home

Brass: Cheney "Offended" By Obama On Intelligence Briefings

This takes "brass" as they say:

“If President Obama were participating in his intelligence briefings on a regular basis then perhaps he would understand why people are so offended at his efforts to take sole credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden,” Cheney told the Daily Caller on Monday night[.]

Oh really? This from a guy who ignored the intelligence briefings on the imminent 9/11 attacks?

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. [...] But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders [...] were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein[. ...] In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real. [...] Yet, the White House failed to take significant action.

Dick Cheney, one of the most disgraceful and despicable men ever to hold government office.

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Are the Phone Companies Gouging Law Enforcement on Wiretap Costs? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Sour grapes. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 09:47:07 AM EST
    From the worst foreign policy man ever.

    Dick Cheney (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 09:55:57 AM EST
    is a complete disgrace to this country. Him speaking out just reminds us of how bad the GOP is. Anyway, OBL had been there for six years before Seal Team Six showed up. I could easily say that Cheney did not want the guy dead because he and Bush needed a convenient boogey man.

    At least people remember Cheney.. (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 01:50:00 PM EST
    Meanwhile, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Abrams and Chalbai hopped into the lifeboats in drag, and  no one's heard from them since..

    Parent
    Wait until the next Republican president (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 06:04:07 PM EST
    they will then crawl out from wherever they are hiding.

    Parent
    Whatever (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 02:15:52 PM EST
    did happen to those bozos? I was thinking one of them is on Romney's FP team.

    Parent
    Abrams has been schooling Lyin' Ryan (none / 0) (#38)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 07:05:32 PM EST
    in foreign policy.

    Parent
    Well, Cheney didn't need any (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 10:03:01 AM EST
    stink'n intelligence when he (and Wolfie, Rummie and Douglas Feith--the dumbest mf in the world, according to General Tommy Franks and others) when you have your ideology as fact checker.  

    From the link and from, unfortunately, history:  "Neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the WH that the CIA had been fooled; according to this theory, Bid Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam.."   A persistent Cheney idea that was not only implausible but absurd in the eyes of the CIA.

    And the proof that (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 06:30:53 AM EST
    "..Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack..." was his clever diversion of sending hordes of young Moslem men to America to learn how to steer (not take off, or land) large passenger jetliners.

    Now, Dan, I realize we're talking about the "pre-attack" intelligence prowess of the Bush Team. But, I just can't help pointing out, especially in light of your fine, albeit incomplete, list of the "....dumbest mf ['ers] in the world," leaving out that historic Vicar of Bush Diplomacy, (His Majesty) Lewis Paul "Jerry" Bremer III.

    Under the boy/man President's imaginary leadership his hand picked Diplomatic Dolt, Mr. Bremer, did, with the mere wave of a contemptuous,
    flaccid wrist, convert a rapid, efficient military victory into an unnecessary, decade's long, multi-billion dollar, blood-filled  insurrection.

    But, just think, we can return to those wondrous years of republican leadership in just six, or so, more weeks.

    America, show us your stuff!

    Parent

    Read the op-ed this morning, and will read (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 10:12:47 AM EST
    the excerpt from Eichenwald's book, 500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror World, in Vanity Fair.

    The only ones who got fooled - and deliberately so under the evil, sick aegis and direction of one Richard B. Cheney, who had Bush firmly by the nose - were the American people; I can hardly bear to think how different everything would be if those planes had never been flown into those buildings.  Would we have gone to war?  Would we have a Patriot Act or be living in a surveillance state?  Would Bush have even gotten a second term?

    The death and destruction - physical, moral, economic, political, personal - that emanated from those attacks is incalculable, both here and in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I don't know if there is a more offensive statement that could have been offered today than Dick Cheney's.  Imagine being so evil that one could be consumed with jealousy that those responsible for the lies, the crimes committed against humanity, the war waged for nearly a decade, and the erosion of constitutional rights aren't getting the credit they deserve.  Be happy if not being able to imagine that is a bridge too far for you - it means you're human.

    Cheney - among others - should be in a prison cell; rather than sniping at Obama for not getting credit, he should be thanking him for deciding that no one will be held accountable for the actions of the Bush administration.

    I can't even address that decision - or the seeming indifference about it - without wanting to throw something.

    The same national security team (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 11:09:42 AM EST
    Belongs to Romney now,  they are his advisors on it and long for war with Iran.  Given how incompetent Romney is at this stage of demonstrating his statecraft and how broken the economy is, they would take us to war with Iran just trying to shore up a second term.  Those guys can make anything up...anything, and they have no conscience...none

    I bought a new book the other day called 'Sway', it is about social psychology, behavioral economics, and organizational behavior and what causes us to act irrationally.  I hope it holds information for me on how the people I live around down here can be so phucked up.  And like how 15% of anyone can think Mitt Romney got Osama bin Laden.

    Parent

    Yup - they would use him the same way they (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 11:50:21 AM EST
    did Dubya. I think they ought to be front and center of every Obama ad - 'Do you want these guys back?'

    Parent
    ya gotta love dick cheney! (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by cpinva on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 10:45:42 AM EST
    the man babbles on nonsensically, and there are people (FOX News) out there even dumber than he is, who take his incoherent ramblings seriously. so dick (can i call you dick?), what, exactly, does the one have to do with the other? i'll answer for you guy, i know you have a hunting buddy to shoot in the face: nothing, nada, zippo!

    the fact is, obama could have ignored every single briefing, up to that point, and he's still the president that whacked bin laden. kind of pisses you off, doesn't it dick? i mean, obama made the call that your guy couldn't be bothered to make, because he was busy clearing "brush" down at the biggest brush ranch in the american southwest. that's ok dick, go shoot someone, you'll feel better.

    I mean, I guess (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 10:52:51 AM EST
    had they not ignored intel we would have not had such an impetus to hunt down bin Laden.  So for that Bush and Cheney deserve credit.

    When (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by cal1942 on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 10:53:47 AM EST
    has Obama or anyone in the administration attempted to "take sole credit" for the elimination of bin Laden?

    This is so absurd.  I rank it with the Swiftboating of John Kerry and myriad other assaults by these absolutely terrible people.

    I don't know what Cheney, et al are like personally but their public acts, the acts that count for the American people, make them the most despicable elected officials in our history.

    That's What I Was Thinking... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 12:42:38 PM EST
    ...it's like they hate Obama so much that when they here him speak, they hear something entirely different than the rest of us.  He has never said, "I got him", it's always been "We".

    But I am glad Cheney is reminding us of that entire nightmare, including their inability to find WMD's or get OBL.  Which was the entire basis for war, or so they claim.

    And I am not sure if this was from today, but the timing couldn't be better for Obama.  Not that is should matter, but it does.  Romney seems like the kind of guy who will let warmongers and ideologues run the show, just like Bush did.  And we need Dick Cheney saying all kinds of stupid headline grabbing non-sense to remind us where we never ever want to go again.

    I hope the media can't stay away from Dick Cheney, but come Nov 6th, I don't want to hear another peep.

    Parent

    Baa waa waa (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 02:08:56 PM EST
    If I were Romney, i would be hunting down a bolt that was big enough to go over the door at that "undisclosed" location to keep Cheney from seeing daylight until the end of the election.

    Parent
    I don't want to hear (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 11:07:56 AM EST
    anything out of Dick Cheney's mouth.  He, Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza "Nobody could have predicted..." Rice and a whole list of others should be up on charges at the International Court in The Hague.  They can all go Cheney themselves.

    One of the great things (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 11:12:02 AM EST
    about Twitter is after you slog through a couple hundred meaningless tweets, you come across a gem.

    From the creator of Family Guy...

    "Cheney hectoring Obama over intelligence briefings is like the Costa Concordia Captain browbeating Sully Sullenberger"

    link to the tweet? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 11:15:57 AM EST
    I was off (none / 0) (#14)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 11:35:54 AM EST
    not the creator, the animation producer, Kara Vallow.

    My apologies


    Parent

    Inspiration. If BTD would give up the radio (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 11:41:07 AM EST
    gig and just tweet, we'd all be happy.  

    Parent
    I wouldn't (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by sj on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 11:48:15 AM EST
    I don't want -- and therefore will likely never open -- a Twitter account.

    Parent
    Me neither. But I'd rather read than try (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 11:52:08 AM EST
    (w/o success) to listen.  

    Parent
    Ah, I see (none / 0) (#21)
    by sj on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 12:08:32 PM EST
    I never try to listen.  Not because I'm not interested, because I am.  But because that is the busiest, most committed part of my day.  

    As far as listening later goes, my home laptop has really crappy speakers.  :(

    Parent

    My laptop transmits sound through my (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 12:18:53 PM EST
    very good speakers for my AM/FM tuner.  I can understand NPR, but not DK Radio.  

    Parent
    Sad but true (none / 0) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 11:53:34 AM EST
    In the era of the ten second television news soundbite, nailing something on the internet in 140 characters or less is an art form.

    Parent
    maybe they should (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by fishcamp on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 11:16:11 AM EST
    just chopper them to a big field in Helmand Province and let 'em go for a long walk.

    Dick Cheney: (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 11:41:09 AM EST
    The man who should be in prison until the day his transplanted heart stops beating.

    it's yet another crime against humanity (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 04:56:34 PM EST
    that a precious human heart was reserved for the likes of Dick Cheney, an evil man whose expiration date has been artificially extended by decades

    Parent
    Forget it, Armando -- it's Dick Cheney. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 01:14:34 PM EST
    Suffice to say that the man is an incorrigibly corrupted psychotic and unapologetically vile a$$hole -- always has been, and always will be. May he be sodomized by Satan in Hell for all eternity with the unlubed and splintered fat end of a baseball bat, as far as I'm concerned. And that's just for starters.

    But, Donald, (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 01:24:08 PM EST
    tell us how you really feel about Dick Cheney.  Don't hold back!  ;-)
    Yes, I pretty much agree.

    Parent
    Cheney and Son. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 01:17:46 PM EST
    Dick Cheney, one of the most disgraceful and despicable men ever to hold government office.

    I want to know what this b@stard has been allowed to escape prosecution for his evisceration of the constitution.

    It's rare here (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 02:34:29 PM EST
    ...for everyone to agree.  Apparently even the trolls can't think of anything good to say about the biggest Dick since Nixon.

    Obama (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 05:51:10 PM EST
    has prosecuted more whistle blowers than all previous administrations combined.

    The latest is Bradley Manning. His crime: releasing a video exposing a US Apache helicopter shooting and killing civilians and journalists in Baghdad.

    But Cheney and Bush?

    No.

    Don't tell me about how despicable Cheney is.
    Or Bush for that matter.
    I know about that.

    What I want to know is why Cheney and Bush are considered above the law, and why the Obama administration, on behalf of the American people, does not hold them to account for their actions.

    Why has the administration worked to ensure their immunity from prosecution? How can we possibly know that another Cheney or Bush will not emerge if there are no consequences for their unconscionable misdeeds?

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 07:07:34 PM EST
    But Presidents protect each other.  Remember Ford pardoning Nixon, before Tricky Dick had even been arrested for anything?
    It's an exclusive club.  They look the other way, so that any future Presidents will look the other way about anything that they and their people have done illegally, extra-judicially, anti- human rights, and so on.  The real "old boys network." (With a few girls, like Condi Rice, thrown in for good measure.)

    Parent
    None of them want to look in the (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 07:54:16 PM EST
    rear-view mirror to see the next administration gunning for them as they pull out of the WH driveway..."if I go after them, the next guy may come after me.."

    Weasels.

    Parent

    The (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 05:53:06 AM EST
    implication from this is that they know that they are already doing things that they know are worth coming after.

    And we're letting them do it.

    Parent

    Dick is soft on logic (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 10:16:39 AM EST
    Ahem.  But he's hardly alone.  Ahem ahem.  I thought the Mittster played a key role, too. ;-)

    Even more of a lie that usual (none / 0) (#31)
    by msobel on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 02:39:52 PM EST
    Turns out the Obama reads his intelligence briefings unlike Bush who had to have them read to him. With pictures for the complicated ones.

    yes (none / 0) (#32)
    by desmoinesdem on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 04:03:43 PM EST
    Dick Cheney, one of the most disgraceful and despicable men ever to hold government office.

    No doubt about that.

    NYT posted a story today... (none / 0) (#33)
    by magster on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 04:49:31 PM EST
    Derp... (none / 0) (#34)
    by magster on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 04:51:33 PM EST
    ... just noticed BTD linked this in his diary. redface.

    Parent
    War criminal Cheney, (none / 0) (#41)
    by desertswine on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 09:40:11 PM EST
    who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, should be made to live out whatever is left of his miserable existence in something like Abu Graib prison.

    The only problem with all the whining (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 10:47:46 PM EST
    over the 8/6/01 PDF is that everyone had already been briefed and warned. A bit of history:

    RICHARD Clark.... Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

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

    What this shows is that Clinton had let three very important issues slide for two years. You have to wonder if Clinton had supported the Northern Alliance in its fight with the Taliban would OBL ever been able to be in Afghanistan in the first place?

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

    This shows that the claim that Bush didn't immediately go after OBL to be a complete fiction.

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

    Again we see Bush taking action. Just days of him becoming President he decided to increase the CIA's resources 500%.

    Let's review.

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

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

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

    CLARKE: All of that's correct.

    Link

    Now, let's just forget about the fact that in the May time frame we had an international incident with Communist China. Our leaders must be able to focus on several things at once.

    What did this ramped up activity yield in the way of intelligence? Let's look at another interview. This time with Condi Rice, Bush's NSA. The subject is a meeting on July 5, 2001.

    "At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115170,00.html">Link

    Now that was 31 days prior to the infamous PDB that the Left likes to refer to and claim that Bush/Cheney paid no attention. OF COURSE THEY DIDN'T. THE ALREADY KNEW WHAT THE BRIEFER WAS SAYING 31 DAYS BEFORE. The guy was lucky. If I had been Bush I would have fired him on the spot for wasting my time and then fired his boss for wasting my time in a CYA exercise.

    You always provide HALF (less?) the info (none / 0) (#55)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 11:03:17 AM EST
    I wonder why that is?

    Here, Jim ... I'll help you out:

    1)  Jim's theory - Clarke's statement shows that everybody had been "briefed and warned".

    You mean the statement he gave at the request of Bush who was taking fire for his lack of response to the warnings about Al Quaeda?  Oh, wait, that's right ... he already explained he was just spinning as part of his job for Bush:

    I was asked to make that case to the press. I was a special assistant to the President, and I made the case I was asked to make... I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the Administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the Administration had done. And as a special assistant to the President, one is frequently asked to do that kind of thing. I've done it for several Presidents

    2)

    Again we see Bush taking action. Just days of him becoming President he decided to increase the CIA's resources 500%.

    So the fact that Bush claimed a 500% increase in funding for covert ops in general (not funding against Al Quaeda) means he was vigorously pursuing Al Quaeda?

    Assuming it's true, what was the 500% increase spent on, Jim (photocopiers)?  How much went to Al Quaeda efforts, as opposed to what your source says was the true focus of the administration - Iraq?

    Clarke wrote in Against All Enemies that in the summer of 2001, the intelligence community was convinced of an imminent attack by al Qaeda, but could not get the attention of the highest levels of the Bush administration ...

    Clarke charged that before and during the 9/11 crisis, many in the administration were distracted from efforts against Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization by a pre-occupation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Clarke had written that on September 12, 2001, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and "testily" asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the CIA. The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit"...

    Oops!

    3)  Jim's claim - The July 5 meeting proves that the Bush administration had addressed the Al Quaeda threat by warning everyone.

    Except, Condi's self-serving softball interview on Faux News aside, it does no such thing.  What did the participants of the meeting say?

    The 9-11 Commission found out:

    This lack of direction was evident in the July 5 meeting with representatives from the domestic agencies. The briefing focused on overseas threats. The domestic agencies were not questioned about how they planned to address the threat and were not told what was expected of them. Indeed, as noted earlier, they were specifically told they could not issue advisories based on the briefing. The domestic agencies' limited response indicates that they did not perceive a call to action.

    So Condi held a meeting that focused on vague, overseas threats, giving no direction or instructions to the participants on planning, and specifically prohibiting them from telling anyone about these vague threats, ... and you think this means she and Bush did their jobs.

    Heh.

    "Heckuva job, Condi and George!"

    Your pal,

    Jim

    Parent

    The only problem with all the whining (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 10:47:48 PM EST
    over the 8/6/01 PDF is that everyone had already been briefed and warned. A bit of history:

    RICHARD Clark.... Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

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

    What this shows is that Clinton had let three very important issues slide for two years. You have to wonder if Clinton had supported the Northern Alliance in its fight with the Taliban would OBL ever been able to be in Afghanistan in the first place?

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

    This shows that the claim that Bush didn't immediately go after OBL to be a complete fiction.

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

    Again we see Bush taking action. Just days of him becoming President he decided to increase the CIA's resources 500%.

    Let's review.

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

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

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

    CLARKE: All of that's correct.

    Link

    Now, let's just forget about the fact that in the May time frame we had an international incident with Communist China. Our leaders must be able to focus on several things at once.

    What did this ramped up activity yield in the way of intelligence? Let's look at another interview. This time with Condi Rice, Bush's NSA. The subject is a meeting on July 5, 2001.

    "At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115170,00.html">Link

    Now that was 31 days prior to the infamous PDB that the Left likes to refer to and claim that Bush/Cheney paid no attention. OF COURSE THEY DIDN'T. THE ALREADY KNEW WHAT THE BRIEFER WAS SAYING 31 DAYS BEFORE. The guy was lucky. If I had been Bush I would have fired him on the spot for wasting my time and then fired his boss for wasting my time in a CYA exercise.

    Ha! I like how Clinton is supposed to (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 03:21:03 AM EST
    Be clairvoyant but it is perfectly normal and expected for Bush to ignore anything he wants.  Because of the increasing threat, those in the CIA gathering intel on Al Qaeda had burned through their budget in January.  When they went to the Bush administration for funding they were told to get bent.  It would have taken a little extra effort to get them the funds they need but BushCo decided they could wait for the new fiscal year.  That is 8 months without funding, and funds showing up in October cannot stop an attack that takes place the month before...Doh!

    You left out the last bit of your link too where Clark guesstimates that Pakistan would have aided us in getting rid of Al Qaeda.

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

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

    Clarke meant well and did actually care about doing his job well unlike Bush, but he was wrong and it took boots on the ground to understand that.  Pakistan was never really an ally in any of this, and you make the grave error that most Neocon hawks make by thinking that giving any unethical piece of shat some weapons makes them your friend.  You guys make that mistake over and over and over again and do nothing but destabilize the world over and over and over again.  Now Iraq is an ally of Iran, how is being dumb as a sack of hair working out for ya?

    After 9/11, BushCo disbanded the team on Osama and said he didn't think about Osama anymore.  They stopped seeking any real intel to the point that even Lefties were saying that Osama bin Laden was not relevant.

    Let's set this record completely straight.  Obama went after Al Qaeda.  Obama fully funded the people who needed to be funded and fully supported them in gathering real intel that did not involve trying to steal someone's oil.  Obama's administration found Osama bin Laden and when they did they found so much fricken intel they have been busy every day since then doing NOTHING BUT finishing Al Qaeda OFF!  Obama  Obama Obama Obama Obama!  And last but not least Obama!

    Parent

    MT, you can parse all you want (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 09:34:38 AM EST
    but the facts show that Bush was concerned and did take action. The NYT's piece was just another hit piece by a writer who should know better.

    And no, Obama's administration did not find Osama. The intelligence/military, continuing the stratey Bush's adminsitration had started, found Osama. It is, of course, to Obama's credit that he did not change the strategy...although there is absolutely no proof that Obama tried to increase the search by adding resources.

    Now, as a military wife, I would hope you would understand the reluctance in late 2001 and 2002 to go into the high mountains to pursue a goal. Remember that we would not have a great weapons advantage and would have been fighting a very conventional war in which the location would have favored the enemy. That would have been Vietnam all over again.

    Now, what did Bush say?

    Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

    THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

    Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

    So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

    Events have proven Bush right. Terror is more than one man. We can see vivid proof in Libya and Egypt
    that Osama's death, while important, really stopped nothing.


    Parent

    This crap? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 10:44:10 AM EST
    From the guy who says the only reason we lost Vietnam was because we left.  Not sure I trust your battle strategizing.   How could it be prudent to do so? Think I'll stick with the winner named OBAMA.

    Parent
    I Forget Jim... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 09:29:42 AM EST
    ...who armed Bin Laden, Hussein, and Iran in the 80's ?

    Why do you republicans always stop at Clinton when going back in time ?

    Parent

    Because Ronald Reagan (none / 0) (#52)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 09:38:12 AM EST
    was a saint, and you must not say anything bad about a saint lest you fall into blasphemy. After his death and funeral, his body was taken straight up to Heaven, where he sits at the right hand of the Father, along with Jesus Christ.  Thought everyone knew that.  ;-)

    Parent
    Perhaps you don't understand (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 10:01:51 AM EST
    that the purpose of helping Iraq, and we did very little there, was to contradict Iran who, in the wake of Carter's birthing of the modern terrorist by his weakness re Iran, was moving towards controlling the area and with it, the oil that western civilization must have. Especially Europe.

    The alternative would have been to send in a military that was not ready to fight a major war.

    On Afghanistan we saw helping the Taliban and other rebels as an excellent way to bleed the Soviets white.

    You should also remember that not all rebels turned against us and that provided us with opportunities to kill Osama in Afghanistan. Opportunities that Clinton refused.

    Playing Monday morning quarterback is great fun and often used in politics. That is what the NYT writer was doing. I reminded us of some of the other facts. You bring other information forward designed to show that what we did was wrong. I have shown why. Perhaps you can tell us how we should have known that the people we were helping would have bit the hand that was helping them.

    And I didn't really pursue Clinton beyond quoting Clarke's point that there were issues over two years old that the Clinton administration had not addressed.

    I didn't note that in 1993 the WTC was attacked. I didn't bring up the SA buildings, the embassies attacked, the attack on our ship, and that Clinton had the ability to have Osama delivered to us.

    Interestingly, 20 years ago, the NYT article would have had been published and there would have been almost no response pointing out how wrong it was.

    The Internet has made a world of difference.

    Parent

    Why not, Jim? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 11:05:46 AM EST
    I didn't note that in 1993 the WTC was attacked. I didn't bring up the SA buildings, the embassies attacked, the attack on our ship, and that Clinton had the ability to have Osama delivered to us.

    You've never hesitated to try to spin fairy tales, before.

    Parent

    Not Really an Answer to the Question (none / 0) (#58)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 12:01:07 PM EST
    Just more excuses which amount to republicans have done everything for a reason and they did it well, democrats are to blame for everything bad.

    Save yourself the headache and just copy and past that, it's your response to everything anyways.

    Parent

    Scott, you cannot stand (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 03:12:41 PM EST
    people agreeing with you.

    I didn't deny that we helped Iraq and Afghanistan, I just merely pointed out why.

    I noted the items Clarke provided and then mentioned other things that Clinton was aware of and didn't do.

    Now. What else did you want answered??

    Know I think?

    I don't think you have an actual response.

    Parent

    Funny how he always forgets (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 04:00:14 PM EST
    about Reagan and his cronies Iran Contra-ing wmds to Iran to enable "the modern terrorist state"..

    In Jim's world, once the the combined forces of the Lord Jesus and the old Confederacy are on your side, you're henceforth incapable of wrongdoing in any context.

    Parent

    Jondee cannot make a point without (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 05:13:57 PM EST
    playing what he considers to be his only card... the race card.

    If you want to bring up Iran Contra, bring it ALL up, including the fact that the Democrats were blocking support for ant-communist forces.

    Parent

    You mean the Boland Amendment? (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 05:31:39 PM EST
    ... prohibiting aid to the Contras?

    Can't imagine why anyone wouldn't support those "anti-communist forces".  Oh, wait, ...

    ... yes, I can.

    Because the Contras were raping, torturing and murdering their fellow Nicaraguans?  Not to mention targeting healthcare clinics and workers for assassination, among many other crimes.

    Hard to imagine the kind of person that would support them ...

    BTW, Jim - The Boland Amendment passed 411-0 and was signed by Reagan.

    Parent

    And I Love This... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 09:03:13 AM EST
    ..."including the fact that the Democrats were blocking support for ant-communist forces."

    You mean congress Jim, and they passed a law that prohibited secret funding to para-military groups and Reagan signed it into law.

    They broke the law, and something like 10 people were convicted, so stop with your "Well D's did this and that" schtick.

    Parent

    so it's my fault that you (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 03:11:20 PM EST
    and yours never got over the 18 and 1960s?

    Lets bring it "ALL up" even more and recall that, in a country founded on democratic -- not Cold War jihadist -- principals, the majority of the U.S citizenry at the time was opposed to continuing military aid to the Contras.

    It's always inconvenient when a would-be junta is "blocked" by democracy.

    Parent

    Go tell it to Kurt Eichenwald (none / 0) (#45)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 10:55:54 PM EST
    and see what response you get.

    Parent
    And I have no idea (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 10:49:14 PM EST
    as to why it double posted.

    I'm using Vista and Google Chrome. Anyone with any ideas?

    don't post at all? (none / 0) (#54)
    by DFLer on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 10:32:03 AM EST
    snark attack sorry

    Parent
    Don't be (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 11:08:53 AM EST
    Sorry, ... that is

    Parent
    that's ok jim (none / 0) (#49)
    by fishcamp on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 08:25:11 AM EST
    I read it twice...