Posted on 06/26/2003 2:02:08 PM PDT by commiefighter
Senator Bob Graham of Florida, the latest Democratic presidential candidate to declare for the nomination, voted against the Iraqi freedom initiative in the Senate, and must now defend his negative vote on military action before the American people. This is no small order what with the resounding success of the campaign, and the neutralization of terrorist training sites at Samarra, Salman Pak and Ansar al Islam. Graham first based his opposition to the use of force in Iraq on what he said is the inability of our government to fight Saddam and various terrorist movements at the same time. Now he says the president...”lied”...by not telling us the “whole truth.” As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee he should know better, or at least he should know what the “whole truth” is and share it with us. In fact, Graham told CBS News reporter Charles Osgood last December that...”We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has...a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” So how does Graham’s “whole truth” differ from what the president said about Saddam’ capabilities. Graham was also quoted in the Washington Times as saying...”we should have pursued the war on terrorism to victory before moving to Iraq.” One must wonder what his criteria are, and how Graham defines “victory.” Nevermind that there has been no attack on the US homeland since 9/11/01 and the followup anthrax letters. Nevermind that the terrorist factions abroad are reduced to hitting soft targets such as Saudi Arabia and Morocco where security is nonexistent or an afterthought at best. As a result these countries will revitalize anti terrorist programs. Nevermind that 3,000 al Qaeda members have been detained in 100 countries as reported by the Washington Times. Nevermind that Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, No. 3 in al Qaeda, was captured on March lst.
Efforts to increase the size and functions of government, and eventually raise taxes to support the increases, are primary Democrat motivators. National security, by contrast, is not normally their hot button issue. Democrats are beholden to socialist groups that promote military weakness as a means of undermining US hegemony while saving funds for social programs. But security is now the top concern of most Americans, so the Democrats--especially smart politicians like Graham--will run with this issue. This gives Graham a key talking point only if there is another attack on the US. Then he can claim that things did not go well because we didn’t spend enough. If Senator Graham is so protective of our security, why did he fail to protest the Clinton Administration’s guidance to the FBI not to photograph an Iranian delegation entering the US, which could have included Hezbollah agents responsible for the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing--because it might set back our “relationship” with Iran, as reported by former FBI director Louis Freeh in the May 20th Wall Street Journal. And, if we haven’t done enough on security, how does Graham explain the State Department’s announcement on April 30th of this year that terrorist attacks worldwide sharply decreased in 2002 to the lowest level since 1969? Attacks dropped to 199 in 2002, from 355 a year earlier, for a 44 percent decline according to Cofer Black, State’s Terrorism Coordinator. On May 1st State Secretary Colin Powell added: “Terrorist cells have been broken up, networks disrupted and plots foiled,” according to the Washington Times. Graham also has no response to the successful prevention of terrorism attacks in the US, and al Qaeda’s resort to attacking Saudi Arabia and Morocco where there are unsophisticated security forces. In addition, during the past 2 months, US homeland security intercepted and arrested two Arabs suspected of being among 6 operatives who were sent by senior al Qaeda leaders to scout targets for new attacks, according to a late May report in the New York Times. Chuck Hagel, also on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, told CNN he is “stumped” by Graham’s comments. Is this a blatant grandstand play by Graham to enhance his chances of a 2004 presidential nomination?
commiefighter.
NewsMax.com WiresWASHINGTON – U.S. intelligence agencies and their allies disrupted terrorist threats, including some from al-Qaeda against U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf area, during the war against Iraq, U.S. officials have told United Press International.
Tuesday, April 22, 2003
"There were a number of disruptions to terrorist efforts around the world over the last month or so," a U.S. intelligence official told UPI. "Rolled up is probably too precise a phrase," the official, who requested anonymity, went on. "If you think of it as someone snuffing out a burning fuse, that's not the case, but people who were planning bad things have ended up getting deported or arrested or detained."
Another government official, who also asked not to be named, confirmed the account. "Al-Qaeda plots against U.S. troops in the gulf were disrupted during the war."
Rep. Porter J. Goss, R-Fla., the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said: "I'm not going to be specific, but yes, there have been disruptions. I won't say what disruptions where, and I won't say when."
Disruption is an intelligence term of art. "It means a plan was interfered with. It didn't take place," said Vincent Cannistraro, former counter-terrorism chief for the CIA. "You don't necessarily [apprehend] everyone involved - you may not get anyone - but the people who were going to do something are not able to do it for one reason or another."
Other U.S. officials point out that this has been happening almost continuously since the Sept. 11, 2001. They stress that threats are disrupted almost every day.
Analysts concur. "Al-Qaeda members are constantly plotting against the United States," said Ben Venzke, a private sector counter-terrorism analyst who consults for U.S. government agencies. "And they are constantly having to change or abandon those plans because of the aggressive prosecution of the war on terror."
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.