"What do you truly believe Bush could've done with the info contained in that PDB, that Clinton didn't already do?"
He could have done quite a bit, even before the PDB, including using the CIA findings about the USS Cole to launch an attack on bin Laden or, at least, start building public and Congressional support for action against him. Instead, he started his plan to invade Iraq and went on vacation.
You are right, of course, that it probably would have done nothing to stop 9/11 and Bush holds little responsibility for it. That was mostly in the hands of George Tenet and Louis Freeh and, inasmuch as they were hired by Bill Clinton and proved incompetent to do their jobs, all three of them probably own more responsibility for failing to prevent 9/11.
What I do blame George Bush for is using 9/11 and a tragically stupid plan to install a puppet government and forward bases in Iraq to paint Democrats as less weaker at defending this country, when it was he and his brain trust who completely failed (and continue to fail) to understand the world, our true threats and what to do about them.
That was such a miserable thing to do and has had such horrible long-term consequences for the public’s understanding of the truth, our collective political will, our damaged national security, moral authority and reputation in the world – not to mention the hundreds of thousands of destroyed lives – it far eclipses anything bin Laden has done. To this day, Bush, Cheney and Rove are a far bigger threat to America than any we have ever faced.
The PDB was just the endgame. Condi said the Clintons didn't leave them with a "plan" for fighting terror, only a "set of ideas" and "actionable items." Hmmmm.
Clarke wasn't allowed to meet with senior staff on terrorism, even though he was their in-house expert. After the Feb. 2001 Hart-Rudman report warned of "catastrophic" domestic terrorist attacks, Bush announced a terror task force led by Cheney - which never met. The FBI warned about Middle Eastern students at flight school in July 2001, but nothing was done. There was supposed to be a high-level meeting on terrorism in August 2001, but it was postponed because too many of the principals were on vacation, including the President.
And when the FBI delivered the PDB to Bush in Crawford, he replied, "OK, you've covered your ass, now."
So there was a lot of ignoring going on well before the PDB. And as for the 70 field investigations, I'll bet the FBI has 70 field investigations going on on virtually any topic right now. The question is, what did the administration do? Little or nothing, it turns out.
I'll ask it again. What could Bush have done to prevent 9/11?
Clarke wasn't allowed to meet with senior staff on terrorism, even though he was their in-house expert.
Source?
After the Feb. 2001 Hart-Rudman report warned of "catastrophic" domestic terrorist attacks, Bush announced a terror task force led by Cheney - which never met.
We've been warned about domestic terror attacks since 1993. After the first World Trade Center attack what was done to prevent other domestic attacks? I'm thinking Oklahoma. You are asking a fuck of a lot to be stopped without being willing to give up anything in return.
The FBI warned about Middle Eastern students at flight school in July 2001, but nothing was done. There was supposed to be a high-level meeting on terrorism in August 2001, but it was postponed because too many of the principals were on vacation, including the President.
Who got warned? What do you mean nothing? Wasn't it the FBI's job to investigate the flight schools. The FBI dropped this ball, so did the CIA. They aren't being walked through life having their hands held by whoever is currently President. Seriously.
I hear you and I agree with some. Bush was supposed to swear his oath and immediately set out to bomb Bin Laden? Really?
We got hit on 9/11 and a month later we were bombing Afghanistan to the Stone Age. What the fuck was Clinton so busy doing that he couldbn't get some kind of response going? Packing?
I've never said Bush could have prevented 9/11. Who knows? But there's a big gulf between doing nothing and doing something. You want me to justify everything, to present you with a perfect plan to prevent 9/11 - and at the same time, you still can't point to a *single thing* that Bush did to combat terror in his first 8 months in office. (In contrast, Clinton ran through his attempts cogently in five minutes on Fox, while at the same time admitting that he wishes he had done more.) Instead, you fall back onto the "it's no one's fault, so no one could have done anything" (tm Dean Esmay). And we're back to "nothing is Bush's responsibility." (The CIA needs its hands held? That's rich. He's the commander in chief! The fact is, he didn't know what was going on, and didn't care.)
Bush's image as a "terror warrior" is all smoke and mirrors, and (some) people are wising up to it. Meanwhile, the rest of us cling to magical thinking.
HOMER: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
LISA: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
HOMER: ... Thank you, dear.
[Lisa grabs a rock from the lawn, shows it to Homer]
LISA: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
HOMER: Oh, how does it work?
LISA: It doesn't work.
HOMER: Uh-huh.
LISA: It's just a stupid rock.
HOMER: Uh-huh.
LISA: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks for a moment, then pulls out some money]
"Bush was supposed to swear his oath and immediately set out to bomb Bin Laden? "
Strawman.
"What the fuck was Clinton so busy doing that he couldbn't get some kind of response going?"
Evasion. But, to answer your question, he was responding to partsan attacks from Republicans and warning the incoming administration of the biggest security threat we faced. A threat that adminitration promtly and comprehensively ignored - as Adam so ably describes above. But I think we've covered that already.
Adam:
I've never said Bush could have prevented 9/11. Who knows? But there's a big gulf between doing nothing and doing something. You want me to justify everything, to present you with a perfect plan to prevent 9/11 - and at the same time, you still can't point to a *single thing* that Bush did to combat terror in his first 8 months in office.
I don't want you to justify anything. I just want you to understand that the PDB is and was utterly meaningless. You're right about one thing. I cannot point to a single thing Bush did in his first 8 months to combat terrorism. Hopefully, someone is more well read than I.
(In contrast, Clinton ran through his attempts cogently in five minutes on Fox, while at the same time admitting that he wishes he had done more.) Instead, you fall back onto the "it's no one's fault, so no one could have done anything" (tm Dean Esmay). And we're back to "nothing is Bush's responsibility." (The CIA needs its hands held? That's rich. He's the commander in chief! The fact is, he didn't know what was going on, and didn't care.)
Clinton has 8 years to draw from and honestly he should have done more. He didn't even do anything to strike back against the USS Cole.
The only thing I'm saying is that 9/11 isn't Bush's fault. I also say it isn't Clinton's. Bush has a lot to answer for and he is responsible for a lot of fuck ups. Perhaps after he's been out of office for 5 years, he cal tell Chris Wallace that he's sorry too.
Strawman my ass. YOu said: He could have done quite a bit, even before the PDB, including using the CIA findings about the USS Cole to launch an attack on bin Laden or, at least, start building public and Congressional support for action against him. Instead, he started his plan to invade Iraq and went on vacation.
The Cole happened in October 2000. You think that Bush should've been planning an attack in August 2001? Really? Doesn't that seem 10 months too late?
The Cole attack should have been retaliated immediately by Clinton. And, since as you said Clinton was too busy worrying about his personal problems with Republicans to do HIS JOB, when did you figure our newly sworn President should've cleaned up his mess?
I'm still cleaning the coffee off my screen after reading this gem: Evasion. But, to answer your question, he was responding to partsan attacks from Republicans and warning the incoming administration of the biggest security threat we faced. A threat that adminitration promtly and comprehensively ignored - as Adam so ably describes above. But I think we've covered that already.
I cannot believe you typed that without feeling a massive amount of disgust with yourself. You feel that it was reasonable for a seasoned, experienced President Clinton to not respond to an attack on our military because the Republicans were being mean.
“You feel that it was reasonable for a seasoned, experienced President Clinton to not respond to an attack on our military because the Republicans were being mean.”
You need to read up on the history before you say any more, you really don’t seem to understand enough to comment on it.
Bill Clinton did respond even as he was being impeached by Republicans for refusing to cooperate with a right-wing financed political hit, even without any legal finding to do so. George. Bush. Did. Nothing.
Bush had legal authority to act, wasn’t dealing with a partisan impeachment, was warned repeatedly about the threat and George. Bush. Did. Nothing.
Clinton tried and failed. George. Bush. Did. Nothing.
You need to read up on the history before you say any more, you really don’t seem to understand enough to comment on it. I need to read? I don't understand?
Bill Clinton did respond even as he was being impeached by Republicans for refusing to cooperate with a right-wing financed political hit, even without any legal finding to do so. George. Bush. Did. Nothing.
Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998. The USS Cole was struck in 2000. Clinton didn't do shit in response to it. Shove your snark up your ass and read some more history yourself.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Rose, I think what Shep is referring to is that the official findings by the FBI, the legal basis for any retaliation against bin Laden, was not delivered to the White House until just days after Bush was sworn in. While subsequent history and investigations proved to back Clinton up, when he launched those cruise missiles at the Afghan al Queada camps, he was doing so without official cover.
If memory serves, Bush was handed the legal finding on Jan. 25, 01. At that point, the White House staff was still searching for all the missing Ws on their keyboards.
Oh, and the sources you're looking for are all in that terribly boring tome written by Richard Clarke.
“Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998. The USS Cole was struck in 2000. Clinton didn't do shit in response to it.”
C’mon, Rosemary, you know what I meant. Clinton responded to the threat. “Wag the Dog,” remember?
“RICHARD CLARKE: Well, he did something, and President Bush did nothing, prior to September 11th. So, yeah, but let's talk about the Cole. The Cole was attacked in October of 2000. President Bush was running for office. He never mentioned it. Vice President Gore was running for office. He never mentioned it. The media hardly touched it. What were they focused on? They were focused on the election, and they were focused on the Middle East peace process. I thought it was a mistake, and the very fact that I quote Mike Sheehan in the book as saying that, I think it's indicative of how he felt and how I felt. If I didn't think it was a mistake, that wouldn't be in the book. The facts have come out. The facts have come out before the 9-11 commission that the FBI and the CIA refused to say who did it in October of 2000. And the President was, therefore, faced with the problem: 'Can I go ahead and bomb somebody in retaliation for the attack on the Cole, when my CIA director and my FBI director won't say who did it?'
Now, this is the same President who, when he bombed Afghanistan, when he bombed Al Qaeda camps because George Tenet and I and Sandy Berger recommended that he do it in order to get Bin Laden and the leadership team where we thought they were going to be meeting. The reaction he faced to that was the so-called "Wag the Dog" phenomenon. No one in the media, Tim, no one in the media, no one in the Congress said, "Oh, that's a great thing that you are retaliating for the attack on the United States." They said, "This is all about Monica Lewinsky," and "This is all about your political problems." So now, the same President who had the experience last time he fired cruise missiles at Bin Laden, wants to fire cruise missiles at Bin Laden, but he's got a CIA director and an FBI director who won't say, 'Bin Laden did it, Mr. President.' I would still have done it. I recommended doing it. Do I think it was mistake that we didn't do it? Yes. But let's understand the context.”
-Meet the Press
If I’m snarky, it’s because some of us become partisan from understanding and others avoid understanding to maintain their partisanship. “I won’t read Clarke’s book,” “I cannot point to a single thing Bush did in his first 8 months to combat terrorism. Hopefully, someone is more well read than I,” and “but what did Clinton do about the Cole,” pretty well show where you live in that paradigm.
I have no use for that approach to politics. It’s just too damn harmful to the country.
Rice viewed this draft directive as the embodiment of a comprehensive new strategy employing all instruments of national power to eliminate the al Qaeda threat. Clarke, however, regarded the new draft as essentially similar to the proposal he had developed in December 2000 and put forward to the new administration in January 2001.202 In May or June, Clarke asked to be moved from his counterterrorism portfolio to a new set of responsibilities for cybersecurity. He told us that he was frustrated with his role and with an administration that he considered not “serious about al Qaeda.”203
The footnotes refer to the testimony of Rice and Clarke's interview by the 911 Commission.
At page 280 of the PDF, (263 paper version) we find this finding:
Clarke mentioned to National Security Advisor Rice at least twice that al Qaeda sleeper cells were likely in the United States. In January 2001, Clarke forwarded a strategy paper to Rice warning that al Qaeda had a presence in the United States. He noted that two key al Qaeda members in the Jordanian cell involved in the millennium plot were naturalized U.S. citizens and that one jihadist suspected in the East Africa bombings had “informed the FBI that an extensive network of al Qida ‘sleeper agents’ currently exists in the US.” He added that Ressam’s abortive December 1999 attack revealed al Qaeda supporters in the United States.44 His analysis, however, was based not on new threat reporting but on past experience.
Here's footnote 44:
44. NSC memo, Clarke to Rice, al Qaeda review, Jan. 25, 2001 (attaching NSC memo,“Strategy for Eliminat ing the Threat from the Jihadists Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects,” Dec. 2000). Clarke had also mentioned domestic terrorist cells in connection with the possibility of reopening Pennsylvania Avenue. See NSC email, Clarke to Rice, Briefing on Pennsylvania Avenue, Mar. 23, 2001.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Near as I can find from the 9/11 report, here's the timeline.
11/10/00:
CIA analysts briefed the Small Group of principals on their preliminary findings that the attack was carried out by a cell of Yemeni residents with some ties to the transnational mujahideen network. According to the briefing, these residents likely had some support from al Qaeda. But the information on outside sponsorship, support, and direction of the operation was inconclusive.The next day, Berger and Clarke told President Clinton that while the investigation was continuing, it was becoming increasingly clear that al Qaeda had planned and directed the bombing.
11/25/00:
Berger and Clarke wrote President Clinton that although the FBI and CIA investigations had not reached a formal conclusion, they believed the investigations would soon conclude that the attack had been carried out by a large cell whose senior members belonged to al Qaeda.
[snip]
So far, Bin Ladin had not been tied personally to the attack and nobody had heard him directly order it, but two intelligence reports suggested that he was involved. When discussing possible responses, though, Berger referred to the premise—al Qaeda responsibility— as an “unproven assumption.”
In that same memo, Berger suggest giving the Taliban 90 ultimatium to expel al Quaeda and give up bin Laden -- or else.
12/21/00:
CIA made another presentation to the Small Group of principals on the investigative team’s findings.The CIA’s briefing slides said that their “preliminary judgment” was that Bin Ladin’s al Qaeda group “supported the attack” on the Cole , based on strong circumstantial evidence tying key perpetrators of the attack to al Qaeda.
Now here's the important part, what did Clinton conclude based on the above?
This, President Clinton and Berger told us, was not the conclusion they needed in order to go to war or deliver an ultimatum to the Taliban threatening war.The election and change of power was not the issue, President Clinton added.There was enough time. If the agencies had given him a definitive answer, he said, he would have sought a UN Security Council ultimatum and given the Taliban one, two, or three days before taking further action against both al Qaeda and the Taliban. But he did not think it would be responsible for a president to launch an invasion of another country just based on a “preliminary judgment.”
Hindsight's 20/20 He should have jumped the gun and did it anyway -- and Monica had nothing, I repeat, Wag-the-dog had nothing to do with his decision making. His Secretaries of State and Defense as well as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shelton, were all in agreement that they needed a little bit more to commit an act of war.
Can't imagine how Clarke felt. By Christmas '01, we were on the verge of war over the Cole. After the Inagural Ball, he couldn't even get a meeting. Tenant briefed Bush the same day that Clarke gave Rice his memo -- the plan she says wasn't a plan. They wanted to take a different approach, no "tit-for-tat," or "swatting at flies," but at POTUS's insistence they started developing a more regional approach -- which wasn't done, ironically, until 9/10/01. By March, the new administration lost interest in retaliation for the Cole. Wolfowitz considered it "stale."
If Clinton had started bombing the Taliban right before he left office -- if Bush had taken up where Clinton left off and pursued al Quaeda with the same seriousness as Clinton -- would 9/11 have happened? Saddly we'll never know, but we do know who tried and who didn't.
But, to answer your question, he was responding to partsan attacks from Republicans and warning the incoming administration of the biggest security threat we faced.
Mark- Clinton had every LEGAL right to commit troops to the hunt for Bin Laden. OBL was indicted in 98' by the United States Government, therefore authorizing the POTUS to use any means necessary to get him. He did not need the FBI or CIA to certify anything for him..he is the ultimate head of them and he makes the decision he tells them to go out and get OBL.
Going into get him was legal and warranted. He is the one that said that the CIA and FBI wouldn't certify that OBL was to blame etc...
He had the legal authority and he did not use it. He had the support of the Republicans and he did not use it...
What am I trying to conclude? Well read the report. We were hit repeatedly by Al Qaida and OBL...I believe that warrants at least a mention in a strategy plan of the number 1 threat facing us. He put more emphasis on NK, which is a threat not to be taken lightly, but NK didn't attack us..AlQaida did.
Considering the fact that stategy is part of the title..it says a lot! Considering we were repeatedly attacked from 93 to 00', it says a lot!
No, it doesn't. You have misunderstood the pupropse of the document. If it were a list of threats to the US and it omitted bin Laden and al Qaeda, you would have a point. But it isn't, and you don't.
++What was the point of the document that Clinton was mandated by law to turn in to the Congress in 2000, regarding our NATIONAL SECURITY, the final official assessment of national security policy and strategy by the Clinton team? I can't imagine what it was for...
Your right, this thing, declassified the day before Rice testified to the 9/11 commission, was given to Rice by Clarke five days after the inauguration, but it doesn't say a thing about "Al Queada."
It does however devote two of it's 13 pages to something called "al-Qida."
Now, from what I understand, since Mr. Intellectual Curiosity no longer wanted to "swat at flies." that 45,000 word document you keep harping on was scrapped without anybody reading it anyway in favor of re-creating the wheel.
They were warned, and as the 9/11 report says, the red lights were blinking.
The recurring song has been that Clinton had 8 years while Bush only had 8 months. But when things really got heated, after the Cole, Clinton only had 4 months until Commander Codpiece took over.
And I can't imagine why you're being dense. As I said, and if you can be bothered reading the whole title of ther document, you will see that it is called "A NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY FOR A GLOBAL AGE", and not "A BIG LIST OF THREATS TO THE USA."
In proposing strategy, a very general overview of the security situation in each region is given, but it doesn't go into much detail. Your criticism is unfounded.
Then again, I don't expect you to change it, so I'll stop wasting our time.
Now, from what I understand, since Mr. Intellectual Curiosity no longer wanted to "swat at flies." that 45,000 word document you keep harping on was scrapped without anybody reading it anyway in favor of re-creating the wheel.
Actually it was read and it was entered into the archives. It speaks volumes about how the administration viewed the threat of terrorism..William Jefferson Clinton put his name on it.
I have read the documents that you linked to...you said
The recurring song has been that Clinton had 8 years while Bush only had 8 months. But when things really got heated, after the Cole, Clinton only had 4 months until Commander Codpiece took over.
The document states that Al Qaida was linked to terrorist attacks against USA back to 93'. It mentions the indictment.imo, You are focusing on the USS Cole as if the other attacks never happened. The attack at the WTC in 93 should have been handled by the government and not the police. Clinton should have used the tools available to him to prohibit attacks. It wasn't like we were attacked once and not again..we kept getting attacked...Now much of what Clinton said in the interview doesn't match with what Clarke has said, so one of them appears to be confused on the facts...
Were there high-ranking Republicans that piled on this assertion? Hardly. As the Associated Press reported on the day of the attacks, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said the following on August 20, 1998:
Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do. [emphasis added]
Gingrich was not alone in his support. CNN’s Candy Crowley reported on August 21, 1998, the day after cruise missiles were sent into Afghanistan:
With law makers scattered to the four winds on August vacation, congressional offices revved up the faxes. From the Senate majority leader [Trent Lott], “Despite the current controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the president in full defense of America’s interests throughout the world.” [emphasis added]
Crowley continued:
“The United States political leadership always has and always will stand united in the face of international terrorism,” said the powerful Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee [Jesse Helms]. [emphasis added]
It was vintage rally around the flag, just as they did for Ronald Reagan when he bombed Libya, for George Bush when he sent armed forces to the Gulf.
The Atanta Journal-Constitution reported the same day:
“Our nation has taken action against very deadly terrorists opposed to the most basic principles of American freedom,” said Sen. Paul Coverdell, a Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “This action should serve as a reminder that no one is beyond the reach of American justice.” [emphasis added]
Former vice president Dan Quayle was quoted by CNN on August 23, 1998:
I don’t have a problem with the timing. You need to focus on the act itself. It was a correct act. Bill Clinton took—made a decisive decision to hit these terrorist camps. It’s probably long overdue. [emphasis added]
Were there some Republican detractors? Certainly. Chief amongst them was Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana:
I think we fear that we may have a president that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism and calls for him to step down.
Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) also questioned the timing at first. However, other Republicans pleaded with dissenters on their side of the aisle to get on board the operation, chief amongst them, Gingrich himself. As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Speaker felt the “Wag the Dog” comparisons were “sick”:
“Anyone who saw the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, anyone who saw the coffins come home, would not ask such a question,” said the House speaker, referring to the 12 Americans killed in the embassy bombings.
In fact, Gingrich did everything within his power to head off Republican criticism of these attacks as reported by the Boston Globe on August 23, 1998: Indeed, Gingrich even saw to it that one of his political associates, Rich Galen, sent a blast-Fax to conservative talk radio hosts urging them to lay off the president on the missile strikes, and making sure they knew of Gingrich’s strong support. [emphasis added]
That’s the same Rich Galen, by the way, who is openly urging Republican congressional candidates to try to take political advantage of the president’s sex scandal in their television advertising this fall.
Sound like Republicans were complaining about President Clinton obsessing over bin Laden? Or, does it seem that Mr. Clinton pulled this concept out of his… hat in front of Chris Wallace, and ran 99 yards with the ball, albeit in the wrong direction?
reads Richard Clarke’s book. Money:
[I]t’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up.
Clinton did not give up in the sense of an executive who gives an order and then moves on to other things, thinking the order is being carried out when in fact it is being ignored. Instead, Clinton knew at the time that his top military and intelligence officials were dragging their feet on going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. He gave up rather than use his authority to force them into action.
Between 1998 and 2000, the CIA and President Bill Clinton’s national security team were caught up in paralyzing policy disputes as they secretly debated the legal permissions for covert operations against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.
“Sound like Republicans were complaining about President Clinton obsessing over bin Laden?”
Why yes, you just quoted some in your own quote:
“I think we fear that we may have a president that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism and calls for him to step down.”
I can follow informative links (even stoned out of my gourd); can you remember what you wrote cold sober? Just how many Republicans complaining about Clinton’s actions do you think makes a difference? How about an impeachment trial? Care to quote anything from Coulter or Limbaugh from the same period (how many hicks from Ohio do you think were listening to Newt at drivetime)? How about something from or American Spectator or any of the Scaife rags?
You are a Koolaid drinker of the first order if you can find fault with Clinton’s failed efforts against significant (Republican) obstacles and no fault at all for George Bush’s complete incompetence to act in any way to the threat.
Just when are you going to start holding your leaders accountable? What. Did. George. Do?
shep- I am fully aware of who and what I quoted. Sobriety might do you good. Clinton had the support of the Republican leadership on terrorism..in fact the leadership was urging it's members to refrain from attacking Clinton. The difference in the 2 parties is that the Democrats can only single task whereas the Republicans can multi-task..they can support the POTUS on terrorism and punish him on the problems that he created for himself...
Coulter and Limbaugh? That is hysterical..so Bubba was afraid of the big bad press? Well yes I guess so..look how he reacted when a member of the press asked him relevant questions.
Good thing I'm in no condition to conclude that you're an idiot, Pam. And as long as I have to continue to deal with the consequences of sharing a country with voters of your acumen I think I'll keep drinking, thanks just the same.
He could have done quite a bit, even before the PDB, including using the CIA findings about the USS Cole to launch an attack on bin Laden or, at least, start building public and Congressional support for action against him. Instead, he started his plan to invade Iraq and went on vacation.
You are right, of course, that it probably would have done nothing to stop 9/11 and Bush holds little responsibility for it. That was mostly in the hands of George Tenet and Louis Freeh and, inasmuch as they were hired by Bill Clinton and proved incompetent to do their jobs, all three of them probably own more responsibility for failing to prevent 9/11.
What I do blame George Bush for is using 9/11 and a tragically stupid plan to install a puppet government and forward bases in Iraq to paint Democrats as less weaker at defending this country, when it was he and his brain trust who completely failed (and continue to fail) to understand the world, our true threats and what to do about them.
That was such a miserable thing to do and has had such horrible long-term consequences for the public’s understanding of the truth, our collective political will, our damaged national security, moral authority and reputation in the world – not to mention the hundreds of thousands of destroyed lives – it far eclipses anything bin Laden has done. To this day, Bush, Cheney and Rove are a far bigger threat to America than any we have ever faced.
Clarke wasn't allowed to meet with senior staff on terrorism, even though he was their in-house expert. After the Feb. 2001 Hart-Rudman report warned of "catastrophic" domestic terrorist attacks, Bush announced a terror task force led by Cheney - which never met. The FBI warned about Middle Eastern students at flight school in July 2001, but nothing was done. There was supposed to be a high-level meeting on terrorism in August 2001, but it was postponed because too many of the principals were on vacation, including the President.
And when the FBI delivered the PDB to Bush in Crawford, he replied, "OK, you've covered your ass, now."
So there was a lot of ignoring going on well before the PDB. And as for the 70 field investigations, I'll bet the FBI has 70 field investigations going on on virtually any topic right now. The question is, what did the administration do? Little or nothing, it turns out.
I'll ask it again. What could Bush have done to prevent 9/11?
Clarke wasn't allowed to meet with senior staff on terrorism, even though he was their in-house expert.
Source?
After the Feb. 2001 Hart-Rudman report warned of "catastrophic" domestic terrorist attacks, Bush announced a terror task force led by Cheney - which never met.
We've been warned about domestic terror attacks since 1993. After the first World Trade Center attack what was done to prevent other domestic attacks? I'm thinking Oklahoma. You are asking a fuck of a lot to be stopped without being willing to give up anything in return.
The FBI warned about Middle Eastern students at flight school in July 2001, but nothing was done. There was supposed to be a high-level meeting on terrorism in August 2001, but it was postponed because too many of the principals were on vacation, including the President.
Who got warned? What do you mean nothing? Wasn't it the FBI's job to investigate the flight schools. The FBI dropped this ball, so did the CIA. They aren't being walked through life having their hands held by whoever is currently President. Seriously.
I hear you and I agree with some. Bush was supposed to swear his oath and immediately set out to bomb Bin Laden? Really?
We got hit on 9/11 and a month later we were bombing Afghanistan to the Stone Age. What the fuck was Clinton so busy doing that he couldbn't get some kind of response going? Packing?
I've never said Bush could have prevented 9/11. Who knows? But there's a big gulf between doing nothing and doing something. You want me to justify everything, to present you with a perfect plan to prevent 9/11 - and at the same time, you still can't point to a *single thing* that Bush did to combat terror in his first 8 months in office. (In contrast, Clinton ran through his attempts cogently in five minutes on Fox, while at the same time admitting that he wishes he had done more.) Instead, you fall back onto the "it's no one's fault, so no one could have done anything" (tm Dean Esmay). And we're back to "nothing is Bush's responsibility." (The CIA needs its hands held? That's rich. He's the commander in chief! The fact is, he didn't know what was going on, and didn't care.)
Bush's image as a "terror warrior" is all smoke and mirrors, and (some) people are wising up to it. Meanwhile, the rest of us cling to magical thinking.
HOMER: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
LISA: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
HOMER: ... Thank you, dear.
[Lisa grabs a rock from the lawn, shows it to Homer]
LISA: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
HOMER: Oh, how does it work?
LISA: It doesn't work.
HOMER: Uh-huh.
LISA: It's just a stupid rock.
HOMER: Uh-huh.
LISA: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks for a moment, then pulls out some money]
HOMER: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Strawman.
"What the fuck was Clinton so busy doing that he couldbn't get some kind of response going?"
Evasion. But, to answer your question, he was responding to partsan attacks from Republicans and warning the incoming administration of the biggest security threat we faced. A threat that adminitration promtly and comprehensively ignored - as Adam so ably describes above. But I think we've covered that already.
I've never said Bush could have prevented 9/11. Who knows? But there's a big gulf between doing nothing and doing something. You want me to justify everything, to present you with a perfect plan to prevent 9/11 - and at the same time, you still can't point to a *single thing* that Bush did to combat terror in his first 8 months in office.
I don't want you to justify anything. I just want you to understand that the PDB is and was utterly meaningless. You're right about one thing. I cannot point to a single thing Bush did in his first 8 months to combat terrorism. Hopefully, someone is more well read than I.
(In contrast, Clinton ran through his attempts cogently in five minutes on Fox, while at the same time admitting that he wishes he had done more.) Instead, you fall back onto the "it's no one's fault, so no one could have done anything" (tm Dean Esmay). And we're back to "nothing is Bush's responsibility." (The CIA needs its hands held? That's rich. He's the commander in chief! The fact is, he didn't know what was going on, and didn't care.)
Clinton has 8 years to draw from and honestly he should have done more. He didn't even do anything to strike back against the USS Cole.
The only thing I'm saying is that 9/11 isn't Bush's fault. I also say it isn't Clinton's. Bush has a lot to answer for and he is responsible for a lot of fuck ups. Perhaps after he's been out of office for 5 years, he cal tell Chris Wallace that he's sorry too.
Strawman my ass. YOu said: He could have done quite a bit, even before the PDB, including using the CIA findings about the USS Cole to launch an attack on bin Laden or, at least, start building public and Congressional support for action against him. Instead, he started his plan to invade Iraq and went on vacation.
The Cole happened in October 2000. You think that Bush should've been planning an attack in August 2001? Really? Doesn't that seem 10 months too late?
The Cole attack should have been retaliated immediately by Clinton. And, since as you said Clinton was too busy worrying about his personal problems with Republicans to do HIS JOB, when did you figure our newly sworn President should've cleaned up his mess?
I'm still cleaning the coffee off my screen after reading this gem: Evasion. But, to answer your question, he was responding to partsan attacks from Republicans and warning the incoming administration of the biggest security threat we faced. A threat that adminitration promtly and comprehensively ignored - as Adam so ably describes above. But I think we've covered that already.
I cannot believe you typed that without feeling a massive amount of disgust with yourself. You feel that it was reasonable for a seasoned, experienced President Clinton to not respond to an attack on our military because the Republicans were being mean.
Pathetic. You should hang your head in shame.
You need to read up on the history before you say any more, you really don’t seem to understand enough to comment on it.
Bill Clinton did respond even as he was being impeached by Republicans for refusing to cooperate with a right-wing financed political hit, even without any legal finding to do so. George. Bush. Did. Nothing.
Bush had legal authority to act, wasn’t dealing with a partisan impeachment, was warned repeatedly about the threat and George. Bush. Did. Nothing.
Clinton tried and failed. George. Bush. Did. Nothing.
Any more qusetions?
I need to read? I don't understand?
Bill Clinton did respond even as he was being impeached by Republicans for refusing to cooperate with a right-wing financed political hit, even without any legal finding to do so. George. Bush. Did. Nothing.
Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998. The USS Cole was struck in 2000. Clinton didn't do shit in response to it. Shove your snark up your ass and read some more history yourself.
As there wasn't much evidence at the time as to who was responsible for it, who exactly were they to bomb in retaliation for the Cole bombing?
If memory serves, Bush was handed the legal finding on Jan. 25, 01. At that point, the White House staff was still searching for all the missing Ws on their keyboards.
Oh, and the sources you're looking for are all in that terribly boring tome written by Richard Clarke.
C’mon, Rosemary, you know what I meant. Clinton responded to the threat. “Wag the Dog,” remember?
“RICHARD CLARKE: Well, he did something, and President Bush did nothing, prior to September 11th. So, yeah, but let's talk about the Cole. The Cole was attacked in October of 2000. President Bush was running for office. He never mentioned it. Vice President Gore was running for office. He never mentioned it. The media hardly touched it. What were they focused on? They were focused on the election, and they were focused on the Middle East peace process. I thought it was a mistake, and the very fact that I quote Mike Sheehan in the book as saying that, I think it's indicative of how he felt and how I felt. If I didn't think it was a mistake, that wouldn't be in the book. The facts have come out. The facts have come out before the 9-11 commission that the FBI and the CIA refused to say who did it in October of 2000. And the President was, therefore, faced with the problem: 'Can I go ahead and bomb somebody in retaliation for the attack on the Cole, when my CIA director and my FBI director won't say who did it?'
Now, this is the same President who, when he bombed Afghanistan, when he bombed Al Qaeda camps because George Tenet and I and Sandy Berger recommended that he do it in order to get Bin Laden and the leadership team where we thought they were going to be meeting. The reaction he faced to that was the so-called "Wag the Dog" phenomenon. No one in the media, Tim, no one in the media, no one in the Congress said, "Oh, that's a great thing that you are retaliating for the attack on the United States." They said, "This is all about Monica Lewinsky," and "This is all about your political problems." So now, the same President who had the experience last time he fired cruise missiles at Bin Laden, wants to fire cruise missiles at Bin Laden, but he's got a CIA director and an FBI director who won't say, 'Bin Laden did it, Mr. President.' I would still have done it. I recommended doing it. Do I think it was mistake that we didn't do it? Yes. But let's understand the context.”
-Meet the Press
If I’m snarky, it’s because some of us become partisan from understanding and others avoid understanding to maintain their partisanship. “I won’t read Clarke’s book,” “I cannot point to a single thing Bush did in his first 8 months to combat terrorism. Hopefully, someone is more well read than I,” and “but what did Clinton do about the Cole,” pretty well show where you live in that paradigm.
I have no use for that approach to politics. It’s just too damn harmful to the country.
From the 9/11 report at page 222 (205 of the paper version) [html link that might work]The footnotes refer to the testimony of Rice and Clarke's interview by the 911 Commission.
At page 280 of the PDF, (263 paper version) we find this finding:Here's footnote 44:
Let me get back to you on the FBI finding.
11/10/00: 11/25/00: In that same memo, Berger suggest giving the Taliban 90 ultimatium to expel al Quaeda and give up bin Laden -- or else.
12/21/00:Now here's the important part, what did Clinton conclude based on the above?Hindsight's 20/20 He should have jumped the gun and did it anyway -- and Monica had nothing, I repeat, Wag-the-dog had nothing to do with his decision making. His Secretaries of State and Defense as well as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shelton, were all in agreement that they needed a little bit more to commit an act of war.
Can't imagine how Clarke felt. By Christmas '01, we were on the verge of war over the Cole. After the Inagural Ball, he couldn't even get a meeting. Tenant briefed Bush the same day that Clarke gave Rice his memo -- the plan she says wasn't a plan. They wanted to take a different approach, no "tit-for-tat," or "swatting at flies," but at POTUS's insistence they started developing a more regional approach -- which wasn't done, ironically, until 9/10/01. By March, the new administration lost interest in retaliation for the Cole. Wolfowitz considered it "stale."
If Clinton had started bombing the Taliban right before he left office -- if Bush had taken up where Clinton left off and pursued al Quaeda with the same seriousness as Clinton -- would 9/11 have happened? Saddly we'll never know, but we do know who tried and who didn't.
Taliban 90 ultimatium == Taliban a 90 day ultimatium
The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.
It barely mentions anyone by name. So? It's a long-term national security strategy, not a risk assessment.
Bush and Co. on the other hand didn't even think is was as urgent as Clinton or warranted as much attention.
So what exactly are you trying to conclude with that talking point you keep repeating?
He had the legal authority and he did not use it. He had the support of the Republicans and he did not use it...
What am I trying to conclude? Well read the report. We were hit repeatedly by Al Qaida and OBL...I believe that warrants at least a mention in a strategy plan of the number 1 threat facing us. He put more emphasis on NK, which is a threat not to be taken lightly, but NK didn't attack us..AlQaida did.
You mean George W. Bush, right?
No, it doesn't. You have misunderstood the pupropse of the document. If it were a list of threats to the US and it omitted bin Laden and al Qaeda, you would have a point. But it isn't, and you don't.
Oh, please do explain.
You mean Republican support like this?:
"If Clinton did anything, he was accused of wagging the dog."
If you've got any way to back up that ridiculous assertion, I suggest that you lay it down. I've got better bullsh*t to attend to.
Your right, this thing, declassified the day before Rice testified to the 9/11 commission, was given to Rice by Clarke five days after the inauguration, but it doesn't say a thing about "Al Queada."
It does however devote two of it's 13 pages to something called "al-Qida."
Now, from what I understand, since Mr. Intellectual Curiosity no longer wanted to "swat at flies." that 45,000 word document you keep harping on was scrapped without anybody reading it anyway in favor of re-creating the wheel.
They were warned, and as the 9/11 report says, the red lights were blinking.
The recurring song has been that Clinton had 8 years while Bush only had 8 months. But when things really got heated, after the Cole, Clinton only had 4 months until Commander Codpiece took over.
And I can't imagine why you're being dense. As I said, and if you can be bothered reading the whole title of ther document, you will see that it is called "A NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY FOR A GLOBAL AGE", and not "A BIG LIST OF THREATS TO THE USA."
In proposing strategy, a very general overview of the security situation in each region is given, but it doesn't go into much detail. Your criticism is unfounded.
Then again, I don't expect you to change it, so I'll stop wasting our time.
I have read the documents that you linked to...you said
The document states that Al Qaida was linked to terrorist attacks against USA back to 93'. It mentions the indictment.imo, You are focusing on the USS Cole as if the other attacks never happened. The attack at the WTC in 93 should have been handled by the government and not the police. Clinton should have used the tools available to him to prohibit attacks. It wasn't like we were attacked once and not again..we kept getting attacked...Now much of what Clinton said in the interview doesn't match with what Clarke has said, so one of them appears to be confused on the facts...
The Cruise Missle Attacks:
Were there high-ranking Republicans that piled on this assertion? Hardly. As the Associated Press reported on the day of the attacks, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said the following on August 20, 1998:
Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do. [emphasis added]
Gingrich was not alone in his support. CNN’s Candy Crowley reported on August 21, 1998, the day after cruise missiles were sent into Afghanistan:
With law makers scattered to the four winds on August vacation, congressional offices revved up the faxes. From the Senate majority leader [Trent Lott], “Despite the current controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the president in full defense of America’s interests throughout the world.” [emphasis added]
Crowley continued:
“The United States political leadership always has and always will stand united in the face of international terrorism,” said the powerful Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee [Jesse Helms]. [emphasis added]
It was vintage rally around the flag, just as they did for Ronald Reagan when he bombed Libya, for George Bush when he sent armed forces to the Gulf.
The Atanta Journal-Constitution reported the same day:
“Our nation has taken action against very deadly terrorists opposed to the most basic principles of American freedom,” said Sen. Paul Coverdell, a Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “This action should serve as a reminder that no one is beyond the reach of American justice.” [emphasis added]
Former vice president Dan Quayle was quoted by CNN on August 23, 1998:
I don’t have a problem with the timing. You need to focus on the act itself. It was a correct act. Bill Clinton took—made a decisive decision to hit these terrorist camps. It’s probably long overdue. [emphasis added]
Were there some Republican detractors? Certainly. Chief amongst them was Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana:
I think we fear that we may have a president that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism and calls for him to step down.
Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) also questioned the timing at first. However, other Republicans pleaded with dissenters on their side of the aisle to get on board the operation, chief amongst them, Gingrich himself. As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Speaker felt the “Wag the Dog” comparisons were “sick”:
“Anyone who saw the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, anyone who saw the coffins come home, would not ask such a question,” said the House speaker, referring to the 12 Americans killed in the embassy bombings.
In fact, Gingrich did everything within his power to head off Republican criticism of these attacks as reported by the Boston Globe on August 23, 1998:
Indeed, Gingrich even saw to it that one of his political associates, Rich Galen, sent a blast-Fax to conservative talk radio hosts urging them to lay off the president on the missile strikes, and making sure they knew of Gingrich’s strong support. [emphasis added]
That’s the same Rich Galen, by the way, who is openly urging Republican congressional candidates to try to take political advantage of the president’s sex scandal in their television advertising this fall.
Sound like Republicans were complaining about President Clinton obsessing over bin Laden? Or, does it seem that Mr. Clinton pulled this concept out of his… hat in front of Chris Wallace, and ran 99 yards with the ball, albeit in the wrong direction?
reads Richard Clarke’s book. Money:
[I]t’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up.
Clinton did not give up in the sense of an executive who gives an order and then moves on to other things, thinking the order is being carried out when in fact it is being ignored. Instead, Clinton knew at the time that his top military and intelligence officials were dragging their feet on going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. He gave up rather than use his authority to force them into action.
Between 1998 and 2000, the CIA and President Bill Clinton’s national security team were caught up in paralyzing policy disputes as they secretly debated the legal permissions for covert operations against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.
Change? Hell, she just cut an pasted an argument I could swear she cut and pasted before.
And relax, it isn't anything compared to the novels you leave...
Why yes, you just quoted some in your own quote:
“I think we fear that we may have a president that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism and calls for him to step down.”
I can follow informative links (even stoned out of my gourd); can you remember what you wrote cold sober? Just how many Republicans complaining about Clinton’s actions do you think makes a difference? How about an impeachment trial? Care to quote anything from Coulter or Limbaugh from the same period (how many hicks from Ohio do you think were listening to Newt at drivetime)? How about something from or American Spectator or any of the Scaife rags?
You are a Koolaid drinker of the first order if you can find fault with Clinton’s failed efforts against significant (Republican) obstacles and no fault at all for George Bush’s complete incompetence to act in any way to the threat.
Just when are you going to start holding your leaders accountable? What. Did. George. Do?
Coulter and Limbaugh? That is hysterical..so Bubba was afraid of the big bad press? Well yes I guess so..look how he reacted when a member of the press asked him relevant questions.
When in the asylum...
Oh, I see what you mean. Like My Pet Goat and "Mr. President, the country is under attack." Very impressive.