Well, the good news is, it blows to all hell Rosie O'Donell's studied, scientific views on the matter...

Not so much. The problem with conspiracies is that they are universally inclusive.

This, in the theorist's mind would simply be another layer of the conspiracy, orchestrated to trick the sheeple into believing the government's version of history.

On a lighter note, Bill Whittle posted his new essay that explores this very topic.

Clinton knew, Bush knew.
And you wonder why the official story is treated with skepticism?
Loose Change revisits the scenarios the government itself used of airliners hitting the Pentagon, and the publication of manuals with the WTC in crosshairs.
Going back to the JFK administration.
Then Condi says NO ONE could imagine such a thing. Until she changed her story, of course.
Excuse my dust, google Operation Northwoods.

Heralder,
If your going to point to an apologist, make it a competent one. Whittle unwisely broadbrushes things. Gerald Posner is smarter. He's wrong, too, but wise enough to incorporate the stronger points of the opposition.
He muffed the Roswell thing badly though, so ignore him on that.

bryanD,

That plan was rejected by the government. Because some high-ranking people concocted some terrible ideas 40 years ago, doesn't give credence your 9/11 consipracy mongering.

I looked up Northwoods, now go read the essay I linked to.

I find someone of your intellectual caliber calling Whittle incompetent pretty funny.

"It wasn't about a specific airline or a specific day, it was not a precise plot," Lorenzi told The Associated Press. "It was a note that said, 'They are preparing a plot to hijack an airplane, and they have cited several companies.'"

The distinction between raw intelligence and actionable intelligence is lost on many people. The reason that we failed to prevent 9/11 is that the process by which raw intelligence is gathered and converted into actionable intelligence was/is broken. It's almost laughable to hear the partisans point fingers back and forth as to which President should have stopped 9/11, as if they're talking about some comic book hero.

"Because some high-ranking people concocted some terrible ideas 40 years ago, doesn't give credence your 9/11 consipracy mongering. -heralder"

What did Santayana say about those who won't learn from history?

And as for Whittle, I read yesterday's installment: it's bedtime stories for nervous children.
If he thinks Oswald acted alone, he needs to tell the 1978 House Assassinations Committee Report which found proofs of conspiracy.

I will admit I'm always skeptical of "investigators" who reinforce the safe, comfortable positions held by vested interests. Debunking is like a cry of "I'm worthy, so love me! I'm a big boy, now!"
It's more of kissing up, than pissing down, because the stream is but a tinkle.

Rant switch on:

As much as I think Bush has squandered the trust given to him by Republican and Democrat Conservatives, I still think Clinton and the liberals are to blame for all of this terrorist mess.

My conservative conspiracy theory stems from the fact that the Clinton Democrat-held White House most likely used the delays caused by Gore's "2000-post-election-result-denial-syndrome" to destroy as much evidence as possible at the White House. Then, when Bush's administration transitioned into power in the last days/minutes before the 2001 inauguration, months after the time that a new president should have transitioned (which is immediately after the 2000 election). Lets face it, everytime the Florida election results were recounted, Bush got more votes...and even less time to have an effective transition.

So it begs the question, what was the Clinton Liberal Democrat White House hiding that they destroyed the ability to use every computer in the White House, when they let Bush's folks in? why give Bush's administration so little time for an effective transition?

It seems the one thing Clinton and his Liberal mafia forgot was the National Security documents. They seemed to forget the documents that showed the Clintons knew alot more about the 9/11 plans than originally denied, and/or how they bungled important opportunities to kill/kidnap Bin Laden or other of his AlQaeda players.

Its quite incredible that Bush's Justice Dept let Clinton's hack, Sandy Berger, commit an act of treason by stealing & destroying National Security documents from the National Archives.

If there ever was a reason to fire Gonzalez, and fault Bush's presidency, it is for dropping the ball on sending Berger to prison for his heinous crime of stealing from the Nat'l Archives, as well as for not telling the American public what was stolen from Nat'l Archives.

As far as Rosie the bigot is concerned, I luv how Rosie agrees with a conspiracy theory that Mel Gibson's anti-semitic father also agrees with, as well as many other anti-american & anti-semitic political leaders and conspiracy theorists: that the US government used computer-guided planes to strike the towers and then send in black ops teams to bring down the buildings.

unfortunately, when a trans-continental jumbo jet slams into a skyscraper, and knocks off fireproofing from structural steel, which in turn exposes the steel to jet fuel that has ignited in confined spaces, there is only one way those buildings will go: straight down.

Since Rosie & the Clintons & the rest of the Liberal Democrat and Republican establishment think the truth should revolve around fixing their messed up lives, all of the world is made to suffer, and to be treated as their playtoy.

The Liberal Establishment's denials and promotion of conspiracy theories are another off-shoot of the 1960s Liberal Generation expecting others to fix their mistakes. Just like America has had to try and heal its damaged societal moral & diplomatic fabric after the 1960s Liberals gave the world the Vietnam defeat, and after the Liberal "free love" fiasco, and after Liberal pop-culture advocated the use of illegal drugs.

Now we have a country who will never be unified in the face of a determined enemy, and we hate the militray veterans who defend our liberties & freedoms.

"Free love" has turned out to be anything but free. We have paid a heavy price and present & future generations will be the ones who suffer the most because of promiscuity & Liberal sexual immorality, which has created new and more powerful STDs, and increased divorce, abortion, and death rates.

And new and more powerful illegal drugs are being created/used all the time, making America's and the Western worlds' youth the laughing stock of the world.

If there is any consiracy it is that the Liberal media conglomerates have put in place a media black out on the horrible failure of their Liberal dogmas and spin these failures as the faults of Conservative morality and diplomacy.

Unfortunately, America never had these failures until Liberals took over the education, policital, and even religious heirarchies in this great country.

Since the Liberals have controlled practically every facet of American life for the last 40 yrs, we have became a diseased and psychotic country not even sure of what the truth is, even when it slams us in the face.

The fruits of this Liberal conspiracy are only one: chaos.

All great societies & cultures never failed from external enemies; they always failed from internal enemies, whose philosophies were founded on perverted and demented moral systems & pacifistic foreign policy theories.

Rant switch off.
cheers.

bryanD,

What did Santayana say about those who won't learn from history?

That the idea was turned down by the civilian leadership then, bodes well for applying this well-worn phrase to our government today. It would be turned down.

The fact that we can't keep the smallest of secrets from the press due to a legion of leakers throughout the three branches of government ought to jar you into using some common sense. Something as large as this could not have been held secret...someone would have talked...other than, of course, the terrorist who claimed responsibility for arranging it.

If he thinks Oswald acted alone, he needs to tell the 1978 House Assassinations Committee Report which found proofs of conspiracy.

Once I read Case Closed I'll let you know what I think about that.

I will admit I'm always skeptical of "investigators" who reinforce the safe, comfortable positions held by vested interests.

Also, uncoincidentally, these positions are most often known as the truth.
Taking the opposite tack on every issue just out of habit or for the sheer sake of doing so is betraying you Bryan.

Debunking is like a cry of "I'm worthy, so love me! I'm a big boy, now!"

Sounds rather like you harbor more than a little resentment for those who make your cross-eyed reasoning look as foolish as it actually is.

I agree with most of what Bruce writes, save for one thing. That concerns Bush. History will be kind to Mr. Bush. He has protected America from its enemies and has conducted his adminstration with honor. He fought wars in two theaters, keeping our casualties light. History will not be so kind to the Democrats if they are sucessful at ending our work in Iraq. They will be unable to rewrite history to show the aftermath of such action could be blamed on the President and they will pay the price polically for year.

If he thinks Oswald acted alone, he needs to tell the 1978 House Assassinations Committee Report which found proofs of conspiracy._bd

"Once I read Case Closed I'll let you know what I think about that._heralder"

Thanks for being so honest. "Mind on loan from Posner."

bryanD,

Thanks for being so honest. "Mind on loan from Posner."

I have respect for the man who recommended the book, it's simple. I'm sure you take, and digest recommendations in much the same way...or do you postulate in a vaccum?

The reason I deferred comment on this subject is that I currently have little knowledge of it.

Amazing.

So we learn that Clinton learned during the ~20 days he was in office in 2001 about the plane threat. This just backs up what we learned years ago that the Clinton admin briefed the Bush admin about the threat and they did nothing about it. But that's just ridiculous, it must have something to do with the Berger "scandal" if we only ignore that little fact that he only took copies, and no original documents were missing. Oh, that must be a lie perpetrated by the liberal National Archives and Records Admin.

Hey slack JAW, you are out of date with the 'only took copies' business. It's pretty clear he took original marginalia; and probably not all of it.
================================

My deconstruction of your rant.

First, thanks for admitting this is a rant, from the outset. I just want to separate facts from opinions,

My conservative conspiracy theory stems from the fact that the Clinton Democrat-held White House most likely used the delays caused by Gore's "2000-post-election-result-denial-syndrome" to destroy as much evidence as possible at the White House.

That's not a fact.

Please show

a) any evidence that the Clinton-Gore White House engaged in this;

b) any evidence that there would be any crimes for the Clinton-Gore White House to cover up!

I submit that if there were any evidence to find, it would have been found by the 4-year, $40 million Whitewater investigation. They could find a blue dress, but they couldn't find any crimes in office.

So it begs the question, what was the Clinton Liberal Democrat White House hiding that they destroyed the ability to use every computer in the White House, when they let Bush's folks in?

This talking point has been thoroughly debunked, years ago. The impartial General Accounting Office itself did the debunking.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/05/19/MN169709.DTL

"The General Services Administration found nothing unusual about the condition of White House offices after Clinton officials left, and President Bush's staff said it had no records that indicated damage or subsequent repair work, the accounting office manager said.

"Bernie Ungar, director of physical infrastructure at the agency, said inquiries he made at the request of Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., led him to conclude that Clinton officials might have engaged in pranks during the transition, but did not cause major damage. "

"...At the time, Clinton offered to pay the cost of any vandalism but requested a detailed account of what, if anything, was amiss.

No such records exist, said Ungar, who questioned members of Bush's staff as well as workers who refurbished about 400 offices in the West Wing, the East Wing and the Old Executive Office Building.

"The GSA responded to Ungar in February and issued a statement Friday, saying, "The condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy."

Note the above is a reprint of a NY Times article; and note that no paper or pundit of any repute disputes this.

So your conspiracy theory has no actual incident to explain.

And now I get to point out the facts on the Sandy Berger issue.

Its quite incredible that Bush's Justice Dept let Clinton's hack, Sandy Berger, commit an act of treason by stealing & destroying National Security documents from the National Archives.

It's incredible because it's literally not credible - NOT TRUE.

Sandy Berger ONLY removed COPIES of documents. COPIES. Not originals.

What follows in your post is more opinion, which you are entitled to.

Unfortunately, America never had these failures until Liberals took over the education, policital, and even religious heirarchies in this great country.

Since the Liberals have controlled practically every facet of American life for the last 40 yrs, we have became a diseased and psychotic country not even sure of what the truth is, even when it slams us in the face.

Here's where your opinion wanders from the facts. 40 years back, takes us to 1967.

- Nixon was not a liberal.

- Gerald Ford was not a liberal.

- Reagan was not a liberal.

- George H.W. Bush was not a liberal.

- George W. Bush is not a liberal.

- Bill Clinton isn't even a liberal - he's a moderate. That's how he got elected.

- The GOP Senate and Congress since 2000 have been about as far from Liberal as you can get.

All great societies & cultures never failed from external enemies; they always failed from internal enemies, whose philosophies were founded on perverted and demented moral systems & pacifistic foreign policy theories.

Here's what's factually and historically wrong with this final statement:

a) "All great societies" have not fallen because of pacifistic foreign policy theories.

b) "All great societies" have not fallen because of internal struggles.

Hey jim, you're out of date with your 'only took copies' business.
================

OK, Kim; if that's so, I'll correct it. Just show me the info that Berger took originals - let alone that he destroyed them.

to Zelsdorf Ragshaft III: I would like to clarify my negative criticism of Bush.

as I have said on other blogs, I fault Bush for 9 months of failure against the 9/11 threat, and the Liberal Democrat Clinton for 8 yrs of failure and agree with your comment that history will be kind to Bush in terms of 9/11.

My negative criticism of the squandering by the Bush administration, of the trust Conservatives had given him, is in terms of all the other actions, or inactions, he has presided over, and allowed to occur under his watch i.e. the man does not know what the word "border" means, whether the continental U.S. or in Iraq. He is simply too stubborn, dumb, or liberal to want to enforce the borders of these two critical regions of the world.

His handling of the illegal immigration issue, making tax breaks permanent, reforming Social Security, post-Katrina emergency & rescue operations, veteran's administration hospitals, etc...I just dont see leadership on these issues.

Allowing Libby and 2 U.S. Mexican-American border patrol guards to be punished for not doing anything wrong. For the Pres. of the U.S. not to protect and/or pardon those being burned by witch hunts is frightening. Clinton pardoned out-and-out criminals, yet Bush does nothing for public officals that have wrongfully prosecuted. Sadly, one of Bush's presidential pardons was for a acid drug dealer, and yet other citizens, railroaded by Gonzalez's Justic Dept, get nothing.

His mishandling and coddling of the Berger acts of treason is beyond comprehension. Insane hands-off on the guy, and yet why????? The Justice Dept. should have had his Berger in shackles when that trial was over.

I also dont think he handle Hezbollah/Syria strong enough when they attacked Israel last summer.

I do not care the way he handled the Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers, or the Schiavo affair.
That he needed to be forced to pick a clear-cut conservative supreme court justice, as well as just signing a piece of paper, and then still allowing a handicapped person to be killed by the state, is preposterous. Ever since he and others in the Republican heirarchy let her die, their popularity has either faded or they have disappeared from the politcial scene.

but I would still rank Bush Jr. higher than his Bush Sr., Clinton, or Ford or Carter. I think overall, he will be remembered very well for his handling 9/11 and Iraq and Afghanistan. Its just that Bush doesnt seem to want to re-group, in a timely manner, when his ideas are not going right, or when he needs to apply strong pressure on other politicians to get meaningful change in government.

I also consider Congress even worse off than Bush in their lazy & downright immoral attitude towards alot of the same important & vital issues.

Once again, opinions are fine, but man - there's some real differences between opinions and facts here.

as I have said on other blogs, I fault Bush for 9 months of failure against the 9/11 threat, and the Liberal Democrat Clinton for 8 yrs of failure and agree with your comment that history will be kind to Bush in terms of 9/11.

a) Clinton is not a liberal Democrat.
b) All the people involved in the first WTC attack were caught and convicted.
c) The attack on the Cole happened at the end of Clinton's administration - and Bush decided not to respond.

So it's Clinton's fault that Bush didn't respond?

What other things are Clinton's fault? I just want to know what you're talking about.

Allowing Libby and 2 U.S. Mexican-American border patrol guards to be punished for not doing anything wrong.

a) don't you think lying is wrong?

Libby lied. A jury of his peers found him guilty of it.

b) the border patrol guards fired at a man while he was running away *towards* the Us-Mexican border, in the back. Do you think that's right?

His mishandling and coddling of the Berger acts of treason is beyond comprehension. Insane hands-off on the guy, and yet why????? The Justice Dept. should have had his Berger in shackles when that trial was over.

Maybe they didn't have Berger in shackles because....no treason was committed?

Please prove me wrong, and show what treason Berger actually committed.

The best evidence of how the Clinton administration viewed terrorists threats is a search of all of Al Gores campaign speeches leading up to 2000 and how many times he mentioned terrorism???

Zero

Jim, your really sad. You know as well as I that Johnson, Ford, Carter were very liberal compared to Reagan. Ford, and even Bush Sr. are exactly the Republican Liberals I am complaining about. Nixon came in after the Liberal fiasco of the Johnson administration. By the time Reagan got into power, Liberals had/have all the upper heirarchy positions in the U.S locked up. They run the EPA and FDA and most, if not all major upper education institutions. Clinton cleaned house in the Justice Dept. fired all conservative lawyers. Bush Jr. kept almost all of Clinton's nomineees. They have been given lifetime appoitnments or are tenured in many other academic institutions.

where is your proof that internal enemies such as immorality and pacifism did not cause great societies to fall? Rome fell because its immorality corrupted it from within. It had a drastic reduction in birth rates due to STDs. Byzantium fell because it thought pacifism would palcate the Muslims. This is common knowledge to historians.

In terms of Berger, get a clue. He stole originals. Berger admitted it but did not say exactly what he stole. You are sadly mistaken. read my proof at the following link(i noticed you provided nothing to rebuttal what i said):
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200703/ai_n18737193

excerpt from Human Events, March 5, 2007:

"President Bill Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger has pleaded guilty to stealing classified documents from the National Archives, but the case is still not over. "

"Although Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents in 2005, the DOJ did not thoroughly investigate all Berger's visits to the Archives. The DOJ was concerned only with the items Berger stole in his third and fourth visits, even though he admitted he had taken classified notes during his second visit."

"The report concluded: 'There is no basis for concluding that Berger did not remove original documents during his first two visits to the National Archives. It is not knowable whether Berger removed critical documents responsive to 9/11 Commission during those two visits. Given Berger's admission that he removed his classified notes during the July 18, 2003, visit, he certainly could have removed other classified documents.'"

"As a part of his plea deal, Berger agreed to undergo a polygraph test, but he was never made to do it."

end quote.

Gonzalez and Bush's Liberal Republican Dept. Of Justice dropped the ball in prosecuting this treasonous crime, and Clinton's Liberal Democratic thugs are traitors and crooks.

Clinton and his people took the threat from Bin Laden seriously. Bush and his people did not. You can draw various conclusions from these facts, but the record is pretty clear that they are facts. During the first half of 2001, the Administration was obsessed with China, as anybody who was reading the papers in those days should be able to remember. The Bush security apparatus studiously ignored warnings from the departing administration and people like Clark that terrorism should be a priority.

"it must have something to do with the Berger "scandal"."

Supporter of the "Party of Criminal Frauds" and "Serial Liars" admits to Democrat criminal behavior then by nature tells a series of lies and baseless assertions in hopes of systematically decriminalizing already admitted to criminal acts. Like the following:

"if we only ignore that little fact that he only took copies"

"and no original documents were missing"

There is a feeling of having been violated everytime I hear a democrat admit the fact that they are criminals and engage in criminal activity , but hey what's the big deal? If the origional Documents were taken there is no way of ever knowing so we can tell the lie that only copies were taken.

Why don't you mention some "little facts" that are of some relevant importance?

Like Sandy Pants having yet to take the Lie Detector test that he agreed to take as part of his sentence?

Democrats are serial liars and criminal frauds with absolutely zero credibility no matter how much they scream "The sky is blue? , the sky is blue!" As for the Democrat cheerleaders, ahat can I say?

Being a Democrat requires the wiping of each others ass 24/7.

Jim, you are a very sad individual indeed. I see you wish to charge into the sunset in defending the American Liberal establishment. oi vey...

The border patrol shot at the drug dealer when they thought he had a gun. Once they realized he did nt have a gun, they notified their supervisors that they had shot at an unharmed criminal. He was a known, repeat drug-runner.

The border patrol guards' supervisors did not follow through with the necesary paper work to state what happened. The DOJ refused to allow this evidence to be brought up at trial. This trial is under appeal. The guards did not cover up anything.

Libby did not cover up anything either. Show me one fact that he lied, or was it really a mistake in testimony? Wasnt he brought in front of a grand jury because he supposedly lied about outing a CIA agent's identity? well guess what Jim? Richard Armitage was the one who outed the agent, not Libby.

It was proven at this trial that Libby did not out the CIA agent. Yet Libby is found guilty of what Jim? for making a mistake testifying to the DOJ. Get a clue, what kind of draconian justice is that?

SO ACCORDING TO YOUR JUSTICE JIM, YOU AGREE TO MAKE UP A NEW CRIME FOR SOMEONE WHEN THEY ARE NOT FOUND GUILTY OF THE CRIME THEY WERE ORIGINALLY CHARGED/BROUGHT TO TRIAL FOR?

if you ask me Jim, you seem to support a pretty pathetic Liberal form of justice...as well as historical revisionism. Very Liberal in fact.

You know as well as I that Johnson, Ford, Carter were very liberal compared to Reagan.

Simply because they were not as conservative as Reagan, does not in any way make them liberal. That's ridiculous. They are simply less conservative. That would be like saying Limbaugh is a liberal, because he's less conservative than Charles Dodgson. Come on, really.

where is your proof that internal enemies such as immorality and pacifism did not cause great societies to fall?

You said ALL nations, not some.

My proof that your statement is not universally true, is every single time one nation conquered another.

So, did Ireland fall to Britain because of Pacifistic attitudes? Did Carthage fall to Rome because of pacifistic attitudes? Clearly, no.

Did Britain lose to our founding fathers because of Britain's social immorality and military pacifism? That's a unique argument. I'd say no. Britain was socially stiff, cruel to the poor, and totally in love with the exercise of military power.

Therefore, your statement of ALL nations falling for this reason is simply not true.

In terms of Berger, get a clue. He stole originals.

The very same article you link to, has a nice clue for you that you should get.

I quote:

"The Inspector General of the National Archives and Records Administration, Paul Brachfeld, wrote in an internal memo that Nancy Kegen Smith, who directs the Archives' presidential documents staff and supervised Berger's first two visits, told him she "would never know what if any original documents were missing."

So. No documents have been found to be missing.

That's basically the end of the story. I know how much you want to believe differently - but read the facts.

Facts which exist even in your own quoting, which you should have read better:

"The report concluded: '...It is not knowable whether Berger removed critical documents responsive to 9/11 Commission during those two visits.'"

'It is not knowable' means "there is no evidence".

Got that? Can it be any clearer?

And there's a further point you should get from this: the sources you have been listening to, bury the facts deep, because they really *want* you to be mad at Berger and Clinton and think they're treasonous.

When they twist the truth like this, they are *playing* you. Pure and simple.

I ask you: why would they try to manipulate you like that?

What do they have to gain from it?

Its just terrific how Jim Harrison conveniently forgets that Clinton had 8 yrs to prevent 9/11 and did nothing.

...and yet the Clinton White house staff leaves the White House computer system and files in shambles, delays the turnover of the Presidency to the new administration, and yet still throws everything in the lap of the new administration.

so what was Clinton's recommendation to the new Bush administration, in response to the Cole bombings? What exactly did Clinton and staff recommend that America should do as retaliation against Bin Laden for this attack? hmmmm???

simply astonishing the lack of common sense and distortion of the truth that Liberals have in analyzing the Clinton years.

Its really appalling.

Here's what's wrong with what you're saying:

- you have no evidence that Sandy Berger took any original documents.

- you have no reason WHY Sandy Berger WOULD take any documents.

- you are accusing liberals and Democrats of saying Berger should receive no punishment for making copies and removing copies.

Please show where I or any other Democrats have said that Berger should not be subject to the law, for the laws he has broken.

"if we only ignore that little fact that he only took copies"

Who is saying we should ignore this? No one.

"and no original documents were missing"

You mean, if there's no evidence?

If the origional Documents were taken there is no way of ever knowing so we can tell the lie that only copies were taken.

What a perfect, airtight little way to hate without needing any evidence.

Like Sandy Pants having yet to take the Lie Detector test that he agreed to take as part of his sentence?

What about it? If that's your argument, yes, I don't see a problem with him taking a lie detector test.

But him NOT taking one is NOT proof of anything, period.

Please wake up.

Bruce, please read up the thread. I've already debunked all your talking points.

Its just terrific how Jim Harrison conveniently forgets that Clinton had 8 yrs to prevent 9/11 and did nothing.

Debunked upstream.

...and yet the Clinton White house staff leaves the White House computer system and files in shambles,

Debunked upstream. Please read again. This has been disproven by the General Accounting Office itself. If you believe in truth, you will realize that this statement is false. Please realize it.

delays the turnover of the Presidency to the new administration, and yet still throws everything in the lap of the new administration.

so what was Clinton's recommendation to the new Bush administration, in response to the Cole bombings? What exactly did Clinton and staff recommend that America should do as retaliation against Bin Laden for this attack? hmmmm???

Here. Try some facts:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=%22The_Path_to_9/11%22_(2006_Docudrama)/Facts_and_Fiction#Criticisms_of_Bill_Clinton

"Fiction:

[Path to 9/11] Screenwriter Nowrasteh told Front Page Magazine that the 9/11 report "details the Clinton's administration's response -- or lack of response -- to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing." [8]

Fact:

This was contradicted by the commission's report, which stated:
"As evidence of al Qaeda's responsibility for the Cole attack came in during November 2000, National Security Advisor Samuel Berger asked the Pentagon to develop a plan for a sustained air campaign against the Taliban. Clarke developed a paper laying out a formal, specific ultimatum. But Clarke's plan apparently did not advance to formal consideration by the Small Group of principals. We have found no indication that the idea was briefed to the new administration or that Clarke passed his paper to them, although the same team of career officials spanned both administrations." [9]

It was also contradicted by the commission's executive summary:

"After the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, evidence accumulated that it had been launched by al Qaeda operatives, but without confirmation that Bin Ladin had given the order. The Taliban had earlier been warned that it would be held responsible for another Bin Ladin attack on the United States. The CIA described its findings as a 'preliminary judgment'; President Clinton and his chief advisers told us they were waiting for a conclusion before deciding whether to take military action. The military alternatives remained unappealing to them.

"The transition to the new Bush administration in late 2000 and early 2001 took place with the Cole issue still pending. President George W. Bush and his chief advisers accepted that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the Cole, but did not like the options available for a response. "

So Clinton was able to reach from outside the White House, and force Bush to not respond to the Cole? Is that really your argument?

Come on, man.

I know you hate Clinton. But for him to be able to influence the Bush administration's actions after Bush took office, Clinton would have to be God Himself.

Bush is responsible for his own actions. Are we agreed there?

Obviously Clinton did not get Bin Laden. We certainly fired plenty of ordinance at him during the Clinton era, however; and several terrorist plots were thwarted including an attempt to attack the American Northwest during the Milennium celebrations. The difference between Clinton and Bush is twofold: Clinton worried about terrorism while Bush ignored it and Clinton didn't prevent 9/11 but he didn't make the country weaker and more vulnerable as Mr. Bush has.

I don't share your belief in the leadership Principle and therefore have no reluctance to criticize the politicians to whom I give my always provisional support. On the other hand, Clinton was a competent and hard working president who left the country stronger, wealthier, and better respected than he found it. Bush is going to leave things in a profound shambles. Well, as an Indian friend of mine told me once, nations ripe for decline tend to find the right man to lead them downwards. Maybe Bush was fate.