1. Rudy has a lot of slivers in his hands.

Why?

He spends far too much time playing with his wooden tallywhacker.

Dudley Z. Fudpucker Sr.

Dudley Z. Fudpucker Sr. at 7:49PM on Jun 26th 2007

2. Rudy has a lot of damned nerve blaming the terrorist attacks on Clinton. The people behind the WTC bombings in '93 went to prison. Place the blame of 9/11 and the negligence where it belongs: on George W(worthless) Bush.

A. at 8:11PM on Jun 26th 2007

3. Boy this new format sucks! Rudi going after Clinton? What a joke! And this man says he's the expert on terrorism? Gee Rudi what do terrorist want? PR!!!!
And when Clinton was president and they attacked us what happend? He caught them and now they sit in jail! And when the republicans gained power and they were warned many times what happend? They ignored the threat and let the country get hit! Then they decleared a war on them? First off this only gave them much need PR and swelled their ranks, as Bush own NIE reports show, Then they dropped the ball and left Afganastan for iraq? And Rotten Rudi talks about Clinton? How about how after the first WTC attack Rudi movethe terrorist Command Center to the WTC? Talk about stupid! All I can say is if Rudi is the best and brightest the GOP has to offer, then they should just pack it in now and save their money for 2012!

cjjanis at 8:14PM on Jun 26th 2007

4.
How come Rudy did not mention that Reagan did not retaliate for the Beruit bombings, and OBL commented negatively on it, saying it showed USA was weak? In fact, OBL put it into his "letter" manifesto.

Nor did Rudy mention that Clinton told Bush Jr about the USSR and as it was during the transition, left it up to Bush to decided whether to retatiliate. Bush did not.

No, Rudy is a grandstander, a meglamanic. Expect lots of inaccurate sweeping statements and self glorificiation.

And we are all waiting for Fred. Conservatives seem to love him, but why I don't know. We will see.

cdnbirch at 11:43AM on Jun 27th 2007

5.
Funny how conservatives always forget Reagan did not relatliate in Beruit and OBL mentioned in it his essay as showing American was weak.

Or how Clinton told Bush Jr about the USSCole, and as it was during transaction, they decided it was up to Bush Jr, to retaliate if he wished. Bush did not retaliate.

Or how Bush and his buddies ignored what is it, 150 + red light warning about 911, and ignored it, so they could work on Paris Hiltont trust fund babies tax cuts.

Fred Thompson? Anyone know his positions?

cdnbirch at 2:44AM on Jun 27th 2007

6. Silly liberals; talking about Clinton catching terrorists and putting them in jail and spitting all that crap. I wish you guys will realize that the only president that ever had the point blank opportunity to take Osama down was Clinton. The idiot was ignoring the rising threat in the middle-east while sexing the monicas of this world in the US. Whether anyone likes it or not, other regimes know what they run the risk of getting what Saddam got.
Terrorists are criticizing Bush, claiming he is stupid, they didn't do so to Clinton you know why? Because he is removing them from their comfort zone.
And you better be thankful for Bush, if you think the US ratings in the world are low. You don't want to know bad it will be if we didn't invade anybody, and just cry-babied after 9/11. You think terrorists have been emboldened, you dont wanna know how bld they'd have been if Al Zarqawi,leader of al qaeder in Iraq, and many more hadn't been killed.
Thank your stars for Bush. The only reason you can still bash him is because you are not yet dead. Stupids.

Timothy at 11:21AM on Jun 27th 2007

7. A, there is nothing wrong with blaming Clinton for 9/11 and I'll tell you why. Even though you say the terrorist responsible for the 93' bombing went to jail, Clinton didn't do anything more other that bomb a tent in the middle of the night. Like some say, to get him and Monica off the front page for a weekend. The 93' attack showed that the USA is vulnerable and this encouraged the terrorists. Clinton didn't go after the terrorists like Bush did after 9/11 because he only did what the polls would allow. Bush would have been pissed and said hell no not on our soil....and took care of business - no matter what it takes. That's where we are now and naturally, Americans don't have the stomach for it.

