Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton v. Bush on the question of al Qaeda, OBL and September 11

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-04 06:33 PM
Original message
Clinton v. Bush on the question of al Qaeda, OBL and September 11
Just a refresher...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml

The astounding level of blunt ignorance within the American populace about the events surrounding the attacks of September 11 cannot be easily quantified. In a nation with thousands of newspapers, thousands of radio stations, and a ceaseless data stream from CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS and PBS, some 70% of the population believed as late as a month ago that Saddam Hussein was centrally involved in and personally responsible for the attacks which destroyed the Towers and struck the Pentagon. Beyond that, what most people know about the single most important event in American history does not go much beyond "evildoers" who "hate our freedom."

That is, simply, incredible. It is also not an accident. This ignorance has a great deal to do with the stunning mediocrity of the television news media, that empty well where most Americans go to become informed. This ignorance also, and far more importantly, has a great deal to do with the Clinton-era actions of a large number of conservatives, many of whom are in positions of power today, many of whom are now making careers out of September 11.

The two great myths that have settled across the nation, beyond the Hussein-9/11 connection, are that Clinton did not do enough during his tenure to stop the spread of radical terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, and that the attacks themselves could not have been anticipated or stopped. Blumenthal's insider perspective on these matters bursts the myths entirely, and reveals a level of complicity regarding the attacks within the journalistic realm and the conservative political ranks that is infuriating and disturbing.

Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery.

The bombing of the Sundanese factory at al-Shifa, in particular, drew wide condemnation from these quarters, despite the fact that the CIA found and certified VX nerve agent precursor in the ground outside the factory, despite the fact that the factory was owned by Osama bin Laden's Military Industrial Corporation, and despite the fact that the manager of the factory lived in bin Laden's villa in Khartoum. The book "Age of Sacred Terror" quantifies the al-Shifa issue thusly: "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a scandalous blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al Qaeda threat."

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.

Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement. According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same. In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and the Bush administration pulled America out of the plan. The Time article stated, "Without the world's financial superpower, the biggest effort in years to rid the world's financial system of dirty money was short-circuited."

This laundry list of partisan catastrophes goes on and on. Far from being inept on the matter of terrorism, Clinton was profoundly activist in his attempts to address terrorism. Much of his work was foiled by right-wing Congressional conservatives who, simply, refused to accept the fact that he was President. These men, paid to work for the public trust, spent eight years working diligently to paralyze any and all Clinton policies, including anti-terror initiatives that, if enacted, would have gone a long way towards thwarting the September 11 attacks. Beyond them lay the worthless television media, which ignored and spun the terrorist issue as it pursued salacious leaks from Ken Starr's office, leaving the American people drowning in a swamp of ignorance on a matter of deadly global importance.

Over and above the theoretical questions regarding whether or not Clinton's anti-terror policies, if passed, would have stopped September 11 lies the very real fact that attacks very much like 9/11 were, in fact, stopped dead by the Clinton administration. The most glaring example of this came on December 31, 1999, when the world gathered to celebrate the passing of the millennium. On that night, al Qaeda was gathering as well.

The terrorist network planned to simultaneously attack the national airports in Washington DC and Los Angeles, the Amman Raddison Hotel in Jordan, a constellation of holy sites in Israel, and the USS The Sullivans at dock in Yemen. Each and every single one of these plots, which ranged from one side of the planet to the other, was foiled by the efforts of the Clinton administration. Speaking for the first time about these millennium plots, in a speech delivered to the Coast Guard Academy on May 17, 2000, Clinton said, "I want to tell you a story that, unfortunately, will not be the last example you will have to face."

Indeed.

Clinton proved that Osama bin Laden and his terror network can be foiled, can be thwarted, can be stopped. The multifaceted and complex nature of the international millennium plots rivals the plans laid before September 11, and involved counter-terrorism actions within several countries and across the entire American intelligence and military community. All resources were brought to bear, and the terrorists went down to defeat. The proof is in the pudding here. September 11, like the millennium plots, could have been avoided.

