11 September 2006

9/11 roundup

No comments from Truth Will Out, just some exerpts.

Washington Post:

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden."

The committee report indicates that intelligence analysts were substantially right about Hussein's lack of operational links to al-Qaeda. And Democrats compared the administration's public statements with newly declassified intelligence assessments to build their case that efforts to link Iraq to al-Qaeda were willfully misleading.

In a classified January 2003 report, for instance, the CIA concluded that Hussein "viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat." But one day after that conclusion was published, Levin noted, Vice President Cheney said the Iraqi government "aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."

"It is such a blatant misleading of the United States, its people, to prepare them, to position them, to, in fact, make them enthusiastic or feel that it's justified to go to war with Iraq," said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the committee's vice chairman. "That kind of public manipulation I don't know has any precedent in American history."


More from the Post:

The clandestine U.S. commandos whose job is to capture or kill Osama bin Laden have not received a credible lead in more than two years. Nothing from the vast U.S. intelligence world -- no tips from informants, no snippets from electronic intercepts, no points on any satellite image -- has led them anywhere near the al-Qaeda leader, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials.

On the videotape obtained by the CIA, bin Laden is seen confidently instructing his party how to dig holes in the ground to lie in undetected at night. A bomb dropped by a U.S. aircraft can be seen exploding in the distance. "We were there last night," bin Laden says without much concern in his voice. He was in or headed toward Pakistan, counterterrorism officials think.

That was December 2001. Only two months later, Bush decided to pull out most of the special operations troops and their CIA counterparts in the paramilitary division that were leading the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for war in Iraq, said Flynt L. Leverett, then an expert on the Middle East at the National Security Council.

"I was appalled when I learned about it," said Leverett, who has become an outspoken critic of the administration's counterterrorism policy. "I don't know of anyone who thought it was a good idea. It's very likely that bin Laden would be dead or in American custody if we hadn't done that."

Several officers confirmed that the number of special operations troops was reduced in March 2002.

Bureaucratic battles slowed down the hunt for bin Laden for the first two or three years, according to officials in several agencies, with both the Pentagon and the CIA accusing each other of withholding information. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's sense of territoriality has become legendary, according to these officials.

In early November 2002, for example, a CIA drone armed with a Hellfire missile killed a top al-Qaeda leader traveling through the Yemeni desert. About a week later, Rumsfeld expressed anger that it was the CIA, not the Defense Department, that had carried out the successful strike.

"How did they get the intel?" he demanded of the intelligence and other military personnel in a high-level meeting, recalled one person knowledgeable about the meeting.


Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then director of the National Security Agency and technically part of the Defense Department, said he had given it to them.

"Why aren't you giving it to us?" Rumsfeld wanted to know.

Hayden, according to this source, told Rumsfeld that the information-sharing mechanism with the CIA was working well. Rumsfeld said it would have to stop.

Today, however, no one person is in charge of the overall hunt for bin Laden with the authority to direct covert CIA operations to collect intelligence and to dispatch JSOC units. Some counterterrorism officials find this absurd. "There's nobody in the United States government whose job it is to find Osama bin Laden!" one frustrated counterterrorism official shouted. "Nobody!"


From the Saint Louis Dispatch:

"They've trotted that dog out for the last three elections - and it's got mange all over it." - Bill Clinton

Former President Bill Clinton asserted here Saturday that if Republicans were serious about national security, they'd carry out the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission instead of regularly using the issue to pound political opponents.

"Let's check all those cargo containers at ports and airports," Clinton said. He then cited the congressional failure to allocate money for inspection equipment, because of concerns that it is too expensive.

Such spending wouldn't be a problem, he said, if Republicans would stop approving tax cuts for the wealthy. "Millionaires like me get our taxes cut like clockwork," he said.

At a fundraising brunch later at the Chase Park Plaza, Clinton asserted that some Republicans use the terrorism issue to mask their chief aim of "concentrating wealth and power" into the hands of a few.

"They could give their crowd shovelfuls of money, as long as they kept America scared," Clinton said. "They think government for special interests is good."

