Posted on 03/22/2004 11:55:34 AM PST by not-alone
From the start of the Clinton Administration, the job of thwarting terror had fallen to Clarke. A bureaucratic survivor who now leads the Bush Administration's office on cyberterrorism, he has served four Presidents from both parties-staff members joke that the framed photos in his office have two sides, one for a Republican President to admire, the other for a Democrat. Aggressive and legendarily abrasive, Clarke was desperate to persuade skeptics to take the terror threat as seriously as he did. "Clarke is unbelievably determined, high-energy, focused and imaginative," says a senior Clinton Administration official. "But he's totally insensitive to rolling over others who are in his way." By the end of 2000, Clarke didn't need to roll over his boss; Berger was just as sure of the danger
Berger and Clarke wanted something more robust. On Nov. 7, Berger met with William Cohen, then Secretary of Defense, in the Pentagon. The time had come, said Berger, for the Pentagon to rethink its approach to operations against bin Laden. "We've been hit many times, and we'll be hit again," Berger said. "Yet we have no option beyond cruise missiles." He wanted "boots on the ground"-U.S. special-ops forces deployed inside Afghanistan on a search-and-destroy mission targeting bin Laden. Cohen said he would look at the idea, but he and General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were dead set against it. They feared a repeat of Desert One, the 1980 fiasco in which special-ops commandos crashed in Iran during an abortive mission to rescue American hostages.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
9-11 could have been prevented by 9-12 America, but not by 9-10 America. That's the key to understanding why AQ succeeded. We were, literally, unwilling to take the steps necessary to defend ourselves as a society. Be Seeing You,
Chris
Yet he could not get Bill Clinton to clear the way for his friend John O'Neill and the FBI to investigate the Cole bombing. All Clinton had to do is tell his own ambassador to Yemen to "get out of the way!"
Dem Rats' own network (one of them), PBS, interviewed Clarke. Here is what he said about the trouble John O'Neill had with Clinton's ambassador to Yemen, Ms Bodine. If Clinton was so concerned about Al Qaeda why didn't he back O'Neill? (My emphasis.)
"I think there were two things going on in Yemen. The first thing was the government of Yemen didn't want us to know all the details; in part, because that would reveal that some low-level people in the Yemeni government may have been part of the conspiracy; in part, because it would have shown that the Yemeni government didn't really have control over a large section of Yemen; in part because it would have shown that Yemen was filled with terrorists from a whole variety of different organizations. So Yemen didn't want to cooperate fully, didn't want us to see everything that was there.
"The other thing that was going on was that you had an U.S. ambassador who wanted to be fully in control of everything that every American official did in the country, and resented the fact that suddenly there were hundreds of FBI personnel in the country and only a handful of State Department personnel. She wanted good relations with Yemen as the number one priority.
"John O'Neill wanted to stop terrorism as the number one priority, and the two conflicted. Almost all of us who were following the details in Washington, whether we were in the Justice Department, the FBI, the White House, State Department, the Defense Department -- almost all of us thought that John O'Neill was doing the right thing.
"But the State Department has to support its ambassador. State Department doesn't have a lot of assets. It doesn't have a lot of airplanes or a lot of guns. It's basically got its ambassador. It's got a letter to every ambassador from the president of the United States saying, "You, Ambassador, are my personal representative in the country. You're in charge of everything the United States does." So when the ambassador makes the decision, the State Department feels, for institutional reasons, that they have to back her up.
"So I think even though the people we were working with in the State Department who were following the case thought the ambassador was wrong, nonetheless, they decided to back her up." [end excerpt]
"they decided to back her up"
Some say the FBI could have connected the Cole to the 9/11 plot. Where was Bill Clinton?
Bill Clinton's State Department "decided to back her up" and
3000 PEOPLE DIED HORRIBLE DEATHS!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/interviews/clarke.html
I am not forgetting the military dead and wounded, but it was the Clinton administration after all and we know how they feeeeeeeel about the American military. Hmmm, maybe that's why they didn't do anything.
Yep, imagine if the Bush admin tried to close down airlines, even for a day, or start more stringent searches. Hell, even after 9-11 we still have people complaining about their civil rights being trampled on. Before 9-11? Even I would have thought no.
Demolish the WTC building so they would not be temptation for the terrorists.
Demolish the WTC building so they would not be temptation for the terrorists.
Exactly!!! And the "Peaceful Tomorrows" group wants safety regulations requiring all future skyscrapers to be constructed on their sides.
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.