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: carranza2 who wrote (127564)	3/28/2004 11:57:54 AM
From: boris_a	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

is not whether Clarke was right, but why he was not heard Clarke was heard: "Sen. H. Clinton: “Well, the information, which has been public for many months, is that the attorney general [John Ashcroft] decided not to fly commercially, based on some assessment of existing threat level.” That was exactly the same time when: "... June, July, August 2001 when the president is being briefed virtually every day in his morning intelligence briefing that something is about to happen, and he NEVER chairs a meeting and he NEVER asks Condi rice to chair a meeting about what we're doing about stopping the attacks. "SHE DIDN'T HOLD ONE MEETING DURING ALL THOSE THREE MONTHS." So the Admin decided to protect only their own asses?

To: carranza2 who wrote (127564)	3/28/2004 12:18:53 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

from Dan Drezner's blog: Last night I read the preface and the first two chapters. What stood out for me so far came on page x in the preface, in which he writes: It is also the story of four presidents: Ronald Reagan, who did not retaliate for the murder of 278 United States Marines in Beirut and who violated his own terrorism policy by trading arms for hostages in what came to be called the Iran-Contra scandal; George H.W. Bush, who did not retaliate for the Libyan murder of 259 passengers on Pan Am 103; who did not have an official counterterrorism policy; and who left Saddam Hussein in place, requiring the United States to leave a large military presence in Saudi Arabia; Bill Clinton, who identified terrorism as the major post-Cold War threaty and acted to improve our counterterrorism capabilities; who (little known to the public) quelled anti-American terrorism by Iraq and Iran and defeated an al Qaeda attempt to dominate Bosnia; but who, weakened by continued political attack, could not get the CIA, the Pentagon, and FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the threat; George W. Bush, who failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite repeated warnings and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks, and who launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide So, in Clarke's account, three Republicans dropped the ball on terrorism, while the lone Democrat fought the good fight but failed to achieve anything because of Republican attacks. Let's assume for the moment that Clarke is telling the truth in his characterization of the four presidents (I still need to read those portions). Is he telling the whole truth? Tell you what, let's rework those bullet points a little bit: It is also the story of four presidents: Ronald Reagan, who retaliated vigorously against the most prominent source of anti-American terrorism during the eighties -- Libya -- through a concerted military and intelligence campaign, and who authorized the capture of Palestinian terrorists following the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro; George H.W. Bush, who waged a successful diplomatic campaign in the United Nations to impose sanctions on Libya, which eventually forced that country to admit complicity in the Pan Am 103 bombings and permit the operational planners to be extradited; who waged a successful diplomatic and military campaign to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, impose the most comprehenseive sanctions regime in UN history, and protect the Kurds from retribution following the invasion; Bill Clinton, who -- despite being freed from the strictures of the Cold War era -- failed to retaliate following the downing of a Black Hawk helicopter in Somalia, and subsequently pulled U.S. forces out of the area; who failed to pressure Saudi Arabia into cooperating in the investigation following the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing; and who again failed to retaliate following the bombing of the USS Cole; George W. Bush, who took aggressive and appropriate actions following the 9/11 attacks to expel al Qaeda from their Afghan sanctuary; who forced the Pakistani regime to reverse course in their support of the Taliban; who dispatched crucial anti-terrorist support to poor states like Yemen, Georgia and the Philippines; whose efforts have led to the capture or death of two-thirds of al Qaeda's top echelon of leaders; and who removed Saddam Hussein from power. Did I stack the deck in the second set of bullet points? Absolutely. My point, however, is that Clarke stacked the deck in the first set of bullet points. Why would he do this? Some will say it's because Clarke is a partisan hack, which isn't really credible -- he was a registered Republican voted in the Republican primary in 2000, served under three Republican presidents, and already vowed not to advise Kerry. My hunch is that it's more simple and personal than that. Let's rework those bullet points one last time: It is also the story of four presidents: Ronald Reagan, during which I was just a State Department DAS and therefore had marginal influence; George H.W. Bush, whose Secretary of State demoted me; Bill Clinton, who was wise enough to listen to my sage advice and let me run the Principals meetings on counterterrorism; George W. Bush, who had the gall to strip me of the hard-won autonomy and power I achieved under Clinton and force me to work through the regular chain of command I'm still going to read the rest of the book. It's worth remembering that Clarke was correct in his assessment of Al Qaeda, and as the Chicago Tribune points out, even George W. Bush acknowledged to Bob Woodward that bin Laden was not on the top of this administration's priority list when it took office. And I am curious to see what he has to say about whether/how the decision to invade Iraq undermined the military effort to defeat Al Qaeda. Still, it's hard not to believe that Clarke's evaluation of presidential performance is directly correlated with how well those presidents treated Clarke. danieldrezner.com

To: carranza2 who wrote (127564)	3/28/2004 12:49:03 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

Hello, c2. If an impolitic, rude, difficult, workaholic crank with a single-minded agenda that called for serious steps to be taken to stop Al Qaeda were to rock the pleasant boat that we rode in the late 90s and early 00s, it was only natural that he be ignored by policy makers. I agree it can look that way from the outside. But if you read the two books we now have from folk who were there, the Sacred Terror book and Clarke's book, Clarke was not ignored by Clinton. He certainly didn't get everything he pushed for; but he was not ignored. Pick up a copy of Clarke's book at the local Barnes & Nobles, grab a cup of coffee, and find an overstuffed chair. Read the first chapter; then read the contrast between the Clinton administration response in late 99 to the millenium threats and the Bush response to the summer of 01 threats. Whatever conclusion one derives from that reading, there is more than enough evidence that Clarke was listened to by the former and not the latter.