Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Dick Clarke Is Telling the Truth - Why is he is right

Dick Clarke Is Telling the Truth - Why is he is right
Thread Tools
TheMosco
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2004, 11:49 PM
 
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685/

Quoted not from the article but by Gaard on another forum about this issue

CLAIM #1: �Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to.� - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked �urgent� asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending Al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says �principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat.� No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. - White House Press Release, 3/21/04

CLAIM #2: �The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.� - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against �nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11.� Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that �It is not surprising that people make that connection� between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said �we don�t know� if there is a connection.

CLAIM #3: "[Clarke] was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things." - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04

FACT: "Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President's principle counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did." - White House Press Release, 3/21/04

CLAIM #4: �In June and July when the threat spikes were so high�we were at battle stations�The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11.� � National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: �Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's �Strategic Plan� from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism �the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.�� - Washington Post, 3/22/04

CLAIM #5: �The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11.� � National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: �In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks.� � Washington Post, 3/22/04

CLAIM #6: "Well, [Clarke] wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff�� - Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/22/04

FACT: "The Government's interagency counterterrorism crisis management forum (the Counterterrorism Security Group, or "CSG") chaired by Dick Clarke met regularly, often daily, during the high threat period." - White House Press Release, 3/21/04

CLAIM #7: "[Bush] wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with [terrorism], and that process was in motion throughout the spring." - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04

FACT: �Bush said [in May of 2001] that Cheney would direct a government-wide review on managing the consequences of a domestic attack, and 'I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.' Neither Cheney's review nor Bush's took place.� - Washington Post, 1/20/02
I find this sickening. There have been 6 former members of the administration to say the exact same things about this administration. Please actually read the article and the quotes instead of just attacking the the author. Someone posted this in another forum, and none of the republicans even addressed the issues at hand.
( Last edited by TheMosco; Mar 23, 2004 at 11:59 PM. )
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 12:04 AM
 
Yeah, the Bush Admin is so damn corrupted.

They are toasted!
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ghost_flash
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 12:07 AM
 
http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap...C-RSSFeeds0312
http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap...C-RSSFeeds0312

It�s hard to believe, but some people persist in reciting these lame reasons for playing ostrich
when it comes to Iraq. If you are as sick of listening to them as I am, here�s some answers.

The U.S. must stop acting �unilaterally� and go through the U.N.
Sure because of their enormous credibility and moral authority, right? Maybe it�s just me, but any
body that puts Iraq in charge of a human rights commission and Iraq in charge of one on disarmament
isn�t the one I want to entrust with my future national security. In addition, the UN was content to
let Saddam Hussein defy Security Council resolutions for over 12 years, and as I write this column,
still is. It was only when President George W. Bush confronted them with the obvious fact that they
risked becoming an irrelevant debating society that caused them to act in the first place!
Having said that, in what parallel universe can the US be said to be acting unilaterally? We got a
unanimous Security Council resolution in November 2002 (even Syria and France voted with us), and
Colin Powell has been back there twice in the last 2 weeks. In addition, we have the support of
Spain, Italy, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Denmark and Portugal. This �unilateralism� stuff
makes a nice slogan, perhaps, but the real unilateralists here are the French.

War never solves anything.
Really? Maybe I�ll take my vacation in the Confederate States of America and contemplate that
statement. Wait a second�there is no Confederate States of America because the Civil War put an end
to that bad idea, and war put an end to many others, like world domination by the Nazis and their
Axis pals. The next time you hear it, ask yourself why the French don�t speak German today and you
are reading this in English instead of Japanese. War is not the answer? It depends on the question.

There is no �smoking gun.�
Let me speak slowly so that you can get this once and for all: That horrible imperialistic USA that
many anti-war types are so fond of bashing liberated Kuwait in 1991 when Saddam Hussein invaded it.
Uncharacteristically (at least in the minds of anti-American types), rather than just taking over
Kuwait and seizing their oil reserves, the US relied on the United Nations to conclude the peace and
left Iraq alone as had been agreed in advance. Yes, liberals, this is why Pres. Bush #41 didn�t
�finish the job.� The result was Security Council Resolution 687, which required Iraq to disarm and
to submit evidence of having done so. The burden is not on the United Nations, the US or anyone else
to prove that Saddam Hussein has these prohibited weapons. Liberals, apparently not content to make
sure that violent domestic criminals have every opportunity to evade punishment, have decided to
apply their ACLU standards to foreign policy and defiant dictators, where it is obviously highly
inappropriate. This isn�t about innocent-until-proven-guilty because it�s not a domestic criminal
case. It�s the settlement of war initiated by a dictator who invaded an innocent neighbor and was
rebuffed by a liberating coalition.

We haven't 'made the case' that Iraq has WMD.
Wait, what about �If we invade Iraq, Saddam Hussein will unleash WMD on our troops!�
OK, liberals--which is it? If the inspections have been working so well, and he doesn�t have any
weapons of mass destruction, how can he use them? If he does have these weapons, would you prefer to
see them used in battle against troops reasonably prepared to face the risk or unleashed by surprise
on innocent civilians in an American city?

What about North Korea? They already have nuclear weapons.
The very reason to deal with Saddam Hussein today is to prevent Iraq from becoming another North
Korea. North Korea was able to advance its nuclear program as a result of appeasement, wishful
thinking and denial by the previous administration. An interesting side note: once again, we see in
the situation in North Korea the one common ingredient guaranteed to warm the hearts of Communist
dictators and their sympathizers, the presence of Jimmy Carter.

Containment worked well with the Soviet Union with very little loss of life.
I actually heard a liberal say this recently, and sadly he probably believes it.I guess like many
liberals he�s forgotten even his basic grammar school history, or maybe his teachers, like so many
journalists and intellectuals, chose to focus on the evil of Nazism in the 20th century. Historians
estimate that the Nazis claimed about 25 million victims, but Communists make them look like real
underachievers in the genocide game, with an estimated 100 million victims. Granted they had more
territory to work with (Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Eastern Europe, North Korea, Africa,
Afghanistan, but even if we limit our examination to Russia, only the most ideologically-blinded
dupe can say there was little loss of life where the Soviets were concerned. Can anyone say �useful
idiot?�

It�s all about oil.
So? Seriously, the success of our economy depends on the free flow of oil at market prices. The
very same people for whom this phrase is a rallying cry would be bitching 24/7 should the economy
get any worse, and of course; the blame would rest with President Bush. Does it strike anyone else
as a tad ironic that the libs take the side of France, Russia and Germany, three countries motivated
completely by mercenary greed and money, while they constantly whine about Enron and other scandals
featuring �greedy� executives, and recite �tax cuts for the rich� and similar class warfare slogans?
There�s one case in which the liberals and anti-war types are right and �it is about oil,� and
that�s the French and their opposition to toppling Saddam Hussein.

We need to give the inspections time to work.
We have given Saddam Hussein 12 years to disarm. The entire time he has engaged in a denial and
deception strategy that only the most gullible, gutless or self-interested would believe. The latter
two labels apply to the French. The first to the idealistic college students and superannuated
arthritic, aging hippies marching until their Birkenstocks are worn out and screaming their lungs
out at these �I hate America� rallies that have been going on the last couple of months. They are
all at best misguided, and at worst cynical. They are all wrong and dangerous to our security.

Why aren�t we focusing on Osama Bin Laden? He�s our enemy, not Iraq.
Or, if you prefer, �What did Iraq ever do to us?� as Susan Sarandon so plaintively whined in the
commercial that Ben �Socialist Ice Cream� Cohen helped pay for. Osama Bin Laden? You mean the guy
that Bill Clinton had not one, not two, but THREE opportunities to arrest and detain? Anti-war types
are unpersuaded that there is any connection that there is any connection between Iraq and Al Queda
or other terrorist groups bent on the death of as many Americans as possible. They are willing to
take the chance that �proof� will come in the form of a nuclear warhead landing on Chicago or
someone dusting Los Angeles with powdered anthrax. The grownups, who now are fortunately in charge,
aren�t willing to take that chance. Just this past week, in his latest audio release, Osama Bin
Ladin urged his jihad fighters to join the struggle with Iraq against the US. And to those of you
who say this was a phony set up by the CIA, I say PULEEZE. If the government were willing to fake
evidence, they would have shown us a photo of Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladin in a conference room,
laughing while they looked at a grease board with a list of targets. The first one, the World Trade
Center, would have a big check mark next to it.

You can�t trust the Bush Administration.
Now we�ve gotten to the real crux of the matter: the burning personal hatred that so many liberals
have for George W. Bush and conservatives in general. That�s why they will bend over backwards to
find any excuse not to face the reality that the civilized world must not allow Saddam Hussein to
continue to defy its will. It�s so transparent, but they persist. We must all recognize a painful
reality about those who despise the President: their fondest hope is that he, and therefore our
country, will fail in this momentous undertaking. That is what they have come to: hoping for the
worst for our military and our country. May God forgive them. I�m not sure I can.

http://www.wlsam.com/goout.asp?u=htt...eriobrien.com/
...
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 12:18 AM
 
Questions for Mr. Clarke�

Question number 1: Mr. Clarke, the first time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

Question number 2: Mr. Clarke, the second time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

Question number 3: Mr. Clarke, the third time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

Question number 4: When Al-Qaeda attacked our barracks in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Clarke, what exactly advice did you give Clinton for striking back at them?

Question number 5: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, what advice did you give Clinton for striking back at them?


Question number 6: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in 2000, what advice did you give President Clinton for striking back at them?

Question number 7: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the two U.S. embassies in North Africa, weren't you one of the experts who advised Clinton to bomb the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan?

Question number 8: Mr. Clarke, when Clinton was slashing the defense budget in the face of these Al-Qaeda attacks, did you advise him against it?

Question number 9: Mr. Clarke, when Clinton undermined the CIA in the face of all these takers, did you advise him against doing that?

Question number 10: Mr. Clarke, isn't it true that you and your colleagues in the Clinton administration generally were complete and miserable failures in defending this nation for eight years, and isn't it a little weak of you to now come forward and say that what Bush didn't do in the first nine months of his term, is pathetic?
     
placebo1969
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Washington (the state) USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 01:42 AM
 
Originally posted by chabig:
Questions for Mr. Clarke�

Question number 1: Mr. Clarke, the first time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

Question number 2: Mr. Clarke, the second time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

Question number 3: Mr. Clarke, the third time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

Question number 4: When Al-Qaeda attacked our barracks in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Clarke, what exactly advice did you give Clinton for striking back at them?

Question number 5: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, what advice did you give Clinton for striking back at them?


Question number 6: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in 2000, what advice did you give President Clinton for striking back at them?

Question number 7: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the two U.S. embassies in North Africa, weren't you one of the experts who advised Clinton to bomb the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan?

Question number 8: Mr. Clarke, when Clinton was slashing the defense budget in the face of these Al-Qaeda attacks, did you advise him against it?

Question number 9: Mr. Clarke, when Clinton undermined the CIA in the face of all these takers, did you advise him against doing that?

Question number 10: Mr. Clarke, isn't it true that you and your colleagues in the Clinton administration generally were complete and miserable failures in defending this nation for eight years, and isn't it a little weak of you to now come forward and say that what Bush didn't do in the first nine months of his term, is pathetic?
Well said! Or should I say, asked.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 07:53 AM
 
By the way, those questions were not mine. I received them in an email that's been circulating. But I too, think they are good questions.

Chris
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 08:24 AM
 
Fact is the past years Clark had been failing. They were looking for a new direction. He didn't like this.

His sour grapes are apparent.
     
fizzlemynizzle
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 09:00 AM
 
disgruntled former employee.

+

writes a "tell-all" book.

+

pimps book on 60 minutes

+

60 minutes does not disclose conflict of interest as they are owned by publisher of said book

=

0 credibility.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 10:23 AM
 
Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
disgruntled former employee.

+

writes a "tell-all" book.

+

pimps book on 60 minutes

+

60 minutes does not disclose conflict of interest as they are owned by publisher of said book

=

0 credibility.

Person with actual knowledge of the administration's policy decisions

+

Disagrees with the administration's decisions

+

Says something publicly

=

Having their wife outed as an operative

OR =

finds themselves spuriously charged with child pornography

OR =

finds themselves spuriously charged with espionage and disclosing state secrets

OR =

Has their on-the-job competence retroactively trashed in a revisionist way

AND/OR =

Gets a full court press of white house admin spokeman attacking their character/credibility instead of addressing the claims directly

AND/OR =

purposely witholds manuscript for months for "national security reasons"


wow, your'e right, this is a fun game...
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 10:30 AM
 
Just like today's NY Post depicts, Republicans are trying to blame everything on Clinton.
Bush is the President now, and was the President during the attacks, and was the President receiving the warnings from global intelligence agencies, including our own, and was the President who chose to ignore those warnings at the most critical moment. The attacks happened on Bush's clock.

Yet another desperate attempt by the Republicans to obscure the issues to an already frightened and confused public. The bad baggage is piling up on Bush, one thing after another.... I imagine we'll be entertained with more goodies as the election approaches.
What a show!
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
typoon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Tollbooth Capital of the US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 10:31 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Person with actual knowledge of the administration's policy decisions

+

Disagrees with the administration's decisions

+

Says something publicly

=

Having their wife outed as an operative

OR =

finds themselves spuriously charged with child pornography

OR =

finds themselves spuriously charged with espionage and disclosing state secrets

OR =

Has their on-the-job competence retroactively trashed in a revisionist way

AND/OR =

Gets a full court press of white house admin spokeman attacking their character/credibility instead of addressing the claims directly

AND/OR =

purposely witholds manuscript for months for "national security reasons"


wow, your'e right, this is a fun game...
Actually he didn't have direct knowledge according to Chaney in an interview I heard. Also he got passed over for a promotion and got send over to run Cyber security.

I would say more like

Got passed up for promotion= sour grapes.
"Evil is Powerless If the Good are Unafraid." -Ronald Reagan

Apple and Intel, the dawning of a NEW era.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 10:39 AM
 
Originally posted by typoon:
Actually he didn't have direct knowledge according to Chaney in an interview I heard. Also he got passed over for a promotion and got send over to run Cyber security.

I would say more like

Got passed up for promotion= sour grapes.
hey, you're right I missed that one:

=

Bush loyalists accuse whistleblower of sour grapes instead of addressing his claims directly.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 10:41 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
hey, you're right I missed that one:

=

Bush loyalists accuse whistleblower of sour grapes instead of addressing his claims directly.
That's a classic Republican tactic - don't address the issue at hand - throw mud at it instead! I hate politics.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
typoon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Tollbooth Capital of the US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 10:52 AM
 
Originally posted by osiris:
Just like today's NY Post depicts, Republicans are trying to blame everything on Clinton.
Bush is the President now, and was the President during the attacks, and was the President receiving the warnings from global intelligence agencies, including our own, and was the President who chose to ignore those warnings at the most critical moment. The attacks happened on Bush's clock.

Yet another desperate attempt by the Republicans to obscure the issues to an already frightened and confused public. The bad baggage is piling up on Bush, one thing after another.... I imagine we'll be entertained with more goodies as the election approaches.
What a show!

Come one now you don't really believe what you just wrote do you?

1. Clinton was offered Bin Ladin several times and DIDN'T take him Even though Clinton Admin officials KNEW that he was responsible for the attacks on Kobar towers, USS Cole, first WTC attack in 93. If then President Clinton recieved so many warnings how come he didn't do anything about Bin ladin?

2. Clinton's team didn't feel they had enough evidence to indict Bin Ladin so they didn't actively persue him. That was also according to people like Albright why they didn't take him before.

3. What was the Clinton response to the first WTC attack? If they knew who did it why didn't they do anything about it?

If Clinton had done the job the first time we might not have had 9/11. Who said Bush ignored the warnings? More attacks Happened under Clinton's watch yet you hear nothing about those events since they probably could have prevent the much larger attack on the WTC and the Pentagon.

Yes let the games begin. This is going to be fun to watch
"Evil is Powerless If the Good are Unafraid." -Ronald Reagan

Apple and Intel, the dawning of a NEW era.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 11:01 AM
 
Originally posted by typoon:
Come one now you don't really believe what you just wrote do you?

1. Clinton was offered Bin Ladin several times and DIDN'T take him Even though Clinton Admin officials KNEW that he was responsible for the attacks on Kobar towers, USS Cole, first WTC attack in 93. If then President Clinton recieved so many warnings how come he didn't do anything about Bin ladin?
You really believe that? Clinton did nothing? That's revisionist.

Originally posted by typoon:
2. Clinton's team didn't feel they had enough evidence to indict Bin Ladin so they didn't actively persue him. That was also according to people like Albright why they didn't take him before.
You really believe that? Clinton did nothing? That's revisionist.


Originally posted by typoon:
3. What was the Clinton response to the first WTC attack? If they knew who did it why didn't they do anything about it?
You really believe that? Clinton did nothing? That's revisionist.

Originally posted by typoon:
If Clinton had done the job the first time we might not have had 9/11. Who said Bush ignored the warnings? More attacks Happened under Clinton's watch yet you hear nothing about those events since they probably could have prevent the much larger attack on the WTC and the Pentagon.

Yes let the games begin. This is going to be fun to watch
If I were you, I'd do some fact-checking your claims before you enter "the games".
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 11:02 AM
 
Originally posted by typoon:
Actually he didn't have direct knowledge according to Chaney in an interview I heard. Also he got passed over for a promotion and got send over to run Cyber security.

I would say more like

Got passed up for promotion= sour grapes.
CLAIM #3: "[Clarke] was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things." - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04

FACT: "Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President's principle counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did." - White House Press Release, 3/21/04

CLAIM #6: "Well, [Clarke] wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff�� - Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/22/04

FACT: "The Government's interagency counterterrorism crisis management forum (the Counterterrorism Security Group, or "CSG") chaired by Dick Clarke met regularly, often daily, during the high threat period." - White House Press Release, 3/21/04
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 11:12 AM
 
Originally posted by osiris:
Just like today's NY Post depicts, Republicans are trying to blame everything on Clinton.
Bush is the President now, and was the President during the attacks, and was the President receiving the warnings from global intelligence agencies, including our own, and was the President who chose to ignore those warnings at the most critical moment. The attacks happened on Bush's clock.

Yet another desperate attempt by the Republicans to obscure the issues to an already frightened and confused public. The bad baggage is piling up on Bush, one thing after another.... I imagine we'll be entertained with more goodies as the election approaches.
What a show!
Clinton was in office during all of the planning and importing of such plan. One cannot say it's ALL BUSHS FAULT! Esp when it was just months before the happenstance.

I am not blaming either of them.

I blame the ignorant terrorists. And so should everyone else.

Otherwise it's just political mudslinging.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 11:15 AM
 
Originally posted by typoon:
Come one now you don't really believe what you just wrote do you?

1. Clinton was offered Bin Ladin several times and DIDN'T take him Even though Clinton Admin officials KNEW that he was responsible for the attacks on Kobar towers, USS Cole, first WTC attack in 93. If then President Clinton recieved so many warnings how come he didn't do anything about Bin ladin?

2. Clinton's team didn't feel they had enough evidence to indict Bin Ladin so they didn't actively persue him. That was also according to people like Albright why they didn't take him before.

==> The key word is evidence, in retrospect (no, not the program!) it all seems clear to you now. At the time, the evidence was too vague.

3. What was the Clinton response to the first WTC attack? If they knew who did it why didn't they do anything about it?

==> again, you're seeing things through advantageous retrospective eyes.
Also, that was Clinton's term. The big attack was on Bush's term and his intelligence team ignored the unprecedented quantity of warnings from our intelligence sources.
But if it makes you happy, throw Clinton and Bush in jail, I don't care for either of them.


If Clinton had done the job the first time we might not have had 9/11. Who said Bush ignored the warnings?

==> Bush not only ignored the warnings, but publicy denied them, and later admitted that there was a threat... yet on that day, he kept on reading to the classroom and did nothing, he didn't even order the Air Force to take down the hijacked planes. He kept on reading.


More attacks Happened under Clinton's watch yet you hear nothing about those events since they probably could have prevent the much larger attack on the WTC and the Pentagon.

==> Again, the largest attack on American soil happened on Bush's clock, not Clinton's.

Yes let the games begin. This is going to be fun to watch
==> Woo hoo!
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 11:22 AM
 
Bush had no evidence against BL either.

That top doesn't spin.

The fault lays on the terrorists.
     
Joshua
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 11:25 AM
 
The White House
Washington

January 30, 2003

Dear Mr. President,

With the coming of 2003, I am now in my eleventh year of continuous White House service and the 30th year since I began my Government service._ While there is never a good time to end an assignment, I believe now may be an appropriate point to move on.

First, with the stand up of the Department of Homeland Security, some of the operational responsibility for cyber security can now shift there._ Second, you have signed the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace and it will be publicly released shortly.

Thus, with your permission, I plan to depart the White House and resign as Special Advisor._ It has been an enormous privilege to serve you these last 24 months.

I will always remember the courage, determination, calm and leadership you demonstrated on September 11th, first on the video link from STRATCOM and later that day in the PEOC and the Situation Room._ I will also have fond memories of our briefings for you on cyber security and the intuitive understanding of its importance that you showed._ You had prescience in creating the position of Special Advisor to the President for Cyberspace Security and I urge you to maintain that role in the White House.

I thank you again for the opportunity to serve you have provided me and wish you good fortune as you lead our country through the continuing threats.

Sincerely,
Richard A. Clarke
Safe in the womb of an everlasting night
You find the darkness can give the brightest light.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 11:29 AM
 
Originally posted by Joshua:

your point? Its a resignation letter. Most bureaucrats do NOT trash their boss in a resignation letter.
     
typoon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Tollbooth Capital of the US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 11:42 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
You really believe that? Clinton did nothing? That's revisionist.

You really believe that? Clinton did nothing? That's revisionist.


You really believe that? Clinton did nothing? That's revisionist.



If I were you, I'd do some fact-checking your claims before you enter "the games".
What was done by Clinton?

Many of my Facts are accurate. The Clinton Adminstration knew that Bin Ladin and his organization were the ones who commited the attacks. how is that fact not correct?

Bin Ladin WAS Offered to Clinton Several times By different countries. Is that not correct?
"Evil is Powerless If the Good are Unafraid." -Ronald Reagan

Apple and Intel, the dawning of a NEW era.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 11:47 AM
 
Funny Lerk, reading that post you showed no facts but shouted the same thing over and over again,

I know that is your "style"

But if you are going to debunk someone, you are going to have to SHOW how they are wrong.
     
Joshua
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 11:52 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
your point? Its a resignation letter. Most bureaucrats do NOT trash their boss in a resignation letter.
Quite right. And most bureaucrats do fill post-resignation tell-all books with sensational anecdotes taken out of context and gross exagerations. So why are you willing to think critically about the resignation letter, but not the book?
Safe in the womb of an everlasting night
You find the darkness can give the brightest light.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 11:54 AM
 
Originally posted by Joshua:
Quite right. And most bureaucrats do fill post-resignation tell-all books with sensational anecdotes taken out of context and gross exagerations. So why are you willing to think critically about the resignation letter, but not the book?
Lerk is a selective critical thinker.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 11:59 AM
 
You just don't understand
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 12:00 PM
 
Originally posted by Joshua:
Quite right. And most bureaucrats do fill post-resignation tell-all books with sensational anecdotes taken out of context and gross exagerations. So why are you willing to think critically about the resignation letter, but not the book?
.....because I am employing common sense about resignation letters.

Concerning the book, I've not read it yet. My comments are based upon public interviews of Clarke and those attempting to debunk Clarke. Have you seen any comments by me about the book itself?

Further, I saw no link for that resignation letter. Could whoever posted it please provide a source link? I ask because such documents would normally be part of someone's personnel records, which would be legally private....If the White House leaked the letter, that's very telling.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 12:13 PM
 
Originally posted by typoon:
What was done by Clinton?

Many of my Facts are accurate. The Clinton Adminstration knew that Bin Ladin and his organization were the ones who commited the attacks. how is that fact not correct?

Bin Ladin WAS Offered to Clinton Several times By different countries. Is that not correct?
--excerpts from a timeline.....

1995
-- February/March -- Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, is captured in Pakistan and extradited to the United States. Investigators believe he is financially linked to bin Laden and stayed at a bin Laden financed guest house while in Pakistan.
1996
-- The United States indicts bin Laden on charges of training the people involved in the 1993 attack that killed 18 U.S. servicemen in Somalia.
-- May 31 -- The four Saudi men accused of bombing the Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh are beheaded in Riyadh's main square. Before their execution, they are coerced by the Saudi's into publicly confessing to having read bin Laden communiqu�s.
-- Spring -- President Clinton signs a top secret order authorizing the CIA to use any and all means to destroy bin Laden's network.
-- June 25 -- A large truck bomb devastates Khobar Towers, the US military residence in Dhahran, killing 19 servicemen. U.S. investigators believe bin Laden was somehow involved.
-- August -- A secret grand jury investigation begins against Osama bin Laden in New York.

1997
-- July -- Islamic sources say a US-backed multinational mercenary force is formed with the aim of abducting or killing bin Laden. Witnesses claim to see 11 black Land Cruisers crossing into the Afghan city of Khost along with 2 helicopters.

1998
-- June -- A raid is conducted in Albania against an Islamic terrorist cell by security personnel from the U.S. and Albania. Two suspected employees of bin Laden are arrested. The CIA takes custody of a van-load of documents and computer gear. Another raid two weeks later nets more suspected bin Laden associates, two Egyptian nationals, who are turned over to anti-terrorist officials in Egypt. All were associated with the Islamic Revival Foundation.
-- June 8 -- The grand jury investigation of bin Laden, initiated in 1996, issues a sealed indictment, charging Bin Laden with "conspiracy to attack defense utilities of the United States." Prosecutors charge that bin Laden heads a terrorist organization called al Qaeda, the base, and was a major financier of Islamic terrorists around the world.


-- August 12 -- The Small Group of presidential advisors meet with Clinton, reportedly with evidence that bin Laden is looking to obtain weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons to use against US installations. US intelligence also reportedly intercepted a mobile phone conversation between two of bin Laden's lieutenants that implicated them in the embassy bombings.
-- August 20 -- President Clinton orders cruise missile attacks against suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. Sudan vehemently denies the plant was producing chemical weapons.
-- US adds bin Laden's name to list of terrorists whose funds are targeted for seizure by US Treasury.
-- September 23 -- US senior administrative officials admit no evidence directly linking bin Laden to the Al Shifa factory at the time of retaliatory strikes on Aug 20. Intelligence officials found financial transactions between bin Laden and the Military Industrial Corporation--a company run by the Sudan's government.

-- October -- The Sunday Times of London reports that bin Laden is sending Islamic mercenaries to Kashmir to support an Islamic secession campaign.
-- October 7 -- Arabic newspaper al-Hayat claims bin Laden has acquired nuclear weapons from Soviet Central Asian countries. Others are skeptical.
-- November 4 -- A new superceding indictment is issued against bin Laden, Muhammad Atef and a host of other suspects. They are charged with bombing of two US embassies and conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad. Two rewards of $5 million each are offered for Atef and bin Laden. Atef is described as bin Laden's chief military commander.
1999
-- January 16 -- The US Attorney's office files its most complete indictment to date of Osama bin Laden and 11 other suspected members of his terrorist organization. The grand jury charges the men for conspiring to kill American nationals. The first count of the indictment charges that several of the co-defendants, acted with other members of "al Qaeda," in a conspiracy to murder American citizens. The objectives of the terrorist group allegedly include: killing members of the American military stationed in Saudi Arabia and Somalia; killing United States embassy employees in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; and concealing the activities of the co-conspirators by, among other things, establishing front companies, providing false identity and travel documents, engaging in coded correspondence, and providing false information to the authorities in various countries.

Sources: CNN, CBC, Canada, PBS, the American Central Intelligence Agency, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, US News and World Report, Reuters, Mideast Mirror, al-Hayat & al-Arab
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 12:41 PM
 
Oh, horrors! Clinton launched guided indictments. Now, if only Bin Laden had cooperated and turned himself in like he was supposed to.

Or I suppose maybe "Americas Most Wanted" might have brought him in. "We received a call from a viewer who says that her next door neighbor looked like Osama Bin Laden. Within minutes, Dayton police had the house circled. Thanks to our vigilent viewers, we got him!"

Clinton meant well, he really did. But 99% of what he did was ineffective. As MSNBC puts it:
The Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal, using �a mixture of possible bribes and threats,� received a commitment from Omar that bin Laden would be handed over. But Omar reneged on the agreement in September 1998 during a meeting with Turki and Pakistan�s intelligence chief.

�When Turki angrily confronted him Omar lost his temper and denounced the Saudi government. The Saudis and Pakistanis walked out,� the report said.

In conclusion, the report said �from the spring of 1997 to September 2001, the U.S. government tried to persuade the Taliban to expel bin Laden to a country where he could face justice,� the report said. �The efforts employed inducements, warnings and sanctions. All these efforts failed.�
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 12:50 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Oh, horrors! Clinton launched guided indictments. Now, if only Bin Laden had cooperated and turned himself in like he was supposed to.

Or I suppose maybe "Americas Most Wanted" might have brought him in. "We received a call from a viewer who says that her next door neighbor looked like Osama Bin Laden. Within minutes, Dayton police had the house circled. Thanks to our vigilent viewers, we got him!"

Clinton meant well, he really did. But 99% of what he did was ineffective. As MSNBC puts it:

well, as we've discussed before, when Clinton ordered missile strikes, the republican leadership slammed him for "wagging the dog" and trying to divert attention away from Monica.

That's the interesting thing about republicans.

As far as effectiveness, do you honestly believe what we are doing now has been effective against Al Queda? Have you read any papers recently? Something about Spain, I believe.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 12:57 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well, as we've discussed before, when Clinton ordered missile strikes, the republican leadership slammed him for "wagging the dog" and trying to divert attention away from Monica.

That's the interesting thing about republicans.

As far as effectiveness, do you honestly believe what we are doing now has been effective against Al Queda? Have you read any papers recently? Something about Spain, I believe.
Actually while It was obvious he was trying to divert attention from the Monica scandal, I was all for his Iraq proposal. I was shocked he was showing some backbone.

Too bad in the end it was a watered down piss poor attempt.
     
Nonsuch
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Riverside IL, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 12:57 PM
 
"Troops worked"?

So 9/11 didn't happen?

There's a very simple issue here that's being ignored. The Clinton administration may not have done enough to thwart bin Laden�but the Bush administration did nothing, until there were two smoking craters in New York.

Why? Simple: Because the warnings about bin Laden came from Clinton appointees, and Bush was damned if he was going to listen to those people.

"In general, the Bush appointees distrusted anything invented by the Clinton administration," Richard Clarke says in his book. Thomas Maertens, an NSC director, tells the New York Times:

"[Clarke] was the guy pushing hardest, saying again and again that something big was going to happen, including possibly here in the U.S.," Mr. Maertens said Monday from his home in Minnesota. But Mr. Maertens said that the Bush White House was reluctant to believe a holdover from the previous administration.

"They really believed their campaign rhetoric about the Clinton administration," Mr. Maertens said. "So anything they did was bad, and the Bushies were not going to repeat it. And it's disgusting to see the administration now putting a full-court smear on Clarke � for being right."
While Clarke was futilely offering his warnings, the Bush team was eagerly picking up where it had left off back in 1996: conjuring up plans to oust Hussein, and spending gobs of money in support of the GOP defense strategists' pet fantasy, missile defense (remember that?).

Did Clinton do everything he could have? No. But at least he had the sense to listen to the experts in his employ.
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.

-- Frederick Douglass, 1857
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 01:05 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well, as we've discussed before, when Clinton ordered missile strikes, the republican leadership slammed him for "wagging the dog" and trying to divert attention away from Monica.

That's the interesting thing about republicans.
Only if you think that all Republicans are responsible for the irresponsible comments of a few. It might surprise you to know that actually, Republicans are human beings, with individual opinions, responsible individually for those opinions, and sometimes disagreeing with one another. But of course, you assume we all march in lockstep, no doubt receiving little coded messages from Our Leader.

Back to the real world. You point to a policy that was well-intentioned, and not controversial at the time. Neither party seriously disputed the law enforcement approach in 1998. But it failed. It didn't break up al-Queda and didn't seriously even hamper their operations. Their operations became increasingly daring, sophisticated, and destructive. They attacked increasingly hard targets -- guarded embassies, warships, and finally 9/11, which, remember, wasn't just an attack on two unguarded office buildings, but also an attack on the Pentagon and either the White House, or the Capitol.

No, not much of a success for law enforcement.

Since 9/11 al-Queda still exists. But in the misery of Madrid is some hope. That attack, like the Bali bombing, was on a soft target. It's a reversal of the trend that lead to 9/11. It was brutal, and horrible, and not to be minimized. But you can still see that al-Queda is not reaching as far as they were able to do in 2001 and I don't think that should be dismissed in your urgent partisan desire to declare failure and defeat.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 01:09 PM
 
Originally posted by Nonsuch:
There's a very simple issue here that's being ignored. The Clinton administration may not have done enough to thwart bin Laden�but the Bush administration did nothing, until there were two smoking craters in New York.
No, that's wrong. Bush did nothing different in the 8 months he was in office before 9/11. All the Clinton policies persued over 8 years remained in effect. They changed after 9/11 because 9/11 highlighted the fact that the underlying strategy of approaching terrorism as just a crime problem was wrong. That's what had to change. But as former Secretary of State Albright and former Secretary of Defense Cohen told the 9/11 commission, nobody would have supported an invasion of Afghanistan prior to 9/11. It's revisionist bullcrap to pretend otherwise.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Mar 24, 2004 at 01:16 PM. )
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 01:18 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, that's wrong. Bush did nothing different in the 8 months he was in office before 9/11. All the Clinton policies persued over 8 years remained in effect. They changed after 9/11 because 9/11 highlighted the fact that the underlying strategy of approaching terrorism as just a crime problem was wrong. That's what had to change. But as former Secretary of State Albright and former Secretary of Defense Cohen told the 9/11 commission, nobody would have supported an invasion of Afghanistan prior to 9/11.
but see, this is where your arguments gets convoluted. You earlier ridiculed Clinton for "launching indictments" and say they were ineffective, then you acknowledge that no one would have supported more than what he did before 9/11. In fact, he was shot down for whatever he DID do.
     
dgs212
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: time
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 01:27 PM
 
Can we all agree then that both the Clinton and Bush 2 administrations were woefully ineffective in acting to prevent a large scale terrorist attack, for whatever reason (Clinton: too much legislation, not enough action; Bush 2: ignored or downplayed evidence, did not treat threat seriously)?

After 9/11, however, any and all responses to or actions against terrorists rest firmly on Bush's shoulders (or his administration/handlers/cabinet). So has the response been effective? Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill think not. Personaly, I agree. The Iraq war may turn out to be the most significant tactical military blunder of all time. All those lives lost, Americans, Iraqis, English, Polish, Japanese, etc...a huge waste. Yes, Saddam had to go. But so does Castro, The Saud family, Sharon, Arrafat, the georgian president, etc. The removal of dictators has nothing to do with fighting terrorists, unless of course they finance terrorists (the Saudis), or are terrorists themselves (arrafat, sharon, castro,...). The evidence for a Saddam-international terrorist link is non-existent. Case closed.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 01:31 PM
 
Originally posted by dgs212:
Can we all agree then that both the Clinton and Bush 2 administrations were woefully ineffective in acting to prevent a large scale terrorist attack, for whatever reason (Clinton: too much legislation, not enough action; Bush 2: ignored or downplayed evidence, did not treat threat seriously)?

After 9/11, however, any and all responses to or actions against terrorists rest firmly on Bush's shoulders (or his administration/handlers/cabinet). So has the response been effective? Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill think not. Personaly, I agree. The Iraq war may turn out to be the most significant tactical military blunder of all time. All those lives lost, Americans, Iraqis, English, Polish, Japanese, etc...a huge waste. Yes, Saddam had to go. But so does Castro, The Saud family, Sharon, Arrafat, the georgian president, etc. The removal of dictators has nothing to do with fighting terrorists, unless of course they finance terrorists (the Saudis), or are terrorists themselves (arrafat, sharon, castro,...). The evidence for a Saddam-international terrorist link is non-existent. Case closed.
well put.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 01:31 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
but see, this is where your arguments gets convoluted. You earlier ridiculed Clinton for "launching indictments" and say they were ineffective, then you acknowledge that no one would have supported more than what he did before 9/11. In fact, he was shot down for whatever he DID do.
OK, let me set this out to be clear. I thought prior to 9/11 that the law enforcement approach was absurd window dressing. Those indictments were useless. The long arm of the law just doesn't reach that far. Putting Bin Laden on the Ten Most Wanted list (as we did roughly after the embassy bombings, but before 9/11) and hanging pictures of him in post offices wasn't going to catch a guy when we knew exactly where he was -- he was in Afghanistan plotting new attacks on us. Attacks that we weren't preventing because we hamstrung ourselves with the law enforcement approach.

I ridicule it both because it was useless, and because it was obviously useless. However, I do not claim that this is a party matter. Had Dole been elected in 1996, I don't believe he would have reacted any differently. The law enforcement approach was the political consensus in the late 1990s.

Moreover, Albright and Cohen are absolutely right that there would have been no political support for invading Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Neither Republicans nor Democrats would have supported it in sufficient numbers to make that fly. So it is unfair hindsight to say now that politicians of either party were wrong for doing what neither party would have let them do at the time.

However, that changed after 9/11. After 9/11 a new consensus emerged. Or at least, it should be a consensus. I know that there are a few at the fringes who don't see any contradiction between lambasteing politicians of either party for doing what they would certainly have lambasted the other party from doing had they tried.

Part of this is partisanship. You are right about the partisan attacks on Clinton. It's just a shame that you can't seem to see that the partisan attacks on Bush are cut from the same cloth.
     
Nonsuch
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Riverside IL, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 01:43 PM
 
FYI, for all those insisted Clinton's approach to terrorism was useless, Clarke also discussed a planned attack on LAX that Clinton's team was able to thwart:

In December '99, every day or every other day, the head of the FBI or the head of the CIA, the attorney general, had to go to the White House and sit in the meeting and report on all of the things that they personally had done to stop the al-Qaida attack. So they were going back every night to their departments and shaking the trees personally, finding out all of the information. If that had happened in July of 2001, we might have found out in the White House, the attorney general might have found out that there were al-Qaida operatives in the United States. FBI at lower levels knew. Never told me. Never told the highest levels in the FBI.
(From his 60 Minutes interview)

I know it's cheap to quote other people's opinions, but I think William Saletan puts it very well in Slate today:

Does this mean Clinton did an exemplary job of fighting terrorism? Hardly. Clarke has plenty of complaints about what Clinton did. Some of it was good; some of it was bad. Clinton was inconsistent. Bush is the opposite: He worships consistency. He simplifies. He can't see any good in what Clinton did, so he throws out the good with the bad. No more fly-swatting. No more law enforcement. No more pinpricks. No more reactive Cabinet meetings. As Rice put it on the Today show Monday, "The key here was not to have a meeting. The key was to have a strategy." Bush's approach to al-Qaida was all or nothing. On Sept. 11, 2001, a week after his grand strategy was finished, he got his answer: Nothing.
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.

-- Frederick Douglass, 1857
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 01:54 PM
 
Originally posted by Nonsuch:
FYI, for all those insisted Clinton's approach to terrorism was useless, Clarke also discussed a planned attack on LAX that Clinton's team was able to thwart:
I think it is terrific that a smart and alert border guard caught the guy crossing the border with (from memory) 400 lb of explosives in the trunk of the car. But really, does the president get to claim personal credit for the actions of every alert and lucky GS-5 law enforcement officer?

The problem with the law enforcement approach wasn't that law enforcement officers don't have a role to play in catching the foot soldiers as they cross the border from Canada (especially not during an obvious date like the Millennium). It's that it prevented us from seriously considering whether issueing an indictment (a piece of paper) might not be enough. It prevented us from thinking outside the legal box. The problem isn't that you can't have the odd isolated success using the methods of law enforcement. It's that you close the door on all the other tools that you could have used, and which might be more appropriate to use.

For example in your border guard situation. He's absolutely the right person to guard the borders. He's got the training, he's got the equipment. He knows what he's doing. But he can't go to Afghanistan waving a grand jury indictment. Before anyone could go to Afghanistan to close down the training camps where fellows like the Millennium Bomber were being created, you had to break out of the aversion of using the military and realize that you fight a war with all the tools at your disposal, not just some.
     
Nonsuch
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Riverside IL, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 02:06 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think it is terrific that a smart and alert border guard caught the guy crossing the border with (from memory) 400 lb of explosives in the trunk of the car. But really, does the president get to claim personal credit for the actions of every alert and lucky GS-5 law enforcement officer?
Your saying the success was simply blind luck, and would've happened without any action whatsoever from the Clinton administration?

If Clinton's team instituted a state of heightened readiness and responsiveness throughout the law enforcement/intelligence community (which Clarke, from what I can tell, seems to think is the case�it sounds like the FBI, CIA and attorney general had their feet held to the fire over this), which in turn increased the likelihood of the discovery being made, then yes, Clinton is entitled to share some of the credit.
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.

-- Frederick Douglass, 1857
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 02:16 PM
 
Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Your saying the success was simply blind luck, and would've happened without any action whatsoever from the Clinton administration?

If Clinton's team instituted a state of heightened readiness and responsiveness throughout the law enforcement/intelligence community (which Clarke, from what I can tell, seems to think is the case�it sounds like the FBI, CIA and attorney general had their feet held to the fire over this), which in turn increased the likelihood of the discovery being made, then yes, Clinton is entitled to share some of the credit.
They raised the alert because 12/31/1999 was a date which everyone recognized would be an irresistable magnet for al-Queda -- which to be clear, was a threat that Clinton's people were fully aware of.

It may be that this officer would have become suspicious of the driver of the car without the alert being raised. Or it may be that he was especially vigilent because of it. We'll never know. But you can't point to one isolated incident and say that the whole strategy was working while ignoring all the times when it failed. The Khobar Towers, 2 African Embassies, The USS Cole, and 9/11 itself did happen. They do not point to much success, especially because the upward trend was so unmistakable. At most they won a single incident. But the trend of the war pointed to failure until the strategy was rethought.

That's my criticism. It isn't that defensive measures aren't a good thing. It is that relying on law enforcement prevented us from considering offensive measures.
     
Nonsuch
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Riverside IL, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 02:26 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But you can't point to one isolated incident and say that the whole strategy was working while ignoring all the times when it failed.
Wasn't my intention�I simply wanted to correct what I see as a mischaracterization of the Clinton admin's efforts. Certainly he and his administration share blame for 9/11.
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.

-- Frederick Douglass, 1857
     
ghost_flash
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 02:31 PM
 
Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Wasn't my intention�I simply wanted to correct what I see as a mischaracterization of the Clinton admin's efforts. Certainly he and his administration share blame for 9/11.
Yes. 8 years of blowjobs instead of blowing the bad guys up.
Dignity has been restored to the Oval Office and now it is no longer referred to the oval orifice.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Reminds me I need a smoke. pffft.
...
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 02:34 PM
 
Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Wasn't my intention�I simply wanted to correct what I see as a mischaracterization of the Clinton admin's efforts. Certainly he and his administration share blame for 9/11.
But what's important to me, and I think getting overlooked in this orgy of fingerpointing going on on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, is where to go from here? Do we recognize that the approach of the 1990s failed, and do we understand that it shouldn't be repeated?

I particular, I, as a potential Kerry voter, want to know where he stands on this. He's made some statements that makes it seem like he wants to go back to the law enforcement-only approach that I think helped make 9/11 possible. But he's also criticized Bush for not prosecuting the war on terror sufficiently. Well, which is it? What would his policy be if he is elected president? Shouldn't he make this most important matter crystal clear?
     
Nonsuch
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Riverside IL, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 02:55 PM
 
Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Dignity has been restored to the Oval Office
Funniest thing I heard all day, thanks.
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.

-- Frederick Douglass, 1857
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 03:07 PM
 
Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Wasn't my intention�I simply wanted to correct what I see as a mischaracterization of the Clinton admin's efforts. Certainly he and his administration share blame for 9/11.
Indeed, My response up the thread was to someone who claimed Clinton did NOTHING. when I pointed out all he did, then Simey chose to say it was INEFFECTIVE, then when I pointed out that the present course is equally ineffective, it was pointed out his strategy was TOO LEGALISTIC. when I pointed out that was about all that could be done prior to 9/11, it was pointed out that I'm PARTISAN.

at any rate going back to the original reason I spoke up, yes Clinton did do several things. Did they remove the threat? no. Bush did several different things. Did they remove the threat? no.

But to claim Clinton did nothing at all to address the threat is revisionist.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 03:21 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
But to claim Clinton did nothing at all to address the threat is revisionist.
I have never claimed that. In fact many times I have said that what the Clinton Administration did on counterterrorism (defensive measures) was very effective. For example, the focus on training first responders and on improving communications between civilian first responders and the National Guard; and hardening of government facilities such as the wing of the Pentagon that fortuitously was the one hit. Those things saved lives on 9/11.

But what was ineffective was the reliance on the mechanisms of law enforcement to go after al-Queda and affiliates. It was useless and made us impotent. Relying on indictments and asking the Taliban pretty please would they stop letting al-Queda run their training camps was what let al-Queda grow and grow. What also was ineffective was the inadequate use of force on the odd occasions when we did use it prior to 9/11. A couple of cruise missiles just showed us to be risk-adverse, and it probably encouraged Bin Laden more than scared him.

What is partisan is trying to hang that fact on any party prior to 9/11 to use as a political weapon in the current election. Both parties had the same policy. The only difference, if any, is that of the two parties, only one hasn't made it clear where they stand on the question of whether to go back to the pre-9/11 policy, or remain with the post-9/11 policy. That's getting lost in the fingerpointing, and it needs to be clarified.
     
ghost_flash
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 03:28 PM
 
Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Funniest thing I heard all day, thanks.
I enjoy making jokes for simpler minds.
You are welcome.
...
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2004, 03:51 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I have never claimed that.
I know you didn't, Simey, scroll up a bit.
You interjected yourself between me and someone else who did make that claim. Someone else made that claim, I refuted it, and then you jumped in and started to dissect my refutation on your own criteria unrelated to the original conversation, as if I had made claims relevant to your criteria.
I went ahead and tried to address some of your criteria, but..... *shrugs*...as I tried to address criteria Z you changed it to criteria X.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What is partisan is trying to hang that fact on any party prior to 9/11 to use as a political weapon in the current election. Both parties had the same policy. The only difference, if any, is that of the two parties, only one hasn't made it clear where they stand on the question of whether to go back to the pre-9/11 policy, or remain with the post-9/11 policy. That's getting lost in the fingerpointing, and it needs to be clarified.
have I done that?

so....I was partisan to point out that Clinton did, indeed do something to someone who claims they did not?

err....ok.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:58 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,