You're making me blush...
Hey, I've got an opinion and an agenda, no doubt -- but it's right out there w/o excuses, and I'm certainly not going to feel remorse for being (or attempting to be) accurate and anaylitical and calling "bull*****" when I see it.

I haven't read Clarke's book, and I know I'm relying on characterizations from others with their own agendas when I excerpt from it. Having said that, much of what I've read about the book indicates there's not a whole lot of "new" material there that hasn't been bandied about before - with a couple of exceptions. Most notably, Clarke playing psychic and projecting himself into W's head ("wow, you can see for miles in here!"). Clarke characterizes Bush's request that Clarke investigate whether Iraq was involved as severe or aggressive and implies that Bush really really wanted Clarke to implicate Iraq. Clarke never says that Bush said anything ordering or implying that he must blame Iraq; it's Clarke's inference.

A few points -- (1) others *in the room* have stated categorically that they believe that such was not Bush's intent; (2) it would have been grossly negligent for Bush not to investigate all likely suspects, and Iraq had to be at or near the top of the "likely" list; and (3) I'm simply not willing to put such faith in Clarke's ability to read W's mind or probe his motives, especially when he's been so staggeringly wrong on simple matters of fact (Rice and al-Qaeda, for example).

I know most of you guys don't care, but if you have the time, find the articles Stephen Hayes had a few months back that line-by-line, from all kinds of cross-collaborating sources, connects Iraq and al-Qaeda. They may still be available at the Weekly Standard web site. Normally, with articles like that, I copy/paste them and send them to my Hotmail account, but with those, I forgot and I'm kicking myself. Suffice to say, there is ample evidence (and again, evidence is only what we KNOW, and there's plenty more we don't know) that Iraq and al-Qaeda had more than coincidental ties. I'd also point out as a didactic matter that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So, for the next couple of lines, just stipulate that there were (or there were VERY strong reasons to believe there were) al-Qaeda/Iraq ties. W had to look into it. Now, was he obsessed w/ Iraq? I don't know -- he was most certainly concerned, as any reasonable Pres. should be. However, the facts belie this notion that Bush was single-mindedly focused on Iraq. He moved on Afghanistan quickly and took care of that business. He waited eighteen months(!) to go after Iraq, after giving Hussein another half-dozen chances.

This will make this post exceptionally long, but I want to remind people of a few things (from OpinionJournal - and it's got one of my all-time favorite jokes embedded in it, so give it a read):

This Is Your Last Last Last Last Last Chance
"Hussein will be given 'a last chance to comply before he gets clobbered,' The New York Times on Monday quoted an unidentified U.S. official as saying."--CNN.com, Jan. 27, 1998

"Annan Admits Iraq Trip Could Be Last Chance for Peace"--CNN.com, Feb. 18, 1998

"Clinton: Iraq Has Abused Its Last Chance"--CNN.com, Dec. 16, 1998

"The White House suggested Wednesday that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has missed his 'last chance' to disarm."--CNN.com, Dec. 18, 2002

"Future European Union members endorsed a joint declaration Tuesday warning Saddam Hussein he has one last chance to disarm."--Associated Press, Feb. 18, 2003

Aren't five years worth of "last chances" enough? It's time to cut the nonsense and rush to war.

Sauntering Toward Baghdad
Have you heard the one about the turtle that got mugged by a gang of snails? The police arrived on the scene and asked the turtle what happened. "I don't know," he replied. "It all happened so fast."

We were reminded of this joke when we read the headline of an Associated Press dispatch of this morning: "Democrats Urge Bush Not to Rush to War." This is news? The administration's critics have been complaining of a "rush to war" for months. Just a few examples:

"The Rush to War"--headline, The Nation, Aug. 7, 2002

"Secretary of State Colin L. Powell . . . and his advisers have decided that they should focus international discussion on how Iraq would be governed after Mr. Hussein--not only in an effort to assure a democracy but as a way to outflank administration hawks and slow the rush to war."--New York Times, Aug. 16, 2002

"Christian Leaders Urge U.S. to 'Stop Rush to War' With Iraq"--headline, United Methodist Church press release, Aug. 30, 2002

"A Reckless Rush to War"--headline, editorial, The American Prospect, Sept. 25, 2002

"We have not been told why . . . we must rush to war rather than pursuing other options."--Rep. Barbara Lee (D., Calif.), Sept. 30, 2002

"We are rushing into war without fully discussing why."--Sen. Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.), Oct. 3, 2002

You get the idea. By the time the liberation of Iraq begins in earnest, perhaps a month from now, critics of the Bush administration will have spent at least six months complaining about the "rush to war." But half a year's preparation is no rush; it's more of a saunter. (In comparison, it was less than four weeks after Sept. 11 that the first bombs fell on Afghanistan.) Still, we can imagine a dazed Bobby Byrd stumbling onto the Senate floor and exclaiming: "I don't know, it all happened so fast!"

"Rush to war," of course, has become a cliché. A Google search turns up 6,570 pages containing the phrase and the word Iraq. "Rush to war" is not an argument; it is a slogan, a substitute for thought--a product of the same great minds that enriched America's political rhetoric with "They just don't get it," "It's the economy, stupid," "Contract on America," "It's all about sex" and "Let every vote count."

If we may borrow an oldie but a goody, it's time to move on.

Denis -
Good question, and I've thought a lot about it. Bush may have ("may" have) intended to move on Iraq from day one. Honestly, that doesn't bother me so much, for all the reasons I've litanized all over these boards -- the guy was a menace, a funder and overt supporter of terrorism, had not complied with obligations under the Cease Fire, was regularly shooting at No-Fly-Zone enforcement aircraft, had WMDs (he'd used them to kill tens of thousands, which somehow gets forgotten), led the world to believe he had even more serious WMDs (which all intelligence agencies believed, and the International Institute of Strategic Studies said in 2002 that Iraq could have nukes within a few months if it got its hands on fissile material) - you have to take that kind of a threat seriously. It would be reckless not to. Had Hussein not played games with the inspectors and been fully forthcoming (as South Africa and former SSRs have) then Bush would've stood down. Christ, had Hussein cut and run when Bush gave him 48 hours to amscray, Bush would've stood down.

So it wouldn't bother me if, in fact, Bush intended to take Hussein down from day one. It *would* bother me if he'd maintained the same blithe appeasement approach to Hussein and the region we'd suffered during the Interregnum and the dividends of which are all too evident.

As for "neglecting" the terrorism issue; it may be too harsh a word, and really begs the "let's judge 'em by perfect hindsight" stuff I'm not such a fan of. Most of the talking heads I've seen, from both the Interregnum and the Bush admin have said that, absent a stroke of unprecedented luck, there's no way we could've prevented 9/11. Again, Bush happened to be there when the bomb went off, but the bomb was conceived, built and the fuse was lit well before even the 2000 elections. Eight months of W administration could not possibly undo Eight YEARS of neglect, prioritizing a fatuous "process" over results, capitulation, feeble responses to provocation and evisceration of intelligence resources (exactly what was Bush to rely on, when, as Sing has said, many of the most valuable assets had been burned?). I think W was getting his ducks in a row -- there is testimony that just before 9/11 the plans for dealing w/ al-Qaeda and other terrorists started rolling in for evaluation and approval. That's not a lot of time for a new administration, re-tasking whatever assets it was left from a decidedly anti-intelligence prior administration, to come up with new game plans, it's just al-Qaeda had been planning a lot longer.

Remember, also, that W had to deal w/ the Chinese dirtbags knocking down one of our surveillance aircraft and then thumping their chest over Taiwan. This alone was enough to occupy a lot of intel and diplomatic staff right out of the gate.

Joe - cool aphorism; I like it. It's catchy. However, of all the words I know, I think "indiscriminately" is one of the least appropriate to the Bush administration's Afghanistan/Iraq/Terror activities.

Enough for now; got actual work to do.

JP

I agree with Noah, Sing and Slacker.......Kerry and Clarke have no *****..

But Bush does...with the last name of Cheney.

I think Boortz has an interesting take on Dick Clarke:

AND YOU DON'T EVEN MENTION THESE GUYS?

Let's review.

You are former president Bill Clinton. Your chief anti-terrorism guy, Richard Clarke, says that Al Qaeda was an absolute top priority during the final years of your term. In fact, Richard Clarke writes a book and testifies under oath telling everyone who will listen how focused you were on Al Qaeda while you were president.

So .. it's the end of your eight years in the White House. December, 2000. You are writing a report detailing your views on the major security threats facing the United States as you leave office. The report, which Richard Clarke helped you write, is 45,000 words long. That would be 168 pages using Microsoft Word, and if published as a book it would be about 220 pages long. Now that's quite a lot of words describing what you think are the major security concerns the next president needs to be aware of. And guess what? In all of those 45,000 words you don't mention the name "Al Qaeda" even one time. The greatest security concern facing America; isn't that what Richard Clarke said? And you don't even mention it one time in your report? Richard Clarke says that Condi Rice looked confused when he mentioned Al Qaeda ... but he didn't manage to get any reference to Al Qaeda included in your final report on security threats?

What do you expect the American people to think? No ... wait. I'll tell you what they think. They think Richard Clarke was lying. They think he lied when he said that Al Qaeda was one of your top national security priorities. Now, after hearing this about your final report, they not only think Richard Clarke was lying, now they know he was lying.

Nice going.

How many times was the exact words, "Bin Laden", or "Islamic terrorists" mentioned in the report? You'd better include this info if you want to be taken seriously on your claim regarding this report. (Or any claims in the future). I flat out don't believe what you are (trying to) say here.

Speeder, good question. . .. Though I thought lib's like you enjoyed the "grammatically correct, but inferentially false" (ala Clintons):confused:

. . .not to imply that flintstone is going Clintonian, on us.

Hey! Give me a break! I didn't write it, I only quoted it as I indicated. To answer your question, I understand that Bin Laden was mentioned four times....but only abstractly and not as the dire warning that Clarke implies warning. Four times out of @ 45,000 words does not sound like a high priority to me. Get a copy yourself! Do your own research.....Do you expect me to help you guys refute my own posts just to make it fair?

Well you don't expect a liberal to do any thinking, or work. . .do you? ;)

Here's a copy of the text of the Report . Term search to your heart's content; it's not going to prove Clarke right, or even honest.

Then there's this April 3, 2001, report from The Wall Street Journal:

U.S. counterterrorism experts began warning during the latter years of the Clinton administration that invoking Mr. bin Laden's name too often could be counterproductive. But getting senior officials to restrain their rhetoric proved impossible.

"We totally failed in the last administration to get the cabinet-level people to stop saying 'bin Laden,' " says one U.S. official. "That greatly contributed to his image as the great white whale." In one of her last interviews before leaving office, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said of Mr. bin Laden: "He clearly is viewed as one of the major threats to the way the rest of the world operates."

That view was, and still is, what officials believe. But National Security Council counterterrorism chief Richard Clark[e], who held the same job during the Clinton administration, has been urging Mr. Bush's national security team not to talk about Mr. bin Laden in such alarmist terms, preferably not at all. (Emphasis added).

Last week, the Washington Post reported on a speech Rice was to have given on Sept. 11, 2001, which "contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups." The implication was that Clarke was right, and the Bush administration was asleep at the switch.

But note this, from the same April 2001 Journal report: "Neither Secretary of State Colin Powell nor National Security Council adviser Condoleezza Rice have [sic] mentioned Mr. bin Laden since taking office, according to a database search of their public statements. That may be due more to the press of other events than anything, aides say. But the shift in emphasis is sure to please Arab and European governments, which long have complained that the U.S. was fueling the bin Laden mystique."

(The foregoing was cribbed from the WSJ).

JP

You gotta love Island.

He is my contrarian mentor.

Word.

I'm tired of paying for the medical bills of illegal aliens (AKA "undocumented immigrants"...WTF is with this PC BS????) while I fight with my insurance company to get coverage of basic, necessary procedures.

Hey! That that attitude ain't very Zen now, is it? :D

Nice new topic..but please start a new thread with it so this one can die peacefully!

Funny thing is, we have finally STARTED doing the tit for tat thing on immigration with everyone EXCEPT Mexico. This last meeting with Bush and Fox, the hardened stance with immigration fell apart for some reason. Wish we knew the backchannel on that one.

I went to Brazil last month. Took 4 weeks to be told that crew visas were not available anymore from Brazil. So we went as tourists (flying an airliner). We finally heard the 'real story'. Seems a Delta crew showed up on the first day that Brazil decided to retaliate against the USA for fingerprinting and photographing everyone that came to the US from Brazil (a country that is thought to harbor cells of terrorists).

They put one guy with a polaroid and an ink pad at the arrivals gate in Rio, and funnelled everyone (including the airline crews) from the USA thru it. After completeing a 9 hour flight from Atlanta, the crew was aghast at being told they would be waiting for more than an hour with the 300 passengers they just flew in to be photographed and fingerprinted.

When the Captain finally reached the fingerprint guy, the guy said he needed one finger to be printed. The Captain presented one finger and said "Print this". Gotta love this guy. The entire crew was arrested, and Delta paid $25K to get them out.

Ever since then, no crew visas to Brazil.

The immigration rules in this country are ridiculous.

David Kay(former UN weapons inspector prior to Hans Blix) was on C-Span yesterday. When asked how he would move a biologic or dirty bomb into the states, he said he'd go to Colombia, and have them hide the bomb in a bale of marijuana. The DEA has said that they are intercepting only 15% of the bales coming in. The DEA says that has historically been the number that they get no matter how much they try.

Kay said he has an 8 1/2 chance out of 10 that his bomb would make it in unscathed. He also said that no amount of increased security will stop the terrorists themselves coming in unscathed until our southern AND our northern borders are secured.

He used the example of the 9/11 terrorists KNOWING that their names were probably on watch lists, but used them anyway to gain entry into the USA. He said it wasn't that they had no other options (they did), but rather an assault on the arrogance of our country.

It was interesting watching if you get a chance to see it.


EDIT: Sorry Fintstone, had posted prior to you reminding us about hijacks!

You're new here, aren't you? ;) Welcome to OT! :D

They put one guy with a polaroid and an ink pad at the arrivals gate in Rio, and funnelled everyone (including the airline crews) from the USA thru it. After completeing a 9 hour flight from Atlanta, the crew was aghast at being told they would be waiting for more than an hour with the 300 passengers they just flew in to be photographed and fingerprinted.

As NZ has recently been placed on the photograph and fingerprint list, I say :D :D :D :D :D.

But that is petty on the Brazilian part... stupid really.

I can verify Singpilot's story; I heard virtually the same story from a non-pilot who went down to Brazil. He gave an identical account, only he didn't retaliate against the Brazilian authorities, but the Americans standing in line fuming about the process. He turned back to them and yelled, "Well, you have BUSH to thank for all this!"

Hilarious!

BTW: if someone wanted to smuggle dirty bombs, nuclear footballs and what-not in the U.S., pot bales isn't the only way. Local news last week reported how the Long Beach shipping containers aren't even inspected. And Long Beach is something like the largest port in the U.S.

Fabulous...

Anyone who thinks the US can secure its borders is kidding themselves.

Yep: that's whatcha' get for manifest destiny...:rolleyes: