Behind Enemy Lines
Excellent post X-9.
A shout-out from an LGF reader....
Take it easy on Sandy! He doesn't even know how documents lept into his pants....
Well, I care.
Oh but to imagine such information might finally result in repercussions like ending Berger appearances (and perhaps even paid ones) on TV and elsewhere and belated punishment for the boobs of all political colors who dropped the ball (and, apparently, still aren't much interested in picking it up).
Great leg work X-9
this is why berger destroyed the docs he stole: to cover this up.
Even if you take his denial at face value, it's still pretty weak. "We never "failed to support a request from CIA"? How many such requests were there? Is that what leadership consists of, not failing to support requests for operations from your underlings?
Thank you for speaking truth to moonbats.
Once again partisan liberals put themselves in a position of being historical revisionists and thought police. Such utter hypocrisy by these so-called "progressives" who paint themselves as such patriotic protectors of the First Amendment and free expression is utterly breathtaking.
And the motto of the CIA is 'The truth will set you free.' Obviously the motto of Berger and Clarke is 'The truth we decide to share will set you free.'
Good work on ferreting out that testimony in that obese investigation report.
I was concerned about the hysterical reactions from Democrats that there was absolutely no basis for that scene in the 9/11 Report.
I do not want our side to stoop to the Michael Moore level of complete propaganda fabrications - the truth is mostly on our side, so we shouldn't have to resort to lies like the Left.
Your work here demonstrates the clear basis for the scene in question. That it was condensed and amalgamated due to the contraints of the film format is nothing new under the sun. As long as as Berger is implied somewhere in the report for pulling the plug, it's fair game. And it is clearly implied and documented as you've shown.
And yes, isn't it interesting how it is Sandy who is at the point of blame here, and it is also Sandy who got caught red-handed trying to lift documents from the National Archives.
Coincidence?
Or maybe just another one of countless, innocent, Clinton Administration "SNAFUs" (Situation Normal: All F***ed Up). Yeah, sure, that's the ticket.
Our side continues to maintain the high ground of truth - thanks for showing that to us.
Berger, Albright, Clinton, et al, can kiss my pimpled a**.
Great post.
Rich Lowry and Steve Coll both include references to this in their books. Is the democrats' thinking that people are too stupid to read and only watch TV?
Good show X-9. Excellent work.
RM
May what Berger dropped in his pants balloon into his ugly face
These hypocrites have no problem with Mike Moore and his “documentary”
But the 9/11 commission and Path to 9/11 are “presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and the (this part is really sick) the Children” it is a “miscarriage” that cannot be tolerated.
Yes only abortion is to be tolerated by them AKA Michel Moore Fahrenheit 9/11
In light of such as this and many others how can anyone side themselves with the left and the democrite’s?
Are all of you brazen enough to believe that there aren't sealed CIA files right now from this administration that aren't going to show there screw ups in the "war on terrorism". PUll your heads out of your arses. They will all lie to you and they are mostly in it for their personal gain. Republicans, democrats all of em!!! Open your eyes because they all back whatever it is they think will get them elected. Have we heard a peep about social security since election time?? What about gay marriage, anything on that since then?? Immigration?? Which hot button issue will it be this time?? That's right lets get the fires stoked about 9-11.
I find it odd that you point out that Tenet himself is the one who ordered the stand down yet you try to imply that Berger was the one who ordered the stand down. If this plan, like in your quote says, was never presented to the White House for a decision, then how could they have turned down this request that was never requested?
In addition the later indictment did not have any mention of Iraq. Richard Clarke explained in his book that Al Qaeda never forged any signifigant links to Iraq. Outside the training camp in the non-Saddam controlled area of Iraq there is little evidence that prior to the 2003 invasion and removal of Saddam's government Al Qaeda was a major player in Iraq or had any connection to the country.
As for the scene that Mr. Berger objects to, it reportedly has Mr. Berger on the phone with a CIA operative who is about to go live with the planned snatch of bin Laden with the implication that he would have been caught immediately and so three years later we have 9/11. This is not at all what happened and he has rightly objected to this "dramatization." Nor does it show that the operatives themselves said it had a 40% chance of success.
As for the refusal of Richard Clarke's demand for a bombing in the final week of 1999, that is a question that should be asked of President Clinton as well as the decision to not fully go after the finances of Al Qaeda in 1998. I know that during the late ninties the US was known as the Mad Bomber for our preference in using missiles so perhaps this is one of the reasons for not doing that. Or perhaps it was not willing to face the same vicious attacks on the original decision to bomb Sudan's pharmacuetical plant that was a front for making VX.
By the way, Democrat in Arizona but feel no need to hide. I am sorry that you Mr. X-9 feel the need to even mention your 'hiding.'
Quite a lukewarm rebuttal, Beth.
I think the point, the factual point, is that there were opportunities aplenty to "do something" about UBL, who was a known threat, but the "mad bomber" Clinton administration did little or nothing. Clarke and Berger have been shown to be culpable in some of these decisions (or non-decisions-the nuance is sooo confusing). Berger was after something when he stole(and shredded)those documents. They did little to nothing and history shows that, though a "Democrat friendly" documentary may not.
Of course the Left is not unfamiliar with "revisionist history, is it?
Nice job of dissecting this whiny attempt at historical revision X-9!
I don't get it. Where's the "gotcha"?
You take Berger's quote saying that he never failed to support a request from the CIA. And then you show a passage (unemphasized) in which Tenet stated the CIA never made such a request. And the part you do highlight says Tenet never presented the plan to the White House for a decision.
So if the CIA never made a request at all, what about Berger's statement is false?
And why is Berger not pushing back an issue? Should he have overruled the recommendation of the CIA director? (Perhaps the way Rumsfeld overruled the recommendations of his generals?)
Actually Beerme, I was doing something you feel is unnecessary: refuting politely some inaccuracies that I found in this "gotcha" blog post.
Again, the threat that Bin Laden is was not really understood until 1996 at the very earliest although President Clinton before then realized that terrorism was and is a growing threat.
If you do read all the related material regarding 9/11 (and it is hard from the 9/11 commission report to the long list of books from current and former officials including the new "The Looming Tower" about Al Qaeda itself...to the translations of Sayyid Qutb and the others who created the theory that the group operates under...Thousands of books really. Not to mention the reports, the articles...lots of stuff) you do see that the first and only chance to really strike bin Laden came during the initial stages of the Afghan war and this chance was not taken. Before and after that there truly was not much good intelligence.
Clinton's costant battling with Congress and trying to change a large entrenched intelligence and military community to change to a much smaller scope took most of his Presidency and he also had other things to contend with (some created on his own and others not.) He did a good job of handling things and while 9/11 probably would have happened under Gore (the changes implemented did nothing to stop some of the biggest issues with the CIA and FBI refusing to talk to one another and the lack of technical capablity of the FBI), he at least would have continued the implementation of the updated Delenda plan. (President Clinton believed that Bush would implement it after he had gotten into office so rather then start the virtual war, he just had his outgoing personal give it to the Bush Administration. As we all know, they decided there were other priorities.)
Behhind Enemy Lines sounds like a great film, I can't wait for it to come out.
746737 ded808dbc4
aladdin casino las aladdin casino las aladdin casino las // nascar drivers reputation grew and grew once the word viagra nascar drivers reputation grew and grew once the word viagra nascar drivers reputation grew and grew once the word viagra
Commenting by HaloScan
