PDA

View Full Version : Clinton's statement behind closed doors



eg8r
04-09-2004, 09:48 AM
Come on, where are all the liberals and why aren't they opposed to Clinton being able to talk behind closed doors? A little hypocritical are they?

[ QUOTE ]
Former President Bill Clinton defended his counterterrorism policies in a private meeting with the Sept. 11 commission and said intelligence wasn't strong enough to justify a retaliation against al-Qaida for the 2000 bombing of a Navy ship.
Clinton met for nearly four hours with the 10-member bipartisan panel in a closed-door session shortly after the conclusion of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's public testimony, broadcast live on national television.

Commissioners described Clinton's testimony as frank and informative.

Bob Kerrey, a former Democrat senator from Nebraska and now a member of the commission, said Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America" he believed Clinton should have been more aggressive in going after al-Qaida after the attack on the ship.

"I think he did have enough proof to take action," Kerrey said. "That's a difference of opinion."

A person familiar with the session said Clinton told the commission he did not order retaliatory military strikes after the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 because he could not get "a clear, firm judgment of responsibility" from U.S. intelligence before he left office the following January.

It wasn't until after the Bush administration took power that U.S. intelligence concluded al-Qaida had sponsored the attack on the ship in the harbor at Aden, Yemen. Some commissioners have been critical of the decision not to launch a retaliatory military strike.
<hr /></blockquote> Q where are you??? Why aren't you speaking out against Clinton??? We all know why, don't worry. Why is it ok for Clinton to talk behind doors? He had enough information and he knew it. Somewhere down the road, we will probably find some connection between Clinton and bin Laden.

eg8r

Rich R.
04-09-2004, 09:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Come on, where are all the liberals and why aren't they opposed to Clinton being able to talk behind closed doors? A little hypocritical are they?
<hr /></blockquote>
And when will Mr. Bush testify, at all? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Qtec
04-09-2004, 10:02 AM
Clinton is no longer a public servant like GW and C.R.

This isnt about Clinton. Its about the Govt persuing its own agenda and ignoring the advice that was being offered.

A year ago I was saying the same things that Clarke is making public.

I dont blame GW for 9/11 but I think this admin should accept responsibility for their own failings, instead of resorting the usual character assassination that they now so frequently employ.

Q

eg8r
04-09-2004, 10:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This isnt about Clinton. Its about the Govt persuing its own agenda and ignoring the advice that was being offered.
<hr /></blockquote> You never could have been further from the truth. This absolutely is about Clinton, especially since everyting happen only a few months after Bush took office. If anything was going to be done, it would have had to have been started while Clinton was in office.

As far as advice being offered, go back and read my post on Clinton's final National Security report, containing around 45,000 words but only mentioning Bin Laden 4 times and Al Qaeda NEVER!!!!! If you read it closely, Clinton's advice was that there was no real international threat at all. So now, we have Clinton's word vs. Clarke's word. Who is lying? It appears you would like to hide behind the fact that Clinton is not in office, instead of standing up for the fact that while he was in office he did little to nothing. This does further prove your agenda that you don't care what anyone does, as long as it is not Bush.

eg8r

eg8r
04-09-2004, 10:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And when will Mr. Bush testify, at all? <hr /></blockquote> And do you have anything to say relative to the subject of the thread?

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
04-09-2004, 10:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Clinton is no longer a public servant like GW and C.R.

<font color="blue">wtf? what does that have to do with anything? </font color>

This isnt about Clinton.

<font color="blue">So his 8 years are completely ignored in this investigation? That's a ridiculous statement. </font color>

Its about the Govt persuing its own agenda and ignoring the advice that was being offered.

A year ago I was saying the same things that Clarke is making public.

<font color="blue">Figures. You and Clarke. Peas in a pod /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color>

I dont blame GW for 9/11

<font color="red">just every other ill in the entire world /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font color>

but I think this admin should accept responsibility for their own failings, instead of resorting the usual character assassination that they now so frequently employ.

<font color="blue">Clinton and Hitlery were the masters of charachter assassination. Dubya's a piker compared to them. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
04-09-2004, 10:44 AM
eg8r&gt;[ QUOTE ]
You never could have been further from the truth. This absolutely is about Clinton, especially since everyting happen only a few months after Bush took office. If anything was going to be done, it would have had to have been started while Clinton was in office.

<hr /></blockquote>
From the Rice testimony.
[ QUOTE ]
GORELICK: Now, you have pointed out that in this document there is a tasking to the Defense Department for contingency planning as part of this exercise -- contingency planning, and you've listed the goals of the contingency plans.

And you have suggested that this takes the policy, with regard to terrorism for our country, to a new level, a more aggressive level.

Were you briefed on Operation Infinite Resolve that was put in place in '98 and updated in the year 2000?

Because as I read Infinite Resolve, and as our staff reads Infinite Resolve, it was a plan that had been tasked by the Clinton administration to the Defense Department to develop precisely analogous plans. And it was extant at the time.

<hr /></blockquote>

Wrong again eg8r.

Q [ bet eg8r doesnt think so]

Cueless Joey
04-09-2004, 11:26 AM
Yeah, but according to Bill, he increased the CIA budget during his tenure. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
04-09-2004, 11:45 AM
Why don't you go ahead and provide the part that clarifies what you quoted. Maybe I am just having a little trouble wading through the crap you provide. The commission is talking about 9/11 and what the admin did in the months prior to 9/11. In Clinton's final statement to the new admin on the condition of national security, he never mentions Al Qaeda. It is never named. He also says there was no real imminent threat. However, a few months after he leaves office, what happened. You are a fool to believe Clinton is free on this one.

eg8r

Rich R.
04-09-2004, 11:54 AM
You are critical of Clinton testifying behind closed doors. I just asked, when Mr. Bush would testify at all.

I believe that is a valid question, but I guess you do not want to go there. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

eg8r
04-09-2004, 12:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You are critical of Clinton testifying behind closed doors. I just asked, when Mr. Bush would testify at all.

I believe that is a valid question, but I guess you do not want to go there. <hr /></blockquote> Why would you bother with a valid question of your own before even addressing the subject matter already in question?

I could care less if Bush spoke or not, he is not going to say anything that is confidential and that is the real stuff that matters. If he did speak, then he would only be saying things the public already knows. Tell me now, why are you so interested in hearing info you probably already know or can quickly gain access?

eg8r

Qtec
04-09-2004, 10:03 PM
Clarification.

[ QUOTE ]
At the outset of the administration, a commission that was chartered by Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, two very different people covering pretty much the political spectrum, put together a terrific panel to study the issue of terrorism and report to the new administration as it began. And you took that briefing, I know.

That commission said we are going to get hit in the domestic, the United States, and we are going to get hit big; that's number one. And number two, we have big systemic problems. The FBI doesn't work the way it should, and it doesn't communicate with the intelligence community.

<hr /></blockquote>

There was a plan.

Q

eg8r
04-12-2004, 08:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
There was a plan.
<hr /></blockquote> Nothing is being clarified...Do you want to talk about Clinton?

eg8r

Rich R.
04-13-2004, 04:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I could care less if Bush spoke or not, he is not going to say anything that is confidential and that is the real stuff that matters. If he did speak, then he would only be saying things the public already knows. Tell me now, why are you so interested in hearing info you probably already know or can quickly gain access? <hr /></blockquote>
And you think Clinton would say anything different, in a public hearing. I don't think so. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

But you still bring up the issue of Clinton testifying behind closed doors. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

This is just another instance, where we will never know the whole truth. If someone actually knows the truth, I'm sure it is classified information and can not be released.

cheesemouse
04-13-2004, 06:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Come on, where are all the liberals and why aren't they opposed to Clinton being able to talk behind closed doors? A little hypocritical are they?

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Former President Bill Clinton defended his counterterrorism policies in a private meeting with the Sept. 11 commission and said intelligence wasn't strong enough to justify a retaliation against al-Qaida for the 2000 bombing of a Navy ship.
Clinton met for nearly four hours with the 10-member bipartisan panel in a closed-door session shortly after the conclusion of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's public testimony, broadcast live on national television.

Commissioners described Clinton's testimony as frank and informative.

Bob Kerrey, a former Democrat senator from Nebraska and now a member of the commission, said Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America" he believed Clinton should have been more aggressive in going after al-Qaida after the attack on the ship.

"I think he did have enough proof to take action," Kerrey said. "That's a difference of opinion."

A person familiar with the session said Clinton told the commission he did not order retaliatory military strikes after the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 because he could not get "a clear, firm judgment of responsibility" from U.S. intelligence before he left office the following January.

It wasn't until after the Bush administration took power that U.S. intelligence concluded al-Qaida had sponsored the attack on the ship in the harbor at Aden, Yemen. Some commissioners have been critical of the decision not to launch a retaliatory military strike.
<hr /></blockquote> Q where are you??? Why aren't you speaking out against Clinton??? We all know why, don't worry. Why is it ok for Clinton to talk behind doors? He had enough information and he knew it. Somewhere down the road, we will probably find some connection between Clinton and bin Laden.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>


Man, I love it when you Bush supporters continue to whin and whimper about good ole Billy..."but but but look at what Billy did......." In case you haven't noticed it is GW term in office and he has been there long enough. The voters are not going to give a hang what Bill did, he is gone, he did his eight years, he can't come back (except to haunt the conservative mind) and all this Clinton bashing by the Republicans is just lame responsiblity avoidance by the current president.....Bush will be judged on his record in office not what Billy did or is doing........God, I love it.........

Ed, sing this little tune, it is really catchy........"Bush is going dowwwwnnnnnnnnn...Bush is going doowwwwwwnnnnnn.....".....hehehe

Iowashark
04-13-2004, 07:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> This is just another instance, where we will never know the whole truth. If someone actually knows the truth, I'm sure it is classified information and can not be released. <hr /></blockquote>

I don't think I want to know the truth, if we could have stopped 9/11 we should've done it. I'd feel a lot safer knowing that we did what we could and we will be more prepared for terrorism in the future.

I also believe that if we could've stopped it, it would've been up the Intelligence and Investagation (CIA &amp; FBI) corraborating well together. I swear they're like 3 year olds who don't want to share a new toy. It would've happened to any president in office. Apparently Bush is just easier to pick on. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Iowashark
04-13-2004, 07:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> Bush will be judged on his record in office not what Billy did or is doing........God, I love it.........
<hr /></blockquote>

I hope so, then we will be seeing 4 more years of Bush. Sometimes the supporters don't realize they're supporting. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
04-13-2004, 08:08 AM
Trying to predict and stop 9/11 would have been like trying to predict and stop a tornado from hitting a trailer park.

Actually if you will recall, actor James Woods noticed these guys acting funny a week before on a flight out of Boston and reported them to the Boston Port Authority and nothing was done.

eg8r
04-13-2004, 08:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And you think Clinton would say anything different, in a publick hearing. I don't think so.

But you still bring up the issue of Clinton testifying behind closed doors. <hr /></blockquote> No I don't think he would. The simple reason for asking it is because such a request was made on Rice, and all the dems want to ignore the executive privilege. However, when Clinton is in question the Dems believe in the executive privilege.

This was not about Bush, you were the one that brought him up.

eg8r

Rich R.
04-13-2004, 10:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> No I don't think he would. The simple reason for asking it is because such a request was made on Rice, and all the dems want to ignore the executive privilege. However, when Clinton is in question the Dems believe in the executive privilege. <hr /></blockquote>

Although I realize, legally, executive privilege is extended to presidential advisors, if you are discussing the testimony of a past president, that is not equal, in my book, to the testimony of a staff person. You have to consider the testimony of the current president. Rice is not the president.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>This was not about Bush, you were the one that brought him up. <hr /></blockquote>
I brought up Bush, only because you did not.
If you are going to criticize Clinton for testifying behind closed doors, you must ask, when and where is Bush going to testify. I was just treating both sides equally and raising that question.

In my personal opinion, I don't believe Clinton or Bush will give any substantial testimony, whether in public or behind closed doors. There is a lot of tax revenue being wasted on these hearings, in search of a witch to burn at the stake.

Wally_in_Cincy
04-13-2004, 11:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr>
...There is a lot of tax revenue being wasted on these hearings, in search of a witch to burn at the stake. <hr /></blockquote>

political grandstanding pure and simple.

I would expect this nonsense from some kindergarten act like Cincinnati city council but not the Senate of the United States for goodness sake.

eg8r
04-13-2004, 11:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
In my personal opinion, I don't believe Clinton or Bush will give any substantial testimony, whether in public or behind closed doors. There is a lot of tax revenue being wasted on these hearings, in search of a witch to burn at the stake. <hr /></blockquote> I agree completely.

eg8r

Rich R.
04-13-2004, 11:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> I would expect this nonsense from some kindergarten act like Cincinnati city council but not the Senate of the United States for goodness sake. <hr /></blockquote>
And, where do you think the Cincinnati City Council learned it? /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Rich R.
04-13-2004, 11:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I agree completely. <hr /></blockquote>
Did I read that correctly????????

I must have said something wrong. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
04-13-2004, 12:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr>And, where do you think the Cincinnati City Council learned it? /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif <hr /></blockquote>

LOL

I'm not sure if they learned it from Congress. Petty infighting and political grandstanding are pretty much a tradition down there.

Wally_in_Cincy
04-13-2004, 12:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I agree completely. <hr /></blockquote>
Did I read that correctly????????

I must have said something wrong. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Eventually the left and right will form a circle, or in the Senate's case, a circle-jerk /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I didn't say that /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

eg8r
04-13-2004, 03:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I must have said something wrong. <hr /></blockquote> That is not my fault. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Rich R.
04-14-2004, 04:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>I'm not sure if they learned it from Congress. Petty infighting and political grandstanding are pretty much a tradition down there. <hr /></blockquote>
I live within a 45 minute drive from Congress. A lot of their daily business hits out local news.

Trust me, when I say, you have accurately described Congress. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Rich R.
04-14-2004, 04:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>Eventually the left and right will form a circle, or in the Senate's case, a circle-jerk /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
<hr /></blockquote>
/ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
04-14-2004, 05:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Somewhere down the road, we will probably find some connection between Clinton and bin Laden.
<hr /></blockquote>

HaHa.

Do a Google sarch on Bush and the Bin Ladens.

You dont have to look far to see that the Bush and Bin Laden families are too close for comfort.

Q

OnePocketChamp
04-14-2004, 08:58 AM
Hey, now that his past has been brought out into the open, we all know that Clinton did some of his best work behind closed doors!!!!!!!!!!

#### leonard
04-14-2004, 10:46 AM
Janet Reno took the blame for the Texas Massacare. Two months after getting the Job. The right wing FBI snookered her.

The idiot should never have gone back into the classroom after the first plane crashed into the TRade CEnter. He should have emptied the second tower that is what he is guilty of.

I watch the 911 Widows on Chris Matthews show. They have more brains than anyone on the panel except Bevenista.

Conda Rice was an admission officer at Stanford. Where she got her National Defense experience who knows. ####

Wally_in_Cincy
04-14-2004, 11:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote #### leonard:</font><hr> ...The idiot should never have gone back into the classroom after the first plane crashed into the TRade CEnter. He should have emptied the second tower that is what he is guilty of. ...<hr /></blockquote>

I'm not sure that is the President's job.

nAz
04-14-2004, 02:12 PM
I think she wrote a book on the soviet union and how strong they are a year before it collapes /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif lol

highsea
04-14-2004, 02:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote #### leonard:</font><hr> Conda Rice was an admission officer at Stanford. Where she got her National Defense experience who knows. #### <hr /></blockquote>


Excerpt from her bio:
[ QUOTE ]

In June 1999, she completed a six year tenure as Stanford University's Provost, during which she was the institution's chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students.

As professor of political science, Dr. Rice has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching.

At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions.

From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military. <hr /></blockquote>

I think she also speaks about 5 languages. Just an admissions officer huh? LOL

I'd say she has done pretty well for herself.

-CM

Wally_in_Cincy
04-15-2004, 06:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
...I think she also speaks about 5 languages. Just an admissions officer huh? LOL

I'd say she has done pretty well for herself.

-CM

<hr /></blockquote>

and she's smarter than Hillary /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

thanks for the bio Hi-C

#### leonard
04-15-2004, 03:07 PM
Harry Truman said it all the buck stops here. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.####

#### leonard
04-15-2004, 03:13 PM
A member of the Latin Kings with no formal education would put her to shame.

To quote Conda "'I didn't think the United States mainland was part of my job descripition". ####

Qtec
04-15-2004, 03:43 PM
Cr is the smartest member of the present Admin.

She just doesnt know what she is up against.

She doesnt know it , but she is the fall guy.

You just wait.
Q

Wally_in_Cincy
04-16-2004, 06:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote #### leonard:</font><hr> Harry Truman said it all the buck stops here. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.#### <hr /></blockquote>

and regarding Waco Clinton said "The buck never got here" /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif