April 13, 2004
August 6th PDB: Smoking Gun or A Dud ?
During the 9/11 Commissions dog and pony show hearings, especially in the questioning of Dr. Rice, much was made of the now infamous August 6th 2001 Presidents Daily Briefing memo. 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste pressed Dr. Rice about the PDB memo, which was still classified, as to the title of the memo and whether it advised of any threats of attacks.
Dr. Rice responded that she believed the title was "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." Dr. Rice then attempted to answer the second part of Mr. Ben-Veniste's question when he rudely interrupted her, however Dr. Rice insisted on completing the answer to the question and went on to say that it "did not warn of any attacks inside the United States . It was historical information based on old reporting. Mr. Ben-Veniste response was to call for the memo's declassification for the public to see.
Well, Mr. Ben-Veniste got his wish and the memo was declassified on April 10th, with some minor redactions. I read the memo, which I had expected to be voluminous, in wake of the way the 9/11 commission was touting it. I agree completely with Dr. Rice's description of the memo and what it said.
The memo spoke of clandestine, foreign government, and media reports that since 1997, Bin Laden had wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S., and that in television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that he would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef ( 1993 WTC bombing) and "bring the fighting to America." Okay, so far I'm falling asleep here, this is old news, or as Dr. Rice put it, "historical information based on old reporting."
The memo goes on to say that after the U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Laden wanted to retaliate in Washington. So far still old news.
Further on in the memo an Egyptian Islamic Jihad operative stated that at about the same time, Bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terror strike. Still old news.
The memo stated that Bin Laden may have been part of the 1999 millennium bomb plot against the Los Angeles International Airport by Ahmed Ressam which was foiled and that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah , Bin Ladens lieutenant, was planning his own attack. It spoke of the 1998 attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and how Bin Laden associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1993, and that members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.
According to the memo, Al-Qaeda members, some who were U.S. citizens, have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years and that the group apparently maintained a support structure that could aid attacks. Two Al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990's.
The memo also said that a clandestine source stated in 1998 that a Bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks. It went on to say: We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as Bin Laden saying in 1998 that he wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of the "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar'Abd al-Rahman and other U.S. held extremists. Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The memo ended stating that the FBI was conducting 70 Bin Laden related field investigations in the U.S. and that the CIA and the FBI were investigating a report of a call to the embassy in the UAE in May stating that a group of Bin Laden supporters were in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.
It certainly seems to me that Dr. Rice hit the nail right on the head when she stated in her opening statement, that all the intelligence before the 9/11 attacks was "not specific as to time, nor place, nor manner of attack." Anyone who really wants to find out the truth can see that this memo was full of old information, that the last paragraph of the memo, the only part of the memo that dealt with the current information at the time was ambiguous at best.
The fact that the FBI and the CIA were conducting investigations into possible Al-Qaeda in the United States planning attacks shows that steps were being taken on those suspicions and that any logical person reading the memo would conclude that the proper action would be taken by these agencies if it were warranted.
What it does not show is that we knew that aircraft were going to be used in attacks against United States citizens, or that the President was briefed on such information, because the simple truth and fact of the matter is ladies and gentlemen, the memo did not state that and he wasn't briefed as such.
This so called smoking gun has turned out to be nothing more than a leaky water pistol, it hasn't done any damage, it's running out of ammo, and it's all wet.
Follow this link and be sure to note the date—this so called secret memo has been on the record for years, despite dem distortions to the contrary.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35744-2002May17?language=printer
Posted by: Martin at April 13, 2004 03:16 AMWhat that article also says — and what I think we would all do well to make a note of is this:
“What you have are some folks trying to do — and unfortunately in a fairly accusatory way — take the benefit of 20-20 hindsight with pre-9/11 information and trying to impart upon it a post-9/11 wisdom,” Ridge said in an interview.
I have to say, I really can’t understand this sudden emphasis on the search for a so-called “smoking gun.” The idea clearly isn’t a new one, and it seems like someone is getting desperate for anything at all that can be construed to discredit the administration.
Where the administration sadly went wrong, though, was in defending their position, rather than taking the obvious response — that this whole debate is ridiculous, repetitive, and only detracts from other, important issues.
What’s needed is not some pointless debate over whether or not our intelligence was good enough 3 years ago, but a mature discussion about the state of our intelligence now, and the current actions we are taking, in Iraq and internally.
Posted by: EricL at April 13, 2004 07:23 AMThe PDB really does not contain information that was not already known. Osama bin Laden wanted to attack the US???? Really??? They were recruiting people to fight against the US?? Really???
The reason that ben Veniste and his cohorts brought up the memo is that its title suggests an attack on the U.S. that should have alerted the Bush administration to 9-11. However, for those who take the time to read the PDB, it is clear that it could have been written at almost any time over a couple year period. It referred to events that had happened over a several year period, and did not have any specific information that was not acted upon.
For instance, the FBI conducted over 70 investigations relating to bin Laden; and the Democrats use this as their “proof” that the Bush administration did nothing.
The PDB is the latest attempt by the Democrats to point blame at the Republicans. We can now see Kerry moving away from his attack on jobs, since the latest jobs reports are very positive. And he is now moving toward other areas of the economy. It is always easy to find some area of the economy that is lagging….just as it is always easy to assign blame somewhere when things go wrong.
For our country’s sake, it would be best to find the root of the problems, rather than looking for partisan ways to blame the current administration.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 13, 2004 07:30 AMThere is an article in Slate that shows how Condi pretty blatantly misrepresented the contents of the memo.:
http://www.slate.com/id/2098631/
Posted by: Woody Mena at April 13, 2004 07:47 AMWoddy, come on, anyone who is trying to point to this memo as a basis for saying the administration should have known about the hijackings is simply showing how partisan their blindness is. There is so much that Bush can be attacked on, this really is not one of them.
Posted by: Alex at April 13, 2004 07:54 AMThere is also this article which confirms what I’ve been saying all along, Congress already had this info.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?print=yes&id=3558
J.R.
Woody:
The general version of the PDB has been in the public domain for a couple of years now. The ACTUAL un-redacted version of the PDB has been in front of the 911 commission already. And now the entire PDB (minus only the redaction of a few agency names) is fully available for all to see.
Yet you are posting about what Condi Rice said. Why not just focus on the actual memorandum itself, since that is the issue. Why focus on the grammar and syntax of Dr. Rice—yes, she used the word “historical”, which is one way of explaining what the PDB was. Is it the best word??? I dont know, but I DO know that had she used a different terminology, THAT terminology would have been similarly attacked.
Woody—-the memo is out there for all to see. And by most accounts, it does not contain a smoking gun. In fact, it actually says that the issues were investigated. It shows that there were Yemeni tourists who were “casing” buildings in NY—should we have imprisoned them?? Think of the furor at the ACLU had that been done. It showed over 70 FBI investigations—-perhaps 71 were warranted, but who is to say.
Read the memo for yourself, Woody. Read the memo.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 13, 2004 09:00 AMI’m curious what prompted him to request the PDB. You don’t suppose it was a huge spike in intelligence chatter? Why ask for a briefing if you weren’t nervous about an attack. Especially why request a briefing about “Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States.”
You can’t have it both ways. He was either clueless about the attacks or he was actively engaged in preventing them. To say that the FBI was looking into it with 70 investigation then to say we didn’t think anything was going to happen seems like a flip-flop to me
How about picking a story and sticking to it.
Bob,
To say that the FBI was looking into it with 70 investigation then to say we didn’t think anything was going to happen seems like a flip-flop to me
Is it possible that the terrorists plotted so well that, in fact, we didn’t know what was going to happen, despite all our efforts (and 70 FBI investigations)? I have to agree with JR on this one. There may in fact be a smoking gun out there that points to Bush, but it’s not in this memo.
Posted by: EricL at April 13, 2004 11:37 AMThe memo says what it says. My point is: Ms. Rice stated in her testimony that President Bush asked for the memo to be created and presented. Why did he do that? The Cole bombing happened almost a year before. The “new comprehensive strategy” was not completed. Someone or something must have happened to prompt this event. If this were just a case of “ hey, lets brief the new guy” it would have happened in January.
Nothing happens in a vaccum.
Good Lord, I seem to have volunteered to be the official straw man today!
Did I say anything about the memo containing a “smoking gun”? I merely said that Condi had misrepresented it. I was reacting to JR’s implication that she accurately described it. If anyone thinks that that is a trivial issue, that’s fine, but you can’t blame me for bringing it up.
The Slate article has nothing to do with grammar. They quote Condi saying that the memo did not have “new threat information” or “warn of any coming attacks inside the United States”. I can’t see how anyone can read the memo (AS I DID THIS WEEKEND) and find that to be an accurate description. For heaven’s sake, the TITLE warned of coming attacks.
For of all of these screams of “partisanship” coming from the Right, I have to wonder what you guys would be saying if this memo came out during the Clinton administration. Actually I don’t have to wonder — Rush and friends would be calling Clinton a mass murderer.
Posted by: Woody Mena at April 13, 2004 01:42 PMSeriously, what kind of information would you accept as a “smoking gun”? Are you talking about clear-cut evidence that Bush somehow knew about September 11th in advance and did nothing? I don’t think any sane democrat is looking for that. What is being looked for is whether or not he should have done more in terms of national security than he did.
Frankly, if I were president and received a briefing, “historical” or not, which said that since 1998 there have been patterns of activity in the US consistent with preparation for hijackings, I’d be doing everything in my power to make air travel safer, including getting out and lobbying for congress or whoever is responsible for it to institute air marshals and other means of protecting planes from threats that may make it through screening. Air Force One has people on board guarding the president for a reason, despite massive screening and security checks. Couldn’t a lesser version of that same type of in-transit security make all aircraft safer from would-be hijackers?
You don’t always need specific warnings to prepare for threats. Some threats are general and should be responded to in a general manner. Crime is a general threat, and we have generally responded to it by instituting law-enforcment in the form of police and other federal agencies. Can we not respond to terrorism in a similarly general manner? Do we really need actionable intelligence in order to do ANYTHING to make our citizens safer from terrorism? I think not.
Posted by: Jarin at April 13, 2004 02:05 PMThe title did NOT warn of coming attacks. It stated the obvious - Bin Laden determined to strike inside United States. If anyone didn’t know that prior to the PDB, it just shows their ignorance.
We know he was determined to strike inside the U.S. - he had already tried to on previous occasions. The fact that he was determined to do it again does not warn of any specific coming attack, nor does it tell us anything we didn’t already know.
Posted by: Blake at April 13, 2004 02:05 PMBlake:
Then, considering this needed to be both title and thesis of a briefing the president currently claims he requested, it must show his ignorance.
Posted by: Jarin at April 13, 2004 02:13 PMThe memo says near its conclusion that a hijacking might very well be in the works. That should count for something, inspire Bush to do something. It seems Bush was waiting for the actionable intelligence to just come to him. That’s not the way the real world works. If you don’t put the time, effort, and authority behind investigations like this, you won’t get results. It’s no indictment, but it’s one more sad indication that the Bush administration should have been far less surprised than they were. I think the Bush adminstrations greatest errors in dealing with terrorism were in their complacency, and in their hubris about their policies.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 13, 2004 02:21 PMStephen,
There was more pre-911 intelligence about Iraq being a serious threat to the US than Al Qaeda. The attempt here by the left to rewrite history is frankly disturbing.
Besides which, it is not working. Trust in the wisdom of the people.
CBS News Poll > Feb. 12-15, 2004. N=1,221 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.“Do you have confidence in George W. Bush’s ability to deal wisely with an international crisis, or are you uneasy about his approach?”
Have Confidence
52%Uneasy
45%Don’t Know
3%
Posted by: Eric Simonson at April 13, 2004 03:00 PM
I’m pretty surprised by that old article. Why the heck did the Administration keep trying to avoid declassifying the article? Why didn’t Rice just state the name in testimony? Who had the power to decalssify (Rice?) and why didn’t they declassify?
Forb that matter, why did the press, in particular the Washington Post whose reporters (we assume) knew the anonymous administration source(s), insist on avoiding naming the title of the article?
I sincerely doubt that the Administration or the press cared a whole lot for respecting “classified information”, what with the information already being a Google search away.
I can only attribute it to the administrations paranoid insistence on treating the hearings like a witch hunt, and their fear of having the whole country see Rice state that admittedly potentially inflammatory title. Either that or nobody in the Administration reads the Washington Post (which is possible!).
As I’ve said before, if there’s a witch hunt going on it’s entirely in the paranoid minds of the Administration and, unfortunately, manu of its partisan supporters. The commission’s determination to have Rice reveal the title of the PDB in public testimony was clearly not politically motivated - it is entirely relevant to the purpose of the hearings. The Administration’s choice to avoid allowing Rice to speak those words on tape it until the pressure became too great can only have been politically motivated. Does anyone smell a Rove?
Sure, the Democratic commissioners sometimes throw hardball grandstanding questions. The Republicans sometimes throw grandstanding softballs, too. In all, however, the commission’s proceedings seem to me to be entirely fair and balanced. That’s why it’s bi-partisan. To paint it as a witch hunt is pure paranoia.
The only people I’ve ever heard the word “smoking gun” are those who vigorously deny the likelihood of the very existence of a smoking gun. That is, the only people using the words are:
(a) The paranoid defenders of the administration saying “Stop trying to look for a smoking gun! You witch hunters!”
(b) The majority of the Administration’s detractors, who are saying “We’re not looking for a smoking gun, because it’s pretty obvious there probably isn’t one!”
In other words, there you go again with the straw man thing.
-Cf
Eric: 10 demerits for blatant distortion of poll results.
That poll was in February!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Try one more recent!!!!!!
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. April 8-9, 2004. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
.
“We’re interested in your opinion of the way George W. Bush is handling certain aspects of his job. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?”
.
Approve Disapprove Don’tKnow
% % %
4/8-9/04 44 51 5
3/25-26/04 44 50 6
2/19-20/04 45 47 8
1/8-9/04 50 43 7
(Sorry about the formatting)
Posted by: Bob J Young at April 13, 2004 03:32 PMYour right, my mistake. These are much more recent and more on point.
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. April 8-9, 2004. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample).Posted by: Eric Simonson at April 13, 2004 04:30 PM“We’re interested in your opinion of the way George W. Bush is handling certain aspects of his job. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling terrorism and homeland security?”
Approve
59%Disapprove
35%Don’t Know
6%
“Given what each administration knew at the time, do you think the Bush Administration or the Clinton Administration is more to blame for not preventing the September 11th attacks — OR that the two administrations are equally to blame?”Bush
18%Clinton
24%Both Equally
39%Neither
11%Don’t Know
8%
Or this one
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm
Bush Job Approval
Date Approve Disapprove
Today 51 48
Apr 12 53 47
Apr 11 53 46
Apr 10 52 48
Apr 9 50 49
Apr 8 49 51
PS:Rasmussen Reports is a nice site it is updated daily.
AND IT’S FREE!
Why not focus on the issue at hand?
Who is Winning War on Terror?
U.S. and Allies 48%
Terrorists 26%
Neither 20%
Not Sure 5%
Obviously, the American people don’t believe that the Bush administration has been completely incompetent in the war on terror. More importantly is who are those 26%?
The following question goes more toward whether or not we need a more ‘internationalist’ President.
Allied Co-operation
U.S. Should Follow Allies More 25%
Allies Should Follow U.S. More 44%
Neither 22%
Not Sure 9%
John Kerry circa 1970:
“I’m an internationalist,” Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”Posted by: Eric Simonson at April 13, 2004 04:59 PMKerry said he wanted “to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care.” -HarvardCrimson.com
> Have Confidence
> 52%
>
> Uneasy
> 45%
>
> Don’t Know
> 3%
Are you trying to say that 45% of the country feeling uneasy about the president’s ability “to deal wisely with an international crisis” is a good quality of President Bush? Man, that guy just doesn’t stop benefitting from low expectations.
It sounds like a real problem to me. A problem for Bush, that is - it looks like America is finally waking up from the “Bush understands foreign policy” illusion.
If we look at Clinton’s numbers (someone who was often flippantly dismissed by partisan Republicans as extraordinarily weak on national security) it looks to me that, in comparison, Bush’s disapproval ratings for international issues are pretty darn shoddy:
Here’s a poll excerpt for comparison (domestic issues redacted for brevity):
USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup (April 1999)
Percentage of people who approve of President Clinton’s handling of the following:
—-Foreign affairs 64%
—-The situation in Iraq 56%
Which of the following personal characteristics do you think applies to President Clinton:
—-An effective world leader 73%
It looks to me that Bush’s international affairs ratings are currently even lower than the wag-the-dog, Chinese spy, nation-building fiasco-prone, UN puppet president that preceded him. And the numbers are still sinking.
Bush’s negatives are staggering, yet he continues to enjoy the benefits of low expectations. A full third of the country thinks he doesn’t actually run the country at all! Even Karen Hughes on 60 minutes last week said that during the 9/11 crisis (I am paraphrasing but only a little) “Bush was actually in command, giving directions and orders, asking questions”… as if we should be impressed that the President of the United States actually gave orders during a crisis! I am not exaggerating in observing that Hughes herself looksed genuinely impressed, and Charlie Rose never even brought up the suggestion that the President was anything other than in control - she just offerred it up!
-Cf
> Obviously, the American people don’t believe that
> the Bush administration has been completely
> incompetent in the war on terror. More importantly
> is who are those 26%?
Yeah, let’s hunt them down and kill them. They must be traitors!
Seriously, what the heck do you mean by that question? I, for one, am definitely in that 26% - Bush’s policies have definately helped international terrorists grow in number and conviction, of that I have no doubt. Our military is perfectly capable of winning this war, but they are being deployed in almost exactly the opposite way they should be to fight this terror. I almost beleive that, all told, we’d be better off if Bush had done nothing at all after 9/11. Except for the initial successes in Afghanistan, I have no confidence that our war on terror is being successful at all.
Does that help you understand who that 26% is?
> “I’m an internationalist,” Kerry told The Crimson
> in 1970.
Okay, let’s look at Bush in 1970. What did he have to say about international affairs? Oh, wait, he didn’t say anything at all because he didn’t give a flying fig about politics until he entered his late forties - and not a peep about international affairs until about 1998 when he was in his mid fifties. I am 33 years old, and I’ve been writing and debating in public about international affairs for ten years — four years longer than President Bush.
Probably the best quote about foreign relations you could get from Bush from 1970 would be something about how much he loved Mexican beer (and possibly other foreign-made substances).
It really sucks that Kerry’s long and exemplary process of serving his country over three decades, making elaborate and thoughtful public statements about important issues, and keeping up with changing geopolitical realities has to come back and bite him in the butt when his opposition is allowed to get away with downright undeniably ignorant crap like “They hate freedom”.
> Kerry said he wanted “to almost eliminate
> CIA activity.
On that note, you probably won’t get much argument from Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. They’ve been either bitterly fighting or completely ignoring the CIA for years.
-Cf
> The title did NOT warn of coming attacks.
Ok, Blake, let me get this straight. If someone said to you, “Blake, Joe Blow is determined to attack inside your home”, would you consider that a “warning”?
What if the person told you that Joe Blow bought just bought a machete and was right now sitting in his basement honing it to razor sharpness? What if the person reminded you of Joe Blow’s history of violence? Just what the heck would have to happen for you to actually feel “warned”?
Posted by: Woody Mena at April 13, 2004 06:11 PM> The general version of the PDB has been in
> the public domain for a couple of years now.
Right, but that doesn’t mean that the *President* knew about it. Remember, he relies on the briefs he gets from his staff, not the news. From what we now know of the information flow within the White House, this PDB was most likely the first time the President himself ever heard this information. Assuming he read it at all.
So let’s say you were President and you hadn’t heard much about terrorism in any of your senior cabinet meetings or other staff meetings in your whole 9 months in office. You didn’t even mention it in your State of the Union. You did, however, decide that the Justice Department didn’t need to be involved in it any more (since it’s “not a law enforcement issue”) and that they didn’t need to view the PDBs any longer. You also were being told by almost every single one of your closest advisors that Saddam Hussein - and his WMDs and his eventual ICMB missles - was probably the world’s greatest terrorist threat.
Put the PDB in that context.
It’s ironic that the same people who are saying that it didn’t matter if Iraq’s threat was imminent, and that we should have attacked just by virtue of the potential threat (regardless of the likely international consequences or cost in human lives), are the same people who excuse the administration for not doing even the bare minimum in response to the threats in the PDB (which was only the tip of the iceberg). I mean, did they even discuss air marshalls? Did they give warnings to the public? Did they share these warnings across the nation’s security and transportation bureaucracies? Did they re-open the idea that perhaps terrorism was in large part a law-enforcement issue?
Did they even discuss any ideas like these?
Again, I’m not saying that *anyone* could have prevented 9/11, but I am saying that as a side effect of the 9/11 investigation we have learned that the Bush administration displayed some surprising irresponsibility towards the terrorist threat.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at April 13, 2004 06:40 PMCf,
Now here’s a straw man argument if I ever saw one.
Yeah, let’s hunt them down and kill them. They must be traitors!
Seriously, as one of the 26% maybe you can tell me how terrorists are growing in number and conviction as a result of Bush’s policies. Because I think he has done a superb job. If Roosevelt had had political opponents such as these we may not have won WW2.
Republicans have generally been able to put aside their political disagreements when it came to supporting Clinton on foreign policy, especially when he was launching cruise missiles and bombing aspirin factories. Which had a Osama and Saddam link by the way.
And you didn’t answer the substance of Kerry’s comments. Is 26% of the population ‘internationalist’ as well? That would explain feeling the terrorists are winning. Because we all know that without a blue helmet on our troops can’t do the job.
Perhaps there are good reasons why the UN refused to enforce it’s own resolutions and preferred a profitable ‘Saddam’s Iraq’ to remain in place. It’s almost like the UN was willing to sell the Iraqi people into slavery for some reason.
But the mounting evidence of scandal that has been uncovered in the U.N. Oil For Food program suggests that there was never a serious possibility of getting Security Council support for military action because influential people in Russia and France were getting paid off by Saddam. After the fall of Baghdad last spring, France and Russia tried to delay the lifting of sanctions against Iraq and continue the Oil for Food program. That’s because France and Russia profited from it: The Times of London calculated that French and Russian companies received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996 and 2003.Posted by: Eric Simonson at April 13, 2004 06:48 PMMost disturbing are Iraqi records that suggest Benon Sevan, the executive director of the Oil for Food office, received a voucher for 11.5 million barrels of oil from Saddam’s manipulation of the program — enough to yield a profit of between $575,000 and $3.5 million. -Wa Times
It’s ironic that the same people who are saying that it didn’t matter if Iraq’s threat was imminent, and that we should have attacked just by virtue of the potential threat (regardless of the likely international consequences or cost in human lives), are the same people who excuse the administration for not doing even the bare minimum in response to the threats in the PDB (which was only the tip of the iceberg). I mean, did they even discuss air marshalls?
I find it equally ironic that the people who want Bush hung for not preventing 9/11 on the basis of vague general threats are the most angry at him for going to war on the basis of intelligence that was better documented and more voluminous about Iraq.
Did they give warnings to the public? Did they share these warnings across the nation’s security and transportation bureaucracies? Did they re-open the idea that perhaps terrorism was in large part a law-enforcement issue?
If the threat was so pronounced and so obvious why didn’t the Clinton administration declare war on terror? Why did Clinton not make it an issue, from the bully pulpit as it were? Are we now to believe that Al Qaeda and terrorism was the number one focus of the Clinton administration the whole time and they never told the American people? He never made a major speach about how this was his number one priority? Clinton, who can’t help telling everyone exactly what he’s doing and why it’s so great. Then during the transition Sandy Berger relayed all the work they did in eight years about this in one hour?
Posted by: Eric Simonson at April 13, 2004 06:59 PMEric: No matter how you slice the polls we are a fifty-fifty country. You can yell partisanship and you can cry witch-hunt, but if you can’t get more than 50 percent of the country to agree, your credibility is in question and your arguments must be soft. When you show me a legitimate poll that gives Bush 75% support I will happily bow to the righteousness of your cause.
I am an independent not a democrat. We are the middle ground that is going to swing this election. If you want our support, Bush need to convince us he is right. I don’t see an attempt to do this. I see politics as usual, hubris and an unwillingness to admit they are wrong.
I doesn’t matter what the democrat thing about bush, they will never change their minds. It doesn’t matter what the republicans think, they are blind to bush’s fault and will always support him. It is the concerns of the independents you need to worry about.
There have been innumerable junction where the current administration could have won my support. Finishing Afghanistan before going to Iraq would have been a good start.
Accepting SOME of the blame for 9/11 wouldn’t hurt his credibility either. All I seem to see is hubris and arrogance. This doesn’t bode well for you cause or for the character of your candidate.
> If Roosevelt had had political opponents such
> as these we may not have won WW2.
My joke about me being a traitor is hardly a straw man argument. You are even now blatantly suggesting that my vocal argument that the Bush administration is doing a terrible job on the war on terrorism is actually hurting the war on terrorism. You are suggesting that my internal opposition weakens our nation’s struggle.
It’s perfectly fine for you to believe that if Kerry wins the election that the war on terror will suffer, and it’s fine for you to argue that my view on Bush’s performance is full of crap, but it’s not okay for you to say that simply arguing for Kerry’s victory is hurting the war on terror. This is, after all, a democracy.
FDR was a great president, but I don’t think that his Republican rivals, had they won the White House in 1944 (the only wartime election), would have led the Allies to defeat. I doubt the Republicans who voted for Thomas Dewey (fully 46% of the voters) thought they were leading the country to defeat.
> Republicans have generally been able to put
> aside their political disagreements when it
> came to supporting Clinton on foreign policy,
> especially when he was launching cruise
> missiles and bombing aspirin factories.
Are you kidding? They mocked him continually for it. They still do (“swatting flies”).
> And you didn’t answer the substance of Kerry’s comments.
I don’t need to. First, I’m not John Kerry. Secondly, his comments are 30 years old. Thirdly, his 1970 position is clearly not the position he has put forth in his 20 years the Senate and it is obvious even to you that it’s not a position he would advocate as President.
Call him a flip flopper if you will. I’d rather have a president who has spent 30 years going from a given position A (which was hardly controversial in 1970) to a new position B (which is hardly controversial now) than someone who spent 25 years with no position at all. When Lt. Governor John Kerry was elected to the Senate, Bush was an alcoholic father of two working on transforming his first oil company failure into a second oil company failure.
I hate to bring that Bush stuff up, I really do, but this is what you will get if you bring up Kerry statements from decades ago.
> I find it equally ironic that the people who
> want Bush hung for not preventing 9/11 on the
> basis of vague general threats are the most
> angry at him for going to war on the basis
> of intelligence that was better documented
> and more voluminous about Iraq.
That’s a fair argument, but nobody is suggesting that Bush should have invaded Afghanistan in the summer of 2001. He should have (and maybe did, we don’t know yet) caused a significant escalation of intelligence and counter-terrorism activities and initiatives within several US government agencies. My view, then, is consistent: I wanted the government to do roughly the same thing for both threats: investigate the threat further, contain the threat where possible, especially through international cooperation, strengthen our nation’s defenses and alliances, and definitely prepare for possible offensive action in the future.
It’s also important to note that most of us who opposed the invasion in Iraq did not oppose the initial escalation of pressure, including the threat of military force, on Saddam. I still applaud Bush for almost achieving a foreign policy coup (so to speak) by succeeding in bringing Saddam to his knees with regards to the weapons inspection. And these very same inspections were starting to refute the Administration’s fears about the threat level of Saddam’s hidden programs. Even if most of the evidence was true, even if Kay’s report is still underestimating the threat, the invasion still doesn’t seem to have been all that necessary to me. I mean, even if Saddam had the missing vials of whatever-it-is, or if he had a missile capable of flying 1000 miles, I still don’t think the invasion was worth it.
Of course, the “voluminous” intelligence information you cite about Iraq is still highly debatable. Most of the evidence was already discredited when it arrived (in a short, easy-to-read form, no doubt) on the President’s desk (i.e., everything with Chalabi’s signature on it should have had a big red disclaimer on it).
In contrast, the evidence about the Al Qaeda threat is not debated by anyone. What to do about it, however, clearly was considered open to interpretation.
My point was that, however vague the Al Qaeda intelligence was, there was lots the administration could have done right away. You ask why Clinton couldn’t have done the same stuff? Well, if Clinton had a report that said that Al Qaeda was training US-based moles to hijack and fly airplanes I would also expect him to have his team maybe look into them som more. In my mind, it should have triggered orders for more action. Rice herself said that she assumed that the PDB’s concerns were being taken care of by other people. That doesn’t seem like good leadership, but who knows, maybe that’s how all President’s work. I for one would have expected the team to escalate their efforts to both look into what we could do to uproot the terrorists and what we could to to prevent and/or ameliorate the attacks. Why were there only, what, a handful of fighter planes protecting the east coast when we knew there were hijackers among us? Why were there no sky marshalls even bein discussed? Did anyone examine the recommendations of the Hart/Rudman report?
I realize I may appear to be going out on a limb with some of these arguments. Honestly I’m just defending the commission’s duty to ask aggressive questions since it seems that the Administration’s detractors are intent on discrediting all testimony that could theoretically be twisted to make it look like Bush could have prevented 9/11. I am only trying to suggest that it’s not unfair to ask such questions, because there are logically plausible answers (i.e., the allegation that Bush’s team literally ignored these threats in favor of other priorities) that we need to either (a) rule out or (b) reveal. Investigating these allegations is key to finding the truth. And, as much as the Bush Administration may oppose it, the truth about the actions and inactions of the Clinton and Bush administrations must be revealed.
-Cf
Well, If you gotta have a “smoking gun”
How about a PDB, which is formatted like a newspaper by the way, that summarizes a continuing threat from Al Qaeda of explosives, high jackings, and New York
A President that admits to not reading newspapers
A comment following the first smoking tower to the effect,” Man, that’s one bad pilot”
And then asking his terroism head to see if Sadam was involved.
Connect the dots. And watch them smoke.
Personally, I think he’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Is this really the guy that Republicans want as their leader?
Greg: add to your list the claim he made tonight that he originally knew Al Quaida was responsible for 9/11 and that it was later confirmed, when it’s already been established that he first asked about Iraq.
Posted by: Jarin at April 13, 2004 10:44 PM…but it’s not okay for you to say that simply arguing for Kerry’s victory is hurting the war on terror.
It’s okay to say that Bush’s policies are hurting the war on terror, but not okay to say that Democratic policies are hurting the war on terror?
…is clearly not the position he has put forth in his 20 years the Senate and it is obvious even to you that it’s not a position he would advocate as President.
Not openly. But he comes as close to it as you could politically. In the end I think it will be that which will hurt him the most, if he does lose.
It’s also important to note that most of us who opposed the invasion in Iraq did not oppose the initial escalation of pressure, including the threat of military force, on Saddam. I still applaud Bush for almost achieving a foreign policy coup (so to speak) by succeeding in bringing Saddam to his knees with regards to the weapons inspection. And these very same inspections were starting to refute the Administration’s fears about the threat level of Saddam’s hidden programs. Even if most of the evidence was true, even if Kay’s report is still underestimating the threat, the invasion still doesn’t seem to have been all that necessary to me. I mean, even if Saddam had the missing vials of whatever-it-is, or if he had a missile capable of flying 1000 miles, I still don’t think the invasion was worth it.
Oddly, perhaps surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with most of this assesment. Perhaps Bush’s decision to call Saddam on his cards (half-*ssed poker lingo) caught the UN and some of Europe by surprise. There is now ample evidence that the sanctions and oil for food program were subverted, certainly by Saddam, from whom we’d expect it, but also from the UN and some elements of our allies like France and Russia. In a perfect world perhaps if there hadn’t been some hands in the cookie jar, more European allies would have been more receptive and the removal of Saddam could have happened a different way.
If I put myself in Bush’s shoes after 9/11 trying to rally the UN and our allies to remove Saddam, what do I do after I’ve honestly tried to do the right thing and nobody backs your play? Can you back down after getting a another resolution and promising action?
I do agree that further pressure could have brought a different (mitigated) resolution, but it would have been a compromise because no doubt Saddam would probably still have been in power with all of the back door deals with our ‘allies’ intact. It’s a wash at that point because even if we convinced ourselves that there were no WMD. Do we trust that he won’t try to get them again?
We are in the same position regarding Iran right now. They will have a nuclear weapon in a few years. What will we do then? That is as much of a threat to our security as Saddam having WMD, if not more.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at April 14, 2004 12:25 AM> It’s okay to say that Bush’s policies are
> hurting the war on terror, but not okay to
> say that Democratic policies are hurting
> the war on terror?
I know it’s a fine line, and you’re probably right that I’m a wee bit of a hypocrite here, but I was speaking of the fact that you were not saying that Democratic policies would hurt the war on terror, but rather that the Democrats voicing their policies hurts the war on terror. You seemed to imply that in wartime dissent alone is harmful, regardless of whether or not the dissenter’s views are good or bad.
> If I put myself in Bush’s shoes after 9/11
> trying to rally the UN and our allies to
> remove Saddam, what do I do after I’ve
> honestly tried to do the right thing and
> nobody backs your play?
The last thing I would want to do in the middle of a war against international anti-democratic anti-western terrorists would be to alienate almost every other western democracy from our side. The cost — our current geopolitical isolation, the squandered goodwill of nations that are now lukewarm friends at best, and the bumper crop freshly-sprouted enemies — doesn’t seem worth the benefit of ridding the world of Saddam and his frankly dinky WMD cache.
> We are in the same position regarding Iran
> right now. They will have a nuclear weapon in
> a few years. What will we do then?
Indeed. Invade them? There are certainly going to be more and more nuclear nations in the coming decades, especially if the United States finds itself in perpetually hostile relationships with many nations of the world. Are we going to invade them all?
I’m not sure what the right answer is, but perpetual war and serial invasions doesn’t seem like the right answer.
I’m not saying that you are suggesting serial invasions, but it is one of the only three blunt solutions the Bush administration seems to be able to come up with to address these emerging dangerous powers: Invade (Iraq), Ignore (Iran, North Korea), or Embrace (Pakistan).
Oh, there’s also Lybia. But I don’t buy that simple fear of invasion was what brought Qadaffi into the light. I think there were other, longer-simmering factors, that we dont know about yet. That said, the invasion of Iraq probably helped seal the deal.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at April 14, 2004 04:08 AMHey Eric,
Seriously, as one of the 26% maybe you can tell me how terrorists are growing in number and conviction as a result of Bush’s policies. Because I think he has done a superb job.
The CIA and the State Department must also comprise part of the 26%. Representatives from both organizations recently testified that the invasion of Iraq has created an anti-American terrorist movement where none existed before:
The result, according to the senior intelligence analyst, is that the U.S. war on terrorism after Iraq “may transition from defeating a group to fighting a movement.” [J. Cofer] Black said the spread of bin Laden’s ideology “greatly complicates our task in stamping out al Qaeda and poses a threat in its own right for the foreseeable future.” He described “scores” of extremist groups such as Jemaah Islamiah that have “gravitated to al Qaeda in recent years where before such linkages did not exist.”
And,
If Roosevelt had had political opponents such as these we may not have won WW2.
Both FDR and Wilson had Republican detractors who initially were against entering World Wars I & II, and then after our entrance were critical of the prosecution of the wars and the settlements afterwards.
BTW, if you learned that a month before Pearl Harbor FDR had received a warning that the Japanese would attack US forces in the Pacific, and he did nothing, would that alter your opinion of him as a war-time president?
Republicans have generally been able to put aside their political disagreements when it came to supporting Clinton on foreign policy, especially when he was launching cruise missiles and bombing aspirin factories.
You’re joking, right?
Actually Lee, FDR did receive warnings before the Pearl Harbor Attacks ….10 months before !
Unlike George W. Bush, FDR had Specific Warnings !
In fact, Roosevelt had been warned specifically about an attack on Pearl Harbor more than 10 months before it occurred, and generally about an attack almost 10 years before it occurred.
In October 1940, Admiral J.O. Richardson, Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet, at the behest of Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, began appraising the situation of Hawaii’s Pearl Harbor. Admiral Richardson, of course, was extremely familiar with the Navy’s maneuvers conducted in 1932, which determined Pearl Harbor could be struck by enemy (Japanese) aircraft carriers as close as 60 miles offshore.
With new intelligence at his disposal, Admiral Richardson not once but twice in late 1940 visited President Roosevelt in the White House and recommended strongly that the entire fleet at Pearl Harbor be moved to the American West Coast as soon as possible.
Under FDR’s eight-year watch since his 1932 election, according to Admiral Richardson, 1) American ships were inadequately manned for war, 2) Hawaii was too exposed for training secrecy, and 3) the fleet’s ability to combat air and submarine attacks was unacceptable. Mr. Roosevelt’s gratitude for the Admiral’s honesty was to fire him from his command of the Pacific Fleet, in January 1941
In the meantime, probably as Admiral Richardson was packing up his personal effects to move on, Ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew on January 27, 1941, sent this startling message to Roosevelt’s State Department: “The Peruvian minister has informed a member of my staff that he had heard from many sources, including a Japanese source, that, in the event of trouble breaking out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor … .”
The most damning recollection of FDR’s do-nothing reaction to the many warnings that reached the Oval Office was Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s testimony to Congress. Under oath, he described a meeting of various Cabinet officers and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Harold Stark, convened by Roosevelt November 25, 1941, the day the Japanese fleet sailed for Pearl Harbor and almost two full weeks before the attack on sleeping U.S. sailors. Said Stimson:
“The President brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps [as soon as] next Monday, for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning.”
Did the President then order a full alert that would have 1) caused the Japanese to turn their ships harmlessly back to port, or 2) allowed the Pearl Harbor fleet to put out to sea and scatter to avoid carnage? No, according to Secretary Stimson:
“In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people, it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt in anyone’s mind as to who were the aggressors.”
Pretty damming stuff and the August 6th PDB was not even close to this information that FDR had.
Here’s the url for the entire article !
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/13/94615.shtml
Posted by: J.R. at April 14, 2004 12:26 PMDemocratic policies would hurt the war on terror, but rather that the Democrats voicing their policies hurts the war on terror. You seemed to imply that in wartime dissent alone is harmful, regardless of whether or not the dissenter’s views are good or bad.
Yeah, but it does seem to be the election year policy of the Democratic party to hit Bush hard about the war. This is in effect a policy. Most, if not all, seem to be doing it. With the exception of a few like Leiberman and Zel Miller perhaps.
I don’t think dissent is bad. It is good. However, I think that there is a point at which dissent becomes war against the President rather than just disagreement. I know it’s an election year so you can expect more of that, but the war on terror has components of psy-ops that are even more pronounced than a conventional war. Terrorism is after all, all about causing fear, division, and doubt in your enemy and rallying followers to your cause. Democrats seem to be playing into the strategy, even feeding them lines!
I mean, once you’ve said this is vietnam and that we can’t win it, how does that effect guys like Al Sadr? What does that say to the people we are fighting? You have effectively told them they’ve won. Because their strategy is not to actually kill all of our troops or win actual battles, because they can’t. Their strategy is the make it cost enough that we quit.
I just wish democrats would take that into consideration. We are there now. Nothing will change that. The President has laid out an exit strategy and we will implement that exit strategy. By declaring defeat democrats may benefit by removing a claim to victory by Bush, but America will lose.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at April 14, 2004 01:33 PMThe sense I have of my party is that no one wants to be the poor SOB who screws up Iraq, who pulls out too early, or stays there too late. Unfortunately, I think Bush is all too committed to a date which is little more than an abstract idea. For my part, I don’t wish us to lose, or for us to pull out of Iraq before our job is done, but I do wish for Bush to pay politically for the mess he’s gotten us into. You may go into panic at the very idea of a Democrat getting into office, but right now, I think that’s the only way to break from the disasterous foreign policy course we’ve been steered onto.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 14, 2004 09:11 PMStephan, you’re right. The only way to get meaningful, broad international involvement in Iraq is to elect someone who “plays well with others.”
Bush has handicapped himself by squandering international goodwill and credibility. Politics, diplomacy, and foreign policy are all about people and personalities, not ideologies.
People in the international arena don’t like George W. Bush, and it renders him ineffective at rallying international support for anything.
And the saddest part of this whole episode is that the CIA, FBI, and other government agencies agree that our country is in more danger from terrorist attack now than before 9/11.
