The 9/11 Commission

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jps, Mar 24, 2004.

  1. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3566037.stm

    From what we've heard of the testimony thats been given before this commission:
    (italics mine)
    From Clarke's testimony and what I've read of testimony by others who appeared before this commission, it paints a pretty clear picture of a large scale failure of law enforcement through disorganization, lack of communication between agencies, and low prioritization of terrorism.

    so the logical conclusion then:
    WHAT?!?
    I know I haven't read all the testimony, and there's likely some that actually relates to this in some way, but still, what a ridiculous statement.
    How would blowing up Afghanistan sooner have possibly had any effect whatsoever on the plans of terrorists taking pilot lessons in Miami?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Don Hakman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    619
    This is one of those cases where the Bush team welcomes being lumped together with the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration had several success defeating al Quada plans and made it thier priority - which is far from what the Bush camp did.

    The conclusion that both administrations "was slow" persecutes Clinton unfairly and gives Bush credit he does not deserve by defining doing nothing as "slow".
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. immane1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    306
    Clark is a joke. He's as credible as the average used car salesman. He has completely contradicted himself with his resignation letter and previous interviews that praise Bush and his efforts with the "war on terrorism". I wouldn't take too much stock in anything he says.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    I think what they were more likely referring to is that Clarke, both under Clinton, and apparently under Bush as well, had pushed for military action other than firing cruise missiles, which he didn't believe worked, since by the time information on the ground got back to the NSA and then had to get presidential approval, the odds of the target (al Qaeda higher ups) still being there were slim to none. Clarke had pushed for the use of 'boots on the ground', but more the use of Special Ops teams, rather than full scale military invasions. Clinton had also approved of this, but apparently had trouble getting the JCS to go along with it, as they claimed to not want to use SF troops unless in tandem with regular forces. Clarke also had called for the use of Predators armed with missiles (as tests had shown could work), to give access to instant strikes on targets. This came late in Clinton's second term, and Clarke hoped he could get the new admin to accept this, but apparently not. Much of this was covered even before Clarke's new book. Stephen Simon and Richard Benjamin, his former director and deputy director of counterterrorism in the NSA under Clinton, covered much of this in their book The Age Of Sacred Terror, which came out in early '02. It wa actually mostly finished before 9/11, but they held up publication to add a couple of chapters after the WTC attack.

    I wouldn't be so quick to write Clarke off.
     
  8. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    If only he had been listened to on that point we wouldn't have to have dealt with the awful pain of seeing bin laden gloat about 9/11 in his videos. The attacks themselves of course would be unaffected.
     
  9. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    I agree. We can't really know if taking out bin Laden pre 9/11 would, or even could, have prevented the WTC attack. Even Clarke acknowledged as much. I think what he is asserting is that regardless of whether we could have prevented 9/11 or not, we should have been taking the threat more seriously. But he never thought anyone in either administration took the threat as seriously as he did.
     
  10. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    That makes sense.

    I really dont' see how anyone can think that killing all these leaders would have had any chance of preventing the 9/11 attacks. These attacks were carried out by dozens of people, from inside the united states. Even if we'd incinerated all but three of them while they were in training camps in afghanistan, they could have replaced the rest and gone on with the plan.
     
  11. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    Yep. As long as they didn't lose the trained pilots, they could replace the guys wielding the box-cutters.
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Yeah, Immane1 ... you're a bright one bulb ... for a tulip.

    • Richard Clarke
    • Wes Clark
    • Donald Rumsfeld
    • Dick Cheney

    This short list is only a quick sample of people whose present credibility is under question for past statements or actions contrary to their current positions. Yes, I'm aware that I've left a significant name off the list, even for a short list.

    I think one of the fruits we might hopefully harvest is that the next generation won't be quite as willing to play "good soldiers" or "party faithful".

    There's little that I can think of that would surprise me about Richard Clark's book. I'm sure I would have heard it in the media if there was. On the other hand, maybe I'll come across a used copy sitting mysteriously on my coffee table. It happens.

    Two from the New York Times. Note that these links will break in a week or two, and also that a free registration is required:

    • Herbert, Bob. "The Wrong War." New York Times, March 26, 2004. See http://nytimes.com/2004/03/26/opinion/26HERB.html
    • Editorial, Staff. "The Wrong Target." New York Times, March 26, 2004. See http://nytimes.com/2004/03/26/opinion/26FRI2.html
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2004
  13. Don Hakman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    619
    Being married to a Washington insider, I can affirm the fact that resignation letters are all virtually fill in the blank form letters.
     
  14. Don Hakman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    619
  15. immane1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    306
    Hak,

    Being married to "a Washington insider" hardly qualifies you as an expert on whether Clarke is a reliable source. So you are saying that government workers are forced to use certain "form letters" to resign? Bullshit. I have yet to see anyone here deny the fact that Clarke has completely contradicted himself.
     
  16. Don Hakman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    619
  17. immane1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    306
    Isn't that cute. *pats Hak on the head* Now run along to another thread where you can post more of your hard drive hogging pics.
     
  18. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    And we have yet to hear you support your position or offer any clarification on just what you mean. I could run around saying that you’re a confirmed ass licker, but before I come forward with some pictures or eye witness accounts there’s really no need to pay any heed to my claims.

    This guy’s got 30 years of service under his belt, has everything to lose by making these claims, and is publicly taking blame and saying that he too failed the American people. That doesn’t sound like a weasely liar to me, that sounds like a man with the balls to come forward and tell it how it is.
     
  19. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    Oh come on, he's not so great with Photoshop, but you've got to admit that his little cartoons are worth a chuckle. Keep up the good work Hakman!
     
  20. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    He has been getting better, that barbershop quartet thing was hilarious and has some good compositional elements.

    Immane1, As hakman's picture shows, the Bush administration has been waving its hand dismissively at accusations, and trying to discredit its own disillusioned insiders for quite some time without providing much of a story to back any of it up. I mean have you heard what Cheney said about Clark on the Rush show? He said that Clark wasn't even in the loop. Not in the loop?! The counterterrorism adviser was "Not in the loop"? Isn't an assertion like that worse than any of the accusations that Clark is making?
     
  21. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    And somehow, not being married to a washington insider makes you an expert on it. Interesting.
     
  22. immane1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    306
    Mystech,

    "I could run around saying that you’re a confirmed ass licker"

    What my girlfriend and I do is none of your business.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    "Oh come on, he's not so great with Photoshop, but you've got to admit that his little cartoons are worth a chuckle. Keep up the good work Hakman!"

    Chuckle? Ok, sometimes.

    "And we have yet to hear you support your position or offer any clarification on just what you mean."

    Ok, he has done two interviews in the past in which he obviously contradicts himself that I heard on the radio over the past few days. I believe one of these interviews was done with your beloved FOX. This will make it hard to give you a link or something, but I'm sure I'm not the only one here that has heard these interviews. I'll see if I can't find a transcript or 2. I SHOULD be working right now, damn it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. immane1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    306
    "And somehow, not being married to a washington insider makes you an expert on it. Interesting."

    You get a cookie for that brilliant observation. He never said he was an expert, neither did I. Although he did imply that his "Washington insider" spousal status gave him more insight into the interworkings of the government. With the subject discussed here, I doubt it.
     

Share This Page