Alternate History Take II -

[_dmp_]

NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's highest office came as little surprise following almost four years of remonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre attack on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.

Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it now seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that Saudi Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an attack on the United States.

Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10 bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and, in all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King Live," said the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal likely would bring charges of genocide against Bush.

Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of 19 foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and seizure.

Kerry's campaign mantra - "You go to war because you have to, not because you want to" - clearly resonated with Americans as they tried to make sense of Bush's Sept. 10 attack on Afghanistan. Neither the president, nor national security adviser Condoleezza Rice convincingly defended their actions during the recent "9-10 Commission" hearings, which Congress ordered in response to public outcry.

The commission's purpose was to try to determine what compelled the president to launch a war against Afghanistan. What kind of intelligence suggested that such an act was justified?

The main target of the attack was bin Laden, friend to Afghanistan's brutal Taliban regime, as well as al-Qaida training camps in that war-ravaged nation. Al-Qaida, an international terrorist network, has been blamed for numerous attacks on U.S. interests, including the USS Cole bombing, which killed 17 sailors.

Even though Bush's military campaign was successful in ending the oppressive Taliban regime, bin Laden apparently escaped and al-Qaida continues to flourish.

Some intelligence sources speculate that bin Laden's operatives may be trying to secure weapons of mass destruction from Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Even though Saddam continues to send money to the families of Palestinian terrorists and is believed to have programs for developing WMD, Kerry says he is committed to containing Saddam through continued sanctions and the U.N. oil-for-food program.

In any case, experts say that intelligence about Saddam's WMD program is just as speculative as was the intelligence that prompted Bush to attack Afghanistan. The man credited with sounding the alarm on bin Laden and al-Qaida was Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism expert who has served four presidents, including Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton.

In a Jan. 25 memo to Rice, for instance, Clarke urged immediate attention to several items of national security interest: the Northern Alliance, covert aid, a significant new '02 budget authority to help fight al-Qaida and a response to the USS Cole.

At Rice's and Clarke's urging, Bush called a meeting of principals and, after "connecting the dots," decided to wage war against Afghanistan. What did the dots say? Not much, in retrospect. Apparently, the president decided to bomb a benign country on the basis of "chatter" that hinted at "something big."

With no other details on the "big," and weaving together random bits of information from a variety of questionable sources, Bush and company decided that 19 fundamentalist Muslim fanatics would fly airplanes into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon on 9-11.

Under questioning by the "9-10 Commission," Clarke denied that his memo was anything more than a historical overview with a "set of ideas and a paper, mostly." The bipartisan commission concluded, therefore, that Bush's "dot-connecting" had destroyed American credibility and subjected the United States to increasing hostility in the Arab-Muslim world.

Last week, Saddam Hussein and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat joined French and German leaders in condemning Bush and urging the American voters to cast their ballots for regime change in America. President Kerry was the clear response to that call.

In a flourish of irony and the spirit of bon vivant for which the new president is widely known, Kerry gave his acceptance speech from Windows on the World, the elegant restaurant atop the World Trade Center's Tower One.

Contact Kathleen Parker

 

[acludem]

Now this one is a crock. There was and is still no credible intelligence that Saddam had an active WMD program. Even if Bush had responded to Clarke, the answer wouldn't have been to go to war in Afghanistan, it would've been to fund more security for airports and airplanes (i.e. air marshalls, etc.)

The fact is when Bush took office terorrism was not high on his list of priorities. It was high on the list of Clinton's priorities when he left office. At the time, maybe Bush was justified in looking at other problems first, but he, and especially Condoleeza Rice simply ignored repeated warnings from Richard Clarke and others about the possibility of terrorist attacks in the U.S. That combined with failures by both the FBI and CIA, IMHO is what made it possible for 9/11 to unfold. I do not place all of the blame on this administration. Clearly, the Clinton administration could've done a better job with terrorism as well, but at least they did something. The problems in the FBI and CIA run way deeper than just the period immediately before 9/11 occurred.

I take strong issue with this whiny attitude from people on the right about the 9/11 commission. Bush appointed this people so it's not like they're going to go on a witch hunt against him.

acludem

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by acludem
Now this one is a crock. There was and is still no credible intelligence that Saddam had an active WMD program. Even if Bush had responded to Clarke, the answer wouldn't have been to go to war in Afghanistan, it would've been to fund more security for airports and airplanes (i.e. air marshalls, etc.)

