Posted on 06/11/2002 4:20:01 PM PDT by TheOtherOne
Bush Pledges Fight Against Evil AP White House Corespondent
Published: Jun 11, 2002
|
|
|
"Evil is evil, and we will fight it with all our might," the president said.
Bush issued his pledge while urging Congress to create a Homeland Security Department that would absorb scores of agencies and departments. Some lawmakers are questioning why Bush does not want the FBI and CIA to be more accountable to the new department.
Before returning to Washington, the president headlined a $500,000 fund-raiser - with most of the money going to the GOP campaign of former Rep. Jim Talent, whose race against Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan could determine control of the Senate next year.
In his remarks on homeland defense, Bush touched on his pledge to act - pre-emptively, if necessary - to prevent America from being threatened by weapons of mass destruction.
"I've made it clear that we'll use all tools at our disposal," Bush said. "One thing we are going to do is to defend the American people, and make sure that these terrorist networks don't hook up with these nations that harbor bad designs on us and at the same time develop the worst kind of weapons."
Bush has made it clear that Iraq is his biggest concern, and has shrugged off U.S. allies' objections to military action.
"When we see evil, I know it may hurt some people's feelings, it may not be what they call diplomatically correct, but I'm calling evil for what it is. Evil is evil, and we will fight it with all our might," Bush said, without specifically mentioning Iraq.
He acknowledged intelligence lapses at the FBI prior to the Sept. 11 attacks.
"I wasn't surprised that the FBI wasn't fully prepared for the war against terror. Because after all, the FBI's major job up until Sept. 11 was to make cases against people who committed crimes already in America. White collar crimes, spies. They really weren't focused on preventing attacks. And so we needed to change the culture," Bush said.
"The other thing we are doing a better job of is having the CIA, which collects information overseas, coordinate with the FBI," the president said.
Bush noted that FBI Director Robert Mueller and CIA Director George Tenet now brief him jointly.
His plans for the new department include a division that would analyze intelligence from the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and others, but without any direct authority over the gathering of the information.
In a speech at Oak Park High School in Kansas City, Bush said, "We'll have people whose job it is to analyze everything we see and assess everything we hear. And to make sure it's all in one area, so we can get a clearer picture of what may or may not be happening to America."
Before flying to Missouri, Bush met with Republicans and Democratic lawmakers to seek their support. Several questioned why the CIA and FBI wouldn't be more accountable to the new department under Bush's plan.
Leaving the White House, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said the issue is one of several the Senate must review in detail "so that at some point in the not-too-distant future we're able to answer them with greater confidence than we can today."
To highlight one of the nation's many vulnerable spots, Bush toured a water treatment facility near the affluent Kansas City neighborhood of Briar Cliff. The plant grounds are protected only by a rusty chain-link fence that abuts a busy city street.
Still, the president assured the crowd, "This one didn't appear very vulnerable."
A key goal of the Bush White House is to overturn the Democrats' one-vote majority in the Senate, and the Missouri race is among the nation's most closely contested.
The fund-raising stop allows the White House to split the cost of the trip between taxpayers and Talent's campaign.
AP-ES-06-11-02 1834EDT
Bttt
.......and under the previous administration, the FBI existed to keep tabs on political and personal enemies of the Clintons.
Aren't they all? :)
Also the AP has left this unchanged (I noticed it still online at 10:43PM CST).
I think Helen Thomas is with UPI, but as far as the President's statement, AP is a damn fine start, sir! *grin*
Kewel!! So we're finally gonna unleash the Department of Justice on the Clinton Administration!!
RE-IMPEACH. CONVICT. DETHRONE.
DISBAR. DE-PENSION. DE-LEGITIMIZE.
INDICT. CONVICT. IMPRISON. DISCARD KEY.
FReegards...MUD
He acknowledged intelligence lapses at the FBI prior to the Sept. 11 attacks.
Acknowledged.
"I wasn't surprised that the FBI wasn't fully prepared for the war against terror. Because after all, the FBI's major job up until Sept. 11 was to make cases against people who committed crimes already in America. White collar crimes, spies.
He knew that the F.B.I. was not fully prepared to gather intelligence and investigate; but that is among his responsibilities to ensure and direct.
They really weren't focused on preventing attacks. And so we needed to change the culture," Bush said.
"Focus" --- indeed, that is the crux of the new department, a Cabinet Level Department of Focus; but then again, that work is his responsibility to ensure, as it is a part of his duties as Commander-in-Chief, for which operations, the capacity is entirely available within the malleable framework of the Constitutionally authorized war department of our federal government.
The work --- the focus --- is provided for already; a new Department of Focus is not necessary; rather, a new Bush is required, to direct that focus shall happen and at offices designated and by people designated within the war department.
The war department has always been a domestic and global business, each of which missions have always been the prime areas of operation; now, both related to the third major area, space, in "more modern times."
The war department has reorganized, both vertically and horizontally, as required by the times, since its inception; it has such flexibility; it is a phenomenally capable and malleable department within of our form of limited government.
What we need is a new Bush who has the willingness to discover there; but he will have to explore beyond what is "all - on - one - page" - his bottleneck style of information flow, his own design, which is preventing him from knowing more of what capabilities actually are within the war department. (Not to mention what the limits of government power are, as enumerated in our Constitution.)
Here is an excellent observation by FRPR gunshy, Reply 115, at Poll: Four in Five Americans Would Give Up Some Freedom for More Security (MORON ALERT), referring to a Tampa Bay Online / AP story by Jennifer R. Brown, June 11, 2002 (posted by Boonie Rat):
I grew up during WWII, to young for military service but old enough to remember civil defense wardens coming through the neighborhoods telling us to close our blackout shades. I remember detention camps for suspected fifth columnists, shore batteries up and down the west coast, rationing of strategic materials and a constant barage of propoganda about keeping security. I remember that anyone that spoke a foreign language or with a foreign accent were immediately suspect. I also remember that we weren't searched when we travelled by car or train or bus, airplanes were not available. The US government asked of americans many sacrifices and their support. Our current government has done none of these things, all it has wanted is to spy on americans in secret and to ignore the Constitution in the name of security.
He has it correct.
What made us something to reckon with, was that we used our freedom and such personal initiative and individual responsibility, as teams, as weapons --- which great strength is being eschewed by the Bush [still running 75% of the Clinton] Administration ... in the federal government's flight to prove itself at our expense(s).
"The other thing we are doing a better job of is having the CIA, which collects information overseas, coordinate with the FBI," the president said.
Again, that has always been the responsibility of a commander-in-chief to affect.
Bush noted that FBI Director Robert Mueller and CIA Director George Tenet now brief him jointly.
An aware Commander-in-Chief would have insisted on this, on the very first day of his/her taking office.
His plans for the new department include a division that would analyze intelligence from the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and others, but without any direct authority over the gathering of the information.
The requirement for intelligence gathering and centralizing the results, is as old as Team A taking on Team B. The Central, repeat Central Intelligence Agency has ALWAYS been tasked with centralizing the info and briefing the President.
"Squabbles" between agencies and departments is a matter for a leader to address and resolve by direction, "Cut that out!"
In a speech at Oak Park High School in Kansas City, Bush said, "We'll have people whose job it is to analyze everything we see and assess everything we hear.
We already have such people, but somebody has not informed the President by placing this gem in a one-page memo; therefore, he is apparently not going to know about it because he will not call a cab, go over to the Pentagon, the C.I.A., and the F.B.I. ... and find out for himself.
Though he actually already knows this; see Ray Cline's work, for starters.
And to make sure it's all in one area, so we can get a clearer picture of what may or may not be happening to America."
Again, the need for focus; it is not a "new paradigm;" see Caesar, et al; and the necessary capacity is ALREADY within the Executive Branch, if only Bush would use the tools he has ... if only he knew that he has such tools ... if only he would gather himself up and apply himself to using them.
You're forgetting a lot of history. The CIA was forbidden by liberals from dealing with domestic problems in the 1970's.
Almost ALL of them.
The F.B.I. was tasked with domestic intelligence; in addition, the N.S.A.
The F.B.I.'s work goes back ... before World War II.
PC Shield for Terrorists, TownHall.com, June 11, 2002, by Paul Craig Roberts (posted by Free Fire Zone):
My Sept. 12 column predicted that the United States would prove to be too "politically correct" to be able to deal with the terrorist threat.The admission that I was right came on June 6 from FBI director Robert S. Mueller III, when according to The Washington Times, he told Congress that fears of racial profiling did impede the FBI's terrorism investigation of Arab men.
After admitting that the FBI was too politically correct to do its job, Mueller gave Congress assurances -- to the great relief of Wisconsin Democrat Russell D. Feingold -- that the FBI "is against, has been and will be against any form of profiling." With this assurance, Mueller placed the privileged status of "preferred minority" higher than citizens' safety.
Some situations are too absurd for comment. In the name of "the war on terrorism," the U.S. government kills Muslims in Afghanistan who have never lifted a finger against the United States, but refuses to profile Muslims on its own territory who might be planning terrorist incidents.
FBI field agent and whistle blower Coleen Rowley revealed that agents in the field were alert to the flight-training activities of suspicious Middle Eastern men. Yet, headquarters not only refused to act but blocked the agents from following their judgment.
After the FBI, CIA, Immigration Service and State Department fiascos that alone made the events of Sept. 11 possible, why does any sane person think a "Homeland Security" department will provide any protection against terrorist acts?
Why assume that putting all the fools under one roof will reduce the foolery?
Most air travelers regard "airport security" as a bad joke. It is worse. It is an insult. The refusal to focus on the group to which Muslim terrorists are known to belong treats native-born citizens as the enemy and ensures the lack of security.
Pointless searches of grandmothers, young children, U.S. representatives, presidential appointees, pilots and Marine generals divert resources from security and send the message that the government has no idea whatsoever who terrorists might be.
On my last air travel, eyes rolled and heads shook when a feeble, elderly couple was selected for search. Everyone knows that these mindless, insulting searches provide no security to anyone but terrorists. Yet, the president of the United States and his Cabinet lack the wits to fire the fools who have made air travel safe for terrorists by refusing to profile.
Searches of individuals and carry-on luggage are nothing but an opportunity for petty pilfering by security personnel. Personal objects are taken from harmless people and even charms stolen from bracelets. One security idiot tried to steal a war hero's Medal of Honor because the medal is affixed with a pin. While passengers are harassed with this mindless nonsense, checked luggage and air freight are loaded without security checks.
If truth be known, nothing is done to protect passengers. The purpose of passenger searches and the no-standing rule within 30 minutes of Washington, D.C., is to protect the government from terrorists seizing control of an airliner and flying it into a government building.
Despite the terrible events of Sept. 11, the United States government continues to issue hundreds of thousands of visas to young Muslims. We have no idea who these people are and are unable to track them once they arrive on our shores. The visa process is corrupt and replete with bribes. Osama bin Laden himself could enter the United States today on a visa.
Faced with the incongruity, the U. S. attorney general has proposed fingerprinting Middle Easterners who enter on visas. Opposition has risen to this politically incorrect proposal. But the unasked question is why the United States is allowing any visas to be issued to Muslims.
If the threat of terrorism is so great that constitutional restraints must be removed from police and a new, expensive Cabinet position of "Homeland Security" must be created, why are visas issued to potential terrorists?!
Why is President Bush creating an incipient Department of Secret Police when nothing is being done to curtail the inflow of potential terrorists?
President Bush should not be surprised if millions of Americans come to the conclusion that the "war on terror" is nothing but a propaganda cover for increasing the police powers of the government over native-born loyal citizens.
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.