Kurdish Oil Deal Questioned by Iraqi Government
The Los Angeles Times is reporting an oil deal signed by the Kurdistan Democratic Party could raise a serious dispute within the interim Iraqi government. Last month, the KDP signed an agreement with Norwegian oil company DNO to drill for oil in Zakho, a border city in the northern Kurdish region. Officials say the deal is the first to involve new Iraq oil exploration since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. At a ceremony to announce the deal, the prime minister of the northern Kurdish region said “there is no way Kurdistan would accept that the central government will control our resources.” A top Iraqi official said the government is looking into the legality of the deal. Control over Iraq s oil resources is one of the key issues at the heart of Iraq s sectarian divide. Sunni Arabs fear they ll be cut off from oil-rich Kurdish areas to the north and Shiite areas to the south.

Let’s recap Frank’s position:

Al Qaeda planned the 9-11 attacks while Clinton was president.
Early ground work was done while Clinton was president.
That information was unknown to the government.
-Must be Clinton’s fault.

Let’s recap my position:

-Unprecedented levels of intelligence chatter indicated a high risk of threat in the summer of 2001 after Clinton was gone.
-Bush was unengaged on terrorism matters and went on vacation ignoring this high risk of threat.
-Clinton had a system of daily and weekly meetings where department heads were held responsible for sharing information and working together when threat levels elevated. This put pressure on them to pressure lower levels to pass information up the chain until it could all be put together. Bush had no system.
-Many details of the 9-11 plans were gathered in 2001.
-Bush Administration personnel shifted priority away from anti-terrorism efforts after assuming duties.

Your idiocy Frank is that there was no situation as pertained to the 9-11 plans while Clinton was in office. There was no indication of an imminent attack as there was in the summer of 2001. They weren’t sending “Al Qaeda determined to strike in the US” pdbs to Clinton that were ignored.
Clinton couldn’t alert the airlines that hijackings may occur. Clinton couldn’t increase security or put people on alert. Clinton couldn’t pressure the FBI, CIA and NSA to work together in the summer of 2001 when indications were attacks were coming. Clinton couldn’t tell Rumsfeld he couldn’t take intercept authorization away from NORAD. Clinton couldn’t tell Ashcroft that anti-terrorism was job one instead of anti-prostitution. Clinton couldn’t tell Condi Rice that anti-terrorism was job one, not missile defense, Clinton couldn’t tell Cheney that his terrorism task force took priority over his energy task force. He tried, his people stressed the importance of anti-terrorism efforts during changeover, but Bush’s people thought they knew better.

And, midderpidge, whether you realize it or not, you’re backpedalling on your previous statement. I’ve already demonstrated that you’ve applied a double standard to the situation.

You don’t think so? So what?

The smell of your Bush-Worship is a little sickening in its stench Frank.

Meaning, if Clinton (blessed be his name) couldn’t do anything about it (what should Clinton have done about it?),What should Bush have done about it?

I love the smell of left – wing Clinton adoration in the morning. It smells like… a double standard.

If they didn’t do anything why is it all on Bush?

And please don’t bring up Richard “does my ass look big in this testimony” Clarke. His best idea was to freeze OBL’s funds. They’re still looking for them.

They should try the First National Bank of Tora Bora, on the corner of Achmed and Abdullah.

I guess all those presidential PDBs and things were just wasted paper then.

Nobody ‘knew’ an attack was imminent. You are naive if you think so. There is intelligence chatter all the time. There are possible ‘attacks’ on paper and in the minds and plans of our enemies all the time. The intelligence process involves ‘intelligent’ analysis and downright guessing as to which time it is that a variance in the ‘chatter’ actually means something and when its just a meaningless hiccup. Don’t let your Bush hate blind you to the realities. Our humint has gone down hill since the 1970′s and thats the real problem.

Dugger

I also said the main Bush movers had shifted priorities away from stopping terrorism to other things. FBI to prostitution, Rice to Missile Defense, Rumsfeld to “I Have the Power”, Cheney to helping his energy company buddies rape the country, Bush to White House Cafeteria salad bar. Bush even threw out the Hart-Rudman report because it had Clinton’s name on it. In other words they (Bush&Co) completely ignored the lessons that Clinton learned as AL Qaeda’s threat developed during his presidency and essentially they turned the clock back to 1992.

The “chatter” suggested an attack at an overseas base. In fact, in the weeks prior to 9/11 the asian bases were on significantly elevated threat levels….Bravo and Charlie.

Unfortunately, Clinton and company did nothing to stop the “years of planning” (according to leftists at this site), leading to the eventuality of 9/11. Yet here, 4 years later, no US attacks….Even though, according to more of the leftists here, OBL has just been “running free” planning away.

Hmm, maybe the war on terror is going better than we thoug

I am sure Al Qaeda has plans and ideas for dozens of attacks in the US and other targets worldwide, some being kicked around for years, and is in the process of setting some up and abandoning others. Some may even advance to the point where they may be attempted.

If Clinton was “concerned, on top of the situation…”, while Al Qaeda was searching looking for a weakness before the attack… because “they take their time,” why in the hell wasn’t there any “intelligence to indicate there was a threat”?

Are you saying that they planned this thing for years, but there was no clue in the Clinton administration that anything was being planned?

That’s hardly being “on top of the situation.”

{I’m not blaming them, but everyone loves blaming Bush}

The anti-terrorism czar confirms this. Bush was lax, unconcerned, not on the ball. Clinton was concerned, on top of the situation and facilitated the fight against terrorism, holding each department head responsible both within their departments and for working together when the situation called for it. Such a situation arose during the summer of 2001 with unprecedented levels of intelligence chatter indicating a major threat. If Clinton (or Gore I assume) had been in office there would have been an excellent chance the 9-11 attack could have been foiled. Hell, given Bush’s performance and Rumsfeld’s bad policy changes, there was every chance that even if the first plane struck, the subsequent planes could have been intercepted and shot down if necessary. Under Bush, the Capitol lay open for over an hour after the first attack.

You show a real lack of understanding of how Al Qaeda operates. They search, find a weakness and attack. They take their time. They have ample targets in Iraq right now. Furthermore, they have managed a few major attacks on Western powers. Note they are at war with the West, not just America. Hence things like the USS Cole bombing, the embassy attacks, the consul attack in Afghanistan, various attacks in Saudi Arabia, the Spain attacks, the two WTC bombings, the foiled millenium attack, and the shoe bomber (which although it ultimately failed, that was by luck more than by any effort at defense on our part).

And didn’t they tell the incoming Bush team that there was a real threat there? Didn’t they get a PDB in August saying there was a plan afoot?
What was the response.

yeah, yeah, yeah. Where are the W’s for the keyboards?

I sure as hell hope that isn’t true…cause after 8 years of clinton, the twin towers happened 6 months after he left office, and as I recall the leftist here al crooning about how long an operation like 9/11 takes to plan, that means that even after the demo’s (appropriate moniker) “perspective” changed they were STILL ineffective at stopping terrorists…..Now the republicans on the other hand……4 years, no domestic terrorism…