Bush administration blocks Clinton's papers from 9/11 panel

From New York Times: "The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said on Thursday that it was pressing the White House to explain why the Bush administration had blocked thousands of pages of classified foreign policy and counterterrorism documents from former President Bill Clinton's White House files from being turned over to the panel's investigators."

Isn't the answer obvious? As Janeane Garafolo said tonight on Air America, they're afraid the truth will get out: the truth that Democrats really are tough on terrorism. Why else would they block almost 11,000 documents that Clinton released?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/02/politics/02PANE.html

the answer could be that this sets a bad precedent that future presidents (including democratic ones) will have to follow. it seems to me that there is so much personal hatred toward bush by the democrats that the democrats will create a whole new set of standards that when the tables are turned a democratic president will get the short end of the stick.

precedent holds the papers should be blocked for five years; that should hold. having a staffer testify in open hearings should not be required; past democratic presidents have refused to testify (think lyndon johnson not testifing before the hearings on the kennedy killing; his response was that "presidents do not do that"). blocking open votes on judicial appointments at levels below supreme court justices is another bad precedent.

an example of how these things can backfire was the independent counsel law that the democrats used to torture the regan/bush presidents; they enjoyed their political points. then the tables flipped and a republican congress(who could imagine such a thing) used the law to torture clinton. when both parties realized the dangers the law was to both their political interests, the law was allowed to expire.

president hillary will have a bad time because of what the democrats are doing for short term gain. they should have some adult tell them "to cool it". someone in the party needs to think long term and beyond the extreme hatred that is overcoming reason.where is bill clinton when we need him?

personally, i do not find clinton "tough on terrorism" but just the opposite. i suggest reading the following wall street journal articles: april 1, page D8, "against selected enemies" and april 2, page A8, "very awkward facts". i agree with andrew sullivan that all this political bickering and finger pointing while political sport is fun, it needs to be set aside. we need to be concentrating on how we fight the war on terror.

the commission on the december 7th attack was not released until after world war two; there was no open bickering over what did roosevelt know and when did he know it (alot of people felt he knew of the attack before hand but let it happen to get us in the war; it was felt that our intelligence and diplomatic services "did not connect the dots", etc.). fighting the war took precedence over the political fighting. this is what we need now.

we are at war. the crazies of islamic terrorism will not stop until our civilization is destroyed. our way of life is an abomination to them and our existence is an affront to their god.

there are plenty of areas to attack bush; i find his social policy terrible; his failure to veto any runaway spending bills an abandonment of duty; i dislike his leadership style (love tony blair); etc. let the democrats have open season in any of these areas but work with the administration on this war. this war will be long and hard; there will be more attacks; i think of churchill's words to chamberlin when chambelin waved his famous paper saying "peace in our time"; churchill said (paraphrasing), you had the choice between dishonor and war; you chose dishonor and you shall have war.

>Isn't the answer obvious? As Janeane Garafolo said tonight on

>Air America, they're afraid the truth will get out: the truth

>that Democrats really are tough on terrorism. Why else would

>they block almost 11,000 documents that Clinton released?

Wow, this sounds exactly like what the Republicans said when the Clinton Administration kept invoking all sorts of privileges in order to prevent Administration officials from responding to subpoeans: "Why would they do that if they had nothing to hide?" Well, because it was important - then and now - to preserve the right of Presidential Administrations to safeguard the internal workings of the deliberative process. I love when partisans on both sides invoke the same defenses which they attacked when used by the other side.

As for the Democrats being tough on terrorism before 9/11 - LOL!!!!!!! I don't know why both sides can't just admit that, prior to 9/11, NOBODY paid sufficient attention to terrorism.

Here's what that astute political commentator Jeneane is saying: "The President who SAT BY AND ALLOWED Al Qaeda to take over Afghanistan and did nothing about it for years as they used it as their own personal terrorist camp - that President was tough on terrorism. But the President who bombed Al Qaeda out of that country and overthrew the Government which let them train there - he wasn't tough on terrorism." That makes a lot of sense.

Here's how tough the Administration was on terrorism:

__________________________

*In February 1993, the World Trade Center wasbombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

Clinton did nothing.

*In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.

Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

*In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.

Clinton did nothing.

*In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton did nothing.

*Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.

Clinton lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.

*In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.

Clinton did nothing.

*In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.

*On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton did nothing.

*On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.

Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.

*On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.

Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."

The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 – when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.

*In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.

Clinton did nothing.

________________________________________________________

WOW! That was REAL "tough"! Great call by Jeneane Garofolo.

>Isn't the answer obvious? As Janeane Garafolo said tonight on

>Air America, they're afraid the truth will get out: the truth

>that Democrats really are tough on terrorism. Why else would

>they block almost 11,000 documents that Clinton released?

So much for Janeane's theory - sounds like she's off to a great start. From today's WASHINGTON POST:

"The Bush administration agreed yesterday to let the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks review about 9,000 pages of documents from the Clinton archives, which the White House had earlier refused to release, despite the conclusion of federal researchers that they were relevant to the panel's work."

Glad to see Garafalo contributed in forcing the Bush boys to play fair.

>Here's how tough the Administration was on terrorism:

>__________________________

>

>*In February 1993, the World Trade Center wasbombed by Muslim

>fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

>

>Clinton did nothing.

>

>*In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage

>firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged

>through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes

>cheered.

>

>Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah

>Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told

>ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the

>American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran

>in defeat."

>

>*In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded

>by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.

>

>Clinton did nothing.

>

>*In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi

>Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.

>

>Clinton did nothing.

>

>*Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of

>Erbil.

>

>Clinton lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from

>Saddam's forces.

>

>*In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons

>inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a

>U.S. U-2 spy plane.

>

>Clinton did nothing.

>

>*In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called

>it off when the United Nations said no.

>

>*On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were

>bombed by Muslim extremists.

>

>Clinton did nothing.

>

>*On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to

>testify before the grand jury.

>

>Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely

>damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.

>

>*On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach

>Clinton the next day.

>

>Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq,

>described by the New York Times as "by far the largest

>military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in

>1991."

>

>The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the

>vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 – when Clinton

>attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.

>

>*In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by

>Muslim extremists.

>

>Clinton did nothing.

>

>________________________________________________________

>

>WOW! That was REAL "tough"! Great call by Jeneane Garofolo.

Well, well, well. Let's look here at Dougie the plagiarist, passing off the misinformation of Ann "The Man" Coulter as his own without giving credit where dredit is due. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself Dougie. I wonder how much else of Ann's Doug has plagiaraized and posted as his own.

***continued next post****

Let's debunk Dougie's little misinformation fest, shall we?

Ann Coulter 'fact':On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.

Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."

Actual reality: Clinton took action against Saddam that had nothing to do with the politically motivated impeachment. The Senate had the good sense to recognize it as partisan politics and found the President not guilty.

"Iraq's weapons and facilities, David Kay says, had been destroyed in three phases: by allied bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War; by U.N. inspectors in the half-decade after that war; and by President Clinton's 1998 bombing campaign. (Clinton's airstrikes, by now widely forgotten, were even at the time widely dismissed as a political diversion; they took place during the weekend when the House of Representatives voted for impeachment. But according to Kay, they destroyed Iraq's remaining infrastructure for building chemical weapons.) Kay adds that Saddam tried to resuscitate some of these programs, but—due to sanctions, fear of inspections, and lack of resources—he was not able to do so.

Of course, the non existent WMD were Bushy boy's rationale for war, along with the non existent link to Al Qaeda. Of course, there never was an investigation into Clinton's conflict with Saddam, being legitimate and all.

And of course, the biggest of Ann and Doug's lies:

"In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Ramzi Yousef, the convicted mastermind of the 1993 bombing at New York's World Trade Center, was to be sentenced Thursday and could receive a maximum term of life in prison without parole. The attack killed six people and injured more than 1,000.

After three days of deliberation in November, a federal jury convicted Yousef and Eyad Ismoil on murder and conspiracy charges for their roles in a plot by Islamic extremists to topple the trade center's two 110-story towers to punish the United States for its support of Israel.

Ismoil was accused of driving a truck with a 1,200-pound bomb into the trade center's parking garage, where it was detonated on February 26, 1993. He's scheduled to be sentenced next month.

Aftermath of the World Trade Center bombing on February 26, 1993

Yousef also will be sentenced on an earlier conviction for his failed plan to plant bombs on U.S. airliners flying out of the Far East.

Under federal sentencing guidelines, both Yousef and Ismoil face probable terms of life in prison on five of the charges for which they were convicted, prosecutors said after the convictions.

Four other men have already been convicted in the case, each receiving a sentence of 240 years in prison.

Another suspect, Adul Rahman Yasin, is still being sought and is believed to be hiding in Iraq.

The last person was caught and convicted

in 1998.

So, Dougie, where is the mastermind of the 9/11 bombings? Osama remains at large. Seems like Clinton has done a hell of a better job than Shrubya. But don't let the facts get in the way of your reality.

And let's not forget that Clinton had only a few months left in office after the USS Cole bombing. Shrubya has had almost 4 years to bring the Cole's bombers to justice. Where are they Doug? Where's Osama?

Next time you plagiarize someone, Doug, you should make sure it's someone who deals in reality, not WMD induced fantasy.

What, no pithy reply, Ann? I mean Doug.

>What, no pithy reply, Ann? I mean Doug.

Plagarism is what you do and got caught doing multiple times - it is when you copy an entire or a substantial part of the article, containing opinions and ideas, and present it as your own. That is stealing. It is what you do.

Re-printing facts and dates is not plagarism. I set off in a box in my post the facts I re-printed in order to make clear those were the facts I was re-printing. Providing the source for those dates was unnecessary and, given the source, likely to make liberal morons like you unable to see the facts and only see the source.

People learn about plagarism and what constitutes it and what doesn't in universities, so I'm unsurprised that you don't know what it is (although you certainly have demonstrated a great proficiency in how to do it).

>Plagarism is what you do and got caught doing multiple times -

>it is when you copy an entire or a substantial part of the

>article, containing opinions and ideas, and present it as your

>own. That is stealing. It is what you do.

Gee, Ann, I mean Doug, it must be terrible to have your hand caught in the cookie jar and look like the worthless piece of crap you are. First of all, you didn't reprint facts. There is not a fact amongst them. Secondly, you lifted this directly from Ann Coulter. It contained opinions and ideas, but very little in the way of actual fact.

>Re-printing facts and dates is not plagarism. I set off in a

>box in my post the facts I re-printed in order to make clear

>those were the facts I was re-printing. Providing the source

>for those dates was unnecessary and, given the source, likely

>to make liberal morons like you unable to see the facts and

>only see the source.

No, you got caught. In fact, I am sure that what you have copied and pasted here is probbaly just more of Ann's work anyway. I should have realized with all the insults to liberals that most everything you've posted has just been ripped off Ann Coulter.

>People learn about plagarism and what constitutes it and what

>doesn't in universities, so I'm unsurprised that you don't

>know what it is (although you certainly have demonstrated a

>great proficiency in how to do it).

And you obviously graduated at the head of the class. You should be ashamed of yourself. Here you were accussing me of plagiarism and you are the biggest and most subtle plagiarist of all. Pathetic.

LOL!!! All this is about is you trying to finally find a way to get rid of the shame you feel over having been exposed as a plagarist. A few months ago, you wrote a post here which contained sentences way too complex and ideas way too original, and it was painfully obvious that YOU, of all people, could never have written them.

So someone here took one of the sentences and put it in Google and found that the ENTIRE POST, which was more than 500 words, had been copied by you verbtaim from an Internet article and posted here as your own. That same poster then took 3 other posts you had written the same week, and did the same thing, and found that those posts, too, were, in their entirety, verbtaim copies of someone else's article, posted by you without any indication that you had copied them and without any attribution at all. You tried to pass off entire articles as your own.

When you got exposed, you tried claiming that you had simply "forgotten" to post credit or to indicate that it was someone else's work. Right. You had "forgotten" in 4 straight posts to say that the post wasn't yours, but had been copied. You insisted you had done nothing wrong, but you then disappeared for a few weeks. I don't blame you.

And now, here you are, screaming "Plagarist!" and "Shame!" over something which, for the several reasons I set forth, is not even arguably plagarism. And if it were, it'd be even more humiliating than it already is for you, because, given your corrupt history, you're the last person who can scream "Plagarist!" without being a total buffoon.

You said you'd do "research" on my posts. I can't wait until you post your results. Here's how you got caught: someone took sentences from your posts, put them in Google, and found that you had copied entire articles. Feel free to do that with mine. Go as far back as you can. I'm sure you'll have the integrity to come back and announce that every word I have written here is completely original, unlike your posts, which have been copied verbatim and in their entirety without attribution. Have fun with your "research," Mr. Plagarist.

>LOL!!! All this is about is you trying to finally find a way

>to get rid of the shame you feel over having been exposed as a

>plagarist. A few months ago, you wrote a post here which

>contained sentences way too complex and ideas way too

>original, and it was painfully obvious that YOU, of all

>people, could never have written them.

I feel no shame because I would have had to have been guilty of something which I was not.

>So someone here took one of the sentences and put it in Google

>and found that the ENTIRE POST, which was more than 500 words,

>had been copied by you verbtaim from an Internet article and

>posted here as your own. That same poster then took 3 other

>posts you had written the same week, and did the same thing,

>and found that those posts, too, were, in their entirety,

>verbtaim copies of someone else's article, posted by you

>without any indication that you had copied them and without

>any attribution at all. You tried to pass off entire articles

>as your own.

This is more of the your Rovian revisionist history, spouted off like a good little Repiglican.

>When you got exposed, you tried claiming that you had simply

>"forgotten" to post credit or to indicate that it was someone

>else's work. Right. You had "forgotten" in 4 straight posts

>to say that the post wasn't yours, but had been copied. You

>insisted you had done nothing wrong, but you then disappeared

>for a few weeks. I don't blame you.

I did not disappear at all. My appearance in the message center have always ebbed and flowed. You ascribe characteristics to it to suit your own ill conceived purposes, much in the fashion of your pretendident.

>And now, here you are, screaming "Plagarist!" and "Shame!"

>over something which, for the several reasons I set forth, is

>not even arguably plagarism. And if it were, it'd be even

>more humiliating than it already is for you, because, given

>your corrupt history, you're the last person who can scream

>"Plagarist!" without being a total buffoon.

It is only inarguable to a bombastic simpleton such as yourself who fancies himself an expert on everything. The fact remains, that YOU got your hand caught in the cookie jar. Those were Ann Coulter's words, not yours, yet you tried to pass them off as your own.

>You said you'd do "research" on my posts. I can't wait until

>you post your results. Here's how you got caught: someone

>took sentences from your posts, put them in Google, and found

>that you had copied entire articles. Feel free to do that

>with mine. Go as far back as you can. I'm sure you'll have

>the integrity to come back and announce that every word I have

>written here is completely original, unlike your posts, which

>have been copied verbatim and in their entirety without

>attribution. Have fun with your "research," Mr. Plagarist.

Yes, that is what is called 'sarcasm', somehting which is generally your stock in trade. However, being so defensive and full of shame, you missed that. I hereby pass the title of "Mr. Plagiarist" to you who so richly deserves it.

For Doug and BofN

New Software Can Detect Plagiarized Passages

By MAY WONG, AP

White-collar copycats may be less inclined to pilfer the well-chosen words of others now that software designed to ferret out plagiarism is moving out of academia and into the business world.

For years, educators at colleges and universities have marshaled software tools to ensure that their students' work is original.

Now, tainted by scandals or leery of the Internet's copy-enabling power, a growing number of newspapers, law firms and other businesses are using data-sifting tools that can cross-check billions of digital documents and swiftly recognize patterns in just seconds.

Unlike Google and other search engines that find matches to typed-in key words, an advanced plagiarism-detection service such as iParadigms LLC's makes a digital fingerprint of an entire document and compares it against material on the Internet and in other sources, including proprietary academic and media databases.

Even the U.N. Security Council has begun to protect its credibility this way, using iParadigm's technology since last fall to ensure the originality of reports by its researchers and freelance writers.

Oakland, Calif.-based iParadigms started in 1996 with a computer program to help researchers at the University of California, Berkeley inspect undergraduates' papers. Today, its Turnitin plagiarism-detector is used by about 2,500 high schools and colleges in the United States and 1,000 more abroad. It launched a commercial version, iThenticate, in January.

Other plagiarism-detection providers, including Glatt Plagiarism Services, MyDropBox LLC, and CFL Software Development also report growing business outside the educational sector.

New clients include companies that produce instruction or training materials, attorneys searching for copyright violations, Web sites and police and military agencies that check officers' applications for promotions.

Few of these businesses are willing to talk about using these tools. Many insist that the software makers shield their identities and keep mum about any transgressions that are exposed.

None of the plagiarism-catchers said their clients were willing to be interviewed for this story. Fearing negative publicity, most ''don't want other people to know they're using the service,'' said Max Litvin, co-owner and inventor of MyDropBox.

Last year, one publisher turned to iParadigms when it investigated - and subsequently affirmed - rumors that an accomplished textbook author had plagiarized other sources. Sworn to secrecy, iParadigms president John Barrie said he watched in disbelief as the publisher quietly revised later editions, leaving the author's reputation intact.

''But I see a lot of plagiarism everyday,'' Barrie said. ''Most authors, whether a student or professional author, they think the odds of being found out are so remote that they'll play the odds and think they're just fine.''

IParadigms charges universities a $500 annual licensing fee plus 60 cents per full-time student. Business customers pay $1,000 a year and $10 for each page submitted for screening. Newspapers face different charging options based on word count or circulation.

A different program, WCopyfinder, was employed by USA Today as it probed the work of its embattled former reporter Jack Kelley. The free program compares strings of words only from preselected documents.

IThenticate and MyDropBox, by contrast, are Web-based tools. Users upload documents to the Web sites; the services troll the Internet and other proprietary databases, such as Lexis-Nexis or ProQuest, for any sign of unoriginal work; then they produce reports showing matches. IThenticate also combs its archive of Internet pages, which grows by 40 million pages a day.

Clearly, plagiarism is a growing problem. In a survey of 30,000 undergraduates at 34 colleges, 37 percent admitted committing cut-and-paste plagiarism using the Internet, up from 10 percent in 1999. Only 20 percent of their professors use plagiarism-detection tools, according to the survey by Rutgers University professor Don McCabe, founder of the Center for Academic Integrity.

Plagiarism detectors can be relatively cheap insurance against intellectual property sins, but many businesses and even educators remain reluctant to use them. Some fear lawsuits if they accuse someone of cheating. And deciding what amounts to actual plagiarism remains a judgment call that humans must make, creators of the software say.

''It's merely a tool to guide the eye,'' said Lou Bloomfield, a University of Virginia physics professor who created WCopyfinder in 2001 to check for plagiarism in student term papers.

IParadigms software helped The Hartford Courant conclude last month that Central Connecticut State University's president, Richard Judd, had committed plagiarism in an op-ed piece after an alert reader said it may have lifted sentences from The New York Times.

The Connecticut newspaper tried an Internet keyword search but without much success. IParadigm's software later showed that the opinion piece included not only material from the Times but also three other sources - at least 11 percent of it appeared to be unoriginal.

The criticism upended the respected university administrator's career - Judd, 66, announced on March 19 that he will retire July 1.

The Courant doesn't plan to routinely check every story for plagiarism - just submissions for the editorial page, says John Zakarian, editorial page editor. However, the paper now has a fast and effective tool to use if a staff writer's story is questioned, he says.

''We've come to rely more and more on the Internet,'' he said, ''and it's not humanly possible to verify every sentence and word. I was amazed we have the wonders of technology to help in that fashion.''

Other newspapers are reluctant to use the powerful software.

At the Macon Telegraph, which fired a reporter for plagiarism in March, editors are discussing how to prevent a repeat occurrence - but such electronic tools aren't being considered, said managing editor Mike McQueen.

''We, the editors, trust our writers deeply,'' he said. ''I don't think anybody here would want to challenge our reporters to prove that they are not plagiarizing everything they write. It'll look like a witch hunt.''

Still, Barrie predicts that iParadigms' commercial clients will eventually outnumber the academics. ''The stakes are 100 times greater,'' he said. ''We're not talking about grades anymore.''

AP-NY-04-06-04 0832EDT

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press.