By Matt for the TIB Network:
The subject has come up yet again in comments, so rather than bury my response in comments, I thought I'd address our European friend's questions right here in the open.Peter van P. (typical Michael Moore Liberal):
*pre 9/11: AQ focus, daily meetings Tenet, the "increase" of counterrorism funding, no reports that planes might be used, no threath [sic] of attack mentioned during aug 6 briefing, manner of attack was not specific etc...There are a number of problems with these 'lies':
+ By the accounts of Condi Rice (9/11 testimony), there was a focus on al Qaeda prior to 9/11 and a plan for eliminating the threat was in the works. 9/11 happened before the plan could be brought to the President.
+ I don't have the President's schedule handy, but even weekly meetings with Tenet would have been an improvement over President Clinton. Clinton met with the Director of the CIA only a handful of times the entire eight years he was in office. (Dr. Rice did indicate that Bush met with Tenet everyday 'on the record' as they say. The burden of proof is on the accuser.)
+ From page 219 of the 9/11 Commission Report:
The [Bush] administration decided to propose to Congress a substantial increase in counterterrorism funding for national security agencies, including the CIA and the FBI. This included a 27 percent increase in counterterrorism funding for the CIA.Emphasis added.
+ As for "no reports that planes might be used" that is NOT what Dr. Rice said. Here is the Condi quote (quote was taken from the Senate Democrats website):
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon. [No one predicted] that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." (Press Briefing, 5/16/03)She is correct. I have not seen nor heard of a report that indicated that AQ was planning to use hijacked planes as missiles. The burden of proof is on the accuser.
+ "No threat of attack in Aug 6 PDB": The August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing did not outline an attack. It was a historical overview of what AQ had done and indicated that AQ was determined to strike the United States. There was no threat outlined because all of these attacks mentioned HAD ALREADY HAPPENED.
(I am assuming, Peter, that your "manner of attack" bit is related to the Aug 6 PDB. If not please clarify in the comments and I'll refute that too.)
More Peter van P. (typical Michael Moore Liberal):
*9/11 having seen the first plane crash:"that's a terrible pilot" *after 9/11:NYC air is safe to breathe,well never let Osama go, link 9/11 to Iraq, Saoudi-Arabia [sic] is our friend,using all intelligence assets and military assets, to chase AQ down and bring them to justice ,Taliban has been put out of business forever+ "That's a terrible pilot" - I have been unable to find a credible source for this one, but I'll take you at your word. Are you disputing that he saw it or that he thought it was an accident? EVERYBODY thought the first one was an accident.
+ Post 9/11 air quality in NYC: Your beef is with the EPA, not the President of the United States. You know, the Environmental Protection Agency... It is clear that the EPA erroneously declared the air safe to breathe. The President has to trust he is getting good information from government agencies. (I could make a really good Big Government is bad argument here...)
+ "Will never let Osama go": That doesn't sound like a direct quote, but I'll accept it as the appropriate sentiment. Question, have we heard from Osama since Tora Bora? When was the last time we've heard from that publicity whore? Sounds to me like he didn't get away. (I am with those who say Osama was killed in Tora Bora and the administration decided to keep it quiet because they didn't want Osama to become a martyr. Sure they don't get credit for the kill, but then again, this way Osama fades away in to oblivion.)
+ 9/11-Iraq link: That is NOT what the President's position is. The President rightly has pointed out that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. Saddam harbored Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas. Does the name Zarqawi mean anything to you? He was in Iraq receiving medical attention after getting injured in Afghanistan. While recovering, Zarqawi ran terrorist training camps IN IRAQ. People tend to confuse the War on Terror with the War on al Qaeda. There is no war on AQ. The problem is larger than just one organization.
+ Saudi Arabia is our friend: Saudi Arabia is what John Kerry would call an "ally." Meaning, another country that has something that they can contribute to the cause. Are they perfect allies? No, but neither are the French (And actually, I think both of these countries are more like enemies than friends). We aren't going to transform the Middle East without the support and cooperation of Saudi Arabia. So we should tell them to piss-off, right? Diplomacy kind of sucks like that.
+ "using all intelligence assets and military assets, to chase AQ down and bring them to justice": Over 75% of AQ has been either killed or captured and what is left is on the run. The President indicated, from the beginning, that this was quite likely to be a generational effort. He wasn't lying.
+"Taliban has been put out of business forever": Name for me one country in which the Taliban has power. The burden of proof is on the accuser.
Even more from Peter van P. (typical Michael Moore Liberal):
Iraq: the WMD [expletive deleted] with a lot of spinning around it: from “leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” -> "Saddam could give WMD's to terrorists" -> "the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment" ->“knows where [Iraq’s WMDs] are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” ->"They could have been destroyed during the war. . . They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country" -> ( in Poland) "found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. . . . They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two.” ( some kind of reboot of his HD I suppose ) etc...I'm not going to break this one down point by point. I could, but I'm not going to bother: Kay, Hutton, and Duelfer have already done that. I will speak to the general content...
+WMD: The world's intelligence agencies ALL thought Saddam had stockpiles of those weapons at the time. The UN and the IAEA both thought Saddam had stockpiles of those weapons at the time. I have read the reports Hans Blix filed with the UN, he indicated that Saddam was in material breach of the resolutions. The burden of proof was on Saddam to prove that he didn't have the weapons, he failed to do that.
+ The Kay Report DID identify WMD-related programs. You actually have to read the report. "Related programs" doesn't mean stockpiles of weapons; it means related programs.
+ Question: Where did the Syrian terrorists get chemical weapons with which to attempt an attack on Jordan? Would it help to know that there was intelligence indicating convoys between Iraq and Syria just prior to the start of the war?
I ask again, WHAT LIES?
