PDA

View Full Version : Panel: U.S. Should Have Pounded Al Qaeda Earlier


adios
03-23-2004, 05:41 PM
Looks like a total condemnation of Clinton's terrorist policy to me.

The Clinton administration had early indications of terrorist links to Usama bin Laden (search) and future Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (search) as early as 1995, but let years pass as it pursued criminal indictments and diplomatic solutions to subduing them abroad, it found.

I can't wait the hue and cry for diplomatic solutions now. The panel is actually stating that diplomacy should have been eschewed from the gitgo and force should have been used. Clinton's policy was basically a do nothing policy in response to terrorist attacks. It emboldened al Queada.

The preliminary report did say, though, that 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.

Pointing out the disasterous Clinton policy and choices which led to 9/11. Blood from 9/11 is on Clinton's and the Democrats hands for his mishandling of terrorism. Now the Dems are pushing another disaster on us named Kerry.

In spring 1998, the commission found, the Saudi government successfully thwarted a bin Laden-backed effort to launch attacks on U.S. forces in that country. But even after the August 1998 embassy bombings in Africa, the administration declined covert military action in favor of Saudi assistance in persuading the Taliban to expel bin Laden. The Taliban refused, it said.

Exactly Clinton didn't do a friggen thing.

"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."

Everyone knew Clinton wouldn't do anything.

To be fair here's what the commission stated about Bush pre 9/11.

Bush officials, meanwhile, failed to act immediately on increasing intelligence chatter and urgent warnings in early 2001 by its counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke (search), to take out Al Qaeda targets, according to preliminary findings by the commission reviewing the attacks.

This seems like small pototatos given the reaction to any kind of pre-emptive force that the left objects to.

Perhaps this commission is more on topic than I thought.

Panel: U.S. Should Have Pounded Al Qaeda Earlier (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114955,00.html)

Panel: U.S. Should Have Pounded Al Qaeda Earlier

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

WASHINGTON — The Clinton and Bush administrations' decision to use diplomatic rather than military options against Al Qaeda allowed the Sept. 11 terrorists to elude capture years before the attacks, a federal panel said Tuesday.



The Clinton administration had early indications of terrorist links to Usama bin Laden (search) and future Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (search) as early as 1995, but let years pass as it pursued criminal indictments and diplomatic solutions to subduing them abroad, it found.

Bush officials, meanwhile, failed to act immediately on increasing intelligence chatter and urgent warnings in early 2001 by its counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke (search), to take out Al Qaeda targets, according to preliminary findings by the commission reviewing the attacks.

"We found that the CIA and the FBI tended to be careful in discussing the attribution for terrorist attacks," the bipartisan report said. "The time lag between terrorist act and any definitive attribution grew to months, then years, as the evidence was compiled."

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, appearing on a television interview Tuesday, said, however, the commission will not make any final judgments about the Clarke allegations or other assertions until it has reviewed all the evidence.

"The commission will not make any judgments about that, nor will I," he said.

The preliminary report did say, though, that 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.

In spring 1998, the commission found, the Saudi government successfully thwarted a bin Laden-backed effort to launch attacks on U.S. forces in that country. But even after the August 1998 embassy bombings in Africa, the administration declined covert military action in favor of Saudi assistance in persuading the Taliban to expel bin Laden. The Taliban refused, it said.

"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."

The report was part of the commission's two-day hearing focusing on the two administration's failed responses to the threat from Al Qaeda.

Secretary of State Colin Powell (search) and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld (search), as well as their counterparts in the Clinton administration, William Cohen (search) and Madeleine Albright (search), testified Tuesday. They appeared as part of the panel's review of failures in diplomatic and military strategy.

The hearing comes following explosive allegations in a book released Monday by Clarke, Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator and a holdover from the Clinton administration, who is expected to testify Wednesday.

He said that he warned Bush officials in a January 2001 memo about the growing Al Qaeda threat after the Cole attack but was put off by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who "gave me the impression she had never heard the term (Al Qaeda) 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 Qaeda 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 on the advice of the White House, which cited 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 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.

Scheduled to testify Wednesday are CIA director George Tenet; Rice's predecessor, Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger; and a new witness added Tuesday to fill Rice's slot, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. On that day, the panel will review intelligence and national policy coordination.

HDPM
03-23-2004, 06:02 PM
It is crazy to even think about addressing terrorism in the criminal courts. Sure, if there is somebody here funding terrorists or something maybe you indict them. But overseas terorists are not citizens and aren't entitled to the protections of the criminal justice system. Nor are they entitled to the protections we give sovereign nations. The criminal just can't deal with them effectively. When we try, we accomplish nothing and then pass laws that weaken our own rights. Clinton's administration has been more guilty of this error, but Bush's administration has done it too. Hopefully after 9/11 we will be smart enough to send out covert warriors who take out terrorists where they nest, not serve indictments. It is tough enough to find the bastards in the first place, why give them a chance if we can find them. Kill them, take their stuff, destroy any buildings they might have, etc.... At least let them know they will never be safe in any city or country and retirement does not give them immunity. At least let them worry their whole life.

The article does support what we did in Afghanistan BTW. But we should articulate a stronger anti-terrorism position IMO. We should say that when we ask for terrorists and you don't turn them over, as Mullah Omar did, you become responsible for any and all future attacks by members of that group. Retaliation may take any form, we should not publically rule out the use of any weapon. This would at least make rich countries like Saudi Arabia cooperate a little more. We really should not be ashamed of giving countries like Afghanistan ass kickings if they help terrorists. Terrorists will always exist and we need to make state sponsorship of them very risky and expensive.

One other thing re: Albright. She was a prson who ran after Yasser Arafat begging him when he left a negotiating session on middle east peace. This was unacceptable conduct by a secy of state and sent a terrible message. The US should never beg terrorists. She did, and that reflected the whole attitude of the Clinton Administration.

Taxman
03-24-2004, 06:54 PM
Ok, well we know the indentities of many terrorists throughout the world, so I'd like to hear what we're doing to catch all of them as of right now. Clinton was routinely criticized for focusing too much on foreign terrorists and many of his best opportunities came during the impeachment proceedings. Do you really think anyone would have praised any action by him at that time? I think it much more likely that the "liberal" press would have crucified him from taking attention from his questionable personal life and he would have had trouble getting congressional support as well. Furthermore, he did not have intel suggesting an immenent 9/11 style attack, unlike a certain someome we all know and love. There was no reason to think that a world wide war on terrorism was a necessary step at that point. I highly doubt that he could have excecuted any sort of widespread military action while he was in office without significant political and popular backlash, assuming he could even get such opperations underway.

bernie
03-24-2004, 07:04 PM
The republicans had their priorities in the right spot when clinton was in. Screw terrorism, that can wait, Clinton got a hummer!

b

GWB
03-25-2004, 07:19 AM
Wow! It looks like Clinton screwed up big time.

We sure are lucky to be rid of him.

Cyrus
03-25-2004, 08:50 AM
If you read carefully the panel's own assessment and the text itself, you will see that Slick Bill comes off better than Dubya.

adios
03-25-2004, 10:35 AM
I forget who was trying to sell the idea that Clinton was more committed to stopping terrorism than Bush. That's plain nuts given the events that transpired leading up to 9/11. The electorate isn't buying that crap for one second.

Did you see or hear Albright's pathetic testimony? She blamed intelligence info for the Clinton administration failures LOL. If you look at facts very carefully you'll note that Clinton basically did nada regarding state sponsored terrorism except send a few cruise missles and take out a pharmacy or whatever. He allowed the terrorist camps to be established and flourish in Afghanistan. What's amazing is that the committee basically recommended pre-emptive incursions in Afghanistan to eliminate the threat. I can only imagine the hue and cry from the leftists if that would have happened. Today's yahoo article on the hearings:

Clarke Grabs Center Stage at 9/11 Hearing (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040325/ap_on_re_us/sept_11_commission&cid=519&ncid=716)

A couple of excerpts:

Commissioners later sought to minimize any concerns of partisanship that could undermine the credibility of the final report they expect to release this summer.


"Nobody has clean hands in this one," said former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican and the commission chairman, referring to the Bush and Clinton administrations. "It was a failure of individuals. The question now is whether or not we learned from our mistakes."

"One of the startling things that I think came out of the hearing ... is that virtually every witness, including Dick Clarke, specifically, when asked indicated that even when everything had been raised to the highest alert level when the new administration came in, it was really too late then" to avert an attack, said former Navy Secretary John Lehman, a commission member, said Thursday.

"So what we have is an open system that lets terrorists in and while we would never totally close that off, we still have a long way to go to see that our immigration and our border security are improved enough so that we can rest a little more securely," he told Fox News. "And we're not there yet."


and ............................

Former Republican Sen. Slade Gorton asked Clarke if there was "the remotest chance" that the attacks could have been prevented if the Bush administration had adopted his aggressive counterterrorism recommendations upon taking office in January 2001.

"No," Clarke said.

Read it 9/11 was a done deal before Bush took office due to the Clinton administration failures.

Clarke Grabs Center Stage at 9/11 Hearing
32 minutes ago Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!


By KEN GUGGENHEIM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - For a dozen years, he worked quietly in the shadows of the White House. But Richard Clarke stole the spotlight at an extraordinary series of hearings into the Sept. 11 attacks, claiming President Bush (news - web sites) hadn't done enough to protect the country from terrorists.

A counterterrorism adviser to the past three presidents, Clarke accused the Bush administration Wednesday of scaling back the campaign against Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) before the attacks and undermining the fight against terrorism by invading Iraq (news - web sites).


They were many of the same criticisms Clarke leveled in a book published this week and in recent interviews that strike at the heart of Bush's tough-on-terrorism re-election campaign.


