Jump to content

Terrorism Czar Attacks Bush

Guest donaltopablo

Recommended Posts

Guest donaltopablo

Seems Bush's former Terrorism czar claims Bush totally dropped the ball on 9/11 and post 9/11 fight on terror to work on a war with Iraq. Pretty serious claims, be sure to run out and buy a copy of his to read all about. Gee, how did I know.

White House fires back and former terrorism czar's charges

Associated Press

Published on: 03/22/04

WASHINGTON -- The White House is disputing assertions by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator that the administration failed to recognize the risk of an attack by al-Qaida in the months leading up to Sept. 11, 2001.

National security deputies worked diligently between March and September 2001 to develop a strategy to attack the terror network, one that was completed and ready for Bush's approval a week before the suicide airliner hijackings, the White House said in a statement Sunday.

It said the president told national security adviser Condoleezza Rice early in his administration he was "'tired of swatting flies' and wanted to go on the offense against al-Qaida, rather than simply waiting to respond."

The point-by-point rebuttal confronts claims by Richard A. Clarke in a new book, "Against All Enemies," that is scathingly critical of administration actions.

Clarke wrote that Rice appeared never to have heard of al-Qaida until she was warned early in 2001 about the terrorist organization and that she "looked skeptical" about his warnings.

"Her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before," Clarke said in the book, going on sale Monday.

Clarke said Rice appeared not to recognize post-Cold War security issues and effectively demoted him within the National Security Council staff. He retired last year after 30 years in government.

Rice echoed the administration's rebuttal in a guest column in Monday's Washington Post and addressed Clarke's characterization of her obliquely.

"Before Sept. 11, we closely monitored threats to our nation," she wrote. "President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the director of the CIA every day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Going on the offensive against Al Qeada is the only way to stop them. It requires brains, strategy, statemanship, and small guerilla type cells. It resquires world support and resolve. It must be a multimnational effort. We must cause other nations work with us. Spain plans to leave our current misguided effort. Not becasue they are afraid to respond, but because they think our rsponse is ineffective. They are lanning their own effort.

A scathing book from a poloticol insider is not that common. He knows he is cutting off his connections for life. We are starting to see a real passion from a number of different parts of the political world coming out against the dangerous, misguided, and inneffective policies of bush. People believe we are losing the war on terrorism. Look at George Soros pledge to spend however many millions it takes to make sure the democratic contender has the money needed to mount a successful campaign. Again, very unusual for a dyed in the wool capitalist to abandon the republican party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest donaltopablo

Yeah, but how much are you willing to bend the story or the truth in order to help sell copies of your book. I just find it hard to put a lot of value in what someone says, when they stand to profit from what they say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest donaltopablo

Hmm, strange seems our start up little author gave an interview to Fox News and seemed to imply the Bush administration was more concerned with terrorism than the previous administration. There is also that email Rice released. Since we didn't get to see the whole thing, and some of it was "classified" and not released it's hard to take as fact, but it's at least as believable as someone making claims in a for profit book....

I'm not saying I know all of Bush's motivations for going to war in Iraq, although based on what I've seen I've expressed though views before. But it's getting harder and harder to believe all of these "insiders" who come out claiming a liberal line of Bush was going to war just to make war of revenge. I will remind everyone that (at least to the best of my knowledge) the only member of Bush's administration that came out with no political or monetary movtation said he thought it was purely a case of overzealous on poor integellience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

monsoon, as in the past, I stand completely opposite to you when it comes to Bush's position and work on terrorism... not to mention the entire war in Iraq. I do respect your opinion, but I have to caution you about a few things related to that war and the connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. So here are a few highlights:

* Al-Qaeda, while not directly associated with the former Iraqi government, had a lot of support from many Iraqis, possibly Saddam's regime. The entire orchestration of 9-11 was clearly supported by the first Iraqi (Saddam's) attack on US soil: the first attack on the twins, over 10 years ago. While the first attack failed (from the terrorists' perspective), those who wanted a "repeat" had gained significant knowledge to material strength related to the twin towers. After that, Iraq's moves were under the microscope, thus creating obstacles for Saddam to hit on US soil again. Most of the people associated with the first bombing were either Iraqis, or Iraqi agents of Arabic origin.

* The resistance that the US and the new Iraqi leaders meet in Iraq comes, without a doubt, from Al-Qaeda's "representatives" in Iraq. This is, so far, the popular version and I have reasons to believe it as it comes from US and anti-US (no, I didn't mean non-US) sources. This proves to me that Al-Qaeda had plenty of support in Iraq and the US had many reasons to take its anger against Saddam... a person who [at least] allowed Al-Qaeda to move around his country freely, if not supported him directly. Not to mention that a connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq has not been disproved. The only thing that the Bush Administration concluded about (and I sort of keep a more conservative view on this) is that Iraq wasn't behind 9-11. However, the US didn't attack Saddam because of 9-11, but merely because he was a source of support for terrorist groups, and that's beyond ANY doubt.

* WMDs - Part 1: well, this is a far more controversial subject. First we must distinguish between the different terms: "found", "not found", "existent" and "non-existent". The fact the WMDs were not found does not imply that they never existed, or that they were not moved elsewhere. Maybe the US intelligence was right on the money, but the US government could not move fast enough to eliminate the danger. Iraq being clear of WMDs is neither comforting nor implies that the weapons never existed. So, to say that the US government lies about WMDs is pre-mature, at least until the entire Al-Qaeda network gets entirely out of the way.

* WMDs - Part 2: Saddam himself let us believe he had WMDs. Never said it directly, but he implied it. This was his weapon against the US and he used it foolishly. His own scientists probably exaggerated Iraq's ability to "defend" itself (or attack) using WMDs. This is still a theory, not entirely proven, but I've read it even in anti-US papers. It didn't justify a war, but it certainly provided us with ammunition.

* Politicians lie... that is their job. You will still cast your vote to Kerry, even though Kerry lied about his voting/support record on the first Gulf War and the War in Iraq. Kerry misrepresented himself and I am sure more dirt will be uncovered as we'll get near the elections. ALL politicians lie about many issues. We don't vote for honest politicians, we vote for capable liars, who can keep this country safe and prosperous, even at the expense of truth. Don't get me wrong, I would vote for an honest and capable person, but Kerry isn't the one... nor is anyone else.

* Clarke is yet-another opportunist, if you ask me. All it takes to prove that he is a lying idiot is reading the back cover; take a look at his dialogue and if you know anything at all about terrorism, you will understand why he is an lying idiot. Pointing to Osama Bin Landen as the main target was by far the biggest mistake. Bin Landen is nothing without his network of terrorist groups; he is the coordinator, not the creator of those groups. The latter is what the government should have focused on and not the former. Bush administration didn't follow Bin Landen's trail because he was not the issue. Taking him out is not enough. Clarke praises Bush's work and then takes cheap shots at him... something ain't right, and Clarke has something to do with it. Maybe he sees Bush as the captain of a sinking ship (laughable, to say the least) and decided to jump ships. He wrote a book to cover his ass and make [a lot of] money, but he might have underestimated Bush. As far as I am concerned, and judging from the very few pages of his book that I looked at, Clarke's ship will sink faster than a heavy rock. If Bin Landen gets caught during Bush's presidency, nobody will remember Clarke.

* Last, but not least, maybe you should take a look at Kerry's interview to Time magazine. No, I am not saying anything against Kerry, but you will be able to recognize that Kerry doesn't stand far from Bush. In the questions related to Iraq he gives diplomatic answers, and his plans simply don't exist. His answer was that he has a plan to work on a plan... these are not my own words, I swear. When he was asked if he would have started that war, he basically implied in a positive way. To be fair, he answered diplomatically, once more, saying that he would have given some more time, but he stated clearly that "if the inspections had been done properly" we could have avoided the war. Which means that he didn't trust the inspections outcome, either. So, Kerry's official position on the war wasn't negative, and every time he screams against it, he lies to his voters/supporters. He has no plan, whatsoever, yet he wants to become the next president of the United States of America. While I don't care about him and I don't view him as the best candidate out there, I have to give him credit for saying what he said in the Time magazine. If anyone bothers to read that interview, please feel free to correct me. I am a human being and I can make mistakes in interpretation, but I thought Kerry's comments were pretty straight forward.

To conclude, I think that the US Intelligence community failed in many parts. The war, in my opinion, was well justified, but the timing was not the best one. For many years, governments worldwide have allowed terrorist groups to operate on their soil, without caring about the consequences. What happened on 9-11, or recently in Madrid, was planned long time ago, and for reasons beyond the typical anti-US rhetoric. For anyone who says that the US has been pushing nations around for long, I must caution not to fall into traps that some journalists (especially overseas) have prepared for their readers. The amount of misinformation (or should I say disinformation) that arrives here from overseas is a welcome fact by some American journalists who wouldn't even last one day in a tabloid publication, if their readers were serious enough to do their own research.

Unfortunately, Liberal journalists tend to raise their voice higher than anyone else and their audience is ready to accept any anti-Bush/anti-Republican rhetoric. Sure, there are Conservative journalists who try to do the same when attacking Democrats, but the appeal is not the same. How many Conservatives did you see out in the streets protesting Clinton's decision to go into war with Serbia? Personally, I try to ignore the fanaticism that comes from either "species" and do my own research. Studying the motivations behind terrorist groups isn't all that hard, especially when creating a general outline of different types of terrorists and terrorist groups, but when looking into each group individually, then you realize how deeply in danger our country has sunk in the last 10 years. Not everything is related to actual US activity overseas. Some people find the US as an "easy" target, using our alliance with Israel as an excuse to perform acts of monstrocity and mahem. The latest "act", in Madrid's metro, was the last nail in the coffin, as Europeans finally decided to make a unified effort towards fighting terrorism. The attack in Madrid was not about Aznar's decision to stand by the US in its war against Saddam; it was merely an attack against innocent civilians, most of whom stood against Aznar's decision. They killed people that opposed the war in Iraq. That's the ugly face of terrorism and it has been showing itself a lot since after the Second World War, especially since the 60's. If you believe all that anti-US crap/propaganda that hits our shores every day, and finds its way through the mouths and pens of some Liberal fanatics, and opportunists of any kind, then you should complain for our continuous support on Israel. Not that the latter shouldn't be questioned, but who do you think forces Israel to take a more offensive position? If not some morons who believe in virgins waiting for them "on the other side", then who else?

Yet-another LONG email... My apologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.