Posted on 07/26/2004 1:50:59 PM PDT by Doctor Wu
The real "missed opportunity": not declaring war on al Qaeda six years earlier.
BY LOUIS J. FREEH Saturday, July 24, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
--snip--
the Joint Intelligence Committee "uncovered no intelligence information in the possession of the Intelligence Community prior to the attacks of September 11th that, if fully considered, would have provided specific, advance warning of the details of those attacks." This was so even though al Qaeda and its political leadership openly and repeatedly declared war against America.
Even after the commission completed its work, the complex question that remains not fully answered is why the political leadership of our nation--which included presidents and Congresses--declared war back on al Qaeda only after that horrific day. Osama bin Laden had been indicted years before for blowing up American soldiers and embassies and was known as a clear and present danger to the United States. The FBI put bin Laden on our "Top Ten Most Wanted List" in 1999. Endless and ultimately useless speculation about "various threads and pieces of information," which are certainly "relevant and significant," at least "in retrospect," do not take us very far in answering this central question: What would have happened had the United States declared war on al Qaeda in 1998?
--snip--
(T)hose who came before can only be faulted if they had the political means and the will of the nation to declare a war back then--but failed to do so. The fact that terrorism and the bloody war being waged against us by al Qaeda was not even an issue in the 2000 presidential campaign--at the very time al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in Yemen--strongly suggests that the political means and will to declare and fight this war simply didn't exist before September 11.
In hindsight, we all now agree that six years ago the United States should have responded to al Qaeda's acts of war against us by declaring and waging a real war against these enemies. Now, going forward, we can take some lessons and experience from this history and commit, as the president has done, to trying to prevent an enemy from ever again gaining such an advantage against our nation. It will be a long and difficult struggle from which we, as a nation, cannot waiver, regardless of the temptations to do so.
--snip--
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
hey freeh, thanks soooooooo much for everything
We STILL havn't declared war. Wish we would. Then traitors like Moore could be summarily dealt with.
bump
bump
Clinton did declare war on terrorism...he just didn't bother fighting it.
What or who may I ask would we declare war against? I assume you are referring to the War on Terror. But the declaration of war must name a country does it not?
Freeh who promoted the man who gave the shoot to kill order at Ruby Ridge......that Freeh?
Freeh is the spineless clown who let the criminality of the Clintons slide time and time again.
Now that he's out of power, Freeh comes out with something that makes sense. Sorry Louie, but you've come with too little, way too late.
Freeh did a lot more harm to this nation than fatso could ever dream of doing....the stench of the timeliness of him conveniently skating outta' Dodge a week and a half prior to Sept 11 still hangs in the air.
You are correct. I shouldn't even have posted my fleeting angry thought... too thin for this topic.
later
By "declaring war," I think he means that we should declare war against Islam. Just a guess, mind you.
They could be anyway. The Constitution only mentions "enemies", not those who we have declared war upon. A nation can clearly have enemies without a declared war. We had the Soviets for decades.
Still a formal declaration would be the proper thing to do in our current situation, and would if nothing else make it easier to sweep away trash such as Moore and ANSWER.
Saber rattling Louis must of just got the word that his memos were removed from the archives too.
Where is that written? I would expect naming a transnational group would be acceptable and sufficient to delineate who we were declaring war upon.
That would be a little general and excessive. Sort of like declaring war on all Buddists, when the problem was the government of Nippon. We could start with a fairly short list of Islamist groups, adding language that would prevent a mere name change from "letting them off the hook". The list could be expanded as needed, but only by a new declaration from Congress, or perhaps just by action of a special Congressional committee along with the President.
Freeh is still a question mark for me. I'm inclined to think he's one of the good guys.
Hey Louie, a lot of people did want to wage real war against al Qaeda.
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.