I don't think I could have made it much more clear that I don't blame Clinton for failing to be omniscient. The guy made the best decisions he could with the information he had.

I think the Clinton/Reno/Gorelick law enforcement mentality to terrorism was basically flawed, but beyond that, he defended the country as best he knew how like any POTUS would.

We live in a democracy, as its elected leader reflected the mentality of the public. As it should.

Yes Art, but you keep injecting politics into it by mentioning Clinton. Things didn't get better under Bush either until his hand was forced by 9/11.

---

_______________________________________________

Agree that Saddam wouldn't have interfered given that he had offered, on more than on occasion (per the Senate Intell Cmte his support to Al Qaeda

Not exactly a true statement now, is that. Feel free to provide citations if you'd like to disagree.Disagree that the no-fly zone gave any high degree of protection from Saddam--he still had tanks, trucks, artillery and an army.

Then why didnt he use that army to overrun the Kurds? I surmise that Saddam was fully aware of the existence of the Al-Qaeda/Ansar al-Islam (or whatever) camp and was fully supportive of their goals and objectives (as long as they included attacks agianst the US/Allies).


Yes and no. 1 is was Ansar, not Al Qaeda. 2. their goals and objectives were primarily to fight the Kurds (something Saddam definitely could get behind). They might have branched out to more global targets, but there's no evidence that they did so.It is well documented that Zarqawi came to Iraq from Afghanistan. In Iraq he was medically treated for wounds sustained during the overthrow of the Taliban/Al Qaeda by the US/Allies/Northern Alliance. If there was "no formal connection," what was he doing in Afghanistan at that time?

He had his own group (al-Tawid), and his own camp in Afghanistan. He was focused on overthrowing the Jordanian government. I'm pretty sure he had contacts with Bin Laden's group, but was not a formal member of Al Qaeda. If he was, why on earth would be pledge his allegiance to Al Qaeda in 2004? (and a couple of days later, hedge on that pledge)

"Taking out a camp" without being on the ground is problematic at best. Notwithstanding Bosnia, (which most military strategists acknowledge as a fluke) the use of air power alone usually doesn't accomplish a mission such as that.

Bosnia isn't a camp. We certainly could have taken out the camp with a missle. Of course that wouldn't guarantee we would have taken out the leadership, but then again, neither does a multi-month-long military buildup to an announced ground invasion.If, as the article pointed out, that the NSC (which consists of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Advisor) turned down the option of "taking out the camp" not once, but twice, I'd venture to guess they had some valid reason to do so. Five generals/admirals with 150-200 years of politico-military experience is nothing to sneeze at

Nonsense. Just because the decision was "debated to death" in the NSC does not mean any of the Joint Chiefs opposed the strike. The article doesn't mention any of the NCS players specifically (the NSC which also includes Cheney, Rumsfield, Condi, Hadley, Card) Regardless, that plan could have been vetoed by Bush alone - the buck stops with him.

---

_______________________________________________

Conclusion 93 of the Senate Intelligence Committee report, page 346, states that CIA reports that contacts existed between Iraq and Al-Qaeda were reasonable.

The CIA reported that 1-200 Al Qaeda, including Al Zarqawi, were in NE Iraq, in or near camps of Ansar Al-Islam. The CIA reported that Iraq secret police were aware of their existence and that Iraq, at least tacitly allowed it. Conclusion 95, page 347, states that the CIA was justified in making this analysis.

On page 324 of the report, Al Zarqawi is identified by captured Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubadayeh as "an important Al Qaeda associate."

Hundreds of cruise missiles fired into Afghanistan under the Clinton Administration didn't "take out" any camps.

The article stated that "the NSC" nixed the plans to attack this camp, not the President.

Conclusion 93 of the Senate Intelligence Committee report, page 346, states that CIA reports that contacts existed between Iraq and Al-Qaeda were reasonable.

The mere existence of contacts isn't saying Saddam "had offered, on more than on occasion (per the Senate Intell Cmte.), his support to Al Qaeda." and you know it. Didn't the CIA report also say that these contacts didn't go anywhere?

The CIA reported that 1-200 Al Qaeda, including Al Zarqawi, were in NE Iraq, in or near camps of Ansar Al-Islam. The CIA reported that Iraq secret police were aware of their existence and that Iraq, at least tacitly allowed it. Conclusion 95, page 347, states that the CIA was justified in making this analysis.


Sure, I don't think Saddam was too opposed to Ansar (and any others they may have been harboring, as long as they were anti-Kurd, anti-Jew, and anti-West), but again, he was opposed to the PUK but coudn't seem to do anything about them either. "Tacitly allowing" Ansar to operate doesn't mean anything when Saddam couldn't have done anything about it if he wasn't going to allow it. He simply had no means to operate militarily in the Kurdish areas without his army being shot down by American air power. It's not the same thing as harboring terrorists.

On page 324 of the report, Al Zarqawi is identified by captured Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubadayeh as "an important Al Qaeda associate."

"Associate" doesn't mean he was taking orders from Bin Laden. If he was, a pledge of allegiance in 2004 would be unnecesary.



Hundreds of cruise missiles fired into Afghanistan under the Clinton Administration didn't "take out" any camps.


Yeah thy did, and they set back Al Qaeda temporaily. They just didnt get the senior leadership, so in the long run they weren't effective. Of course the best way to guarantee you'll never touch the senior leadership is to not even try.

The article stated that "the NSC" nixed the plans to attack this camp, not the President.

Read again:



"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."

It never says who killed it the first time, and there's certainly no mention that the NSC was united in it's decision. In fact. the phrase "debated to death" makes it sound like there was some serious dissention. The only thing we know, is that Bush favored killing the attack plans, since his is the only opinion that is final. The second strike was killed by the White House (not the JCS). Saying that experienced generals argued against it is total crap.. there's not a shred of evidence that that is true.

---

_______________________________________________

From the White House's own Web pages:

"The National Security Council is chaired by the President."

Sheesh. The buck stops where?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

[reply][reply]

The article stated that "the NSC" nixed the plans to attack this camp, not the President. [/reply]



From the White House's own Web pages:

"The National Security Council is chaired by the President."

Sheesh. The buck stops where?[/reply]

Depends. Maybe that was his vacation quarter?

Others would disagree (like former Senator Gorton (R-WA)) about the Reno/Gorelick crap: http://mediamatters.org/items/200508230008

Also note that the Able Danger story seems to have nothing behind it. The second source that supposedly corroborates the original Atta claim apparently got the information from Philpotts himself.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Of course Gorton is defending the commission he is on and his partisan colleague. That is his job.

Others agree. In particular check out Mary Jo White's memos to Gorelick and others that seem prescient today.

I wouldn't count out the Able Danger link yet. A lot of information has yet to come out. I suggest you reserve judgment.

The Able Danger stuff is interesting. The Pentagon is saying they can't find info corroborating what Shaffer heard via the Naval Officer(name escaping me) and the civilian contractor. In addition, it appears that the Bush admin(it was the DoD under Rummy that ended it) is the one that ended Able Danger. Furthermore, Zelikow, the executive director of the Commission, has extremely close ties with Rice and was promoted in the State Department. Lots of interesting twists.

As for Gorelick and the "wall", lots of misinformation out there on that one. First, it appears that the "wall" started some time in the 80's. According to the FISA Court of Review, the "wall" originated "sometime in the 1980s -- the exact moment is shrouded in historical mist". The infamous Gorelick memo that supposedly created the wall did no such thing. It mentioned limited information sharing between some intelligence agencies and the criminal division of the DOJ. However, it specifically encouraged info sharing between other agencies outside of that specific institution(in fact, as I read the memo, it appears there was to be no info sharing on two specific ongoing criminal investigations). Furthermore, Ashcroft's DOJ drafted a memo which stated that policies from Gorelick's '96 memo remained in effect.

Anyhoo, lots of information out there, but not quite enough.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

I agree the Able Danger stuff is interesting. I am pretty sure an accurate picture will eventually emerge. It may get lost in the public eye with exaggerated claims and spins that prove premature, but I am pretty sure the real story will emerge.

Gorelick didn't build the wall. I don't understand the mist comment. It started with some of the disasterous Church Committee "reforms" and legislation from that in the late 70s. Gorelick/Reno/Clinton reinforced the wall with their attorneys will protect us mentality. It went out of control in the prosecution of the first World Trade Center attack trials. That was what got Mary Jo White so ticked off.

None of this is to necessarily attack Gorelick and company. They were lawyers making the kinds of decisions that lawyers make. The 9/11 Commission didn't pay enough attention to this structural defect, though at least a lot of it was fixed by the Patriot Act. How much? I don't know.

We need to keep lawyers out of the loop on national defense matters. If we don't, expect more avoidable disasters. Mullah Omar, the former Taliban leader, is a similar but unrelated disaster. The military had him in their sites early in the Afghanistan war, but a lawyer told them not to pull the trigger.

Our lawyers are not going to protect us. I am not confident we have learned this lesson yet.