuck the lying corporate government that murdered 3000 people and fuck you. (Yes, I'm losing it.) |
HA HA HA HA HA
Yeah, at this point all the Republicans can do is point fingers... Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had blamed his troubles on the previous administration?
"yes monica blew me, but it wasn't my fault because George H. Bush hired her." |
|
|
| Stonewall |
There was a major mistake made by the Clinton Administration in regard to Tarnak Farms:
Quote: The CIA Develops a Capture Plan
Initially, the DCI's Counterterrorist Center and its Bin Ladin unit considered a plan to ambush Bin Ladin when he traveled between Kandahar, the Taliban capital where he sometimes stayed the night, and his primary residence at the time, Tarnak Farms. After the Afghan tribals reported that they had tried such an ambush and failed, the Center gave up on it, despite suspicions that the tribals' story might be fiction. Thereafter, the capture plan focused on a nighttime raid on Tarnak Farms.17
A compound of about 80 concrete or mud-brick buildings surrounded by a 10-foot wall, Tarnak Farms was located in an isolated desert area on the outskirts of the Kandahar airport. CIA officers were able to map the entire site, identifying the houses that belonged to Bin Ladin's wives and the one where Bin Ladin himself was most likely to sleep. Working with the tribals, they drew up plans for the raid. They ran two complete rehearsals in the United States during the fall of 1997.18
By early 1998, planners at the Counterterrorist Center were ready to come back to the White House to seek formal approval. Tenet apparently walked National Security Advisor Sandy Berger through the basic plan on February 13. One group of tribals would subdue the guards, enter Tarnak Farms stealthily, grab Bin Ladin, take him to a desert site outside Kandahar, and turn him over to a second group. This second group of tribals would take him to a desert landing zone already tested in the 1997 Kansi capture. From there, a CIA plane would take him to New York, an Arab capital, or wherever he was to be arraigned. Briefing papers prepared by the Counterterrorist Center acknowledged that hitches might develop. People might be killed, and Bin Ladin's supporters might retaliate, perhaps taking U.S. citizens in Kandahar hostage. But the briefing papers also noted that there was risk in not acting. "Sooner or later," they said, "Bin Ladin will attack U.S. interests, perhaps using WMD [weapons of mass destruction]."19
Clarke's Counterterrorism Security Group reviewed the capture plan for Berger. Noting that the plan was in a "very early stage of development," the NSC staff then told the CIA planners to go ahead and, among other things, start drafting any legal documents that might be required to authorize the covert action. The CSG apparently stressed that the raid should target Bin Ladin himself, not the whole compound.20
The CIA planners conducted their third complete rehearsal in March, and they again briefed the CSG. Clarke wrote Berger on March 7 that he saw the operation as "somewhat embryonic" and the CIA as "months away from doing anything."21
"Mike" thought the capture plan was "the perfect operation." It required minimum infrastructure. The plan had now been modified so that the tribals would keep Bin Ladin in a hiding place for up to a month before turning him over to the United States-thereby increasing the chances of keeping the U.S. hand out of sight. "Mike" trusted the information from the Afghan network; it had been corroborated by other means, he told us. The lead CIA officer in the field, Gary Schroen, also had confidence in the tribals. In a May 6 cable to CIA headquarters, he pronounced their planning "almost as professional and detailed . . . as would be done by any U.S. military special operations element." He and the other officers who had worked through the plan with the tribals judged it "about as good as it can be." (By that, Schroen explained, he meant that the chance of capturing or killing Bin Ladin was about 40 percent.) Although the tribals thought they could pull off the raid, if the operation were approved by headquarters and the policymakers, Schroen wrote there was going to be a point when "we step back and keep our fingers crossed that the [tribals] prove as good (and as lucky) as they think they will be."22
Military officers reviewed the capture plan and, according to "Mike," "found no showstoppers." The commander of Delta Force felt "uncomfortable" with having the tribals hold Bin Ladin captive for so long, and the commander of Joint Special Operations Forces, Lieutenant General Michael Canavan, was worried about the safety of the tribals inside Tarnak Farms. General Canavan said he had actually thought the operation too complicated for the CIA-"out of their league"-and an effort to get results "on the cheap." But a senior Joint Staff officer described the plan as "generally, not too much different than we might have come up with ourselves." No one in the Pentagon, so far as we know, advised the CIA or the White House not to proceed.23
In Washington, Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals. In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted.24
On May 18, CIA's managers reviewed a draft Memorandum of Notification (MON), a legal document authorizing the capture operation. A 1986 presidential finding had authorized worldwide covert action against terrorism and probably provided adequate authority. But mindful of the old "rogue elephant" charge, senior CIA managers may have wanted something on paper to show that they were not acting on their own.
Discussion of this memorandum brought to the surface an unease about paramilitary covert action that had become ingrained, at least among some CIA senior managers. James Pavitt, the assistant head of the Directorate of Operations, expressed concern that people might get killed; it appears he thought the operation had at least a slight flavor of a plan for an assassination. Moreover, he calculated that it would cost several million dollars. He was not prepared to take that money "out of hide," and he did not want to go to all the necessary congressional committees to get special money. Despite Pavitt's misgivings, the CIA leadership cleared the draft memorandum and sent it on to the National Security Council.25
Counterterrorist Center officers briefed Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh, telling them that the operation had about a 30 percent chance of success. The Center's chief, "Jeff," joined John O'Neill, the head of the FBI's New York Field Office, in briefing Mary Jo White, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and her staff. Though "Jeff" also used the 30 percent success figure, he warned that someone would surely be killed in the operation. White's impression from the New York briefing was that the chances of capturing Bin Ladin alive were nil.26
From May 20 to 24, the CIA ran a final, graded rehearsal of the operation, spread over three time zones, even bringing in personnel from the region. The FBI also participated. The rehearsal went well. The Counterterrorist Center planned to brief cabinet-level principals and their deputies the following week, giving June 23 as the date for the raid, with Bin Ladin to be brought out of Afghanistan no later than July 23.27
On May 20, Director Tenet discussed the high risk of the operation with Berger and his deputies, warning that people might be killed, including Bin Ladin. Success was to be defined as the exfiltration of Bin Ladin out of Afghanistan.28 A meeting of principals was scheduled for May 29 to decide whether the operation should go ahead.
