The only thing you need to know about the 911 hearings

[Undertoad]

The Democratic position is that the Republican administration was not hawkish enough.

[Happy Monkey]

<strike>hawkish</strike>engaged

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
The Democratic position is that the Republican administration was not hawkish enough.

In the meantime, thinkers are looking at the White House Commission on terrorism, that never met for seven months, never submitted any reports - all the while intelligence briefing repeatedly warned of a problem - specifically Osama bin Laden by name.

Intelligent thinkers noted how this administration was still so entrenched in a Cold War mentality as to promote another Stars Wars program - and not even consider the possibility of terrorism. They still considered Russia as a potential threat - which is the real reason for a useless and flawed anti-ballistic missile system.

Intelligent thinkers expose extremists (people of low intelligence) when the problem is broken down into what Republicans and Democrats say. The problem is really about White House competance. A serious problem because so many long time insiders are saying the same thing.

Paul O'Neill discussed this George Jr administration misdirected energies. Richard Clarke is quite blunt about these facts. The retired Joint Cheif of Staff - Gen Newbold - is saying this administration would intentionally misrepresent or misconstrue - repeatedly - intelligence reports as proof that we must invade Iraq. Newbold -of the Joint Chiefs in that period - says he could find no justification for their reasonings. But then the George Jr administration - the vulcans - are the same people who advocated even an invasion of Germany, Russia, or India if necessary to keep the US the #1 power. They first have an agenda. Only then learn facts to justify that agenda.

This from one who has little respect for traditional Democrats, Republicans, and those who would confuse issues accordingly. The administration lied even about those aluminum tubes. That lies was so bad as to be obvious even back then - if one is a thinker rather than a worshipper of George Jr. This administration intentionally outed a CIA spy only to seek revenge - and where is that investigation? This administration even advocated an unjustified attack on a sovereign nation without even a declaration of war - just like Japan did in Pearl Harbor.

A most interesting fact about the Richard Clarke book - the administration had the full copy last November for review. The administration had full control of when this book could be released. They had this book as required by law. Interesting question. Why did this administration permit this book to be released at this time? Then were totally blindsided by its facts?

Furthermore, if the Richard Clarke book was so wrong, then why is virtually everyone in this administration in such as tizzy? Unpresidented. Even Dr Rice is publically speaking - but cannot talke to the 911 Commission. Only criminals would fear to testify. Did they actually only discover how wrong they were afgter they got public feedback? Did they actually think they had done no wrong when they permitted the book release? Apparently so.

The 911 Commission exposes how pig headed, and what outright liars so many in the George Jr administration really are. There was no looting in Iraq. Rumsfeld still maintains the widespread looting did not exist. How long will they live in this fairyland world - and how many killed and delimbed Americans will result? That is what this 911 Commission is about - which is why the administration fears, obstructs, and fights the Commission - just like Nixon did in Watergate.

Iraq's WMD are as are really honest as this administration and those who support this administration's Nixon-like lies. Its not just Richard Clarke. So many public servants with 20 and 30 years experience are reporting similar stories. In each case, its about an administration that will lie, if necessary, to achieve their pre-conceived agendas. But then these are also the people who promoted and praised Ken Starr.

[Undertoad]

Isn't one of the main sticking points whether we could have offed bin Laden and decided not to?

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Isn't one of the main sticking points whether we could have offed bin Laden and decided not to?

The main sticking point is that the George Jr administration completely avoided the bin Laden issue all together.

I believe it was Albright who noted how many terrorists were caught at the border. Administration top people met almost weekly on the problem. So a border guard just happened to discover the car on the WA / Canadian border? No. Border guards were warned to look for such people. A terrorist so mentally weak that, when the border guard started being the bit little suspicious, terrrorist tried to run back into Canada. Terrorism avoided because top management took those CIA, et al warning seriously.

How many times did the George Jr administration's terrorism commission meet in 7 months? Once - only days before the WTC was attacked. George Jr was too busy looking for threats from Iraq, Iran, and N Korea. By this time, we were already attacking Iraqi targets in the no fly zone - then blaming the attacks on Iraqi defenders. George Jr was already starting the softening up for a war in Iraq - before the WTC came down. He was busy trying to eliminate the anti-ballistic missile treaty so that he could build a star wars system (while comedian George Carlin accurately describes a terrorist attack on NYC from a row boat).

Clinton administration is not without blame. But the Clinton people acknowledge their failures. George Jr people are so belligerent as to have tried to stifle this 911 commission from the very begining. That is testimony right from the widows who had to personally lobby to get this commission. The 911 commission threatened to resign - every one - Democrat and Republican - because the George Jr administration refused to provide documents. Even Connie Rice absolutely refused to tesitfy even though she routinely appeared on talk shows from ABC's This Week with George Stephenopolious to Fox News.

The 911 Commission is about learning why this happened. Those widows are really asking for honest answers that we should have had on 11 September 2002. It now appears box cutters were not used on the planes. Only uncovered because this commission asked questions. Widows are even asking why the president was running and hiding when he should have been leading. Who was acutally making desicisons. Why there were no armed planes for the protection of Washington even 5 years after Clancy's fiction book made the threat painfully obvious (because all air defenses were trained on a surprise attack from overseas). When stewardess on flight 11 reported the hijacking to her superiors, what did the airline do? Did she really tell them what the hijackers objectives were to be? If so, then what happened to that information? Why after the first WTC attack, did George Jr still get off of Air Force One and visit an elementary school? And why was there not even air cover for Air Force One well after the second WTC attack? These and many other questions were asked. The widows were told the equivalent of "You don't need to know". That is what Dr Rice even told them by her actions - of refusing to testify before the commission. That is why the widows paraded out of the hearings - and for good reason to specifically protest Dr Rice - who more than anyone else should have seen this WTC attack coming. Even John O'Neill - this nation's number one terrorist investigator resigned in disgust because this administration did not want to investigate terrorism. More questions we should have answered.

Why were FBI agents in three cities told they could not investigate what we now know were the WTC attackers? Why are these question still not answered:
Family Steering Committee for The 9/11 Independent Commission

And why did the George Jr administration obstruct the creation of this investigation for something like one year and one month? Some of these questions may be beyond the scope of a 911 investigation. But there are still so many questions - mostly from the George Jr administration that are not being answered - using political foot dragging. Look at some of those Steering Committee questions that really should have long been answered.

[quzah]

A million questions why, but you immediately scoff at the idea that it was anything other than a plane. Amazing. So eager to believe, yet so many questions you say you want answered. I wonder if people really want answers, or if they want something to believe that makes things look better than they really are.

Quzah.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by tw
But then the George Jr administration - the vulcans - are the same people who advocated even an invasion of Germany, Russia, or India if necessary to keep the US the #1 power.

Why vulcans? I've only heard this term applied to them once before, and I think it was you.

[Griff]

This is politics as usual in the two party state. Neither party trusts the American people enough to be straight with them about threats or our ability to gage them. Now it's CYA time for two administrations and the party adherents will believe what they are told to believe.

[Undertoad]

Quz, we dealt with that on the other thread and you didn't get any smarter. The only way your little pet theory can stand in your brain is if you just ignore us. Not sure why you want to be here if you are ignoring us.

[xoxoxoBruce]

quzah is trying to enlighten us. After all, We ARE a bunch of inbred arses with very little independent thought.

[Undertoad]

tw,

Rich Lowry details Richard Clarke's contradictions

In his 2002 briefing, Clarke said that the Bush administration decided in "mid-January" 2001 to continue with existing Clinton policy while deciding whether or not to pursue more aggressive ideas that had been rejected throughout the Clinton administration. Nowhere does this appear in his book.

He said in 2002 that the Bush administration had decided in principle in the spring of 2001 "to increase CIA resources . . . for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda." Nowhere is this mentioned in his book.

In 2002, Clarke emphasized that the Bush team "changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda." This is mentioned in his book, but - amazingly - as an afterthought.

Clarke says Condi Rice appeared as if she hadn't heard of al Qaeda before he mentioned it to her in early 2001. No. Rice made public statements in late 2000 noting the threat from bin Laden.

[blue]

Dang man, you're the smoking gun!

I get so tired of spin...gotten to the point I don't trust ANY public figure.

[Happy Monkey]

Was he merely parroting talking points given to him by the Bush team? That's the explanation he offered at yesterday's hearing. But he can't get off the hook so easily.

At the very least, what he said in August 2002 must have been factual. Otherwise, Clarke has revealed himself to be an opportunist who will lie at the direction of his superiors.

This has got to be one of the most disingenuous things I've seen on the issue. Clarke did the same slimy "not quite technically a lie" that every White House spokesman has done forever, especially during this administration.

In his 2002 briefing, Clarke said that the Bush administration decided in "mid-January" 2001 to continue with existing Clinton policy while deciding whether or not to pursue more aggressive ideas that had been rejected throughout the Clinton administration. Nowhere does this appear in his book.

This is the first of the "not in the book" complaints. Note that "not in the book" doesn't make a lie. Also note that he is giving the Bush line that they were considering doing something more aggressive. No action was taken - in fact, counterterrorism was downgraded as a priority.

He said in 2002 that the Bush administration had decided in principle in the spring of 2001 "to increase CIA resources . . . for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda." Nowhere is this mentioned in his book.

"decided in principle". It wasn't actually done.

In 2002, Clarke emphasized that the Bush team "changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda." This is mentioned in his book, but - amazingly - as an afterthought.

"Not mentioned enough in the book. Another Bush talking point, with no evidence of actual action.

In his testimony yesterday, Clarke said that the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than fighting terror. No. In his own book, he says trying to force a Middle East peace agreement was more important to Clinton than retaliating for the attack against USS Cole.

Um... Middle East peace isn't part of fighting terror? Middle East peace is the most important part of fighting terror.

Clarke says Condi Rice appeared as if she hadn't heard of al Qaeda before he mentioned it to her in early 2001. No. Rice made public statements in late 2000 noting the threat from bin Laden.

I heard of bin Laden LONG before I heard of al Qaeda. Clarke was saying that the same was true of Dr. Rice.

To sum up, Clarke was a part of the political machine of the Bush White House, so he had to give the administration line when speaking for them. So he used all of the weasely political rhetorical tricks to not quite technically lie. And then, like retired generals, he says what he thinks once his career is over.

Just think - if O'neill and Clarke aren't enough, what if Ari Fleischer or Scott McClellan, or even Donald Rumsfeld suddenly started saying the same thing as Clarke? Would you be saying "Oh, but look at all of the things they said when they were part of the administration! They have no credibility!"? Nonpartisan people that Bush held over are quitting and working to get Bush out. That doesn't mean that suddenly they're partisan, it means that they realize that Bush is dangerous.

[Happy Monkey]

And here's a pointer to the administration's views on honesty (cancel the print dialog, and look near the middle of the article).

[Undertoad]

He said in 2002 that the Bush administration had decided in principle in the spring of 2001 "to increase CIA resources . . . for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda." Nowhere is this mentioned in his book.

"decided in principle". It wasn't actually done.

Well yes, after 7 months, but Clarke also worked for the previous administration which had 8 years to do it and took a shot, and failed, and knew it failed, and said that was good enough.

Both sides failed. That's why the whole thing is political. Now when the media failed to give a crap about the Clarke contradictions, they had to get Feith out as an attack dog to press them harder.

Today the WaPo notices and puts the screws to the guy (reg reqd):

The commission's determination that the two policies were roughly the same calls into question claims made by Bush officials that they were developing a superior terrorism policy. The findings also put into perspective the criticism of President Bush's approach to terrorism by Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief: For all his harsh complaints about Bush administration's lack of urgency in regard to terrorism, he had no serious quarrel with the actual policy Bush was pursuing before the 2001 attacks.

Anyone can criticize post-attack. Takes a lot of gall to criticize post-attack when you were in charge and didn't complain pre-attack.