Monday, October 02, 2006
Planning 9/11 and the failure to retaliate for the USS Cole
Well, now know where Mohammed Atta went after he left Hamburg, and that the 9/11 attacks were being planned in Afghanistan as early as January 2000. Power Line has video. Don Surber calls it the "the blue dress to Bill Clinton's outburst last week," which is a little harsh, but then Clinton's finger-wagging did evoke an image he would have done well to leave in the, er, Oval Office. He would be well-served to go the rest of his life without wagging his finger in rage.
This revelation -- that the hijackings were in the cards in early 2000, reinforces the virtually unanimous view that it was a grave error -- in retrospect -- not to hit al Qaeda hard after the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000. Richard Clarke describes the quite specific decision to forbear from retaliation in his book, attributing it in part to Clinton's desire to broker a deal between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. I wrote about this choice of Clinton's last week, before these video tapes of Atta & Co. surfaced:
Now this may or may not have been a good choice when made -- history has revealed that it was disastrous for Israel, the Palestinians, and possibly almost 3000 Americans -- but it was a choice nonetheless. Like the decision to avoid a prolonged campaign against al Qaeda after the embassy bombings (because Iraq was a higher priority), Clinton made a choice. I don't blame him for the fact that history strongly suggests both decisions were grievously wrong -- I believe that "all hands went to midnight" on September 11, and that everybody was caught by surprise -- but that doesn't make it any less Clinton's decision.
Yesterday's revelations do nothing to change the fact that Clinton could not have known or even, frankly, reasonably believed that al Qaeda could launch such a lethal attack against the metropolitan United States. If Clinton couldn't have known, neither could have George W. Bush, whether or not a footnote here or a "dot" there might have been connected in such a way to reveal the plot.
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
16 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Mon Oct 02, 09:19:00 AM:
State of Denial, indeed.
Is this the PajamasMedia response to Bush's bad news week? Blame Clinton?
BizarroWorld.
By 
, at
Mon Oct 02, 09:41:00 AM:
Never thought of it as wagging his finger in rage. More like wagging his finger against a slew of hypocritical wankers.
By skipsailing, at
Mon Oct 02, 11:04:00 AM:
Bad news week WTF are you talking about?
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Oct 02, 12:28:00 PM:
skip,
Thanks for the opportunity to elaborate.
1. The NIE, produced by 16 different intelligence agencies describing how Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for terrorist organizations worldwide. In a nutshell, the war has made us less safe.
2. 485 visits from Jack Abramoff and his Team to the White House. The Oval office had previously admitted to only a few contacts. Now it seems that Abramoff and Rove were discussing the Iraq invasion at a basketball game seven months before the President got authorization. And there's much, much more here of course.
3. State of Denial describes the disarray of the White House and details how Bush Co. have systematically misinformed the American people about the situation on the ground in Iraq.
4. The Foley scandal is sticky, and John Boehner (House Majority Leader), Denny Hastert (Speaker), Tom Reynolds (Chair of NRCC), John Shimkus (Page Head), and others are implicated in another Republican scandal - this one about Republican leaders sheltering an internet predator.
You need more, or is this enough to warrant saying "bad news week"?
Sorry to hijack the thread - You may now return to blaming Clinton and ignoring the President and his Rubber Stamp Republicans.
By cakreiz, at
Mon Oct 02, 12:36:00 PM:
Clinton could not have known or even, frankly, reasonably believed that al Qaeda could launch such a lethal attack... Exactly, TH- very fairly noted. It may also have been a reasonable risk for Clinton to refrain from retaliating the Cole, given the fragile negotiations between Israel and Palestinians. In hindsight, he should've retaliated. But within the prism of the time, the risk fell within the realm of reason.
By Final Historian, at
Mon Oct 02, 12:47:00 PM:
Screwy, you do know that both Bush and Gore advocated focusing more attention on Saddam and Iraq during the 2000 election, right? While neither came and said they were going to invade, both implied they thought the status quo was untenable. So trying to create some grand conspiracy out of it is ill advised.
By luc, at
Mon Oct 02, 12:57:00 PM:
Screwy Hoolie Mon Oct 02, 12:28:47 PM
Your post indicates that you must have a certain amount of intelligence as you are capable of putting together a coherent reply, unless you are using somebody's taking points.
Since you obviously do not like Bush and you would like a Congress controlled by Democrats, please help me understand, how can you wish a return of all the corruption, dishonesty and incompetence with which that party treated US national security? Thanks.
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Oct 02, 12:58:00 PM:
Right. No grand conspiracy.
Simply a decision made by Bush to invade Iraq while telling the American people he was seeking diplomatic solutions. Simply telling guys like Jack Abramoff what the plan was while telling us something different.
Not a conspiracy. Just politics as usual from a Bush White House that doesn't tell the truth.
Now stop letting me hijack this thread people! Back to work!
By skipsailing, at
Mon Oct 02, 01:31:00 PM:
my my what a litany of complaints. Screwy must be a liberal.
Hmmmmm,
the domestic political stuff you've listed is just business as usual for America's Democrat party. Well timed smears, even those that are fabricated are the Democrats stock in trade. Ho hum.
As for the war well I've never been mis informed by the president. but then again I know enough military history and have enough direct information about the current effort to feel confident that I'm getting the correct picture.
it seems to me that the anti victory crowd as a very clear attack pattern: Develop some metric for "winning" and then complain when it is not achieved.
the current attack is "WW2 didn't take this long" It's every bit as valid as "X number of KIA and counting" or "More electricity under Saddam" and so forth.
this has served to demonstrate two things: The complete ignorance of the anti victory crowd and the simple fact that ignorance has never,ever stopped a demagogue.
so, you were saying?
By , at
Mon Oct 02, 02:45:00 PM:
I've heard the reports that Abramhoff visited the White House lots of times, but 485? If you divide the visits (at least up until Abramhoff was indicted) by the days Bush has been in office (1,510), it seems that ol' Jack visited every 3 days. Is this realistic?
By cakreiz, at
Mon Oct 02, 03:41:00 PM:
Apparently we must discount for what science now terms "hindsight bias". See WashPo article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/01/AR2006100100784.html) on Dr. Hal Arkes, a psychologist at Ohio State University, who discusses the bias:
"One of the most systematic errors in human perception is what psychologists call hindsight bias -- the feeling, after an event happens, that we knew all along it was going to happen."
Thought it was just Monday morning QBing- now I discover it has a basis in science. Awesome. Reminds me of that old SNL skit on Nostradamus ("I knew you were going to say that.. really, I did... I knew you were going to say that...")
By Christopher Chambers, at
Mon Oct 02, 05:16:00 PM:
And so the myth becomes fact? Especially in the minds of dittoheads and other assorted douchebags, facists, "Christian" wankers.
What hath these idiots wraught--Walter Cronkite.
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Oct 02, 08:01:00 PM:
skip,
I thought I'd be able to walk away from this thread, abandoning any hijacking, but your comment was too alarming to leave alone. You describe the following facts (real, honest to Jeebus, verifiable facts) as "ho-hum" smears.
1. The NIE, produced by 16 different intelligence agencies describing how Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for terrorist organizations worldwide. In a nutshell, the war has made us less safe.
2. 485 visits from Jack Abramoff and his Team to the White House. The Oval office had previously admitted to only a few contacts. Now it seems that Abramoff and Rove were discussing the Iraq invasion at a basketball game seven months before the President got authorization. And there's much, much more here of course.
3. State of Denial describes the disarray of the White House and details how Bush Co. have systematically misinformed the American people about the situation on the ground in Iraq.
4. The Foley scandal is sticky, and John Boehner (House Majority Leader), Denny Hastert (Speaker), Tom Reynolds (Chair of NRCC), John Shimkus (Page Head), and others are implicated in another Republican scandal - this one about Republican leaders sheltering an internet predator.
It's very telling that you can't even bring yourself to identify pedophilia as a real problem and not a Democratic party "smear".
It's embarrassing and creepy, really.
By , at
Mon Oct 02, 08:38:00 PM:
Tigerhawk:
It must be your turn at the moonbat roundabout.
They must be really worried to be out after bedtime.
By , at
Mon Oct 02, 09:59:00 PM:
We sure did,nt do anything after the USS PUEBLO we should have blown that NORTH KOREAN gunboat out of the water and to hell with what the UN would have said
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Oct 03, 05:37:00 PM:
I hate delving into the domestic political crap, so I won't. There's enough shit to be smeared over everyone, and no one is really honest about it. Those who deserve it most receive it least.
This, however;
"1. The NIE, produced by 16 different intelligence agencies describing how Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for terrorist organizations worldwide. In a nutshell, the war has made us less safe."
is stupid.
The very definition of 'cause celebre' implies that the terrorists so inclined are GOING TO IRAQ to join said cause.
With that out of the way, please explain how it 'makes us less safe' to convince legions of motivated terrorists to walk into a foreign country on another continent and kill themselves there, whether by their button or by our bullet. Or Iraqi bullets, nowadays.
On a personal level, I find it remarkable that you seem to care about 'being made more safe' but are constantly opposed to the people whose missions are to do that.
"Make me more safe, but do it by my rules" doesn't work, killer. Rather like hiring a broker and telling them "Make me richer, but do it in this way." What's the point of having a broker if you aren't going to let them do their jobs themselves?
