Two worthwhile articles on the 9/11 hearings:
Clarke's Book Shows Why Bush Fears Truth by Joe Conason New York Observer 03/25/04.
A sad tale of arrogance and ignorance by Molly Ivins WorkingforChange.com 03/25/04
Conason focuses on the way Bush and his team spread "mystifying nonsense" about their post-9/11 responses to promote his Bush the Magnificent, Defender of the Homeland and Scourge of the Terrorists image. But, he says:
[Richard Clarke's] book confirms in detail what some of us have long suspected: During the first nine months of 2001, the Bush administration largely ignored loud alarms about Al Qaeda sounded by Mr. Clarke, by C.I.A. director George Tenet and by other former Clinton administration officials. Preoccupied with national missile defense, the scuttling of the Kyoto and anti-ballistic-missile treaties and, above all, with Iraq, the administration had no time for the terrorist threat until too late.
The ever-observant Molly Ivins notes:
Then we come to the White house campaign to discredit Clarke. What a travesty. ...
I need to counsel those innocent little Heathers in the Washington press corps who think the White House attack on Clarke is confused simply because it is often contradictory -- "Democrat," "disgruntled former employee," "out of the loop" and "we did everything he wanted." Y'all, Karl Rove often issues contradictory attacks -- just throws a whole lot of stuff up in the air so people will think, "There must be something to all this noise."
The Bush administration's record of sliming its critics is getting to be a scandal in itself. Joe Wilson's wife was outed as a CIA agent. Poor former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill (who was the focus of a book that certainly confirms the administration's obsession with Iraq) was dismissed as a nutcase. And now it's Clarke's turn. I suppose we should all be grateful no one is investigating anyone else's sex life.
5 comments:
Allow me to paraphrase..
"Mr Clarke, if Dubya woulda done whatcha told 'im, might could we a stopped 9/11?"
Clarke: "No." - not paraphrased.
Did invading, conquering and occupying Iraq stop al-Qaeda from carrying out successful terrorist attacks? No. Did it do away with any "weapons of mass destruction" that Iraq might have given to al-Qaeda? No. Did it tie down most of the available American troops in Iraq so they couldn't be used against al-Qaeda's strongholds in Afghanistan? Yes. - Bruce
Al-Qaeda isn't the only terrorist organization on this planet, Bruce. Saddam ran his own terrorist organization. You know this. And you're not denying the Saddam used WMD against his own countrymen, are you? What did Clinton do about it in the 8 years before Bush? Was Berger lying about "no plan?"
More in Afghanistan? You'd be crying "too much." Which way do you want it? Too much, or not enough?
Interesting questions, but kind of far afield from this post. There were good policy reasons that the US had an adversary posture - to put it mildly - against Saddam's Iraq. But those were not related to Iraqi terrorism directed against the United States. The Iraq War was not about fighting the kind of terrorism that is currently being directed against the United States. It may have marginal benefits for terrorism directed against Israel, but even that is questionable. - Bruce
Far afield? They are a direct response to your previous comment.
Focus, Bruce. Focus.
Post a Comment