My complaint is that AQ was a terrorist org, and was sufficiently mentioned in that classification. Mentioning them by name would exclude all other terrorist orgs. They are all in the same category, and don't need to be named.
IronLionZion wrote:In return for throwing Condi to the wolves, Bush got the 9/11 commission to agree to let him and Cheney testify
at the same time. This marks a continuation of Bush's patented "make myself look inept at all costs" public relations philosophy.
His campiagn is largely based on the premise that he is a "strong leader".....yet he seems to be projecting the image of a scared, cowering little chimp who has been over his head and under a bottle for his entire life. A man so weak he has grasped desperately at a whiskey bottle and then magic Jesus and his (much stronger) wife to save him from his conviction (and the reality) that he will never live up to his father.
Quote:[size=25]'The Wizard of Oz Letter'[/size]
Bush pulls back the curtain on who really runs the White HouseWEB EXCLUSIVE
By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek
Updated: 1:50 p.m. ET April 02, 2004April 2 - This was the week the curtain got pulled back on the Bush presidency. In exchange for allowing Condoleezza Rice to testify under oath, President Bush gets to bring along his vice president when he appears privately before the commission.
A top Republican strategist dubbed the legal document striking the unusual deal "the Wizard of Oz letter" because it strips away the myth that Bush is in charge. Until now, it's been all speculation about Vice President Cheney's influence. With the revelation of the tandem testimony, nobody with a straight face can deny Cheney is a co-president or worse, the puppeteer who pulls Bush's strings.
Aside from being fodder for the late-night comics, the arrangement confirms Bush's inability to articulate anything without a script--or a tutor by his side. There's a reason lawyers don't take testimony in groups. The whole idea is to get individual recollections and then compare stories to uncover contradictions. Try thinking about it this way: can anyone imagine Bush's father in a similar situation bringing his vice president? (For those who need a refresher course, the elder Bush was a rocket scientist compared to his son, and the vice president was Dan Quayle.)
Even President Reagan testified alone on the Iran-contra scandal. He didn't insist on having Vice President Bush sit beside him. Of course, Reagan couldn't remember much of anything. His faculties were failing as a result of Alzheimer's disease, which he later revealed. Still, Reagan permitted his testimony to be videotaped.
This is a defining moment in the Bush presidency because it reveals weakness at the top.
What Cheney and the tight circle around Bush are protecting is the myth they have created since 9/11 of a war president astride the world stage. Anybody who punctures that imagery is destroyed. Richard Clarke is only the latest in a series of insiders who have pulled back the curtain. At the center is an incurious president who is so inarticulate that he can't be left on his own to make a sustained argument on behalf of his policies without falling back on rehearsed talking points and sound bites.
The Democrats must be greatly tempted to lampoon Bush, but they should leave that to Jay Leno and Jon Stewart. John Kerry is smart to stay out of the way when it comes to the 9/11 commission. The Bush strategy is to muddy the picture, castigate Clarke as a disgruntled partisan, and portray his criticisms as nothing but politics. But Clarke's book is flying off the shelves, and his revelations will be followed later this month by a sequel to "Bush at War" from Bob Woodward of Watergate fame, which the White House is nervously anticipating.
Also due by the end of April is a memoir/expose by Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who angered the administration last year when he went public with his finding that Iraq had not sought uranium from Africa. Wilson's wife was then exposed as a CIA operative by columnist Robert Novak, who was acting on information provided by the administration. Wilson's book is titled, "The Politics of Truth." It could be subtitled: "What I Didn't Find in Africa."
Wilson praises Clarke for how he's handling himself in the media spotlight. "He's a ferocious bureaucrat," says Wilson, "and I mean that in the positive sense of the term. He learned to operate in that environment." When 9/11 commissioner Jim Thompson confronted Clarke on the gap between what he is saying now and the rosy briefings he gave while working the White House, Clarke explained that was politics. Wilson says an effective response would have been to point out to the many lawyers on the 9/11 commission that White House aides are paid to make the case for the president just as lawyers make the case for their client. "If you can't abide it, then you step away," says Wilson. "Clarke was in it for the long haul, to roll back Al Qaeda."
