RSS Feed MenuA (right of center) friend close to the intelligence community makes this point. He talked too rapidly for me to transcribe his words exactly, but close enough for blogging work:
Look at the coldness with which Obama has dumped on the intelligence community for the Mutallab screw-up. Compare that to George Bush, who took the bullet for every slacker, hold-over, and opportunist after 9/11. Not a single person was fired after the worst intelligence disaster in American history, not one! Are you telling me that nobody was to blame? Yet Bush never breathed a word of blame. And were they grateful? Of course not.
Obama’s not making any excuses for anybody. Yes obviously he’s covering himself. Why shouldn’t he? He’s making it clear to the agencies that he expects heads to roll. And they will, as they didn’t after 9/11.
Bush was warm and soft. Obama is cold and hard. Whatever you criticize him for, remember that.
And Marc Ambinder nominates the likely first candidate to be sacked for the underwear bombing: Michael Leiter, head of the National Counterterrorism Center.
I have no idea whether Leiter’s deserving of censure. But all these years later, I still wish that somebody other than Bill Maher had lost his job for 9/11.
dragonlady // Jan 9, 2010 at 1:28 pm
It’s not simply a matter of holding people accountable. Obama’s stern “I take responsibility” speech was about optics. The problem with Obama is that no matter how much you hated Bush or disliked his policies, very few people doubted his resolve against defeating terrorism. With Obama, people doubt his resolve. They question whether his heart is in it. And if you sense it’s not a priority from your leader, then that message and attitude rolls down to the bureaucracies.
And for the Bush-haters out there, Bush killed or captured over 2/3 of the AQ leadership. You can forever nitpick his decision at Tora Bora but I’m willing to bet you will not blame Obama if he doesn’t get UBL. The detractors have never addressed the logistics piece either, of getting all those ground forces in on Tora Bora. The it’s-all-Bush’s-fault has an expiration date and it has arrived with most folks, particulary independents. Read the polls and weep. Except off course, to the kool-aid drinkers.
dragonlady // Jan 9, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Grammar error I’m sure the trolls will pick up on. I meant Bush was very focused on defeating terrorism with an us-against-them mindsetd.
dragonlady // Jan 9, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Grammar error I’m sure the trolls will pick up on. I meant Bush was very focused on defeating terrorism with an us-against-them mindset.
dragonlady // Jan 9, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Sinz said, .”..just to do an end-run around the Bill of Rights has proven to be a political disaster. And we conservatives, who are supposed to believe in limited government, should NOT want to set a precedent whereby a Chief Executive can do an end-run around the Bill of Rights on his own say-so.”
Just to clarify–are you in favor of granting terrorists constitutional rights?
Also, what is wrong with military tribunals? Why set up another court? The UCMJ contains very fair procedures, and Congress has oversight of those procedures. It’s hardly a kangroo court like it’s detractors pretend it to be.
balconesfault // Jan 9, 2010 at 2:40 pm
With Obama, people doubt his resolve.
Of course. Because a lot of people have believed all along that Obama is a fifth columnist muslim out to destroy our supposedly Christian nation.
No matter what Obama does, those people will always believe that he is trying to help the terrorists win.
anniemargret // Jan 9, 2010 at 3:05 pm
yep, Bush and Cheney talked tough, alrighty.
Their m.o. was to keep Americans in a constant state of fear. If they could have succeeded in their disgraceful attempts at a unitary executive, they would have. They were sending orange alerts right up to the second Bush election, with OBL’s smiling face just to remind everyone how scared we ought to be. Fox News was still spreading the Cheney bait – that Iraq and 9/11 were intertwined – and we know this worked because years after the invasion of Iraq we still saw high majorities thinking that Iraq and/or Hussein had attacked the Manhattan towers.
This bothers me.
That they had decided to invade Iraq long before 9/11, as witnessed by Richard Clarke et al, and that within days of Bush saying he would get OBL, he and Cheney started their campaign to confuse the public? That he diverted funds from going after al Quaeda in Afghanistan to finance his Iraq dream? That Cheney ‘visited the CIA many times in the run-up to Iraq and cherry-picked intelligence to make sure their preconceived idea of regime changes and forced democracies were the way to go? And to make sure the intelligence agencies got the message?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A15019-2003Jun4
This bothers me.
Good leaders lead but they don’t keep their citizens in a constant state of fear, ratcheting it up every chance they could for political points. An estimated 45,000 Americans died last year from lack of insurance, or because they went bankrupted by medical bills. Does this bother you? If not, why not?
9/11 was an intelligence failure. They *failed* to connect the dots. Al Quaeda did their dirty deed due to lack of vigilance and apathy at the highest levels of government and intelligence. We are not dealing with some high tech advanced army. We are not dealing with Russia and nuclear capability. We are dealing with attempts to sabotage airplanes etc….and we need as a country to accept that this is now standard state of affairs. We are grown-ups and we can accept it and act accordingly. We can unite as a nation to assist the President do his job, or you can be part of the ‘wreck’em’ crew with a single goal to destroy his Presidency at all cost.
I support the President. He has three more years to work on these serious issues – the economy, the terrorist threats, healthcare reform, the infrastructure. I am willing to give him a chance before I make a decision about his capability.
We need to fire people if they are incompetent, and we need to keep a streamlined intelligence going, and our allies from abandoning us. We don’t need the Bush/Cheney years of insulting ‘old Europe’ or sneering at allies, because we have to be wiser than that, in our understanding that we cannot ‘win the war on terrorism’ unless we have a cooperative worldwide network.
We cannot be allowed now to be scared of flying airplanes because intelligence agencies didn’t do their jobs, did not ’share data’ or there are incompetent people not doing the jobs that they were meant to do. This is unacceptable under any President – correcting these wrongs are essential.
The ‘panty bomber’ could have been anybody. The same scenario could have taken place with an ordinary American citizen who is angry about losing his job or is going through a mental decline – this problem is not limited to Islamic jihadists.
I don’t need a snarling snarky coc or President. I need a leader who can keep calm, think rationally instead of emotionally, seek solutions and not raise orange alerts every chance they could to keep the population cowering. I need a leader who respects the Constitution of the U.S. and our civil liberties which makes us the greatest country in the world. You give those up in the name of ‘fighting terrorism’ and it will make us a nation of losers.
Someone said it above on this blog- we have other problems to address, not just terrorism. If our economy plummets even further, then Al Quaeda wins. We are already behind China in green energy industries because some like to keep the oil wars going instead of our getting off the oil war carousel. Instead of weakening our military by sending them around the globe, we should save their power and strength when it is tactically and strategically wise to do so. We cannot extend them overmuch to the point of exhaustion and depletion. This is just common sense.
There are ways to fight terrorism and still keep our American ideals and rights intact. What has transpired over the past decade has more to do with laxity in insight and incompetence or bureaucratic mire in our own country than it does with trying to confront an enemy who can defeat us with superior weaponry or technology.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Jan 9, 2010 at 4:31 pm
dragonlady wrote: “The problem with Obama is that no matter how much you hated Bush or disliked his policies, very few people doubted his resolve against defeating terrorism. With Obama, people doubt his resolve.”
The only people who doubt Obama’s resolve are the partisan haters who lack the capacity to be objective.
Moreover, while we may not have been able to doubt Bush’s resolve at “defeating terrorism” (whatever that means), we certainly can doubt his resolve at capturing/killing the terrorists who were most responsible for 9/11. As cited above, Bush did not do what was necessary to capture OBL, Al-Zawahiri or Mullah Omar at Tora Bora. Bush also shut down the CIA task force responsible for capturing OBL.
If you read my post (#38) and if you’re not blinded by partisanship, you’ll see that I don’t “blame” Bush. But I absolutely do reject the rather stupid GOP/conservative b.s. that Bush held OBL et al accountable or that Bush was resolute in capturing OBL. Both of those are factually incorrect and no objective observer of the facts would disagree.
On 9/13/01, Bush said “the most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden.”
On 9/17/01, Bush said “I want justice…There’s an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.”
On 12/28/01, Bush said “[O]ne of the things for certain is we’re going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. ”
THEN
On 3/13/02, Bush said “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/14/barnes-osama/
dragonlady // Jan 9, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Actually SparatcusisNotDead and Balconesfault, it’s not just partisans that doubt Obama’s resolve. Seen the recent cover of Foreign Policy mag that compares Obama to Carter? That is hardly a conservative mag; foreign policy wonks tend to tilt towards neorealism. Or have you read Les Gelb’s articles in the Daily Beast that says Obama has to be tougher with his adversaries?
Sparatcus you’re nitpicking with the resolve on capturing UBL bit. You’re equating UBL to the entire war on terror. Bush may have thought we would get him through airpower at Tora Bora or figured there was a better way to catch him Just as perhaps Obama does. After all, we have a quasi-deadline now don’t we, for the surge into Afghanistan? So do you doubt Obama’s resolve to capture him? You still haven’t acknowledged that Bush did capture or kill 2/3 of AQ core leadership to include KSM, the operational planner and #3 guy in AQ hierarchy. That’s a pretty good record.
Let me ask you–how relevant do you think UBL is currently to AQ? I absolutely think we should still try to capture or kill him but how high of a price are you willing to put on that or do you want to see Obama put on that? Do you believe it should be the #1 priority on the overall war on terror?
dragonlady // Jan 9, 2010 at 9:10 pm
SparatcusisNotDead and Balconesfault, it’s not just partisans that doubt Obama’s resolve. Seen the recent cover of Foreign Policy mag that compares Obama to Carter? That is hardly a conservative mag; foreign policy wonks tend to tilt towards neorealism. Or have you read Les Gelb’s articles in the Daily Beast that says Obama has to be tougher with his adversaries?
Sparatcus you’re nitpicking with the resolve on capturing UBL bit. You’re equating UBL to the entire war on terror. Bush may have thought we would get him through airpower at Tora Bora or figured there was a better way to catch him Just as perhaps Obama does. After all, we have a quasi-deadline now don’t we, for the surge into Afghanistan? So do you doubt Obama’s resolve to capture him? You still haven’t acknowledged that Bush did capture or kill 2/3 of AQ core leadership to include KSM, the operational planner and #3 guy in AQ hierarchy. That’s a pretty good record.
Let me ask you–how relevant do you think UBL is currently to AQ? I absolutely think we should still try to capture or kill him but how high of a price are you willing to put on that or do you want to see Obama put on that? Do you believe it should be the #1 priority on the overall war on terror?
dragonlady // Jan 9, 2010 at 9:28 pm
anniemargaret said:
“Someone said it above on this blog- we have other problems to address, not just terrorism. If our economy plummets even further, then Al Quaeda wins.”
Concur we have other problems to deal with it but what do you think will happen to the economy if we are hit by another major terrorist attack? We have to deal with both (i.e., walk and chew gum at the same time).
Being upfront about the threats this country faces is NOT scaring people. Alerts enable state and local govts to take precautionary and deterrent measures. We may not agree on the strategy to fight terrorism but surely we shouldn’t pretend that it’s just some “isolated” extremists. Your statement is way off the mark: “The ‘panty bomber’ could have been anybody. The same scenario could have taken place with an ordinary American citizen who is angry about losing his job or is going through a mental decline – this problem is not limited to Islamic jihadists.”
If your point is that anyone really hell bent on an attack could exploit vulnerabilities in our security procedures, then sure, that can theoretically happen. But in reality, we don’t have a problem right now with folks who lose their jobs trying to blow up airliners do we? They happen to all be Islamic jihadis. Educated ones from rich families, to boot. If you’re going to fight terrorism, at least recognize the true face of the threat.
dragonlady // Jan 9, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Interesting Rassmussen poll for food for thought since the underwear bomber incident:
Fifty-eight percent (58%) of U.S. voters say waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques should be used to gain information from the terrorist who attempted to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day.
Thirty-four percent (34%) of voters now rate the government’s response to the attempted bombing as good or excellent, but 35% say the response has been poor.
Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters think the attempt by the Nigerian Muslim to blow up the airliner as it landed in Detroit should be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act. Only 22% say it should be handled by civilian authorities as a criminal act, as is currently the case.
All these findings are explained in part by the belief of 43% that when it comes to national security the U.S. legal system worries too much about protecting individual rights. That’s up four points from November.
Just 17% say the system is too concerned about protecting national security at the expense of individual rights. Twenty-eight percent (28%) believe the balance between the two is about right.
In August, 65% said it is at least somewhat likely that waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques helped secure valuable intelligence information from suspected terrorists.
Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters said in April that the Obama administration’s release of CIA memos about the harsh interrogation methods used on terrorism suspects during the Bush years endangered the national security of the United States.
Forty-nine percent (49%) disagree with the Justice Department’s decision to investigate the treatment and possible torture of terrorists during the Bush administration.
Thirty-six percent (36%) agree with Attorney General Eric Holder’s naming of a veteran prosecutor to probe the CIA’s handling of terrorists under the previous administration.
Fifty-one percent (51%) of voters oppose the Obama administration’s decision to try the confessed chief planner of the 9/11 attacks and other suspected terrorists in a civilian court in New York City rather than before a military tribunal at Guantanamo. Twenty-nine percent (29%) think the civilian trials are a good idea.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2009/58_favor_waterboarding_of_plane_terrorist_to_get_information
anniemargret // Jan 9, 2010 at 9:48 pm
Dragonlady: I do recognize the threat. I do understand that there are islamic terrorists willing to sacrifice their own lives to take ours. I am not demeaning that in any way. My point is that what has happened so far is that there has been systematic failure in our anti-terrorism tactics.
That someone other than an Islamic jihidist could conceivably try the same thing (hiding explosives within their person) is not a fantasy, or that far-fetched. Everyday on the evening news Americans read about some lost soul killing themselves and their families in a rage or some other form of dangerous lunancy or mental derangement. Everyday.
My point was to bring out that it is not the jihadists who have the upper edge. They have only succeeded because we have failed. They are not smarter than us, braver than us, or have access to sophisticated weaponry or technology. We are superior to them in every way. They have lunacy on their part – willing to sacrifice themselves to become martyrs – unfortunately. However, that should make us smarter… and more willing to fixate on correcting the problems we know are already there.
That someone ‘failed to connect the dots’ 9 years after 9/11 is unacceptable. You, I and thousands of others go to work everyday and meet the standards and demands of our jobs. If airplane workers, sloppy intelligence, lack of networking, too much bureaucracy etc…is the problem that is where we direct it.
I found most the alerts during Bush’s watch excessive and unnecessary. The country needed calm and deliberation not weekly reminders that we were going to be crushed by the enemy. These terrorists can cause damage in our country, no question about it, but they cannot bring down this country unless we get sloppy.
I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. When we were facing nuclear missile threats just miles off the coast of Fla this country did not go into a standstill. There are problems to address and if the terrorists can get our minds and hearts wrapped about their terrorism and nothing else…we lose!!! The risk of our dying in a terrorist attack is minimal, unless you live in a large city and even then, the ‘mushroom clouds’ will not rise up over Cleveland.
It is supremely unfair to start dragging Obama into the mud now. He is only 1 year into this job, and has inherited some real knuckle-chewers. I dont’ for a moment think a Republican president can do any better than Obama is doing now, unless you desire the snarks and snarling we got from Bush and Cheney. Some people like that ; I don’t.
Yes, they caught some bad guys during Bush years – intelligence did. Good for them, and I hope they continue to do the good job they are charged to do. And I do think bagging OBL is of supreme importance. He was capo di cappi of the 9/11 operation in which 3,000 of our fellow Americans died innocently. I want Obama to get him. Otherwise, he ‘gets away with it’ – no?
SpartacusIsNotDead // Jan 9, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Dragonlady,
You apparently did not read either my post @38 or the Foreign Policy article whose title you cited.
The FP article did not in any way whatsoever raise doubts about Obama’s resolve at fighting terrorism. Instead, it compared the conflicting challenges that confront Presidents (including Carter) who adopt a Jeffersonian foreign policy. In fact, the article barely discusses terrorism at all. Did you even bother to read the article?
With respect to capturing OBL, I absolutely am not nitpicking. I responded to Jabbermule (and other conservatives) who claim that Bush “held the terrorists accountable” and that he “did everything he could to capture OBL.” Both statements are absolutely false and neither you nor anyone else has provided any facts that contradict the facts that I provided.
On the narrow issue of capturing OBL, my problem is not with Bush at all. Instead, my problem is with the hypocritical Bush defenders who claim that Bush was resolute in capturing OBL and keeping the country safe and Obama is not, which seems to be based on two things: (1) Obama does not use the same belligerent rhetoric Bush used, and (2) the occurrence of the XMAS bomber. These Bush defenders completely ignore all the facts including the Richard Reid attack. Some of them now even claim that 9/11 did not happen on Bush’s watch. If this country is going to have a serious discussion about safety, then the Right has to come out of its fantasy world.
With respect to making OBL the top priority, I absolutely don’t think he should be, which is why I never “blamed” Bush for letting him go at Tora Bora. But the fact that I don’t “blame” him for making that decision does not undermine the truth that we most likely could have caught/killed OBL at Tora Bora had Bush not turned the operation over to the Northern Alliance. Again, I would suggest you re-read my post @38.
I have no problem giving Bush credit for the absence of any successful attacks on America after 9/11. Whether his policies were the only way to achieve that is pure speculation by both sides. What I do know is that both Bush and Obama had airline attacks disrupted by civilian passengers. I don’t blame either of them for those attacks. In fact, I believe the fact that we’ve had only 2 attacks in 9 years and both were miserable failures is proof that the policies enacted by Bush and refined by Obama are largely a success.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Jan 9, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Dragonlady wrote: “You still haven’t acknowledged that Bush did capture or kill 2/3 of AQ core leadership to include KSM, the operational planner and #3 guy in AQ hierarchy. That’s a pretty good record.”
I never denied that he did these things, and I give him credit for them. I simply don’t accept that, contrary to what many conservatives are saying, Gitmo, the Iraq War, Bush’s belligerent rhetoric or Bush’s torture policy have done anything to make us safer. And, there is no evidence that these things contributed to our safety. There is, however, evidence that these things have made us less safe.