NYT: Debate Grows Over Bush's Handling of Terror Threat (new angle)

[UpInArms]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/22/politics/trail/22TRAIL-CLARKE.html?ex=1080622800&?en=ea8860f2d04ca7ca&?ei=5062&?partner=GOOGLE

The accusations by Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counter terrorism specialist, that the Bush administration failed to take the threat of Al Qaeda seriously prior to Sept. 11 overtook other campaign developments Sunday and promised to reverberate this week as the Sept. 11 commission conducts a public hearing.

<snip>

But Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who was the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee, barely let Mr. Clarke's appearance on "60 Minutes" end before he issued a scathing statement about the administration's record on terror.

"The facts are that within six months of the first bombs falling on Afghanistan, this administration was diverting military and intelligence resources to its planned war in Iraq, which allowed Al Qaeda to regenerate," said Mr. Graham, who was one of the first lawmakers to label the war with Iraq a distraction from the fight against terror. "As the people of Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and most recently Spain have learned painfully well, this president failed to execute the real war on terrorism."

...more...

[ewagner]

1. Go Bob!

The man is as honest as they come and is speaking truth.......

He's to you Senator Graham :toast:

[calimary]

19. Call his office, TOLL FREE, and tell his people, yourself!

You can bet they're getting hate calls from everywhere in freeperland. Please let him know he's doing the correct thing and speaking truth to power. Tell him "MORE, PLEASE! IT'S PATRIOTIC!"

Note my sig line for details...

[proud patriot]

2. wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee !

Great quote by Graham :-)

[Gman]

3. In July '02 we started seeing the giant C-5 cargo planes

taking off from the BRAC'ed Kelly AFB in San Antonio. We hadn't seen C-5's in years. They would take off headed East and would be climbing. It was then we knew the buildup was underway in Iraq. Of course the war didn't start until March '03. They were building up months in advance.

[Renew Deal]

5. One of my friends told me we were going to Iraq early '02

or late 01. I thought it was crazy. The US doesn't invade other countries. I was wrong.

[BootinUp]

6. I didn't think they would go in either

I was probably one of the last Americans to believe they were going in, I was saying that it was just for intimidation, or it was going to be a limited head hunting operation.

[SquireJons]

13. I knew in early 2001

If you will recall, shrub ordered a big air strike on Baghdad a couple of weeks after taking office. The pretext was that the Iraqi's had turned on a tracking radar. So they sent over a dozen jets and just bombed the hell out of a major city. I knew right then that he would try to avenge his dad (and what the hell was there to avenge, anyway? It was all done for domestic political gain). Funny how smart his dad turned out to be. Even I thought Saddam should have been removed in 91, but we now know what a can of worms that produces.

[mulethree]

20. Invasions

The U.S. doesn't invade other countries, well except for sending a few operatives to ensure the puppet strings are in place.

But that was the 19th and 20th centuries when war was unacceptably bloody. Now we can do the dirtiest work by remote control. Where we would previously have needed a Division and expected a thousand casualties, we can instead send in a hundred cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away. No more worries about Soviet opposition, or escalation - even (OMG) in the middle east! And it's much more democratic to have everyone spend 1/10th of their life slaving to pay for this stuff instead of loosing 1/100th of our young men in old fashioned wars.

There's no-one in the world anymore who is foolish enough to throw sufficient money into their military to hope to oppose us. We can now bomb them back to the stone age without turning them into a parking lot. Pummel them into submission, without risk of bloodshed (well without U.S. blood that shows up on the front pages) and still leave them intact enough that we can double bill them for reconstructing that which we blew up.

Now if we can just succeed in outlawing those weapons that could hurt us without requiring trillions of dollars in development. Stuff like poison gasses that can be made by any country capable of making it's own pesticides, biological weapons that can be made by anyone capable of making a vaccine.

Only four problems left :

1) The remotely operated, missile armed aircraft are not yet reliable enough to do the policing jobs of ground forces.

2) La Resistance, er the terrorists, are so damn cunning. They can turn a Molotov cocktail, a truck or even our own commercial planes into precision guided smart weapons just by finding a suicidal person to direct them. How can we ravage a persons country and kill their family without generating lots of suicidal people?

3) Once the terrorists get into our country, they can use our own toxic waste, radiological waste, chemical shipments, trucks, planes and even fertilizers against us. Yet strangely even after 40 years of programming, our people are still resistant to the pervasive surveillance needed to protect them. Oddly these terrorists somehow manage to evade our surveillance in the banks, almost as if they have somehow found a way to exist without credit and the plastic cards.

4) The psychological and pharmaceutical solutions we have found so effective at home, require years of programming (er education) as a base. We need to find a way to get these barbarians to sit their asses down in front of the tube and send their kids for a few years of daily mind-numbing curriculum before our best propaganda and marketing tools become effective. Note to self, maybe we can get some mullahs to change their prayer chant from AllahAllahAllahAllah to something more appropriate like BuySpendBorrowBuySpendBorrow.

[nodictators]

4. Graham in on target. We might add that Bush didn't even go after

binLaden immediately. Instead, he had the US planes bombing in northern Afghanistan, not Tora Bora where binLaden supposedly was.

Also, we haven't ever had more than 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, as far as I know. We've had 150,000 or more troops in Iraq, and still have about 120,000 there.

There is also the matter of the mysterious airlift of al-Qaeda forces out of Afghanistan that was facilitated by the US. An air corridor was opened and Pakistani aircraft came in and took many al-Qaeda troops out.

[yardwork]

8. We wouldn't want to catch al Qaida too soon.

If we catch them too early, no excuse to invade Iraq. That's why they're still uncaught. We have several more countries to go.

[BootinUp]

7. Way to go Graham!

Truth telling at its best.

[yardwork]

9. Bob Graham would be an excellent VP for Kerry, imo

[seafan]

11. You are exactly on point! We NEED Graham as VP.

This is why I have supported Bob Graham for nearly 20 years. He is a gift to America's government and all of us in Florida and the rest of the country as well.

Unfortunately, his presidential candidacy did not continue past last October, but now he should serve as our VP. There is no other contender who could surpass his experience, his candor and his honor in serving the people.

He is our hero! :toast:

[Mountainman]

10. This is the key to winning the election

Bush's failure to deal with terror before 9/11 has them running scared. All news outlets and talk shows are buzzing with this story and trying to get Bush off the hook.

[smirkymonkey]

12. Kerry/Graham '04!!

Kerry needs a running mate who is not afraid to speak up against the misadministration! Go Bob!!

[SquireJons]

14. That's the Ticket!

Even better than Kerry/Edwards because Graham can attract some of the older, more conservative folks. And he has name recognition. Didn't he co-sponsor the Graham/Rudman Act? Or was that another Sen. Graham?

Anyways, Bob Graham was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is a deep southerner who could help carry a very important state, much more important (and winnable) than North Carolina. And he's a very good and forceful speaker.

The only down side is that at his age, he can not be groomed for President in 2012 like Dean or especially Edwards. But Edwards would make a great A.G. and that would give him the podium to become a national figure. Then he could win the nomination in 2012.

[Bake]

17. Phil Gramm/Warren Rudman

Bake

[smirkymonkey]

21. Yes, and I just think that Kerry

is going to need a running mate who is a fighter and has some experience in dealing with the right-wing thugs. I think Edwards is a little green for this race, as I see it getting ugly.

I think that there is a place for Edwards on the Kerry team though - he needs a few years in the big league before he can run again - A.G.would be perfect for him, I agree.

[teryang]

15. Another Biden remark

White House Rebuts Ex-Bush Adviser Claim AP


<And Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., told ABC's "This Week" that while he has been critical of Bush policies on Iraq, "I think it's unfair to blame the president for the spread of terror and the diffuseness of it. Even if he had followed the advice of me and many other people, I still think the same thing would have happened." >

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040322/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorism_adviser&cid=544&ncid=716

[BootinUp]

18. Right, I've seen it on TV three times

makes me sick to the stomache :puke:

Joe if you believe that, just go along with Bush! What the hell do you mean that same thing would have happened. Thats just too open ended of an answer!

On the bright side Hagel did some damage to Bush, and helped Kerry, so the the show was pretty much a wash.

[skypilot]

16. What manner of beast...

...is Joe Lieberman? He sees "no basis" for the accusation that the Bush administration was too focused on Iraq in the wake of 9/11? NO BASIS?!?!
Not even the fact that we are bogged down in Iraq at this very moment?? What the hell is he talking about?!?!

[SquireJons]

23. Lieberman = Zionist

That is the manner of creature he is. And for all of his otherwise moderate stands on issues, this is why he is completely unfit for any aspirations beyond US Senator. For which party remains to be seen, maybe Lakude? {sp?}

[Just Me]

22. I'm looking forward to the hearing tomorrow,...

,...but, suspect I will be chewing with frustration at the failure to demand direct answers to direct questions.

When I get a copy of Clarke's book, I am pretty sure it will also simply increase my frustration.

I still do not understand why the whole PNAC seeds and evolution is yet to be fully revealed and investigated.