Conason can’t handle the truth.  Nor can any partisan.

”...consider Clinton’s missile strikes against suspected Al Qaeda installations in Sudan… “

Consider Clinton’s war crime in the context that it occurred.  The pharmaceutical plant was a pharmaceutical plant providing for most of Sudan’s medicine.  It had no other use.  Attacking it was a war crime.  There were no “Jihadists” at the plant.

This article explains WHY Clinton attacked the Sudan:

Resentful west spurned Sudan’s key terror files
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,560675,00.html

I’ll cut to the chase:

“US sources have confirmed that the FBI wished to arrange [two bin laden operatives] immediate extradition. However, Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, forbade it. She had classed Sudan as a ‘terrorist state,’ and three days later US missiles blasted the al-Shifa medicine factory in Khartoum.”

This act of international aggression was a message to shut up about Al Qaeda.  Allbright refused a thick file from Sudan’s intelligence service regarding the Bin Laden network’s activities there.

That’s the same Madeleine Allbright, a blood covered cretin, who called the deaths of half a million Iraqi children “worth it.”

You don’t want to understand that the CIA deliberately hid that two of the alleged “hijackers” had crossed into the USA and lived (with an FBI “informant”) under their own names, after being spotted at an Al Qaeda meeting in Malaysia.  For 20 months, they were allowed to live out in the open in San Diego, despite being known to the CIA. 

They, and many other “hijackers” entered the US on Clinton’s watch.  They were protected, shielded, and then on Bush’s watch numerous investigations were shut down over at the FBI counter-terrorism headquarters.  The man who did the most damage to national security there, Dave Frasca, was PROMOTED after September 11th.

It’s hard to show the breadth of this in a post.  That’s why I keep a blog of things that you guys in the corporate press refuse to investigate:

Crimes of the State

The GOP power brokers have left pragmatism behind with their love for ideology. Thus far they have been able to overcome their pragmatic failures in the eyes of the American public with a great PR machine. They have been ubable to use that same strategy in Iraq and with the rest of the world.

the article wraps with ..

When will the government release the secret joint testimony of Bush and Cheney before the 9/11 Commission?  ...

but, what could they reveal?  neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Cheney was under oath during those interviews, and both have proved many times that they will go on national broadcast media and simply lie to the American public - why sweat secret testimony to a commission?

  why wouldn’t they spin that same old bs in non-testimony to a bi-partisan group of current and former politicians who also, along with Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, failed to defend American from foreign enemies on September?

Yes, there was a plan, there was a document we have all seen it splattered over the internet, find it here -
http://www.rawstory.com/images/clarkerice.pdf
This document isnt the plan but it is a summary of it and clearly states that there are huge holes in it which he calls “Pending Time Sensative Issues”.  Theres a whole list of issues here that Clinton had 8 years forumulate but failed, it took the Bush Administrator about 8 months to finalise.

I reinterate that Condi was completely justified in saying that they werent handed a comprehensive strategy.

It is also very interesting that Dick Clarke admitted that he asked Clinton to bomb afghanistan but Clinton refused because he was afraid of what impact this would have on the elections that where 2 weeks away, and that he was concerned that this would be considered a planned diversion from his sex scandal.

You call this your Commander in Chief??

BOB—GO HERE: http://www.charlierose.com/
YOPU CAN LISTEN TO THE PROGRAM THAT DISCUSSES THE CLINTON-WALLACE INTERVIEW.
PAY PARTICLULAR ATTENTION TO WHAT RICHARD CLARKE SAYS—ESPECIALLY WHEN HE MAKES THE COMMENT THAT “STRATEGY” (CLARKE’S WORD) GIVEN BY CLINTON TO THE BUSH PEOPLE COULD BE CALLED A “PLAN”(CLARKE’S WORD)—HE MAKES THE COMMENT THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE (I DO NOT REMEMBER HIS EXACT WORDING, BUT MY SENSE OF WHAT HE SAID IS CORRECT.)
CLINTON TOLD THE TRUTH, CONDI LIED, BOB HAS SOME RESEARCH TO DO AND NOW HE CAN GET THE TRUTH FROM CLARKE’S MOUTH.

The actions and words of this administration and their lapdogs only begin to make sense through the lense of New World Order ideological thinking. Is it any wonder we are now finding out that Bush counsels with Kissinger?  Wake up good Americans - this is a millenial defining moment and the red coats are here!!!

I’d like to reiterate the last line in the article:

“When will the government release the secret joint testimony of Bush and Cheney before the 9/11 Commission?”

I’d also like to add: When will the government release all 82 remaining tapes from the Pentagon on 9/11? When will they explain the freefall speed collapses of WTC 7, 1 and 2? When will they apprise us of the reason for no trace of a plane crash of flight 93, only a hole littered tiny scraps of debris (try to find any other plane crash that looks like this)? The list goes on and on…
Investigate and decide for yourself: Truth911.net

Looks like the unlovely Condoleezza is trying to soften her image by growing her hair and having a fair amount of expensive cosmetic dental work done. It makes her look less like a dominatrix and perhaps the Bushite handlers think lies are more believable when they come from a more attractive package. She has adopted the dulcet tones and low volume of others in the Republican corral who speak as if they were making a point to slightly dim two-year-olds. (My apologies to two-year-olds everywhere.)

She still makes my skin crawl. As the Brits say, she’s a thoroughly nasty piece of work.

Huh, this story completely flighs in the face of everthing Clinton said and I QUOTE

“RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I’ve got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was NO!!!!!! plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. ” - Wheres the confusion here?

Condi then went on to say -
“We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,”

Richard Clarke backs this up with AND I QUOTE -

“ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that’s not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that’s really how it started.”

Looks like Bob is lost.

Hey Bob, when looking for credible reporting, a couple suggestions. Try to quote credible sources, not Faux news, and also, it also helps lending validity to a story by actually quoting somone, you know with quotation marks, unlike the “story” you referenced.

Best of luck in the future.

BOB GAVE THE FOLLOWING WEBSITE:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html
THE FIRST LINE IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF CLARKE’S FIRST RESPONSE IS:
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998.
Clinton told the truth; condi lied; BOB doesn’t understand what he reads.
WASHINGTON —  The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush’s former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News’ Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter’s decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I’ve got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy—uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we’ve now made public to some extent.

(Story continues below)

TO BOB WHO GAVE THE WEB LINK:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html
HERE IS THE OPENING SENTENCE IN CLARKE’S SECOND PARARGRAPH WHERE HE SAYS:Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998.
Clinton told the truth, Condi lied, and BOB can’t read.
WASHINGTON —  The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush’s former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News’ Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter’s decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I’ve got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy—uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we’ve now made public to some extent.

(Story continues below)

I still find it interesting that Clinton caught Ramzi Yousef in Pakistan only 18 months after the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, a feat Bush cannot duplicate with Osama bin Laden after five years.
I also think it significant that the famous August 6, 2001
PDB , which supposely was only a “historical document”, was
in fact referring back to the December 4, 1998 PDB warning Clinton that Al Qaeda was planning to hijack jets at Northeastern US airports and that when getting this warning Clinton immediately ordered the FAA to increase airline security which prevented a hijacking at that time, something apparently “beyond the imagination”
of the Bush administration.

Thanks, Joe.  While columns like yours may be read only by people who agree with you, they do succeed in making us feel pretty good.  The Republican response to criticism is childish, on the level with that old adage, “I’m rubber and you’re glue—anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you”—but effective, at least for the base, which may be all that counts.

A small request—one of these days will you please tear David Brooks a new one?  I don’t understand the appeal of this guy.  Is enough that he can type without drooling?

Clinton is lying, he did not have a comprehensive strategy for Al-Qaeda and Rice is completely justified by saying “We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,”. Refer to this interview with Richard Clarke in 2002, the person that Clinton bases virtually his entire argument on. Clarke’s statements completely contradict everything Clinton says in this interview, see link. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

Fox has pulled the video of the Clinton/Wallace interview from public access across the board. If it were Wallace who had eviscerated Clinton, instead of the other way around, you can bet that it would be on Fox in heavy rotation.

Republican State Cable Television, euphemistically known as FAUX NEWS, deserves every kick in the teeth that any Democrat—or even (horror of horrors!) “liberal”—can administer. No question about it, except possibly: “What took you so damn long?”

Even Bill Clinton, the bomber of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade Yugoslavia, has the right to make the Republican Sewerboat Sailors for Slander publicly drink their own urine—when they deserve it. Blowing up a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan by “mistake” has nothing to do with claims and counter-claims regarding Osama bin Laden. So we can overlook all that embarassingly inept unpleasantness, I assume. (Probaly just some more bad “slam dunk” “intelligence” from ass-kisser supreme George Tenet. Not one of President Clinton’s finest gifts to either America or the world.)

Yes, even Bill Clinton who requested the removal of Scott Ritter’s weapons inspection team from Iraq and then brazenly lied—blaming Saddam Hussein for “kicking them out”—yes, even this Bill Clinton deserves kudos for counter-attacking false Republican claims about Osama bin Laden: a marginal Saudi Arabian cave dweller who had and has nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq and the entire eight years that Bill Clinton spent inspecting, sanctioning, bombing, threatening, undermining, and brazenly lying about that formerly intact country. Yes, by all means let us get this Osama bin Laden thing aired out to its full, irrelevant, distractive potential.

Then what, Bill? Contribute some campaign cash along with the Republicans to your swell “independent” buddy Holy Joe Lieberman running against the real Democratic Party candidate Ned Lamont in Connecticut? Help us out here, will you Bill? Try picking a party for a change. You might even try picking ours.

In the end, though, let us also never forget this same Bill Clinton proudly boasting: “I have always defended President Bush against the Left on Iraq.” As an anti-war Vietnam Veteran (which makes me a “leftist,” I suppose, in Bill Clinton’s eyes) I don’t take kindly to stupid remarks like that. I, for one, never supported the mistakes of aggression Bill Clinton made against many countries who had never attacked America—most especially meaning Yugoslavia or Iraq. Not a single declaration of war nor Congressional authorization did Bill Clinton ever bother obtaining for his military adventures. I think he once, though, did go shopping for some “NATO” war powers when he couldn’t get his own country to give him any. So much for the Constitution.

So yes, Bill Clinton, do by all means come to the aid of your own reputation regarding Osama Bin Laden. More power to you. Don’t forget, though, to simultaneously defend George W. Bush and Senator You-Know-Her against us “leftist” “liberals” who saw through all the phony Saddam Hussein bullshit when you, him, and her so mind-bogglingly led our country into its worst unnecessary disaster since Vietnam. Too bad the ignorant FAUX NEWS moron didn’t nail you on all that. He wouldn’t even have had to lie.

Condi, yes, so she lied. They all eventually lie. Even Colin Powell now admits he lied. Come on, readers, stop being victims. They lie. Of course they lie. Truth isn’t important. Only what they think in their head, only what concoctions get brewed in their bunker-like mentality, seem to be “real” to them. So why—why, indeed?—would anyone expect anything else from them? It was convenient to lie about Iraq being connected to Al Qaeda. Bush’s head is so muddled that he probably believes it; Rove likes twisting people’s heads; so does Cheney. By this time they may believe we went to war to stop Al Qaeda in Iraq. But my point is: Who cares? It’s not true and truth IS NOT IMPORTANT TO REPUBLICANS at this point in time. The media by and large aren’t journalists, or keepers of the “truth” flame; they by and large sell advertising and entertain; they have no discipline or sensitivity or even any reason to ask hard questions. Why, oh why, do people always seem to expect it? It’s playing the victim, and that seems to be the role they’ve assigned for yourselves. When they get over it, and strike back to reclaim the electorate by asking the hard questions and not dumbing down statements like “Bush lied today”, or “Bush made wildly conflicting statements today” or “Bush didn’t answer the question he was asked.” When this begins to happen, when influential people say, Stop the madness, they won’t be victims any more. So if you help Republicans in any way, by not voting or by not persuading your friends and family to vote, by not contributing to the Democrats, you’ll be helping to promote a draft, among other things too stupid to mention. So make sure the Democrats win this time around, and don’t jawbone about it or prevaricate or think about how inept or stupid they are, just vote for them. Right now the Democrats are the only force that will balance off the Republican’s march to a totalitarian state; they may become corrupt but it’ll take some time for that to happen.

Holy smokes Joe! It has been a long time since I’ve read or seen such a through dressing down of the current republican media lackeys. President Clinton really laid the facts out for the interviewer and the audience. I hope the Democratic candidates somehow soak up some of the leadership qualities that President Clinton has, and start addressing the real issues that trouble our nation.
Thanks for the fine article.

Not being an affecianado of the ‘fair and balanced’ network, I only saw the repeated news reports of Mr. Bill and Chris Wallace.  Sure looks like Wallace was getting taken to the woodshed by Mr. Bill.  When will they get off their kick of blaming Clinton for everything, including Katrina, Rita and all of the other natural and political disasters of the world.  As I recall, the economy was in great shape and peace was breaking out all over the world while Clinton was President.  I still proudly call myself a ‘Friend of Bill.’