I beg your pardon, but your remark does not address my point in any way.
My point was that the 9/11 plot was, on the day of its execution, a remarkably fragile one.
Small events, including random ones, could have seriously disrupted it.
I believe that a more active, more engaged President, or one with a better Administration & staff, could have had a larger effect of the day’s events. Including another, hypothetical, Republican President. Or alternative advisors/staff/Secretaries of Defence/Transportation/etc. etc. with the current President.
I regard Mr. Bush as a man of doubtful ability & agenda. But I have a far lower opinion of the people who surround him. It was this combination, plus a run of bad luck for America, that created events onthe scale of 9/11.
Bosda, don’t you and the others who lambaste Bush about those 15 minutes realize that you’re crediting him with the same King Arthur-esque omnipotence illustrated in that awful painting? (The one of him on horseback, holding up bin Laden’s severed head.)
Seems like the same people who claim that 9/11 happened because Bush was incompetent, and that bin Laden hasn’t been caught yet because Bush is incompetent, are also the ones saying that Bush should have “done something” during that 15-minute window. So for 15 minutes (or however long it was), he had the skill and intelligence to foil everything after the first strike? But he didn’t have that skill and intelligence at any other time? I say the ship had already sailed.
Maybe I’m overly optimistic, but I don’t think a hypothetical President Gore would have received a lengthy PDB titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States” and then decided to ignore it and go puttering around the ranch instead.
Which ignores the fact that Gore had eight years of intelligence briefings about Bin Laden, including WTC I, while he was #2 in the administration, yet nothing, at least nothing effective, was done. What makes you think he would have done anything differently in those seven months in 2001?
We call it not stopping 9/11, just like we said. (And hey, don’t forget it was that estimable crackpot Equipose, one of your own, who claimed Gore would have stopped it if he had been president despite the fact that he did nothing to stop it while it was being planned and he was actually in the White House.)
By that logic, if a bank gets robbed on Tuesday, then we shouldn’t blame the guard who was there at the time, but we should blame his predecessor on Monday for failing to prevent the robbery then.
Sheah, right. :dubious:
Let’s spell it out in very simple terms for you–
Clinton/Gore in office: No catastrophic terrorist attacks
Bush/Cheney in office: Catastrophic terrorist attack
Certainly, if the circumstances were similar. Did the robbers research and plan their robbery under what was supposed to be the watchful eye of the Monday guard?
Thank you. Now I’ll spell it out in simple terms for you–
Clinton/Gore in office: Catastrophic terrorist attacks conceived, researched and planned without detection.
Bush/Cheney in office (for 7 months, no less): Catastrophic terrorist attacks years in the planning successfully executed.
The downtime was really frustrating so I haven’t been around much. I tend to forget about threads sometimes too. I did this one.
I meant to do all the research that rjung so wonderfully did, but got bored, then couldn’t post, then forgot, then saw that he did it. Wow.
Thank you thank you thank you thank you THANK YOU! You and others stepped in where I left a big void.
I see it doesn’t matter though, not for the right-wingers. You guys have much more patience dealing with these freepers than I do.
BushCo ignored all the alarming chatter in the months leading up to 9/11. Gore and Clarke (who wouldn’t have been shunted off to the side) wouldn’t have ignored the chatter.
Here are some of the warnings. It’s true that Clinton/Gore didn’t catch some of these while they were in office, but most of these date from after Bush gained office.
Lies:
In response to Richard Clarke’s book, Dr. Rice asserted, “the fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11.” (03.22.04)
Press Secretary McClellan claims that fighting terrorism was a top priority before 9-11.
Cheney: Bush “wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with [terrorism] and that process was in motion throughout the spring.”
Truth:
Bush & Al Qaeda – By The Numbers
0 – Number of meetings held by Vice President Cheney’s counterterrorism task force (which was created in May 2001)
0 – References to Al Qaeda in Dr. Rice’s 2000 Foreign Affairs article listing Bush’s top foreign affairs priorities
0 – References to Al Qaeda in Secretary Rumsfeld 2001 memo outlining national security priorities
0 – References to terrorism is Justice Department’s top seven goals for 2001
0 – Number of National Security Council meetings held by Bush administration before invasion of Iraq was discussed (i.e., it was discussed at the very first meeting)
1 – Number of times the Bush administration mentioned al Qaeda prior to 9-11. This was in a notice continuing an executive order issued by President Clinton.
1 – Number of hours President Bush and Vice President Cheney agreed to allow in their joint meeting with the 9-11 panel.
2 – Number of National Security Council meetings on terrorism prior to 9-11 (out of approximately 100).
2 – Weeks into administration when Energy Task Force announced.
2 – Number of public statements by the Bush administration mentioning Osama bin Laden prior to 9-11 (excluding press briefings and press questions which would raise the total to 19)
4 – Minimum number of Al Qaeda millennium attacks thwarted by the Clinton administration (only plots to bomb Seattle, Los Angeles, Brooklyn and Jordan have been specifically identified)
4 – Number of hours Bush spent with Bob Woodward as part of his book, “Bush at War.”
4 – Months into Bush administration when aid to the Taliban was restored.
4 – Months into administration when Energy Task Force report was released.
6 – Months that it would take for Vice President Cheney to respond to draft counterterrorism and homeland security legislation sent to him on July 20, 2001 by Senators Feinstein and Kyl, as stated by his top aid.
6 – Months before 9-11 that Paul Bremer - current Iraq administrator and former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism - claimed that the Bush administration was “paying no attention” to terrorism. “Bremer stated that the Bush administration would “stagger along until there’s a major incident and then suddenly say, ‘Oh my God, shouldn’t we be organized to deal with this.’”
8 – Months the administration sat on an “urgent” request from its counterterrorism chief (Clarke) to meet about al Qaeda.
9 – Percentage cut sought by Bush in FY2005 budget for Nunn-Lugar program to secure Soviet nuclear material and prevent them from getting into the hands of terrorists, while pushing for billions in spending to deploy an unproven missile defense system.
10 – Number of meetings of Cheney’s Energy Task force prior to 9/11
12 – Number in thousands of US troops in Afghanistan Winter 2004 (compared to 150,000 in Iraq)
36 – Months passed without any meeting of the Cheney terrorism task force since its formation in May 2001
58 – Number of days President Bush spent in Kennebunkport or at his Crawford ranch from January 21 to September 10, 2001
101– Number of public statements by the Bush administration on his missile defense (aka Star Wars) program from January 21 to September 10, 2001.
104 – Number of public statements by the President Bush on Saddam Hussein from January 21 to September 10, 2001
150 – Number in thousands of US troops in Iraq Winter 2004
700 – Millions of dollars Bush administration diverted from war against Al Qaeda to prepare for Iraq war.
800 – Millions of dollars Congress sought to shift from missile defense to counter-terrorism programs prior to 9/11, but Bush threatened to veto any such measure.
President Bush admitted to Bob Woodward that “I didn’t feel the sense of urgency,” about terrorism before 9/11.
In April 2001 the administration released the government’s annual terrorism report with no extensive mention of Osama bin Laden as in prior years. A State Department official told CNN that "the Clinton administration had made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden.”
Similarly, at an April meeting of deputies Clarke urged a focus on Al Qaeda. Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz responded, “No, no, no. We don’t have to deal with al-Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.”
In addition, General Donald Kerrick, the deputy National Security Advisor under Clinton who stayed on for a few months with the Bush administration, wrote a memo to his successor (Stephen Hadley) that the administration needed to pay attention to al Qaeda since they will strike again. “They never once asked me a question nor did I see them having a serious discussion about it. They didn’t feel it was imminent the way the Clinton administration did.”
The Bush administration terminated a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the U.S. and even provided aid to the Taliban in 2001. (9)
===
Lie:
Dr. Rice told the 9/11 Commission that “George Tenet met with the president every morning [before 9/11].”
Truth:
CIA records show that despite increased threat warnings, Tenet briefed the president only twice in August - once in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 17, and once in Washington, on Aug. 31. Tenet added that “I don’t have a recollection of being called” by telephone. (24)
===
Lie:
In her public testimony before the 9-11 commission, Dr. Rice claimed “We decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration’s covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network."
Truth:
Newsweek reported that “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.”
Additionally, 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,” thus terminating the reconnaissance missions started during the Clinton Administration. (23)
===
Lie:
Dr. Rice: “Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to.” (03.22.04)
Truth:
On the 4th day of the Bush administration (January 24), Clarke sent a memo to Rice marked “urgent” asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack. No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11 – eight months after the urgent request.
The administration does not dispute this fact but claims “principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat.”
The 9/11 panel asked Clarke whether an eight-month delay was unusual. Clarke explained, “*t is unusual when you are being told every day there is an urgent threat.” (12)
===
Lie:
Dr. Rice: “No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration” by the Clinton administration. (03.22.04)
Truth:
On the 5th day of the Bush administration (January 25), Clarke forwarded the 1998 Delenda plan and his December 2000 strategy paper to Dr. Rice which included a covert action plan from the CIA called “Blue Sky”. (13)
===
Lie:
After September 11th, Condoleezza Rice denied attending a transition briefing in which Clinton NSC Advisor Sandy Berger warned that “the Bush administration would spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.” Rice’s spokesperson said she recalled no briefing where Berger was present.
Truth:
Rice spoke with a New York Times reporter after the briefing who then reported that “Berger met with his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and gave her a warning. According to both of them, he said that the war on terrorism – and particularly Mr. bin Laden’s brand of it – would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined.”
The Bush administration ignored this warning, focusing on Star Wars and restructuring the military instead. In fact, Rumsfeld threatened a veto when Congress proposed to shift $0.6 billion from Star Wars to counter-terror programs. (5)
===
Lie:
In May 2002, after the press learned about the August 6th PDB (see Pre-9/11 Warnings below), Condoleezza Rice told reporters that Bush had requested the August briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer.
Truth:
The CIA told the 9/11 panel that the briefing was not requested by the President and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA. (8)
===
Lie:
In her 60 Minutes interview, Condoleezza Rice claimed “I don’t know what a sense of urgency any greater than the one we had would have caused us to do anything differently. I don’t know how…we could have done more. I would like very much to know what more could have been done.”
Truth:
There were many more things that could have been done: first and foremost, the Administration could have desisted from de-emphasizing and cutting funding for counterterrorism in the months before 9/11. It could have held more meetings of top principals to get the directors of the CIA and FBI to share information, especially considering the major intelligence spike occurring in the summer of 2001 – just as the Clinton administration did to prevent millennium attacks.
As 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick said on ABC the same day as the Rice interview, the lack of focus and meetings meant agencies were not talking to each other, and key evidence was overlooked. For instance, with better focus and more urgency, the FBI’s discovery of Islamic radicals training at flight schools might have raised red flags.
Similarly, the fact that “months before Sept. 11, the CIA knew two of the al-Qaeda hijackers were in the United States” could have spurred a nationwide manhunt. But because there was no focus or urgency, “No nationwide manhunt was undertaken,” said Gorelick.
“The State Department watch list was not given to the FAA. If you brought people together, perhaps key connections could have been made.” (21)
===
Lie:
Dr. Rice: “Our [pre-9/11 National Security Presidential Directive on Terrorism (“NSPD”)] called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets – taking the fight to the enemy where he lived.” (03.22.04)
Truth:
Commissioner Gorelick:
Q: “There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan.”
Deputy Secretary of State Armitage (under oath)
A: “Right.”
Q: “Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, ‘Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership.”
A: “No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11.”
The Commission reports that Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley rejected Clarke’s urgent call for a quick decision in favor of providing secret military aid to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to prevent their defeat by the Taliban.
The plan developed by Rice actually called for two stages of diplomatic efforts with the Taliban before resorting to military action. (10)
===
Lie:
Secretary Powell: “Our goal was to eliminate Al Qaeda. It was no longer to roll it back or reduce its effectiveness.” before 9/11. (03.23.04)
Press Secretary McClellan: “We didn’t feel it was sufficient to simply roll back Al Qaeda; we pursued a policy of elimination.”
Dr. Rice: “The president wanted more than a laundry list of ideas simply to contain al Qaeda or ‘roll back’ the threat. Once in office, we quickly began crafting a comprehensive new strategy to ‘eliminate” the al Qaeda network.” (03.22.04) Truth:
In written testimony submitted in 2002, Deputy National Security advisor Hadley said the administration’s goal “was to move beyond the policy of containment, criminal prosecution and limited retaliation for specific attacks, toward attempting to ‘roll back’ Al Qaeda.” (16)
===
Lie:
In her public testimony before the 9-11 commission, Dr. Rice claimed “We bolstered the Treasury Department’s activities to track and seize terrorist assets.”
Truth:
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.” (23)
===
Lie:
Dr. Rice: “The president increased counterterrorism funding several-fold” before 9/11. (03.24.04)
Truth:
The facts are the opposition, President Bush opposed additional funding. Bush
(i) rejected an FBI request for $58 million for 149 counterterrorism filed agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators;
(ii) proposed a $65 million cut for state and local counterterrorism grants; and
(iii) rejected a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism.” (11)
Lie:
Responding to the fact that Clarke called for arming Predators (unmanned reconnaissance drones), Rice claimed “we pushed hard to arm the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle so we could target terrorists with greater precision” prior to 9-11. (03.22.04)
Truth:
While the Pentagon successful tested an armed Predator in the first half of 2001, the Bush administration failed to resolve a bureaucratic struggle over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the system.
While the Predator spotted Osama bin Laden three times in late 2000, the Bush administration failed to even fly an unmanned Predator over Afghanistan prior to 9-11. (17)
Other “Lies/Truths” about other subjects are at the web site http://www.bushlies.net/pages/1/
In her public testimony before the 9-11 commission, “I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons.”
After the attacks, Ari Fleischer stated that the President had no warnings of an attack and President Bush explained
“[n]ever [in] anybody’s thought processes . . . did we ever think that the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets . . . never.”
In May 2002, Condoleezza Rice claimed, “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.” (05.16.02)
Dr. Rice: “[W]e received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to free U.S.-held terrorists.” (03.22.04)
President Bush: “Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us. I would have used very resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people.” (03.25.04)
Surprisingly, Bush reiterated this comment at an April 13 press conference. “[T]here was nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings.” Truth:
Dr. Rice admitted privately to the 9-11 panel that she had “misspoken” when she said there were no prior warnings, but then proceeded to repeat this claim in public. (1)
The warnings received (see below) were sufficient for Attorney General Ashcroft to begin “traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines” because of what the Justice Department called “a threat assessment.” The Justice Department has yet to release this “threat assessment.” (1)
Warnings 2001
Sibel Edmonds, a translator with the FBI, indicates “that it was clear there was sufficient information during the spring and summer of 2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack.”
“President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September,” she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away. (22)
Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, “U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner” into the summit, prompting officials to “close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city’s airport.” (23)
Bush received an August 6, 2001 memo entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” which mentioned bin Laden’s desire and capability to strike the US possibly using hijacked airplanes. The CIA warned that bin Laden will launch an attack against the US and/or Israel in the coming weeks that “will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests.” (1)
The Bush administration prevented the release of details of the August 6th briefing in the report issued by the Joint Congressional Committee investigating the 9-11 attack. (1)
Also that spring and summer intelligence reports indicated that
(i) Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols which stand out”;
(ii) there was a threat to assassinate Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit using an airplane stuffed with explosives;
(iii) al-Qaeda was planning an attack using multiple airplane hijackings; and
(iv) that bin Laden was in advanced stages of executing a significant operation within the US.
This was included in reports entitled “Bin Laden planning multiple operations,” “Bin Laden’s network’s plan advancing,” and “Bin Laden threats are real” which warned of catastrophic damage. (1)
The CIA’s National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise in which a small corporate jet would crash into an office tower following equipment failure for the morning of September 11th. (6)
In February 2001, the Hart-Rudman report warned that “mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern” and that the US was woefully unprepared for a “catastrophic” domestic terrorist attack.
President Bush refused to act on this report, preferring to await the findings of Cheney’s terrorist task force which failed to even meet before 9-11. (1)
**Warnings 1994-1998 **
Intelligence reports from 1998 indicated that Bin Laden had a plot involving explosive laden aircraft in the New York and D.C. areas while a 2000 report mentioned that possible Bin Laden targets included the Statue of Liberty, skyscrapers and nuclear power plants. (1)
Similarly, in 1994 Algerians hijacked an Air France airliner with the intention to fly it into the Eiffel Tower; in 1995 Philippine authorities uncovered an al Qaeda plot to fly a plane into CIA headquarters; and there were al Qaeda plots in 1996 and 1997 to fly a plane from outside the US into the White House and World Trade Center.
As early as 1995 the CIA warned that Islamic extremists were likely to attack U.S. aviation, Washington landmarks or Wall Street and by 1997 identified Osama bin Laden as an emerging threat on U.S. soil. (4)
===
Lie:
In her public testimony before the 9-11 Commission, Dr. Rice stated that there was “nothing about the threat of attack in the U.S.” in the Presidential Daily Briefing the President received on August 6th.
After CBS broke the story about the August 6th memo, Condoleezza Rice contended that the “overwhelming bulk of the evidence was that this was an attack that was likely to take place overseas.”
Deputy NSC Advisor Steve Hadley: “All the chatter [before 9-11] was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas.” Truth:
The title of the August 6th memo is: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States” and refers to bin Laden’s desire to strike in the US.
In addition, the December 2002 report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9-11 found:
“In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to “carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives.” The report “was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001].” In the same month, the Pentagon "acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States.” (1) and (23)
===
Lie:
In her public testimony, Dr. Rice stated “[o]ne of the problems was there was really nothing that look like was going to happen inside the United States…Almost all of the reports focused on al-Qaeda activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and North Africa…We did not have…threat information that was in any way specific enough to suggest something was coming in the United States."
“If we had known an attack was coming against the United States…we would have moved heaven and earth to stop it." Truth:
Page 204 of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 noted that “In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States” to “carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives.” The report" was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001]." In the same month, the Pentagon “acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States.”
Rice admits that she was told that “an attack was coming.” She said, “Let me read you some of the actual chatter that was picked up in that spring and summer: Unbelievable news coming in weeks, said one. Big event – there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar. There will be attacks in the near future.” (23)
Lie:
In her public testimony before the 9-11 commission, Dr. Rice claimed “When threat reporting increased during the Spring and Summer of 2001, we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a high state of alert and activity."
Truth:
Documents indicate that before Sept.11, 2001, the Bush Administration “did not give terrorism top billing in their strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI.” Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until Oct. 1, 2001, said during the summer, terrorism had moved “farther to the back burner” and recounted how the Bush Administration’s top two Pentagon appointees, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, “shut down” a plan to weaken the Taliban.
Similarly, Gen. Don Kerrick, who served in the Bush White House, sent a memo to the new Administration saying “We are going to be struck again” by al Qaeda, but he never heard back. He said terrorism was not “above the waterline. They were gambling nothing would happen.” (23)
===
Lie:
In her public testimony before the 9-11 commission, Dr. Rice claimed “The threat reporting that we received in the Spring and Summer of 2001 was not specific as to…manner of attack"
Truth:
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.” Rice herself actually admitted this herself, saying the Aug. 6 briefing the President received said “terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft.” (23)
===
Sources: (1) The Left Coaster 07.14.03, Waterman – UPI 07.23.03, Priest – Washington Post 07.25.03, Dean – Findlaw.com 07.29.03, Ridgeway – Village Voice 07.31.03, Franken – Lies And The Liars Who Tell Them, Daily Mis-Lead 03.11.04, Center for American Progress Fact Sheet 03.22.04, Progress Report 03.26.04, Rice – Washington Post 03.22.04, Progress Report 03.26.04, Daily MisLead 04.14.04; (2) DemocracyNow.org 08.12.03, Heilprin – Washington Post 08.23.03, Noah – Slate 09.05.03, Meyers – NBC News 09.03.03; Daily MIs-Lead 05.25.04 (3) Schorrow – Boston Herald 10.22.02; (4) Plotz – Slate 09.10.03, USA Today – 04.16.04; (5) Franken – Lies and The Liars Who Tell Them, (6) Lumpkin – Associated Press 10.28.03; (7) The Daily Mis-Lead 10.27.03, Corn – BushLies.com, The Daily Mis-Lead 11.17.03; Isikoff & Hosenball - Newsweek 02.18.04; Progress Report 02.23.04, Progress Report 03.01.04; Daily Mis-Lead 05.20.04 (8) Center for American Progress (“CAP”) Fact Sheet 03.26.04; (9) Scheer – Los Angeles Times 05-22-01, Allen - Washington Post 08.07.01, Progress Report 03.10.04, CAP Fact Sheet 03.22.04, Yglesias – The American Prospect 03.23.04, Progress Report 03.25.04, CAP Fact Sheet 03.26.04, The Daily Mis-Lead 03.26.04, CAP Fact Sheet 04.05.04; AP – Los Angeles Times 04.30.04, Center for American Progress 04.20, 04; Daily Mis-Lead 08.19.04; (10) CAP Fact Sheet 03.26.04, Ackerman – TNR Online 03.24.04, Progress Report 03.24.04; (11) CAP Fact Sheet 03.26.04; (12) CAP Fact Sheet 03.26.04, Progress Report 03.25.04; (13) CAP Fact Sheet 03.26.04, Ackerman – TNR Online 03.25.04; (14) CAP Fact Sheet 03.26.04; (15) CAP Fact Sheet 03.26.04; (16) Rice – Washington Post 03.22.04, Lizza – TNR Online 03.23.04, Ackerman – TNR Online 03.24.04; (17) Rice – Washington Post 03.22.04, Progress Report 03.23.04, Progress Report 03.25.04; (18) Progress Report 03.23.04, CAP Fact Sheet 03.23.04, Moniz & Komarow – USA Today 03.29.04; (19) Progress Report 02.23.04; (20)AP 12.27.02, Institute for Public Accuracy SOU Response, CAP Fact Sheet 01.20.04; (21) CAP Fact Sheet 03.28.04; (22) Buncombe – The Independent 04.02.04; (23) CAP Fact Sheets 04.08.04; (24) Center for American Progress, Claim v. Fact Database; (24) Corn – BushLies.com 9.13.03, Daily Mis-Lead 11.25.03; Brown & Sengupta – Independent 05.25.04; (25) Center for American Progress 12.13.03 and 02.03.04; (26) Center for American Progress 02.25.04; Daily Mis-Lead 05.25.04 (27) The Daily Mis-Lead 10.02.03, Center for American Progress 02.25.04; Carville – Had Enough? (28) Progress Report 08.19.04; (29) Daily Mis-Lead 07.29.04.
What a gem of linguistic excellence. The works of Hemingway and Michener pale by comparison. Certainly candidate Kerry is proud to know that a man of letters, one displaying mastery of the written word, conveying thoughts in such an eloquent manner, is one of his supporters. :rolleyes:
Why should I refute anything? Equipoise made the extraordinary claim that a President Gore would have almost certainly prevented the 9/11 attacks. Since she made the claim, it’s up to her to provide the evidence. She hasn’t done so, by any stretch of the imagination.