My Question For The Bush Fans - American Empire Posted by Jeff (Sunday March 21 2004 @ 12:07PM EST)

Immediately after the September 11th attacks, investigators had uncovered enough evidence to link the hijackers to the Al-Qaeda terrorist network. Although there was little to directly implicate Osama bin Laden, the hijackers' ties to his organization certainly made him a "person of interest." In October 2001, the United States military began operations to capture the Saudi in Afghanistan. That effort was greeted with protest on the Arab street. Protestors wanted evidence to link bin Laden with the Trade Tower attacks. In December, they recieved it. On November 9, 2001, bin Laden met with deputies in the southern Afghan city of Khandahar. The dinner party was recorded on video tape. During the course of conversation, it becomes obvious that bin Laden not only knew of the attack in advance but he had participated in its planning. According to the Saudi, some of the participants were unaware that they were involved in anything more than a routine hijacking. He claimed to have listened to news prior to the attack for coverage of the event. The tape was discovered by U.S. forces in an abandoned house in Jalalabad after they captured that city a few weeks later. It was viewed by President Bush on November 30, 2001. The tape was made public a short time later. By the end of November, the White House had in its pocket the evidence necessary to implicate Osama bin Laden for the worst attack on United States soil since 1941. U.S. armed forces were hot on the trail of known and proven threat to the country that President Bush had swore to protect. Yet before that job was complete, before bin Laden and his top lieutenant, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, were brought to justice, before the head was severed from the Al-Qaeda snake, the Bush adminstration turned its attention to another "threat," Saddam Hussein. As a result, money, troops, CIA operatives, predator drones and public attention were shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq. The hunt for Osama bin Laden and the remnants of his network became merely symbolic. The iron boot was lifted off Al-Qaeda. The network was able to regroup and strike again in Bali, Riyadh and later Madrid. Due to U.S. military intervention in Iraq, Al-Qaeda was able to establish a presence in that country whereas before it had none. All of which leads us to the overwhelming question... Unless we pretend to believe Donald Rumsfeld when he called Iraq an "immediate threat to the security of our people," how can we possibly justify the assignment of a much higher priority, in terms of resources committed, to a regime that was quarantined inside no-fly zones at the expense of an enemy that directly assaulted the financial and military hubs of the country?

< March 20, 2003 | The Pledge of Allegiance >

By Will is Right (Sunday March 21 2004 @ 10:10PM EST)

You give Ludlum, Clancy, and King a run for their money when it comes to writing fiction, my friend.

[ reply | parent ]

By Spaniard (Monday March 22 2004 @ 08:35AM EST) Will, please tell me what is fictional about Jeff's story. When it comes to fiction, no one beats the current administration. [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Monday March 22 2004 @ 10:48AM EST) I make a point to be accurate and a lot of time was spent to ensure that. On this particular story, I even enlisted the Pragmatist for some fact-checking assistance. Could you please specify any factual inaccuracies so that I may correct them? [ reply | parent ]

By The Pragmatist (Monday March 22 2004 @ 11:51AM EST) Some of the relevant links: Bin Laden hunt suffers as Iraq draws agents As the hunt for Saddam Hussein grows more urgent and the guerrilla war in Iraq shows little sign of abating, the Bush administration is continuing to shift highly specialized intelligence officers from the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to the Iraq crisis, according to intelligence officials who have been involved in the redeployment. Also, I highly recommend the work done by Dr. Jeffrey Record at the US Army War College in Carlisle, PA. He critiques the strategy of an ill-defined war on terror and the problems with conflating the Al-Qaeda / Iraq threats. You can read my summary here and link to the full paper. [ reply | parent ]

By Will is Right (Monday March 22 2004 @ 05:53PM EST)

You guys are amazing. Nowhere do you cite where assets devoted to Afghanistan were shuttled to Iraq to the detriment of the war on terror. A better question you should ask Jeff, is why did the previous administration not take Bin Laden one of the four times he was offered to them. And exactly what "war" was there on terrorism during the nineties. NONE! The Bush administration has destroyed the Taliban, killed and imprisoned thousands of Al-Qaeda terrorists, brought down a ruthless murdering regime in the middle-east, brought Iran, Libya, and Pakistan to the nuclear table, plugged security holes left-over by the previous administration, and kept the country together after the worst terrorist attack in our history. Furthermore, as proof of your ridiculous allegations, you cite a Boston Globe reporter picked up by the "International Herald," and a non-news article about the troop buildup in advance of the War in Iraq written in 2002 I'd have thought that between the threed of you, you could have done better.

[ reply | parent ]

By Cher (Monday March 22 2004 @ 08:02PM EST) A. These sure sound like resources to me: "The recent moves, involving both analysts in Washington and specially trained field operatives, follow the transfer of hundreds of elite commandos from Afghanistan duty to service in Iraq, Pentagon officials said." B. Ad Clintonem C. Unfortunately, the Taliban is on its way back. Did you happen to see the assassination this weekend of Afghanistan's aviation minister? Some al Qaeda are in prision or dead as they deserve - agreed. Hussein is out of power, but there is still no evidence of WMD and no evidence of links to al Qaeda. Was Iraq part of the "war on terra?" Sure doesn't sound like it. Iran, I believe, is still an open question as is Libya. Pakistan? Don't make me laugh. Khan got a slap on the wrist from Musharraf, and no one knows what he is up to now. However, Pakistan's glossy brochures promoting their nuclear technology were making the rounds earlier this year. D. No facts in that article can be disputed, and one would expect an article about diverted resources to be from...2002, when said resources were diverted. [ reply | parent ]

By The Pragmatist (Monday March 22 2004 @ 09:55PM EST) The International Herald is owned by the New York Times Co. which also owns the Boston Globe. You didn't comment on the Army War College study produced in December 2003. It's about 60 pages of good thoughtful analysis regarding the strategy of invading Iraq vs pressing the war on Al-Qaeda. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that piece. [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Monday March 22 2004 @ 11:07PM EST) It's like his grandpappy liked to say, "Will, don't let facts or the analogies of experts get in the way of your established conclusions." [ reply | parent ]

By The Pragmatist (Monday March 22 2004 @ 10:46PM EST)

Phil Carter, who I read often over at Intel Dump, has good insight into the Clarke assertions and the administration's response as well as on the issue of the distration cause by Operation Iraqi Freedom. Phil is an ex-Army Officer and was an excellent blogging resource during OIF.

[ reply | parent ]

By Will is Right (Tuesday March 23 2004 @ 06:04AM EST)

Prag, how can you take seriously the writings of a disgruntled, former, Federal employee. The man clearly has ambitions for an under sec'y position in a Kerry cabinet. FTR, this is the guy who the Clinton administration used to block the Sudanese/Bin Laden deal. Furthermore, do I need to cite what happened during eight years under his watch. For eight years this man and his bosses did nothing except pour the gasoline on the world and wait for the lit match. Then he has the audacity to rip into the Bush administration after only eight months on the job. I'm sorry pal, Clarke has no credibility. I'll take the word of Mansoor Ijaz any day of the week. Look, we debate, debate, and debate as the world keeps spinning round. As leftists who despise Bush, you are unable to point to any accomplishment of the President that has been good for the American people or the world. You look for the smallest supposed chink in the armor and try to exploit it. You hold on to ridiculous assertions made by disgruntled former employees that are pumped up by the partisan media (like the NY TIMES and 60 minutes). You dismiss the fact that every single world leader outside of the middle-east trumpeted that Saddam Hussein had WMD and that he needed to disarm, UN res. 1441. Hate is not a good platform upon which to stand. It keeps you from looking at the big picture and continually tunnels your vision. The left in this country are out of step with the American people. As election day draws near, they will get even more outrageous as they see polling numbers (though they won't see them in the partisan media) indicating that Kerry will be beaten as badly as Mondale was. The pendalum is finally swinging back for a while. Have a nice day.

[ reply | parent ]

By The Pragmatist (Tuesday March 23 2004 @ 07:11AM EST) Will, To make this a fair discussion, you're going to have to unplug the transmitter that you let the Party put in your brain. Your first paragraph is an almost verbatim repeat of what the Party's message was yesterday. I heard the Party attacking Clarke personally, but I didn't hear any credible refutation of his assertions. "Disgruntled, former Federal employee." I thought this style of attack went out with the Oklahoma bombing. I didn't say I believed everything that Clarke said -- I haven't read his book -- so I don't know exactly what his claims are. I will have a look at it and make an independent judgement. It's rare that any book, no matter the motivation doesn't contain an element of fact that can be used to improve one's picture of the world. The difference really is that I will read the book and render judgement -- you seemingly will let the Party select your information for you. Even your hate point is Party propaganda. You don't need to hate Bush to disagree with his policies and more to the point his flawed policy-making process. As far as left-right I don't really have a set of policies that I favor. I have a strong preference for the use of facts and analysis in reaching decisions and a strong bias in the use of honesty in defending those decisions. That that idea sounds radical indicates how far we've come from good government. [ reply | parent ]

By The Pragmatist (Tuesday March 23 2004 @ 07:30AM EST) I'd like to add that I will *browse* the book at Barnes and Noble and if I think the quality sufficient will buy it. [ reply | parent ]

By Funkman (Tuesday March 23 2004 @ 07:18AM EST) Clarke has gone on record as saying: "I have no desire to be part of the Kerry administration. I have served in government for 30 years and that is long enough" (During an an interview on the Mcneil Lehrer news hour) It was also the first time I ever watched Mcneil Lehrer news hour and it was awesome! A quick summary of the news, then they went in depth for 3 stories which each had 15 dedicated minutes with both sides presenting their sides of the story. (With no shouting either) [ reply | parent ]

By The Pragmatist (Tuesday March 23 2004 @ 07:29AM EST) It amazing the branding -- Robert McNeil retired in 1995 and they renamed the show to the "Newshour with Jim Lehrer," but it will always be the McNeil/Lehrer NewsHour or if you go back to the early 80s, when it was the McNeil/Lehrer Report. Their best exercise in good judgment is what the choose not to cover -- none of the ephemera that fills the hours on the other shows. Of course they don't have 24 hours to fill. That was the worst change in direction for news coverage. There just isn't enough happening out there -- or at least where you bother to have correspondents to fill the time. [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Tuesday March 23 2004 @ 08:37AM EST) Had I known both Bush and Kerry at Yale, I would have probably preferred to hang out with Bush. I didn't develope my loathing hatred for the man until the build-up to the Iraqi War. Personal feelings aside, I prefer to deal with facts, not innuendo and heresay. That the Bush Administration has employed both to attack Clarke has only raised his credibility as far as I'm concerned. Until I see his book, the only thing I have to work with is the 60 Minutes piece. Leslie Stahl claims to have independently collaborated several details. The White House has only been able to refute one item, the verbal meeting between Bush and Clarke on the Iraqi connection. Yet, actions taken by the Bush Administration in wake of the Clarke meeting seem to collaborate his version of the story. The Administration did point the finger squarely at Saddam Hussein. It did search for links to Al-Qaeda. And finally, it made Iraq an even higher priority than Al-Qaeda itself. [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Tuesday March 23 2004 @ 09:09AM EST) By "refute" I mean they were able to deny it without the inconvenience of supporting documention. They've been able to turn it into a case of He said, Bush said. [ reply | parent ]

By Will is Right (Tuesday March 23 2004 @ 04:06PM EST)

And the emperor has no clothes.

[ reply | parent ]

By Funkman (Wednesday March 24 2004 @ 11:43AM EST) Heh? If the there is a naked emperor running around - better get you buddy John Ashcroft to catch him. [ reply | parent ]

Post a Comment

Name: Email: URL   Remember my information (uses cookies)   I would rather be anonymous Comment: * HTML tags are allowed. * Your email will not be made public. * LINK SPAM WILL BE DELETED!