Saturday, September 11, 2004

The Truth Is, 9/11 Should Have Surprised Nobody in the National Security Community, But It Did - Why Trust Them Now?

http://www.army.mil/terrorism/1999-1990/index.html

This U.S. Army website discusses terrorism in a realistic manner, showing that Al Queda is not the only enemy we face and that 9/11 "changed the world" only for the uninformed. Any national security professionals that didn't realize the danger of terrorism before 9/11 are incompetent and should not be given responsibility for our defense. This includes the entire Bush administration team. They ignored the warnings of the outgoing Clinton administration. They are incompetent.

This US Army website details the history of anti-American terrorism from the early '60s to the present. The '90s started with an attack by the Tupac Amaru, who bombed the US embassy in Peru in Jan. 1990, and ended with the Columbian terrorist PLA kidnapping a US citizen in Dec. 1999. Meanwhile our current leadership focuses on Iraq and ignores even Al Queda. And this administration ignored the terrorist threat until 9/11, and then tried to blame the Clinton administration. Ignorance is not bliss, it is deadly. We can no longer afford the ignorance and ideologues of the Bush administration. We can't afford more mistakes.

But the right will probably call this apolitical Army website "leftist" and "biased" as well. Read it before Rumsfeld orders it "cleansed" and it becomes a partisan pro-Bush slanted page that ignores the truth.

"But I want to make it clear to the American people that while we can defeat terrorists, it will be a long time before we defeat terrorism. America will remain a target because we are uniquely present in the world, because we act to advance peace and democracy, because we have taken a tougher stand against terrorism, and because we are the most open society on earth." President William J. Clinton, August 6, 1996

29 comments:

ALa said...

...and because I turned down Bin Laden from the Sudanese a couple of times because of the 'hot potato' issue it was...WJC

vrangel said...

Yeah, it wasn't sufficiently nuanced for Clinton to just receive Bin Laden delivered on a silver platter.

Paul G. said...

Ala71 and vrangel fall into the convenient 20/20 hindsight trap.
Looking back now, knowing what was coming and discarding inconvienent facts.

Clinton could not accept the offer of Osama from the Sudanese for two key reasons, and neither of those two reason wore a blue dress from from the Gap.

Reason one, There was no 'war on terrorism' at the time, the president did not have the legal backing without an indictment or actionable evidence.
The FBI, State Department, CIA and the city of New York fought each other on who had what authority for investigation and prosecution.
As a result of the infighting investigation by one agency was often blocked by the authority of another.
Local authorities had precedent over all others (States Rights).
Ramzi Yousef was not convicted until January 1998 and the investigation was still taking place with an emphasis on identification and apprehension of persons _directly_ connected to the 1993 bombing.
Agencies stepped on each others toes until after the Sudanese offers.

Reason two, the government of Sudan was not a good faith negotiator.
There was no reason to believe that they would or could deliver Osama.
There were also demands made by the Sudanese that would have had a negative effect on pursuing other terrorists that were still in Sudan.
They wanted a clean slate in exchange for the turn over.
The government of Sudan wanted the United States to switch to its side in the internal war within Sudan that had the Islamist terrorist government starving and killing thousands of non Islamic civilians within the country in an act of genocide.

The problem still remained that if the United States took custody of Osama, what we would do with him after we had him.
Investigation had still not produced a case that prosecution could run with.
The administration to it's credit investigated with Saudi Arabia to see if they would take Osama and use their 'legal system' to neutralize him.
The Saudis declined for a variety of internal political reasons.
The President, being the President and not supreme ruler was bound by U.S. law not to make deals with terrorists and was also bound to get an indictment before using powers of arrest, just as had been done for Noriega.
The laws have changed since September 11, 2001 and we still do not have Osama, al-Zawahri,or the perpetrators of the anthrax attacks.
Task Force 121 was withdrawn this last spring from Afganistan and taken to Iraq to focus on Saddam, only in the last few weeks have they returned to the hunt for the original targets.
We only have Saddam and the 9/11 commission clearly says there was no connection between the attacks on the WTC and Saddam.
President Bush hasn't made real measurable progress even with all the extra tools and money given to him.

When will the extreme right wing of the New Republican party start following it's own doctrine of personal responsibility and stop blaming everything on Bill?
Apparently the sign on the President's desk reads "The buck stops with Bill" rather than "The buck stops here".
Maybe the Clintons took the original one with the White House china, and George dictated the new one from memory.

this we'll defend said...

Wow Paul, thanks for the accurate and timely covering fire. :)

Before anybody jumps on the obvious "Bush would have done it and Clinton didn't" bandwagon, the truth is that the Bush administration gave LESS emphasis to terrorism and the middle east in general prior to 9/11. I hope somebody disputes that so I can pummel them with facts.

Those pesky facts.

vrangel said...

What Bush could have been done back then we will never know.
Clinton spoke well, then did nothing. And it's the fact that belongs to history.
I don't blame him for anything, but his quote at the end of your original post is rather ironic.

Paul G. said...

TWD:
vrangel said...

Yeah, it wasn't sufficiently nuanced for Clinton to just receive Bin Laden delivered on a silver platter.
Then when presented with the facts the response is;
vrangel said...

What Bush could have been done back then we will never know.
Clinton spoke well, then did nothing. And it's the fact that belongs to history.
I don't blame him for anything, but his quote at the end of your original post is rather ironic.
I don't know about these folks, I blame him (just receive Bin Laden delivered on a silver platter), I don't blame him for anything.
All while accusing others of being flipfloppers and nuanced.
Sounds like jingoism to me.

vrangel said...

Yes indeed I don't blame Clinton for refusing to accept delivery of Bin Laden on a silver platter. But it happened.

It was a different, pre-9/11 time, different mentality.
It's possible Bush would have done the same had he been in charge in 1998. We'll never know.

Besides, I want you to vote Kerry . See... no flip-flopping here.

:)

ALa said...

TWD: Those pesky facts for sure...Richard Clarke (before he decided to retire and write a book for retirement money)...said that the Bush Administration had increased focus, intelligence and money on terror and Al Qeada by FIVE FOLD from the Clinton Administration...
...damn those actual facts....

this we'll defend said...

That is a helluva fact. Can you steer me to a citation so that I can learn more about this?

Peter V said...

"But I want to make it clear to the American people that while we can defeat terrorists, it will be a long time before we defeat terrorism. America will remain a target because we are uniquely present in the world, because we act to advance peace and democracy, because we have taken a tougher stand against terrorism, and because we are the most open society on earth." President William J. Clinton, August 6, 1996.

Your point? Good talking point how did he back it up?

TWD was it the UC Berkley liberals (or some other bunch of commie pinkos hidding out in acedamia) that made such an impression on you and turned you to the dark side. Those who can do and those who can't teach (and those who can't teach teach gym).

When they saw a former American fighting machine wlaking their sacred halls they must have gotten a chubby thinking they were going to get a chance to turn you to their commie ways. (this of course was after they pissed their pants from fright)

Here you presented them with an opportunity to vindicate their shame from their draft dodging days. You must be their proudest accomplishment.

Child, wife, mortgage more than 43 percent of your income going to the public trough youl'll be voting for Arnold and George and laughing at your former misguided self.

this we'll defend said...

Peter V: First, shame on you for suggesting I went to Cal. Call me a commie, a wussy, even a Republican, but don't say I went to Cal. Second - UC Berkley is liberal, the law school is NOT. But I didn't go there. And law school didn't change my politics one bit. And I had more than one veteran as a law school professor. And several conservatives - including one well-known in blogland for his extreme conservative views. All of your stereotypes are flawed.

As for Richard Clarke - forgot about that, I have read about it before. Bush did PROPOSE a five-fold increase in covert operations funding, which is of course quite different from making anti-terrorism a priority. Here is what Clarke said about the press briefing he gave a year after 9/11 in which he touted the five-fold increase:

MR. CLARKE: And it's [THE BRIEFING] not inconsistent. Let me explain. I was asked by Condi Rice, by the White House press secretary, by the White House chief of staff, to give a press background. Why? Because Time magazine had come out--and this was almost a year after September 11. Time magazine had come out with a cover story, after extensive research, and the cover story was devastating. The cover story of Time magazine was that the White House had been given a plan by me on January 25 and had taken the entire nine months to get around to looking at it, at the principals level, that there had been over 100 meetings of Dr. Rice's committee on subjects involving Iraq, Star Wars, China, but only one on terrorism and that one was on September 4.

Now, the White House naturally wanted someone to say that things had been going on during that summer. I said, "Well, you know, it's true. Things had been going on. But the plan wasn't approved until September 4." And I was told, "But you can say that it was approved by the deputies. You can say that things were approved in principle." I was told to spin it in a positive way.

Now, the question is: Why do you do that? I thought Pat Buchanan, a conservative Republican, former White House aide, put it pretty well last night when he was asked the same question. He said, "When you're in the White House, you may disagree with policy." But when you're asked to defend that policy, you defend it, if you're a special assistant to the president, as Pat Buchanan was and as I was. I had a choice. I could have done what I was asked to do and defend them when they were being criticized for not having done enough before September 11 or I could have resigned. Why didn't I resign? Because I believed it was very, very important for the United States to develop a plan to secure its cyberspace from terrorism. And the president had asked me to do that. I did it. I didn't get it done until February of 2003. Here it is: The National Plan to Secure Cyberspace, which the president thanked me for effusively. I wouldn't have been able to do this--important document if I had quit on the date that you suggest. And so there's no inconsistency. I said the things that I was told to say. They're true. We did consider these things but no decisions were taken. And that's the point. It was an important issue for them but not an urgent issue. They had a hundred meetings before they got around to having one on terrorism.

END OF QUOTE.

Spin that.

this we'll defend said...

I do have to say that right now PeterV's blog gives all of the very valid reasons that Bush should be "re" elected this November. It is compelling and almost changed even my partisan mind. I think everyone should check out the many reasons he gave for why Bush will be a better president. It is at http://peter_v.blogspot.com/.

Jamie said...

I was trying to understand the whole Al'Qaeda name, where it came from, its interesting, if you google it you will see it called by the US as 'the base' when in fact in Arabic it means 'foundation' which is a term coined by, you guessed it, the US, the major players in the organization don't even call themselves 'Al'Qaeda', never have. The organization itself doesn't even exist. Its Ashcrofts Boogeyman, plays right into the American permanent war economy.

ALa said...

TWD: Here is the entire transcript -presenting excerpts is spin -that's what Michael Moore does... (I added the *asterisks* for emphasis...Remember that all that Clarke is talking about happened BEFORE 9/11)...Enjoy...

"Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02
Wednesday, March 24, 2004

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, ***there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.****

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, ***vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to ***initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring ***to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, ***five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.***

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

**** Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

****And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.***

QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. ***This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.***

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action *five-fold*. Is that correct?

CLARKE: ***All of that's correct.***

ANGLE: OK.

QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.

QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...

CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.

ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?

CLARKE: In October of '98.

QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?

CLARKE: Right, which was in September.

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and **the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

CLARKE: ***There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: ***And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: ***No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.***

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

CLARKE: ***There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.***

(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in ***the spring months just after the administration came into office?***

CLARKE: ***You got it. That's right.***

QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?

CLARKE: ***That's right.

QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD — the actual work on it ***began in early April.

CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel.

ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

CLARKE: ****Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.

QUESTION: ***That actually got into the intelligence budget?

CLARKE: ***Yes it did.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?

CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?

CLARKE: No, it was March.

QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops — now we haven't completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda?

CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don't know what we would have done.

QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground?

CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we'd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance." end transscipt

So we see that pre-9/11 the Bush Administration was all over something that Clinton 'had no plan' for!.....

Jamie said...

OOOOoooo the blame game.

Drives me crazy when people can't get their facts straight, especially those who are blind partisans and ideologues, if that’s too big a word for you, an ideologue is someone who can never admit being wrong. Facts are fun, so let’s play

Richard Clarke was ignored about Al Qaeda, he was ignored about the Iraq-Al Q connection, he was ignored about Afghanistan, he was ignored by the Bush 2 administration, FACT.

Ashcroft, who continually raises our fears now of the Al Qaeda boogeyman, told his staff he didn't want to hear about them pre-9/11, FACT

Cheney who recently told voters (rubes) that voting for Kerry will plunge the country into a 'pre-9/11 way of thinking'. Now does that mean, ignoring your head of counter-terrorism, ignoring action items on how to deal with the gathering threat within the border of the US, ignoring memos pointing out Intel on a possible attack and an increase in terrorist chatter, that pre-9/11 way of thinking? What Cheney said was illegal btw.

Parroting the contents of your horse-blindered, ideologically driven websites and 'journalists' (who, by the way, apparently don't use fact checkers) are not going to win your pale arguments here, Richard Clarke is respected more than your daddy and the rest of your family tree combined. But you call him a liar, THEN when your argument requires he be on the ball, you roll out his talking points detracting Michael Moore. Forgetting that he is NOT an FBI agent, who were the chief complainers (not Moore) about chaperoning the Bin Ladens out of the US without interrogation. How one can defend that is appalling. So make like a right-wing nut and crack yourself open to the reality of the world and leave the Drudge commentary for another thread. I'm not a boardie Nazi, just tired of opening intelligent posts and seeing the blithering parroting hack idiots that follow. He was one of the smartest people in charge of protecting your country and if Condi had done her job, many steps could have been taken to prevent 9/11 and that’s a hard pill to swallow for the right-wing partisan hacks.

Oh, and many of your asterisks are amusing btw, he was repeating questions asked…totally out of context, and you complain about spin, that’s rich…

Jamie said...

Since we're playing the 'blame game' give this a read.

Blinded by scandal

vrangel said...

"The organization itself doesn't even exist. Its Ashcrofts Boogeyman..."

Hmmm, even mental institutions have internet access these days. I think Bush went too far with his compassionate conservatism... Vote Kerry !

Jamie said...

vrangel:“Hmmm, even mental institutions have internet access these days.”

"Al Queda itself does not exist, except in the fevered imaginations of neo-cons and Likudniks, some of whom, I suspect, also know it is a myth, but find it extremely useful as a bogeyman to spook the public and the politicians to acquiesce in otherwise unacceptable policy initiatives at home and abroad. By those terms, Al Queda is cast like 'the Mafia' and similar nonsense coming from police lobbies. This is a complex issue but, putting it very simply, what you have in both cases is loose networks of likeminded individuals-sometimes they pay homage to some patron figure who they may never have met and with whom they have no concrete relationship. They conduct their operations strictly by themselves, even if they may from time to time seek advice."Source: DisinopediaI don't take what that site says as the gospel, just thought it was an interesting point. Right or wrong. But...

2 Questions then..

Has the Jihad, "Al Qaeda", formally referred to themselves as "Al Qaeda"?

Has Ashcroft elevated and politicized a terror threat in conjunction with each other?

Terrorism is a tactic not an enemy of statehood. Islamic Militants have numerous cells and organizations collectively fighting a holy war, a religious war under the name Jihad, not Al Qaeda. Designation of FTO's expire after 2 years by law and require re-certification because of this and are given names to help Intelligence agencies share information on specific people and their affiliations (cells), they give them U.S coined names that either fit their cause, or were named after an intercepted email or communication with an action item or heading, which is turned into their name by a U.S or U.K intelligence agency not the network itself. Al Qaeda (al-Qa'ida) has been designated since '99 by Secertary Albright, (from a heading on a computers list of names). There is a network, duh!, they just don't call themselves - Al Qaeda.

ALa said...

Jamie...I hope your 'post’ wasn’t directed at me...as putting the full quote/transcript of Richard Clarke’s own words- with none of my own commentary- hardly qualifies as spin...

1) Jamie says: "Drives me crazy when people can't get their facts straight, especially those who are blind partisans and ideologues, if that’s too big a word for you, an ideologue is someone who can never admit being wrong. Facts are fun, so let’s play"

...Partisan? You are a self-professed liberal, you are Canadian (why are you guys so obsessed with our politics?) and you are an 'art' dude...Do you want to post academic records baby? As my favorite Man said..."BRING IT ON!"

2)Jamie says: "Richard Clarke was ignored about Al Qaeda, he was ignored about the Iraq-Al Q connection, he was ignored about Afghanistan, he was ignored by the Bush 2 administration, FACT."

...well funny because what I posted was what's called a TRANSCRIPT (or is that too big of a word for you -should I write in charcoal?) THOSE are Richard Clarke's words BEFORE he decided to write a book.

3) Jamie says: "Cheney who recently told voters (rubes) that voting for Kerry will plunge the country into a 'pre-9/11 way of thinking'. Now does that mean, ignoring your head of counter-terrorism, ignoring action items on how to deal with the gathering threat within the border of the US, ignoring memos pointing out Intel on a possible attack and an increase in terrorist chatter, that pre-9/11 way of thinking? What Cheney said was illegal btw."

...You an artist and an expert on American law AND politics? Wow... Cheney said that Kerry will take the country back to treating terrorism like a 'police action' WHICH JOHN KERRY SAID THAT HE WOULD DO... Obviously the Canadian press leaves much to be desired...

4) Jamie says: "Parroting the contents of your horse-blindered, ideologically driven websites and 'journalists' (who, by the way, apparently don't use fact checkers) are not going to win your pale arguments here, Richard Clarke is respected more than your daddy and the rest of your family tree combined. But you call him a liar"

...Ok I'll say this slow as it seems to acrylic has gone to your brain. I didn't call anyone a liar...I PRINTED CLARKE'S WORDS...HE SAID THEM....I was 'parroting no websites’ since I made no commentary....Helloooooo? Anyone there?

5) Jamie says: "So make like a right-wing nut and crack yourself open to the reality of the world and leave the Drudge commentary for another thread. I'm not a boardie Nazi, just tired of opening intelligent posts and seeing the blithering parroting hack idiots that follow."

...Is this your site? I thought I was at TWD's page. Like I said...as a transcript was posted and this is your commentary -it seems that the Canadian schools are as poor as the journalism...

6) Jamie says: "Oh, and many of your asterisks are amusing btw, he was repeating questions asked…totally out of context, and you complain about spin, that’s rich…"

…What? ***there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.****
I didn't insert the quotes artman...I inserted the asterisks....

7) tran•scribe ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trn-skrb)
tr.v. tran•scribed, tran•scrib•ing, tran•scribes

1. To make a full written or typewritten copy of (dictated material, for example).

Jamie said...

ala71 says: "Ok I'll say this slow as it seems to acrylic has gone to your brain. I didn't call anyone a liar...I PRINTED CLARKE'S WORDS...HE SAID THEM....I was 'parroting no websites’ since I made no commentary....Helloooooo? Anyone there?"

Oh really. But you c/p this - "Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02

Wow. You call that a c/p from a non-partisan website? You're right, not in your own words.

sorry, you are right, you did not say some of those things, i meant to add, guys like you roll out Clarke and his testimony and totally play the 'word game', and that’s what you just did, was there a 'strategy' or a 'plan', mostly because right wing partisan web sites play this same exact game, but I'm not sure where your argument against Clinton is, did they have a strategy or a plan?

Testimony of Richard A. Clarke before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, March 24, 2004: (notice this is from the 9/11 report not Fox News)

MR. ROEMER: Okay. Let's move into, with my 15 minutes, let's move into the Bush administration. On January the 25th, we've seen a memo that you had written to Dr. Rice, urgently asking for a principals review of al Qaeda. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight al Qaeda --

MR. CLARKE: Uh-huh.

MR. ROEMER: -- and response to the U.S.S. Cole. You attached to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000. Did you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these, and how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

MR. CLARKE: I did geta response. The response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, the counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-cabinet level committee, and not to the principals, and that therefore it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

MR. ROEMER: So, does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group, as you had previously done?

MR. CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn't meet urgently in January or February. Then, when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of al Qaeda as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the problems, the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan, and, launched on a series of deputies meetings extending over several months to address al Qaeda in the context of all of those interrelated issues. That process probably ended, I think, in July of 2001, so we were readying for a principals meeting in July, but the principals' calendar was full, and then they went on vacation, many of them, in August, so we couldn't meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September.

--------------------------------------------------------

hmmm so, was their a strategy, or a series of actionable items, as Condi put it. Word game

Do you trust someone you call a liar, since you have made your opinion quite clear and YOUR opinion on the release of his book to coincide with his testimony is bogus, the White House determined the release of his book. So you want it both ways?

Since you are on some stump I'll try and help you out a little, a self professed liberal does not mean I am a registered Liberal or to the Liberal party, I don’t need to register my political affiliation. I vote for who is best. Not who I am obligated to, like a republican, who would vote for their candidate even if the incumbent has the combined intelligence of a wet soc and a mud brick.

And yes those pesky facts:

ala says: Those pesky facts for sure...Richard Clarke (before he decided to retire and write a book for retirement money)...said that the Bush Administration had increased focus, intelligence and money on terror and Al Qeada by FIVE FOLD from the Clinton Administration...
...damn those actual facts....

Whhhhaaaaa. John Ashcroft cut the FBI's request for new counterterrorism money by 12 percent on September 10, 2001. Dam those pesky facts. I don't blame Bush for that, but where is the accountability? It just proves Bush is not a leader, he is stealing all his notes off everyone elses paper.

Blame Clinton all you want, if you want to believe "your man" did better than Clinton on Al Qaeda, Maybe you should read the transcript further...

this we'll defend said...

I think that is about enough of that. You two are both talking over each other instead of listening to each other.

ALa71 wants to hold Clarke to his statements he made when he was a member of the administration and was asked to "spin" the facts in a positive way and leave some out.

Jamie wants to ignore the statement and pretend it doesn't exist.

The truth (this time) is somewhere in the middle.

My question is, after serving 4 presidents, 3 of the Republican, and having an incredibly distinguished and non-partisan career, why did Clarke suddenly become the "partisan" liar the right makes him out to be? Is it possible, maybe, just possibly, that he tried his best to serve Bush and finally couldn't stand it anymore and decided to speak the truth about what was going on without any spin?

Ala71 says no, he is a scumwad despite his past record of service. Everybody who disagrees with the president must have ulterior motives.

Jamie says yes, despite his statements in support of Bush in the past and his lucrative book deal. Everybody who disagrees with the president must be speaking truth for altruistic reasons.

So you two will agree to disagree and no need for shouting or insults or condenscension.

Clarke aside, the facts do show little to no attention to the war on terror, and a great deal of attention paid to Iraq, energy policy, and boondoggles like NMD. The facts also show that Clinton, while he arguably may have put more emphasis on it than the incoming Bush administration, didn't make counter-terrorism a priority either. 9/11 (despite the best efforts at the RNC to portray it as such) was not a strike against Republicans. Or Democrats. It was a strike on our nation, against all of us. And it had been planned for years. Richard Clarke, and hell, just about all other national security professionals, knew already that we were at war with islamic fundamentalism but they were ignorned - and not just by the Bush team. The USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the millenium plot, etc. - these were attacks or attempted attacks against us already. But it didn't scare civilians so it was easy to pretend it didn't exist, and both the Clinton and Bush administrations did just that - at least, they didn't make counter-terror a top priority.

An example of how easy it is to ignore such attacks: ALa71 says we are demonstrably safer because there have been no attacks HERE since 9/11. But over 1,100 Americans have died in Afghanistan and the Middle East, with thousands more wounded. From 1992 to 9/10/2001 did we lose 1100 Americans to enemy fire or terrorist attack? In all of those years combined? With THOUSANDS more injured? So how are we safer? But it didn't happen HERE so it doesn't seem the same. Our enemies don't see any difference between American soldiers and American civilians - which is why 9/11 was acceptable to them. We need to change our perception of the enemy and realize we are still under daily attack and some of our efforts are NOT helping but instead make us even more vulnerable - like invading Iraq, which made it easier to shoot at Americans than ever before. Which is exactly what our enemies want.

Jamie said...

"Jamie wants to ignore the statement and pretend it doesn't exist."I do? I thought my point was that the statement was not the only one that exists, to look at the whole picture, not assess blame to one person or party, that because of polarizing the terrorist threat, the security agencies had their hands tied and cherry picking testimony to cheerlead your party is not an argument, its quite the opposite.

ALa said...

TWD: No, no, no...You miss the entire point. I DO NOT blame Clinton...I do not think ANYONE could have forseen that horrible day. I only HATE when the left tries to blame Bush (in office for 8 mths.) and forget about Clinton's short-comings over 8 years... It's juvenile and irresponsible.
Canadian Art Boy: I presented Clarke's interview because TWD asked me to and because libs like to pretend that it didn't happen. I don't use Clarke as a reference because I believe that he has proved himself shady and disloyal to both sides -he slammed Clinton to Bush and Bush to Kerry...He is a opportunity seeker plain and simple. Just don't throw stupid stuff out there and forget that there is a really big other side to that story...
...p.s. you can not judge Fox News because you are not allowed to have Fox News --nice Democracy...

Jamie said...

ala: I thought I explained the Fox News reason to you clearly, guess even when you lead an elephant to water...it still may drink the sand...

Not sure where the whole "art" obsession is from, and for your FYI, acrylic is somewhat odorless and its oil based paint that can get you high if exposed long enough in an air tight room. But you'll probably argue that I don't use oil based paint because I'm a crazy socialist and believe in alternative energy resource paints or something stupid like that. Are you related to Coulter?

this we'll defend said...

I guess I missed both your points, but cut it out anyway. No "Art Boy" comments, no sarcasm, just discussion and facts. Like what happened with ALa71's great "my utopia" conversation.

I disagree that Clarke has "proven himself shady," I think he spoke out and was slimed by the machine. The same one that has actually convinced most Americans that Kerry was cowardly for serving in combat, and that George W. was brave for avoiding doing so.

ALa71 says "I only HATE when the left tries to blame Bush (in office for 8 mths.) and forget about Clinton's short-comings over 8 years... It's juvenile and irresponsble." That is IRONY, Alanis. And ALa71 doesn't realize it. Clarke was called upon to "spin" things in a positive way while still a member of the administration, and then when he finally was fed up (after years of distinguished and non-partisan service to our nation) he told the entire truth, and is then "proven shady" and called an "opportunist." Aside from bringing up his statements in support of the administration while he worked for the administration, how about facts - which is perhaps Jamie's point? Not spin, just facts.

Here are some:

Vice President Cheney’s counterterrorism task force never met(it was created in May 2001).

No References to Al Qaeda were in Dr. Rice’s 2000 Foreign Affairs article listing Bush’s top foreign affairs priorities

No References to Al Qaeda in Secretary Rumsfeld 2001 memo outlining national security priorities

No References to terrorism in Justice Department's top seven goals for 2001

The first National Security Council meeting ever held by the Bush administration discussed the invasion of Iraq

The Bush administration mentioned al Qaeda only once prior to 9-11. This was in a notice continuing an executive order issued by President Clinton.

There were only two National Security Council meetings on terrorism prior to 9-11 (out of approximately 100).

There were only two public statements by the Bush administration mentioning Osama bin Laden prior to 9-11 (excluding press briefings and press questions which would raise the total to 19)

President Bush made 104 public statements on Saddam Hussein from January 21 to September 10, 2001

There were at least four Al Qaeda attacks thwarted by the Clinton administration (only plots to bomb Seattle, Los Angeles, Brooklyn and Jordan have been specifically identified)

Bush spent four hours with Bob Woodward as part of his book, “Bush at War.” He agreed to give only one hour to the 9/11 commission.

The Bush administration restored aid to the Taliban after 4 months in office.

It took Vice President Cheney six months to respond to draft counterterrorism and homeland security legislation sent to him on July 20, 2001 by Senators Feinstein and Kyl, as stated by his top aide.

Six Months before 9-11 Paul Bremer claimed that the Bush administration was “paying no attention” to terrorism. “Bremer stated that the Bush administration would “stagger along until there’s a major incident and then suddenly say, ‘Oh my God, shouldn’t we be organized to deal with this.’”

The administration sat for eight months on an “urgent” request from its counterterrorism chief (Clarke) to meet about al Qaeda. September 2001 was a bit late to begin counterterror operations.

Bush sought to cut 9% from the FY2005 budget for Nunn-Lugar program to secure Soviet nuclear material and prevent them from getting into the hands of terrorists, while pushing for billions in spending to deploy an unproven missile defense system.

The Bush administration diverted $700 million from the war against Al Qaeda to prepare for Iraq war - without Congressional approval, something that could easily be construed as a "high crime and misdemeanor" (but that is reserved for lying about adultery, a truly serious offense).

Congress sought to shift $800 million from missile defense to counter-terrorism programs prior to 9/11, but Bush threatened to veto any such measure.

In April 2001 the administration released the government’s annual terrorism report with no extensive mention of Osama bin Laden as in prior years. A State Department official told CNN that "the Clinton administration had made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden.”

Similarly, at an April 2001 meeting of deputies Clarke urged a focus on Al Qaeda. Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz responded, “No, no, no. We don’t have to deal with al-Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.” There had never been a single instance of Iraqi terrorism against the United States.

In addition, General Donald Kerrick, the deputy National Security Advisor under Clinton who stayed on for a few months with the Bush administration, wrote a memo to his successor (Stephen Hadley) that the administration needed to pay attention to al Qaeda since they will strike again. “They never once asked me a question nor did I see them having a serious discussion about it. They didn’t feel it was imminent the way the Clinton administration did.”

The Bush administration terminated a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the U.S.

On the 5th day of the Bush administration (January 25), Clarke forwarded the 1998 Delenda plan and his December 2000 strategy paper to Dr. Rice which included a covert action plan from the CIA called “Blue Sky”. Dr. Rice later claimed “No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration” by the Clinton administration. She instead called it merely a "series of actionable items." ???

The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden" during the Clinton years.

Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center," a Clinton Administration project.

Bush's "five-fold increase" in covert operations funding (not counter-terror funding) was proposed but had not been acted upon by 9/11. In the meantime Bush:

(i) rejected an FBI request for $58 million for 149 counterterrorism filed agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators;

(ii) proposed a $65 million cut for state and local counterterrorism grants; and

(iii) rejected a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism (already pointed out above).

I could continue, but it would be pointless. It is hard to convince the already convinced.

But here is something: on 9/11 I really, really, really wanted to believe that George W. Bush would be a good president, for all Americans. I wanted to believe he would be wise and make good decisions and that he would place the needs of the American people above politics or harsh neo-conservative rhetoric. I wanted to believe that ideologues would see reality and that we as a nation would come together and triumph, and I desperately wanted George Bush, our president, to lead us in that manner. It was difficult to accept the reality that he is incompetent, his key advisors are neoconservative extremists, and that he took us to war against the wrong enemy, on false pretenses, and that he was neglecting the very real threat Islamic terrorism presents.

But it is the truth. I understand how some people don't accept this - Bush says all the things people want to believe. He throws out buzzwords and phrases like freedom, strength, fight against evil, democracy, war on terror, etc. And it takes an effort to discern the truth amidst all the harsh partisan rhetoric, spin, and incompetent media.

But the fact is we are not better off than we were on 9/11/2001. We are worse off, and the fault lies with Bush - not with the CIA, not with Congress, not with Kerry, not with the Army or France or even Al Queda or Iraqis. It lies with Bush.

ALa said...

What was it tis time? Bushlies.com (found this there) AmericanPregress.com (found it there too) or bushvskerry.com (there too)

"The art of creativity is concealing one's source".....

this we'll defend said...

YOU ARE GOOD. VERY GOOD.

It was Bushlies.com. Hey, I never said I was creative, I said I was a lawyer! :) Without precedent lawyers wouldn't be able to write a single paragraph.

I like that quote, BTW. But I wasn't trying to conceal the source (I cited it in another spot on this blog) but was trying to make it more readable, so I changed some tenses.

The sources from Bushlies are:

Sources: (1) The Left Coaster 07.14.03, Waterman – UPI 07.23.03, Priest – Washington Post 07.25.03, Dean – Findlaw.com 07.29.03, Ridgeway – Village Voice 07.31.03, Franken – Lies And The Liars Who Tell Them, Daily Mis-Lead 03.11.04, Center for American Progress Fact Sheet 03.22.04, Progress Report 03.26.04, Rice – Washington Post 03.22.04, Progress Report 03.26.04, Daily MisLead 04.14.04; (2) DemocracyNow.org 08.12.03, Heilprin – Washington Post 08.23.03, Noah – Slate 09.05.03, Meyers – NBC News 09.03.03; Daily MIs-Lead 05.25.04 (3) Schorrow – Boston Herald 10.22.02; (4) Plotz – Slate 09.10.03, USA Today – 04.16.04; (5) Franken – Lies and The Liars Who Tell Them, (6) Lumpkin – Associated Press 10.28.03; (7) The Daily Mis-Lead 10.27.03, Corn – BushLies.com, The Daily Mis-Lead 11.17.03; Isikoff & Hosenball - Newsweek 02.18.04; Progress Report 02.23.04, Progress Report 03.01.04; Daily Mis-Lead 05.20.04 (8) Center for American Progress (“CAP”) Fact Sheet 03.26.04; (9) Scheer – Los Angeles Times 05-22-01, Allen - Washington Post 08.07.01, Progress Report 03.10.04, CAP Fact Sheet 03.22.04, Yglesias – The American Prospect 03.23.04, Progress Report 03.25.04, CAP Fact Sheet 03.26.04, The Daily Mis-Lead 03.26.04, CAP Fact Sheet 04.05.04; AP – Los Angeles Times 04.30.04, Center for American Progress 04.20, 04; Daily Mis-Lead 08.19.04; (10) CAP Fact Sheet 03.26.04, Ackerman – TNR Online 03.24.04, Progress Report 03.24.04; (11) CAP Fact Sheet 03.26.04; (12) CAP Fact Sheet 03.26.04, Progress Report 03.25.04; (13) CAP Fact Sheet 03.26.04, Ackerman – TNR Online 03.25.04; (14) CAP Fact Sheet 03.26.04; (15) CAP Fact Sheet 03.26.04; (16) Rice – Washington Post 03.22.04, Lizza – TNR Online 03.23.04, Ackerman – TNR Online 03.24.04; (17) Rice – Washington Post 03.22.04, Progress Report 03.23.04, Progress Report 03.25.04; (18) Progress Report 03.23.04, CAP Fact Sheet 03.23.04, Moniz & Komarow – USA Today 03.29.04; (19) Progress Report 02.23.04; (20)AP 12.27.02, Institute for Public Accuracy SOU Response, CAP Fact Sheet 01.20.04; (21) CAP Fact Sheet 03.28.04; (22) Buncombe – The Independent 04.02.04; (23) CAP Fact Sheets 04.08.04; (24) Center for American Progress, Claim v. Fact Database; (24) Corn – BushLies.com 9.13.03, Daily Mis-Lead 11.25.03; Brown & Sengupta – Independent 05.25.04; (25) Center for American Progress 12.13.03 and 02.03.04; (26) Center for American Progress 02.25.04; Daily Mis-Lead 05.25.04 (27) The Daily Mis-Lead 10.02.03, Center for American Progress 02.25.04; Carville – Had Enough? (28) Progress Report 08.19.04; (29) Daily Mis-Lead 07.29.04.

I also have checked the secondary sources and in many cases the original sources for most of these cites.

That doesn't change the fact that YOU ARE GOOD.

Alvaro Frota said...

But, what really happens in the call-the-cops-number-day?

1138 said...

Ala never came to terms with the couldn't have Bin Laden in Sudan issue, not wouldn't. Neither have the puppet masters in her party - but for that mater Clinton can't seem to lock down on it, I attribute that to medication.

This administration droppen the ball failing to follow terrorist and Afghanistan projects in place during the Clinton years and in fact canceling them. We knew who was here and we were watching them - after we quit watching them (while playing kissy face with the Taliban) we got hit. It's on record.

I'm not playing conspiracy junk here because although your team has done stuff like that in the past on purpose, I don't give this bunch the credit for being that smart the proof is in the ineptitude of Katrina that continues to this day.