Bush under fire for destroyed CIA interrogation tapes (Roundup)
US News
Dec 8, 2007, 2:46 GMT
Other features coming soon.
Talkback
think he is scared?
that doesn't mean a thing to him. under fire .lol
It would lead to the identification of agents... put them and their families at risk????
What a load of codswallop. If the CIA can't hide 2 torturers in a country of over 300 million people and 350 million square miles, then maybe they aren't as good at the spy business as they want us to believe.
More likely, by destroying the tapes, they can't be identified in a proper court of law. This saves Bushwhacker from a lot of embarrassment and tough questions. But there are still going to be a lot of tough questions. The Whitewhorehouse is assisting in the internal review? More likely looking for more stuff to destroy. Doesn't this sound a lot like Richard Nixon and his tapes? He was another Republican warmonger, thief and liar.
www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/07/cia.videotapes/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. President George W. Bush 'has no recollection' of videotapes of CIA interrogations of some al Qaeda suspects or of plans to destroy the tapes, a White House spokeswoman said.
'I spoke to the president this morning about this,' White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. 'He has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday. He was briefed by General Hayden yesterday morning.'
The vice president learned about the tapes and their destruction at the same time, another administration official told CNN.
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, said that was 'stretching credulity.'
(B U l l S H i t)
What I find interesting is the timing. This follows immediately on the heels of the release of their boneheaded report on Iran's nuclear activities. My suspicions would be that this was likely planned in advance before the release of the Iran report in order to take the media's attention off that before the damage can be undone.
Obviously the democratic Congress, in its zeal to sling mud against the GOP during the campaigning, has blinded itself to the critical importance of the propaganda aspect of the war. And the CIA? I suppose they they just plain may not know any better. Too many people in high positions that have been educated way beyond their intelligence.
This will likely be downplayed to a trivial issue before it's finished. Not much different than the Clinton administration letting Sandy Berger break into the pentagon and destroy the classified reports implicating Bill Clinton in his crimes and misconduct in the White House.
Both the republican and democratic parties need complete overhauls in regard to integrity and character issues, but sadly, neither party is offering any hope of that in the next election with their present candidates.
RE: ' ... Sandy Berger break into the pentagon and destroy the classified reports implicating Bill Clinton in his crimes and misconduct in the White House.'
=============
Provide a Google link as to Berger covering up any 'crime' committed by Clinton.
www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/63/22170
Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:
Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
Passenger Profiling: $10 million
Screener Training: $5.3 million
Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million
Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million
Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, 'threat meetings' were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.
www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html
Congress passes anti-terrorism bill
April 18, 1996
Web posted at: 6:30 p.m. EDT
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill boosting the ability of law enforcement authorities to fight domestic terrorism, just one day before the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.
The House voted, 293-133, to send the anti-terrorism bill to President Clinton, who has indicated that he will sign it after he returns from his overseas trip next week.
The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.
The original House bill, passed last month, had deleted many of the Senate's anti-terrorism provisions because of lawmakers' concerns about increasing federal law enforcement powers. Some of those provisions were restored in the compromise bill.
The bill imposes limits on federal appeals by death row inmates and other prisoners and makes the death penalty available in some international terrorism cases and in cases where a federal employee is killed on duty.
The bill 'has some very effective tools that we can use in our efforts to combat terrorism,' Attorney General Janet Reno said Thursday.
Keep watch and pray. You see 8 people died in Omaha because the system of government did not do its job from the beginning.
22 more people in Iraq died because of the same reasons.
We do not need money, we do not sell books, we do not collect funds from those that do not wish to openly contribute, we have our own Army, we have our own intelligence, we do need a fancy website to tell others we are here, we do not need the mainstream media to promote us, for we come from them and from government and from Army, and from Business, and we are tired of the corruption and death and greed and the suffering of the American people who just want to have a nice Christmas and be happy. Just look at the internet and see. The American Republic has already fired its first shot, and you people were too busy watching TV or doing something else to even notice, but those that are the powers that be heard it loud and clear, and they hope to keep it quiet from you all. But, we will fire another...
Humanity will overcome technology in the end!
nixon did nothing wrong so it seems.
little bush can get away with murder...which he is doing.
Sounds like SP4 is up and running - of the mouth that is!!
' we do need a fancy website to tell others we are here, '
Then shut up.
...I just don't see any posts of mine above...
The CIA...aren't these the same guys who say Iran is no longer working on the bomb...?
'Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on.'
This is another one of your LIES. The Clinton administration had 4 documented chances to kill bin Laden and they DECIDED NOT TO each time. Even after bin Laden had blown up our embassy in Kenya and Tanzania.
The 9/11 attacks were conceived, planned, put in to place and all but completed on Clinton's watch.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/
'But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?
“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.
Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.
What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.
A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.
Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”
www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060412-us-obl.htm
U.S. government reports suggest that the United States lost a clear opportunity to kill bin Laden because he was too close to U.A.E. officials traveling in his entourage – officials Clinton security adviser Richard Clarke may have thought were too important to harm.
On Feb. 8, 1999, the Pentagon and the CIA were preparing a military strike on a luxury hunting camp in the desert south of Kandahar, Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden had been sighted.
There were problems, however.
Satellite imagery revealed the presence of a military aircraft belonging to the U.A.E., and 'policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with bin Laden or close by,' according to the 9/11 Commission report.
Who were these U.S. 'policymakers' mentioned in the 9/11 report who thwarted the opportunity to kill one of the world's most wanted men?'
“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.
'Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion.'
Consider that every last red cent of that was flushed down the toilet because we had a president who didn't realize that we were at war with a devious enemy who simply could not be pulled over and arrested.
The choice you obviously want us to make is to turn our own society in to a police state in stead of fighting them on their own territory. We are in a war, one that has been declared on US. A major reason we have lost as many people as we have is because of the Clinton administration's complete refusal to see that obvious fact. Be prepared to be REMINDED of that closer to November.
Oh, you can shove your garbage from 'truthout.org' in the same hole as the garbage you have shoved from Kos and common dreams, idiot.
On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for stealing classified documents in October 2003, by removing them from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke, covering internal assessments of the Clinton administration's handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots. An associate of Berger said[13] Berger took one copy in September 2003 and four copies in October 2003.
When initially questioned by reporters, Berger claimed it was accidental that he put the top-secret copies in his attache-case and handwritten notes in his jacket and pants pockets. He later, in a guilty plea, admitted to deliberately removing the copies and cutting three up with scissors. Archive staff stated they witnessed Berger, on more than one occasion, stuffing into his pants and into his jacket papers he was illegally removing.[14] Two of the copies were recovered by DOJ investigators and returned to the archives.
Berger eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material on April 1, 2005. Under a plea agreement, U.S. attorneys recommended a fine of $10,000 and a loss of security clearance for three years. However, on September 8, U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson increased the fine to $50,000 at Berger's sentencing. Robinson stated, 'The court finds the fine [recommended by government prosecutors] is inadequate because it doesn't reflect the seriousness of the offense.'[15] Berger was also ordered to serve two years of probation and to perform 100 hours of community service.[16]
Critics suggest Berger destroyed primary evidence revealing anti-terrorism policies and actions, and that his motive was to permanently erase Clinton administration pre-9/11 mistakes from the public record. Public statements to this effect have been made by talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh,[17] former Clinton campaign advisor Dick Morris,[18] USA Today reporter Jack Kelley,[19] multiple times by Fox News correspondent John Gibson (the last as recently as December 2006[20]), and former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (Republican-Illinois), who said: 'What information could be so embarrassing that a man with decades of experience in handling classified documents would risk being caught pilfering our nation's most sensitive secrets?'[21]
'...it's pizza nahght Hirry....god ah miss beer when we have this stuff, boyh! Trah the meat lovahs special Hirry...yep, Laura says it's gonna stop mah heart....funny too, cause most o you alls sychophantic constituants don't think ah have one...eh, eh...
'....yeah, a damn shame aboout thim tapes Hirry....ol Dick an I used t watch em an do shots in th basement....well,... Dick did, ah jes watched...
'Haell nooo senatah, we din't have no recollection of thim tapes...or at least that'll be the oo ficial version..'
'...Hirry....hirry....boyh, git a hold o y'sef....it ain't no big thing...a little watah on th haed...haell boyh...they doo this ta navy seals fer trainin all th tahme...an none o thim dieah...well...most o th tahme anyways...'
'...n Hirry, fergit thim tapes...they's gone an, believe me boyh...they ain't comin back...who do ah look lahke...Dick Nixon...do ya think they're be hahnd mah desk boyh...s' lets git on with business heah.
' Senatah...Congriss's got a 20% approval ratin Hirry...jeesusah cheeerahst boyh!...thats less thin me! Goddam Hirry...th war is more pop u larr thin congriss Hirry....it's lahke y' worse tin mah bowlin score!...pretty soon...Mikey Moore's gonna make movies of you Hirry...!
'n' boyh...I cin hep ya, but ya gotta dee liver. Ah don't need to bundles from sum un named Kim Chi or Liu or sumpin...well..not anymore anyways...Ol Karls gone now...but Hirry....ya gotta git that Iraq fundin done bah Xmas, or I'll lay off all thim civilian workers at th Pentagon, an spend thire paychecks fer bullets boyh! I ain't kiddin Hirry...ol GW ain't gonna be th one ta unfund th war boyh...s' git in thire an git a deal, boyh!
'Ya git ol Teddy sh-t face drunk, or threaten ta oout one o thim gay sneatahs we seem ta have a lot of...preferrably ah demcrat fer a change...tell ol Joe Biden he's doin reel well in his run...whatevah, but git er done Hirry!'
' Hirry...put on thit red suit an git out thim Reindeer boyh, ya gotta dee livah by midnahght the 24th boyh! Jes git out thire and Ho ho ho fer me Hirry...I'll hep ya too! I'll git ya sum global warmin funds an sum haghwiy dollahs ya lahke s'much boyh, let thim gays marry..well, not in Texas, but everwhire else...'
'Mirry Xmas Hirry, an t all a g nahght! Tahke sum o thit pizza fer Teddy, an here's sum 12 yeer old scotch fer him ta wash it doown with!'
On December 20, 2006, more than a year after Berger pleaded guilty and was sentenced, a report issued by the archives inspector detailed how Berger had perpetrated the crime. Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that Berger took a break to go outside without an escort. 'In total, during this visit, he removed four documents ... Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building).' Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.[25][26]
The report also stated 'There were not any handwritten notes on the documents Mr. Berger removed from the archives. Mr. Berger did not believe there was unique information in the three documents he destroyed. Mr. Berger never made any copies of these documents.' In the end, according to the report, '[Mr. Berger] substituted his sense of sensitivity instead of thinking of classification' in deciding to remove the documents.[27]
Sandy Berger and the Clinton Cover-Up - Why It Matters
By Ronald A. Cass
On May 17th, Sandy Berger, President Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, voluntarily gave up his law license and with it the right to practice law. That is a stunning move for an accomplished lawyer, one of the nation's most influential public officials. Someone should take note. In fact, everyone should.
Berger previously entered a deal with the Department of Justice after he was caught stealing and destroying highly sensitive classified material regarding the Clinton Administration's handling of terrorism issues. That deal allowed him to avoid jail time, pay a modest fine, and keep his law license. It also allowed him to avoid full explanation of what he had taken and why he had taken it.
What information was worth risking his reputation, his career, and his freedom to keep hidden? And who was he risking that for?
Recently, the Board of the DC Bar, which had granted Berger his license, began asking those questions. There was only one way to stop that investigation, to keep from answering questions about what he did and why he did it, to keep the Bar from questioning his colleagues in the Clinton Administration about what had been in the documents Berger destroyed.
Berger took that step, surrendering his license, and stopping the investigation.
Ordinarily, anyone who has spent the time, effort, and money needed to master one of the 'learned professions' fights with the utmost determination to keep his license. That is not merely a ticket to practice your chosen profession - it is also a badge of honor and accomplishment. Ask any doctor or lawyer, any architect or CPA, any professional at all, what it means to give that up.
That Berger didn't fight speaks volumes.
*******
President Clinton designated Berger as his representative to the 9/11 Commission and related hearings, which gave Berger special access to highly classified documents in the National Archives relating to the Clinton Administration's handling of al-Qaeda and similar terror threats. Berger got around rules requiring that the documents only be reviewed with Archives' employees present, purposefully stole documents, destroyed them, and lied about it all. When caught, he first blamed Archives employees for misplacing the documents, then admitted having taken them inadvertently (this is the point at which he cut the plea deal), and finally acknowledged what was obvious from the facts that were emerging - he intentionally removed and destroyed documents.
Justice Department officials who investigated the missing documents initially were persuaded that Berger must, as he claimed, have taken documents by mistake and then destroyed them to avoid having sensitive material in his possession. The plea agreement was based on the assumption that Berger was mishandling classified material - not manhandling it.
Now, however, it is clear that there was nothing innocent or inadvertent in Berger's conduct. He has something to hide and, whatever it is, he was terrified that at least some part of it would come out of a non-criminal hearing before the Bar. With no possible criminal charges to face, he could not have claimed a right against self-incrimination. He could no longer get away with saying that he took documents accidentally, took them only to prepare for up-coming hearings (why, then, take five copies of one memo?), or didn't intend to destroy them. He would, in other words, have had to say more than he has so far.
*******
We don't know with any certainty what is missing, which papers exactly are gone, or what notes - and whose notes - may have been on them. Berger's lawyer asserted that the 9/11 Commission had copies of all the material Berger stole and destroyed. But if that is so, why would Berger risk so much to destroy it and be so keen today on avoiding any real inquiry into what he did?
Berger had access to Archives documents that could be critical to understanding what information the Clinton Administration had, what options it considered, and what decisions it took on these sensitive subjects. In addition to primary documents, Berger had access to copies, and the only plausible reason for taking five copies of a single memo is that some had original notes on them from key officials, maybe from Berger or President Clinton.
For Berger to risk jail and disgrace, to then give up the right to practice his profession merely in order to avoid having to answer questions, he must be hiding something important. And if it is that important to him, it is also important to us.
The most likely explanation is that the material Berger destroyed points to a terrible mistake by Berger himself, by President Clinton, or by both. In dealing with al-Qaeda, did they overlook a critical piece of information or miss a chance to stop 9/11? Did the Administration's failure to take a more aggressive posture encourage al-Qaeda's later attacks?
When Fox News' Chris Wallace raised the possibility that Clinton's Administration might have done something more to prevent 9/11, Bill Clinton went into an inexplicable rage on national television. Wallace touched a nerve. So did the DC Bar.
Knowing what information Berger destroyed also might alter views of the current Bush Administration. Was the early support from both Bill and Hillary Clinton for going to war against Saddam based on something we don't know yet that was available to insiders in the Clinton Administration? Was it something that could come back to haunt Hillary and ruin her chances of winning Bill's third term?
Whatever it was, it's likely that what Berger destroyed could have helped us understand what led to the most tragic terror attack in our nation's history and perhaps also help us decide what course - and what Chief Executive - will best to protect our future. The fact that Berger has been able to avoid revealing that information is a scandal of its own.
The only person who knows what information was lost is Sandy Berger. And he isn't talking.
*******
What is at stake is more than what we think and say about Sandy Berger. It is more than the legacy of Bill Clinton and of George W. Bush. It is more than the prospects for Hillary Clinton becoming the Democrats' presidential nominee and ultimately the President. All of these, of course, are wrapped up in this story.
Our security and vitality of the rule of law in America are at stake as well. That should concern all whose lives and loved ones may be at risk if our nation follows the wrong path, not knowing everything that should inform our judgments. It should concern all who respect the law, all who have labored as lawyers and judges, as honorable government officials and voices for even-handed justice.
Sadly, this story doesn't interest the Justice Department, which disposed of the criminal charges leniently based in part on false information from Berger. When faced with the fact that Berger had access to original documents on two occasions before Archives' employees became suspicious enough to start marking documents, the Justice Department declared with confidence that no documents had been taken - they asked Berger if he had taken anything during those visits, he said no, and they let the matter rest.
The story doesn't interest the Democrats in Congress, who prefer spending time investigating why eight political-level appointees were fired - a misstep by the Bush Justice Department that provides more promising political fodder than one that might point back to the Clintons.
The Sandy Berger story doesn't interest the mainstream news media, probably for the same reason. The media elites, so keen in other settings on the people's right to know, don't want to know about this. Maybe if this story involved a Karl instead of a Sandy . . .
Maybe some day someone will step back and wonder why a successful lawyer like Berger would take so drastic a step as surrendering his law license just to evade questions. Someone will ask what could have been so terrible that it was worth that price to keep it hidden. Someone will decide that it's important to know what Mr. Berger is hiding.
Because, in truth, it could affect us all.
Ronald A. Cass is Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, and Author of “The Rule of Law in America'.
Bush Admin Told CIA Not to Destroy Tapes
The New York Times is now reporting that CIA officials were advised not to destroy videotapes of terrorist interrogations:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 — White House and Justice Department officials, along with senior members of Congress, advised the Central Intelligence Agency in 2003 against a plan to destroy hundreds of hours of videotapes showing the interrogations of two operatives of Al Qaeda, government officials said Friday.
The chief of the agency’s clandestine service [Jose A. Rodriguez Jr.] nevertheless ordered their destruction in November 2005, taking the step without notifying even the C.I.A.’s own top lawyer, John A. Rizzo, who was angry at the decision, the officials said.
...seem to have lot's to discuss...I'll be out for a while...but back soon...
'...ah Sahndee Bergarah, mahn with lahge pahnts...maka rahge bundro fo Hirrary an send eet tooo heah friends...brow job fo beiro too, unnastan?'
Caio!
RE:
'Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on.'
This is another one of your LIES. The Clinton administration had 4 documented chances to kill bin Laden and they DECIDED NOT TO each time. Even after bin Laden had blown up our embassy in Kenya and Tanzania.
==============================================
What a damned liar you are!
I'M addressing LEGISLATION passed by Congress and watered down based on what Clinton proposed.
YOU'RE talking about attacks for which terrorists were apprehended and punished.
TWO SEPARATE TOPICS, JERK!!!
Here's an entire Snopes link on 'urban legends' covering the facts on what Clinton's admin. did following attacks in 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998 and 2000. What was missing was a catalytic event on home soil, which 9/11/2001 provided as a giant wakeup call to the American public. Pearl Harbor served the same purpose in WWII, as Congress had fought bitterly about involving themselves against Hitler in Europe.
www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
READ IT OUT LOUD, JERK!
Then, you can read all of the fresh newslinks about violence in Iraq right here on M&C where you make your nest.
Our resident propagandist, apparently seeking employment in the Kremlin, is now suggesting that what 'critics suggest' is equivalent to 'proof'. Kind of like the WMD in Iraq and the President's mention of yellowcake, eh?
Here's the entire link dum-dum omitted:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger
I can dismiss Limbaugh right off the bat, for obvious reasons. A druggie getting wealthy supporting Scaife and the other nutcakes on the right.
As to Dick Morris, who has his own problems, and is anything but objective:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Morris
'In his 1997 book Behind the Oval Office, Morris wrote that, following an argument in the Arkansas Governor's Mansion, he strode towards the exit and was tackled by Bill Clinton. In 2003, Morris further stated that Bill Clinton cocked his arm back to throw a punch, but Hillary Clinton pulled her husband off Morris. In both versions of the story, she consoled Morris and apologized to him, stating that Bill only behaved such with those he cared for most. According to Morris, she did this to keep him quiet about the incident. He says the incident was the reason for denying Bill Clinton's request to work on the '92 campaign; Clinton's side of the story is not known.'
Similar articles
- Moment of silence begins 7th annual commemoration of 9/11
- Seven years later, Afghanistan still a daunting challenge
- After seven years, commemorations in US, scepticism abroad
- Acquittal does not ensure release of Guantanamo detainees
- Report: US could have vast archive of Guantanamo tapes
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Fort Hood gunman conscious (Extra)
- 2. Fort Hood offers prayers for victims of mass shooting (2nd Roundup)
- 3. Fort Hood offers prayers for victims of mass shooting (Roundup)
- 4. Senior US senator demands 'terrorism' probe into army killings
- 5. Fort Hood offers prayers for victims of mass shooting
USA
Your Talkback on this Story