Political Crossfire Forums

[beachbum bob]

Counter wrote: The threat was a personal threat to the Attorney General, nothing to do with national security.

Ashcroft still used flights when on official government business.

This was one of the propaganda points that that ridiculously low IQ documentary "Loose Change" brought up.


you have a link for the "personal threat" statement???

[Moracca]

Quote: ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER'S

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1

www.prorev.com/legacy.htm

Condoleeza Rice has a lot of catching up to do.

[beachbum bob]

Moracca wrote:

Condoleeza Rice has a lot of catching up to do.

what does it have to do with Ashcroft???? or why he stopped flying commerical air days after the Tenet/Rice meeting...warning of OBL ????

[Moracca]

beachbum bob wrote: Moracca wrote:

Condoleeza Rice has a lot of catching up to do.

what does it have to do with Ashcroft???? or why he stopped flying commerical air days after the Tenet/Rice meeting...warning of OBL ????

Why don't you call him and ask him?

Or maybe you can ask for a FOIA release from the Dept. of Justice. Go for it Bob.

[beachbum bob]

Moracca wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Moracca wrote:

Condoleeza Rice has a lot of catching up to do.

what does it have to do with Ashcroft???? or why he stopped flying commerical air days after the Tenet/Rice meeting...warning of OBL ????

Why don't you call him and ask him?

Or maybe you can ask for a FOIA release from the Dept. of Justice. Go for it Bob.

a lot of luck with that......I tried to FOIA my NSA file...haven't heard a word yet...2 yrs later

[lilwolf]

For some reason the entire thing that he didn't fly is so bogus in that many people were not flying that day... I wasn't so does that make me a person that knew what was going on ...NO

This whole thing sounds more like a conspiracy thing than anything else. There really are no dots to connect unless they are forcefully connected.

The gove leases planes from NASA and other ahencies all the time, it's common paractice and i beleive totally legal.

Besides I think Condi does have a long way to go before she catches up with the DNC :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Moracca]

beachbum bob wrote: Moracca wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Moracca wrote:

Condoleeza Rice has a lot of catching up to do.

what does it have to do with Ashcroft???? or why he stopped flying commerical air days after the Tenet/Rice meeting...warning of OBL ????

Why don't you call him and ask him?

Or maybe you can ask for a FOIA release from the Dept. of Justice. Go for it Bob.

a lot of luck with that......I tried to FOIA my NSA file...haven't heard a word yet...2 yrs later

Your personal NSA file is different than the request for funding information that Ashcroft used to get a leased jet.

Besides, DOJ is not the same as NSA. Next time put "Immediate Action Requested". I never got an FOIA reply that I wanted until I used that term. I only have a few months experience though. I did get my FBI file (from my immigration check) through an FOIA.

[Norrin Radd]

So, I guess I will do the homework once again............

FROM CBS News July, 26, 2001

(CBS) Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.

A senior official at the CIA said he was unaware of specific threats against any Cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself, in a speech in California, seemed unsure of the nature of the threat.

"I don't do threat assessments myself and I rely on those whose responsibility it is in the law enforcement community, particularly the FBI. And I try to stay within the guidelines that they've suggested I should stay within for those purposes," Ashcroft said.

Asked if he knew anything about the threat or who might have made it, the attorney general replied, "Frankly, I don't. That's the answer."

Earlier this week, the Justice Department leased a NASA-owned G-3 Gulfstream for a 6-day trip to Western states. Such aircraft cost the government more than $1,600 an hour to fly. When asked whether Ashcroft was paying for any portion of the trips devoted to personal business, a Justice Department spokeswoman declined to respond.

All other Bush Cabinet appointees, with the exception of Interior and Energy with remote sites to oversee, fly commercial airliners. Janet Reno, Ashcroft's predecessor as attorney general, also routinely flew commercial. The secretaries of State and Defense traditionally travel with extra security on military planes.

The Justice Department insists that it wasn't Ashcroft who wanted to fly leased aircraft. That idea, they said, came strictly from Ashcroft's FBI security detail. The FBI had no further comment.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml

BELOW you can watch a 24 second video of Ashcroft saying he doesn't know who made the threat, or what the threat was which caused him to stop flying commercial flights....

http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/ashcroft911.wmv

FTW “Ashcroft demonstrated an amazing lack of curiosity when asked if he knew anything about the threat. ‘Frankly, I don't,’ he told reporters.” [San Francisco Chronicle 6/3/02] It is later reported that he stopped flying in July based on threat assessments made on May 8 and June 19.



In May 2002 its claimed the threat assessment had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, but Ashcroft walked out of his office rather than answer questions about it. [AP, 5/16/02] The San Francisco Chronicle concludes, “The FBI obviously knew something was in the wind … The FBI did advise Ashcroft to stay off commercial aircraft. The rest of us just had to take our chances.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 6/3/02] CBS's Dan Rather later says of this warning: “Why wasn't it shared with the public at large?” [Washington Post 5/27/02]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2002/06/03/hsorensen.DTL



MORE ON THE LIAR JOHN ASHCROFT........

Ashcroft Exposed

Today, Attorney General John Ashcroft undertakes the formidable task of defending his lackluster counterterrorism record before the 9/11 Commission. According to draft reports prepared by the commission, Ashcroft was "largely uninterested in counterterrorism issues before Sept. 11, despite intelligence warnings that summer that al Qaeda was planning a large, perhaps catastrophic, terrorist attack." In a desperate attempt to preserve his reputation, Ashcroft repeatedly lied about his record to a joint Congressional committee in February 2002. For example, Ashcroft said that, immediately after 9/11, the FBI "came to me with a $670 million request, and we counseled them to take that to $ 1.1 billion." But an internal Justice Department document obtained by American Progress reveals that "the FBI requested $1.5 billion in additional funds to enhance its counterterrorism efforts" which Ashcroft cut to $531 million. Ashcroft spokesman Mark Corallo attempted to dismiss the documents because they were circulated by a "think tank run by top former Clinton aide John Podesta" – but he did not dispute their authenticity or validity. See the internal documents obtained by American Progress.

MORE ASHCROFT LIES........

ASHCROFT SLASHED COUNTERTERRORISM IN HIS FIRST MONTH: Ashcroft told Congress in February 2002 he "requested an increased funding for counterterrorism efforts of $436 million" prior to 9/11 for the 2002 budget. But a new analysis by American Progress reveals that the 2002 counterintelligence budget proposed by Ashcroft cut counterintelligence spending by more than $476 million – a 23% cut from 2001 funding levels. Internal Justice Department documents obtained by American Progress reveal that in August 2001, the FBI specifically requested additional funds to bolster counterterrorism resources, including 248 counterterrorism agents and support staff, 54 translators to review a backlog of foreign language intelligence, and 200 professional intelligence researchers to analyze the intelligence. But Ashcroft ignored the request and instead cut counterterrorism funding in critical areas, including a $65-million reduction for counterterrorism equipment grants, a $20-million reduction for border control, and a $1.4-million reduction for the National Domestic Preparedness Office.

ASHCROFT'S MISPLACED PRIORITIES: In May 2001, Ashcroft wrote a "budget goals memo" outlining his top seven priorities. Counterterrorism was not mentioned. Former FBI counterterrorism chief Dale Watson said he "'fell off my chair' when he learned that Mr. Ashcroft had failed to list combating terrorism as one of the department's priorities." In November 2001, Ashcroft released a revised strategic goals memo which included the same seven priorities, with one addition inserted at the top of the list. The new number one priority? "Protect America Against the Threat of Terrorism."

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:1EG7a_dwxysJ:www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp%3Fc%3DbiJRJ8OVF%26b%3D45502+ashcroft+quit+flying+commercial&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9



SO, HAS ANYONE EVER SEEN, OR HEARD, WHAT THE THREAT WAS THAT STOPPED ASHCROFT FROM FLYING ON COMMERCIAL AIRLINERS?

Anyone?

Why won't they tell us what the threat was?

Anyone ever seen this memo?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0412042phoenix1.html

[Counter]

beachbum bob wrote: Counter wrote: The threat was a personal threat to the Attorney General, nothing to do with national security.

Ashcroft still used flights when on official government business.

This was one of the propaganda points that that ridiculously low IQ documentary "Loose Change" brought up.


you have a link for the "personal threat" statement???

Right here:



http://www.nj.com/war/ledger/index.ssf?/news/ledger/stories/20040414_ashcroft.html


Quote: ASHCROFT: My wife traveled to Germany and back in August. My wife and I traveled to Washington, D.C., on the 3rd of September before the 17th -- before the 11th attack on commercial aircraft.

I have exclusively traveled on commercial aircraft for my personal travel; continued through the year 2000, through the entirety of the threat period to the nation.

The assessment made by the security team and the Department of Justice was made early in the year. It was not related to a terrorism threat as a threat to the nation. It was related to an assessment of the security for the attorney general, given his responsibilities and the job that he undertakes. And it related to the maintenance of arms and other things by individuals who travel with the attorney general. And it was their assessment that we would be best served to use government aircraft.

These were not private chartered jet aircraft. These were aircraft of the United States government. And it was on such an aircraft that I was on my way to an event in Milwaukee on the morning of September the 11th.

[Patriot911]

This is silly. If Ashcroft were in on the conspiracy, he wouldn't need to be warned not to fly. He would know what flights were going to be hijacked.

Public figures are often times warned not to fly. There is nothing new or ominous about this, although I am sure there are plenty of people who wish to make mountains out of molehills as long as it falls in line with their partisan agendas.

[Gremlin]

Nixon wrote: This ridiculous conpiracy theory was debunked years ago.

go find some other nut-job conpiracy to discuss.



it did?

show me.

[Todd D.]

The answer to this question is rather simple: He didn't. If you read the article, he stopped flying commercially for BUSINESS purposes. He flew commercially with his wife at least 3 times during the summer of 2001, as has repeatedly been pointed out (and subsequently ignored).

[Patriot911]

Conspiracy theorists should be careful pushing this as evidence of a conspiracy because it actually DISPROVES the conspiracy. If the government were truly involved in 9/11, they would just have to make sure Ashcroft wasn't on Flight 11, 175, 93 or 75 and he would be perfectly safe. The very most you can claim is that the government had an idea SOMETHING was up, but that the details were so ill defined that they had to issue a blanket "no commercial fly" order over a large stretch of time. Even then this claim would be unsubstantiated and just another conspiracy theory that can't be proven.

[Norrin Radd]

Todd D. wrote: The answer to this question is rather simple: He didn't. If you read the article, he stopped flying commercially for BUSINESS purposes. He flew commercially with his wife at least 3 times during the summer of 2001, as has repeatedly been pointed out (and subsequently ignored).

Are you on crack?

There was a "threat assesment" as was well reported.

Business purposes? Unflippingbelievable.

[Patriot911]

Norrin Radd wrote: Todd D. wrote: The answer to this question is rather simple: He didn't. If you read the article, he stopped flying commercially for BUSINESS purposes. He flew commercially with his wife at least 3 times during the summer of 2001, as has repeatedly been pointed out (and subsequently ignored).

Are you on crack?

There was a "threat assesment" as was well reported.

Business purposes? Unflippingbelievable.

So what's your point? If the government didn't want Ashcroft to be harmed during the terrorist attacks then they would have just made sure he didn't fly on one of the flights hijacked on 9/11. There are constant threats made against the US and members of the government. The fact some threat was made against Ashcroft doesn't mean it is related to the 9/11 conspiracy. Just another example of 9/11 deniers continuing to make extremely tenuous connections that mean nothing and then heralding these bogus connections as proof of a conspiracy. :roll:

Come back when you have proof that the threat against Ashcroft was related to 9/11. Wait. No, don't do that or you'll never come back. ;-)

[The Newb]

i just ordered my self a tin foil hat to protect me from the evil governement conspiracies, i feel i need it cause 5 year old issues are now being brought up again.... ( besides i dont want to be brain-washed into a leftist )

[Norrin Radd]

Patriot911 wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: Todd D. wrote: The answer to this question is rather simple: He didn't. If you read the article, he stopped flying commercially for BUSINESS purposes. He flew commercially with his wife at least 3 times during the summer of 2001, as has repeatedly been pointed out (and subsequently ignored).

Are you on crack?

There was a "threat assesment" as was well reported.

Business purposes? Unflippingbelievable.

So what's your point? If the government didn't want Ashcroft to be harmed during the terrorist attacks then they would have just made sure he didn't fly on one of the flights hijacked on 9/11. There are constant threats made against the US and members of the government. The fact some threat was made against Ashcroft doesn't mean it is related to the 9/11 conspiracy. Just another example of 9/11 deniers continuing to make extremely tenuous connections that mean nothing and then heralding these bogus connections as proof of a conspiracy. :roll:

Come back when you have proof that the threat against Ashcroft was related to 9/11. Wait. No, don't do that or you'll never come back. ;-)

I can't prove it because only the government can say what the threat was and they refuse to say because they are cowards and traitors.

They still have information on Pearl harbor that is classified. There is still information on the testing on Americans which is classified. The videos from buildings surrounding the Murrah building are still classified as is the remains from that building. The videos from around the Pentagon are also classified as are moutains of other information, all classiufied by traitors and scumbags protected by people like you.

What do you call a person who supports traitors?

Oh yeah, a traitor.

[Patriot911]

Norrin Radd wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: Todd D. wrote: The answer to this question is rather simple: He didn't. If you read the article, he stopped flying commercially for BUSINESS purposes. He flew commercially with his wife at least 3 times during the summer of 2001, as has repeatedly been pointed out (and subsequently ignored).

Are you on crack?

There was a "threat assesment" as was well reported.

Business purposes? Unflippingbelievable.

So what's your point? If the government didn't want Ashcroft to be harmed during the terrorist attacks then they would have just made sure he didn't fly on one of the flights hijacked on 9/11. There are constant threats made against the US and members of the government. The fact some threat was made against Ashcroft doesn't mean it is related to the 9/11 conspiracy. Just another example of 9/11 deniers continuing to make extremely tenuous connections that mean nothing and then heralding these bogus connections as proof of a conspiracy. :roll:

Come back when you have proof that the threat against Ashcroft was related to 9/11. Wait. No, don't do that or you'll never come back. ;-)

I can't prove it because only the government can say what the threat was and they refuse to say because they are cowards and traitors.
So you admit you're making assumptions based on no proof other than your own opinion. :roll:

Norrin Radd wrote: They still have information on Pearl harbor that is classified. There is still information on the testing on Americans which is classified. The videos from buildings surrounding the Murrah building are still classified as is the remains from that building. The videos from around the Pentagon are also classified as are moutains of other information, all classiufied by traitors and scumbags protected by people like you.

What do you call a person who supports traitors?

Oh yeah, a traitor.

:lol: Nice personal attack, but completely beside the point. You've just admitted you're basing your entire "conspiracy link" on nothing more than your own opinion and this whole part about a threat assessment proves there was no conspiracy. You're just too stubborn to admit it. Oh well. No new news there. ;-)

[Norrin Radd]

Patriot911 wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: Todd D. wrote: The answer to this question is rather simple: He didn't. If you read the article, he stopped flying commercially for BUSINESS purposes. He flew commercially with his wife at least 3 times during the summer of 2001, as has repeatedly been pointed out (and subsequently ignored).

Are you on crack?

There was a "threat assesment" as was well reported.

Business purposes? Unflippingbelievable.

So what's your point? If the government didn't want Ashcroft to be harmed during the terrorist attacks then they would have just made sure he didn't fly on one of the flights hijacked on 9/11. There are constant threats made against the US and members of the government. The fact some threat was made against Ashcroft doesn't mean it is related to the 9/11 conspiracy. Just another example of 9/11 deniers continuing to make extremely tenuous connections that mean nothing and then heralding these bogus connections as proof of a conspiracy. :roll:

Come back when you have proof that the threat against Ashcroft was related to 9/11. Wait. No, don't do that or you'll never come back. ;-)

I can't prove it because only the government can say what the threat was and they refuse to say because they are cowards and traitors.
So you admit you're making assumptions based on no proof other than your own opinion. :roll:

Norrin Radd wrote: They still have information on Pearl harbor that is classified. There is still information on the testing on Americans which is classified. The videos from buildings surrounding the Murrah building are still classified as is the remains from that building. The videos from around the Pentagon are also classified as are moutains of other information, all classiufied by traitors and scumbags protected by people like you.

What do you call a person who supports traitors?

Oh yeah, a traitor.

:lol: Nice personal attack, but completely beside the point. You've just admitted you're basing your entire "conspiracy link" on nothing more than your own opinion and this whole part about a threat assessment proves there was no conspiracy. You're just too stubborn to admit it. Oh well. No new news there. ;-)

I did not start this thread.

I did not claim that this information "proved" anything.

What this information shows is that there is just another "coincidence" that the government refuses to come clean about.

You back the government on almost every issue, so I can only hope the next innocent person killed by the government will be someone you love, as it is what you deserve. Then maybe you won't be such an establishment cheerleader and maybe you will stop using stupid smilies in every single one of your childish posts.

[Counter]

Norrin Radd wrote: What this information shows is that there is just another "coincidence" that the government refuses to come clean about.


What exactly is there to "come clean" about?