Only this will suffice:
Posted on 03/22/2004 4:59:03 PM PST by Wallaby
The official, Assistant Secretary of State Richard A. Clarke, made the claim in a memo declassified yesterday and provided to Congress along with 53 other State Department documents concerning U.S.-Iraqi relations that were requested by a congressional committee investigating U.S. policy toward Iraq before the Persian Gulf War. The documents, which were made available to The Post by a U.S. official, provide fresh details about the administration's monitoring of Iraq's nuclear and chemical weapons programs and the controversial U.S. pre-war push to ease controls on high-technology exports as part of an attempt to cultivate better relations with Iraq before it invaded Kuwait in August 1990. |
(snip) President Bush last night defended the effort toward better relations with Iraq against this congressional criticism, saying that the United States tried to work with Saddam "on grain credits and things of this nature to avoid aggressive action. And it failed. . . . " "That approach, holding out a hand, trying to get him to renounce terrorism and join the family of nations, didn't work," Bush told a White House news conference. "And the minute he moved aggressively, we moved aggressively and set back aggression." One undated memo summarizing U.S. nonproliferation activity aimed at Iraq indicates that the Bush administration moved slowly to constrain Iraq's mass-destruction weapons programs after a Iraqi long-range missile launch in 1989 caught officials by surprise. The memo states that Clarke sought in an interagency meeting that December "to get at why U.S. intelligence didn't know Iraq had such capabilities beforehand and to galvanize the interagency community into more effective [action] against the Iraqi missile program." (snip) Clarke's memo referring to Washington's record of failure on the issue was written after the invasion. . . (snip)
|
And we know "WAR" wasn't one of the options...the Clintonoids had REMOVED ALL THE W's FROM THEIR KEYBOARDS!
Since they removed all the 'W's from the keyboards, no memos with WAR could be written.
and behind that door were the messed up West Wing rooms. The Rats wouldn't even give the Republicans the keys to the transition office for several weeks.
The partisan press is so infuriating.
First, the list of the most active state sponsors of terrorism has noticeably shifted. Ten years ago, the list consisted of only Libya, Iraq, and Syria. They are all still in the business but not on the top of my list of the most active state sponsors. The two on the top of my list presently are Iran and Afghanistan.But, from General Schoomaker as reported by the Weekly Standard:Third, terrorists are acquiring new and dangerous weapons -- weapons of mass destruction and computer weapons.
National Security Adviser Sandy Berger wrote an article for the op-ed page of today's Washington Times about that bombing, providing the clearest rationale to date for what the United States did. He asks the following questions: What if you were the president of the United States and you were told four facts based on reliable intelligence. The facts were: Usama bin Ladin had attacked the United States and blown up two of its embassies; he was seeking chemical weapons; he had invested in Sudan's military-industrial complex; and Sudan's military-industrial complex was making VX nerve gas at a chemical plant called al-Shifa? Sandy Berger asks: What would you have done? What would Congress and the American people have said to the president if the United States had not blown up the factory, knowing those four facts?
If these are new trends, what is the United States doing about it? In May, the president signed a security directive, Presidential Decision Directive 62, which is partially classified and contains three new initiatives the United States is undertaking in addition to all of the counterterrorism programs it has pursued for many years. The first program is active, ongoing, everyday disruption of terrorist groups. Whereas I cannot go into detail about what actions the United States is taking to disrupt terrorist groups, the basic philosophy behind this policy mirrors community policing belief: Get them off the streets, round them up. It has worked with friendly governments, friendly police, and friendly intelligence agencies. Long before our embassies in Africa were attacked on August 7, 1998, the United States began implementing this presidential directive. Since the embassies were attacked, we have disrupted bin Ladin terrorist groups, or cells. Where possible and appropriate, the United States will bring the terrorists back to this country and put them on trial. That statement is not an empty promise.
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.Back to the speach:[snip]
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."
The United States is engaged and busy with new policies and programs, but there are still those who do not yet understand U.S. policy on terrorism. To preempt some of the most frequently asked questions about U.S. terrorism policy -- which sometimes are statements posing as questions -- I thought I would offer the answers first.Is not terrorism, like war, just really politics by other means? Is a little bit of terrorism not, after all, a fact of life? Is not terrorism always there like death and taxes? Can we really sustain our enthusiasm and our resources against terrorism, or do we only get involved after U.S. embassies get blown up in Africa, then tend to forget about it?
Are not terrorists really a little bit smarter and more adaptive than governments and always capable of outsmarting stodgy, old, bureaucratic governments? Is not it sometimes better to give in a little to terrorism rather than being so ideological about opposing it? Finally, is it not true that just as crime does pay, terrorism really does pay?
Presidential Decision Directive 62 offers President Bill Clinton's answers to those questions. One, the United States will never accept terrorism as a legitimate means of political activity. Two, the United States will never tolerate any terrorism at any level. Three, the United States will always be energetic at rooting out terrorism. Four, the United States will adopt, adapt, adjust, and seek to stay ahead of terrorists. Five, the United States will never appease terrorism or make concessions to terrorists. Finally, as the president, the attorney general and the secretary of state said publicly, the United States will punish those who engage in terrorism no matter how long it takes, no matter how much money it costs, and no matter where they seek to hide. The terrorism policy of the Clinton administration is not just what we say. It is what we do and will continue to do every day.
Eight months were the democrats slow-walked and road-blocked the "illegitimate president" at every turn, including funding for the operation of the President Bush's administration, presidential appointments, and national security initiatives.
Only this will suffice:
Way too many internet sites and talk radio shows now. It's catching up with the old media outlets big time! Just hope the lefties don't get power, or say hello to INTERNET REGULATION!
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.