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>