|
Bush "Ignored" 9/11 Threats...
First, this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with John Kerry. Had he been President, I have no idea whether his administration would have done better. You don't either.
As I've said a number of times, I'm not crazy about either candidate. However, I do think that it is telling that President Bush is using video of 9/11 in campaign ads( http://www.greeksource.com/gcforums/...threadid=47621), and when this kind of charge comes up, the response from the National Security Advisor is basically, "It's not our fault, that bad boy Billy did the same thing and we just went along." It's not like it happened shortly after the President took office -- nearly 8 months is not a long time, but it isn't that short, either. I don't know whether Mr. (Ambassador, I believe) Clarke is a Republican or Democrat, but he served for over 30 years and worked for 4 Presidents which would indicate to me that he worked in both GOP and Democrat administrations. "Updated: 08:54 AM EST Bush's Ex-Terror Adviser Says Bush Ignored Threats NEW YORK (March 21) - A former White House anti-terrorism adviser has accused U.S. President George W. Bush of ignoring terrorism threats before the Sept. 11 attacks and of making America less safe. AP Clarke's comments will air Sunday on "60 Minutes." Richard Clarke, Bush's top official on counter-terrorism who headed a cybersecurity board, told CBS "60 minutes" in an interview to be aired on Sunday he thought Bush had "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism." "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11," Clarke told CBS. Clarke, who was an adviser to four presidents, says in a book to be published next week that the Bush administration should have taken out al Qaeda and its training camps in Afghanistan long before the attacks of Sept. 11, for which the militant network was blamed. "I think the way he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11, has made us less safe," Clarke told CBS. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the Bush administration followed former President Bill Clinton's policy on al Qaeda until it had developed its own terrorism strategy. In a transcript of a NBC News interview, made available by the White House on Saturday, Rice said terrorism was a high priority for Bush from the outset of his term. "We did pursue the Clinton administration policy and pursued it actively, until we could get in a place a more comprehensive policy -- not to roll back al Qaeda -- but to eliminate al Qaeda," Rice said. She said Bush had only been in office 230 days when the Sept. 11 attacks happened. "Even if we had been able to do it in 190 days, or 150 days, it was a policy that our counterterrorism people told us was going to eliminate al Qaeda over three to five years," she said. "This was not something that was going to stop September 11th." Asked why the government did not retaliate after intelligence in Spring 2001 showed al Qaeda was behind the bombing of the USS Cole warship in Yemen, Rice said: "We were concerned that we didn't have good military options, that really all we had were options like using cruise missiles to go after training camps that had long been abandoned and that it might have just the opposite effect, it might, in fact embolden the terrorists, not frighten them, or not think that they were being taken seriously." CBS said Clarke asserts in his book, "Against All Enemies," that Bush ignored ominous intelligence "chatter" in 2001 about possible terror attacks, but Bush's National Security counsel, Stephen Hadley, said Bush did hear those warnings and was impatient for intelligence chiefs to develop a new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda. "All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas. But interestingly enough, the president got concerned about whether there was the possibility of an attack on the homeland," Hadley told CBS. He said "the president put us on battle stations. He asked the intelligence community: 'Look hard. See if we're missing something about a threat to the homeland."' Clarke, who left his position in February 2003 after 30 years in government service when the White House transferred functions of the cybersecurity board to Homeland Security, said Bush's decision to invade Iraq had strengthened terror groups." Edited to remove a link to an AOL Chat Room. |
I just think hindsight is 20/20.
There wasn't a compelling reason prior to 9/11 to prompt a president to commit huge resources to tracking down terroists. After Sept. 11th there was such a push to do something that not only did we go into Afghanistan, we were able to invade Iraq, override civil liberties and create a whole new administrative arm of the government (office of the HS). The environment is different. As far as Bush capitalizing on 9/11 in this campaign . . well he is a politician I think we expect it. I am sure this Clark fellow is right . . but Clark is a specialist so he has a fairly narrow focus, the president has a lot more concerns. |
Quote:
And the attack on the Cole. The latter probably sheds some negative light on Clinton -- but he's not the point in this case. And, if he did a less than adequate job, why did the Bush folks just follow his policies? |
I agree with you, it just seems like a hindsight thing . . .
We wouldn't be arguing this if 9/11 hadn't happened, or even a lesser terrorist strike had. His criticism that the President didn't have an effective policy then or even now may be true and if so is very valid . . especially given that the PResident is running off an "I am needed to save the nation" platform. However, its unfair the way the press will milk this in saying that the President's action/inaction caused 9/11 . . . thats a pretty strong villification. |
Quote:
Al Qaeda caused it. |
Before or after September 11th not a day goes by without an American (and heck others) Embassy etc being threatened somewhere in the world. Based on intelligence they must and can only respond as they judge appropriately to each one. I think saying they are 'ignored' is foolish. It is not as if someone listens to the threat, laughs and puts down the phone then wanders off to make a coffee.
Further, both in Clinton's administration and the current one there have also been attempts made - e.g. to blow up major bridges in the US (I forget which one) which have been foiled and therefore unsuccessful. These are for security reasons not publicised or widely publicised. This paragraph based on comments of ex-President Bill Clinton during an interview. |
Quote:
|
Re: Bush "Ignored" 9/11 Threats...
Quote:
He was on "Sixty Minutes" this evening and struck me as extremely believable. I sure would be interested in hearing what the folks at CIA and FBI would say if they weren't encumbered by still working for the government -- and thus, The President. |
I watched 60 Minutes and Dick Clark does seem credible. He has a long history of service to the US as DA outlined. He has worked for the government for 30 years. I found O'Neill credible also.
They kept recounting a conversation that the President and Clark had a few days after Sept. 11, 2001. Apparently, the President kept asking Clark if Iraq and Saddam were involved with the attacks. Maybe you guys can give me your opinions of this conversation. |
Wow 2 former aides so far coming forward about Bush before 9/11 and his obsession about Iraq. If any more former aides come forward maybe some people that trusted Bush before may not as much after?
Too bad this 9/11 commission won't give its findings til after the election. |
With absolutely NO facts to back it up, I heard some time ago, and have believed, that President Bush Two has been out to get Sadaam, at any cost, since the apparantely documented attempt on President Bush One sponsored by Iraq.
On one hand, that's understandable, but not at the sums in men, material and treasur that the Iraq war has and is costing. When you're President, you have to put personal vendettas aside. The myopic predestination toward war, along with the highly unsubstantiated partnership between Iraq and Al Qaeda were a fabrication if you believe Mr. Clarke. Frankly, to me, the "proof" of WMD's that Secretary Powell (a man I greatly admire), took to the the UN was laughable. President Bush seemed hell bent to depose Sadaam no matter what he was told by advisors, etc. I have believed, and said it here in other threads, that the President lied to the American people to gain his own ends. The demonstrations around the world of last year certainly sent a message that there was a huge lack of support for the overthrow of the Iraqi government -- even though no love was lost for it. I also thought that the administration representative (name escapes me) on Sixty Minutes really seemed like a drone spouting the company line. Poor choice. Perhaps someone else might have been more convincing. The fact that Clarke has worked for more Republican administrations (and for much longer) adds some credibility as well. It is possible that he has a huge ego and is trying to get retribution at Bush for "demoting" him, but you can generally sense if that's true from a person's language and demeanor. I didn't get that from the man. |
|
As much as I dislike Bush and his policies in general, I don't think that anybody could foresee 9/11 happening because we (the whole country, including people who should probably know better) thought we were invincible. Well, we found out that we're not, the hard way and it shook us all to the core. Everybody wants someone to blame, but the only people to blame are the terrorists. Even if they did know that there might be some sort of plan to use plans in a terrorist act, what would they have changed? There hasn't been evidence presented that they knew when or where. Look at all the times we've gone to high alert status and nothing happened. It makes us (the peons) take the elevated status less seriously each time.
Iraq is a whole nother story and completely unrelated to 9/11, although there are an awful lot of people who don't realize that. While I was opposed to the war in Iraq, I was not opposed to our actions in Afghanistan. We need to get al qaeda and that's where our resources should have been focused all along. Dee |
DA-Did you REALLY think I'd let this slide by???;)
BTW- Do you ever clean out your #*&#! BOX! From everybody's favorite editorialist...Ann Coulter- http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...eronthehotseat As long as we're investigating everything, how about investigating why some loser no one has ever heard of is getting so much press coverage for yet another "tell-all" book attacking the Bush administration? When an FBI (news - web sites) agent with close, regular contact with President Clinton (news - web sites) wrote his book, he was virtually blacklisted from the mainstream media. Upon the release of Gary Aldrich's book "Unlimited Access" in 1996, White House adviser George Stephanopoulos immediately called TV producers demanding that they give Aldrich no airtime. In terms of TV exposure, Aldrich's book might well have been titled "No Access Whatsoever." "Larry King Live" and NBC's "Dateline" abruptly canceled their scheduled interviews with Aldrich. Aldrich was mentioned on fewer than a dozen TV shows during the entire year of his book's release -- many with headlines like this one on CNN: "Even Conservatives Back Away From Aldrich's Book." That's almost as much TV as Lewinsky mouthpiece William Ginsburg did before breakfast on an average day. (Let's take a moment here to imagine the indignity of being known as "Monica Lewinsky's mouthpiece....") But a "tell-all" book that attacks the Bush administration gets the author interviewed on CBS' "60 Minutes" (two segments), CNN's "American Morning" and ABC's "Good Morning America" -- with an "analysis" by George Stephanopoulos, no less. In the first few days of its release, Clarke's book was hyped on more than 200 TV shows. I found this part to be on target. All this was while Clarke was presiding over six unanswered al-Qaida attacks on American interests and fretting about the looming Y2K emergency. But chair-warmer Clarke claims that on the basis of Rice's "facial expression" he could tell she was not familiar with the term "al-Qaida." Isn't that just like a liberal? The chair-warmer describes Bush as a cowboy and Rumsfeld as his gunslinger -- but the black chick is a dummy. Maybe even as dumb as Clarence Thomas (news - web sites)! Perhaps someday liberals could map out the relative intelligence of various black government officials for us. |
Ann Coulter is about as crediable Al Franken. If George Stephanopoulos was that powerfull to influence both books getting air play that way; I am suprized he doesn't play a bigger roll on tv. The networks are all about ratings and if Aldrich's story would have given them good ones everyone would be interviewing him.
Next thing you know she will be saying Hillary Clinton was the person that forced Bush to go to Iraq when he didn't really want to. :rolleyes: |
Quote:
Didn't realize I was that popular. It's cleaned out now. I'll actually get around to reading the end of the thread sometime. It's theatre (Hairspray -- although I already saw it in NY last night) and kids visiting weekend. |
Quote:
As for Boy George and his alleged power to block network interviews, etc. Bull. It just don't work that way. Any producer who allowed himself to be "rolled" like that would be gone in a heartbeat. I still find Clarke at least as credible as the White House employees who have been assigned to besmirch his reputation. I might have felt differently if he hadn't worked for three Republican administrations (and one Democrat). As for the timing of the book -- two thoughts. If it were politically motivated, wouldn't September or October have been a better time? Pleople do tend to forget stuff like this over long periods. Second, he's been off the Federal payroll about 18 months, I think. It takes time to write a book. |
Oh come on you guys! (Said with a smile & good nature)
DA-As for Boy George and his alleged power to block network interviews, etc. Bull. Just one little flaw with you're thinking on this. If the political agendas align, then it's rather easy to be agreeable to a suggestion. ESPECIALLY when the majority of your viewers will either buy it or eat it up. I think there are more than enough incidents of bias on CNN alone to support this. 60 minutes??? Wow, that's a real serious news reporting source. Of course, FOX is accused of the same thing to their slant. Sorry, but I DO think Clarke is lying. Yeah, I've posted before that Ann Coulter can really get to me, but to post Clarke's word on HIMSELF is not the best source either. I think the last thing Hillary was guilty of...oops blamed for, was "moving" those darn files! Oh I'm wrong again...didn't it have something to do with the demise of Vince Foster? No mean responses.:) |
JAM,
Until the advent of FoxNews, there is no way that any major national electronic news organization would have done that. The reason began with the now replaced Communications Act of 1934 which legislated equal opportunity and "fairness" from broadcast journalists. The TV networks and stations were bound by that law, because otherwise they could lose their license. Given that the Federal Communications Commssion is generally controlled by the party in power, nobody was willing to take that chance. The so called, "Fairness Doctrine" which, although much misunderstood, dictated equal time or equal opportunity in stories and editorials was dropped in an update of those rules in the late 1990's, but the basic tenants of fairness in coverage remain. In the beginning, the cable news networks followed suit because they had US broadcast companies as their founders. The fact, though, is that the FCC has little or no control over cable -- because the don't broadcast over the "Public Airwaves." (Sorry, I know I've been through this before.) Fox broke the mold because it's owner (in the beginning) was not an American Citizen. In fact, he had to become one in order to buy US broadcasting facilities before he could have on air stations. I'm talking, of course, about Rupert Murdoch, owner of The News Corporation. I contend that if you look at his local on-air stations, you will find a much more balanced editorial philisophy -- at least at those who do newscasts, which many don't. (This whole thing becomes blurred since the majority of people receive all of their video sources from cable and don't know what is an on-air and what is a cable programming source.) I used to chuckle when I heard about the "Liberal" (or conservative) Media. Every station I've ever worked for kept phone logs, and are required to keep written (letters and now e-mails) comments from viewers for their FCC Public File which is a part of their license renewal committment. In EVERY controversial story I can remember, the comments in favor of one side or another were within a couple of percentage points of being dead even. This is/was particularly true of political stories, because the oversight was so strict. That indicates to me a pretty fair and impartial system. The thing is, of course, that depending on your leaning, a balanced story leans one way or another in your mind, depending on whether you agree or disagree. You hear or read into reportage what you want to hear. If I am absolutely down the center, politically, and you are somewhere on the right -- I'm still left of you. And vice versa. At least historically, I really do believe that broadcasters were pretty fair because they were the only journalists upon which the government could influence some amount of control. Print journalists aren't licensed. No matter how any Executive Producer or line producer aligns politically, there was (is still in the case of on-air media) a higher authority who must guard the station license -- because without one, the station cannot remain a viable business. If George S. (not going to try to spell his name), who works for ABC, was able to quash a story or duly influence it one way or another, it was most likely because the story (or book) was wrong. Newspapers and other print media have/had no such control and historically have been tagged as leaning heavily to the right or left -- even to the point of the "Yellow Journalism" of the past. All of the above is the reason that I dislike the cable networks so much. Their strict standards of professionalism and fairness aren't the same as the ones of the journalists of the past who were the "most trusted," (ala Walter Cronkite) people in America. Unhappily, that has changed pretty dramatically in the past several years. (part of that is because of political parties propaganda efforts, but I'm not even going to get into that.) |
Re: Bush "Ignored" 9/11 Threats...
Quote:
|
Re: Re: Bush "Ignored" 9/11 Threats...
Quote:
The only footage I've seen of Kerry was of himself and his boat crew. I think that's a big difference. |
First-Several news sources have pulled up recorded statements by Condoleza (sp?) Rice 11 months prior to 9-11.
Her statement included that the biggest threat she saw was the (existing-my word) lack of communication between the FBI and the CIA. She said this was a priority because they didn't want to wake up one morning and find Al Qaeda in our own neighborhood. I guess that's lie number one since Clarke said, "From the look on her face"-loosely- it appeared she had never HEARD of Al Qaeda... Jim Angle, Fox reporter< pulled out of his files a recording of Clarke giving GLOWING accolades to Bush on his terror stance and plan. So, THAT again makes Clarke a liar or... a butt kisser. He didn't get the job-CR did so he tries to make her look stupid when she may be the most brilliant person in the White House! Second, shall we remember that due to the Florida fiasco, Bush wasn't even allowed to set up his cabinet or use the time to make the transfer of power smooth? Add to that the lengthy time it takes to investigate and orientate new positions. Now to reporting-I don't know 1/100000000% of what you know about the framework. I do know that false reports about cars and products have been presented to the public in a "news format". I know there's a bit of controversy from serious journalists-and competitors-about NBC using their "news" show for The Apprentice-Their justification is it's "Pop Culture" news. I know election results have had to be restated-I know that slant does exist and it's more powerful than words and rules on a piece of paper. It's very similar to the letter of the law Vs the heart of the law. I probably looked at all news, cable and network, under the same rules, so I learned something today.(Should go post it in Tom's thread) |
Quote:
|
i'm all with JAM on this one....esp since i was watching some program (forgive me for not remembering which one exactly as it has been several days) where it showed clarke's resignation letter....saying nothing but positive things to the Prez and about his administration...how it was "a joy" to work with him, etc. etc hmmm.....don't you think if he had all this info concerning Bush bein a wacko that his letter would have been at least less than so praising? just....seems.....odd......
|
Well, every time I've written a resignation letter I've said good things about the boss. As a very sage friend once told me, "Never burn any bridges -- you never know who will be running the gate house at the next one you need to cross." It's just good form to thank a previous employer -- whether the experience has been good for you or not. By the way, guess who that next prospective employer is going to check with, whether you use the old boss as a reference or not?
As for reporters and programs, nobody is perfect. There have been notable breaches in journalistic ethics in the past. Most have been punished by loss of job and no opportunity to work in the industry again. However, take the number of news stories that appear in media on any given day or in any given year, and consider how may of them turn out to be false or fabricated. It's kind of like an airline accident -- huge news when one happens, but also incredibly rare given the number of flights there are. And, I will repeat one thing from above. If my politics and beliefs are absolutely straight down the middle (as if that were possible), and you don't believe exactly as I do, I will seem "liberal" or "conservative" to you. The truth is, that media appears to me MUCH more conservative today than a few years ago -- due in large part to the Fox's, Rush's etc. And my guess is that I'm a lot more centerist than most of the posters here. |
Someone told me that Clark's book would have had to be approved by the White House before it was published. Can anyone confirm if this is true? And if it is, why would the White House approve it if it were indeed lies?
|
Quote:
The book needs approval to make sure that it does not expose national security information. The government is allowed to that, but it is not allowed to prevent a book from being published based on lies. |
I read in the paper today that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Independent commission investigating the Sept.11th attacks said they would ask Codoleezza Rice to testify under oath on the penalty of perjury. good idea or bad idea?
|
GOOD IDEA
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
D A- You KNOW I LUV ya! If only it wasn't Kerry, I might be "right" there with you!;) A different candidate could mean a different stance... |
Thanks JAM. I think.
Heard today that Ms. Rice will be allowed to testify in public and under oath. A very wise (and I think fair) move on the part of the administration. The publicity of the President only agreeing to appear for an hour in private was pretty negative. Especially when Senator Kerry took off on him for "having the time" to visit a rodeo, but only give an hour for the commission. Good move on the part of the White House. |
Dear D A,
I must confess, I have been bewildered of late at the procrastination shown by the afore mentioned heads of state. I have longed to hear some semblance of an explanation and found myself hoping-neigh, longing for them to come forward. It was with great trepidation that I cast my affection to him, for he holds the power don't you see? I waited with bated breath, only to have my questions go unanswered. I pray it is not too late and that all will be forgiven him! Your faithful and loyal reader, JAM P.S. In other words-It's about damn time!:D |
Quote:
Yup. |
|
We had been ignoring terrorism for decades. The blame does not rest upon one man or administration. To think so, would be foolish and downright dispicable. It was a problem that most of the world (particularly the U.S.) felt was not our priority. Think about it, how many of you knew who Osama bin Laden was prior to 2001? How about prior to 1994? How many knew what the Taliban was? al-Qaeda? Where they operated? Who they were affiliated with? Who supported them?
9/11 was a wake-up call to the majority of the United States. 9/11 was inevitable to some. 9/11 was when we finally responded to global terrorism on a large-scale. Yemen 1992 WTC, New York City 1993 Somalia 1993 Philippines 1994 Sudan 1995 Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia 1996 American Embassy, Kenya 1998 American Embassy, Tanzania 1998 USS Cole, Yemen 2000 WTC, New York City 2001 Pentagon, Washington D.C. 2001 These are just the highlights of global terrorism's recent surges. BTW FYI, we had covert operatives working in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan (just to name a few) training for unconventional warfare in September 2001. Throw the "Democrats/Republicans are always right" crap out the window. Do research, don't let 'super-wingers' do it for you. Have a nice day and just some thoughts... Edit: Oh and to even the cartoon score, here ya go: http://img52.exs.cx/img52/3472/Kerry.jpg And since, most Americans don't have a clue what someone from Afghanistan looks like/what they eat/how hospitable they are towards the Americans, here ya go. (You don't see the REAL WORLD on TV folks) http://img52.exs.cx/img52/4815/Food55.jpg ^ Buddy of mine took this not too long ago |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.