The fact is when Bush took office terorrism was not high on his list of priorities. It was high on the list of Clinton's priorities when he left office. At the time, maybe Bush was justified in looking at other problems first, but he, and especially Condoleeza Rice simply ignored repeated warnings from Richard Clarke and others about the possibility of terrorist attacks in the U.S. That combined with failures by both the FBI and CIA, IMHO is what made it possible for 9/11 to unfold. I do not place all of the blame on this administration. Clearly, the Clinton administration could've done a better job with terrorism as well, but at least they did something. The problems in the FBI and CIA run way deeper than just the period immediately before 9/11 occurred.

I take strong issue with this whiny attitude from people on the right about the 9/11 commission. Bush appointed this people so it's not like they're going to go on a witch hunt against him.

acludem

WoW!! Anyone wanna take this one and crush it to shreds??? Shall I??

 

[preemptingyou03]

Go ahead, DMP... I'm getting tired of it.

 

[Hobbit]

Originally posted by acludem
Now this one is a crock. There was and is still no credible intelligence that Saddam had an active WMD program. Even if Bush had responded to Clarke, the answer wouldn't have been to go to war in Afghanistan, it would've been to fund more security for airports and airplanes (i.e. air marshalls, etc.)

The fact is when Bush took office terorrism was not high on his list of priorities. It was high on the list of Clinton's priorities when he left office. At the time, maybe Bush was justified in looking at other problems first, but he, and especially Condoleeza Rice simply ignored repeated warnings from Richard Clarke and others about the possibility of terrorist attacks in the U.S. That combined with failures by both the FBI and CIA, IMHO is what made it possible for 9/11 to unfold. I do not place all of the blame on this administration. Clearly, the Clinton administration could've done a better job with terrorism as well, but at least they did something. The problems in the FBI and CIA run way deeper than just the period immediately before 9/11 occurred.

I take strong issue with this whiny attitude from people on the right about the 9/11 commission. Bush appointed this people so it's not like they're going to go on a witch hunt against him.

acludem

My turn. *cracks knuckles*

So terrorism wasn't Bush's #1 until after 9/11, but seriously, who thought it would happen. No even Clarke (who was an intelligent and respectable man until recently) predicted a terror attack of this magnitude. Even then, the first few months of any president's term is spent gathering your stuff together and reviewing all the notes left by the previous administration. Then Bush got hit with corporate scandal and stem cell controversy. Clinton, however, had 8 years. He turned down three offers of Osama bin Laden on a silver platter. All he did to combat terrorism is turn it all over to the FBI and lob a few cruise missiles and bombs into Afghanistan and Iraq, oh and destroyed an aspirin factory in Libya, and all of those came around large events in the Lewinsky scandal. Clinton ignored terrorism.

The 9/11 commission are the ones who are whining. They drilled Condoleeza Rice until she finally came on, then they didn't want to let her talk.

As for intelligence regarding WMD's, there was enough to convince everybody except France, Germany, and Russia, and I think they only pretended to no believe, since they had oil interests there. The big difference is that Bush acted on that information.

 

[preemptingyou03]

Hobbit, some WMD claims were GIVEN to us by France, Russia, and Germany! That's why it's such a crock! Germany told us that Saddam would have three nuclear weapons by 2005! France and Russia voted in Resolution 1441 that Saddam had WMD, violated resolutions, and should be removed if he didn't show us his WMDs!

Everyone... even nations that pussed out, (because of oil contracts) thought Saddam had WMD!

 

[preemptingyou03]

On 11/8/02, the UNSC passed Resolution 1441. The resolution stated:

The resolution states that Iraq remains in material breach of council resolutions relating to Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and requires that Baghdad give UNMOVIC and IAEA a complete and accurate declaration of all aspects of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and ballistic missiles systems, as well as information on other chemical, biological, and nuclear programs that are supposed to be for civilian purposes, within 30 days.

This did not happen.

All 15 council members voted for the resolution: permanent members China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States; and non-permanent members Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Guinea, Ireland, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, and Syria.

This was ongoing in Iraq for 12 years. Iraq violated 16 war treaties hundreds of times, regarding his WMD and WMD programs.

France voted. Russia voted. Hell, even Baathist Syria voted he had WMD.

Then again, there are quotes such as the following:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also give aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002.

 

[insein]

i see acludem saw the ridiculousness in his original post and has backed down. Now thats the Fantasy story right there, lol. Im sure he's finding rhetoric and lies right now to fight back with. Like bring a cap gun with no caps into a war.