Brian Burns at 11:38AM on Jun 27th 2007

8. Interesting how pro-Clinton fans can whitewash '93. During the Clinton years our intelligence community lost funding, in the billions. Sorry, but Clinton could have done more, and that's not a political statement.

DHenson at 12:50PM on Jun 27th 2007

9. Its scary to me that our congress gets nothing done. Its more scary that our populace is so complacent until there is a problem and then everyone wants the government to bail them out. Thank God for President Bush and his willingness to take a stand against the overwhelming liberal disinformation which our gullible people seem to believe. Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain have shown the ability to get things done; thats what we need. Not more Clinton sex games.

wm corrigan at 1:04PM on Jun 27th 2007

10. Rudy! The reason that Rudy will not make it to presidency is that he is still in a "panic" attack from the 9-11. He will panic the country, and have us all nervous, all of the time! If you go to NY,
they are all a bunch of nervous wrecks, and understandingly so! We need a president that can keep level headed. What "else" does Rudy know?

Cleo at 1:15PM on Jun 27th 2007

11. Why blame previous presidents? I does no good, maybe we can find a way to blame George Washington, if he had done such n such we wouldn't have this problem today.
But ole Geo W. and Cheney have really "screwed the pooche" in Iraq! Bin Laden was in Afghanistan not Iraq! They witheld equipment and troops to invade Iraq. And they keep lying to cover their asses.
SO>>> If you want a solution in Iraq.. Reinstate the draft. Send 500,000 additional troops to Iraq, 150,000 to Afghanistan. Tell Pakistan we will now "patrol" areas of their country they refuse to control and that allows harbor to and terroist training. If they don't like it or if they interfer, Tough sh--! We will do it anyway and also cut off their BILLIONS in aide.
Then remove the current corrupt and useless gov't in Iraq. Maybe we can find a few of Sadam's old generals in prison, open their cell door, pin a medal on their chest, apologize and tell hem they can have their country back.
If that fails, and they continue to export terror, like in "Apocolypse Now" drop the bomb, kill them all.

whocares at 1:20PM on Jun 27th 2007

12. So Clinton talked tough. But he did not act tough. Indeed, a review of his years in office shows that each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack — the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole — Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism.

At the time of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, his administration was just beginning, and he was embroiled in controversies over gays in the military, an economic stimulus plan, and the beginnings of Hillary Clinton's health-care task force. Khobar Towers happened not only in the midst of the president's re-election campaign but also at the end of a month in which there were new and damaging developments in the Whitewater and Filegate scandals. The African embassy attacks occurred as the Monica Lewinsky affair was at fever pitch, in the month that Clinton appeared before independent counsel Kenneth Starr's grand jury. And when the Cole was rammed, Clinton had little time left in office and was desperately hoping to build his legacy with a breakthrough in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Whenever a serious terrorist attack occurred, it seemed Bill Clinton was always busy with something else.

The First WTC Attack
Clinton had been in office just 38 days when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000. Although it was later learned that the bombing was the work of terrorists who hoped to topple one of the towers into the other and kill as many as 250,000 people, at first it was not clear that the explosion was the result of terrorism. The new president's reaction seemed almost disengaged. He warned Americans against "overreacting" and, in an interview on MTV, described the bombing as the work of someone who "did something really stupid."
From the start, Clinton approached the investigation as a law-enforcement issue. In doing so, he effectively cut out some of the government's most important intelligence agencies. For example, the evidence gathered by FBI agents and prosecutors came under the protection of laws mandating grand-jury secrecy — which meant that the law-enforcement side of the investigation could not tell the intelligence side of the investigation what was going on. "Nobody outside the prosecutorial team and maybe the FBI had access," says James Woolsey, who was CIA director at the time. "It was all under grand-jury secrecy."
Another problem with Clinton's decision to assign the investigation exclusively to law enforcement was that law enforcement in the new administration was in turmoil. When the bomb went off, Clinton did not have a confirmed attorney general; Janet Reno, who was nominated after the Zoë Baird fiasco, was awaiting Senate approval. The Justice Department, meanwhile, was headed by a Bush holdover who had no real power in the new administration. The bombing barely came up at Reno's Senate hearings, and when she was finally sworn in on March 12, neither she nor Clinton mentioned the case. (Instead, Clinton praised Reno for "sharing with us the life-shaping stories of your family and career that formed your deep sense of fairness and your unwavering drive to help others to do better.") In addition, at the time the bombing investigation began, the FBI was headed by William Sessions, who would soon leave after a messy forcing-out by Clinton. A new director, Louis Freeh, was not confirmed by the Senate until August 6.

Amid all the turmoil at the top, the investigation missed some tantalizing clues pointing toward a far-reaching conspiracy. In April 1995, for example, terrorism expert Steven Emerson told the House International Relations Committee that there was information that "strongly suggests . . . a Sudanese role in the World Trade Center bombing. There are also leads pointing to the involvement of Osama bin Laden, the ex-Afghan Saudi mujahideen supporter now taking refuge in Sudan." Two years later, Emerson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the same thing. In recent years, according to an exhaustive New York Times report, "American intelligence officials have come to believe that [ringleader Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman] and the World Trade Center bombers had ties to al-Qaeda."

But the Clinton administration stuck with its theory that the bombing was the work of a loose network of terrorists working apart from any government sponsorship. Intelligence officials who might have thought otherwise were left out in the cold — "I made repeated attempts to see Clinton privately to take up a whole range of issues and was unsuccessful," Woolsey recalls — and some of the nation's most critical intelligence capabilities went unused. In the end, the U.S. tried six suspects in the attack. All were convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Another key suspect, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was released after being held by the FBI in New Jersey and fled to Baghdad, where he is living under the protection of the Iraqi government. Today, with many leads gone cold, intelligence officials concede they will probably never know who was behind the attack.

Khobar Towers
"In June of 1996, it felt like an entire herd was converging on the White House," wrote Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos in his memoir, All Too Human. A herd of scandals, that is: In late May, independent counsel Kenneth Starr had convicted Jim and Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker in the first big Whitewater trial; in June, the Filegate story first broke into public view, and Sen. Alphonse D'Amato issued his committee's Whitewater report recommending that several administration officials be investigated for perjury. It was also in June that the White House went into full battle mode against a variety of allegations contained in Unlimited Access, a book by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich.

All these developments were heavy on the minds of Clinton, Dick Morris, and the other members of the re-election strategy team when the bomb went off at Khobar Towers on June 25. As it had after the World Trade Center bombing, a distracted White House gave the case to law enforcement. But there is significant evidence to suggest that the White House was even less interested in finding answers than it had been in the World Trade Center case. In the Khobar investigation, the Clinton administration not only failed to follow potentially productive leads but in some instances actively made the investigators' job more difficult.

From the beginning, the administration ran into significant Saudi resistance (the Saudis quickly identified a few low-level suspects and beheaded them, hoping to end the matter there). According to a long account of the case by Elsa Walsh published earlier this year in The New Yorker, FBI director Louis Freeh on several occasions urged the White House to pressure the Saudis for more cooperation. More than once, Walsh reports, Freeh was frustrated to learn that the president barely mentioned the case in meetings with Saudi leaders.

Freeh — whose own relations with the White House had deteriorated badly in the wake of the Filegate and campaign-finance scandals — became convinced that the White House didn't really want to push the Saudis for more information, which Freeh believed would confirm strong suspicions of extensive Iranian involvement in the attack. Walsh reports that in September 1998, Freeh, angry and losing hope, took the extraordinary step of secretly asking former president George H. W. Bush to intercede with the Saudi royal family. Acting without Clinton's knowledge, Bush made the request, and the Saudis began to provide new information, which indeed pointed to Iran.

In late 1998, Walsh reports, Freeh went to national security adviser Sandy Berger to tell him that it appeared the FBI had enough evidence to indict several suspects. "Who else knows this?" Berger asked Freeh, demanding to know if it had been leaked to the press. Freeh said it was a closely held secret. Then Berger challenged some of the evidence of Iranian involvement. "That's just hearsay," Berger said. "No, Sandy," Freeh responded. "It's testimony of a co-conspirator . . ." According to Walsh's account, Freeh thought that "Berger . . . was not a national security adviser; he was a public-relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press. After more than two years, Freeh had concluded that the administration did not really want to resolve the Khobar bombing."
Ultimately, Freeh never got the support he wanted from the White House. Walsh writes that "by the end of the Clinton era, Freeh had become so mistrustful of Clinton that, although he believed he had developed enough evidence to seek indictments against the masterminds behind the attack, not just the front-line suspects, he decided to wait for a new administration." Just before Freeh left office, Walsh reports, he met with new president George W. Bush and gave him a list of suspects in the bombing. In June, attorney general John Ashcroft announced the indictment of 14 suspects: 13 Saudis and one Lebanese. It is not clear whether any of them are the "masterminds" of Khobar; none is in American custody and no Iranian officials were named in the indictment.

Both the Khobar investigation and the World Trade Center bombing presented Clinton with daunting challenges; there were sensitive political issues involved, and in each case it was not immediately clear who was behind the violence. But in neither instance did Clinton press hard for answers and demand action; Berger would not have taken the position he did if the president fully supported a vigorous investigation. In the coming years, Clinton would be faced with clear acts of terrorism carried out by an organization with undeniable state support. But again, busy with other things, he did little.

The Embassies
On August 7, 1998, bombs exploded at U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. More than 200 people were killed, including 12 Americans. The morning of the attacks, Clinton said, "We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes. . . . We are determined to get answers and justice."

Investigators quickly discovered that bin Laden was behind the attacks. On August 20, Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on a bin Laden camp in Afghanistan and the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. But the strikes were at best ineffectual. There was little convincing evidence that the pharmaceutical factory, which admin istration officials believed was involved in the production of material for chemical weapons, actually was part of a weapons-making operation, and the cruise missiles in Afghanistan missed bin Laden and his deputies.
Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action set off a howling debate about Clinton's motives. The president ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Clinton's critics accused him of using military action to change the subject from the sex-and-perjury scandal — the so-called "wag the dog" strategy. Some of Clinton's allies, suspecting the same thing, remained silent. Even some of those who, after briefings by administration officials, publicly defended the strikes privately questioned Clinton's decision.
The accusations came as no surprise to the White House. "Everyone knew the 'wag the dog' charge was going to be made," recalls Daniel Benjamin, a terrorism expert on the National Security Council. But Benjamin and others believed — mistakenly, as it turned out — that they could convince the skeptics the attacks were fully justified. "I remember being shocked and deeply depressed over the fact that no one would take seriously what I considered a grave national-security problem," says Benjamin. "Not only were they not buying it, they were accusing the administration of essentially playing the most shallow and foolish kind of game to deflect attention from other issues. It was astonishing."
In particular, reporters and some members of Congress were not convinced by the administration's evidence that the al-Shifa plant was involved in chemical-weapons production. The attack came to be viewed, by consensus, as a screw-up. In a new article in The New York Review of Books, Benjamin suggests that that skepticism, particularly on the part of reporters, scared Clinton away from any more tough action against bin Laden. "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al-Qaeda threat," Benjamin writes. "That in turn meant there was no support for decisive measures in Afghanistan — including, possibly, the use of U.S. ground forces — to hunt down the terrorists; and thus no national leader of either party publicly suggested such action."

After the cruise-missile raids, the administration restricted its work to covert actions breaking up terrorist cells. Benjamin and others say a significant number of terrorist plots were short-circuited, preventing several acts of violence. "I see no reason to doubt their word on that," says James Woolsey. "They may have been doing a lot of stuff behind the scenes." But breaking up individual cells while avoiding larger-scale action probably had the effect of postponing terrorist acts rather than stopping them. Woolsey believes that such an approach was part of what he calls Clinton's "PR-driven" approach to terrorism, an approach that left the fundamental problem unsolved: "Do something to show you're concerned. Launch a few missiles in the desert, bop them on the head, arrest a few people. But just keep kicking the ball down the field."

The Cole
The last act of terrorism during the Clinton administration came on October 12, 2000, when bin Laden operatives bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen American sailors were killed, 39 others were wounded, and one of the U.S.'s most sophisticated warships was nearly sunk.
Clinton's reaction to the Cole terrorism was more muted than his response to the previous attacks. While he called the bombing "a despicable and cowardly act" and said, "We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable," he seemed more concerned that the attack might threaten the administration's work in the Middle East (the bombing came at the same time as a new spate of violence between Israelis and Palestinians). "If [the terrorists'] intention was to deter us from our mission of promoting peace and security in the Middle East, they will fail utterly," Clinton said on the morning of the attack. The next day, the Washington Post's John Harris, who had good connections inside the administration, wrote, "While the apparent suicide bombing of the USS Cole may have been the more dramatic episode for the American public, the escalation between Israelis and Palestinians took the edge in preoccupying senior administration officials yesterday. This was regarded as the more fluid of the two problems, and it presented the broader threat to Clinton's foreign policy aims."

As in 1998, U.S. investigators quickly linked the bombing to bin Laden and his sponsors in Afghanistan's Taliban regime. Together with the embassy bombings, the Cole blast established a clear pattern of attacks on American interests carried out by bin Laden's organization. Clinton had a solid rationale, and would most likely have had solid public support, for strong military action. Yet he did nothing. Perhaps he didn't want to endanger the cherished goal of Middle East peace. Perhaps he didn't want to disrupt the 2000 presidential campaign, then in its last days. Perhaps he didn't know quite what to do. But in the end, the ball was kicked a bit farther down the field.
In early August 1996, a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing, Clinton had a long conversation with Dick Morris about his place in history. Morris divided presidents into four categories: first tier, second tier, third tier, and the rest. Twenty-two presidents who presided over uneventful administrations fell into the last category. Just five — Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt — made Morris's first tier.
Clinton asked Morris where he stood. "I said that at the moment he was at the top of the unrated category," Morris recalls. Morris says he told the president that one surprising thing about the ratings was that a president's standing had little to do with the performance of the economy during his time in office. "Yeah," Clinton responded, "It has so much to do with whether you get re-elected or not, but history kind of forgets it."
Clinton then asked, "What do I need to do to be first tier?" "I said, 'You can't,'" Morris remembers. "'You have to win a war.'" Clinton then asked what he needed to do to make the second or third tier, and Morris outlined three goals. The first was successful welfare reform. The second was balancing the budget. And the third was an effective battle against terrorism. "I said the only one of the major goals he had not achieved was a war on terrorism," Morris says. (This is not a recent recollection; Morris also described the conversation in his 1997 book, Behind the Oval Office.)
But Clinton never began, much less finished, a war on terrorism.

Even though Morris's polling showed the poll-sensitive president that the American people supported tough action, Clinton demurred. Why?
"He had almost an allergy to using people in uniform," Morris explains. "He was terrified of incurring casualties; the lessons of Vietnam were ingrained far too deeply in him. He lacked a faith that it would work, and I think he was constantly fearful of reprisals." But there was more to it than that. "On another level, I just don't think it was his thing," Morris says. "You could talk to him about income redistribution and he would talk to you for hours and hours. Talk to him about terrorism, and all you'd get was a series of grunts."
And that is the key to understanding Bill Clinton's handling of the terrorist threat that grew throughout his two terms in the White House: It just wasn't his thing. Clinton was right when he said history might care little about the prosperity of his era. Now, as he tries to defend his record on terrorism, he appears to sense that he will be judged harshly on an issue that is far more important than the Nasdaq or 401(k) balances. He's right about that, too.

Ray Head at 1:37PM on Jun 27th 2007

13. So is this the new way Aol will let you respond to articles? No more posting? Oh well, I guess I will have to get use to this. I think I liked the other way better. Just a thought.

PAM at 1:54PM on Jun 27th 2007

14. Just a bunch of whiners and Monday morning quarterbacks... everybody is jumping on the "Bash Bush" bandwagon.

Americans were attacked and killed by Al Queda terrorists, masterminded by Osama Bin Laden at least 5 times during the Clinton years and they guy did nothing of consequence to stop him... nothing!

See my first post above...

Now, everybody wants to blame everything on Bush. What we should be doing is getting our heads up out of the sand and taking a look at what's going on in the world around us as I write this.

Here's my two cents...

Here's what's going on and what will happen in a nutshell...

Russia is sitting on huge Siberian oil and gas reserves. The pipeline from Siberia to the sea, is complete and Russia is selling their oil to countries around the world.

Unlike the U.S. , Russia is debt-free. They are rich from oil profits and getting richer by the day. They have likely been pouring money into R&D for defensive and offensive missile development. I would not be surprised if Russia was not working on their own missile defense system.

Putin has been moving Russia back to the cold war attitudes for some time now. He has installed ex-KGB cronies as heads of all the Russian satellite countries. The Russian govt controls more and more private enterprise, particularly the media outlets.

We will find out later that Russia has been assisting Iran with their nuclear weapon project.

Why? so that Russia can control the U.S.

How? Russia will advise Iran to launch missiles, not at civilians, or U.S. targets, but at the oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, and other ally OPEC nations.

Within hours of such an attack, the stock market will plummet, gas prices would sky rocket to over $10/gal and the bottom will fall out of the U.S. economy.

Russia would come to our "rescue". With their vast oil reserves, Putin would offer the U.S. oil at inflated prices of course, until the oil situation stabilized.

Putin, with his ex-KGB ties, is an "old school" Russian and a bad guy. The U.S., because of the Iraq war, the oil situation, our national debt, immigration issues, et al... is in a very weak position right now.

Putin will try to exploit that position... can you imagine would it would be like to be dependent on Russia for our oil?

The key for any faction wishing do us harm is not to blow up buildings and kill American citizens. The way to bring down America without taking a single life is to cripple our economy.

The fuse for that "bomb" is oil. Cut off oil imports to the U.S. and it won't just effect gas prices at the pump. but it will cause prices to skyrocket for: any product that is transported by rail, truck, plane, or boat; any product that uses petro-chemicals as a raw material, ;any product that is made of plastic; any electrical power source... the list is endless.

So, continue to bash Bush and his administration if you must, they might deserve it, but it doesn't matter; continue to worry about stem cell research, gay rights; abortion; the greenhouse effect; and what Paris Hilton is doing; But do so at you, your families, and every American citizens' peril... because all these issues will become moot if our Middle East oil supplies cease.

Those of you that can Google will likely rebut this post by telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about; that I don't have any facts to back up my beliefs; and that we have vast untapped oil reserves in shale deposits out West somewhere, and huge deposits of oil and gas in the Alaskan wilderness.


The first accusation certainly has a ring of truth. I am not a petroleum engineer and certainly no expert on world politics.

Second, I have no real proof to back up my beliefs. I don't work for the CIA or Intelligence agency. I just have access to the same information, from the same public forums that you have. However, despite my wife's claims, sometimes, to the contrary... I do have a brain, and I'm pretty good at connecting dots.

Regarding the vast reserves of untapped oil and gas reserves that we alledgedly are sitting on... If true, then it would take many months, if not years to design and construct the complexity of infrastructure necessary to extract and refine the oil and gas from those areas.

I'm just a lowly writer. And the situation that I described is the basis of my next book.

I only pray to God that it's a fiction novel and not a history book.

Ray Head at 4:34PM on Jun 27th 2007

15. Right on Ray

Well thought out and on track. It is pointless to re-think history or point fingers at past Presidents. (This whole mess actually started with Jimmy Carter who told the CIA they could not do business with anyone “who violated human rights”, gee, so many ethical terrorist/drug dealers out there.

Let’s move forward, we cannot change what happened on 9/11, but we can do everything possible to stop it from happening again.

As for Russia: I am convinced that Putin has stripped a gear. Let’s hope he get hits by a goat cart…

Big T

taenhago at 12:59PM on Jun 28th 2007