|
slvemike4u -> RE: Democrats 'shocked' about foreign money (10/21/2010 6:38:57 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: luckydawg
No tazzy that paragraph says,
"All his aides testified to us that they based their advice solely on national security considerations. We have found no reason to question their statements. The failure of the strikes, the "wag the dog" slur, the intense partisanship of the period, and the nature of the al Shifa evidence likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against Bin Ladin. Berger told us that he did not feel any sense of constraint.52"
very different than what pogo alleged.
In fact Sandy Berger testified that they were not Constrained by the criticism.
Thre is a lot of great stuff that everyone should read on that page though.
from the next paragraph,
"Despite the availability of information that al Qaeda was a global network, in 1998 policymakers knew little about the organization. The reams of new information that the CIA's Bin Ladin unit had been developing since 1996 had not been pulled together and synthesized for the rest of the government. Indeed, analysts in the unit felt that they were viewed as alarmists even within the CIA. A National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism in 1997 had only briefly mentioned Bin Ladin, and no subsequent national estimate would authoritatively evaluate the terrorism danger until after 9/11. Policymakers knew there was a dangerous individual, Usama Bin Ladin, whom they had been trying to capture and bring to trial. Documents at the time referred to Bin Ladin "and his associates" or Bin Ladin and his "network." They did not emphasize the existence of a structured worldwide organization gearing up to train thousands of potential terrorists.53 "
The GOP was not spewing wag the dog shit. Show me one request the Republicans in Congress turned down.
The left was up in arms over the bombing of an "asprin factory" in Sudan.
Your report specifically does not name Republicans as the "wag the Dog Slurers" but says Public Commentary.
and it was the left and europeons sayign these attacks would create thousands of new terrorists.
"Berger was particularly rankled by an editorial in the Economist that said that only the future would tell whether the U.S. missile strikes had "created 10,000 new fanatics where there would have been none."49
Much public commentary turned immediately to scalding criticism that the action was too aggressive. The Sudanese denied that al Shifa produced nerve gas, and they allowed journalists to visit what was left of a seemingly harmless facility. President Clinton, Vice President Gore, Berger, Tenet, and Clarke insisted to us that their judgment was right, pointing to the soil sample evidence. No independent evidence has emerged to corroborate the CIA's assessment.50 "
everyone should read this chapter.... http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch4.htm
Try reading the colored portion again lucky....or is it your belief that NCA should send a missile up anyone's ass....disregarding civilian casulties...we so choose.
Now 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing...but unfortunately we didn't know then what we know now.Perhaps Nancy Reagan and her tea leaves should have been consulted.
|
|
|
|
