Resolved: Iraq is NOT the "central front" in the war on terror
RESOLVED: Iraq is NOT the "central front" in the war on terror.
The orchestrator of the 9/11 attacks is not hiding in Iraq. He is hiding in Afghanistan.
After 9/11, our government was right to go into Afghanistan to try to prosecute this "war on terror." They were wrong to drop the ball and take their focus off the real war on terror, and turn their attention to a country who has never attacked or threated to attack us before.
RESOLVED: George W. Bush should have asked for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation the minute he suggested going into Iraq instead of Afghanistan to avenge 9/11, stating that there weren't enough good targets in Afghanistan.
The orchestrator of the 9/11 attacks is not hiding in Iraq. He is hiding in Afghanistan.
After 9/11, our government was right to go into Afghanistan to try to prosecute this "war on terror." They were wrong to drop the ball and take their focus off the real war on terror, and turn their attention to a country who has never attacked or threated to attack us before.
RESOLVED: George W. Bush should have asked for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation the minute he suggested going into Iraq instead of Afghanistan to avenge 9/11, stating that there weren't enough good targets in Afghanistan.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Please elaborate about your plan to currently deal with the war on terror and Iraq. Thank you in advance.
Comment by Baffled— 2006/06/20 @ 04:50 PM — (Reply)
Why? Because I would have listened to my White House Counter-terrorism Chief when he asked for an "urgent and important" meeting to discuss Al Qaeda. If my White House Counter-terrorism Chief had asked me in January 2001 for an "urgent and important" meeting to discuss the Al Qaeda threat, I would not have waited until September 2001 for that meeting.
What's more, instead of staying on vacation, I would have ACTED on my Presidential Daily Brief that told me "Osama bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States." I would have had the proper federal officials go to "battle stations" to ensure Osama's desire was not fulfilled.
Comment by SMillard— 2006/06/20 @ 06:44 PM — (Reply)
I am a little confused. Wasn't Al-Queda on the screen while President Clinton was in office? Shouldn't something different have happened then too rather than just letting it go on and on?
Obviously if history was rewritten, current planning would be different as you mention. That being said, if you WERE commander in chief today, what would you do now?
Comment by Baffled— 2006/06/20 @ 07:33 PM — (Reply)
Because President Clinton acted and sent the proper officials to "battle stations," the Millenium plot to bomb LAX was thwarted. There was no New Year's Eve attack because our government was alert.
Allow me to educate you:
From Richard Clarke's March 28, 2004 appearance on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: George Tenet briefed me on a regular basis about the terrorist threats to the United States of America. And had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on September 11th, we would have acted.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WOODRUFF: He's saying he didn't have the information.
CLARKE: Well, let's contrast the performance of that administration when they had word from George Tenet that some attack was going to take place somewhere, with the performance of the Clinton administration in December of 1999 when they had similar information.
In December 1999, the president ordered daily meetings of the FBI director, the attorney general and the head of the CIA and the secretary of defense in the White House, with the national security team, to shake out any information and prevent the attacks. And they were successful in doing that.
Presented with even more frightening information, President Bush did not choose to do that, did not choose to get personally involved, except getting those morning intelligence briefings.
The principals committee, the top secretaries of the departments, met according to the Associated Press, over 100 times from the beginning of the administration to September 11th. One of those meetings, one of those meetings, was on terrorism.
-snip-
CLARKE: I think it probably was. And here's why I think that. George Tenet, Sandy Berger and I went to the president and said, "We think bin Laden is going to be at a certain location in Afghanistan at a certain time." And Clinton said, "Fine, let's blow it up." And he fired a lot of cruise missiles at that location, apparently just missing bin Laden.
The reaction of the American people was not, "Great job, you're fighting terrorism with military force," something previous presidents had not done. It was, "Wag the dog," meaning, you're using this to divert attention from your own personal and political problems.
-snip-
WOODRUFF: Could President Clinton have done more to educate the American people about the al Qaeda threat to change the public?
CLARKE: If you look, beginning in 1996, in his last four years in office, President Clinton gave about 40 speeches where he mentioned terrorism, five speeches that were devoted just to terrorism. He did a lot, but, frankly, if you look at the media play on those speeches, the media didn't pick up those speeches. When he made a speech on terrorism, it wasn't on the front page, it wasn't on CNN.
