Preparing for The Next Pearl Harbor Attack (JUNE 2001, Bush team addressing terrorism threat)

Insight Magazine ^ | June 18, 2001 | J. Michael Waller

[cyncooper]

I looked for a date on this article on the Insight page but don't see it. Clearly it was written prior to 9/11 so I googled the title and found the article also posted here where the date of June 18, 2001 is listed.

More refutation to Clarke's assertions that the threat of terrorism was being ignored.

I saw as I searched that one of the arguments the left is raising today is the assertion that the Bush administration ignored the Hart-Rudman report, and by implication, they ignored dealing with the concern at all. .

[cyncooper]

I thought you'd like to see this.

[Peach]

Holy moly. What a GREAT find.

How about we send it to some news organizations?

VERRRRRRY interesting.

Howlin - how about a ping list?

PhiKapMom - I hope the RNC has this in their pocket???

[Stentor]

Bump for a great find.

[watchin]

Clarke is being exposed as a politcal hack and greedy bookseller.

<sarcasm>I wonder if 60 minutes will interview him again to expose his fraud?</sarcasm>

[cyncooper]

Peach, on one of the threads about Clarke today, somebody posted what sounded like lefty talking points about the Bush adminstration ignoring the Hart-Rudman report.

So I decided to look into it and through my Googling of "Hart-Rudman report + Richard Clarke" I find that lo and behold Molly Ivins wrote just that in her column yesterday.

Fortunately, I kept googling and found this Insight article discussing what the then very new Bush adminstration was doing to address the threat of terrorism. I even searched FR to see if the Insight article was posted way back when, but when it didn't come up right away I thought it deserved highlighting.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Sure don't look like "asleep at the wheel" to me.

[cyncooper]

Thought you might find this interesting reading.

[mtbopfuyn]

Hope you sent this out to the alphabets.

[Magnolia]

You really need to see this little jewel. Haha...if it's out there a FReeper will find it. Great research cyncooper!

[cyncooper]

Good idea about sending it to news organizations.

Anybody have a handy dandy set of email addys, by chance?

[DallasMike]

bttt

[TN4Liberty]

What a tremendous boost for the President's credibility. What a terrible blow to Clarke's, and to a lesser degree, Clinton's.

I wonder if Clarke will say he was lying then or now?

[FlashBack]

This is why I love coming to this site...You people are fantastic!!

Great Find!!

[EllaMinnow]

You deserve a gold medal for finding this!

I just took the liberty of emailing it to National Review. I hope you don't mind!

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - CLARKE

[petitfour]

It looks like the Bush admin inherited a haphazard approach to the whole terrorism on the homefront problem. The Clinton admin was set to take the lead on this because they were the first admin to be Cold War-less. And what did they do for eight years?

Something else I find interesting is the whole focus on WMD and bioterrorism which are certainly a threat. However, how did the terr'ists hit us? With commercial airplanes and boxcutters. There were enough biohazards in the structure of the WTC to affect NYers for years and years. It is sort of like David hitting Goliath with a stone. We tend to think BIG when it comes to how an enemy will hurt us. However, much havoc can be wreaked with every day stuff, and we cannot defend against such. Unless we can identify the enemy and eliminate him/her from our country. I know that we are making inroads in such. I hope that our eyes and ears are open to all possibilities.

[petitfour]

btw, this is a really good find.

[ladyinred]

Meanwhile, say insiders, the administration is trying to clean up the mess left by its predecessor. Clarke, Clinton's former national infrastructure chief whom Bush kept on, now admits that his first attempt under the Clinton administration to deal with infrastructure defense was a set of policies "written by bureaucrats" and that they were wholly inadequate. He attacked a 1999 Clinton/Gore infrastructure-protection plan as one that "could not be translated into business terms that corporate boards and senior management could understand."

This is one of the best finds yet to refute that lying bunch up there in DC! Cudos to you for posting this, and it needs to be widely seen!

[ladyinred]

Please bring out your ping lists! This is a good one!