Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: boris_a who wrote (185746)	3/29/2004 1:53:36 AM
From: boris_a	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586910

Ted, addendum, "Rice Rejects Calls for Public Testimony": story.news.yahoo.com "... Sharpening his criticism, former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke said President Clinton (news - web sites) was more aggressive than Bush in trying to confront al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s organization. "He did something, and President Bush did nothing prior to September 11," Clarke told NBC's "Meet the Press." "I think they deserve a failing grade for what they did before" Sept. 11, Clarke said of the Bush administration. "They never got around to doing anything." But Rice said the Bush administration regarded terrorism as "an urgent problem." Clarke said a sweeping declassification of documents would prove that the Bush administration neglected the threat of terrorism in the eight months leading up to the attacks. ..." Ted, they did nothing. Nothing! They negelected it. They lowered priority. But they knew, and they knew specifics (Ashcrofts flight warning in june 2001). That's the awful truth. That's why there so much stonewalling. And Clarke knows the truth. And he knows they abused 9/11 for the Iraq agenda. Maybe Bush should contact Maitre Verges (the guy defending Saddam). If the Bush trial is after Saddams trial, he could defend both.

To: boris_a who wrote (185746)	3/29/2004 1:41:31 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1586910

My reasons to hold them accountable (my connecting of dots): 1) We learned that counterterrorism priority was lowered, from urgent to important. (Jan 01) 2) The Bush/Cheney counterterrorism "task force" created in May/01 never convened. 3) When there was chatter in June, Ashcroft advised to no longer use commercial flights. I conclude that nature of the thread(s) (hijacking) was specific enough. 4) During the Jun/July chatter, Bush and Rice never chaired a meeting, says Clarke. 5) FBI knew that two AL-Qaeda members (later 9/11 hijackers) were in the US. Clarke says it's "absolutely incomprehensible" that there was no information flow. There were errors. But there was also a significant desinterest. And without 9/11, NeoCons Iraq2 dream would have been impossible to sell to the US people. Your points are compelling.......you may be right. And this morning I learned that Rice still refuses to talk under oath. There's a lot of stonewalling among those who didn't care much about the terroristic thread. Rice makes me ill. She uses those baby browns of hers to look all innocent and unfairly maligned. They need to haul her butt in front of the commission and publicly have her testify. She reports to both the president and the people of the US.......she needs to deal with that fact pronto. ted