Been listening back through the Council sessions about the 9-11. ( Day OneDay Two ) It's a lot of information, and it's frequently frustrating listening to the way our government operates (or at times doesn't)
On the other hand it's been nice to hear the whole thing as told by them that were involved directly (well, not the executive, but that's another tale). It seems like the CIA's capacity and authority to exercise 'covert action' oversees has come a long way since those golden cold-war days. Clearly providing the service carte-blanche could turn out to be exceptionally dangerous, but balancing that with an inconsistant political agenda severely restricts their ability to act and respond to a rapidly evolving situation. What's the governing body of the last remaining (if crumbling) super-power to do?
Posted by Apostle (Member # 1267) on :
Richard Clarke is lying. If the CIA had the authority to kill bin laden, then why didn't the government accept Bin Laden when the Sudanese government offered him to us twice in 1998?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Bin Laden was in Afghanistan in 1998. The Sudan offered him to us (via Saudi Arabia, which refused to cooperate) in 1996. Which was before the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa. Which was what prompted us to try to bomb him in Afghanistan. Which is what Clarke was talking about.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Let the political Witch Hunt begin!
It's sad but with this new "tell all" book becoming an instant best-seller, when following the 9/11 hearings, it's going to become even harder to sift out the agendas.
I hope they stick to the facts and leave out the political heresay.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Balaam Xumucane: What's the governing body of the last remaining (if crumbling) super-power to do?
Why all of a sudden is the USA a crumbling superpower?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
It seems that the hearings are turning into a finger pointing exercise instead of a trouble shooting proceedure, this seems to be coming from both sides. I hope that they will wind this up as a real problem solving session and not just a condemnation session.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: It's sad but with this new "tell all" book becoming an instant best-seller, when following the 9/11 hearings, it's going to become even harder to sift out the agendas.
I hope they stick to the facts and leave out the political heresay.
That would be nice, but I don't think it's particularly likely. Unfortunately, these tell all books are always popular, no matter how accurate they are likely to be or what the agenda of the author is.
From what I've seen of the hearings, it seems to be mainly about political point scoring from both sides.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It wasnt about scoring points at first: they were critical of Clinton's administration on many points before this current (and highly convient for the Dems) book came out.
Sadly, the point of learning from past errors is being lost to agendas and payback.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Sadly, the point of learning from past errors is being lost to agendas and payback.
Seems to happen all too often, if you ran every company like this nothing would ever get solved.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Why all of a sudden is the USA a crumbling superpower?
Who said anything about sudden?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
As opposed to all those expanding superpowers, I suppose....
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote:"Look," he told us. "I know you have a lot to do and all � but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed.
"But, Mr. President, Al Qaeida did this."
Everything I've heard on the 9/11 attacks places their knowing Al-Queida definitely was responsible at almost a week after the attacks. In fact, serious attention was reportedly given to the Saudis directly, Al Queida, Saddam, as well as Hamass.
Yet, Clarke recalls KNOWING that it was'nt Saddam in any way but WAS Al-Queida on Sept. 12?
Less than 24 hours after the attack.
M'Kay.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Who would be in a better position to know? At least to know that it was not Iraq?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
And, thinking about it, I would imagine that the FBI had at least some of the names of the hijackers very soon after the event.
I would also imagine that some of those names probably showed up on a Al-Queida type members watch list.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:I would also imagine that some of those names probably showed up on a Al-Queida type members watch list.
Not that I've ever heard. In fact, all signs point to there being a isturbing lack of a "watch list" from suspected terrorist groups. A biiig failing unto itself to be sure.
Hmmm...lets see...the hijackers were mostly saudis, two had been to (or lived in Iraq), we had no files on these guys placing them as potential terrorists -or as anything other than flight students and we'd been to war with a major player in the muslim world.
I sure dont think checking out Saddam's potential involvment a day after the attack was anything other than thourogh and I find Clarke's recall highly suspect as to his supposedly knowing it was Al Queida less than a day later. Clarke's comments in his bok contradict many statments he himself gave to reporters and is now saying that he "told them what I was told to say".
And in an election year.
As he releases a new book that (suprise!) the #1 best seller because of all the coverage.
I'm sad to say that two of the 9/11 terrorists had used computers at my work to send e-mail (kinko's in Fort lauderdale) and it took the FBI almost a whole month to show up, sieze the harddrives and return them to us two weeks later completely wiped.
That tells me firsthand that they were still gathering evidence and establishing connections a while after the attack.
But Clarke was supposdly sure it was Al Queida less than 24 hours later...at a time when ALL leads were being considered.
I plan on reading Clarke's book -to get his POV, but that recount doesnt fit any other account of the investigation that I've heard.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Your speculation meets mine.
Which one is right...I could speculate.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I don�t think it�s unreasonable for an Al Queida expert to be adamant that a terror attack on U.S. soil happened apparently as he warned it might.
Listen, none of this really means all that much. I suspect that if you think you�re going to find the truth from any public hearing in Congress on the subject of 9/11, then you�re sorely mistaken. About the only thing it tells me, taken with all the other information relating to the attack, the aftermath and the Bush administration response, is the Mr. Bush should not be running as a anti-terror war president.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote: About the only thing it tells me, taken with all the other information relating to the attack, the aftermath and the Bush administration response, is the Mr. Bush should not be running as a anti-terror war president.
Judging by his political campaign commercials, he's not.
It's odd that Clarke worked for Bush Sr. and Clinton: the 9/11 commision was very critical of their "head in the sand" policies towards a potential terrorist attack: even after the ATF building was attacked.
It may just be human nature to say "I told you so" and to downplay one's own role when the ball is dropped, I suppose.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
It's human nature to be rather attached to one's head.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Judging by his political campaign commercials, he's not.
You gathered that from his non-use of the World Trade Center in one of his first ads?
Oh, wait, the ad contained images of the flag draped bodies from Ground Zero.
And then was another ad with a swarthy brown fellow, read terrorist, looking over his shoulder at us...and a picture of a plane taking off.
And there was Mr. Bush on "Meet the Press," telling the world he was a war president who sat in the oval office making those tough decisions about terror.
So, yeah, Mr. Bush is off and running as your basic anti-terror war president.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Funny, I don't remember asking about who was to blame or any of this Republican/Democrat agenda/anti-agenda BS. My question was more about CIA covert action, political restrictions, and how our democratic society can maintain it's security and integrity. Less finger-pointing, less political-grandstanding, more figuring-out-how-to-make-country-safer.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ask about the panel hearings and you're stuck with all the partisan crap hat is now attached to it, i'm afraid.
Jay, i havent seen the commercials you're talking about-although I heard they pissed off many families of 9/11 victims, so mabye they pulled them.
The ads I've seen are all about our shiney happy economic figures, home ownership rates and his "plan for a safe future".
...and the ones attacking Kerry, of course.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Ads "Safer, Stronger," and "Tested" use images of the World Trade Center and "Safer, Stronger" has what appears to be a flag draped body removed from Ground Zero at some point in the process.
The ad "100 Days" contains the brown terrorist type person and the airplane image.
Here is a picture of the ad in question: Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
American political adverts continue astonish and astound me.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"...more figuring-out-how-to-make-country-safer."
Well, it's a juggling act. An intelligence agency that's kept on a tight leash won't actually be capable of delivering much intelligence, and I think we all know the dangers of granting one too broad discretionary powers. But living in a democracy means living in an open society and accepting that things are going to slip through the cracks from time to time, and as someone wiser than me once said, if you're willing to sell your freedom and integrity to buy your security and seal those cracks, you don't deserve either.
Which isn't to say you deserve airliners being flown into your office buildings, but Franklin had a point that has become all too clear over the last three years.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Regarding the administration and Mr. Clarke...
quote:There has been much hand-wringing about how partisan the discussions of Sept. 11 have become over the past week. But Clarke did not create the partisanship, and it was not born last week. An administration that had a united country behind it after Sept. 11 spent two years playing politics very hard to push back all challenges. If the administration had been less defensive earlier about what went wrong, it would not be facing such a serious and awkwardly timed mess now.
It's hard to argue with that.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah, because the Post is known for objective anything.
As someone that actually followed the 9/11 hearings before Clarke's book, I can tell you that it was refreshing in it's fact based presentation.
But not after the book hit shelves: now any facts and reccomendations are drown out by Kerry attacking Rice and it's 1800's salem instead of an objective investigation of what is known to have actually happened.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Yeah, because the Post is known for objective anything.
And that has what to do with anything?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Only that it sure would be nice to be able to read a quote from a news source without having to filter out their political spin.
If I find one, I'll let you know. Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Look at the article my friend...it's a commentary piece.
Commentary is supposed to be about someone�s opinion.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So it is. The post is also well known for it's "colorful" journalism coverage.
Is FOX news one long 24 hour commentary?
MSNBC (while more objective than FOX) is slowly getting to the same level of idiocy with Hardball.
Really, I have to watch CNN, then CSPAN and then BBC if I want to be able to decipher what really happened in any given day.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
My tastes in news sites has evolved over the last few years. Used to be Newsmax. Then I started a month-long argument based on one of their articles that turned out to be utterly false. I don't think I've visited the site for three years. WND, Fox, CNN, all were too US-centric. I got sick of seeing a single murder trial covered to the exclusion of all else going on in the world.
Then I found news.bbc.co.uk.
And it was good.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Omega likes the BBC!! Will wonders never cease?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)