NYT Editorial: Assessing the Blame for 9/11

[grytpype]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/25/opinion/25THU1.html?hp

But there was at least no question about the Clinton administration's commitment to combat terrorism, and on occasion, like the December 1999 alert that appears to have averted an attack on the Los Angeles airport, it produced results.

The attitude of the Bush administration seems harder to pin down. Mr. Clarke's conclusion was that after George Bush became president, neither he nor the terrorism agenda got the same top-level attention. The Bush administration officials who testified denied that vociferously. Their arguments suffered from the absence of Condoleezza Rice, the person to whom Mr. Clarke reported. Ms. Rice has been doing the rounds of talk shows in an attempt to bolster her argument that the administration had found Mr. Clarke's plans wanting and immediately began a full-bore effort to come up with a new antiterrorism strategy. What the nation deserved to hear her address publicly before the commission is why that process took eight months. A new plan was not approved by the White House until the eve of the terror attack on Sept. 11, 2001.

...

Despite attempts by a few commission members to paint Mr. Clarke as a disgruntled former employee trying to get publicity for his new book, the former counterterrorism chief was an impressive, reasonable witness. He has done the country a service in focusing attention on the failures leading up to 9/11. The only problem with his apology was that so few of those failures really seemed to be his.

<more>

[The Zanti Regent]

1. Hmmm the Screw York Times has some inconsistencies...

Looks like the Editorial Page is saying something different than the rest of this republican WHOREGAN is.

See http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh032404.shtml

Lok at Bob Somersby's incomparable archives and see how Seelye, Bumiller, and the other Screw York Times Whores blame it on the Cleeeenis!

[Beetwasher]

2. I Like This Line:

"The only problem with his apology was that so few of those failures really seemed to be his."

The whole editorial is pretty good actually...

[DataCoder]

3. Clarke is a warhawk...

Quite a hawk. And, though I don't agree with his methods ("Bomb them now!"), he seems genuinely sorry he couldn't get through to Dubya. So I think his apology may have been genuine, though they don't excuse the guilt of the bush admin.

I'm new here, and this is a BIG board, so I guess this may have been covered before, but Bush and Cheney obviously had plans to get Saddam long before 9/11. This current committee is establishing this even more clearly to the conservatives:

[Beetwasher]

4. Welcome!

Yes, you're correct, Iraq was on the menu WAY before 9/11. Do a Google on PNAC. There's lot's on this board about it. You'll find DU to be a terrific source for all kinds of great information and interesting discussion.

Clarke is/was definitely a hawk and was very aggressive in his approach to terrorism, but he's also apparently a straight shooter and quite sincere. I'm w/ you, I may not personally be as hawkish, but I can respect him. He was quite prescient though in retrospect, and perhaps if the gov't followed his hawkish suggestions, 9/11 could have been prevented. Unfortunately, we'll never know...

[diamond14]

5. Welcome to DU, DataCoder...we're glad you joined us !!!

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[newyawker99]

6. Hi DataCoder!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: