1996-GOP Congress BLOCKED Clinton's Push For Anti-Terror Legislation!

[kpete]

Monday, September 04, 2006

From Americablog

GOP Congress blocked Clinton push for anti-terror legislation
by John in DC - 9/04/2006 11:10:00 AM

Before September 11, all the way back in 1996 in fact, the Republicans stopped President Clinton from getting all the tools he needed to stop the next September 11 - well, no, actually they opposed giving President Clinton all the tools he needed to stop the actual September 11.

Maybe we need to ask the Republicans up for re-election why they wanted to appease the terrorists?

President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures. http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

There's even an audio clip http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/clinton.terror.wav of President Clinton practically begging the Republicans to give him the tools he needed to stop Osama and the terrorists. Trent Lott said no. Orrin Hatch said no. Do these men really deserve to run the Congress during a time of war?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/gop-congress-blocked-clinton-push-for.html

[boolean]

1. Kick this. Recommend this.

Can we use that audio in an ad campaign???

[bronxiteforever]

2. Done! will Russert use this on the next GOP terrorism expert?

[indepat]

27. Please refute: Repugs only do what's good for them and their donors: damn

the Republic, damn the Constitution, and be damned with the people.

[boolean]

3. Orrin Hatch:

(Hatch) also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

:rofl::rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

[magellan]

72. Yes, hypocrites to a one

Here's what the Repubs, including Hatch, did to Clinton's anti-terrorism proposal back in 1996:

snip...

The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities.

Rep. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said technology is giving criminals an advantage.

"What the terrorists do is they take one cellular phone, use the number for a few days, throw it out and use a different phone with a different number," he said. "All we are saying is tap the person, not the phone number."

And here's what Hatch said about Bush**'s wiretapping program just in February this year:

"They're moaning and groaning in Congress because he didn't abide by what's called the FISA Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That act is very important, but it was enacted in 1978 and it is not applicable to today's world," Hatch said. "The president is using every methodology that we know ... to try to track down those al-Qaida people or people affiliated with al-Qaida."

The Republicans are irresponsible lying bastards who never put the good of this country ahead of themselves!!

[Bozita]

4. Good post, kpete!

[whistle]

5. I wonder if the ABC faux docudrama on 9/11 exposes the republican

...stonewalling against Clinton's efforts to stop terrorist attacks along the way to 9/11?

[rumpel]

6. and the connection to the media

creating this misinformation!

thanks kpete :)

[ochazuke]

7. Republicans are to blame for 9/11

Al Gore was pushing for anti-terror messures inside the Clinton White House and he gets little credit for it.

A video of all these clips (Clinton pushing for it, Repubs blasting it) should be distributed on YouTube for mass consumption.

Who's up to it?

[whistle]

8. Please post the links when you have them assembled

[focusfan]

30. i agree with you 100%

i think maybe Bush was in cohoots with the terroist though it
probably will never come to light:thumbsup: 

[young_at_heart]

9. I hope ABC execs read this

The owners........Disney, need to be held accountable for inaccuracies, etc.

[derby378]

10. Another Labor Day K&R!

:mad:

[GOPBasher]

11. Why aren't the Democrats shouting this from the rooftops?

This is what pisses me off about Democrats. They get handed a political advantage on a silver platter, and they wouldn't know it from a hole in the ground. SHOUT OUT LOUD WHAT THEY JUST PRINTED IN THIS ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[madfloridian]

18. This has been an ongoing topic at DU for years.

Here is what I posted about Clinton's actual plan, a link to it.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/230

[sandnsea]

32. Patriot Act!! Patriot Act!!! Patriot Act!!!!

Because the left went into caniptions over the Patriot Act which contained this 1996 legislation which is why it didn't take any time to write the Patriot Act OR why the Senate didn't have to read it. Democrats had been trying to get that legislation passed for years and I know that I have been telling people that since I got to DU. But the Patriot Act insanity made all reasonable debate impossible.

[madfloridian]

37. Is hell freezing over again?

Every now and then.

[gully]

12. Kicked, recommended, bookmarked.

Thank you.

[Evergreen Emerald]

13. why are we just finding out about his now?

Stunning that the press and the dems did not reveal this to the public who swallows whole the "clinton's fault" mantra.

[madfloridian]

14. We have posted about this many times here at DU...link to his plan.

Here is a link to Clinton's actual plan. Others have made similar posts. We have known this all along.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/230

I recommended this post.

[alfredo]

15. Read the

Remarks by Nickles in this article

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html


But Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, while praising the bill, said the country remains "very open" to terrorism. "Will it stop any acts of terrorism, domestic and international? No," he said, adding, "We don't want a police state."


Notice the bill they passed was a watered down version. It also took nearly a year to pass. Now that a Republican is pResident, Nickles has changed his opinion on wanting a police state.

[Olney Blue]

16. Their counter argument will likely be: This was before the "lessons

of 9-11."

But it doesn't change the facts: they BLOCKED legislature before 9-11 and it happened on their watch.

Now who's weak on terruh?

[ccpup]

17. Send this to Olberman

or Air America or mention it in a letter to the Editor of your local rag. People forget (some conveniently) that Clinton TRIED to do a lot to combat an enemy the Republicans insisted was a "wag the dog" excuse to deflect attention from other problems. The same men who now beat the American Public over the head with Terra, Terra, Terra absolutely refused to do anything about it in the mid-90s. Most Americans simply don't know this or have forgotten.

The Dems should be playing this up (with a wide open door for rebuttal now that the Pugs are actively trying to spin blame back to Clinton), but, without a spine, it's kinda hard to stand up and do it, you know? Grrrrrrr ... :grr:

[madfloridian]

19. May I point out an irony?

This has been posted at DU many times through the years, but often in the context of saying that Clinton wanted to do pretty close to what Bush is doing now. Many of the posts have been critical.

Here's mine defending Clinton for the attacks on him about this.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/230

I think it is wrong and evil for the other side to blame Clinton for 9/11. I also think we are unaware that we are being a wee bit hypocritical in condemning Bush for what our side would most likely have done....just without 9/11 to use as a hammer to silence us.

That said, I think both go too far.

[druidity33]

25. don't think so...

Wiretapping without warrants? Suspension of Habeus Corpus? Harrassing peace activists and librarians?

B*sh took it way beyond where Clinton would've...

[madfloridian]

38. Probably but both are pretty invasive overall.

This is why our Democrats voted for the Patriot Act so readily.

[sandnsea]

40. That's very true

There was a good piece of legislation that passed the Senate, that had support from the ACLU, that fixed the wiretapping and other problems - but we couldn't get enough support behind it because everybody was so reactionary against Patriot Act -aaaaa- that they couldn't see the benefit of getting it right.

The stupidest part of Republicans being the 'party of security' is that Patriot Act and Homeland Security were Democratic proposals and had been on the table since OKC. Those were OURS and the left flushed them right down the toilet and our defense credibility at the same time. The right hasn't been right about anything.

[Canuckistanian]

43. Right you are

The current "war on terrorism" measures are just the subtext for the real goal - seizing and holding on to power by any means possible.

This election and '08 will be very ugly. Will the American people see past the rhetoric and realize that thay've been handed a bill of goods?

[samsingh]

20. we should ask the repugs why they stopped us from getting the terrorists.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. But, but but he was wagging the dog

:sarcasm:

[Botany]

22. It was never about terror it was always about politics & power

These are not the republicans of Ike, Dirkson, or Goldwater
they election stealing greedy bastards.

[stepnw1f]

23. Thank You Once Again kpete

you are a diamond in the DU rough! I will spread this FARRRR and wide Bro or Sir. Thank you!

[butterfly77]

39. I don;t know how to post a link but you or anyone who does should post

every where next week and the month ahead when they start to hyping up their lies.

[stepnw1f]

41. I Try to...

I usually come here and spread news elsewhere on a daily basis. It's a hobby of mine, I guess. The debunking forum should be utilized just for that, yet I think it's impact is a bit weakened due to having to navigate there rather than it be out in the open.

[spag68]

24. Clinton

Everyone should print a copy of this article, to have when people refer to BC not having done anything about terrorism after seeing this movie. We here all know the truth, but it is nice to have print to show others.

[kpete]

26. Lots more great info here -

Republican relativism: wiretap flip-flop

http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29838

[K8-EEE]

28. I'm SO Sick Of The C&L's Rewriting History

And the BushCo corporate media allowing it.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

29. I wanted to say

That the BBC here in the UK is also airing it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/programmes/?id=path_nine

I didn't know where to post this.

[Rainscents]

31. Thanks for the link... I'm watching it now.

[never cry wolf]

76. You should start a new thread with that link

I don't think that there are any clips anywhere else.

[libodem]

33. thank you for posting this kpete

I woke up this morning thinking about this. I remember the legislation being blocked. I am so glad you could prove my thoughts and feelings. The ABC 9/11 movie is pure Republican propaganda.

[me b zola]

34. k&r

:kick:

[haydukelives]

35. nice post

kick

[proud patriot]

36. K and R

In your face RW punk cowards :mad:

[progressoid]

42. And the Freepers say, "la la la la la la la"

I can't hear you.

[Deja Q]

44. K&R

[laundry_queen]

45. K&R n/t

[Hissyspit]

46. I remember it QUITE well. I was shocked at the time.

[Straight Shooter]

47. Repubs simply don't want a Dem president to exercise power.

That being said, Orrin Hatch is a fiend.

[fooj]

48. A fiend AND a fraud!

[AtomicKitten]

49. These are the facts that should be aired in lieu of the 9/11 mockumentary.

This is the truth that has been buried by the Republicans. This is the truth of 9/11 that puts blame squarely where it belongs ... on this administration.

Surely there must be a left-leaning producer that could craft something outlining these salient facts to air as a companion piece to the piece 'o shit 9/11 hit piece ABC is airing.

[bleever]

50. This really deserves to top 100 recommendations.

It should be said over, and over, and over, and...

[EVDebs]

52. I'm 103 ... also remember what happened to the 'Atlanta Rules'

re flights in the US for the Olympics.

""This page shows all events that either reference, or are referenced by, the event 'July 6, 1996-August 11, 1996'.

July 6, 1996-August 11, 1996: Atlanta Rules Established to Protect Against Attacks Using Planes as Flying Weapons

US officials identify crop dusters and suicide flights as potential weapons that could threaten the Olympic Games in Atlanta, Georgia. They take steps to prevent any air attacks. They ban planes from getting too close to Olympic events. During the games, they deploy Black Hawk helicopters and US Customs Service jets to intercept suspicious aircraft over the Olympic venues. Agents monitor crop-duster flights within hundreds of miles of downtown Atlanta. They place armed fighter jets on standby at local air bases. Flights to Atlanta get special passenger screening. Law enforcement agents also fan out to regional airports throughout northern Georgia “to make sure nobody hijacked a small aircraft and tried to attack one of the venues,” says Woody Johnson, the FBI agent in charge. Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke will use this same security blanket approach to other major events, referring to the approach as “Atlanta Rules.”(see January 20, 1997) ""

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a070696atlanta

What did Bush do after the Aug. 6, 2001 PDB ? Hmmm ?

[bleever]

60. There was Clinton-era experience to help prepare for the Genoa threat.

* had to sleep in a big boats with guns and guards, cuz the terrists were know to be thinking about crashing a plane into a hotel. But *'s own experience was promptly flushed down the memory hole.

[rodeodance]

51. this petition was posted ealier on DU

This is amazing.

PLease read the write up from Kos, and then sign the petition.

LInk to petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/dearabc/petition.html



Stir Up a Firestorm Against ABC

Sat Sep 02, 2006 at 08:59:26 AM PDT

There have been diaries on the upcoming Bush propaganda piece called The Path to 9/11 which will air on ABC in a little more than a week. But we need to revisit this issue. For a major American TV network to air this blatant piece of pro-Bush propaganda eight weeks before the midterm elections is an outrage, and we need to stop it. Read on, and see what I think we should do about it.

If you've forgotten what all the fuss is about, check out this piece from ThinkProgress here. Basically, the show blames everything related to 9/11 on--you guessed it--Bill Clinton! It ignores all of Clinton's efforts against terrorism in the 90s and makes Bush look like a concerned, involved, heroic figure. (I could scarcely write that last phrase without vomiting.) Yes, Mr. "All right, you've covered your ass" is being presented as the nation's savior, rescuing us from Clintonism. William Rivers Pitt has the real story here, and it's infuriating. Excerpts:


ABC intends to mark the occasion <9/11> in far more grand a fashion. Starting September 10th and ending September 11th, the network will show a miniseries titled "The Path to 9/11." According to reports from early screenings, the writer/producer of the miniseries, Cyrus Nowrasteh, has crafted a television polemic intended to blame the entire event on President Clinton.


Leaving aside the wretched truth that the far right is once again using September 11 to score political points, the facts regarding the still-lingering effort to blame the Clinton administration for the attacks must be brought to the fore. Nowrasteh, at several points in his miniseries, rolls out a number of oft-debunked allegations that Clinton allowed Osama bin Laden to remain alive and free before the attacks.

Roger Cressy, National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism in the period 1999-2001, responded to these allegations in an article for the Washington Times in 2003. "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda," wrote Cressy. "As President Bush well knows, bin Laden was and remains very good at staying hidden. The current administration faces many of the same challenges. Confusing the American people with misinformation and distortions will not generate the support we need to come together as a nation and defeat our terrorist enemies."


This piece of disgusting Republican bullshit is already being promoted by Rush Limbaugh and the fanatic, right wing Swift Boat lunatics. We need to mobilize against this NOW--loudly and clearly. Our objective should be simple:

KILL THIS BROADCAST. FORCE ABC TO WITHDRAW IT.

We need to BURY ABC under protests. You can send angry e-mails to them here:

http://abc.go.com/site/contactus.html

Find out the show's sponsors. Give them both barrels, too.
Write your Democratic Senator of Representative. Let them know how you feel.

We need a FIRESTORM about this, folks. When I'm attacked, I FIGHT BACK. I sure as hell hope you feel the same way.

KILL The Path to 9/11.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/2/115926/2629


Mon Sep-04-06 10:25 AM
Original message
1996-GOP Congress BLOCKED Clinton's Push For Anti-Terror Legislation! Updated at 5:22 PM

Edited on Mon Sep-04-06 10:33 AM by kpete
Monday, September 04, 2006

From Americablog

GOP Congress blocked Clinton push for anti-terror legislation
by John in DC - 9/04/2006 11:10:00 AM

Before September 11, all the way back in 1996 in fact, the Republicans stopped President Clinton from getting all the tools he needed to stop the next September 11 - well, no, actually they opposed giving President Clinton all the tools he needed to stop the actual September 11.

Maybe we need to ask the Republicans up for re-election why they wanted to appease the terrorists?

President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures. http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism /


There's even an audio clip http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/clinton... of President Clinton practically begging the Republicans to give him the tools he needed to stop Osama and the terrorists. Trent Lott said no. Orrin Hatch said no. Do these men really deserve to run the Congress during a time of war?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/gop-congress-bl...


Impeach President Cheney and his little dummy 8-)

[flyarm]

53. TRUTH:Clinton concluded fighting terrorism was America's #1 priority

FROM MY FILES, FLY


The truth is Clinton concluded fighting terrorism was America's #1 priority, developed a plan to combat it, and gave extensive briefings to the incoming Bush administration which were totally ignored. Between Inauguration Day and Sept. 11, Bush spent 40% of his time at his Texas ranch.

The truth is that even after 9/11 the Republicans delayed the creation of the Homeland Security Department for over a year and consistently voted against funding for homeland security. They imposed unfunded mandates on states and cities that had to lay off teachers, cops, and firefighters to pay for homeland security. Here is the GOP's record on homeland security:

Nov. 14, 2001: Senate Democrats propose $15 billion for homeland security; the White House warns against "permanent spending on other projects that have nothing to do with stimulus and that will only expand the size of government."

Dec. 4, 2001: Senate Appropriations Committee votes 29-0 in favor of $13.1 billion for homeland security; the next day, Bush threatens to veto it.

Dec. 6, 2001: Senate Republicans reduce homeland security funding by $4.6 billion.

Dec. 19, 2001: Under pressure from White House, House-Senate conferees eliminate another $200 million of funding for airport security, port security, nuclear facility security, and postal security.

June 7, 2002: Senate votes 71-22 for $8.3 billion of homeland security funding; the next day, Bush's advisors recommend a veto.

July 19, 2002: Under White House pressure, homeland security funding is further reduced by cutting money for food security, cyber security, nuclear security, airport security, port security, drinking water security, coordination of police and fire radios, and lab testing to detect chem-bio weapons.

Aug. 13, 2002: Bush decides not to spend $2.5 billion appropriated for homeland security on the grounds of "fiscal responsibility."

Jan. 16, 2003: White House reacts to Democratic efforts to increase homeland security funding by stating, "The Administration strongly opposes amendments to add new extraneous spending." Later that day, Senate Republicans vote against funds for smallpox vaccine.

Jan. 23, 2003: Senate Republicans cut security funding for the FBI, FEMA, INS, TSA, Coast Guard, and National Nuclear Security Administration.

Feb. 3, 2003: Bush submits a 2004 budget cutting homeland security funding by nearly 2 percent.

Feb. 14, 2003: Senate Democrats request money for smallpox vaccine, police and fire radios, and public transportation security; no Republicans support it.

March 21-25, 2003: Republicans defeat 7 amendments to strengthen homeland security.

April 2, 2003: Senate Republicans reject Democratic amendment to provide $1 billion for port security.

April 3, 2003: Republicans reject protection of commercial airliners from shoulder-fired missiles and four other pro-homeland security amendments.

June 2003: House Republicans reject Democratic proposal to raise $1 billion for homeland security by reducing tax cuts for 200,000 millionaires by an average of $5,000 each (from $88,000 to $83,000).

Source: James Carville, "Had Enough?" (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003), pp. 41-43.

"Although Bush took credit for creating the new Department of Homeland Security, he vigorously opposed the idea when Democrats first proposed it. He insisted that a presidential adviser with no accountability to the American people would be more effective than a new Cabinet member. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said President Bush thought that a Department of Homeland Security was 'just not necessary.' Tom Ridge - then homeland security adviser - said that he would recommend that Bush veto legislation to create a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security."

Source: Democratic National Committee Newsletter, Jan. 29, 2003: http://www.democrats.org/news/200301290004.html

"While the Department of Homeland Security has issued new warnings of terrorist hijackings on commercial airlines this summer, Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee voted just last week against a Democratic amendment to add $50 million in funding to prevent the Transportation Security Administration from cutting the number of air marshals. The vote came during the Committee's mark-up of the 2003 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, which funds the TSA's air marshal program."

Source: Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee press release, July 31, 2003: http://216.25.5.15/press/newsreleases/2003-07-31.html

"Senate Republicans once again blocked a vote on homeland security legislation solely because it preserved collective beginning rights and civil service protections for the 170,000 federal workers who would make up the new department.Sixty votes are needed to end debate and bring the measure to a floor vote, the move failed by a 52-45 count, with almost solid GOP opposition. President Bush has threatened to veto any measure that does not give him unlimited power over the workers and Senate Republicans also rejected a bipartisan bill that gave Bush most of what he sought."

Source: International Association of Machinists, Oct. 8, 2002: http://www.iamaw.org/publications/imail/imail_10_08_2002.htm

Comment: In other words, the GOP's anti-worker agenda was higher priority than the safety of the American people ...

[flyarm]

54. Clinton warned Bush of bin Laden threat

MODS..THE LINK TO THIS NO LONGER EXISTS..SO I AM POSTING IN FULL..IF YOU NEED TO YOU CAN REMOVE BUT I THINKI IT IS TOO IMPORTANT..FROM MY FILES..FLY


Clinton warned Bush of bin Laden threat
Wed October 15, 2003 10:27 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former President Bill Clinton says he warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced.Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the History Channel on Wednesday, Clinton said he discussed security issues with Bush in his "exit interview," a formal and often candid meeting between a sitting president and the president-elect.

"In his campaign, Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and a national missile defence," Clinton said. "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden."

The U.S. government has blamed bin Laden's Al Qaeda network for the September 11 attacks.

Time magazine reported last year that a plan for the United States to launch attacks against the al-Qaeda network languished for eight months because of the change in presidents and was approved only a week before the September 11 attacks.

But the White House disputed parts of that story, which was published by the magazine in August 2002.

"The Clinton administration did not present an aggressive new plan to topple al-Qaeda during the transition," a White House spokesman, Sean McCormack, said at the time.

The White House was clearly irritated by the report, which appeared to suggest that the Bush administration might not have done all it could to prevent the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

At Wednesday's luncheon, Clinton said his inability to convince Bush of the danger from al Qaeda was "one of the two or three of the biggest disappointments that I had."

Clinton said that after bin Laden, the next security priority would have been the absence of a Middle East peace agreement, followed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

"I would have started with India and Pakistan, then North Korea, and then Iraq after that," he said. "I thought Iraq was a lower order problem than al Qaeda."

Clinton's vice president Al Gore, who ran against Bush in the 2000 election, did not make the threat from al Qaeda a major focus of the presidential campaign, which both candidates kept focused mainly on domestic topics.

[flyarm]

55. UNDER CLINTON..THEN ...UNDER LORD PISSY PANTS..

Under President Clinton:

-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.

--Stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium bombing plot.
--Stopped cold the planned attack to kill the Pope
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania

-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.

--Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

-Clinton sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

-Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

-Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

-Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.

-Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism
-Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries
-Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
-Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"
-Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.
-Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to underatake a systematic anti-terrorist effort"

Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:

-- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.
-- Shelved Hart-Rudman report.
-- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.
-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense
-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.
-- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger and Louis Freeh about the urgency of terrorist threats.
-- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.
-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.
----Now we've got Bush knowing about the terrorists plans, and the fact that they were in flight schools in the US, and little georgie takes a four week vacation..
-- By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had stopped the millennium plot.
--Blamed Clinton for 9/11.

--In the meantime, his father was working for bin Laden's family business. "Wall St Journal: Bush SR in Business With bin Laden Conglomerate" CARLYLE GROUP, Washington DC

[flyarm]

56. THE REPUBLICAN LIES..AND THEN THE REAL TRUTH...ABOUT CLINTON

from my files..fly



What Clinton did about terrorist attacks by Middle Easterners.



Lie: After WTC 1 Clinton did nothing.

Truth: Even though the first WTC attack happened just 3 weeks into his presidency, FBI under Clinton knew within weeks who had ordered the attack. The blind Mullah was already in jail, but was retried for the attack. His helpers were also caught and tried and are in prison for life.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lie: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia military office bombing: which killed 5 Americans Clinton did nothing.

Truth: The perpetrators were caught with help of FBI. Saudi Arabia had them beheaded.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lie: Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia : Clinton did nothing.

Truth: Khobar Tower (19 airmen killed). Attack was mitigated by protective fencing and rooftop sentinels' keen sensitivity. The military had not only learned from the bombing (under Reagan) of the Beirut barracks, but had been on heightened alert since the bombing in Riyadh mentioned above. Still it was quite an accomplishment that the design and guards' acuity kept the death toll to 19 from a bomb that was twice as powerful as the one which killed 241 marines in 1983 And though it can be noted that the smaller Riyadh bombing may have helped, it can also be remembered that "On April 18, 1983 - almost exactly six months before the attack on the Marine barracks - a suicide bomber drove a van with 2,000 pounds of explosives into the American embassy in Beirut, demolishing a portion of the building and killing 63 people."

Five months after the Bush administration took office the Justice Dept obtained an indictment of 14 men based on 5 years of work by the FBI under Louis Freeh (a Clinton holdover) and most of the work was done during the Clinton administration. AG Ashcroft praised the work of Freeh's FBI on the case.The indictment came a few days before the statute of limitations would run out on some of the charges, which would indicate that the calender, not new information, was the reason for the timing of the indictments. One suspect was obtained by the US under the Clinton administration, and, when he declined to assist the investigation, was deported to Saudi Arabia (under Clinton also) where he claimed he faced torture and beheading(The suspect mentioned above seems to be still alive, but held under solitary conditions in SA. Some say he has not been punished, but Amnesty International is worried about him, and if that doesn't indicate punishment of a pretty heavy sort, I don't know what does.. Of the indicted the US govt. declined to say in June 2001 which ones (besides al-Sayegh {CNN spelling}) were in custody. but a check on the names of the suspects as found at with interpol's Jan 22, 2003 shows
AL MUGHASSIL Ahmad Ibrahim
AL HOURI Ali Sa'ed Bin Ali
AL Yacoub Ibrahim Salih Mohamed
AL NASSER Abdelkarim Hussein Mohamed
Or at least 4 men still at large though the US gov't will say nothing about where the other men are being held according to the reports made about the time of the indictments.
It happens. Not all international terrorists are found. Just ask those Bush people (Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Powell) who were also in the Reagan administration about the never found terrorists who struck the Beirut Barracks, and the pathetic response to that attack (a plan for shelling on the Iranian national Guard's Barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon was dropped in favor one on a civilian neighborhood in the hills above Beirut, and the Marines were pulled out of Lebanon, 4 months later.) Now that is running away from a problem.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lie: Embassy bombings: Clinton did nothing

Truth: Embassy bombings: Clinton had the al Qaeda camps bombed so badly that the terrorist organization did not try a major attack for 14 months! (I am counting until the millennial bombing attack attempts of Dec 1999) Republicans cried "Wag the Dog!" They must have meant that "We shouldn't have bombed the poor people of al Qaeda."
Also, captured perps in jail for life w/ no parole. BTW Bush's expensive War on Afghanistan only stopped al Qaeda from pulling a major attack for 1 month ( until the bombing of the synagogue in Tunisia). The terrorist group went on to conduct 3 more major attacks within a year of the end of the war on Afghanistan and 2 of those (Bali and Moscow) were tantamount to the countries' own 9-11s.

What Millennial Bombing attempts?
Millennial Bombing attempts (Major bombs were to be placed near Los Angeles' LAX and Boston's Logan airports in Dec 1999): Perps captured at the Canadian border, even though the Clinton administration had no more initial time or info than the Bush administration had before 9-11. Perps in jail for life.
Tragedy avoided.. That sure shows what an administration that focused on preventing emminent terrorism instead of one who were focused on ignoring it can do.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lie: Cole Bombing: Clinton did nothing.

Truth: The proof that the Cole bombing was the work of al Qaeda operatives came down from the FBI in February 2001. That would have likely have been less than a month after Bush got into office so most of the detective work was done under Clinton.

Be that as it may, please tell us, Republicans "Who was president in February 2001?"
So....Why didn't the Bush people punish al Qaeda when they got proof that the group was behind the Cole bombings?
Because they were trying to get a deal struck with the Taliban who were the allies of bin Laden. The pipeline was to run a constant supply of cheap natural gas to India, where it would have been picked up by a pipeline built by Enron which would deliver that gas to their Dabhol Electric utility.

[flyarm]

58. Clinton **DID** track down perpetrators of several terrorist attacks

http://snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours, and Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As John F. Harris wrote in The Washington Post:


In August 1998, when ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.
. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.

. . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising that regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But Clinton aides said such a policy — potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia — was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism.

Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger . . . said there little prospect . . . that Pakistan would have helped the United States wage war against bin Laden or the Taliban in 1998, even after such outrages as the bombing of U.S. embassies overseas.

[lisainmilo]

57. I sure as shit think ABC needs reminding!

This proves Bush knew, proves the senate knew!

[lisainmilo]

64. I just need to vent!

You know and I know Bush knew 9/11 was going to occur. This article along with Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, proves he knew. It proves why he kept calmly reading to those children in the school that day with his flat affect! No reaction!!! What kind of shitheads do we have running our country! Now corporate America media will be airing false BS!

The really sad thing is, I seen Mikes film when it came out. I knew in my heart, and I was (am) one of the few where I live, who spoke up saying it was all BS at when we entered into Iraq. But I have to work and my husband has to work, like most Americans. We would come home and do our thing, eat, watch wheel or fortune and some primetime show and go to sleep and do it all over again. I never knew how much and how far this administration has taken away our country, until about 2 months ago. And they know it!!!!

I am going to my first protest this week!

I am a Christian woman, though I haven't been praying as I should, I am praying for these November elections that the house and the senate will be DEMOCRAT.

My husband said something last night I thought was pretty profound. He was giving me input for a college newspaper that I was invited to write. It was fairly radical, so I don't know if they will use it or not. I ended it with this.

If I can only believe what you want me to believe, I am not free. If I can only vote for who you want me to vote for, I am not free. If I can only hear your side, I am not free. If I can only see what you show me, I am not free. If I cannot talk on the telephone without the govrnment listening in, I am not free. If I cannot speak, I am not free. He was saying this in referance to our current media and our government.

[flyarm]

65. i understand how difficult it is to wrap your mind around the fact that

your government can kill with immunity..and will lie so overtly to its people..

but this administration has done both..with the help of the media in this country of ours..

i truely understand how hard that is..days after 9/11 i sat and cried my eyes out when i realized my own government allowed the murder my co-workers on 9/11

yes it was difficult to realize how evil my own government was..and the people who were given the responsibility for the safety of Americans..not only turned their heads to what was going to happen..i believe they participated.

I began as a flight attendant for one of the airlines involved when i was 19 years old..

and in 2002 i took early retirement , so i could go out and tell the American people the truth..

many back then didn't want to believe me..i was ridiculed, and sneered at..

eventually people began coming to their senses..and started using what god gave them..common sense..

none of the "official story" of 9/11 made sense..

those of us flying who looked at the facts( not all wanted to look) knew none of it made sense.

and yes it was even difficult for those of us who flew for a living..many of even us..didn't want to wrap our brains around the facts..

i was called every name in the book..traitor being among them..because i chose to tell the truth.

As a mother, a wife , a citizen..and a retired flight crew..I know more than most..we will never have security ..without facing the truth.

the truth..will keep us safe..and it has nothing to do with religion..it has to do with common sense..and most of all.......

truth

and more than anything..as good people, responsible Americans and human beings..that is what we should all be fighting for!

our republic must have checks and balances..after all, Democracy is only an "idea"..it is fragile..and must be cared for by all its citizens..it is all of our responsibility, that no one person, gains so much power that they can lie and murder with immunity..we are a republic based on Laws..when our leaders break those laws they should be investigated, and thrown out on their asses when and if it is proven they broke our laws..

It is our responsibility to be ever vigilant to what the people we send, to be our employees does in our name.

This administration has broken our laws..and the laws of humanity over and over again..and yet the citizens of this country remain ambivilant..that leads to a very dangerous place in history.

fly

[flyarm]

68. ohhh and welcome to DU!!..glad you are here!! you

will learn alot that our media has not let you learn or hear about!!

you have arrived at the "light"

fly:hi: :hug: :patriot:

[amb123]

59. K & R

Please somebody turn this into an ad campaign! Are you listening DNC?

[flyarm]

61. Clinton Administration Counter Terrorism Initiative

Clinton Administration Counter Terrorism Initiative

http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/19950427clinton.html


I. Actions Already Announced by the President

(1) Pass the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995
This bill would provide clear Federal criminal jurisdiction for any international terrorist attack that might occur in the United States; provide Federal criminal jurisdiction over terrorists who use the United States as the place from which to plan terrorist attacks overseas; provide a workable mechanism, utilizing United States District Judges appointed by the Chief Justice, to deport expeditiously alien terrorists without risking the disclosure of national security information or techniques; provide a new mechanism for preventing fundraising in the United States that supports international terrorist activities overseas; and would implement an international treaty requiring the insertion of a chemical agent into plastic explosives when manufactured to make them detectable.(2) Provide more tools to federal law enforcement agencies fighting terrorism
Amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to Ease access to financial and credit reports in anti-terrorism cases. This legislation provides for disclosures by consumer reporting agencies to the FBI for counterintelligence and counterterrorism purposes. The FBI has no mechanism for obtaining credit reports for lead purposes in counterterrorism cases. These reports are available to used car dealers and other merchants. The FBI currently has authority under the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 to obtain similar records pursuant to a "National Security Letter" signed by a high-ranking FBI official. the same procedures and safeguards would apply to credit records under this proposal.




Amend Federal law to adopt, in national security cases the standard currently used in obtaining a "pen register" in a routine criminal case. This proposal would extend the relaxed standard for obtaining "pen registers" and "trap and trace" device orders which already exists in routine criminal cases, to national security cases. A "pen register" is a device which records the number dialed on a telephone. A "trap and trace" devices is similar to "Caller ID," providing law enforcement with the telephone number from which a call originates. Neither "pen registers" nor "trap and trace" devices permit law enforcement to monitor actual conversations being conducted. the current, higher-than-regular standard impedes the ability of the FBI to obtain surveillance coverage of terrorists and spies.


Pass legislation to require hotel/Motel and common carriers to provide records necessary for fighting terrorism. This proposal would require hotel/motel and common carriers such as airlines and bus companies to provide records to the FBI pursuant to authorized national security requests just as they must do now for virtually all state and local law enforcement. The FBI must now rely on the voluntary assistance of motel, hotel, and other innkeepers or common carriers regarding records of terrorists who may have stayed at the establishment or used the common carrier. The FBI has found that, while some of these entities voluntarily provide such information, an increasing number refuse, absent a court order, a subpoena, or other legal protection. In a counterterrorism case being conducted pursuant to the Attorney General's guidelines for FBI Foreign Intelligence Collection and Foreign Counterintelligence Investigations, there is no legal mechanism, e.g. subpoena, available to obtain these records.


Fully Fund the FBI's "digital telephony" initiative to assure court-authorized law enforcement access for electronic surveillance to digitized communications. This proposal would appropriate funds to implement recent amendments to statutes governing secure telephone transmission (digital telephony). These amendments require telephone carriers to install and maintain sophisticated equipment which would permit law enforcement to continue to conduct legal electronic surveillance.


Create and allocate funds for a special FBI counterterrorist and counterintelligence fund. This proposal will fund costs associated cases which arise in connection with terrorism crises, including logistics and other support.


Create an interagency Domestic Counterterrorism Center headed by the FBI. This proposal will establish a partnership effort between the Justice Department, including the FBI, and other federal and state law enforcement authorities to coordinate efforts within the United States.(3) Conduct terrorism threat assessment of every federal facility in the country within the next 60 days. The President has directed the Attorney General to conduct this assessment and report her recommendations in 60 days. The assessment has already begun.

(4) Direct GSA to replace the federal building in Oklahoma City.

(5) Direct the FBI Director, the Attorney General, and the National Security Adviser to prepare a Presidential Decision Directive authorizing any and all further steps necessary to combat foreign and domestic terrorism.

II. New Legislative Proposals

(1) INVESTIGATIONS
Hire approximately 1000 new agents, prosecutors, and other federal law enforcement and support personnel to investigate, deter, and prosecute terrorist activity.




Pass legislation to require, within 1 year, the inclusion of taggants in standard explosive device raw materials which will permit tracing of the materials post-explosion . This proposal would require the inclusion of microscopic particles in certain raw materials, thereby permitting law enforcement to trace the source of the explosive even after a device has been detonated.


Require the BATF to study and report on 1) the tagging of explosive materials for purposes of identification and detection; 2) whether common chemicals used to manufacture explosives can be rendered inert for use in explosives; and 3) whether controls can be imposed on certain precursor chemicals used to manufacture explosives. In light of recent bombing incidents, there is a need to develop technologies that will make it possible to detect concealed explosives. Additionally, if bombings do take place, a means of providing some clues is needed to lead investigators to those responsible for the explosion. Moreover, since explosives can be manufactured using common agricultural and household materials, it is important to determine whether such materials can be manufactured in a manner so that their use in explosives is unlikely. Finally, the study would determine whether any reasonable controls can be placed on precursor chemicals, e.g., ammonium nitrate, which have many legitimate uses.


Amend the Posse Comitatus Act to permit military participation in crime-fighting involving weapons of mass destruction. This proposal would amend Federal Laws, which severely limit the role of the military in domestic law enforcement, to permit military participation in criminal cases involving chemical, biological, and other weapons of mass destruction; areas in which the military has specialized expertise.


Amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1968 to constitutionally enhance use of electronic surveillance to fight terrorism. This proposal would: permit any federal felony to be used as a basis for an electronic surveillance order; ease restrictions on the use, in American court proceedings, of information from electronic surveillance conducted by foreign governments; forbid suppression of electronic evidence unless law enforcement acted in bad faith in obtaining the evidence; authorize emergency electronic surveillance in situations involving threats by domestic terrorist organizations, authorize roving wiretaps where it is not practical to specify the number of the phone to be tapped, such as where a target uses multiple pay phones; allow the FBI to obtain records of local telephone calls, without the need for a court order, as they can own obtain records of long-diastase calls; and require telephone companies and/or service providers to preserve evidence until a court order could be obtained. None of these changes would alter the requirement for probable cause prior to engaging in electronic surveillance.

(2) PROSECUTION
Amend Federal law to criminalize the use of all chemical weapons to include all forms of chemical weapons. This bill would amend federal law to include chemical weapons in non-gaseous form. Under existing law, chemical weapons in gaseous form are covered, but those which are in liquid or solid form are not. Thus, for example, an individual who introduces dioxin in solid form into the water supply of a city would not be chargeable under current law.




Make it illegal to possess explosives knowing that they are stolen. This proposal would conform explosive laws to existing firearms statutes, making it a crime for an individual to possess explosives which the individual knows are stolen.


Extend the Statute of limitations on the National Firearms Act to five (5) years. This proposal would extend from three (3) to five (5) years the statute of limitations for prosecution for violations of the National Firearms Act, which deals with explosive and incendiary bombs. This change brings the statue of limitations for these offenses in line with similar criminal provisions.


Provide the Secretary of Treasury authority to direct the use of Treasury Department aircraft to support emergency law enforcement situations. This proposal would authorize the Secretary of Treasury to authorize the use of Treasury Department aircraft in support of emergency law enforcement crises.


Amend reward statutes to reduce restrictions on making rewards. This proposal would provide the Attorney General authority to pay a reward which is not subject to the spending limitations contained in 18 USC Sec. 3059 and 3072, provided that any reward of $100,000 or more may not be made without the approval of the President of the Attorney General, and such approval may not be delegated. (3) PENALTIES


Increase the penalty for anyone convicted of transferring a firearm or explosive knowing that it will be sue dot commit a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. This proposal will provide a mandatory penalty of not less than 10 years for any person who transfers a firearm knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that a firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence or drug-trafficking crime.




Amend 18 USC Sec. 111 to provide enhanced penalties for all current and former Federal employees against terrorist attacks. The existing statute only protects enumerated categories of current Federal employees. The proposed statute would provide enhanced penalties for crimes against all current and former Federal employees, and their immediate families, when the crime is committed because of the official duties of the federal employee.



The White House's Position on Terrorism
http://nsi.org/Library/Terrorism/policy.html




Bill Clinton's Anti-Terrorism Measures


Former president offers approach for terrorism fight
Clinton proposes huge police buildup
1996 In Review: U.S. Fought Terrorism At Home And Abroad
The Covert Hunt for bin Laden
Backgrounder On Clinton No.1 Priority On Terrorism at G-7 Summit
Bill Clinton Terror Rumor Debunked
Clinton at UN focuses on Terrorism
Clinton Urges Anti-terrorism Action
Clinton seeks $1 billion to fight terrorism
House approves $29 billion anti-terror bill
Clinton Seeks Anti-Terrorism Aid
Clinton signs airport security measures into law
Clinton Targets Terrorism
Clinton's Letter to Congress on Freezing of bin Ladin Assets
Combatting Terrorism
Former envoys : Clinton gave Taliban evidence on bin Laden
President Clinton's Speech on Terrorist Attacks
President Swears to Use 'All Tools' Against Terrorism
U.S. Froze $254 Million In Taliban Cash in 1999
White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security The DOT Status Report
White House Fact Sheet on Counter-terrorism Measures
Don't blame it on Bill Clinton
Clinton's Compartments
The Usual Suspect
Clinton Backs Cyber-Terror Warnings
1996 Anti-terrorism Act
Republicans Watered Down 1996 Clinton Anti-Terrorism Bill Thanks to Lott & Hatch
Clinton backs tech war on terror




A BuzzFlash Perspective
Query at the U.S Department of State Archives
U.S. anti-terrorism Laws


Gore Report On Aviation Safety
http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/faa.html



I will make a bargain with the Republicans.
If they will stop telling lies about Democrats,
we will stop telling the truth about them.
Adlai Stevenson


"Clinton's advisors met nearly weekly on how to stop bin Laden ...
I didn't detect that kind of focus from the Bush adminsitration."
Two Star General Donald Kerrick


"Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America . He did nothing to warn the American people, because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama. His presidency was going nowhere. He wasn't elected by the American people, but placed in the Oval Office by the conservative Supreme Court; the economy was sliding into the usual Republican pits and he needed something to hang his presidency on. This guy is a joke. His silence was sleazy and contemptible."
Lt.Colonel Steve Butler

[bleever]

62. It sounds like you're saying that Clinton went after terrorists,

instead of going after everybody because they might potentially have some connection to terrorists.

Definitely a great start for the next thread on this.

:thumbsup:

[flyarm]

63. Clinton:Establishment of the Commission on Aviation Safety and Security

http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/faa.html

White House Commission on
Aviation Safety and Security
Final Report to President Clinton
Vice President Al Gore, Chairman
February 12, 1997

snip:

Establishment of the Commission on Aviation Safety and Security

President Clinton created the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security to address that question, and assigned it three specific mandates: to look at the changing security threat, and how we can address it; to examine changes in the aviation industry, and how government should adapt its regulation of it; to look at the technological changes coming to air traffic control, and what should be done to take best advantage of them. In the wake of concerns over the crash of Trans World Airlines Flight 800, President Clinton asked the Commission to focus its attention first on the issue of security. He asked for an initial report on aviation security in 45 days, including an action plan to deploy new hightechnology machines to detect the most sophisticated explosives.

On September 9, 1996, the Commission presented that initial report to the President. It contained twenty recommendations for enhancing aviation security which are presented again in Chapter 3 of this report. The response to the initial report was unprecedented. In October 1996, at the request of President Clinton, the Congress appropriated over $400 million, in direct accord with the Commission's recommendations, for the acquisition of new explosives detection technology and other security enhancements. In the five months since they were presented, implementation has begun on virtually all of the initial recommendations.

From its inception, the Commission took a hands-on approach to its work. President Clinton announced the formation of the Commission on July 25, 1996. A few days later, Vice President Gore led a site visit to Dulles International Airport, where he and other Commissioners saw airport and airline operations first-hand, and discussed issues with front line workers. This was the first of dozens of such visits. Over the next six months, the Commission visited facilities throughout the United States and in various locations abroad. Seeking to reach the broadest possible audience, the Commission established a homepage on the Internet (http://www.aviationcommission.dot.gov), both to make the Commission's work available and to receive input. The web site has had almost 7,000 contacts, many providing valuable insights. The Commission held six public meetings, hearing from over fifty witnesses representing a cross section of the aviation industry and the public, including families of victims of air disasters. Recognizing the increasingly global nature of aviation, the Commission co-sponsored an International Conference on Aviation Safety and Security with the George Washington University, attended by over 700 representatives from sixty-one countries.

Out of this extensive process, the Commission compiled the recommendations presented in this final report.

[flyarm]

66. September 20, 2002Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark

http://cache.trafficmp.com/tmpad/content/RightMedia/0505/720x300b.html

scroll down on this link for the cache of Ramsey Clark's letter to the U.N.

snipped in places...from my files..fly

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
snip:

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark
writes to the U.N. Security Council
IAC
September 20, 2002


The following letter by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has been sent to all members of the UN Security Council, with copies to the UN General Assembly. Please circulate.

September 20, 2002

Secretary General Kofi Annan
United Nations New York, NY

Dear Secretary General Annan,

George Bush will invade Iraq unless restrained by the United Nations. Other international organizations -- including the European Union, the African Union, the OAS, the Arab League, stalwart nations courageous enough to speak out against superpower aggression, international peace movements, political leadership, and public opinion within the United States -- must do their part for peace. If the United Nations, above all, fails to oppose a U.S. invasion of Iraq, it will forfeit its honor, integrity and raison d’etre.

A military attack on Iraq is obviously criminal; completely inconsistent with urgent needs of the Peoples of the United Nations; unjustifiable on any legal or moral ground; irrational in light of the known facts; out of proportion to other existing threats of war and violence; and a dangerous adventure risking continuing conflict throughout the region and far beyond for years to come. The most careful analysis must be made as to why the world is subjected to such threats of violence by its only superpower, which could so safely and importantly lead us on the road to peace, and how the UN can avoid the human tragedy of yet another major assault on Iraq and the powerful stimulus for retaliatory terrorism it would create.


President George Bush Came to Office Determined to Attack Iraq and Change its Government.
George Bush is moving apace to make his war unstoppable and soon. Having stated last Friday that he did not believe Iraq would accept UN inspectors, he responded to Iraq’s prompt, unconditional acceptance by calling any reliance on it a “false hope” and promising to attack Iraq alone if the UN does not act. He is obsessed with the desire to wage war against Iraq and install his surrogates to govern Iraq by force. Days after the most bellicose address ever made before the United Nations -- an unprecedented assault on the Charter of the United Nations, the rule of law and the quest for peace -- the U.S. announced it was changing its stated targets in Iraq over the past eleven years, from retaliation for threats and attacks on U.S. aircraft which were illegally invading Iraq’s airspace on a daily basis. How serious could those threats and attacks have been if no U.S. aircraft was ever hit? Yet hundreds of people were killed in Iraq by U.S. rockets and bombs, and not just in the so called “no fly zone,” but in Baghdad itself. Now the U.S. proclaims its intentions to destroy major military facilities in Iraq in preparation for its invasion, a clear promise of aggression now. Every day there are threats and more propaganda is unleashed to overcome resistance to George Bush’s rush to war. The acceleration will continue until the tanks roll, unless nonviolent persuasion prevails.


George Bush Is Leading the United States and Taking the UN and All Nations Toward a Lawless World of Endless Wars.
George Bush in his “War on Terrorism” has asserted his right to attack any country, organization or people first, without warning in his sole discretion. He and members of his administration have proclaimed the old restraints that law sought to impose on aggression by governments and repression of their people, no longer consistent with national security. Terrorism is such a danger, they say, that necessity compels the U.S. to strike first to destroy the potential for terrorist acts from abroad and to make arbitrary arrests, detentions, interrogations, controls and treatment of people abroad and within the U.S. Law has become the enemy of public safety. “Necessity is the argument of tyrants.” “Necessity never makes a good bargain.”

Heinrich Himmler, who instructed the Nazi Gestapo “Shoot first, ask questions later, and I will protect you,” is vindicated by George Bush. Like the Germany described by Jorge Luis Borges in Deutsches Requiem, George Bush has now “proffered (the world) violence and faith in the sword,” as Nazi Germany did. And as Borges wrote, it did not matter to faith in the sword that Germany was defeated. “What matters is that violence ... now rules.” Two generations of Germans have rejected that faith. Their perseverance in the pursuit of peace will earn the respect of succeeding generations everywhere.

The Peoples of the United Nations are threatened with the end of international law and protection for human rights by George Bush’s war on terrorism and determination to invade Iraq.

Since George Bush proclaimed his “war on terrorism,” other countries have claimed the right to strike first. India and Pakistan brought the earth and their own people closer to nuclear conflict than at any time since October 1962 as a direct consequence of claims by the U.S. of the unrestricted right to pursue and kill terrorists, or attack nations protecting them, based on a unilateral decision without consulting the United Nations, a trial, or revealing any clear factual basis for claiming its targets are terrorists and confined to them.

There is already a near epidemic of nations proclaiming the right to attack other nations or intensify violations of human rights of their own people on the basis of George Bush’s assertions of power in the war against terrorism. Mary Robinson, in her quietly courageous statements as her term as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ended, has spoken of the “ripple effect” U.S. claims of right to strike first and suspend fundamental human rights protection is having.

On September 11, 2002, Colombia , whose new administration is strongly supported by the U.S., “claimed new authority to arrest suspects without warrants and declare zones under military control,” including “ew powers, which also make it easier to wiretap phones and limit foreigners’ access to conflict zones ... allow security agents to enter your house or office without a warrant at any time of day because they think you’re suspicious.” These additional threats to human rights follow Post-September 11 “emergency” plans to set up a network of a million informants in a nation of forty million. See, New York Times, September 12, 2002, p. A7.


The United States, Not Iraq, Is the Greatest Single Threat to the Independence and Purpose of the United Nations.
President Bush’s claim that Iraq is a threat justifying war is false. Eighty percent of Iraq’s military capacity was destroyed in 1991 according to the Pentagon. Ninety percent of materials and equipment required to manufacture weapons of mass destruction was destroyed by UN inspectors during more than eight years of inspections. Iraq was powerful, compared to most of its neighbors , in 1990. Today it is weak. One infant out of four born live in Iraq weighs less than 2 kilos, promising short lives, illness and impaired development. In 1989, fewer than one in twenty infants born live weighed less than two kilos. Any threat to peace Iraq might become is remote, far less than that of many other nations and groups and cannot justify a violent assault. An attack on Iraq will make attacks in retaliation against the U.S. and governments which support its actions far more probable for years to come.

George Bush proclaims Iraq a threat to the authority of the United Nations while U.S.-coerced UN sanctions continue to cause the death rate of the Iraqi people to increase. Deaths caused by sanctions have been at genocidal levels for twelve years. Iraq can only plead helplessly for an end to this crime against its people. The UN role in the sanctions against Iraq compromise and stain the UN’s integrity and honor. This makes it all the more important for the UN now to resist this war.

Inspections were used as an excuse to continue sanctions for eight years while thousands of Iraqi children and elderly died each month. Iraq is the victim of criminal sanctions that should have been lifted in 1991. For every person killed by terrorist acts in the U.S. on 9/11, five hundred people have died in Iraq from sanctions.

It is the U.S. that threatens not merely the authority of the United Nations, but its independence, integrity and hope for effectiveness. The U.S. pays UN dues if, when and in the amount it chooses. It coerces votes of members. It coerces choices of personnel on the Secretariat. It rejoined UNESCO to gain temporary favor after 18 years of opposition to its very purposes. It places spies in UN inspection teams.

The U.S. has renounced treaties controlling nuclear weapons and their proliferation, voted against the protocol enabling enforcement of the Biological Weapons Convention, rejected the treaty banning land mines, endeavored to prevent its creation and since to cripple the International Criminal Court, and frustrated the Convention on the Child and the prohibition against using children in war. The U.S. has opposed virtually every other international effort to control and limit war, protect the environment, reduce poverty and protect health.

George Bush cites two invasions of other countries by Iraq during the last 22 years. He ignores the many scores of U.S. invasions and assaults on other countries in Africa, Asia, and the Americas during the last 220 years, and the permanent seizure of lands from Native Americans and other nations--lands like Florida, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Puerto Rico, among others, seized by force and threat.

In the same last 22 years the U.S. has invaded, or assaulted Grenada, Nicaragua, Libya, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and others directly, while supporting assaults and invasions elsewhere in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas.

It is healthy to remember that the U.S. invaded and occupied little Grenada in 1983 after a year of threats, killing hundreds of civilians and destroying its small mental hospital, where many patients died. In a surprise attack on the sleeping and defenseless cities of Tripoli and Benghazi in April 1986, the U.S. killed hundreds of civilians and damaged four foreign embassies. It launched 21 Tomahawk cruise missiles against the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum in August 1998, destroying the source of half the medicines available to the people of Sudan. For years it has armed forces in Uganda and southern Sudan fighting the government of Sudan. The U.S. has bombed Iraq on hundreds of occasions since the Gulf War, including this week, killing hundreds of people without a casualty or damage to an attacking plane.


Why Has George Bush Decided The U.S. Must Attack Iraq Now?
There is no rational basis to believe Iraq is a threat to the United States or any other country. The reason to attack Iraq must be found elsewhere.

As governor of Texas, George Bush presided over scores of executions, more than any governor in the United States since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 (after a hiatus from 1967). He revealed the same zeal he has shown for “regime change” for Iraq when he oversaw the executions of minors, women, retarded persons and aliens whose rights under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of notification of their arrest to a foreign mission of their nationality were violated. The Supreme Court of the U.S. held that executions of a mentally retarded person constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the U.S. Constitution. George Bush addresses the United Nations with these same values and willfulness.

His motives may include to save a failing Presidency which has converted a healthy economy and treasury surplus into multi-trillion dollar losses; to fulfill the dream, which will become a nightmare, of a new world order to serve special interests in the U.S.; to settle a family grudge against Iraq; to weaken the Arab nation, one people at a time; to strike a Muslim nation to weaken Islam; to protect Israel, or make its position more dominant in the region; to secure control of Iraq’s oil to enrich U.S. interests, further dominate oil in the region and control oil prices. Aggression against Iraq for any of these purposes is criminal and a violation of a great many international conventions and laws including the General Assembly Resolution on the Definition of Aggression of December 14, 1974.

Prior regime changes by the U.S. brought to power among a long list of tyrants, such leaders as the Shah of Iran, Mobutu in the Congo, Pinochet in Chile, all replacing democratically elected heads of government. 5. A Rational Policy Intended to Reduce the Threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction in The Middle East Must Include Israel.

snip:

The Choice Is War Or Peace.
The UN and the U.S. must seek peace, not war. An attack on Iraq may open a Pandora’s box that will condemn the world to decades of spreading violence. Peace is not only possible; it is essential, considering the heights to which science and technology have raised the human art of planetary and self-destruction.

If George Bush is permitted to attack Iraq with or without the approval of the UN, he will become Public Enemy Number One -- and the UN itself worse than useless, an accomplice in the wars it was created to end. The Peoples of the World then will have to find some way to begin again if they hope to end the scourge of war.

This is a defining moment for the United Nations. Will it stand strong, independent and true to its Charter, international law and the reasons for its being, or will it submit to the coercion of a superpower leading us toward a lawless world and condone war against the cradle of civilization?

Do not let this happen.

Sincerely,

Ramsey Clark

[flyarm]

67. Republicans Watered Down 1996 Clinton Anti-Terrorism Bill

from my files..fly



http://www.angelfire.com/rant/sstewert/News/clintonbill.html

Republicans Watered Down 1996 Clinton
Anti-Terrorism Bill, Thanks to Lott & Hatch



10-16-01, Since all the republicans want to blame clinton for all the worlds problems these articles should open some eyes. I wonder why the mainstream media or O'Reilly or Rush or FOX news never mention these facts when they blame Clinton for everything ?

7-30-1996, WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Taggants value disputed

Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.

"What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don't let it overcome the areas of agreement," he said.

The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.

"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," he said.

Hatch blasts 'phony' issues

Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for fighting terrorism.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.

April 16, 1996, WASHINGTON (CNN) -- By Friday, the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress is expected to pass an anti- terrorism bill which addresses some, though not all, of the concerns the bombing raised over Americans' safety.

Congressional leaders, flanked by survivors and relatives of victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, unveiled compromise legislation Monday to increase federal powers to fight terrorism and limit appeals by death-row inmates.

As the trial nears for the accused, those who lost relatives in the bombing say the proposed law should put the concerns of victims above those of terrorists.

"We have forgotten that anyone who murdered has relinquished rights for compassion," said Diane Leonard, the widow of a Secret Service agent killed in the bombing.

Only one element of the anti-terrorism bill has a potential effect on the Oklahoma City case. It would limit the number and duration of appeals a convicted death row inmate could file.

President Clinton has expressed concern over the death penalty provision, but Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah said he had spoken with the president about the provision, and feels confident his objection is not strong enough to elicit a veto.

Hatch said the compromise bill would prevent international terrorist organizations from raising money in the United States and provide for the swift deportation of international terrorists.

The demand for an anti-terrorism bill precedes Oklahoma City and was shaped by the attacks on Pan Am flight 103 which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland and the bombing of the World Trade Center.

The bill, which would cost $1 billion over four years, also calls for "tagging" plastic explosives to better trace them. The bill calls for a study on tagging methods for other explosives such as fertilizer and black powder. Critics say the study provision is a concession to groups opposed to restrictions on explosive materials.

The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities.

Rep. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said technology is giving criminals an advantage. "What the terrorists do is they take one cellular phone, use the number for a few days, throw it out and use a different phone with a different number," he said. "All we are saying is tap the person, not the phone number."

Still, Schumer said the bill is "better than nothing" and should get some Democratic votes.

President Clinton asked Congress to give him the anti- terrorism bill by the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19. And he'll get it. While it might not be all the president wants, administration officials indicate it's a bill he can sign.

Congress Passes Anti-Terrorism Bill

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill boosting the ability of law enforcement authorities to fight domestic terrorism, just one day before the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.

The House voted, 293-133, to send the anti-terrorism bill to President Clinton, who has indicated that he will sign it after he returns from his overseas trip next week.

------------------------------------------------------

The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.

Note: The senate was controlled by the republicans in 1996. Trent Lott was the majority leader.

------------------------------------------------------

The original House bill, passed last month, had deleted many of the Senate's anti-terrorism provisions because of lawmakers' concerns about increasing federal law enforcement powers. Some of those provisions were restored in the compromise bill.

The bill imposes limits on federal appeals by death row inmates and other prisoners and makes the death penalty available in some international terrorism cases and in cases where a federal employee is killed on duty.

The bill "has some very effective tools that we can use in our efforts to combat terrorism," Attorney General Janet Reno said Thursday.

But she was less enthusiastic about the bill's limits on federal appeals by death row inmates and other prisoners. She was also concerned that the bill would make it more difficult for federal judges to overturn state court rulings.

Republicans were divided on whether the legislation would be effective.

"We have a measure that will give us a strong upper hand in the battle to prevent and punish domestic and international terrorism," Senate Majority Leader and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole said Wednesday.

But Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, while praising the bill, said the country remains "very open" to terrorism. "Will it stop any acts of terrorism, domestic and international? No," he said, adding, "We don't want a police state."

Some lawmakers took a more prudent view of the bill. "The balance between public safety and order and individual rights is always a difficult dilemma in a free society," said Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-New York.

Congressional leaders had initially promised to complete the bill six weeks after the Oklahoma City federal building bombing that killed 168 people last April 19.

Congress reached compromise on anti-terrorism bill.

[flyarm]

69. President Bill Clinton signed an executive order freezing $254 million in

the lies that Clinton did nothing..by republicans..now remember this because even after the Hart /Rudman report on terrorism..Little Lord Pissy Pants was directed to not give a dime to the Taliban..and yet on May 22nd 2001 ..against the directive..Pissy Pants turned over $43million of your tax dollars to the TALIBAN...just happens that CHENEY'S energy boys were making a deal with the Taliban for a pipeline for oil through Afganistan!

Clinton had frozen the Taliban's assets!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52702-2001Oct12

U.S. Froze $254 Million In Taliban Cash in 1999
State Dept. Opposes Using Assets for Terror Victims

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 13, 2001; Page A16

snip:

Two years ago, President Bill Clinton signed an executive order freezing $254 million in Taliban assets in the United States, more than twice the amount linked to terrorist groups and seized worldwide since the Sept. 11 attacks.

U.S. officials will not disclose where the $254 million came from, except to say that it was under the control of the Taliban. But the large sum, contrasted with the very small amount of trade between the United States and Afghanistan, has raised questions about the source of the money.

The $254 million seizure, described in a Treasury Department report on terrorist assets in January, has taken on new significance because of the Sept. 11 attacks, as some legislators and lawyers work to make it easier to compensate victims of terrorist attacks from frozen assets. The State Department opposes that effort, and so far legal judgments have been paid in only a few cases from frozen assets of Iran and Cuba.

While Afghanistan has not been officially deemed a terrorist state, the Taliban money was frozen by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Controls (OFAC) in 1999, after attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The order accused the Taliban of harboring Osama bin Laden and his organization.

[flyarm]

70. October 18, 2001:Bill Press: Don't blame it on Bill Clinton

from my files: fly


http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/18/column.billpress/index.html

Bill Press: Don't blame it on Bill Clinton
October 18, 2001

snip:

So Clinton tried another tack. He sponsored legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network -- identical to orders given by President Bush this month -- but it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas.

Those actions, we knew about. Others, we did not, until recently. Starting in 1998, for example, Clinton gave the CIA a green light to use whatever covert means were necessary to gather information on Osama bin Laden and his followers, and to disrupt and preempt any planned terrorist activities against the United States.

As part of that effort, the CIA, under Clinton, trained and equipped some 60 commandos from Pakistan to enter Afghanistan and capture bin Laden. The operation collapsed when Pakistan experienced a military coup and a new government took over.

In 1998, Clinton also signed a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to begin joint covert operations against Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. U.S. Special Forces have been training there ever since, which is why the Pentagon was immediately able to use Uzbekistan as a staging area for forays into Afghanistan.

Clinton targeted bin Laden even before he moved to Afghanistan. In 1996, his administration brokered an agreement with the government of Sudan to arrest the terrorist leader and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. For 10 weeks, Clinton tried to persuade the Saudis to accept the offer. They refused. With no cooperation from the Saudis, the deal fell apart.

[flyarm]

71. Taleban 'warned US of huge attack'

remember this was under little lord pissy pants presidency..and the little idiot went on his month long vacation with these kinds of warnings..

i want on damn republican to stand in front of me and answer..if you still support this fucker..answer to me how concerned that fucker was for your safety with all the warnings he was sitting on??

and why i as a flight crew was not given any warnings?? not by the FAA, not by the State Dept, and not by my Airline..and why was Norman Minetta never told of the warnings..when he was Secretary of Transportation!

and remember Richard Clark and John O'NEIL were basically pulled off the Bin Laden intelligence .. not by Clinton but by the fucker in our white house now!

fuck that little bastard liar..and the bastards who lie for that killing son of a bitch!( sorry but i get very angry when i re-read this stuff from my files!) fly


http://www.angelfire.com/space/pearly/htmls/bush-ignored.html

original links must be bought or no longer exist..but can be found in full at the above link...fly


Revealed : The Taliban minister, the US envoy and
the warning of September 11 that was ignored
Independent
KATE CLARK in Kabul

September 7, 2002

Weeks before the terrorist attacks on 11 September, the United States and the United Nations ignored warnings from a secret Taliban emissary that Osama bin Laden was planning a huge attack on American soil.

The warnings were delivered by an aide of Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban Foreign Minister at the time, who was known to be deeply unhappy with the foreign militants in Afghanistan, including Arabs.

Mr Muttawakil, now in American custody, believed the Taliban's protection of Mr bin Laden and the other al-Qa'ida militants would lead to nothing less than the destruction of Afghanistan by the US military. He told his aide : "The guests are going to destroy the guesthouse."

The minister then ordered him to alert the US and the UN about what was going to happen. But in a massive failure of intelligence, the message was disregarded because of what sources describe as "warning fatigue". At the same time, the FBI and the CIA failed to take seriously warnings that Islamic fundamentalist students had enrolled in flight schools across the US.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Newspaper Says U.S. Ignored Terror Warning
Yahoo! News
September 7, 2002

The United States ignored a clear warning in July last year from the emissary of a Taliban leader that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network was planning a major attack on U.S. soil, the Independent newspaper said on Saturday.

It said an emissary acting for then-Taliban Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil warned both the United States consul general in Pakistan, David Katz and the United Nations in Kabul of the impending attack, but was ignored.

A State Department official, asked about the newspaper story, reiterated previous government statements that the United States last summer was aware of reports that al Qaeda might be preparing an attack.

"We took all warnings very seriously," issuing public announcements, travel warnings and cautions during that period that attempted to alert the public to these threats, he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.


edit..bullshit!!


( edit may i add here this last paragraph is total bullshit..i was a flight crew during the summer and sept 2001 and we flight crew got no state dept warnings what so ever !!)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Taleban 'warned US of huge attack'
BBC News
KATE CLARK
Former BBC correspondent

September 7, 2002

An aide to the former Taleban foreign minister, Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, has revealed that he was sent to warn American diplomats and the United Nations that Osama bin Laden was due to launch a huge attack on American soil. Neither organisation heeded the warning, which was given just weeks before the 11 September attacks.

The aide said he had urged the Americans to launch a military campaign against al-Qaeda but was told that this was politically impossible.

Mr Muttawakil, who was known to be deeply unhappy with the Arab and other foreign militants in Afghanistan, learned of Osama bin Laden's plan in July.

The attack was imminent, he discovered, and it would be huge. Bin Laden hoped to kill thousands of US citizens.

[Jesterstear]

73. I remember on 9/12

Like many, I was glued to the TV for days after 9/11. On 9/12, I saw members of the Bush administration, most notably Attorney General John Ashcroft, practically gloating about the anti-terrorism measures that they were going to get passed. The thought that immediately came to mind was "wait... most of these were things that Clinton recommended, but the Republican congress shot them down either out of spite or because they were unconstitutional..."

It's a sad thing that this fact went unmentioned for so many years. After a year of preaching it to anyone that would listen, I gave up.

[samsingh]

74. kick

[Sydnie]

75. Follow up article

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/15/anti.terrorism/index.html

"The bill, which would cost $1 billion over four years, also calls for "tagging" plastic explosives to better trace them. The bill calls for a study on tagging methods for other explosives such as fertilizer and black powder. Critics say the study provision is a concession to groups opposed to restrictions on explosive materials.

The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities.

Rep. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said technology is giving criminals an advantage.

"What the terrorists do is they take one cellular phone, use the number for a few days, throw it out and use a different phone with a different number," he said. "All we are saying is tap the person, not the phone number." (282K AIFF sound or 282K WAV sound)

Still, Schumer said the bill is "better than nothing" and should get some Democratic votes.

President Clinton asked Congress to give him the anti- terrorism bill by the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19. And he'll get it. While it might not be all the president wants, administration officials indicate it's a bill he can sign."

[rainy]

77. The very fact that none of this is being reported in the mainstream

media is PROOF that they are out of control. We have to figure out how to BE the media. This is so sickening that no one will report these facts in the face of the BS docu-drama being aired on ABC.

[april]

78. we all need to forward this to ABC

[orleans]

79. trent lott says no

"There's even an audio clip of President Clinton practically begging the Republicans to give him the tools he needed to stop Osama and the terrorists. Trent Lott said no. Orrin Hatch said no. Do these men really deserve to run the Congress during a time of war?"

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/gop-congress-blocked-clinton-push-for.html

trent lott says no to clinton for help w/terrorists

trent lott says yes to shrub for rebuilding his house