Daily Kos: EDWARDS Gave Warnings of Terrorism BEFORE 9-11-01

[Catchawave]

by citizen53
Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:56:12 AM EDT
By now most people here know that last week John Edwards held a press conference to present his plan to fight terrorism. His theme was that the Bush "Global War on Terror" Doctrine has not made us safer, but is a political strategy used to justify the worst abuses of the Administration. In fact, terrorism around the world is on the rise according to Bush's own State Department. John Edwards believes we need a smart, mission-focused national security policy designed to stamp out terrorists, not a political slogan designed to stamp out disagreement, and he set forth his policy proposals on the matter.

His plan, along with video highlights can be found here, and a transcript of his 5-23-07 major policy address regarding foreign policy can be found here.

citizen53's diary :: ::
But terrorism is a subject John Edwards was concerned about long ago, and certainly before George W. Bush.

According to a front page story in the Washington Post on July 9, 2004, entitled, Edwards Sets Self Apart on Foreign Policy; Terrorism Was Top Focus Before Sept. 11 Attacks:

In the summer of 2001, when much of the Republican and Democratic policy community was obsessed with missile defense, Edwards urged more attention to terrorism. The North Carolina senator had such limited luck pitching an OpEd article on terrorism to major newspapers that the piece, warning of poor cooperation among federal and local law enforcement, ended up in the weekly Littleton Observer, circulation 2,230 -- four weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Edwards’s OpEd was prescient regarding the risks of terrorism. Written less than one month before Al Queda struck (and ten days after Bush received his secret August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"), Edwards mainly dealt with the protection of our ports and cyber-security, problems that still exist. He understood the magnitude of the problem presented by terrorist threats, something soon discovered in horrendous magnitude. Oddly, Bush was specifically alerted to the threat, yet kept it secret from public and Congress, even as Edwards spoke out. Here is part of what Senator Edwards had to say:

Diary continued at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/13/105612/725

[Tejanocrat]

1. WOW. That was worth a read!

Targeting Terrorism
by John Edwards
Littleton Observer
August 16, 2001

As a member of the Senate Intelligence committee, I've become convinced that terrorism is the most important national security challenge our country will face over the next decade. That is why I am working on new ways to address the threat of terrorism.

The spread of chemical and biological weapons combined with the growth of hostile terrorist groups is a recipe for disaster. The reality is that we face terrorism not only abroad, but also right here at home.

Protecting our nation's seaports from terrorist attack presents a real challenge. Seaports are the center of our global trading network. They are also ground zero in the fight against illegal drugs, bribery and theft, illegal immigration, and a potential target for terrorists. We must do a better job safeguarding our seaports. A terrorist incident at a major U.S. seaport could cripple commerce, destroy infrastructure, and endanger lives.

We need to install new technologies at our ports to detect chemical, biological and nuclear weapons before they cross our borders. Sophisticated technology like "smart containers" that use global positioning systems can help us track cargo. New computer programs can help us speed up the movement of legitimate cargo through our ports, allowing port authorities to focus on screening suspicious and potentially dangerous cargo.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/13/105612/725

[Catchawave]

2. Great investigative citizen journalism, if only

our MSM would be as keen on such detail and sources.

[polichick]

28. Interesting that he used that term...

"ground zero"

Sad that he couldn't get this into the major papers ~ says a lot about the United States of Denial!

[CGowen]

3. those CFR members are certainly informed, just like Gary Hart n/t

[Hart2008]

4. The same Gary Hart who outed GHW Bush as a CIA asset in Miami...

during his Senate confirmation hearing for CIA director and voted against his confirmation.

The CFR isn't the old boys club you imply.

[CGowen]

5. The CFR has over 3000 members ... n/t

[Hart2008]

7. So what's your point? n/t

[FrenchieCat]

6. I think that this is great......too bad that there is no link to the op-Ed

and although his OP-Ed focuses on port security, which wouldn't have helped or changed 9/11 by one iota, focusing on any security was a good thing!

However, of course, he wasn't the only one doing this......and certainly after the various incidents like the 1993 World Trade tower bombings, the 1999 Cole bombing, etc.....there should have stressed the dangers of terrorism, and in particular there would have been discussions by the Intelligence committee on this, which of course, Edwards was a member of!

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?warning_signs:_specific_cases=USSColeBombing&timeline=complete_911_timeline

Clinton Aides Plan to Tell Panel of Warning Bush Team on Qaeda
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines04/0320-07.htm

By the end of the Clinton administration, the then national-security adviser Sandy Berger had become “totally preoccupied” with fears of a domestic terror attack, a colleague recalls. True, the Clintonites had failed to act decisively against Al Qaeda, but by the end they were certain of the danger it posed. When, in January 2001, Berger gave Rice her handover briefing, he covered the bin Laden threat in detail, and, sources say, warned her: “You will be spending more time on this issue than on any other.” Rice was alarmed by what she heard, and asked for a strategy review. But the effort was marginalized and scarcely mentioned in ensuing months as the administration committed itself to other priorities, like national missile defense (NMD) and Iraq.
http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorismfoi/whatwentwrong.html

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who with Republican Sen. Jon Kyl had sent a copy of draft legislation on counterterrorism and homeland defense to Cheney’s office on July 20, also heard some news that day. Feinstein was told by the veep’s top aide, “Scooter” Libby, as Feinstein described it to NEWSWEEK, “that it might be another six months before he would be able to review the material.
http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorismfoi/whatwentwrong.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html


Of course, Edwards also supported Missile defense.
Voted NO on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (May 1999)
Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP. (Mar 1999)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Defense.htm

[Catchawave]

9. Thanks for kicking my thread !

:hi:

[PurityOfEssence]

12. Edwards haters on parade

Even if he could single-handedly save the world, certain partisans would still thirst for his demise.

John Edwards took many stands that can be used against him, but when viewed in context, his heart has always been in the right place: he took responsibility for his actions even when they infuriated the base (the Patriot Act and the IWR) and not only didn't shrink from them but stood tall to explain the complexities.

The guy cares. Just because he didn't bow out in the face of the great Clark-god doesn't make him evil.

Once again, Clark lovers post numerous glowing threads to their messiah and Edwards supporters let them have their joy. I certainly didn't sully the gushing love thread comparing Bobby Kennedy to Wes Clark--ridiculous though it was, even if Bobby sucked up to Joe McCarthy--it was the province of those who truly love Wes Clark and it should be left to the believers. This is beyond being a cliche; hosannas to your knight in shining armor are rife and left alone, but should anyone peep with praise for Edwards, the usual suspects rage with bandwidth fury.

Just stop. Superiority and privilege make people think they needn't behave like the rest of us lowly mortals; that's precisely what I dislike about conservatives, and once again: the extremists of the Clark camp walk, talk, and deride like conservatives.

Are manners something only for the inferior? By one's self-proclaimed transcendence is one loosed from any decency and comportment? Among the camp of extremist Clark supporters, this seems to be so. (Bear in mind, I'm only talking about the EXTREMISTS among this group, and the post to which I'm responding comes from one of the stalwarts.)

Clark has his points, and many of his supporters are decent and positive people. The problem is the few and combative.

[Catchawave]

14. Nice response, I might add...

it was obvious the responder didn't read the entire diary where the WaPo referenced the Littleton article. I hate when that happens, I always assume people read my links when I post'em. Then again, most just respond to my subject line, sigh.

Always nice to see you POE :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

16. ;

:boring:

[BootinUp]

23. haters? this is the only tactic in your sorry bag of tricks

Silence discussion by name calling.

[JNelson6563]

31. Wish I could nominate a response

Well said. I do feel a little bit of pity though, can you imagine carrying so much baggage for 3-4 years? Must be heavy!

Julie

[BootinUp]

38. This a riot coming from you.

So in various face to face Democratic party activities that you so often tell us about Julie is that post the kind of bullshit that gets spewed around by you or others (in the spirit of everyone having free speech of course). Broad brush name calling, yeah thats going to make for some real positive meetings. Why don't you give it a rest. If I or anyone else wants to give our opinions positive or negative on a candidate whether at a gathering or a democratic forum, it doesn't justify the kind of treatment that Purity unleashes, nor does it justify your snarky attacks.

[venable]

46. If I may

this is my observation:

The small handful of Clark supporters that really dislike (!) Edwards call him astonishing, crude things, and call his supporters fools and worse.

The Edwards supporters say this is Edwards-hating.....at which the small Clark band is shocked that they have to endure such a brutal attack.

My point is the proportions of vitriol seem way out of whack here.

An example: someone posted something nice about Edwards. A Clark supporter (in the username) says something like: Edwards is a loser (it wasn't that but that was the gist). I responded that this was not necessary, snarky, and out of the spirit of the thread. This Clark supporter was outraged that I didn't know that the insult was a 'light-hearted attempt at humor' - this from someone whose posts consist of almost nothing else but vitriolic attacks on Edwards. I said, 'Well, I don't think saying for the hundredth time that Edwards is a lose is as funny as you seem to." To which this poster announced that he/she was putting me on IGNORE as there was no reason they should put up with this. ?????????? It was laughable, but fairly representative of the dynamic here.



As for Purity of Essence's exceptionally learned and eloquent posts - I've never once seen a response to the detailed propositions in his/her posts. Not once.

[FrenchieCat]

51. You may not! Purity of Essence's response was not

exceptionally "learned" nor eloquent.

I did not attack Purity. Purity simply attacked me and other DUers.

I made my factual comments while sticking to the theme of the op. I posted simply that it was good of Edwards to have written the OP (which there is no link, regardless of the "Reference" to the article in the WAPO-so this is a F-A-C-T)....and went on to discuss what Edwards was referencing in the 2001 OP-ed which was for a F-A-C-T dealing specifically with PORT SECURITY.

Then I cited links and articles to put into perspective the fact that terrorism certainly was an issue raised by more than just John Edwards during that time period......and in fact, there were folks more on point than Edwards in reference to the issue.

I have highlighted my main points versus Purity's main points so that even the blind can see the difference........and those who purport not to see my rational measured comments versus her irrational "DU Member hater" comments can keep their eyes shut tight.

Those who justify PURITY'S Attacks by calling them "learned" and "Eloquent" are speaking volumes about their own credibility at best.


MY POST:
1. FrenchieCat (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-13-07 02:41 PM
Response to Original message

6. I think that this is great......too bad that there is no link to the op-Ed

and although his OP-Ed focuses on port security, which wouldn't have helped or changed 9/11 by one iota, focusing on any security was a good thing!

However, of course, he wasn't the only one doing this......and certainly after the various incidents like the 1993 World Trade tower bombings, the 1999 Cole bombing, etc.....there should have stressed the dangers of terrorism, and in particular there would have been discussions by the Intelligence committee on this, which of course, Edwards was a member of!

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?warning...

Clinton Aides Plan to Tell Panel of Warning Bush Team on Qaeda
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/hea...

By the end of the Clinton administration, the then national-security adviser Sandy Berger had become “totally preoccupied” with fears of a domestic terror attack, a colleague recalls. True, the Clintonites had failed to act decisively against Al Qaeda, but by the end they were certain of the danger it posed. When, in January 2001, Berger gave Rice her handover briefing, he covered the bin Laden threat in detail, and, sources say, warned her: “You will be spending more time on this issue than on any other.” Rice was alarmed by what she heard, and asked for a strategy review. But the effort was marginalized and scarcely mentioned in ensuing months as the administration committed itself to other priorities, like national missile defense (NMD) and Iraq.
http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorismfoi/whatwentwrong.html

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who with Republican Sen. Jon Kyl had sent a copy of draft legislation on counterterrorism and homeland defense to Cheney’s office on July 20, also heard some news that day. Feinstein was told by the veep’s top aide, “Scooter” Libby, as Feinstein described it to NEWSWEEK, “that it might be another six months before he would be able to review the material.
http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorismfoi/whatwentwrong.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,0...

Of course, Edwards also supported Missile defense.
Voted NO on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (May 1999)
Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP. (Mar 1999)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Defense.htm

--------------------

PURITY'S RESPONSE TO MY POST:

1. PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-13-07 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #6

12. Edwards haters on parade


even if he could single-handedly save the world, certain partisans would still thirst for his demise.

John Edwards took many stands that can be used against him, but when viewed in context, his heart has always been in the right place: he took responsibility for his actions even when they infuriated the base (the Patriot Act and the IWR) and not only didn't shrink from them but stood tall to explain the complexities.

The guy cares. Just because he didn't bow out in the face of the great Clark-god doesn't make him evil.

Once again, Clark lovers post numerous glowing threads to their messiah and Edwards supporters let them have their joy. I certainly didn't sully the gushing love thread comparing Bobby Kennedy to Wes Clark--ridiculous though it was, even if Bobby sucked up to Joe McCarthy--it was the province of those who truly love Wes Clark and it should be left to the believers. This is beyond being a cliche; hosannas to your knight in shining armor are rife and left alone, but should anyone peep with praise for Edwards, the usual suspects rage with bandwidth fury.

Just stop. Superiority and privilege make people think they needn't behave like the rest of us lowly mortals; that's precisely what I dislike about conservatives, and once again: the extremists of the Clark camp walk, talk, and deride like conservatives.

Are manners something only for the inferior? By one's self-proclaimed transcendence is one loosed from any decency and comportment? Among the camp of extremist Clark supporters, this seems to be so. (Bear in mind, I'm only talking about the EXTREMISTS among this group, and the post to which I'm responding comes from one of the stalwarts.)

Clark has his points, and many of his supporters are decent and positive people. The problem is the few and combative.

[ChiciB1]

39. With Obama & Clinton Going At It... I Think It Really Leaves An

opening here for Edwards! I DON'T care how devious, callous or opportunistic many here at DU think about Edwards, he's still the one I'm supporting.

I took a look at the Democrats support pages here at DU and Obama and Edwards are almost even with the support. Clinton has a lot more, which I DON'T understand, but hey so what??

There's still lots and lots of time!!!!

[JohnLocke]

8. K&R

[waiting for hope]

10. K&R! Nice catch!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. Edwards is the only candidate who can beat Ghouliani on national security

This is just another reason why. Ghouliani, thanks to over 6 years of myth-making by the MSM, will always have terrorism as his strong suit. If we are to beat him we need to have a candidate who can take him on on terrorism. Beat him on terrorism and the Ghouliani candidacy crumbles. Edwards is the only candidate with an anti-terror plan and this is another reason why Edwards is best able to take the fight to Ghouliani on terrorism.

[venable]

13. and the only one to beat all the repubs, see below

Rasmussen:

Edwards 47% Giuliani 45%
Edwards 48% McCain 41%
Edwards 55% Romney 29%
Edwards 53% Thompson 32%


Giuliani 47% Clinton 44%
McCain 48% Clinton 42%
Clinton 47% Romney 44%
Clinton 47% Thompson 44%


Giuliani 51% Obama 39%
Obama 46% McCain 42%
Obama 49% Romney 37%
Obama 47% Thompson 44%

[Catchawave]

15. Crossover appeal :)

It's always been Edwards' biggest strength in the polls. Thanks for the reminder.

:toast:

[Apollo11]

17. unless and until Wes Clark announces his candidacy

I don't think anyone could beat Wes Clark on national security. Not even Condi Rice.

I would also hope and expect that Al Gore could beat Giuliani on all issues.

But maybe Al Gore is not perceived to be "tough" as regards "The War on Terror".

Of course Al Gore understands the threats and the stakes as well as anyone.

But that's not the way the mainstream media usually portrays Al Gore.

Wes Clark http://securingamerica.com

Al Gore www.algore.com

[Greyskye]

24. Agreed

Gore/Clark 2008
Gore/Clark 2012
Clark/ ?   2016

Props to Edwards on this in any case.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. You can't beat a guy with the title of "Supreme Allied Commander" on security!

The title and his 4 stars alone are enough to give him the edge on anyone on security. Of course, unlike Ghouliani, there is actual substance to Clark's views on national security. Clark has spoken and written about them. Couple his anti-terror ideas, his 4 stars, his brilliance, and he would slaughter any repuke on security. Clark would be a great addition to the ticket (if HRC or Obama get the nomination he seemingly is a near lock for it. Let's face it. Both HRC and Obama are going to politically have no choice but to pick a white male from the VP. Who better than Clark?).

As far as Gore goes, if he articulated an anti-terror strategy, as he undoubtedly would, he would have instant credibility on the issue given his experience as VP for 8 years and his long service in Congress.

[Adelante]

18. John Edwards, the National Security Candidate!

:rofl:

[Catchawave]

19. Thanks for kicking the thread !

:toast:

[Adelante]

20. Sure thing

:hi:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. What parts of his national security plan do you disagree with?

Also, how are the anti-terror plans of HRC and Obama superior to the Edwards plan? Thanks in advance...

[BlueStater]

27. Who knows?

If these Clark supporters have a chance to take a cheap shot at Edwards, you'll bet they'll take it.

[BootinUp]

29. another brilliant debater. n/t

[venable]

34. is that your answer to the question?

maybe you forgot it - what do you disagree with regarding Edwards national security policies?

[BootinUp]

30. We are questioning the judgement

of the person delivering the message based on previous positions and lack of experience.

[venable]

35. how about the policies themselves?

and you should recognize that those who dismiss Edwards so emphatically are small in number.

Others attend to these proposals in the spirit in which they were offered.

[BootinUp]

37. I don't have a problem with the policies from a quick

read.

Part of selecting a candidate for me is weighing their knowledge and judgement not just policies that are prepared. I think Edwards has carefully developed his policies to attract support in the primary and I doubt there are any major problems in them I would find.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

42. It is ironic to see a Clarkie invoke "judgment"

Clark didn't have the judgment to become a Democrat until 2003 when he was nearly sixty years old and the red seas parted to give The Savoior a seemingly straight path to the Democratic presidential nomination. He didn't have the judgment not to promote the Republican Party by headlining a GOP fundraiser in 2001.

The most amusing thing about the Clarkie attacks on Edwards is their blindness regarding applying their own reasoning to their hero. It would be one thing if these attacks came from Obama supporters; it is downright absurd to see Clarkies invoke things like judgment and, their favorite, changing views for political gain. Clark morphed from an independent flirting with both parties in 2001 (both parties were recruiting him to run in Arkansas. Clearly Clark was receptive to the notion of running as a Republican*...) to a progressive Democrat--more progressive than even Dean (which is quite odd for someone who wasn't even sure whether he would become a Republican or a Democrat just two years earlier...)--when it was politically convenient two years later. That is fine! Nothing fishy there! However, it is definitely fraudulent for a Democrat--who was fighting the Bush agenda while Clark was speaking at a GOP fundraiser--to change his position on one issue! :rofl:

*This means one of two things: 1) Clark was a progressive all along but was willing to become a Republican if it would further his political ambitions (you don't become a 4 star general without intense ambition by the way...) 2) Clark is actually a middle-of-the-roader, which is why he was unsure which party he would join, but saw a clear path to the Democratic presidential nomination and posed as a progressive Democrat to achieve his ambition of being president.

[BootinUp]

56. His chosen 1st career was not politics.

He didn't publicly speak about politics during that time, you presume to know a lot about him based on one vote every few years . But you haven't bothered to really know anything about him during those years. A biographical look at what he was like during those years would tell you a lot more. I don't find anything convenient in his desire to enter politics, you dismiss the personal sacrifices he has made in money, time, and criticism levied against him from others because he decided to speak out.

The only thing convenient in this conversation is how you use attacks on another democrat to divert the conversation from Edwards. This thread was about Edwards and his foresight into terrorism as proof he can lead the nation with a credible national security policy. Lets try to stay on the subject.

[venable]

33. grow up, n/t

[BootinUp]

22. Unfortunately

Edwards has some credibility problems in this area. Something like admitting he was completely wrong on the issue in the recent past.

[blm]

21. If Edwards and his campaign were REALLY smart, they'd shout it loud and clear that

He and Kerry were RIGHT about everything in 2004 and how this country and world would have been way better off by now under their leadership.

Edwards acts ashamed as if they didn't win and had no good policies, which gves the room for the 'other' candidates to push at him.

What would 'other' candidates have to say against him if he started acting ASSERTIVELY and claimed the We told you this would happen mantle? Especially since Hillary stuck closer to Bush on terrorism and Iraq throughout that time. Her way then was Bush's way - and we're seeing the results of that.

[venable]

32. some responses really are shocking, or is the word 'pathetic'

a perfectly reasonable post, recounting undeniable prescience by a very good man, is smugly attacked by the exact few posters who seem to follow Edwards threads around for this sole purpose. What does this sad coterie lack that Edwards threatens them so, or what did Edwards do...or yet again - who did Kerry choose that makes them feel like their man was slighted?

thank god they are few in number, no matter how tenaciously, and pathetically, they do what they do.

I have no doubt that their hero General would disapprove of their obsessive, and pathetic, negative stalking of Edwards.

Support your candidate, as others do - by promoting him, not by tearing Edwards down. It will do wonders for everyone.

[Catchawave]

36. Wes Clark likes John Edwards :)

These "supporters" certainly don't speak for him.

From an interview on Fox News:

Stuart Varney: I'm sorry to interrupt. In the interest of time, I do want to just switch gears completely for just one second. John Edwards announced his candidacy for the Presidency on '08 as of today, made the announcement in New Orleans. Any comment from you as a former Democrat Presidential candidate?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I like John Edwards. I think he has to be taken in as a very serious contender for the Presidency in 2008. He's a man who is clearly shown his motivation and his determination and, and one of the things that I think all Americans want and I think people all over the world want is they want the American President to be fully committed, his whole life, being and essence to the job and the public responsibilities that come with the office of the Presidency.

Otherwise, my Clarkie friends are wonderful thread kickers :D

[ChiciB1]

40. ANOTHER GOOD CATCH... Catchawave.... Thanks... n/t

[venable]

43. nice one catchawave...let's remember this

there will certainly be many opportunities to make good use of it.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

41. What caused this Clarkie obssession with Edwards?

If you look at 80% of Edwards attacks at DU they come from "Clarkies", not HRC or Obama supporters (although there is a DLC contingent the routinely attacks Edwards). Is it because Edwards didn't concede Oklahoma before the result was known? Is it because Edwards helped deliver the deathblow to the Clark campaign in the South? Is it because Kerry chose Edwards as his running mate?

[venable]

44. I think it is exactly those three things

and, lordy, the animosity is deep, deep and growing.

by the way, excellent post about the mercurial nature of the General's political affiliations.

I try to stay away from this fairly obvious elephant (pun intended) in the room, because the blowback is so violent and nonsensical.

same with his anti IWR past - clearly he lobbied against it as it approached, and afterwards, but there are numerous instances where he supported it...yet Edwards vote (which everyone regrets) is seen as vile stupidity by these supporters. What does that say about Clark's early support for it (which they deny, in spite of the documented evidence)

the other thing that irks is that his supporters say we NEED Clark. Not that we want him, or that he would be a good candidate and president, but that we NEED him. Why does that sound cultish to me, and by cultish I mean without critical analysis.

The shame is that Clark has a tremendous amount to bring to the party and he has a couple of eloquent supporters here at DU, but the fury and ugliness and Edwards-obsessiveness of many is just too much.

Check out Purity of Essence's post on the subject. He/she is very cogent and lucid.

[Catchawave]

45. I have links to credible sources to back all your statements....

including my post about Wes's JE statement (which was from WESPAC's site).

:toast: to the Wesley Clark supporters, whoever you are :toast:

[venable]

47. thanks, I've noticed you're better at that than I am.

thanks for getting my back...my capacity to track down citations is sadly limited, it seems.

[Catchawave]

50. no problem :)

:hug:

Much rather be hunting Republicans, but hey, maybe I am :D

[draft_mario_cuomo]

49. I agree

==by the way, excellent post about the mercurial nature of the General's political affiliations.==

Thanks. I have posted that several times. They never bring themselves to addressing the implications of Clark flirting with both parties in 2001 and then morphing into a progressive Democrat 2 years late. As I said, this could mean one of two things. Both are equally bad...

==same with his anti IWR past - clearly he lobbied against it as it approached, and afterwords, but there are numerous instances where he supported it...yet Edwards vote (which everyone regrets) is seen as vile stupidity by these supporters.==

Good point. That is one of the funniest parts of the Clarkie obsession. The IWR is sacred and anyone who supported it is evil--except Clark himself! :rofl:

==the other thing that irks is that his supporters say we NEED Clark. Not that we want him, or that he would be a good candidate and president, but that we NEED him.==

Good point. I had never thought of that before.

==The shame is that Clark has a tremendous amount to bring to the party and he has a couple of eloquent supporters here at DU, but the fury and ugliness and Edwards-obsessiveness of many is just too much.==

I agree.

[FrenchieCat]

52. Purity was neither "Cogent" nor "Lucid".............

She was out of line and attacking the messenger for the same basic message which was posted by others in this thread.

So call out this poster too....while you are praising Purity for the scornful bullshit rant aimed at me that she wrote why dontcha?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3315009&mesg_id=3319085

[Catchawave]

53. Hi Frenchie, thanks for kicking my thread...

:loveya:

[DemBones DemBones]

48. Most DUers could have written an OpEd in July 2001 foreseeing a terror attack.

I'm glad that John Edwards took the time to write and Op Ed and sorry it wasn't published in a major paper, but I don't think he was unusually prescient. Any Senator or Congressman should have had a clue that something was coming. Anyone who kept up with the news should have had a clue that something was coming.

Two items were widely reported in the summer of 2001:

When Bush went to the G-8 meetings in Italy in June 2001, there were warnings that Al Qaeda would fly planes into buildings trying to kill Bush. Bush and his entourage stayed on a shop offshore (presumably a U.S. Navy ship with anti-aircraft guns.)

The Hart-Rudman Report warned that an attack was coming and we were not prepared. No efforts were made to safeguard us.


Other clues:

There were reports that the Bush administration wanted a pipeline through Afghanistan and had discussed with the Taliban a promise of gold vs. a threat of carpet bombing, suggesting the Taliban choose the gold and give them what they wanted. (This was only reported online, as best I recall. Someone else may have different info.)

On September 11, ironically enough, the Pentagon was conducting model simulations of planes being used as weapons, flown into buildings. The news media showed clips of this repeatedly. Considering that, and the threat at the G-8 meetings, I don't know how anyone kept a straight face when saying "No one could have thought of planes being used as weapons."

Gore headed a commission to study airport security when he was VP. The GOP Congress said the recommendations would cost too much and terrorism was no threat. Edwards was in the Senate when this report was discussed.

Richard Clarke had warned the Bush administration since January about a coming attack. He was the Anti-Terrorism "Czar," but they ignored him. He wasn't allowed to meet with the "Principals" until Sept. 10, 2001. (This was only revealed after he had left government work and wrote a book, but it may have been known in Washington.)

[venable]

54. very good points

and as you say, in fact, for most of the world and anyone paying attention, the years and days pre-9/11 were not quite the innocent halcyon days that the bushies try to insist.

that awful day did not happen in a vacuum. it did not 'change the world' as cheney and condi like to say - it just measured how much the world had already changed...with one sad difference:

The world did change - dramatically and terribly and forever - for those who lost loved ones on that day.

Richard Clarke and, later, Scott Ritter are the two who history will judge favorably when these times are finally seen clearly. Interesting how the MSM has marginalized these two truth-speakers.

[GreenTea]

55. Kick!

:kick: