This is from (according to Clarke) the NSA that "couldn't spell' al-Qaeda?
It's not Bush's fault! They didn't turn over a plan!
Jeez. This line of argument was just on an episode of the west wing (in reruns) tonight: "You mean to say X has been broken all this time and the other guys didn't do anything to fix it?" The translation? It's not our fault!
I'm just glad that Condi is under no obligations to the administration and is free to speak her mind.
This post by Billmon is probably the best I've read. Apparently, Clarke is a "national security ultrahawk" who is "openly contemptuous of hill democrats" and sounds a lot like a neocon.
The al Qaeda terrorist network posed a threat to the United States for almost a decade before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Throughout that period -- during the eight years of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the Bush administration prior to Sept. 11 -- the U.S. government worked hard to counter the al Qaeda threat.
During the transition, President-elect Bush's national security team was briefed on the Clinton administration's efforts to deal with al Qaeda. The seriousness of the threat was well understood by the president and his national security principals. In response to my request for a presidential initiative, the counterterrorism team, which we had held over from the Clinton administration, suggested several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted. No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration.
We adopted several of these ideas. We committed more funding to counterterrorism and intelligence efforts. We increased efforts to go after al Qaeda's finances. We increased American support for anti-terror activities in Uzbekistan.
We pushed hard to arm the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle so we could target terrorists with greater precision. But the Predator was designed to conduct surveillance, not carry weapons. Arming it presented many technical challenges and required extensive testing. Military and intelligence officials agreed that the armed Predator was simply not ready for deployment before the fall of 2001. In any case, the Predator was not a silver bullet that could have destroyed al Qaeda or stopped Sept. 11.
We also considered a modest spring 2001 increase in funding for the Northern Alliance. At that time, the Northern Alliance was clearly not going to sweep across Afghanistan and dispose of al Qaeda. It had been battered by defeat and held less than 10 percent of the country. Only the addition of American air power, with U.S. special forces and intelligence officers on the ground, allowed the Northern Alliance its historic military advances in late 2001. We folded this idea into our broader strategy of arming tribes throughout Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban.
Let us be clear. Even their most ardent advocates did not contend that these ideas, even taken together, would have destroyed al Qaeda. We judged that the collection of ideas presented to us were insufficient for the strategy President Bush sought. The president wanted more than a laundry list of ideas simply to contain al Qaeda or "roll back" the threat. Once in office, we quickly began crafting a comprehensive new strategy to "eliminate" the al Qaeda network. The president wanted more than occasional, retaliatory cruise missile strikes. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies."
Through the spring and summer of 2001, the national security team developed a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda -- which was expected to take years. Our strategy marshaled all elements of national power to take down the network, not just respond to individual attacks with law enforcement measures. Our plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived. It focused on the crucial link between al Qaeda and the Taliban. We would attempt to compel the Taliban to stop giving al Qaeda sanctuary -- and if it refused, we would have sufficient military options to remove the Taliban regime. The strategy focused on the key role of Pakistan in this effort and the need to get Pakistan to drop its support of the Taliban. This became the first major foreign-policy strategy document of the Bush administration -- not Iraq, not the ABM Treaty, but eliminating al Qaeda.
Before Sept. 11, we closely monitored threats to our nation. President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the director of the CIA every day -- meetings that I attended. And I personally met with George Tenet regularly and frequently reviewed aspects of the counterterror effort.
Through the summer increasing intelligence "chatter" focused almost exclusively on potential attacks overseas. Nonetheless, we asked for any indication of domestic threats and directed our counterterrorism team to coordinate with domestic agencies to adopt protective measures. The FBI and the Federal Aviation Administration alerted airlines, airports and local authorities, warning of potential attacks on Americans.
Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to free U.S.-held terrorists. The FAA even issued a warning to airlines and aviation security personnel that "the potential for a terrorist operation, such as an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the United States, remains a concern."
We now know that the real threat had been in the United States since at least 1999. The plot to attack New York and Washington had been hatching for nearly two years. According to the FBI, by June 2001 16 of the 19 hijackers were already here. Even if we had known exactly where Osama bin Laden was, and the armed Predator had been available to strike him, the Sept. 11 hijackers almost certainly would have carried out their plan. So, too, if the Northern Alliance had somehow managed to topple the Taliban, the Sept. 11 hijackers were here in America -- not in Afghanistan.
President Bush has acted swiftly to unify and streamline our efforts to secure the American homeland. He has transformed the FBI into an agency dedicated to catching terrorists and preventing future attacks. The president and Congress, through the USA Patriot Act, have broken down the legal and bureaucratic walls that prior to Sept. 11 hampered intelligence and law enforcement agencies from collecting and sharing vital threat information. Those who now argue for rolling back the Patriot Act's changes invite us to forget the important lesson we learned on Sept. 11.
In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the president, like all Americans, wanted to know who was responsible. It would have been irresponsible not to ask a question about all possible links, including to Iraq -- a nation that had supported terrorism and had tried to kill a former president. Once advised that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11, the president told his National Security Council on Sept. 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda and that the initial U.S. response to Sept. 11 would be to target al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Because of President Bush's vision and leadership, our nation is safer. We have won battles in the war on terror, but the war is far from over. However long it takes, this great nation will prevail.
If you find yourself in the cross-hairs of a terrorist that hates the US for being the US (bathist, Al-Queda, hammas, former Iraqi holdout etc.), your trying to understand their reasons for hating you or even thinking that you understand, will not help you. I think it is them against you no matter what you do unless you join them. I am not sure how else you can look at it. It is a classic good vs. evil scenario.
Oh yeah, this whole thing has gone way past just criticizing Bush's policies. I really hate hearing people say "It is patriotic to criticize", while they feel it is only Bush that deserves criticism. I am not sure patriotic is the term I would use.
There's no such thing as a good versus evil scenerio. I'll give you an example: Hitler. He's a universily accepted "Evil Guy" is he not? So, if Hitler is evil then all those against him are good (boolian logic you only have two options good or evil).
Stalin was against Hitler. I guess Stalin was a good guy.
Well, no not really. Stallin killed millions of Russians before, during and after WWII. This boggles my mind.
Let me think about this again:
Good and evil are the only choices.
Hitler was evil.
The Swiss remained neutral during WWII. Whoa my head is hurting because the swiss were neither good nor evil.
Third times the charm:
Hitler was evil.
Moussalini alligned with Hitler thus Moussalini was evil. Yeah that fits.
But I'm still lost because Stalin was "good" but not really. The Swiss were neither good or evil but they profited from the war from both sides which seems evil enough.
Mossalini was evil.
I guess, even when we look at situation as inherently evil as WWII Nazi Germany we are still confronted with shades of gray.
I really wish I could view the world through the lenses of those crawford glasses where the world isn't necessarily rose colored, but it is black and white. Viewing the world as black and white would make life soooo much easier, but that's not the way things really are. Thw world is a jumble of colors and shades of grays which can't be pigeon-holed as simple "Good" and "Evil".
There's no such thing as a good versus evil scenerio. I'll give you an example: Hitler. He's a universily accepted "Evil Guy" is he not? So, if Hitler is evil then all those against him are good (boolian logic you only have two options good or evil).
Stalin was against Hitler. I guess Stalin was a good guy.
Well, no not really. Stallin killed millions of Russians before, during and after WWII. This boggles my mind.
Let me think about this again:
Good and evil are the only choices.
Hitler was evil.
The Swiss remained neutral during WWII. Whoa my head is hurting because the swiss were neither good nor evil.
Third times the charm:
Hitler was evil.
Moussalini alligned with Hitler thus Moussalini was evil. Yeah that fits.
But I'm still lost because Stalin was "good" but not really. The Swiss were neither good or evil but they profited from the war from both sides which seems evil enough.
Mossalini was evil.
I guess, even when we look at situation as inherently evil as WWII Nazi Germany we are still confronted with shades of gray.
I really wish I could view the world through the lenses of those crawford glasses where the world isn't necessarily rose colored, but it is black and white. Viewing the world as black and white would make life soooo much easier, but that's not the way things really are. Thw world is a jumble of colors and shades of grays which can't be pigeon-holed as simple "Good" and "Evil".
Hey, if you can't see evil for what it is then no-one here can help you. I really feel sorry for some people that don't have that ability. You can make as many excuses as you want to, but it does not change the fact that there is a lot of evil in the world now and it is really up to each person to stand up for what is right to stop it. It starts at home.
When any person looks at a group of innocent people and sees killing them them as a way to forward some agenda, I call them evil. We are talking about terrorists and terroristic dictators here. If Stalin and Hitler fall in there fine, But let's talk today, post 9/11.
As far as your reasoning goes, it does not apply here. I never said what you are implying. I am talking from a purely american standpoint, that is what I know. But I think that the UN is not a force for good anymore, and especially when it came to Iraq. Some may call that evil, and if deaths were caused by their actions to fill their pockets, I call it that to.
You ever heard of the term "two faced"? Well there are a lot of countries and regimes that are that. Not, only that, a lot of times evil is done in secrecy, thus making it harder to identify.
You ever heard of the term "two faced"? Well there are a lot of countries and regimes that are that. Not, only that, a lot of times evil is done in secrecy, thus making it harder to identify.
I don't mean to start a US-bash; however, why is the US supporting Uzbekistan and Pakistan dictators and Saudia Arabia as well as undermining Venezuelan democracy? Why are WMD not evil and dangerous when we sell them to our friends, but evil and dangerous when our friends become enemies?
Isn't that two-faced?
The point being that these things you think are clear 'good' and 'evil' -- including the country you live in -- are not.
yes, I know, but I *believe* that he either also sat on the NSC or was one of Bush's national security advisors in addition to serving as treasury sec.
This is bordering on Hysteria. A civil service lifer with ties to Kerry and who wasdemoted by Condi says she "looked skeptical", Bush "didn't tell him" to do this or that "but he just knew"? Clarke has his own "brilliant " past as well.
What?!
There have somehow been NO terrorist attacks in since 9/11 and Bush is some kind of evil buffoon?
This is bordering on Hysteria. A civil service lifer with ties to Kerry and who wasdemoted by Condi says she "looked skeptical", Bush "didn't tell him" to do this or that "but he just knew"? Clarke has his own "brilliant " past as well.
What?!
I have no idea what this means.
Quote:
There have somehow been NO terrorist attacks in since 9/11 and Bush is some kind of evil buffoon?
This is bordering on Hysteria. A civil service lifer with ties to Kerry and who wasdemoted by Condi says she "looked skeptical", Bush "didn't tell him" to do this or that "but he just knew"? Clarke has his own "brilliant " past as well.
What?!
There have somehow been NO terrorist attacks in since 9/11 and Bush is some kind of evil buffoon?
So, what is Al Qua'ida's historic timeline? What when and where have they attached in the past? What was the time span between attacks on US soil?
Comments
Originally posted by dmz
This is from (according to Clarke) the NSA that "couldn't spell' al-Qaeda?
It's not Bush's fault! They didn't turn over a plan!
Jeez. This line of argument was just on an episode of the west wing (in reruns) tonight: "You mean to say X has been broken all this time and the other guys didn't do anything to fix it?" The translation? It's not our fault!
I'm just glad that Condi is under no obligations to the administration and is free to speak her mind.
Originally posted by midwinter
"You mean to say X has been broken all this time and the other guys didn't do anything to fix it?" The translation? It's not our fault!
There is more to the editorial piece than those two paragraphs.
Originally posted by dmz
There is more to the editorial piece than those two paragraphs.
Then thanks for posting a link. Or at least a date. That way, you know, I might've been able to read it myself. Hell, for all I know, you made it up.
nevermind. they want a subscription!
9/11: For The Record
By Condoleezza Rice
Monday, March 22, 2004
The al Qaeda terrorist network posed a threat to the United States for almost a decade before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Throughout that period -- during the eight years of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the Bush administration prior to Sept. 11 -- the U.S. government worked hard to counter the al Qaeda threat.
During the transition, President-elect Bush's national security team was briefed on the Clinton administration's efforts to deal with al Qaeda. The seriousness of the threat was well understood by the president and his national security principals. In response to my request for a presidential initiative, the counterterrorism team, which we had held over from the Clinton administration, suggested several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted. No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration.
We adopted several of these ideas. We committed more funding to counterterrorism and intelligence efforts. We increased efforts to go after al Qaeda's finances. We increased American support for anti-terror activities in Uzbekistan.
We pushed hard to arm the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle so we could target terrorists with greater precision. But the Predator was designed to conduct surveillance, not carry weapons. Arming it presented many technical challenges and required extensive testing. Military and intelligence officials agreed that the armed Predator was simply not ready for deployment before the fall of 2001. In any case, the Predator was not a silver bullet that could have destroyed al Qaeda or stopped Sept. 11.
We also considered a modest spring 2001 increase in funding for the Northern Alliance. At that time, the Northern Alliance was clearly not going to sweep across Afghanistan and dispose of al Qaeda. It had been battered by defeat and held less than 10 percent of the country. Only the addition of American air power, with U.S. special forces and intelligence officers on the ground, allowed the Northern Alliance its historic military advances in late 2001. We folded this idea into our broader strategy of arming tribes throughout Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban.
Let us be clear. Even their most ardent advocates did not contend that these ideas, even taken together, would have destroyed al Qaeda. We judged that the collection of ideas presented to us were insufficient for the strategy President Bush sought. The president wanted more than a laundry list of ideas simply to contain al Qaeda or "roll back" the threat. Once in office, we quickly began crafting a comprehensive new strategy to "eliminate" the al Qaeda network. The president wanted more than occasional, retaliatory cruise missile strikes. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies."
Through the spring and summer of 2001, the national security team developed a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda -- which was expected to take years. Our strategy marshaled all elements of national power to take down the network, not just respond to individual attacks with law enforcement measures. Our plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived. It focused on the crucial link between al Qaeda and the Taliban. We would attempt to compel the Taliban to stop giving al Qaeda sanctuary -- and if it refused, we would have sufficient military options to remove the Taliban regime. The strategy focused on the key role of Pakistan in this effort and the need to get Pakistan to drop its support of the Taliban. This became the first major foreign-policy strategy document of the Bush administration -- not Iraq, not the ABM Treaty, but eliminating al Qaeda.
Before Sept. 11, we closely monitored threats to our nation. President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the director of the CIA every day -- meetings that I attended. And I personally met with George Tenet regularly and frequently reviewed aspects of the counterterror effort.
Through the summer increasing intelligence "chatter" focused almost exclusively on potential attacks overseas. Nonetheless, we asked for any indication of domestic threats and directed our counterterrorism team to coordinate with domestic agencies to adopt protective measures. The FBI and the Federal Aviation Administration alerted airlines, airports and local authorities, warning of potential attacks on Americans.
Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to free U.S.-held terrorists. The FAA even issued a warning to airlines and aviation security personnel that "the potential for a terrorist operation, such as an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the United States, remains a concern."
We now know that the real threat had been in the United States since at least 1999. The plot to attack New York and Washington had been hatching for nearly two years. According to the FBI, by June 2001 16 of the 19 hijackers were already here. Even if we had known exactly where Osama bin Laden was, and the armed Predator had been available to strike him, the Sept. 11 hijackers almost certainly would have carried out their plan. So, too, if the Northern Alliance had somehow managed to topple the Taliban, the Sept. 11 hijackers were here in America -- not in Afghanistan.
President Bush has acted swiftly to unify and streamline our efforts to secure the American homeland. He has transformed the FBI into an agency dedicated to catching terrorists and preventing future attacks. The president and Congress, through the USA Patriot Act, have broken down the legal and bureaucratic walls that prior to Sept. 11 hampered intelligence and law enforcement agencies from collecting and sharing vital threat information. Those who now argue for rolling back the Patriot Act's changes invite us to forget the important lesson we learned on Sept. 11.
In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the president, like all Americans, wanted to know who was responsible. It would have been irresponsible not to ask a question about all possible links, including to Iraq -- a nation that had supported terrorism and had tried to kill a former president. Once advised that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11, the president told his National Security Council on Sept. 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda and that the initial U.S. response to Sept. 11 would be to target al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Because of President Bush's vision and leadership, our nation is safer. We have won battles in the war on terror, but the war is far from over. However long it takes, this great nation will prevail.
The writer is the national security adviser.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Fill in Iraq/SH with the whatever you want.
Let me put it to you this way:
If you find yourself in the cross-hairs of a terrorist that hates the US for being the US (bathist, Al-Queda, hammas, former Iraqi holdout etc.), your trying to understand their reasons for hating you or even thinking that you understand, will not help you. I think it is them against you no matter what you do unless you join them. I am not sure how else you can look at it. It is a classic good vs. evil scenario.
Oh yeah, this whole thing has gone way past just criticizing Bush's policies. I really hate hearing people say "It is patriotic to criticize", while they feel it is only Bush that deserves criticism. I am not sure patriotic is the term I would use.
There's no such thing as a good versus evil scenerio. I'll give you an example: Hitler. He's a universily accepted "Evil Guy" is he not? So, if Hitler is evil then all those against him are good (boolian logic you only have two options good or evil).
Stalin was against Hitler. I guess Stalin was a good guy.
Well, no not really. Stallin killed millions of Russians before, during and after WWII. This boggles my mind.
Let me think about this again:
Good and evil are the only choices.
Hitler was evil.
The Swiss remained neutral during WWII. Whoa my head is hurting because the swiss were neither good nor evil.
Third times the charm:
Hitler was evil.
Moussalini alligned with Hitler thus Moussalini was evil. Yeah that fits.
But I'm still lost because Stalin was "good" but not really. The Swiss were neither good or evil but they profited from the war from both sides which seems evil enough.
Mossalini was evil.
I guess, even when we look at situation as inherently evil as WWII Nazi Germany we are still confronted with shades of gray.
I really wish I could view the world through the lenses of those crawford glasses where the world isn't necessarily rose colored, but it is black and white. Viewing the world as black and white would make life soooo much easier, but that's not the way things really are. Thw world is a jumble of colors and shades of grays which can't be pigeon-holed as simple "Good" and "Evil".
Originally posted by faust9
There's no such thing as a good versus evil scenerio. I'll give you an example: Hitler. He's a universily accepted "Evil Guy" is he not? So, if Hitler is evil then all those against him are good (boolian logic you only have two options good or evil).
Stalin was against Hitler. I guess Stalin was a good guy.
Well, no not really. Stallin killed millions of Russians before, during and after WWII. This boggles my mind.
Let me think about this again:
Good and evil are the only choices.
Hitler was evil.
The Swiss remained neutral during WWII. Whoa my head is hurting because the swiss were neither good nor evil.
Third times the charm:
Hitler was evil.
Moussalini alligned with Hitler thus Moussalini was evil. Yeah that fits.
But I'm still lost because Stalin was "good" but not really. The Swiss were neither good or evil but they profited from the war from both sides which seems evil enough.
Mossalini was evil.
I guess, even when we look at situation as inherently evil as WWII Nazi Germany we are still confronted with shades of gray.
I really wish I could view the world through the lenses of those crawford glasses where the world isn't necessarily rose colored, but it is black and white. Viewing the world as black and white would make life soooo much easier, but that's not the way things really are. Thw world is a jumble of colors and shades of grays which can't be pigeon-holed as simple "Good" and "Evil".
Hey, if you can't see evil for what it is then no-one here can help you. I really feel sorry for some people that don't have that ability. You can make as many excuses as you want to, but it does not change the fact that there is a lot of evil in the world now and it is really up to each person to stand up for what is right to stop it. It starts at home.
When any person looks at a group of innocent people and sees killing them them as a way to forward some agenda, I call them evil. We are talking about terrorists and terroristic dictators here. If Stalin and Hitler fall in there fine, But let's talk today, post 9/11.
As far as your reasoning goes, it does not apply here. I never said what you are implying. I am talking from a purely american standpoint, that is what I know. But I think that the UN is not a force for good anymore, and especially when it came to Iraq. Some may call that evil, and if deaths were caused by their actions to fill their pockets, I call it that to.
You ever heard of the term "two faced"? Well there are a lot of countries and regimes that are that. Not, only that, a lot of times evil is done in secrecy, thus making it harder to identify.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You ever heard of the term "two faced"? Well there are a lot of countries and regimes that are that. Not, only that, a lot of times evil is done in secrecy, thus making it harder to identify.
I don't mean to start a US-bash; however, why is the US supporting Uzbekistan and Pakistan dictators and Saudia Arabia as well as undermining Venezuelan democracy? Why are WMD not evil and dangerous when we sell them to our friends, but evil and dangerous when our friends become enemies?
Isn't that two-faced?
The point being that these things you think are clear 'good' and 'evil' -- including the country you live in -- are not.
Richard Clark: National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism
Rand Beers: Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Combating Terrorism
Both are now teaching together at Harvard. Beers is committed to the kerry campaign.
You can also rest assured that Clarke has strong backing from a large chunk of the republican party.
So we have both of Bush's top terrorism advisors during 9.11 leaving and speaking out and we have the former treasury secretary speaking out.
Then we have all of ther other people that have blown the whistle on the admin.
There's a point, no matter how much you've invested in the current president, where you just have to recognize that the Bush admin needs to go.
Originally posted by giant
So we have both of Bush's top terrorism advisors during 9.11 leaving and speaking out and we have the former treasury secretary speaking out.
Wasn't O'Neill a security advisor as well?
Originally posted by faust9
O'Neill was treasury secratery.
yes, I know, but I *believe* that he either also sat on the NSC or was one of Bush's national security advisors in addition to serving as treasury sec.
Originally posted by midwinter
Wasn't O'Neill a security advisor as well?
Who cares . . obviously he's EVIL!!
Originally posted by faust9
I never heard that. Maybe he was. I'll do a google search.
Got it:
"As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council." (Source)
Cheers
Scott
This is bordering on Hysteria. A civil service lifer with ties to Kerry and who wasdemoted by Condi says she "looked skeptical", Bush "didn't tell him" to do this or that "but he just knew"? Clarke has his own "brilliant " past as well.
What?!
There have somehow been NO terrorist attacks in since 9/11 and Bush is some kind of evil buffoon?
Originally posted by dmz
Treasury Sec.
See my post above yours. O'Neill was on the NSC.
This is bordering on Hysteria. A civil service lifer with ties to Kerry and who wasdemoted by Condi says she "looked skeptical", Bush "didn't tell him" to do this or that "but he just knew"? Clarke has his own "brilliant " past as well.
What?!
I have no idea what this means.
There have somehow been NO terrorist attacks in since 9/11 and Bush is some kind of evil buffoon?
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Originally posted by dmz
Treasury Sec.
This is bordering on Hysteria. A civil service lifer with ties to Kerry and who wasdemoted by Condi says she "looked skeptical", Bush "didn't tell him" to do this or that "but he just knew"? Clarke has his own "brilliant " past as well.
What?!
There have somehow been NO terrorist attacks in since 9/11 and Bush is some kind of evil buffoon?
So, what is Al Qua'ida's historic timeline? What when and where have they attached in the past? What was the time span between attacks on US soil?
(After this; therefore because of this)