Posted on 03/24/2004 8:13:16 AM PST by STFrancis
All,
I am discussing on another bulletin board the Clarke book and 9/11. Someone posted the following but I don't have time to hunt up all the links to refute the points against Bush from Clarkes book.
Here is what he wrote:
In particular, it seems that the Bush administration had a major foreign policy change planned as of Sept 6th, 2001. Does anyone know anything about this.
Second, did the Bush administration have in place any specific response to the bombing of the USS Cole?
Third, both the Clinton and Bush administration say it was impossible to have undercover agents in Afganistan. Is this credible?
I am less concerned about the actions of the Clinton Adminstration, as it is not up for re-election. The actions of congress, both dems and reps, and the current president seem relevant.
And has anyone actually read the book is question?
Also, there is a debate raging that the media is NOT biased and reports all the facts. Are there any good sites discussing this subject?
Thanks,
STF
On 9-10-2001, PresBush signed off on a new strategy against Bin Laden and AQ. The Bush administration planned to focus on destroying AQ through the use of US special forces.
I don't believe there was any specific plan by the Bush administration to undertake any further action in regards to the attacks on the USS Cole.
I believe the US sent in special forces prior to the invasion of Afganistan and I if I'm not mistaken, some of those forces were CIA undercover agents.
Think this comes under the response offered yesterday by Rumsfield that Bush did not want to use an ineffective 'swatting at flies' approach to terrorism; as were the terror plans, so called, of the Clinton Administration. He wanted to get at the root, the source and rip it out.
This took more than a hit and run plan. . .it took an orchestration of input, across the board; at home and abroad and of course, begining first with restoring re-establishing a Coalition that would cooperate in this endeavor in the Middle East; a coalition which Bushx41 had firmly in place when he was replaced by Clinton, who made short work of it, after he became President.
It was pointed out by Rumsfield; that if we had made an immediate 'attack' (missile) Sept 11 still would have happened; it would just have been re-classified as a retalitory response to our attack.
Perhaps you can find this and I hope, more info as well.
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.