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?
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
-------------------- Webmaster, Trekreview.com
Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
As opposed to all those expanding superpowers, I suppose....
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Who would be in a better position to know? At least to know that it was not Iraq?
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