The principals did not meet. On May 29, "Jeff" informed "Mike" that he had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate's Near Eastern Division. The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation. "Mike" cabled the field that he had been directed to "stand down on the operation for the time being." He had been told, he wrote, that cabinet-level officials thought the risk of civilian casualties-"collateral damage"-was too high. They were concerned about the tribals' safety, and had worried that "the purpose and nature of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and misrepresentation-and probably recriminations-in the event that Bin Ladin, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive."29 |
9/11 Commission Report |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
source? |
First of all, we have Clinton's own words TURNING DOWN BIN LADEN !!
http://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/show...002/8/10/230919
Quote: At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have," Clinton explained. "But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." |
Or you can just read Dereliction of Duty by Col. Buzz Patterson.
http://www.hebookservice.com/produc...p?prod_cd=C6153
Quote: Just when you thought you'd heard it all about Clinton
Why the biggest security risk in the Clinton White House was the Slick One himself (plus details of the day he lost his copy of top-secret nuclear codes!)
How Slick Willie lost a crucial chance to strike strategic targets in Iraq because he wouldn't let his golf game be interrupted long enough to examine the situation and give the necessary orders
The day the President neglected to change the country's top secret nuclear codes: he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky story breaking in the Washington Post
Osama bin Laden: how he came close to being caught on Clinton's watch -- except that the President hesitated too long in deciding to give the order
Clinton's dishonesty: how it extended to everything from his golf game to his extramarital affairs and - most ominously of all - to his priorities as president and his concern for our national security
Military personnel: forbidden to wear their uniforms inside the White House - by order of Hillary Clinton!
What Clinton finally did to lose virtually all the faith and trust that military men had placed in him
Clinton's cynicism: how he was able to turn on grief when needed to gain political points - and turn it off just as quickly
The subtle and not-so-subtle racism on display regularly among Clinton staffers
Hillary: "Harsh, difficult, and unpredictable" - and more about why administration officials fled from their desks and scurried into hiding places to avoid having to deal with her
How the Clintons spent more than $15,000 of the taxpayers' money to airlift Chelsea's forgotten backpack of books to their vacation spot in the Virgin Islands
Slick Willie's mood swings: with Hillary around, it was fruit, veggie plates, and ever-so-correct behavior. When she was gone? Booze, babes and barbecue
A Whitewater smoking gun? The mysterious file box that was Hillary's most important - and most closely watched - piece of luggage
How Clinton revealed his ignorance of and contempt for the military in ways that any military officer would notice
The direct correlation between Clinton's political trouble at home and his trips abroad - which cost American taxpayers half a billion dollars
Air Force One: how Slick Willie tried to turn it into a sexual playground (behaving in a manner that would have landed him in the brig if he had been a military man)
How the Clinton White House neglected basic understandings of military and defense policy - and compounded this ignorance with arrogance toward the men in uniform
Why Clinton policy in Somalia was a clear recipe for disaster
Clinton's response to terrorist attacks throughout his administration: lots of talk and little action
The appalling details of the day Slick Willie gave the Secret Service the slip and left the man holding the nuclear football to walk back to the White House alone
How Hillary revealed her basic ignorance of the nature and parameters of the United Nations mission in Bosnia that she was helping to oversee
When President Clinton met Lieutenant Colonel Patterson's wife - and eyed her as if he were in a singles bar
The shocking reason why Clinton had to discontinue his jogging regimen
Inside the Clinton White House: why it seemed disorganized and highly undisciplined to military men and career government service officers
The bold-faced and outrageous lie that Clinton repeated over 130 times during his 1996 campaign for reelection
How the Clinton administration time and time again attempted to cover up the shortcomings of its policies, rather than deal with them squarely and correct them
The high Clinton administration official who admitted, "It was very clear to me right away that we were making this up as we went along" |
|
|
|
| Oz |
you can't be seriously using newsmax or dereliction of duty as your sources |
|
|
| sternfan73 |
the right is pissed their savior is the village idiot.
its like were in a version of the godfather where
fredo took over the family business. |
|
|
| Kill Van Kull |
No surprise seeing who posted it here has no credibility whatsoever -- but the whole "so I pleaded with the Saudis to take him" is pure fantasy.
Poor gullable sheep. |
|
|
| incoherent |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
First of all, we have Clinton's own words TURNING DOWN BIN LADEN !! |
1) BZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong! Cut-and run NCMike has repeated another FALSE right-wing talking point.
2) I defy you to provide actual FACTS showing there was an offer from Sudan for Clinton to turn down.
3) If not, slink back to your spider hole where cut-and-run to all the other times I have challenged your LIES.
Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States, and Clinton did not admit to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else.