Couple this with other facts about the Bush administration we now have in hand. The administration was warned about a massive terror plot in the months before September by the security services of several countries, including Israel, Egypt, Germany and Russia. CIA Director George Tenet delivered a specific briefing on the matter to the administration on August 8, 2001. The massive compendium of data on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda compiled by Sandy Berger, and delivered to Condoleezza Rice upon his departure, went completely and admittedly unread until the attacks took place. The attacks themselves managed, for over an hour, to pierce the most formidable air defense system in the history of the Earth without a single fighter aircraft taking wing until the catastrophe was concluded.

It is not fashionable these days to pine for the return of William Jefferson Clinton. Given the facts above, and the realities we face about the administration of George W. Bush, and the realities we endure regarding the aftermath of September 11, the United States of America would be, and was, well served by its previous leader. That we do not know this, that September 11 happened at all, that it was such a wretched shock to the American people, that we were so woefully unprepared, can be laid at the feet of a failed news media establishment, and at the feet of a pack of power-mad conservative extremists who now have a great deal to atone for.

Had Clinton been heeded, the measures he espoused would have been put in place, and a number of powerful bulwarks would have been thrown into the paths of those commercial airplanes. Had the news media been something other than a purveyor of masturbation fantasies from the far-right, the American people would have know the threats we faced, and would have compelled their Congressmen to act. Had Congress itself been something other than an institution ruled by narrow men whose only desire was to break a sitting President by any means necessary, we would very probably still have a New York skyline dominated by two soaring towers.

Had the Bush administration not continued this pattern of gross partisan ineptitude and heeded the blitz of domestic and international warnings, instead of trooping off to Texas for a month-long vacation, had Bush's National Security Advisor done one hour's worth of her homework, we probably would not be in the grotesque global mess that currently envelops us. Never forget that many of the activists who pushed throughout the 1990s for the annihilation of all things Clinton are now foursquare in charge of the country today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GCP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-04 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. Eisenhauer had it half right
He warned about the military-industrial complex taking over the country. He never in his wildest dreams considered that the fourth estate would be a willing accomplice in the take-over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-04 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. Thank you
For this, and for "Two loud words". I have to thank you for that here because your other post has about 70 responses already.

The thing that bothers me the most about the perceptions of Clinton v. Bush is exactly the point you addressed.
People claim that Clinton didn't do enough to stop terrorists from organizing, planning, and carrying out an attack that took place nine months after he left office. But these very same people then turn around and claim that, despite numerous warnings, there was no way Bush could have known about or prevented the attacks.
Its just bullshit.

:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-04 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. where can I find...
"2 loud words"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-04 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-04 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. That is still one of my all-time favorite...
things you've written. But you left out my favorite part at the beginning with the mental image of you getting all het up while reading and hurling political books across the house. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-04 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
4. Good stuff
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slater71 Donating Member (586 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-04 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
5. This should be a campain issue.
I would like to add to this. We all know how the right has bitched about how Clinton was offered Bin Laden. According to some reports I have seen, Bush was also offered Bin Ladan more than twenty times leading up to 9/11. He was also offered the chance to kill him. He refused that also. Here is the question that he should be made to answer. Did his administration offer the Taliban a carpet of gold for the pipeline through Afganistan or a carpet of bombs if they refused. this could have caused Bin Ladan to attack the towers knowing they had nothing to loose.
i think Cheney`s energy meetings would show this and that is why he dosen`t want to turn it over. This should be on TV time after time just like they got the people to believe that Saddam brought the towers down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulthompson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-04 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. Critique
William,

I posted a critique of this article when it first appeared, but perhaps you didn't see that, because you never responded to it.

I think you give far too much credit to Clinton's response to terrorism. Some of his successes you point out were pure luck; for instance the only reason the attack on the USS Sullivans failed was because the boat carrying the explosives to the ship was too heavy and sunk just before reaching its target. US intelligence didn't even know there was such an attack until many months later, after the nearly identical USS Cole attack in the exact same location.

I could correct many other such examples from your essay and point out many other failings against terrorism during the Clinton administration that you completely failed to mention.

No, Clinton is not blameless. But the more important point to stress is how much worse Bush Jr. has been. Ace reporter Greg Palast put it well in regards to presidential obstruction of terror investigations: "Where Clinton said, 'Go slow,' Bush policymakers said, 'No go.' The difference is between closing one eye and closing them both."

I think a much more honest accounting would compare Clinton's response to terrorism, warts and all, with Bush's, which was an utter disaster. Clinton at least tried, though he made mistakes. Bush on the other hand managed to undo just about all the positive steps Clinton had taken within days of taking office and then things just went downhill from there.

You might want to write an article along those lines, documenting how Bush undid all of Clinton's successes and failed to heed his lessons learned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-04 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Thanks
It is appreciated. Where does the legislative obstructionism of the GOP during that time period, especially in dealing with the money laundering aspects, fall into your assessment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedSock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-04 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. two words (another note for will)
In your other essay "Two Loud Words," is there a reason you did not mention the fact that on the morning of September 11, the CIA was running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response if a plane crashed into one of the four towers at the National Reconnaissance Office?

Reported by AP on August 14, 2002. Puts the lie to Rice's silliness quite well.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/cia-simulation.htm

Sox and Dems in '04!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulthompson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-04 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. laundering etc
Yes,
I think such obstructionism was very important. If you have articles about that let me know, because I need to put more of it in my timeline.

Generally speaking, I blame the failures against terrorism during the Clinton administration less on Clinton and more on such obstructionists, esp. the many in the intelligence and military worlds who hated him and didn't want him to succeed.

For instance, look at this timeline entry:

1999 (G): Secretary of State Madeleine Albright repeatedly asks about having a "boots on the ground" option to kill bin Laden, using the elite Delta Force. Joint Chiefs of Staff head Shelton says he wants "nothing to do" with such an idea. He calls it naive, and ridicules it as "going Hollywood."

---

Clinton was constantly given such bad advice. It's important to remember that many important people, even some he appointed under pressure, hated his guts. A classic example is James Woolsey, head of the CIA during his first term. Clinton and Woolsey literally never met and now Woolsey is one of the most die hard neocons.

I strongly recommend you write an article that compares what Clinton was doing against terrorism right at the end of his term (when he finally fully "got it") vs. what Bush did when he got in. I think highlighting those facts would do more to dispell the right wing "blame 9/11 on Clinton" movement than anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-04 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. The best place for that timeline
is in Blumenthal's book 'The Clinton Wars.' He details it around page 600 or so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulthompson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-04 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. more info
William, if you do write such an article, here's the kind of stuff I'm talking about that more people need to know.

Late 1998-January 2001: The US permanently stations two submarines in the Indian Ocean, ready to hit al-Qaeda with cruise missiles on short notice. Six to ten hours advance warning is now needed to review the decision, program the cruise missiles and have them reach their target. On at least three occasions, spies in Afghanistan report bin Laden's location with information suggesting he would remain there for some time. Each time, Clinton approves the strike. Each time, CIA Director Tenet says the information is not reliable enough and the attack cannot go forward. (Washington Post, 12/19/01, New York Times, 12/30/01) The submarines are removed shortly after President Bush takes office (see Late January 2001 (B)).

August-September 2000: An unmanned spy plane called the Predator begins flying over Afghanistan, showing incomparably detailed real-time video and photographs of the movements of what appears to be bin Laden and his aides. Clinton is impressed by a two-minute video of bin Laden crossing a street heading toward a mosque. Bin Laden is surrounded by a team of a dozen armed men creating a professional forward security perimeter as he moves. The Predator had been used since 1996 in the Balkans, but its use is stopped in Afghanistan after a few trials when a Predator crashes. The White House presses ahead with a program to arm the Predator with a missile, but the effort is slowed by bureaucratic infighting between the Pentagon and the CIA over who would pay for the craft and who would have ultimate authority over its use. Officials say the dispute is not resolved until after 9/11. (New York Times, 12/30/01, Washington Post, 12/19/01) However, it is later reported that by May 2001, the Predator "proved ... that it could find and kill individuals." (Washington Post, 3/13/03) On September 15, 2001, CIA Director Tenet tells Bush, "The unmanned Predator surveillance aircraft that was now armed with Hellfire missiles had been operating for more than a year out of Uzbekistan to provide real-time video of Afghanistan." (Washington Post, 1/29/02) So someone is lying or mistaken about when the Predator was used and when it was armed.

December 20, 2000: Counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke submits a plan to "roll back" al-Qaeda in response to the USS Cole bombing. The main component is a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to "eliminate the sanctuary" for bin Laden there. However, since there are only a few weeks left before the Bush administration takes over, it is decided to defer the decision to the new administration. However, one month later, the plan is rejected and no action is taken (see January 25, 2001).

January 25, 2001: Richard Clarke, National Security Council Chief of Counterterrorism and holdover from the Clinton administration, submits a proposal to the new administration for an attack on al-Qaeda in revenge of the USS Cole bombing. In the wake of that bombing, Bush stated on the campaign trail: "I hope that we can gather enough intelligence to figure out who did the act and take the necessary action ... there must be a consequence." According to the Washington Post: "Clarke argued that the camps were can't-miss targets, and they mattered. The facilities amounted to conveyor belts for al-Qaeda's human capital, with raw recruits arriving and trained fighters departing – either for front lines against the Northern Alliance, the Afghan rebel coalition, or against American interests somewhere else. The US government had whole libraries of images filmed over Tarnak Qila and its sister camp, Garmabat Ghar, 19 miles farther west. Why watch al-Qaeda train several thousand men a year and then chase them around the world when they left?" (Washington Post, 1/20/02) Clarke also warns that al-Qaeda sleeper cells in the US are a "major threat." Two days later, the US confirms the link between al-Qaeda and the USS Cole bombing. (PBS Frontline 10/3/02) No retaliation is taken on these camps until after 9/11. (Washington Post, 1/20/02)

January 31, 2001: The final report of the US Commission on National Security/21st Century, co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart (D), and Warren Rudman (R) is issued (see also September 15, 1999). The bipartisan report was put together in 1998 by then-President Bill Clinton and then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The report has 50 recommendations on how to combat terrorism in the US, but all of them are ignored by the Bush Administration. Instead, the White House announces in May that it will have Vice President Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism, despite the fact that this commission had just studied the issue for 2 1/2 years. According to Senator Hart, Congress was taking the commission's suggestions seriously, but then, "Frankly, the White House shut it down... The president said 'Please wait, we're going to turn this over to the vice president'... And so Congress moved on to other things, like tax cuts and the issue of the day." Interestingly, both this commission and the Bush Administration were already assuming a new cabinet level National Homeland Security Agency would be enacted eventually even as the general public remained unaware of the term and the concept. (Salon, 9/12/01, download the complete report here: USCNS Reports)

Late January 2001: The BBC later reports, "After the elections, (US intelligence) agencies (are) told to 'back off' investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that anger(s) agents." This follows previous orders to abandon an investigation of bin Laden relatives (see September 11, 1996), and difficulties in investigating Saudi royalty. (BBC, 11/6/01) FTW An unnamed "top-level CIA operative" says there is a "major policy shift" at the National Security Agency at this time. Osama bin Laden could still be investigated, but agents could not look too closely at how he got his money. (Best Democracy Money Can Buy, by Greg Palast, 2/03) Presumably one such investigation canceled is an investigation by the Chicago FBI into ties between Saudi multimillionaire Yassin al-Qadi and the US embassy bombings (see August 7, 1998) and other terrorist acts, because during this month an FBI agent is told that the case is being closed and that "it's just better to let sleeping dogs lie" (see October 1998). Reporter Greg Palast notes that President Clinton was already hindering investigations by protecting Saudi interests. But, as he puts it, "Where Clinton said, 'Go slow,' Bush policymakers said, 'No go.' The difference is between closing one eye and closing them both." (Best Democracy Money Can Buy, by Greg Palast, 2/03)

