Comments on: Richard Ben-Veniste is aptly named

By: Jerry

Jerry — Fri, 20 May 2011 00:36:09 +0000

But his Jewish nature does. If you don’t believe so, you don’t know Jews.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Fri, 20 May 2011 00:34:45 +0000

F*ck you, you pro-semitic, Leftwing looney! Look in the mirror if you want to see a REAL “idiot,” you closeminded Left wing pile of sh*t!

By: One man's stand, alone | ThankW.com

One man's stand, alone | ThankW.com — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 05:02:46 +0000

[...] doubt all over that. “Possibilities, reports from 1998, Bin laden vowed to strike Washington, didn’t connect the dots”, and on it goes. This plan of terror was not seen by anyone in any clarity what so ever and to lay [...]

By: likwidshoe

likwidshoe — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:02:53 +0000

Peon said, I have 2 words for you to Google. Richard Clarke Which Richard Clarke? I see three. I see the 9/11 testimony Richard Clarke. I see the book Richard Clarke. And I see the TV interviews Richard Clarke. Funny thing is, they all contradict each other and yet they are all given by the same man. Which one to believe? It's hard to decide which side in this is right, but all you have to do is look at which side is lieing about what they did and did not say or know. Yeah, no kidding. That's my predicament. Which Richard Clarke to believe? Anything goes as long as you get to go kill some folks and maintain control right? Even if you're wrong it doesn't matter as long as you have the final word in EVERYTHING huh? Nazis...all of you. Oh...I see that you're a kook. Oh well. What else could I expect from someone who uses the many faces of Richard Clarke as a source?

By: Ben-Veniste

Ben-Veniste — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:04:01 +0000

1) Yeah, they can be mis-named. Buut that’s kind of major…
2) Heh-lo!! He’s Rick, not Dick.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 03:45:25 +0000

So what’s your point? That the Bush administration didn’t put together all the clues leftover from the Clinton administration in their first 8 months in office? Yes. And hindsight is 20/20.

The Iraq invasion wasn’t based on a 9/11-Iraq connection. Yeah, there were some Al Qaeda/Iraq connections, but that’s not what Iraq was primarily about. They violated the cease fire, and numerous U.N. resolutions. Period. All other reasons are secondary. The Bush administration was looking into a more permanent response to Saddam’s hostilities well before 9/11, so that can’t be what it was about.

I’m not a Republican, and would not vote to re-elect Bush if he ran for a third term.

“Lieing”

By: Peon

Peon — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 02:27:35 +0000

You’re as bad a liar as the screwballs you idolize. Remember what I said about who’s being caught lieing? I guess I’m going to have to quote the whole last part of the PDB. If you follow the link I posted you can read the whole thing, but the last 2 out of 3 paragraphs read as follows and I quote:

“We have not been able to corroberate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a (name blacked out) service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of ‘”Blind Shayakh”‘ Umar Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.”

“Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates suspicious patterns of activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of Federal buildings in New York.”

I don’t even know why I’m wasting my time talking to you…just like every other Republican you won’t listen to the truth…you only listen to and quote the lies that will keep your agenda moving forward. While some of the lies being told are just simply half-truths, the scary part is that you all rally behind them like they’re scripture just so you might be able to go kick someones ass. Anything goes as long as you get to go kill some folks and maintain control right? Even if you’re wrong it doesn’t matter as long as you have the final word in EVERYTHING huh? Nazis…all of you.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:25:11 +0000

The 08-06-01 PDB title is “Bin Laden determined to strike in US”Â and it mentions future plans for plane hijackings.

No it doesn’t! It mentions old plans (1998). It calls such reports “sensational” and says that the reports cannot be corroborated.

Richard Ben-Veniste attempted to make the title of the PDB into an actual threat of specific violence. The PDB contained no such specific threat.

By: Peon

Peon — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:10:17 +0000

You’re ignoring Clarke’s key testimony, and not acknowledging the fact that Bush failed where Clinton succeeded in December 1999. The Clinton administration was the learning process through which future administrations could base their response, Clarke who was demoted for Bush’s administration (who served under Reagan and the 1st Bush in addition to Clinton) thoroughly documented his attempts at warning the administration only to have them treated with less seriousness than Clinton. Bush should have also been quite intimate with the situation due to him and his father’s strong relationship with the Bin Laden family. Not to mention the Iraq invasion was based on now revealed to be bogus CHECH intelligence that said Mohammed Atta had met with senior Iraqi officials on April 10th 2001. Incidently Dick Cheney was caught lieing about stating that the intelligence was “pretty well confirmed.” It’s hard to decide which side in this is right, but all you have to do is look at which side is lieing about what they did and did not say or know. The 08-06-01 PDB title is “Bin Laden determined to strike in US” and it mentions future plans for plane hijackings. Rice denied that it implicated that in any way. Even watching movies would have clued anybody in to an attack using planes. Ever watch “Executive Decision” from 1994? Different ends but the same means. Now…try to defend the bias and ignorance again.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 20:40:38 +0000

Richard Clarke had 8 years with Clinton to do something about Al Qaeda. Actual attacks… lives lost. And somehow Bush is supposed to do in a few months what Clinton couldn’t do in 8 years with a PDB that contained nothing that Clinton didn’t know years before.

By: Peon

Peon — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 20:15:17 +0000

I have 2 words for you to Google. Richard Clarke

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 19:05:09 +0000

No, it was very vague. And such vague threats are identified on a daily basis, going back many years into the Clinton presidency.

By: Peon

Peon — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 18:27:35 +0000

The August 6th 2001 PDB has been declassified. Here is the link: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/pdb_080601.pdf . Anyone who thinks that this was vague and non-representative of a real threat is either dumb/lazy-brained, or too busy working on another agenda so they can’t be bothered with silly stuff like terrorism. I know someone who was both.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:10:49 +0000

I did know that, actually. But what does it matter? He was immature and partisan. His Judaism doesn’t enter into it.

By: James E. Goggin

James E. Goggin — Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:35:51 +0000

You anti-Semic Right Wingers. I suppose you do not know that Ben-Veniste is a Sephardic Jewish name. You Right wing idiots will never forgive his breaking of John Dean which brought down Richard Nixon.The Right Wing Republican can not stand the fact that so many of your corporate “God’s” are such crooks you will find and use anything against anyone who stands in your way.Please go read “Jefferson’s Bible” and learn what the most intelligent “Founding Father” thought about fanatical Christianity.