<p>FF, regardless of which “unnamed third party sources” told Woodward, the meeting has since been confirmed by two of the 9/11 commissioners based on info taken under oath, and confirmed on the record by at least 3 of the people there. The State department has confirmed the meeting occurred, and what the topic was. </p>
<p>The constant repetition of “it’s old news” is really getting old. That’s tantamount to Columbus going around saying the world was round to everyone he meets. And the more he says it, the more people shook their heads and said they’d heard all that malarky before. The fact that the CIA kept repeating the info is not proof is was false. It was evidence that they took the information seriously. </p>
<p>One fact you keep overlooking as you attempt to discredit anyone who points out this little detail: they were right. And much as you admire the job that Bush is/was doing, he kept looking at missile defense and Iraq. That’s just the way it was, and nothing you keep saying will ever change that, ever. As I said, I don’t know that anyone could have prevented 9/11, and I don’t blame Bush or his administration for failing to do so. But I do blame him for misdirected policies then, and misdirected policies when he started an unprovoked war with Iraq. And Ben Laden? Wasn’t that something like “I just don’t think that much about him anymore, he’s just not that important”.</p>
<p>Yes, I know that the meeting has been confirmed by the 9/11 commission and their account of it was exactly the same as Rice had indicated - it was no big deal. If it had been a big deal it would have been highlighted by the 9/11 report. </p>
<p>Did you hear the interview of Woodward on the Today show? He admitted that the timing for the release of the book was geared towards impacting the election and that this was recommended by his employer, the Washington Post. This, more than anything should be the top story here - the fact that a newspaper feels that it is in its charter to impact an election is indeed a scary thing. (Although, the scariness is in theory only since in practicality we have always known that they have had a not-so-well hidden agenda.) </p>
<p>The fact that it was intended to impact an election should make any objective reader feel very suspect of the book’s entire content - as the non-issue of the “explosive” revelation about the July meeting proves.</p>
<p>“Did you hear the interview of Woodward on the Today show? He admitted that the timing for the release of the book was geared towards impacting the election and that this was recommended by his employer, the Washington Post.”</p>
<p>Well I should hope so. It SHOULD impact the election. It is about the malfeasance of Mr. Cheap, Mr. Sleaze, and Her Royal Mendaciousness (they can’t even get their lies straight among themselves), and if Woodward reveals how much they hate America during election season, so much the better.</p>
What has been made public is the August PDB. You can’t tell me that if you were to read that without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight that they were out beating the drums about how much we were in imminent danger. It just regurgitated a bunch of old information that had been around for years with no sense of urgency attached to it whatsoever. It reads like a document that was put together by some summer interns who were tasked with looking into the archives for potential threats from al Qaeda to the American homeland. There was nothing there that would cause one’s “hair to be on fire”.</p>
Newsfalsh to mini: even if you bought into this role of the press, Bush is not on the ballot this November or ever again. But that doesn’t stop Woodward and the Post from creating false allegations in an attempt to swing the election to the Democrats.</p>
<p>Guys, give it up. If it came out that Laura had “al Qaeda will hijack planes and fly them into the WTC on 9/11” tattooed on her backside FundingFather would be huffing “Well, you can’t expect the President to pay attention to that, can you?!?!” There is literally no level of warning or notice to this Administration that he will acknowledge should have gotten Bush to take time off from his vacation and actually pay attention. Because, as we all know (all together now) “It was Clinton’s fault!”</p>
<p>“mini, I think its time to give this line a rest. It is getting very, very tired.”</p>
<p>I asked you a simple question, and the fact that you avoid the question is all-the-more confirmation of its truth. You hate America, you hate people who work hard trying to protect it, you hate people who try to inform their superiors about threats to it, you hate soldiers who have their lives put at risk because of the lying of their leaders, you hate America because you approve of the subversion of America’s values.</p>
<p>That is already established. What I don’t know is “why”.</p>
<p>OK kluge, please provide your theory as to why:</p>
<p>a) the 9/11 commision knew about the July meeting but didn’t see fit to highlight it in their report if it was so revealing</p>
<p>b) why Tenet didn’t present the information directly to Bush in one of his regular briefings</p>
<p>c) why the August PDB did not provide any hint of “connected dots” or a sense of extreme urgency that presumably was conveyed in the July meeting.</p>
<p>Rather than your typical ad hominem attack, why not prove what a great logically thinking lawyer that you claim to be and provide a framework for why the Woodward allegations are logical? Or is it just simpler to take a swipe at me? </p>
<p>By the way, since your faculties seem to be dimmed lately, I will remind you once again - I haven’t said it was Clinton’s fault.</p>
<p>ff, yes it is getting old, all the covering up, the lying, the not remembering, the changing of stories, the saying I wasn’t told, well, yes I was told, no wait but it wasn’t serious…</p>
<p>yeah, we are tired of it all as well, but your defense of this administration is kind of cute, in a way, no matter what comes to light- its always the timing you object to, the messenger, but never the actual truth, rose colored glasses make going through life so much easier and having undying faith as well</p>
<p>It strikes me that Olberman may be mentally ill ( and I say that without innuendo). If not, this doesn’t qualify as a crock, it qualifies as a bottomless pit of youknowwhat. </p>
<p>You could play this side by side with the clips from Network and you wouldn’t know which one was actor or the “anchor”. I can’t imagine how even-more-incredibly angry he is going to be when the next elections are over. In any case, the clear message from this is that he obviously hates Fox News. </p>
<p>Apparently he’s more broadly sensitive to intimations of blame than one might imagine. He could take a lesson from Dick Cheney about how to handle anger. Didn’t someone say that brevity was the soul of wit?</p>
<p>dadx: Do you think that Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are mentally ill as well? (and I say that without innuendo as well. I’m just trying to see if your assessment is content-based or not.)</p>
<p>kluge: read my post a little closer without your pre-judgement and then point out to me where I said it “was Clinton’s fault”. A lesson in logic: it is possible to point out that it is a double standard to fault Bush but not Clinton without saying that it is Clinton’s fault.</p>
<p>Rush gets the bit in his teeth from time to time, as does Ann Coulter.</p>
<p>I don’t think they are mentally ill, but perhaps if I saw them in a context of KO’s broadcast, I’d consider that.</p>
<p>I grew up in a blue collar conservative household where I was taught to have some respect for the President and the office, even when I didn’t agree with perfectly with what he is doing. The events after the 2000 election have reinforced my adult realization that apparently not everyone was brought up that way.</p>
<p>Rush and Ann routinely attack the mainstream media, so sure, I’ll give KO his gripe about the interview with Mr Clinton. Where he loses me is going off the deep end and calling George Bush a coward, among other things.</p>
<p>“I grew up in a blue collar conservative household where I was taught to have some respect for the President and the office, even when I didn’t agree with perfectly with what he is doing.”</p>
<p>This is one of the occasions where your education has done you a disservice. (I’ve hda plenty of those occasions myself.) When Presidents lie, and their appointees deliberately deceive, and people die as a result, the only way to show respect for the office, and for your country, is to call it for what it is.</p>
<p>If you lifted the respect for the country, presidency, president, or anything else out of that Olberman piece, and placed it on the edge of a razor blade, it would resemble a gnat dropping in the middle of the NJ turnpike.</p>
<p>He’d have more success in swaying people to his point of view if they left out words like slime (or sleaze) and coward. I guess he was mad as hell and he wasn’t gonna take it anymore.</p>
<p>Kluge: maybe I should add a little “secret” innuendo to a few posts just to keep you sharp.</p>
maybe I should add a little “secret” innuendo to a few posts just to keep you sharp.</p>