WAR AGAINST TERRORISM, DOES THE LEFT UNDERSTAND ? - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY
London underground 2005, Madrid, Spain train bombings 2004, Bali 2002, The USS Cole 2000, Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia 1996, The World Trade Center 1993, The World Trade Center, The Pentagon and United flight 93 September 11, 2001. The list goes on. Terrorist attacks in The United States and throughout the world. Attacks that each have their own distinction and method. Attacks that have had devastating consequences to countries, families and individuals. Attacks that were carried out by a host of organizations with names like, Al Qaeda, al-Jihad, Armed Islamic Group, Hezbollah, Hamas and a host of others. Attacks aimed at everyone but whose targets held the precious lives of innocents that became casualties in a war that until September 11, 2001 no one fully realized or accepted actually existed. A war declared specifically against The United States and Israel yet carried out against the entire world. The aggressor in this war follows an ideology that states if one does not believe the same Islamic fanaticism that those who fight this war do then death is the answer and world domination by this ideology is the goal.On September 20, 2001 in answer to this declared Islamic war against The United States and the world President Bush declared a change in policy which recognized terrorism as an act of war and no longer a criminal offense whose perpetrators were sought only by the courts. This war declaration by the President not only sought the entities performing terrorism but the states that sponsored and supplied terrorists and their activities of war. Upon this declaration and change in United States policy the President was applauded by each member of The United States Congress setting aside all party differences heralding as one with the President the resolve of a nation whose citizens and sovereignty had been attacked.
That was more than five years ago and what has changed since then. Have the Islamic fanatics surrendered or declared that they no longer have war like intentions or seek world domination ? No, infact though their capabilities have been greatly diminished thanks to our heroes on the field of battle their resolve has not changed nor have their objectives to kill all who do not follow their ideology and the domination of the world by fanatical Islam.
Has the President changed in the declaration against terrorism and the states that sponsor and supply terrorists ? No infact his resolve seems to strengthen every day as he seeks to defend this nation and fulfill his Constitutional duties, "to preserve, protect and defend." Then have we as a nation lost our resolve to fight terrorism ? To a certain extent we have. Every nation at war grows war weary and this war is no exception. But the constant barrage of negativism that is pounded into our living rooms every day by a main stream media intent on following an agenda that disagrees with the war, we as a country cannot be expected to keep our resolve as all we see because of this bias are perceived failures and body counts rather than success which is in abundance and the heroic efforts and accomplishments of our military.
This then brings us to the final question. The source of the majority of the negativism against the war are liberals and their representative in Congress who have taken every opportunity since shortly after the President's declaration of September 20, 2001 to use the war as a political football to gain power and legislative charge in Washington. They have used every means at their disposal to hamper the war effort, eliminate or tie up tools necessary to fight the war, charge that troops and the President either are or use Nazi like tactics and oppose any and every plan or proposal that has come forth while never offering any constructive idea of their own. There are one of three conclusions that can be made from the actions of the left concerning the war. They either do not understand the real and dangerous threat that Islamic fanaticism poses to this country. Or, they believe that the threat is real but exaggerated. Or they understand the threat and because of a lust for political power do not care and wish only to fulfill their agenda regardless of the consequences to the nation.
If it is the first then it is past time for a wake up call to most Democrats and liberals. Islamic fanatics who seek the destruction of our country and way of life do not care about party affiliation nor whether you understand them or realize their goal. Conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, men, women and children everyone who do not believe as they do is a target by whatever means they can muster for death and they will only be stopped by their on destruction in which this war that we fight has as its first and foremost goal.If they believe the threat is exaggerated then I refer you to the above paragraph. Islamic fanatics do not care what you believe or accept they only want you dead. That is not an exaggeration but a fact!
If fulfilling a political agenda while understanding the threat is the goal of the left then you are an unwitting accomplice in the Islamic fanatics goal of the destruction of the United States. Every political tactic used for political gain whether it is a useless resolution against a strategy or the threat of pulling funding. Or accusing our troops of misdeeds, torture and not winning the fight while using liberal lawyers to defend the, " civil liberties, " which do not exist for detainees held under the rules of war and who because they are not citizens of the country and at war against her have no rights under our Constitution, undermines this war and your blindness to the truth could be our very undoing as a nation.
We are at war period! A war that we did not seek nor wished to fight but a war that was thrust upon us none the less by an enemy who declared war on us long before we understood. A war that encompasses many battlefields from Afghanistan to Iraq, from the Philippines to Israel and unfortunately even the very halls of our own Congress as fighting the war has become a war amongst ourselves to seek the final victory. Political dissenting is a right afforded us by our Founders but dissenting for the sake of political gain at the expense of the nation in a time of war borders on sedition. Can we win without unity ? Yes because we have the finest and bravest men and women in uniform who are united in the cause of freedom and the defeat of our common Islamic fanatical enemy. And we have a President who understands the threat and whose resolve has not wavered, who believes in our military and uses all means at his disposal to win. Without unity though the result of victory can and will be achieved the road to that result will be longer, cost more in dollars and the precious lives of our bravest and best and tax the patience of the nation even further. But victory must and will be ours.
Ken Taylor
That was more than five years ago and what has changed since then. Have the Islamic fanatics surrendered or declared that they no longer have war like intentions or seek world domination ? No, infact though their capabilities have been greatly diminished thanks to our heroes on the field of battle their resolve has not changed nor have their objectives to kill all who do not follow their ideology and the domination of the world by fanatical Islam.
Has the President changed in the declaration against terrorism and the states that sponsor and supply terrorists ? No infact his resolve seems to strengthen every day as he seeks to defend this nation and fulfill his Constitutional duties, "to preserve, protect and defend." Then have we as a nation lost our resolve to fight terrorism ? To a certain extent we have. Every nation at war grows war weary and this war is no exception. But the constant barrage of negativism that is pounded into our living rooms every day by a main stream media intent on following an agenda that disagrees with the war, we as a country cannot be expected to keep our resolve as all we see because of this bias are perceived failures and body counts rather than success which is in abundance and the heroic efforts and accomplishments of our military.
This then brings us to the final question. The source of the majority of the negativism against the war are liberals and their representative in Congress who have taken every opportunity since shortly after the President's declaration of September 20, 2001 to use the war as a political football to gain power and legislative charge in Washington. They have used every means at their disposal to hamper the war effort, eliminate or tie up tools necessary to fight the war, charge that troops and the President either are or use Nazi like tactics and oppose any and every plan or proposal that has come forth while never offering any constructive idea of their own. There are one of three conclusions that can be made from the actions of the left concerning the war. They either do not understand the real and dangerous threat that Islamic fanaticism poses to this country. Or, they believe that the threat is real but exaggerated. Or they understand the threat and because of a lust for political power do not care and wish only to fulfill their agenda regardless of the consequences to the nation.
If it is the first then it is past time for a wake up call to most Democrats and liberals. Islamic fanatics who seek the destruction of our country and way of life do not care about party affiliation nor whether you understand them or realize their goal. Conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, men, women and children everyone who do not believe as they do is a target by whatever means they can muster for death and they will only be stopped by their on destruction in which this war that we fight has as its first and foremost goal.If they believe the threat is exaggerated then I refer you to the above paragraph. Islamic fanatics do not care what you believe or accept they only want you dead. That is not an exaggeration but a fact!
If fulfilling a political agenda while understanding the threat is the goal of the left then you are an unwitting accomplice in the Islamic fanatics goal of the destruction of the United States. Every political tactic used for political gain whether it is a useless resolution against a strategy or the threat of pulling funding. Or accusing our troops of misdeeds, torture and not winning the fight while using liberal lawyers to defend the, " civil liberties, " which do not exist for detainees held under the rules of war and who because they are not citizens of the country and at war against her have no rights under our Constitution, undermines this war and your blindness to the truth could be our very undoing as a nation.
We are at war period! A war that we did not seek nor wished to fight but a war that was thrust upon us none the less by an enemy who declared war on us long before we understood. A war that encompasses many battlefields from Afghanistan to Iraq, from the Philippines to Israel and unfortunately even the very halls of our own Congress as fighting the war has become a war amongst ourselves to seek the final victory. Political dissenting is a right afforded us by our Founders but dissenting for the sake of political gain at the expense of the nation in a time of war borders on sedition. Can we win without unity ? Yes because we have the finest and bravest men and women in uniform who are united in the cause of freedom and the defeat of our common Islamic fanatical enemy. And we have a President who understands the threat and whose resolve has not wavered, who believes in our military and uses all means at his disposal to win. Without unity though the result of victory can and will be achieved the road to that result will be longer, cost more in dollars and the precious lives of our bravest and best and tax the patience of the nation even further. But victory must and will be ours.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 10:31 AM
11 Comments:
Ken: It's clear that the left does NOT understand that we are at war. From Nancy Pelosi, to John Kerry it's not so much a war as a problem to be managed. Their mind is set on returning to the Clinton model for managing terrorism as a law enforcement problem. That didn't work too well did it?
