Thursday, December 29, 2005

Osama Who?

I keep hearing how Clinton dropped the ball on Osama and terrorism.

Let's recap:

1- Clinton tells Bush that Osama and terrorism will be the biggist issue his administration faces:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former President Bill Clinton says he warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced.
Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the History Channel on Wednesday, Clinton said he discussed security issues with Bush in his "exit interview," a formal and often candid meeting between a sitting president and the president-elect.
"In his campaign, Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and a national missile defence," Clinton said. "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden."

Initially, after 9/11, the administration denies Clinton briefed Bush, but the testimony taken during the 9/11 commission hearing confirms it.

+1 Clinton, -1 Bush (lying)

2- Then we have Clinton's response to a likely threat during the 1999-2000 period. From the comission report:
In the period between December 1999 and early January 2000, information about terrorism flowed widely and abundantly. The flow from the FBI was particularly remarkable because the FBI at other times shared almost no information. That from the intelligence community was also remarkable, because some of it reached officials-local airport managers and local police departments-who had not seen such information before and would not see it again before 9/11, if then. And the terrorist threat, in the United States even more than abroad, engaged the frequent attention of high officials in the executive branch and leaders in both houses of Congress.
Given the perceived threat, Clinton held almost DAILY meetings with the security council, FBI, CIA, etc. as threat information (i.e. PDBs) came in. The president "rattled these guys cages" -- they (FBI, CIA) in turn put their field offices on alert. The result was the foiling of the millinium plot.

Let's look at Bush's response to the Aug 6 PDB -- the "historical" brief (i.e. - clearly a threat brief if there ever was one) that warned of active terrorist cells in the United States... that Al Qaida was casing building in New York and that terrorists would like to hijack aircraft:
In the summer of 2001, DCI Tenet, the Counterterrorist Center, and the Counterterrorism Security Group did their utmost to sound a loud alarm, its basis being intelligence indicating that al Qaeda planned something big. But the millennium phenomenon was not repeated. FBI field offices apparently saw no abnormal terrorist activity, and headquarters was not shaking them up.
Clinton +2, Bush -2 (not doing shit)

What was the Bush administration thinking about in Sep of 2001? Star Wars: Condi Rice was scheduled to give a talk on the importance missile defense: the area the administration saw as the cornerstone of the "new threat".

Don't forget Bush's last speech to discuss Osama:

Deep in my heart, I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not? We haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it and met his match. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.

Yes, terrorism is bigger than one man. But we might make progress by focusing our efforts on terrorists!! Not some un-related project.

My conservative friends bash Clinton for not doing enough to get Osama... What about this president?? Remember that during Clinton's time in office approx 37 American's died in terrorist attacks: a tragedy, but certainly not a mandate to seek-out and destroy Osama at all costs -- like after 9/11 (the president's words -- "dead or alive", not mine). The American people and Congress were far more concerned with the president's penis than with terrorists back then (look at the congressional record).

I only have one question for my conservative friends: What would you be saying if a Republican was in office in the 90's and Clinton was responsible for 3+ years of war in Iraq while those responsible for killing 3000+ American's run free?

American's need to see this man for what he is: an incompetent, inexperienced idiot who governs from the hip -- or more precisely, after consulting god.

When will the nightmare be over?

5 comments:

Windyridge said...

Saw your blog description and thought you might enjoy something I posted on mine: http://onaridge.blogspot.com/2005/11/letting-go-of-god.html

Letting Go of God

A friend sent me this link. It is an excerpt from Julia Sweeny's, "Letting Go of God" part of the "This American Life, In Defence of Godlessness" program on WBEZ

Click here for audio, it's about a half hour or so long so grab a cuppa and get comfortable : Audio

Amusing, entertaining and enlightening.

posted by Windyridge @ Friday, November 11, 2005

JollyRoger said...

The Shrubberal is a beast who never hears anything Rove doesn't tell him, or her, as the case may be.

Therefore, in ShrubWorld, Clinton "could have had Osama when the Sudan offered him up." Or one of a hundred other false tales the Shrubberals tell themselves, so they don't have to think about what their Lord has actually accomplished.

Reign of Reason said...

So true...

why deal with facts and data when you can stand on beliefs (about your dear leader).

Bill Lama said...

From your visit to palosverdesblog: "I'm sick of bloggers who paint a lopsided picture of reality to further their view of (non) reality."

OK. Let's discuss your reality.

You ask your conservative friends: "What would you be saying if a Republican was in office in the 90's and Clinton was responsible for 3+ years of war in Iraq while those responsible for killing 3000+ American's run free?"

A Republican was president in the 90s (You may remember Bush Senior) and we said and still say that he bungled the conclusion of the First Gulf War. After encouraging the Kurds and the Shia to stand up to Sadaam he failed to support them against Sadaam's revenge. Bush Junior is a better man than his dad.

As for "those responsible for killing 3000+ American's" most of al Qaida in Afghanistan are dead and the rest are hardly "running free." We still have 15,000 troops there to hunt down the remnants of al Qaida, including bin Laden.

Perhaps the next time you visit my blog you might actually address the content of the post.

Reign of Reason said...

Bush Sr. wasn't the greatest president. But at least he knew the cost of going into Baghdad and overthrowing Saddam. Bush Jr. is less than bad... He's incompetent in the extreme...

Let’s look at the words of Bush I's National Sec Advisor: Brent Scowcroft – a hawk by any measure:

Scowcroft said. “How do the neocons bring democracy to Iraq? You invade, you threaten and pressure, you evangelize.” And now, Scowcroft said, America is suffering from the consequences of that brand of revolutionary utopianism. “This was said to be part of the war on terror, but Iraq feeds terrorism,” he said.

Moreover, Clinton consulted Scowcroft… and others before making foreign policy decisions. Bush II however, shunned Scowcroft's experience: He “knew” what they were doing… Yeah right…

We have an inexperienced, talk-to-god, wing-nut running our government. He governs by the seat of his pants. And we paying for it now: in $$ and lives… And we’ll pay even more later.