It seems that Mr. Clarke's book and some of his testimony before the 9/11 commision is not backed up by the facts! Mr. Clarke credits the capture of a terrorist in 2000, in Washington State, to his and the Clinton adiminstration's supposed aggressive attempt to stop terrorism with National warnings. The so called Millenium conspiracy terrorist. The fact is it was good work on the part of 1 boarder patrol officer and not because of any warning that came down from on high. A fact STATED by NSA Rice and BACKED up by former AG RENO! Confirmmed by the officers that were in on the arrest.(I'll leave it up to you guys to find the links) It was Blind ass luck, this terrorist happened to catch malaria and was sweating and nervious. IT was much later that Law enforcement found out he was a terrorist, the officers thought he was trying to smuggle drugs! not a terrorist that they were supposed to be looking out for because High level officials had warned anybody about a creditable terrorist threat!!!

Louis Freeh Slammed the technics(sp?) started by previous administration, "You can't stop people that wish to use bombs and missles with warrants and inditments",(paraphased by me). The pusuit of terrorist by law enforcement ain't going to cut it! These people aren't trying to commit crimes they are trying to KILL us and destroy our country and way of life. THAT IS WAR, not law breaking! Mr Freeh also states He met with President Bush 4 days into his term of office on terrorism, 4 DAYS into a new administration! Sounds like President Bush wasn't intereasted in Al Queada to me! And as has been stated by me before the Bush administration was working on a NEW way of dealing with Al Queada, NEW and differant from before. Things like that take time to impliment(sp?) exspecaily when a new adminstration is JUST taking power here in the U.S.A. President Bush was pursuing the current/former way of approaching Al Queada until a NEW way could be formulated and put into ACTION!

The great much touted PDB of 6 Aug.,2001 turns out to be about looking for U.S. citizens recruited for Al Queada and NOT Foreign Nationals here in the U.S.A.! Looking for EXPLOSIVES! Not Hijacking of Airplanes and flying them into buildings! The hijacking mentioned in the PDB were thought to be the normal MO used of taking hostages(SP?), not using the airplanes was weapons. This Much touted PDB had everybody looking in the WRONG places!!! And since Mr. Clarke seems to, or others seem to credit Mr. Clarke for this PDB, he should be, or others should blame him for sending people to look in the wrong places! He should have apologized, he is a Whiskey Delta and screwed the pooch.
Unlike the memo of late '95 or early '96, while Mr. Clarke HEADED/CHAIRED the NSC on terrorism, that SPECIFICLY stated that Al Queada wanted hijack airplanes and fly them into the Pentagon, U.S. Capital Building, and prominate(sp?) Skyscrapers. Something that was KNOWN at least 5 years BEFORE President Bush became the President of the U.S.A. While he was STILL GOVENOR of the State of Texas!

The fact is 9/11 was a terrible tradgety(sp?) and people want to blame somebody. point a finger at somebody and say YOU are at fault. When there is somebody to blame UBL and Al Queada!!! They are the SOB's that carried out the mass killings on 11 Sept., 2001. Not President Bush, not President Clinton, not even Mr. Clarke!

I'm still sticking with Clarke, but I hate to disappoint you John. I'm not a REAL liberal, I'm very conservative with my money. Don't tell anyone though, I don't want anyone to think I'm a Republican! :D

Mark

In law we have this notion called "foreseeability." It requires that you know your action/inaction is likely to result in a foreseeable type of harm. Under this standard, no one in the government, past or preset, would be held accountable for 9/11. It was simply too outlandish -- and the fact that Hollywood may have hypothesized it makes it only that more unforeseeable.

It is only now that we know the terrorists were seeking "blockbuster" plots that were aimed at being "Hollywood-ish."

I don't think that it's outlandish to consider that someone might hijack an aircraft. What they do with the aircraft can not be predicted - but the actual act of hijacking is predictable and has been done many times before.

And as the 9/11 commission has seen, there was warning of a possible hijacking - which means that the deaths of those on the planes was at least 'foreseeable' - if not those in the WTC towers.

In threat-assessment there is also a notion called "prioritizing". So far the evidence (from Clark, not to mention from gift-horses own mouth) points that after the Bush team took office, they didn't make Al Queda or terrorism the highest priority in the threat heirarchy until after 9-11 although *many* warning signs were in place.

To say an attack on American soil, via the airlines or otherwise was unforeseeable, denies the facts of the matter and history. Just becasue we didn't get a fax from Bin Ladin stating the time, place, and method of attack doesn't mean it was unforeseeable.

The grand lesson, ladies and gentlemen:

Don't hang your hat on anyone. They're bound to screw it up sometime. So just stick to ideas and facts that show how your ideas work/could work in the real world, and you win...

Now, according to the Ramayana, a hidden truth supports everything, find it, and win. One of the earliest endorsements for the persuit of pure knowledge. Individuals are flawed, institutions more so. Ideas based on either of these having flaws have an innate wisdom, but ultimately are subject to human failures.

As for a commentator who has to lie or mislead, or use propaganda tactics to argue a point, we all know damn well why you shouldn't trust that sort of person.

No shit, Dick Tracey.
Exactly my point.

As for the deaths of those on the planes -- well, you do realize that heretofore hijackings were something that could be corrected after the fact, right. I remember all those movies and video games from the late 80s and all through the 90s where the terrorists took hostages in the plane, and the counterterrorism units specialized in getting them out. Passenger 57 and Air Force One were the way terrorism was seen.

Which is why I brought up foreseeability.

Not according to Louis Freeh, maybe Clarke, who also said he was the only one in the Clinton administration that was worried about Al Queda, but the Bush adminstration did start doing something. Now he's the only one in the Bush administration that was worried about Al Queda, and it was the Clinton administration that was doing something? Sounds like the boy wants to be the lone voice in the wilderness crying out, no matter which wilderness it is.

You are exactly correct T.L. It was not the fault of Pres.Bush, or even Pres. Clinton ( as much as it pains me to say that ;) ) I don't think it was Hollywood that invisioned it but Tom Clancey, in debt of honor IIRC ;)

The problem I'm having with these blame Pres. Bush crowd is they ingor the Fact that by 1996 the Clinton administration had the intel outlining the Exact plan that was used, and did little for at least 4 years!!!!!!!!!!!!
But they want to blame Pres. Bush who had just been in office for 8 months! I'm not a math wiz but 4 years=48 months 8 months=8months, so in order to Blame Pres. Bush they must place 6 times the blame on Pres. Clinton. That's just on a time basis, not even taking into account that there was an administration change and the Bush White House had to form a new cabinet, appoint people to positions, review what info was left them by the Clinton White House, in short come up to speed. "Hale" Pres. Clinton wrote a 45,000 word memo and NOT ! SINGLE WORD mentioned Al Queda and any threat from them.

IMHO These Bush haters can not see clearly enough to admitt things like that because their desire to prove Pres. Bush is wrong is greater then their desire think logicly. They will complain about being called a Bush hater, instead of addressing why their complaint against Pres. Bush is valid using their evidence. But evidence against Pres. Clinton is not Valid!!!

<font color="#C4C1CA">
Getting back to the real world that the President is supposed to be living in, hijacking is a commonplace crime which rarely ends without severe loss of life and economic disruption and can never be corrected after the act.

Once people have been killed and the economy has been disrupted, as magical as the Special Forces guys might seem, their high-tech wands don't seem capable of resurecting the dead and repairing the damage.

The safety and security of US citizens is a primary responsibility of the President - not settling family feuds with foreign leaders.
</font>

I'll take the bait.

My "complaints" against Bush are based on his policy desicions, the consequences of those decisions, the people he has chosen as his cohorts, and his general ideaology. I have a list somewhere of nearly 1,000 reasons why I disagree with Bush policy/ideology/cohorts ranging from economics to foreign policy. I don't hate him and I dont blame him either, and as much as you would rather change the subject from Bush's shortcomings to the people who notice them, I now could careless if you call me a Bush-hater. I'll simply refute that as a giant red herring, smoke and mirrors and a big dodge of the real issues at hand. So go ahead and try to paint a general picture of Bush critics as a bunch of haters lacking mental faculties. Your wrong, its obvious- and thats is that. Assigning blame is pointless- assigning responsiblity and holding people accountable is what really counts.

All the evidence is valid, and I await the 9-11 commissions final report.

I don't disregard evidence Bush wasn't on point with regards to pre-9/11 counter-terror and I dont dis-regard any evidence that Clinton wasn't on point either.

Here I'll try my hand at it:

Why is it Bushies feel the need to invoke Clinton whenever a little bit of critisim, a wee call for full disclosure and accountabiltiy is pitched their guys way? You would think the Bush administration could stand on it's own without compare to the last one.

Getting back to the real real world, prior to 9/11, the way I saw it, I'd rather have my gummint spend time trying to make decisions regarding the economy, environment, etc. that affect thousands every day rather than spend a ton of money just to stop a terrorist from killing 20, 40, or 60 people. Prior to 9/11, terrorism really was, quite rightly, seen as something that was less important than most other things by several magnitudes.

In fact, while it's a single tragedy of awesome proportions, even the 3000+ that died during 9/11 are minor blips on the "social health and welfare" radar when compared to the people who die from pollution, car wrecks, smoking, etc. What makes it so much more important now, is the terror itself has a widespread effect on the population, over and above the deaths of individuals.

<font color="#C4C1CA">
It was always important - it's just that with the previous and more vigilant presidents at the helm, it was kept at bay to such an extent that no-one else in the US realised the extent of the threat. It was only when the current President failed in his duty to give it due consideration that Americans began to fully appreciate the sterling efforts of previous Presidents to protect them.
</font>

What utter BS. You post so many thoughtful things, and then you reveal your underlying premises which are so shoddy they are laughable. The other presidents skated by on luck. Just luck. Bush was doing no more or less than they were. He was in office for 8 whole months.

I hope your post was a tongue-in-cheek remark, because it really makes me doubt your overall capacity to debate these issues.

I have to mostly agree with TL on this one Skunk (cough cough splutter ;) ). The other presidents were lucky to avoid this and Bush was not as fortunate.

I support the opinion that is coming through from Clarke and O'Neill that Bush was obsessed with completing Daddy's War and that this took much of his focus, but in regard to the twin towers you can't pin that on the unfortunate schmo who happened to be in office at the time.

Mind you, I am betting the repugs would have gone just as hard after Slick Willie if it had happened on his watch, and that some (not all) of the repug debaters on this thread would be arging different and more aggressive approaches in that case.

What utter BS. You post so many thoughtful things, and then you reveal your underlying premises which are so shoddy they are laughable. The other presidents skated by on luck. Just luck. Bush was doing no more or less than they were. He was in office for 8 whole months.

I hope your post was a tongue-in-cheek remark, because it really makes me doubt your overall capacity to debate these issues. </font>[/QUOTE]For EIGHT WHOLE MONTHS the country was left wide open to attack - and thus the attack on domestic soil became inevitable. You provide the points that counter your own arguments so I hope your post was a tongue-in-cheek remark, because it really makes me doubt your overall capacity to debate these issues.

*bangs head on desk*

I'm done with you for a while. Wide open? You're wrong, and so wrong that it's not worth my time to try to explain it to you. This is a mistake at the remedial level. Which I don't understand because you say some smart things. Never mind, if you don't get it, you don't get it.

Chewbacca, in your reply there are approx. 50 of the words, that could be said to explain your difference with President Bush. The next approx. 195 words are addressing the Bush hate, a ratio of 4:1 you make the call, I calls'em like I sees'em. I don't care if anybody hates President Bush because they think his eyes are to close together, don't like the way he walks/talks, parts his hair/etc. I eagerly await the 6:1 words about not being on point for the previous administration, to what has been posted so far for the current one. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Here's the main difference twix me and thee: I don't give damn about who's at fault, I give a damn about fixx'n it. We can play the blame game all the way back to Adam & Eve, because if Adam hadn't bumped uglies with Eve none of us would be around to even debate this. ;)

Because the Clintonnestas ingor their boy's role is matters while trying to focus only on President Bush's role.

Skunk you said you were in the military right? So the intire time you were in the military every exercise you were on was done immedietly(sp?) every war game you were in was started as soon as the words left the commanding officers mouth? Or did all those have to be planned and have logistics gather everthing first? If the exercises had to have logisics first how long did that take? Unless you are saying you had a teliportation device, that could instantly transprot the resources and personnel to where they were needed, it took time to get them there, AFTER A PLAN WAS FORMED!!!!!. In forming the plans are you saying it was instantious(sp?)? no working out of problems , no looking for potinial problems? everything was correct and right in the very instant the thought of a possible plan entered the comanding officer's mind?

Tell me John, what is your summation of Bill Clinton as President and otherwise?

Mark

It took 6 weeks to formulate a plan and engage in the invasion of Afgahnistan - not 6 months. Defending a country is even easier especially when the plan was already in place!. No intel to gather, no shifting of resources half-way around the world, no plan to formulate...

From what I heard from Richard Ben-Veniste during the testimony of George Tenet this week, the PDB was written by a woman of whom he did not name.
As I recall (I may be wrong) I don't think Clarke saw it at the time.
Mark

[ 04-17-2004, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

I gave My summation of President Clinton as a leader on another thread, I'm to lazy to find it ;) I believe I rated him as about 65% leader. As President, Bill Clinton did some good things Wefare reform, NAFTA, shutting down the Gov't over the budget, Slapping Sodamn Insane when he was implicated in the 1992-93 plot to kill George H. Bush in Kuwait. I believe he was right on the Ellan Gonzales(sp?) issue, the boy should have gone back to his father no matter where his father lived or what political form the country his father had. I wasn't hot on His methods in Kosovo, I think the European Countries should have taken a larger role. National Healthcare was and is a joke, it must be paid for some way, and that means more taxes, the more money you take out of the economy for taxes is less money the people earning the money have to spend. The tax increases of 1993 prolonged the recovery(check the figures) it was not until after the 1994 revolt of angry white men that elected a Rep. House of Representatives that started holding down spending that the deficit started to shrink and the economy really started to move. He screwed the pooch in Waco. He was correct in hitting Iraq in 1998 for WoMD's and the problems SH was giving the inspectors. He failed in following up the attacks in Saudi Arabia, Africa, and Yemmen. He failed to give what was needed in Mogadeshu(sp?) and with the Israeli/Palestian peace( not that anybody could do a damn thing there). He failed to deliver the promised middleclass tax cut, saying "I never worked harder on anything but couldn't come up with one." I don't give a rat's rear end about him feeling my pain, I wanted him to not put obsticals in my way of sloving my own problems. He cut a deal with Indoniasia(sp?) to harvest their coal, the seconded largest coal deposits in the world, yet closed off most of our coal deposits out west, the LARGEST coal deposits in the world, with an executive order making us more dependant on foriegn sources for energy.

On a personal note he was a lying SOB, based on a couple of 1992 New Hampshire primary interviews he gave, in which he was asked about what he had to say when people accused him of AVOIDING going to Veitnam His reply was he did nothing to avoid Veitnam. The very next day the same reporter asked him how he could say that when they had the letter he wrote to his ROTC instructor trying to get out of ROTC and his loathing of the military. ROTC is Voluntary a person is not made to join ROTC one must Volunteer for it. When confronted by this Mr. Clinton said, "he said he did nothing to avoid the draft, not service in Veitnam", which was not what he had said the day before, and then went on the say anybody that said otherwise was lying. He said one thing, then said he didn't say it, and anybody that said he did was lying. That told me all I needed to know about the man right there. And he has piss poor taste in women, with the execption of Jennifer Flowers, the rest of them were last call ladies.

Now for your summation on President Bush.

From what I heard from Richard Ben-Veniste during the testimony of George Tenet this week, the PDB was written by a woman of whom he did not name.
As I recall (I may be wrong) I don't think Clarke saw it at the time.
Mark </font>[/QUOTE]You maybe correct, but a couple of weeks ago this was the memo that Mr Clarke supposibly warned the Bush WhiteHouse about Al Quada attacks or so it was reported. Or RB-V may have been refering to the memo writen by the 9/11 commision committee member Jammie Garrara(sp?) when she was an AAG.

First of all John, I asked the question because I feel that I and others have taken hits for criticism of Bush and I wanted to know if there was a balance in regards to your feelings about Clinton. I did suspect you had no great love for the him.

I do believe that you are a better man than I am, because I do not find myself as charitable toward the current POTUS as you are toward Bill.

I think my summation of Mr. Bush has been predetermined by others due to my long list of past critcisms on various incidents over GWB's term.

In his last press conference he had candidly stated that he could not come with any examples of his past mistakes. I by contrast can't come up with anything that wasn't a mistake. So in saying this I am sure members here will be able to fill me in about my ignorance.

That said I will keep it general, because it is merely opinion and not dated facts.

1)I don't like his take on the environment (air and water quality standards, snow mobiles in parks etc).
2)I don't like his Faith Based plans.
3)I don't like the tax cuts. I personally don't want them and would rather balance the budget.
4)I do not want drilling in the ANWAR.
5)I don't like how he has handled Iraq.
6)I don't like the non-funding of Police, Firemen, and No Child Left Behind.
7)I don't like his proposal top amend the Constitution to stop Gay Marriage.
8)I don't like how he can't get along with many other World Leaders.
9)I don't like his Patriot Act.
10) I don't like that he feels that anyone who disagrees with him is unpatriotic if they are Americans or are our enemies if they are from somewhere else.

I could go on, but all of this is old news. Everyone here knows what I think and they either really like or really dislike me because of it.

What really irks me is that whenever I or someone else says anything less than satisfactory about Bush, or by extension, what the USA does, the individual becomes the target and is attacked or insulted. This really does need to stop, because the people that speak critically about these issues are not attacking members of this forum and it is grossly unfair.

I note the way you feel about Clinton and I would say that I would catch "Holy Hell" if I called Bush a "lying SOB", but I have not yet said that. I do not hold that against you because that's how you feel and it is your right to say so. Please reciprocate the next time I'm less than charitable toward Dubya.

Just because we are on the opposite sides does not mean either of us are wrong or the badguy. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Mark

Here is part of the transcript from that hearing:

The full 9/11 Commission Transcript: George Tenet is here.

Skywalker, I believe you'll find I stated both the professional and personal feelings I had and have for Mr. Clinton, before, during, and after his term in office as President of the U.S.A. As for calling President Bush a "Lying SOB" on the personal front as I did to Mr. Clinton, you know good and well I would have no problem with that. I've been screaming from the Mountain tops for a long time here on the board, you don't have to like anybody. You can dislike them for what ever reason your heart desires, I don't care. Just don't try to sell me your dislike without following through with logical reasons.

Just a side note do you know who wrote the education budget for the last fiscal year? He is a Senator from the State to your South/South East, his brother was once the President of the U.S.A. You might want to blame him on not funding properly the "No child left behind". Which by the way is one of the reasons I have for complaining about President Bush, his handling of the budget, and on that issue I've said President Bush has no balls, But in terms that don't violate the board rules. ;)

It took 6 weeks to formulate a plan and engage in the invasion of Afgahnistan - not 6 months. Defending a country is even easier especially when the plan was already in place!. No intel to gather, no shifting of resources half-way around the world, no plan to formulate... </font>[/QUOTE]That's not what I asked Skunk! BUT you are wrong! the plan used in the attack on Afgahnistan WAS the plan that is in question that took the Bush White House 6 months or more to formulate. THAT PLAN WAS the basis, the Blueprint, the model, the foundation for the actions taken in Afganhistan. A fact that your post testifies to and I quote your post again: What the "Hale" do you mean no shifting of resourses half way around the world?????? Last Time I checked Afganhistan was halfway arround the world from the U.S.A. unless you are using one of those teleportation devices I was asking about!

Even if they used a new plan, you are trying to compare a plan for a possibility, a "WHAT IF" to a plan for a certainty "THIS IS", anybody that has ever even attempted that understands a "what if" plan will take longer to create by it's very nature.