BARACK OBAMA'S PRE 9/11 MENTALITY
In a statement that was reflective of those made by John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama stated that terrorists should be treated as criminals and not entities that we are at war with and who have declared war on us.
Using the example of the attackers of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the few that were arrested and convicted through the courts, Obama indicated that he believed this is the path that should be taken towards terrorists once again. A mindset that was proposed by Kerry in 2004 which was naive then and is equally naive now.
John McCain's campaign stated as such and went further to say, "We have seen that Senator Obama is a perfect manifestation of a September 10th mindset." It is a proven fact that the criminal approach was one of the key failures that allowed Al Qaeda to revamp their plan and succeed on 9/11 in doing what they failed to do in the 1993 Trade Center attack.
In a follow up statement to Obama's call for terrorists being treated once again as criminals instead of enemy combatants, John Kerry actually stated that Usama bin Laden should face a criminal court in The United States. A complete disassociation with the dead or alive campaign in seeking out and eliminating the head of Al Qaeda.
How can Barack Obama if elected President expect to continue to protect this Nation if he insists that terrorists that have as their major goal the elimination of this country and the killing of ALL of our people, afford these murderous individuals to be handled by the court system through endless indictments that bring no arrests thus allowing these monsters to continue to plot and kill at their leisure ?
This approach failed before and will fail again. Al Qaeda is weak and lacking in recruitment now ONLY because of aggressive military action taken in the wake of 9/11. These people are not criminals they are enemy combatants who consider themselves holy warriors and as such are fighting a war and the only way that we can combat this Jihad against us it to wage war in return.
This approach is working and will continue to work further weakening terrorism and the Islamic fascists who perform these cowardly acts against the world. Before 9/11 we did not understand the extent of mindset against this country and that fact that they had already declared war on us.
After 9/11 our waging war against them has held their activities in check and continually weakened their abilities as well as their influence in the Muslim world which is directly reflected by the major decrease in their numbers and the falling off of recruitment.
Obama would have us return to the days when we talked of getting the fugitive terrorists and bring them to justice while they continue to bomb, plot, kill and grow in numbers to once again build up to another 9/11 type of attack where thousands are killed.
It also proves that Barack Obama does not understand our enemy just as he naively believes that the best way to deal with terrorist States like Iran is to sit down on some magic carpet singing kum ba yah while behind his naive back they continue with their nuclear and domination ambitions.
General George S. Patton once said of war, "Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home." A truer statement concerning war has never been made.
Obama's idea is to treat the enemy as criminals and let the courts try and chase them down and bring them to justice. A failed approach which will, if enacted fail again. As General Patton stated the best way to get home is to beat the enemy.
If we do not then they will attack us again. Defeating them in combat until final victory is the only way to handle an enemy who will not stop until totally defeated and eliminated as a threat. That is what we are doing and that is how to protect this Nation!
Ken Taylor
Using the example of the attackers of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the few that were arrested and convicted through the courts, Obama indicated that he believed this is the path that should be taken towards terrorists once again. A mindset that was proposed by Kerry in 2004 which was naive then and is equally naive now.
John McCain's campaign stated as such and went further to say, "We have seen that Senator Obama is a perfect manifestation of a September 10th mindset." It is a proven fact that the criminal approach was one of the key failures that allowed Al Qaeda to revamp their plan and succeed on 9/11 in doing what they failed to do in the 1993 Trade Center attack.
In a follow up statement to Obama's call for terrorists being treated once again as criminals instead of enemy combatants, John Kerry actually stated that Usama bin Laden should face a criminal court in The United States. A complete disassociation with the dead or alive campaign in seeking out and eliminating the head of Al Qaeda.
How can Barack Obama if elected President expect to continue to protect this Nation if he insists that terrorists that have as their major goal the elimination of this country and the killing of ALL of our people, afford these murderous individuals to be handled by the court system through endless indictments that bring no arrests thus allowing these monsters to continue to plot and kill at their leisure ?
This approach failed before and will fail again. Al Qaeda is weak and lacking in recruitment now ONLY because of aggressive military action taken in the wake of 9/11. These people are not criminals they are enemy combatants who consider themselves holy warriors and as such are fighting a war and the only way that we can combat this Jihad against us it to wage war in return.
This approach is working and will continue to work further weakening terrorism and the Islamic fascists who perform these cowardly acts against the world. Before 9/11 we did not understand the extent of mindset against this country and that fact that they had already declared war on us.
After 9/11 our waging war against them has held their activities in check and continually weakened their abilities as well as their influence in the Muslim world which is directly reflected by the major decrease in their numbers and the falling off of recruitment.
Obama would have us return to the days when we talked of getting the fugitive terrorists and bring them to justice while they continue to bomb, plot, kill and grow in numbers to once again build up to another 9/11 type of attack where thousands are killed.
It also proves that Barack Obama does not understand our enemy just as he naively believes that the best way to deal with terrorist States like Iran is to sit down on some magic carpet singing kum ba yah while behind his naive back they continue with their nuclear and domination ambitions.
General George S. Patton once said of war, "Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home." A truer statement concerning war has never been made.
Obama's idea is to treat the enemy as criminals and let the courts try and chase them down and bring them to justice. A failed approach which will, if enacted fail again. As General Patton stated the best way to get home is to beat the enemy.
If we do not then they will attack us again. Defeating them in combat until final victory is the only way to handle an enemy who will not stop until totally defeated and eliminated as a threat. That is what we are doing and that is how to protect this Nation!
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 10:44 AM
23 Comments:
I don't understand the basis for your arguments. First of all, the idea that "Al Qaeda is weak and lacking in recruitment" is about as wrong as can be. Based on the 2007 NIE, or any other intelligence document related to Al Qaeda. The fact is that Al Qaeda has not only regained its 9/11 strength but is even larger and more dangerous.
Second, you mock the approach following the 1993 WTC bombing. But, all of the operational planners and those who carried out the crime were rounded up, put on trial, and are now rotting in federal prison. There wasn't another attack on U.S. soil during Clinton's presidency. So for 7 years it seems to have worked.
Just a reminder, 9/11 took place on Bush's watch. He was in office for 8 months - so he was in charge and had his processes in place. Simply pinning all of the blame on Clinton makes little sense.
It is now coming up on 7 years and the top Al Qaeda leadership is still sending out video and audio tapes. What about "dead or alive" and all Bush's tough talk?
Not one single prisoner held in Guantanamo has ever been convicted of anything. We have released hundreds of detainees from the detention center because there was no evidence. The Supreme Court this week again held Bush's suspension the writ of habeas corpus to be unconstitutional.
On top of all of that, the Iraq war has been an expensive (lives and money) unnecessary foray into a secular country that posed no threat to us. As a result, we created Al Qaeda in Iraq (it didn't exist before we invaded), and the Taliban is now on the verge of retaking Afghanistan once more. So we are essentially back where we started on 9/11.
We'll see who the American people trust in November.
This is Dandy!
Just think about this for a minute.
If we were to catch Osama Bin Hidin and transport his ass back to the United States he will have the presumtion of innocense right off the bat.
This is the Liberal mentality.
He would have his day in court and what if they were to declare him insane? By a jury of his peers?
Who are his peers?
Terrorists?
Barack Obama is too Dangerous, all Liberals are to friggen dangerous to run this Country.
Is conservative truth all about interning people?
http://willrhodes1961.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/american-internment/
Hey guys....Psst...guys.....One thing...
IT'S THE CONSTITUTION, Stupid!
READ IT. If you do NOT like the what it says and you are so adamantly opposed to what the basic doctrine on which this country is based and the document that EACH AND EVERY person sitting in a seat in the House, Senate, White House and Supreme Court SWORE to "protect and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic", then me thinks you need to go back and reread that highly esteemed document. Protection under the law. Protection under THE CONSTITUTION - ALL PEOPLE regardless of citizenship, race, color, creed, nationality, sex, etc, etc. enjoy those unalienable rights. If you dishonor that you dishonor the Constitution and may I suggest you trot off somewhere else....
I find it ironic that your sight claims to be about the "truth" and the "lies" while promoting nonsense that you deliberatley misrepresent. That is called a lie.
What the American Supreme Court and the American Constitution just clearified will not in any way give Bin Laden or any terrist the "same rights as Americans". The Right continues to spred ignorance and lies as long as they feel they can benefit from it. This decision simply said that if your caught and put in prision you have the ability to petition the court to determine if your an American citizen and due the rights any US citizen should get. That is all they have the right to do. This is to prevent the accidental detention of American citizens, somehting we should all be in support of. It does not grant them any right to trial, hearings, free attourney's or any of the nonsense that the right is lieng about.
The writ of habeas corpus is a basic right that has been a part of the Western World since the 12th century in England. It is specifically written into the Constitution in Article 1, Section 9.
I simply do not understand why people think the President needs to toss it out.
Neither Obama nor the Supreme Court support giving foreign terrorists full rights in American courts. They simply say that the President cannot just arbitrarily throw a suspect into a black ops prison and not be allowed to a fair hearing so they know what they are accused of and what the evidence is against them.
One key difference between the U.S. and ruthless dictatorships used to be that we did not simply accuse someone of something, lock them up, and throw away the key without any hearing. That was of course before President Bush decided he didn't believe in the Constitution.
Most of what you've posted here is opinion, and that's cool. It's your world; enjoy. But seriously, we can't call them enemy combatants when it suits us to deny them criminal due process and then withhold the rights due an enemy combatant because they're not affiliated with an actual sovereign government. Most people only ask that we pick a designation and stick to it. They are either international criminals OR enemy combatants. "Other" doesn't really cut it when you're talking about hundreds/thousands of people still in custody and uncharged five plus years on.
No need to reply, I'm just passing through looking for ACTUAL conservative truth.
Well SCOTUS sometimes interprets the Constitution WRONG!
This has to be one of the worst ruling's they have made.
The terrorists should not have the right to invade our Court system with the presumption of innocense.
What are they going to do if Usama was proven by a jury of his peers insane!?
Should Usama be allowed to sue the US Government for locking his ass up after committing the worst terrorist crime on America? NO!
These unlawful enemy combatants are just that ENEMY COMBATANT'S!!
This is NOT the end of this matter and the SCOTUS will have to revisit this.
However the ruling only said they have the right to know what they are being charged with.
It does NOT mean they will ever have thier day in a US Court.
OK so it should be obvious but go ahead, tell them what they are being charged with, then stuff their asses back in GITMO!
Or kill their ass on the battlefeid and put an end to this whole mess.
OF the 770 to 780 "detainees" held in GITMO since 1/11/2002, there are now 270, the rest were released because THERE WAS NOTHING TO HOLD THEM ON! THEY WERE NOT ENEMY COMBATANTS, CRIMINALS or anything else but poor schmucks who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and the informants (yes informants) who turned their asses over to the bounty hunters were paid handsome bounties for them.
OF those 770 to 780, ONE...YES ONLY ONE has ever been CONVICTED of anything AND THAT WAS A PLEA-BARGAIN AFTER MONTHS OF TORTURE.
OUT of the CURRENT 270 "Detainees", only 16...YES 16(!) HAVE been determined to be of "high value"; ONLY 2 more have been CHARGED; and only 14 more are to be CHARGED!!!!!!!!!!!
Most of them are determined to be low level militants, no known threat and victims of personal vendettas.
ONLY 8% were "captured" by the US in military zones; 20% are Afghan and 66% from other countries like Albania, Italy, etc, and were paid for with huge bounties.
Special renditioning (illegal internationally); torture (illegal internationally); kidnapping (illegal internationlly) are the games played and ordered by this administration while they drape themselves in a blood soaked American flagged and try to get you to fear your own shadow.
The game is to make YOU hate these people so you allow torture in your name; while you allow renditioning in YOUR NAME...Why not, there just animals with no rights...Just evil inhuman savages with no souls.....
Once you justify YOUR INHUMANITY and take away their Humanity, you have become worse than those you fear. You have become the lowest, basest level of creature.
Sleep well
Marie - a fair hearing is all that is required by habeas corpus. And, that is all that civil liberatarians have sought for foreign detainees.
Bush's unilateral position has been discredited by Army lawyers, legal counsel for the FBI, the American Bar Association, every civil liberties group, and virtually every Western nation and ally.
There are only two positions. Either you side with the President and believe that terror SUSPECTS should NEVER, EVER have any chance to know why they are imprisoned and should be locked up forever without any hearing Or, you believe in the basic principle of habeas corpus and are against Bush's position.
Habeas corpus has nothing to do with giving terror suspects access to lawyers and U.S. courts. Since the President refuses to offer any alternative, U.S. courts are the only institutional place for suspects to go. If Bush had just come up with a simple and clear detainee hearing proposal and worked with Congress then it would have been taken care of years ago.
In WW2 we had 700,000 + "Enemy Combatants".
Germans.
They never once recieved a day presumed innocent in our US Court System!
After we were done getting information out of them and they were determined to not be of any harm to anyone after the War was over. We let them go.
That's how it should be done.
Oh yeah,
And those that were determined to have committed war crimes were tried at the Hague.
Not one was tried on US soil.
The fact is that Al Qaeda has not only regained its 9/11 strength but is even larger and more dangerous.
Not entirely true, Rob. The picture is mixed. The CIA and Homeland Security recently mentioned about how al Qaeda has been losing hearts and minds and recruitment.
Just a reminder, 9/11 took place on Bush's watch. He was in office for 8 months - so he was in charge and had his processes in place. Simply pinning all of the blame on Clinton makes little sense.
President Bush did not have "his processses in place". Check in with Senator Levin on that. At the time, Democrats held majority (thanks to Jeffords) and many of Bush's political appointments in key positions were held up. For nearly 7 months, Levin and Democrats prevented confirmation hearings of many of Rumsfeld's top advisors.
J. Michale Waller, a defense and intelligence policy specialist at the Institute of World Politics, writes: “While Levin was holding up their appointments, the incoming Pentagon policy team had no legal or political authority to do their vital jobs - a fact that helps explain why it took eight months for the Bush administration to draw up a strategic operational plan to destroy al-Qaeda,”
On top of all of that, the Iraq war has been an expensive (lives and money) unnecessary foray into a secular country that posed no threat to us. As a result, we created Al Qaeda in Iraq (it didn't exist before we invaded),
Rob, the notion that a secular Saddam would never operate with religious jihadists is a myth. What did the HARMONY documents reveal, as reported in the recent Pentagon-funded study (The Iraqi Perspectives Project -- Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents)?
It hurts my heart, truly, that their is so many who do not understand terrorism and what it means.
One of the issues here is that in granting habeus corpus to persons who are detained requires the revelation of intelligence sources and methods. I have no probelms affording detainees the right to habeus corpus once their usefulness has been expended. I would suggest that Congress change the laws regardinf the offenses they would be charged with to lessen the standard of evidence required to convict.
Do a little research as to the approach taken by administrations prior to President Bush. The FBI was sent to the scene of every attack;Marines were not. If I am not mistaken the majority of those involved in the 1993 WTC attack were caught AFTER 9/11, not before. It should also be noted that FBI did not catch and prosecute the planners, since they were still around to plan the attack on 2001.
A law enforcement approach does not work, in and of itself. Death on the battlefield precluse all of this debate, does it not? Perhaps that would be more appropriate.
Marie - by definition there is no end in a WAR ON TERROR. Terrorism will exist forever. So there is no end point where they will be released.
You are right, we tried war criminals after WWII. We gave them lawyers and they went before judges - you know, an actual hearing and trial. NO ONE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TRIAL FROM GITMO. Instead, they are left to rot with no real plan. On top of that, after years of holding them, we have let most of them go because there was no evidence against them.
Word, I don't understand your link. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq until we invaded. Al Qaeda is still operating without trouble in Afganistan and Pakistan. The idea that they are not stronger than before 9/11 is ridiculous in my opinion, but you agree that it is certainly mixed.
I said, "Simply pinning all of the blame on Clinton makes little sense." That does not mean that Clinton is blameless, but it is a simple fact that Bush was the President - and that he had been in office FOR MONTHS, he was the one getting CIA bulletins and the famous August PDB. To just blame Clinton is foolish and if you are unwilling to assign any blame on Bush and his administration then you are just plain unreasonable.
Saudi Arabia and Egypt fund jihadists. When should we invade? Pakistan has funded terrorists - when do we invade? We fund what many people would call terror groups - so what? Saddam was the natural enemy of Iran - by removing him we unleashed Iran and made ourselves less safe. Now, we are going to end up with a Pro-Iranian Shia government - AT BEST. That is a waste of resources - human and capital.
Robert, do you even know what habeas corpus requires? A simple hearing to actually give the accused an opportunity to know what charges are being brought and to offer a chance for rebuttal does not mean a public and open court trial. The fact that most of detainees have been released after years of captivity without ever being charged with anything is a clear indication that the system has been broken.
You are absolutely mistaken about the convictions of those involved in the 1993 WTC attacks. Most were rounded up and convicted in 1994. A couple of more - including mastermind Ramzi Yousef was brought to justice in 1997 or 1998. We knew where he was, but Pakistan was less than helpful.
It is fairly clear that you don't understand the nature or makeup of Al Qaeda. They are not a centralized, structured organization like the U.S. military. They have many tentacles and off-shoots that operate largely independently. The different elements are well funded mostly by wealthy Saudis and others who are sympathetic to their beliefs. But, the idea that there are one or two operational planners who planned both the 1993 WTC attack and 9/11 - as you seem to believe - is just ludicrous.
Even if we catch bin Laden - which we should have concentrated on (it is an embarrassment that Bush has failed to bring him to justice) and which we would have had we actually stayed in Afghanistan - it won't end terrorism.
Rob, it is fairly clear that it is you who have no idea how al-queda operates and your own statement about its makeup contradicts itself. I have forgotten more about terrorist operations that you will ever know.
First, al-queda has operated for many years as al umbrella organization. It is less a particular organization than is is a "franchise" if you will. The Egytian Islamic Jihad and a dozen others have been supported by al0Queda for years. This umbrella organization provides support and logistics and planning to the organizations below it. Al-Queda today is a ideological mindset, and not so much an organization in itself.
These terorrist groups operate as cells, each one comprised of 4-5 members normally, each with special skills. Much like a Seal Team or a Special Forces unit. Only one of those cell members knows who is ahead of them on the chain of command. There may be four cells operating in New York City, for example, with no knowledge of the others. There is no way that there was NOT just a couple of planners. The thought that four independent cells each trained and hijacked an aircraft, all with the intent to destroy a particular building without some manner of coordination is laughable.
The cell was convicted, but Khalid Sheik Mohammed was not and he was the mastermind behind the entire thing. Interesting that you think Clinton left an embarassing legacy by not capturing Khalid Sheik Mohamad. After all, he was loose far longer than Bin Laden has been.
I have no problem debating issues with you, but please do a little research and get you facts straight.
First I had to correct you on the prosecutions of those involved in the 1993 WTC attacks and now you are making up a bunch of nonsense about KSM's involvement.
Please read a little and learn a little before you post stuff. Or at least admit that you don't know what really happened and that you are wildly guessing and/or making stuff up.
Ramzi Yousef was the mastermind of the 1993 WTC attack. There is no debate or question about this. He was convicted in November 1997 and is now rotting in the Supermax Federal prison in Colorado. These are basic facts that you don't seem to know or understand.
Read Chapter 5 of the 9/11 Commission Report to get some of your facts straight about the 1993 WTC bombing, Ramzi Yousef, and KSM.
KSM was at best a small player who was not a high value target to authorities until after 9/11. So blaming Clinton for not picking up KSM is just plain ridiculous.
With respect to the 1993 WTC bombing, the 9/11 Commission Report states the following: "On November 3, 1992, KSM wired $660 from Qatar to the bank account of Yousef's co-conspirator, Mohammed Salameh. KSM does not appear to have contributed any more substantially to this operation."
Are you suggesting that President Clinton (and now Bush) should have sent Marines to track down every individual who contributed a couple of hundred dollars to terror suspects? Please get real!
There was no al Qaeda in Iraq until we invaded.
Not entirely true, Rob. Al Qaeda is a conglomerate made up of different terrorist groups which are organized to work together by al Qaeda leadership. Really, what we should be referring to, is the al Qaeda network. Many al Qaeda affiliates were already in Iraq before the invasion, with others entering after fleeing from the battlefield in Afghanistan. After the invasion they formed their own smaller network called Al Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers (Iraq). This was done to act more independently from the Al Qaeda leadership that had-by the time of the invasion-largely cut off from directly commanding and coordinating attacks in favor of facilitating coordinated campaigns and letting local leaders run those campaigns-leaders such as Abu Musab Al Zarqawi and his dozen+ successors.
Robert brings up Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which was Zawahiri's group, 2/3rds of which became al Qaeda leadership, and which was in Iraq (re: Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and terrorism).
The idea that they are not stronger than before 9/11 is ridiculous in my opinion, but you agree that it is certainly mixed.
Then your opinion goes against the grain spelled out by Hayden, and what appears to be a growing rejection of al Qaeda theology and the "jihad" movement.
I said, "Simply pinning all of the blame on Clinton makes little sense." That does not mean that Clinton is blameless,
I'm not one of those who "blames" Clinton. In hindsight, we can always point to misteps and "roads not taken".
but it is a simple fact that Bush was the President - and that he had been in office FOR MONTHS,
So you no-sell my point regarding Levin holding up Bush appointees needed in key positions? Great.
In that case, Clinton was in office for 8 years, with the planning stages of 9/11 happening on his watch and the undercutting of CIA funding.
he was the one getting CIA bulletins and the famous August PDB.
Which has been made out to be more than was there by those suffering from BDS. What did the PDB say again that SPECIFIED the attack, distinguishing it from any number of similar generalized warnings?
To just blame Clinton is foolish and if you are unwilling to assign any blame on Bush and his administration then you are just plain unreasonable.
To a degree, I agree. Clinton: 8 years. Bush: 9 months. (^_~)
Saudi Arabia and Egypt fund jihadists. When should we invade?
Egypt has many "radicals" imprisoned in cells. Both governments are targeted by the Islamic jihadists and neither ever broke cease-fire agreements and UN resolutions.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and the other Middle Eastern nations are a mixed bag, helping in the war on Islamic terror, even as they also are "in the way", as you point out.
Saddam was the natural enemy of Iran - by removing him we unleashed Iran and made ourselves less safe.
Sheesh....let's just go back and slap Carter around for failing to support the Shah, enabling the replacement of a brutal dictator for a ruthless theocratic regime, the threat of which we face today, as one-half of the Islamic militancy problem in the world.
Alliances are never permanent; should we be blood-brothers to Stalin, simply because we "supported" one another against Hitler? Should Britain still be our "sworn enemy", and Japan too, because we fought them at one time in history?
OK, Word, who specifically did Levin hold up in confirmation hearings in 2001?
Your link that you posted up about Al Qaeda being rejected is only related to Iraq. So what? Al Qaeda's strength has grown around the world. And the major problem in Iraq is not Al Qaeda, it is the Shia militias. This has been the larger problem - by far - since the beginning of our occupation once we disbanded the Iraqi military. It continues to be the problem.
What did the PDB say again that SPECIFIED the attack, distinguishing it from any number of similar generalized warnings?
Read the August 6, 2001 PDB It is a fairly specific document for a daily summary.
The 9/11 Commission could find no extraordinary steps taken by the President or his Administration in response to the PDB. There is no evidence that Bush even asked to see the intelligence that led to the PDB.
Failing to support the Shah? What the Hell are you talking about? How do you suppose we could have done that? By sending CIA death squads to kill opposition leaders in Iran? Comparing the fall of the Shah by the Iranian people's revolution, to our pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq is just silly.
Iran is a Shia nation that was largely contrained because of Saddam. Now that the Shia are in charge of Iraq, and are friendly with Iran, Iran has seen its threat on its western border eliminated. One of the main reasons we cannot secure and agreement for permanent bases in Iraq is because the Iraqi government has met with Iranian leaders and assured them not worry. Google it and read about it.
OK, Word, who specifically did Levin hold up in confirmation hearings in 2001?
Among the names I have are Rumsfeld's top advisors- Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith (the popular scapegoat of your side), Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Programs J.D. Crouch, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Peter W. Rodman, and NSC special assistant for intelligence programs, Mary K. Sturtevant. These are Bush appointees who were to design the U.S. antiterrorism strategy. Levin's reasons for holding them up were based upon partisan politics. Sturtevant wasn't appointed until 8 weeks before 9/11, and the others were appointed in late July of 2001.
And he once again put politics over national security interests by holding up Kenneth Wainstein as head of the Justice Dept.'s New National Security Division, not because of any complaint regarding Wainstein, but because he wanted to force the Justice Dept.'s hand on another unrelated matter.
Wall Street Journal: “Levin Has Been Running A One-Man Assault On Civilian Appointees Fighting The War On Terror.” “Levin has been running a one-man assault on civilian appointees fighting the war on terror. He currently has a ‘hold’ on no fewer than four nominees selected by President Bush for key national security posts…” (Editorial, “Mr. Levin’s Obsessions,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/16/05)
New York Sun: Levin Has “Developed A Habit Of Blocking Key Nominations.” “In the middle of a global war on terror and a war in Iraq, one would think the Senate would appreciate the importance of keeping the Pentagon fully staffed at the top. You would think wrong. At least one senator, Carl Levin of Michigan, has developed a habit of blocking key nominations by placing ‘holds’ on them, a procedural ploy that allows a lone senator to throw a wrench in the confirmation works.” (“Holding Out,” The New York Sun, 11/25/05)
Levin Is Blocking The President’s Nominee To Head The Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “Wainstein is one of two high-level Justice nominees whom Levin is blocking . … The other, Alice Fisher, was given a recess appointment by the president last year to run the department’s criminal division.” (Mark Sherman, “Senate Vote Stalls Anti-Terror Nominee,” The Associated Press, 8/2/06)
Levin Threatened To Block The Head Of The Bureau Of Immigration And Customs Enforcement. “Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., has threatened to use delay tactics to block [Julie] Myers’ approval, according to a Levin spokeswoman.” (Billy House, “Pederson Challenges Immigration Nominee,” The Arizona Republic, 9/24/05)
Levin Blocked The Nomination Of A Veteran Diplomat To Be Undersecretary Of Defense For Policy. “President Bush appointed veteran diplomat Eric Edelman to a top Pentagon post Tuesday, doing an end run around a Senate block on his confirmation. Edelman … will be secure in his post as undersecretary of defense for policy until a new Congress convenes in January. Edelman was officially nominated to replace Douglas Feith last May, but his confirmation was blocked in the Senate by Michigan Democrat Carl Levin. Levin, the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is feuding with the White House over his demand for a release of documents related to the Iraq war.” (“Bush Appoints Edelman To DOD Post,” UPI, 8/9/05)
Levin Repeatedly Blocked The President’s Nominee For Assistant Secretary Of Defense For International Security Policy. “President Bush again invoked a constitutional provision enabling him to bypass the Senate and install a nominee who had been blocked in the Senate. This time, he named Peter Flory to be an assistant secretary of defense [for international security policy] … Flory was first nominated to the post on June 1, 2004, but the nomination was blocked by Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, in a dispute over release of intelligence-related documents that Levin sought from Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy.” (“Bush Bypasses Senate Again, Installing A Pentagon Official,” The Associated Press, 8/2/05)
-- Levin Held Up The Nomination For Well Over A Year. “Bush renominated Flory in January at the start of the new Congress, but Levin continued to block it. The Senate Armed Services Committee reported the nomination to the full Senate last Thursday. A Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, said Levin blocked consideration of the nomination by the full Senate.” (“Bush Bypasses Senate Again, Installing A Pentagon Official,” The Associated Press, 8/2/05)
Levin Blocked The Nomination Of Benjamin Powell As General Counsel To The Director Of National Intelligence. “The nation’s new intelligence chief has told congressional leaders that he is ‘deeply troubled’ by the delay in winning Senate confirmation for a key aide. … [Negroponte] singled out the stalled nomination of his general counsel, Benjamin Powell, as ‘especially serious.’ … Congressional staff from both parties told United Press International that Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a senior member of several national security-related committees had put a hold on Powell – an arcane parliamentary procedure through which a single senator can stall any nomination indefinitely.” (Shaun Waterman, “Bush’s New Intel Pick Stalled In Senate,” UPI, 12/4/05)
-- National Intelligence Director Negroponte Wrote To Senate Leaders – Including Minority Leader Reid – Expressing His Concern Over Powell’s Obstructed Nomination. “Delays in staffing up his office, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte wrote to the leaders of the Senate, ‘are hampering my ability to carry out my critical responsibilities.’ … ‘I am deeply troubled that the (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) is forced to function without the general counsel position … I am being denied my chief legal officer during a critical standup phase of a new office,’ Negroponte wrote to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn, and Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.” (Shaun Waterman, “Bush’s New Intel Pick Stalled In Senate,” UPI, 12/4/05)
-- Powell Won Unanimous Approval From The Intelligence Committee: “Powell’s nomination was voted out unanimously by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in July, but has yet to receive a vote on the chamber floor.” (Shaun Waterman, “Bush’s New Intel Pick Stalled In Senate,” UPI, 12/4/05)
Levin Used Procedural Tactics To Block Four Judicial Nominees To The 6th Circuit Court Of Appeals. “Levin and Stabenow have used procedural tactics to block action on Saad and the other three 6th Circuit nominees, mostly because they are angry that when former Republican Sen. Spencer Abraham of Michigan was still in office, he blocked two Michigan nominees who had been named to the court by President Clinton.” (Katherine Hutt Scott, “Rogers Lashes Out At Mich. Senators Over State’s Judicial Nominees,” Gannett News Service, 5/20/05)
-- Levin’s Obstruction Was Reportedly Due To His Anger Over Past Treatment Of A Family Member. “Levin remains angry over the treatment of his cousin’s wife, Michigan Judge Helene White, who was among several people nominated by then President Clinton and blocked by the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee.” (Charles Hurt, “Michigan Judicial Pick Held Up For 20th Time,” The Washington Times, 6/4/04)
-- Levin’s Obstruction Caused Delay And Backlogs: “The lengthy delay in filling any of the Michigan spots on the 6th Circuit has caused backlogs on the court …” (Kathy Barks Hoffman, “Three Of Michigan’s Four Judicial Nominees Finally Moving,” The Associated Press, 5/28/05)
During Negotiations, Levin Insisted That His Family Member Be Confirmed To The Circuit Court Before Allowing Other Nominations To Proceed. “Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, has actively negotiated with Mr. Levin since last year to find a way for him to support Mr. Bush’s nominees from Michigan. … Mr. Hatch has offered to add Michigan-based seats to the 6th Circuit, but Mr. Levin hasn’t budged from his insistence that his cousin’s wife and another judge be placed on the panel.” (Charles Hurt, “Michigan Judicial Pick Held Up For 20th Time,” The Washington Times, 6/4/04)
Only Weeks Ago, Levin Lifted Procedural Holds On Two Other Nominees To The Federal Bench. “Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow have ended their procedural holds on two Bush administration nominees to the federal bench, signaling the potential for movement after delays in the seating of Michigan judicial appointments. Levin and Stabenow withdrew their objections on Wayne County Circuit Judge Sean Cox and Midland County Circuit Judge Thomas Ludington last week.” (Ken Thomas, “Levin, Stabenow Withdraw Disapproval Of Two Judicial Nominations,” The Associated Press, 4/11/06)
When Levin held up the appointees prior to 9/11, Bush's incoming Pentagon policy team did not have the political or legal authority to do their jobs. "A fact that helps explain why it took eight months for the Bush administration to draw up a strategic operational plan to destroy al Qaeda" according to J. Michael Waller, a defense and intelligence policy specialist at the Institute of World Politics. The joke amongst insiders was that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz- the only political appointees who had cleared the Senate- was that this was "Home Alone 3".
Your link that you posted up about Al Qaeda being rejected is only related to Iraq. So what? Al Qaeda's strength has grown around the world.
No. What my link was about, is how the battle in Iraq has affected al Qaeda influence and credibility in the Muslim world. Major Islamic scholars and influential leaders have recently been denouncing al Qaeda and the concept of violent jihad. This includes former ally Dr. Fadl, who's work, “The Compendium of the Pursuit of Divine Knowledge”, was an inspiration for jihad/al Qaeda recruitment.
Today, Dr. Fadl's most recent book "undermines the entire intellectual framework of jihadist warfare.” and is “a trenchant attack on the immoral roots of Al Qaeda’s theology”.
The "Muslim upon Muslim" violence with reports of barbaric cruelty, strict fundamentalism imposed upon Sunni Iraqis while they themselves raped women and boys and engaged in debauchery, has done enormous harm to al Qaeda's reputation amongst Muslims. The Awakening Council in Anbar is a result of this, as well.
And the major problem in Iraq is not Al Qaeda, it is the Shia militias. This has been the larger problem - by far - since the beginning of our occupation once we disbanded the Iraqi military. It continues to be the problem.
It has been part of the major problem; but you ignore the majority suicide bombers being foreign fighters; you ignore al Qaeda leadership being the ones to recruit local footsoldiers from the Iraqi populace, to instigate and foment chaos and the so-called "civil war" after the bombing of the Golden Mosque.
Read the August 6, 2001 PDB It is a fairly specific document for a daily summary.
The 9/11 Commission could find no extraordinary steps taken by the President or his Administration in response to the PDB. There is no evidence that Bush even asked to see the intelligence that led to the PDB.
Please point me to the "actionable intelligence" within the PDB.
"Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1007 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S." Ok....old news. 1997 and '98. Where's the actionable intell on specific attacks?
Only partisan Bush-haters living in fantasy la-la land will read into it more than is actually there.
Failing to support the Shah? What the Hell are you talking about? How do you suppose we could have done that? By sending CIA death squads to kill opposition leaders in Iran? Comparing the fall of the Shah by the Iranian people's revolution, to our pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq is just silly.
Ah, you miss the point entirely. My response is in response to your argument that by removing Saddam, we endangered ourselves with Iran (as if Iran wasn't already a danger, as was Saddam- yes, he was a danger, Rob).
And yes, Carter did have an influence in the fall of the Shah. His direct actions and lack of action.
Carter threatened to cut off military aid and training unless he permitted the "free assembly" of Islamists and Marxists bent on overthrowing him. When the Shah's government came under assault, Carter urged the Shah not to use force to quell the opposition. Ronald Reagan's autobiography: "Our government's decision to stand by piously while he was forced from office led to the establishment of a despotic regime in Teheran that was far more evil and far more tyrannical than the one it replaced. And as I was to learn through personal experience, it left a legacy of problems that would haunt our country for years to come. I was told by officials of the Shah's government that after rioting began in the streets of Teheran in 1979, the Shah's advisors told him if they were allowed to arrest five hundred people- the most corrupt businessmen and officials in the government- the revolution fires could be extinguished, and they could head off the revolution. But people in the American Embassy told the Shah to do nothing, and he didn't. Until the very end, he kept telling his staff, "The United States has always been our friend and it won't let me down now."
The Shah was deeply pro-American, to a fault. He took some bad advice from the sanctimonious peanut president, who chastised the Shah over "human rights", and not living up to his ideal standards. Ironically, when Khomeini took over, he executed many of the 3,000 political prisoners Carter accused the Shah of torturing, along with 20,000 pro-western Iranians. Khomeini's regime executed more people in its first year of power than the Shah's Savak had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years.
The mullahs hated the Shah not because he was an oppressive dictator. They hated him because he was a secular, pro-Western leader who, in addition to other initiatives, was expanding the rights and roles of women in Iran society.
Google it and read about it.
Duh....okily-dokily. Thanks for the condescension and elitist know-it-all intellectualism.
If the people you say were so critical, why did Bush nominate Feith in April 2001, Crouch in May 2001, Rodman in May 2001, and as far as I can tell, Sturtevant didn't need Senate confirmation. She joined NSC staff under Condi Rice on July 9, 2001.
I have no idea why you think Levin held up any nominations. There is no such evidence. They followed the normal vetting process and were routinely confirmed. It always takes a few months to get through the Senate. Just look at how the Senate deals with all political appointees across administrations.
A PDB is a SUMMARY. It warned of recent surveillance by terrorist in New York. I'm sure you would have said Clinton was not to blame if he had received the same PDB before a terrorist attack.
We can just disagree about Iran. But, there is still no comparison that can be made between the Iranian revolution and the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. I do find it amazing that you would have preferred that the U.S. support a dictator's (the Shah's)efforts to quash democracy and crack down (I assume you mean imprison and torture) opposition leaders. Remarkable! You aren't for democracy - you appear to be for tyrannical rule. How in the world does that square with removing Saddam? Both the Shah and Saddam were brutal dictators who ruled with secret police. Seems hypocritical if you believe in democracy.
Post a Comment
<< Home