I never implied she was in charge of making those "structural" changes.
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Her refusal to take any responsibility for the "grave structural problems" within the US is also extremely disappointing.
Uhhh, no. I don't see where I said that her job was to make those changes. What I said was aimed at her not acknowledging she was part of those "structural problems"(to quote her)by virtue of being in the middle of them, and by not doing anything about them...i.e push for said changes. Instead she passed the buck by saying "it should've been done long ago" or something like that.
Everyone's minds were made up LONG before this thread was posted. Before the first tower fell, there were already those thinking "who can we MAKE PAY for this"- either militarily (Iraq, Afghanistan) or politically (Bush)
Wrong.
As much as I dislike Bush, for a long time after 9/11 I gave Bush and his administration the benefit of the doubt in regard to the attacks. I'm of the opinion that terrorism is frighteningly easy to commit, that small and determined groups can cause a great deal of destruction without sending out a lot of traceable signals or leaving easily traceable trails. I wasn't looking for anyone to blame other than the terrorists and their supporters.
This isn't to say I was filled with praise for Bush immediately following 9/11. He seemed to be doing a merely competent, not extraordinary, job dealing with the aftermath. Not being swept up onto the emotional "support our leader" bandwagon, however, is a far cry from placing any blame on his head.
There are many things that have angered me in regard to Bush and 9/11, but they were not immediate conclusions, they came out over time:
Hearing Bush deliberately try to deceive people in speech after speech that 9/11 and Iraq were linked, using tricks like always mentioning the two things together, while avoiding (at least after all such ties factually fell apart) actually saying Iraq and 9/11 were linked. This was a completely dishonest, Machiavellian abuse of public trust and abuse of a tragic event.
Finding out that (while I personally was completely surprised by the idea of airplanes being used as missiles, and was thus originally strongly inclined to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt) there was intelligence and research in this regard, and that there were people in the FBI already tracking suspicious behavior like flight school students practicing only how to steer big jets, but not how to take off or land.
Things like demoting the position of terrorism advisor from a cabinet to a staff position, and ignoring request after urgent request to hold high level meetings on the topic, while instead spending lots of time plotting how to sell going to war with Iraq from day one, and how to sell a stupid missile defense scheme.
Starting the job in Afghanistan, but not finishing it, leaving the country a mess that's quite likely to breed more, not less, trouble for us in the future -- again, obsessively going after and wasting our resources on Iraq instead.
Throwing away the international good will we had after 9/11.
While spouting off lip service about "freedom" all of the time, pursuing policies like the Patriot Act (especially the follow-up Patriot Act II) that fly in the face of truly valuing freedom.
How nothing of the mounting costs of pursuing his mostly misguided war against terror would shake Bush the slightest from cutting taxes again and again, mostly to the benefit of the wealthy.
The disgusting cronyism of profiteering off this war than the Bush administration supports.
Even with all of this, I'm not looking to blame the Bush administration for 9/11 in the sense of saying its their fault in some binary, hot-or-cold, just one-way-or-the other sense of absolute blame that so many people can't seem to break away from.
I do assign some portion of blame, however, to the Bush administration for not doing some fairly simple things that might have prevented 9/11. I assign a lot more blame for their response to 9/11, which started off (at least in a few ways) on the right track and then veered wildly off onto the wrong course.
I'm not ready to join the conspiracy crowd who thinks the Bush administration planned all of this from the start for purely venal reasons of politics and profiteering, but I do think such motives tainted the judgment of this administration.
But more so than placing blame, what really irks me is knowing how Bush wants to take credit for a completely bogus interpretation of these events -- 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq -- how he's trying to run on a platform of "strong leadership in challenging times", trying to paint himself as a strong defender and tear his opponent down as "weak on defense", even though Bush has been, being as generous as possible, no more than a mediocre leader -- and not being so generous, an incompetent one.
Just saw a recap of some of the main sections of testimony. When Rice stated that the August 6th memo was entitiled 'Bin Laden determined to attack the United States' I had to TiVo back three times before I could accept that the audio hadn't been doctored for yucks.
Still, as long as it was only a historical document...
I might add, however, that even though I 'know' better, I can't help but sometimes wonder, in the darker moments of the night, about the maliciously perfect fit that the conspiracy theory has with regards to the manner in which a well timed terrorist attack allowed a much coveted grand-scale military invasion to take place . . . perfect-fit except the light shows through the seams
But I know better and must concur with Shetline
and I would also point people to the 'Fact vs Claim' link that artman posted . . very salient!!!
Also, with regards to Shetline's point about Afghanistan, and R Clarke's point . . . and anybody willing to think about it . . .this just in: Warlord Takes Provincial Capital In Afghanistan
The false dichotomy is pretending that the only possibilities are (1) thinking everything you hear about terrorism is non-actionable ambient noise, and (2) Paranoid Fortress America.
You can't see that that's a blatant false dichotomy?
What about something in between, like, oh, I don't know... having kept Clarke at cabinet level instead of demoting him to staff, having paid attention to memo or two marked "URGENT", having held maybe one or two top-level meetings on terrorism, or how about this...
...taking some LEADERSHIP (we'll be seeing this word in a lot of Bush campaign ads, of course), and, like, say, if you know the CIA and FBI don't communicate to well, then when something important comes up making a few phone calls so the Whitehouse can be the conduit for vital information?
Based on Rice's testimony, Bush's campaign slogan should be "TRUST BUSH FOR LEADERSHIP THAT'S NOT HUGELY WORSE THAN ANYONE ELSE'S". How stirring... my flag is all aflutter now.
Nice posts Shetline, you continue to impress me with your reasoning. However, a couple comments.
I think that what you are calling a false dichotomy isn't actually. The image of fortress America would have taken hold with any steps taken that might have actually helped to prevent 9/11. More meetings, cabinet level positions and 'paying attention' to urgent memos would have been useless without action. The only actions that would have been effective would have resulted in the fortress America mindset and calls of paranoia. The American people would never have accepted seemingly overbearing limitations on their freedoms, given their pre-9/11 mindset. The problem is that organisations like al Qaeda focus on taking advantage of the freedoms of western society to launch their attacks. So, reasonably, the only way to prevent them is to limit freedoms, something I can't see US accepting pre-9/11. And, as soon as limitations on freedoms start being applied, even in a limited manner, Fortress America becomes a reality.
American policy towards terrorism has always been reactive because that's the way Americans have wanted it. All administrations, and western leaders in general, have been concerned with being accused of encouraging terrorism by confronting it preventatively, even post-9/11, though obviously less so. Even now, Bush is accused of unfairly constraining freedoms with the Patriot Act, and many on the Left screamed when the Admin authorised deadly force against individual Al Queda elements.
Rice's testimony only showed that the Bush admin was content to treat terrorism as their predecessors had, that is reactively. Sure, they could have made it their number one priority, but what if they had? Would you have been willing to give up some of your freedoms to prevent a possible attack that had no real precedent, based on intel that at best was vague? Even if the intel gave exact targets, do you think the American people would have accepted limitations of unspecified duration, for an unspecified threat?
One genuinely interesting news nugget came in Ms. Rice's opening statement. There she gave details of the Bush Administration's first major national security directive, completed September 4, 2001. It covered "not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaeda." Obviously this didn't prevent the events of a week later. But it does suggest, contra Richard Clarke, that the Administration was attentive to the terrorist threat.
One thing that is true thought is that the 9-11 Commission fell of it's goal long ago. The Democratic members found someone that was willing to skewer Bush for the Democrats' political gain. So now we have a political process injected into a Commission where it shouldn't be.
One genuinely interesting news nugget came in Ms. Rice's opening statement. There she gave details of the Bush Administration's first major national security directive, completed September 4, 2001. It covered "not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaeda." Obviously this didn't prevent the events of a week later. But it does suggest, contra Richard Clarke, that the Administration was attentive to the terrorist threat.
So let's see. This is 'contra Richard Clarke' even though what she was talking about was the 9.4.1 principals meeting Clarke finally got and the decision to try to implement Clarke's plan (sorry, 'series of actionable items' ), something he describes in detail in the book?
Tulkas, at this point it's clear that when the Bush admin entered office it made terrorism a lower priority, without a change in personal freedom. Many of the problems Clarke is talking about have little to do with personal freedom and everything to do with agency coordination and implementation of strategies.
Shetline is absolutely correct about your use of a false dichotomy. Improving interagency cooperation or even continuing to give NSC counter-terrorism efforts the attention that Clinton did would not have even been visible to the ordinary citizen, much less an invasion of his freedoms.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
Even now, Bush is accused of unfairly constraining freedoms with the Patriot Act
The patriot act was poorly crafted, and that's where the issues arise from.
After listening to Rice's testimony yesterday morning and then watching it on CSPAN last night I was less than impressed with Rice. She appeared to be trying to obfuscate her answers to the questions and (to me) seemed to ramble on, and on in an attempt to waste time.
I was looking for clear and concise answers (I should have known better) that would be understandable to the average person. I believe that the average voter will be left asking what the hell did she say? (which I believe is what was intended with her testimony)
Based on her testimony, the behavior of some in the bush administration and the buffoonish actions of bush I am quickly becoming disillusioned with the republican party (I've been a "member" for 15 years) and am now looking at some of the independent parties. The republican party has swung too far to the extremes (espically the religious extremes) for my taste.
The image of fortress America would have taken hold with any steps taken that might have actually helped to prevent 9/11.
The 2000 plot to bomb LA airport was foiled by arresting one guy. Did this create a Fortress America image? No.
Quote:
More meetings, cabinet level positions and 'paying attention' to urgent memos would have been useless without action.
What more meetings could have done is to transform vague information into clear, actionable information. More attention could have allowed us to put together existing data (like the flight school stuff -- very actionable in and of itself), make connections, and get the right people and agencies engaged.
Without realizing it, you seem to be advocating the position that you need to have specific information before there's a good reason to go looking for specific information. That of course makes no sense, unless you're looking for the perfect formula to excuse inaction and paralysis.
Quote:
The only actions that would have been effective would have resulted in the fortress America mindset and calls of paranoia. The American people would never have accepted seemingly overbearing limitations on their freedoms, given their pre-9/11 mindset.
If you're imagining that the only way we could have prevented 9/11 would have been to go into some high alert state with overbearing security, I disagree.
It's quite conceivable that at least of few of the hijackers could have been arrested simply based on what the FBI knew, and that investigation of those people could have led to finding more of the people involved in the plot. In the aftermath, these people and the connections between them were fairly easy to trace as it turned out.
Even if, after such arrests, a few hijackers still managed to go undetected, we would have been better prepared to deal with whatever hijackings still occurred. As ugly a decision as it would have been to make, a little more awareness of the real threat and we might have, if it came down to this, been able to scramble fighter jets to shoot down the hijacked planes, greatly reducing the number of deaths as well as the degree of physical damage and psychological trauma to our country.
I realize this is all hindsight, and like I've said before, I'm not saying that Bush absolutely could have and should have prevented 9/11, all I'm saying is there's a lot he could have done -- perfectly acceptable, not extreme nor upsetting things -- to lower our risks and make us safer, especially if Bush were anything like the "great leader" he and his campaign would like us to believe in.
Quote:
The problem is that organisations like al Qaeda focus on taking advantage of the freedoms of western society to launch their attacks. So, reasonably, the only way to prevent them is to limit freedoms, something I can't see US accepting pre-9/11. And, as soon as limitations on freedoms start being applied, even in a limited manner, Fortress America becomes a reality.
In a general case, yes, but in the specific case of 9/11, no. The 9/11 hijackers weren't anywhere near as careful as they theoretically could have been. Their pre-9/11 behavior sent out clearly suspicious signals, signals that would have only required a little more vigilance -- not any large-scale crackdown on freedom -- to detect and to act upon.
Quote:
American policy towards terrorism has always been reactive because that's the way Americans have wanted it. All administrations, and western leaders in general, have been concerned with being accused of encouraging terrorism by confronting it preventatively, even post-9/11, though obviously less so.
Although Richard Clarke didn't think Clinton did nearly enough against terrorism, it's clear that he thought that Clinton and his administration did more, and were more effective, than Bush and his administration in regards to terrorism.
There are degrees of bad, and if Clinton was bad, Bush was worse. As inadequate as previous administrations might have been at dealing with terrorism, Bush managed to take our ability to deal with terrorism a notch lower.
Quote:
Even now, Bush is accused of unfairly constraining freedoms with the Patriot Act, and many on the Left screamed when the Admin authorised deadly force against individual Al Queda elements.
The problem with the Patriot Act is in the details of the Act (Acts plural, actually). It's not like "toughness on terrorism" is a simple linear scale and the fight is merely over where to adjust the toughness setting. A big problem with Bush's approach is his grab for more and more unchecked executive power.
Also, I don't know how many your "many on the Left" is supposed to be, but even before 9/11, and especially after, I don't think hunting down Al Qaeda has been especially unpopular on either the Left or the Right.
Quote:
Rice's testimony only showed that the Bush admin was content to treat terrorism as their predecessors had, that is reactively.
Rice's testimony, when you take into account other info and read past the CYA, shows that the Bush administration did less than their predecessors, did less to "shake the trees" to even find out if there was anything to be reactive about.
Quote:
Sure, they could have made it their number one priority, but what if they had? Would you have been willing to give up some of your freedoms to prevent a possible attack that had no real precedent, based on intel that at best was vague? Even if the intel gave exact targets, do you think the American people would have accepted limitations of unspecified duration, for an unspecified threat?
More false dichotomy -- pretending there's an either/or here that simply isn't true. We'd have been safer if Bush had simply made terrorism a number 12 or number 15 priority, but terrorism was barely on the radar for him, and certainly a lower priority than it had been for Clinton.
If you're imagining that the only way we could have prevented 9/11 would have been to go into some high alert state with overbearing security, I disagree.
Relative to the mindset at the time, almost any, even mild constraints on freedoms would have been considered overbearing. Post-9/11 they might seem benign, even necessary, but prior to the attacks...I think the would have been viewed in a far less favourable light, even if today we wouldn't consider them overbearing.
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
It's quite conceivable that at least of few of the hijackers could have been arrested simply based on what the FBI knew, and that investigation of those people could have led to finding more of the people involved in the plot. In the aftermath, these people and the connections between them were fairly easy to trace as it turned out.
Even if, after such arrests, a few hijackers still managed to go undetected, we would have been better prepared to deal with whatever hijackings still occurred. As ugly a decision as it would have been to make, a little more awareness of the real threat and we might have, if it came down to this, been able to scramble fighter jets to shoot down the hijacked planes, greatly reducing the number of deaths as well as the degree of physical damage and psychological trauma to our country.
I realize this is all hindsight, and like I've said before, I'm not saying that Bush absolutely could have and should have prevented 9/11, all I'm saying is there's a lot he could have done -- perfectly acceptable, not extreme nor upsetting things -- to lower our risks and make us safer, especially if Bush were anything like the "great leader" he and his campaign would like us to believe in.
I think where we disagree is in what would have been necessary to truly prevent the attacks and what would have been considered paranoid fortress america policy, pre-9/11. Interagency cooperation, before 9/11, between the FBI and CIA would have raised flags all over Washington and the US in general about their seperation of responsibilities.
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
In a general case, yes, but in the specific case of 9/11, no. The 9/11 hijackers weren't anywhere near as careful as they theoretically could have been. Their pre-9/11 behavior sent out clearly suspicious signals, signals that would have only required a little more vigilance -- not any large-scale crackdown on freedom -- to detect and to act upon.
Here I think this would have required a change in the entire mindset regarding sharing of information and responsibilties between agencies. Even if the Bush admin was moving towards this, who could have thought that they had only a very few short months to implement the changes, or even formulate policy changes.
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Although Richard Clarke didn't think Clinton did nearly enough against terrorism, it's clear that he thought that Clinton and his administration did more, and were more effective, than Bush and his administration in regards to terrorism.
There are degrees of bad, and if Clinton was bad, Bush was worse. As inadequate as previous administrations might have been at dealing with terrorism, Bush managed to take our ability to deal with terrorism a notch lower.
You are right, there are degrees of bad, and they are very subjective. Clarke comes off as a very, very bitter man. I don't question his motivations or his patriotism or his desire to fight terrorism. What I do question is, that he sees both admins as failures, but his attitude towards what he sees and the Bush admin failures, seems very coloured by his personal bitterness towards Bush and Rice.
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Also, I don't know how many your "many on the Left" is supposed to be, but even before 9/11, and especially after, I don't think hunting down Al Qaeda has been especially unpopular on either the Left or the Right.
There were those that were saying hunting them down for assasination was wrong. The US should instead have tried capturing them and bringing to to trial.
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
More false dichotomy -- pretending there's an either/or here that simply isn't true. We'd have been safer if Bush had simply made terrorism a number 12 or number 15 priority, but terrorism was barely on the radar for him, and certainly a lower priority than it had been for Clinton.
This is where we diverge again. Indeed, you may have been safer, in general terms, or at least made some attacks some difficult. But, without some constraints on freedoms, i don't think 9/11 could have been prevented. Even today, with much better interagency cooperation (seemingly anyway), no one would claim that you are safe from an attack. Safer, perhaps, but not safe.
You are right, there are degrees of bad, and they are very subjective. Clarke comes off as a very, very bitter man. I don't question his motivations or his patriotism or his desire to fight terrorism. What I do question is, that he sees both admins as failures, but his attitude towards what he sees and the Bush admin failures, seems very coloured by his personal bitterness towards Bush and Rice.
It really amazes me, and I really mean amazes me, that people like you ignore a mountain of fact and try to turn this into something personal and subjective.
The facts as laid out by clarke, facts were are totally verified by government documents, all the way up to the presidential directive structuring the NSC, facts that are verified by Rice herself, facts that fit sqarely into the professional history of each admin member and facts that are verified by the actions of the administration all make it abundantly clear that the Bush admin put terrorism to a lower priority than the Clinton administration.
The most basic of these facts is that the counter-terrorism advisor was removed from the principals committee and the committee did not have a focused meeting on terrorism until Sept 4th. There is nothing more you need to see that it clearly was not considered as urgent under Bush as it was under clinton. Case closed. Adapt your opinion to the facts or your beliefs will continue to be false.
The 9/11 events could have been altered by changing the policy for hijackings and locking up the cockpit. The changed policy would be having the crew and passangers defend the airplane instead of giving into the demands of the hijackers. Locking up the cockpit would involve putting a locking bar on the door, like was done after Sept 11.
Shetline is absolutely correct about your use of a false dichotomy. Improving interagency cooperation or even continuing to give NSC counter-terrorism efforts the attention that Clinton did would not have even been visible to the ordinary citizen, much less an invasion of his freedoms.
Interagency cooperation often raises controversy over things like personal privacy and freedoms. Look at the complaints when states try to share information. Accusations of big-brother and loss of personal freedoms come out, even when the cooperation is needed. Seperation between CIA and FBI was institutional for a reason. Pre-9/11 it was a delicate balancing act to get the 2 agencies communcating with appearing to cross the line of foreign and domestic responsibilities.
Anyway, I appreciate you replying to my post without getting personal. I truly enjoy reading your view points (especially when my lack of intelligence or background on the topic aren't questioned).
The 9/11 events could have been altered by changing the policy for hijackings and locking up the cockpit. The changed policy would be having the crew and passangers defend the airplane instead of giving into the demands of the hijackers. Locking up the cockpit would involve putting a locking bar on the door, like was done after Sept 11.
Absolutly. And this should have been done 30 or 40 years ago.
Interagency cooperation often raises controversy over things like personal privacy and freedoms. Look at the complaints when states try to share information.
See, this is the problem. We aren't talking about states in a hypothetical situation, we are talking about the NSC and whether there was active effort to retrieve information, formulate policy and implement that policy. And we don't need to deal with hypotheticals at all since we are talking about people in the real world, events that actually happened and about which there was actual information.
One thing we've often heard through this are comments by people in various agengies saying that they would have done more had they been told by the NSC that they needed to.
Comments
Originally posted by Gilsch
I never implied she was in charge of making those "structural" changes.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Her refusal to take any responsibility for the "grave structural problems" within the US is also extremely disappointing.
Uhhh, no. I don't see where I said that her job was to make those changes. What I said was aimed at her not acknowledging she was part of those "structural problems"(to quote her)by virtue of being in the middle of them, and by not doing anything about them...i.e push for said changes. Instead she passed the buck by saying "it should've been done long ago" or something like that.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Everyone's minds were made up LONG before this thread was posted. Before the first tower fell, there were already those thinking "who can we MAKE PAY for this"- either militarily (Iraq, Afghanistan) or politically (Bush)
Wrong.
As much as I dislike Bush, for a long time after 9/11 I gave Bush and his administration the benefit of the doubt in regard to the attacks. I'm of the opinion that terrorism is frighteningly easy to commit, that small and determined groups can cause a great deal of destruction without sending out a lot of traceable signals or leaving easily traceable trails. I wasn't looking for anyone to blame other than the terrorists and their supporters.
This isn't to say I was filled with praise for Bush immediately following 9/11. He seemed to be doing a merely competent, not extraordinary, job dealing with the aftermath. Not being swept up onto the emotional "support our leader" bandwagon, however, is a far cry from placing any blame on his head.
There are many things that have angered me in regard to Bush and 9/11, but they were not immediate conclusions, they came out over time:
- Hearing Bush deliberately try to deceive people in speech after speech that 9/11 and Iraq were linked, using tricks like always mentioning the two things together, while avoiding (at least after all such ties factually fell apart) actually saying Iraq and 9/11 were linked. This was a completely dishonest, Machiavellian abuse of public trust and abuse of a tragic event.
- Finding out that (while I personally was completely surprised by the idea of airplanes being used as missiles, and was thus originally strongly inclined to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt) there was intelligence and research in this regard, and that there were people in the FBI already tracking suspicious behavior like flight school students practicing only how to steer big jets, but not how to take off or land.
- Things like demoting the position of terrorism advisor from a cabinet to a staff position, and ignoring request after urgent request to hold high level meetings on the topic, while instead spending lots of time plotting how to sell going to war with Iraq from day one, and how to sell a stupid missile defense scheme.
- Starting the job in Afghanistan, but not finishing it, leaving the country a mess that's quite likely to breed more, not less, trouble for us in the future -- again, obsessively going after and wasting our resources on Iraq instead.
- Throwing away the international good will we had after 9/11.
- While spouting off lip service about "freedom" all of the time, pursuing policies like the Patriot Act (especially the follow-up Patriot Act II) that fly in the face of truly valuing freedom.
- How nothing of the mounting costs of pursuing his mostly misguided war against terror would shake Bush the slightest from cutting taxes again and again, mostly to the benefit of the wealthy.
- The disgusting cronyism of profiteering off this war than the Bush administration supports.
Even with all of this, I'm not looking to blame the Bush administration for 9/11 in the sense of saying its their fault in some binary, hot-or-cold, just one-way-or-the other sense of absolute blame that so many people can't seem to break away from.I do assign some portion of blame, however, to the Bush administration for not doing some fairly simple things that might have prevented 9/11. I assign a lot more blame for their response to 9/11, which started off (at least in a few ways) on the right track and then veered wildly off onto the wrong course.
I'm not ready to join the conspiracy crowd who thinks the Bush administration planned all of this from the start for purely venal reasons of politics and profiteering, but I do think such motives tainted the judgment of this administration.
But more so than placing blame, what really irks me is knowing how Bush wants to take credit for a completely bogus interpretation of these events -- 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq -- how he's trying to run on a platform of "strong leadership in challenging times", trying to paint himself as a strong defender and tear his opponent down as "weak on defense", even though Bush has been, being as generous as possible, no more than a mediocre leader -- and not being so generous, an incompetent one.
Originally posted by shetline
[*]Throwing away the international good will we had after 9/11.
Extremely good point, and one that I feel isn't discussed enough.
by "drwiii" on Fark.com
where the flame war has
gone past infinity.
Claim vs. Fact Condoleeza Rice's Opening Statement
Still, as long as it was only a historical document...
I might add, however, that even though I 'know' better, I can't help but sometimes wonder, in the darker moments of the night, about the maliciously perfect fit that the conspiracy theory has with regards to the manner in which a well timed terrorist attack allowed a much coveted grand-scale military invasion to take place . . . perfect-fit except the light shows through the seams
But I know better and must concur with Shetline
and I would also point people to the 'Fact vs Claim' link that artman posted . . very salient!!!
Originally posted by shetline
The false dichotomy is pretending that the only possibilities are (1) thinking everything you hear about terrorism is non-actionable ambient noise, and (2) Paranoid Fortress America.
You can't see that that's a blatant false dichotomy?
What about something in between, like, oh, I don't know... having kept Clarke at cabinet level instead of demoting him to staff, having paid attention to memo or two marked "URGENT", having held maybe one or two top-level meetings on terrorism, or how about this...
...taking some LEADERSHIP (we'll be seeing this word in a lot of Bush campaign ads, of course), and, like, say, if you know the CIA and FBI don't communicate to well, then when something important comes up making a few phone calls so the Whitehouse can be the conduit for vital information?
Based on Rice's testimony, Bush's campaign slogan should be "TRUST BUSH FOR LEADERSHIP THAT'S NOT HUGELY WORSE THAN ANYONE ELSE'S". How stirring... my flag is all aflutter now.
Nice posts Shetline, you continue to impress me with your reasoning. However, a couple comments.
I think that what you are calling a false dichotomy isn't actually. The image of fortress America would have taken hold with any steps taken that might have actually helped to prevent 9/11. More meetings, cabinet level positions and 'paying attention' to urgent memos would have been useless without action. The only actions that would have been effective would have resulted in the fortress America mindset and calls of paranoia. The American people would never have accepted seemingly overbearing limitations on their freedoms, given their pre-9/11 mindset. The problem is that organisations like al Qaeda focus on taking advantage of the freedoms of western society to launch their attacks. So, reasonably, the only way to prevent them is to limit freedoms, something I can't see US accepting pre-9/11. And, as soon as limitations on freedoms start being applied, even in a limited manner, Fortress America becomes a reality.
American policy towards terrorism has always been reactive because that's the way Americans have wanted it. All administrations, and western leaders in general, have been concerned with being accused of encouraging terrorism by confronting it preventatively, even post-9/11, though obviously less so. Even now, Bush is accused of unfairly constraining freedoms with the Patriot Act, and many on the Left screamed when the Admin authorised deadly force against individual Al Queda elements.
Rice's testimony only showed that the Bush admin was content to treat terrorism as their predecessors had, that is reactively. Sure, they could have made it their number one priority, but what if they had? Would you have been willing to give up some of your freedoms to prevent a possible attack that had no real precedent, based on intel that at best was vague? Even if the intel gave exact targets, do you think the American people would have accepted limitations of unspecified duration, for an unspecified threat?
Originally posted by Tulkas
....
Rice's testimony only showed that the Bush admin was content to treat terrorism as their predecessors had, that is reactively. ...
No it doesn't show that at all. We're you paying attention or just making up a notion you want to be true?
Here
One genuinely interesting news nugget came in Ms. Rice's opening statement. There she gave details of the Bush Administration's first major national security directive, completed September 4, 2001. It covered "not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaeda." Obviously this didn't prevent the events of a week later. But it does suggest, contra Richard Clarke, that the Administration was attentive to the terrorist threat.
One thing that is true thought is that the 9-11 Commission fell of it's goal long ago. The Democratic members found someone that was willing to skewer Bush for the Democrats' political gain. So now we have a political process injected into a Commission where it shouldn't be.
[B]Here
One genuinely interesting news nugget came in Ms. Rice's opening statement. There she gave details of the Bush Administration's first major national security directive, completed September 4, 2001. It covered "not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaeda." Obviously this didn't prevent the events of a week later. But it does suggest, contra Richard Clarke, that the Administration was attentive to the terrorist threat.
So let's see. This is 'contra Richard Clarke' even though what she was talking about was the 9.4.1 principals meeting Clarke finally got and the decision to try to implement Clarke's plan (sorry, 'series of actionable items'
WSJ editorial page is such total garbage.
Shetline is absolutely correct about your use of a false dichotomy. Improving interagency cooperation or even continuing to give NSC counter-terrorism efforts the attention that Clinton did would not have even been visible to the ordinary citizen, much less an invasion of his freedoms.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Even now, Bush is accused of unfairly constraining freedoms with the Patriot Act
The patriot act was poorly crafted, and that's where the issues arise from.
After listening to Rice's testimony yesterday morning and then watching it on CSPAN last night I was less than impressed with Rice. She appeared to be trying to obfuscate her answers to the questions and (to me) seemed to ramble on, and on in an attempt to waste time.
I was looking for clear and concise answers (I should have known better) that would be understandable to the average person. I believe that the average voter will be left asking what the hell did she say? (which I believe is what was intended with her testimony)
Based on her testimony, the behavior of some in the bush administration and the buffoonish actions of bush I am quickly becoming disillusioned with the republican party (I've been a "member" for 15 years) and am now looking at some of the independent parties. The republican party has swung too far to the extremes (espically the religious extremes) for my taste.
Originally posted by Tulkas
The image of fortress America would have taken hold with any steps taken that might have actually helped to prevent 9/11.
The 2000 plot to bomb LA airport was foiled by arresting one guy. Did this create a Fortress America image? No.
More meetings, cabinet level positions and 'paying attention' to urgent memos would have been useless without action.
What more meetings could have done is to transform vague information into clear, actionable information. More attention could have allowed us to put together existing data (like the flight school stuff -- very actionable in and of itself), make connections, and get the right people and agencies engaged.
Without realizing it, you seem to be advocating the position that you need to have specific information before there's a good reason to go looking for specific information. That of course makes no sense, unless you're looking for the perfect formula to excuse inaction and paralysis.
The only actions that would have been effective would have resulted in the fortress America mindset and calls of paranoia. The American people would never have accepted seemingly overbearing limitations on their freedoms, given their pre-9/11 mindset.
If you're imagining that the only way we could have prevented 9/11 would have been to go into some high alert state with overbearing security, I disagree.
It's quite conceivable that at least of few of the hijackers could have been arrested simply based on what the FBI knew, and that investigation of those people could have led to finding more of the people involved in the plot. In the aftermath, these people and the connections between them were fairly easy to trace as it turned out.
Even if, after such arrests, a few hijackers still managed to go undetected, we would have been better prepared to deal with whatever hijackings still occurred. As ugly a decision as it would have been to make, a little more awareness of the real threat and we might have, if it came down to this, been able to scramble fighter jets to shoot down the hijacked planes, greatly reducing the number of deaths as well as the degree of physical damage and psychological trauma to our country.
I realize this is all hindsight, and like I've said before, I'm not saying that Bush absolutely could have and should have prevented 9/11, all I'm saying is there's a lot he could have done -- perfectly acceptable, not extreme nor upsetting things -- to lower our risks and make us safer, especially if Bush were anything like the "great leader" he and his campaign would like us to believe in.
The problem is that organisations like al Qaeda focus on taking advantage of the freedoms of western society to launch their attacks. So, reasonably, the only way to prevent them is to limit freedoms, something I can't see US accepting pre-9/11. And, as soon as limitations on freedoms start being applied, even in a limited manner, Fortress America becomes a reality.
In a general case, yes, but in the specific case of 9/11, no. The 9/11 hijackers weren't anywhere near as careful as they theoretically could have been. Their pre-9/11 behavior sent out clearly suspicious signals, signals that would have only required a little more vigilance -- not any large-scale crackdown on freedom -- to detect and to act upon.
American policy towards terrorism has always been reactive because that's the way Americans have wanted it. All administrations, and western leaders in general, have been concerned with being accused of encouraging terrorism by confronting it preventatively, even post-9/11, though obviously less so.
Although Richard Clarke didn't think Clinton did nearly enough against terrorism, it's clear that he thought that Clinton and his administration did more, and were more effective, than Bush and his administration in regards to terrorism.
There are degrees of bad, and if Clinton was bad, Bush was worse. As inadequate as previous administrations might have been at dealing with terrorism, Bush managed to take our ability to deal with terrorism a notch lower.
Even now, Bush is accused of unfairly constraining freedoms with the Patriot Act, and many on the Left screamed when the Admin authorised deadly force against individual Al Queda elements.
The problem with the Patriot Act is in the details of the Act (Acts plural, actually). It's not like "toughness on terrorism" is a simple linear scale and the fight is merely over where to adjust the toughness setting. A big problem with Bush's approach is his grab for more and more unchecked executive power.
Also, I don't know how many your "many on the Left" is supposed to be, but even before 9/11, and especially after, I don't think hunting down Al Qaeda has been especially unpopular on either the Left or the Right.
Rice's testimony only showed that the Bush admin was content to treat terrorism as their predecessors had, that is reactively.
Rice's testimony, when you take into account other info and read past the CYA, shows that the Bush administration did less than their predecessors, did less to "shake the trees" to even find out if there was anything to be reactive about.
Sure, they could have made it their number one priority, but what if they had? Would you have been willing to give up some of your freedoms to prevent a possible attack that had no real precedent, based on intel that at best was vague? Even if the intel gave exact targets, do you think the American people would have accepted limitations of unspecified duration, for an unspecified threat?
More false dichotomy -- pretending there's an either/or here that simply isn't true. We'd have been safer if Bush had simply made terrorism a number 12 or number 15 priority, but terrorism was barely on the radar for him, and certainly a lower priority than it had been for Clinton.
Originally posted by shetline
If you're imagining that the only way we could have prevented 9/11 would have been to go into some high alert state with overbearing security, I disagree.
Relative to the mindset at the time, almost any, even mild constraints on freedoms would have been considered overbearing. Post-9/11 they might seem benign, even necessary, but prior to the attacks...I think the would have been viewed in a far less favourable light, even if today we wouldn't consider them overbearing.
Originally posted by shetline
It's quite conceivable that at least of few of the hijackers could have been arrested simply based on what the FBI knew, and that investigation of those people could have led to finding more of the people involved in the plot. In the aftermath, these people and the connections between them were fairly easy to trace as it turned out.
Even if, after such arrests, a few hijackers still managed to go undetected, we would have been better prepared to deal with whatever hijackings still occurred. As ugly a decision as it would have been to make, a little more awareness of the real threat and we might have, if it came down to this, been able to scramble fighter jets to shoot down the hijacked planes, greatly reducing the number of deaths as well as the degree of physical damage and psychological trauma to our country.
I realize this is all hindsight, and like I've said before, I'm not saying that Bush absolutely could have and should have prevented 9/11, all I'm saying is there's a lot he could have done -- perfectly acceptable, not extreme nor upsetting things -- to lower our risks and make us safer, especially if Bush were anything like the "great leader" he and his campaign would like us to believe in.
I think where we disagree is in what would have been necessary to truly prevent the attacks and what would have been considered paranoid fortress america policy, pre-9/11. Interagency cooperation, before 9/11, between the FBI and CIA would have raised flags all over Washington and the US in general about their seperation of responsibilities.
Originally posted by shetline
In a general case, yes, but in the specific case of 9/11, no. The 9/11 hijackers weren't anywhere near as careful as they theoretically could have been. Their pre-9/11 behavior sent out clearly suspicious signals, signals that would have only required a little more vigilance -- not any large-scale crackdown on freedom -- to detect and to act upon.
Here I think this would have required a change in the entire mindset regarding sharing of information and responsibilties between agencies. Even if the Bush admin was moving towards this, who could have thought that they had only a very few short months to implement the changes, or even formulate policy changes.
Originally posted by shetline
Although Richard Clarke didn't think Clinton did nearly enough against terrorism, it's clear that he thought that Clinton and his administration did more, and were more effective, than Bush and his administration in regards to terrorism.
There are degrees of bad, and if Clinton was bad, Bush was worse. As inadequate as previous administrations might have been at dealing with terrorism, Bush managed to take our ability to deal with terrorism a notch lower.
You are right, there are degrees of bad, and they are very subjective. Clarke comes off as a very, very bitter man. I don't question his motivations or his patriotism or his desire to fight terrorism. What I do question is, that he sees both admins as failures, but his attitude towards what he sees and the Bush admin failures, seems very coloured by his personal bitterness towards Bush and Rice.
Originally posted by shetline
Also, I don't know how many your "many on the Left" is supposed to be, but even before 9/11, and especially after, I don't think hunting down Al Qaeda has been especially unpopular on either the Left or the Right.
There were those that were saying hunting them down for assasination was wrong. The US should instead have tried capturing them and bringing to to trial.
Originally posted by shetline
More false dichotomy -- pretending there's an either/or here that simply isn't true. We'd have been safer if Bush had simply made terrorism a number 12 or number 15 priority, but terrorism was barely on the radar for him, and certainly a lower priority than it had been for Clinton.
This is where we diverge again. Indeed, you may have been safer, in general terms, or at least made some attacks some difficult. But, without some constraints on freedoms, i don't think 9/11 could have been prevented. Even today, with much better interagency cooperation (seemingly anyway), no one would claim that you are safe from an attack. Safer, perhaps, but not safe.
Originally posted by Tulkas
You are right, there are degrees of bad, and they are very subjective. Clarke comes off as a very, very bitter man. I don't question his motivations or his patriotism or his desire to fight terrorism. What I do question is, that he sees both admins as failures, but his attitude towards what he sees and the Bush admin failures, seems very coloured by his personal bitterness towards Bush and Rice.
It really amazes me, and I really mean amazes me, that people like you ignore a mountain of fact and try to turn this into something personal and subjective.
The facts as laid out by clarke, facts were are totally verified by government documents, all the way up to the presidential directive structuring the NSC, facts that are verified by Rice herself, facts that fit sqarely into the professional history of each admin member and facts that are verified by the actions of the administration all make it abundantly clear that the Bush admin put terrorism to a lower priority than the Clinton administration.
The most basic of these facts is that the counter-terrorism advisor was removed from the principals committee and the committee did not have a focused meeting on terrorism until Sept 4th. There is nothing more you need to see that it clearly was not considered as urgent under Bush as it was under clinton. Case closed. Adapt your opinion to the facts or your beliefs will continue to be false.
Originally posted by giant
Shetline is absolutely correct about your use of a false dichotomy. Improving interagency cooperation or even continuing to give NSC counter-terrorism efforts the attention that Clinton did would not have even been visible to the ordinary citizen, much less an invasion of his freedoms.
Interagency cooperation often raises controversy over things like personal privacy and freedoms. Look at the complaints when states try to share information. Accusations of big-brother and loss of personal freedoms come out, even when the cooperation is needed. Seperation between CIA and FBI was institutional for a reason. Pre-9/11 it was a delicate balancing act to get the 2 agencies communcating with appearing to cross the line of foreign and domestic responsibilities.
Anyway, I appreciate you replying to my post without getting personal. I truly enjoy reading your view points (especially when my lack of intelligence or background on the topic aren't questioned).
Originally posted by THT
The 9/11 events could have been altered by changing the policy for hijackings and locking up the cockpit. The changed policy would be having the crew and passangers defend the airplane instead of giving into the demands of the hijackers. Locking up the cockpit would involve putting a locking bar on the door, like was done after Sept 11.
Absolutly. And this should have been done 30 or 40 years ago.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Interagency cooperation often raises controversy over things like personal privacy and freedoms. Look at the complaints when states try to share information.
See, this is the problem. We aren't talking about states in a hypothetical situation, we are talking about the NSC and whether there was active effort to retrieve information, formulate policy and implement that policy. And we don't need to deal with hypotheticals at all since we are talking about people in the real world, events that actually happened and about which there was actual information.
One thing we've often heard through this are comments by people in various agengies saying that they would have done more had they been told by the NSC that they needed to.