Because only 35 -- I hate to say it this way, because every life we lost is one too many -- but 35 Americans died over the course of those eight years at the hands of al Qaeda. And based on that level of problem, Clinton authorized the unprecedented assassination of bin Laden and his top lieutenants, and he fired cruise missiles at him, and he launched a major covert action program.
---------------------
And now, let's look at what Clinton's Defense Secretary, William Cohen, says about the reaction on Capitol Hill when President Clinton pursued Al Qaeda:
Cohen criticizes 'wag the dog' characterization
Former defense secretary testifies before 9/11 panel
Tuesday, March 23, 2004 Posted: 10:01 PM EST (0301 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Defense Secretary William Cohen on Tuesday defended President Clinton's use of the military to protect national security interests, returning to a sharp GOP-led criticism of Clinton at a time when he was embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
At that time, some GOP lawmakers used the phrase "wag the dog" to describe Clinton's military actions, saying he was using conflicts abroad to deflect attention from the domestic scandal. A movie of the same name came out in 1997, and the plot involves a presidential administration that launches a war as a political ploy.
Testifying before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Cohen said the U.S. military was prepared to kill or capture al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden whenever there was "actionable intelligence."
But he also said trying to capture bin Laden and his associates was like "mercury on a mirror."
Clinton came under intense criticism in 1998 by the GOP after he launched an attack on suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. Intelligence indicated bin Laden and his top associates were meeting at a training camp when U.S. missiles were fired at it, just weeks after al Qaeda terrorists bombed U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.
The attack was launched on the same day Lewinsky, a former White House intern, wrapped up her testimony before a grand jury investigating whether Clinton lied under oath about their relationship or encouraged anyone else to do so.
"During that time when the attack was launched in Afghanistan and Sudan, there was a movie out called 'Wag the Dog,' " Cohen testified Tuesday. In the movie, an administration launched a fake war as a political ploy. "There were critics of the Clinton administration that attacked the president, saying this was an effort on his part to divert attention from his personal difficulties.
"I would like to say for the record under no circumstances did President Clinton ever call upon the military and use that military in order to serve a political purpose."
Cohen served as a Republican U.S. senator from Maine before Clinton appointed him to the defense post.
Cohen said the the military objective on August 20, 1998, was "to kill as many people in those camps as we could" and to "take out" a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that was believed to have been used by terrorists.
"We went after as many as we could and as high as we could. We didn't know whether [bin Laden] would be there for sure. We hoped he would be there. He slipped away apparently."
A few months later, the accusations of Clinton's use of the military arose anew when the United States and Britain launched Operation Desert Fox, a four-day bombing campaign against Iraq. That operation came as House debated Clinton's impeachment.
Cohen testified he was called to the House on the day the operation began to defend Clinton against a "boiling" rage.
"I put my entire public career on the line to say that the president always acted specifically upon the recommendation of those of us who held the positions of responsibility to take military action," he said. "And at no time did he ever try to use it or manipulate it to serve his personal ends."
He added: "I think it's important for that to be clear because that 'wag the dog' cynicism that was so virulent [then], I'm afraid is coming back again."
In the wake of the twin embassy bombings, Cohen said Clinton gave the military the authority to kill bin Laden if the opportunity arose.
"Whenever there was 'actionable intelligence,' we were prepared to take action to destroy bin Laden or the targets," he said.
But he said he didn't think a large military action was realistic -- even after the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole -- because Congress most likely wouldn't have supported it and neither would Pakistan, Tajikstan and other key nations in the region.
Commissioner Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, blasted Cohen's responses.
"We had a round in our chamber and we didn't use it. That's how I see it," he said. "I don't buy it."
Cohen again reiterated he thought an invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2000 was "unrealistic."
"We can be faulted for that," Cohen said. "I just don't think it was feasible."
Kerrey then responded: "I'll just say for the record, better to have tried and failed than to have not tried at all."
Comment by SMillard— 2006/06/20 @ 08:23 PM — (Reply)
From one of President Clinton's radio addresses:
Yet the Republicans in Congress continue to oppose this commonsense initiative. Why? Because the Washington gun lobby told them to. One Republican congressman had another reason, an unbelievable one. He actually told his own committee chairman, "I trust Hamas more than my own Government." Well, I don't. And I don't think most Americans or most Members of Congress in either party do.
Those remarks are from President Clinton's April 13, 1996 weekly radio address lambasting the Republican-controlled Congress for blocking anti-terrorism legislation that the White House had submitted in response to the first attack on the World Trade Center weeks after Clinton's 1992 inauguration and the subsequent 1995 domestic terrorist bombing of the Alfred E. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
Clinton went on to say:
In this new era, fighting terrorism must be a top law enforcement and national security priority for the United States. On our own and with our allies, we have put in place strong sanctions against states that sponsor terrorism. We have improved our cooperation with other nations to deter terrorists before they act, to capture them when they do, and to see to it that they are brought to justice. We've increased funding, personnel, and training for our own law enforcement agencies to deal with terrorists.
But we must do even more. That is why, more than a year ago, I sent to Congress legislation that would strengthen our ability to investigate, prosecute, and punish terrorist activity. After Oklahoma City, I made it even stronger. My efforts were guided by three firm goals: first, to protect American lives without infringing on American rights; second, to give the FBI and other law enforcement officials the tools they have asked for to do the job; and third, to make sure terrorists are barred from this country.
In the wake of Oklahoma City, Congress promised to send me the bill 6 weeks after the tragic bombing. And yet unbelievably, almost an entire year has passed, and Congress still has not managed to send me strong anti-terrorism legislation. There is simply no excuse for this foot-dragging. This bill should have been law a long time ago.
So I urge Congress: Make it happen. Pass anti-terrorism legislation now. In the name of the children and all the people of Oklahoma City, I say to Congress, do not let another day go by in which America does not have the tools it needs to fight terrorism. It's essential that Congress send me the right anti-terrorism legislation, legislation that finally will give law enforcement the upper hand.
When I met with leaders of the congressional majority shortly after the bombing, they assured me that Congress would give the American people strong anti-terrorism legislation. They haven't. While the Senate passed a solid bill, the House absolutely gutted it. Under pressure from the Washington gun lobby, House Republicans took that bill apart piece by piece. Well, now it's time they put it back together. America cannot afford to settle for a fake anti-terrorism bill. We need the real thing. And on my watch, I'm determined to get it.
Source: http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=695
Comment by SMillard— 2006/06/20 @ 08:31 PM — (Reply)
Mr. Burger made sure to attend the briefing on terrorism so that he could communicate with Condi Rice directly on the need to focus like a laser beam on Al Qaeda.
And he told her "I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject."
Yet, despite these warnings from the Clinton Administation, when Condi Rice became the National Security Adviser, she turned a blind eye to the subject of terrorism. On January 24, 2001 Richard Clarke sent Rice a memo asking for an urgent & important principles-level meeting on Al Qaeda to disucss the threat and how the Bush Administration would respond.
He was rebuffed---but finally got his 1/24/01 request for an "urgent and important" meeting ONE WEEK BEFORE 9/11.
Comment by SMillard— 2006/06/20 @ 08:50 PM — (Reply)
What exactly is "battle stations"? Why would a meeting accomplish anything where Clinton had failed to deal with the terrorists in the past?
Comment by Baffled— 2006/06/20 @ 08:53 PM — (Reply)
If you were interested in the facts, you would already know what going to battle stations meant. Richard Clarke told you what it meant, in the transcript I posted of his appearance on Late Edtion.
And he told you what those meetings accomplished. They were able to "shake the trees" and gather information about the Millenium Threat. And as a result, we were not attacked on New Year's Eve.
Comment by SMillard— 2006/06/20 @ 09:00 PM — (Reply)
well how come "shaking the trees" didn't prevent the embassy bombings or the USS Cole?
Comment by — 2006/06/20 @ 09:05 PM — (Reply)
What really concerns me is what to do now. If you were commander in chief what would you do now (assuming that we are in the present as is)?
Comment by Baffled— 2006/06/21 @ 02:29 PM — (Reply)
I remain interested in your responses to comments 9 and 10.
Comment by Baffled— 2006/06/22 @ 04:43 PM — (Reply)
All you are intested in doing, is coming on here to bash Clinton, and revel in your lack of knowledge of the facts.
I'm sure Elmer's Brother and the rest have instructed you to troll this site.
But I cannot even have an honest debate with you on the issues. Because you refuse to acknowledge basic facts.
You say Bill Clinton failed to deal with terrorist in the past, when the fact is that his leadership helped prevent a Millenium attack within this country.
Do you know why you and the rest of America were able to enjoy your New Year's Eve as 1999 turned to 2000?
Because we had an Administration who was alert, and at battle station.
Comment by SMillard— 2006/06/22 @ 04:58 PM — (Reply)
#10 is a question and I am very interested in your response. I personally have not heard a GREAT idea about what to do from anyone and maybe you have one. No debate here, just interest.
Comment by Baffled— 2006/06/22 @ 05:07 PM — (Reply)
and I don't know who Elmer's Brother is.
Comment by Baffled— 2006/06/23 @ 12:15 AM — (Reply)
So...your idea of debate is I must accept everything you propose as truth or it's not an honest debate? This sounds somewhat fascist to me.
Comment by Baffled— 2006/06/23 @ 12:46 AM — (Reply)
I am more confused than ever. I thought this began as a conservation about what to do going forward in Iraq but the only thing above is finger pointing about the past.
Here is what I think. A fixed date pull out is a bad idea. Continuing to assist the Iraqis in stabilizing the situation and making the terrorists face the fact that they will not win is the sensible course. When this is accomplished, it would be worth considering deploying the troops in Iran since they are already so close.
Comment by Baffled— 2006/06/23 @ 05:23 PM — (Reply)
I gave you documentation and information about how the Clinton Administration prevented the Millenium bombing of LAX; how the Administration went to battle station and was able to gather information about the threat.
And on New Year's Eve, we had an Attorney General who basically stayed at the Justice Department and overnighted there, in case she needed to respond to a threat or attack in this coutnry.
Yet, you basically said Clinton ignored terrorism, when you were given information that unlike Bush, he prevented an attack in this country.
I told you how Condi Rice rebuffed Richard Clarke's request for an "urgent and important" meeting regarding Al Qaeda.
Yet, you refuse to acknowledge these facts.
Regarding Iraq, the simple fact is that our troops have become the target, and the Vice President of Iraq has asked Bush to provide him with a timetable for withdrawal.
Are you going to sit there and tell the Vice President of Iraq he doesn't deserve a timbetable for withdrawal of US forces from his own country?
We are occupiers, and the Iraqi people want their country back. They do not want us making Iraq the 51st state.
Comment by SMillard— 2006/06/23 @ 06:20 PM — (Reply)
Does that mean you favor a timetable? I wonder why it is the Vice President rather than the President making the comments you referred to. Isn't the President in charge?
In terms of what the Iraqi people want, they had an election and voted for the government in power that is working with the United States by an overwhelming majority.
Iraqis do not want terrorists to control Iraq and continue to welcome the support of the United States as the new Iraq emerges as a country.
Comment by Baffled— 2006/06/23 @ 06:41 PM — (Reply)
I can find facts to debunk everything you have written. your perspesctive however is too narrow and blind. your idea of facts come from left wing sources and it's obvious you are deluded. So would you now please enlighten us all with what you would do as commander in chief?
Comment by baffled— 2006/06/23 @ 06:47 PM — (Reply)
As far as terrorists controlling Iraq, terrorists were not even in Iraq before the war. They came to Iraq after the invasion.
In case you missed the point, we turned Iraq into a terrorist country. That is what this war did. We turned the country we said we were going to liberate, into a terrorist country.
And your comment about Iraqis welcoming the support of the U.S. is just laughable.
Our troops have become the target of the people we said we were going to liberate. The Iraqis want us out of their country.
Comment by SMillard— 2006/06/23 @ 06:48 PM — (Reply)
Comment by SMillard— 2006/06/23 @ 06:51 PM — (Reply)
Zarqawi was in Northern Iraq a full year before the war. Now what will you as commander in chief do and how did "shaking the trees" not prevent the embassy bombings and the USS Cole?
Comment by Baffled— 2006/06/23 @ 06:51 PM — (Reply)
In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe. In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.
Comment by you need educated— 2006/06/23 @ 06:59 PM — (Reply)
wait a minute I thought there was no threat from Iraq before the war? Isn't that the liberal mantra. It doesn't seem that you can have it both ways. GWB invades Iraq for what liberals say is not to keep us safe, yet Zarqawi is in Iraq making WMD and you are blaming Bush for not doing enough? I think you are confused.
Comment by you need educated— 2006/06/25 @ 09:03 PM — (Reply)
And you know what? The Bush Administration KNEW that Zarqawi was there, and they PREVENTED the military from gong after him. They had several chances to do so, and yet they prevented the military form carrying out their proposed actions.
Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind
Abu Musab Zarqawi blamed for more than 700 killings in Iraq
By Jim Miklaszewski
Pentagon Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET March 2, 2004
With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.
But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.
In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.
The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.
“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.
Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.
The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.
Rest of the article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
Comment by SMillard— 2006/06/23 @ 07:16 PM — (Reply)
This is all extremely interesting material and it shows excellent research on your part.
You still haven't written what you would do if you were king of the world about Iraq beginning tomorrow. Please do.
Comment by Baffled— 2006/06/23 @ 07:19 PM — (Reply)
If I were Commander-in-Chief, we would not be in Iraq in the first place. I would actually be prosecuting the war on terror- which means finding Osama bin Laden.
Comment by SMillard— 2006/06/23 @ 07:23 PM — (Reply)
Great! Now we are getting to the present. Getting bin Laden is an excellent plan. What would you do beginning tomorrow about Iraq (which assumes that you had nothing to do with invading Iraq in the first place which you didn't)? No matter who did what and what mistakes, if any, were made, errors of judgment or areas of disagreement among reasonable people, what is YOUR plan for Iraq NOW?
Comment by Baffled— 2006/06/23 @ 07:30 PM — (Reply)
For example, George W. Bush has already admitted (and rightly so) that what is happening in Darfur is genocide.
And according to the International Genocide Convention, signatories to that Convention are called upon "to undertake to prevent and to punish" genocide.
Now having said that, I would consider working with the African Union and asking them would they like to accept a US peacekeeping force (comprised of our troops)to help the situation in Darfur.
Comment by SMillard— 2006/06/23 @ 07:52 PM — (Reply)
For example, George W. Bush has already admitted (and rightly so) that what is happening in Darfur is genocide.
And according to the International Genocide Convention, signatories to that Convention are called upon "to undertake to prevent and to punish" genocide.
Now having said that, I would consider working with the African Union and asking them would they like to accept a US peacekeeping force (comprised of our troops)to help the situation in Darfur.
Comment by SMillard— 2006/06/23 @ 07:56 PM — (Reply)
Why not deploy to Iran? Isn't that closer?
Comment by Bafled— 2006/06/23 @ 08:08 PM — (Reply)
Comment by SMillard— 2006/06/23 @ 08:17 PM — (Reply)
Even without "shaking the trees", the public saber rattling and missile strike threatening by President Ahmadinejad is not only destabilizing the region but endangering the world with nucleur destruction in a manner similar to that N. Korean nut Ju. Maybe N. Korea should be the next deployment following Iran.
Comment by Baffled— 2006/06/23 @ 08:29 PM — (Reply)
Why is it ok for the United States to have a nuclear arsenal, and test missiles, and not ok for anyone else?
What makes us the authority on these things?
I believe we should ALL disarm. Every single country with a nuclear arsenal should disarm, and that way this would not even be an issue.
You talk about Iran and North Korea making these so-called threats. But did you ever think that maybe THEY felt threatened when they were labeled part of the "axis of evil."
Maybe they perceive that they are under threat from the United States.
Comment by SMillard— 2006/06/23 @ 08:41 PM — (Reply)
I kind of think the axis of evil label came after the Iran and N. Korea nuclear buildup.
We agree yet again. I am all for no nuclear weapons. The problem is who can be trusted other than the Unite States to be the LAST country with nuclear weapons.
Have you seen the outrageous comments by Iran's President that Israel should dissolve and Germany and Austria should give the Israeli citizens land for a new country and then the Palestinians get all of Palestine with no Israel? What is your take on that one?
Comment by Baffled— 2006/06/23 @ 08:54 PM — (Reply)
But again, I ask, what gives us the right to say who should and should not have nuclear technology?
While we are sitting up there preaching to North Korea and Iran about nukes, the Bush Administration has been trying to increase our nuclear arsenal.
Bush lifted a ban on "mini-nukes" and he signed a defense approprations bill that includes funding for new H-bombs, including mini-nukes.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/26/1535204
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1096298,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1223-05.htm
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901030526-453169,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/09/national/main553172.shtml
Regarding Iran's President, I think the man is certifiable. The craziest of the craziest. Anyone who denies the Holocaust happened obviously has serious issues.
Comment by SMillard— 2006/06/23 @ 09:07 PM — (Reply)