Bush Adm. was discussing bombing Iraq for 9/11 despite knowing Al Qaeda wa

[kskiska]

Drudge:

Bush Adm. was discussing bombing Iraq for 9/11 despite knowing Al Qaeda was to blame

Former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke tells Lesley Stahl that on September 11, 2001 and the day after - when it was clear Al Qaeda had carried out the terrorist attacks - the Bush administration was considering bombing Iraq in retaliation. Clarke's exclusive interview will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday March 21 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

Clarke was surprised that the attention of administration officials was turning toward Iraq when he expected the focus to be on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. "They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," says Clarke.

The top counter-terrorism advisor, Clarke was briefing the highest government officials, including President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the aftermath of 9/11. "Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq....We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with ,'" he tells Stahl.

more…
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash60.htm

[Renew Deal]

1. If Drudge has this

He is trying to take steam off. This also fits in with Wes Clarks story. He was told to say that Iraq was responsible. Clarke was probably Clark's source in the Pentagon. They worked together under Clinton.

[Elidor]

2. George Bush, Soft on Terrorism

And that Rumsfeld quote sounds like something right out of Dr. Strangelove. My god, what a fucking idiot.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheBlob]

39. You face it RainBoy

"All this shit didn't start because Bush got in office" is absolutely true.

Terrorism didn't start on 9/11, it's just that Republicans think it did.

While Clinton was trying to tell the GOP to focus on terrorism, they were trying to take him down. Those "few missiles at empty tents" was met with staunch resistence from Republicans. Cries of Wag the Dog were endless. They fought his anti-terrorism provisions tooth and nail, calling them "controversial" and "Phony" (all of which were passed immediately following 9/11). Nothing was more important than getting Clinton at all cost. When Bush got into office terrorism was put on a back burner. Who knows how much more could have been done if Clinton had the support of Republicans in combating terrorism.

"If Bush is soft on terrorism then what does that make Clinton"?

Could Clinton have done more in a pre-9/11 world to fight terrorism while being hamstrung by the GOP? That is debatable. But one thing is true: Compared to Bush, Clinton was like Wyatt Earp on terrorism.

Go ahead, name one thing Bush did to fight terrorism before 9/11.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[catzies]

58. Plotting the Iraq war pre-9/11 is not the same as fighting terrorism

I alerted on you; now go back to your own party.

[pinniped]

59. I already called rainman on it. He is from a gunnut site and they...

love that POS AWOL AHOLE over there. Truly sickening.

Those nuts have called for widespread nuclear destruction in the region.

What are we going to do with all this glass in the desert?

I'm sure even rainboy/man has posted crap like that.

Do tell us rainboy/man...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

40. There have been just as many attacks on US interests with Bush

ANd I for one get really sick of people making this statement.
Could you IMAGINE the press if CLINTON HID FACTS SURROUNDING 9/11 from the public for THREE years?

Could you IMAGINE of Clinton sat reading to schoolkids and DID NOTHING while our planes were turned into bombs and used against our citizens?

Could you IMAGINE if ANYONE in Clinton's family were on the board of the Carlyle group along with the Bin Laden family, there by allowing the FAMILY of the person who did this to us to PROFIT via defense spending after 9/11? Isn't it a cover-up that they then SOLD their interest in the company?

Could you IMAGINE if Clinton had not notified the PORT AUTHORITY on that day that this was a terrorist attack thereby ALLOWING them to set up a staging area in a building that was also targetted...what about all those people that returned to the second tower BECAUSE the Port Authority told them it was safe?

Could you IMAGINE if CLINTON LIED about every major fact surrounding a war and bankrupted America while making his campaign donors rich?

No...Clinton gets his dick sucked by ONE person and it's a fucking federal case....Bush gets his DICK SUCKED by people running around message boards whining CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON!!!!


Oh and BTW....it under CLINTON'S leadership that the Millenium Bomber was caught...why??? because Clinton was more interested in terrorism than in making his fucking corporater cronies rich...


Yeah go ahead I DARE YOU TO RESPOND TO ALL OF THIS!!!!

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catherine Vincent]

70. If DU had a recommendation column, I would recommend your post!

Left on!!!!!!!!!!!!

[chelaque liberal]

44. "I just wished Clinton did more to stop saddam's methodical tyranny...

of murderous torture and osama's ambitions of terrorism abroad"

You make it sound so simple, like there would be no terrorism without Saddam or Osama.

[RainBoy]

57. But they are terrorists...

and the fewer there are of them the better off we all are. Why should we stop at those two.

I weep when I read about what saddam and al qaeda have done to their own people.

[yardwork]

65. I weep when I read what Bush is doing to his own country.

[bushisanidiot]

45. Clinton Was Quietly Working On The War On Terror, but Captain

AWOL fucked it up with his childish cowboy rhetoric. AWOL has to grandstand and announce to the world that "we're gonna smoke 'em out!". Great, just fucking ANNOUNCE just what we're going to do.. give them lots of advanced warning, president shithead.

President Clinton was MUCH smarter than that. Sadaam was no threat to america while Clinton was in office. He was contained. Clinton was covertly going after Bin Laden. AWOL is LOUDLY threatening anyone and everyone who DARES disagree with the U.S.

AWOL will drive us into WWIII if he gets another 4 years.. if it hasn't started already.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NickB79]

51. Clinton tried

But Republicans had three words to say whenever he wanted to step up military action against terrorists: wag the dog. Even the small steps he took, like the missile strikes and bombing raids, were widely railed against by Republicans who accused him of trying to take attention of the Lewinski affair. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

"I just wished Clinton did more to stop saddam's methodical tyranny of murderous torture"

Saddam's vast bulk of murder and torture took place before Clinton even served his first term. The majority of the mass graves were filled up in the 1980's during the Iran-Iraq war (when we were allied with Saddam), and when he used chemical weapons on his people with the US barely objecting. Immediately after the first Gulf War, Bush Sr. left the Iraqi rebels who wanted to rise up and fight against Saddam dangling in the breeze by withholding promised air support, ala Bay of Pigs, Cuba. They were slaughtered, and more mass graves filled up. Comparatively, under Clinton's terms there were very few events to rival these.

[pinniped]

55. Hey rainman from ARF they are awaiting your response on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=423791

[Dudley_DUright]

3. Richard Clarke's book will be coming out on Monday

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2UB5DI3E29&isbn=0743260244&itm=1

[bain_sidhe]

5. For the book, try Powells

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-0743260244-0 They're progressive, and support liberal causes.

OTOH, DU has a "affiliate" link to Amazon, doesn't it? Is it only for books they "select" or for any book you buy there?

[seabeyond]

4. i remember them immediately coming out on iraq

and that was the first message and why so many still believe 9/11 was iraq. and it was dispelled immediately by press, but they really tried to go their just like spain did with eta

[Art_from_Ark]

13. Why wouldn't Spain blame ETA?

ETA has had a history of terrorist attacks in Spain dating back to 1968. "Al Qaeda" has been terrorizing Spain since, when?

[TacticalPeek]

15. Why not blame blindly, or on a hunch?

For the same reason ABC should not have run file footage of mosque meetings, WTC I Islamic radicals, etc. in the first hours after Timothy McVeigh blew up the Alfred P. Murrah building and its inhabitants in OKC:

It makes you look stupid and destroys your credibility, a coin of value to the press and governments.

[Art_from_Ark]

32. Of course, there is nothing that has *proved* "Al Qaeda" did it, either

Prepaid phone cards in backpacks, Koranic verses in a car, and some kook in England phoning to take responsibility for "Al Qaeda" do not equate to irrefutable proof.

"But the bombings have the signature of Al Qaeda," you may say. Yet, just what, exactly, distinguishes "Al Qaeda" attacks from attacks by other terrorist groups? Trains have been attacked before, but never, apparently, by "Al Qaeda". Coordinated attacks have been carried out by numerous other groups, including the IRA and the Aum Shinrikyo. And aren't all "Al Qaeda" attackers supposed to be suicide bombers who willingly give their lives so they can immediately go to heaven and be with their 72 virgins?

[Zhade]

50. "...it was dispelled immediately by press..."

It was?

Really?

That's not how I remember it. Not at all. I remember the corporate press here allowing that baldfaced lie to remain undebated for months and months - until it was too late to take back the invasion of Iraq.

[Old and In the Way]

6. I've heard that the Bush family and their minions have been enriched

to the tune of $1.5BB over the past 30 years from their relations with Saudi Arabia. Is it no surprise that they've done their damndest to deflect and distract attention away from their benefactors, where Islamic radical fundementalism was born and blossomed?

[RamboLiberal]

7. New Book "House of Bush, House of Saud"

Great read btw, puts it at $1,477,100,000

Carlyle Group - $1,268,600,000
Contracts between Carlyle-owned Corporations and Saudi Arabia - $1,188,600,000
Halliburton - $180 million
Harken Energy - $25 million
Charitable Donations - $3.5 million

Author says list is not complete.

[Eurobabe]

10. reading it now

enlightening.

[RamboLiberal]

8. Who has the stomach here to listen to Limbaugh and Hannity

and their ilk Monday and see how they try to paint Clarke as looney or a traitor like they did O' Neill?

I can't wait for this interview and book. I've had the book on order for months, but I may be so impatient I may go up to B&N Monday and buy an extra copy cause I have a feeling this one's going to sell out. (Otherwise I'd be sitting up B&N in the evening till closing but I'm afraid by then they'll be out of copies) O'Neill's book sold out in my area the day after the 60 Minutes interview. :evilgrin:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

9. And how do we really know that Al Qaeda was responsible for 911?...

Is it because the NeoCons told us that Al Qaeda was responsible?

Hmmmm.

[librechik]

16. yeah, and who is Al Q, started by a former C IA asset?

UBL...

[RamboLiberal]

11. 60 Minutes ought to get a good audience Sunday

It will be following NCAA basketball I believe. Be sure to set your VCR or other recording timers for more than an hour in case a game runs over.

But think, they'll be running commercials for 60 Minutes when all those white male * voters will be watching!

[RamboLiberal]

12. CBS now has story posted

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

They're also going to post an excerpt of the book left - look in left hand column - link to that isn't working or up yet.

[bucknaked]

14. Already, the spin is "Clinton holdover..." ah, advised FOUR Presidents?

That would include Bush 41 and Reagan!

[boobooday]

17. These disgusting, underhanded, slimy

The stole the election so they could invade Iraq. They've wanted to do it since 1998.

What does it take? Why won't the people wake up? AAAAARRRRGGGHHHH!

This story makes my blood boil!

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[leesa]

18. So we bomb another country who had nothing to do with 9-11!

We do not know Al Qaeda did 9-11. They may have, but there has never been any proof offered and there has never been an investigation into what happened on 9-11.
Of course bombing Afghanistan for the activities of 19 alleged criminals, none of whom were from Afghanistan, is beyond criminal. It was a sick, inappropriate response to a crime.

[ConcernedCanuk]

19. They were planning Iraq BEFORE 911, even created a special Group

.
.
.

just for that purpose - to "sell" the war to the American people, and their allies.

It's called the White House Iraq Group or WHIG, and was a pretty secret group inside the WHite House - I stumbled on this by accident awhile back.

Worth the read

Explains alot

[Just Me]

68. WHIG networked the Pentagon's OSP,...

,...I believe. The whole administration is set up like a military command. Heh, heh,...go figure,...after all, the whole administration consists of an energy/military industrial complex. If this isn't an evolved corporatism/fascism setup beyond Mussolini's wildest dreams,...I cannot imagine what would be.

[The Night Owl]

20. This is treason.

America gets attacked and instead of going after the perpetrators, Rumsfeld pushes his own agenda regarding Iraq... How is that not treason? At the very least, Rumsfeld should be forced to resign over this.

[sidwill]

21. Go to Yahoo and Rate this story!!!!!

Come on folks link up and rate this story, it looks like the freeps are trying to bury it.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20040320/wl_nm/iraq_retaliation_dc



Ex-Adviser: Iraq Considered After 9/11
15 minutes ago Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!


By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration considered bombing Iraq (news - web sites) in retaliation almost immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks against New York and Washington, according to a new first-person account by a former senior counterterrorism adviser inside the White House.


AP Photo


Reuters
Slideshow: September 11




Richard Clarke, the president's counterterrorism coordinator at the time of the attacks, said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld complained on Sept. 12 — after the administration was convinced with certainty that al-Qaida was to blame — that, "there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and there are lots of good targets in Iraq."


A spokesman for Rumsfeld said he couldn't comment immediately.

[varun]

22. The correct link is...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20040320/wl_nm/iraq_retaliation_dc

[sidwill]

23. Thanks fixed mine

did you vote?

[VolcanoJen]

24. Wes Clark can clearly corroborate this story

He was ridiculed, and called a bit of a nutcase, for having told his version of the exact same story.

Wes Clark, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill...

[Toucano]

47. Thank you.

Think the talking heads who marginalized Wes because of his honesty will apologize?

I'm not gonna hold my breath.

[scottxyz]

25. See the pattern here?

Aznar blames ETA.

Bush blames Iraq.

Those lucky duckies in al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia! The Bush coalition likes to blame everyone BUT them!

= = =

One big difference though. When Spain's leader lied to them, people went to the streets in the millions and threw the bum out on his ass.

In America, they rallied behind their incompetent lying AWOL cokehead cheerleader instead.

[VolcanoJen]

26. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo is carrying this as well

Looks like it came from a press release, originally, and isn't necessarily a Drudge-only report.

Press release excerpt:

People have been discussing for weeks what would be contained in the soon-to-be-released book by former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke (who served under Clinton and Bush).

CBS is rolling the book on 60 Minutes this Sunday night. And here's the press release they just put out ...

Former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke tells Lesley Stahl that on September 11, 2001 and the day after - when it was clear Al Qaeda had carried out the terrorist attacks - the Bush administration was considering bombing Iraq in retaliation. Clarke's exclusive interview will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday March 21 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

more... www.talkingpointsmemo.com

Expect this story to have some legs on Monday morning... Paul O'Neil's revelations also came via 60 Minutes, and the story roared on from the Saturday prior to at least a week after.

[RamboLiberal]

27. Clarke's book is already moving up Amazon charts

I've been checking on it every day, and it was virtually unknown, but already it has rocketed up to 46th on Amazon's charts. I'm expecting by Monday it will be top 10 if not #1 at both Amazon and B&N. And I bet it will be selling like hotcakes Monday at the stores.

[leetrisck]

60. Others will be saying similar things when

the 9/11 Commission finally starts taking testimony - Cohen, Albright, Berger, (don't know who else) along with Powell, Rumsfeld will be giving testimony shortly (hope it's public) but we have long known that Clarke and others were frantically trying to get the bush people to listen and they wouldn't. First big meeting the bush people had on Feb 1 included Iraq - first meeting about bin laden and Al Quaeda was Sept 6 - saw Condi Rice asked about it a few days ago and she said "it just wouldn't have made any differenc" - they were already here.

[Turbo]

28. Not to stand up for the Bushies, but....

I remember being so ticked off the night of 9/11 that I wanted to see us go and bomb any country who's leader was wearing a turbin on their head.

Just to let them know not to mess with us.

The scary thing is, though, that we didn't really figure out details about the 19 hijacker thing for nearly a week. It took nearly that long just to get the seat assignments and the photos of those psychos.

It was an emotional time.

[VolcanoJen]

30. It's ok for you and me to be emotional in crisis, Turbo.

It is not ok for the commander-in-chief, nor his cabinet, to be emotional. They need to be sober, reasoned, clear-headed, and calculated. They are the leaders of this nation, and they have every possible advantage and service at their disposal.

It appears they were anything but sober, and reasoned. This speaks directly to their ability to hold the highest and most sacred office in the land.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

34. We know that they lied to get us into the war with Iraq...

...how do we know they haven't been lying to us about the events of 911 and who was responsible for the attacks?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

33. And guess what? Even the FBI states that they can't prove...

...a connection between the alleged 19 hijackers and the 911 attacks.

FBI Admits: No Evidence Links 'Hijackers' to 9-11
The possibility that 19 Muslim men accused of being the Sept. 11 hijackers were not, in fact, the hijackers, is not so extraordinary an idea as it might seem.

<http://www.americanfreepress.net/051302/FBI_Admits__No_Evidence_/fbi_admits__no_evidence_.html>

Excerpt:

"In an April 19 speech delivered to the Common wealth Club in San Francisco, Mueller said that the purported hijackers, in his words, 'left no paper trial.' The FBI director stated flatly:

'In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper—either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere—that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot.'"

I'm constantly amazed at the vast numbers of people who still believe that we have absolute proof about the events of 911. Want to know more that will leave you speechless? Try this:

Pentagon Lied: Terrorists Trained at U. S. Bases
<http://www.madcowprod.com/issue06.html>

Excerpt:

"Three days after the WTC disaster, Newsweek, the Washington Post and the Knight Ridder newspapers reported claims that five of the terrorist hijackers in the Sept 11 attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations during the 1990s. The reports also claimed three of the terrorists had listed their address as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla., and had participated in military exchange programs for foreign officers at the Pensacola Naval Air Station in Florida."

Do you still believe we have the evidence on the "psychos" that conducted the attacks on 911?

[Ravy]

35. Well, we have recordings of a flight stewardess listing the seats

that they sat in.

The second story about whether or not they were connected to al-Qaida may have some merit (I don't believe it) .. but I do believe that the people that hijacked the plane have been correctly identified.

[enough]

43. Very interesting links, MLD, thanks (NT)

.

[Ravy]

29. So, it wasn't oil, it wasn't WMD, it wasn't liberation, it wasn't...

...revenge for trying to kill *'s Daddy, it wasn't supporting terrorist.

It was because there were lots of good targets.

Thank you, Rummy. That clears it up, you worthless bastard.

[VolcanoJen]

31. "To hell with reason and justice... let's attack the easiest target."

Can't wait to see that on a Bushie bumpersticker.

And these are the people so many say our children should look up to, and aspire to become???

Things that mothers and leaders should never say:

"Oh, I know the big, tough bully next door beat you up. But just go across the street and beat up that little, harmless heroin addict/wannabe writer, instead. It will make you look much tougher, and you'll feel a whole lot better about that bully afterwards, and everyone will love you for it."

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

41. OK

I guess you couldn't care less about the.."
100s of thousands saddam's minions raped, tortured or slaughtered.

If human rights were the issue then why did the Bushies do business with Musharraf? What about China? What about Charles Taylor? What about North Korea? Why has the Bush administration claimed that human rights should NOT be a cause for restricting trade? Why just months before the 2000 election was Cheney arguing for lifting sanctions at a think tank meeting. Why did Cheney's company do 26 million dollars worth of deals with Saddam through their European subsidiary?
What about SAUDI ARABIA?

Why are we letting the Taliban with similar habits back into power in Afghanistan?

I couldn't care less what WMDs saddam had. I justify removing saddam from power because of what he did to his own people while the UN watched. Bush could have claimed he started the war against saddam because he didn't like the color of his fingernail polish for all I care. That doesn't change my reasoning of why taking saddam out was a good thing.

So you couldn't care less that over 500 service people died over a lie? You couldn't care less that the nation was told Saddam was an imminent threat when he was not? Why all the tough talk for Saddam and negotiating with North Korea? You couldn't care less that terrorism is actually spreading? You couldn't care less that the Bush administration when planning this war remembered to guard the oil fields but not the nuclear facility at Tuwaitha ?


I can't wait until the compassionate anti-war types watches the testimonials from victim after victim after victim at saddam's trial.

And I can't wait til your corporate puppet president is put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity as well as treason for outing Valerie Plame.

[VolcanoJen]

42. That might be your best post ever, nsma!

You'll probably write another brilliant one in a few minutes, but I just had to tell you that this post really spells out the way so many of us here at DU feel.

Mr. Bush, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Powell, Mr. Cheney, Ms. Rice, Mr. Wolfowitz... you're fired. I can't wait either, nsma.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

46. Thanks

I didn't write another brilliant one..I went and made pancakes :D

*pushes apple pancake through puter for Jen*

[oldcoot]

49. Another example of hypocrisy

One of our allies in the "War on Terrorism" is Uzbekistan. The Bush administration is willing to ignore human rights violations, which includes at least one case of a prisoner being boiled to death, in that country and to provide that country with aid. To read about Islam Karimov's human rights record, see this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1072313,00.html .

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

52. They BOIL prisoners and Bush calls them allies????

How typical...and just WHERE is Rainboy to repond to all of this?

[leftist_rebel1569]

62. Where he belongs...

[Just Me]

69. Yeah, the human rights rationale came later,...

,...this cabal has never given a damn about human rights. If they had, they would not have engaged in the arms dealing business and supported corporatists who pay off militants to get "activists" and other human beings out of their way towards profits. This administration doesn't give a damn about human life (except the "elite"). It values profit over people. Wealth and power are their God. They are representatives of the worst of humanity. Their hardened hearts close their minds and kills their compassion. I simply find them repugnant.

[The Stranger]

37. PBS FRONTLINE ran an hour-long piece on this over one year ago.

It was Wolfowitz who was insisting over and over at the Camp David meeting immediately after 9-11 to attack Iraq. The Neocons seized upon 9-11 to unleash the plan they had come up with in the 1990's to invade the countries in the Middle East under the pretext of democracy.

[ck4829]

53. Something to think about

I have a little theory about 9/11. When I say it or post it, I get mixed replies. Keep in mind, this is just a theory, and if you all know anything I don't you should tell me.
Everyone knows about Timothy McVeigh and the Alfred P. Murrah bombing. McVeigh had a book with him known as the 'Turner Diaries'. This book provided inspiration for his terrorism. What not many people know is that at the the end the Villain, Earl Turner, did some things that personally remind me of 9/11.

1. He piloted a plane into the pentagon, one of the buildings that also had planes piloted into them on 9/11.

2. He did it on November 9, 11/9. The attacks happened on September 11, 9/11

Now, am I saying Al Qaeda is not responsible for the attacks? No, there might be a chance though that White Supremacists and Christian Identity terrorists could have had a hand in 9/11.

[yardwork]

63. That's very interesting.

McVeigh served in the first gulf war. At some point he became convinced that the U.S. government was so corrupt it needed to be destroyed.

Al Quaeda believe that the U.S. is so corrupt it needs to be destroyed.

McVeigh could have met members of Al Quaeda at some time. Their goals were very similar.

Perhaps they worked together - perhaps not. But it does seem reasonable that at some point they (and other terrorist groups) shared information and encouraged one another.

Terrorists all have a lot in common, imo.

[nayt]

61. this is old news

its even in that "bush at war" book.

[Lalena]

64. Old news that needs to be told again and again until people listen..

I continue to be amazed that sentient beings can support Bush.

[mrdmk]

67. More people from different perspectives saying the same-thing

the better. Besides, there is what the media says about the source of information, then there are the sources of information. A lot of times these days the two are very different.

[grytpype]

66. Get this, it's the last line of the CBS story:

A senior White House official told 60 Minutes he thinks the Clarke book is an audition for a job in the Kerry campaign.

How fucking weak is that?????