this is from a 9/11 survivor, who's not impressed with Clarke's "apology" "This assumes that government absolutely could have stopped the attack -- and failed. Oh, I wish we could be guaranteed that government absolutely could stop these things but I've seen no proof or assurance of that. He's practically treating government the way a fundamentalist treats God: an omnipotent being who could and would intervene and fix this if he wanted to. So he's turning government into a bad god -- is that thus a devil? -- who could have stopped these attacks but didn't; it failed. It may seem like he's quite the mensch by including himself in this apology: "I failed." But he's throwing himself on his rhetorical sword so he can accuse the government -- the administration -- of failing and thus, by its sins of omission and negligence, of practically being complicit in the deaths. I find that offensive; As I said yesterday, it plays into the politicization of 9/11; it makes this about us vs. us instead of us vs. them. When I first heard Clarke's apology and the start of his testimony, I thought there might be something to listen to here. I haven't said much about Clarke because I haven't yet decided what I think of what he's saying. But I have to say that as his apology sat on the stomach like a bad burrito and came up this morning like a burp, I came to think that his apology was disingenous, melodramatic, and ultimately divisive."
and another thought: -- Okay, Mr. Clarke. The government that failed those families has now dedicated billions of dollars and hundreds of lives of its courageous military to stamp out those who threaten our shores. In all theaters of battle, young American soldiers and sailors have printed the the words, "We shall never forget" on weapons, vehicles and military aircraft in honor of those who died on 9/11. Mr. Clarke, what similar level of resitution have you displayed for your failure other than an attempt to cash in on that tragedy with your book promotion? And now, on the graves of those victims, you grandstand an apology to promote its marketing efforts. So therefore, Mr. Clarke, I suggest you do this: Announce today that ALL PROCEEDS of the book (not just a portion of the profits, but ALL PROCEEDS) will go to one of the funds that have been set up for the families of the victims...or another specific charity that will help give meaning to your disingenous apology.
It makes total sense that it would take that long for them to go into Iraq. Before 9/11 there was no way they could weasel support out of people to go into Iraq. Post 9/11 they could and did. I think I would say we need to stay in Iraq too. I was totally against the war, and the post war plans the Bush admin had(or didn't have as the case may be.) I think it's wrong to go into a country and then just pull out. That seems to be Kerry's position as well. So it looks like most Americans agree with Kerry's position.
It took them that long to drum up the support of the American people with the massaged "intelligence." I am not accusing the Bush political machine of being politically suicidal, which it would have been to invade Iraq BEFORE Afghanistan. As Clarke is detailing, the Iraq action was in the planning stages even before 9/11. Bush and Cheney accepted attacking Afghanistan first as a compromise to simply invading Iraq. I do not believe that Iraq is a legitimate part of the WOT, but I do believe that now that we have been placed in this situation, we need to stay long enough to try to create a positive outcome. For me, Bush and his crew are at fault because they exaggerated and distorted the "intelligence" to get us to support the action in Iraq (which I did at one point, after Cheney brought up visions of mushroom clouds on Meet the Press). They need to be voted out because of what they did leading up to Iraq so that Kerry can guide us out of this situation with honor and integrity rather than the distortions and exaggerations of the present administration.
OMG! you discovered Bush talked about iraq before 9/11!!! as william cohen said in testimony the other day, bin laden invested in the sudanese factory bombed by clinton. the factory's manager trained in iraq. the '93 WTC bomb maker was living in Iraq. Saddam had tried to assasinate GHWB. why wouldn't they be discussing iraq?
Of course they should consider Iraq, however, they shouldn't have been so obsessively focused about it; as Clarke said to Wolfowitz:
reason has an excellent article for those of you who do not agree that iraq is part of the WOT: -- Iraq always was essential to the anti-terrorism battle precisely because victory there was regarded as necessary to transform societies from where terrorists, spawned by suffocating regimes, had emerged. One can disagree with the practicability of such a strategy, but it is difficult to fault its logic.
and donald sensing spells out the big picture. -- The short-term objectives of the Iraq campaign: topple Saddam, then force al Qaeda et. al. to show themselves in Iraq. Then kill them. The enemy's infiltration of foreign jihadis into Iraq also presents intelligence opportunities that can be exploited to determine who is directing al Qaeda, from where and by what means. This is called the flypaper strategy, which Austin Bay also explained very well. The intermediate objective in both Afghanistan and Iraq is to establish reasonably democratic institutions and governments there and prove America’s enduring commitment to the well being of the ordinary people. Again, this objective is just and good in its own right. Iraq formed an advantageous confluence of events and circumstances that no other Islamic country offered: A. It is strategically important both for its geographic location and its oil reserves. B. The casus belli against Saddam’s government was clear. C. The people there had suffered under Saddam so severely that they were willing even to accept American invasion and occupation as a preferable alternative to continuing their status quo D. Of all the Arab countries, none is more amenable to democratization than Iraq, which has been organized as a secular (though totalitarian) state for decades. 4. The truly long-term objective in toppling Saddam and democratizing Iraq is what forms the fundamental rationale for doing so. That rationale is to attempt (there are no guarantees) to inculcate far-reaching reforms within Arab societies themselves that will depress the causes of radical, violent Islamism. This task shall take a generation, at least; President Bush has said on multiple occasions that the fight against terror will occupy more presidencies than his own. I wrote in October 2001, It will take a new kind of national commitment. It will cost a fortune. It will require new kinds of armies, armies not only of soldiers but of engineers, agriculturalists, financiers, administrators and educators. It will take decades and there are no guarantees. But the alternative is to fight culture and religious wars generation after generation. Folks, if we don't drain the swamp, the alligators will eventually win.
How many of the 9/11 terrorists (or the Cole, WTC '93, or embassy terrorists for that matter) were spawned by the suffocating regime that is Iraq? That's right, not a single one.
But most terrorists are not spawned by secular Stalinistic police states like Iraq, rather they are instead spawned in failed states where corrupt regimes allow fanatical religious sects to flourish as long as they don't engage in open rebellion (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan). Now, unfortunately, we have the worst of both worlds; in the short term at least, Iraq can become a breeding ground for terrorists, and the other breeding grounds in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have that much more of a recruiting tool. If they want to drain the swamp, they picked the wrong swamp.
See, you're wrong here. Think like a mammal, why don't you? They want to drain the swamp, but next to the swamp, there was a poop-covered hillock. We came in to clean up the poop, and razed the hillock in the process, allowing the swamp to expand. Clarke asked, and is asking still: "What did operation poopy hillock have to do with the damned swamp?"
You know, I've tried to hold my tongue all day long about you even though you were taunting me in that other thread (and don't think that I didn't let my FBI field office know about your admission of media piracy when you said you were trying to make a DVD rip of my B. Splits boxed set.), but I think it's telling that you try to profiteer off of a national tragedy like this to score political points for your racist, bigoted, anti marsupial agenda --- this is honestly the lowest of low. I am speechless.
I have never once been a "Saddam apologist," nor have I ever made a single statement on or off the board that even remotely approaches being pro-Saddam. If this is the only way you can defend your administration then it is clear to me that the right is as intellectually bankrupt as they claimed Clinton was morally. I hereby nominate basso as President of the BBS Ostrich Brigade.
Sam, your emotions are getting the better of you. Please do not distract from my epic post concerning Operation Poopy Hillock. It is the most powerful metaphor ever devised for our invasion of Iraq in the context of worldwide terrorism.
Originally posted by Rocketman95 No, but it couldn't have helped. And even when Clinton did do something, it was dismissed by Republicans as "wagging the dog". I was simply pointing out that at least the political capital that anyone is attempting to gain by 9/11 hearings (which, I believe is dishonest and extremely cynical...borderline slanderous) has to do with investigating the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history rather than the most infamous hummer ever given. <b>You have to admit that Clinton's timing was suspect. Many of his military actions took place on "bad news" days for him. I don't see Bush as trying to gain political capital as much as he is HAVING to defend it. When has a sitting president ever been so viciously attacked while his nation was caught up in a military struggle?</b> As the USA, we should be fighting fair. If we start to fight unfair, we can't really criticize those who don't fight fair. We're better than terrorists. <b>The fair fight I was referring to was the political fight. I think it is wrong for these matters to be politicized at such a grave time in US/world history. I'm not talking about war. Sorry for the confusion (andymoon). Bush is running 9/11 up the flagpole because the Demcrats are trying to destroy him with it. He has to answer back. At the very least, if you're going to criticize Bush you have to lay it on the Democrats, too.</b> Why is this a great point? It would be an excellent point if Al Gore was our president today. He's not. If nothing else, this is just badmouthing a Democrat for, what's it called, political captial. <b>The point is that if the Clinton/Gore Administration was as on top of the terrorist threat as Clarke would have us believe, why was it not on Gore's radar during the presidential campaign? No one is bad-mouthing anybody. It wasn't on Bush's campaign platform either. It's just the facts. Is it just being revisionist? </b>
