c5ccd20bcb0a1f9217bd…

…

Remember how tough officials from the Clinton administration claimed to be about getting Osama bin Laden?
Albright told the 9/11 commission the Clinton administration did everything it could to defeat al-Qaeda and would have killed Osama bin Laden if o…

Can someone explain to me why El Presidente Jorge Wahabi Bush kept George Tenent (CIA) and Norm Minetta (Transportation Secretary “Let’s strip search 80 year old grannies of Scandinavian descent”) on when he took office? No wonder Bush’s Presidency is in the crapper! Tenet’s act in particular should have been shut down on or around September 12, 2001. Tenet and the overrated Colin Powell were/are also extremely disloyal.

Hilts on August 22, 2007 at 8:22 AM

Here’s your answer…daddy sez so.

Letter from President George H.W. Bush (https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2002/george_hw_bush_letter.htm)
December 5, 2002

I am sorry not to be there as The Nixon Center honors a truly great man, George Tenet. If there ever was a person who has truly earned The Nixon Center’s prestigious Distinguished Service Award, it is our nation’s DCI George Tenet.

In these most complicated, dangerous of times, George Tenet is doing a superb job as the President’s top Intelligence Officer.

Years ago I was DCI, but the problems our country, the CIA, and the Intelligence Community faced back then are nowhere near as complicated as the problems faced today. Thank heavens we have a man of your honoree’s integrity and ability leading our Intelligence Community.

The Nixon Center has indeed chosen well. Please congratulate Director Tenet for me.

George Bush

That all of the Monica stuff was a “distraction”. How could they do their jobs with that circus going on?

To that I say: Who’s cigar was it anyway?

The report indicates that Tenet and his deputies were fine with going up to the Hill and beating the drum about how important the threat was from UBL, as long as it got them money for their budget – but, their actual concern for the gravity of the threat was demonstrated by their actions once they got the funds…seems they used the concept of fighting terror as not much more than a ‘bumper sticker’ campaign to win appropriations – which they then took and diverted to all sorts of other uses – while mismanaging and understaffing the actual, you know, effort against terrorism.

The paragraph that recommends that the actions of CIA senior leadership with regards to the money is the ‘money’ graf in the whole executive summary – translated from apparatchik-speak, it basically means the investigators are thinking those guys are potentially liable for criminal charges…

And it does specifically say that, in spite of what Albright testified to, about them ‘doing everything they could’ – that they never took the steps beyond being insider sound-bite cheerleaders on the subject of UBL, etc – just another form of the Clinton era habit of saying that everything is important, everthing is top priority, but then when the cameras are off, or the Hill hearing is over, and the ‘grand poohbah vision moment’ is over, leaving a directionless mess for mid level underlings to sort out and try to manage.

There was no strategic plan because we were being led by people lacking in any sort of true strategic vision. It was eight years of crisis management, with the players lurching from one crisis to the next, just trying to either make themselves look good day to day, all the while sweating it out that their moment to get left holding the bag never came.

Why just drop the ball when you can hurl it forcefully to the ground hand it to the opposition?

Blacklake on August 21, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Clinton’s assumptions were very lazy.

Clinton had an agenda. Peace and prosperity. And nothing was going to get in his way of that agenda.

Bbzl.123 on August 21,2007 at 7:20 PM.

You nailed it,I guess Clinton wasn’t that serious on the
mideast peace either,after all Yessur Arafat was sitting
in the Rose garden twittling his thumbs,while Clinton was
being serviced by Monica.

“There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and those who have met them in battle. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.”

All this panzy stuff will stop after we get nuked by the Muslim militia. It’s too bad that we won’t take the threat seriously until AFTER our cities are smoldering ruins. I wouldn’t be investing in land in Iran, Syria, Western Pakistan, or the Gaza Strip anytime soon.

I dislike this line of thinking for several reasons. First of all even if America was nuked and decided to go on a global rampage it wouldn’t make Congressmen and Senators any more likely to eschew laziness by studying Islam as Robert Spencer constanly advises thus making them still ignorant of the doctrines of jihad warfare and thus incapable of applying coherent strategies. Secondly there might very well be a large spectrum of American society advocating surrender in their desperation for “peace”. Thirdly I think the Islamic world could be contained and that simply waiting for a nuclear war to ignite isn’t much of a solution or much comfort.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Mike Adams has some very good articles in his archives about firearms.

Or you could check this site out…….http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/