IRAQ AND M.I.A. DEMOCRATS
This country has long been known for initials. We citizens chant , "USA, " when we cheer for our country. Several President's are know by their initials, JFK, FDR, and "W", just to name a few. We use initials for agency's like the FBI and the CIA. Sports leagues and associations are best know by their initials, the NFL , NBA and MLB. In times of war initials become common place for several actions such as KIA and MIA. The latter as you may have noticed is in the title of this article in reference to Democrats. Now the common use for these initial, MIA is typically, "Missing In Action, " and is reverently in reference to soldiers who are missing during combat duties. While the meaning of missing does apply to Democrats and their plan for Iraq the more appropriate word for the, "M, " in the initial is, "Mouths." "Mouths In Action, " a very appropriate and accurate description of Democrats and the continual rhetoric and lamenting concerning The United States presence in Iraq.
Last week the President announced his new strategy for Iraq which included as its base the addition of 20, 000 troops to the current forces already in country. This combined with several other aspects created the new strategy for Iraq in which the President as Commander in Chief instituted and it is a plan that he has stated repeatedly that is his decision and he is will not back down from it despite Democrat critics.
Now the interesting thing from the Democrat side of the political isle is that once this new strategy was announced almost in absolute unity and using the same catch phrases Democrats lashed out at the new plan stating both in the press and in hearings that quickly followed that it was the wrong strategy and the worst strategy in US history. Yet as their rhetoric flew the Democrats MIA approach had two very telling aspects in their opposition. First, along with their whining not once did ANY Democrat offer even the smallest hint of an idea or plan or even a suggestion that they could possibly come up with one. Of course this is nothing new with the Democrats and Iraq. Since the beginning of this conflict Democrats have had nothing but opposition and whining concerning Iraq with no substance in their arguments other than anger and disagreement with Bush and not one idea from any leader or even the rank and file Democrats. Second the essence of their compliant this time is the, "surge, " in troops that is a key part of the President's plan. What adds hypocrisy to their MIA complaint this time is that many Democrat leaders just recently called for troop increases that is until the President made it part of his plan then it became the worst strategy in history. One prime example is hapless Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who on December 17, 2006 in a press conference called for troop increases specifically for the violence in Baghdad yet once the new strategy was announced was one of the first to lash out at this idea since it came from the President.
President Bush does not create this strategy while sitting at his desk late at night in the Oval Office and announce to his staff the next morning, " hey I've got a new plan." This strategy was developed with a combination of high level advisors but most importantly from military leaders both at the Pentagon and in the Iraq theatre who have a first hand view of the situation and who also have the military expertise to understand what is needed. Of course Democrats as usual found retired military officers with name recognition who claim it is the wrong approach. A political game that could be played in any war by any politician because a retired General can always be found who, without first hand knowledge, can second guess the actions of existing active commanders. Additionally war never has been an exacting science it is gathering the best intelligence and making the best decision based on that intelligence and current operations to create a strategy that works.
Why Democrats feel they can second guess military experts and field commanders without first hand knowledge is puzzling until one considers the true goal of the constant barrage of criticism and opposition to any plan or strategy ordered by the President. If Bush is for it they are against it. If he had announced that he was pulling out 20, 000 troops Democrats would have criticized his actions by stating that it is the wrong move at the wrong time. They cannot nor ever will be satisfied with anything that comes from a Bush White House and that is precisely why they are MIA, (Mouths In Action), Democrats. Always whining and opposing without offering anything constructive only practicing the politics of destruction.
Ken Taylor
Last week the President announced his new strategy for Iraq which included as its base the addition of 20, 000 troops to the current forces already in country. This combined with several other aspects created the new strategy for Iraq in which the President as Commander in Chief instituted and it is a plan that he has stated repeatedly that is his decision and he is will not back down from it despite Democrat critics.
Now the interesting thing from the Democrat side of the political isle is that once this new strategy was announced almost in absolute unity and using the same catch phrases Democrats lashed out at the new plan stating both in the press and in hearings that quickly followed that it was the wrong strategy and the worst strategy in US history. Yet as their rhetoric flew the Democrats MIA approach had two very telling aspects in their opposition. First, along with their whining not once did ANY Democrat offer even the smallest hint of an idea or plan or even a suggestion that they could possibly come up with one. Of course this is nothing new with the Democrats and Iraq. Since the beginning of this conflict Democrats have had nothing but opposition and whining concerning Iraq with no substance in their arguments other than anger and disagreement with Bush and not one idea from any leader or even the rank and file Democrats. Second the essence of their compliant this time is the, "surge, " in troops that is a key part of the President's plan. What adds hypocrisy to their MIA complaint this time is that many Democrat leaders just recently called for troop increases that is until the President made it part of his plan then it became the worst strategy in history. One prime example is hapless Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who on December 17, 2006 in a press conference called for troop increases specifically for the violence in Baghdad yet once the new strategy was announced was one of the first to lash out at this idea since it came from the President.
President Bush does not create this strategy while sitting at his desk late at night in the Oval Office and announce to his staff the next morning, " hey I've got a new plan." This strategy was developed with a combination of high level advisors but most importantly from military leaders both at the Pentagon and in the Iraq theatre who have a first hand view of the situation and who also have the military expertise to understand what is needed. Of course Democrats as usual found retired military officers with name recognition who claim it is the wrong approach. A political game that could be played in any war by any politician because a retired General can always be found who, without first hand knowledge, can second guess the actions of existing active commanders. Additionally war never has been an exacting science it is gathering the best intelligence and making the best decision based on that intelligence and current operations to create a strategy that works.
Why Democrats feel they can second guess military experts and field commanders without first hand knowledge is puzzling until one considers the true goal of the constant barrage of criticism and opposition to any plan or strategy ordered by the President. If Bush is for it they are against it. If he had announced that he was pulling out 20, 000 troops Democrats would have criticized his actions by stating that it is the wrong move at the wrong time. They cannot nor ever will be satisfied with anything that comes from a Bush White House and that is precisely why they are MIA, (Mouths In Action), Democrats. Always whining and opposing without offering anything constructive only practicing the politics of destruction.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 12:37 PM
14 Comments:
Spot on, Ken.
The pitiful part is that these 180s demonstrate the Democrats' contempt for the American people -- they believe we are all so stupid that their blatant and abrupt, purely politics-based flip-flops will pass unnoticed.
Ken: Have we ever heard ANY rational, effective plan come from the Democrats on ANY of the big issues?
Did you ever see the video clip of Nancy Pelosi being asked what the Democrat plan was for social security?
It's about half way through this clip:
http://www.gop.com/Multimedia/MediaPlayer.aspx?ID=1007&TypeID=2
You don't get to see the whole clip, but to summarize: She's asked what the Dem plan is, she starts to answer, stops, begins waving her finger and saying "our plan is to stop him. Stop Bush. He must be stopped."
No alternative, no plan, nothing.
They got away with that during the election, but they now have real responsibility as the masters of the legislative branch.
So again, WHAT IS THERE PLAN?
We are at war. People are dying. And the Democrats are just hot air.
A clear majority of Americans don't want to send more troops or the $1 billion in new funds for Iraqi workers. But beyond that, escalating the American presence into the middle of a widening civil war is going to do nothing but get more Americans killed.
That is one of the major reasons why Generals Abizaid and Casey, and the Joint Chiefs thought escalation was a bad idea. But Bush doesn't really listen to the generals anyway.
If Maliki decides to take on Sadr's Mehdi militia, and the Sunnis magically decide to work with Maliki and the Shiite government then things may change. However, sending more troops does nothing.
I doubt the Dems will actually cut off funding. Then when the troop escalation fails (like pretty much everything else Bush has done in Iraq), there won't be any excuses for Bush. He won't be able to blame Condi, Rumsfeld, the generals, or the Dems.
Seth, as long as the MSM is the voice of the Democrat party what they do will always remain unnoticed.
Mike, absolutly correct. They have yet to offer any substance for anything except issues that cater to their base.
Rob, good to see you back. I know with , "Da Bears, " in the NFCC you've been busy with you game watch! Good luck on Sunday.
First I watched a press conference last week with General Casey where he stated that HE requested the troop increase and did not know where the information came from that he was against it. Also in case you missed the Chairman of the Chiefs before Congress he too stated that the increase was a request by the military and that news that it was not was mistaken.
The increase in troops allows the holding of areas after clearing out which has not been the case in the past which will give Malikis forces the means to take on Sadr and also quell other violence in the Sunni triangle. Remember the military developed this strategy not the President. He acted on their advice based on what field commanders needed and requested.
Abizaid and Casey both made statements in November and December (Abizaid was before the Senate Armed Services Committee) that there is no military solution for Iraq - it must come from Iraqi politicians.
But here is the bottom line - 20,000 troops won't make a bit of difference in a civil war that is escalating in a city of 5 million people.
In addition, I doubt Maliki is going to actually take on Sadr - they are tied at the hip and they are tied to Iran.
I hope I am wrong, but we'll see.
Agreed about Sadr and Iran but Maliki I'm not so sure. I also believe that Maliki knows his political hide is on the line with the Sunni Trianlge violence and he can be voted out by a no confidence vote in the Iraqi parliment. This is a great motivation for him to take the help offerd by the US to get control of the area and eliminate the Sadr threat.
My view is that Sadr is the most powerful man in Iraq and knows it. Maliki is just a stooge for him. We'll see.
In my last post, I forgot to say thanks for the Bears comments. Great win last week and I am looking forward to Sunday.
there is no military solution for Iraq - it must come from Iraqi politicians.
But here is the bottom line - 20,000 troops won't make a bit of difference in a civil war that is escalating in a city of 5 million people.
A lot of focus has been on the 20,000; but a troop increase concentrated in Baghdad and 4,000 Marines in Anbar province isn't the main thrust of the new strategy for Iraq.
I found it caustically amusing that after the speech, all the headline blurbs to the major papers led with "Bush admits mistakes"....as if that was the big news they took away from the speech.
The "new" strategy is to try to build some stability in a worsening Baghdad to prop up the Iraqi government.
Then we are sending over another $1 billion to give to Iraqi companies so they can hire Iraqis to rebuild their country. The idea is that by offering them jobs they won't fight against us.
Sending more troops and money to Iraq is basically the only thing that is new. What other parts of the plan are "new?"
New? How bout Maliki taking out the Shiite death squads which "news" reports say he did today with the arrest of 400?
And today:
http://www.playfuls.com/news_10_9981-Sadr-Associate-Arrested-In-Iraq.html
Busted the leader of the Sadr death squads.
Bob Graham http://www.cfr.org/pub6905/gerald_seib/senator_bob_graham_remarks_to_the_council_on_foreign_relations.php
U.S. Senator- U.S. committed to Iraq invasion before Feb 2002
Senator Bob Graham Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
Moderator: Gerald Seib, Washington Bureau chief, The Wall Street Journal
Speaker: Bob Graham, Member, U.S. Senate (D-Fla.)
March 26, 2004
Council on Foreign Relations
Washington, D.C.
GERALD SEIB: [In progress]—your cell phones. I’ve just turned off mine, I think. If you’re not sure, turn it all the way off. Secondly, unlike most Council events—and many of you, I know, are familiar with Council events—this event is on the record, thanks to our generous guest. Third, the remarks of our speaker will be followed by a question and answer session. There will be mikes moving around the audience. When we get to that point, if you just want to indicate to me you’ve got a question by raising your hand—I don’t want to be very bureaucratic about it—and I think that that will work sufficiently. Though, I’ll make sure I look to the back of the room as well as in the front of the room, if you’ll just trust me on that point. And finally, and obviously, keep your questions concise and make sure they actually have a question mark at the end, and we’ll probably be better off.
The news of this week sort of prompts me to begin the proceedings today by saying the following: On the subject of terrorism, before we had [former White House Counterterrorism Director] Richard Clarke, before we had Richard Ben-Veniste [a member of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States], and before we had [Commission Chairman] Thomas Kean, we had Senator Bob Graham. When he was seeking the presidential nomination earlier this year, Senator Graham liked to talk about his record on lots of things, such as creating jobs. I remember that I had the honor of being at one of the six dozen or so Democratic candidate debates, and I asked Senator Graham about job loss. And he took the occasion, as I recall, to hold up a copy of his very slick book on how to create jobs, described the book at great detail, and, as I recall, gave the website of his campaign so people could go there and look at his book on creating jobs. And I thought, “What a sucker I was. I walked right into that one.” [Laughter.]
But even at that point in a debate about economics, I had the feeling that Senator Graham, down deep, probably really wanted to talk more about the subject that’s on the agenda today, which is terrorism, intelligence, and whether the country was and is prepared for dealing with terrorism.
He comes by his interest in this subject honestly, largely through his service on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which he joined as a member in 1993, and became chairman of for a two-year period in 2001. And On September 11, 2001, as it happened—and if I’m recalling correctly—Senator Graham was having breakfast with the chief of Pakistani intelligence at the moment the Twin Towers were struck in New York, presumably talking about Osama bin Laden at that point.
Subsequently, he became the co-chairman of the Joint Senate House Intelligence Committee that looked at the performance of the intelligence committee before 9/11, working with a fellow Floridian, [U.S. Representative] Porter Goss [R-Fla.], in that effort. He voted against the resolution authorizing war in Iraq, arguing I think not so much that the war in Iraq was wrong, but that the table hadn’t adequately been set, that there were terror threats beyond al Qaeda that hadn’t been dealt with adequately and that should be addressed, even before we got to Iraq. He was, I think, during the presidential campaign, if I might say so, a provocateur on the subject of terrorism and intelligence, and I expect he will be the same for us today.
It’s my honor to introduce Senator Bob Graham. Senator. [Applause.]
BOB GRAHAM: Good morning and good afternoon and, Gerry, thank you very much for your kind introduction. I was saying I appreciate both your remembrance and your remarks.
I’m going to start at the outset this afternoon by saying that I will make some comments today that will not be well-received in the White House. I have observed the White House’s reaction to comments that it does not well receive, and so in a matter of pre-emptive defense, I have a confession to make. When I was four years old, I was enrolled in the Winkin’, Blinkin’, and Nod Nursery School in Tallahassee, Florida. On a day in the spring of my enrollment in 1941, I kicked in a house made of blocks by some of the other students at Winkin’, Blinkin’, and Nod Nursery School. The director of the school told me,“Robert, we cannot have that behavior by the children at Winkin’, Blinkin’, and Nod. I am calling your mother and asking that she come and take you home, and that she not ever bring you back.” Now, that’s on the record, you can make whatever you wish of that confession.
Friends, this has been a painful week for our nation. The horrible tragedy of September 11 has been revisited, first in hearings by the [9/11] Commission and, second, by the revelations in the book [“Against All Enemies: Inside the White House’s War on Terror—What Really Happened”] of the former White House counterterrorism director, Richard Clarke.
More painful than the memories which these events have resurrected, I believe is the growing realization that our leaders did not do everything that they could have done and should have done to protect Americans from a terrorist attack. The 9/11 Commission, for example, has reported that they endorse the recommendations of the Joint Congressional Inquiry [into the 9/11 terrorist attacks], which I co-chaired with my friend and colleague and fellow Floridian, Porter Goss. We found that failures of intelligence collection and analysis, compounded by a lack of information-sharing within the intelligence community and between the intelligence community and the law enforcement community, cost us the chance to detect and disrupt the plot of the 19 hijackers. In short, September 11 could have—indeed, should have—been prevented.
I share Richard Clarke’s view that since September 11, President Bush and his key members of his administration have failed to keep their eye on the ball on the war on terrorism. Frankly, we had al Qaeda on the ropes in the spring of 2002. But rather than finishing the job and crushing the operational command structure of al Qaeda, we shifted our focus.
Let me share a personal story. [U.S.] Central Command, which has responsibility for our military actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq, is headquartered in Tampa, Florida, at MacDill Air Force Base. It has been my practice to periodically visit the Central Command, to receive a briefing as to what they are doing. I did that in February of 2002. After the formal briefing with PowerPoint [presentations] and all that goes with a military briefing, I was asked by one of the senior commanders of Central Command to go into his office. We did, the door was closed, and he turned to me, and he said, ”Senator, we have stopped fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan. We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq.” This is February of 2002.“Senator, what we are engaged in now is a manhunt not a war, and we are not trained to conduct a manhunt.”
To draw a historical analogy, I think that what the Bush administration did, beginning as early as February of 2002, was to make a decision that we would fight a pre-emptive war against Mussolini and let Hitler run free. I agree with Richard Clarke, who concludes in his book that Iraq was a complete and unnecessary tangent. I have described [it] as a distraction.
Now, I don’t mean to suggest, and I do not believe Richard Clarke means to suggest, that Saddam Hussein is anything other than a bad, evil person who did bad and evil things to his own people and his neighbors and would hoped to have done it more broadly. But the question was not a singular question about Saddam Hussein. It was, rather, a comparative question. Of all the evils in that neighborhood of the Middle East and Central Asia, which evil deserved to have our primary military attention?
As we have learned since the war in Iraq, our intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction was deeply flawed, and my good friend and former colleague, Senator [Charles S.] Robb [D-Va.], is going to be at the front seat of trying to determine why that was—if it was the case and, if so, why. [Robb co-chairs a bipartisan commission established in February by President Bush to examine U.S. intelligence-gathering.]
There has never been a shred of evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime had any ties to al Qaeda, despite the suggestions from the president and other key administration officials that they were, in some way, married. And at his campaign kickoff in my state of Florida on last Saturday, March 20, the president again gave the American people the clear impression that Saddam Hussein was, in some reason, linked to 9/11. In fact, Iraq and al Qaeda represented opposite ends of Islamic thought: Iraq, a secular government based in Baghdad with the traditional ambitions of a nation-state; al Qaeda, a shadowy, extremist movement that relied on the protection of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
As Gerry said, I voted against the resolution to go to war in Iraq. Let me explain why I did it and what I think it says about the Bush administration. I did it because I thought the standard as to which of the many evils in the Middle East and Central Asia we should apply our military force against was a rather—[inaudible]—strategy and a simple one. Which of those evils had the greatest capability to kill Americans? Now, you can argue—maybe you would have—a different standard. That was my standard.
And then I thought that there were three factors that would help answer that question. Which of the evils in the region had the greatest capability to kill Americans, particularly, had the number of trained persons in the art and skills of terrorism to do so? There was no question as to who had the greatest capability, particularly in light of the fact that, as we now know, Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction available for immediate use. It was al Qaeda.
Second, who had the greatest will to use that capability? In the National Intelligence Estimate that the consensus of our intelligence agencies produced in September of 2002 [and], after some effort, was finally willing to release publicly, they made the collective judgment of the American intelligence community that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States unless he was attacked. And so what did we do? We attacked him.
On the other hand, al Qaeda, without provocation, had just killed 3,000 Americans on September 11. But I think the most significant criterion is not just capability and will, but rather presence. Unless we were engaged in a war like we were in the Cold War, where the Soviet Union had massive missiles to deliver their weapons of mass destruction, it is difficult to attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction unless you have some capacity inside the United States to do so.
I can tell you, friends, and I would hope that the administration would release this information so the American public could form a better judgment, that there is no comparison—there is no comparison—of the number of Saddam Hussein agents who were in the United States in the period from 2002 to 2003 and the number of representatives of al Qaeda and, as well, [Lebanese terrorist organization] Hezbollah. I will talk about that shortly.
But there is no indication that the president is sufficiently curious to begin to ask the right questions or make the right judgments as to which of these many evils is the greater threat to the lives of Americans. He has never shared with the American people what was his standard of judgment and what were the factors that he thought were relevant in exercising that judgment. When President Bush labeled Iraq the next front in the war on terror, it was a self-fulfilling declaration. It became truthful only because we made it so. Iraq only became a breeding ground for insurgents and potential terrorists from the many nations after we created chaos with our invasion and then followed chaos with poorly managed occupation.
It’s not just my view. CIA Director George Tenet, testifying before the Congress just a few weeks ago, acknowledged that the war in Iraq has inflamed the jihadists. This is what he said: ”As we continue the battle against al Qaeda, we must overcome a movement, a global movement infected by al Qaeda’s radical agenda. The steady growth of Osama bin Laden’s anti-U.S. sentiment throughout the wider Sunni extremist movement and the broad dissemination of al Qaeda’s destructive expertise assure that a serious threat will remain for the foreseeable future with or without al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in the picture.”
We cannot and we will not win the war on terrorism until the administration acknowledges that the war on Iraq and the war to crush terrorist networks are two very different enterprises and will require two very different strategies. To win the war on terror, I would recommend a strategy that is based on at least five key components. One, we must take the fight to the terrorists. We must play a strong offense, not simply rely on defense. I support the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. In fact, I did so 10 months before the president was ready to come on board with that concept, and I have fought for federal plans and funding to harden our most vulnerable targets here at home with a special interest in hardening our seaports, which I consider to be one of our greatest vulnerabilities.
But we cannot simply construct enough forts and barricades to wait and hide for the next terrorist attack. I happen to come from a state where about 40 to 50 of our local communities have the word“fort” in it—Fort Walton Beach, Fort Myers, Fort Pierce, Fort Mead, Fort Lauderdale. Why do we have so many places with the word ”fort” in their title? The reason was because we fought one of the bloodiest Indian wars in the history of the country in Florida from the early 1830s to the mid-1840s, and the strategy of the United States government—and we were then a territory—was to build forts so people could run and hide should there be an Indian attack. What happened? They kept burning down our forts. Fort Lauderdale got burned down twice before they had a structure that could survive. And the military would sit around in the forts waiting for the next Indian attack.
Now, this is a very politically incorrect statement I’m about to make, but it happens to be historically true. What ended the Seminole Indian Wars in Florida and ended them in a space of less than 24 months was when the army decided they couldn’t win by sitting in the forts. They had to go out and take on the Indians, and they did, and shortly the war was over. And, incidentally, that led to Florida being admitted to the Union and lots of good things have happened since then.
To truly protect our values, including our economic viability, we must go after the terrorists, where they live, where they are training, and not just in Afghanistan. We need to do it in Syria and in the Syrian-controlled areas of Lebanon, and in Iran and other breeding grounds and training centers for terrorists.
Second, to carry out that fight, we must instill new creativity with our intelligence and defense and law enforcement agencies. A group at the Rand Corporation describes the kind of tactics that we will need to win this war on terrorism as“super precision warfare.” Yet the Joint Inquiry and now the 9/11 Commission have found that our intelligence agencies have been mired in a Cold War-era turf war disagreement over target priorities and inattention to seismic shifts in technology. We cannot afford bickering like that, which delayed, first, the deployment, and then the arming of the Predator [unmanned aerial vehicle], one of the most significant innovations of, first, the war in Kosovo, then in Afghanistan, and now in Iraq. The agency seemed not to have appreciated that our enemies are no longer nation-states, which have easily defined targets. Our enemies today don’t have missiles, they don’t have tank divisions, they don’t have submarines—all the things that we were concerned with the Soviet Union possessing during the Cold War. Our new enemies are more diverse, less hierarchical, and much more nimble and fluid.
Another analogy: had a private corporation failed to adapt itself against its fast-moving competition in the same way that the CIA and the FBI have failed to adapt since the end of the Cold War, that company would be bankrupt. I do not believe the chances of either the CIA or the FBI filing for bankruptcy are very great, but we, the citizens of the United States, are paying the price for their failures.
A Joint Inquiry recommended a starting point for reform, which, ironically, happens to be the same starting point that [President] Harry Truman advocated in 1947, and that is the rather radical thought, ”Somebody needs to be in charge so that we don’t have this finger-pointing at who did what and when.” We recommended appointing a Cabinet-level director of national intelligence, a director who would be separate from the director of the CIA. I have introduced legislation to accomplish that and the other changes recommended by the Joint Inquiry.
As a testimony to my effectiveness, two-and-a-half years after 9/11 and some 15 months after the Joint Inquiry submitted its final report, nothing has happened. I feel like the opening statement that Richard Clarke made to the 9/11 Commission and particularly to the families of the victims—one of embarrassment, one of revelation—that he had failed as had many other instruments, and he asked for forgiveness. I am now prepared to ask for such forgiveness.
We must rebuild our relationships, as point number three, with foreign allies so that we can effectively eliminate the financiers, the sponsors, and the leaders of terrorist networks around the globe. Those international relationships were never stronger than in the days after September 11. They have now been shattered by the administration’s decision to go virtually alone in Iraq.
Possibly one of the positive results of the tragedy that occurred in Madrid three weeks ago [when suspected terrorists bombed commuter trains] will be that it will be seen as an inspiration to a renewed international coalition against terror. A united effort and a super-precision warfare strategy will be especially important as we move beyond al Qaeda to other terrorist networks including Hezbollah, and I remind you that Hezbollah has been described as the A-team of international terrorism, because it had killed more Americans prior to September 11 than any other group.
Third, we must enhance our domestic intelligence-gathering capabilities. We need to have a full and open debate in this country about the balance between domestic security and personal liberties and how we go about identifying and tracking terrorist suspects who live among us. One of the most essential questions is whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with its traditional law enforcement orientation, is up to the job that needs to be done, or do we need the equivalent of the British [domestic intelligence agency] MI5 to protect us? I credit FBI Director [Robert] Mueller with making significant strides in trying to shift the culture of the FBI towards a more counterterrorism mission, but I am not certain that the FBI will, in the time we can tolerate, truly get it in terms of the revolution that must take place.
An example: During the course of our Joint Inquiry, I asked a senior FBI official this question: “Could you estimate how many al Qaeda there are in a 'blank’ city of the United States?” The answer: 'We have five open files out against al Qaeda suspects in that city. So our answer is there are five al Qaeda in that city.’” Frankly, friends, from an intelligence perspective, that is simply ludicrous.
supra shoes, hollister, coach outlet, ralph lauren, lancel, juicy couture outlet, pandora charms, swarovski crystal, hollister, converse, hollister, thomas sabo, swarovski, nike air max, marc jacobs, baseball bats, converse outlet, karen millen, pandora jewelry, montre pas cher, replica watches, links of london, timberland boots, pandora charms, gucci, vans, oakley, louboutin, juicy couture outlet, toms shoes, ray ban, iphone 6 cases, nike air max, wedding dresses
ninest123 07.21
supra shoes, hollister, coach outlet, ralph lauren, lancel, juicy couture outlet, pandora charms, swarovski crystal, hollister, converse, hollister, thomas sabo, swarovski, nike air max, marc jacobs, baseball bats, converse outlet, karen millen, pandora jewelry, montre pas cher, replica watches, links of london, timberland boots, pandora charms, gucci, vans, oakley, louboutin, juicy couture outlet, toms shoes, ray ban, iphone 6 cases, nike air max, wedding dresses
ninest123 07.21
Post a Comment
<< Home