Another Bush insider spills the beans.

[Timber Loftis]

By allegding Clark was a failure, you only highlight Bush even more as a failure for bringing on-board and keeping him.

As Clark was a holdover, this actually implicates the prior administration as much or more that the current one. I note that many intelligence folks have stated Clinton was "obsessed" with Al Queda. However, even that obsession could not drive the political will of the country. That's why Clinton merely threw some Patriot Missiles in the direction of A-Q, rather than undertaking a more in-depth campaign -- and that was when we knew they were Afghanistan (close enough to lob missiles) even. By many, Clinton's response was seen as too little, but by most, A-Q was not worth f-ng with at the time. As I've said before, people live in the immediacy of the moment. President's are not immune from this, and are often driven by this, the will of the population.

I'm just pointing out that prior to 9/11, we saw terrorism as a problem for other people. Israelis, Europeans, but NOT the U.S. 9/11 got the U.S. truly involved in something it had honestly taken a sideline view of. The administration in the office at the time is not to blame for the overall will of the people, IMO. And, I note I supported and LIKED Clinton (and still do).

[Davros]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Saw just this weekend (maybe last week) on The Discovery Channel in their documentry of the invasion, the Marine Expediciary Unit did encounter a major terrorist camp along their vector between al Nassaria and Bagdahd. That is why the resistance in al Nassaria was much greater than expected, and why the Marines were delayed in securing the SE sector of Bagdhad for the seige. Oh, and this is deep in Saddam's base of control.

NS - no one here thinks Saddam is this great guy that told the truth, was squeeky clean and that toppling him from his despotic throne was an altogether bad thing.

Funny that - I had a different 2nd sentence in mind when I started, then I realised that all those things I said about SH could be applied to GWB as well now .

Back on topic - Paul O'Neil's assertion was that Dubbya wanted Iraq on the agenda from the first moments of the administartion taking power. These assertions from Clarke are that GW's regime were all focussed on pinning Saddam and didn't pay the due focus that the previous government had to Al Queda. We know that his intelligence was crap on the WOMD thing. In all 3 cases he wanted to believe the worst of Iraq and he wanted to unleash his war. He didn't care who got in his way - UN, world opinion, it didn't matter so long as he could send in the troops.

I still argue that sending in the troops has not been an altogether bad thing, but what respect I had for GW (which was strong after 9/11) started to erode when he bypassed the UN, stumbled without WOMD, hit a speed bump in the words of a man I trust (Paul O'Neill) and disappeared in the crappy example he sets today to the American people. Saddam's been ousted as one of the great threats to world peace - it's now the turn of GW, and I can only hope that more people start to see the truth about him.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Well, if I'd thought he had what it took to be Pres. I'd have voted for him. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] Anyway, sometimes I too wonder how much he shakes the facts around. Hey, Iraq's been good for us though. We've had no terrorist bombings now that we gave the terrorists a target nearer to home. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] I think I've posted about this before -- in the extreme, taking over the country at least re-focused terrorist efforts. It may be a selfish viewpoint and insensitive to victims in other countries, but if bombings are going to happen somewhere, I'd rather it be anywhere but here. NIMBY rules the day, does it not?

So Britain and Spain got involved in the Gulf War to make America a safer place. How spiffing of us. When the London bombs go off I'll be happy that you are safe Timber.

Actually, it's nice to hear someone admit the truth.

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Mummy at Kentucky

You mean Eddie Sutton? He landed up okay in Ok. didn't he? [/QUOTE]Timeout guys! I got to learn TL something. Timber, I know it's hard to believe... but Kentucky isn't a one sport school like most Alumni seem to think... They also play F-O-O-T-B-A-L-L! Hal Mummy was the F-O-O-T-B-A-L-L Coach. Eddie Sutton on the other hand was a Basketball Coach. He did move on to and do well at Oklahoma State.

Now to our regularily scheduled thread!

Clarke was a hold over from the Clinton Administration. He is now working with John Kerry's Foreign Affairs Advisor, some professor up at Harvard. As a retired Federal Governement Bureaucrat, how does one cash in... He or she either becomes a big time lobbyist or one writes a book. Let's look at this book thing a moment. If you want to make some serious cash on a book about the current Administration, common sense tells one that he or she must be critical of said Administration. Common sense also tells one that the best time to publish said book is at election time, so as to create as big a splash as possible. I think this meets all the proper criteria for make a pile of cash off a book. After all Money is what makes the world go around.

Uhmmm I think there is a song in there somewhere. (begins to hum softly to himself... Money makes the world go around, the world go around, the world go around... money makes the world go around...)

[ 03-23-2004, 07:48 AM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

[Sir Taliesin]

Good Morning Donut! I think TL was referring to our occupation of Iraq. Seems reasonable that most Jihadis would head for Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter before they head towards London or New York, in order to free their brothers from bondage by the infidel. Madrid seems to fly into the face of that. I expect that it will happen more as well. Though I think a significant number have flocked to Iraq and Afghanistan. Still better there than London or New York IMO. I don't think he meant to imply that we'd rather a Brit or a Spaniard loses his or her life before an American.

[Timber Loftis]

So Britain and Spain got involved in the Gulf War to make America a safer place. How spiffing of us. When the London bombs go off I'll be happy that you are safe Timber. Actually, it's nice to hear someone admit the truth.

Yes, Donut, it is sad. I wouldn't expect you to be happy that I am safe if you are not. I sympathize greatly with Spain's tragedy -- and it was/is a horrible, horrible thing.

But, to be real, a nation's first goal is its own security -- the security of its neighbors/friends naturally comes second. Sorry, mate, but if I had to make the terrible choice of bombs going off in Chicago or London, I think it's obvious which I -- which anyone -- would choose.

But the "truth" I admit only touts a "success" that is actually a red herring. Because the "failure" is that the world still suffers from terrorism. Whether it be in Iraq, Spain, or elsewhere, the goal to free ourselves from the grip of terror has not been accomplished -- and there is much to do. Is Bush the man to lead such efforts and gather a coalition? I don't know, honestly, but at least he's one who is trying to do it -- bumbling though he may be. I do think the person to do it is "hawkish" as much as we may hate that quality.

Timber, I know it's hard to believe... but Kentucky isn't a one sport school like most Alumni seem to think... They also play F-O-O-T-B-A-L-L!

Duh, sorry. B-ball has been the topic of the day, lately. Brain-in-box, I did not think outside.

I don't think he meant to imply that we'd rather a Brit or a Spaniard loses his or her life before an American.

Thanks for the defense, but that is not only what I implied but also what I stated. It may be a harsh truth, but there it is. In fact, though I like you tons, Sir T, if the choice came down to me and you -- well, let's just say survival instinct trumps most all. I am saddened by it all, of course, but I'm not going to fail to be brutally honest and raw. Hey, it's my schtick.

[ 03-23-2004, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Stratos]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Besides, if we talk about 9/11 then Saddams support for Palestinian terrorists doesn't count as it was al-Qaeda that was behind it, and not any Palestinian organization.

Actually A-Q is in fact a Palestinian terrorist organization in my book. Name me one time Osama has bothered to make one of his outdoor home movies that he hasn't taken the opportunity to talk about his terrorist Palestinian brethren who are oppressed by those evil Zionists. [/QUOTE]Usama want to raise a world-wide support among Muslims for his cause and want to make it a "We're all on the same team" thing. Besides the conflict in Isreal is a real hotspot and I'm quite sure he sees the Palestinians as oppressed brothers.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I must congratulate you on the very nice attempt to change the subject from Bush's alleged failures to Clark's. Fortunately, I brought my special goggles that allow me to see through smoke and mirrors.

I've seen those goggles before, rose colored are't they

[John D Harris]

Chewie, Nobody said the Buck doesn't stop with the President. The articles I sighted show that President Bush is not a COWBOY, or his style is not one of ego. He wants to get as much info as he can, from as many sources as he can. Note how the articles make a big point of Clarke's style of "cutting" through the Bureuacractic BS, but he couldn't work in the Bush White House because he could work to find a consenious(sp?) then bring the consensious to the President for Him to make the decision. Now I don't know about where you come from but building a consensious requires the people doing it to talk to each other and present their facts and info they have in an effort to get the most and best info they humanly can. Which is quite the contrast to the picture of the Bush White House that many would like to perpetuate(SP?) This is all from articles trying to tout Mr Clarke, as something great. There is a disconnect between Mr Clarke being the lone voice crying in the wilderness agianst UBL, the great threat he was, AND Mr. Clarke being this great Cutter of the Gov't BS and getting things done. He was the Chairman of the NSC commitee on terrorism since 1995, and he couldn't convince Presdient Clinton of UBL's evil in 5 years, and you're wanting to blame President Bush who had been in office for 8 months.

I may not be a great cutter of Gov't BS, but I know road apples when I see them. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Here's my thought. Pick Clark up and charge him with terrorism. Lock him up until our little "War on Terror" is over. Suspend the hearings until the same time. Then we can sort this all out, and hang Bush & Co. from the rafters by their thumbs if it's true. In the meantime, Jihadist assholes are dug into caves watching satellite TV's and laughing their asses off that we're so busy arguing about whether we should have predicted this shit that we are slowing down doing something about terrorism.

Real, honest-to-gosh charges that we -- anybody -- could have predicted 9/11. He should be drug outside and shot.

I mean, let's look at what the precipitating factors are: Ummm..... well, there were a lot of counterterrorism experts telling Bush to pay more attention to it when he started his job. Hmmmm.... you mean that an agency was urgently telling the President why it needed more money and resources? That's every frikkin' agency, you dolts.
___________________________________________

March 23, 2004
Amid Terror Debate, Public Hearings Open on 9/11 Attacks
By TERENCE NEILAN

An issue that has dominated Washington since the weekend — the question of what the Bush and Clinton administrations knew about the possibility of terror attacks before 9/11, and how the Bush White House responded afterward — is taking center stage in the capital today.

Present and former Washington officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and ex-Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, will testify before an independent commission investigating the attacks of 2001 and what should have been done to prevent them.

The public hearings come amid a furious debate caused by accusations in a book by a former counterterrorism official, Richard A. Clarke, who writes that the Bush administration did not heed warnings about Sept. 11 and that President Bush pushed him the day after the attacks to look for a link to Saddam Hussein.

They also come during an already heated presidential election campaign.

Mr. Clarke, who served under Mr. Bush and former President Bill Clinton, says the United States waged "an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq" that served to stir Islamic militants around the world. He is scheduled to testify before the panel on Wednesday.

The White House has called his accusations "deeply irresponsible" and on Monday deployed several members of the administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, to rebut Mr. Clarke's charges.

The 10-member bipartisan panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, is scheduled to hear today from Ms. Albright and former Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, both of whom served in the Clinton administration. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell will also testify today.

Officials scheduled to testify on Wednesday include George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence in both administrations, and Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger.

"This is clearly one of the most important hearings the commission will hold," said Thomas Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, who heads the panel set up in November 2002 over initial objections from the Bush administration.

Senior Clinton administration officials have said they are prepared to detail how they repeatedly warned their Bush administration counterparts in late 2000 that Al Qaeda posed the most severe security threat facing the country and that the new administration was slow to act.

They have said their warnings were delivered in urgent post-election intelligence briefings in December 2000 and January 2001 involving Condoleezza Rice, who became Mr. Bush's national security adviser; Stephen Hadley, now Ms. Rice's deputy, and Philip D. Zelikow, a member of the Bush transition team, among others.

Ms. Rice, who has been questioned in private for about four hours by the panel, has refused to testify in public at the hearings, saying it would violate White House precedent.

Clinton administration witnesses may face difficult questions about why they did not do more to deal with Al Qaeda immediately after the 2000 attack on the American destroyer Cole in Yemen and the earlier discovery that Qaeda terrorists had come close to coordinated attacks timed to the Dec. 31, 1999, festivities for the new millennium.

[ 03-23-2004, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]