I think Clarke came pretty well out of this with his testimony on the 24. of March. He explains what the Clinton- administration did, and what they unfortunately didn't manage to kill and maim enough and so on, but the essential bit is about what the efforts were during and after 2000, when there were a very notable increase in number of threats. Clarke mentions that they averted several attacks in this period, and that the efforts obviously were distributed widely. But his concern, as terror czar(or whatever) seems to have been primarily during this period what it might have been possible to do to kill off bin Laden and/or reduce and contain Al- Quida to a small group of no real threat.

What is interesting about this is that until and after 2000, the options for dealing with al- Quida seems to have been few, and unproductive. Cruise- missiles, covert operations and local groups trained on location. And none of this presented itself with any real solution, as it would take one of the cruise missiles several hours travel to reach it's target, at which time the recon would be outdated. Also, with the situation between India and Pakistan there were difficulties in sending missiles over their territory, and there were always the danger of collateral damage (which Clinton took much shelling over because of his missile strike in ..98?). The covert operations required much planning and effort, as well as unrestricted access to different areas, which was not available - nor was a traffic point through Pakistan at that time. The local war- lords of course was not necessarily loyal to the extent of taking orders, and would not undertake direct assassinations or capture- operations which was what Washington wanted. As well, it is mentioned that the Predator- drone could fly recon- missions, but not armed missions at this time.

So, during the change of office in January, what the previous administration would pass on to the next would largely be a then long standing and generally effective project, but a project void of any real success for getting rid of al- Quida.

However, when sept. 11 eventually happened, there were no qualms about engaging in a conflict with just about everything, and as an example the Predator suddenly did fly armed missions, according to Clarke, within a month after sept 11. As we also know, suddenly there were bases on the ground, Pakistan allowed safe passage, and so on. So the question is: Was this due to a serious effort to develop the plans already there, admittedly triggered by something that regrettably could not be foreseen - was a new plan developed - or was simply everything available dug up and thrown about in panic as a result of sept 11? If this commission manages to answer such questions, and there would be an opportunity for the current administration to explain itself on what it actually has done, and their reasons, much would be done.

Personally, I don't much care which person actually controls this cabal from the Whitehouse, but I care about how these options and missions are developed, and why they are employed. And while there continue to find itself happening these "scandals", in the "best intelligence community in the world", something should be done. In my opinion, the problem has always been that the options the president is offered is conjured up by either the CIA or some specially appointed council for solving one specific problem. And until that happens, the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community would stroll around doing whatever the hell they pleases. And these solutions would of course be always: deal with something once some visible crisis has arisen, and then act with overwhelming force. And, look where this got you this time, when the crisis happened to arise at home.


Transcript of the march 24.- hearings in the 911 commitee

And to the nether pits with: "FoxNews: insane news for insane times", or something similar.

It seems that some people can´t get over Clinton, and what he did or did not do during his mandate. Even though Clinton has been out of the picture for quite some time now...
It is obvious that the current situation cannot be blamed on one single administration, in this case Bush´s administration.
But we should ponder a few facts and circumstances.
First of all, it should be painfully obvious to any one that boggling up an entire administration and hanging it up on a pseudo-crisis over where the presidential penis has been or not, is not a good way to get things done.
I believe Clinton´s advisors and aids were just swamped under tremendous pressure to solve a problem that shouldn´t have ever gotten so much publicity. The White House´s resources and time were consumed by petty ass acusations, innuendos, and lame soap opera material. Of course this doesn´t excuse them from sharing some of the blame for a poorly done job, especially when taken into atention the total disaster of previous administrations in matters of foreign policy.
But lets face the facts:
It wasn´t Clinton who was sitting in the white house, when 9/11 came about.
Had the 9/11 taken place just a few short days or even weeks after Bush started his mandate, it would be understandable. But it wasn´t.
Bush had been in office for quite some time, and thus he should already have been kept up to speed on such things.
Could he prevented 9/11? I don´t think so. But then again, the jury is still out on that one, we don´t know what lies behind 9/11, nor who ordered it, and the Pentagon hit still looks and smells too fishy to make any judgements.
But, assuming Bush didn´t have anything to do with it, either by action or lack of it, i suspect it would be virtually impossible for him to prevent it.
Wich brings us to the "why" in this case. Why could it not be prevented?
Why didn´t the intel and law enforcement agencies worked together? Why wasn´t information shared? Why were the suspects allowed to remain in the US for so long unattended?
Let´s face it, while we can say that Clinton was too busy dodging the press to pay any attention to it, we can also say Bush was too busy planning for Iraq. But it is not Clinton who is running for re-election on the premise that he did wonders in the fight against terrorism, is he? It wasn´t Clinton who diverted the inteligence community´s efforts into Iraq, instead of the more pressing danger that Al-qaeda presented, or was he?
It wasn´t Clinton´s administration who lied and deceived to gain public support to a cause that had nothing at all to do with terrorism, and yet Bush painted it as such. Why has the Bush administration diverted so many important assets off and out of Afghanistan, where they were actually needed, for a war with shaddy purposes? Yes, maybe Bush couldn´t prevent 9/11. But he shure as hell could have prevented the 3/11 in Madrid. Just as he could have prevented the bombings in Turkey. Not only he didn´t prevent them, he is directly to blame for them!
Should a man who caused such harm to the international struggle on terrorism, be allowed to base his re-election campaign on such a claim?
Yes, Clinton only launched a few Tomahawks, closed a few bank accounts, arrested a few terrorists, and not much else. But even if we compare them both, Bush has done so much less that he pales in comparison. Not only that, he has given birth to a brand new generation of raving mad, US angry, and stone cold determined terrorists, a thing that not even Nixon or Reagan managed to do in over 30 years!
In short, there´s a whole lot of angry people out there, and Bush is the droolling father of them all. All Clinton can aspire to be is a distant cousin.
:indeed:

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

Very good questions that I hope we get answers to when we are able to read the report from the commission.

