can't get too excited about this cause it just seems bizarre, like
there are major portions of the story missing.
As for absolving Clinton -- the 9/11 commission said today that this
unsupported opinion that Iraq and al-Qaeda were collaborating seems to
date back to his administration.
So my question to Rush would be this. Why cooperate with the
commission then send someone in to steal *copies* of documents? It
does not make sense.
Dana
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:44:40 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know, I know, a lot of people aren't going to like
> this. I can't resist. It's right on target.
> Pretty good for a junkie I might add :)
>
> Transcript from yesterdays show:
>
> They have been doing everything they can to erase the
> Monica Lewinsky image from everybody's frontal lobe
> when they think and hear the name Bill Clinton, and so
> Clinton has been doing everything he can to rehab his
> image. He has a very large coterie of loyal
> supporters, one of whom is on the 9/11 commission, one
> of whom should have been a witness, not a member --
> one of them, Jamie Gorelick, whose memo erected the
> wall that prevented intelligence from sharing
> information it gathered with law enforcement, and now
> we find out that Sandy Burglar, Clinton's #1 spook
> outside of the CIA. I mean this is the national
> security advisor guy! Look it, Sandy Berger was to
> Bill Clinton as Condoleezza Rice is to George Bush,
> and if this were Condoleezza Rice and George Bush she
> would already be in an orange jumpsuit. If this
> investigation had been going on since last October or
> January, Condi Rice would be wearing an orange
> jumpsuit and be setting in a cell next to Martha
> Stewart. That would be what's going on. Now, with this
> case, we get "sloppiness;" we get "inadvertently."
>
> We get, "Oh, damn, we hate when this happens. Isn't it
> a shame? I don't know what I could have done with
> these documents that implicated my administration. Gee
> it's just too bad." So you will pardon us if we have
> some doubts and suspicions about this when it's the
> critical assessments that are suspiciously missing.
> The former national security advisor himself, Sandy
> Burglar, had ordered his anti-terror czar Richard
> Clarke in early 2000 to write the after-action report.
> He has spoken publicly about how to review brought to
> the forefront a realization that Al-Qaeda had reached
> America's shores and required more attention. That's
> what's missing. Berger testified that during the
> millennium period, "We thwarted threats, and I do
> believe it was important to bring the principals
> together on a frequent basis to consider terror
> threats more regularly."
>
> "The missing documents involved two or three draft
> versions of the report as it was evolving and being
> refined by the Clinton administration, officials and
> lawyers say. The archives are believed to have copies
> of some of the missing documents. Samuel Burglar is
> the second high level Clinton-era official to face
> controversy over taking classified information home.
> Former CIA director John Deutsch was pardoned by
> Clinton just hours before Clinton left office in 2001
> for taking home classified information and keeping it
> on unsecured laptops in his home during his time at
> the CIA and the Pentagon. Deutsche was about to enter
> into a plea agreement for a misdemeanor charge of
> mishandling government secrets when the pardon was
> granted." So we're still, ladies and gentlemen, having
> Clinton scandals during the Bush administration. We
> still are. Another Clinton scandal here has erupted.
>
> Now, let's go back, and ask: "What is this really all
> about, folks?" because this, despite the obvious
> humorous aspects, this is really serious stuff because
> there is an ongoing effort to spare the Clinton
> administration -- and Bill Clinton personally -- of
> any responsibility whatsoever for anything that has
> happened deleteriously to this country in the world of
> terrorism. Now, F. Lee Levin, our legal advisor here
> at the Limbaugh Institute, wrote a great piece for
> National Review Online on April 15th, shortly after
> John Ashcroft testified before the 9/11 commission,
> and let me read to you excerpts of F. Lee's piece.
>
> "In his public testimony before the 9/11 Commission
> the other day, Attorney General John Ashcroft exposed
> Commissioner Jamie Gorelick's role in undermining the
> nation's security capabilities by issuing a directive
> insisting that the FBI and federal prosecutors ignore
> information gathered through intelligence
> investigations. But Ashcroft pointed to another
> document that also has potentially explosive
> revelations about the Clinton administration's
> security failures. In part, Ashcroft stated: "...
> (T)he Commission should study carefully the National
> Security Council plan (that's where Berger worked) to
> disrupt the al Qaeda network in the U.S. that our
> government failed to implement fully seventeen months
> before September 11. The NSC's Millennium After Action
> Review declares that the United States barely missed
> major terrorist attacks in 1999 � with luck playing a
> major role. Among the many vulnerabilities in homeland
> defenses identified, the Justice Department's
> surveillance and the FISA operations were specifically
> criticized for their glaring weaknesses. It is clear
> from the review that actions taken in the Millennium
> Period should not be the operating model for the U.S.
> government."
>
> Again, these documents are the ones missing. "In March
> 2000, the review warns the prior Administration of a
> substantial al Qaeda network and affiliated foreign
> terrorist presence within the U.S., capable of
> supporting additional terrorist attacks here. This is
> what is reputed to be missing. Furthermore, fully
> seventeen months before the September 11 attacks, the
> review recommends disrupting the al Qaeda network and
> terrorist presence here using immigration violations,
> minor criminal infractions, and tougher visa and
> border controls. These are the same aggressive, often
> criticized law enforcement tactics we have unleashed
> for 31 months to stop another al Qaeda attack. This is
> Ashcroft still speaking. These are the same tough
> tactics we deployed to catch Ali al-Marri, who was
> sent here by al Qaeda on September 10, 2001, to
> facilitate a second wave of terrorist attacks on
> Americans. Despite the warnings and the clear
> vulnerabilities identified by the NSC in 2000 - Sandy
> Berger -no new disruption strategy to attack the al
> Qaeda network within the United States was deployed.
> It was ignored in the Department's five-year
> counterterrorism strategy.
>
> Ashcroft continues, "I did not see the
> highly-classified review before September 11. It was
> not among the 30 items upon which my predecessor
> briefed me during the transition. It was not advocated
> as a disruption strategy to me during the summer
> threat period by the NSC staff which wrote the review
> more than a year earlier. I certainly can't say why
> the blueprint for security was not followed in 2000. I
> do know from my personal experience that those who
> take the kind of tough measures called for in the plan
> will feel the heat. I've been there; I've done that.
> So the sense of urgency simply may not have overcome
> concern about the outcry and criticism which follows
> such tactics.'" Now, what is he talking about? One of
> the things that Ashcroft is saying, and if you go back
> -- and I remember these hearings. Remember, many of
> the Clinton people that came up, said, "There wasn't
> the political will to be tough to catch terrorists,"
> meaning they didn't think the public would go along
> with Patriot Act-type measures, or tougher
> immigration, tougher this, you know. "Go get these
> guys? People wouldn't (stand for it)."
>
> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_072004/content/truth_detector_2.guest.html
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail________________________________
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
