Call it the macabre side of me, but just once I would like to see the alert status go all the way to red just to see how people freak out. At the least, we'll know if the red bar works on that TV picture. Wouldn't that suck if we find we cannot light the red bar on the day we actually need it?
.... we find we cannot light the red bar on the day we actually need it? [/B]
The "red bar" is what the alert will be raised to, if and when the next big terrorist attack happens. General Tommy Franks' comments a few weeks back refers to the suspension, perhaps indefinitely, of the US Constitution, in the event of a major incident. That is what the "red bar" light will signify. I imagine that Gen. Franks is in the loop and well informed: for sure, he's retired, but in the event of this kind of re-definition of the US government, the Pentagon brass will (presumably) have a far larger say in the direct governance of the nation should those circumstances bear out, and some variety of martial law is imposed. Perhaps that's why (Franks) was ambivalent in his commentary, almost sounding as if he was looking forward to the potential opportunity.
Aquatic, you might want to check with your Dad to make sure that he's cool with you letting people know that bit of info....it might not bug him at all, but it might be considered a security issue to have that info floating on the net...just a thought.
Fighting a phantom is a game fraught with dangers.
Dean's comments were ridiculous and purely rhetorical. And what's this...YOU'RE talking about "truth"?
Talk about lying liars who tell them. What an assinine comment to make when you deliberately take Dean's comments out of context and apply them to a different meaning.
WE ARE NOT SAFER NOW THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN IN CUSTODY!
What's so ****ing hard to understand? Who gives a shit if the Iraqi's are safer? I want to know if WE, the American people here in the continental United States, are now safer that Saddam Hussein has been captured. The answer is NO. To insinuate that Dean's comments are "ridiculous" and "purely rhetorical" shows that you do not understand the application of rhetorical questions and that you are truly a "dittohead" of the GOP!
Talk about lying liars who tell them. What an assinine comment to make when you deliberately take Dean's comments out of context and apply them to a different meaning.
WE ARE NOT SAFER NOW THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN IN CUSTODY!
What's so ****ing hard to understand? Who gives a shit if the Iraqi's are safer? I want to know if WE, the American people here in the continental United States, are now safer that Saddam Hussein has been captured. The answer is NO. To insinuate that Dean's comments are "ridiculous" and "purely rhetorical" shows that you do not understand the application of rhetorical questions and that you are truly a "dittohead" of the GOP!
Let me say it loud so everyone can hear...
WE ARE NOT SAFER THAN WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO!
That's not true. That's such political, non-thinking bullshit. We are much safer than four years ago. Security procedures are greatly enhanced. We are hunting terrorists down with the military everywhere. The FBI and CIA have a new mission: Stop Terrorism. Budgets for everything from protecting domestic targets, to real person intelligence assets, to technology to combat terror and other threats have been increased. This statement is just patently false and utterly unsupportable.
I have to agree with SDW. It's one thing to say "we're not as safe as we *should* be," and it's another to say "We are not safer than we were."
I'd agree with the first, but totally disagree with the second. Since 9/11 things have been stepped up. Before 9/11, the Dept. of Homeland Security had never been thought of. All arguments for and against it aside, the threat alert level system is new since 9/11. Security all across the country is higher than ever before.
I have to agree with SDW. It's one thing to say "we're not as safe as we *should* be," and it's another to say "We are not safer than we were."
I'd agree with the first, but totally disagree with the second. Since 9/11 things have been stepped up. Before 9/11, the Dept. of Homeland Security had never been thought of. All arguments for and against it aside, the threat alert level system is new since 9/11. Security all across the country is higher than ever before.
How are we not any safer?
Not true. Homeland Security was created by Bill Clinton's administration. It was presented to Bush's brand new administration so they could impliment it. Of course, BushCorp instead chose Operation Ignore. It wasn't until 9/11 that they thought it was a good idea to implement Homeland Security (albeit a very very different version of the original).
I'll say it two ways:
WE ARE NOT SAFER NOW THAT SADDAM HAS BEEN CAPTURED
Boy do I feel safer! I'm so glad that the war on terrorism is now over because, after all, WE CAUGHT SADDAM! Woo hoo! Gig of joy. We can all relax now.
Federal advisory body complains of lack of strategy guiding domestic security efforts
By TIMOTHY J. BURGER/WASHINGTON
President Bush's anti-terrorism policies are about to come under fire from a somewhat unlikely source: A federal advisory panel headed by a former Republican Party chairman is set to rap the President's knuckles this week when it issues a report criticizing the administration for failing to develop a comprehensive, pro-active anti-terror strategy more than two years after the 9/11 attacks.
Sorry about posting this. I know that every time I point out that Bush's policies are wrong for America by pointing to articles like this, Majorspunk will have a fit and start screaming "You are actively taking part in a destructive self fulfilling prophecy. So you are doing more than just rooting for bad things to happen."
So, I apologize in advance for doing my part to destroy my mother country.
To Northgate: Nobody ever said that the war on terror is over now that Saddam has been caught -- well, maybe the media wants you to think that -- but no one in the Bush administration has said that. In fact, they pretty much flat out said that we shouldn't think that.
And I don't see how you can say that there's no proof that we're safer. Have you been paying attention the last two and a half years? Did you hear the news reports that thousands of extra policing staff have been put on duty for this orange level? That doesn't make us safer? The fact that our Air Marshal program is significantly larger doesn't make us safer? Disrupting Al-Qaida's core organization in Afghanistan doesn't make us safer?
I'd like to see what proof YOU have that we AREN'T safer! And I also find it curious that instead of saying, "We are not safer since 9/11," you say "We are not safer than four years ago." What the hell happened four years ago? (December 1999) Are you alluding to something?
Sorry, Northgate. Your arguments have gigantic flaws in them. Shore them up and get back to us.
Here's a question that cuts deeper to the heart....would we be any safer if Bill Clinton had implemented an office of Homeland Security? How about if Al Gore had become President and been in charge? What if Al Roker were the President?
Basically, would you feel the same way if someone else were the Commander In Chief and were facing terrorists who were willing to murder large populations of American citizens? Even if that alternate President had not elected to take the war to the spawning grounds of terror in the Middle East ?
I personally feel that we are better-prepared to respond to acts of terror. The men and women who work in security and safety positions are better-trained for it. It's no longer a paper fantasy that bad things can happen in the USA, our emergency workers, police and military are being trained with this in mind. We should share that mindset to some degree. Be prepared for emergencies: be vigilant.
Now, while we are certainly better-prepared than we were four years ago, it's still too early to get a read on how the capture of Saddam has affected the big picture; I wouldn't say that his capture won't have any effect for the citizens of the United States of America....it's just too early to tell what that effect will be. Saddam certainly was not a spiritual influence on the members of Al Queda, more likely he was considered a jumped-up warlord who made good. Whatever happens to Hussein will have little (if any) consequence to the members of Osama's little nest of vipers.
I personally feel that we are better-prepared to respond to acts of terror.
That'll be because of the full, frank and honest investigation into all the communication problems, mismanagment, petty-politics and various and sundry other mistakes that contributed to 9/11 ... or maybe not.
Not true. Homeland Security was created by Bill Clinton's administration. It was presented to Bush's brand new administration so they could impliment it. Of course, BushCorp instead chose Operation Ignore. It wasn't until 9/11 that they thought it was a good idea to implement Homeland Security (albeit a very very different version of the original).
I'll say it two ways:
WE ARE NOT SAFER NOW THAT SADDAM HAS BEEN CAPTURED
WE ARE NOT SAFER THAN WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO
There is no irrefutable proof to say otherwise.
Now really. That's the first time I've heard that claim. You'll need to support it. I'll tell you what WAS created during Clinton's terms: A total disregard for national security. Clinton was offered bin laden in 1996 and turned him down. Clinton did nothing about the embassy bombings and the USS Cole. He launched a few cruise missles and laid waste to some aspirin factories...but what was accomplished to increase security during HIS terms? I seem to remembver a little nuke deal wtih North Korea.
Absolutely, the rough spots have been addressed...but the preparedness doesn't hinge upon some expulsive result of "9/11 investigations"...it is instead attributable to the diligence and training of agencies charged with response to national emergencies. That preparedness extends to agencies assigned with preventing emergencies from occurring in the first place.
Remember, the White Water Twins made no demonstrable impact on the war against terror, other than a bit of cruise-missile rattling and "aspirin factory" bombing. The French assisted the Americans in their ouster of the British...look at how rancorous our relationship with them is 200+ years later. Things change.
For all we know, all of Canada is gathered over at Murbot's house drinking beer and plotting the overthrow of our prime brewing facilities even as we speak!
Preparedness, in my opinion, depends upon each of us. We are the government. Each person has to be diligent and report suspect activity to the proper authorities. Get to know your neighbors. Stand up for those who cannot defend themselves when you can. Help those who need help.
There is little room for apathy. Apathy breeds terrorism and violence.
If we all become part of our respective communities terrorism will be choked out.
Remember, the White Water Twins made no demonstrable impact on the war against terror, other than a bit of cruise-missile rattling and "aspirin factory" bombing.
What about the well-known (as in, you guys should know this) Hart-Rudman study that spent the last year of clinton's presidency coming up with what eventually became the basis of the post-9/11 homeland security changes. Note that it was shelved by the incoming bush admin until 9/11. Oh, and before the fanatics piss themselves, yeah, it was a bipartisan committee.
With the sudan offer, my understanding was that we couldn't indict him at the time in US courts, and the efforts to get the saudis to take him failed because that could have eventually caused a collapse of the government. A saudi government, mind you, that is so extremely close to the bushes that you have a royal saying they are like her adoptive mother and father.
This can't be used as an attack on clinton since any administration, republican or democrat, would have had this problem at the time.
Anyway, it's irrefutable that the pre-9/11 bush admin was doing less to combat terrorism than the clinton admin was before leaving office. If you want to argue with it, good luck searching for anything to support it. You'll need it.
There's obviously a difference between being safer and being safe. Those in denial either think that nothing has been done, or they think that it's all safe now. I see a lot more of the former in here than the latter.
Also, red alert does not mean the Constitution gets tossed out the window even for a moment. It'a a living document, so we'd sooner see some paranoid and ultimately unconstitutional laws being passed, even poor amendments being made before then. Path of least resitance. Mistakes will be made for sure. Mistakes can be repealed, albeit too late in plenty of cases. But let's not get completely weirded out. It's not a decision that's up to the military, any part of the Executive branch, or anyone else alone. All branches of government would have to collude, or someone could stage a coup. And I don't see the latter going over too well for very long.
What about the well-known (as in, you guys should know this) Hart-Rudman study that spent the last year of clinton's presidency coming up with what eventually became the basis of the post-9/11 homeland security changes. Note that it was shelved by the incoming bush admin until 9/11. Oh, and before the fanatics piss themselves, yeah, it was a bipartisan committee.
With the sudan offer, my understanding was that we couldn't indict him at the time in US courts, and the efforts to get the saudis to take him failed because that could have eventually caused a collapse of the government. A saudi government, mind you, that is so extremely close to the bushes that you have a royal saying they are like her adoptive mother and father.
This can't be used as an attack on clinton since any administration, republican or democrat, would have had this problem at the time.
Anyway, it's irrefutable that the pre-9/11 bush admin was doing less to combat terrorism than the clinton admin was before leaving office. If you want to argue with it, good luck searching for anything to support it. You'll need it.
Thanks Giant. Your information about the Gary Hart and Warren Rudman report is right on the money. I'll add even more to this story:
Richard Clark, a former Clinton appointee, presented an entire al Qaeda plan. According to TIME, there were some questions about how seriously BushCorp accepted Clarke's warnings. One outgoing Clinton official felt that "the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism." While BushCorp was focused on Rumseld's review of the military and missile defense.
The Hart Rudman Commission studied every aspect of national security over several years and concluded: "This commision believes that the security of the American homeland from the threats of the new century should be the primary national security mission of the U.S. government." Congress passed a bill to establish a National Homeland Security Agency. But over at the White House, the Justice Department and the Pentagon, they decided that the best course of action was not to implement the recommendations of the Hart Rudman report.
In "Let Freedom Ring" Sean Hannity outlines a charge that he frequently makes on his radio and television shows: that Clinton let Bin Laden slip his grasp. That's a pretty astonishing charge and one would hope he had his facts absolutely straight. He doesn't. His entire case is centered around a Pakistani named Mansoor Ijaz. Sandy Berger only had to meet with him once to realize he was an unreliable freelancer, pursuing his own financial interests. Ijaz wanted sanctions lifted off Sudanese oil and tried bartering Bin Laden. Why didn't we negotiate? First, we don't negotiate with terrorist states. Two, because Sudan remains a notorious sponsor of terrorism, harboring Hamas, Hazbollah, and al Qaeda. Third, Sudan is the leading state sponsor of slavery and is considered by many to be genocidal. However, the US pursued every lead and tried to negotiate. Nothing.
The good news is that Moonsor Ijaz now has a job as foreign affairs analyst for Fox News. Surprise surprise.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
Dean's an idiot. Capturing Saddam certainly made our troops and the Iraqi people safer. Did it not?
I can't believe how far you'll go to hide from an argument. You'll stretch the truth beyond transparency.
.... we find we cannot light the red bar on the day we actually need it? [/B]
The "red bar" is what the alert will be raised to, if and when the next big terrorist attack happens. General Tommy Franks' comments a few weeks back refers to the suspension, perhaps indefinitely, of the US Constitution, in the event of a major incident. That is what the "red bar" light will signify. I imagine that Gen. Franks is in the loop and well informed: for sure, he's retired, but in the event of this kind of re-definition of the US government, the Pentagon brass will (presumably) have a far larger say in the direct governance of the nation should those circumstances bear out, and some variety of martial law is imposed. Perhaps that's why (Franks) was ambivalent in his commentary, almost sounding as if he was looking forward to the potential opportunity.
Fighting a phantom is a game fraught with dangers.
Originally posted by bunge
I can't believe how far you'll go to hide from an argument. You'll stretch the truth beyond transparency.
Dean's comments were ridiculous and purely rhetorical. And what's this...YOU'RE talking about "truth"?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Dean's comments were ridiculous and purely rhetorical. And what's this...YOU'RE talking about "truth"?
Talk about lying liars who tell them. What an assinine comment to make when you deliberately take Dean's comments out of context and apply them to a different meaning.
WE ARE NOT SAFER NOW THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN IN CUSTODY!
What's so ****ing hard to understand? Who gives a shit if the Iraqi's are safer? I want to know if WE, the American people here in the continental United States, are now safer that Saddam Hussein has been captured. The answer is NO. To insinuate that Dean's comments are "ridiculous" and "purely rhetorical" shows that you do not understand the application of rhetorical questions and that you are truly a "dittohead" of the GOP!
Let me say it loud so everyone can hear...
WE ARE NOT SAFER THAN WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO!
Originally posted by Northgate
Talk about lying liars who tell them. What an assinine comment to make when you deliberately take Dean's comments out of context and apply them to a different meaning.
WE ARE NOT SAFER NOW THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN IN CUSTODY!
What's so ****ing hard to understand? Who gives a shit if the Iraqi's are safer? I want to know if WE, the American people here in the continental United States, are now safer that Saddam Hussein has been captured. The answer is NO. To insinuate that Dean's comments are "ridiculous" and "purely rhetorical" shows that you do not understand the application of rhetorical questions and that you are truly a "dittohead" of the GOP!
Let me say it loud so everyone can hear...
WE ARE NOT SAFER THAN WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO!
That's not true. That's such political, non-thinking bullshit. We are much safer than four years ago. Security procedures are greatly enhanced. We are hunting terrorists down with the military everywhere. The FBI and CIA have a new mission: Stop Terrorism. Budgets for everything from protecting domestic targets, to real person intelligence assets, to technology to combat terror and other threats have been increased. This statement is just patently false and utterly unsupportable.
I'd agree with the first, but totally disagree with the second. Since 9/11 things have been stepped up. Before 9/11, the Dept. of Homeland Security had never been thought of. All arguments for and against it aside, the threat alert level system is new since 9/11. Security all across the country is higher than ever before.
How are we not any safer?
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I have to agree with SDW. It's one thing to say "we're not as safe as we *should* be," and it's another to say "We are not safer than we were."
I'd agree with the first, but totally disagree with the second. Since 9/11 things have been stepped up. Before 9/11, the Dept. of Homeland Security had never been thought of. All arguments for and against it aside, the threat alert level system is new since 9/11. Security all across the country is higher than ever before.
How are we not any safer?
Not true. Homeland Security was created by Bill Clinton's administration. It was presented to Bush's brand new administration so they could impliment it. Of course, BushCorp instead chose Operation Ignore. It wasn't until 9/11 that they thought it was a good idea to implement Homeland Security (albeit a very very different version of the original).
I'll say it two ways:
WE ARE NOT SAFER NOW THAT SADDAM HAS BEEN CAPTURED
WE ARE NOT SAFER THAN WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO
There is no irrefutable proof to say otherwise.
ORANGE CHRISTMAS: WARPLANES TO PATROL CITIES
Boy do I feel safer! I'm so glad that the war on terrorism is now over because, after all, WE CAUGHT SADDAM! Woo hoo! Gig of joy. We can all relax now.
Federal advisory body complains of lack of strategy guiding domestic security efforts
By TIMOTHY J. BURGER/WASHINGTON
President Bush's anti-terrorism policies are about to come under fire from a somewhat unlikely source: A federal advisory panel headed by a former Republican Party chairman is set to rap the President's knuckles this week when it issues a report criticizing the administration for failing to develop a comprehensive, pro-active anti-terror strategy more than two years after the 9/11 attacks.
FULL STORY:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...0.html?cnn=yes
Sorry about posting this. I know that every time I point out that Bush's policies are wrong for America by pointing to articles like this, Majorspunk will have a fit and start screaming "You are actively taking part in a destructive self fulfilling prophecy. So you are doing more than just rooting for bad things to happen."
So, I apologize in advance for doing my part to destroy my mother country.
To Northgate: Nobody ever said that the war on terror is over now that Saddam has been caught -- well, maybe the media wants you to think that -- but no one in the Bush administration has said that. In fact, they pretty much flat out said that we shouldn't think that.
And I don't see how you can say that there's no proof that we're safer. Have you been paying attention the last two and a half years? Did you hear the news reports that thousands of extra policing staff have been put on duty for this orange level? That doesn't make us safer? The fact that our Air Marshal program is significantly larger doesn't make us safer? Disrupting Al-Qaida's core organization in Afghanistan doesn't make us safer?
I'd like to see what proof YOU have that we AREN'T safer! And I also find it curious that instead of saying, "We are not safer since 9/11," you say "We are not safer than four years ago." What the hell happened four years ago? (December 1999) Are you alluding to something?
Sorry, Northgate. Your arguments have gigantic flaws in them. Shore them up and get back to us.
Here's a question that cuts deeper to the heart....would we be any safer if Bill Clinton had implemented an office of Homeland Security? How about if Al Gore had become President and been in charge? What if Al Roker were the President?
Basically, would you feel the same way if someone else were the Commander In Chief and were facing terrorists who were willing to murder large populations of American citizens? Even if that alternate President had not elected to take the war to the spawning grounds of terror in the Middle East ?
I personally feel that we are better-prepared to respond to acts of terror. The men and women who work in security and safety positions are better-trained for it. It's no longer a paper fantasy that bad things can happen in the USA, our emergency workers, police and military are being trained with this in mind. We should share that mindset to some degree. Be prepared for emergencies: be vigilant.
Now, while we are certainly better-prepared than we were four years ago, it's still too early to get a read on how the capture of Saddam has affected the big picture; I wouldn't say that his capture won't have any effect for the citizens of the United States of America....it's just too early to tell what that effect will be. Saddam certainly was not a spiritual influence on the members of Al Queda, more likely he was considered a jumped-up warlord who made good. Whatever happens to Hussein will have little (if any) consequence to the members of Osama's little nest of vipers.
Originally posted by drewprops
'
I personally feel that we are better-prepared to respond to acts of terror.
That'll be because of the full, frank and honest investigation into all the communication problems, mismanagment, petty-politics and various and sundry other mistakes that contributed to 9/11 ... or maybe not.
Originally posted by Northgate
Not true. Homeland Security was created by Bill Clinton's administration. It was presented to Bush's brand new administration so they could impliment it. Of course, BushCorp instead chose Operation Ignore. It wasn't until 9/11 that they thought it was a good idea to implement Homeland Security (albeit a very very different version of the original).
I'll say it two ways:
WE ARE NOT SAFER NOW THAT SADDAM HAS BEEN CAPTURED
WE ARE NOT SAFER THAN WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO
There is no irrefutable proof to say otherwise.
Now really. That's the first time I've heard that claim. You'll need to support it. I'll tell you what WAS created during Clinton's terms: A total disregard for national security. Clinton was offered bin laden in 1996 and turned him down. Clinton did nothing about the embassy bombings and the USS Cole. He launched a few cruise missles and laid waste to some aspirin factories...but what was accomplished to increase security during HIS terms? I seem to remembver a little nuke deal wtih North Korea.
Remember, the White Water Twins made no demonstrable impact on the war against terror, other than a bit of cruise-missile rattling and "aspirin factory" bombing. The French assisted the Americans in their ouster of the British...look at how rancorous our relationship with them is 200+ years later. Things change.
For all we know, all of Canada is gathered over at Murbot's house drinking beer and plotting the overthrow of our prime brewing facilities even as we speak!
There is little room for apathy. Apathy breeds terrorism and violence.
If we all become part of our respective communities terrorism will be choked out.
Originally posted by drewprops
Remember, the White Water Twins made no demonstrable impact on the war against terror, other than a bit of cruise-missile rattling and "aspirin factory" bombing.
What about the well-known (as in, you guys should know this) Hart-Rudman study that spent the last year of clinton's presidency coming up with what eventually became the basis of the post-9/11 homeland security changes. Note that it was shelved by the incoming bush admin until 9/11. Oh, and before the fanatics piss themselves, yeah, it was a bipartisan committee.
Here's a story from sept 12, 2001 with a bit of detail: http://dir.salon.com/politics/featur...ush/index.html
As for the rest of Clinton's record, here's a nice quick run-down: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/10/30/135644/95
With the sudan offer, my understanding was that we couldn't indict him at the time in US courts, and the efforts to get the saudis to take him failed because that could have eventually caused a collapse of the government. A saudi government, mind you, that is so extremely close to the bushes that you have a royal saying they are like her adoptive mother and father.
This can't be used as an attack on clinton since any administration, republican or democrat, would have had this problem at the time.
Anyway, it's irrefutable that the pre-9/11 bush admin was doing less to combat terrorism than the clinton admin was before leaving office. If you want to argue with it, good luck searching for anything to support it. You'll need it.
Happy Holidays
Also, red alert does not mean the Constitution gets tossed out the window even for a moment. It'a a living document, so we'd sooner see some paranoid and ultimately unconstitutional laws being passed, even poor amendments being made before then. Path of least resitance. Mistakes will be made for sure. Mistakes can be repealed, albeit too late in plenty of cases. But let's not get completely weirded out. It's not a decision that's up to the military, any part of the Executive branch, or anyone else alone. All branches of government would have to collude, or someone could stage a coup. And I don't see the latter going over too well for very long.
Originally posted by giant
What about the well-known (as in, you guys should know this) Hart-Rudman study that spent the last year of clinton's presidency coming up with what eventually became the basis of the post-9/11 homeland security changes. Note that it was shelved by the incoming bush admin until 9/11. Oh, and before the fanatics piss themselves, yeah, it was a bipartisan committee.
Here's a story from sept 12, 2001 with a bit of detail: http://dir.salon.com/politics/featur...ush/index.html
As for the rest of Clinton's record, here's a nice quick run-down: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/10/30/135644/95
With the sudan offer, my understanding was that we couldn't indict him at the time in US courts, and the efforts to get the saudis to take him failed because that could have eventually caused a collapse of the government. A saudi government, mind you, that is so extremely close to the bushes that you have a royal saying they are like her adoptive mother and father.
This can't be used as an attack on clinton since any administration, republican or democrat, would have had this problem at the time.
Anyway, it's irrefutable that the pre-9/11 bush admin was doing less to combat terrorism than the clinton admin was before leaving office. If you want to argue with it, good luck searching for anything to support it. You'll need it.
Thanks Giant. Your information about the Gary Hart and Warren Rudman report is right on the money. I'll add even more to this story:
Richard Clark, a former Clinton appointee, presented an entire al Qaeda plan. According to TIME, there were some questions about how seriously BushCorp accepted Clarke's warnings. One outgoing Clinton official felt that "the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism." While BushCorp was focused on Rumseld's review of the military and missile defense.
The Hart Rudman Commission studied every aspect of national security over several years and concluded: "This commision believes that the security of the American homeland from the threats of the new century should be the primary national security mission of the U.S. government." Congress passed a bill to establish a National Homeland Security Agency. But over at the White House, the Justice Department and the Pentagon, they decided that the best course of action was not to implement the recommendations of the Hart Rudman report.
In "Let Freedom Ring" Sean Hannity outlines a charge that he frequently makes on his radio and television shows: that Clinton let Bin Laden slip his grasp. That's a pretty astonishing charge and one would hope he had his facts absolutely straight. He doesn't. His entire case is centered around a Pakistani named Mansoor Ijaz. Sandy Berger only had to meet with him once to realize he was an unreliable freelancer, pursuing his own financial interests. Ijaz wanted sanctions lifted off Sudanese oil and tried bartering Bin Laden. Why didn't we negotiate? First, we don't negotiate with terrorist states. Two, because Sudan remains a notorious sponsor of terrorism, harboring Hamas, Hazbollah, and al Qaeda. Third, Sudan is the leading state sponsor of slavery and is considered by many to be genocidal. However, the US pursued every lead and tried to negotiate. Nothing.
The good news is that Moonsor Ijaz now has a job as foreign affairs analyst for Fox News. Surprise surprise.