It was important. If Clinton didn't take it seriously, that STILL does not excuse Bush and his inaction. Obviously both administrations (and those preceding it) screwed up and they all deserve blame for their mistakes and inaction. The one constant was Clarke and while I thought his testimony came off as credible, it seems that he either (1) was not good at his job, or (2) those who he advised did not heed his warnings, or a combination of both.

Whichever is the case, he should have told the people what was going on before now.

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

If the Bush administration had to operate "out in the open" they wouldn't last a week before impeachment proceedings were initiated against Bush. Secrecy and closed-door meetings are absolutely vital to his entire administration. They simply could not survive in any other environment.

As to why Clinton didn't take out Bin Laden himself: he did put out just such a "kill" order on Bin Laden apparently - but only if it didn't also involve killing any other innocent civilians, according to the CIA. And the CIA claims that they almost did it, too, during the Clinton administration, but the team assigned to the job aborted at the last moment because they heard civilian voices (female voices apparently) coming from the "objective" they were about to attack. You can find plenty of factual accounts of that particualar Osama/CIA encounter out here on the web, if you look.

As to why "Clinton didn't pass on a plan to deal with Al Queda to Bush" before he left office: he did -- and Bush just threw it all in the trash along with everything else Clinton offered him. This is also well documented already, and was brought up many times during the recent congressional hearings.

Assuming Condy Rice will speak the truth to the 9/11 Comission tomorrow, instead of hiding behind the 5th Ammendment, it´s quite likely that we get a few answers to all these questions. I for one will be following it very closelly.
I believe CNN will broadcast the hearing live to the entire planet.
That should prove interesting to watch!
I just hope the Comission members asks the right questions.
:confused:

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

Yea, right. I would have to agree with you, Ranger. Clearly, a republican should be able to accomplish in 200 days what a democrat can't accomplish in 8 years, even when the solution is handed to him on a platter.

Clinton was real concerned about civilians. Unless they lived in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Sudan.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Uhm.... Bush has until now (3 years after him taking office) not accomplished crap except to fuck the economy up (no president had higher job losses than he did) fuck our civic liberties up (see patriot act) and cushion his cronies retirement (see Halliburton and all other large companies he is connected to that are doing damn well on government contracting without public bids) or the fact that we arrest innocent civilians (yes you are innocent until proven guilty) as enemy combattants and deny them due process (but that is probably also just a figment of my imagination)...

It didn't take Bush 200 days to get his cronies in well, just took a little longer to screw everything else up!

__________________
_____________________________________________

Ummm... I thought we were talking about events leading up to 9.11, since that is the focus of the commission, the topic of discussion, and the line of argumentation I was persuing with Ranger.

Feel free to change the debate, just don't come down so hard on me when I fail to anticipate your changes. Thanks.
You don't read the papers much, do you.
Gotta' agree with all of that. Still, I fail to see how it is even remotely germane to events prior to 9.11, or to Clinton's supposed interest in protecting civilian lives. Would you care to enlighten me?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

You brought up the fact that it was only the first 200 days. He has not done crap afterwards either! Also, last I checked the first 100 days were crucial to a new presidency. When did it become 200?

You are refering to the 300000 jobs supposedly created in the last quarter? Is that supposed to be an achievment? How many got lost in the same time frame because the unemployment rate still climbed by .1 %!

Clinton did what he did and surely carries part of the blame. However, he was able to do so (for some time) without restricting everyones civic liberties. It was being mentioned that Clinton put out a kill order for Bin Laden, however stipulated that no "colletoral damage" can be accepted and hence it wasn't done. Right now the US has violated a slue of human rights, killed a crapload of civillians (statistics on those are not being kept by this administration) in 2 countries and hasn't captured or killed Bin-Laden yet!

So enlighten me where Clinton failed compared to what Bush accomplished?

__________________
_____________________________________________

Yes, I did. It was exactly 235 days from Bush's inauguration till 9.11. I didn't say anything about after this time because it isn't important to the debate. Can you explain to me how it is important to the debate?
When did I say anything about whether this is a crucial time for Bush? Nice try at evasion though.
No, I'm referring to the cummulative reports of strong economic growth that has occured over the past four quarters.
I never said anything about civil liberties abridged by Clinton, it wasn't part of the debate. I apologize for not predicting what you were going to argue about.

My argument rests on the fact that:
1) Clinton had significantly more time to combat terrorism in general, and al Qaida specifically, than Bush. Why would we expect Bush's results to be any better?

2) Clinton was not as concerned about civilian casualties as Ranger would like us to believe (as my linked articles show).

Would you like to address either of these, or will we be continuing entirely different debates?
I never said Bush accomplished anything, though I'm not surprised at your inability to read what I wrote. If we're all going to come down on Bush for not accomplishing in 235 days what Clinton could not accomplish in 8 years, even though Clinton had numerous opportunities to do so, I'd just like to know what the reasoning is.

So, perhaps after this, you could stick to the subject and answer my original question: How does all of your ranting address events prior to 9.11 and Clinton's "dedication" to protecting civilian lives?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup