I guess that depends on how you define punked, raj/Ian/blah. But to apply that term to the above thread is simply, flatly, patently incorrect and intellectually dishonest.

But those are two conditions you often find yourself(ves) in. Wrong and dishonest aren’t family values even on the Left.

Furthermore, reading the chapter involved in the 9/11 report makes obvious two things:

1) Contrary to your statement, there were CIA teams and members in Afghanistan operating directly with the tribal groups in numerous direct attempts to kill/capture bin Laden.

2) The tribal groups not only attempted their own ambushes, but continued to tail and provide excellent information on bin Laden’s whereabouts, almost “real time” — an impossible task without being in extremely close proximity to him.

Add to that the fact that the stories of who canceled what vary depending on which principal in the affair you ask, and the magic word “cover-up” comes immediately to mind.

Why is it so important, IanRaj, that you cover up the fact that the Clinton administration had plenty of chances to get bin Laden even before the African embassies were bombed — and yet chose not to do so? The historical record, as outlined in the 9/11 report, makes it obvious that they had the elements and the plan — yet Clinton’s handpicked counterterrorism and intelligence personnel who claimed they reported directly to him can’t even agree on who killed it.

The fact that you deliberately ignore information that doesn’t fit your claims is blatantly obvious, as I pointed out. Add to that the fact that you can’t even solidly prove your argument — as exemplified by your claim that Tenet “most likely” did it — and it’s not really a concern.

You really must stop thinking that all Americans are as ignorant and biased as the Democratic base.

I would just add that we’re going to be pushing this propaganda right back in ABC’s and the Right’s collective face. We’re not taking this bogus crap anymore. bank on it.

Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted that the principals would not approve it. “Jeff ” thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though perhaps on Tenet’s advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off” the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision.30

Isn’t it AMAZING that so many people have no bloody clue of who actually killed the operation — and that their accounts contradict?

Furthermore, the “CSG” referred to in that paragraph is the “Counterterrorism Security Group”. According to Clintonistas in the 9/11 report, this was a special group that reported directly to Cabinet principals, and was chaired by the National Security Council — which presumably would include Sandy Berger. The report makes it clear that the CSG saw this operation and this plan — and given the amount of access to the administration that Berger and Clarke claim was taken away from them when Bush took power, it is inconceivable that the White House did not see this or rule on it.

In short, you are expecting me to believe that senior White House staff like Berger and Clarke, who claimed that their direct access to the President was taken away in the Bush administration, did not share this with Clinton — especially since Clinton had already signed a memorandum authorizing such actions.

What this looks like is a bunch of underlings trying to point fingers at each other in a fashion that doesn’t implicate their boss.

So astonishing it didn’t even happen! Supposedly the biggest most dramatic scene in the production and it’s complete FICTION. See http://tinyurl.com/qdxtn or even better, go to the 9/11 Commission report upon which this “docudrama” was supposedly based and read about what really happened http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm:

“Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off” the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision.”

Read the rest of the section in the report. No CIA team or Northern Alliance anywhere near bin Laden’s camp. No CIA call to the White House from the ground in Afghanistan and no nixing of the imminent operation by Berger let alone Clinton. You’ve all been punked.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

forget it repugs, it was bush who was in the white house on 9/11; it is his legacy that was forever damaged that day as he sat, with his deer-in-the-headlights look, doing nothing beforehand. history will show this pathetic excuse as the fraud he is.

Where is the traditional final spew of rajIan comments?

Are we in another one of those lulls where the rajIan elements go away at roughly the same time, and will later come back at the same time? LOL

Yup. Bush, with 8 months in office and an incomplete team being systematically blocked/burdened by Senate Democrats and therefore containing a mixed disarray of Clinton leftovers like the incompetents George Tenet and Richard Clarke, was supposed to magically clean up what those same Clinton leftovers had screwed up for 8 long years; or to know via psychic powers what Osama had been carefully preparing for at least 5 of those 8 years.

Yup, that REALLY makes sense.

“Failed policies” of an Administration that was barely EIGHT MONTHS old? Just whom do you think you’re kidding with this twaddle?

Dalebert: Just where the heck are these conservative gay guys hanging out in the Washington DC area? I mean, the decent ones of course.

For starters – what about Saddam’s hand in it? What about that Iraqi national who was a key mover, who then fled to Iraq and was sheltered there until the day the Coalition invaded, 10 years later? The fact that he (for one) wasn’t brought to justice is the least of it.

And as a result, terrorism was thwarted forever and no one ever tried to blow up the WTC with a rental truck again.

And the ’93 WTC bombing?…hmm, we seemed to track down those terrorists and bring them to justice. Meanwhile, bin Laden remains on the lam as bush outsourced the effort to find him to warlords. That was criminal.

The other way the Clintonistas re-write history is to leave out the fact that in May 2001, Jim Jeffords switched parties, gave control of the senate to the Democrats. Under the leadership of Tom Daschole, the Democrats made the strategic decision that they were going to cripple the Bush presidency by stalling on the confirmation of administration nominees. (Revenge for Florida 2000.) So, the Democrats deliberately stalled on filling key posts in the administration, including intelligence posts. So, the Bush Admin throughout Summer of 2001 had to devote attention, time and energy to getting appointees through the Senate that might… and I emphasize might … might have otherwise been devoted counter-terrorism. Although, given the walls the Clinton Administration had erected in the intelligence community, and the severe degradation of intelligence resources under Clinton, and the prevailing domestic disinterest in terrorism, probably not.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/29/clinton.contempt/

He was found in contempt by a Federal Judge for committing perjury in the Paula Jones case and fined $90,000. He also paid Jones about $800,000 and was subsequently disbarred