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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (42460)	4/13/2004 8:36:35 AM
From: Harvey Allen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

It's sad. Thomas Hamill is a farmer trying to save his farm. Now he may be killed by Iraqi farmers trying to save their farms. Osama Bin Laden's approach is better, start with the leaders. Harvey

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (42460)	4/13/2004 8:53:41 AM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

THE 9/11 INVESTIGATION: Bending reality The St Louis Post Dispatch 04/12/2004 THE TESTIMONY of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to the 9-11 commission last week centered on the warning that wasn't a warning and the plan that wasn't a plan. Ms. Rice confirmed under questioning that the title of the Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily brief was: "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." That sounded like a warning, but Ms. Rice said it was not. She insisted the brief was simply a "historical report." But former Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., who had seen the memo, said it reported "patterns of suspicious activity . . . consistent with preparation for hijacking." When the White House finally released the brief Saturday, the text was more consistent with Mr. Kerrey's description than Ms. Rice's. It gave detailed information about contemporary al-Qaida threats, including "preparations for hijacking" and "attacks with explosives." Did the brief alarm Mr. Bush, Ms. Rice was asked? "I'm told he was told this is historical information," she said, ". . . there was no new threat information . . . to pursue." In other words, no. Richard Clarke, Mr. Bush's former top terrorism official, told the commission that on Jan. 25, 2001, he had submitted a plan for attacking al-Qaida. It included a section entitled, "Strategy for the Elimination of the Jihadist Threat of Al Qaeda." But Ms. Rice testified it was "a series of ideas," not a serious plan of action. Yes, Mr. Clarke had recommended support of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to attack the Taliban and al-Qaida - the very strategy Mr. Bush adopted after 9-11. But Ms. Rice testified that implementing that approach early in 2001 would not have prevented 9-11; rather, it would have hindered Mr. Bush after 9-11 by alienating Pakistan, she said. Ms. Rice is correct in saying that there was "no silver bullet" that could have prevented 9-11. The most crucial mistake that Mr. Bush made was not before 9-11, but after, when he detoured the war against terrorism into Iraq. Ms. Rice claimed the invasion was one of the "choices that can ensure the safety of our nation for decades to come" - that the war on terrorism "cannot be fought on the defensive." But even as she spoke, events in Iraq were proving her wrong. In the last two weeks, U.S. civilians have been murdered and mutilated, dozens of U.S. troops have died, foreign hostages have been captured and anti-American feeling has boiled over in the streets of Fallujah. Through the smoke of battle, it was impossible to discern how Americans were safer.