You can't even read your own quote! For Clinton to have "turned down" bin Laden, bin Laden would have to have been OFFERED. But your quotes do not support that overrreach, made by the far-right partisan Newsmax. The lie was then repeated by other partisan hacks pretending to be journalists, like Hannity.
Clinton never says there was an offer, and there are no facts to support such an offer. Find PROOF that their was an offer or cut and run in disgrace again.
4) Did you believe Newsmax's lie out of your ignorance, or are you deliberatly deceptive?
Or you can just read Dereliction of Duty by Col. Buzz Patterson.
http://www.hebookservice.com/produc...p?prod_cd=C6153 [/B][/QUOTE]
5) You can read? Startling. Because if you could read you would see that there are no actual facts in your barrage of Patterson allegations that actually support your false claim.
Now that you have been challenged on your LIES it is time for you to scurry back to your spider hold and not actually provide any real answer. |
|
|
| angrychink |
Quote: Originally posted by sternfan73
the right is pissed their savior is the village idiot.
its like were in a version of the godfather where
fredo took over the family business. |
nah
if this was the godfather
the others woulda off'd fredo way before he fucked up as much as bush has fucked up |
|
|
| incoherent |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Incoherent,
When the term "principles" is used, that means Administration officials. National Security Advisor, etc.. |
1) What's your point? Have you read your own quote?
Tenet said he remembered doubts about the reliability of the source and concern about hitting the nearby mosque. "Mike" remembered Tenet telling him that the military was concerned that a few hours had passed since the last sighting of Bin Ladin and that this persuaded everyone that the chance of failure was too great.118
2) Do you see? So TENENT said not to go ahead. Tenent turned down the attack. The MILITARY said not to go ahead. The Military turned down the attack.
Based on the CIA/Tenent and the Military in agreement to turn down the attack, the principals did not recommend that the President not order a strike.
3) So Stonewall was WRONG when he said "The Clinton Administration did turn down attacks on bin Laden." Do you admit your LIE?
4) In fact, Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism is RIGHT when he said "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda." Do you finally acknowledge that?
Stonewall also LIED when he said the Clinton administration "had him in their sites and called off the strike."
In fact, bin Laden was NOT in their "sights."
From STONEWALL'S OWN QUOTE:
The Joint Staff's deputy director for operations agreed, even though he told us that later intelligence appeared to show that Bin Ladin had left his quarters before the strike would have occurred.
Bin Laden WAS NOT IN THEIR SIGHTS THAT DAY! They hoped they had him in their sights, but it turned out he was not in their sights and a missile strike would have failed to kill him.
5) If bin Laden was "had left" before the strike could have occurred, how was he "in their sights"? |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
 |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
|
that doesn't even make sense |
|
|
| angrychink |
all they've got is ridiculous crap only they think 'understand'
but doesn't make sense
to justify the incompetence of that total buffoon bush
sad, isn't it?
then, they call you unamerican |
|
|
| Ronaldus Magnus |
I don't know about anybody else but I will be watching it!
The only thing that would make it better is if I could watch the movie on the Fox News Channel while getting a play-by-play from Rush Limbaugh |
|
|
| angrychink |
funny thing about the stupid picture that represents nothing that ironpirate posted
if you were to try to use your civil rights and use free speech by carrying a sign like that at an "open town hall" meeting at a bush function
you'd be arrested
they don't believe in signs or t-shirts, or any kind of dissention, whatsoever
totalitarianism |
|
|
| Monster_Zero |
Quote: Originally posted by Ronaldus Magnus
I don't know about anybody else but I will be watching it!
The only thing that would make it better is if I could watch the movie on the Fox News Channel while getting a play-by-play from Rush Limbaugh |
Then you'd know just what to think... :hw: |
|
|
| Ronaldus Magnus |
Quote: Originally posted by Monster_Zero
Then you'd know just what to think... :hw: |
Don't worry you will still be able to cut-and-paste the Daily Kos headlines at me. |
|
|
| Monster_Zero |
Quote: Originally posted by Ronaldus Magnus
Don't worry you will still be able to cut-and-paste the Daily Kos headlines at me. |
Thanks again for having no clue what you're talking about... it seems to be a tradition with you people... :rolleyes:
You don't know me dickhead... but please keep up the stupidity... (as if you could do otherwise) :hw: |
|
|
| clonetrooper |
Did you read that memo. First it comes out Sept 13, 2001. Then in the text underneath it states the FBI was pulled off the trail of ABL on Sept 11, 1996. In your hatred of GWB you seem to overlook these important dates. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by incoherent
1) What's your point? Have you read your own quote?
Tenet said he remembered doubts about the reliability of the source and concern about hitting the nearby mosque. "Mike" remembered Tenet telling him that the military was concerned that a few hours had passed since the last sighting of Bin Ladin and that this persuaded everyone that the chance of failure was too great.118
2) Do you see? So TENENT said not to go ahead. Tenent turned down the attack. The MILITARY said not to go ahead. The Military turned down the attack.
Based on the CIA/Tenent and the Military in agreement to turn down the attack, the principals did not recommend that the President not order a strike.
3) So Stonewall was WRONG when he said "The Clinton Administration did turn down attacks on bin Laden." Do you admit your LIE?
4) In fact, Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism is RIGHT when he said "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda." Do you finally acknowledge that?
Stonewall also LIED when he said the Clinton administration "had him in their sites and called off the strike."
In fact, bin Laden was NOT in their "sights."
From STONEWALL'S OWN QUOTE:
The Joint Staff's deputy director for operations agreed, even though he told us that later intelligence appeared to show that Bin Ladin had left his quarters before the strike would have occurred.
