GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?
CLARKE: No.
Are you really this stupid, etech? Or do you only pretend to be for some strange reason?
See my post you quoted above....I'll bold it for you.
You are stupid conjur. That is the direct quote from Clarke's testimony. I guess you haven't read that though.
Read the question posed to Clarke then read this...I'll put it here AGAIN for you:
No, he didn't.
Clarke was being asked about Predator reconnaissance missions and aid to the Northern Alliance and if *that* had been better, would 9/11 have been avoided. To *that* he answered "No".
That doesn't mean 9/11 was not preventable. All the FBI had to do was to keep an eye on the two people known to be Al Qaeda and who were known by the FBI to be in the country and to send that information up the chain. That was something Clarke had been trying to do...get the FBI to give domestic intelligence information to the executive branch and not treat it as a law enforcement issue.
If you read Clarke's book (as I have been...about 1/2 way through it), you'll see Clarke puts the crux of the blame on the FBI, CIA, and the Pentagon, not any administration in particular.
Clarke's main issue with President Bush is Bush's handling of the war on terror after 9/11. Bush was hell-bent on going after Iraq when we knew Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 and Iran was more implicated in being a sponsor of terrorism against the U.S. (they were behind the Khobar Towers blast)
No, he didn't.
Clarke was being asked about Predator reconnaissance missions and aid to the Northern Alliance and if *that* had been better, would 9/11 have been avoided. To *that* he answered "No".
That doesn't mean 9/11 was not preventable. All the FBI had to do was to keep an eye on the two people known to be Al Qaeda and who were known by the FBI to be in the country and to send that information up the chain. That was something Clarke had been trying to do...get the FBI to give domestic intelligence information to the executive branch and not treat it as a law enforcement issue.
If you read Clarke's book (as I have been...about 1/2 way through it), you'll see Clarke puts the crux of the blame on the FBI, CIA, and the Pentagon, not any administration in particular.
Clarke's main issue with President Bush is Bush's handling of the war on terror after 9/11. Bush was hell-bent on going after Iraq when we knew Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 and Iran was more implicated in being a sponsor of terrorism against the U.S. (they were behind the Khobar Towers blast)
I read your post the first time. I provided the exact quote from the testimony. Why are you so angry at seeing the exact quote posted?
I'm not angry at all.
I just can't understand why *you* don't understand that Clarke is not saying 9/11 was not preventable. Only under the specifics mentioned in that question did Clarke answer No.
Because, for one, Delenda had a 3 - 5 year timeframe. How could 9/11 have been prevented then?
9/11 WAS preventable had the FBI acted properly on the known Al Qaeda operatives already in the country.
I just can't understand why *you* don't understand that Clarke is not saying 9/11 was not preventable. Only under the specifics mentioned in that question did Clarke answer No.
Because, for one, Delenda had a 3 - 5 year timeframe. How could 9/11 have been prevented then?
9/11 WAS preventable had the FBI acted properly on the known Al Qaeda operatives already in the country.
You are reading what you want to into what I posted which is the direct quote from the testimony. As for you being angry I didn't realize that you would slide into insults with no provacation. I admit when I was wrong.
As for the Delenda plan, what year was it proposed? I'll answer since it seems you haven't looked into this very much. 1998
"GORTON: And shortly after that, you came up with the so-called Delenda Plan, as I understand it. And is our staff report accurate in saying that it had four principle approaches -- diplomacy, covert action, various financial members and military action? Is that a reasonable summary?
CLARKE: Yes, sir.
GORTON: Also, is our staff accurate in saying that the strategy was never formally adopted, but that you were authorized in effect to go ahead with the first three, but not with the fourth?
CLARKE: Yes, sir.
"
So most of Clarke's Delenda plan was implemented starting in 1998 and it doesn't seem to have worked very well.
As for the blame for 9/11. I still assign it to the terrorists that committed it.
Oh and as for Clarke's book. It seems to be a work of fiction.
Colleague of Ex-Official Disputes Part of Account
how many times has al qaeda attacked the US mainland since?
like a few others you seem to forget we are in a war on terror, not just al qeada. they have been killed and dispersed to the point where their effectiveness has been greatly hindered. they are not dead by no means, but nowhere near the strength they were...until the appeasment policy starts anyway, that will give them a chance to regroup.
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
Your post and any opinion related to speculation of stopping the 9/11 attacks
is and are and always will be MOOT.
We can discuss in retrospect what we failed to do, that is all..
The important thing is that we do
our best in preventing another attack.
I am also not sure myself if invading Iraq, did or did not, prevent another attack.
Now to really ponder, is our society and world so high and mighty that we know
for sure that Al Quaeda is the culprit.
I only know it from what I read in newspapers and see on the television
and hear on the radio....
How do you know what you know??
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
I am not reading anything into it. You are, hence the question as to whether you are stupid or not. That question was specific as to certain options having been fully followed. It does not reference the changes that Clarke tried to get made re:FBI reporting to the executive branch. It was the FBI that had the names of TWO of the Al Qaeda members who were already in the country who were involved in the 9/11 attacks.
As for Delenda, let's look at those four aspects of it:
-- Diplomacy to eliminate the sanctuary in Afghanistan and bring terrorists to justice;
-- Covert action to disrupt terrorist cells and prevent attacks. The highest priority was to target the enemy in Afghanistan;
-- Financial measures, beginning with the just-adopted executive order to freeze the funds of Bin Ladin-related businesses; and
-- Military action to attack targets as they were developed. This would be an ongoing campaign, not a series of responses or retaliations to particular provocations.
Now, let's see...which of those would have a devastating effect on Al Qaeda? Ah, yes...the last one. The one that was NOT followed by the administration.
Also, Clarke's book is not a work of fiction at all
From your article:
"Mr. Miller agreed that a list of those in the Situation Room was compiled and e-mailed out of the White House complex, but it was done discreetly, he insisted, so as not to cause a panic"
Sounds like Mr. Miller's memory is a bit less detailed then Mr. Clarke's.
Also from your article:
"What can I do?" "How can I help?" Yeah...I can see the glaring difference.
From Clarke's book:
And, on the next page:
Note that these parts are BEFORE Miller entered the room.
Re:Miller's claims to not have spoken to Rumsfeld, that's kind of odd since Rumsfeld was on a secure video teleconference that the whole room could see.
No...I have not forgotten at all that we are in a war on terror. It is the Bush apologists, such as yourself, that have forgotten. The war in Iraq is NOT the war on terror. It is a diversion. And al Qaeda is far from "greatly hindered". Remember those 200 people killed recently in Madrid? What about the other bomb found on tracks in Spain? How about the five policemen killed yesterday in Pakistan by a group tied to Al Qaeda? Or the plan to bomb London that was just discovered?
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/04/05/a_changing_qaeda_seen_on_5_continents/
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
seeing that there was only two attacks on the Mainland from Al Qaeda which were 9 years apart that statement is moot
Prior to invading Iraq there was only one Bin Laden, since the invasion and occupation hundreds of more Bin Ladens have emerged, many in Iraq! The world is definately not safer.
Blame the victims, that's a perfect liberal answer. It ignores any responsibility of the terrorists themselves for their actions. It ignores the Arab governments lack of action to improve the situation in the M.E.. It ignores a lot of things but it makes the anti-US crowd happy.
ding ding ding!
I've got good news and bad news. The good news is someone has a clue. The bad news? I didn't save any money on my car insurance by switching to Geico.
for the liberals out there who are learning impaired, those of you who have green cards, and for those of you who speak english as a second language..here is the executive summary of what Clarke said to the 9/11 commission:
now the executive summary:
Bush was sworn into office Jan. 20, 2001.
Jan 25th, Clarke sends letter to Condi Rice detailing all of his recommendations for dealing with Al Qaeda.
now the question to Clarke:
if all of your recommendations had been adopted Jan 26th, 2001, would this have prevented 9/11?
answer NO
what part of this don't you understand. the question is specifically about HIS LETTER and ALL IT'S RECOMMENDATIONS
the fact of the matter is that all of the terrorists from 9/11 WHERE ALREADY IN THE U.S. BEFORE BUSH TOOK OFFICE.
the only thing that might have prevented 9/11 where if the Gore Commission report on strengthening airport security had been adopted as is in 1995, rather than watered down due the LOBBYING EFFORTS BY TOM DASCHLE'S WIFE. She is a major domo lobbyist for the airline industry linky
"American Airlines, one of Linda Daschle's clients, gave Tom Daschle $4000 this election cycle.
The American Association of Airport Executives, one of Linda Daschle's clients, gave Tom Daschle $3,500 this election cycle. Tom Daschle is the top recipient of campaign donations in the Senate from the AAAE for this cycle.
Boeing, one of Linda Daschle's clients, gave Tom Daschle $5000 this election cycle.
Northwest Airlines, one of Linda Daschle's clients, gave Tom Daschle $7,500 this election cycle. Tom Daschle is the top recipient of campaign donations in the Senate from Northwest Airlines this cycle.
Lockheed Martin, one of Linda Daschle's clients, gave Tom Daschle $10,000 this election cycle. Tom Daschle is tied with John McCain for the top recipient of campaign donations in the Senate from Lockheed Martin.
All told, Tom Daschle has received $89,200 in campaign donations from the air transport industry this cycle."
if i was REALLY CYNICAL, i would say that the Gore Commission recommendations were made in an effort to SHAKE DOWN THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY for cash contributions. This is an old congressional ploy, suggest legislation that will cost business, accept campaign contributions, waterdown legislation......the classic shakedown.
and yes, i fully believe the Dems have done this.
now the executive summary:
Bush was sworn into office Jan. 20, 2001.
Jan 25th, Clarke sends letter to Condi Rice detailing all of his recommendations for dealing with Al Qaeda.
now the question to Clarke:
if all of your recommendations had been adopted Jan 26th, 2001, would this have prevented 9/11?
answer NO
what part of this don't you understand. the question is specifically about HIS LETTER and ALL IT'S RECOMMENDATIONS
the fact of the matter is that all of the terrorists from 9/11 WHERE ALREADY IN THE U.S. BEFORE BUSH TOOK OFFICE.
the only thing that might have prevented 9/11 where if the Gore Commission report on strengthening airport security had been adopted as is in 1995, rather than watered down due the LOBBYING EFFORTS BY TOM DASCHLE'S WIFE. She is a major domo lobbyist for the airline industry linky
"American Airlines, one of Linda Daschle's clients, gave Tom Daschle $4000 this election cycle.
The American Association of Airport Executives, one of Linda Daschle's clients, gave Tom Daschle $3,500 this election cycle. Tom Daschle is the top recipient of campaign donations in the Senate from the AAAE for this cycle.
Boeing, one of Linda Daschle's clients, gave Tom Daschle $5000 this election cycle.
Northwest Airlines, one of Linda Daschle's clients, gave Tom Daschle $7,500 this election cycle. Tom Daschle is the top recipient of campaign donations in the Senate from Northwest Airlines this cycle.
Lockheed Martin, one of Linda Daschle's clients, gave Tom Daschle $10,000 this election cycle. Tom Daschle is tied with John McCain for the top recipient of campaign donations in the Senate from Lockheed Martin.
All told, Tom Daschle has received $89,200 in campaign donations from the air transport industry this cycle."
if i was REALLY CYNICAL, i would say that the Gore Commission recommendations were made in an effort to SHAKE DOWN THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY for cash contributions. This is an old congressional ploy, suggest legislation that will cost business, accept campaign contributions, waterdown legislation......the classic shakedown.
and yes, i fully believe the Dems have done this.
What you fail to understand, heartsurgeon, is that there were some things Clarke had pushed for that were not part of Delenda. Getting the FBI to provide domestic intelligence on Al Qaeda operatives known to be in the country up to the level of the NSC and the CSG and the White House was the problem. Clarke has stated this. The FBI allowed these guys to travel into and out of the country and notified no one in NSC or CSG despite warnings from Germany and other countries that Al Qaeda was planning attempts to hijack aircraft.
Your post is implying that people up here are blaming Bush directly for 9/11. That is simply not the case. It was a systemic communication issue between FBI and the executive branch. It could have been corrected by the Bush Administration, possibly, if they'd listened to Clarke and get the CSG as a Principals group and focused on Al Qaeda instead of some fvcking POS, wasteful, unnecessary defense missile system. The Cold War has been over for years.
Your post is implying that people up here are blaming Bush directly for 9/11. That is simply not the case. It was a systemic communication issue between FBI and the executive branch. It could have been corrected by the Bush Administration, possibly, if they'd listened to Clarke and get the CSG as a Principals group and focused on Al Qaeda instead of some fvcking POS, wasteful, unnecessary defense missile system. The Cold War has been over for years.
What is your problem? can't you read? the question is not about Delenda..it is about ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS HE MADE IN HIS LETTER OF JAN 25, 2001. It includes way more than Delenda, that is just part of it. And the question is not if Delenda was expanded, but if ALL his recommendations had been acted on one day later, would 9/11 have been preventable, and his answer was NO.
you have this basic inability to understand simple english.
even later in his testimony, Clarke states his main beef with the Bushies is not what they did or didn't do before 9/11, but that they sent troops into Iraq and in his opinion should have expended that effort differently pursuing Bin Laden, etc, but not going into Iraq.
try reading the entire testimony to get the big picture.
i was in Florida on spring break with the uber-liberal spawn, and i watched ALL of the tetsimony on cspan. Albright was pathetic, Tenet was slippery, Clarke was smug. If anything, i felt the balance of the testimony was horrifying if you were a Clinton fan.
actually the war in Afghanistan isn't a troop intensive action, so it's a misnomer to suggest that we got 'distracted' by going into Iraq.
Although in the short-term it helps recruitment for Al-Quaeda the long-term is to help democracy spread in the middle east.
wow.. sounds exactly like the rhetoric Jesus came to speak out against!
"Way more than Delenda"?
From Meet the Press transcripts...Mr. Tim Russert:
Now, where in there does it mention the problems with the FBI? Clarke, in his book, shows that the FBI was reluctant to share its information with "civilians". The crux of that letter shows that Clarke was looking at ways to eliminate Al Qaeda overall. The CIA works OUTSIDE the U.S. borders. The Predator would have been used OUTSIDE U.S. borders. The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan is OUTSIDE the U.S. borders. Obviously, had those items been implemented, per Clarke's letter, that would most likely not have stopped the 9/11 attacks since by then, those involved were already INSIDE the U.S. Borders.
Got it yet?
Right, that is certainly why Clarke decided to write his book. The war on Iraq was a reckless effort and was based purely on Bush's hatred of Saddam. It had NOTHING to do with the war on terror.
Tenet was spot-on. I didn't see Albright so I can't judge her demeanor. Clarke was solid.
WTF? Are you now claiming that Clarke sent a copy of his BOOK to Condi Rice, and she and the Bushies "ignored" his concerns voiced in his BOOK?
The book he wrote has NOTHING TO DO with this point. The "BOOK" didn't exist. The only "statement" on Clarke's part about what needed to be done to counteract Al Qaeda was his letter to Dr. Rice on Jan 25th, 2001. And Clarke clearly states that if everything in his letter had been done, this would never have stopped 9/11 from happening. What part of this don't you understand (apparently all of it)?
Are you now trying to blame the Bushies for 9/11 based upon what Clarke didn't tell them to do in his letter of Jan 25, 2001, but what he apparently "claims" in his book published 3 years later?
you have a uniquely garbled thought process.
I have a garbled thought process? I'm not the one claiming Clarke sent a copy of a non-existent book to Rice, am I?
Also, again, where is anyone blaming Bush for 9/11? The topic of this thread does not state such...only that the Commission thinks the attacks could have been avoided had the government acted sooner. Does that mean the Bush adminstration? No. Does that mean the Clinton administration? No. Does it mean *both* administrations? Yes.
Also, again, where is anyone blaming Bush for 9/11? The topic of this thread does not state such...only that the Commission thinks the attacks could have been avoided had the government acted sooner. Does that mean the Bush adminstration? No. Does that mean the Clinton administration? No. Does it mean *both* administrations? Yes.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter