CHENEY THREATENS VOTERS WITH TERRORIST REPRISALS

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

I have several times asked the question why we (the US) have not become subject to a suicide-boming-a-day like in Israel, or faced multiple other terrorist incidents out of the Al-Quaeda playbook?

Like it or not, my personal belief is that the answer is Bush.

That conclusion flies contrary to basic facts. Yes it will be detailed because when I say that is SO incorrect as to be a lie, then the reasons come with details. Details one better damn well know before saying this president makes America safer. George Jr made America so unsafe from terrorist attacks that some could even conclude it was done so intentionally. Reality says otherwise. But first we examine how real anti-terrorism works.

Under Clinton, when a terrrorist act was suspected, then the entire government went on the alert and therefore stopped terrorist actions. Back then, the Counterterrorism Security Group was considered so important as to have 'principals' access.

from Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies
When Black called that day in 1999, we quickly convened a CSG meeting and sent out warnings to US embassies, military bases, and the 18,000 police agencies in the United States. The message: Be advised, al Qaeda terrorists may be planning attacks around the time of the Millennium. Be on heightened alert for suspicious activity. And then we waited.

That message went overseas, but also to all federal law enforcement agents, as well as many county sheriffs, state troopers, highway patrol officers, and city cops. The break came in an unlikely location. A pleasant boat ride from British Columbia to Washington State ended with a routine screening by US Customs officers. One passenger in line fidgeted, would not make eye contact. When the Customs officer, Diana Dean, went to pull him out of line, he bolted and ran off the boat, leaving his car on the ferry. Dean gave chase and called for backup. A few minutes later, Ahmed Ressam was in custody. His car held explosives, and a map of Los Angles International Airport.

If that were not enough to send us spinning, CIA had learned further details about the al Qaeda plot in Jordan. The head of the cell who had helped assemble the bombs, had recently quite his job - as a cab driver in Boston.

The Jordanian Crown Prince, visiting the bomb factory hidden in an upper middle class home, had been amazed at the size of the haul. "They weren't planning terrorism, they were planning a revolution." The King immediately declared a state of emergency and flooded the streets with soldiers and armored vehicles. More than the usual suspects were swept up and interrogated. The investigation led to an al Qaeda operative in Pakistan, and to another American who had lived not far from Los Angles International Airport.

In fifteen months, since the embassy bombings, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger had held dozens of Principles meetings on al Qaeda. He knew their names, their modus operandi, and he feared they would strike again before we could cripple their organization. ...

Following the first of these [resulting] Principals meetings, we prepared, at Berger's request, a Pol-Mil Plan for the Millennium Alert, alerting units, increasing security, rounding up suspects around the world. ...

This time, however, FBI did respond well. It did one of the things it is very good at: it threw bodies at the problem. Thousands of agents fanned out, pulling at strings. The strings from Ressam, then man on the ferry, led to a sleeper cell of Algerian mujahedeen in Montreal. ... The leads the Royal Canadian Mounted Police provided went to what look like cells in Boston and New York. By the time I called John O'Neill to ask what he was doing, he was on the back street in Brooklyn where his agents had just arrested an al Qaeda operative connected to Ressam.

The Justice Department normally reviewed FBI requests for national security wiretaps with a skeptical eye. Justice correctly wanted to insure there were no abusues, lest Congress restrict their ability .... In the weeks before the Millennium, however, Fran Townsend and her staff at Justice brought dozens of FISA requests to the special intelligence court judges. More happened in a week than normally took place in a year. ...

In Yemen, a US Navy destroyer was planning a port call in Aden harbor ... USS The Sullivans. As we later learned, al Qaeda had it in the crosshairs. A small boat was loaded with high explosives in order to be driven right into the destroyer. Al Qaeda planned that attack to be simultaneous with others: Los Angles Airport exploding in blood and glass, the Amman Radisson collapsing in flames and dust, Christian tourists gunned down in Mount Nebo. ... As they pushed the boat down the landing and into the water, however, it moved off a little into the harbor and sank. The explosive weighed too much.

How many terrorist attacks must one prevent before they are said to do their job. Numerous Millennium terrorist attacks averted because top administration people took the threat so serious as to empower the little people. So serious as to make the CSG a principles office directly part of the National Security Council. It worked only because top administration officials took terrorism seriously. Viewed anti-terrorism as an operational organization - not a 'foreign policy' or ideological organization.

