Al-Qaeda in Asia?

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/02/first_attack_by.html


There was a scare today at a U.S. military base outside Tokyo when two small explosions occurred shortly after 11 p.m. there. While no one was injured, investigators are looking at the possibility that it was an attempted terrorist attack.

Intelligence reports in Japan and Pakistan suggest al Qaeda has established a small but powerful presence in Japan, which leads some wondering whether or not today's events are the first attempt at an attack by al Qaeda in Japan.

Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News they have had several reports that Pakistani militant organizations working with al Qaeda had established networks in Japan as far back as 1999.

A Pakistani intelligence source says these networks were set up following the direct orders of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the top al Qaeda leader who is now in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay. Mohammed reportedly had a "deep interest" in conducting operations inside Japan.

The source also tells ABC News around two dozen Pakistanis had been sent to Japan on student visas in the late 1990s to set up "sleeper cells," and those individuals had linked with operatives from the leading Indonesian terror group, Jemaah Islamiya.

The source said the mission of the sleeper cells was to draw up plans for terror attacks and that some of their plans were seriously considered by top al Qaeda leaders.

One potential plan involved planting several bombs at and around stadiums during the 2002 World Cup. The plan was never carried out, but the intelligence source says he believes these networks are still in place and are still "actively planning operations against U.S. and Western targets in Japan."

He added, "If these explosions [today] turn out to have been terrorist attacks, these networks are the first place to look."

Back in Tokyo, no arrests have been made, and the investigation is ongoing.




Luckily we invaded Iraq and decreased the number of terrorists worldwide. We're taking the fight to them so they don't attack us here.I am glad Bush made Iraq the front of the war on terror. Great job Bush!

Haven't the Yoni types hammered Clinton for allowing any terror attack on any foreign land to go unchecked? If Al-Qaeda has attacked us in Japan can we hammer him for not going after them? Responding with overwhelming force? Sending in the marines?

[ChumpDumper]

Haven't the Yoni types hammered Clinton for allowing any terror attack on any foreign land to go unchecked?This attack in Japan is Clinton's fault.

[Yonivore]

Actually, we have assets in Indonesia and parts of Asia -- killing and capturing al Qaeda.

And, you failed to recognize that all of the attacks on Clinton's watch resulted in mass casaulties or extensive damage. And, he knew where al Qaeda was -- Afghanistan.

So, yeah, I still fault him for not responding.

[Nbadan]

hummm.......ABC News.....got any reliable sources?

[Yonivore]

hummm.......ABC News.....got any reliable sources?
Yeah, I do.

[Nbadan]

Hummm..this the same time Cheney is snubbing the Japanese PM for having the gull to criticize the administration over its Iraq policy.

[clambake]

Mass casualties on Clintons watch? As compared to what?....anyone....anyone..

[ChumpDumper]

And, you failed to recognize that all of the attacks on Clinton's watch resulted in mass casaulties or extensive damage. And, he knew where al Qaeda was -- Afghanistan.

So, yeah, I still fault him for not responding.Thank God Bush ordered planning for a miliitary invasion and occupation of Afghanistan the day he got into office. He was really on top of things.

[clambake]

Playing stupid was part of the plan. Can't you see it's still working?

[boutons_]

"Thank God Bush ordered planning for a miliitary invasion"

dubya is stooge of PNAC. PNAC/neo-cunts wanted the Iraq war in the late 90s, maybe before, dubya just goes along like any jackass frat rat would.

[Yonivore]

"Thank God Bush ordered planning for a miliitary invasion"

dubya is stooge of PNAC. PNAC/neo-cunts wanted the Iraq war in the late 90s, maybe before, dubya just goes along like any jackass frat rat would.
You really do get lost in all the bullshit sometimes, don't'cha? Do you have a wall chart with all the acronyms and epithets just to keep 'em straight?

I picture you and Nbadan with huge wall charts just so you don't get lost.

[boutons_]

"I picture you"

your picture-making skills have been demonstrated here repeatedly to be hallucinatory.

You don't know or can't lookup PNAC? Along with AEI, it's the key instigator of the theory of pre-emptive war, "just because we can", "just to keep the military on it's toes", and was the motor driving the US military into the un-winnable hellhole of Iraq.

[ChumpDumper]

That's just it. Funny no one caught it, but the military had no plan for an invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11.

None.

And no plan was called for by the Bush administration until after 9/11. So Yoni -- just what was Bush doing during those eight months to bring down the Taliban government militarily?

[Yonivore]

That's just it. Funny no one caught it, but the military had no plan for an invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11.

None.

And no plan was called for by the Bush administration until after 9/11. So Yoni -- just what was Bush doing during those eight months to bring down the Taliban government militarily?
I'll let Richard Clarke tell you, he used to have a seven point talk on what the Bush Administration did during those eight months.

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.


RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

ANGLE: OK.

QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.

QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...

CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.

ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?

CLARKE: In October of '98.

QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?

CLARKE: Right, which was in September.

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?

CLARKE: That's right.

QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD — the actual work on it began in early April.

CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel.

ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.

QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?

CLARKE: Yes it did.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?

CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?

CLARKE: No, it was March.

QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops — now we haven't completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda?

CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don't know what we would have done.

QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground?

CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we'd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance.

[ChumpDumper]

So there was no plan for a military invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11. Thanks for proving my point.

[Yonivore]

So there was no plan for a military invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11. Thanks for proving my point.
That's not the question you asked.

Besidese, this is not the person who would have been aware of military invasion plans. However, if you'll read, it appears they were doing alot more than Richard Clarke has since suggested. And, if their activity here is any indication, I'd bet they were making plans in other areas of the administration -- yep, even the Pentagon.

But, in fact, there were apparently no plans being made by the Clinton administration that were newer than 1998...to do anything...at all.

[ChumpDumper]

That's not the question you asked.That's the point I made since you were whining that that is what Clinton should have done. And I did ask what the Bush administration was doing to bring down the Taliban MILITARILY.
And, if their activity here is any indication, I'd bet they were making plans in other areas of the administration -- yep, even the Pentagon.There wasn't in the Pentagon. There was no military plan to invade Afghanistan and no orders to make them before 9/11.

[Yonivore]

That's the point I made since you were whining that that is what Clinton should have done. And I did ask what the Bush administration was doing to bring down the Taliban MILITARILY.
I didn't make your point, I demonstrated the Bush administration was acting aggressively to develop a plan for al Qaeda. No one's said that military action was or was not in the plan. Certainly, Clarke indicated (by talking about increasing support of the North Alliance) that there would be some military element...probably through Special Ops and CIA.


There wasn't in the Pentagon. There was no military plan to invade Afghanistan and no orders to make them before 9/11.
You know that for a fact? And, then, how?

[ChumpDumper]

No one's said that military action was or was not in the plan.You aren't because you are ignorant. I'm saying it wasn't because I'm not ignorant.
You know that for a fact?Yes.
And, then, how?I read something more than right wing blogs. I can't believe you are trying to pass yourself off as being informed about Afghanistan if you haven't even sniffed Bush at War.

[Yonivore]

Bush at War.
I don't care what Bob Woodward says, there were plans to invade Afghanistan militarily. Probably several different scenarios.

Hell, there's plans to attack China too.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't care what Bob Woodward says, there were plans to invade Afghanistan militarily. Probably several different scenarios.:lmao Well I'm sure you can find a link. It's not what Woodward says, it's what people say to Woodward.

[ChumpDumper]

Haven't found it yet, Yoni?

I'll give you a link.

"Chapter 1"

[Yonivore]

:lmao Well I'm sure you can find a link. It's not what Woodward says, it's what people say to Woodward.
No, it's what Woodward says people say to him. And, did he interview the war planners at the Pentagon? You know, the guys that sit around and plan deployments all over the world, whether or not they ever happen?

There was a plan to invade Afghanistan. It has probably existed since Russia invaded the country and was constantly modified as internal situations there changed.

[Yonivore]

Haven't found it yet, Yoni?

I'll give you a link.

"Chapter 1"
Good job with the link. You do understand the term, right?

[ChumpDumper]

No, it's what Woodward says people say to him. And, did he interview the war planners at the Pentagon? You know, the guys that sit around and plan deployments all over the world, whether or not they ever happen?Yes.
There was a plan to invade Afghanistan. It has probably existed since Russia invaded the country and was constantly modified as internal situations there changed.Then you woulds have no problem linking to it.

[ChumpDumper]

Good job with the link. You do understand the term, right?You do understand what a book is, right?

[Yonivore]

You do understand what a book is, right?
Yep, and that wasn't a link, it was a reference.

[Phenomanul]

Yes.Then you woulds have no problem linking to it.


C'mon CD.... if we had the abilitiy of linking the Pentagon's covert plans of invasion, or other secret operatives.... then they wouldn't be covert - would they?

I don't know how Yoni can assert that pre-9/11 plans for an Afghanistan invasion existed with absolute certainty. But there's no way you can assert the contrary.

[boutons_]

There may not have been MILITARY plans for invading Aghanistan and Iraq before 9/11, but PNAC/AEI neo-cunts had the POLITICAL IDEOLOGY that a gratuitous war now and again is useful for keeping the US military on its toes, for testing high-technology weapons and systems, and just to throw US's bullying weight around to remind the world who is top dog.

That a few 1000 or 10's of 1000s of people, US and others, get killed and 10s or 100s of $Bs gets burned up in these gratuitous wars is of no concern to these assholes.

The New American Century is a plan for US global economic domination, and it that take pre-emptive military strikes (eg, to grab oil), then so be it.

It's no co-incidence that the Caspian oil pipeline and the shallow, high-quality Iraqi oil were in two weak countries that were targeted by PNAC/AEI. I'm sure the OIL in Afghanistan and Iraq was the primary reason for PNAC/AEI's interest. The bullshit about handing democracy to 2 primitive, backward, sectarian, Muslim countries is and always as pure smokescreen.

Of course, OBL's unique strike on US soil sucked the US military into the foreign killing field of Afghanistan. Then dubya, stooge of PNAC, fucked up and moved into another killing ground in Iraq. Result? 10s of 1000s of US dead and injured, and PNAC still doesn't have its hands on Afghan pipeline and Iraqi oil.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

:lol And boutons has come fill circle to the 'it's about the oil' argument again. Do you ever come up with anything new?

[Yonivore]

C'mon CD.... if we had the abilitiy of linking the Pentagon's covert plans of invasion, or other secret operatives.... then they wouldn't be covert - would they?

I don't know how Yoni can assert that pre-9/11 plans for an Afghanistan invasion existed with absolute certainty. But there's no way you can assert the contrary.
Not with absolute certainty but, I do know there are a whole hell of a lot of Pentagon employees whose job it is to formulate military scenarios in places where we can reasonably assume we might have to be engaged militarily.

So, I'm fairly confident an Afghanistan plan or two or fourteen existed, somewhere in the Pentagon, prior to September 11, 2001.

[boutons_]

dickless twerp, the oil argument is MUCH more believable that ANY bullshit thrown out by the WH.

I note you only post " :lol " without any real substance. Thanks for stalking me, you machochistic bitch.

[ChumpDumper]

Not with absolute certainty but, I do know there are a whole hell of a lot of Pentagon employees whose job it is to formulate military scenarios in places where we can reasonably assume we might have to be engaged militarily.

So, I'm fairly confident an Afghanistan plan or two or fourteen existed, somewhere in the Pentagon, prior to September 11, 2001.You're wrong.

Read a book once in awhile. You are lazy.

[ChumpDumper]

C'mon CD.... if we had the abilitiy of linking the Pentagon's covert plans of invasion, or other secret operatives.... then they wouldn't be covert - would they?Once a plan is executed, it isn't covert anymore.

A plan was executed in 2001. Do you really think it was the plan sitting on a shelf since the 80s?

Read the damn book.

[Yonivore]

Once a plan is executed, it isn't covert anymore.
Where'd you get that gem?

We execute a lot of covert plans that are never disclosed.


A plan was executed in 2001. Do you really think it was the plan sitting on a shelf since the 80s?
I think the invasion of Afghanistan, in 2001, was probably based on one of several such plans that were drawn up, in advance, and were sitting on a shelf. Yep.

They reviewed the plans, picked the one that most closely fit the circumstance, made some adjustments, and presto, whammo, you have well-coordinated and executed invasion of Afghanistan in just over a month after September 11th.


Read the damn book.
I don't read Woodward, talks to dead people.

[ChumpDumper]

Where'd you get that gem?

We execute a lot of covert plans that are never disclosed.Afghanistan is pretty well known -- at least by people who read.
I think the invasion of Afghanistan, in 2001, was probably based on one of several such plans that were drawn up, in advance, and were sitting on a shelf. Yep.So since it's that well known, it will be easy for you to find something that says that.
They reviewed the plans, picked the one that most closely fit the circumstance, made some adjustments, and presto, whammo, you have well-coordinated and executed invasion of Afghanistan in just over a month after September 11th.The Pentagon had no plan whatsoever. The CIA developed the plan on the fly since they could get men and money into the country the quickest. It was quite an unprecedented operation and the cooperation between the CIA and armed forces was impressive. You expose yourself as less and less informed every day.
I don't read Woodward, talks to dead people.Too bad for you. The first book is a great read and quite lauditory towards Bush and the administration.

[Yonivore]

Afghanistan is pretty well known -- at least by people who read.
I was responding to your preposterous claim that covert plans are known as soon as they are executed.

But, on Afghanistan, I doubt the actual war planning documents have ever been disclosed. Sure, how you conduct an invasion of that scale is going to be public, and known on a macro scale.

The Pentagon isn't in the habit of advertising logistical specifics and pretty much let the public draw their own conclusions on what the "war plan" was. It's why all the networks emply retired generals; so they can speculate on such.


So since it's that well known, it will be easy for you to find something that says that.
See above. Usually, the Pentagon doesn't submit their publications to the Library of Congress for an ISBN number.

We know these jobs exist in the Pentagon. Do you think they just sit around and wait to be told to plan for something? I would imagine we have, on the shelf, hundreds of invasion scenarios for dozens of countries.

I think you're being deliberately retarded on this topic because, well...hell, who knows, maybe you're actually retarded.


The Pentagon had no plan whatsoever. The CIA developed the plan on the fly since they could get men and money into the country the quickest. It was quite an unprecedented operation and the cooperation between the CIA and armed forces was impressive. You expose yourself as less and less informed every day.
"...no plan whatsoever." Yeah, right. You're right, there was unprecedented cooperation between the CIA and the armed forces. But, just because you can't get 100,000 soldiers, and all the necessary logistical support that implies, to the border of Afghanistan on a moment's notice, doesn't mean they didn't have a plan to do so...it just means it can't be done.

Are you going to suggest that all the intelligence, all the logistics, all the resupply routes, all the potential targets, all the potential resources, all the locations of assault weren't even considered before 9/11?


Too bad for you. The first book is a great read and quite lauditory towards Bush and the administration.
So I heard. He's still a fucking liar that pretends dead people tell him stuff.

[clambake]

Covert means "done secretly". I think the cat is out of the bag on this one. Not to mention they made it pretty obvious what they planned to do.

[Yonivore]

Covert means "done secretly". I think the cat is out of the bag on this one. Not to mention they made it pretty obvious what they planned to do.
Coca Cola's formula is secret but, yet we know they make the stuff. You know the formula is written on a piece of paper somewhere -- it exists. Just because it isn't made public, doesn't mean it didn't exist before they decided to start making Coca Cola, does it?

Covert plans do not necessarily mean covert actions and, overt actions don't always reveal the secrets of a covert plan.

