Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Since Clarke himself admitted to Slade Gorton that even if the Bush Administration had put his "plan" into effect on January 26th, it wouldn't have had "the remotest" chance of stopping the 9-11 attack, what's the point of this?

The point of this, dear Patrick, is to once again give evidence that Bush is an incompetent, a liar, and the head of an Administration singularly unconcerned about things of genuine importance in the world.

From Patrick's brother Andrew:

"...the more worrying sign is the way the White House has responded. They have been close to hysterical, defensive to an absurd degree and therefore unpersuasive. Their response to Clarke evokes far more doubts about their pre-9/11 conduct than anything Clarke could have mustered by himself. More evidence that they're losing it. I think they realize they're in trouble and don't know quite how to right themselves. Hence the policy lurches - from Mars to marriage to steroids. The only inference I can draw is that their internal polling data is even more worrisome than the external stuff."

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

Patrick, there are a number of complaints registered by Clarke, slow-boating the "plan" being only one of them. To me, the far more maddening charge is that the administration failed to respond to the increased threat level of the summer with the same kind of institutional panic that foiled the millenium plot. Questioned about whether that might have stopped 9/11, Clarke said "I don't know" but then went on to several of the names and relationships that might have been sussed out from a "shaking the tree" approach to the FBI.

Mmmmmmmmmm, my roses are again well-fed. At this
rate, I'd better by an electric pruner; the hand pruner won't be enough.

Perhaps two pruners, so that one can cool down while I'm using the other.

Heh, great minds think alike.

http://www.juancole.com/2004_03_01_juancole_archive.html#108050808689952938

I believe that the operational point is not whether 9/11 might have been stopped under the policy recommended by Clarke, although that question will always remain legitimate. It would appear that large forces are in motion, to force the Administration to reveal what their actual working policy was, in lieu of Clarke's. We, the public, have not been treated to this yet. There was not a simple abeyance of all policy. There was definitely something put into place. It would appear to be a sort of carrot-and-sticks policy toward the Taliban, which ongoing negatiations caused Bush to send $43 million to the Taliban in May 2001, to threaten them near the end of August (?) with war, and to downplay intel of unprecedented threat chatter in the interim and until the Trade Center attack. The Administration may be hoping to avoid the following headline, unfair as it will be: "How Did Al Qaeda Snooker Bush into Paying for 9/11?" That might sour the remaining one-dimensional Bush supporters on the prospect of another Presidential term. Bush would be beyond recovery, politically.

Chris Mondics of Knight-Ridder Newspapers has reported the truth (IMHO) "the search for scapegoats...has begun. Mistakes,inertia,and apathy...emerge... Pinning blame on any political party will be exceedingly difficult". This is probably a non-political bureaucratic failure ... again.

We need to review and act upon any lessons learned regarding our field operations; and our reliance on foreign intelligence. Is it possible that some intelligence from foreign governments is "planted" in their own interest? The WMD thread needs complete exposure to see how this supposed lie came to be the linchpin for our government to justify attack on Iraq. Who, what,when and how did the WMD become our charge for attack.

R. Clarke's public service motivation may be viewed as self-service. His attacks on the current administration for inaction or erroneous prioritization need review to see if the governments actions prior to 9/11 were derelict. If the dereliction (apathy, inertia) actually existed.

Remember Pearl Harbor.

As has been pointed out Clarke talks with specificity. In answer to Slade Gordon's question about whether the recommendations of January 25 would have prevented 9-11 he said "No". This is not the same as saying that the recommendations would have had no effect on Al Queda and the Taliban. There he gave positive answers.

Asked whether 9-11 could have been prevented in other ways, Clarke's answer was that there were things that should have been done which were not. Specifically, he thought it probable that if procedures similar to what had been adopted in the Millenium scare had been followed there was a resonable chance that at least part of the conspiracy would have been rolled up and that the US would have been better prepared.

Different questions. Different answers, but by conflating them as one the issue is confused.

BTW, Clarke's specificity is a strong indication that Frist's perjury serach is a snipe hunt.

From recent commentary on Bush administration policy, it is increasingly clear that their understanding of terrorism in not the same understanding I have. The Bush/neocon view of terrorism is that terrorist groups cannot have much impact unless they are state supported. This is a carryover from the cold war when RussiaChiaCuba was assumed to be behind every insurrection. It was believed that only by applying pressure to the supporting states could the terrorism be stopped.

To the Bush administration, stopping Palestinian terrorists means destroying the state that sponsors them. They believed and may still believe that bin Laden could not have carried out 911 without state support, not from the Taliban, but from Saddam and Iraq. Thus, the strategy of the Bush administration is not to go after the terrorist network directly (bin Laden) but to focus on the states that they believe support them (Iraq, Iran, NKorea, etc.)

This is the point of departure between Clarke and the Bush adminsitration and the Clinton administration. The Clinton view of bin Laden is one of a loose knit organization that operates independent of state sponsors. The Bush view is that state sponsors such as Iraq are responsible and attacking the states such as Iraq is the way to eliminate the terrorists.

Shorter Richard Clarke:
"This is about having the right policy, not personality".

Shorter Condi Rice:
"Our foreign policy is flawless. Clarke's criticism can only be personal."

Patrick Sullivan wrote:
> Since Clarke himself admitted to Slade Gorton that even if the Bush Administration had put his "plan" into effect on January 26th, it wouldn't have had "the remotest" chance of stopping the 9-11 attack, what's the point of this?

Since when is "Well it wouldn't have made any difference." a sound justification for negligence?

bakho's generous view:
> The Bush/neocon view of terrorism is that terrorist groups cannot have much impact unless they are state supported.

I thought it was "...unless they are already on our enemies list."

What seems obvious to me is that something as simple as a warning to the general public in August would have increased the probability that one or more of the planes would not have reached their target.

"Patrick Sullivan wrote:
> Since Clarke himself admitted to Slade Gorton that even if the Bush Administration had put his "plan" into effect on January 26th, it wouldn't have had "the remotest" chance of stopping the 9-11 attack, what's the point of this?
"

Besides, Jamie Gorelick (sp?) one of the 9/11 commissioners may have got it right when she suggested that Clarke's point was that there was his "policy" part and then a (sorely missing) "operational" part, like there's "strategy" and then "tactics"; his "policy" was a systemic review and correction that was (and is) needed, for the long-term to prevent future 9/11s from developing; but the essential operational part was Clinton's "shaking the trees" process, where he got all departments facing each other daily, questioning and cross-questioning each other, and just the prospect of facing each other under Clinton's hawk-eyes meant they'd always be extra-prepared to present and follow-up every little report from the bowels of FBI offices be they in Arizona, San Diego, or Miami; and so with such scrutiny in place, even something like that little Moussaoui arrest (he was already under arrest in August, I believe!) could possibly have unravelled the 9/11 plot; such hands-on messing-with-the-dirt approach was/is absent in the GWB admin.
- even if you have a policy in place doesn't mean you forget the action/operational plan; and what is the chance that you'll have an operational part at all, if you dont bother to lay down a policy?
Clarke also pulled out some interesting stats on MTP this Sunday - Condi Rice's 100 meetings on non-terrorism programs vs 1 meeting on 9/4 on terrorism (um, a terrorism-related-program-activity?) during their pre-9/11 tenure!

Also look at this wonderful Toles cartoon in WP - bless him!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/tolestom/?name=Toles&date=20040326

What is the chance that all this will bother GWB, and he'll go to his grave (after losing '04), haunted by the faces of the 9/11 victims, the Iraq War dead (US and Iraqi), and the physically and mentally maimed Iraq-war returnees?
What is the chance that some Iraq-vet with 3 or 4 missing limbs will run against, and lose to a Bush brother, son, or in-law a la Max C.?
What is the chance..
Or forget it - Can't let any of that happen!

"Since Clarke himself admitted to Slade Gorton that even if the Bush Administration had put his "plan" into effect on January 26th, it wouldn't have had "the remotest" chance of stopping the 9-11 attack, what's the point of this?"

Bayesian fallacy #1: Concluding from a negative outcome that the decision prior to the unforseen event was wrong.

As a corollary of their belief that only state-sponsored terrorism is important, and also because of obvious political considerations, the administration also downplays the considerable threat of domestic right-wing terrorism.

Probably one of the most dangerous perceptions for a politician to arise is that they "don't care", or "are out of touch", or don't represent the concerns and values of their constituents.

This explains everything from Bush Snr's loss to Max Cleland's reversal. Voters may or may eject politicians over issues, even issues that they disagree with them strenuously about, because most voters are unsure about how to get things accomplished.

They can recognize someone who doesn't give a damn however and will figure that somebody who cares, even if they don't agree with them, is better than somebody who doesn't "get it".

This is why Kerry is still not strongly ahead of Bush despite Bush's misteps. The voters aren't sure whether or not Kerry "get's it".

" I believe that the operational point is not whether 9/11 might have been stopped under the policy recommended by Clarke..."

Well, the point of the 9-11 Commission is to find out what might have worked. If Clarke concludes his list of options wouldn't have, it's hard to see the purpose of his testimony there (other than to promote his book, that is).

What is likely to have worked would have been, no barriers to FBI-CIA cooperation. I.e., eliminate the hard and fast distinction between foreign and domestic intelligence (and the repeal of FISA). But, as soon as someone raised the issue it got shouted down (Tenet, iirc). Apparently 3000 deaths is the price some are willing to pay for that barrier. Seems rather high to me.

" Specifically, he thought it probable that if procedures similar to what had been adopted in the Millenium scare had been followed there was a resonable chance that at least part of the conspiracy would have been rolled up and that the US would have been better prepared."

That was exceptionally self-serving on the part of Clarke. In early December, 1999 a Customs Agent in Port Angeles, WA became suspicious of a traveller (Ahmed Ressam) who became very nervous when questioned about his travels. When he was questioned he bolted, and was apprehended. It was then they searched his car and found explosives. Up to this point Richard Clarke, the CIA, the FBI, or any other intelligence had played little if any part.

This character (Ressem, iirc) cooperated with interogators, and we found out about the plot to send the millenium out with a bang. Literally, on New Year's Eve. There was no such obvious deadline staring us in the face in Sept. 2001.

In fact, reading Clarke's remarks on Meet the Press yesterday, it looks like his sounding the alarm in July may have had the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf effect. People can't keep up a high level alert forever. Without some specific information as to what to look for, the July warning was probably counterproductive.

Patrick simply can't seem to follow this story. So let us simplify.
A) No the plan to aggresively eliminate al Qaeda would not have stopped the September 11 attack
B) Had the FBI recieved the names of the Al Qaeda operatives the CIA had, then September 11 would have been.
Excuse me but I need to vent.
ALL THE 9/11 HIJACJERS WERE KNOWN AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE WATCH LIST. HAD THE CIA TURNED THE NAMES OVER TO THE FBI AT ANY POINT UP TO SEPTEMBER 11 AND UP TO THE TIME THEY BOARDED THE PLANES THEY COULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED. HAD THIS LIST FOLLOWED THE CHANNELS THAT WERE IN OPERATION DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION THEN SEPTEMBER 11 COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED.

This is why the September 12 conversation between Bush, Clarke and others is so stupid. On September 11, as soon as they got the passenger lists, the counter terrorism people knew who all of the hijackers were and that they were al Qaeda terrorists. And once again had the FBI gotten the list and had it been distributed to airport security they would have been detained. Patrick finds Clarke saying something about one topic and ignores what he says about another topic.

Bush Admin: "These pesky terror-alarms are screaming and chattering like never before -- let's pull the batteries out of the darn things."

Patrick writes the following little fiction:
"This character (Ressem, iirc) cooperated with interogators, and we found out about the plot to send the millenium out with a bang."
Rassam was caught in December,1999. However the outline of the millenium plot were known and the country was on a terror alert that fall, before the capture of Rassem.

Like other details found in Clarke this can be confirmed in Coll's _Ghost Wars_ including the unraveloling of the plot by by arrests in Jordan and the Phillipines.

Also in the details related to the turnover of names held by the CIA. There was no legal obstacle to doing this, as Sullivan implies. It has been done routinely for years, and is done today. The exception was during the first months of the Bush administration.

No "e" or "a," huh?

Clarke can still say, "Bush told untruths; Bush must go now." This pretty much gets this gist of what he has to say across.

Seems fair to me.

Ernest Vincent Wright wrote “Gadsby” in 1937, a novel where every single word lacks the letter “e.” Such constraints are known as lipograms. The French novel “La Disparition” by Georges Parec is also devoid of the letter. An English translation called “A Void” (instead of “The Void”) lacks “e” as well. But no “a” as well as no “e,” that’s a tough one. Waldmann is certainly a strict taskmaster.

Marky has a nice point. Bin Laden is, after all, a right-wing terrorist. His apacolyptic vision is not that different from the views of Tim Lehaye, as expressed in the Left Behind series. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/29/books/29BOOK.html Well, except for the part about which religion is to be dominant.

There are clearly many lapses of judgement, and egregious conflicts of interest and even blatant frauds and felonies in EVERY administration, and in every business sector, and in every organized church, and probably even in your own extended family of in-laws, cousin George doing the dime.

What exactly in this administration rises, as Nixon was fond of saying, rises to the level of impeachment? What, as Gore was fond of asking, what was the controlling authority? Because if you can't impeach this Administration right now, de facto and prima fascia, then they will surely walk, and they will surely be re-elected, and they most assuredly will extend their corrupting influence into every sector of American society over the next four agonizing interminable years.

Compared to past impeached US presidents, what have you got? He said, she said? Come on, give me red meat, baby! This is the 21st Century!!

" Patrick simply can't seem to follow this story. So let us simplify.
A) No the plan to aggresively eliminate al Qaeda would not have stopped the September 11 attack"

Since I opened the comments with:

"Since Clarke himself admitted to Slade Gorton that even if the Bush Administration had put his "plan" into effect on January 26th, it wouldn't have had "the remotest" chance of stopping the 9-11 attack, what's the point of this?"

it looks like it's Lawrence who isn't following.

" ALL THE 9/11 HIJACJERS WERE KNOWN AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE WATCH LIST. HAD THE CIA TURNED THE NAMES OVER TO THE FBI AT ANY POINT UP TO SEPTEMBER 11 AND UP TO THE TIME THEY BOARDED THE PLANES THEY COULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED. HAD THIS LIST FOLLOWED THE CHANNELS THAT WERE IN OPERATION DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION THEN SEPTEMBER 11 COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED."

Excuse me? The CIA was headed by the same man, George Tenet, in the Bush Admin. as in Clinton's. Is Lawrence under the impression that W. or Condi ordered Tenet not to cooperate with the FBI?

At any rate, it is rather ridiculous to claim it is I who, "can't seem to follow this story", when there is NOTHING AT ALL about terrorist names on the "watch list" in the Waldman piece Prof. DeLong cites.

"This is why the September 12 conversation between Bush, Clarke and others is so stupid. On September 11, as soon as they got the passenger lists, the counter terrorism people knew who all of the hijackers were and that they were al Qaeda terrorists."

Which doesn't mean that there can't have been an Iraqi connection. Especially given the links to Iraq in the 1993 WTC bombing.

"And once again had the FBI gotten the list and had it been distributed to airport security they would have been detained. Patrick finds Clarke saying something about one topic and ignores what he says about another topic."

I'm just following THIS STORY. Which is about Clarke's "plan", not about the names of the hijackers.

"Also in the details related to the turnover of names held by the CIA. There was no legal obstacle to doing this, as Sullivan implies. It has been done routinely for years, and is done today. The exception was during the first months of the Bush administration."

Of course, I didn't say anything about turning over the names of the hijackers. This is merely Lawrence changing the subject (or not being able to follow this story).

However, there clearly are restrictions to cooperation between the foreign and domestic intelligence services. J. Edgar Hoover saw to that back in the 1940s. And, as I said, when that was questioned by one of the commissioners, it was immediately and vociferously ruled beyond the pale by George Tenet.

Further, when FISA and its background (the Church and Pike Committees) was alluded to, by both Bob Kerrey and Richard Clarke, they seemed to brush off its role in preventing the search warrant for Moussaoui's laptop where Mohammed Atta's phone number was later found.

Here is Sandy Berger testifying under oath, and supporting Condi Rice's version of "the plan", back in September 2002:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh092302.shtml

-----------quote------------
BERGER: Now, the second question you asked—which comes off of the Time magazine story, I think—was there a plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition? I could address that.

The transition, as you will recall, was condensed by virtue of the election in November. I was very focused on using the time that we had—I had been on the other side of a transition with General Scowcroft in 1992. But we used that time very efficiently to convey to my successor the most important information—what was going on and what situations they faced.

Number one among those was terrorism and Al Qaida. And I told that to my successor. She has acknowledged that publicly, so I’m not violating any private conversation. We briefed them fully on what we were doing—on what else was under consideration and what the threat was. I personally attended part of that briefing to emphasize how important that was. But there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect.
-------------endquote-----------

My good God. I think Rich C from NSC could still hold his own with such prohibitions, don't you? This guy isn't dumb.

I have written a book on the US prison system, "Gates of Injustice: The Crisis in America's Prisons" (ISBN 0131 427911) which is coming out next week. The publisher is Financial Times Prentice Hall. It already has some very positive reviews. Sen. Edward Kennedy calls it "a wake up call for federal, state and local governments across America." The former Republican leader of the California State Assembly also endorses it. Amnesty International's secretary general Irene Kahn and Human Rights Watch U.S. director Jamie Fellner have also contributed back cover comments praising and recommending the book.

The book includes chapters the special problems women face in prison, male rape, the plight of the mentally ill, the finances of prisons, the operations of racist gangs in the prison system, on conditions in supermaximum security prisons, conditions on death rows around the nation, the jail system and many more pressing issues. There's more information on my website, www.alanelsner.com. as well as a link to amazon.com to order it. The book also lists many practical suggestions that would vastly improve the current situation and help in prisoner rehabilitation and reduce recidivism.
I'm sure your readers would find it and the issues it raises very interesting.

Sincerely,
alan elsner

Inertia is not limited to matter.

Online casinos organized by payouts, bonuses and casino popularity

Just as a solid rock is not shaken by the storm, even so the wise are not affected by praise or blame.

Vidistine nuper imagines moventes bonas? - Seen any good movies lately?

109 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

8950 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

5400 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

7799 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

4568 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

5715 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

7278 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

2947 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com