Tuesday, March 23, 2004
So, hell.
First things first: you may have heard Richard Clarke, the former head of counter-terrorism, giving an interview on "60 minutes" where he claimed Bush did nothing to stop al-Qaeda despite many warnings by him. He's also taken to praising Clinton's "actions" to thwart the terrorist network.
Here's some facts to consider when considering Clarke's statements, his book, and his appearence on "60 Minutes".
1) CBS did not disclose that its parent company owns Clarke's book, and therefore has a financial interest in seeing it do well. CBS has defended this by stating that all publishers seek time on "60 Minutes" for their books. That's not the point: the point is that there is a conflict of interest present in giving "objective" publicity to a controversial book that you own. CBS had a responsibility to report that conflict of interest, whether or not they think it is relevant.
2) Richard Clarke claimed that right after 9/11, Bush took him aside and asked him to see if Iraq was involved. When Clarke stated that there were no documented ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq, Bush restated his orders sharply, leaving Clarke the impression that Bush wanted him to find ties between 9/11 and Iraq. He also said that the report he filed stating no evidence of any links between the two was sent back and that he was ordered to check it again. His interpretation is that the Bush administration was desperately seeking a reason to blame Iraq for 9/11.
You know what the problem is with interpretations? They're beholden to the interpreter.
It seems that Bush asked Clarke to investigate if Saddam was involved in 9/11, and Clarke's answer was to regurgitate a conclusion reached before 9/11. I don't believe that's what Bush ordered him to do. Just because there allegedly were no ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq at the time (and that's sketchy: there are connections between al-Qaeda and lower level Iraqi officials dating ten years, including reports of terrroists training in chemical warfare in Iraq. No connection between Saddam specifically and al-Qaeda has been found) doesn't mean that Saddam didn't decide to change that. Bush was trying to figure out who was responsible for 9/11. It would've been irresponsible to rule out anybody. Why this is such a hard concept to figure out is beyond me.
The reason I have come to this conclusion is simple: Bush's response had nothing to do with Iraq. He invaded Afghanistan.
For all of you who think that Bush was looking for a pretext to invade Iraq, consider this: why didn't Bush invade Iraq before 9/11? Saddam had kicked out weapons inspectors well before 9/11. The same intelligence was still floating around at this time. Surely he could've just invaded Iraq and said "Saddam Hussein has violated the cease fire agreement by expelling weapons inspectors. He's admitted to possessing chemical weapons."
He didn't. Why?
Because he and his cabinet decided that Saddam wasn't a threat worth dealing with at that time.
However, 9/11 taught a very valuable lesson that some have forgotten to heed: you don't allow potential threats to become real threats. If you do, lives will be lost. This lesson was taught in World War II when Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles, and it was taught again on 9/11. How many times do we have to do this before we all get the message?
3) Richard Clarke had been demoted from head of counter-terrorism to the cyberterrorism department. While I'm not going to use this to support the argument of "disgruntled employee", I will state that Clarke was out of the loop when it came to the administration's plan to handle al-Qaeda. Read National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's response (registration to the Washington Post is required= it's free) for more information as to what Bush's plan of al-Qaeda was pre 9/11. Also, note this article, written in 2003, that records Clarke's record of misindentifying the real threat as cyberterrorism.
In short, Clarke's current statements, by his own admission, are based on interpretation of facts, and not facts themselves. As such, they should be taken with the deserving grain of salt.
In the next day or so, I'll tackle a matter of larger importance: the assasination of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassinby Israel. This matter, whether you care about politics or not, is of grave importance. Hamas has threatened retaliation against Israel and America (?!) in response.
Pay attention.
I'm out.
First things first: you may have heard Richard Clarke, the former head of counter-terrorism, giving an interview on "60 minutes" where he claimed Bush did nothing to stop al-Qaeda despite many warnings by him. He's also taken to praising Clinton's "actions" to thwart the terrorist network.
Here's some facts to consider when considering Clarke's statements, his book, and his appearence on "60 Minutes".
1) CBS did not disclose that its parent company owns Clarke's book, and therefore has a financial interest in seeing it do well. CBS has defended this by stating that all publishers seek time on "60 Minutes" for their books. That's not the point: the point is that there is a conflict of interest present in giving "objective" publicity to a controversial book that you own. CBS had a responsibility to report that conflict of interest, whether or not they think it is relevant.
2) Richard Clarke claimed that right after 9/11, Bush took him aside and asked him to see if Iraq was involved. When Clarke stated that there were no documented ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq, Bush restated his orders sharply, leaving Clarke the impression that Bush wanted him to find ties between 9/11 and Iraq. He also said that the report he filed stating no evidence of any links between the two was sent back and that he was ordered to check it again. His interpretation is that the Bush administration was desperately seeking a reason to blame Iraq for 9/11.
You know what the problem is with interpretations? They're beholden to the interpreter.
It seems that Bush asked Clarke to investigate if Saddam was involved in 9/11, and Clarke's answer was to regurgitate a conclusion reached before 9/11. I don't believe that's what Bush ordered him to do. Just because there allegedly were no ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq at the time (and that's sketchy: there are connections between al-Qaeda and lower level Iraqi officials dating ten years, including reports of terrroists training in chemical warfare in Iraq. No connection between Saddam specifically and al-Qaeda has been found) doesn't mean that Saddam didn't decide to change that. Bush was trying to figure out who was responsible for 9/11. It would've been irresponsible to rule out anybody. Why this is such a hard concept to figure out is beyond me.
The reason I have come to this conclusion is simple: Bush's response had nothing to do with Iraq. He invaded Afghanistan.
For all of you who think that Bush was looking for a pretext to invade Iraq, consider this: why didn't Bush invade Iraq before 9/11? Saddam had kicked out weapons inspectors well before 9/11. The same intelligence was still floating around at this time. Surely he could've just invaded Iraq and said "Saddam Hussein has violated the cease fire agreement by expelling weapons inspectors. He's admitted to possessing chemical weapons."
He didn't. Why?
Because he and his cabinet decided that Saddam wasn't a threat worth dealing with at that time.
However, 9/11 taught a very valuable lesson that some have forgotten to heed: you don't allow potential threats to become real threats. If you do, lives will be lost. This lesson was taught in World War II when Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles, and it was taught again on 9/11. How many times do we have to do this before we all get the message?
3) Richard Clarke had been demoted from head of counter-terrorism to the cyberterrorism department. While I'm not going to use this to support the argument of "disgruntled employee", I will state that Clarke was out of the loop when it came to the administration's plan to handle al-Qaeda. Read National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's response (registration to the Washington Post is required= it's free) for more information as to what Bush's plan of al-Qaeda was pre 9/11. Also, note this article, written in 2003, that records Clarke's record of misindentifying the real threat as cyberterrorism.
In short, Clarke's current statements, by his own admission, are based on interpretation of facts, and not facts themselves. As such, they should be taken with the deserving grain of salt.
In the next day or so, I'll tackle a matter of larger importance: the assasination of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassinby Israel. This matter, whether you care about politics or not, is of grave importance. Hamas has threatened retaliation against Israel and America (?!) in response.
Pay attention.
I'm out.
Comments:
Post a Comment
