About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

In special on bin Laden, CNN again omitted Bush's failure to send more troops to Tora Bora

August 24, 2006 7:27 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: The documentary CNN Presents: In the Footsteps of Bin Laden reported that the insufficient deployment of U.S. troops to Tora Bora in 2001 allowed the Al Qaeda leader to escape, but it failed to note investigative reporter Ron Suskind's recent disclosure that President Bush ignored specific warnings from the CIA that more troops were needed.

63 Comments

A two-hour CNN documentary on the life of Osama bin Laden reported that the insufficient deployment of U.S. troops to the mountains of Afghanistan in 2001 allowed the Al Qaeda leader to escape, but it failed to note investigative reporter Ron Suskind's recent disclosure that President Bush ignored specific warnings from the CIA that more troops were needed. Further, CNN reported on Bush's receipt of the now-famous August 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." But the program omitted any mention of Suskind's report that, after Bush was briefed by a CIA officer on the memo, Bush replied, "All right. You've covered your ass, now." Both revelations are included in Suskind's new book, The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 (Simon & Schuster, June 2006). Yet despite the relevance of his disclosures, it appears CNN did not interview Suskind for the documentary.

The documentary -- titled CNN Presents: In the Footsteps of Bin Laden -- was reported by CNN senior international correspondent Christiane Amanpour and first aired on August 23. The special largely focused on bin Laden's life prior to orchestrating the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but it also depicted the U.S. efforts to capture the Al Qaeda leader following the attack.

In the segment of the documentary focusing on the events in the months before 9-11, Amanpour reported: "On August 6 [2001], unbeknownst to the American public, President George Bush received this highly classified memo, 'Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.' In it, this paragraph: 'FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.' "

But the documentary made no mention of Bush's response after being briefed on the memo, which Suskind reported in The One Percent Doctrine:

The alarming August 6, 2001, memo from the CIA to the President -- "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" -- has been widely noted in the past few years.

But, also in August, CIA analysts flew to Crawford to personally brief the President -- to intrude on his vacation with face-to-face alerts.

The analytical arm of CIA was in a kind of panic mode at this point. Other intelligence services, including those from the Arab world, were sounding an alarm. The arrows were all in the red. They didn't know the place or time of an attack, but something was coming. The President needed to know.

[...]

He's not much of a reader, this President, and never has been, despite White House efforts to trumpet which serious books he is reading at various times. ... But he's a very good listener and an extremely visual listener. He sizes people up swiftly and aptly, watches them carefully, and trusts his eyes.

[...]

The trap, of course, is that while these tactile, visceral markers can be crucial -- especially in terms of handling the posturing of top officials -- they sometimes are not. The thing to focus on, at certain moments, is what someone says, not who is saying it, or how they're saying it.

And, at an eyeball-to-eyeball intelligence briefing during this urgent summer, George W. Bush seems to have made the wrong choice.

He looked hard at the panicked CIA briefer.

"All right," he said. "You've covered your ass, now."

The portion of the documentary devoted to the battle of Tora Bora in late 2001 also ignored Suskind's reporting. Media Matters for America noted the omission in response to a two-minute excerpt of the special that previewed on CNN on August 21.

Amanpour reported that the mission to capture bin Laden in the mountainous region of Afghanistan - led by a CIA paramilitary unit and supported by Afghan militias and Pakistani soldiers -- ultimately failed because, "[b]y most accounts," there were "not enough American soldiers on the ground." The documentary included a clip of Gary Berntsen, the now-retired CIA officer who headed the unit, explaining how he had sent "a message back to Washington" in early December 2001 requesting more U.S. troops, but never received them. But the special failed to note that the CIA warned Bush directly that more U.S. troops were needed in Tora Bora. Indeed, Suskind writes in The One Percent Doctrine that then-CIA officer Henry "Hank" Crumpton (now the coordinator for Counterterrorism at the State Department), the head of the agency's Afghanistan campaign at the time, told Bush in late November 2001 that Pakistani and Afghan fighters were "definitely not" equipped to handle the mission and that "we're going to lose our prey if we're not careful." From Suskind's book:

As Crumpton briefed the President -- and it became clear that the Pentagon had not voiced the CIA's concerns to Bush -- he pushed beyond his pay grade. He told Bush that "we're going to lose our prey if we're not careful," and strongly recommended the marines, or other troops in the region, get to Tora Bora immediately. Cheney said nothing.

Bush, seeming surprised, pressed him for more information. "How bad off are these Afghani forces, really? Are they up to the job?"

"Definitely not, Mr. President," Crumpton said. "Definitely not."

From the August 23 edition of CNN Presents: In the Footsteps of Bin Laden:

AMANPOUR: Once again, bin Laden had telegraphed his intentions to the world. The warning was broadcast a little more than two months before the attacks of 9-11.

And the warnings continued to mount. On August 6th, unbeknownst to the American public, President George Bush received this highly classified memo, "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." In it, this paragraph: "FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

Then on September 9th in Afghanistan, a final hint that bin Laden was about to strike America. The assassination of Ahmad Shah Masoud, a friend of the U.S. and legendary leader of the Northern Alliance, a formidable Afghan militia.

[...]

AMANPOUR: December 2001, a relentless bombing campaign. Air strikes thundered through the treacherous mountains of eastern Afghanistan. The battle of Tora Bora had begun. Osama bin Laden, the jackal of 9-11, and hundreds of Al Qaeda fighters had finally been cornered, or so it seemed.

BERNTSEN: We brought in Spectre gunships which can put a bullet on every inch of a football field.

AMANPOUR: Gary Berntsen was the leader of a secret CIA paramilitary unit that had pursued bin Laden since he had fled Kabul. And now, the CIA was sure it knew where he was, thanks in large part to a radio taken off a dead Al Qaeda fighter.

BERNTSEN: We listened to bin Laden for several days using that radio, listened to his communications among him and his men. We listened to him apologize to them for having led them into this trap and having led them into a location where they would be having airstrikes called on them just relentlessly.

AMANPOUR: More than two weeks of bombing, solid intelligence, the U.S. had thrown its biggest bombs, its most sophisticated missiles, bunker busters, daisy cutters, at bin Laden, but somehow, some way, it wasn't enough.

PETER BERGEN (terrorism analyst): The policy of using very limited number of U.S. Special Forces on the ground calling in airstrikes and a large number of Afghan ground troops worked brilliantly overthrowing the Taliban. But at the battle of Tora Bora, it was a total disaster.

AMANPOUR: The plan was for Afghan and Pakistani soldiers to block any escape routes, but Osama bin Laden managed to slip away through the mountains. And the mission to capture or kill the Al Qaeda leader failed. By most accounts, the main problem was not enough American soldiers on the ground.

BERGEN: By my calculation, there were more American journalists than American soldiers at the battle of Tora Bora, and that fact kind of speaks for itself.

BERNTSEN: In the first two or three days of December, I would write a message back to Washington, recommending the insertion of U.S. forces on the ground. I was looking for 600 to 800 Rangers, roughly a battalion. They never came.

AMANPOUR: Also hunting bin Laden in Tora Bora, then Afghan militia leader, General Mohamed Zahir. Do you have any idea how many American soldiers were at the battle of Tora Bora?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was not more than 50, 60, I think. Yeah, there was not more in that time.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mefirst (August 24, 2006 8:13 pm ET)
         

      which almost all of us supported, including almost every democrat in congress, was to overthrow the taliban because they were harboring bin ladin. and the geniuses in the bush administration put their faith and trust in pakastani and afghan fighters. guys who you can't be sure of whose side they were really on, and are more than agreeable to a large bribe. which is probably how bin ladin escaped. we had him in the palm of our hand and we could have taken a lot out of al-qaeda with his capture. instead five years after 9-11 he issues his death threats against us. well, bush did say he doesn't think about bin ladin much anymore. of course, he didn't think about him before 9-11 either. he said he was "not on point" about him. just remember though, they're "keeping us safe." not. and it's time the democrats started pointing it out. use his words against him. point to his failure to hold meetings on terrorism before 9-11. point to his words about bin ladin. the republicans lie through their teeth with no problem, and the democrats are afraid to speak the truth.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by jscott (August 24, 2006 11:18 pm ET)
           

        from Tora Bora, we let him go. The neocons needed to keep the "enemy" on the loose to prop up their already long-planned invasion of Iraq. Be afraid, be very afraid.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by oscar the grouch (August 24, 2006 8:58 pm ET)
         

      that would have taken place in August of 2001, if airport security measures, Patriot Act, etc had been enacted and enforced prior to 9/11.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (August 24, 2006 9:31 pm ET)
           

        we have a indication of a serious threat, as in the millenium period, i'm sure a lot of people would have understood. but it didn't even have to get that far. if the bush administration had paid the least amount of attention, two fbi agents would not have been frantically trying to get someone to pay attention to their reports about the flight schools. clinton badgered his people to come up with leads. bush, well.... he went on a nice long vacation where he didn't discuss anything with anybody.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by shoes89 (August 24, 2006 10:01 pm ET)
             

          "clinton badgered his people to come up with leads."

          He did? If that's the case: Then why was there no plan to eliminate al Qaeda passed on to the Bush administration? (SANDY BERGER: " ... there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect." (Joint inquiry hearings into 9/11, 9/19/02)

          Report Abuse
          • Author by iflurry8094 (August 25, 2006 4:12 am ET)
               

            Clinton's people may not have passed on a PLAN to Bush's people, but they did give an al Queda WARNING.

            [link to www.nytimes.com]

            Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (August 25, 2006 7:25 am ET)
               

            "on an operational level, we decided immediately to continue pursuing the clinton administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to figh the al-qaeda nework."

            Report Abuse
          • Author by fantagor (August 25, 2006 1:40 pm ET)
               

            A WAR plan??? Why would Clinton have a WAR plan against an amorphous organization that can pull up its tent stakes and transplant with a moment's notice? Clinton did, however, have dossiers on Al Qaeda's operational hierarchy, its past operations, its objectives, etc., intelligence gathered for the purpose of continuing the hunt via LAW ENFORCEMENT tactics, which to date is the ONLY way we have captured any terrorists. The Bush administration had this information and didn’t act on it till AFTER 9/11. And that action? Declare WAR on a tactic, bomb and kill civilians, I mean a disregard for “collateral damage”, manufacture more terrorists and incite more acts of terrorism worldwide.

            You can’t declare war on a tactic and hope to win. Bush’s biggest mistake was legitimizing Al Qaeda with TWO unwinnable wars (read: great potential for stalemates, but not for unequivocal victory). Clinton treated Al Qaeda like common criminals, caught the 1993 WTC bomber, stopped the Millennium terrorist plot, which got almost ZERO press, and rightly so. The government did its job, so no hoopla required. But Bush?? Every time we all don’t die in a nuclear fireball, the Republicans and Bush apologists everywhere give him a pat on the hinder and a cookie. To date, I have yet to hear a Bush supporter just fess up and admit that YOUR BOY SCREWED UP ON 9/11. It was his watch, he had the wheel, he fell asleep, people died. People died on Clinton's watch, too, and don't recall anyone giving him a free pass for being President for only 38 DAYS (1993 WTC bombing). But 7 1/2 MONTHS??? Gee, Bush hardly had time to unpack his Bible let alone the time to crack a file and READ two lines about the bin Ladin character.

            “Do we have this in Cliff Notes?” asks Bush.

            Like it or not, Bush had the raw materials to pick up where Clinton left off and he chose not to care till it was too late.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by shoes89 (August 24, 2006 9:50 pm ET)
         

      1. The CNN show is hardly a piece of "conservative misinformation." Amanpour is very critical of the Bush administration, and Peter Bergen (the "terrorism analyst") is a favorite at liberal publications (like The Nation and The American Prospect).

      2. "CIA analysts flew to Crawford to personally brief the President -- to intrude on his vacation with face-to-face alerts." --- A totally misleading passage from Suskind. The President gets his PDB from the CIA six days a week, whether he's on "vacation" or not. The passage gives the false impression that CIA analysts went out of their way to deliver a one-and-a-half page portion of a PDB to President Bush. If anyone was "panicked" at the CIA, there was nothing stopping them from telling the President that this was the case! In addition ...

      3. Media Matters and Suskind have mischaracterized the Aug. 6 PDB. The publicized/declassified "Bin Laden" part was only one-and-a-half pages of a briefing that was probably 10 to 20 pages long. (At least that's how long they usually are. The PDB comes in a portfolio/binder looking thing.) There was hardly a "face-to-face alert." ("Each PDB consists of a series of six to eight relatively short articles or briefs covering a broad array of topics; CIA staff decides which subjects are the most important on any given day." - 9/11 Commission, Chapter8 ... PDBs "generally span 10 to 20 pages, covering seven or eight topics in newspaper-like digests." - LA Times, 4/10/2004)

      4. Amanpour ominously quotes the portion of the Aug. 6 PDB: "FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity ... including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." ... Guess what, folks! The WTC towers were NOT "federal buildings"!! Amanpour's citation means nothing.

      5. Regarding Tora Bora, Media Matters' post leaves out the debate between the Defense Department and the CIA over the troop commitment.

      But that's enough for now ...

      A little more than two cents this time, but thanks.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by arc1x (August 25, 2006 4:05 am ET)
           

        To argue these points begs to bring to attention the awareness Clinton's staff and inaction ALSO mentioned in the show.

        - Aug. 20,1998, failed to take the capture/death of binladen because they saw a SWINGSET on the grounds! His admin didn't want to face any fallout. (After 2,00 dead, 4,000 injured in Al-Quada's FIRST attacks in Kenya/Tanzania. (thought to be HB at first). The US Cole attack prompted Clinton's VOW to get those responsible.

        -Misssed binladen in Kabaul because he took a RANDOM turn at a crossroad.

        -AMANPOUR: More than two weeks of bombing, solid intelligence, the U.S. had thrown its biggest bombs, its most sophisticated missiles, bunker busters, daisy cutters, at bin Laden, but somehow, some way, it wasn't enough.

        PETER BERGEN (terrorism analyst): The POLICY of using very limited number of U.S. Special Forces on the ground calling in airstrikes and a large number of Afghan ground troops worked brilliantly overthrowing the Taliban. But at the battle of Tora Bora, it was a total disaster.

        (With all due respect, the strategy is not that unfounded, at 10,000 feet, helicpoters & vehicles to move troops at that altitude may have been more dangerous than a benefit troops would have been sitting or flying ducks). And Bernstein wanted/called for it in a matter of days. I propose he CYA'd because HE could have moved close with a small squad and LASERED the spot he KNEW where binladen was. HE didn't, for whatever reasons of his own).

        -The "blind shiek" rahman ordered the "BLESSING" (required by the loving Muslims) to do 9-11 from a jail cell after the 1st WTC bombing. HOW? WHY was he having that kind of friggin' influence and contact when HE was obvious in his intentions?

        It also was interesting regarding the Ali Mohamed (sp.) , the US special forces trainer LEFT without authorization in 1998 (!) and went to Afg. to fight the Russians. He went to work for binladen and trainned the bastards. How the hell does that happen?

        NOTE the last part of the show, binladen got a lot of heat from Arabs because he did not offer the required offer of surrender to ISLAM to us (first required by the loving Muslims). That has been issued in statements.

        NOW, some young-puke iman or god-on-earth type has issued the jihadist LIMIT AT 100 MILLION AMERICANS. So, it's a signed and LEGAL-holy deal to these barbarians.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mefirst (August 25, 2006 7:41 am ET)
             

          the fact is when clinton did fire missiles at bin ladin's camp the republicans screamed no war for monica. and during the 2000 campaign, bush mocked it as "hitting a camel in the ass". the responsibility for the cole did not become clear until bush was in office. condi told the 9-11 commission that it would not have been a good idea to respond because that would "embolden the terrorists". and the undeniable fact is that the bush administration, in one of their endless screwups, let the chance to catch bin ladin slip through their fingers. that should have been priority one.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by fools_gold1967 (August 25, 2006 9:03 am ET)
               

            the fact is when clinton did fire missiles at bin ladin's camp the republicans screamed no war for monica.

            This is an absolute falsehood, or you're horribly misinformed. After the curiously timed attack on Bin Laden, Both Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich, the Republican leadership, issued statements of support for Clinton's attack and suggested stronger action against Bin Laden. One Senator as I recall, called the timing "suspicious" which if CLEARLY was.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by mefirst (August 25, 2006 9:44 am ET)
                 

              signed by five republicans, page 117: "house speaker newt gingrich and majority leader trent lott initially supported the president. the next month, gingrich's office dismissed the cruise missile attacks as 'pinpricks'. at the time, president clinton was embroiled in the lewinsky scandal, which continued to to consume public attention for the rest of that year and the first months of 1999. as it happened, a popular 1997 movie, wag the dog, features a president who fakes a war to distract public attention from a domestic scandal. some republicans in congress raised questions about the timing of the strikes." now, what was that about misinformed? and as for "suspicious", the whole lewinsky affair went on for the better part of 18 months. i doubt any one missile strike was going to distract attention for more that a couple days.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by redking75687 (August 27, 2006 11:25 am ET)
                   

                What I found interesting is that Gingrich was immediately in front of cameras saying he supported the attack....and you could tell he had no idea what was bombed. But he was all for bombing someone! Typical US politician.

                Report Abuse
            • Author by open_mind (August 25, 2006 10:51 am ET)
                 

              Too bad Bin Laden couldn't have chosen a better time to present himself as a target. The nerve of that guy!

              Report Abuse
            • Author by arc1x (August 25, 2006 10:59 pm ET)
                 

              Operation Infinite Reach, wherein missile strikes were ordered against suspected terrorist bases in Sudan and Afghanistan (August 20). The missile strikes began three days after Clinton was called to testify before a grand jury during the Lewinsky scandal and his subsequent nationally televised address later that evening (August 17), in which Clinton admitted having an inappropriate relationship with the White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by redking75687 (August 27, 2006 11:22 am ET)
                 

              On the day prior to the cruise missile strikes on Khartoum and Afghanistan, the US had called on the Taliban to hand bin Laden over. There, "suspicious timing" solved. It was NOT about Lewinsky.

              Report Abuse
          • Author by fools_gold1967 (August 25, 2006 9:54 am ET)
              1

            [link to partners.nytimes.com]

            Congressional leaders were briefed about the planned raid Wednesday night and Thursday morning. For the most part, Republican leaders praised Clinton's decision and urged more aggressive action against terrorism.

            House Speaker Newt Gingrich expressed firm support, and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, said, "Our response appears to be appropriate and just."

            Dan Coats did question the President's motivations:

            Others were more critical. Accusing Clinton of "lies and deceit and manipulations and deceptions," Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., said the president's record "raises into doubt everything he does and everything he says, and maybe even everything he doesn't do and doesn't say."

            This is hardly republicans screamed no war for monica as you irresponsibly allege.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by mefirst (August 25, 2006 10:22 am ET)
                 

              you're trying to claim it was one guy. it's no surprise that lott and limbaugh would support it and let the usual henchmen do the dirty work. the fact is that there was a lot of wag the dog commentary on the republican side. see 9-11 commission quote.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by mefirst (August 25, 2006 10:59 am ET)
                   

                not lott and limbaugh.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by fools_gold1967 (August 25, 2006 11:09 am ET)
                  1

                the fact is that there was a lot of wag the dog commentary on the republican side. see 9-11 commission quote.

                I gave you ACTUAL QUOTES from the NY Times the following day regarding the attack. The quote was, "For the most part, Republican leaders praised Clinton's decision and urged more aggressive action against terrorism. I'm not sure that can be much clearer and much more in STARK contrast to your original foolish remark about "no more war for Monica" this can be. It simply DIDN'T happen and I PROVE it and you merely ignore that proof. What was said YEARS LATER in retrospect STILL didn't rise to the level of "no more war for Monica." Cut your losses and learn from your mistakes. Don't continue to live in a fantasy world that doesn't and didn't exist and make foolish, unfounded assertions.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by mefirst (August 25, 2006 11:56 am ET)
                     

                  from your link. "but while the republican leadership rallied to support the the raids, some members of congress reacted suspiciously, noting that the action followed by three days clinton's acknowledgement to the public of his relationship with former intern monica lewinsky." "didn't happen"? apparently, it did.

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by redking75687 (August 27, 2006 11:27 am ET)
                     

                  Of course they urged for more agressive action...they're psychos who just love to bomb people. Makes them feel like men!

                  Report Abuse
          • Author by arc1x (August 25, 2006 7:25 pm ET)
               

            Yes, fired at binladen camp where he turned away from the camp at a crossraod,by chance, and was not there anyway!

            The other incident involved Clinton's refusal to take the capture of binladen because a SWINGSET was on the grounds! Clinton did not want the political fallout!

            The show will be re-aired this weekend-WATCH it.

            As far as Clinton accused of 'wag-the-dog" politics, binladen was the least of his actions.

            SEE:[link to en.wikipedia.org]

            "Some critics of the Clinton administration expressed concern over the timing of Operation Desert Fox. The four-day bombing campaign occurred at the same time the U.S. House of Representatives was considering articles of impeachment against President Clinton. Clinton was impeached on December 19, the last day of the bombing campaign." "A few months earlier, similar criticism was leveled during Operation Infinite Reach, wherein missile strikes were ordered against suspected terrorist bases in Sudan and Afghanistan (August 20). The missile strikes began three days after Clinton was called to testify before a grand jury during the Lewinsky scandal and his subsequent nationally televised address later that evening (August 17), in which Clinton admitted having an inappropriate relationship with the White House intern Monica Lewinsky."

            "'Nuff Said"

            Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (August 25, 2006 7:33 pm ET)
                 

              The other incident involved Clinton's refusal to take the capture of binladen because a SWINGSET was on the grounds! Clinton did not want the political fallout! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

              In other words Clinton wanted to avoid killing any innocent children that might be there. Wow, how horrible of him. Who cares about innocent children?

              And the next part I dont get. The complaint was when Clinton tried to kill Ben Laden he was accused of wagging the dog and you try to dismiss this by claiming it WAS a wag the dog policy. Nuff said alright thanks for so starkly making the point, not only DID the wingnuts claim Clinton was wagging the dog, THEY STILL DO.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by arc1x (August 25, 2006 7:40 pm ET)
                   

                with GREAT CONSEQUENCEs.

                200 murdered and 4.,000 injured in first attacks attributed to binladen. "afraid he might hurt some children" = 3,000 DEAD on 9-11! MAYBE a fair trade?!

                Wag-the-dag wignuts INCLUDE "Officials later acknowledged, however, "that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that>>>"

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Shimmering Rain (August 26, 2006 2:15 am ET)
                     

                  ""afraid he might hurt some children" = 3,000 DEAD on 9-11! MAYBE a fair trade?!"

                  Gotta love those scapegoats. Hell, if you don't want to accept responsibility, just shift it!

                  You seem to be missing a critical piece of the puzzle. Clinton wasn't in office when 9/11 happened. Now the Great Decider, the Great Messiah Bush not only was in office but was taking a nice long vacation prior!

                  Your shifting of responsibility is laughable.

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by redking75687 (August 27, 2006 11:32 am ET)
                     

                  But Clinton's refusal to lift sanctions on Iraq medical imports led to over a million dead civilians. Americans think they're the only ones allowed to kill civilians, eh? They kill civilians and it's a crime, we kill and it's just "collateral damage".

                  Report Abuse
              • Author by open_mind (August 25, 2006 9:27 pm ET)
                   

                Arc1x is just a partisan hack who cannot come to grips that his beloved Fearless Leader was at the helm (although on vacation) of the country when this happened.

                Remember Republicans tell us how great they are at protecting us. Why would they lie about that?

                Report Abuse
            • Author by mefirst (August 25, 2006 7:47 pm ET)
                 

              you are approaching incoherence. and damn that clinton because bin laden took a wrong turn. clinton was supposed to read his mind.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by arc1x (August 25, 2006 8:57 pm ET)
                   

                Here is as clear as it gets:

                1) A SWINGSET = 3,000 + lives. The only incoherence is your trying to confuse 2 different events. binladen was lucky and made a spontaneous turn. That bombing attack was different event! (See Iraq/Lebanon: the jihadists find no problem using "human shields". It provides the innocents the privledge of being "martrys" and getting their wine, virgins, and all the other things prohibited in Islam dictates).

                2) Ms. Oakley (Asst. Secy State) " called a meeting of key aides and a consensus emerged: Contrary to what the Administration (CLINTON's) was saying, the case tying Al Shifa to Mr. bin Laden or to chemical weapons was weak."

                Clinton attacked Iraq based on insufficent, inadequate, false (you choose), intel. It happened to coincide with his political concerns with monica's incident.

                Questions?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by mefirst (August 25, 2006 9:27 pm ET)
                     

                  yes. al shifa is in sudan. why did you say "clinton attacked iraq"?

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by arc1x (August 25, 2006 11:10 pm ET)
                       

                    "Operation Infinite Reach, wherein missile strikes were ordered against suspected terrorist bases in Sudan and Afghanistan (August 20). The missile strikes began three days after Clinton was called to testify before a grand jury during the Lewinsky scandal and his subsequent nationally televised address later that evening (August 17), in which Clinton admitted having an inappropriate relationship with the White House intern Monica Lewinsky."

                    OPERATION DESERT FOX: 2) Ms. Oakley (Asst. Secy State) " called a meeting of key aides and a consensus emerged: Contrary to what the Administration (CLINTON's) was saying, the case tying Al Shifa to Mr. bin Laden or to chemical weapons was weak."

                    Clinton attacked Iraq based on insufficent, inadequate, false (you choose), intel. It happened to coincide with his political concerns with monica's incident.

                    YOU HAVE TRIED to confuse Aug 17, Afg/Sudan attacks and SWINGSET moral deliema of clinton, and Iraq.

                    HERE (KISS): 3 DIFFERENT TIMES AND EVENTS!!! does this help you any.

                    touche' !

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mefirst (August 26, 2006 12:20 am ET)
                         

                      at 857 i was confusing "two different events". now i'm confusing three? show me, o wise one.

                      Report Abuse
                • Author by redking75687 (August 27, 2006 11:35 am ET)
                     

                  Desert Fox happened immediately after Iraq refused UN inspectors into the Ba'ath Party headquarters building. US and UK knew that the Iraqis had NO WMD left and needed a pretext to keep the sanctions and no-fly zone seiges kept in place and used that refusal as a reason for a bombing campaign. Got to use up them cruise missiles you know, Raytheon can't get new govt contracts when the arsenals are stocked full of Tomahawks, got to fire some of now and then. It's good for profits to randomly maim and kill.

                  Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (August 25, 2006 7:24 pm ET)
             

          Has said they should kill one hundred million Americans, wow, sounds like an insane barbarian. Ya know that number sounds familiar...Oh yeah thats the exact same amount of MUSLIMS insane barbarian American Jew Micheal Weiner aka Savage called for for us to kill a couple of months ago. I didnt notice you in here attacking Wiener for THAT. Would that be because THAT had no propaganda value? It didnt help demonize Muslims which seems to be at the basis of every post you ever make? If some nutbag Muslim is calling for killing one hundred million Americans he is dangerously psychotic, as is Wiener. If that says anything about the barbarian tendencies of Muslims in general it doesnt say anything more than Wieners comments say about Americans in general.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by arc1x (August 25, 2006 7:33 pm ET)
               

            barbarian American Jew Micheal Weiner aka Savage called for for us to kill a couple of months ago. I didnt notice you in here attacking Wiener for THAT

            1) I NEVER heard it, don't listen to either of them.

            2) the difference is it is a requirement of Isalmic law that the enemy be first offered the right to surrender to Islamic law. binladen got heat for not doing that prior to 9-11.

            3) an iman has issued the "edict". I BELIEVE it might be possible that carries a little more weight than an individual white man with little following (here come the Haliburton conspircies).

            4) If you continue to believe we are against phamtoms that don't really mean us harm, brush off your koran and study up.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by iflurry8094 (August 25, 2006 4:17 am ET)
           

        The CNN show is hardly a piece of "conservative misinformation."

        That may be true, but they omitted a piece of information from this report to make Bush look good.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (August 25, 2006 6:01 am ET)
           

        Bush refuses to READ ANYTHING LONGER. In the very TITLE it said Ben Laden determined to attack in the US. Bush took it so seriously he spent the rest of the day fishing and the rest of the month on the longest presidential vacation since Nixon even though he had only been president for SEVEN MONTHS

        Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (August 25, 2006 7:30 am ET)
           

        he did not claim that bush was not getting his pdb-s on vacation, as you try to spin it. what he did say was that there were agents who felt that bush was ignoring the threat and one flew to crawford to talk to him face to face. bush's answer was reported to be "ok, you've covered your ass now".

        Report Abuse
    • Author by nativeofsf (August 25, 2006 7:11 am ET)
         

      Osama is doodie-head...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by indawind8186 (August 25, 2006 7:38 am ET)
         

      Go back in time and pull up the look on Bush when he was told that the towers had been attacked. Was he remembering the "ok, you've covered your ass now." comment and he realized that his was now exposed .

      Report Abuse
    • Author by holly (August 25, 2006 11:14 am ET)
         

      Go to Google.

      And do a search for: failure

      Fascinating, eh?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by arc1x (August 25, 2006 7:52 pm ET)
           

        gee, REAL WEAK! So Soros (or ilk) paid $1,000/click for that spot! (learn how pay-for-clicks work and YOU can be for under ANY entry YOU want (IE> brillent). REAL INTERESTING (TRY ASK.com- doesn't work there.) Here's what comes up here incidently: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm

        BBC -that wingnuT BRITISH site:

        BBC NEWS | Americas | 'Miserable failure' links to Bush:

        "Weblogger Adam Mathes is credited with inventing the practice in 2001, when he used it to link the phrase "talentless hack" to a friend's website.

        The search engine can be manipulated by a fairly small group of users, one report suggested. "

        #3

        Welcome to MichaelMoore.com! Official site of the gadfly of corporations, creator of the film Roger and Me and the television show The Awful Truth. Includes mailing list, message board, ...

        Really holly, for such a goddess of MMFA, you should hang your head in shame and chug this choke down with a big swig of Soros-brand KOOL_AIDE (avilable now in INDUSTRIAL Strength!)

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Blues_1776 (August 25, 2006 11:23 am ET)
         

      In all or most 911 discussions, specials, and rants is the FBI's own wanted poster does not say he is wanted in coneection with or for 911 attacks. No one I have heard has discussed this, the FBI says there is no hard evidence, as the reason!

      [link to www.teamliberty.net]

      [link to www.fbi.gov]

      However, we are pounded everyday with this Osama connection, which started day one, I admit I had believed that they had evidence connecting him, boy was I wrong, yet I did believe it till I saw this poster. Amazing, then who is wanted for this horrific crime?

      Food for thought!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by arc1x (August 26, 2006 8:33 am ET)
           

        This is on the poster on FBI.gov.

        Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world. REWARD

        The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden. An additional $2 million is being offered through a program developed and funded by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association.

        What connection to a $2 million reward from APA and ATA? And $25 mil. from USDS?

        Surely that would not imply any connection to planes and thousands of deaths and billions in property and economic loses.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Sagra (August 25, 2006 3:55 pm ET)
         

      last night. Scarbo about gave himself an aneurism bitching about the CNN documentary. Apparently it wasn't balanced because it didn't tell the viewers that Bin Laden was evil enough times.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Jerome06 (August 25, 2006 4:15 pm ET)
         

      I think it's amazing that some people still want to blame someone from the United States for 9/11. We need to re-focus on the real problem here. Republicans blame 9/11 on the Clinton era non-action towards terror and Democrats blame George W (some even say he planned, and acted out, a controlled implosion of the towers) Who cares if it wasn't Bin Laden who had a direct hand in this tragedy (although I definitely think he did), we all know it was extreme Islam that caused this and that's all that should matter. We're on the same side, remember?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (August 25, 2006 4:40 pm ET)
           

        accuse bush of blowing up the wtc. as for the clinton era "non action on terror", that's republican baloney. like clinton never did anything about the first wtc bombing. he did far more than bush even thought about doing on counterterrorism. it's well documented.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by redking75687 (August 27, 2006 11:40 am ET)
           

        I blame everyone in power in Washington DC for 9/11 because it's their arrogant, racist, murderous foreign policy that's the root cause of all this. Until those policies change, nothing else will change. You go kicking a dog long enough and it will bite you...that's exactly what happened on 9/11.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Jerome06 (August 25, 2006 4:59 pm ET)
         

      I'll say it again, we need to re-focus on the real issue here which is terrorism. We couldn't even go one post without bringing Democratic vs Republican into the argument. If someone breaks into a house, because the door only had one lock on it, and attacks a child, do we get angry at the parents for not doing more? or the criminal who commited the horrible act?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (August 25, 2006 5:09 pm ET)
           

        i could read that you were the one that brought democrat vs. republican into it. with false assertions.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Jerome06 (August 25, 2006 5:14 pm ET)
         

      All I was trying to do was give examples from both sides about how each are so busy pointing the finger at each other (no matter how true/false their accusations are), that we're forgetting who's truly at fault. The only people that should be blamed are supporters of Islamic terrorism, do you agree?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Evil Conservative (August 25, 2006 5:22 pm ET)
           

        do good buddy!!! Now that was cheesy.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (August 25, 2006 5:24 pm ET)
           

        yes. but did we know they were trying to attack us? yes. did clinton pay far more attention than bush to counterterroism? yes. anything you disagree with?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by arc1x (August 25, 2006 9:09 pm ET)
             

          I know you like to point out Clinton brought to justice the bombers of the WTC.

          See:[link to en.wikipedia.org]

          TRUTH: it was easy because Alleged FBI foreknowledge

          "In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, an Egyptian man named Emad A. Salem, a former Egyptian army officer. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects."

          In December 1993, James M. Fox, the head of the FBI's New York Office, denied that the FBI had any foreknowledge of the attacks.

          However, Steve Coll in his book 'Ghost Wars' [1], Yousef mailed letters to various New York newspapers just before the attack, in which he claimed he belonged to the 'Liberation Army, Fifth Battalion'. These letters made three demands: an end to all US aid to Israel, an end to US diplomatic relations with Israel, and a demand for a pledge by the United States to end interference 'with any of the Middle East countries (sic) interior affairs'. He stated that the attack on the World Trade Center would be merely the first of such attacks if his demands were not met. In his letters Yousef admitted that the World Trade Center bombing was an act of terrorism, but that this was justified because 'the terrorism that Israel practices (which America supports) must be faced with a similar one.' REAL AWARENESS there on the Clinton Admin's part.

          MORE: top-notch on-the-ball Clinton did-it-better: "Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who preached at mosques in Brooklyn and Jersey City, was sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding the bombing. Rahman, whose Islamic Group organization is believed to have had links to Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, was later convicted with a number of others of conspiracy charges to bomb several New York City landmarks"

          Rahmad went on to issue the "edict" granting the blessing on Osama to carry out the 9-11 attacks FROM A PRISON CELL.

          Good job all around.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (August 25, 2006 9:31 pm ET)
               

            a little overripe.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by Shimmering Rain (August 26, 2006 2:36 am ET)
               

            Dang the Clinton admin's success! They have some nerve actually paying attention to terrorism, instead of being on vacation! How dare they do something instead of simply dismissing it with a "Ok, you've covered your ass"!

            How dare they use such intelligent and useful tactics like CIA informants to crack down on terrorism! Why our Chimp-in-Chief doesn't know what the CIA is even there for!

            How blatantly unfair and easy!

            Report Abuse
    • Author by arc1x (August 25, 2006 8:26 pm ET)
         

      off your site: [link to news.bbc.co.uk]

      Mark Dean, a streaming video director from San Francisco, said he did not always believe the US Government, but thought the tape was probably genuine.

      "If it is real, it is astonishing that this guy shows no concern for the thousands of people he condemned to die," he told BBC News Online, adding, "To be so blasé about it is unbelievable."

      See also: [link to www.teamliberty.net]

      "The material you requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552, subsection (b)(7)(A)."

      Your guru states: "It’s anyone’s guess as to what (b)(7)(A) actually means, but it smells like more cover-up to me. "

      It may mean their is an INVESTIGATION!

      On that could really clear this up is the 'blind sheik' in NY (responsible for the WTC bombing- i know MAYBE) that issued the "blessing" to Osama to cary out the attack. But, why would he "confess"? Do you think there might be a little reluctance of anyone comming forth with "proof" that O (not Oprah) had involvement? Highjackers dead, but transactions tracked. Reports of o saying he was surprised by the effectiveness of the attacks. He did not expect total collapse but he praised the moon-god Allah for it.

      I believe it is a policy of this country not to accuse without proof or merit. Of course, "It’s anyone’s guess as to what (b)(7)(A) actually means, but it smells like more cover-up to me. " goes a long way for the freedom-loving conspirity crowd to get to the truth of Halliburton, Bushco, and Jews did it.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by redking75687 (August 27, 2006 11:51 am ET)
         

      Trouble with US military strategy is that it's still based on the Bomber Harris model...bomb them into submission. Which doesn't work, proved time and time again, witness Lebanon recently. Instead of taking it's time and setting up bin Laden for capture via surveillance and a well-timed raid, we followed the usual US politicians' tendency to try and bomb everything in sight.

      Oh by the way, pointing fingers and blaming people for events 4 years ago does not adress the fact that NOTHING is being done to track down bin Laden and his main deputy, Zawahiri, at this moment. They are most probably in southwestern Afghanistan with Mullah Omar and the remnants of the Taliban. Yet US forces never enter those provinces, even though we have overwhelming force.

      Remember that in Sept 2001, Bush said he would get bin Laden and then in March 2002 called him 'irrelevant'. Bush said nothing about him until earlier this year, when he stated the CIA was still hunting for him. Upon saying this, CIA Director Goss was seen failing to supress a chuckle, obviously humoured by Bush's statement...meaning NOTHING is being done. The neo-fascists require the big bad bin Laden bogeyman to keep their War Of Terror going and are NOT trying to bring him to justice.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (August 27, 2006 4:26 pm ET)
           

        you blamed "everyone in washington" and their arrogant racist attitudes for 9-11. kick a dog and it will bite, you said. seems like you would hold bin ladin blameless, but you chastise bush, rightfully, for not catching him. all over the place.

        Report Abuse
The Fox Effect
Media Matters Connect

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.