|
Moonbats Lament.
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
can't touch this.
source later. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Very interesting development:
| quote: | June 13, 2006
Leak Counsel Won't Charge Rove, Lawyer Announces
By DAVID JOHNSTON
WASHINGTON, June 13 — The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.
The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.
In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."
Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's status.
For months Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation appeared to threaten Mr. Rove's standing as Mr. Bush's closest political adviser as the prosecutor riveted his focus on whether Mr. Rove tried to intentionally conceal a conversation he had with a Time magazine reporter in the week before the name of intelligence officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, became public.
The decision not to pursue any charges removes a potential political stumbling block for a White House that is heading into a long and difficult election season for Republicans in Congress.
Mr. Fitzgerald's decision should help the White House in what has been an unsuccessful effort to put the leak case behind it. Still ahead, however, is the trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., on charges for perjury and obstruction of justice, and the prospect that Mr. Cheney could be called to testify in that case.
In his statement Mr. Luskin said he would not address other legal questions surrounding Mr. Fitzgerald's decision. He added, "In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."
But it was evident that Mr. Fitzgerald's decision followed an exhaustive inquiry into Mr. Rove's activities that had brought the political strategist dangerously close to possible charges. In October, when Mr. Libby was indicted, people close to Mr. Rove had suggested that his involvement in the case would soon be over; speculation about Mr. Rove's legal situation flared again in April when he made his fifth appearance before the grand jury.
A series of meetings between Mr. Luskin and Mr. Fitzgerald and his team proved pivotal in dissuading the prosecutor from bringing charges. On one occasion Mr. Luskin himself became a witness in the case, giving sworn testimony that was beneficial to Mr. Rove.
As the case stands now, Mr. Fitzgerald has brought only one indictment against Mr. Libby. The prosecutor accused Mr. Libby of telling the grand jury that he learned of Ms. Wilson from reporters, when in reality, the prosecutor said he was told about her by Mr. Cheney and others in the government. Mr. Libby has pleaded not guilty in the case, which is scheduled to begin trial early next year.
Ms. Wilson is married to Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador who wrote in an Op-Ed column in the New York Times on July 6, 2003 that White House officials, including Mr. Bush, had exaggerated assertions that Iraq had sought to purchase nuclear fuel from Africa. Mr. Wilson wrote that such claims were "highly dubious."
He said his conclusions were based on a trip he had made in early 2002 to Niger, a fact-finding mission that he said had been "instigated" by Mr. Cheney's office.
It is now known that the column upset Mr. Cheney and that within his office it was viewed as an attack on the Vice President's credibility, according to legal briefs filed in the Libby case by Mr. Fitzgerald. In his filings, Mr. Fitzgerald depicts Mr. Cheney as actively engaged in an effort with Mr. Libby to rebut Mr. Wilson's assertions.
After the Wilson column was published, Mr. Cheney wrote notes on a copy asking whether Ms. Wilson played a role in sending her husband to Africa and whether the trip was a "junket." At the same time, Mr. Fitzgerald has said, the vice president dispatched Mr. Libby to challenge Mr. Wilson in conversations with reporters.
It was during that effort, Mr. Fitzgerald has alleged, that Mr. Libby disclosed Ms. Wilson's employment at the C.I.A. along with the possibility that it was she who sent him to Niger.
In Mr. Rove's case, Mr. Fitzgerald centered his inquiry on why Mr. Rove did not admit early in the investigation that he had a conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about Ms. Wilson and whether Mr. Rove was forthcoming about the later discovery of an internal e-mail message that confirmed his conversation with Mr. Cooper, to whom Mr. Rove had mentioned the existence of the C.I.A. officer.
Mr. Rove told the grand jury that he forgot the conversation with Mr. Cooper and volunteered it to Mr. Fitzgerald as soon as he recalled it, when his memory was jogged by the e-mail to Stephen J. Hadley, then deputy national security adviser, in which Mr. Rove referred to his discussion with Mr. Cooper.
At the center of the inquiry involving Mr. Rove are the circumstances surrounding a July 11, 2003, telephone conversation between Mr. Rove and Mr. Cooper, who turned the interview to questions about the trip to Africa by Mr. Wilson.
In his testimony to the grand jury in February 2004, Mr. Rove did not disclose the conversation with Mr. Cooper, saying later that he had forgotten it among the hundreds of calls he received on a daily basis. But there was a record of the call in the form of Mr. Rove's message to Mr. Hadley, the deputy national security adviser, which confirmed the conversation.
One lawyer with a client in the case said Mr. Fitzgerald was skeptical of Mr. Rove's account because the message was not discovered until the fall of 2004 — a year after Mr. Rove first talked to investigators. It was at about the same time that Mr. Fitzgerald had begun to compel reporters to cooperate with his inquiry, among them Mr. Cooper. The prosecutors legal thrust at reporters, in effect, put White House aides like Mr. Rove on notice that any conversations might become known.
Associates of Mr. Rove said the e-mail message was turned over immediately after it was found at the White House. They said Mr. Rove never intended to withhold details of a conversation with a reporter from Mr. Fitzgerald, noting that Mr. Rove had signed a legal waiver to allow reporters to reveal to prosecutors their discussions with confidential sources. In addition, they said, Mr. Rove testified about his conversation with Mr. Cooper — long before Mr. Cooper did — acknowledging that it was possible that the subject of Mr. Wilson's trip had come up.
It is now known that Mr. Fitzgerald and the grand jury have questioned Mr. Rove about two conversations with reporters. The first, which he admitted to investigators from the outset, took place on July 9, 2003, in a telephone call initiated by Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist. In a column about Mr. Wilson's trip four days after the call to Mr. Rove, Mr. Novak disclosed the identity of Ms. Wilson, who was said by Mr. Novak to have had a role in arranging her husband's trip. Mr. Novak identified her as Valerie Plame, Ms. Wilson's maiden name.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/w...artner=homepage |
Lotsa gibber-gabber on the blogs on this, with a ton of speculation. It's difficult to completely trust Luskin on his words, and Fitzgerald isn't commenting on this pending case yet, but I doubt Luskin would put all credibility on the line and call this one if there wasn't a bit of truth in it.
The speculation is that of whether or not Rove is cooperating with Fitz on getting the bigger fish, i.e. Cheney, but a liberal criminal defense lawyer over at TalkLeft believes this not to be the case:
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015080.html
Luskin is not releasing any further information on the case, which is strange given how he's blabbed relentlessly on and on about it outside the court:
| quote: | In his statement Mr. Luskin said he would not address other legal questions surrounding Mr. Fitzgerald’s decision. He added, "In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel’s decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove’s conduct."
But it was evident that Mr. Fitzgerald’s decision followed an exhaustive inquiry into Mr. Rove’s activities that had brought the political strategist dangerously close to possible charges. In October, when Mr. Libby was indicted, people close to Mr. Rove had suggested that his involvement in the case would soon be over; speculation about Mr. Rove’s legal situation flared again in April when he made his fifth appearance before the grand jury. |
Nevertheless, the wingnutters like Q5 are giggling like little schoolgirls. Now perhaps Rove can become more focused on what he does best prior to elections - smearing the out of opponents and planting fallacious stories to the press. Smearboaters 2006 unite! |
|
|
| josh4 |
Ah HA!
Told you so!
Two out of 3 ain't bad, and to think some of you actually thought there was a chance. Pfffft.
I know my Architects of Doom, those guys have pacts with the Devil. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Nevertheless, the wingnutters like Q5 are giggling like little schoolgirls. Now perhaps Rove can become more focused on what he does best prior to elections - smearing the out of opponents and planting fallacious stories to the press. Smearboaters 2006 unite! |
just let it go dude. this extra-contitutional, special procecution was a political farce from the get go. it still is.
everything you have laboriously typed at the wee hours of the night, everthing that you've stayed up countless hours to research, everything you've stretched to fit your blind hatred filled, donkey party re-election ideological efforts have come up lacking.
flippin deal.
oh right i'm the wing-nut! a $60 million, three year special investigation says so right? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
Ah HA!
Told you so!
Two out of 3 ain't bad, and to think some of you actually thought there was a chance. Pfffft.
I know my Architects of Doom, those guys have pacts with the Devil. |
that goes for you too ass. you've just been victimized by a political farce of a re-election game |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
I know my Architects of Doom, those guys have pacts with the Devil. |
Yes, I imagine they are up in the ranks with hitler, stalin, and pol pot. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
just let it go dude. this extra-contitutional, special procecution was a political farce from the get go. it still is.
everything you have laboriously typed at the wee hours of the night, everthing that you've stayed up countless hours to research, everything you've stretched to fit your blind hatred filled, donkey party re-election ideological efforts have come up lacking.
flippin deal.
|
And at this point I am conceding this; something to which you have seriously lacked in practically any and every argument you have attempted here on this site. I have said it before and I will say it again: given what we know about the case I made an argument based on the information given. But I have also stated on numerous accounts that I will wait until this case has been presented in full until I give full conclusion on what we know and don't know. The bottom line is that we still do not know what Fitz has or has not presented that bolsters or disproves the case for Rove because that information has not been provided. What we only know is what Luskin has mentioned about Rove not being indicted, and despite this not coming from Fitz I am still willing to concede it as it would be absolute suicide for Rove if Luskin would state something this strongly without merit.
| quote: | | oh right i'm the wing-nut! a $60 million, three year special investigation says so right? |
Oh, I'm sorry, were you talking about Ken Starr or Pat Fitzgerald? Were you talking about some $65 million dollar case that supposedly was about Whitewater but eventually led to the private life of a president and his blowjob that indicted no one, or a case that is still ongoing and has actually indicted a top advisor to vice president Cheney?
Just be sure to clarify, please wingnut. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Ahh, good, back to business for Rove:
| quote: | MANCHESTER, New Hampshire, June 12 (Reuters) - Republicans should campaign on U.S. economic strength and the war in Iraq as they gear up for the November election, President George W. Bush’s political adviser Karl Rove urged on Monday.
"We have the strongest economy of any major industrialized country in the world," Rove told about 400 Republicans at a fund-raising dinner in New Hampshire...
Party officials estimate the fundraiser brought in $60,000. expected to help pay legal bills for a Republican scandal over a phone-jamming scheme designed to keep New Hampshire Democrats from voting in a 2002 election.
The case led to the conviction of three Republican party officials and seriously squeezed the state party’s finances....
Political consultant Rich Killion, who paid $250 to meet Rove...People who attended just to listen to Rove paid $100 each. |
Atta boy, Rove!
What else ya got?:
| quote: | Rove, one of Washington's most powerful and polarizing figures who is under investigation in the leak of a CIA covert operative's name, chided Democrats for floating the idea of troop reductions in Iraq.
He specifically targeted Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha.
"Like too many Democrats it strikes me they are ready to give the green light to go to war, but when it gets tough, they fall back of that party's old platform of cutting and running. They may be with you for the first few bullets but they won't be there for the last tough battles," he said. |
Yeah, Rove knows nothing about running from wars, does he?:
| quote: | Except for a lapse of several months, Selective Service records show presidential adviser Karl Rove escaped the draft for nearly three years at the height of the Vietnam War using student deferments [...]
At the time, a full-time student at the university would have had to take 12 hours a quarter. University records show Rove went to school full-time for four of those quarters. But in the autumn and spring quarters of 1971, Rove was a part-time student, registered for between six and 12 credit hours. In his book, The Draft: 1940- 1973, Texas Tech University history professor George Flynn writes that Selective Service regulations required a student with a draft deferment to study "full-time, pursuing a regular degree, and in senior college. But the definition of full time varied from school to school."
Despite the apparent lapse in his full-time status, Rove maintained his deferment.
http://www.senatemajority.com/node/381 |
Of course not! Only those cowardly Dems. who know a few things about war run away from the fight, don't they Rove?
Finally, an EPA rule designed to keep “groundwater clean near oil drilling sites and other construction zones was loosened after White House officials rejected it amid complaints by energy companies that it was too restrictive and after a well-connected Texas oil executive appealed to White House senior advisor Karl Rove.”:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...eadlines-nation
You just gotta love the guy! Back in the saddle again, yee-haw! |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
The bottom line is that we still do not know what Fitz has or has not presented that bolsters or disproves the case for Rove because that information has not been provided. |
yes we do. we know that the baseless charges that Joe Wilson wanted Rove "frog-marched out of the Whitehouse" for, do not exist! something that you cannot deny. those charges that do not exist is what has fueled this f**king circus you and the Pelosicrats call justice. all moon-battery stems from those charges. now they are gone. we'll move on.
| quote: | | Just be sure to clarify, please wingnut. |
oh great. now you extole the virtues (or lack thereof) of the Clinton administration.
clarification.
| quote: | "Its wrong to demand sexual favors from subordinates [Jones]
Its wrong to deny promotion to those who refuse sex [Jones],
Its wrong to reward subordinates who submit with job interviews at Revlon and the UN [Lewinksy]
Its wrong to grope campaign volunteers who are seeking employment [Wiley]
Its wrong to obstruct justice and commit perjury in a sexual discrimination case
Unless your man is Bill Clinton. Then, its "just about sex"
And did I mention that Clinton was sodomizing interns while Al Queda plotted 9-11?" |
|
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
yes we do. we know that the baseless charges that Joe Wilson wanted Rove "frog-marched out of the Whitehouse" for, do not exist! something that you cannot deny. those charges that do not exist is what has fueled this f**king circus you and the Pelosicrats call justice. all moon-battery stems from those charges. now they are gone. we'll move on. |
Wow, I didn't realize your military experience gives you such incredible clearance to files of ongoing U.S. criminal cases. Suppose you share those conclusions from Fitzgerald's files for us in detail right now, pretty please?
| quote: | oh great. now you extole the virtues (or lack thereof) of the Clinton administration.
clarification. |
Wow again. I didn't realize how Clinton's rusty zipper and private affairs was such a horrible, horrible national security threeat. Amazing. Of course the case could be made that it wasn't Lewinsky that got his attention diverted away from Al Qaeda, but rather the multimillion $ case run by an extremist Conservative hack Ken Starr that diverted his attention oh so slightly. But who would want to discuss side issues like that here? Certainly not you, of course.
And speaking of Al Qaeda and diversions thereof, we certainly wouldn't want to bring Bush's little tidbit oversight into the matter once he took office, wouldn't we?:
| quote: | Before 9/11: White House Received Warnings
After September 11, both President Bush and his top national security adviser denied having any prior knowledge that Al Qaeda was planning an attack involving airplanes. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said on 5/16/02, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." Similarly, President Bush denied having any idea about the threat, saying on 5/17/02, "Had I know that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." These denials belie the record.
1999 –EXPLICIT WARNING THAT AL QAEDA HAD PLANS TO FLY AIRPLANES INTO BUILDINGS: A 1999 report prepared by the Library of Congress for the National Intelligence Council "warned that Osama bin Laden's terrorists could hijack an airliner and fly it into government buildings like the Pentagon." The report specifically said, "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives…into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House." In response to the ominous warnings, the New York Times reports "under Janet Reno, the Justice Department's counterterrorism budget increased 13.6% in the fiscal year 1999, 7.1% in 2000 and 22.7% in 2001." During the Clinton Administration "the federal government had on several earlier occasions taken elaborate, secret measures to protect special events from just such an attack." [Source: CBS, 5/17/02; NY Times, 2/28/02; WSJ, 4/1/04]
EARLY 2001 – MAJOR SURGE IN AL QAEDA ACTIVITY: "In late spring 2001, a sudden surge in activity began among known Al Qaeda operatives…a reporter from Middle East Broadcasting visited bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan and noted that his supporters were preparing for attacks against American 'interests.'"[Source: The Age of Sacred Terror, 2003]
EARLY 2001 – WHITE HOUSE DEPARTS FROM EFFORTS TO TRACK TERRORIST MONEY: The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center." [Source: The Age of Sacred Terror, 2003]
APRIL 30, 2001 - BUSH ADMINISTRATION SAYS BIN LADEN FOCUS WAS "MISTAKE": The Bush Administration released the government's annual report on terrorism, but unlike previous Administrations, it decided to specifically omit an "extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden." Similarly, AP reported in 2002 that the Bush Administration's "national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions." [Source: CNN, 4/30/01; AP, 6/29/01]
JULY 2001 –ANOTHER WARNING THAT AL QAEDA PLANNED TO USE PLANES AS MISSILES: The LA Times reported that U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July 2001 that "Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations." [Source: LA Times, 9/27/01]
JULY 2001 – ASHCROFT STOPS FLYING COMMERCIAL BECAUSE OF "THREAT ASSESSMENT": Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airlines and instead began "traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines" because of "what the Justice Department called a 'threat assessment.'" That "threat assessment" has never been made public. [Source: CBS, 7/26/01]
AUGUST 2001 - PRESIDENT PERSONALLY WARNED OF AL QAEDA AIRPLANE PLOT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration "officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." Dateline NBC reported that on August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." [Source: ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02]
SEPTEMBER 2001 - PENTAGON OFFICIALS CHANGE FLIGHTS ON 9/11 BECAUSE OF SECURITY: Newsweek reported that on 9/10/01 "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." Newsweek also reported "that as many as 10 to 12 warnings" were issued before 9/11, and "more than two of the warnings specifically mentioned the possibility of hijackings." [Source: Newsweek, 9/24/01]
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 – RICE SPEECH ON SECURITY GOALS HAS NO MENTION OF TERRORISM: National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to give a speech outlining "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday." But instead of focusing on the new challenges, Rice instead was set to address Cold War-type challenges by "promoting missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy." The address "contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups." [Source: Wash Post, 4/1/04]
Beore 9/11: Reducing Counter-Terrorism
The federal government was rapidly increasing its counter-terrorism efforts at the time President Bush took office. As the New York Times reported, Attorney General Janet Reno ended her tenure as "perhaps the strongest advocate" of counterterrorism spending. Similarly, Newsweek and the Washington Post reported National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was "totally preoccupied" with the prospect of a domestic terror attack, telling his replacement that they need to be "spending more time on this issue" than on any other. The focus changed dramatically when the Bush Administration took office.
ADMINISTRATION SHIFTED LAW ENFORCEMENT'S FOCUS OFF OF COUNTER-TERRORISM: The New York Times reported that in the lead-up to 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft "said fighting terrorism was a top priority of his agency," yet upon entering office, "he identified more than a dozen other objectives for greater emphasis within the Justice Department before the attacks." On Aug. 9, the Administration distributed a strategic plan to the Justice Department highlighting its new goals from a list of Clinton Administration goals. The item that referred to intelligence and investigation of terrorists was left un-highlighted. [Source: NY Times, 2/28/02]
ASHCROFT OVERRULED EFFORTS FOCUSED ON COUNTER-TERROR: Newsweek reported that "in the spring of 2001, the attorney general had an extraordinary confrontation with the then FBI Director Louis Freeh at an annual meeting of special agents." The two talked before appearing, and Ashcroft laid out his priorities for Freeh: "basically violent crime and drugs," recalls one participant. Freeh replied bluntly that those were not his priorities, and began to talk about terror and counterterrorism. "Ashcroft didn't want to hear about it," says a former senior law-enforcement official." [Source: Newsweek, 5/27/02]
BUSH ADMINISTRATION TERMINATED PROGRAM THAT TRACKED AL QAEDA: "In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States." [Source: Newsweek, 3/21/04]
SO LITTLE CONCERN FOR COUNTER-TERROR THAT A WHITE HOUSE TASK FORCE NEVER MET: In January of 2001, the U.S. Government's bipartisan Commission on National Security gave the White House a report that warned of an attack on the homeland and urged the new Administration to implement its specific "recommendations to prevent acts of domestic terrorism. The Administration rejected the Commission's report, "preferring to put aside the recommendations." Instead, the Administration waited until May of 2001 to appoint Vice President Cheney to head a task force "to combat terrorist attacks on the United States." But according to the Washington Post, neither "Cheney's review nor Bush's took place." Meanwhile, Newsweek reported that when senators "sent a copy of draft legislation on counterterrorism and homeland defense to Cheney's office on July 20," they were told by Cheney's top aide "that it might be another six months before he would be able to review the material." [Source: Salon, 9/12/04; White House release, 5/8/01; Washington Post, 1/20/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]
WHITE HOUSE BEGAN EFFORT TO CUT COUNTER-TERRORISM PROGRAMS: The New York Times reported that in its final 2003 budget request, the Administration "called for spending increases in 68 programs, none of which directly involved counterterrorism...In his Sept. 10 submission to the budget office, Ashcroft did not endorse FBI requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators. Ashcroft proposed a $65 million cut for a program that gives states and localities counterterrorism grants for equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and training." By comparison, "Under Janet Reno, the department's counterterrorism budget increased 13.6% in the fiscal year 1999, 7.1% in 2000 and 22.7% in 2001." [Source: NY Times, 2/28/02]
ADMINISTRATION LEFT "GAPS" IN MILITARY'S REQUEST FOR COUNTER-TERROR FUNDS: The Washington Post reported that in its first budget, the White House left "gaps" between "what military commanders said they needed to combat terrorists and what they got." Newsweek noted that, among other things, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld elected not to re-launch a Predator drone that had been tracking bin Laden. When the Senate Armed Services Committee tried to fill those gaps, "Rumsfeld said he would recommend a veto" on September 9. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02; NY Times, 2/28/02]
ADMINISTRATION STOPPED PREDATOR FLIGHTS TRACKING AL QAEDA IN AFGHANISTAN: AP reported "though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight months." Additionally, "the military successfully tested an armed Predator throughout the first half of 2001" but the White House "failed to resolve a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed Predators" and the armed Predator never got off the ground before 9/11. [Source: AP, 6/25/03]
WHILE CUTTING COUNTER-TERROR, THE WHITE HOUSE SENT FUNDING TO THE TALIBAN: At the same time the White House was trying to cut counter-terrorism funding, it gave "$43 million in drought aid to Afghanistan after the Taliban began a campaign against poppy growers." As the 5/29/01 edition of Newsday noted, the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan "are a decidedly odd choice for an outright gift of $43 million from the Bush Administration. This is the same government against which the United Nation imposes sanctions, at the behest of the United States, for refusing to turn over the terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden." [Washington Post, 9/23/01; Newsday, 5/29/01]
Before 9/11: Despite Terror Ties, Bush-Saudi Bonds Strengthen
According to Time Magazine, President Bush is far "cozier than most [Presidents] to Riyadh." But with the LA Times pointing out that the Saudi government "provided significant money and aid to the 9/11 suicide hijackers," Vanity Fair notes that "the Bush-Saudi relationship raises serious questions" about why the Administration ignored the clear Saudi ties to terror before 9/11.
SAUDI TIES TO TERROR KNOWN LONG BEFORE 9/11: According to U.S. News and World Report, a 1996 CIA report found that a third of the 50 Saudi-backed charities it studied "were tied to terrorist groups." Similarly, a 1998 report by the National Security Council had identified the Saudi government as "the epicenter" of terrorist financing, becoming "the single greatest force in spreading Islamic fundamentalism" and "funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to jihad groups and al Qaeda cells around the world." Over the past decade, "al Qaeda and its fellow jihadists collected between $300 million and $500 million, most of it from Saudi charities and private donors" and the very "origins of al Qaeda are intimately bound up with the Saudi charities." [Source: U.S. News and World Report, 12/15/03]
SAUDI STONEWALLING OF U.S. COUNTER-TERROR INVESTIGATORS BEFORE 9/11: At the same time Al Qaeda-Saudi government ties were strengthening, U.S. "inquiries about bin Laden went unanswered by Riyadh. When Hezbollah terrorists killed 19 U.S. troops with a massive truck bomb at Khobar Towers in Dhahran in 1996, Saudi officials stonewalled, then shut the FBI out of the investigation." [Source: U.S. News and World Report, 12/15/03]
DESPITE CLEAR TIES TO TERROR, BUSH-SAUDI TIES STRENGTHENED BEFORE 9/11: The Bush Administration maintained and strengthened its ties to the Saudi government upon taking office. As the Boston Herald reported, a "revolving U.S.-Saudi money wheel" exists "within President Bush's own coterie of foreign policy advisers." First and foremost, the current President's father "remains a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group" – an investment bank with deep connections to the Saudi royal family, and received $1 million for his Presidential library from the royal family. George W. Bush himself is also linked to the Saudi-backed Carlyle Group: he was a director of a Carlyle subsidiary called Caterair. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice "is a former longtime member of the board of Chevron which did business in the Saudi desert." And Vice President Cheney's tenure as CEO of oil giant Halliburton was among his dealings with "firms connected to the Saudis that paid big dividends." [Source: Boston Herald, 12/11/01]
INSTEAD OF TAKING PRE-9/11 TERROR TIES SERIOUSLY, WHITE HOUSE APPOINTS A CRONY: With the Saudis' ties to terror clear, the Administration refused to appoint a qualified diplomat or counterterrorism expert as the U.S. government's ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Instead, the President appointed his Texas crony Robert Jordan – a man with no diplomatic experience, who spoke no Arabic and who had never set foot in Saudi Arabia. Jordan's chief qualification for the post was that he had been Bush's lawyer during the SEC inquiry into the Harken energy scandal, was part of the legal team representing the president in Florida during the 2000 election. He also worked at the law firm Baker-Botts, which is headed by former Secretary of State James Baker, a man who has considerable ties to the Saudi government, and who told PBS even after 9/11 that Saudi Arabia is "an ally and friend of the United States." Even after Jordan retired earlier this year, the Administration still refused to appoint a diplomatic/counter-terrorism expert, instead appointing Texas oil lobbyist James Oberwetter. [Source: Houston Chronicle, 10/3/01; Knight-Ridder, 11/17/03; PBS, 10/01; AP, 11/19/03] |
Because that would be a real no-no, wouldn't it Q? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Wow, I didn't realize your military experience gives you such incredible clearance to files of ongoing U.S. criminal cases. |
no it doesn't. produce the charges. where are the charges? there are none, and if you are implying that Fitzgerald has yet to prosecute under some espionage act or something similar then you're more out to lunch than your average Koskid.
| quote: | | Wow again. I didn't realize how Clinton's rusty zipper and private affairs was such a horrible, horrible national security threeat. Amazing. Of course the case could be made that it wasn't Lewinsky that got his attention diverted away from Al Qaeda, but rather the multimillion $ case run by an extremist Conservative hack Ken Starr that diverted his attention oh so slightly. But who would want to discuss side issues like that here? Certainly not you, of course. |
who f**king cares! thread it if you want. i'll be there.
| quote: | | And speaking of Al Qaeda and diversions thereof, we certainly wouldn't want to bring Bush's little tidbit oversight into the matter once he took office, wouldn't we?: |
wow. you really have no shame in diversions do you? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
no it doesn't. produce the charges. where are the charges? there are none, and if you are implying that Fitzgerald has yet to prosecute under some espionage act or something similar then you're more out to lunch than your average Koskid. |
Obviously I wouldn't be implying such a thought considering what was released today is highly unlikely. However I gathered from your statements previously that you somehow knew exactly what Fitzgerald had concluded with Rove, to which I wanted to know exactly you came about such information since Fitzgerald has yet to release such conclusions to the press on his case.
But I will say this given what we knew about Rove. Our beloved President's top political advisor did intentionally reveal the name of the diplomat's wife who happened to work for the CIA as a covert agent in WMD proliferation to a journalist. When called to testify the matter, he did not reveal this tidbit to the grand jury until he was caught in contradiction. At that point his little brain fart backfires and he suddenly comes to and remembers disclosing such information. This is on record, and if pressed I will once again demonstrate these actions in full.
Such action does not lose him his job, his security clearance, and is instead lauded and praised to the highest by his party, his wingnut brand of supporters and minions.
Therefore, the conclusions that can be drawn from this are the following:
1. Fitz didn't have enough evidence to demonstrate that Rove was actually lying under oath to the grand jury the first time he testified
2. Luskin sold Fitz and the grand jury that Rove's little brain fart was truly only that - a mere lapse in memory
In either case, I maintain my praise for Fitzgerald. He has shown true integrity, unlike that smear artist Starr who continually and deliberately leaked out time and again out of his office on a pending case against the sitting President Clinton. Furthermore, Fitz demonstrates that he does not go after and prosecute anyone without substantiated evidence.
Which, of course, doesn't sit well for our Vice Presidential top advisor, Scooter Libby. One really has to wonder why Scooter lied in court to Fitz and why he is still being prosecuted, wouldn't you say? By all accounts, that's still quite a big fish.
| quote: | | who f**king cares! thread it if you want. i'll be there. |
Oh I just know you would, poopsie!
| quote: | | wow. you really have no shame in diversions do you? |
Merely replying to the last line of your cute little quote. No harm in that, is there? |
|
|
|
|
