Sorry guys, but this article was published in full in the WaPo this morning. I had to ask the admins to kill it. Be Seeing You,
Chris
Posted on 03/22/2004 7:57:01 AM PST by IPWGOP
Edited on 03/22/2004 8:44:36 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Clarke: White House’s responseCondoleezza Rice's editorial, written in response to Richard Clarke's accusations. The full editorial is also www.iowapresidentialwatch.com "The al Qaeda terrorist network posed a threat to the United States for almost a decade before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Throughout that period -- during the eight years of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the Bush administration prior to Sept. 11 -- the U.S. government worked hard to counter the al Qaeda threat. During the transition, President-elect Bush's national security team was briefed on the Clinton administration's efforts to deal with al Qaeda. The seriousness of the threat was well understood by the president and his national security principals. In response to my request for a presidential initiative, the counterterrorism team, which we had held over from the Clinton administration, suggested several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted. No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration. We adopted several of these ideas. We committed more funding to counterterrorism and intelligence efforts. We increased efforts to go after al Qaeda's finances. We increased American support for anti-terror activities in Uzbekistan. We pushed hard to arm the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle so we could target terrorists with greater precision. But the Predator was designed to conduct surveillance, not carry weapons. Arming it presented many technical challenges and required extensive testing. Military and intelligence officials agreed that the armed Predator was simply not ready for deployment before the fall of 2001. In any case, the Predator was not a silver bullet that could have destroyed al Qaeda or stopped Sept. 11.
|
Sorry guys, but this article was published in full in the WaPo this morning. I had to ask the admins to kill it. Be Seeing You,
Chris
Cyber-has-been or cyber-never-was?
Whether or not you do or do not have intel on precisely where you may be attacked, one of the most basic practices in self defense, is to be prepared such that you have a broad defense and defense in depth, such that you have the capability for fending off the unexpected.
You are to be prepared for the unexpected, as impossible as that responsiblity of yours may seem.
The article completely avoids the failures by the Bush Administration, on this point.
The types of attack that took place, have been under consideration by "military analysts" not to mention many others associated with aviation development, for several of the past decades.
That such attacks would take place in the United States and against both civilian and government targets, have been expected for many, many years --- AND WE PRACTICED ROUTINELY, WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO IN TACTICAL RESPONSE.
The Bush Administration was responsible for bringing itself rapidly up to date on this, not to mention all the other duties as Commander in Chief, but it did not, and the President did not, get with the program until it was too late, and it still has not, in some critical areas.
Not to mention that more coffee was spilled in the Kremlin than in Washinton, D.C., on September 11th.
Unfortunately for us, the Bush Administration, in addition to several State and local government leaders AND ESPECIALLY BUREAUCRATS, remain unprepared.
Preparedness --- that is a primary duty of a military leader, of a civil defense leader.
Remember Pearl Harbor.
We became specialists in preparedness, though recent White House administrators have sought to dismiss what we learned, as not being a part of their new deal, the "new paradigm."
There is no "new paradigm."
That was one of the big lessons on September 11th.
In closing, I'd like to point out that there is no "the homeland" either --- there is, in fact and in our hearts, our country.
The authority to defend our country, is within the Constitution under the War Department powers. Such operations and agencies needed, fall under that authority, and such organization that is need, does to, within the Department of Defense.
No "Dept. of Homeland Security" is needed; and it certainly is not Constitutional.
The powers and efficiency of organization, that President Bush and others have sought, is properly made within the authority of the War Department, in which can exist, the Department of Defense and an adjacent, better-named, Domestic Defense Network.
Well, the Bush Administration had wanted to place various federal law enforcement agencies within the domestic defense network scheme, and that would not be possible if the network operated under the War Department authority.
So, they defied the Constitution and set up the Department of Homeland Security, for which the judiciary must make law as is their want, off the top of their heads, in order that it have some authority from a "living Constitution."
What a mess.
Not much effort put into considering how this new institution would function under the control of the socialists when the Democrat Party gets its hands on it.
So, you see, there is much to consider; and it once was, back during and after World War II.
Yet "modern thinking" has it that those old, large, "glorious" wars are a thing of the past; and with all large main battle tanks, all else in the historical documents is being tossed out.
Kind of like the way our worthy American Heritage and foundations that are in the construction of our Constitution, is being tossed out, for the "new paradigm."
What John Kerry calls the "New Deal."
No thanks.
Even that was a miss. Remember the blue dress.
I missed your notation and just posted the entire thing again.
It appears you will have to do it again. Sorry.
I thought I did post the entire thing. I am the webmaster for the website that has it fully posted (www.iowapresidentialwatch.com). Maybe I copied and posted it wrong. Sorry 'bout that! :) Linda
The Sidebar Moderator apparently excerpted it and I made the mistake of re-posting it.
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.