Reply With Quote
Well, if you put it THAT way...with AL Capone.
Testimony to his craftsman-ship? When did intimidation, threats, political black-balling, burglary, wire-tapping, fraud, and treason morph into a craft?
Wow! I must have missed the indictments for those crimes.
Testimony to his craftsman-ship? When did intimidation, threats, political black-balling, burglary, wire-tapping, fraud, and treason morph into a craft?
Well, if you put it THAT way...with AL Capone.
Testimony to his craftsman-ship? When did intimidation, threats, political black-balling, burglary, wire-tapping, fraud, and treason morph into a craft?
But what does all of that have to do with Karl Rove?
hummm...are you afraid? I'm not.
Manufactured threats aren't the same thing as 911, and people aren't stupid, they see reports like the one that came out this weekend detailing how the war in Iraq has increased the chance of terra and they don't see a plan for getting out of Iraq, or even capturing Osama bin Laden or his co-leader Al-Zawhiri. Those are gonna be the two big issues going into Nov 7th for voters not fear.
That's the problems Dan. They haven't "seen" the report. They've only seen what one reporter cherry-picked from already cherry-picked information leaked from a classified NIE by an employee with unknown motives for doing so. Just because the headline says the war in Iraq has increased the chance of terror and just because the portions of a classified NIE that were leaked could be characterized to say that, doesn't mean those were the conclusions of the NIE or that the NIE was saying this affected legitimacy of the war in Iraq.
The headline of the Washington Post article, that started all this, reads, "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight."
Neither you nor I have any idea whether the National Intelligence Estimate upon which the story relies actually says this, but Karen DeYoung's report gives one little confidence (a) that she is reporting fully and accurately on the NIE and (b) that our "spy agencies" have any sound basis for such a conclusion.
De Young's story conflates a number of different alleged phenomena: (1) terrorism is becoming more decentralized, (2) successful recruting of terrorists is on the rise, (3) terrorists are using the Iraq war as the centerpiece of their recruiting campaigns, (4) the sitation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position with respect to fighting terrorism.
De Young's confusion (or the confusion she induces in the reader) reaches its climax when she proclaims that the "conclusions and tone" of the NIE "have been reflected in a number of public statements by senior intelligence officials this year." De Young cites a statement by John Negroponte that "[m]y colleagues and I sill view the global jihadist terrorist movement, which emerged from the Afghan-Soviet conflict in the 1980s but is today inspired and led by al Qaeda, as the preeiminent threat to our citizens, homeland interests and friends." This statement may have some very slight connection to phenomena (1) and (2) cited above, but they do not "reflect" phenomena (3) and (4) at all.
De Young also cites a statement by CIA Director Michael Hayden that "threats to the U.S. at home and abroad will become more diverse and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide." Again, on its face this statement has no relation to the question of the impact of the war in Iraq on our overall efforts to combat terrorism.
It may be the case that the terrorists are recruiting more members than before, and it's likely that terrorists rely heavily on the war in Iraq when they engage in recruiting. But it does not follow that the war is hurting the overall terror fight or even that it's materially helping terrorists recruit. If we had not overthrown Saddam Hussein, the terrorists would hardly be without a sales pitch. They could cite the "crusade" in Afghanistan (which some liberals assure us would be intense if only we weren't bogged down in Iraq), our support of Israel including our support of its bombing campaign in Lebanon, our support of the Saudis, and the fact that we backed down in Iraq. These sorts of recruiting pitches fueled the rise of al Qaeda in the 1990s. If the NIE argues that this decade's Islamofascists need the war in Iraq on top of its traditional arguments in order effectively to recruit, I'd like to see its evidence.
One should also ask whether any alleged recruiting gains are offset by the fact that a state that supported terrorism and had significance experience and know-how with a variety of WMD is out of business. I wonder whether the NIE even gets into this subject, which undoubtedly is a sore one for our spy agencies.
Finally, one should ask what the impact on terrorist recruiting of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be. Past terrorist recruiting efforts are said to have fueled by the U.S. withdrawal from Lebanon in the 1980s and Somalia in the 1990s, and of course by the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan. It seems obvious that a U.S. pull-out in Iraq under present conditions would represent the mother of all recruiting opportunites. But maybe our spy agencies believe that a pull-out would cause would-be recruits suddenly to conclude that we're not evil infidels after all.
De Young glides around this whole issue by noting that the NIE does not offer policy recommendations. But don't our spy agencies consider the likely effects of changing our policies? If not, they have little to offer us when it comes to thinking about what our policies should be.
This is the latest cheap shot in the CIA's war against the Bush administration. As has been said before, one of the inherent vices of leaks of classified information is the selectivity of those leaks. When anti-Bush intelligence officials want to damage the President with a leak to the Washington Post, they relate certain features of, in this case, the National Intelligence Estimate, that they think will have the intended effect. But we don't get to see the whole report; just the reporter's spin on the spin she was given by the embedded Democrats in the agencies. We have no way of knowing, based on this kind of news story, what the report actually says, or how sound its reasoning is.
By the way, note that the report was completed in April. So the Democrats held their leak until it could be of service in the election campaign.
Sure enough, the White House says that the stories in the Post and the New York Times are "not representative of the complete do ent." That's very likely true, but we can't know without reading the whole report. And in all likelihood, the reporters who passed on the leakers' spin don't know either. And, neither do you or I.
This whole proposition, though, is analogous to saying the civil rights movement exacerbated racial discrimination and, therefore, should have been abandoned.
Clinton is an absolute liar. Always was, always will be.
Once again someone in the know shows the way when
he lies.
Harry Smith Taken Aback as CBS Analyst Blames Clinton for bin Laden Failures
Posted by Michael Rule on September 25, 2006 - 10:28.
Despite Bill Clinton's angry protestations, the bulk of the blame for America's failure to catch or kill Osama bin Laden lies squarely on the Clinton administration, at least according to terrorism analyst Michael Scheuer.
Scheuer's words, delivered on today's edition of CBS's "Early Show," must have come as a shock for co-host Harry Smith since the liberal media's usual refrain on bin Laden is to blame Bush for the failure to kill him back in the early days of the Afghanistan campaign.
That just isn't the case, Scheuer argued, implicitly criticizing the press.
"The former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him," he said.
Video clip (1:34): Real (2.5 MB at 225 kbps) or Windows Media (2.9 MB at 256 kbps), plus MP3 audio (443 KB). Read on for transcript of the segment.
On Monday's "Early Show", co-host Harry Smith talked with Scheuer about the war in Iraq and the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Smith was shocked when Scheuer laid the blame at the feet of the Clinton administration, and attempted to put the focus back on failures of the Bush Administration. Smith highlighted president Clinton's defense of his administration:
"Let's talk about what President Clinton had to say on Fox yesterday. He basically laid blame at the feet of the CIA and the FBI for not being able to certify or verify that Osama bin Laden was responsible for a number of different attacks. Does that ring true to you?"
Scheuer refuted Smith’s portrayal of Clinton:
"No, sir, I don't think so. The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden."
Smith couldn’t let these facts tarnish the Clinton legacy, so he attempted to change the subject back to the Bush Administration:
"All right, is the Bush administration any less responsible for not finishing the job in Tora Bora?"
Scheuer acknowledged that there is plenty of blame to go around for not getting bin Laden, but asserted that Clinton bears most of it:
"Oh, I think there's plenty of blame to go around, sir, but the fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration had one chance that they botched, and the Clinton Administration had eight to ten chances that they refused to try..."
Scheuer continued his response and accused President Clinton of lying to the American people:
"...But it's just, it's an incredible kind of situation for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."
Scheuer’s points may have hit at Clinton too hard for Smith, as Smith used his final word to assert that President Bush is responsible too:
"And, and, and with this also further revelation that, in fact, the war in Iraq has only exacerbated the terrorist situation."
Scheuer’s facts about the failures of the Clinton administration in catching bin Laden are largely ignored by the media, but keep them in mind the next time a reporter starts hammering the Bush administration because Osama bin Laden is still at large.
Transcript of the relevant portion of the interview follows:
Harry Smith: "Elizabeth Palmer live in Pakistan this morning, thank you. I'm going to go back now to Michael Scheuer once again. Let's talk about what President Clinton had to say on Fox yesterday. He basically laid blame at the feet of the CIA and the FBI for not being able to certify or verify that Osama bin Laden was responsible for a number of different attacks. Does that ring true to you?"
Michael Scheuer: "No, sir, I don't think so. The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden."
Harry Smith: "Alright, is the Bush administration any less responsible for not finishing the job in Tora Bora?"
Michael Scheuer: "Oh, I think there's plenty of blame to go around, sir, but the fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration had one chance that they botched, and the Clinton Administration had eight to ten chances that they refused to try. At least at Tora Bora our forces were on the ground. We didn't push the point. But it's just, it's an incredible kind of situation for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."
Harry Smith: "And, and, and with this also further revelation that, in fact, the war in Iraq has only exacerbated the terrorist situation. Michael Scheurer, we thank you so much for your time this morning."
You saw Clinton as he really is: Someone who cant
take the blame for anything. He is a putting the move
on women, except when they say "no" and then he
reminds them: Put some ice on that.
Oh, thank goodness. The truth is coming out and
he and his bunch cant take it.
Now that i've read that, it's almost like Clinton is responsible for this war in Iraq. That criminal war starting, blowjob getting prick.
Don't take the side of either one of these guy's. I'm taking the side of the future and this guy makes it bleek. All politicians dance around the truth, but how much trouble can you allow one to cause before you replace him. Our problem is the replacement. Cheney? no. Hastert? oh dear god.
How about Colin Powell. I just know this guy wants to make it up to us.
How about we use the system against the president of the united states (a le equal to diety these days) for petty bull , to bog down alot of processes that mattered, and prevent the country moving forward, then blaming the man for being tied up in the bull you created?
There has to be more to this consorted effort by the Cons to pin Bin Laden still being alive on Clinton than what we are seeing...after all, it was the Pentagon under Pace and Rummy who let Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora, but the wing-nut press isn't talking about that. Perhaps as some have speculated, they plan to pull a dead bin Laden as the October surprise? It would make sense of these rumors that bin Laden is already dead, and as I've said before, the only way the Saudi family would give up Bin Laden is if he were already dead.
I'm not sure I'd call a U. S. Citizen's right to due process petty bull . But, that's just me.
And, as far as bogging down anything, the President had a team of lawyers and professional mouthpieces defending him, I doubt he was restrained, on many occassions, from doing his duty as President -- if he'd of just done it.
He said he tried. That's more than Bush did. Bin ladan is no fool. He knew Clinton was close. He can slip right through your fingers. But at least Clinton tried and failed. I'll bet Bin Ladan and Zawahiri discussed their options and decided to wait and see if Bush got elected.
Why couldn't Bush have done the same thing with Iraq? Why couldn't he ignore it the same way he ignored the first 8 months of his duty to America?
Hey Yoni. you never told me why there wouldn't be a successor if it weren't for Bush.
I truly want to know why you think that.
No, I answered it Mr. Dhimmi.
No you didn't but i'm stupid so could you repeat it? I've been waiting for a week. You said if it weren't for Bush there would be no successor. I don't blame you if you don't want to answer. That statement does seem silly.
The war on terr phonily taken into Iraq caused the US to leave the real war on terror, in Afghanistan, at second priority, well before Afghanistan's govt, police, military were fully stable and credible of defending itself. In that undeniable sense, the phony Iraq war has seriously hurt the war on terror.
The US military admitted recently that in several towns and regions in Iraq, al-Quaida is functioning as the de facto government, meaning that al-Quaida is controlling more terrritory now than before the US invaded Iraq. Saddam was not into doing any power sharing with any signficant al-Quaida while he was in power.
The terrorists fighting the US military in Iraq is an excellent, even the best, training school for terrorists. We have 140K military in Iraq. Have they killed 140K terrorists in Iraq? 70K?
The US military tied down and exposed as stretched, exhausted, undermanned, under equipped certainly emboldens Syria and Iran, which are real sources of terror. How does emboldening the terror-provoking states NOT hurt the war on terror?
This endevour is stupid without more troops.
I'll check back on Tuesday for that answer Yoni....and the next day, and the next.....
Oh damn, Keith Olbermann must be stopped!
The dude has taken dirty politics to an art form. Like him or hate him, one has to admit he is good at what he does, that is get Republicans elected.
Testimony to his craftsman-ship? When did intimidation, threats, political black-balling, burglary, wire-tapping, fraud, and treason morph into a craft?
That said, I think he is very indicative of the moral rot in the GOP, and one of the biggest driving forces in the whole "ends justify the means" movement in Republican politics.
Well you got it half right. Clinton failed at getting UBL like he failed at
everything except getting elected and chasing women.
By Morris
The real Clinton emerges
From behind the benign façade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace’s interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know – the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. Clinton jabbed his finger in Wallace’s face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator’s space.
But beyond noting the ex-president’s non-presidential style, it is important to answer his distortions and misrepresentations. His self-justifications cons ute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the “definition of ‘is’ is” could perform.
Clinton told Wallace, “There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down.” Nobody said there was. The point of citing Somalia in the run up to 9-11 is that bin Laden told Fortune Magazine in a 1999 interview that the precipitous American pullout after Black Hawk Down convinced him that Americans would not stand up to armed resistance.
Clinton said conservatives “were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day” after the attack which killed American soldiers. But the real question was whether Clinton would honor the military’s request to be allowed to stay and avenge the attack, a request he denied. The debate was not between immediate withdrawal and a six-month delay. (Then-first lady, now-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) favored the first option, by the way). The fight was over whether to attack or pull out eventually without any major offensive operations.
The president told Wallace, “I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill bin Laden.” But actually, the 9-11 Commission was clear that the plan to kidnap Osama was derailed by Sandy Berger and George Tenet because Clinton had not yet made a finding authorizing his assassination. They were fearful that Osama would die in the kidnapping and the U.S. would be blamed for using assassination as an instrument of policy.
Clinton claims “the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible [for the Cole bombing] while I was there.” But he could replace or direct his employees as he felt. His helplessness was, as usual, self-imposed.
Why didn’t the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden’s involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously. He never visited the site and his only public comment was to caution against “over-reaction.” In his pre-9/11 memoirs, George Stephanopoulos confirms that he and others on the staff saw it as a “failed bombing” and noted that it was far from topic A at the White House. Rather than the full-court press that the first terror attack on American soil deserved, Clinton let the investigation be handled by the FBI on location in New York without making it the national emergency it actually was.
In my frequent phone and personal conversations with both Clintons in 1993, there was never a mention, not one, of the World Trade Center attack. It was never a subject of presidential focus.
Failure to grasp the import of the 1993 attack led to a delay in fingering bin Laden and understanding his danger. This, in turn, led to our failure to seize him when Sudan evicted him and also to our failure to carry through with the plot to kidnap him. And, it was responsible for the failure to “certify” him as the culprit until very late in the Clinton administration.
The former president says, “I worked hard to try to kill him.” If so, why did he notify Pakistan of our cruise-missile strike in time for them to warn Osama and allow him to escape? Why did he refuse to allow us to fire cruise missiles to kill bin Laden when we had the best chance, by far, in 1999? The answer to the first question — incompetence; to the second — he was paralyzed by fear of civilian casualties and by accusations that he was wagging the dog. The 9/11 Commission report also attributes the 1999 failure to the fear that we would be labeled trigger-happy having just bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by mistake.
President Clinton assumes that criticism of his failure to kill bin Laden is a “nice little conservative hit job on me.” But he has it backwards. It is not because people are right-wingers that they criticize him over the failure to prevent 9/11. It was his failure to catch bin Laden that drove them to the right wing.
The ex-president is fully justified in laying eight months of the blame for the failure to kill or catch bin Laden at the doorstep of George W. Bush. But he should candidly acknowledge that eight years of blame fall on him.
One also has to wonder when the volcanic rage beneath the surface of this would-be statesman will cool. When will the chip on his shoulder finally disappear? When will he feel sufficiently secure in his own legacy and his own skin not to boil over repeatedly in private and occasionally even in public?
"It was his failure to catch bin Laden that drove them to the right wing."
what?
Clinton gets skwereed because he didn't try enough, and/or failed, and admits it.
Clinton claimed "They (Repugs) didn't even try" to fight terrrorism and OBL before 9/11, they won't admit thay, but the Repugs get a pass.
A day after Clinton blows up at C. Mathews out of the blue. It's not like Mathews was grilling him; looked like Clinton planned this "spontaneous outburst". Democrats are pulling a Rove-esque coordinated attack.
I agree that Morris was reaching with that quote about what drove people to the right...
"are pulling a Rove-esque coordinated attack."
When the Repugs do it, it's cool, but when the Dems do the same, it's .... ?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions