Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Cite please.

Bitch, please. Run yourself a little Google search for "Sandy Berger Condoleeza Rice briefing terrorism" -- like this, it's really not hard -- and see what you come up with. The first result will give you this:

• Published on Monday, August 5, 2002 in the Guardian of London
  Bush Held Up Plan to Hit Bin Laden
  by Julian Borger in Washington
  
  The Bush administration sat on a Clinton-era plan to attack al-Qaida in Afghanistan for eight months because of political hostility to the outgoing president and competing priorities, it was reported yesterday.
  
  The plan, under which special forces troops would have been sent after Osama bin Laden, was drawn up in the last days of the Clinton administration but a decision was left to the incoming Bush team.
  
  However, a top-level discussion of the proposals took place only on September 4, a week before the al-Qaida attacks on New York and Washington. In the months in between, the plan was shuffled through the bureaucracy by an administration distrustful of anything to do with Bill Clinton and which appeared fixated on national missile defense and the war on drugs, rather than the struggle against terrorism.
  
  The news emerged as the political truce that followed the terrorist attacks evaporates in the heat of the looming congressional elections in November. It represents the strongest indictment so far of the Bush team's preparedness for an attack.
  
  The plan to take the counter-terrorist battle to al-Qaida was drafted after the attack on the warship the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000. Mr Clinton's terrorism expert, Richard Clarke, presented it to senior officials in December, but it was decided that the decision should be taken by the new administration.
  
  According to today's Time magazine, Mr Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger and Mr Clarke outlined the threat in briefings they provided for Condoleeza Rice, George Bush's national security adviser, in January 2001, a few weeks before she and her team took up their posts.
  
  At the key briefing, Mr Clarke presented proposals to "roll back" al-Qaida which closely resemble the measures taken after September 11. Its financial network would be broken up and its assets frozen. Vulnerable countries like Uzbekistan, Yemen and the Philippines would be given aid to help them stamp out terrorist cells.
  
  Crucially, the US would go after Bin Laden in his Afghan lair. Plans would be drawn up for combined air and special forces operations, while support would be channeled to the Northern Alliance in its fight against the Taliban and its al-Qaida allies.
  
  Mr Clarke, who stayed on in his job as White House counter-terrorism tsar, repeated his briefing for vice president Dick Cheney in February. However, the proposals got lost in the clumsy transition process, turf wars between departments and the separate agendas of senior members of the Bush administration.
  
  It was, the Time article argues, "a systematic collapse in the ability of Washington's national security apparatus to handle the terrorist threat".
  
  Bush administration officials have played down the significance of the January briefings, describing them as simply advocating "a more active approach". Ms Rice issued a statement saying she did not even recall a briefing at which Mr Berger was present.
  
  But the Time report quotes Bush officials as well as Clinton aides as confirming the seriousness of the Clarke plan. The sources said it was treated the same way as all policies inherited from the Clinton era, and subjected to a lengthy "policy review process".
  
  The proposals were not re-examined by senior administration officials until April, and were not earmarked for consideration by the national security heads of department until September 4.
  
  "If we hadn't had a transition," a senior Clinton administration official is quoted as saying, "probably in late October or early November 2000, we would have had [the plan to go on the offensive] as a presidential directive."
  
  However, Donald Rumsfeld, the defense secretary, was more interested in the national missile defense plan, and the new attorney general, John Ashcroft, was more interested in using the FBI to fight the "war on drugs" and clamping down on pornography. In August, he turned down FBI requests for $50m for the agency's counter-terrorist program.
  
  Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, appeals from the Northern Alliance's leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud, for more US aid fell on deaf ears. He was assassinated on September 9.

I read somewhere recently that the White House has confirmed that Rice was at the briefings, notwithstanding that she told Time that she didn't recall them. Which maybe tells you about where their priorities were.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I heard about this as well. Interestingly, it is the "neocons" that are pushing to stay as long as it takes, while the politicals and state department wants to cut and run.

Not surprising to me at all. The neo-cons want to democratize Iraq, while the politicals want to get Bush re-elected. I'm not sure why State would side with the politicals, unless it's that they think we're completely f*cked in any event.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Not surprising to me at all. The neo-cons want to democratize Iraq, while the politicals want to get Bush re-elected. I'm not sure why State would side with the politicals, unless it's that they think we're completely f*cked in any event.

It's surprising because, if I read you correctly, it puts you on the side of the neocons.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's surprising because, if I read you correctly, it puts you on the side of the neocons.

I've said this before, but now that we're there, we need to do the job right. At the same time, we need to be realistic about what we can accomplish, which, I fear, is much less than the neo-cons believe.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Bitch, please. Run yourself a little Google search for "Sandy Berger Condoleeza Rice briefing terrorism" -- like this, it's really not hard -- and see what you come up with. The first result will give you this:
[list]
Published on Monday, August 5, 2002 in the Guardian of London
Bush Held Up Plan to Hit Bin Laden
by Julian Borger in Washington

Bitch please!

The first 10 hits are nonsense leftist howls. You cite to Common Dreams, and an unsubstantiated screed.
Clinton was in office for 8 years. The "people who were on the terrorism problem" came up with a plan in October 2000?
C'mon, you can't even buy into this.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Bitch please!

The first 10 hits are nonsense leftist howls. You cite to Common Dreams, and an unsubstantiated screed.
Clinton was in office for 8 years. The "people who were on the terrorism problem" came up with a plan in October 2000?
C'mon, you can't even buy into this.

Get a grip. The first article -- hey, I was feeling lucky -- is from the Guardian, and is based on an article in Time magazine. Let me repeat: Time magazine -- the one formerly owned by Henry Luce.

Is the world much simpler when you simply ignore inconvenient facts? Does it make your meds cheaper?

Oh, and saying "bitch, please" is less funny when someone just said it to you. The exclamation point even less so. If you want to be really funny, try something differnent, LIKE POSTING IN ALL CAPS or something.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
saying "bitch, please" is less funny when someone just said it to you. The exclamation point even less so.

whifff. I say "bitch please!" its an interjection, as in "I have a bitch I'd like to air." I invented this use. "Bitch, please" isn't funny anymore, and " Bitch please!" isn't funny anymore except in response to a "bitch,please"

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
whifff. I say "bitch please!" its an interjection, as in "I have a bitch I'd like to air." I invented this use. "Bitch, please" isn't funny anymore, and " Bitch please!" isn't funny anymore except in response to a "bitch,please"

Bitch. Please...

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
whifff. I say "bitch please!" its an interjection, as in "I have a bitch I'd like to air." I invented this use. "Bitch, please" isn't funny anymore, and " Bitch please!" isn't funny anymore except in response to a "bitch,please"

I've had better performances. But a couple of posts after a "cite, please," you have completely whiffed on substance. Try starting your next post, "OK, so Sandy Berger did brief Condi Rice on a plan to take out OBL with special forces, and so the Bush Administration did sit on it without doing anything for the eight months before 9/11, and so Bush spent the day like a scared rabbit -- nevertheless, we were all happy that day that he was our leader because . . . ."

[Dave]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Is everyone presuming that Dean is the nominee? I'm not so sure. What I see is a Gephart/Dean win in Iowa and a Dean blow out in NH. Dean may also squeak by in SC. But then I see a consolidation of the the Clark, Gephart, Lieberman, and Edwards forces to run as an anti-Dean candidate. If you look at the polling numbers in most areas, a 2 person race tilts towards a someone other than Dean nominee (assuming most of the "other" supporters do not allign with Dean).

I hope Dean is the nominee, but I fear that Gephart or Clark will present a much tougher race for Bush.

Dean is at least the flavor of the day. He could well suck wind in some of the southern states after NH and Iowa, but does it really matter? The Dems almost have to write off the South, so it'll be hard to read too much into those states. What seems to me like it will matter most is how Dean plays in the biggest Dem states - CA and NY especially. Anyone seen any polling?

Is there any hope at all for Gephart? He comes across as a complete toady to the unions, and as important as the blue collar vote is to winning, I wonder if being very closely aligned with a single interest group isn't a large handicap.

I can't see Gephart prevailing against any of the other major candidates.

(Oh, and confidential to Hank: Mr. Wannstedt will be past his sell-by date shortly, so you can resume your monopoly).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Get a grip. The first article -- hey, I was feeling lucky -- is from the Guardian, and is based on an article in Time magazine. Let me repeat: Time magazine -- the one formerly owned by Henry Luce.

it is still full of subjective charecterizations of what Berger may have told Rice, ie how detailed was his "plan." plus, Time is very anti-Bush.

But anyway, lets assume he had come up with a plan to attack Afghanistan, and told Rice.

What else did Rice get briefed on? That is, was it "here's the number for good Chinese, and here's the Chauffer's birthday, oh and first thing, you gotta go get Afghanistan" or was it more a mention in 3 days of briefing about where everything stood?

Given that by then most of 9/11 was in progress, how would the plan have done anything? Why didn't he mention the CIA reports of hijacked jets as missile? Should she have moved for stricter airport security based upon his "plan?" Given that the dems in the Senate stalled airport security changes for months AFTER 9/11, what changes should she have suggested?

I've heard that a plan to take out the Taliban hit Rice's desk on 9/10, your article says 9/7, but at least Bush would have done something.

You understand the timeline, right?
August 1998 OBL blew up 2 embassies- we sent cruise missiles to hit some mountains.
At some point prior, we were offered OBL, and chose not to take him.
In Oct. 2000, OBL blew up the Cole.

My story: I believe the Clinton response was to blow up more mountains, and in deference to your evidence perhaps stick some vague plan into a lengthly briefing about doing something now that they were not at the switch. Berger, egg on face 9/12 and his boys at NYT/WP then paint this misinformed picture.

Your story: you agree with the African embassies and our response, and that we took a pass on capturing OBL. You believe that in 10/00 when the Cole was bombed, the Clinton administration decided not to start its "plan", but wait to brief Bush so he didn't inherit a war. It would be fairer to make him start one over attacks 6 months to 3 years cold.

2 problems with your story:
How is it fair to Bush for Clinton to take an apparent pass on overt action in response to an attack, but to give Bush this"plan," and then ask Bush to go start a war? Can you say Global Cowboy?

And, how long did the plan estimate the "war" would take? It seems to me, a few months of heavy bombing would have gone along way to having the war over before Bush took over.

The fact is, Bush was going to take out Afghanistan, before 9/11, unfortunately, for 3000 people, the plan should have been put in place in 1998, and it was too late.

Is the world much simpler when you simply ignore inconvenient facts? Does it make your meds cheaper?

my meds are limited to alcohol and wine now. Alcohol is state price controlled so ignorance is a neutral factor. Wine is my pretension, so I don't do much to make it cheaper.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Bitch. Please...

QED

[sgtclub]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Indices Change Close
Dow Jones +125.33 10450.00
NASDAQ +33.34 2006.48
S&P500 +13.59 1109.48
SCHWAB1000 +42.99 3565.


I know, I know. It's a jobless recovery.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
it is still full of subjective charecterizations of what Berger may have told Rice, ie how detailed was his "plan." plus, Time is very anti-Bush.

Sir, when you say silly things you squander your credibility.

But anyway, lets assume he had come up with a plan to attack Afghanistan, and told Rice.

Since those are the facts, let us assume it. And it wasn't just like a thing Berger was off doing on his own. You might as well give the credit to the administration.

What else did Rice get briefed on? That is, was it "here's the number for good Chinese, and here's the Chauffer's birthday, oh and first thing, you gotta go get Afghanistan" or was it more a mention in 3 days of briefing about where everything stood?

To find the answer to that question, you should try going here. But the coverage I have seen says that the outgoing administration was focused on terrorism in a way that the incoming folks were not, and would not be until the following September, and that the Clinton folks put a real emphasis on it when they briefed the Bushies. I understand that these facts are inconvenient to you, and inconsistent with the hagiography you've got going, but there they are.

Given that by then most of 9/11 was in progress, how would the plan have done anything?

Quite possibly they would not have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks. But that wasn't what we were discussing.

I've heard that a plan to take out the Taliban hit Rice's desk on 9/10, your article says 9/7, but at least Bush would have done something.

Either way, it might have been several months earlier in a Gore Administration, and that is the point. The Bushies were trying to get us missile defense.

August 1998 OBL blew up 2 embassies- we sent cruise missiles to hit some mountains.

Go back and find me the articles from that time of people who thought we should invade Afghanistan. Or anyone who had a better idea.

At some point prior, we were offered OBL, and chose not to take him.

Cite, please.

My story: I believe the Clinton response was to blow up more mountains, and in deference to your evidence perhaps stick some vague plan into a lengthly briefing about doing something now that they were not at the switch. Berger, egg on face 9/12 and his boys at NYT/WP then paint this misinformed picture.

If you are going to tell and believe in stories that have nothing to do with the facts, that's your problem. If you think Time magazine is some sort of Gore fanzine, that may be part of the problem as well. If you dig, you'll see that no one in the administration is contradicting the facts I'm relating -- they're just hoping people will pay attention to something else.

Your story: you agree with the African embassies and our response, and that we took a pass on capturing OBL. You believe that in 10/00 when the Cole was bombed, the Clinton administration decided not to start its "plan", but wait to brief Bush so he didn't inherit a war. It would be fairer to make him start one over attacks 6 months to 3 years cold.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, apparently.

2 problems with your story:
How is it fair to Bush for Clinton to take an apparent pass on overt action in response to an attack, but to give Bush this"plan," and then ask Bush to go start a war? Can you say Global Cowboy?

Apart from the fact that your facts are wrong, what's truly impressive is your simultaneous ability to criticize Clinton for doing nothing while absolving Bush for sitting on his ass after the Clinton folks gave him a way to go after OBL.

And, how long did the plan estimate the "war" would take? It seems to me, a few months of heavy bombing would have gone along way to having the war over before Bush took over.

Again, reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

The fact is, Bush was going to take out Afghanistan, before 9/11, unfortunately, for 3000 people, the plan should have been put in place in 1998, and it was too late.

Cite, please. You are delusional. There is no reason to believe that Bush even knew where Afghanistan was on 9/10.

Wine is my pretension, so I don't do much to make it cheaper.

With you on the wine. Heading home to a good merlot soon.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, apparently.

Thank you for causing me to re-read the article. it appears to be a reprint from the guardian (A leftie UK rag), the article paraphrases what a Time story tells. Ty, this is not a Time article.

There are NO details, nada about the prominence of the "plan" or its detail. I have no doubt that in an overall "hand the keys" over someone said "there is a shit pile we let grow, you can take care of it," maybe the somebody even said "here is a plan." but to imply more takes more than reading comprehension. a health sense of fantasy would be required, even accepting the article's hyperbole.

the second of your supporting "hits" uses Al Franken as its "supporting facts." Can i stop now?

Heading home to a good merlot soon.

Fuck. That means you'll be really mean when you reply.