And of course all they do is criticize what DOES appear to be working all the while claiming as John Kerry did that they would do it "better." And still, they never come up with a solid, detailed plan for what that "better" is. Kerry insisted that "better" meant working with our allies. Well, we did just that in Somalia by working with Ethiopia and letting them take the lead. And of course Democrats like Peter Bienart, writing in Time Magazine, criticized the Bush Administration for "outsourcing."
You can't win an argument with people who change the terms of the debate, let alone their own position, at the drop of a hat.
How many examples do we have of that phenomenon? It was Democrats during the Clinton era who insisted on passing the Iraq Liberation Act, claiming during that time and up until we liberated Iraq that weapons of mass destruction were an "imminent threat" that required pre-emptive action (Senator Rockefeller's 0ctober 10, 2002 statement on the Senate Floor) stands in marked contrast to his views today. It was Democrats who insisted we send more troops to get the job done but changed their minds (some within the span of a few weeks) when Bush proposed just that.
The problem is that many Democrats just do not believe we are at war, or that the threat was overstated or in extreme, but not exceptional, cases that the United States deserves to get hit.
Then of course there are the lefties who prefer their delusions to dealing with the problem. It's U.S. support of Israel that's the problem. Which of course ignores the fact that terrorists are also killing Buddhist monks in Thailand by the thousands. Monks who have no attachment to either Israel or U.S. foreign policy.
I had one of the delusional lefties bombard me with comments last week claiming that Christianity was just as violent as radical Islam. But he could only cite one example of where a mosque was burned in Nigeria that supposedly for him meant as much as the worldwide violent jihad we see every day on TV.
It's a similar mindset that always seeks to avoid dealing with problems by indulging in denial, delusion or embracing their prejudice. These folks are what Stalin called "Useful Idiots" because they can be so easily manipulated and they are willing to hamstring the good guys because they cannot tell the difference between good guys and bad guys (and today, you can thank multiculturalism for validating that stupidity).
It's that same mindset in Europe during the 1930's which said "let's not rearm or do anything to upset Hitler, maybe he'll be nice." And they sat and watched while Germany violated the Versailles treaty which ended World War I, militarized the Rhineland, Annexed Austria, invaded Czechoslovakia and then Poland before war was declared.
The "peace at any price" crowd made sure we paid an enormous price for the "peace" and they would follow that monstrous path again rather than face reality.
Sorry to go on at such length here. But I wanted to get this all on the record before your usual moonbats descend to sputter their ignorance of history and reality.
Gee Mike, thanks a whole lot! Left me with nothing to say! I guess I will just pick up on the point of how spineless the Dems are. They yell at every single person for playing politics and yet are putting forward this BS resolution in the Senate. They argue soldiers are dying in vain, NOW with the majority in Congress they could stop it. They could do what they have been talking about for years full well knowing they didn’t have the numbers for the vote. Now they might have the numbers to cut funding, do they?
No, Levin goes out and flat out says that they will not work to end funding because if they lose the vote it would be politically bad for them. The President sends our military to war knowing life will be lost, but does it knowing it is the right thing. The left is horrified by that and yet with the choice of trying to “save lives” with the chance of political disaster… Instead of doing what they say they feel is right they protect their political necks. It is truly sad.
And for the moonbats that will accuse the President of playing politics with the war: How can you play politics with something that polls say is not a winner? Congress is against (now) at least in meaningless words. He doesn’t stick with the war in an effort to win political points lefties, he sticks with it because he knows it is the right thing!
I think that the left does know we are at war but they don't care! That may sound like a really stupid thing to say until you take into consideration their arrogance; their belief that they are always right and I also believe that they consider themselves to be above it all. If only given a chance, they believe that they can "reason" with terrorists. I honestly think they feel that the only reason we are being attacked is because of President Bush and the absolute determination of the administration and those of us on the Right to fight this thing. It's all "our" fault because we won't give in or attempt to communicate with the enemy. So, in effect, the terrorists aren't enemies of the left, they are enemies of the right. They aren't at war at all; we are!
To each of you, Mike , MD and Gayle all I can say is a hardy AMEN!
Every nation at war grows war weary and this war is no exception.
I do not understand how people fabricate in their own minds, a timetable. War is over when it's over! We all wish it could have ended yesterday. But it didn't.
I'm worried that Republicans up for re-election will also do what they deem politically suited, rather than do what is right....which is supporting President Bush on the war on Islamic terror. This isn't "Bush's war". It's America's War. We're in this together, and we should be working toward solutions. The Democrats offer nothing but criticism. John Kerry, the pompous jackass, always lets us know what he would have done if he were president. Easier said, than done. It's easy to armchair Monday morning lead, when you're not actually the one sitting in the big chair.
Wordsmith: Like an equal definition of "bipartisanship" the notion of "we are in it together" is only put forward when a Democrat is in office.
Just like the old saying "Politics stops at the water's edge" is only observed by Republican ex-Presidents.
I agree Ken, there is only ONE option, WE WIN, THEY LOSE!
Who's "we" whitey?
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/8.html
Vice President- National Energy Task Force - secret plans to steal Iraq's oil in early 2001
if he is innocent why does he refuse to release the secret plans? http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/02/22/enron.gao.lawsuit/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/15/scotus.cheney/
http://foi.missouri.edu/execprivilege/gopthreats.html
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(#8) Secrets of Cheney's Energy Task Force Come to Light
JUDICIAL WATCH, July 17,2003
Title: Cheney Energy Task Force Documents Feature Map of Iraqi Oilfields
Author: Judicial Watch staff
FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS, January 2004
Title: “Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy:Procuring the Rest of the World’s Oil”
Author: Michael Klare
Faculty Evaluators: James Carr, Ph.D., Alexandra Von Meier, Ph.D.
Student Researcher: Cassie Cypher, Shannon Arthur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents turned over in the summer of 2003 by the Commerce Department as a result of the Sierra Club’s and Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents, dated March 2001, also feature maps of Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil and gas development projects in each country that provide information on the project’s costs, capacity, oil company and status or completion date.
Documented plans of occupation and exploitation predating September 11 confirm heightened suspicion that U.S. policy is driven by the dictates of the energy industry. According to Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton, “These documents show the importance of the Energy Task Force and why its operations should be open to the public.”
When first assuming office in early 2001, President Bush's top foreign policy priority was not to prevent terrorism or to curb the spread of weapons of mass destruction—or any of the other goals he espoused later that year following 9-11. Rather, it was to increase the flow of petroleum from suppliers abroad to U.S. markets. In the months before he became president, the United States had experienced severe oil and natural gas shortages in many parts of the country, along with periodic electrical power blackouts in California. In addition, oil imports rose to more than 50% of total consumption for the first time in history, provoking great anxiety about the security of the country's long-term energy supply. Bush asserted that addressing the nation's "energy crisis" was his most important task as president.
The energy turmoil of 2000-01 prompted Bush to establish a task force charged with developing a long-range plan to meet U.S. energy requirements. With the advice of his close friend and largest campaign contributor, Enron CEO, Ken Lay, Bush picked Vice President Dick Cheney, former Halliburton CEO, to head this group. In 2001 the Task Force formulated the National Energy Policy (NEP), or Cheney Report, bypassing possibilities for energy independence and reduced oil consumption with a declaration of ambitions to establish new sources of oil.
The Bush Administration’s struggle to keep secret the workings of Cheney’s Energy Task Force has been ongoing since early in the President’s tenure. The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, requested information in spring of 2001 about which industry executives and lobbyists the Task Force was meeting with in developing the Bush Administration's energy plan. When Cheney refused disclosure, Congress was pressed to sue for the right to examine Task Force records, but lost. Later, amid political pressure building over improprieties regarding Enron’s colossal collapse, Cheney's office released limited information revealing six Task Force meetings with Enron executives.
With multiple lawsuits currently pending, the Bush Administration asserts that its right to secrecy is a matter of executive privilege in regard to White House records. But because the White House staffed the Task Force with employees from the Department of Energy and elsewhere, it cannot pretend that its documents are White House records. A 2001 case, in which the Justice Department has four times appealed federal court rulings that the Vice President release task force records, has been brought before the Supreme Court. The case Richard B Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia, No. 03-475, to be heard by Cheney’s friend and duck hunting partner, Justice Scalia, is now pending. Cases based on the Federal Advisory Committee Act and Freedom of Information Act which require the Task Force a balanced membership, open meetings, and public records, are attempting to beat the Bush Administration in its battle to keep its internal workings secret.
UPDATE BY MICHAEL KLARE: The issue of U.S. dependence on imported oil has only become more critical over the past few months as U.S. oil demand has risen and global supplies have contracted, pushing up gasoline prices in the U.S., and thereby threatening the economic recovery now (supposedly) under way. This, in turn, has made oil prices and dependency an issue in the presidential election, with President George W. Bush defending the status quo and Senator John Kerry, the presumed Democratic nominee, calling for dramatic action to reduce U.S. dependence on imported petroleum.
The contraction of global supplies is due in large part to political turmoil in the major producing areas — precisely the sort of situation I predicted in my article. In particular, the pace of overseas oil production has been moderated by repeated sabotage of oil infrastructure in Iraq, terrorist strikes on foreign oil firms in Saudi Arabia, ethnic unrest in the Delta region of Nigeria, and continuing political turbulence in Venezuela. Together, these developments have pushed oil prices to their highest levels in decades. At the same time, the Bush Administration has shown no inclination to reduce U.S. military involvement in major overseas producing areas, especially the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea basin and Africa.
All of this has had one effect: The major news media are beginning to pay much closer attention to the links between political turmoil abroad and the economics of oil at home. Most major newspapers, including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, have published articles on various aspects of this problem. Still, the media remains reluctant to explain the close link between the energy policies of the Bush Administration and U.S. military strategy.
A number of new books have come out (or soon will) that bear on this subject. My own book, “Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency” will be published by Metropolitan Books in August. Also highly recommended are: “Out of Gas,” by David Goodstein (W.W. Norton); “The End of Oil,” by Paul Roberts (Houghton Mifflin); and “The Party's Over,” by Richard Heinberg (New Society Publishers).
Dick Cheney http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/8.html
Vice President- National Energy Task Force - secret plans to steal Iraq's oil in early 2001
if he is innocent why does he refuse to release the secret plans? http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/02/22/enron.gao.lawsuit/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/15/scotus.cheney/
http://foi.missouri.edu/execprivilege/gopthreats.html
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm
Richard Clarke http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
White House top terrorism adviser-Iraq invasion planned in 2001 and ignored al-queda threat
Clarke's Take On Terror
What Bush's Ex-Adviser Says About Efforts to Stop War On Terror
March 21, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Clarke says the White House dropped the ball against terrorism before Sept. 11. (CBS)
Quote
"I find it outrageous that the President is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it."
Richard Clarke
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.
The charge comes from the adviser, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes.
The administration maintains that it cannot find any evidence that the conversation about an Iraq-9/11 tie-in ever took place.
Clarke also tells CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl that White House officials were tepid in their response when he urged them months before Sept. 11 to meet to discuss what he saw as a severe threat from al Qaeda.
"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."
Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."
The No. 2 man on the president's National Security Council, Stephen Hadley, vehemently disagrees. He says Mr. Bush has taken the fight to the terrorists, and is making the U.S. homeland safer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.
Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking.
Clarke is due to testify this week before the special panel probing whether the attacks were preventable.
His allegations are also made in a book, "Against All Enemies," by Free Press, a subsidiary of Simon & Schuster. Both CBSNews.com and Simon & Schuster are units of Viacom.
Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorism czar, then held over again by the current President Bush.
In the 60 Minutes interview and the book, Clarke tells what happened behind the scenes at the White House before, during and after Sept. 11.
When the terrorists struck, it was thought the White House would be the next target, so it was evacuated. Clarke was one of only a handful of people who stayed behind. He ran the government's response to the attacks from the Situation Room in the West Wing.
"I kept thinking of the words from 'Apocalypse Now,' the whispered words of Marlon Brando, when he thought about Vietnam. 'The horror. The horror.' Because we knew what was going on in New York. We knew about the bodies flying out of the windows. People falling through the air. We knew that Osama bin Laden had succeeded in bringing horror to the streets of America," he tells Stahl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.
"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.
"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.
"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."
Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.
"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.
"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'
"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."
Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'
"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.
"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.
"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.
"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."
Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.
For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.
Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'
"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."
Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."
When Stahl pointed out that some administration officials say it's still an open issue, Clarke responded, "Well, they'll say that until hell freezes over."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By June 2001, there still hadn't been a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism, even though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented level of ominous chatter.
The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August."
Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House.
Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.
That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.
Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."
Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."
In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The president's new campaign ads highlight his handling of Sept. 11 -- which has become the centerpiece of his bid for re-election.
"You are writing this book in the middle of this campaign," Stahl tells Clarke. "The timing, I'm sure, you will be questioned about and criticized for. Why are you doing it now?"
"Well, I'm sure I'll be criticized for lots of things," says Clarke. "And I'm sure they'll launch their dogs on me."
Does a person who works for the White House owe the president his loyalty?
"Yes ... Up to a point. When the president starts doing things that risk American lives, then loyalty to him has to be put aside," says Clarke. "I think the way he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11 has made us less safe. Absolutely."
Hadley staunchly defended the president to Stahl: "The president heard those warnings. The president met daily with ... George Tenet and his staff. They kept him fully informed and at one point the president became somewhat impatient with us and said, 'I'm tired of swatting flies. Where's my new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda?'"
Hadley says that, contrary to Clarke's assertion, Mr. Bush didn't ignore the ominous intelligence chatter in the summer of 2001.
"All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas. But interestingly enough, the president got concerned about whether there was the possibility of an attack on the homeland. He asked the intelligence community: 'Look hard. See if we're missing something about a threat to the homeland.'
"And at that point various alerts went out from the Federal Aviation Administration to the FBI saying the intelligence suggests a threat overseas. We don't want to be caught unprepared. We don't want to rule out the possibility of a threat to the homeland. And therefore preparatory steps need to be made. So the president put us on battle stations."
Hadley asserts Clarke is "just wrong" in saying the administration didn't go to battle stations.
As for the alleged pressure from Mr. Bush to find an Iraq-9/11 link, Hadley says, "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."
When told by Stahl that 60 Minutes has two sources who tell us independently of Clarke that the encounter happened, including "an actual witness," Hadley responded, "Look, I stand on what I said."
Hadley maintained, "Iraq, as the president has said, is at the center of the war on terror. We have narrowed the ground available to al Qaeda and to the terrorists. Their sanctuary in Afghanistan is gone; their sanctuary in Iraq is gone. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are now allies on the war on terror. So Iraq has contributed in that way in narrowing the sanctuaries available to terrorists."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does Clarke think that Iraq, the Middle East and the world is better off with Saddam Hussein out of power?
"I think the world would be better off if a number of leaders around the world were out of power. The question is what price should the United States pay," says Clarke. "The price we paid was very, very high, and we're still paying that price for doing it."
"Osama bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country. He had been saying this. This is part of his propaganda," adds Clarke.
"So what did we do after 9/11? We invade an oil-rich and occupy an oil-rich Arab country which was doing nothing to threaten us. In other words, we stepped right into bin Laden's propaganda. And the result of that is that al Qaeda and organizations like it, offshoots of it, second-generation al Qaeda have been greatly strengthened."
When Clarke worked for Mr. Clinton, he was known as the terrorism czar. When Mr. Bush came into office, though remaining at the White House, Clarke was stripped of his Cabinet-level rank.
Stahl said to Clarke, "They demoted you. Aren't you open to charges that this is all sour grapes, because they demoted you and reduced your leverage, your power in the White House?"
Clarke's answer: "Frankly, if I had been so upset that the National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism had been downgraded from a Cabinet level position to a staff level position, if that had bothered me enough, I would have quit. I didn't quit."
Until two years later, after 30 years in government service.
A senior White House official told 60 Minutes he thinks the Clarke book is an audition for a job in the Kerry campaign.
"I'm an independent. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign," says Clarke. "I have worked for Ronald Reagan. I have worked for George Bush the first, I have worked for George Bush the second. I'm not participating in this campaign, but I am putting facts out that I think people ought to know."
60 Minutes received a note from the Pentagon saying: "Any suggestion that the president did anything other than act aggressively, quickly and effectively to address the al Qaeda and Taliban threat in Afghanistan is absurd."
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