This deserves a re-posting, as it was passed over earlier.
It is such a blatent reversal of Bush's "strong leadership" slogan....its risible.
In her 60 Minutes interview, Rice claimed:
Quote:"I don't know what a sense of urgency any greater than the one we had would have caused us to do anything differently. I don't know how...we could have done more. I would like very much to know what more could have been done."
There were many, many more things that could have been done, Dr. Rice.
The Bush administration could have desisted from de-emphasizing and cutting funding for counterterrorism in the months before 9/11.
It could have held more meetings of top principals to get the directors of the CIA and FBI to share information, especially considering the major intelligence spike occurring in the summer of 2001 -
just as the Clinton administration did to prevent millennium attacks.
As 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick said on ABC the same day as the Rice interview, the lack of focus and meetings meant agencies were not talking to each other, and key evidence was overlooked.
For instance, with better focus and more urgency, the FBI's discovery of Islamic radicals training at flight schools might have raised red flags. This evidence was in some respects
willfully disregarded.
The fact that "months before Sept. 11, the CIA knew two of the al-Qaeda hijackers were in the United States" could have spurred a nationwide manhunt. But because there was no focus or urgency, "no nationwide manhunt was undertaken," said Gorelick. "The State Department watch list was not given to the FAA. If you brought people together, perhaps key connections could have been made."
Eh... (as my friend nimh says at key moments, like this...) the $64,000 dollar question has already been asked (and answered, for that matter):
Could the attacks have been prevented had the Bush administration officials heard the warnings, been a bit more savvy, plugged in, went to work hard on the data like their predecessors?
Several experts (like George Tenet and others) say no.
I'll go along with that.
We'll never know, anyway.
I'm more concerned with what could happen tomorrow, or next month.
Needless to say, I have no confidence in those currently responsible for our nation's safety, much less their ability to tell me the truth about what's going on.
The sooner we get some people in who are willing to take responsibility, the better.
And one last thing:
Do you understand why the 9/11 victims' families were so grateful for Clarke's apology?
Because no one else has.
Phoenix's largely ignored article deserves a reprint, as well.
Quote:
Against Selected Enemies
By RICHARD MINITER
April 1, 2004; Page D8
A year ago, I thought Richard A. Clarke, President Clinton's counterterror czar, was a hero. He and his small band of officials fought a long battle to focus the bureaucracy on stopping Osama bin Laden long before 9/11. For my own book, I interviewed Mr. Clarke extensively and found him to be blunt and forthright. He remembered whole conversations from inside the Situation Room.
So I looked forward to reading "Against All Enemies" (Free Press, 304 pages, $27). Yes, I expected him to put the wood to President Bush for not doing enough about terrorism -- a continuation of his Clinton-era complaints -- and I expected that he might be right. I assumed, of course, that he would not spare the Clinton team either, or the CIA and FBI. I expected, in short something blunt and forthright -- and, that rarest thing, nonpartisan in a principled way.
I was wrong on all counts. Forthright? One momentous Bush-era episode on which Mr. Clarke can shed some light is his decision to approve the flights of the bin Laden clan out of the U.S. in the days after 9/11, (*Well, look who gassed up the Bin Laden plane...)when all other flights were grounded. About this he doesn't say a word. The whole premise of "Against All Enemies" is its value as an insider account. But Mr. Clarke was not a Bush insider. When he lost his right to brief the Cabinet, he also lost his ringside seat on presidential decision-making.
Mr. Clarke's ire is largely directed at the Iraq war, but its preparation was left to others on the National Security Council. He left the White House almost a month before the war began. As for its justification, he acts as if there is none. He dismisses, as "raw," reports that show meetings between al Qaeda and the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, going back to 1993. The documented meeting between the head of the Mukhabarat and bin Laden in Khartoum Sudan, in 1996 -- a meeting that challenged all the CIA's assumptions about "secular" Iraq's distance from Islamist terrorism -- should have set off alarm bells. It didn't.
There is other evidence of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda that Mr. Clarke should have felt obliged to address. Just days before Mr. Clarke resigned, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations that bin Laden had met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization. In 1998, an aide to Saddam's son Uday defected and repeatedly told reporters that Iraq funded al Qaeda. South of Baghdad, satellite photos pinpointed a Boeing 707 parked at a camp where terrorists learned to take over planes. When U.S. forces captured the camp, its commander confirmed that al Qaeda had trained there as early as 1997. Mr. Clarke does not take up any of this.
President Bush is taken to the woodshed. And President Clinton?
Curiously, about the Clinton years, where Mr. Clarke's testimony would be authoritative, he is circumspect. When I interviewed him a year ago, he thundered at the political appointees who blocked his plan to destroy bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan in the wake of the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole. Yet in his book he glosses over them. He has little of his former vitriol for Clinton-era bureaucrats who tried to stop the deployment of the Predator spy plane over Afghanistan. (It spotted bin Laden three times.)
He fails to mention that President Clinton's three "findings" on bin Laden, which would have allowed the U.S. to take action against him, were haggled over and lawyered to death. And he plays down the fact that the Treasury Department, worried about the effects on financial markets, obstructed efforts to cut off al Qaeda funding. He never notes that between 1993 and 1998 the FBI, under Mr. Clinton, paid an informant who turned out to be a double agent working on behalf of al Qaeda. In 1998, the Clinton administration alerted Pakistan to our imminent missile strikes in Afghanistan, despite the links between Pakistan's intelligence service and al Qaeda. Mr. Clarke excuses this decision -- bin Laden managed to flee just before the strikes -- as a diplomatic necessity . The soil sample he cites, supposedly showing a nerve-gas ingredient, is now agreed to contain a common herbicide.
While angry over Mr. Bush's intelligence failures, Mr. Clarke actually defends one of the Clinton administration's biggest ones -- the bombing of a Sudanese "aspirin factory" in 1998. Even at the time, there were good reasons for doubting that it made nerve agents. He fails to mention that in 1997 the CIA had to reject more than 100 reports from Sudan when agency sources failed lie-detector tests and that the CIA continued to pay Sudanese dissidents $100 a report, in a country where the annual per-capita income is about $400
Last year Mr. Clarke made much of such failures. But this year he treats Mr. Clinton with deference. Indeed, the only man whom he really wants to take to the woodshed is President Bush. Mr. Clarke believes the Iraq war to be a foolish distraction from the fight against terrorism, driving a wedge between the U.S. and its Arab allies. In fairness, he might have noted that, since the war started, our allies (e.g., Saudi Arabia and Sudan) have given us more intelligence leads, not fewer. Considering its anti-Bush bias, maybe Mr. Clarke's book should have been called "Against One Enemy."
Or, better, "Against All Evidence." Mr. Clarke misstates a range of checkable facts. The 1993 U.S. death toll in Somalia was 18, not 17. He writes that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed became al Qaeda's "chief operational leader" in 1995; in fact, he took over in November 2001.
Mr. Clarke gets the timing wrong of the plot to assassinate bin Laden in Sudan; it was 1994, not 1995, and was the work of Saudi intelligence, not Egypt.He writes (correctly) that Abdul Yasim, one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, fled to Iraq but adds the whopper that "he was incarcerated by Saddam Hussein's regime." An ABC News crew found Mr. Yasim working a government job in Iraq in 1997, and documents captured in 2003 revealed that the bomber had been on Saddam's payroll for years. . He dismisses Laurie Mylorie's argument that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center blast as if there is nothing to it.
Doesn't it matter that the bombers made hundreds of phone calls to Iraq in the weeks leading up to the event? That Ramzi Yousef, the lead bomber, entered the U.S. as a supposed refugee from Iraq? ThThat he was known as "Rasheed the Iraqi"?
In recent days we have been subjected to a great deal of Mr. Clarke, not least to replays of his fulsome apology for not doing enough to prevent 9/11. But he has nothing to apologize for: He was a relentless foe of al Qaeda for years. He should really apologize for the flaws in his book.
===========
Points to ponder...
Sofia wrote:My complaint is that AQ was a terrorist org, and was sufficiently mentioned in that classification. Mentioning them by name would exclude all other terrorist orgs. They are all in the same category, and don't need to be named.
But if I'm correct the problem here is that - barring the one, generalised assertion about "terrorism of all kinds" - she only perceived of the "terrorist" threat within the context of "rogue states". Specifically Iraq and Iran. (Those
are mentioned by name in the article - unlike Afghanistan).
Again it seems like the focus of the Bush team was, from day one, almost exclusively on the harm rogue states like Iraq could do, either directly or by proxy. Terrorists, here, figure only as a kind of possible tool or means for Saddam and his like. The major threat to US security as it in fact materialised - a global terrorist group operating from cells in different countries, led by a fanatic in a cave, and relying on "low-tech" means for its major attack - that kind of thing doesnt even seem to have figured on their political radar. And that is alarming enough, even back in 2000.
If it was alarming in 2000, it was outright reproachable by summer 2001, when Rice, Wolfowitz etc
had seen the intell reports, yet were sending Clarke e.a. back with "wrong answer" missives because the reports they were getting didnt fit with their world view.
Quote:Why is there no integrated threat assessment?
Ther had been an integrated threat assessment in place since at least 1998
Quote:When will a comprehensive strategic plan to combat terrorism be completed?
I would guess that there will never be a "comprehensive plan," because unlike a nation-state, "terrorism" is an ill defined action. Combating terrorism requires more than just bullets, it also requires concerted efforts to elimnate its root causes, something the far right seems unwilling to do.
Quote:How does the government decide when and how much to spend on such matters?
Budgeting for combatting terror was a complex issue involving the budgets of agencies like CIA, DOD, FBI, as well as executive brance components, like NSC.
This is one of the reasons we have been urging you to read Clarke's book. He covers these subjects.
I noticed this while reading through the commission transcripts. It may not be significant to the issues being discussed here, but still, its quite chilling, and adds a human face to the dry politics:
Quote:MR. KEAN: We will now hear the recordings from the two phone calls. The first phone call was placed from Betty Ong aboard the Flight 11 to Ms. Gonzalez. We'll hear the entire four and a half minutes that was recorded on that call. The second phone call was placed by Nydia Gonzalez to the American Airlines operations center to report the call from Mrs. Ong and to relay the Center information Mrs. Ong was providing.
(Phone calls played.)
BETTY ONG: Number 3 in the back. The cockpit's not answering. Somebody's stabbed in business class and . . . I think there's mace . . . that we can't breathe. I don't know, I think we're getting hijacked.
MALE VOICE: Which flight are you on?
BETTY ONG: Flight 12.
OPERATOR: And what seat are you in? . . . Ma'am, are you there? . . .
BETTY ONG: Yes.
MALE VOICE: What seat are you in?
FEMALE VOICE: Ma'am, what seat are you in?
BETTY ONG: We're . . . just left Boston, we're up in the air.
FEMALE VOICE: I know, what . . .
BETTY ONG: We're supposed to go to LA and the cockpit's not answering their phone.
FEMALE VOICE: Okay, but what seat are you sitting in? What's the number of your seat?
BETTY ONG: Okay, I'm in my jump seat right now.
FEMALE VOICE: Okay.
BETTY ONG: At 3R.
FEMALE VOICE: Okay.
MALE VOICE: Okay, you're the flight attendant? I'm sorry, did you say you're the flight attendant?
BETTY ONG: Hello?
FEMALE VOICE: Yes, hello.
MALE VOICE: What is your name?
BETTY ONG: Hi, you're going to have to speak up, I can't hear you.
MALE VOICE: Sure. What is your name?
BETTY ONG: Okay, my name is Betty Ong. I'm number 3 on Flight 11.
MALE VOICE: Okay.
BETTY ONG: And the cockpit is not answering their phone. And there's somebody stabbed in business class. And there's . . . we can't breathe in business class. Somebody's got mace or something.
MALE VOICE: Can you describe the person that you said -- someone is what in business class?
BETTY ONG: I'm sitting in the back. Somebody's coming back from business. If you can hold on for one second, they're coming back.
BETTY ONG: Okay. Our number 1 got stabbed. Our purser is stabbed. Nobody knows who is stabbed who, and we can't even get up to business class right now cause nobody can breathe. Our number 1 is stabbed right now. And who else is . . .
MALE VOICE: Okay, and do we . . .
BETTY ONG: and our number 5 -- our first class passengers are -- galley flight attendant and our purser has been stabbed. And we can't get into the cockpit, the door won't open. Hello?
MALE VOICE: Yeah, I'm taking it down. All the information. We're also, you know, of course, recording this. At this point . . .
FEMALE VOICE: This is Operations. What flight number are we talking about?
MALE VOICE: Flight 12.
FEMALE VOICE: Flight 12? Okay. I'm getting . . .
BETTY ONG: No. We're on Flight 11 right now. This is Flight 11.
MALE VOICE: It's Flight 11, I'm sorry Nydia.
BETTY ONG: Boston to Los Angeles.
MALE VOICE: Yes.
BETTY ONG: Our number 1 has been stabbed and our 5 has been stabbed. Can anybody get up to the cockpit? Can anybody get up to the cockpit? Okay. We can't even get into the cockpit. We don't know who's up there.
MALE VOICE: Well, if they were shrewd they would keep the door closed and --
BETTY ONG: I'm sorry?
MALE VOICE: Would they not maintain a sterile cockpit?
BETTY ONG: I think the guys are up there. They might have gone there -- jammed the way up there, or something. Nobody can call the cockpit. We can't even get inside. Is anybody still there?
MALE VOICE: Yes, we're still here.
FEMALE VOICE: Okay.
BETTY ONG: I'm staying on the line as well.
MALE VOICE: Okay.
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Hi, who is calling reservations? Is this one of the flight attendants, or who? Who are you, hun?
MALE VOICE: She gave her name as Betty Ong.
BETTY ONG: Yeah, I'm number 3. I'm number 3 on this flight - And we're the first . . .
NYDIA GONZALEZ: You're number 3 on this flight?
BETTY ONG: Yes and I have. . .
NYDIA GONZALEZ: And this is Flight 11? From where to where?
BETTY ONG: Flight 11.
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Have you guys called anyone else?
BETTY ONG: No. Somebody's calling medical and we can't get a doc --
(Beep)
MALE VOICE: American Airlines emergency line, please state your emergency.
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Hey, this is Nydia at American Airlines calling. I am monitoring a call in which Flight 11 -- the flight attendant is advising our reps that the pilot, everyone's been stabbed.
MALE VOICE: Flight 11?
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Yep. They can't get into the cockpit is what I'm hearing.
MALE VOICE: Okay. Who is this I'm talking to?
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Excuse me. This is Nydia, American Airlines at the Raleigh Reservation Center. I'm the operations specialist on duty.
MALE VOICE: And I'm sorry, what was your name again?
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Nydia . . .
MALE VOICE: Nydia. And what's your last name?
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Gonzalez -- G-o-n-z-a-l-e-z.
MALE VOICE: (Inaudible) -- Raleigh Reservations. Okay, now when you --
NYDIA GONZALEZ: I've got the flight attendant on the line with one of our agents.
MALE VOICE: Okay. And she's calling how?
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Through reservations. I can go in on the line and ask the flight attendant questions.
MALE VOICE: Okay . . . I'm assuming they've declared an emergency. Let me get ATC on here. Stand by.
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Have you guys gotten any contact with anybody? Okay, I'm still on with security, okay, Betty? You're doing a great job, just stay calm. Okay? We are, absolutely.
MALE VOICE: Okay, we're contacting the flight crew now and we're . . . we're also contacting ATC.
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Okay. It seems like the passengers in coach might not be aware of what's going right now.
MALE VOICE: These two passengers were from first class?
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Okay, hold on. Hey Betty, do you know any information as far as the gents . . . the men that are in the cockpit with the pilots, were they from first class? They were sitting in 2A and B.
MALE VOICE: Okay.
NYDIA GONZALEZ: They are in the cockpit with the pilots.
MALE VOICE: Who's helping them, is there a doctor on board?
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Is there a doctor on board, Betty, that's assisting you guys? You don't have any doctors on board. Okay. So you've gotten all the first class passengers out of first class?
MALE VOICE: Have they taken anyone out of first class?
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Yeah, she's just saying that they have. They're in coach. What's going on, honey? Okay, the aircraft is erratic again. Flying very erratically. She did say that all the first class passengers have been moved back to coach, so the first class cabin is empty. What's going on on your end?
MALE VOICE: We contacted Air Traffic Control, they are going to handle this as a confirmed hijacking. So they're moving all the traffic out of this aircraft's way.
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Okay.
MALE VOICE: He turned his transponder off, so we don't have a definitive altitude for him. We're just going by -- They seem to think that they have him on a primary radar. They seem to think that he is descending.
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Okay.
MALE VOICE: Okay, Nydia?
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Yes dear, I'm here.
MALE VOICE: Okay, I have a dispatcher currently taking the current fuel on board.
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Uh, huh. MALE VOICE: And we're going to run some profiles . . .
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Okay.
MALE VOICE: To see exactly what his endurance is.
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Okay.
MALE VOICE: Did she . . .
NYDIA GONZALEZ: She doesn't have any idea who the other passenger might be in first. Apparently they might have spread something so it's -- they're having a hard time breathing or getting in that area.
What's going on, Betty? Betty, talk to me. Betty, are you there? Betty? (Inaudible.)
Okay, so we'll like . . . we'll stay open. We, I think we might have lost her.
MALE VOICE: Okay.
END
Thanks for posting that.
American Airlines Flight 11, from Boston, Massachusetts, to Los Angeles, California, crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center with 92 people on board.
I think we all need to maintain a level of anger against the people and the organization that did this. Sometimes we need to be reminded about what happened, so we don't forget all the people who died. Let's try to take care of the problem so no one else has to die.
EDIT - I just read through the passenger list for Flight 11. A couple of names stood out from the rest:
Quote:David Angell, 54, of Pasadena, California, was the creator and executive producer of the hit NBC sitcom "Frasier." A native of West Barrington, Rhode Island, Angell entered the Army after graduating from college and served at the Pentagon until 1972. He worked in insurance and engineering before selling a script for a TV series in 1977. In 1983, he joined the TV series "Cheers" as a staff writer and began working with co-supervising producers Peter Casey and David Lee. This team formed a production company, creating and producing "Wings" in 1990 and "Frasier" in 1993. The trio won 24 Emmys.
Quote:Berry Berenson, 53, of Los Angeles, California, was an actress and photographer. She was the widow of actor Anthony Perkins, who died in 1992, and sister of actress and model Marisa Berenson. She is survived by two sons, Osgood, an actor, and Elvis. Born into an aristocratic family, Berenson appeared in the movies "Cat People" (1982), "Winter Kills" (1979) and "Remember My Name" (1978).
But really, all of the passengers and crew deserve to be remembered. They were innocent victims of an organization that needs to be destroyed.
I found an interesting interview with Richard Clarke:
- - - - - - - - - -
ME: Mr. Clarke, thanks for taking some time out of your increasingly hectic schedule to speak with my readers and me. I sincerely appreciate it.
RC: It's my pleasure, Mr. Koehler. My goal in speaking out - whether on your obscure, reactionary blog, or in my new book - A Pence, All Enemas - is to tell the truth about this nation's terrible failures in our efforts to combat global terrorism.
ME: I'm glad you mentioned your book, Mr. Clarke. It's certainly got Washington all abuzz, and I've got plenty of questions about it. In Against All Enemies, you present a picture of counterterror efforts by both the Clinton and Bush Whitehouses that were lackluster in execution, despite the best of intentions. In your recent testimony before the 9/11 Commission, however, you've reserved your harshest criticism for the Bush Administration. How did the Clinton Administration do more to combat terror, in your opinion?
RC: Well, as I mention in Repents All Anemones, the Clinton Administration was intensely focused on the destruction of the al Qaeda group, and acted accordingly. There was, as I've stated, no higher priority than the fight against global terrorism within the Clinton Administration. Well, that, and midnight basketball. And Big Macs. Lots of Big Macs in that Administration.
ME: Big Macs?
RC: Yep. Big Macs. Big Macs, and then Terrorism. Terrorism was right up there. Big Macs, Terrorism, and Midnight Basketball - in that order. Mostly.
ME: Many critics of President Clinton's efforts in fighting al Qaeda have pointed to the Administration's lackluster response following the initial attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, the African embassy bombings, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole as evidence that, in fact, the Clinton Administration did not have a realistic view of terrorism in general, and of Islamic terrorist cells specifically. How would you respond to those critics?
RC: Well, it's very simple. The world of counterterrorism, like the intelligence world, is a secretive one. The public, unfortunately, is not usually in a position to know about important aspects of the stories we see on the news each night - simply by virtue of the need to maintain secrecy. These are sensitive operations, and the public's need to know is, unfortunately limited by the need to protect operational integrity. The operations that I saw planned were sweeping in their scope, and bold in their vision.
ME: Is there anything you can tell us that might be illustrative of this point?
RC: Well, I've seen your Site Meter stats, and you only get around 80 hits a day, so I guess I can say this here. You remember the Tomahawk strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan?
ME: 48 missiles. Right?
RC: That's right. A Tomahawk, as you know, is a powerful weapon, in and of itself. These, however, were no ordinary Tomahawks. They carried a special payload that we had hoped would bring us success in eliminating al Qaeda's senior leadership.
ME: What was that payload?
RC: Ninjas.
ME: Ninjas?
RC: Ninjas. Inside the fuselages of the missiles. Upon arrival at the designated target, each NinjaHawk was designed to scatter a team of 15 highly-trained, angry Japanese ninja masters - not unlike a standard Rockeye-type cluster bomb, but far more precise. These assassins, in turn, would progress to their designated, individual targets, and terminate them with extreme prejudice - but not in the racial sense.
ME: Wow. Ninjas. Was Sho Kusugi involved?
RC: I'm afraid I'm not at liberty to discuss specifics regarding the strike planning personnel involved in that particular operation.
ME: What went wrong?
RC: Two things, mostly. First off, we neglected to account for the fact that these ninjas would be ejected at around 400 MPH, without parachutes, over rocky terrain. Messy. Secondly, although there were a few brave martial artists who survived their initial deployment, they were failed by an over-enthusiastic reliance on the Golan/Globus ninja film genre by our strike planning team.
ME: I'm afraid I don't understand.
RC: It turns out that you can just shoot a ninja. Who knew? Ninja-shminja...you can't karate chop a Kalashnikov round. Ugly, all the way around.
ME: Yikes. Moving on to the next question, if you don't mind.
RC: Shoot. Oh...right. Poor choice of words, eh?
ME: While you were testifying before the Commission last week, reports surfaced regarding some comments you made during a press backgrounder in 2002. These comments seemed to directly contradict much of your more recent criticism of the Bush Administration. Can you explain this apparent gap?
RC: Well, first off, a backgrounder is supposed to be used unofficially, and is to remain rather hush-hush. I find its use in this case to be wholly inappropriate, and overall, the whole things seems to me to be just another example of this Administration's willingness to attack anyone with whom they disagree. Secondly, I never said what they said I said. In fact, what I said was what I said just the other day, but said differently. That's all. Semantics.
ME: I'm afraid that it doesn't look that was to the outside observer though, Mr. Clarke. There are clear points of contradiction here. In addition, much of what you've written in Against All Enemies stands in stark contrast to statements you made previously. Don't you feel that you owe the American people some sort of explanation?
RC: As is the case with most of the President's hatchet-men, you're grossly mischaracterizing my statements - both in Offensive Melodies, and before a commission called to make account of our government's catastrophic failure of the American people on, and before 9/11. I have been completely consistent in every statement I've made - whether to "blorgs" like this, or to members of the United States Senate. I defy any objective person to find a true example of contradiction in any of my statements - past, present, or future.
ME: Mr. Clarke, in describing sensitive operational details of events like our Tomahawk ninja attacks on al Qaeda, don't you place yourself in the position of undermining our intelligence community, just as you've accused others of doing?
RC: I never said anyting about ninjas.
ME: Actually, you did. See? I wrote it all down right here.
RC: No you didn't.
ME: Yes, yes I did. It's right here...on this pad of paper.
RC: I don't see it.
ME: Your eyes are closed.
RC: No they're not. Yours are!
ME: Now see, this is just getting silly.
RC: You're silly, Mr. Poopy-Head!
ME: I think that'll do it for today.
RC: Chicken! Bwock-bwock!
ME: That's not very...LOOK! Condeleezza Rice!
RC: [wets self, ducks under desk]
Sofia wrote:Yet PD points out that "Intelligence reports from 1998 indicated that bin Laden had a plot involving explosive-laden aircraft in the New York and D.C. areas", etc.
========
Who was on-call in 1998, and why do they get a pass?
They don't get a pass, for goodness sake! Nobody gives them one, certainly not Clarke. Mistakes and misjudgements occured under both administrations. The point is, what sort of mistake? Who made it? What is the magnitude of it? And were was the consequences of it?
Tarantulas
That's just further derogation in under cover of sophmoric humor. Not terribly valuable.
Leave this discussion for a relatively brief period of time and all hell breaks loose.
I am not well informed on most topics in this world, and am wary of posting at all on threads about complex issues, particularly if I am coming into the middle of a long, long discussion and posting of relevant articles. Not only would it reveal my ignorance and be personally embarrassing, it would be frustrating and disruptive to the active participants. I am even reluctant to ask a question or two, for the same reasons.
But on this topic, I have been on it like (fill in your favorite metaphor). Therefore, I feel comfortable adding kind of a sidebar observation.
Coming to an informed opinion, or belief (if you must frame it that way), is a process over time, with the addition and subtraction of facts, suggestions, others' opinions, until the mind is comfortable with forming a 'gestalt', or something approximating a conclusion. It is very much considering everything as a whole and separating the wheat from the chaff. Some individuals' tolerance for ambiguity and holding off coming to a conclusion is low. Some individuals' belief structures in other, but related, areas is so strong that it predisposes towards a particular gestalt structure. Like horses wearing blinders in a race.
The fondness and respect developed over time among the participants here is also a factor which influences, in many areas. But the frustration over the past 24 hours is pallible, and for good reason.
No ONE piece of evidence, or fact, carries much weight. It is everything, taken together, which forms our cognitive structures.
Those who have been involved in this discussion since day one, and who listened to every bit of the testimony, and read everything we can get our hands on, have formed gestalts, or are close to doing that. It is difficult, with the passage of time, to pull out those bits and pieces that contributed to this formation.
For this reason, and others, I shy away from reading columnists, who are putting forth a view already formed, but which give, by necessity for brevity, insufficient information on the hows and whys that view was arrived at.
Welcome back, Sofia. I disappear from time to time too, and am always aghast at how much I have missed, how far behind I am. I'm afraid that there are no substitutes in this process over time.
Needless to say, I believe that Clarke went through this same process, over time, and taking into consideration everything, before reaching his conclusion.
A quote from an analysis by two journalists, too lengthy to quote in its entirety, appearing in today's
Washington Post at:
Analysis: Framework of Clarke's Book Is Bolstered
Quote:But the broad outline of Clarke's criticism has been corroborated by a number of other former officials, congressional and commission investigators, and by Bush's admission in the 2003 Bob Woodward book "Bush at War" that he "didn't feel that sense of urgency" about Osama bin Laden before the attacks occurred.
In addition, a review of dozens of declassified citations from Clarke's 2002 testimony provides no evidence of contradiction, and White House officials familiar with the testimony agree that any differences are matters of emphasis, not fact. Indeed, the declassified 838-page report of the 2002 congressional inquiry includes many passages that appear to bolster the arguments Clarke has made.
su
Thanks...I was jut going to quote and link precisely the same passage and piece.