But this time Clarke was appearing before the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, swearing to tell the truth before a packed Capitol Hill hearing room and a nationwide television audience watching the broadcast live.


Many of those attending were relatives of Sept. 11 victims. Clarke began his testimony by apologizing to them.


"Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed," he said. "And for that failure, I would ask — once all the facts are out — for your understanding and for your forgiveness."


Under questioning, Clarke said the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than combatting terrorists while the Bush administration made it "an important issue but not an urgent issue" in the months before Sept. 11, 2001.


Clarke's criticism contradicted testimony given to the panel Tuesday and Wednesday from Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites), Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet. All said the administration grasped the threat posed by al-Qaida and was working hard to fight it.


"All I can tell you is the policy-makers got it because I talked to all of them about it and they understood the nature of what we were dealing with," Tenet said.


Clarke's appearance Wednesday raised partisan tensions on a commission that prides itself on being bipartisan. While Democrats offered praise, Republicans questioned Clarke's integrity, morality and candor. They also suggested his criticism was intended to spur book sales or boost the candidacy of Bush's likely rival, Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass.


The White House took the unusual step of identifying Clarke as the senior official who had praised Bush's anti-terrorism efforts in an anonymous briefing for reporters in 2002.


"He needs to get his story straight," said Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), Bush's national security adviser and Clarke's former boss.


At the hearing, Republican commissioner James R. Thompson, a former Illinois governor, held up Clarke's book and a text of the briefing and challenged the witness, "We have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true?"


Clarke said both were true. He was still working for Bush at the time of the briefing and was asked to highlight the positive aspects of the administration's counterterrorism efforts and minimize the negative, he said.


Seeking to counter White House suggestions that he is seeking a job in a future Kerry administration, Clarke said he wouldn't accept a position — and noted he was under oath.


Commissioners later sought to minimize any concerns of partisanship that could undermine the credibility of the final report they expect to release this summer.


"Nobody has clean hands in this one," said former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican and the commission chairman, referring to the Bush and Clinton administrations. "It was a failure of individuals. The question now is whether or not we learned from our mistakes."





"One of the startling things that I think came out of the hearing ... is that virtually every witness, including Dick Clarke, specifically, when asked indicated that even when everything had been raised to the highest alert level when the new administration came in, it was really too late then" to avert an attack, said former Navy Secretary John Lehman, a commission member, said Thursday.

"So what we have is an open system that lets terrorists in and while we would never totally close that off, we still have a long way to go to see that our immigration and our border security are improved enough so that we can rest a little more securely," he told Fox News. "And we're not there yet."

The commission's latest hearings examined military and diplomatic efforts to fight bin Laden in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks. Also testifying were President Clinton (news - web sites)'s Defense Secretary William Cohen, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (news - web sites) and national security adviser Samuel Berger.

Many of the problems both administrations faced were revealed in a series of preliminary commission reports issued over two days. A report Wednesday said CIA officials, including Tenet, believed the agency lacked the authority to kill bin Laden unless his death resulted from a capture. But they never discussed this with Berger or other Clinton administration officials, who believed the CIA had the OK to kill bin Laden.

The report also said the CIA had depended too much on unreliable indigenous groups in Afghanistan (news - web sites), where the al-Qaida leader was running training camps under the protection of the Taliban rulers in Kabul.

Officials from both administrations largely agreed on the obstacles they faced in pursuing bin Laden. They lacked intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts that was specific and reliable enough to launch a missile attack.

They said an American invasion of Afghanistan wasn't a serious option because it would have been strongly opposed by the American public and Congress.

U.S. officials debated how they could use the unmanned Predator aircraft to spy on bin Laden and whether it could be armed with missiles to carry out attacks. They also questioned how much support to give the Taliban's enemies, the northern alliance, which had leaders linked to drug trafficking and other abuses.

Kean said commissioners "have experienced considerable frustration these past two days. We keep wrestling with the question: What could have been done and what should have been done at some stage or other over the past eight years to prevent 9/11?"

Rumsfeld, Powell and Tenet all expressed doubts that the attacks could have been prevented if the Bush administration had captured or killed bin Laden.

Former Republican Sen. Slade Gorton asked Clarke if there was "the remotest chance" that the attacks could have been prevented if the Bush administration had adopted his aggressive counterterrorism recommendations upon taking office in January 2001.

"No," Clarke said.

Boris
03-25-2004, 11:31 AM
Fair enough. Now why doesn't Bush take accountability for the fact that his Anti-terrorism effort has been ineffectual given the number of serious terrorist attacks post 9-11 and the failure to dismantle the Al-Qaeda leadership infrastructure. You can blame Clinton because he attacked no one. Buy you have to blame Bush becuase he attaced the wrong people. There may be reasons unrelated to terrorism to oust Saddam, but clear fact of the matter is the Iraq campaign has sapped precious resources away from the effort to dismantle Al-Qaeda and associated terror groups.