You CDS is all over the board blaming Clinton for bin Laden not being dead prior to Bush taking office. While giving him a huge pass for not having any meetings on terrorism with the attack on The USS Cole a month before his election.

Geez…snap out of and join us in reality.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html

The only surprise that bin Laden had as an engineer was that the tower fell. The plan had been all along to bring a collapse to the world economic markets with this terror attack.

What you are talking about makes absolutely no sense so I am not sure why I am even responding to it. I may suggest calling Charlie Sheen or Rose O’Donnell.

Ironically the next place Gorelick ends up was as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae.

I am still flabbergasted that Gorelick ended up on the 9/11 Commission.

Maybe you should also check out that case of BDS.

Had this been regarded as a criminal act– a crime against humanity– the entire planet would have been on the side of the United States. Even bin Laden was stunned by the fact that the towers were brought to the ground, and at that moment, even Al Qaida members were shook by the mayhem– I don’t think it’s quite what they intended.

Had this been regarded as a criminal act, we would have gone to work with the rest of the planet to bring those responsible to justice.

An extraordinary number of Afghanis, and let’s don’t even talk about the inexplicable Iraqi genocide, would still be alive to kiss their children on the forehead as they went to work in the morning.

Part of me, in hind-sight, had a false sense of security, due to the “experienced hands” that formed the nucleus of the incoming administration.

Say what you will about any of the players involved, many were not idiots. I remembered thinking, that there wasn’t much I would agree with but national security was the “Republican issue”, even though

The final report (issued in January 2001)

of the US Commission on National Security/21st Century, co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart (D-CO) and Warren Rudman (R-NH), is issued. The bipartisan panel was put together in 1998 by then-President Bill Clinton and then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Hart and Rudman personally brief National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Secretary of State Colin Powell on their findings. The report has 50 recommendations on how to combat terrorism in the US, but all of them are ignored by the Bush administration.

.

LJ, question have any been put into practice?

That Katie Coric interview with you was, I believe, the first time I had heard you speak.
Thanks for the education since then.

last and most important a moment of ” ” …. for my childhood friends who died that day and all the other loved ones who never said goodbye.

This past week I attended a Tea Party on one of the TeaParty Express stops. I live in a suburb of Pgh where most of the residents work about 25 miles away. Nevertheless, the place was jam packed with “mobsters”. I had to park a mile away from the event. Funny our local news stations had not a thing about it in the 6pm or 11pm news. I was delighted thought to see the turn-out at 2:30pm on a weekday. I was reassured that I am not alone in my frustration, and we are little by little making our voices heard.

Asking WHY our CURRENT admin…, mainly obama, is so unwilling to recognize terrorism, call it by its name, and even goes so far as to SUCK UP TO COUNTRIES that supported this violence against us, is more to the point!!! HOW FREAKIN NAIVE AND IGNORANT are we??!!!

Airforce One has been used for date night in NYC but 0zer0 couldn’t get there? Shameful and, as always, out of tune.

It doesn’t sound like that process is something that any president could fix without serious cooperation from agency personnel …

“The interagency is not a place. It is a process involving human beings and complex organizations with different cultures, different outlooks on what’is good for the national interest and the best policy to pursue all driven by the compulsion to defend and expand turf. The process is political (therefore conflictual)because at stake is power, personal, institutional, or party. The power game involves the push and pull of negotiation, the guarding of policy prerogatives, of hammering out compromises, and the normal human and institutional propensity to resist change.13 Regardless of the style of the president and the structures developed for the management of national security policy, the interagency process performs the same basic functions: identifies policy issues and questions, formulates options, raises issues to the appropriate level for decisions, makes decisions where appropriate, and oversees the implementation of decisions throughout the executive departments.”

…

“The tensions generated by cultural differences and jealousy over turf will always be part of the interagency process. The diplomatic and the military cultures dominate the national security system, though there are other cultures and even subcultures, within the dominant cultures.”

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army-usawc/strategy2004/17marcella.pdf