uruloki’s lair

Noted singer liberal Barbra Striesand penned another statement the other day, this time addressing “The Myth of Bush as Hero.” Unfortunately, Babs lead with her nose this time, so bad that even I can fisk her.

Finally … finally we can talk about what’s really going on. Rather than accept the myth that 9/11 turned President Bush into a “hero” … former counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke has bravely spoken out to tell us the real story – that Bush did not treat terrorism as an urgent issue. And that going to war in Iraq, in addition to tragically costing us so many lives, has diverted money and resources away from where they should have been focused – on dismantling al Qaeda and strengthening our homeland security.

Damn it, who said she could be unmuzzled? Of course, now that we can “finally” talk about what’s going on, we’re going to get an examination of how Clinton fucked American national interests even worse than the interns, right? Oh wait, my bad, IT’S BUSH’S FAULT. Sorry, forgot the meme that she’s dedicated to pushing, even more than her crappy caterwauling.

I’d really like to see how we haven’t been discussing “what’s really going on” over the last three years. I’d also like to know how the “counterterrorism expert” is telling the real story, when there was even less done during the Clinton administration, where he held far more responsibility.

I also take issue with the “so many lives” that she seems to be concerned about. I say seems because she certainly didn’t have a problem with our troops dying to save the Somalis and the Bosnians and the multitude of other places where we went (under Clinton) to prevent the same kind of tragedy that was being carried out every day in Iraq.

We now know that the Bush White House never made counterterrorism a priority leading up to September 11th. In fact, on April 30, 2001, the new administration released the government’s annual report on terrorism, with a noted change: extensive mention of bin Laden, which previous terrorism reports contained, had been left out. A Bush State Department Official reportedly told CNN at that time that the U.S. government under Clinton had made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden.

Can you please explain to me how the government’s report, generated by a monolithic bureaucracy that is in place regardless of who’s in the White House, is solely the responsibility of President Bush? At this point in his administration, he was still fighting Congress to get his appointees into office, leaving him without those expert opinions on which he supposed to formulate major policy decisions.

A “Bush” State Department official? Last time I checked, it’s not his State Department, and the boys at Foggy Bottom are only slightly left leaning than Babs herself. I mean, even today, they do not fully subscribe to the idea that an Arab nation can be democratized, leading to many of the problems that we had in the aftermath of the liberation. What I got from that was the State Department felt there was too much emphasis on bin Laden, and since they help produce the annual report on terrorism, what if they chopped it out, hmmm? And what exactly counts as too much emphasis on a guy we spent no real effort trying to get, with the exception of lobbing a few missiles into empty camps (which even Muslims seem to think was motivated by Lewinsky, how odd).

In fact, Bush never even held a cabinet level meeting devoted to terrorism until the week before the attack. While FBI agents were fielding concerns about non-citizens in flight school uninterested in learning how to land planes, and the CIA was aware that potential terrorists had entered the United States, because terrorism was not a priority in the high levels of the federal government these discussions were never elevated to a place where the information could be shared across departments, where the appropriate people would have an opportunity to connect the dots…

Again, what’s the point here? Clinton had more blowjobs than private meetings with the Director of the CIA while he was in office. Maybe I concede you that first sentence (ok, I wouldn’t, mostly because I don’t want you to get your hopes up), except he held a meeting before the attacks took place.You’d be saying the same thing if he held the damn meeting a month before, so shut your yap on this one.

As far as sharing information across departments, that’s your bureaucracy again, coming through in the clutch. Hell, we don’t like to share information across military branches, how bad do you think it is between peeps with their own little fiefdoms to be concerned about? The FBI had already, in 1998, decided to not follow through on tracking al Queda members. Oops, that’s “Clinton’s FBI,” isn’t it?

Here is a brief timeline (much of the information is from the Center for American Progress) of some of the more egregious warnings of looming terrorism that Bush overlooked as he spent the first eight months in office planning tax cuts for the wealthy, devising a way to invade Iraq, and taking long vacations out at his ranch in Crawford, Texas

Are you sure you want to depend on a single source for all your information, BS? I mean, they do kind of gloss over the fact that Clinton got almost the same warnings during his tenure… Although, I suppose they do fall in the right area of the political spectrum to be believed with absolutely no questioning. Hiel liberal policy wonk!

Besides, what do you have against tax breaks for the wealthy since you are a member of the “filthy rich?” Hell, if I was in that tax bracket, I’d be pissed I didn’t get more of a break. As far as “devising a way to invade Iraq,” he was probably helped by the plans developed under the previous administration (you do know who that was, right?).

1) A 1999 report prepared by the Library of Congress for the National Intelligence Council specifically theorized that al Qaeda could fly airplanes into buildings – so we know that the scope of the attack was not entirely beyond anyone’s imagination.

No shit. I mean, it was only the climax of a book back in 1994… I’ll address the imagination issues later, when you attack Condi Rice.

2) In early 2001, a surge of al Qaeda activity and plans for attacks against American “interests” were noted, including by Israeli intelligence agencies.

Kind of like the same surge of intelligence that the previous administration received prior to the embassy bombings in 1998? Hell, the MEDIA knew it: “Newspapers publish reports of a threat by Egyptian Islamic Jihad stating the U.S. will be punished for helping deport four Islamic fundamentalists from Albania to Cairo.” (Go here, look under “Case File,” and select “Timeline.”)

3) Also in early 2001, the Bush administration departed from Clinton’s policy of tracking money to terrorist organizations. (Was Bush trying to protect the Saudi royal family?)

Nope, again that was the previous administration, two months after the embassy bombings.

4) In July 2001, U.S. and Italian officials were warned that al Qaeda may use planes as missiles at a Genoa summit of industrialized nations.

And? Our bureaucrats had been ignoring that “warning” since 1999 (See #1). Why would they lend any more credence to this warning? Especially since Tenet had been warning about al Queda for so long, no one listened to him any more.

5) On August 6, 2001, while on vacation in Crawford, the president received a one and a half page briefing advising him that al Qaeda was capable of a major strike against the U.S., and that the plot could include the hijacking of American airplanes. And then what did the president do with this important information? He went fishing – bringing new meaning to the phrase, “Gone Fishin’”!

Again, and? According to the officials who prepared the report, its “focus was on possible attacks overseas,” and maybe a bomb plot much like the 1993 (*cough* previous administration cough) WTC bombing due to indications of “attacks in the United States with explosives.” So, how is Bush supposed to know exactly what is going to happen in the future?

6) In July, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial airlines because of a “threat assessment.”

7) Newsweek has reported that on September 10th, 2001, a number of Pentagon officials canceled travel plans for the next morning due to security concerns, and “that as many as 10 to 12 warnings” were issued before 9/11 – “more than two of the warnings specifically mentioned the possibility of hijackings.”

Wait, so now they’re in trouble for listening to warnings? Hang on, I thought they were just ignoring everything! Damn those right-wing extremists who just can’t make up their minds. One of these days, we’ll pin them down, and then, then they’ll be in trouble, won’t they?

Also on September 10th (as I posted in a statement on November 21, 2002), Attorney General John Ashcroft rejected the FBI’s request for a $58 million increase for their counterterrorism budget to pay for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators. He did that despite the fact, discovered later by a Congressional investigation, that the FBI had only one analyst monitoring al Qaeda and a severe shortage of Arabic translators.

Maybe that’s because they were concerned about “racial profiling.” When we can’t take action on the fact that every single suicide bomber (whether in a plane or on a bus) is an Arabic Muslim, it’s severely fucked up. In addition, according to all the expectations of the previous administration, terrorism was going away since we appeased them, hadn’t we?

Soon after September 11th, Condoleezza Rice said, “I don’t think anyone could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center.” And now Bush says, “Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people.” Did he really say this? I heard it on the radio but I couldn’t believe my own ears. Indeed, the scope of the horror of 9/11 is beyond the realm of what even the most savvy threat assessors may have thought possible.

Hold the presses! I thought it was the liberal position that President Bush is stupid (a whole site dedicated to that meme)? If he’s so dumb, how is he supposed to “know” that 11 Sep is going to happen when even “the most savvy threat assessors” didn’t think it was possible?

And why throw Ms Rice’s statement out there? Ah yes, to show that others had thought of the possibility, but the Bushies were too stupid and ignored it. If you’re so brilliant, why didn’t you predict it? All the documents you cited above were in the public domain, where was your analysis? Most people whose job it is to predict this kind of stuff couldn’t have, simply because this type of attack was unprecedented.

However … as the brief timeline above shows, THE PRESIDENT WAS REPEATEDLY WARNED that al Qaeda was planning some sort of attack, and that the attack may involve airplanes. So these are my questions:

-WHY DIDN’T OUR GOVERNMENT DO MORE TO BEEF UP SECURITY AT AIRPORTS AND ON AIRPLANES?

Assuming that they starting working that single issue from day one, how far do you think they would have gotten? Even after the attacks, we have taken three years to get where we are, which is only marginally better than before the attacks. Trying to make any kind of change would have been fought in the (Democratically controlled) Congress, leading to absolutely nothing being done anyways.

-WHY WEREN’T WARNINGS ISSUED TO THOSE ENTRUSTED TO PROTECT OUR FLIGHT SECURITY?

And how would they have changed procedures to catch the terrorists? Hmmm? They would have used exactly the same tools and processes they had before, which the terrorists all knew about. And meanwhile, you would have been bitching about false alarms.

-ISN’T LEADERSHIP ABOUT ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY, ANTICIPATING THE UNFATHOMABLE, HEEDING WARNINGS AND FIRMLY ACTING UPON THEM?

Sure is, which is why he hasn’t blamed the previous administration for treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue, directly leading to the 11 Sep attacks. According to all the information that we had, there was a general threat out there that the administration was beginning to address as early as 5 July, thereby “heeding warnings.”

As far as firm action, Iraq anyone? We have a known madman who wants to get WMDs while maintaining close ties with terrorists, and we’re supposed to leave him alone? What about “anticipating the unfathomable, heeding warnings, and firmly acting upon them?” Sure seems like a good job to me…

-WHEN THE PRESIDENT RECEIVED A MEMO THAT HIJACKINGS OF AMERICAN PLANES MIGHT OCCUR, SHOULDN’T HE HAVE IMMEDIATELY TAKEN ACTION?

So, all he knows is that there is a probability of a hijacking. He also received a memo that said there was a probability of a car bombing or similar explosive event (ranked comparatively higher). Which one is he supposed to take action on? I suppose you’d say that he should act on everything, but you couldn’t be that fucking stupid, since Clinton got the same info and did about the same.

I DO BELIEVE THAT EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN THAT TRULY CARES ABOUT THIS COUNTRY, AND LEARNS THE FACTS, WOULD HAVE TO SERIOUSLY ASK THESE QUESTIONS … AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT IN NOVEMBER!

I believe that “American citizen” and “truly cares about this country” is redundant. There are far too many people like you that abuse the privilege they have of living in this country by willfully ignoring the “facts” and using ad hominem arguments to attack the President. Those that do carefully examine the issue will find that there is a very clear choice in November: for the President or for the terrorists. You have made it very clear who you would like to see victorious in this war, and it isn’t us.

Unfortunately, it does not seem that you are content to drag Brolin around by the balls, you have inflict your shrill voice on those of us living in the real world. Please go back to making music, since that acts as a de facto stupid tax on your listeners (and it’ll make it harder for us to spellcheck you, too). Of course, it’ll probably become political caterwauling, which will be even worse than the pap you previously had. shudder

You and your “progressive” allies make it possible for the enemy to commit atrocities like the WTC attacks and the Fallujah ambush. As long you keep giving them false hope, we will suffer more casualties than we should. I hope that you can go sleep at night with the blood of true patriots and the tears of their families on your conscience. Jane Fonda was wrong to give aid and comfort to the enemy in Vietnam, and you are wrong to give aid and comfort to them now.

Tags: Stupid people //