Boston Herald: Clarke approved bin laden family flights

Clarke couldn't have approved those flights. He wasn't "in the loop." Wait, he was at every meeting. Wait, it wasn't his call to make. Wait...

 

What it proves is that, despite the right's crowing to the contrary, Clinton was highly focused on terrorism and did more to combat it than any of his predecessors. You (general term to describe the ones who claim Clinton was soft on terrorism) seem to want to discount the FACT that Bush and Co. scaled back many of Clinton's anti-terrorism policies and funding.

Money doesn't necessarily mean an effective policy, but are you trying to argue that Bush proved himself to be more effective on terrorism by reducing funding?

 

Palestine/Israel is central to most of the fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. Clarke developed his plan to go after Al Qaeda during and as part of the Clinton administration. There is no contradiction. Clarke's book is not only spin, but Clarke has witnesses to back up what he says in the book. So no matter how much they try to trash Clarke, it wouldn't matter because the witnesses are there to back it up.

 

But noting that Clinton's team came up with a plan to send troops into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, cut off funding for terrorist organizations through bogus charities, enlist other nations to cooperate in the effort, etc. is doing something. And that was Clinton team plan before he left office. The plan was ready to go and not put into action until after 9/11

 

I'm sure you'll also want to examine what Clinton wanted in regards to money, authority, etc. that the GOP controlled Congress denied him.

 

Why wasn't it put into action after Jan 20, 2001?

Clarke, and others say that the Clinton's didn't want to burden the new administration with having field operations going on in Afghanistan when it came into office.

In retrospect they should've gone ahead and done it, but what was Bush's exuse? Missle defense and Iraq were more important?

 

i think you're all (willfully?) missing the point of this. first, neither the boston herald, nor particularly vanity fair, qualifies as a bush admin. mouthpiece. second, it's only relative because it's the left that's been trumpeting clarke's testimony, and it's the left that has made the flights an issue. if the left is so enamored of clarke now, how did it feel about him then,

Boston Globe, National Review Online. The source is not that important in this context. There are two two distinct issues. 1) Bin Laden flights--9/11. 2) Iraq War.

Even if one thinksthe Bin Laden family flights were bad, and I am inclined to do so, that does not mean that Clarke was not correct when he said that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, or the war on terror and the Iraq War detracted greatly from the war on terror.

Another thing. Whatever Clarke's invlovement in 9/11and the war on terrorism that does not mean that he is wrong on the Iraq War.

 

The Bin Laden family is a huge huge family.

Literally hundreds of people just related directly to Osama Bin Laden (cousins, brothers, sisters, parents, grandchildren).

It's very fair to assume that almost all of these are not terrorists.

 

1. not that its highly material, but for the record, the Boston Herald is a rightward leaning publication

2. What has Clarke said about the post 9/11 admin that most bothers me? a few highlights...

"I think the way he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11 has made us less safe. Absolutely."

"So what did we do after 9/11? We invade an oil-rich and occupy an oil-rich Arab country which was doing nothing to threaten us. In other words, we stepped right into bin Laden's propaganda. And the result of that is that al Qaeda and organizations like it, offshoots of it, second-generation al Qaeda have been greatly strengthened."

 

no evidence at all, except the opinion of President Bush's top terror adviser and his successor, and the army war college, al qaeda affiliated groups endorsement of bush....etc.

 

Uhuh, I see, it mae you safer.

So by this logic, it is pretty much OK for Israel to invade Palestine, as long as it makes them safer? So if all Arabs got together and decided to invade Israel, that would be ok right, because Israel is a threat to all Arab countries?

 

Clarke said: "Invading Iraq after 9/11 was like if Franklin Roosevelt had invaded Mexico after Pearl Harbor" (Note not a direct quote, but I challenge anyone to prove that is not an accurate account of what he said)

Apples and oranges. Keep your eye on the ball. The conservos will attempt to keep switching the balls or equating them as Bush and they kept trying and still try to equate Iraq and 9/11.

Rice will be on 60 Minutes, hoping that they can get back to the typical "he said, she said" stalemate on the Clarke issue, to cover up their deceptions. I predict that it will work as usual.