Late January 2001 (B): Even as US intelligence is given conclusive evidence that al-Qaeda is behind the USS Cole bombing (see January 25, 2001), the new Bush administration discontinues the covert deployment of cruise missile submarines and gunships on six-hour alert near Afghanistan's borders that had begun under President Clinton (see Late 1998-January 2001). The standby force gave Clinton the option of an immediate strike against targets in al-Qaeda's top leadership. The discontinuation makes a possible assassination of bin Laden much more difficult. (Washington Post, 1/20/02)

February 9, 2001: Vice President Cheney is briefed that it has been conclusively proven bin Laden was behind the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole (see October 12, 2000). Bush has been in office a matter of days, when secret pipeline negotiations with the Taliban have begun. The new administration has already twice threatened the Taliban that the US would hold the Taliban responsible for any al-Qaeda attack. But, fearful of ending those negotiations, the US does not retaliate against either the Taliban or known bin Laden bases in Afghanistan in the manner Clinton did in 1998. (Washington Post, 1/20/02)

March 7, 2001: The Russian Permanent Mission at the United Nations secretly submits "an unprecedentedly detailed report" to the UN Security Council about bin Laden, his whereabouts, details of his al-Qaeda network, Afghan drug running, and Taliban connections in Pakistan. The report provides "a listing of all bin Laden's bases, his government contacts and foreign advisors," and enough information to potentially kill him. The US fails to act. Alex Standish, the editor of the highly respected Jane's Intelligence Review, concludes that the attacks of 9/11 were less of an American intelligence failure and more the result of "a political decision not to act against bin Laden." (Jane's Intelligence Review, 10/5/01)

March 8, 2001: The United Nations and the European Union direct their members to freeze the assets of some al-Qaeda leaders, including Sa'd Al-Sharif, bin Laden's brother-in-law and the head of his finances, but the US does not do so (see UN list). Their assets are finally frozen by the US after 9/11 (see October 12, 2001). (Guardian, 10/13/01)

April 2001 (C): Ahmed Shah Massoud, leader of the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, has been trying to get aid from the US, but his people are only allowed to meet with low level US officials. In an attempt to get his message across, he addresses the European Parliament: "If President Bush doesn't help us, these terrorists will damage the US and Europe very soon." (Time, 8/4/02)

June 2001 (F): The US considers aiding Ahmed Shah Massoud and his Northern Alliance movement. As one counter-terrorism official put it, "You keep (al-Qaeda terrorists) on the front lines in Afghanistan. Hopefully you're killing them in the process, and they're not leaving Afghanistan to plot terrorist operations." A former US special envoy to the Afghan resistance visits Massoud this month. Massoud gives him "all the intelligence he had on al-Qaeda" in the hopes of getting some support in return. But he gets nothing more than token amounts, and his organization isn't even given "legitimate resistance movement" status. (Time, 8/4/02)

June 3, 2001: This is one of only two dates that Bush's national security leadership meets formally to discuss terrorism. This group, made up of the National Security Adviser, CIA Director, Defense Secretary, Secretary of State, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others, met around 100 times before 9/11 to discuss a variety of topics, but apparently rarely terrorism. In wake of these reports, the White House "aggressively defended the level of attention, given only scattered hints of al-Qaeda activity." This lack of discussion stands in sharp contrast to the Clinton administration and public comments by the Bush administration. For instance, in January 2001 Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger told his replacement Rice: "I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject." (Time, 8/4/02) Bush said in February 2001: "I will put a high priority on detecting and responding to terrorism on our soil." A few weeks earlier, Tenet had told Congress, "The threat from terrorism is real, it is immediate, and it is evolving." (AP, 6/28/02)

Summer 2001 (G): Supposedly, since 1997 there are only fourteen fighter planes on active alert to defend the continental US. But in the months before 9/11, rather than increase the number, the Pentagon was planning to reduce the number still further. Just after 9/11, the Los Angeles Times reported, "While defense officials say a decision had not yet been made, a reduction in air defenses had been gaining currency in recent months among task forces assigned by (Defense Secretary) Rumsfeld to put together recommendations for a reassessment of the military." By comparison, in the Cold War atmosphere of the 1950s, the US had thousands of fighters on alert throughout the US. (Los Angeles Times, 9/15/01 (B)) Also during this time, FAA officials try to dispense with "primary" radars altogether, so that if a plane were to turn its transponder off, no radar could see it. NORAD rejects the proposal. (Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02)

---

What you see above is worse than doing nothing - Bush actually rolled back many of the positive things Clinton had done, stopping the Predator missile, cancelling the submarines, stopping investigations, and so on.

Here's some more on the Predator I haven't added yet:

By early 2001, Clarke and a handful of counter-terrorism specialists at the C.I.A. had learned of an Air Force plan to arm the Predator. The original plan called for three years of tests. Clarke and the others pushed so hard that the plane was ready in three months. In tests, the craft worked surprisingly well. In the summer of 2001, an armed Predator destroyed a model of bin Laden’s house which had been built in the Nevada desert. But Clarke said, “Every time we were ready to use it, the C.I.A. would change its mind. The real motivation within the C.I.A., I think, is that some senior people below Tenet were saying, ‘It’s fine to kill bin Laden, but we want to do it in a way that leaves no fingerprints. Otherwise, C.I.A. agents all over the world will be subject to assassination themselves.’ They also worried that something would go wrong—they’d blow up a convent and get blamed.”

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030804fa_fact

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-25-drones-osama_x.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30061-2002Oct1.html

The above last article also contains more on the obstructionism Clinton faced, which sounds like borderline treason to me:

Shelton, the authors write, returned with a detailed briefing on why a raid by Special Forces could not work. The authors contend that Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, chief of U.S. Central Command, was the principal obstacle to putting "boots on the ground" in Afghanistan. Though Clinton and his top advisers believed otherwise, Simon and Benjamin write, neither the Joint Staff nor Central Command did any "formal planning for a mission to capture the al Qaeda leadership."

---

Telling Clinton you drew up plans when in fact you did no such thing? What the fu..?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulthompson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-04 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. bump
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavajoRug Donating Member (330 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-04 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
9. The bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant . . .
. . . was one of the most disgraceful episodes in recent history. The whole story was full of holes from the beginning, which is why the U.S. government has never authorized any kind of follow-up investigation to determine if the original assessment of the plant's purpose was correct.

I say this not to vindicate the Bush administration in any way, but to point out that we are best served by avoiding any mention of the Clinton administration and putting those years behind us as quickly as possible.

If the invasion of Iraq was a violation of internation law (and it was), then so the destruction of a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan -- a nation against which the U.S. had not issued any formal declaration of war -- certainly was, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-04 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
15. As usual, you do us all a tremendous service with the time and effort you
spend to provide such a thoroughly researched and well-written article.

I am unwilling to expend the effort.

Thank you for doing so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-04 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
17. PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING
GOP and Bush destroyed all Intel on weapons of mass destruction by giving up Valarie Plumes identity as an act of vengeance for her husband telling the truth about the "Yellow Cake Scam". Yet the want the hoard of mindless minions to run around looking for stained dresses

Those people care nothing for John Q. Citizen. They sacrificed 3000 lives in 911 alone to have the profit/war
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC