9-11 Commissioner Kerrey says Bush at Fault ! Is this the end?

[saracat]

9-11 Committee Member admitting that Bush was at fault and they were sworn to secrecy until after the election? Why isn't this big news on DU. Will there be other media coverage than Zahn? I have a feeling there might be! Maybe this is how they take him out!


http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0411/08/pzn.01.html

KERREY: That's correct, because the president had a case, a very simple case to make: I am the commander in chief. I won the war in Afghanistan, even though John Kerry supported it, even though, by the way, there's a credible case that the president's own negligence prior to 9/11 at least in part contributed to the disaster in the first place.

ZAHN: How so?

KERREY: Well, the 9/11 report says in chapter eight -- now that it's beyond the campaign, so the promise I had to keep this out of the campaign is over.

The 9/11 report in chapter eight says that, in the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn't do anything to harden our border security, didn't do anything to harden airport country, didn't do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn't do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn't warn the American people.

The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn't made.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: But what we continue to hear from this administration is that the threat was much too diffuse. There was no way you could zero in on the fact that al Qaeda was going to use jets as bombs and ram them into buildings.

KERREY: That is a straw man.

The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That's what he said.

Mr. President, you don't need to know that. This is an Islamic jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in '96 and '98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat.

And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission. Now, that's in the report. And we took an oath not to talk about it during the campaign, I think correctly so, to increase the capacity of that commission's report to be heard by the people's Congress.

But the report, I think, it's difficult for a challenger. If I had been the challenger, it's difficult to make that case when you are running against an incumbent. He can stand back and say, oh, you're just grousing.

ZAHN: Oh, we couldn't connect the dots is what we heard.

Final question for you sir. In Falluja...

KERREY: Yes.

ZAHN: There are some Democrats that suggest that this incursion was delayed until after the election because of the vulnerability of the U.S. troops and this could be a very bloody campaign. Where do you stand?

KERREY: Oh, I think it's likely it was delayed until after the election. And it's probably a smart thing to do. This is as much a political battle inside of Iraq as it is a military battle. And everybody knows that who has talked to people that's over there. So I think it's likely that it was.

ZAHN: Bob Kerrey, thanks for dropping by.

KERREY: You're welcome. Nice to see you.

ZAHN: Always appreciate your perspective.


Alert | Hide Thread | Nominate Topic for Homepage Printer Friendly | Reply

[NVMojo]

1. you are right, this needs to be all over the darn place!!!

[Baja Margie]

2. Whoa,

Jump on this, unbelievable. Oath of secrecy? This would have just iced the cake. I am floored here.

[Chelsea Patriot]

32. The Commission took an OATH not to say anything til after the election?

An Oath to whom?

These people are as guilty of treason as The BFEE!

What else exactly are these traitors covering up?

[kayell]

38. That is one SHAMEFUL oath.

removing information from the public discourse. They took away our RIGHT to make a fully informed choice.

[loveable liberal]

3. theres no excuse for keeping this private. secrecy oath. what an ass.

[Carolina]

60. agree, Bob Kerrey has always

been an ass. Once again, too little, too late.

This country is fucked and deservedly so because there are no public figures with any real courage.

[Hornito]

4. This information NOT being released BEFORE the election, is a

criminal act. Somehow though, I still think Bush's fundies would have given him a pass.

The only problem with any information leading to the removal of Bush, is that we get Cheney. I think Bush keeps Cheney around as a guarantee to his continued existence, political and otherwise.

[Chelsea Patriot]

35. The Cheneys go, too!

Dick was running the war games on 9/11.

Lynn was hanging up the phone, keeping her murderous husband away from anyone wanting to know if what was going down over the East
Coast was real or part of the scheduled war game.

Traitors! All!

An Oath??!! I still can't grasp it!

[Still_Notafraid]

5. Well

we knew this all along,cept for the hold off till election part.
thanks for 9/11 Bush your such a great hero,to the American people.

[Still_Notafraid]

6. needs a kick n/t

[pacalo]

7. Forcing the 9-11 commission members to an oath of secrecy

about information that could have better informed voters should be classified as a cover-up. People have a RIGHT to know exactly what this man is all about. The media should be ashamed, too, although we're hearing lately that "media lockdowns" on certain subjects is s.o.p. for this administration.

[City Lights]

36. I love your new name!

:thumbsup:

However, I would have been giddy if you could have gone with "4_year_nightmare_is_over"

Sigh. :-(

[pacalo]

62. Thanks, but I really wanted "another_4_year_nightmare", but it was too

long. :)

[walldude]

8. Nominated this for the home page

this is serious news...

[Chelsea Patriot]

37. I just nominated it!

I still can't wrap my mind around this evil.

They knew Bush was responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans and they not only didn't say anything, they took an oath to hide the fact from the American people.

[RBHam]

9. Lee Hamilton, Dem chair of the commission...

Covered up George Bush the First's involvement in Iran/Contra to save the office of the Presidency from being tarnished...

Learn the truth...

" was a covert operation by the Reagan-Bush campaign that secretly forged a deal with the Iranian radicals who, after overthrowing the US-backed Shah, were holding 52 Americans (including several CIA agents) as hostages. In exchange for holding the hostages until after the <1980 Presidential> election, the Reagan-Bush team offered the Iranians millions of dollars in arms, material, and other considerations. .......Most damning is the fact that other participants, including senior Iranian government officials and intelligence operatives from several countries, have publicly confirmed they were involved in secret deal.... Further confirmation came in 1993, in the form of a six-page Russian intelligence report that corroborated much of the story. The sensitive report was released by Russia's prime minister as a gesture of post-Cold War cooperation, in response to a request for information from a US Congressional task force investigating the charges. 15 But the report was suppressed, task force chairman Rep. Lee Hamilton (backed by Henry Hyde) sandbagged the rest of the inquiry, and the final verdict was that there was 'no credible evidence' of a secret deal. The 'investigation' was such a sham that Hamilton publicly exonerated Bush (by then the president) before it even started. 16 By engaging in renegade 'foreign policy,' the Reagan-Bush team undercut President Carter's own secret efforts to free the hostages and thereby stole the White House. It was, in fact, a coup d'etat ."
COUP 2K by JOHN DEE
Published in Lumpen, Jan. 2001
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/hamiltonoctsurprise.htm

SARAH MCCLENDON'S WASHINGTON REPORT

http://www.rumormillnews.com/MCCLENDON_OCT_SUPRISE_GKR_CASOLERO.HTML

[MagickMuffin]

17. Lee Hamilton squashed

John Kerry's investigation into Iran Contra as well as the BCCI scandal that Kerry also exposed.

These politicians are very good at cover up. It's such a shame that they have no shame.

[UL_Approved]

10. More fun

This is just perfect. Forcing an investigation to be withheld from the public before an election. My question, what did they use for muscle to keep the commission quiet? To keep this down suggests severe and overt threats being pushed. The Unites States of America has now been reduced to some third-world, banana republic dictatorship. We are really gonna be in for some bad years ahead if we don't stop this now.

[drhilarius]

11. A Sweet-Tap-Dancing-Jesus-Christ kick.

[nolabels]

12. This is Bull

This is a strategic back track, you never retreat, unless you are being outflanked.

The differance between being ones fault and assisting in the act is about as wide and deep as the Grand Canyon


http://www.gootz.net/gbin/photos/paysages/

[kokomo]

13. When is Stanley Hilton going to be heard by greater Amerika?

Bob Dole's old lawyer thinks Bush had a part in 9/11 !!

If so I will change my opposition to the death penalty.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/06.21A.pitt.watchtower....

Will he be forever relegated to the alternative media?

[Chelsea Patriot]

39. Oh, Honey, I changed my mind on the death penalty a long time ago!

Right now, sirens are wailing outside my apartment and I feel really, really sick!

[erniesam]

14. I wonder if I'm having a flash back

because I thought I read "so the promise I had to keep this out of the campaign is over."

Although, I promised to curtail my spending, I think I might buy strobe lights and a lava lamp to watch the news with for the next four years.

[JSJ]

15. fuck you, bob kerry, fuck your secret pledge, and your ambitions

[Chelsea Patriot]

42. Fuck you Gorelick! Fuck You, Thompson, you Closeted Piece of Shit!

[Hello_Kitty]

16. Meanwhile, 60 million idiots who thought * was 'better on terrorism'

Had better go buy some god-damned duct tape! :grr:

[Carolab]

18. Send it to Air America

right now!

And, by the way, speaking of secrets kept hidden until "black Tuesday", where is that info naming names for the FAA/NORAD response failures, anyway?

[saracat]

21. Sent it to Randi!

[Sugarbleus]

52. No shit!

He punked us once, he could do it again.

[canadianbeaver]

66. LOL - But not really

This is just sad, sad, sad.....someone would hold back this info? This is tooooo unreal....where is his concience?...

[Habibi]

19. Wait a minute

if all this was in the 9/11 report, then what difference did it make that Bob Kerrey didn't talk about it? If the info was out there, why wasn't the god-damned *media* all over . . . ?

Oh, wait . . . nevermind.

[kittenpants]

43. that's exactly how I feel

Granted the oath of secrecy is disturbing, but this information was already obvious to anyone who paid attention to the hearings or listened to Richard Clark.
Of course Bush's voters don't care about that sort of thing (facts!) and I'm sure they'll find a way to justify the oath or anything else their president does.
sorry, I'm just in despair today. I can't keep getting my hopes up that something will expose Bush for what he really is when it should be clear to me by now that his followers are blind.

[Habibi]

48. I know it's hard

but we have to keep fighting. That's the only thing that will get us out of this mess. Call your congress critters. Write your local newspapers. Talk to your family and friends. Put nasty bumper-stickers on your car. Take one or two small, doable actions. It'll help, believe me.

:hi:

[kittenpants]

59. thanks mmmarke, you DUers give me hope!

[Sliverofhope]

20. kick n/t

[nonconformist]

22. Kicked and nominated nt

This is huge.

[Swamp Rat]

23. I second that nomination!

:kick:

[cthrumatrix]

24. the leader always takes the fall.... except when people can't tell the

truth about what really happpened.

[UTUSN]

25. Kick for why-isn't-this-news-? n/t

[indepat]

26. We get the government we deserve when an incumbent is returned to office

[Bridget Burke]

27. LIHOP confirmed.

I'm turning in my tinfoil hat for a mylar burka.

[aden_nak]

28. Wouldn't want the people to make an informed decision.

What are the odds we can recall Bush?

[AlinPA]

29. Huge coverup by Bush**'s media. They will dismiss this as post-

election grousing by Kerrey and "political".

[rndmprsn]

30. fuck this admin...loyalty oaths and secrecy oaths are not american!!!

[Rex]

31. How many "Kerries" are gonna let us down?

So, let's see here...this particular Kerrey dropped the ball and failed to warn VOTERS about Bush allowing 911 to happen. Did I get that right? He took an oath not to SPILL THE BEANS before (arguably) the most important election in history?

GEE THANKS, GLAD YOU'RE ON OUR SIDE!

[leesa]

33. Does Paula Zahn feel the rope tightening around her neck?

As one of the participants in this treason, she seems a bit nervous.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

34. TREASON. JUST PLAIN OLD FUCKING TREASON, BOB!!

You betrayed the country with your secrecy oath.

[Chelsea Patriot]

44. Zahn, B. Kerrey, *, Hamilton, Thompson, Rice...ALL TRAITORS!!!!

An Oath to Whom?

To Whom doe Bob Kerrey, Jim Thompson, Jamie Gorelick, Lee Hamilton et al. owe their allegiance over the American People.

Don't you just love the nonchalant way Kerrey disclose his oath?

[knight_of_the_star]

40. We have to run with this!

This make Whitewater and Lewinsky and Paula Jones look like the stupid shit that they were, we should make the coverage of that reflect that!

[DS1]

41. Is this the end? Long answer - No.

[Oilwellian]

45. Sent this to Olberman

:kick:

[knight_of_the_star]

55. Good idea

Olberman ran with the fraud possibility, I don't think he'll be afraid to go with this.

[patcox2]

46. There was no secrecy, no cover up.

Please. What he says is that the commission members agreed not to make public statements about what is contained in the report prior to the campaign, that they would, in other words, let the report stand on its own.

He says "now that the election is over, I will point out what it says right here." Thats not secrecy or some nefarious plot. The information was there. in the report, Kerrey isn't saying anything new. He simply refrained from appearing in the media and commenting on what the report said before the election.

Thats not evil, thats preserving the legitimacy of the process. If the democratic members of the 9-11 commission had run around campaigning for Kerry, holding up the report to criticize Bush, it would have destroyed their credibility, it would have allowed the republicans to point to the criticisms of Bush in the report and just say "see, these rabidly partisan democrats just slimed Bush for political reasons, ignore their crap."

The Dem members wwere just trying to make sure their conclusions would have to be taken seriously, seems to me.

[Habibi]

50. You have a good point.

I wonder whether they will start to speak out publicly about this now. Or will they refrain for fear of being thought "sore losers"?

[Rex]

51. No secrecy or cover-up - just a whitewash.

I disagree with your view-point. It was the Dems DUTY (IMHO) to point out what was in the report, I mean afterall, did you read it? Did most of the voting public read the report or understand what was in it? The Dems should have cried out CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE on the part of the BFEE - to remain silent is criminal (IMHO).

[nomatrix]

64. Not quite Pat. When will this report get released?

The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket

The agency is withholding a damning report that points at senior officials.

By Robert Scheer

October 19, 2004

It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago.

"It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed," an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward."


-snip-

"What all the other reports on 9/11 did not do is point the finger at individuals, and give the how and what of their responsibility. This report does that," said the intelligence official. "The report found very senior-level officials responsible."

By law, the only legitimate reason the CIA director has for holding back such a report is national security. Yet neither Goss nor McLaughlin has invoked national security as an explanation for not delivering the report to Congress."

From the LA Times-registration required

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/19/151648/90

Election over. We're waiting.

edit to add link.

[wickywom]

47. The link keeps shutting down on me.

[Maestro]

49. This is so disgusting

I hope the next four years is a constant attack on the prez. He and his handlers are simply bad for this nation and the world in general.

53. A whole story was ignored by the press before the election --

(Note my query wasn't answered before the election.)

White House Pressed on Sept 11th Details
- New Study Contradicts Bush, Rice Claims

(SEATTLE) 10/18/04 - In a disturbing development, the White House is now the subject of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) query, seeking detailed information related to activities within the Bush administration in the days before the September 11th attacks.

The call for more details comes after an October 2004 study which outlines dramatic moves across a broad set of financial and business indicators, immediately prior to the September 11th 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centers-and after an August 6th 2001 warning memo was presented at the White House.

President Bush and Condoleezza Rice have repeatedly stated that the August 6th memo was historical in nature, and that there was no elevation of alert between August 6th 2001 and September 11th. However, the view presented by the October 2004 study directly contradicts those claims, since it points to high-level business and financial actions being taken by a select few, in the days immediately before the attack, despite the fact that no public warning was issued.

GRAPH
http://www.ideamouth.com/politics

White House Memo Leads to Sept. 11th Money Trail By Dan Spillane and Audrey Mantey, The Liberty Whistle
-At least five normally independent indicators moved in sync after Bush warned
-On Sept. 10th, instead of US citizens getting a warning, Halliburton got a contract

(10/6 UPDATE includes new Must see! MONEY TRAIL TO WHITE HOUSE GRAPHIC; click HERE .)

(SEATTLE) 09/30/04 - A series of new findings brings into doubt Bush Administration claims regarding September 11th, and shows the work of the 9-11 Commission is incomplete. According to what Bush told the public, and as documented in the 9-11 report, an August 6th 2001 memo delivered to the White House warned of imminent attacks (“Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US”)--but was described as “historical in nature,” and thus was essentially ignored by the White House. (1) Therefore, as far as the public knows, no actions were taken based on the memo.

It’s not as if the US hasn’t been looking for unusual pre-9-11 actions. In fact, the official 9-11 report examined stock trading before the attacks, and concluded with some degree of confidence that there weren’t profits taken based on information before the attacks. Unfortunately, the 9-11 report provides no details on how such analysis was done--and importantly, the report makes no mention of analyzing events in terms of the August 6th White House memo. In short, the 9-11 commission tried to find “needles in haystacks.”

Indeed, then it should be of no surprise that a comparison of trading specifically before and after August 6th, in terms of a number of normally independent indicators reveals more information, and illustrates an interesting and hitherto undiscovered convergence around the August 6th date. Incredibly, in this light, a major shift is visible in both market indicators, and in business announcements subsequent to the supposedly “ignored” warning memo.

Take for example, the stock of Halliburton Corporation, known so well for its association with US Vice President Dick Cheney. It plummeted on high volume immediately after the memo--previously having closely followed its own sector up until August 6th. Moreover, this divergence was punctuated not only by the date of August 6th, but was also underscored by a September 10th 2001 contract award to Halliburton. Astonishingly, on September 10th, 2001, the news read “Halliburton Unit Picked to Participate in Program to Reduce Threat of Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” (Source: Halliburton)

Click here to read about Sep 10, 2001 Halliburton WMD project award

But the September 11th “clairvoyance” didn’t stop at Halliburton. After the memo, signs began bleeding into the stock market at large. The stock market volatility index (the “VIX”), a measure of market fear, suddenly shot up after the August 6th memo. By September 10th 2001, the VIX index sharply spiked up forty-five percent--to a level in line with the Asian financial crisis. Yet, in the Asian crisis case, news of disaster was already out in the open, which contrasts sharply with environment of September 10th, 2001--when bad news wasn’t out. Remarkably, then, it’s fair to conclude certain stock market investors knew a crisis was going to happen--the day before. In effect, the VIX, while normally independent of Halliburton stock, suddenly moved in lockstep with Halliburton.

Next, in line with the spike in the VIX, yet another indicator foretold September 11th. The put/call stock options ratio--a measure of sophisticated investors betting on a market fall--peaked twice, to a level over one. First, the ratio peaked for the very options transition period immediately after the White House memo, and before September 11th (which crested on August 17th) and next, it peaked on September 10th, the day before the strike. Once again, the put/call ratio moves correspond with Halliburton steps and the August 6th and September 10th dates. Finally, at least one close associate of Mr. Cheney made a business move on September 10th.

What’s incredible is how many signs point to the fact that the White House knew about September 11th in advance, and leaked. Clearly, not one but at least five pieces of evidence exist. The evidence of the unusual stock pattern of Halliburton after the White House warning memo, the special advance timing of the Halliburton WMD contract, the VIX and put/call indicators, and more, showed the White House leaked the September 11th warning to a select few. But alas, no real actions were taken to defend the American people. No, instead, actions were taken to defend Halliburton stockholders and a select few, and further, to enhance their profits.

The simplified charts below show how Halliburton stock turned on high volume when the memo hit the White House; the memo is illustrated by the line bisecting the graphs.

A large, comprehensive graphic is shown, illustrating all the patterns converging around the August 6th memo:

Click here for LARGE CHART showing MONEY TRAIL TO WHITE HOUSE

Footnotes: 1) “The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature.” (9-11 report, chapter 8)

(Dan Spillane is a computer scientist living in Seattle, Washington, who also studies economics, pure science, and politics. Working with Bev Harris in 2002 and early 2003, he exposed problems related to electronic voting systems certification and Diebold; this set the stage for discussion of the issue at the national level.)

(Audrey Mantey is an instructor at an arts academy in Michigan. She worked in US military intelligence/counterintelligence for over a decade.)

54. The UNANSWERED CERTIFIED LETTER to White House --

URGENT REQUEST
Daniel Spillane
410 E Denny Way #229
Seattle, WA 98122
[phone]

Mr. Andrew Card, Chief of Staff
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

October 17th, 2004

Dear Mr. Card:

My name is Daniel Spillane, and I am a resident of Seattle, Washington. I am contacting you with an urgent request for information, under the Freedom of Information Act, to support a unique public interest study I am working on, which goes beyond methodology so far employed in both the September 11th Commission report and in media reports.

1) Please send me a daily accounting of the following, for each day in the period from July 1st 2001 through September 10th 2001:

A tally, broken down by date occurrence, of the total number of daily activities generated, processed, and forwarded by White House staff, both internally and externally, concerning the possibility of terrorist attacks against the United States, and plans to deal with such, including potential business or financial hedges, transactions, or opportunities related to attacks or subsequent military deployment.

2) Please account for and identify EXPLICITLY (by date and contact names) all activities in the period from July 1st 2001 through September 10th 2001, which lead to the September 10th 2001 award of a new business contract to Halliburton Corporation “to Reduce Threat of Weapons Of Mass Destruction.”

3) Please account for and identify EXPLICITLY (by date and contact names) all activities directly or indirectly related to (1) or (2) above, AND which were released to associates or contacts of White House staff, such as Admiral William A. Owens, Admiral John M. Poindexter and/or assignees of DARPA SB012-012 “Electronic Market-Based Decision Support,” or anyone else in the business or financial community, for the July 1st 2001 through September 10th 2001 period.

For purposes of the above, “activities” are defined as written, electronic, or spoken communications (including meetings). Each original instance of such activities, as well as any repeats or forwards of original instances, counts as one towards the daily accounting tally.

Because only a tally and general accounting are required by me in order to satisfy this request (rather than providing actual content of messages), it is not necessary to supply sensitive intelligence information that would compromise national security interests, and would otherwise delay or interfere with this request for information.

I require a waiver of all fees for this request. Disclosure of the requested information to me is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in my commercial interest. I ask that my request receive expedited processing because of the need for urgency, so as to inform the public concerning suspicious and/or criminal financial activities hitherto unknown to the public.

Please respond with this information before the end of October 2004 and contact me immediately via confirmed phone call as you send your reply; I am confident much of the needed material is already assembled and available to you due to the previous queries of the September 11th Commission. You can also trust I will make good use of this information; I have an established track record of contributing significantly to public understanding of activities of government--especially complex activities. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,



Daniel B Spillane

Certified mail

[baby_bear]

65. This request doesn't conform with FOIA requirements

You can only ask for existing documents. If you ask for information in a form that would require making up a new document, such as a list, your request will be denied. You aren't entitled to a phone call from the gov't either. And a waiver of fee request requires specific demonstrations of how the information will be used in the public's interest, such as past activities on the part of the requestor.

s_m

[PatriotGames]

56. That is outrageous. Kick n/t

58. TREASON?

[WarNoMore]

57. Hmmmm

Makes one wonder even more what is in the 911 report that hasn't been released yet!

[BeyondGeography]

61. Hate to say I told you so, folks

But here's the text from a thread I started yesterday entitled, "Dems were absolute losers for letting Bush 'own' 9/11":

Of all the missteps in the campaign, none were more fatal IMO than the Democratic Party's decision not to put the spotlight on the Bush Administration's failures to take Al Qaeda and terrorism seriously before the 9/11 attacks.

That the president of the United States could receive a briefing paper on Aug. 6, stating that bin Laden was determined to strike inside this country, and hold no follow-up meetings (vacation was more important) was a scandal in and of itself. From counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke and others, we also know that the Administration was told Al Qaeda would be its biggest security headache, and that such warnings were all but openly ridiculed by the wing-nuts, who were more concerned with getting missile defense off the ground, ditching the ABM treaty and finding a pretext to attack Iraq. And, of course, AG Ashcroft also cut counterterrorism funding in 2001.

In the primary season, only Wesley Clark openly and consistently criticized the Administration's shoddy performance, which was ultimately documented by the 9/11 Commission (whose very right to investigate was fought by Bush). The rest of our candidates stood there like statues on the issue of 9/11.
We all know what would have happened had the situation been reversed: If 9/11 had happened on Al Gore's watch, if Al Gore had stayed on vacation for a month after the Aug. 6 pdb, if Al Gore had fought the Commission's right to investigate, and if Al Gore had cut counterterrorism funding, guess what this campaign would have been about? Are we congenitally incapable of throwing the first punch? We know the other side isn't.

Now we find out that women went for Bush by 55-45, and their top issue was terrorism. The impact of gay marriage was weak in comparison; those fundies were going to vote Bush anyway. We needed the women's vote in order to win and we lost it on terrorism and homeland security. Was there a more costly and incompetent judgment by the Democrats than letting Bush masquerade as the Great Protector without putting a spotlight on his failure to protect us? That's was the foundation of his campaign and we did nothing to weaken it.

We held a convention where speeches were "scrubbed" of anti-Bush references. They held a convention where John Kerry was defined as a threat to homeland security. What was the Democratic party thinking? And, how, given the scale of this blunder, can we trust their judgment going forward?

[HEAVYHEART]

63. I can't wait to hear more about this from the media whores.

This should be all over the fucking place!

[Maraya1969]

67. Just sent an email out

to about 50 people with that interview. Make sure if you wend it out you emphasize it is BOB Kerry or some people are going to think it is JOHN Kerry saying these things.

Hopefully it will be forwarded.

P.S. I put FW: in the subject box......