Gerald Plessner Strikes Again - At OUR Security

Shame on you, Gerry.

There are many legitimate arguments to be used against the Bush administration and in this free country of ours, you can claim many things in your efforts to prove that Bush should be replaced in favor of another. But as I stated before to you and will state again, the opposition by Democrats and others on Iraq, especially when it goes off track from simply philosophical differences and charges of bungling and moves on to conspiracy theories and lies, is dangerous to the ongoing foreign policy of this nation. And I don’t want that to happen because, even if, (especially if!!), Kerry replaces Bush, he needs to have the U.S. and its policies abroad in the strongest position possible!!

Shame on you, for presenting warmed-over nonsense and mixing it with Moore’s vileness, and think that you have an argument. It seems that many angry conservatives, and many thoughtful liberals by the way, have come out against this false documentary. I don’t think anybody should seek to ban it. On the contrary, conservative outrage has fueled the publicity surrounding the movie, as Moore himself has gleefully acknowledged. (Guess conservatives are just returning the favor given by liberals and libertarians and anti-religious of all stripes criticizing the Passion movie). And so much the better, let everyone see it and the debate be joined.

First, your warmed-over nonsense is not only incorrect but off-point. On January 2002 (you said 2000!!?) you talked about the proposed Afghan pipeline and money going to the Taliban. But the only evidence of money you mention is the $43 million which you even admit was recommended by Clinton. And not only by Clinton but by the almighty U.N. which said that the Taliban had done a stellar job in banning opium poppy production in Afghanistan. Any American funds which Powell announced in April and May 2001 before the UN, were distributed by the U.N. and NGOs not as money without strings but as part of relief efforts that all can agree were needed throughout Afghanistan before and after the war. And the pipeline – again the pipeline – was something UNOCAL and Russia and Turkmenistan wanted, was a “carrot” the State Dept. had been using in negotiations with the Taliban since 1998 and probably before (once again do you know your dates – Clinton was in office!). What does that have to do, though, with ignoring Afghanistan in favor of Iraq? Even more, your June 21,2001 comments on the American imperium do not reference Iraq or any “neo-colonization” you think Bush wants, but rather focused on rejection of Kyoto environmentalism and missile defense treaties, neither of which would Saddam or other Middle east leaders have cared a fig about!!?

Finally we get to the Saudi flights. In testimony before the 9-11 commission, Clarke stated his role in organizing the flights though he hedged that the FBI had to clear it, “The request came to me, and I refused to approve it," Clarke testified. "I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the - at the time - No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved the flight."
In later interviews with “The Hill” newspaper, he more clearly states that he was the one authorizing it, and consulted with the FBI to clarify that there was no problem in letting them leave. He didn’t say that Bush was involved personally in this at all, but in the aftermath of “ 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn't get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.". This actually does fit into his overall argument that he was no longer on the “inside” with the administration as he had been with Clinton. Clarke said he did it and would do it again, and if I were him, I would have done it too. As a duly authorized government officer in charge of anti-terrorism, he knew who was a real threat or not, and felt that the safety of Saudis from a nation in shock was paramount. Remember the dozens of hate crimes in September 2001 – that often struck against non-Moslems, I know an Egyptian Christian and Sikhs were killed for looking Arab - and what such crimes against high-ranking Saudis would have meant to stability of international diplomacy

And you (yes, shame on you, once again) put this forward as number one in your list of particulars for charges of impeachment! Listen carefully – 1) the whole thing is balderdash, the FBI didn’t let anyone escape, none of those people that flew out have been shown to be any kind of danger 2) Clarke said Bush was not involved, 3) no intent of “evildoing” or deception could be proved of such a thing. The president, any president, could not been held personally accountable, especially in the criminal sense of an impeachment proceeding, on such operational details taking place in a crisis situation, even if turned out Osama himself escaped with the help of a false mustache and eyeglasses!

Yeah nobody likes to be lied to and bamboozled. Goes both ways, don't you think?