Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Preparing for The Next Pearl Harbor Attack (JUNE 2001, Bush team addressing terrorism threat)
Insight Magazine ^ | June 18, 2001 | J. Michael Waller

Posted on 03/26/2004 2:36:03 PM PST by cyncooper

Pearl Harbor probably will happen again. Only this time the attacks won't be in far-off Hawaii but against the American mainland. That's what some of the nation's top experts are saying as the national-security community scrambles to ward off attempts to attack the U.S. homeland with terrorist weapons of mass destruction and crippling raids on public- and private-sector information systems on which the entire economy - and the American way of life - depend.

Geopolitical and technological changes after the collapse of the Soviet Union are forcing U.S. national security to stand on its head - and with good reason. The decline of Cold War alliances, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the near-total vulnerability of the U.S. economic system to attack are forcing American policymakers to rethink the basics of the country's defense and security.

For the first time since the Japanese fleet bombed Pearl Harbor nearly 60 years ago, the United States is fully vulnerable to attacks it cannot deter or easily prevent, Pentagon experts tell Insight. The missile age brought with it the threat of massive retaliation against a potential attacker, perversely keeping the peace under the doctrine of "mutually assured destruction," known as MAD. Not any more.

Proliferation of missile technology soon will place delivery systems capable of striking the U.S. mainland in the hands of any regime or fanatical group that can afford them. Even more chilling is the prospect of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons being smuggled into the United States and detonated against civilian targets anonymously, causing horrific destruction and carnage yet leaving Washington helpless to respond.

President George W. Bush underscored his concern in a May 8 statement: "The threat of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons being used against the United States - while not immediate - is very real."

The first responders on tomorrow's battlefield won't be soldiers, but city ambulance workers and small-town firefighters. Federal authorities only now are coming to grips with the terrorist threat of a nuclear blast, a radiation bomb, blister agents, nerve gases and germ weapons released in U.S. cities and towns. State and local officials tell Insight they have little or no means of coping with the threat before it occurs, or dealing with it after a terrorist strikes.

And then there's the "electronic Pearl Harbor," a phrase coined by Richard Clarke, President Clinton's national coordinator for security, infrastructure protection and counter-terrorism. An electronic Pearl Harbor would be a surprise attack on the country's fragile information systems that keep the economy and society running.

America's miraculous digital revolution - automatic teller machines and wireless phones, personal computers and pagers, and the electronic systems that carry news, airline schedules, stock trades and business inventories - have transformed the way people live. But the entire network, which bureaucrats call "the critical infrastructure," is a massive electronic Achilles' heel, security specialists warn. A single swipe could bring everything down (see "Civilian Defense Against Biothreat," March 26).

International terrorists and rogue regimes are savoring the prospect of striking hard at the United States, according to U.S. intelligence agencies. During his recent tour of the Middle East, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro remarked to his Iranian hosts that the United States was plagued with vulnerabilities that smaller countries could exploit. He didn't elaborate in public, but his message was clear: The time is coming when the rogues of the world will be able to take down Uncle Sam.

With Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ripping apart obsolete defense doctrines to keep the United States on the cutting edge of world leadership, others, with a much lower profile, are working on a more fundamental issue: homeland security.

After years of dithering under Clinton, say defense specialists, the Bush White House is taking the matter seriously. "Virtually every vital service: water supplies, transportation, energy, banking and finance, telecommunications, public health - all of these rely on computer and fiber-optic lines, the switches and routers that come from them," notes National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. These are vulnerable. In the short time since his inauguration in January, Bush has instructed government offices to coordinate for homeland security and defense, and assigned Vice President Richard Cheney to head a group to draft a national terrorism-response plan by October 1.

It took a while for America's leaders even to begin to pay attention to this issue. Not until 1997 did a U.S. government document even recognize the modern concept of homeland defense, when a report by the National Defense Panel, a Pentagon study group, argued that the American civilian population increasingly was at risk. The report concluded that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the vulnerability of U.S. civil infrastructures, what it called "information systems, the vital arteries of the modern political, economic, and social infrastructures," constituted a serious "threat to our homeland."

But it wasn't a photo opportunity, and few politicians seemed to take notice. The following year, in 1998, Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 63, requiring government agencies to secure their own critical infrastructure systems and to work with the private sector on the problem. PDD 63 created a central-oversight body within the National Security Council called the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO).

CIAO maintained a staff of one: Richard Clarke.

Despite Clarke's efforts, the Clinton/Gore White House made little follow-through until the last months of the administration, according to a recent review by federal inspectors general. Congress then stepped in, establishing bipartisan commissions to study new threats to the U.S. homeland and means of preventing or combating them. The commissions were created in the same spirit as the Cox commission on Chinese espionage and the Rumsfeld commission on missile defense to tackle pressing national-security issues that critics said the Clinton/Gore administration either failed to tackle or attempted merely to wish away.

The Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, led by GOP Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III, released its second annual report late last year. Its objective was to help local, state and federal officials develop means of responding to the human casualties of a nuclear, chemical or biological attack.

On a broader scale, Congress chartered the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, led by former senators Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., to identify trends to help predict what the world will be like in 25 years, to assess how the United States would fare amid the technological and geopolitical changes and then to propose fundamental ways in which U.S. national-security approaches should be reformed. In February, after a two-year investigation, the Hart-Rudman commission issued its report, bluntly stating: "This commission has concluded that, without significant reforms, American power and influence cannot be sustained." Hart and Rudman wrote that, "despite the end of the Cold War threat, America faces distinctly new dangers, particularly to the homeland."

The first of the commission's five recommendations for national-security organizational change was "ensuring the security of the American homeland." Its reasoning is blunt: "A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter-century. The risk is not only death and destruction but also a demoralization that could undermine U.S. global leadership. In the face of this threat, our nation has no coherent or integrated governmental structures."

The Bush administration has seized the problem aggressively with a range of initiatives to have a working system in place to defend the country against attacks on its critical infrastructure. Pentagon insiders tell Insight that Rumsfeld's reviews pay close attention to homeland defense and that the administration is weighing creation of a special office for that purpose.

The Hart-Rudman commission recommended "that the National Guard be given homeland security as a primary mission, as the U.S. Constitution itself ordains." The National Guard should be totally reorganized and reconfigured to tackle that mission, according to the commissioners.

In the private sector, too, experts have been planning for the next Pearl Harbor. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think thank, has a major program designed to help policymakers understand homeland defense and chart a proper, bipartisan policy course.

Still, the government's approach to homeland security remains haphazard. At present, between 23 and 46 separate federal departments and agencies - depending on who's counting - play a role in homeland security. A National Homeland Security Agency would consolidate the roles under one entity, according to Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Skelton introduced a bill, following the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman report, to direct the president to "develop a comprehensive strategy for homeland security (protection from terrorist or strategic attacks) under which federal, state, and local government organizations coordinate and cooperate to meet security objectives; (2) conduct a comprehensive threat and risk assessment to identify specific homeland security threats; (3) implement the resulting strategy as soon as practicable; (4) designate a single government official responsible for homeland security; and (5) ensure that the strategy is carried out through the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies."

The bill, and a related one by Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, is sitting in committee as the White House prepares its strategy. The National Security Council's CIAO now is developing a National Plan for Cyberspace Security and Critical Infrastructure Protection, and is working with state and local governments to increase awareness and coordination. In May, Bush ordered the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to set up an Office of National Preparedness to take charge of the disorganized homeland-security functions spread across the bureaucracy. The often-criticized FEMA has been performing well recently after years of neglect, winning praise from a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) audit that found the agency making progress on terrorism preparedness.

Still, the effort requires high-profile leadership. "There is no single, coordinated U.S. government definition of `homeland defense,'" says Mark DeMier of ANSER Analytic Services, a nonprofit U.S. Air Force-funded think tank, and editor of its Homeland Security Bulletin. "It does not even appear in the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. However, consensus does seem to be emerging on the term `homeland security.' The Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review team defines it as the prevention, deterrence and preemption of, and defense against, aggression targeted at U.S. territory, sovereignty, population and infrastructure as well as the management of the consequences of such aggression and other domestic emergencies - a combination of homeland defense and civil support," according to DeMier.

Disagreement over terms and responsibilities has crippled the new cybersecurity arm of the FBI. The FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center, according to another GAO report, suffers from disagreement about the roles of organizations involved in cybersecurity, as well as absent leadership, and has only half the analysts needed. Those shortfalls have retarded the FBI's ability to fight attacks on the nation's information infrastructure.

The needed leadership for change may not be far off. When President Bush asked FEMA to create an Office of National Preparedness and for Vice President Cheney to chair a group to produce a terrorism-response plan, he assigned the FEMA office to implement the recommendations of the Cheney panel. In Bush's words, the new office will "coordinate all federal programs dealing with weapons-of-mass-destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies," and "will work closely with state and local governments to ensure their planning, training, and equipment needs are addressed. FEMA will also work closely with the Department of Justice, in its lead role for crisis management, to ensure that all facets of our response to the threat from weapons of mass destruction are coordinated and cohesive."

Bush said he personally would monitor FEMA's progress by chairing periodic National Security Council meetings specifically to review the matter.

Meanwhile, say insiders, the administration is trying to clean up the mess left by its predecessor. Clarke, Clinton's former national infrastructure chief whom Bush kept on, now admits that his first attempt under the Clinton administration to deal with infrastructure defense was a set of policies "written by bureaucrats" and that they were wholly inadequate. He attacked a 1999 Clinton/Gore infrastructure-protection plan as one that "could not be translated into business terms that corporate boards and senior management could understand."

He warns, however, that the private sector's failure to regulate itself only invites more government regulation. Due to the nature of the threat to the U.S. homeland, Clarke argues that the government must insist on cooperation from the private sector - especially because more than 90 percent of the country's critical infrastructure is in private hands. "There is a unique challenge here," Clarke recently told a CSIS gathering. "For the first time in our history, the armed forces cannot defend us from the foreign threat. They cannot surround the power grid. Therefore, we are asking the private sector to defend not only itself, but the country as well."


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2001; 911; 911commission; bush2004; bushdoctrineunfold; clarke; cwii; hartrudman; hillaryknew; homelandsecurity; richardclarke; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-253 next last
I looked for a date on this article on the Insight page but don't see it. Clearly it was written prior to 9/11 so I googled the title and found the article also posted here where the date of June 18, 2001 is listed.

More refutation to Clarke's assertions that the threat of terrorism was being ignored.

I saw as I searched that one of the arguments the left is raising today is the assertion that the Bush administration ignored the Hart-Rudman report, and by implication, they ignored dealing with the concern at all. .

1 posted on 03/26/2004 2:36:03 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Peach
I thought you'd like to see this.
2 posted on 03/26/2004 2:36:48 PM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper; prairiebreeze; Howlin; PhiKapMom
Holy moly. What a GREAT find.

How about we send it to some news organizations?

VERRRRRRY interesting.

Howlin - how about a ping list?

PhiKapMom - I hope the RNC has this in their pocket???
3 posted on 03/26/2004 2:40:29 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Bump for a great find.
4 posted on 03/26/2004 2:43:32 PM PST by Stentor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Clarke is being exposed as a politcal hack and greedy bookseller.

<sarcasm>I wonder if 60 minutes will interview him again to expose his fraud?</sarcasm>

5 posted on 03/26/2004 2:44:36 PM PST by watchin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Peach, on one of the threads about Clarke today, somebody posted what sounded like lefty talking points about the Bush adminstration ignoring the Hart-Rudman report.

So I decided to look into it and through my Googling of "Hart-Rudman report + Richard Clarke" I find that lo and behold Molly Ivins wrote just that in her column yesterday.

Fortunately, I kept googling and found this Insight article discussing what the then very new Bush adminstration was doing to address the threat of terrorism. I even searched FR to see if the Insight article was posted way back when, but when it didn't come up right away I thought it deserved highlighting.

6 posted on 03/26/2004 2:45:16 PM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Sure don't look like "asleep at the wheel" to me.
7 posted on 03/26/2004 2:46:46 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (`,,`,,Election '04...It's going to be a bumpy ride,,`,,`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick
Thought you might find this interesting reading.
8 posted on 03/26/2004 2:47:08 PM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Hope you sent this out to the alphabets.
9 posted on 03/26/2004 2:48:52 PM PST by mtbopfuyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WKB; onyx; bourbon; dixiechick2000; cyncooper
You really need to see this little jewel. Haha...if it's out there a FReeper will find it. Great research cyncooper!
10 posted on 03/26/2004 2:49:25 PM PST by Magnolia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn; Peach
Good idea about sending it to news organizations.

Anybody have a handy dandy set of email addys, by chance?
11 posted on 03/26/2004 2:52:42 PM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
bttt
12 posted on 03/26/2004 2:57:22 PM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
What a tremendous boost for the President's credibility. What a terrible blow to Clarke's, and to a lesser degree, Clinton's.

I wonder if Clarke will say he was lying then or now?
13 posted on 03/26/2004 2:58:26 PM PST by TN4Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
This is why I love coming to this site...You people are fantastic!!

Great Find!!
14 posted on 03/26/2004 2:58:49 PM PST by FlashBack (USA...USA...USA...USA...USA...USA...USA...USA...USA...USA..USA...USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
You deserve a gold medal for finding this!

I just took the liberty of emailing it to National Review. I hope you don't mind!
15 posted on 03/26/2004 2:59:22 PM PST by EllaMinnow ("Pessimism never won any battle." - Dwight D. Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
INTREP - CLARKE
16 posted on 03/26/2004 3:02:07 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
It looks like the Bush admin inherited a haphazard approach to the whole terrorism on the homefront problem. The Clinton admin was set to take the lead on this because they were the first admin to be Cold War-less. And what did they do for eight years?

Something else I find interesting is the whole focus on WMD and bioterrorism which are certainly a threat. However, how did the terr'ists hit us? With commercial airplanes and boxcutters. There were enough biohazards in the structure of the WTC to affect NYers for years and years. It is sort of like David hitting Goliath with a stone. We tend to think BIG when it comes to how an enemy will hurt us. However, much havoc can be wreaked with every day stuff, and we cannot defend against such. Unless we can identify the enemy and eliminate him/her from our country. I know that we are making inroads in such. I hope that our eyes and ears are open to all possibilities.
17 posted on 03/26/2004 3:03:12 PM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
btw, this is a really good find.
18 posted on 03/26/2004 3:03:39 PM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper; Clovis_Skeptic; Miss Marple; Mo1; Howlin; nopardons; chadsworth; ...
Meanwhile, say insiders, the administration is trying to clean up the mess left by its predecessor. Clarke, Clinton's former national infrastructure chief whom Bush kept on, now admits that his first attempt under the Clinton administration to deal with infrastructure defense was a set of policies "written by bureaucrats" and that they were wholly inadequate. He attacked a 1999 Clinton/Gore infrastructure-protection plan as one that "could not be translated into business terms that corporate boards and senior management could understand."

This is one of the best finds yet to refute that lying bunch up there in DC! Cudos to you for posting this, and it needs to be widely seen!

19 posted on 03/26/2004 3:06:12 PM PST by ladyinred (Weakness Invites War. Peace through Strength.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Please bring out your ping lists! This is a good one!
20 posted on 03/26/2004 3:07:17 PM PST by ladyinred (Weakness Invites War. Peace through Strength.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Bravo. However, you cannot send this to the major media; facts only confuse them.
21 posted on 03/26/2004 3:09:35 PM PST by 2504Jumper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
What you think? Deserves Front Page News, in my opinion. After 24 hours down, new threads are scrolling down the page really fast, so this may not be seen by many. This is an important a news item as the FOX story on Wednesday, again IMO. You're the poster, so its your call.
22 posted on 03/26/2004 3:10:08 PM PST by CedarDave (Election 2004: When Democrats attack, it's campaigning; when Republicans campaign, it's attacking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Bravo...and all of us here need to click on the link that shows the dated article; it allows you to e-mail it intact.

This needs bigtime proliferation.

23 posted on 03/26/2004 3:13:14 PM PST by ErnBatavia (Gay marriage is for suckers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Here's an article I posted earlier today about Clarke that was written in 1998 in the NYTimes. It is interesting to see what his focus was at the time in regards to terrorism.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1105510/posts
24 posted on 03/26/2004 3:13:24 PM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick
That is terrific. Please, anybody who wants to forward, please do.

I just sent it to Fox News, straight to "Special Report" since I respect Brit and the reporters on that beat.

Oh, it just struck me. This won't help Clarke in that little matter of perjury that Frist and Goss have raised. Even though interviews with a reporter are not under oath, there is such a thing as establishing credibility by looking at the state of the record and seeing consistancy over time of a certain position that all of a sudden flips.
25 posted on 03/26/2004 3:13:42 PM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Good work. Definitely a keeper.
26 posted on 03/26/2004 3:13:58 PM PST by wingman1 (University of Vietnam '70)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave; Sidebar Moderator
What do you think of placement of this article?

Should it get a spot over on the side where it won't scroll away?
27 posted on 03/26/2004 3:15:57 PM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Good find!
28 posted on 03/26/2004 3:16:33 PM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
May I second that motion? May I also suggest this be reposted over the weekend because many of us are playing catch up to yesterday's down time on FreeRepublic?

Brilliant find...I would think there are similar articles out there that prove Clark is a liar and that the Bush Administration was making plans to defend this nation, not just have meetings about it like the Clinton Mis-Administration.
29 posted on 03/26/2004 3:16:43 PM PST by BlessedByLiberty (Respectfully submitted,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: petitfour
Another good find at your link. From that article in the NY Times about Clarke:

keeping a profile so low that almost no one outside his top-secret world knows he exists.

So many of us noticed he is similar to Joe Wilson in so many ways and something about this "top-secret world" phrase strikes me as "sexing up" his job.

30 posted on 03/26/2004 3:20:29 PM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper; doug from upland
Here are media links, thanks to freeper doug from upland.

He strongly recommends that we also call the media. And, when sending an e-mail, it is helpful to call the desk first and ask for a specific reporter or e-mail address.
31 posted on 03/26/2004 3:23:55 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
This needs to get to the White House ASAP (if they don't know about it already from their own research). If Condi tapes an interview tomorrow for CBS 60-Minutes, it's always good to have other, independent journalistic evidence that backs your assertion of Bush action vs. Clinton inaction. FReepers, any back channel contacts this can be pushed through?? (don't answer here, just let'em know!)
32 posted on 03/26/2004 3:26:02 PM PST by CedarDave (Election 2004: When Democrats attack, it's campaigning; when Republicans campaign, it's attacking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Sorry - I forgot to link! Media outlets and their contact numbers and e-mail addresses:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105724/posts
33 posted on 03/26/2004 3:26:24 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Great research. We should use this as a talking point when sending e-mails or writing/calling news organizations.

I'm not so great at research and am so glad you are!
34 posted on 03/26/2004 3:27:18 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Thank you very much.
35 posted on 03/26/2004 3:27:41 PM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
My enthusiasm has just been somewhat dampened. I didn't know much about "Insight" magazine, but find out that it is a conservative publication. That means that the usual suspects will claim it's just a publication for drumming up support for George W. Bush, then and now, and anything printed has to be be reviewed in that light, i.e. with skepticism. I know it won't change the facts of the story, but the left-wing media will dismiss it with a shrug and a sneer.
36 posted on 03/26/2004 3:37:36 PM PST by CedarDave (Election 2004: When Democrats attack, it's campaigning; when Republicans campaign, it's attacking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
Waller has pretty good credentials.

I found him listed here:

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=static&page=staff

I was already aware of Insight's conservative bent. I see clicking the "read more" at his name at the link above, this article is listed as are others he's written.
37 posted on 03/26/2004 3:51:24 PM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
BTTT.
38 posted on 03/26/2004 4:21:33 PM PST by EllaMinnow ("Pessimism never won any battle." - Dwight D. Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Clarke is a JUDAS to this country's safety.....typical RAT.
39 posted on 03/26/2004 4:25:26 PM PST by Ann Archy (Abortion: The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
It was Newt Gingrich that approached Clinton about the need for a Commission to study and make recommendations regarding national security and terrorism. Clinton formed the Hart-Rudman Commission and gave Newt a seat.

The Commission's report was called the Road Map to the 21st Century and consisted of 3 reports. The first report contained what most members could agree on. The second report contained what many members could agree on. The third contained what some could agree on.

As for the accusations that Bush ignored Hart-Rudman, it is true. But, so did everyone else in Washington, with the exception of Sec of Defense Cohen, who spoke often about the Commission's report. Had any politician suggested re-organizing the govt, he would have been crucified as trying to pull a fast one to benefit his party. Thornberry of Texas was the first to introduce legislation, and before 9-11. Lieberman introduced legislation in the Senate subsequent to 9-11.

Shortly after Bush took office, Hart and Rudman approached the Whitehouse and Bush put Cheney in charge with the promise to get back. Hart and Rudman complained that after 9-11 they coundn't get an appointment with the Whitehouse.

The dems will use this against Bush but Bush really isn't to blame. He had to wait until the push for re-orginization got traction in Congress before he moved on it, or "got out in front of it".

It is interesting to note that the Bush Doctrine of Preemption is found in the Phase 2 Commission report. I think Newt did that.

Everyone should read at least the Executive Summaries of the reports.

40 posted on 03/26/2004 5:17:00 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
I pointed out the dems will try--indeed I found this article while researching this latest ploy to wave around the Hart-Rudman report--but they will fail.

Did you read the article? Whatever the report, the facts are the Bush administration was taking the threat of terrorism plenty seriously and they were taking pro-active steps to address it, no matter if some committee or person thinks since they didn't get sufficient attention then the matter was being ignored. It was not.
41 posted on 03/26/2004 5:21:39 PM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
Just an FYI on Clarke:

1. Rep. Christopher Shays, chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, said that in June 2000 Clark told the subcommittee there was "no need for an assessment" of the terrorist threat.

Three national commissions concluded the US needed a comprehensive threat assessment and a national strategy. Shays held 20 hearings pre 9/11 and on June 28, 2000 he asked Mr. Clarke, then serving as Clinton's Special Assistant and National Coordinator, Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counterterrorism, when an all source threat assessment and strategy would be completed.

Clark answered "No assessment has been done, and there is no need for an assessment. I know the threat."

2. In 2000, the Department of Defense Worldwide Conference on Terrorism asked Mr. Clarke's assistant when a national strategy on terrorism would be completed. The assistant responded that a strategy was being developed (in 2000 - the last year of the Clinton presidency). However, no national strategy to combat terrorism was every produced during the Clinton administration.

3. 911 Commissioner Lehman noted to Clarke on Tuesday that his 15 hours of private testimony differed substantially from his public testimony. So substantially that Lehman told Clarke he couldn't believe it. As a result of that, the White House is seeking to declassify whether Clarke lied under oath.

4. On page 127 of Clarke's new book "Against All Enemies", Clarke notes that it's possible that al Qaida operatives in the Phillipes "taught Terry Nichols how to blow up the Oklahoma Federal Building." Intelligence places Nichols there on the same days as Ramzi Yousef, and "we do know that Nichols's bombs did not work before his Philippines stay and were deadly when he returned."

And yet, the Clinton administration focused exclusively on homegrown terrorists, and never talked publicly about this matter. Laurie Mylroie, formerly of the Clinton administration, and others, have since talked about the Iraqi connection to the OKC bombing frequently. Yet your news organization has been largely if not completely silent.

5. Despite Clarke's assertion that he is non-partisan, a few moments research into public records indicates that Clarke has only donated to Democrat's campaigns, never to Republicans.

42 posted on 03/26/2004 5:28:49 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Excellent summation.

Bump!
43 posted on 03/26/2004 7:16:18 PM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Thanks, cyn!
44 posted on 03/26/2004 7:20:15 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Great pick up!
45 posted on 03/26/2004 7:24:36 PM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Great find,cyncooper!
46 posted on 03/26/2004 7:26:45 PM PST by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper; CedarDave
Placed on front page.

For contacting moderators, the best route is an abuse report, even if no abuse is involved. The way the system works at our end, sometimes pings on threads will go unnoticed.

47 posted on 03/26/2004 7:28:59 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Not to keep bugging you with the stuff I keep reading, but it says in another article posted on FR that Clarke was an anti-Vietnam war protester in the 60s. It is based on a quote from Clarke's book. I found that to be interesting, considering Kerry's background.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105863/posts?page=13#13
48 posted on 03/26/2004 7:31:22 PM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Sidebar Moderator
Thank you very much.
49 posted on 03/26/2004 7:31:57 PM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: petitfour
Cross referencing is an invaluable tool, so please link away.

50 posted on 03/26/2004 7:32:45 PM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-253 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson