Drudge Report: FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERROR ADVISER ...SAYS PRESIDENT ISN’T DOING GOOD JOB...

The Drudge Report ^ | March 20, 2004 | Drudge Report

[bushfamfan]

Well, it is up to the administration to remind people they were only in office about 7 months when 9/11 happened and what is it with these Demonrats/media whores of the DNC having the audacity to claim President Bush did nothing with the terrorists when Clintoon had 8 yrs. and Bin Laden declaring war on the USA and all their attacks on us. Clintoon's administration is the one who did NOTHING for those long yrs., yet Bush who was hampered by the election fiasco and delays of appointments, etc. is supposed to be at fault for not getting al Qaeda/bin Laden in about 7 months! I hope the Bushies will knock this back at their partisan, wicked, lying hacks in the media and Demonrat party.

[fatidic]

Excellent summary of the reasons to attack Iraq and the effectiveness of our military intervention. Can you give as good reasons for Bush to break his word on nation building to justify our continued military presence in Iraq?

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Yes: September 11, 2001.

[Rome2000]

Clinton, Clarke, and the Democrats are the ones who did nothing after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993.

Clinton, Clarke, and the Democrats are the ones who did nothing after the Khobar Towers were bombed.

Clinton, Clarke and the Democrats are the ones who did nothing when Iraq kicked out the UN inspectors.

Clinton, Clarke and the Democrats are the ones who did nothing when Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries repeatedly painted American fighter jets.

Clinto, Clarke and the Democrats are the ones who refused Sudans offer of OBL on a silver platter.

Clinton, Clarke and the Democrats are the ones who pardoned the FALN terrorists.

Clinton, Clarke and the Democrats are the ones who did nothing when the USS Cole was bombed.

Small wonder RAGHEADS and Democrats have a problem with George W. Bush and the Republicans willingness to defend our country.

[Saundra Duffy]

Sour grapes.

[Saundra Duffy]

If this guy was any good at his job, 9/11 would not have happened. ?

No kidding.

[Gothmog]

Interesting quote from a WPost web discussion involving WPost reporter Dana Priest on 3/18/04. One reader asked about Doug Feith's intelligence group re-evaluating CIA info. Priest responded:

"Dana Priest: There is a widespread believe among Bush appointees at the Pentagon, former intelligence experts who backed the invasion of Iraq (Jim Woosley comes to mind) and other think-tank types (AEI, etc.) who believe the CIA is trapped in a mindset about the possibility that Al Qaeda and Iraq would work together. It's a typical institutional trap, that once an institute takes a position over a long period of time, they are more reluctant to change. The reaction was to have their own people re-look the intelligence community's reporting on Iraq and Al Qaeda and offer a competing view. Since I concluded (but am totally open to new facts) that Feith's office did not exert any hugely powerful or disproportionate influence over the policy process and actually shared its analysis for debate with the CIA, it just doesn't seem to be the big deal many people are making it into. It was pretty much an open debate and the president, of course, made the final decision, presumably with the competing views in mind."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61228-2004Mar15.html

It seems that Clarke was in the same trap as the CIA.

[redwolf00]

Toward the end of his tenure, Clarke was relegated to critical infrastructure protection issues. He was held in low regard throughout the interagency, seen as a self promoting gadfly who pushed his views in poorly staffed policy documents. His first draft of a cyber security policy for the WH was sophomoric. All interactions with his side of the NSC staff (2001-2003)caused me to question how on earth he was kept from the Clinton administration. Look at him now, I am not surprised.

[HardStarboard]

>>> By going with it now it will be on the radar for a couple days and that will be the end of it.<<<

You are an optimist. I believe that this will be one of their "big guns" in the campaign and they will beat it to death.

If it works, Bush is culpable in his own demise. We should have, long ago, fried the Clinton administration for their total incompetence and refusal to fight the war against terror - bin Laden declared war in 1997 (close) and Clinton treated it as a law enforcement problem.

This even after his own staff, (Laurie Mylroie) linked Iraq to both WTC 1993 bombing and Oklahoma City. If you don't believe that statement, I suggest you stick this title in FR Search and read her report - done before 9/11.
Saddam's ties to 9/11? ~ "THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMB: Who is Ramzi Yousef? And Why It Matters"1995

Bush basically shut down those on his staff that wanted to fry Clinton after 9/11....and what has playing Mr. NiceGuy got him - a Clinton holdover campaign of deceit that may defeat him in November.

Note: This is a redo of a post I made last night without my glasses and which I garbled up beyond all recognition.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Toward the end of his tenure, Clarke was relegated to critical infrastructure protection issues. He was held in low regard throughout the interagency, seen as a self promoting gadfly who pushed his views in poorly staffed policy documents.

Just saw a guy interviewed on FoxNews confirming or seconding everything that is being attributed to Clarke. This guy apparently also recently testified to the 9-11 panel, and was also a member of the National Security team of both the Bush and Clinton Administrations. It is becoming clear: everyone in the Clinton Admin. is in full CYA (or cover your Clymer, take your pick) mode. One of the amazing things this guy said was "there should have been a response to the Cole bombing -- like on whose watch did THAT take place????" At some point, this guy defended the Clintons saying (I assume in response to one of the lesser attacks during the Clinton Admin.) "with only 12 American casualties, there was no way the American people would support a military response."

Talk about pathetic... talk about rationalizing... talk about kicking the can down the road... Talk about irresponsibility... But then again, I'm talking about the Clinton Administation.

[fatidic]

So, are saying that the U.S. should reward Iraq for Sept 11th by spilling American blood and spending billions of dollars to modernize that backward, hate-filled, superstitious country after we took out their vicious leaders?

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Well, since you asked, I guess I'm saying that it is in our national interest to fight terrorism in the Middle East and that one field of that battle is Iraq. One of the worst possible outcomes is for terrorists to have access to sophisticated WMDs and that had to be a concern re: Iraq following 9-11. And I guess I would also say that it is in our national interest to have a liberated, democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East -- a region that continues to be of significant strategic importance given our economic depedence on oil. I don't like spending US blood and treasure any more than most (obviously not as much as you, I guess), but this seems to me to be an investment worth making. Sort of like Reagan's build-up of defenses to win the Cold War. I know that sustaining a democratic system in Iraq isn't going to be an easy task -- but it could have a transforming effect in that region and the world.

And another unintended "consequence": the fact that the victory in Iraq has led to the disarmament of Libya and the uncovering of the nuclear proliferation through Pakistan's nuclear head was also a HUGE accomplishment and step toward a better world.