Egyptians storm US embassy...

My use of"apparently" is my take on the fact that the Ambassador went and stayed in Benghazi without dramatic increase in security precautions; no one at state interviewed so far has indicated Stevens was concerned to the point of leaving Benghazi or requesting more security.

 

1. All but one of the 1993 Word Trade Center bombing conspirators were arrested, and imprisoned; the one who wasn't, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to iraq where he was imprisoned and died there in 2002....what kind of response did you wish to see, other than criminal convictions at that time, given the deeply-structural problems, as such pertained to anti-terrorist activities, within the existing government agencies at that time?

2. Regarding the 'missed opportunities' in 1999 to which you and former CIA employee Crompton refer, here are two efforts that are known: Feb 9-11 1999, when OBL may have been at his Sheikh Ali Camp...unfortunately, there were also several officials there from the UAE (which supported the Taliban at that time and until 9/11), so CIA Director Tenet was consulted and agreed that the intelligence was "dubious," hence, no action. (P 137-138, The 9/11 Commission Report)...the other effort to kill OBL took place in May, 1999, while OBL was reportedly sighted in and around Kandahar (for five days and nights). Again, and to the point, the decision not to call in the missile strike was Director Tenet's. (P 140-141, The 9/11 Commission Report).

Don't get me wrong here. Sure, there were political considerations weighing in on the plans, but accept the fact that Clinton did issue a 'capture or kill' order on OBL. There were tremendous internal and external problems to overcome in order to get that job accomplished. By the way, the military leadership wasn't all that eager to just wade into the situation back then; there were 'considerations' at the Pentagon just as there were at the WH and CIA.

Forget the '80's for now... let's start back in the '70's...Black September and...the Society of Muslim Brotherhood. What should the U.S. have done then about those two organizations?

 

Who did Tenet answer too?


And it wasn't just a reported sighting, we had live footage of it all......Clinton dropped the proverbial ball on this, which directly led to 3000+ deaths. I guess the total of 223 deaths caused by AQ in various attacks during his watch wasn't enough for him to pull the trigger at the Tarnak Farm sighting.

 

Now we have a genuine conversation about something really critical: does the intelligence agency 'answer' to someone (in the Executive Branch) or does it offer up exactly what it knows from the most reliable sources and what it reliably predicts? Are you sugggesting that the Executive Branch is the driving force behind intelligence, i.e., the 'boss' that wants intel reports that support its point of view? What President do you know of has substituted his own information and experience for the advice of the intelligence agency directors?

You can blame Clinton if you so desire, but there's more than enough 'blame' to go around, and it gets more intense as 2001 rolls around.

 

But of course it does!!! I wouldn't have expected any other reply, it just took awhile.

Thanks for making my point about your obvious slant in politics.

 

Charles,

I will not go back and forth with you as we all know how effective a time waster arguing on the Intratardwebz can be.

You have refuted nothing I've posted, yet claim knowledge of one side's direct action protocol.

For some reason I doubt it.

Another point not mentioned is the denial that a particular threat was viable by a certain party, for FAR too LONG.
History is clear, if you want to actually look at it.

Best, out,

DH

edited to add: Kinder, gentler words.

 

??? I don't quite get your 'slant' proposition. You apparently are under the impression that I favor a political party. I don't. My position is a pox on both parties.

 

We all do what we can and what we must. There is no such thing as 'wasting' time. You are, like me, free to come and go, discuss/debate or not. And history is far from being as 'clear' as you may think.

 

History is written by the winners.

 

And rewritten by losers.

 

Who can't read.

 

I feel like i've been put through a 'jihad' here.

 

Another thing we'll agree to disagree on. There most certainly IS such a thing as wasting time.

As for history "far from being clear" well, maybe to you and the handwringers.

I think history can be and often is crystal clear.

The question a few posts back was in regards to how Slick Willie Klinton will be viewed by history. Piss poor is my thinking.

19 years ago TODAY, was The Battle of Mogadishu that resulted in many warrior's lives being lost.
Klinton did not allocate sufficient assets and then turned tail a few days later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)



RIP Warriors.

DH

 

Shameful report!

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blog...curity-team-110215220--abc-news-politics.html

 

Shameful, yes, unexpected? No.

Every time we have a weak administration that believes we can reason and appease savages, these type of events occur.

Shameful indeed.

DH

 

And in your "crystal clear" interpretation of history, you see Clinton as the sole decision-maker in the United Nations effort in Somalia? You don't find it important to mention that it was a United Nations intervention from the beginning? Did Clinton also draft and implement the United Nations Security Council Resolution 837? Maybe you are handing the office of the President a bit more power than the office provides. Maybe your 'crystal clear' rendition of this is essentially flawed.

But go on, anyway; tell me how, exactly, you would have accomplished the objective regarding the arrest of General Aidid, as set forth by the Resolution 837. What 'sufficient assets' would you have provided to the U.N. to accomplish that task?

 

Here we go again! Spell out your game plan, what would you have us (are we acting alone, or in concert with other nations?) do about, for example, Hezbollah or Hamas? Speaking of which, how about the truck bombing of the Marine facility at the Beirut Airport back in October 1983, during President Reagan's administration, which killed 241 Marines? That attack followed the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April 1983, which killed 17 Americans, mainly CIA operatives in the ME, and 46 other people. Reagan's response was to withdraw the Marines in Febrary 1984; he called it a "redeployment.' What would you have done, given the same circumstances?

 

Klinton was CINC. Plain and simple. So now the UN controls US troop movement and operations ? Really ??

The UN ?? The country club for despots, Tango-trash, and human rights violators ?? That one ?? The one that the USA PAYS for, THAT one ??

That's funny.

Only thing "flawed" here is your idea of what command is.

Obviously your hero Slick Willie Klinton's response and high tail exfil from Somalia worked wonders as those murderous savages are still in need of some
good 'ole fashioned USA whoop-ass.

Do you ever read anything other than comic books ??

I find your gross simplification of the days before, during and after Op Gothic Serpent laughable.

It's called a clue, Chuck, get one.

DH

 

Oh, trust me Chuck, I know all about those attacks.

I will refrain however, from writing "what would you/I have done" as this is a family site and my filter really sucks.

DH

 

Charles, you're an impressive dude with all these facts, do you always know them BEFOREHAND or do you go looking it up when someone says something you don't like?

BTW- Did this Admin go seek UN approval before getting involved in deposing the Egyptian President? What about Libya?