The Looming Tower

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Anyone reading this book should know that this week's New Yorker -- the Sept. 11 issue -- has an article by Lawrence Wright in it about Al Qaeda in the last five years. Definitely worth reading if you're reading the book, and even if you're not (although I'm only part-way through it).

If you can't get a copy, PM me, and I'll find a way to scan it or something.

eta: Alas, it's not on their web site.

Please pdf it to me.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
OK, I'm done reading it.

My initial response:

but I gotta say Clinton dropped the ball in regard to his response after the embassy bombings (cruise missile attacks) and after the attack on the Cole (no response at all).

I could have told you this before reading page 1.


eta: actually i posted it multiple times under 49 socks over the last 6 years.

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm done reading it, too. I was waiting for more people before I said much of anything, but I will say that I thought the book was much, much better at telling the bin Laden/Zawahiri side of the story than the O'Neill/Turki side of the story. Wright obviously didn't have any access to what anyone else at the FBI was doing, and he doesn't seem to have had any access at all to the CIA. Michael Schereur (sp?) makes a brief cameo -- in reality, he was running the CIA's Al Qaeda effort, and has written his own book about it (haven't read it). Wright had even less access to Saudi intelligence's doings.

Not to criticize Wright for a book he didn't write, but it's more like a history of Al Qaeda up to 2001 than what the book jackets sells it as.

You're right. I didn't take into account that his lack of access to the CIA could manifest itself as "WTF was the CIA thinking?" in the book.

I also learned a lot about how al Queda was formed and was fascinated by the more personal stories about OBL and Zawahiri. I wish there was more info about the 9/11 hijackers. I feel like more insight into why so many upper/middle class Saudis choose jihad over a confortable lifestyle.

As a westerner, I have some difficulty keeping all the middle eastern names straight (every one seems to be named Abu Abudullah al-Whatever, NTTAWWT), especially since everyone has at least two aliases. Reading Bob Baer's books is a real chore in this regard. But I thought Wright did a nice job making it easy to identify the players, which is no easy feat.

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I could have told you this before reading page 1.


eta: actually i posted it multiple times under 49 socks over the last 6 years.

Everyone remembers the cruise missiles, but I was stunned to discover that we did nothing after the Cole attack. Maybe I was aware of this and just blocked it out because it's too awful to contemplate that we did nothing in response.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
Everyone remembers the cruise missiles, but I was stunned to discover that we did nothing after the Cole attack. Maybe I was aware of this and just blocked it out because it's too awful to contemplate that we did nothing in response.

Just to be clear, the lack of response was not because he was distracted by any of the fall out from the exercise of poor judgment in other areas of his work life.

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Just to be clear, the lack of response was not because he was distracted by any of the fall out from the exercise of poor judgment in other areas of his work life.

So he says. But the bottom line is it's silly to deflect blame onto the Rs because they distracted him from his job by impeaching him. Clinton is the one who gave them the excuse to impeach.
Was he such a politial neophyte that he believed that if he lied under oath the Rs wouldn't want to crucify him for it? The blame rests with him.

I also saw something suggesting he didn't want to appear as if he was blatantly helping Gore by starting a military operation in the fall of 2000.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
So he says. But the bottom line is it's silly to deflect blame onto the R's because they distracted him from his job by impeaching him. Clinton is the one who gave them the excuse to impeach.
Was he such a politial neophyte to believe that if he lied under oath the R's might want to crucify him for it? The blame rests with him.

I also saw something suggesting he didn't want to appear as if he was blatantly helping Gore by starting a military operation in the fall of 2000.

I was previously something of a fencesitting neutral on this issue, but I see your point, and I agree, the blame does lie with Clinton.

Well played, playa.

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I was previously something of a fencesitting neutral on this issue, but I see your point, and I agree, the blame does lie with Clinton.

Well played, playa.

lol (really, I did). But just so you don't get the wrong idea, I'd take either Clinton in a second over Bush. It's better you know this up front so you don't get hurt later on.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
lol (really, I did). But just so you don't get the wrong idea, I'd take either Clinton in a second over Bush. It's better you know this up front so you don't get hurt later on.

Fair enough, although since W can't run again, its not really that big of a deal.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Anyone reading this book should know that this week's New Yorker -- the Sept. 11 issue -- has an article by Lawrence Wright in it about Al Qaeda in the last five years. Definitely worth reading if you're reading the book, and even if you're not (although I'm only part-way through it).

If you can't get a copy, PM me, and I'll find a way to scan it or something.

eta: Alas, it's not on their web site.

Feel free to email me that PDF, since its unlikely I'll be picking up a New Yorker anytime soon.

I'm a bit behind on the book - Chapter 4 - but I should have some time this weekend to read more

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
Everyone remembers the cruise missiles, but I was stunned to discover that we did nothing after the Cole attack. Maybe I was aware of this and just blocked it out because it's too awful to contemplate that we did nothing in response.

Just to be clear, since Penske is incorrectly implying that the fault for this is Clinton's, the 9/11 Commission found that we didn't have evidence that bin Laden was responsible for the Cole bombing until after Clinton left office. The Cole was bombed on October 12, 2000. We developed indications that Al Qaeda was involved within weeks, but they were judged insufficient to justify war with Afghanistan:

• [T]he Yemenis provided strong evidence connecting the Cole attack to al Qaeda during the second half of November, identifying individual operatives whom the United States knew were part of al Qaeda. During December the United States was able to corroborate this evidence. But the United States did not have evidence about Bin Ladin’s personal involvement in the attacks until Nashiri and Khallad were captured in 2002 and 2003. (193)

See pp 193-98 of the Report. It's available for free on-line.

Richard Clarke developed a plan to go after the Taliban short of outright war, and presented it to his new bosses after Bush was inaugurated in January. As we all know, Condi Rice tabled it.

So the fact that we didn't do shit is a reflection of the fact that the Bush crowd had other priorities, and that Clinton was no longer in office.

Not within the purview of the book, really, but there you go.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Just to be clear, since Penske is incorrectly implying that the fault for this is Clinton's, the 9/11 Commission found that we didn't have evidence that bin Laden was responsible for the Cole bombing until after Clinton left office. The Cole was bombed on October 12, 2000. We developed indications that Al Qaeda was involved within weeks, but they were judged insufficient to justify war with Afghanistan:

• [T]he Yemenis provided strong evidence connecting the Cole attack to al Qaeda during the second half of November, identifying individual operatives whom the United States knew were part of al Qaeda. During December the United States was able to corroborate this evidence. But the United States did not have evidence about Bin Ladin’s personal involvement in the attacks until Nashiri and Khallad were captured in 2002 and 2003. (193)

See pp 193-98 of the Report. It's available for free on-line.

Richard Clarke developed a plan to go after the Taliban short of outright war, and presented it to his new bosses after Bush was inaugurated in January. As we all know, Condi Rice tabled it.

So the fact that we didn't do shit is a reflection of the fact that the Bush crowd had other priorities, and that Clinton was no longer in office.

Not within the purview of the book, really, but there you go.

Res ipsa, we knew who did it, and we had enough on him to justify going after him. Clinton dropped the ball and Clarke is a partisan of the ideology of Clarke, highly enamoured of his own after the fact know it allism.

Ty, why can't you be fair and admit Clinton dropped the ball? It is this partisan intransigence in the face of what we know is the truth that is why Spanky won't classify you a moderate.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Res ipsa, we knew who did it, and we had enough on him to justify going after him. Clinton dropped the ball and Clarke is a partisan of the ideology of Clarke, highly enamoured of his own after the fact know it allism.

Ty, why can't you be fair and admit Clinton dropped the ball? It is this partisan intransigence in the face of what we know is the truth that is why Spanky won't classify you a moderate.

If Clinton dropped the ball, then Bush did too. The Cole was attacked only shortly before Bush was elected. Are you suggesting that Clinton should have declared war on Afghanistan? The 9/11 Commission Report explains that Clinton did not get the "res ipsa" evidence you -- in hindsight -- say he had and he thought he needed. But if he should have invaded Afghanistan in December, 2000, then why didn't Bush do it in January?

[Hank Chinaski]

Say if you were starting up a country, what guidelines and sanctions would you create for advance fee fraud, check/money order scamming and fake banks?


Did you mean for this post to be on this board? -- T.S.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Res ipsa, we knew who did it, and we had enough on him to justify going after him. Clinton dropped the ball and Clarke is a partisan of the ideology of Clarke, highly enamoured of his own after the fact know it allism.

it was the 6th or 7th major hit during his adminstration. Pattern?

On the Cole, at first I thought the argument that it would be wrong to start an action at the end of a term made sense, and maybe it does in theory, but doesn't that argument leave up open to attack at the end of every lame duck term?