Report Ends Much Debate

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Report Ends Much Debate
53
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 5:47pm
WOLFOWITZ--STRIKE BIN LADEN HARD
Richard Clarke has gone after Paul Wolfowitz very aggressively as Mr. Iraq who had no interest in bin Laden. But check out page 214, describing a pre-9/11 debate over the Predator. Wolfowitz wanted a robust military option:

"The Defense Department favored strong action. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz questioned the United States’ ability to deliver Bin Ladin and bring him to justice. He favored going after Bin Ladin as part of a larger air strike, similar to what had been done in the 1986 U.S. strike against Libya. General Myers emphasized the Predator’s value for surveillance, perhaps enabling broader air strikes that would go beyond Bin Ladin to attack al Qaeda’s training infrastructure."
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_07_18_corner-archive.asp#036402

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 7:02pm

Clinton administration was trying

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 7:20pm

Berger did have something to coverup:


"

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 7:25pm

Impeachment was a factor in how administration dealt with Al Queda:


"

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 7:25pm
Umm, I notice your spending a lot of time talking to yourself on this board. I wonder, does this happens as much at home?

Maybe a dog?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 7:38pm

This isn't from the report, but it should end any question that Sandy Berger doesn't have a history of exhibiting very poor judgement, and raise the issue of why Clinton & Kerry held him in such high reguard:


<

Eighty opposition Republicans earlier wrote to Mr Clinton saying they wanted Mr Berger to resign.


"Mr Berger has failed in his responsibility as this nation's national security advisor by not properly informing you of the most serious espionage ever committed against the United States," the lawmakers said in the letter.


They said he knew of concerns about Chinese espionage, but delayed taking action.>>


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/354938.stm

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 7:40pm

We are in a real war war with Islamofascism:


<>


Chapter 12, "What To Do? A Global Strategy" (page 378 of pdf)

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 7:44pm
You're only talking to yourself if there's no one around to listen.

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 7:55pm

They really are trying to convert or kill us.


"As we mentioned in chapter 2, Usama Bin Ladin and other Islamist terrorist leaders draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within one stream of Islam (a minority tradition), from at least Ibn Taimiyyah, through the founders of Wahhabism, through the Muslim Brotherhood, to Sayyid Qutb. That stream is motivated by religion and does not distinguish politics from religion, thus distorting both. It is further fed by grievances stressed by Bin Ladin and widely felt throughout the Muslim world—against the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, policies perceived as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, and support of Israel. Bin Ladin and Islamist terrorists mean exactly what they say: to them America is the font of all evil, the “head of the snake,” and it must be converted or destroyed."


Chapter 12, "What To Do? A Global Strategy" (page 378 of pdf)

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 7:58pm

We must eradicate Islamofascism:


"It is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground—not even respect for life—on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated."


Chapter 12, "What To Do? A Global Strategy" (page 378 of pdf)

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 8:18pm

Richard Clark only told half the story in his book and in his public testimony:


'Lehman says that Clarke's original testimony included "a searing indictment of some Clinton officials and Clinton policies." That was the Clarke, evenhanded in his criticisms of both the Bush and Clinton administrations, who Lehman and other Republican commissioners expected to show up at the public hearings. It was a surprise "that he would come out against Bush that way." Republicans were taken aback: "It caught us flat-footed, but not the Democrats...We were hijacked by a combination of Viacom and the Kerry campaign in the handling of Clarke's testimony."


http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200407221712.asp

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~