there's criticism of both sides here, although that of Bush II seems to derive mostly from clarke's book. the panel does seem to acknowledge the inadequecy of trying to combat terroists purely w/ diplomatic/ intelligence means, the approach favored by Kerry. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...u=/ap/20040323/ap_on_re_us/sept_11_commission -- By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - In a secret diplomatic mission, Saudi Arabia won a commitment from Afghanistan (news - web sites)'s Taliban rulers to expel Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) in 1998, but the Taliban later reneged on the agreement, a federal panel said Tuesday. The mission was among the most promising, yet ultimately fruitless, efforts by the United States to use diplomacy to stop al-Qaida in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks. The independent commission reviewing the Sept. 11 attacks said in a preliminary report that the decision to use diplomatic rather than military options against al-Qaida allowed the Sept. 11 terrorists to elude capture years before the attacks. The panel, known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, presented its findings as it began hearings with top-level Bush and Clinton administration officials. The aim was to question officials on their efforts to stop bin Laden in the years leading up to the attacks. Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) stressed administration efforts to fight terrorism — an implicit rebuttal to criticism in a recent book by President Bush (news - web sites)'s former counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, who is expected to testify Wednesday. "President Bush and his entire national security team understood that terrorism had to be among our highest priorities and it was," Powell said. In its report, commission staff described Saudi Arabia as "a problematic ally in combating Islamic extremism" the report said, noting its lax oversight of charitable donations that may have funded terrorists. Still, in spring 1998, the Saudi government successfully thwarted a bin Laden-backed effort to launch attacks on U.S. forces in that country. The Clinton administration turned to the Saudis for help. Clinton designated CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet as his representative to work with the Saudis, who agreed to make an "all-out secret effort" to persuade the Taliban to expel bin Laden. Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal, using "a mixture of possible bribes and threats," received a commitment from Taliban leader Mullah Omar that bin Laden would be handed over. But Omar reneged on the agreement during a September 1998 meeting with Turki and Pakistan's intelligence chief. "When Turki angrily confronted him Omar lost his temper and denounced the Saudi government. The Saudis and Pakistanis walked out," the report said. The Clinton administration had early indications of terrorist links to Osama bin Laden and future Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as early as 1995, but let years pass as it pursued criminal indictments and diplomatic solutions to subduing them abroad, the commission's report said. Bush officials, meanwhile, failed to act immediately on increasing intelligence chatter and urgent warnings in early 2001 by its counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to take out al-Qaida targets, according to preliminary findings by the commission reviewing the attacks. "From the spring of 1997 to September 2001, the U.S. government tried to persuade the Taliban to expel bin Laden to a country where he could face justice," the report said. "The efforts employed inducements, warnings and sanctions. All these efforts failed." Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (news - web sites) told the commission that President Clinton (news - web sites) and his team "did everything we could, everything we could think of, based on the knowledge we had, to protect our people and disrupt and defeat al-Qaida." The preliminary report said the U.S. government had determined bin Laden was a key terrorist financier as early as 1995, but that efforts to expel him from Sudan stalled after Clinton officials determined he couldn't be brought to the United States without an indictment. A year later, bin Laden left Sudan and set up his base in Afghanistan without resistance. The hearing follows explosive allegations in Clarke's book. Clarke was Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator and a holdover from the Clinton administration. He said that he warned Bush officials in a January 2001 memo about the growing al-Qaida threat after the Cole attack but was put off by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), who "gave me the impression she had never heard the term (al-Qaida) before." The commission's report Tuesday said Clarke pushed for immediate and secret military aid to the Taliban's foe, the Northern Alliance. But Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, proposed a broader review of the al Qaida response that would take more time. The proposal wasn't approved for Bush's review until just weeks before Sept. 11. The 10-member commission had invited Rice to testify, but she has declined, with the White House citing separation of power concerns involving its staff appearing before a legislative body. Other potential diplomatic failures cited by the commission: _ The United States in 1995 located Mohammed in Qatar. He was then a suspect in a 1995 plot to plant bombs on American airliners in Asia. FBI (news - web sites) and CIA officials worked on his capture, but first sought a legal indictment and then help from the Qatari government, who they feared might tip Mohammed off. In 1996, Qatari officials reported Mohammed had suddenly disappeared. _ The U.S. government pressed two successive Pakistani governments from the mid 1990s to pressure the Taliban by threatening to cut off support. But "before 9-11, the United States could not find a mix of incentives or pressure that would persuade Pakistan to reconsider its fundamental relationship." _ From 1999 through early 2001, the United States pressed the United Arab Emirates, the Taliban's only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off ties, with little success.
Where do you get that the criticism of Bush seems to be mostly taken from Clarke's book!?!?!? Because the report finds that Bush et al ignored Clarke's warnings? The warnings weren't made in the book... And your conclusions about their conclusions are interesting and and of themselves...
Weird how the AP seems to underline all the parts that mention Clinton. Must be that liberal media bias trying to draw attention to him. Honestly, I agree that military options against Al Qaeda are a good idea (and I haven't heard Kerry speak against that at all, by the way). But let's see if this analogy is too tricky to follow: if I have a plumbing problem in my house, I don't redo all the electrical wiring. Dig?
This is total and utter BS. And you know it. GWB's military approach to the War on Terrorism reaped great results in Spain, right? You are failing to comprehend that fighting terrorism requires a multi-prong approach, including both the military and the intellegence agencies. The military can attack the root cause of some terrorism, state sponsered terrorism. But the military are not the solution for weeding out sleeper terrorist cells. This is work for intellegence agencies and is Kerry's point. (Actually Kerry is also making the point that we have to work with other countries on the intellenge operation. GWB mindless foeriegn policy is driving a wedge between the US and potential partners, like Germany and France. Kerry as President would remove the wedge.) BTW, Kerry did back GWB's efforts in Afghanistan post 9/11. Thus, stating that Kerry only favors a intell solution is a dog that f*cking will not hunt.
The common denominator is both parties feel they substantially addresses the terroristic problem as well as they could,...I am dissappointed an "action plan" was not prescribed or recommended by the prior administration based on 8 solid years of executive-level information...I do feel Bush has done and has quickly worked on tactics and stategies towards the action and procedures against terror and the results of such,...but having said that, it is correct that in a free society, we are vulnerable,...and to protect more than reasonable lends itself to the infringement of our freedom and our rights...Already, we have seen our rights and freedoms tightened. The question becomes how can we feel safe and prevent types of attacks like 9/11 in the wonderful free, and rights driven country we live in... The answer to that is complicated and the right balance of diplomacy and definite use of force is required to turn the tables on the enemy, and those who safe-harbor terrorists...
Both parties are at fault, but Clinton could have done a lot more...He was more pro-diplomacy than anything else...Clark seems to think he knew it all and all his cries were on deaf ears, but until that point, there wasn't consistent communication throughout the entire government and there were a lot of other issues to deal with from a defense standpoint...In other words, it's ridiculous to say Clark had the crystal ball of exactly when and where the attacks would take place...
Right. He says that blame is equal, that Bush is doing the right thing but that the structure of our society makes doing the right thing difficult... It would be akin to saying this conclusion is even handed and non-partisan; Bush and Clinton are equally responsible, so let's not vote for either in the upcoming election.
In other words, it's ridiculous to say Clark had the crystal ball of exactly when and where the attacks would take place... I agree. You're the only one saying that though.
can't wait for rumsfeld's testimony. here's a preview from the pentagon: Rumsfeld likely will address Clarke's assertions head-on. A Pentagon spokesman said the defense chief will tell the 9/11 commission that he makes no apologies for considering Iraq's potential involvement during the days immediately following the attacks because the Bush administration was looking at a global war on terror, not just a war against al Qaeda. "Richard Clarke is missing the context," the Pentagon spokesman said. "It's not clear he understands what the global war on terrorism was about."
Why do you post this? You know that it is not true. Kerry's approach is spelled out here, as he has said numerous tiimes, he advocates better diplomacy and intelligence in addition to, not in place of, military action: http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html Why would you write something like this that is plainly untrue "....purely w/ diplomatic/ intelligence means, the approach favored by Kerry" unless you were intentionally trying to mislead people about his positions? Why does one who portends to be an independent thinker do such things?
Calling it global no more connects the dots than if we were to call it a global war on terror and attack Sweden.
"Richard Clarke is missing the context," the Pentagon spokesman said. "It's not clear he understands what the global war on terrorism was about." Clarke was SO wrong pre 9-11.
Wow, more lying from basso, right after I caught him lying a few posts up, who would have thought it?
