PLEASE READ THE TRANSCRIPT HERE
As Lisa mentioned in this post, Bubba became enraged about the criticism he is receiving on his less than stellar performance at fighting terrorism. Part of what he discussed was the fact that he left the most comprehensive terrorism review for the Bush Administration and what did Bush do? He demoted Richard Clark! Well, that comprehensive review was all of 45,000 words long ” makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times. Experts are ranked as such because of their ability to thwart attacks, not react to them. Clark is very knowledgeable on how to react to the after shocks!
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.
He got one thing right in that interview…HE FAILED!
I watched this inerview on this mornong- it appears that Clinton’s “Angry Democrat” roots are beginning to shine through. Maybe people will begin to see Slick Willie for what he really is…but that’s doubtful.
As inconvenient as it is, the Bush administration ignored the threat that was right on their doorstep.
The USS Cole was bombed in October 2000. Richard Clarke brought it up to the new Bush administration in January of 2001 as an open issue that needed to be dealt with. To quote Condolezza Rice:
“I do not believe to this day that it would have been a good thing to respond to the Cole, given the kinds of options that we were going to have. : We really thought that the Cole incident was passed, that you didn’t want to respond tit-for-tat. :Just responding to another attack in an insufficient way we thought would actually probably embolden the terrorists ” they had been emboldened by everything else that had been done to them ” and that the best course was to look ahead to a more aggressive strategy against them.” (emphasis added)
I love the last part best, it sounds like the administration was actually planning something and didn’t want to tip their hand to their grand plan. Translation: We didn’t take the threat seriously for 8 months and then we had to stop dragging our feet and look like we were doing something…
..Chuck..
Chuck- Let me be clear on something here…I do feel thi administration did drop the ball on certain things. I don’t want you to think I don’t.
As for your example, I could take away from it that yes, they did have plans for them. And that is a good thing…but I think that the example is a good one for your arguement.. Where did you get it? What context was it used in?
3 – Peejz, I got it from Condleeza Rice’s testimony to the 9/11 commission.
..Chuck..
P.S. I really do enjoy debating with you. You are very intellectually honest.
4- Thanks for that Chuck. This is my take…
1. I do think that the Bush 43 adm., came in with an agenda to get Saddam. At the same time, I think that 41 failed to take him out when he should have.
2. I think that 43 should have warned the public about that Aug 01′ memo. If we needed to disrupt air transport..so be it. We didn’t do that and look what happened…I know I say that in hindsight, but let’s look at present day air..we know that liquid bombs have been confiscated..we restrict personal bottles for all of 1 month! Go figure that out:roll:
3. I think we blew the chance to get OBL in Tora Bora, but I can’t find good links to show where the mis-steps were made. (If you have them, I would love them)
4. I do believe that Clinton was paralyzed by fear of negative poll numbers. We can argue back and forth about how people feel that Bush has trampled on the COTUS, but the suits about warrantless wiretaps are not moving forward..the 1 judge that did rule on it will be overturned and we have yet to have another successful attack…I will not sit by and watch what I did yesterday..the man had the opportunity to clear the record and he did nothing to further his cause…He had the support of the Republican leadership…yet he allowed the lawyers to fail all of us.
“As inconvenient as it is, the Bush administration ignored the threat that was right on their doorstep.”
I disagree.
The result of both Clinton and Bush’s inaction regarding Al Queda was the result of 40 years of foreign policy towards said threats. I don’t blame either administation, but for Clinton to sit there and claim he came closest to killing bin Laden is ridiculous.
See, “dead” is an absolute. One is dead, or they are alive.
That said though, I’ve watched both sides ridicule the other regarding this topic and this finger pointing is inane. the sole blame for 9/11 should be directed at the people who planned and executed it, period.
Ted, obviously the blame for 9/11 falls on the terrorists, but the govt has responsibility for how they react to threats. That is what we are addressing.
I understand that Peejz, I addressed that already.
The reaction by both Clinton and Bush2, as well as every president since the 60′s (actually, further back that that, but we won’t get into that UN debacle) was the result of a standard policy the the US has always held. It is quite different than the USSR, whose very well known standard policy was not to kill the terrorist, but their family (including children) and pretty much the entire tribe/village (BHarbaric, but effective)
My point is that laying blame for those “reactions” prior 9/11 is inane. We gauged our standard reaction with the perceived threat. At 9/11, that perception changed, plain and simple.
But Ted, we didn’t gauge our reaction with the perceived threat..we didn’t do anything to stop the attacks. The first bombing of the Trade Center should have, but didn’t change it. It was allowed to be handled by the local police rather than the gov’t..Maybe you and I can see the fault in that, but I don’t think we can say the majority sees it that way.
Peejz,
That was the standard reaction at that point though. There were few deaths of civilians in that instance and to that point and as such it was handled as it was handled for the last forty years. The threat was not perceived as we do so now, and thus we thought our reaction was guaged appropriately.
It seems we are all hindsight 20/20 armchair quarterbacking now.
5- Peejz excellent points.
1. I did hear from a number of people (3rd hand of course) that Bush1 quite literally had Saddam in the crosshairs, but declined to take him out. Some have said (oh man do I feel like a Fox commentator now) that it was because Bush1 knew the awful job ahead of him if he had to rebuild the nation. I’ve passively wondered whether there was enough information to untangle the details and figure out why. I’m sure there’s a good rundown somewhere out there. If you know of one, I’d like to see it.
2. Absolutely! Airline security is even crazier than that though. Think about this, if prisoners can have guns, drugs and knives in a maximum security prison facility, what makes the TSA think that it has any hope against a determined/creative terrorist? Within IT Security, we can severely restrict the domain of attacks to the orderly realm of electrons and structured protocols. *EVEN STILL* we never say that anyone can be 100% secure. In fact, it’s a mantra that even the best security can’t protect you forever from a determined well funded professional. Take a look at Bruce Schneier’s work. He’s on the TSA advisory board and puts out a fascinating monthly newsletter on security called Crypto-Gram.
3. Give this one a try. It’s a really good read.
4. It’s a tough call. I think Bush isn’t as concerned with the legal consequences of being in the “grey zone” as Clinton was. I make no value statement there, only because I haven’t thought about it long enough. There are positives to both approaches. On the one hand you can argue that Clinton has a greater respect for the COTUS and wanted to be more careful to balance his mandate with the rules of the game. On the other hand, you can argue that Bush has the same level of respect for the COTUS and simply assumes that there are sufficient protections built into the executive office that he’ll be insulated from any major fallout.
..Chuck..
Chuck-
1. That is exactly what I have heard. I also understand that rumor has it that 41 warned him about taking Saddam out..
2&3. thanks for the links!
4. I have heard this a number of times this week: Clinton said he tried and failed to have OBL killed, but in the next breath he says that he didn’t see where he had the legal authority to authorize the death of OBL…which is it?(rhetorical)