Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Remove CBS from MY TV please
03/2104 | repub32

Posted on 03/21/2004 4:54:34 PM PST by repub32

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121 next last
To: A-Rod
Bull. i42 did nothing to stem terrorism.

1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr., April 14,1993
1993 First World Trade Center bombing, February 26th, 7 Killed, Hundreds injured, Billions
1994 Air France Hijacking, Dec 24,1994
1995 Attack on US Diplomats in Pakistan, Mar 8,1995
1995 Saudi Military Installation Attack, Nov 13, 1995
1995 Kashmiri Hostage taking, July 4,1995
1996 Khobar Towers attack
1996 Sudanese Missionarys Kidnapping, Aug 17,1996
1996 Paris Subway Explosion, Dec 3,1996
1997 Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, Sept 4, 1997
1997 Yemeni Kidnappings, Oct 30,1997
1998 Somali Hostage taking crisis, April 15,1998
1998 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Peru, Jan 15, 1998
1998 U.S. Kenya Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1998 U.S. Tanzania Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1999 Plot to blow up Space Needle (thwarted)
2000 USS Cole attacked, many U.S. Navy sailors murdered
2000-2003 Intifada against Israel - 100's dead and injured
2000 Manila Bombing, Dec 30,2000
61 posted on 03/21/2004 5:34:57 PM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: repub32
What is happening is Bush has so much more money than Kerry,that the Lamestream press will have to pick up the slack for the socialists. - Tom
62 posted on 03/21/2004 5:37:45 PM PST by Capt. Tom (Don't confuse the Bushies with the dumb republicans. - Capt. Tom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance
Yeah, but he watched some really kewl golf. The guy had his "priorities" I guess.

These dems frothing at the mouth now, after 8 years of letting terrorism proliferate, just floor me. Talk about gall.

63 posted on 03/21/2004 5:37:48 PM PST by MizSterious (First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
Obviously Clarke is not man enough to shoulder some blame.

Clarke and the rest of the Clintonites realize that they are responsible for 9/11 and anything else that Al Qaeda has planned. It can't be easy for them to sleep at night and it is probably a natural reaction to want to cast off the blame for their historic failures.

It's the same thing with Hans Blix. If Saddam used WMDs somewhere, Blix would go down in history as one of the worst failures ever since he was charged with containing the WMDs. In that they haven't been found he MUST say they never existed and that the WMDs were magically destroyed the day that he stopped inspecting because if millions die from these relocated WMDs, the finger is pointed at him and "Blix" becomes a curse word for eternity.

The media has been complicit in that they invented Clinton, they need to rescue these people so that their own sins will be absolved.
64 posted on 03/21/2004 5:38:18 PM PST by Jim_Curtis (Free Milosevic.....Jail Annan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: repub32
Express your feelings in a snail mail to:

Mr. Andrew Heyward, President
CBS News
524 West 57th Street
New York, NY 10019

Don't bother with e-mails. They are too easily deleted.
65 posted on 03/21/2004 5:39:13 PM PST by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paul51
I warmly recommend AdMuncher to take care of popups and most banner ads as well. It costs a small registration fee and is worth every penny. It actually speeds up internet use as well.
66 posted on 03/21/2004 5:41:55 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: A-Rod
How Clinton Let Al-Qaeda Go

SINCE 9/11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly declared that the United States is in a new kind of war, one requiring new military forces to hunt down and capture or kill terrorists. In fact, for some years, the Department of Defense has gone to the trouble of selecting and training an array of Special Operations Forces, whose forte is precisely this. One president after another has invested resources to hone lethal "special mission units" for offensive--that is, preemptive--counterterrorism strikes, with the result that these units are the best of their kind in the world. While their activities are highly classified, two of them--the Army's Delta Force and the Navy's SEAL Team 6--have become the stuff of novels and movies.

Prior to 9/11, these units were never used even once to hunt down terrorists who had taken American lives. Putting the units to their intended use proved impossible--even after al Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, bombed two American embassies in East Africa in 1998, and nearly sank the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000. As a result of these and other attacks, operations were planned to capture or kill the ultimate perpetrators, Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, but each time the missions were blocked. A plethora of self-imposed constraints--I call them showstoppers--kept the counterterrorism units on the shelf.

I first began to learn of this in the summer of 2001, after George W. Bush's election brought a changing of the guard to the Department of Defense. Joining the new team as principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict was Bob Andrews, an old hand at the black arts of unconventional warfare. During Vietnam, Andrews had served in a top-secret Special Forces outfit codenamed the Studies and Observations Group that had carried out America's largest and most complex covert paramilitary operation in the Cold War. Afterwards, Andrews had joined the CIA, then moved to Congress as a staffer, then to the defense industry.

I'd first met him while I was writing a book about the secret war against Hanoi, and we hit it off. He returned to the Pentagon with the new administration, and in June 2001 he called and asked me to be his consultant. I agreed, and subsequently proposed looking into counterterrorism policy. Specifically, I wondered why had we created these superbly trained Special Operations Forces to fight terrorists, but had never used them for their primary mission. What had kept them out of action?

Andrews was intrigued and asked me to prepare a proposal. I was putting the finishing touches on it on the morning of September 11, when al Qaeda struck. With that blow, the issue of America's offensive counterterrorist capabilities was thrust to center stage.

By early November, I had the go-ahead for the study. Our question had acquired urgency: Why, even as al Qaeda attacked and killed Americans at home and abroad, were our elite counterterrorism units not used to hit back and prevent further attacks? That was, after all, their very purpose, laid out in the official document "Special Operations in Peace and War" (1996). To find the answer, I interviewed civilian and military officials, serving and retired, at the center of U.S. counterterrorism policy and operational planning in the late 1980s and 1990s.

They included senior members of the National Security Council's Counterterrorism and Security Group, the interagency focal point for counterterrorism policy. In the Pentagon, I interviewed the top leaders of the offices with counterterrorism responsibility, as well as second-tier professionals, and their military counterparts in the Joint Staff. Finally, the U.S. Special Operations Command, headquartered in Tampa, Florida, is responsible for planning and carrying out counterterrorism strikes, and I interviewed senior commanders who served there during the 1990s.

Some were willing to speak on the record. Others requested anonymity, which I honored, in order to put before the top leadership of the Pentagon the detailed report from which this article is drawn. My findings were conveyed to the highest levels of the Department of Defense in January 2003.

Among those interviewed, few were in a better position to illuminate the conundrum than General Pete Schoomaker. An original member of the Delta Force, he had commanded the Delta Force in 1991-92, then led the Special Operations Command in the late 1990s. "Counterterrorism, by Defense Department definition, is offensive," Schoomaker told me during a discussion we had over two days in the summer of 2002. "But Special Operations was never given the mission. It was very, very frustrating. It was like having a brand-new Ferrari in the garage, and nobody wants to race it because you might dent the fender."

AS TERRORIST ATTACKS escalated in the 1990s, White House rhetoric intensified. President Clinton met each successive outrage with a vow to punish the perpetrators. After the Cole bombing in 2000, for example, he pledged to "find out who is responsible and hold them accountable." And to prove he was serious, he issued an increasingly tough series of Presidential Decision Directives. The United States would "deter and preempt...individuals who perpetrate or plan to perpetrate such acts," said Directive 39, in June 1995. Offensive measures would be used against foreign terrorists posing a threat to America, said Directive 62, in May 1998. Joint Staff contingency plans were revised to provide for offensive and preemptive options. And after al Qaeda's bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, President Clinton signed a secret "finding" authorizing lethal covert operations against bin Laden.

These initiatives led to the planning of several operations. Their details rest in the classified records of the National Security Council's Counterterrorism and Security Group. Its former coordinator, Dick Clarke, described them as providing the White House with "more aggressive options," to be carried out by Special Operations Forces (or SOF, a category that includes the Green Berets, the Rangers, psychological operations, civilian affairs, the SEALS, special helicopter units, and special mission units like the Delta Force and SEAL Team 6).

Several plans have been identified in newspaper accounts since 9/11. For example, "snatch operations" in Afghanistan were planned to seize bin Laden and his senior lieutenants. After the 1998 embassy bombings, options for killing bin Laden were entertained, including a gunship assault on his compound in Afghanistan.

SOF assaults on al Qaeda's Afghan training camps were also planned. An official very close to Clinton said that the president believed the image of American commandos jumping out of helicopters and killing terrorists would send a strong message. He "saw these camps as conveyor belts pushing radical Islamists through," the official said, "that either went into the war against the Northern Alliance [an Afghan force fighting the Taliban in northern Afghanistan] or became sleeper cells in Germany, Spain, Britain, Italy, and here. We wanted to close these camps down. We had to make it unattractive to go to these camps. And blowing them up, by God, would make them unattractive."

And preemptive strikes against al Qaeda cells outside Afghanistan were planned, in North Africa and the Arabian Gulf. Then in May 1999, the White House decided to press the Taliban to end its support of bin Laden. The Counterterrorism and Security Group recommended supporting the Northern Alliance.

These examples, among others, depict an increasingly aggressive, lethal, and preemptive counterterrorist policy. But not one of these operations--all authorized by President Clinton--was ever executed. General Schoomaker's explanation is devastating. "The presidential directives that were issued," he said, "and the subsequent findings and authorities, in my view, were done to check off boxes. The president signed things that everybody involved knew full well were never going to happen. You're checking off boxes, and have all this activity going on, but the fact is that there's very low probability of it ever coming to fruition. . . ." And he added: "The military, by the way, didn't want to touch it. There was great reluctance in the Pentagon."

FROM MY INTERVIEWS, I distilled nine mutually reinforcing, self-imposed constraints that kept the special mission units sidelined, even as al Qaeda struck at American targets around the globe and trumpeted its intention to do more of the same. These showstoppers formed an impenetrable phalanx ensuring that all high-level policy discussions, tough new presidential directives, revised contingency plans, and actual dress rehearsals for missions would come to nothing.

1. Terrorism as Crime

During the second half of the 1980s, terrorism came to be defined by the U.S. government as a crime, and terrorists as criminals to be prosecuted. The Reagan administration, which in its first term said that it would meet terrorism with "swift and effective retribution," ended its second term, in the political and legal aftermath of Iran-contra, by adopting a counterterrorism policy that was the antithesis of that.

"Patterns of Global Terrorism," a report issued by the State Department every year since 1989, sets forth guidance about responding to terrorism. Year after year prior to 9/11, a key passage said it was U.S. policy to "treat terrorists as criminals, pursue them aggressively, and apply the rule of law." Even now, when President Bush has defined the situation as a war on terrorism, "Patterns of Global Terrorism" says U.S. policy is to "bring terrorists to justice for their crimes."


67 posted on 03/21/2004 5:43:27 PM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: repub32
Surely, you aren't just now figuring this out???
68 posted on 03/21/2004 5:46:56 PM PST by jungleboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: repub32
69 posted on 03/21/2004 5:49:49 PM PST by UB355
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: repub32
and not one critizism for the administration he worked for for 8 yrs..

Total agreement here!! Usually it would be the 'next' question to ask, but Leslie just couldn't think of it!!

70 posted on 03/21/2004 5:52:53 PM PST by potlatch ( Medals do not make a man. Morals do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
You are correct, they did say that Clinton wouldn't meet with them. Will they now come forward and declare Clarke the liar that he is? Will the media? Don't hold our breath, right?
71 posted on 03/21/2004 5:53:34 PM PST by ladyinred (democrats have blood on their hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Far from being a fair and balanced interview. Hadley was not given the same opportunity to comment on Clarke's accusations. Stahl paraphrased most of what he had to say. I wonder what was left out during the editing.

I agree - 60 Minutes butchered Hadley's rebuttal and substituted Stahl voice overs.

I also liked all of the pictures reinforcing the image of a serious, hard working Clinton juxtaposed with film of Bush walking across the South Lawn, giggling, to go along with Richard Clarke's assertion that Bush "just isn't serious" or "engaged" when it comes to fighting terrorism. Real subtle.

72 posted on 03/21/2004 5:53:59 PM PST by Spotsy (Bush-Cheney '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: repub32
CBS is one of the worst of all. I can't stand to even listen to their radio news. I turn it off as soon as it comes on.
73 posted on 03/21/2004 5:54:14 PM PST by ladyinred (democrats have blood on their hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: repub32
Not only that, their NCAA coverage sucks. The bias even goes thru to there. Billy Packer has his 2 or 3 favorites and to hell with everybody else. Thank only one of them is left.
And they switch coverage from a game you are intently watching to go to another game, just in time for a timeout and a commercial, and STAY there.
74 posted on 03/21/2004 6:04:06 PM PST by L`enn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: repub32
What's CBS?


75 posted on 03/21/2004 6:04:12 PM PST by GulfWar1Vet (Honor those who died in Operation Iraqi Freedom...Iraqi's do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Bush is paying the price for allowing these Clinton holdovers to remain in his administration.

These people are CAREER government employees, thanks to the likes of Bill Clinton, who put a whole bunch of them into positions during his last year in office.

There is no way in hell they could have been fired, that's why this guy was "demoted" and striped of his "title."

And this is his revenge.

76 posted on 03/21/2004 6:09:43 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Endeavor
I've got to get that book!
77 posted on 03/21/2004 6:12:11 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Spotsy
I noticed that as well, Leslie Stahl could have easily used a picture of President bush at his desk, but the editors at 60 Minutes chose the clip they did.

Richard Clark teaches a class at Harvard with John Kerry's National Security Adviser for his campaign "Rand Beers" is his name and you can read a little about him here


78 posted on 03/21/2004 6:17:29 PM PST by MJY1288 (Can't Blame Bush for the Negative Ad's When There's Nothing Positive To Say About John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: repub32
Obviously sour grapes on Clarkes's part. How very timely for him to write his book now and not after November. And how very thrilled and anxious CBS was to run this piece. I hope the Bush Admin will come back at this.

I, for one, sleep better at night with George W. Bush at the helm. The country (and the world) was NOT safe with Clinton and all of his personal distractions. All of this was brewing under Clinton's "watch."

Bush has done and is continuing to do what has to be done to combat this spreading terrorism......and Iraq was a part of the problem.

Terrorism is the challenge of the times and George W. Bush is the man for the job. Period.
79 posted on 03/21/2004 6:23:28 PM PST by Swede Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: repub32
To prove the point about CBS, Half of Dave Letterman's jokes are aimed at humiliating the President.
80 posted on 03/21/2004 6:25:50 PM PST by linkster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121 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
Topics · Post Article

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