Posted on 09/21/2001 8:02:08 AM PDT by Bouncer
The first matter to consider is the spinning of tales to assign blame for the terrorist bombing. Some very clear agendas have emerged. The first is a partisan agenda of blaming Clinton. The second is a financially motivated agenda blaming the reductions in the defense budget for the terrorist attack. There is even the culture wars agenda, blaming the attack on opponents of Reverends Falwell and Robertson. These claims are, very simply laughable, and have gained currency only through public ignorance.
The attempt to blame the attack on cuts in the defense budget is particularly ludicrous because the Defense Department has almost nothing to do with repelling terrorist attack except in the gathering of intelligence. Current budgets for intelligence are about $30 B [1]. After a drop in 1990-3, it has remained constant correcting for inflation [2]. Yet, with the fall of the Soviet Union, it became possible to devote much more of the budget to counter-terrorism, such that that spending on counterterrorism has doubled from $6B to $12B from 1995-2001 [3]. The Clinton White House provided the leadership in insisting on funds to combat terrorism. Indeed, to promote bipartisanship, Clinton brought Republicans into his Administration, Louis Freeh to head the FBI and William Cohen to head the Defense Department.
The Defense budget, of course, is related to the response to terrorism. In inflation-corrected dollars, the Defense budget has in fact declined in the last decade. This was a direct response to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the only serious military threat to the United States. The United States spends over $300 B on defense and our close allies spend over $200 B. Our nearest potential rivals spend $56 B (Russia) and $40 B (China). Iran, Iraq, Cuba and North Korea combined spend $11 B [4]. Afghanistan spends too little to quantify. Now, it is true that rival nations spend less on salaries, but the personnel budget is only a quarter of the total budget [6] and we far outclass any nation in hardware. Indeed, US spending as a share of worldwide military spending actually increased by over 10%, and now represents 36% of all spending in the world [5]. Our close allies, of course, represent over 20%. But defense contractors would no doubt love to push spending up even in the absence of any credible threat, and one doesn't doubt that blaming insufficient spending originates among them.
There has been a furious partisan effort over the last few years to shift blame for intelligence failures to Clinton. This effort has disserved our country, verging at times on outright disloyalty. Here are some inconvenient facts for those who want to blame Clinton for the failures in intelligence and for the terrorist attack:
The point of this list is not to try to shift blame onto anyone, merely to point out that there is plenty of blame to go around. The failures were widespread and included actions and failures to act by four administrations, by both major political parties, and by numerous intelligence agencies.
A reasonable assessment of the terrorist episode would begin by saying that there was a failure by intelligence agencies to communicate to law enforcement agencies the arrival of terrorists and a failure by law enforcement agencies to communicate the information within themselves. These are not new problems. The CIA, after all, failed to predict the 1967 Middle East War and the fall of the Soviet Union, among numerous other intelligence failures. Its failure to detect Aldrich Ames was a symptom of a good old boy atmosphere that spans many decades. Reuel Gerecht, who left the CIA Directorate of Operations recently, blames its ineffectiveness on bureaucratic sclerosis and an unwillingness to engage with the situation on the ground [16]. The FBI has been repeatedly found to be deficient, with the most recent scandal involving a spy who had been spying since about 1985. He was left in place over the last 5 years perhaps because he belonged to the same church as the (Republican) FBI Director [17, 18].
One major failure has been the handing over of airline regulation to the industry. Two of the most vocal proponents of the "blame Clinton faction of the Republican Party have been Orrin Hatch and Dana Rohrabacher. It is therefore interesting to note that Orrin Hatch -- whose position on the Judiciary Committee could have assisted recognition of the Gore Commission's recommendation that airline security be treated as an element of national security-- received $31,000 (2% of the PAC total) from the air transport industry in the 2000 election cycle, according to FEC records accessed through the Center for Responsive Politics. Those included PAC contributions of at least $1,000 from American Airlines, Boeing Co, Continental Airlines, Delta Airlines, Northwest Airlines and FedEx Corp. Among individual contributors, at least $7,500 in large contributions from employees of Airbus, Delta, Continental and Skywest can be identified.
Dana Rohrabacher also has feasted on air transport largesse, receiving $18,500 (18% of the PAC total) from air transport PACs and additional funds from air transport or related industries such as tourism, and plenty of Money from the Muslim Council, Arab World and other sources that evoke the phrase "glass houses". Several of his contributors only exist on the Web as contributors and at least one (AirTrac of Chicago) has been the target of regulatory action. George Bush and John McCain were the number 1 and number 2 recipients of the largesse of the air transport industry in 2000 and 16 out the top 20 recipients were Republicans. The question, of course, is what that money bought the industry. It certainly bought the industry weaker regulation and the inadequate airport security that was a laughing matter before September 11.
The greatest failures, however, have been in the pig-headed approach by US (and Israeli) foreign policy in addressing the very real problems that fester in the Muslim world. The Congress, under Republican control, steadfastly blocked US intervention in the Balkans and, after intervention, undermined US peacekeeping. A number of those nations have now been identified as havens for bin Laden's terrorists. Republicans have committed evil deeds in preventing the resolution of the Palestinian crisis in Israel, perhaps the worst of which was George Bush advisor Richard Perle urging Israeli delegation to walk out during the 2000 presidential election for the [19]. That act, so profoundly disloyal to the United States, was but one of many examples of collusion between the far right of this country and religiously intolerant, i.e., anti-Muslim elements in Israel. But the problem is far broader than the right-wing of this country. Both political parties have supported autocratic regimes, including Kuwait, rather than giving preference to nations willing to institute democratic reforms. If we are not a beacon of hope for the world, who will be? As CIA Analyst Raymond Close has said, "What worries me most, in the final analysis, is that our attacks on the targets in Afghanistan and Sudan [in 1998] were reminiscent of what we call "vigilante justice" in American folklore. This kind of policy weakens our leadership position in the world and undermines the most effective defenses we will have against the terrorist threat: a commitment to the rule of law, dedication to fairness and evenhandedness in settling international disputes and a reputation as the most humanitarian nation in the world." [20]
It is impossible to rule out the possibility that we have misidentified the source of the attack. Certainly the failures of intelligence and law enforcement agencies do not contradict this view. Neither does the ever-present issue of oil politics and the Bush family involvement in it. But at a more mundane level, there have been reports that one or more of the hijackers were drinking and carousing (lap dancers!) the night before the attack, behavior at utter odds with that of presumed Muslin extremists [21, 22]. A number of the terrorists, including those who trained at US facilities, may have been Saudi nationals. Since the Saudi intelligence service cooperates extensively with US intelligence services, and is widely known for its ferocious tactics against terrorism, it is difficult to see how a terrorist could come from Saudi Arabia -- and yet they did. Indeed, 16 of the 19 suspected hijackers are now believed to have entered legally [23] And finally, there is the report that the terrorists knew secret code words that suggested deep infiltration of US operations [24]. How does that happen without collaboration from high levels?
There is a great push to have us surrender our freedoms as the price of stopping terrorism. We are told that we must become like the Taliban in order to defend ourselves from them. Not only is this view laughably false, but until we know for certain that this terrible deed was not planned from within those who govern this country, we should not even consider it.
Finally, there is the question of whether a "war" will defeat terrorism. Major General Julian Thompson notes the obvious difficulties of the terrain [25]. Legal analyst Jonathan Turley says, rightly, that war is something that states engage in and that declaring war on bin Laden merely magnifies him [26]. A declaration of war does not facilitate anything except the usurpation of Congressional powers by the president. This effort -- to undo Constitutional protections and strip the American people of legal safeguards to their rights -- is well underway. By so doing, they have poured the blood of sacrifice of American patriots from Nathan Hale to Martin Luther King, on the ground. It is a sorry truth that our elected officials would probably rather turn this nation into an armed camp than admit that they made mistakes.
The defeat that the terrorists cannot endure is a defeat in the court of Muslim public opinion. Terrorists should be treated as criminals, albeit criminals with massive firepower. If possible, they should be captured and tried for crimes against humanity. The United States should take steps to redress massive injustices in Muslim lands, including the slaughter in Indonesia, which we facilitated [27]. To reprise Raymond Close's penetrating words: "[T]he most effective defenses we will have against the terrorist threat [are] a commitment to the rule of law, dedication to fairness and evenhandedness in settling international disputes and a reputation as the most humanitarian nation in the world.
References:
1. Federation of American Scientist
2. Federation of American Scientists
3. Washington Post, 9/11/01, M. Dobbs
4. Center for Defense Information
5. Center for Defense Information
6. Center for Defense Information
7. The Guardian, 9/15/01, G. Foden
8. MSNBC, M. Moran
9. LA Times, 5/21/01, R. Scheer
10. Washington Post Newsbytes, 11/13/01
11. KMOV-TV, 9/12/01 J. Allman
12. B. Drogin and E. Lichtblau, LA Times, 9/16/01
13. MSNBC, 9/15/01, G. Fritz, C. Skipp, J. Barry
14. Washington Post , 9/16/01, G. M. Gaul, J. V. Grimaldi, and J. Warrick
15. Salon Magazine, 9/13/01, A. Huffington
16. Atlantic Monthy, 7/01, R. M. Gerecht
17. NY Times, 4/22/01, J. Risen and D. Johnson
18. Insight Magazine, 7/17/01, P. Rodrigues
19. London Guardian, 7/13/001, J. Borger
20. PBS, Raymond Close, 8/98
21. Associated Press, 11/14/01, C. Wilson
22. Daytona Beach News-Journal, 11/15
23. Washington Post, 9/18/01, P Slevin and M. B. Sheridan
24. NY Times, 11/16/01, D. Sanger and D. van Natta, Jr.
25. LA Times, 11/13/01, J. Turley
26. London Observer, 11/16/01, J. Thompson
27. Associated Press, 7/27/01, P. Yost
Anything to add?
That Robert Scheer article is now on multiple liberal websites and their current deceptive talking point from the article "Bush gave $43 mill. to the Taliban" neglects to mention the UN repeated pleas for the starving millions in Afghanis., the Dem. Senators begging the Pres. for aid (especially Diane Feinstein) and Colin Powell's tours and extensive studies of the Afghani. plight. More links and info here:Clinton's final gift?
DEC.18, 2000-ELECTORAL COLLEGE elects GEORGE W. BUSH.
DEC.20, 2000-CLINTON ADMINISTRATION gives Afghanistan 30 day ULTIMATUM..until-
JAN.20, 2001...INAUGERATION DAY for PRESIDENT BUSH.
In my original post I pointed out that the Robert Scheer article was a complete fabrication, based on the statement:
That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.
Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.
I responded with an article which pointed out the fact that NO MONEY was given, and the humanitarian aid that was sent was NOT sent "to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan" as Scheer puts it, but was to be distributed by the U.N.
Obviously, Scheers article is wrong on more than one point.
Then in post #6 you made the statement:
Perhaps you could explain the $43 million we just gave them in May.
The implication being that we were directly supporting the Taliban, which we aren't.
You linked to a website which made the statement:
But who needs official status when this country in May was happy to cut a check for $43 million as a reward for the Taliban crushing opium poppy production by desperate Afghan farmers?
That is an abject lie. And by now you should know it.
But of course you then change the subject from the horrible allegation that the Bush Administration GAVE MONEY TO THE TALIBAN, to the fact that some of the aid we sent could be diverted and sold to indirectly help the Taliban. That, of course is possible, but you have yet to give one shred of proof that it has happened in this instance. But, even if it has happened, it does not change the fact that you were lying through your teeth when you made the statement that the Bush Administration had given the Taliban $43 million.
A better case could be made that liberal organizations fought for and won $43 million for the Taliban. That would also be deceptive, and most Freepers would be jumped on for making such an unfounded allegation.
AFGHANISTAN: Famine Endangering 1 Million, UN Says; More
Wrapping up a visit to Afghanistan and Pakistan to witness the plight of the Afghan populace firsthand, the head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said yesterday Afghans urgently need assistance if the international community wishes to avert a mass famine.
"We believe that at least 1 million people are at risk of famine," said Kenzo Oshima after returning from his visit to the Central Asian region.
Oshima said he saw "a sea of people living in unbelievable misery" during a visit to a refugee camp near Jalozai, Pakistan (Reuters/ABCNEWS.com, 20 Feb). More than 130,000 Afghan refugees are living in horrible conditions near Jalozai.
Oshima met with with Pakistan's military ruler General Pervez Musharraf in Islamabad on Friday. They discussed the Pakistani proposal to provide more relief to displaced persons inside Afghanistan (Agence France-Presse/ReliefWeb, 17 Feb). Oshima noted that the United Nations was involved in discussions with the Taliban to explore that option. Oshima also discussed with Pakistani authorities the possibility of setting up another refugee camp in Pakistan in order to ease overcrowding (Reuters/MSNBC.com, 17 Feb). Approximately 700 people are crossing the Afghan border into Pakistan every day (Reuters/ABCNews.com).
Oshima praised the "generous" long-term commitment of Pakistan to the refugee crisis. "We recognize that here is a tremendous burden put on the government and people," he said. "We hope that the open and generous attitude which has been demonstrated will be maintained" (AFP/ReliefWeb).
Relief Aid Stabilizes Situation
The arrival of relief aid in the last two weeks has helped stabilize the deteriorating conditions at camps for the internally displaced around Herat in western Afghanistan.
Relief agencies, however, are bracing themselves for the arrival of more refugees as snow begins to melt and open up the mountain passes. Aid groups are now focusing on reaching out to people in outlying rural areas in order to "discourage further migration to Herat," according to UN World Food Program coordinator Denise Brown. According to Brown, some of these areas have not received food assistance since October.
Brown also said that efforts are needed to reactivate farming in the region. "The shortage of seeds needs to be addressed immediately," she said. Seeds are in short supply because the major suppliers in Iran and Pakistan have also been affected by the severe drought that has struck Central Asia (Integrated Regional Information Networks, 19 Feb).
Figures don't lie, but liars figure. Let's all try to remember that the largest chunk of our military spending is in the form of payroll and other benefits. In totalitarian third-world countries, this is matched by less than a dime on the dollar.
Next, we have to remember that communist regimes have complete control over pricing. For example, the price of a MiG jet fighter might have been set at $5,000 because the Supreme Soviet said so. This kind of pricing philosophy pervaded the entire communist weapons acquisition system. A T-72 tank might be priced at $900. An AK-47 assault rifle might be priced at $12.
By comparison, at one point in the 1990s when I looked up the price tags, a stripped down version of our F-16 fighter cost $21 million, an M-1 tank cost $1 million and an M-16A1 rifle cost $2,000. The communists ran their military factories at a colossal loss, even though they were paying their workers Third World wages if they were paying them at all.
Also, another form of "creative accounting" kept many defense-related expenditures (such as intelligence) entirely off the books, so to speak.
It might put things into a more accurate perspective to point out that we have roughly 3 million people in uniform (including reserves and National Guard) while the Chinese have almost 100 million. We have tried to compensate for their overwhelming numerical advantages by going ultra-high tech. This is expensive, particularly when we spend several million dollars on research & development costs for systems that are later handed over to the Chinese by some yokel from Arkansas in exchange for a few thousand dollars in campaign contributions.
Good point about the figures. In the case of this Robert Scheer article, the explanation is rather simple and easy to verify, but of course (unlike Freepers) people on the left do not seem to hold each other accountable for the truth. These pundits posing as legitimate journalists get amazing coverage for their spin.
Our response to this thread should probably be simply: STOP THE SPIN!
I posted the press statement from Secretary Powell back in May, together with the link to the State Department website where it was posted. This indicated that the $43 million in aid was in the form of grain, medical supplies, blankets and other humanitarian aid, sent entirely to Red Crescent (Islamic equivalent of the Red Cross) and other relief organizations, to keep it out of the hands of the Taliban.
Secretary Powell also pointed out that last year, we sent $114 million. Who was the President last year, Bouncer and which party did he belong to?
After I posted all that, I asked four questions: First, do you really believe that Bush met with Powell in some smoke-filled back room of the White House and said, "Hey, I hear Osama bin Laden is planning to blow up the World Trade Center, so let's send him $43 million in small, unmarked bills"?
Second, do you really believe that anyone outside your tiny little circle of left-wing friends is stupid enough to believe that? (You've always been able to count on the stupid vote, but are they that stupid?)
Third, was Clinton equally cautious about making certain that all $114 million of aid went to the refugees? Or did he send his boys to deliver $114 million in small, unmarked bills directly to bin Laden? (I'm not accusing Clinton of anything, I'm just asking. Inquiring minds want to know.)
And fourth, at that press conference in May there were a lot of left-wing media hounds (formerly Clinton lap dogs) shoving cameras and microphones into Powell's face, asking a lot of questions. Where were they last year and why didn't they ask Clinton the same questions?
Bouncer, your continued presence on this website is a testament to Jim Robinson's unswerving belief in free speech. Perhaps we should send you and other liberal Freepers on a tour of all the left-wing hate sites, where they believe that the moment anyone breathes a whisper that isn't to the right of center, he is banned instantly. By my criticisms of your beliefs, I do not mean to make you feel unwelcome because unlike many other liberals who have made a (very brief) visit to this site, you present them in a polite and respectful way. Stick around.
If you want to go there then let's ask the question of which President funded, trained and armed these people in the first place. Which President started this mess in Afghanistan and then, by not seeing it through (ala Iraq), left a power vacuum filled by the Taliban? But that's a bigger discussion on another thread.
You believe that the govt is telling you the 100% complete truth in this matter (and they're telling you that 1/4 of the aid was not "grain") and that those guys from the Taliban, if they got aid, would never convert it for their own purpose.
I think that's a fantasy. You can trust our Taliban if you want, I don't trust either Taliban to tell me the truth.
See previous 2 million posts by Freepers re: Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. screaming "Blame Clinton! Blame Clinton!" for the textbook on this process.
And you thought the lefties weren't paying attention!
Left-wing fringe dwellers have been coming to this site for four years, trying to stir up trouble and make us look bad. We call them disruptors. You don't appear to be one. But they take many guises and use many different tactics. If you'd like to discuss that, I'm more than willing. But let's talk about Middle East policy for now since that is the topic of this thread, shall we?
Yes, the twelve-year Reagan-Bush administration did arm and train the mujahedeen to fight the Soviet Army. At the time, we believed the Soviets were a greater threat to world peace and stability. Kind of like that Democratic president who sent billions of dollars worth of military aid to the Soviets because he thought the Nazis were a greater threat to world peace and stability.
You mention Iraq as another problem caused by Bush Sr. failing to see it through. That was a UN operation and the UN decided to slam on the brakes before our ground forces reached Baghdad. The coalition would have abandoned us and there was a danger that we would suddenly be perceived as the new aggressors in the region.
Ruby Ridge and Waco are reflections of the fact that the Clinton Administration focused its anti-terrorist efforts principally on domestic terrorism. So is the World Trade Center. Clinton evidently believed that a few militiamen with shotguns that had barrels 1/4" too short were a greater threat than Osama bin Laden. (But you can make Reno the "fall guy" if you prefer. That should serve her well in her campaign against Jeb Bush in Florida.)
On other threads, a news story is developing regarding the 1996 FAA commission on airline safety, whose findings were watered down by Al Gore at the urging of airline industry lobbyists. Within weeks, $500,000 had poured into DNC coffers from the airlines to help Clinton/Gore defeat Bob Dole. Clinton and Gore evidently believed that Dole was a greater threat than terrorists on our passenger planes.
Let's talk, shall we?
"I've signed an executive order that immediately freezes United States financial assets of and prohibits United States transactions with 27 different entities. They include terrorist organizations, individual terrorist leaders, a corporation that serves as a front for terrorism, and several nonprofit organizations.
Just to show you how insidious these terrorists are, they oftentimes use nice-sounding, non-governmental organizations as fronts for their activities. We have targeted three such NGOs."
Kinda puts some swiss cheese holes in that argument of yours that all those NGOs were just sending wheat (see my earlier posts on NGOs). Now mind you I have to give him his props for closing that loophole (a dirty little secret known to the NGOs).
Your honor, the prosecution rests its case.
Someday, when I have some time, I plan to write a vanity piece entitled Why FreeRepublic Needs Liberals.
I don't mean the type you call disrupters (I don't think any more of their drive by rants than I do of conservatives who do that sort of thing on liberal sites) but rather some Liberal members of FreeRepublic who offer real liberal opinions.
It would be pretty dull around here if all you guys did was high five each other every time Hitlery rolls her eyes (see, I pay attention). You need a few liberals who can give a punch (and take one) every now and then. We liberals have to be somewhat respectful while here, this is after all your home and we need to rememeber that we're guests. I enjoy corresponding with Conservatives more than I do with Liberals. It helps me think out my positions and makes me consider things in ways that I normally wouldn't. Or maybe I'm just a political junkie (I do live in Wash DC!)....
You'll get a few flame trolls here too. Don't get me wrong. But the ratio of thoughtful, respectful hosts to flame trolls is a great deal higher on this site than on the left-wing hate sites, despite what the inhabitants of those sites have obviously been saying about us.
For some more long-term liberal inhabitants here, you can look up Bubbah Gump and dwbh. You're not alone. Then of course there are quite a few Libertarians, who are very liberal on social issues (but extremely conservative on fiscal issues). You'll find them sticking up for gay rights and abortion rights, but then they'll do an apparent 180 and call for the abolition of the income tax and the right of all citizens to own full-auto assault rifles.
Posting While Liberal
What do you think???
Like I said, the one you have is fine.
I wasted several months posting at the official DNC hate site, http://webx.ibelong.com -- along with some fellow conservatives, we were flamed constantly. The moderators constantly watched us, and if we started to respond with mild attacks of our own, they were instantly deleted. In the meantime, the most vile attacks by the left-wing fringe dwellers who live there were ignored by the moderators.
That's pretty much a consistent theme that we have encountered at all of the left-wing hate sites. There is an extremely strict, rigidly enforced code of conduct for those conservatives who post there. But liberals can attack them at will, without fear of any consequences. And they have the nerve to accuse Free Republic of banning anyone who doesn't agree with us.
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.