Bush said:
"You can't just see a threat and hope it goes away," Mr. Bush told a friendly gathering convened to discuss home ownership. "That's the lesson of Sept. 11. Remember, prior to Sept. 11 we thought oceans could protect us. But the strategic calculations of America must shift in order to do our duty to keep this country safe."This is a minor point that Team Bush brings up with some regularity. If "we" -- by which I assume the president means the government -- thought attacks on the mainland were unlikely because of North America's isolation, isn't that an implicit acknowledgment that they felt the threat of terrorism to be less than urgent? And by saying that strategic calculations "must shift," doesn't that imply the previous strategy wasn't the right one? On the one hand, National Security Advisor Condi Rice is attempting to refute Richard Clarke's allegations that al Qaeda was not a top priority in the Bush White House until 9/11. On the other hand, her boss told Bob Woodward, according to Bush at War, that-- President George W. Bush Nashua, N.H., March 25, 2004
... "that bin Laden was not his focus or that of his national security team" before Sept. 11. Woodward also quoted Bush directly, with the president saying that he knew bin Laden was a problem, "But I didn't feel that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling."Condi Rice said yesterday that Clarke needs to "get his story straight." Sounds like the White House could do the with some of the same advice.
It would appear that we are all speechless. Quelle folie in the White House.
When I read what Bush said I took that “we”, in it’s most inclusive sense, to mean the entire American public. I can’t imagine all the government bureaucrats and politicians, whatever their political persuasion, ever thinking that oceans could protect us.
I don’t like Bush. I even don’t like him at all.
But i guess that there were thousands of possible threats, of possible wars and enemies before 9/11.
Bin Laden was just one of them, living in a cave.
After all, maybe Bin Laden didn’t even planned himself the 9/11, who knows?
So now it is very convenient to say : “hey! i sent an email to you saying it might happen”.
Those threats will always exist, unless we accept to let our freedom down. And even if we accept it, it will still find a way to generate terror.
Terror is quite new, it didn’t really exist before.
So i suggest we think about what made it possible, technically but mainly politically.
It would be more efficient and less dangerous than shooting around like Bush.
Please note how the phrase “use airplanes to” was inserted into this statement to make it “technically true” :
“Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people.”
—George W. Bush 25 March 2004
Read it again with the operative words removed and it becomes a complete lie:
“Had I known that the enemy was going to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people.”
BUSH :::DID::: KNOW THE ENEMY WAS GOING TO STRIKE AMERICA. WHY DID HE FAIL TO USE EVERY RESOURCE, EVERY ASSET, AND EVERY POWER OF THIS GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE????
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/26/politics/26PANE.html
Rice Is Agreeable to Return for More of 9/11 Panel’s Queries
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: March 26, 2004
WASHINGTON, March 25 — Under mounting pressure from Democrats about its response to the investigation into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the White House offered Thursday to have Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, answer more questions from the Sept. 11 panel.
[…]
The White House announced late Thursday that Ms. Rice was willing to appear before the panel again, but only in private and not under oath.
[…]
+++
WHAT IS THE POINT OF “TESTIFYING” IF YOU WILL NOT SWEAR AN OATH TO THE VERACITY OF YOUR STATEMENTS?
The 9/11 Commission wanted PUBLIC testimony UNDER OATH from Dr. Rice. If they want anything else, they can turn on their televisions and listen to the deception in the comfort of their own homes, saving taxpayers the expense of meeting space, security, press logistics, etc.
Oh, sure, she’s “agreeable” to return before the 9/11 Commission. Right. So long as it’s under her terms, which give her permission to tell lies.
Free Iraq on June 30, 2004? Or puppet government with American forces to “maintain control”?
U.S. Officials Fashion Legal Basis to Keep Force in Iraq
By JOHN F. BURNS and THOM SHANKER
Published: March 26, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/26/international/middleeast/26IRAQ.html (registration required)
“…officials say they believe an existing United Nations resolution approving the presence of a multinational force in Iraq, approved by the Security Council in October, gives American commanders the authority needed to maintain control after sovereignty is handed back.”
Found a great article from July 2001 that critiques…
…the Bush administration’s handling of Richard Clarke and National Security issues!
http://archive.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/01/07/30/010730opsecurity.xml
Key excerpt:
“Bush’s people have forgotten the golden rule of getting things done: Give one person the authority and the resources. You can call it one throat to choke or one butt to kick, but I call replacing one person with a committee of 20 a surefire way to make Clarke’s doomsday prediction of a ‘digital Pearl Harbor’ come true.”
This article refers specifically to Clarke’s role in dealing with Cyberterrorism, but the same “committee” approach was being implemented by Bush since January 2001 on the subject of Counterterrorism in general.
More evidence in support of Richard Clarke.
On September 20th 2001, the United States General Accounting Office produced a report on Counterterrorism that made the following recommendation:
“GAO’s analysis indicates that a need now exists to clarify and expand the responsibilities of the Executive Branch focal point. While the National Coordinator serves as a focal point for some interagency functions, other key overall leadership and coordination functions, such as guiding the development of a national strategy, are not clearly assigned to the focal point. In GAO’s view, the functions and responsibilities of the focal point should include overseeing a threat and risk assessment and the development of a national strategy, coordinating governmentwide budgets, and monitoring overall agency implementation. A clear assignment of these responsibilities and the authority to discharge them are needed to provide assurance that (1) federal programs are based upon a coherent strategy and the programs are well coordinated and (2) gaps and duplication in capabilities are avoided as threats are likely to grow more complex and diffuse.”
[…]
“GAO makes a recommendation to the President that he assign a single focal point within the Executive Office of the President, with the time, responsibility, authority, and resources for overall leadership and coordination of federal programs to combat terrorism.”
Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related Recommendations
http://ntl.bts.gov/data/GAO/d01822.pdf
Yet, according to NSPD-1, a National Security Presidential Directive issued by Bush on 13 February 2001, one of his first acts as president was to :::de-centralize::: “…the time, responsibility, authority and resources for overall leadership and coordination of federal programs to combat terrorism.”
From NSPD-1, 13 February 2001:
“The existing system of Interagency Working Groups is abolished.
The oversight of ongoing operations assigned in PDD/NSC-56 to Executive Committees of the Deputies Committee will be performed by the appropriate regional NSC/PCCs, which may create subordinate working groups to provide coordination for ongoing operations.
The Counter-Terrorism Security Group, Critical Infrastructure Coordination Group, Weapons of Mass Destruction Preparedness, Consequences Management and Protection Group, and the interagency working group on Enduring Constitutional Government are reconstituted as various forms of the NSC/PCC on Counter-Terrorism and National Preparedness.”
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-1.htm
As Richard Clarke testified, this directive kept him from meeting with National Security Council Principals Group and decentralized the focus of counterterrorism policy and coordination.
+++++++++
More evidence in support of Richard Clarke.
A quote from Donald Rumsfeld to the press, on what he did during his summer vacation in August 2001, while information indicating the threat of terrorism was at a plateau of spikes:
“I rode horseback and chopped wood and saw grandchildren and played squash. Worked about a half a day is all, and I’m ready to go.”
—Donald Rumsfeld, 6 September 2001
I’ve just started reading The Price Of Loyalty and on page 45 Suskind writes of a meeting that took place between “Tricky” Dick Cheney, Paul O’Neil, and Alan Greenspan on Jan. 14th, 2001. According to this account “Domestic issues were all anyone was focused on. The tax cut was the priority, they all agreed.” Yet another clue that the Bushies weren’t paying attention to foreign policy.
WHAT IS THE POINT OF TESTIFYING IF YOU WILL NOT SWEAR AN OATH TO THE VERACITY OF YOUR STATEMENTS?
Andrew: Indeed! To put it more bluntly even, isn’t making any such stipulation tantamount to an admission by Rice that she actually intends to lie, at her own discretion?
Must be nice to have the “authority” to insist that you simply won’t take the oath. I’ll have to try that tactic next time I’m in, say, traffic court, and see how it flies.
“there were thousands of possible threats, of possible wars and enemies before 9/11.
Bin Laden was just one of them, living in a cave.”
under clinton, clarke was increasingly aware that AQ was a huge and looming threat to america. that
was the point made by tennet and clarke all that summer. with bushco’s freakish obsession with getting saddam out, it comes as NO surprise that tennet/clarke were told that osama was of little interest or importance.
yes, osama was living in a mountain fortess, a glorifed cave so to speak, but this didnt render him of his influence one bit. figureheads generaly arent
the nuts and bolts people, they’re the bigger picture
folks that issue the figurative call to arms. removing him from the picture hasnt been a huge priority for bushco, otherwise it more then likely woulve happened by now given the resources that have been flung into this terror war adventure.
clarke gives one the feeling that clinton’s approach to combating terror employed a more nuanced strategy … one of those nuances being tireless FOCUS. the republican clan claim bush is strong on terrorism. if by terrorism they mean going into iraq irregardless of how it damages the world view of american actions, then absolutely, yes bush is thick headed about terrorism … but strong does not always equal effective. for goodness sake, comparatively, iraq never posed a threat , not a small one, not a medium sized one, and most certianly not one that required an all out
military invasion. co-opting the terror war was a huge shift, thus loss of, focus on the real enemies of america. clarke is saying just this. troops have been removed from afghanistan to bulk up the total force in iraq. it’s a travesty. saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, AQ or the funding of either.
with all of busco’s talk of refusing to ignore gathering dangers concerning pre-invasion iraq,
one gets the immediate sense of how crooked these people are; there absolutely was a gather
danger concerning AQ, this much was repeated
time and again, pre 9/11. bushco did little to thwart
it, much less even mention it. on the other hand,
they knew iraq posed no threat, immediate or otherwise, and they played up americas new found, post 9/11 fears in saying saddam had weapons he wouldnt account for, the implication being he’d use them if given the chance. lies. all lies.
and we know all this now.