Guardian: 9/11 panel says diplomacy doesn't work

Post #147,829 by marlowe 3/23/04 12:16:13 PM Reply	Guardian: 9/11 panel says diplomacy doesn't work [link\|http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3894206,00.html\|Well, duh.] Excerpt: WASHINGTON (AP) - The Clinton and Bush administrations' decision to use diplomatic rather than military options against al-Qaida allowed the Sept. 11 terrorists to elude capture years before the attacks, a federal panel said Tuesday. The Clinton administration had early indications of terrorist links to Osama bin Laden and future Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as early as 1995, but let years pass as it pursued criminal indictments and diplomatic solutions to subduing them abroad, it found. Bush officials, meanwhile, failed to act immediately on increasing intelligence chatter and urgent warnings in early 2001 by its counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to take out al-Qaida targets, according to preliminary findings by the commission reviewing the attacks. ``We found that the CIA and the FBI tended to be careful in discussing the attribution for terrorist attacks,'' the bipartisan report said. ``The time lag between terrorist act and any definitive attribution grew to months, then years, as the evidence was compiled.'' I say: Well, if diplomacy fails no matter who tries it, what will happen if Kerry tries it? Does Kerry have a plan B? Vote for undiplomacy. What I want to see is a debate between Bush and Kerry in which Bush concedes the findings of this panel, and publicly apologizes to the American people for having wasted too much time trying to be diplomatic and multilateral, when decisive action was what was needed. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/#911panel\|Permalink] ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEAL WITH IT. Americans: a pack, not a herd. Never mind all the mass graves. Where's the nerve gas? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
Post #147,998 by Simon_Jester 3/23/04 9:32:51 PM Reply	Okay...lost look... Bush officials, meanwhile, failed to act immediately on increasing intelligence chatter and urgent warnings in early 2001 by its counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to take out al-Qaida targets, according to preliminary findings by the commission reviewing the attacks. [...] What I want to see is a debate between Bush and Kerry in which Bush concedes the findings of this panel, and publicly apologizes to the American people for having wasted too much time trying to be diplomatic and multilateral, when decisive action was what was needed. In happier times prior to 9/11, Clarke -- as Bill Clinton's counter-terror point man in the National Security Council -- devoted great effort to convincing national movers and shakers that cyberattack was the coming thing. While ostensibly involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict. September 11 spoiled the fun, though, and electronic attack was shoved onto the back-burner in favor of special operations men calling in B-52 precision air strikes on Taliban losers. One-hundred fifty-thousand U.S. soldiers on station outside Iraq make it perfectly clear that cyberspace is only a trivial distraction. Okay - so I'm lost Marlowe. Are you saying that Clarke DIDN'T try to warn the President (busy with Electronic Warfare) or that he WAS trying to warn the President and the President just didn't listen?
Post #148,003 by boxley 3/23/04 9:39:09 PM Reply	dont forget our new forum Epicuria and Health good recipes or hints always welcome, thanx, bill In Bush\ufffds America, fighting terrorism abroad is used as a pretext for vanquishing civil liberties at home. David Podvin questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]

Welcome to IWETHEY!