PNAC Controls Bush
by: moderately_conservative_liberal 03/24/04 07:40 pm
Msg: 10521 of 10560
3 recommendations
The PNAC web site proves that Richard Clarke is telling the truth about George Bush – that Bush was focused on Iraq and getting Saddam Hussein from the very beginning of his administration, and did not even consider al Qaeda a significant enough threat to warrant his attention.
In a letter to President Clinton on January 26, 1996, PNAC was urging military action to overthrow Saddam Hussein. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
In another letter to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott on May 29, 1998, PNAC urged Congress to overstep its authority and take military action in Iraq.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm
In a letter to George Bush on September 20, 2001 (nine days after the attacks), PNAC focuses less on Osama bin Ladan, and far more on Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The letter does not even mention al Qaeda at all. It does mention Hezbollah. While there is not doubt that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, why does PNAC fail to even mention al Qaeda when it mentioned OBL?
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm
Two of the signatories on the first two letters were Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. William J Bennet, who was recently exposed to have a gambling addiction, which in itself destroys his credibility as a commentator on American values, also signed all three letters.
In the face of this evidence, it appears quite clear that Richard Clarke is telling the truth when he describes the attitudes of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowits as being overly focused on getting Saddam Hussein and military action in Iraq in the days and weeks immediately following the 9/11 attacks. It is a reasonable conclusion that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were acting according to George Bush’s specific instructions, just as Mr. Clarke maintains.
Condoleezza Rice on Monday, March 22, and again today, March 24, implied that Mr. Clarke was tasked with the responsibility of developing the administration strategy to fight terrorism, but Richard Cheney said on Rush Limbaugh’s (another conservative with a credibility problem – illegal drugs) program on Monday, March 22, that Mr. Clarke was not “in the loop.” It’s at the very least inconceivable that an administration official would be tasked with developing a strategy to fight terrorism while admittedly keeping that same official ‘out of the loop.’ This is a clear example of the administration wanting it both ways, and doing a poor job of covering their collective asses – which is just another way of saying the Bush Administration is staffed by liars.
Yahoo! News Message Boards Politics News
by: moderately_conservative_liberal 03/24/04 07:40 pm
Msg: 10521 of 10560
3 recommendations
The PNAC web site proves that Richard Clarke is telling the truth about George Bush – that Bush was focused on Iraq and getting Saddam Hussein from the very beginning of his administration, and did not even consider al Qaeda a significant enough threat to warrant his attention.
In a letter to President Clinton on January 26, 1996, PNAC was urging military action to overthrow Saddam Hussein. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
In another letter to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott on May 29, 1998, PNAC urged Congress to overstep its authority and take military action in Iraq.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm
In a letter to George Bush on September 20, 2001 (nine days after the attacks), PNAC focuses less on Osama bin Ladan, and far more on Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The letter does not even mention al Qaeda at all. It does mention Hezbollah. While there is not doubt that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, why does PNAC fail to even mention al Qaeda when it mentioned OBL?
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm
Two of the signatories on the first two letters were Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. William J Bennet, who was recently exposed to have a gambling addiction, which in itself destroys his credibility as a commentator on American values, also signed all three letters.
In the face of this evidence, it appears quite clear that Richard Clarke is telling the truth when he describes the attitudes of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowits as being overly focused on getting Saddam Hussein and military action in Iraq in the days and weeks immediately following the 9/11 attacks. It is a reasonable conclusion that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were acting according to George Bush’s specific instructions, just as Mr. Clarke maintains.
Condoleezza Rice on Monday, March 22, and again today, March 24, implied that Mr. Clarke was tasked with the responsibility of developing the administration strategy to fight terrorism, but Richard Cheney said on Rush Limbaugh’s (another conservative with a credibility problem – illegal drugs) program on Monday, March 22, that Mr. Clarke was not “in the loop.” It’s at the very least inconceivable that an administration official would be tasked with developing a strategy to fight terrorism while admittedly keeping that same official ‘out of the loop.’ This is a clear example of the administration wanting it both ways, and doing a poor job of covering their collective asses – which is just another way of saying the Bush Administration is staffed by liars.
Yahoo! News Message Boards Politics News
posted by Gary at 6:50 PM
<< Home