Bin Laden WAS NOT IN THEIR SIGHTS THAT DAY! They hoped they had him in their sights, but it turned out he was not in their sights and a missile strike would have failed to kill him.
5) If bin Laden was "had left" before the strike could have occurred, how was he "in their sights"? |
Here is what you ignore:
"The principals considered a cruise missile strike to try to kill Bin Ladin. One issue they discussed was the potential collateral damage-the number of innocent bystanders who would be killed or wounded. General Zinni predicted a number well over 200 and was concerned about damage to a nearby mosque. The senior intelligence officer on the Joint Staff apparently made a different calculation, estimating half as much collateral damage and not predicting damage to the mosque. By the end of the meeting, the principals decided against recommending to the President that he order a strike. A few weeks later, in January 1999, Clarke wrote that the principals had thought the intelligence only half reliable and had worried about killing or injuring perhaps 300 people. Tenet said he remembered doubts about the reliability of the source and concern about hitting the nearby mosque. "Mike" remembered Tenet telling him that the military was concerned that a few hours had passed since the last sighting of Bin Ladin and that this persuaded everyone that the chance of failure was too great."
Have you figured out who are the "principles" yet?
The Tarnak Farms incident, they had bin Laden, they decided not to do it because bin Laden may be killed. Did you read that?
"He had been told, he wrote, that cabinet-level officials thought the risk of civilian casualties-"collateral damage"-was too high. They were concerned about the tribals' safety, and had worried that "the purpose and nature of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and misrepresentation-and probably recriminations-in the event that Bin Ladin, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive."
Nice.
How about the strike called off because of the princes from the UAE? UAE royals, bin Laden's saviours
Nice.
When your ready you can admit you lied with this statement: "Based on the CIA/Tenent and the Military in agreement to turn down the attack, the principals did not recommend that the President not order a strike."
It clearly says the "principles" turned down the attack.
By the end of the meeting, the principals decided against recommending to the President that he order a strike.
The "principles" decided. For a variety of reasons. Collateral damage, a mosque may suffer some damage. A "few weeks later" Clarke wrote down these other things..."half reliable intelligence"..."A few hours since bin Laden had been seen"...
Perhaps it was those "few hours" that the "principles" where trying to figure a way not to act. Maybe they thought if we fiddle we need not do anything. It kind of worked out that way, planned or not. |
|
|
| WillowGlen |
Quote: Originally posted by angrychink
nah
if this was the godfather
the others woulda off'd fredo way before he fucked up as much as bush has fucked up |
Correct genre wrong material. The Bush admin is more like the Sopranos when Tony (Cheney) put Uncle JR (GWB) out front to take the lightning strikes thinking he was in charge while Tony actually ran everything behind JRs (and everyone elses) back.
I cant believe anyone would be surprised that one of the biggest Rep party donors on the planet, ABC who has propped up rubber stamping hack congressman like Dana Roherbacher and Darrell Issa for years, would release a movie shortly before the election trying to take the heat off the Bush admin. Especially considering Disney is still in negotiations with the State of Florida (Jeb Bush) and the Federal Governemt (GWB) to avoid paying back the 10s of millions in advanced tax breaks they got for things they ended up not building in Florida that are legally supposed to be payed back.
Harvey Keitel should be fucking ashamed. |
|
|
| incoherent |
1) Would anyone like to know the full extent of Stonewall's dishonesty?
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
There was a major mistake made by the Clinton Administration in regard to Tarnak Farms: |
2) Stonewall quotes the 911 report all the way up to the part that PROVES STONEWALL IS WRONG! Stonewall, how can you possibly rationalize your dishonesty?
Stonewall actually stops quoting the report on Tarnak Farms RIGHT BEFORE THIS:
"Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation.
Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have
described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted that
the principals would not approve it. “Jeff ” thought the decision had been
made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though
perhaps on Tenet’s advice.
Tenet told us that given the recommendation of
his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off ” the operation."
3) Can you read Stonewall? Tenant "alone" decided to "turn off" the Tarnak Farms operation.
Continuing:
"He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection
was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White
House for a decision.30
The CIA’s senior management clearly did not think the plan would work.
Tenet’s deputy director of operations wrote to Berger a few weeks later that the
CIA assessed the tribals’ ability to capture Bin Ladin and deliver him to U.S.
officials as low. But working-level CIA officers were disappointed. Before it was
canceled, Schroen described it as the “best plan we are going to come up with
to capture [Bin Ladin] while he is in Afghanistan and bring him to justice.”31
No capture plan before 9/11 ever again attained the same level of detail and
preparation.The tribals’ reported readiness to act diminished. And Bin Ladin’s
security precautions and defenses became more elaborate and formidable.
At this time, 9/11 was more than three years away. It was the duty of Tenet
and the CIA leadership to balance the risks of inaction against jeopardizing the
lives of their operatives and agents. And they had reason to worry about failure:
millions of dollars down the drain; a shoot-out that could be seen as an
assassination; and, if there were repercussions in Pakistan, perhaps a coup.The
decisions of the U.S. government in May 1998 were made, as Berger has put it,
from the vantage point of the driver looking through a muddy windshield
moving forward, not through a clean rearview mirror.32
4) Once again, it was Tenent and the CIA who cancelled Tarnak Farms. If you consider that a "major mistake," it was the CIA and not the Clinton Administration who made it.
5) Stonewall, are you going to actually answer these questions or cut-and-run again?
9/11 Commission Report |
|
|
| Kill Van Kull |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
...Perhaps it was those "few hours" that the "principles" where trying to figure a way not to act. Maybe they thought if we fiddle we need not do anything. It kind of worked out that way, planned or not. |
Even if that were true it is such a far cry from what the retarded kool-aid drinkers were told to believe.
It's funny how the big the words were at their inception and what they actually wittle down to...
The stupid half of America doesn't do the wittling and in their intellectual laziness (or inability) still believe the initial LIE.
If you don't believe me, just ask Ironpirate what she "knows" about the subject. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by incoherent
1) Would anyone like to know the full extent of Stonewall's dishonesty?
2) Stonewall quotes the 911 report all the way up to the part that PROVES STONEWALL IS WRONG! Stonewall, how can you possibly rationalize your dishonesty?
Stonewall actually stops quoting the report on Tarnak Farms RIGHT BEFORE THIS:
"Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation.
Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have
described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted that
the principals would not approve it. “Jeff ” thought the decision had been
made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though
perhaps on Tenet’s advice.
Tenet told us that given the recommendation of
his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off ” the operation."
3) Can you read Stonewall? Tenant "alone" decided to "turn off" the Tarnak Farms operation.
Continuing:
"He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection
was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White
House for a decision.30
The CIA’s senior management clearly did not think the plan would work.
Tenet’s deputy director of operations wrote to Berger a few weeks later that the
CIA assessed the tribals’ ability to capture Bin Ladin and deliver him to U.S.
officials as low. But working-level CIA officers were disappointed. Before it was
canceled, Schroen described it as the “best plan we are going to come up with
to capture [Bin Ladin] while he is in Afghanistan and bring him to justice.”31
No capture plan before 9/11 ever again attained the same level of detail and
preparation.The tribals’ reported readiness to act diminished. And Bin Ladin’s
security precautions and defenses became more elaborate and formidable.
At this time, 9/11 was more than three years away. It was the duty of Tenet
and the CIA leadership to balance the risks of inaction against jeopardizing the
lives of their operatives and agents. And they had reason to worry about failure:
millions of dollars down the drain; a shoot-out that could be seen as an
assassination; and, if there were repercussions in Pakistan, perhaps a coup.The
decisions of the U.S. government in May 1998 were made, as Berger has put it,
from the vantage point of the driver looking through a muddy windshield
moving forward, not through a clean rearview mirror.32
4) Once again, it was Tenent and the CIA who cancelled Tarnak Farms. If you consider that a "major mistake," it was the CIA and not the Clinton Administration who made it.
5) Stonewall, are you going to actually answer these questions or cut-and-run again?
9/11 Commission Report |
Once again you read what you wish to see. The reason I left it out because it is where it began with these words..."Impressions vary", thats when we get into excuses and blame. Well he did it, no this guy over here, no the one behind him, etc..Covering your ass is where "Impressions vary".
Here is what happened:
The CIA planners conducted their third complete rehearsal in March, and they again briefed the CSG. Clarke wrote Berger on March 7 that he saw the operation as "somewhat embryonic" and the CIA as "months away from doing anything."21
"Mike" thought the capture plan was "the perfect operation." It required minimum infrastructure. The plan had now been modified so that the tribals would keep Bin Ladin in a hiding place for up to a month before turning him over to the United States-thereby increasing the chances of keeping the U.S. hand out of sight. "Mike" trusted the information from the Afghan network; it had been corroborated by other means, he told us. The lead CIA officer in the field, Gary Schroen, also had confidence in the tribals. In a May 6 cable to CIA headquarters, he pronounced their planning "almost as professional and detailed . . . as would be done by any U.S. military special operations element." He and the other officers who had worked through the plan with the tribals judged it "about as good as it can be." (By that, Schroen explained, he meant that the chance of capturing or killing Bin Ladin was about 40 percent.) Although the tribals thought they could pull off the raid, if the operation were approved by headquarters and the policymakers, Schroen wrote there was going to be a point when "we step back and keep our fingers crossed that the [tribals] prove as good (and as lucky) as they think they will be."22
Military officers reviewed the capture plan and, according to "Mike," "found no showstoppers." The commander of Delta Force felt "uncomfortable" with having the tribals hold Bin Ladin captive for so long, and the commander of Joint Special Operations Forces, Lieutenant General Michael Canavan, was worried about the safety of the tribals inside Tarnak Farms. General Canavan said he had actually thought the operation too complicated for the CIA-"out of their league"-and an effort to get results "on the cheap." But a senior Joint Staff officer described the plan as "generally, not too much different than we might have come up with ourselves." No one in the Pentagon, so far as we know, advised the CIA or the White House not to proceed.
Then Berger steps in:
In Washington, Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals. In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted.
Then of course:
From May 20 to 24, the CIA ran a final, graded rehearsal of the operation, spread over three time zones, even bringing in personnel from the region. The FBI also participated. The rehearsal went well. The Counterterrorist Center planned to brief cabinet-level principals and their deputies the following week, giving June 23 as the date for the raid, with Bin Ladin to be brought out of Afghanistan no later than July 23.27
On May 20, Director Tenet discussed the high risk of the operation with Berger and his deputies, warning that people might be killed, including Bin Ladin. Success was to be defined as the exfiltration of Bin Ladin out of Afghanistan.28 A meeting of principals was scheduled for May 29 to decide whether the operation should go ahead.
The principals did not meet. On May 29, "Jeff" informed "Mike" that he had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate's Near Eastern Division. The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation. "Mike" cabled the field that he had been directed to "stand down on the operation for the time being." He had been told, he wrote, that cabinet-level officials thought the risk of civilian casualties-"collateral damage"-was too high. They were concerned about the tribals' safety, and had worried that "the purpose and nature of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and misrepresentation-and probably recriminations-in the event that Bin Ladin, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive."
Nice... |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
| just stfu and watch it, its a MOVIE |
|
|
| incoherent |
It is rare when all I have to do to contradict someone's post is to merely repost. But with Stonewall, that happens more and more. No wonder Stonewall fails to answer point by point. He would have no place to hide if he actually did.
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Here is what you ignore:
"The principals considered a cruise missile strike to try to kill Bin Ladin. One issue they discussed was the potential collateral damage-the number of innocent bystanders who would be killed or wounded. General Zinni predicted a number well over 200 and was concerned about damage to a nearby mosque. The senior intelligence officer on the Joint Staff apparently made a different calculation, estimating half as much collateral damage and not predicting damage to the mosque. By the end of the meeting, the principals decided against recommending to the President that he order a strike. A few weeks later, in January 1999, Clarke wrote that the principals had thought the intelligence only half reliable and had worried about killing or injuring perhaps 300 people. Tenet said he remembered doubts about the reliability of the source and concern about hitting the nearby mosque. "Mike" remembered Tenet telling him that the military was concerned that a few hours had passed since the last sighting of Bin Ladin and that this persuaded everyone that the chance of failure was too great." |
1) Prove I ignored any of that.
2) Read the last line. It was still the Military who said that the sighting was too old and "the chance of failure was too great." You are seriously blaming the Clinton administration for not bombing another country when the military says "the chance of failure was too great"?
In fact, the military was right, as the 911 Report goes on to say:
"The Joint Staff ’s deputy director for operations agreed, even though he told us that later intelligence appeared to show that Bin Ladin had left his quarters before the strike would have occurred."
3) So the military was right that the strike would not have worked. The military was right to tell the principals that "the chance of failure was too great" because the 911 report shows the strike would not have worked. So Stonewall is wrong when he said "The Clinton Administration did turn down attacks on bin Laden." NOT ONE ATTACK THAT THE CIA AND MILITARY RECOMMENDED WAS TURNED DOWN BY THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.
4) Do you finally admit that Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism is RIGHT when he said "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda"?
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Have you figured out who are the "principles" yet? |
5) You might ask yourself that question about the Principals Commitee, since it is "principals" as in "principal advisors to the President" and not "principles" as in "Stonewall lacks principles like the ability to admit when he has been proven wrong."
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The Tarnak Farms incident, they had bin Laden, they decided not to do it because bin Laden may be killed. Did you read that? |
6) I already dealt with that on this topic. You negelected to post the full information on Tarnak Farms, which included this: "Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off ” the operation."
7) Again, the Clinton adminstration made no mistake. They followed the recomendations of the CIA and military, and "approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda"? They struck when the CIA and military recommended it, and did not strike when the CIA and military did NOT recommend it. Do you dispute the NSC director for counterterrorism on that?
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
"He had been told, he wrote, that cabinet-level officials thought the risk of civilian casualties-"collateral damage"-was too high. They were concerned about the tribals' safety, and had worried that "the purpose and nature of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and misrepresentation-and probably recriminations-in the event that Bin Ladin, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive."Nice. |
8) So what? It's their job to consider all relevant material. Are you saying they should not have thought about casualties? Thinking about casualties does NOT change the fact that it was the CIA and the military who recommended against the strike, and the principals agreed (just as the principals agreed to attack when the CIA and the military recommended attacks.)
9) How about it? Tenent does NOT say he recommended a strike and the Clinton administration turned it down. So Stonewall is still a liar.
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
When your ready you can admit you lied with this statement: "Based on the CIA/Tenent and the Military in agreement to turn down the attack, the principals did not recommend that the President not order a strike."
It clearly says the "principles" turned down the attack. By the end of the meeting, the principals decided against recommending to the President that he order a strike. |
10) Wrong again. There is a HUGE difference between "turning down an attack" and deciding against recommending a strike that the military recommends against.
The principals did NOT "turn down a strike." They "decided against recommending" a strike because the military said "the chance of failure was too great." Do you see that there was no recommended attack from the CIA and military to turn down?
11) And in fact the chance of failure was actually 100%, since "later intelligence appeared to show that Bin Ladin had left his quarters before the strike would have occurred."
12) So the military did not recommend a strike that was doomed to fail because "the chance of failure was too great" so the principals ALSO decided not recommend a strike to the President. So you are wrong when you say "the Clinton Administration did turn down attacks on bin Laden." There was no recommneded attack to turn down.
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The "principles" decided. For a variety of reasons. Collateral damage, a mosque may suffer some damage. A "few weeks later" Clarke wrote down these other things..."half reliable intelligence"..."A few hours since bin Laden had been seen"... |
13) So what? They should not be concerned about "half reliable intelligence?" None of that changes the fact that "the military was concerned that a few hours had passed since the last sighting of Bin Ladin and that this persuaded everyone that the chance of failure was too great." The military did not recommend the attack. The CIA did not recommend the attack. So the principals did not recommend the attack. So the principals did NOT "turn down" any attack.
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Perhaps it was those "few hours" that the "principles" where trying to figure a way not to act. Maybe they thought if we fiddle we need not do anything. It kind of worked out that way, planned or not. |
14) Pure speculation on your part!
