Progressive/Liberal Talking Points: Administration Ignored Real Terrorist Threat

Center for American Progress (Leftwing PAC) ^ | 3-22-04

[Oldeconomybuyer]

The Bush administration has failed in its most critical role: to reduce the terrorist threat to the American people.  That's the message from former White House counterrorism expert Richard Clarke whose new memoir says the administration "failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite repeated warnings." The administration's singular focus on Saddam Hussein led to "an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide," according to Clarke, who served under four presidents.

• The Bush administration downgraded multiple warnings about al Qaeda prior to 9/11. White House officials neglected strong warnings from former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger about the critical threat from al Qaeda, choosing instead to focus on things like missile defense and deposing Saddam Hussein. While the cabinet-rank "principals" were meeting at least weekly on terrorism during the Clinton administration, the first cabinet-level meeting on al Qaeda occurred nine months after the Bush administration came to office and one week before the attacks on New York and Washington.
• After Sept. 11, 2001, the administration used the terrorist attacks for political and ideological gain. Clarke reveals that on Sept. 12, 2001 President Bush ordered him to, "Look into Iraq, Saddam," despite clear evidence that al Qaeda was behind the attacks and despite the lack of any credible link between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. The administration immediately used the tragedy and outpouring of public support to shift attention to its decades-long agenda of ousting Saddam Hussein – a critical lapse in judgment that did nothing to stop the ongoing threat from al Qaeda.
• The administration's misguided war against Iraq diverted critical focus from al Qaeda. The administration's disingenuous and inept handling of Iraq is now fully exposed. Instead of focusing on bin Laden and al Qaeda, key Bush administration officials chose to follow up on their long-term dream to overthrow Saddam. And the administration deceived the American people by promoting a war in Iraq that has failed to address the real terrorist threat.

Daily Talking Points is a product of the Center for American Progress, a non-partisan research and educational institute committed to progressive principles for a strong, just and free America.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Center for American Progress 805 15th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 202-682-1611 or e-mail us progress@americanprogress.org

[dirtboy]

Daily Talking Points is a product of the Center for American Progress, a non-partisan research and educational institute

Non-partisan my patootie.

[dirtboy]

Yeah, they've got John Podesta as President and CEO, and Hillary gave a speech there this month, but they're non-partisan.

[Puppage]

Where's the part where Bill Klinton passed TWICE, on Osama? Oh, wait. Lemme guess, that was a long time ago & we need to move on, right?

[GodBlessRonaldReagan]

Yeah, like these buttmunches ever cared about defending America int he past...suddenly they're hawks on the WOT.

[tractorman]

American Bandstand for you Mr. Dick Clarke!

[narby]

During the Dem primaries, they bashed Bush saying he was making too big a deal about the WOT.

Now they think he wasn't doing enough.

Followers of such thinking are either stupid, or just power mongers willing to lie to win elections.

[Salvey]

Yep, it was only a matter of time before the RATS and their willing tools/fools in the press found a pretext to pin 9/11 on Bush.

[Argus]

The Bush administration has failed in its most critical role: to reduce the terrorist threat to the American people.

For the equivalent absurd untruth about the opposing side, you'd have to say something like:

The Clinton administration has failed in its most critical role: to raise the awareness of oral copulation among the American people.

[AngieGOP]

Meanwhile these are the same people who complain that they are losing their freedom under the Patriot Act. You can't please a lying liberal.

[Shermy]

While the cabinet-rank "principals" were meeting at least weekly on terrorism during the Clinton administration, the first cabinet-level meeting on al Qaeda occurred nine months after the Bush administration came to office and one week before the attacks on New York and Washington.

Were "Cabinet-rank principals" meeting "at least weekly" in the Bush admin? The spin is convoluted, the premises unduly contrived, hence there is garbage to be found.

The administration's misguided war against Iraq diverted critical focus from al Qaeda.

Repeated ad nauseam. What, armoured divisions were removed from the Afghan border to Iraq so we couldn't attack a couple hundred Chechens in Pakistan? This talking point was concocted by the anti-war PR fronts of OPEC and France as an argument for keeping sanctions and Saddam in power. IT's become a truism, despite the fact it was a false and financially interested bit of propaganda.

Instead of focusing on bin Laden and al Qaeda, key Bush administration officials chose to follow up on their long-term dream to overthrow Saddam.

Again, the erroneous "focus" argument, meant to keep Saddam in power, not to offer a plan to eliminate AQ. Also, the "dream" was national policy under Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act...if not before.

And the administration deceived the American people by promoting a war in Iraq that has failed to address the real terrorist threat.

What is the "real" threat? Can there be more than one threat?

The lefties are going crazy to define the "war" as if nothing about Iraq was relevant before Bush gained office.

[maica]

###NON-PARTISAN###

Don'cha just love the way lefties talk!

I happened to see parts of the Inaugural Conference of this group - at a fancy DC hotel - all the women well-groomed, in power suits, looking very expectantly at the speakers as their hope to counteract the "vast right wing conspiracy." It probably is on CSPAN archives, somewhere.

[dirtboy]

The Clinton administration has failed in its most critical role: to raise the awareness of oral copulation among the American people.

Well, they DID demonstrate the importance of promptly getting your clothes dry cleaned.

[Zac79]

Before it became the universal catch-word for anything disagreeable, the word "terrorism" used to actually mean something. My understanding is that a "terrorist" used to be someone that used the invocation of fear, whether it be through actual killing or merely the threat of violence, to coerce political action.

If the historical meaning of the word "terrorism" has any value left at this point, it is clear to me that what happened on September 11, 2001 was not terrorism. It was murder. Change nothing but the color of the skin of the hijackers and that is exactly what we would be calling it today. The bombings on March 11, 2004 resemble terrorism more closely than the destruction of the World Trade Center as a result of Al Qaeda having actually taken credit for the Madrid bombings, but the objective was exactly the same, murder executed as efficiently as possible.

I am under no illusions about Al Qaeda's desire to kill Westerners. That organization appears to sincerely believe that they are at war with the United States and its allies, and they make no distinction between civilian and military targets. However, the people in power in Washington, and the White House in particular, continue to ask the wrong questions about Al Qaeda. We desperately need to understand in this country why so many intelligent and rational people across the globe desire to be a part of Al Qaeda. "They hate our freedoms" or "they are the enemies of democracy" are simply not good enough answers. Furthermore, finding the answer to this question is far more important than the problems that the Bush administration seems to be fixated on, specifically keeping weapons of mass destruction out of Al Qaeda's hands.

Not only is the task of keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of those who would do us harm an impractical, if not impossible, job; on a personal level, I am no more afraid of being blown up by a fission bomb than I am of being shot with a gun or pierced with a knife. Al Qaeda will kill Westerners with or without weapons of mass destruction.

The "War on Terror" should have been called something closer to the "War on Al Qaeda" from the beginning. Perhaps if it had been, the reasons why the Iraq war was such a mistake would be more apparent. As has been discussed numerous times, not only was there no credible link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, the ensuing chaos of the invasion and occupation has actually allowed Al Qaeda to gain a foothold in Iraq. But more importantly, our eagerness to invade Iraq illustrates a disconnect in the administration's ability to perceive where Al Qaeda's legions of recruits come from and what motivates them.

If, immediately after September 11, 2001, we had been told that our pursuit of the perpetrators of the event would have been met with almost certain violent retaliation against the citizens of the Western world, the citizens of the Western world, not just the United States, would have been ready to make that sacrifice. There is a distinction, however, between making the inevitable sacrifices inherent in direct pursuit of Al Qaeda and ignorantly fanning the flames of fundamentalist islamic hatred by waging war on an uninvolved country under a banner of fabrications and lies.

There were "good" reasons to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein. What has happened in Iraq may still prove to be a good thing for the Iraqi people, and I fervently hope that it does. However, the imperative after September 11, 2001 was to eradicate those in the Muslim world who actively engaged in killing our civilians for no other reason than their country of citizenship. "Know your enemy" is an often repeated directive in the realm of warfare. Yet, to this day, we still do not understand why so many people in the Arab and Muslim world who may not be actively engaged in the murder of our civilians at least consider it fair game. The image from September 11, 2001 that scared me the most was not the gruesome depiction of New York City, but a picture of ordinary people on a city street somewhere in the Arab world celebrating that day.

One of the most important things the Bush administration has continuously failed to realize, over the last two and a half years, is that there are more approaches to achieving this goal than the military ones that have been almost exclusively deployed thus far. The Bush administration is very fond of saying that the "terrorists" lack rationality and morality, and this provides a profound insight as to how poorly the Bush administration understands the situation. The best weapon that we have in this "war on terrorism" is that these people are rational and are moral, despite the fact that most Westerners, myself included, find their rationality and morality abhorrent.

So while the President claimed on January 20, 2004 that a lack of terrorist attacks implied that his policies were working, and the Vice President claimed on March 17, 2004 that the terrorist attack in Madrid implied that the President's policies were working, I personally don't believe that they've even begun to solve the problem. I wonder if they are even capable of comprehending it.

[hobbes1]

Two Words.



Richard Miniter.


Three More

Losing Bin F*ng Laden.

[evm]

So while the President claimed on January 20, 2004 that a lack of terrorist attacks implied that his policies were working, and the Vice President claimed on March 17, 2004 that the terrorist attack in Madrid implied that the President's policies were working, I personally don't believe that they've even begun to solve the problem. I wonder if they are even capable of comprehendi

We went from February of 1993 to September of 2001 without an Al Qaeda strike within the shores of the United States. Does anyone want to argue that the absence of an attack against us over an eight year period means that Clinton's policies worked? I didn't think so.

I agree with you.

[hobbes1]

Before it became the universal catch-word for anything disagreeable, the word "terrorism" used to actually mean something. My understanding is that a "terrorist" used to be someone that used the invocation of fear, whether it be through actual killing or merely the threat of violence, to coerce political action.

If the historical meaning of the word "terrorism" has any value left at this point, it is clear to me that what happened on September 11, 2001 was not terrorism.

You mean like getting American Troops off of Saudi soil???????(OBL's STATED political desire....)

[TexasCajun]

And just what did the Clintons do to make American safer before 911?

The short list:

1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr., April 14,1993 1993 First World Trade Center bombing, February 26th, 7 Killed, Hundreds injured, Billions
1994 Air France Hijacking, Dec 24,1994
1995 Attack on US Diplomats in Pakistan, Mar 8,1995
1995 Saudi Military Installation Attack, Nov 13, 1995
1995 Kashmiri Hostage taking, July 4,1995
1996 Khobar Towers attack
1996 Sudanese Missionarys Kidnapping, Aug 17,1996
1996 Paris Subway Explosion, Dec 3,1996
1997 Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, Sept 4, 1997
1997 Yemeni Kidnappings, Oct 30,1997
1998 Somali Hostage taking crisis, April 15,1998
1998 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Peru, Jan 15, 1998
1998 U.S. Kenya Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1998 U.S. Tanzania Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1999 Plot to blow up Space Needle (thwarted)
2000 USS Cole attacked, many U.S. Navy sailors murdered
2000-2003 Intifada against Israel - 100's dead and injured
2000 Manila Bombing, Dec 30,2000

[Oldeconomybuyer]

...The Bush administration is very fond of saying that the "terrorists" lack rationality and morality, and this provides a profound insight as to how poorly the Bush administration understands the situation. The best weapon that we have in this "war on terrorism" is that these people are rational and are moral, despite the fact that most Westerners, myself included, find their rationality and morality abhorrent...

Deliberately targeting innocent civilians in America, Spain, Bali, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, Indonesia, and others is immoral and irrational by any standard - western or otherwise. Giving terrorists moral or rational standing is, itself, immoral and irrational.

By the way, Welcome to FR!

[tractorman]

I was trying to imagine the other day what the world would be like if we had a conservative-biased media rather than the opposite.