[DarkReign]

AQ in Japan....boy, those guys must be reeeeeeeal hard to pick out of a crowd.

Is there a better comparison of 2 very different looking ethnicities in the world?

Im stumped as to which, except maybe a black NBA player in Asia.

[ChumpDumper]

We know these jobs exist in the Pentagon. Do you think they just sit around and wait to be told to plan for something?Seeing as they take orders from superiors, yes.
I would imagine we have, on the shelf, hundreds of invasion scenarios for dozens of countries.Sure -- but they didn't have one for Afghanistan.
I think you're being deliberately retarded on this topic because, well...hell, who knows, maybe you're actually retarded.How mature. You on the other hand, are simply showing your ignorance because you are ignorant.
"...no plan whatsoever." Yeah, right. You're right, there was unprecedented cooperation between the CIA and the armed forces. But, just because you can't get 100,000 soldiers, and all the necessary logistical support that implies, to the border of Afghanistan on a moment's notice, doesn't mean they didn't have a plan to do so...it just means it can't be done.

Are you going to suggest that all the intelligence, all the logistics, all the resupply routes, all the potential targets, all the potential resources, all the locations of assault weren't even considered before 9/11?I'm not suggesting it at all -- I'm saying it.
So I heard. He's still a fucking liar that pretends dead people tell him stuff.Just like our new SecDef -- I'm sure you think he's a fucking liar too.

[xrayzebra]

You're wrong.

Read a book once in awhile. You are lazy.

Well dip, let me assure you that there are plans in the
military for every eventuality. Not that they are ever followed
but believe me they exist. God only knows I have had to
follow and abide by them many times.

[ChumpDumper]

The military, which seemed to have contingency plans for the most
inconceivable scenarios, had no plans for Afghanistan, the sanctuary of
bin Laden and his network. There was nothing on the shelf that could be
pulled down to provide at least an outline. This was not a surprise for
the secretary of defense.

Bush at War, page 22.

Now I have to read books for you too. :rolleyes

Since Woodward interviewed pretty much everyone high up who had anything to do with the planning of Operation Enduring Freedom and nobody contradicted this statement -- why exactly should I believe Yoni who has interviewed no one and written nothing?

[xrayzebra]

Funny Chump, but we had people on the ground there in no time
flat and working with the Northern alliance. What book are you
referring to? And how do they explain that we were able to have
people on the ground so fast.

[ChumpDumper]

Funny Chump, but we had people on the ground there in no time flat and working with the Northern alliance.Yes, that was the CIA plan.
What book are you referring to?The title is under the quote.
And how do they explain that we were able to have people on the ground so fast.It's a great read. You can get it for five bucks at Half Price Books.

[clambake]

I think we've had people working with the N. Alliance for 15 years.

Woodward is great. He's got something, because people love talking to him. He's got a certain charm that disarms the person he's interviewing.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't care what Bob Woodward says, there were plans to invade Afghanistan militarily. Probably several different scenarios.

[Jeopardy theme plays while Yoni feverishly searches blogs to back him up]

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

dickless twerp, the oil argument is MUCH more believable that ANY bullshit thrown out by the WH.

I note you only post " :lol " without any real substance. Thanks for stalking me, you machochistic bitch.


A laughing emoticon contains just as much substance as anything you have ever posted on this site.

Masochistic bitch? Cute. Did mommy buy you a thesaurus or something?

[clambake]

I just gave you the definition for covert. But if overt actions means not revealing covert plans, ok. I wish overt actions would have meant covert plans=success.

So I guess "greatest military campaign of all time" = fire Rumsfeld?

[Yonivore]

[Jeopardy theme plays while Yoni feverishly searches blogs to back him up]
Actually, Yoni's not worrying about it.

[ChumpDumper]

ChumpDumper is right.

[Yonivore]

No, he's not. Do you want me to Google it?

[ChumpDumper]

No, he's not. Do you want me to Google it?I want you to prove the quote from Woodward's book wrong.

Should be easy for you with all your access and connections.

[ChumpDumper]

Found that pre-9/11 war plan yet, Charles?

[Yonivore]

I want you to prove the quote from Woodward's book wrong.

Should be easy for you with all your access and connections.
Okay...want away.

[ChumpDumper]

I can't back up my own statement.

[Yonivore]

Nope, not that one. I don't have the clearance.

I choose to believe battle plans exist, you don't.

Frankly, it's a matter of semantics. Is it possible that when they said there were no plans for invading Afghanistan it was in the context of a specific plan for responding to the 9-11 attacks? Sure, I would concede that if asked in that context, one could answer, there were no plans on the shelf for invading Afghanistan.

If you you're going to say there were no plans that evaluated the country of Afghanistan as a theater of war, in which we may one day be in combat, and that there were preliminary plans on a range of scenarios that might see us fighting there, I call bullshit.

It's what they do at the Pentagon.

[ChumpDumper]

I choose to believe battle plans exist, you don't.:lmao

I have a quote from an author who interviewed the president, the SecDef, the Chairman of the JCS and the CENTCOM commander and they told him all about the planning of the Operation Enduring Freedom. They told him there was no plan for an invasion of Afghanistan in the Pentagon before 9/11. Who are your sources again?
Frankly, it's a matter of semantics. Is it possible that when they said there were no plans for invading Afghanistan it was in the context of a specific plan for responding to the 9-11 attacks?It's not a matter of semantics. There was no plan in the Pentagon to invade Afghanistan before 9/11. Period.

Take Iraq. It is widely known -- not by you, but widely known -- that Op Plan 1003 was the war plan for an invasion of Iraq that was formed in 1998. Rumsfeld brought it out and had the Pentagon change it two months after 9/11. They had no such plan for Afghanistan at all.

Now go find something that says different, Charles.

[ChumpDumper]

Yoni, I challenge you to produce something that says the Pentagon had a plan for a military invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11.

There, I used your drama queen wording from the other thread. I answered that challenge -- will you answer this one?

[sabar]

This may be the dumbest arguement ever.
Not only does no one know who had a plan and if the plan ever existed, but people are using pure speculation as evidence.

Did the U.S. have a specific plan? Maybe. Maybe not. But it doesn't really matter. I'm sure the U.S. had plenty of intelligence of the area and possible plans of attack from the Soviet-Afghan war and onwards. Our own military incursions no doubt would have produced at least some information on the region and how to combat terrorist forces just from watching what the USSR did.

Plus we have our own experience there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach

I'm sure the U.S. would have no problem producing a plan from scratch based off their intel of the region, previous bombing experience, and cooperation from the northan alliance. I'm also sure the U.S. has hundreds of plans of attacks for hundreds of areas to invade if the situation ever arises. Was Afghanistan important enough to be there? Maybe.

[ChumpDumper]

Not an invasion, but thanks for trying to help Yoni. He Googles hard.

[sabar]

He does Google hard.

Here's his secret: link (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=SpZ&q=secret+afghanistan+invasion+plans+-%22left+wing%22+%2B%22right+wing%22&btnG=Search)

[Yonivore]

Yoni, I challenge you to produce something that says the Pentagon had a plan for a military invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11.

There, I used your drama queen wording from the other thread. I answered that challenge -- will you answer this one?
Nah, you didn't meet the challeng, you only found what I said you'd find...lefty characterizations of what they wanted to believe about Corker.

I've already said I doubt I can find a invasion plan in google, they don't normally post those online.

[Yonivore]

He does Google hard.

Here's his secret: link (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=SpZ&q=secret+afghanistan+invasion+plans+-%22left+wing%22+%2B%22right+wing%22&btnG=Search)
You suck at googling. Is that how you construct queries? No wonder you can't find shit in these internet tubes.

[ChumpDumper]

I've already said I doubt I can find a invasion plan in google, they don't normally post those online.Why not? References to Op Plan 1003 are quite easy to find using Google.

[Yonivore]

Why not? References to Op Plan 1003 are quite easy to find using Google.
Well, what do you know, I broke down and googled it.

U.S. sought attack on al-Qaida (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/)


The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.
Do you think a plan for military operations in Afghanistan wouldn't be contributed to by the Pentagon?

US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11 (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml)

US 'planned attack on Taleban' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm)

There's the first three I came across.

Just because a plan doesn't have a fancy number or the just because it wasn't revelealed doesn't mean it didn't exist.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

That's a hoot.

You believe the anonymous sources over President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and all the others!

There was only one CIA plan to use Pakistan intel to take out Taliban leadership, but the military coup in Pakistan put an end to that.

No military invasion plan at the Pentagon.

[Yonivore]

:lmao

That's a hoot.

You believe the anonymous sources over President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and all the others!
No, I believe there were plans for military action in Afghanistan.

Hey, you believed the New York Times over President Bush.


There was only one CIA plan to use Pakistan intel to take out Taliban leadership, but the military coup put an end to that.
Only one CIA plan? Wow, you do have extraordinary clearance. Sure you're not violating some policy by talking about it here?

I guess you believe everything you read.

[ChumpDumper]

No, I believe there were plans for military action in Afghanistan.Then it should be as easy to find as the Iraq plan.

And the President or Rumsfeld or Powell or Tenet or Wolfowitz or Franks or Rice or Armitage or Hadley or Cheney or Libby or Meyers or Shelton would've told Woodward something different. It's not like the absence of an invasion plan was a point of pride in the Pentagon.

[Yonivore]

Then it should be as easy to find as the Iraq plan.
Why would that be?


And the President or Rumsfeld or Powell or Tenet or Wolfowitz or Franks or Rice or Armitage or Hadley or Cheney or Libby or Meyers or Shelton would've told Woodward something different. It's not like the absence of an invasion plan was a point of pride in the Pentagon.
You seem to believe there is some imperative to settle such matters in the court of public opinion.

[Phenomanul]

CD... what you've stated so far makes sense... it does. Especially if you believe Woodward would have no hidden agendas and take him completely at his word. Not that I'm accusing him of such or anything.

At the same time I find it inconceivable that the Pentagon would have zero scenarios for invading a country like Afghanistan. Again, don't expect anyone there to come out and say they have formulated hundreds of such plans 'in case they are ever needed'. It is the nature of military strategy to keep mum on such things. From a tactical standpoint, secretive contingency is a facet that most people expect the Pentagon and their staff to possess.

Is it speculative... perhaps. But to believe otherwise would be a bit naive.

[ChumpDumper]

Why would that be?Why would it not be?
You seem to believe there is some imperative to settle such matters in the court of public opinion.So Woodward says there was no invasion plan at the Pentagon before 9/11 and writes an entire book about the plan that was made after 9/11 and there's no imperative for him or the administration for that information to be accurate?

You are willfully stupid.

[Yonivore]

Why would it not be?So Woodward says there was no invasion plan at the Pentagon before 9/11 and writes an entire book about the plan that was made after 9/11 and there's no imperative for him or the administration for that information to be accurate?

You are willfully stupid.
That would suggest the administration had editorial control over the book.

[johnsmith]

Chump, as stated by me before, "Bush at War" is an excellent book and paints the administration in a very positive light. "Plan of Attack" is also an excellent book and doesn't paint the administration in a very positive light.



My point being, that Woodward had absolutely zero intention of trying to make Bush look bad in the first book, therefore, why would he lie about the things this topic is discussing.

Whether or not his view changed since then and his "Plan of Attack" book was written with an agenda, that's a different topic. But the first book was written non-bias and if there was any agenda at all, it was to make Bush and company look awfully good.

[ChumpDumper]

CD... what you've stated so far makes sense... it does. Especially if you believe Woodward would have no hidden agendas and take him completely at his word. Not that I'm accusing him of such or anything.

At the same time I find it inconceivable that the Pentagon would have zero scenarios for invading a country like Afghanistan. Again, don't expect anyone there to come out and say they have formulated hundreds of such plans 'in case they are ever needed'. It is the nature of military strategy to keep mum on such things. From a tactical standpoint, secretive contingency is a facet that most people expect the Pentagon and their staff to possess.

Is it speculative... perhaps. But to believe otherwise would be a bit naive.Then why in all his hours of interviews with Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet, Wolfowitz, Franks, Rice, Armitage, Hadley, Cheney, Libby, Meyers and Shelton nobody ever said anything about an invasion plan at the Pentagon? In fact, they said just the opposite, that they were creating one from scratch.

Now when it comes to Iraq, the same reporter talks to the same people: Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet, Wolfowitz, Franks, Rice, Armitage, Hadley, Cheney, Libby, Meyers and Shelton. They tell him about the Pentagon plan to invade Iraq that was originally made in 1996 and revised in 1998. They give him the name of that plan and they tell him how they used that as the starting point for formulating their new plan.

Why would they claim to be making a plan from scratch if they weren't? Why would they not say a plan existed for Afghanistan when they did for Iraq? Why would they allow Woodward continued access to them and the minutes of their NSC meetings if he just blatantly made something like the Pentagon's not having an invasion plan for Afghanistan before 9/11 up?

Now in the face of all that, if you prefer to believe -- what are your sources again? -- over Woodward, his editors, Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet, Wolfowitz, Franks, Rice, Armitage, Hadley, Cheney, Libby, Meyers and Shelton, that's fine. Who do you think has more credibility in this instance?

[ChumpDumper]

Chump, as stated by me before, "Bush at War" is an excellent book and paints the administration in a very positive light. "Plan of Attack" is also an excellent book and doesn't paint the administration in a very positive light.



My point being, that Woodward had absolutely zero intention of trying to make Bush look bad in the first book, therefore, why would he lie about the things this topic is discussing.

Whether or not his view changed since then and his "Plan of Attack" book was written with an agenda, that's a different topic. But the first book was written non-bias and if there was any agenda at all, it was to make Bush and company look awfully good.Sure, but I don't know how the fact the Pentagon had no invasion plan for Afghanistan could be handled as anything but a fact, a fact that would be nonsensical to make up. If Woodward just made it up it would be easily disproven and his credibility would be nil.

[clambake]

Exactly. Everything is fine until Woodwards truth dug too deep. Woodward's agenda consisted of nothing more than fact gathering. Better find another route. Attacking Woodwards credibility will fail.

[ChumpDumper]

I just find it hilarious that someone thinks Woodward made up a fact that underpins an entire 300-page book and the entire Bush administration just played along.

[clambake]

He thinks that because it helps the medicine go down.

[ChumpDumper]

His thinks own perception of the Pentagon is a better source than the entire national security team of the Bush administration, including Bush.

[ChumpDumper]

Has Yoni found something other than post-invasion uncorroborated innuendo that proves Woodward's quote and the Bush administration wrong yet?

[Yonivore]

Has Yoni found something other than post-invasion uncorroborated innuendo that proves Woodward's quote and the Bush administration wrong yet?
Nah, I moved on. This is a dead thread.

[ChumpDumper]

I couldn't find anything and realized how stupid I looked disputing the entire Bush administration. I am much more interested in whining about not being able to use the "N" word because Chris Rock personally called me a cracker.

[Phenomanul]

Has Yoni found something other than post-invasion uncorroborated innuendo that proves Woodward's quote and the Bush administration wrong yet?


Did you find evidence that would prove with absolute certainty that military scenarios aren't developed at the Pentagon? Scenarios involving unstable countries in unstable regions - does Afghanistan not meet that mold? Does the Pentagon always tell all?

[ChumpDumper]

Did you find evidence that would prove with absolute certainty that military scenarios aren't developed at the Pentagon?:lol Read the quote. Scenarios are developed, they just didn't make one for an invasion of Afghanistan.
Does the Pentagon always tell all?What do they gain by saying they had no plan? The entire book is about making a plan -- actually using the CIA's plan -- when they had none of their own to go on; unlike Iraq where they did have Op Plan 1003 to go on and talked about it in detail. Are you guys even familiar with the story?