In today's climate, Clinton said, "that same Harry Truman would be facing ads back home questioning his patriotism."

4 Comments:

At 15 September, 2006 15:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

President John Quincy Adams, 1821:

"...(W)hat has America done for the benefit of mankind?"

"Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity."

"She has uniformly spoken among them ... the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights."

"She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. ..."

"...Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be."

"But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. ..."

"...She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom."

"The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. ..."

"She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."

 
At 18 September, 2006 06:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, the isolationism that was Adams's ideal, and George Washington's, is no longer an option. But we have to get our moral compass back.

All credit to Colin Powell, John Warner, Lindsey Graham, and yes, John McCain, for recognizing this.

CNN.com, 9/15:

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Powell, a retired Army four-star general, wrote in his letter to McCain, whose amendment last year opposed the use of torture.

"To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts," Powell said. "Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

McCain also has issued a letter from retired Army Gen. John Vessey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Reagan administration, opposing the administration bill.

Vessey told McCain the measure "would undermine the moral basis which has generally guided our conduct in war throughout our history."

 
At 25 September, 2006 10:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill Clinton was all over TV this weekend, including his tete a tete on Fox. I watched most of that at the same time I was making my way through David Remnick's marathon piece in the New Yorker this week.

One quote from that article stood out for me, as it addresses an argument we had earlier:

"He said that he was especially infuriated by the way the Administration’s rhetoric painted anyone who criticized any aspect of its policy in Iraq as weak on national security. Almost as infuriating was the way the Democrats were beating each other up about the past (in other words: Hillary’s 2002 Senate vote authorizing the President to use force in Iraq) rather than forming a coherent alternative to the White House’s stay-the-course rhetoric. 'This deal with Iraq makes me want to throw up,' he said. 'I’m sick and tired of being told that if you voted for authorization you voted for the war. It was a mistake, and I would have made it, too. And Congress made it once before, at the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.' The blame was with the White House: 'The Administration did not shoot straight on the nuclear issue or on Saddam’s supposed ties to Al Qaeda prior to 9/11.'"

I think he's right that a lot of the left-wing anger at Hillary over Iraq is misdirected. The buck must stop at the Oval Office on this one.

Ironically, though, Clinton acknowledges here that the vote to authorize was "a mistake." Has Hillary acknowledged as much? ("Joe-mentum" certainly hasn't). Wouldn't the left-wing outcry be quelled if she did?

Also, bringing the Gulf of Tonkin resolution into the discussion is even more damning, reminding us that Hillary, Joe and the other Dem hawks had failed to learn the lessons of history.

As for the Fox interview, Clinton was a bit unstatesmanlike. Allowing the "right-wing conspiracy" phrase to resurface can only hurt Hillary and other Dem candidates.

But other than that, his arguments were on point. Wallace's "shock" at Clinton's angry response to his "innocent" question is downright luda-Chris. You just implicitly blamed him for 9/11, Chris! How the f--k did you expect him to respond?

 
At 26 September, 2006 13:33, Blogger Unknown said...

Well, at least the Fox interview was funny.

Your reasoning, DGL, does by the way seem also to cut against Clinton: you agreed to do an interview on Fox, Bill? How the f--k did you expect to be treated?

If I may, though, I'd like to jump back a topic and again voice my distaste for Sen. McCain. DGL (and many others, myself included) thought last week that McCain (along with Graham and Warner) was going to help restore that old moral compass. Instead, we get a compromise on what the Huffington Post calls "compassionate torture."

And what's the Aljazeera headline, you ask? "Legalizing Torture."
Great.

Not only is this a) bad policy, b) an illegal and immoral eschewal of human rights, c) a boon more to terrorists than anyone else, but d) worst of all (or perhaps I exaggerate, for effect) this again allows McCain to give the impression of being a thoughtful, moderate, free-thinking, honest, up-standing fellow. Meanwhile, what does McCain do (as opposed to "look like")? He endorses the Administration's crazy, illegal, immoral policies. Again.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home