'Dick' Ashcroft Faults Clinton for 9/11

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/politics/13CND-ASHC.html?hp

A new low for this guy. But also funny when you wonder what Clinton's role is going to be in this election - will he step up to the plate or sit down? Especially in light of this other controversy about when his memoirs are to be published, and how strategists are worried that their media coverage might best that of a Kerry campaign.

57 7th (calstars), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 22:00 (twenty-two years ago)

At the very least, Clinton attempted to snuff out OBL by lobbin' a cruise missile at him. That's more than Dubya did prior to September 11th, 2001 (incidentally, I cannot stand the events of that day being truncated to the soundbyte "Nine Eleven"! I don't know why, but it bugs the fuckin' snots out of me to hear it referred to in that fashion...and yes, that means I'm bugged a lot!)

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 22:11 (twenty-two years ago)

HOW PREDICTABLE! BLAME IT ON THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT! SHEESH.

ASTROG! (deangulberry), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 22:13 (twenty-two years ago)

"the Clinton administration and its neglect of the F.B.I.'s computers."

HA HA HA

Tadpole (calstars), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 22:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Excuse me while I go neglect my computer for awhile...

Tadpole (calstars), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 22:20 (twenty-two years ago)

At the very least, Clinton attempted to snuff out ODB

Tadpole (calstars), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 22:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Him too.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 22:25 (twenty-two years ago)

excellent.

Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 22:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Mr Noodles IN DA HOUSE

Tadpole (calstars), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 22:34 (twenty-two years ago)

haha my mom's bugged by that abbreviation too, Alex, but mainly because that's her birthday (and she turned 50 in '01, interestingly enough)

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 23:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Wow, that would suck. It's some CNN reporter's birthday too (can't remember her name, but she looks like Dustin Hoffman circa Tootsie).

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 23:24 (twenty-two years ago)

I can't wait for the commercials tying porn dollars to islamofascist moneyshots ... fade in Osama Bil Clinton, the Dr. Mabuse at the center of this foul smut-terror empire, bwa-ha-ha'ing at his oval office desk.

"Jacking off. It's more dangerous than we all thought."

rejoinder, Wednesday, 14 April 2004 00:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Now see, Ashcroft didn't lie - he didn't say "Clinton did not order bin Laden killed." That would be untrue, as Clinton's MON ordered just that. But he wants to give you the impression Clinton didn't do it, so he says that his review did not reveal Clinton's order.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 15:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Walter Shapiro's take. The transcript says that Ashcroft says of Pickard's briefings that he "did never speak to him saying that I did not want to hear about terrorism." So I guess that I hear "would never" incorrectly. You don't suppose his request was in writing? He wouldn't be that dumb.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 16:03 (twenty-two years ago)

(where did the "dick" come from?)

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

the "hole" at the end?

RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 16:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Bullying works

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 16:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Lionizing someone like Gorelick, despite her obvious (and embarassing) conflict of interest, is something only a guy like Kaplan could do.

And thanks again Ben-Veniste for revealing that you are the snarkiest moron on the commsion--once again, you wasted my time and my money by not doing your homework: what exactly was the point about asking Ashcroft what kind of aircraft service he used? Idiot.

Ashcroft gives me the creeps.

don atwater weiner, Wednesday, 14 April 2004 16:39 (twenty-two years ago)

How much different terrorist events had to take place (2 U.S embassies in Africa, the first WTC bombing,etc.) would it take before clinton actually did something. He ordered one bomb strike in all his years against Al Queda. And you criticize Ashcroft for blaming Clinton?

coytheman, Wednesday, 14 April 2004 16:52 (twenty-two years ago)

"the point" was blowing a big, fat, wet non-partisan kiss to Ashcroft to placate conservative bullies - he was giving an Ashcroft an opportunity to blow out of the water an anti-Bush meme. Murdoch is unable to deal with that, so he has to pretend B-V was throwing mud instead of reaching across the aisle. He can't actually quote anything B-V said to that effect, so he has to say that B-V "implied" it.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 16:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, so that's the point of the Commission: to make sure that process whores itself to politics wherever possible. And with the snide tone of BV's voice and demeanor, I'm really not inclined to interpret that as some sort of olive branch. It struck me as yet another bullying, partisan attempt at "gotcha!" Except for, of course, BV apparently didn't know that Ashcroft had been flying commerical on a personal basis. Nice lawyering, punk.

don atwater weiner, Wednesday, 14 April 2004 17:06 (twenty-two years ago)

re: whoring.

You have been watching this on the t.v. right? Theyre all whores.

Did anyone catch tenet today? Man he needs a vacation. he looked so unbelieavably uncofortable w/ the fidgeting and whatnot. Almost felt sorry for him.

bill stevens (bscrubbins), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 17:23 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, I've seen a bunch of it on TV. I've commented in other threads on the entirely political nature of the hearings, and of the commission in general. Actually, the Republicans are even worse in their whoring--the pandering, condescending tone towards Rice was patronizing and unwatchable. And while Gorelick's conflict of intrest is obvious, the partisan nature of the questioning suggests a political interest by members of the commission outside pesky little issues such as legal representation of Saudis. The members all use this commission and televised political theater as a crude, election-year tool.

don atwater weiner, Wednesday, 14 April 2004 17:36 (twenty-two years ago)

I found it odd in that NYT article that the commission commented that they wished they had received the gorelick memo sooner. Whose fault is it for not providing it? Or did they provide it and nobody looked at it?

bill stevens (bscrubbins), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 18:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Except for, of course, BV apparently didn't know that Ashcroft had been flying commerical on a personal basis.

No, I thought it quite clear that he knew exactly what the answer would be. And yes, it is the Commission's responsibility to seek to reassure Americans of its willingness to put aside partisanship when the motives of its members are impugned. That's happening much more on the right than on the left, of course. You don't hear people crying about how Exec Director Zelikow is an appointee to Bush's foreign intelligence committee, or how Thompson and Fielding had a private meeting with the White House prior to Rice's questioning.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 18:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Ben-Veniste's question:

Let me ask you, as my time is expiring, one question, which has been frequently put to members of this commission; probably all of us have heard this one way or another.

And we are mindful that part of the problem with the Warren commission's work on the Kennedy assassination was the failure to address certain theories that were extant and questions and much of the work was done behind closed doors. So I would like to provide you with the opportunity to answer one question that has come up repeatedly.

At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment. And, indeed, as you told us, on September 11th itself you were on a chartered jet at the time of the attack.

Can you supply the details, sir, regarding the threat which caused you to change from commercial to private leased jet?

ASHCROFT: I am very please pleased to address this issue.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

And his follow-up after Ashcroft's response:

BEN-VENISTE: I'm pleased to have been able to give you the opportunity to clarify that issue for all who have written to this commission and communicated in other ways about their questions about that, sir.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 18:16 (twenty-two years ago)

No, I thought it quite clear that he knew exactly what the answer would be

What made you think this? Watching this exchange did not communicate this to me. And his followup seemed a lot more CYA than anything else.

If this is such a noble excercise by Ben-Veniste, and it was so important that it had to be addressed in public before the report is released this summer, then Ben-Veniste could have made it a closed-ended, leading question. He could have acknowledged that Ashcroft travelled by private jet for government business and that he also travelled commerically in a private capacity during that time period, then closed the question out. You're seriously trying to convince me that this line of questioning was vital to the televised inquiry? If it was such a burning issue, I'm pretty sure Ashcroft would have been willing to simply put out a press release rather than waste time under oath testifying that it actually happened.

don atwater weiner, Wednesday, 14 April 2004 21:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Does this really need explanation? The references to the Warren commission? He's allowing Ashcroft to cut down a conspiracy theory. The witness gives testimony, not the questioner.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 21:27 (twenty-two years ago)

The witness gives testimony, not the questioner.

If that's the case, then maybe we can just pretend all the editorializing the Commission members have been doing doesn't exist.

don atwater weiner, Wednesday, 14 April 2004 21:31 (twenty-two years ago)

And as for who should be recusing themselves for conflict of interest...And as for who should be recusing themselves for conflict of interest...

don carville weiner, Wednesday, 14 April 2004 22:21 (twenty-two years ago)

She already is recusing herself from any commission discussion of "the wall." On CNN tonight, Jim Thompson strenuously objected to calls for Gorelick to step down, noting her recusal where relevant, and pointing out that the wall was a creation of the Reagan administration that survived under Bush I.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 15 April 2004 02:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Are you implying that institutional decisions are made at one point that then carry on through successive administrations perhaps alternating in party which can then be used by either side later on for their own argumentative purposes? Oh the shock and horror etc.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 15 April 2004 03:23 (twenty-two years ago)

The Times reads the BV exchange the same way I do.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 15 April 2004 17:06 (twenty-two years ago)

looks like you were right Gabbneb, though when I saw the exchange (and admittedly, moreso based on BV's ham-fisted questioning of Rice) I was not inclined to give him benefit of the doubt. And as long as the bullshit keeps flying out of Commission members' lips, I will continue to be skeptical and cynical of the whole thing.

don carville weiner, Thursday, 15 April 2004 18:42 (twenty-two years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.