Louis Freeh: "missed opportunity" was not declaring war on al Qaeda six years earlier

Wall Street Journal ^ | 7/26/04

[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--

[Gritty]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Louis, we know it hurts.

Where were you all those years when the clinton's were getting away with it all? Why should we listen to what you have to say on the subject? Why didn't you take action on all those Big Mysteries from Vince Foster to Oklahoma City to Flight 800, etc., etc., when you held office?

What are you trying to do, polish your own sorry "Legacy"?

[Light Speed]

Good comments,

A former CIA analyst was interviewed a week ago on Charlie Rose...known as Anonymous..his face was blacked out during the interview.
He brought Charlie back several times in the interview to a key ident which is very damning to the Clinton admin.
By 1999..the Clinton admin knows with full clarity that OBL intends to attack America on American soil.
During 1999...OBL is static in Afghanistan..hardly moving around.
all of this comes under the issue of actionable intel.
Anonymous reminds Charlie that they had OBL dead to rights in 1999 numerous times..and did nothing..with clarity on his intent...
and clarity on where he was.

[A.A. Cunningham]

missed opportunity

[el_texicano]

Ok, for the sake of argument let's say you are correct in your approach. So, we declare war on al queda, but all such groups are not so named. They are foxes tied at the tail, but they are nebuously named. Al Queda would like nothing better than for the US to declare war on "Militant Islam" or something like that, they they can argue that we are declaring war on Islam. And we are not.

The point is...it is difficult to pin this threat down with a definitive name.

Secondly, these monsters are no better than pirates and to "declare war" is to elevate them to the level of legitmate combatants, which they are most definitely NOT. They are vermin, little more than mad dogs infected with the rabies of religious fanaticism. War declaration gives them the "cover" of the Geneva Convention which they do not observe anyway.

[El Gato]

Secondly, these monsters are no better than pirates and to "declare war" is to elevate them to the level of legitmate combatants, which they are most definitely NOT. They are vermin, little more than mad dogs infected with the rabies of religious fanaticism. War declaration gives them the "cover" of the Geneva Convention which they do not observe anyway.

Actually they are worse than pirates, pirates really only want your money, well and perhaps your women. These guys just want to kill us. Perhaps better than a declaration of war would be a formal declaration from Congress, and signed by the President, that they are "enemies of the United States". That would have the same effect domestically and would allow us to treat them like pirates were once treated, that is "shoot on sight".

[el_texicano]

If these scum didn't have information value to be "squeezed" out of them, I would gladly say "Shoot them on sight". Bullets are cheaper than trials and the waste of "panty" torture.