Has Bob Kerrey been threatend or bought off?

Or is he simply a piece of slime? This guy, a former DEMOCRATIC Senator, was appointed to the 9/11 Commission by DASCHLE as a replacement for Max Cleeland. At the time I thought it was a move to try and make the Democrats on the commission look more moderate and thus decrease the chance that charges of "playing politics" wouldn't stick when the Commission really got going.

But now that its go time, what is Kerrey doing? HE'S TRYING TO BLAME THE WHOLE DAMN THING ON THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION! He's actually saying that if Clinton had gone after Al Qaeda like he should have after the embassy bombings and the USS Cole bombing that 9/11 would not have happened. But he must know DAMN WELL that this is a red herring! The real question is: did the Bush Administration have prior knowledge of 9/11 and failed to act on it? And if so, why? Kerrey seems to have no interest in this at all. Instead he is joining the Republicans in the "BLAME CLINTON!" chorus.

WTF???

....I was about to post the exact same thing.

This morning, Kerrey was all nice towards Colin Powell, hardly questioned him at all and now while questioning Bill Cohen, he's blaming Clinton for 9/11!

Turncoat!

a PNAC front group....he supported the war in Iraq as did former democratic senator Steven Solarz who was also part of this group..his presence on this committee is to feign the appearance of bipartisan.

And begs the question: Why did Daschle appoint HIM, of all people, to replace Cleeland on the commission? Is Daschle in on the whole whitewash scheme? Why would he be? It just doesn't add up.

Kerrey is not Zell Miller.

I am not certain and there were NOT many links regarding his CLI membership..but students did stage a sit in in his office prior to the Iraq war.

Solarz was a big supporter of Pol Pot. 'Nuff said

there is a thread on DU 1 from November 02...I have had trouble accessing the archives from this computer...but it is i Editorials and goes into depth on PNAC and CLI members.

Solarz went into defense lobbying IIRC after leaving the senate

It was not until 1990(!!!) that they refused to recognize the Khmer Rouge regime internationally.

it's because he, like Colin Powell, has skeletons in his (open) closet regarding his service in Vietnam.

His current claim to fame is union busting on the underpaid part-time, temp and per diem faculty at the New School.

:wtf:

imho. Tough guy. I have no idea how ethical he is, though.

:puke:

Now we know why he was chosen.. There are no "Clinton supporters" on the panel at all.. I wish that Cleland had stayed..

And yet, they are still not asking the REAL questions.. Let the families ask the questions...dammit

repuke in democrat's clothing. We have far too many of those traitors in our party. What a stupid asswipe he is. Geesus.

I wonder if he's doing this so he can attack the Bush administration and not be accused of partisanship.

But he just keeps going after it. I don't know, maybe he is just waiting for the right time to pull a 180 (like when Clarke comes up tommorow), but right now I SMELL A RAT!

Wasn't he even being mentioned as a VP possibility?

It would confuse the stupid people.

He has total latitude now to go after Rummy. Don't sell the Dems short. I smell a vast conspiracy to topple the regime.

to think he claims to be a dem. another DINO in our midst. sounds truly hate-ridden.

criminal, too.

Cohen is getting all red in the face, obviously tired of Kerrey accusing Clinton (and basically Cohen as well) of being responsible for 9/11! I swear it looks like Cohen wants to leap over the desk and slug that little bastard, and I don't blame him.

people who have testified?...Everyone else is delineated as either a Dem. or Rep....Cohen, who worked for Clinton is a Republican, which makes his championing of Clinton even more impressive, IMO

what's PARTICULARLY disgusting was his threat to resign over not getting enough classified info

what a DICK!

BUT WHAT AN ASSHOLE! Did you hear him complimenting that troll Armitage? What the fuck he asked the repukes a bunch of soft ball questions but he's laying Cohen out- even Cohen looks a little surprised.

I am so disgusted to hear him defending the idea of an imperial presidency, where a president may invade anyone at will without the consent of Congress.

This is wrong, whether you are a dem or repub.

The president must make the case to Congress, you asshole. You should know that after years in Congress. The Govt. of the U.S. must make the case to America.

I am so sick of the assholes in Congress who give up their constitutional duties and then blame a president for not acting like a dictator.

bleh.

:evilfrown:

I have a hard time blaming Bushes 8 months of inaction in which no terrorist attack occurred vs Clinton's 8 years of near inaction in which numerous attacks occurred.

As to the whole idea of Bush knowing about 9/11 and choosing not to act on it... I dunno... Whether you agree with him or not, I'd have a hard time picturing ANY US President letting 3000+ Americans die like that. Maybe I'm just naive...

I do imagine that people in the intelligence community viewed it (or something similar) as a possibility, but what could be done to stop it? They could have announced the possibility, but that would have seriously damaged the airline industry and the economy in general and people would have criticized him for inciting a panic. So thats out. Could have arrested anyone who potentially could have been involved in a plot like this, but then people would have criticized him for violating their civil rights and taking political prisoners and racial/religious profiling. And if these had been effective and the WTC was still standing today, people would claim that there never was a plot and that it was all Repugs overreacting. Its a lose/lose situation. Nothing of that nature had ever happened before in the US (closest was Oklahoma City) and Americans would probably have had a hard time believing it was possible or that anyone would do that in a world without 9/11

Or I might not know what the hell I'm talking about :)

-DW

PS how many posts do I have to make before I can start a thread? Anyone know?

...getting your facts cleared up before starting a new thread. Sorry, but that's just me.

By tellimg me which facts I need to clear up. Sorry, but that's just me.

-DW

:)

The Clinton admin. foiled numerous terror attacks, including some scheduled for the millennium, brought to justice those involved in the 1993 WTC bombing, etc. etc. Could they have done more? Of course, but they did do a lot.(More people were killed in the 2001 attacks than in all of the terror attacks combined during Clinton's eight years.)

BTW, welcome to DU.

That wasn't really my point, and I admit that I may not have been clear. I was really saying that doing the things that needed to be done to prevent 9/11 were simply not possible politically. I am assuming, of course, that 9/11 was never known to be a definite, but was merely a possibility, among many other possible attacks that the intelligence community was looking into.

-DW

...I apologize for quickly dismissing your comment - ya hit a nerve but I should not of been sarcastic. :dunce:

There is so much to learn on DU - so welcome from another newbie - and enjoy!

PS A dumb work meeting delayed my reply.

I also came back a bit crabbily, sorry :)

Its hard to keep up with DU, posts are made so frequently. I usually visit here once or twice a day and check the newest threads

-DW

Sometimes it makes me a little crazy. I want to keep up but, especially on days like today with so much happening, the new threads just fly by. Anyways, glad we're cool...

-rob

.....The trouble with your thesis there is that Bush and his people actually were told of an imminent attack upon US soil.....by the Germans.
What did they do?
Nuthin'.

Richard Clarke was hammering them daily on their need to be serious about the possibility of an al Qaeda attack in the US.....again, they did nothing. Didn't wanna know.

Bush and his people came into office with a Cold War mindset.
Not for them 'intelligence into terrorism', all they were worried about was the baby of the right-wing, the Star Wars Missile Shield.
Like that would have stopped a group of boxcutter carrying thugs from carrying out "9/11".

As for Bush caring about the deaths of 3000 people, I wouldn't be too sure that he would care all that much.
Look at his history.
He holds the record for executions conducted during a governship of any state in the union, he doesn't think twice about murdering over 10,000 "innocent" Iraqi's, not to mention the innocent Afghani's killed as well and he doesn't give a shit about young Americans being killed in Iraq (has not attended one funeral) or the thousands returning home minus limbs and scarred for life.

I also have a hard time believing that a US president would not care about the deaths of thousands of innocent people but I also believe that Bush is a psycopath, capable of anything.

You DON'T know what the hell you're talking about.

Fortunately, you came to the right place. Welcome to DU. :hi:

So, obviously terrorism wasn't a high priority. BTW, Tenet did deliver a Presidential Briefing Paper on August 6, 2001 that clearly stated that OBL/AQ was planning to hit targets IN the US.

I'll give Dimson a break...he probably didn't know 3,000 would die on 9/11. He probably thought it would be a spectacular hi-jacking that he could use to get his Pax Americana underway.

What's the difference between him and Saddam?

Bob Kerrey, The CIA and War Crimes
Clinton Pardons and Bush Lovefest. ... Bob Kerrey, CIA War Crimes, And The Need For A War Crimes Trial ... any articles linking the CIA to war crimes in Vietnam? Because his brother Charles, a Navy officer ...
www.counterpunch.org/valentine.html

<snip>By now everybody knows that former Senator Bob Kerrey led a seven-member team of Navy Seals into Thanh Phong village in February 1969, and murdered in cold blood more than a dozen women and children.

What hardly anyone knows, and what no one in the press is talking about (although many of them know), is that Kerrey was on a CIA mission, and its specific purpose was to kill those women and children. It was illegal, premeditated mass murder and it was a war crime.

And it's time to hold the CIA responsible. It's time for a war crimes tribunal to examine the CIA's illegal activities during and since the Vietnam War.

<snip>

Man, its sick. Really sick. I'm THIS close to deciding that there is no redeemable value whatsoever in U.S. gov't, Democrat or otherwise.

if we find ourselves rooting fot the CIA against Bush. Plenty of Koolaid to go around..... :scared:

which implicated the first Bush in crimes almost beyond imagining, it's no surprise that Kerrey would turn out to be an adept apologist for the second.

From page 252 of "The Franklin Cover-Up", by former Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp:

"It is impossible to understand the Franklin scandal and its cover-up, without knowing the environment created in Nebraska when Robert Kerrey was governor, 1983 to 1987. It was an atmosphere of permissiveness for the rich and powerful, to do mostly as they pleased."

DeCamp told People magazine in 1991 that Kerrey "has an ability to make shit smell like apple butter." He'd known Kerrey since the early 1970s, and are both Vietnam veterans, but charges that Kerrey is manipulated "by forces behind the scenes."

Beneath the surface we're shown, there's some scary shit happening.

and he has the gaul to blame Clinton???

Bob Kerrey = Zell Miller

Hey, didn't Saddam kill babies too?

There could be a method to his madness. I am willing to wait and see how the questioning of all the witnesses plays out before I call Bob Kerrey a turncoat.

I'm not watching, but for him to be so harsh in attacking Clinton makes me wonder what else is in store.

The fact that Kerrey is presenting some very hard questions to former members of the Clinton administration only quells any potential cries of partisanship when its the Bushistas turn in the hot seat.

We all deserve the truth about 911, no matter where that will lead. We also know that intelligence failures within the CIA, FBI and Pentagon have existed for years, long before Bush OR Clinton took office. We as a country have let this sore fester for years and need to cut this disease out at the root. Anything less is temporary and mere window dressing.

The Bushistas will get their turn to shoulder some blame. Let's see where this goes.

I think it's a little early to attack Kerrey for truly being nonpartisan here. That has been the immediate criticism from the talking heads after the first break. I want tough questioning on both sides and could care less about the "D" and "R" next to their name.

...but I think it's really about him just looking good. Maybe not.

run in '92. Remember Kerrey's comment that the opposition would "open Clinton up like a boiled peanut" when the infidelity "issue" arose in the primaries? I'm sure it galled vet Kerrey that he lost to a "draft dodger."

That, and the fact that Kerrey has basically admitted to war crimes. If he's admitted to something so heinous, what skeleton is sitting in his closet that's even worse...and is possibly being held over his head?

my favorite witness ever.

Until today I had a lot of respect for Kerry. I attended the rally where he announced his run for the presidency in Lincoln, Nebraska. He always seemed honest and straightforward.

After seeing him today, I'm disgusted. It's like Blair suddenly going along with Bush on Iraq. Is there blackmail involved? I don't get it.

Normally with hardline Repugs when it comes to U.S. militarism?

ever since he won the Presidency - remember Kerry ran the first time Clinton ran - he was badly beaten - dropped out very earlyl

The only thing is one can't let Rummy crank up, cuz he's hard to stop once he gets going.