Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (127537)	3/28/2004 2:59:23 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Both argue that Clinton grew into considering Al Q as his top priority such that by 1998 he was obssessed with it. Did we live through the same year 1998? I think Clinton was pretty obsessed with not getting impeached during that year. Obsession with Al Qaeda was much more difficult to spot. Certainly he didn't order any response to the embassy bombings beyond a short-lasting cruise missile bombardment. Let me put it this way. I don't care what anyone now says about Clinton's feelings. I look at what Clinton accomplished, and it wasn't much. It was certainly little enough to confirm Osama bin Laden in his belief that America was a paper tiger - if you struck her hard, she would snarl but run away. As for your comments about Clarke's motives, who knows The same people know who worked with him, they know. Let's try to find their views. It is by no means a stretch - at all! - to find personal payback in Clarke's comments. And that's not listening to what the Bush administration says, that's just ordinary reading between the lines. As I said before, Clarke's testimony slants more critical of the Bush administration than the committee report warrants, and his 60 Minutes interview was WAY more critical. I'm still waiting to hear what comes of Sen Frist's efforts to declassify Clarke's 2002 testimony. The protests that Clarke was either lying then or is lying now, one or the other, have a genuine sound to me. Clarke's response that he was working for the administration back then is not going to cut it, since he was under oath both times.

To: JohnM who wrote (127537)	3/28/2004 3:12:50 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Clarke's discussion of the difference between the Clinton approach in 99 to the millenium alerts and the Bush approach to the chatter of 01 is both enlightening and, so far, not been challenged in all the motive mongering the Bush attack crew mounts I heard Clarke talk about the millenium alerts on NPR. As far as I could gather, they had a bunch of meetings and put out a bunch of alerts. Now Clarke says they made a difference, but as the actual LAX terrorist was a nervous and inept terrorist who triggered the suspicions of an alert customs agent, it's frankly unclear to me if all those alerts did anything or not. And what exactly was the difference between the alerts of late 1999 and the alerts of summer 2001? Neither case had specific information, as far as I can see.

To: JohnM who wrote (127537)	3/28/2004 3:24:04 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

When looking for Clarke's motives, here's one, as reported by Fox: Officials [in the Bush administrations] say privately that Clarke was angry that CIA Director George Tenet gave President Bush his weekly counterterrorism briefings, something Clarke had done for President Clinton in the previous administration foxnews.com Clarke was demoted in that most valuable of Washington currency - face time with the President. Now, was he angry purely for the sake of the policies he wanted to push, or for his own pride? You decide. But it's a motive.

To: JohnM who wrote (127537)	3/28/2004 9:44:40 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

All eyes on Rice newsday.com btw, it's great to see you posting on SI again. -s2@LetsHoldOurLeadersAccountableForTheirActions.com

To: JohnM who wrote (127537)	3/28/2004 10:30:46 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

A Poor Defense _______________________ Lead Editorial The Washington Post Sunday, March 28, 2004 washingtonpost.com PRESIDENT BUSH missed an important opportunity last week to talk frankly to the country about how his administration handled terrorism before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and how it responded afterward. In many respects, he has a strong story to tell. Yet in testimony before the federal commission investigating 9/11, Mr. Bush's secretaries of state and defense mostly stonewalled in the face of powerful evidence that they, like their predecessors in the Clinton administration, failed to take the threat of al Qaeda seriously enough or react with sufficient urgency to warnings in 2001 of a major attack. His national security adviser, who has refused to answer the commission's questions in public, led an ugly and personal offensive against former aide Richard A. Clarke, who made the same case in a new book. Mr. Bush himself insouciantly declared that, had he known that terrorists were planning to fly airplanes into buildings, he would have done something to stop it -- a statement that suggested that he has not bothered to reflect on the serious questions the commission is examining. The president's supporters protest that with his reelection campaign underway, Mr. Bush was compelled to undertake a vigorous defense. Fair enough; but it's possible to be vigorous without being dishonest; possible to frankly acknowledge shortcomings while pointing out how they were recouped; possible to argue with a critic on substance without resorting to character assassination. On all three counts, the White House fouled out. Start with its answer to the findings of the commission, which released three detailed staff reports chronicling with painful clarity how both Mr. Bush and President Bill Clinton had missed the chance to act against al Qaeda before it was too late. The reports essentially confirm one of Mr. Clarke's central charges: that the new administration came into office focused on issues other than terrorism in 2001, put al Qaeda on a slow track of policy review and didn't adopt an offensive strategy until days before Sept. 11. To his credit, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage conceded the central point, that "we weren't going fast enough." But he was largely drowned out by the chorus of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who insisted that the administration had, as Mr. Powell put it, come "in fully recognizing the threat" and "went to work on it immediately." In truth, other witnesses didn't show much courage either. Clinton administration officials claimed, in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary, that there was nothing more they could have done to stop al Qaeda. For his part, Mr. Clarke went easy on the Clinton administration's eight-year record of failure while lambasting the Bush team for its eight months of inaction. But he was candid about why he did so: "The reason I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is that by invading Iraq . . . the president of the United States has undermined the war on terrorism," he said. There is a strong case against that allegation, and Mr. Bush could have made it. Instead the White House pounded Mr. Clarke with personal attacks, claiming he was disgruntled, disloyal, out of the loop or trying to help the Democrats win the November election. Outsiders could only be reminded of the fierce onslaught, also coupled with hints of criminal wrongdoing, with which the administration answered the critique earlier this year of former Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill. Like Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Clarke may be wrong, but his case is coherent. That's more than can be said for what the administration presented last week. © 2004 The Washington Post Company

To: JohnM who wrote (127537)	3/28/2004 11:56:14 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Both argue that Clinton grew into considering Al Q as his top priority such that by 1998 he was obssessed with it. If this is true, Clinton did a good job of hiding such an obsession from the public. He could have made the issue an item in the national discourse, heightening public awareness of AQ's dangers. He did nothing of the kind. The only public acts Clinton took, the bombing of the aspirin factory and the cruise missiles, are not suggestive of obsession. If he was obsessed, he had the power of the presidency to use to satisfy it. A very mild and meek obsession, I would argue.