IOW what is more important - a political agenda or getting hand dirty empowering the workers? There is a fundamental difference between Clinton and George Jr. The former recognized danger. He empowered the people when danger was detected. He therefore stifled numerous terrorist attacks planned for the Millennium by empowering the workers. Terrorism became more difficult under Clinton who even eliminated embassies that could not be protected. Terrorist attacks against at least two American embassies (Albania and Uganda) were averted which included arrests in Azerbaijan, Italy, and Britain. Also discovered was the al Qaeda forgery operation in Albania. This is what happens when a problem is taken seriously by top management - especially the president.

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

I have several times asked the question why we (the US) have not become subject to a suicide-boming-a-day like in Israel, or faced multiple other terrorist incidents out of the Al-Quaeda playbook?

Like it or not, my personal belief is that the answer is Bush.

Now we come to the mental midget president who is accused repeated from non-partisan and Republican authors of not even reading his own memos. How can a president make America safe if he does not even know the basic facts. The 9/11 Commission Report makes it bluntly obvious. He was told on 6 Aug that an attack was immenent involving buildings and planes. When the planes began striking the WTC and when the president is told, "America is under attack", then what does he do. He sits there for seven minutes without even asking if anyone is in control.

We know know the military desperately needed Administration orders to defend America - and yet George Jr just sat there for seven minutes. Those pilots never got permission to defend America - from a president that Wolf trusts? Wolf. Do you read before you make conclusions? He just sat there. He did not even ask one question.

And as so many who have worked with him now suspect - George Jr does not make decisions. He does not have sufficient knowledge to make decisions. He sat there for seven minutes waiting for someone to tell him what to do.

He could not even testify before the 9/11 Commission without help. Cheney had to be there to answer the real questions. This is a leader we can trust?

So now we ask what George Jr did to maintain the protection provided by Clinton.

again from Richard Clarke
In general, the Bush appointees distrusted anything invented by the Clinton Administration and anything of a multilateral nature - so the internaltional terrorist financing effort had two strikes against it. The new Bush focus in early 2001 was on confronting China, withdrawing from various multilateral obligations, and spending much more money on an antimissile defense system - not in looking into al Qaeda's financial network. Will Wechsler quit Treasury within monhts of the change of administration.

Wechsler is credited with discovering how Muslim Brotherhood organizations finance their operations - the hawala system. He also demonstrated that bin Laden was not financing his own al Qaeda network; that is was a major international financing system. All these investigations came to an immediate halt with George Jr - the man who makes America safe from terrorists.

When al Qaeda had just recently earned respect as more than a financing network, instead George Bush and Dick Cheney discussed the antiballistic missile treaty and Iraq as if they were the terrorist threats. IOW they could not be bothered to learn how the world had changed in 10 years. Their ideology does not permit them to learn new concepts until forced to by earthquake events.

Now Condi Rice was in charge. She appeared to have a closer relationship with the second President Bush ... As I briefed Rice on al Qaeda, her facial expresssion gave me the impression htat she had never heard the term before, ....

Rice looks skeptical. She focused on the factd that my office staff was large by NSC standards (12 people) and did operational things, including domestic security issues. She said, "The NSC looks just as it did when I worked here a few years ago, except your operation. It's all new. It does domestic things and is not just doing policy, it seems to be worrying about operational issues. I'm no sure we will want to kepp all of this in the NSC."

Rice viewed the NSC as a "foreign policy" coordination mechanism and not some place where issues as terrorism in the US, or domestic preparedness for weapons of mass destruction, or computer network security should be addressed. I realized that Rice, and her deputy Steve Hadley, were still operating with the old Cold War paradim from when they had worked on the NSC. ... It stuck me that neither of them had worked on the new post Cold War security issues.

I tried to explain: "This office is new, you're right. It'spost Cold War security, not focused on nation-state threats. The boundaries between domestic and foreign have blurred. Threate to the US now are not Soviet ballistic missiles carrying bobms, they're terrorist carrying bombs. Besides, the law that established theNSC in 1947 said it should concern itself with domestic security threats too."

Rice decided that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism would also be downgraded. No longer would the Coordinator be a member of the Principals Committee. No longer would the CSG report to the Principals, but instead to a committee of Deputy Secretaries. No longer would the National Coordinator be supported by two NSC Senior Directors or have the budget review mechanism with the Associate Director of OMB. ...

Within a week of the Inauguration I wrote to Rice and Hadley asking "urgently" for a Principals, or Cabinet-level, meeting to review the imminent al Qaeda threat. Rice todl me that the Principals Committee, whcih had been ther first venue for terrorism policy discussion in the Clinton administration, woudl not address the issue until it had been 'framed' by the Deputies. ... Instead, it meant months of delay.

Again lets go back to George Jr sitting their for seven minutes in a FL school room waiting for someone to tell him what action to take. One of those persons who does that is Condi Rice. Same person who decided terrorism was not a major problem. Even after two simultaneous embassy bombings, Khobar Towers, etc, this administration is too driven by ideology and policy to see the operational facts? Yes. These are the people who tell George Jr what to think.

Don't believe me? Even his cabinet meetings are preceeded by memos telling each cabinet secretary what he will say, when he will say it, and how much time he is permitted to say it. Who issued these memos? Karl Rove and the president's political staff.

We know this president had a memo written by two CIA agents so concerned about the immenent attack on the US that they boldly and intentionally entitled it "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Unlike Clinton, George Jr did nothing - just as the thinking of Rice demonstrates. Had George Jr done what Clinton did, then FBI agents on the trail of 11 September attackers - in AZ, IL, MN, and now we have learn about two lady agents in NY - would have been empowered to follow up their investigations and uncover the 11 September attack. Instead George Jr built an antimissile defense system to protect us from terrrorists launching missiles.

This is the intelligence and attitude that Wolf says makes America safer? She must not read beyond the Daily News to come to that conclusion.

How are your sources of information. If you are using propaganda, then you actually think Iraq is getting better. Dexter Filkin in an interview with Charlie Rose last night. Charlie said his feelings were that things are getting a little worse every day every where. Dexter confirmed this citing his recent interview with a Sunni cleric who hates American. Even Sadre City is still open to Americans, but Dexter said he expects that to change in the next few months. Elections will not be possible at all in the Sunni Triangle. Electricity is still less than when Sadam was in power. It was suggested that the Saddam trial may be pushed up from January for reasons that include the 7,000 mile screwdriver. Decisions made for political reasons in the White House rather than operational reasons in Iraq.

IOW even both Iraq and Afghanistan are slowly falling apart. What George Jr calls terrorist - and what are really nationalists - now control most every town north and west of Baghdad including the desert all the way to Jordan. Yes, the US Army could take control. But then we have VietNam all over again - we must burn the village to save it.

How can anyone think America is safer under George Jr - except if brainwashed by lies - half truths - from Rush Limbaugh. This mental midget president cannot even complete the two wars he has started. He cannot even read the PDBs that warn of terrorist attacks. He cannot even ask questions when both questions and answers were desperately needed - as the US was attacked while fighter pilots remained without orders to defend America. To say that America is safer under George Jr is to say the poster is easily brainwashed by ideologues.

It is impossible to be intelligent and say George Jr makes America safer. Because George Jr's actions, it is not safe or advisable to announce you are American even among some of America's closest allies. Best to let them believe you are Canadian because George Jr has so perverted American safety all over the world. Stop listening to lies from Rush Limbaugh. This president is not just bankrupting America (because as Cheney said in the meeting, "Reagan proved that deficiets don't matter). He is also making America a target of Muslim Brotherhood (al Qaeda being only one example).

Yes plenty of details. And I provide more. Those who like the mental midget as president either found much of this to be new information or will not read it because they too are ideologues - facts and operational knowledge be damned.

How safe will you be when this mental midget president attackes Iran on or after 2006?

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by tw

The 9/11 Commission Report makes it bluntly obvious. He was told on 6 Aug that an attack was immenent involving buildings and planes.

Just so everyone undersands what that PDB really said. It did not say that terrorist are going to grab some planes and fly them into buildings. It did not say when anything about timing. It did say that 70+ investigations were underway on various possible Bin Laden schemes.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational
threat reporting, such as that from a -~._. service in
1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the
release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd aI-Rahman and other US-held
extremists.

- Nevenheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of
suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for
hijackings or other types of aNacks, including recent surveillance of
federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 luillieid investigations
throughout the US that it considers Bin ladin-related. CIA and the
FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying
that a group or Bin ladir1 supporters was in the US planning at1acks
with explosives.


should the bush team have know that in one month al quaeda was going to hi jack 4 planes and fly them into buildings? i don't know. i don't know what the PDBs said everyday for the 6 months before this one. I do know that it isn't completely honest to say that Bush knew about imminent hijackings and planes flying into buildings.


PDB 6 AUG 2001

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by wolf

When you look at the litany of terrorist acts against the US during the Clinton years (including WTC truck bomb, OKC, Khobar Towers, etc.) you gotta wonder ...

Clinton: investigate, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators.
Bush: Kill someone else.

[lookout123]

the difference is that one president viewed these as crimes for the courts to deal with. the other views them as acts of war. the difference between the views explains the different approach in dealing with them.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by lookout123

the difference is that one president viewed these as crimes for the courts to deal with. the other views them as acts of war.

One went after the people responsible for the acts.
The other lied to us to go to war with an uninvolved country. (Or are we still looking for those wmds?)

- Pie

[lookout123]

we didn't go to iraq because of al quaeda. much of america supported the war because of the information about WMD.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

the difference is that one president viewed these as crimes for the courts to deal with. the other views them as acts of war. the difference between the views explains the different approach in dealing with them.

That's not accurately expressed. Clinton viewed terrorism as a major threat. bin Laden had not been clearly identified as a threat until the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Clinton would not put feet on the ground (to invade) because we did not have the smoking gun. But he did everything else he could to attack those who threatened Americans. That included driving bin Laden out of Sudan AND responding to every 'real' threat. 'Real' as in the threat truly exists as opposed to any silly little rumor that causes another orange alert (that was until Tom Ridge finally stopped issuing orange alerts and Ashcroft got mad).

Clinton had no authority to make war. That authority only existed when a smoking gun existed - 11 September. So who does George Jr attack? Saddam. George Jr lets bin Laden go free. What kind of war is that? One fought for reason of ideology rather than reasons operational. Not one single American battalion was ever sent to get bin Laden. We should be talking about impeachment here for dereliction of duty. Or do we excuse him only because they did not tell him to attack the right nation?

Remember what George Jr said to Richard Clarke. He wanted Saddam blamed for the WTC attack. Ideology is more important that reality. He let bin Laden go free. He did not even attack the real American enemy. At least Clinton took every effort to attack when he could. But then we are talking about a president who could make decisions.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by lookout123

we didn't go to iraq because of al quaeda. much of america supported the war because of the information about WMD.

A careful review of the actual quotes show that Bush never said Iraq was behind 9/11 but he and other top officials in his administration mentioned both in the same sentence on numerous occasions. They intentionally attempted to link the two in people's minds.

The official reason was that Saddam had WMDs and was an imminent threat to the USA. That, of course, turned out to be a lie.

I still don't understand why we actually went to war. It wasn't 9/11. It wasn't the threat of Saddam. It wasn't the oil. Was it just so the US would have a military base in the Middle East? I think that's the most logical reason. Bush was hoping that we would be embraced with open arms and Iraq would become another Germany for US bases.

[Undertoad]

http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

1. To directly reduce support for terrorist groups by eliminating one government which had been providing such support.

2. To place us in a physical and logistical position to be able to apply substantial pressure on the rest of the major governments of the region.

3. To convince the governments and other leaders of the region that it was no longer fashionable to blame us for their failure, so that they would stop using us as scapegoats.

4. To make clear to everyone in the world that reform is coming, whether they like it or not, and that the old policy of stability-for-the-sake-of-stability is dead. To make clear to local leaders that they may only choose between reforming voluntarily or having reform forced on them.

5. To make a significant long term change in the psychology of the "Arab Street"

6. To "nation build". After making the "Arab Street" truly face its own failure, to show the "Arab Street" a better way by creating a secularized, liberated, cosmopolitan society in a core Arab nation. To create a place where Arabs were free, safe, unafraid, happy and successful. To show that this could be done without dictators or monarchs. (I've been referring to this as being the pilot project for "Arab Civilization 2.0".)

7. Not confirmed: It may have been hoped that the conquered nation would serve as a honey-pot to attract militants from the region, causing them to fight against our troops instead of planning attacks against civilians. (This was described by David Warren as the flypaper strategy.) It seems to have worked out that way, but it's not known if this was a deliberate part of the plan. Many of the defenders who died in the war were not actually Iraqis.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Just so everyone undersands what that PDB really said. It did not say that terrorist are going to grab some planes and fly them into buildings. It did not say when anything about timing. It did say that 70+ investigations were underway on various possible Bin Laden schemes.

Also the entire memo is not provided in the 9/11 Commission Report. But interviews with the two CIA agents who wrote the report said they wanted to convey that attacks were imminent. Therefore they started the report with:

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and “bring the fighting to America.”
After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [—] service.
An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [—] service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.
The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin’s first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.
Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Lets not forget where all George Jr's knowledge comes from - a 1.5 year indoctrination by Wolfowich and Rice. Rice apparently did not even know of al Qaeda. So how could this memo really be historical in nature. George Jr never once convened a principals meeting on terrorism. Not one. al Qaeda and terrorism was that irrelevant. The information was that new to him.

The memo says highjacking planes and survellience of buildings. So when the second plane strikes the WTC and Geroge Jr is told America is under attack, then what does he do. He had sufficient information to conclude this was the attack. Instead he just sat there and asked no questions. Not one question for seven minutes. Instead he picked up and read a children's book. When he receieved this PDB, he did not do as Clinton did - output a warning - empower the little people. George Jr did not even convene one meeting on this "historical" threat.

We have just too much good reason to believe George Jr did not even read the PDB. Tenant always gave the briefing verbally - a waste of valuable manpower. Yes, there is substantial evidence that George Jr did not even read the PDB which is why he really could not "put the dots together" during the attack or convene a meeting before the attack.

Is George Jr qualified to be a leader - or is he really just another Dan Quayle. Did he do anything wrong - the embarrassing two minutes where he could not even answer that question on national TV. Classic leadership abilities. He could not even run a successful company - having been excellent at drilling dry well but getting rich in the process.

This is presidential material - a man who does not even read his own memos? He did not see the serious danger specifically stated in that 6 August PDB. George Jr did nothing to stop terrorism - except build an antimissile defense system and read a childs book in a FL classroom.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

the difference is that one president viewed these as crimes for the courts to deal with. the other views them as acts of war. the difference between the views explains the different approach in dealing with them.

Pre-9-11, Clinton did a lot, and provided advice and data to the incoming Bush team. He made surgical strikes, and was accused of "wagging the dog".

Pre-9-11, Bush did nothing. Nothing on terrorism. Pre-9-11, Bush didn't consider terrorism to be even worth investigating as criminal activity.

Post-9-11, we only have one data point on how the different parties react to terrorism. Bush makes a feint towards Afghanistan, then returns to a war from a decade ago, which he had been promoting even before 9-11. Afghanistan starts falling back under Taleban control.

No President, Democrat or Republian, will treat terrorism in the same way post-9-11 as they did pre-9-11. When you compare records pre-9-11, Democrats are far ahead.

[russotto]

Originally Posted by glatt

It wasn't the threat of Saddam. It wasn't the oil. Was it just so the US would have a military base in the Middle East? I think that's the most logical reason. Bush was hoping that we would be embraced with open arms and Iraq would become another Germany for US bases.

If it was just that, we already had Kuwait. There were certainly multiple reasons, but I think a large one was Saddam's shot at G.H.W.B.

[lookout123]

tw, it is obvious that neither of us will ever convince the other or anything, but let's be clear.

Rice apparently did not even know of al Qaeda.

that statement was already discredited, because Rice referred to al quaeda by name in a speech in 2000. i will have to search for the reference on that, but i have heard the speech.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

1. To ... eliminating one government which had been providing such support.

2. To ... apply substantial pressure on ... the region.

3. To convince the governments ... so that they would stop using us as scapegoats.

4. To make clear to everyone in the world that reform is coming, ...

5. To ... change ... the "Arab Street"

6. To "nation build". ...

7. Not confirmed: ... a honey-pot to attract militants from the region, causing them to fight against our troops instead of planning attacks against civilians.

All of this says we must be the world's policeman. We must impose our value systems on those other regions. It assumes that all terrorists today are the same people yesterday - ignoring the fact that large groups of terrorists are created by foreign interventions. To nation build - which once was called taboo by the Republicans. To nation build those who don't want or need nation building.

To make clear to everyone in the world that reform is coming is a blantant declaration that we will save the world from itself. That is the mantra of the Religous Right Extremists. We will impose democracy because they cannot? Are they living in the real world? The only reforms that work are ones a nation itself imposes - and only after they have killed or sweated enough to appreciate the value of those reforms.

A policeman cannot reform anyone or any nation. Only the naive with a political agenda would try to do in the Middle East what this administration is doing. But then it was called the Project for a New Ameircan Century based upon a memo that even called for unilateral (Pearl Harbor type) attacks on India, Russia, and Germany. These are honest and trusted leaders in the White House? People we can trust to save the world from itself?

We are discussing the future safety of Americans. It only get worse when America decides to impose its will on all countries in another region. Anyone, but a mental midget president, can see that. Leave them alone and they will fight among themselves - a domestic dispute. Eventually they will learn from and correct their mistakes. Try to impose reform on the whole bunch - and they all turn on us - even more aggressively. What this president does will make the world much less safe for Americans.

Same president who was so stupid as to even disban the Iraqi Army and police. You trust this same uneducated man to save the Middle East from itself?