15) Your speculation is further undermined by this "later intelligence appeared to show that Bin Ladin had left his quarters before the strike would have occurred."
Stonewall also LIED when he said the Clinton administration "had him in their sites and called off the strike." In fact, bin Laden was NOT in their "sights."
"The Joint Staff's deputy director for operations agreed, even though he told us that later intelligence appeared to show that Bin Ladin had left his quarters before the strike would have occurred."
Bin Laden WAS NOT IN THEIR SIGHTS THAT DAY! They hoped they had him in their sights, but it turned out he was not in their sights and a missile strike would have failed to kill him.
17) If bin Laden "had left" before the strike could have occurred, how was he "in their sights"? |
|
|
| incoherent |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Once again you read what you wish to see. |
1) Prove it!
In fact, this looks like psychological projection on your part! I proved that Stonewall only sees what he wants to see, because I PROVED you OMITTED the exculpatory evidence immediately after the material you quoted. Let's see if you can cook up a limp excuse.
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The reason I left it out because it is where it began with these words..."Impressions vary" |
2) Bwa-hah-hah! More butt-covering after getting caught! Hmmm- what if it had more than "impressions." What if it had a primary source taking responsibility for turning off the operation? Would that mean that you were really wrong to omit it, regardless of a mention of "impressions."?
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
, thats when we get into excuses and blame. Well he did it, no this guy over here, no the one behind him, etc..Covering your ass is where "Impressions vary". |
3) LAIR! In additon to "impressions" is A VITAL PRIMARY SOURCE NON-IMPRESSION CONFESSION:
"Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off ” the operation."
4) Is that an "impression"?
5) Did Stonewall again only read that part that agreed with his prejudices and fail to read the rest?
6) If Tenent ADMITS he ALONG decided to "turn off" the operation, how is you blame the Clinton Administration when you say "The Clinton Administration did turn down attacks on bin Laden."
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Here is what happened:
The CIA planners conducted their third complete rehearsal in March, and they again briefed the CSG. Clarke wrote Berger on March 7 that he saw the operation as "somewhat embryonic" and the CIA as "months away from doing anything."21
"Mike" thought the capture plan was "the perfect operation." It required minimum infrastructure. The plan had now been modified so that the tribals would keep Bin Ladin in a hiding place for up to a month before turning him over to the United States-thereby increasing the chances of keeping the U.S. hand out of sight. "Mike" trusted the information from the Afghan network; it had been corroborated by other means, he told us. The lead CIA officer in the field, Gary Schroen, also had confidence in the tribals. In a May 6 cable to CIA headquarters, he pronounced their planning "almost as professional and detailed . . . as would be done by any U.S. military special operations element." He and the other officers who had worked through the plan with the tribals judged it "about as good as it can be." (By that, Schroen explained, he meant that the chance of capturing or killing Bin Ladin was about 40 percent.) Although the tribals thought they could pull off the raid, if the operation were approved by headquarters and the policymakers, Schroen wrote there was going to be a point when "we step back and keep our fingers crossed that the [tribals] prove as good (and as lucky) as they think they will be."22
Military officers reviewed the capture plan and, according to "Mike," "found no showstoppers." The commander of Delta Force felt "uncomfortable" with having the tribals hold Bin Ladin captive for so long, and the commander of Joint Special Operations Forces, Lieutenant General Michael Canavan, was worried about the safety of the tribals inside Tarnak Farms. General Canavan said he had actually thought the operation too complicated for the CIA-"out of their league"-and an effort to get results "on the cheap." But a senior Joint Staff officer described the plan as "generally, not too much different than we might have come up with ourselves." No one in the Pentagon, so far as we know, advised the CIA or the White House not to proceed.
Then Berger steps in:
In Washington, Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals. In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted.
Then of course:
From May 20 to 24, the CIA ran a final, graded rehearsal of the operation, spread over three time zones, even bringing in personnel from the region. The FBI also participated. The rehearsal went well. The Counterterrorist Center planned to brief cabinet-level principals and their deputies the following week, giving June 23 as the date for the raid, with Bin Ladin to be brought out of Afghanistan no later than July 23.27
On May 20, Director Tenet discussed the high risk of the operation with Berger and his deputies, warning that people might be killed, including Bin Ladin. Success was to be defined as the exfiltration of Bin Ladin out of Afghanistan.28 A meeting of principals was scheduled for May 29 to decide whether the operation should go ahead.
The principals did not meet. On May 29, "Jeff" informed "Mike" that he had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate's Near Eastern Division. The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation. "Mike" cabled the field that he had been directed to "stand down on the operation for the time being." He had been told, he wrote, that cabinet-level officials thought the risk of civilian casualties-"collateral damage"-was too high. They were concerned about the tribals' safety, and had worried that "the purpose and nature of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and misrepresentation-and probably recriminations-in the event that Bin Ladin, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive."Nice... |
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.
7) Stonewall AGAIN left out the most important part in determining who "turned off/turned down" the strike. Why would you omit exculpatory evidence immediatly after getting caught for omitting exculpatory evidence?
"Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off ” the operation."
9) So Stonewall LIED when he said "The Clinton Administration did turn down attacks on bin Laden." Tenent turned off/turned down the operation. NOT the administration.
10) In fact, the Clinton administration NEVER turned down an attack that was recommeded by the CIA/Military. Or do you dispute the word of Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism when he said "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda"? |
|
|
| incoherent |
REPOST OF WHAT STONEWALL IS CUTTING AND RUNNING FROM:
1) Would anyone like to know the full extent of Stonewall's dishonesty?
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
There was a major mistake made by the Clinton Administration in regard to Tarnak Farms: |
2) Stonewall quotes the 911 report all the way up to the part that PROVES STONEWALL IS WRONG! Stonewall, how can you possibly rationalize your dishonesty?
Stonewall actually stops quoting the report on Tarnak Farms RIGHT BEFORE THIS:
"Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation.
Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have
described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted that
the principals would not approve it. “Jeff ” thought the decision had been
made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though
perhaps on Tenet’s advice.
Tenet told us that given the recommendation of
his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off ” the operation."
3) Can you read Stonewall? Tenant "alone" decided to "turn off" the Tarnak Farms operation.
Continuing:
"He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection
was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White
House for a decision.30
The CIA’s senior management clearly did not think the plan would work.
Tenet’s deputy director of operations wrote to Berger a few weeks later that the
CIA assessed the tribals’ ability to capture Bin Ladin and deliver him to U.S.
officials as low. But working-level CIA officers were disappointed. Before it was
canceled, Schroen described it as the “best plan we are going to come up with
to capture [Bin Ladin] while he is in Afghanistan and bring him to justice.”31
No capture plan before 9/11 ever again attained the same level of detail and
preparation.The tribals’ reported readiness to act diminished. And Bin Ladin’s
security precautions and defenses became more elaborate and formidable.
At this time, 9/11 was more than three years away. It was the duty of Tenet
and the CIA leadership to balance the risks of inaction against jeopardizing the
lives of their operatives and agents. And they had reason to worry about failure:
millions of dollars down the drain; a shoot-out that could be seen as an
assassination; and, if there were repercussions in Pakistan, perhaps a coup.The
decisions of the U.S. government in May 1998 were made, as Berger has put it,
from the vantage point of the driver looking through a muddy windshield
moving forward, not through a clean rearview mirror.32
4) Once again, it was Tenent and the CIA who cancelled Tarnak Farms. If you consider that a "major mistake," it was the CIA and not the Clinton Administration who made it.
5) Stonewall, are you going to actually answer these questions or cut-and-run again?
9/11 Commission Report |
|
|
| incoherent |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
just stfu and watch it, its a MOVIE |
You said that about Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, right? |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
| no, that was a liberal documentary |
|
|
| incoherent |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
no, that was a liberal documentary |
And therefore not a "MOVIE"? |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
| A documentary and a movie arnt not the same thing |
|
|
| Monster_Zero |
Quote: Originally posted by incoherent
You said that about Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, right? |
Oh, SNAP!! :funny:
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
A documentary and a movie arnt not the same thing |
So now it IS a documentary? :scratch: I thought you guys said it wasn't not...:dontknow:
EDIT: :funny: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Incoherent,
The report says this:
He had been told, he wrote, that cabinet-level officials thought the risk of civilian casualties-"collateral damage"-was too high. They were concerned about the tribals' safety, and had worried that "the purpose and nature of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and misrepresentation-and probably recriminations-in the event that Bin Ladin, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive.
"Cabinet-Level Officials"
Why would it say that?
You believe what you wish, I don't dispute what is clearly written in the report concerning Tenet, but clearly something else was going on also at the Cabinet Level of the Administration.
I am not a fan of Tenet. Many things he failed in..."Slam-Dunk", does that ring a bell?
And, Clarke he did warn. He is to be credited with being one of the ones who knew the enemy. But, he informed the U.A.E. of a camp that was under the watchful eye of the U.S. and right after that the camp was shut-down and bin Laden never used it again. That is also in the 9/11 Report.
You act as if I blame Clinton for 9/11 and I do not. Nor do I blame Bush...I blame Islam and al Qaeda. The 9/11 Report should have had a Koran and Muhammad section. That is where the blame resides, with Muslims. They did it. The full blame rests with Islam and Muslims and several in their ranks. To win this war we need to outlaw Islam. We need to isolate the Islamic world, remove Muslims from our societies, and keep a boot on their neck through extreme sanctions until they give up their cult-religion. It is an offense to mankind. Unless we do these things we will be destroyed. But, we will not...not yet bring these measures in to play. Someday it will be impossible not to do so. This is nothing more than a "Hitler" moment in the modern age. It will suffer the same fate. |
|
|
| incoherent |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
A documentary and a movie arnt not the same thing |
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Can we quote you on that? |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
You guys are sad, omg a movie, of nooooooooo
Documentary film is a broad category of cinematic expression united by the intent to remain factual or non-fictional.
film is considered by many to be an important art form; films entertain, educate, enlighten and inspire audiences. The visual elements of cinema need no translation, giving the motion picture a universal power of communication. Any film can become a worldwide attraction, especially with the addition of dubbing or subtitles that translate the dialogue. Films are also artifacts created by specific cultures, which reflect those cultures, and, in turn, affect them. |
|
|
| incoherent |
Before he cut-and-ran from answering the dozens of questions above, Stonewall said:
"The Clinton Administration did turn down attacks on bin Laden. It had him in their sites and called off the strike." Stonewall is wrong on both points. I showed Stonewall how:
a) the CIA and the military are responsible for recommending against the strikes that the administration decided to not carry out, and that
b) The Clinton administration NEVER called off an attack when bin Laden was "in their sights." (In Stonewall's example, bin Laden turns out to have been gone before the strike would have hit. Hardly in anyone's sights.) and that
c) "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda." (By Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism!)
This is conclusion supported by | | | | | |
