You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #43: information [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #10
43. information
Some of this was posted by liberal_and_proud_of_it (I've added to it)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=18808&forum=DCForumID5#11
Here are a few stories about Clinton's attempts to combat terrorist forces and the brick walls he ran up against:

April 24, 1995 The American Civil Liberties Union today said that the “counter-terrorism” proposals suggested by President Clinton Sunday evening threatened to repeat the mistakes of the past and erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty.

http://www.aclu.org/news/n042495.html

April 18, 1996 Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill boosting the ability of law enforcement authorities to fight domestic terrorism . . . The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html

July 30, 1996 Paris -- A Fact Sheet from the July 30 ministerial meeting of the P-8 (the industrialized nations of the world plus Russia) notes that President Clinton for three years has led an international campaign to combat terrorism in concert with the P-8 as well as with allies in the Middle East and elsewhere . . . Following is the official text of the Fact Sheet.

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/p8_facta.htm

July 30, 1996 President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess . . . But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures . . . Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

August 25, 1998 The August 20 bombing of Osama bin Laden's terrorist bases in Afghanistan and the alleged bin Laden-funded chemical weapons production facility in Khartoum, was a decisive and appropriate U.S. response to the atrocities in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and President Bill Clinton should be commended.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/schenker.htm

March 21, 2000 US President Bill Clinton said on Tuesday that he would take up with Pakistan military ruler Gen Pervez Musharraf the issue of terrorism in the Kashmir valley.

http://www.indiainfo.com/news/2000/03/21/clin

March 22, 2000 Clinton is pushing General Musharraf to use his influence with Afghanistan's leaders—the Taliban—to bring Bin Laden to trial . . . Even if Musharraf could convince the Taliban to give Bin Laden up, there is an abundance of anger, frustration and weapons in the region, left over from the Afghan war, when thousands of extremists came together to bring a superpower to its knees . . . That militant network has built up in this region over two decades of conflict. The president believes America must get deeply involved in South Asia to crack the terrorist problem, a process Clinton continues throughout this week.

http://www.kdka.com/now/story/0,1597,1747

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8734-2002Jan19

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62725-2001Dec18

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/24/pentagon.budget/

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html

http://www9.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress99/freehct2.htm

http://online.securityfocus.com/news/201

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2002/01/page-a-01-23.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61219-2001Oct2


And don't forget how GW stopped ongoing terrorist investigations:

FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated
Officials told to 'back off' on Saudis before September 11
Greg Palast and David Pallister
The Guardian Wednesday November 7, 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4293682,00.html

FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11.

US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied.

They said the restrictions became worse after the Bush administration took over this year. The intelligence agencies had been told to “back off” from investigations involving other members of the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royals, and possible Saudi links to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan.

“There were particular investigations that were effectively killed.”
Only after the September 11 attacks was the stance of political and commercial closeness reversed towards the other members of the large Bin Laden clan, who have classed Osama bin Laden as their “black sheep”.

Hart-Rudman
Not only did Clinton's actions prevent Y2K terrorist acts (eg, a bomber headed off on his way to the celebration in Seattle), but much more occurred in his administration to ward off terrorism ~ only to be scuttled by the Bushistas:

Commission warned Bush
But White House passed on recommendations by a bipartisan, Defense department-ordered commission on domestic terrorism.
by Jake Tapper

Sept. 12, 2001 | WASHINGTON -- They went to great pains not to sound as though they were telling the president “We told you so.”

But on Wednesday, two former senators, the bipartisan co-chairs of a Defense Department-chartered commission on national security, spoke with something between frustration and regret about how White House officials failed to embrace any of the recommendations to prevent acts of domestic terrorism delivered earlier this year.

Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., that they preferred instead to put aside the recommendations issued in the January report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Instead, the White House announced in May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism -- which the bipartisan group had already spent two and a half years studying -- while assigning responsibility for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by former Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh.

Before the White House decided to go in its own direction, Congress seemed to be taking the commission's suggestions seriously, according to Hart and Rudman. “Frankly, the White House shut it down,” Hart says. “The president said 'Please wait, we're going to turn this over to the vice president. We believe FEMA is competent to coordinate this effort.' And so Congress moved on to other things, like tax cuts and the issue of the day.”

“We predicted it,” Hart says of Tuesday's horrific events. “We said Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers -- that's a quote (from the commission's Phase One Report) from the fall of 1999.”

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/

The Gore Commission
also known as the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security.
http://www.airportnet.org/depts/regulatory/gorecom.htm

Here is what seems to have happened to the recomendations of the Gore Commission:
We begin our news with a quote: “The federal government should consider aviation security as a national security issue, and provide substantial funding for capital improvements. The Commission believes that terrorist attacks on civil aviation are directed at the United States, and that there should be an ongoing federal commitment to reducing the threats that they pose.”

If you think that comes from a recent Bush White House report, guess again. In the summer of 1996, shortly after the crash of TWA flight 800, President Clinton asked Vice President Al Gore to chair a commission on improving air transportation safety. As a result, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, commonly known as the Gore Commission, conducted an in-depth analysis of the U.S. commercial airlines' safeguards against terrorist attacks. In its final report, which is what I quoted from a moment ago, the Gore Commission found that security measures used by U.S. airlines were extremely inadequate, and made over 50 recommendations to improve security.

What happened? Well, the Gore Commission demanded tougher airline security, but airlines and conservatives said no. Specifically, the airline industry dismissed the threat of terrorists, and attacked the commission. Indeed, the day after the final report was published, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association fought back with a legislative action of their own that claimed the Gore Commission existed simply to thwart the will of the Republican Congress.

And conservative ideologues rejected the proposal on “cost-effectiveness” grounds. OK, so how much are 6,000 lives worth - not to mention the dollar value placed on the World Trade Center, a portion of the Pentagon, an economic recession, and America's security?
http://www.d28dems.org/pspeak/psE85.htm

For instance, the commission, headed by then-Vice President Al Gore, wanted airlines to screen all passengers with computerized profiling systems to detect potential terrorists.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=25100&forum=DCForumID35

I think that what Shrub is doing is *creating* terrorism and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people and whole families.
Before 9.11:
Bush defunds international organizations that provide abortions or abortion counseling to poor women.
Bush postures over North Korea.
Bush pulls out of the Kyoto treaty.
Bush makes a gaffe over Taiwan/China policy.
Bush returns the world to a Cold War-level arms race.
Bush rejects a protocol to enforce germ warfare treaty.
Bush denies Africans AIDS drugs through international aid agency.
Bush isolates United States in denying support for Kyoto treaty.
Bush officially rejects germ warfare treaty protocol.
Bush announces that the United States will withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Bush skips an international conference on racism.
After 9.11:
Bush tries to end arms sanctions.
Bush approves the assassination of Osama bin Laden.
Bush proposes trying suspected terrorists with military tribunals.
Bush abandons ABM treaty.
Bush plans to store--rather than destroy--nuclear weapons slated for reduction.
Bush invents the “axis of evil.”
Bush tries to limit Congressional probes of September 11 terrorist attacks.
Bush releases his laughable global warming plan.
Bush makes the possibility of using nuclear weapons much more likely.
Bush lifts restrictions on aid to Colombia.
http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard.html

The center of Shrub Inc's rhetoric (and actions) in their anti-terrorism campaign has been to turn the grey areas into either bright white or dark black. “Axis of evil”, “With us or against us”, “Good verus evil”. Their rhetoric can be easily manipulated by savy hawks in order to justify war or an escalation in their current war against another group of people.

For example, Sharon's recent speech sounded alot to me like one of Shrub's speeches with references to bin Laden replaced with references to Arafat.

Also, lets not forget that Shrub has NOTHING substantial (he hasn't even tried!) to decrease the suicide bomber attacks on Israeli innocents. Nothing. Contrast this misadminstration to the Clinton/Gore administration where Arafat was THE foreign leader who *most* visited the White House.

Also, I should mention that Clinton managed to help Palistine and Isreal come closer than anytime in the past 30 years to a permanent peace treaty between their people. And look what Shrub Inc. did to try to undermine this:


In 2000, when Prime Minister Ehud Barak, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and President Clinton were meeting at Camp David, Perle made news when he warned Barak not to let Vice President Al Gore become involved in the peace summit, for fear it would boost Gore's election prospects. He also told Barak to “walk away” from a peace plan if it left the thorny issue of a divided Jerusalem unresolved. Working as an advisor to candidate Bush, Perle warned Barak he would urge the Texas governor to condemn any peace plan that gave the PLO a foothold in Jerusalem. The Bush campaign quickly distanced itself from Perle's remarks.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/09/05/perle/index.html

Anger at peace talks 'meddling'
Political scandal in US as Bush advisers tell Israelis to be ready to walk out of Camp David negotiations
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,342857,00.html

You’re Invited to the War Party (“Bush at War” book review)
By Georgie Anne Geyer
Ever since his Watergate revelations, which helped evict a president and change the United States for all time, for better or worse Bob Woodward has stood as the major force in a new genre of journalism. He talks, wheedles, and, using government officials’ personal ambitions and dreams of political eternity, implicitly threatens his way into the often closed corridors of power—there, he is a master at getting a certain number of figures who try their best to remain aloof and unknown to tell their stories. The proposition, understood if not explicitly spoken, is that this book, as his former ones, will tell the story—you miss out on leave on this journalistic port, fellow, you miss the whole historic ship!

First of all, Bush at War is really about the decision-making process in the upper levels of the Bush administration—the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon—from the exact morning of Sept. 11th. It begins with a profoundly worried George Tenet, head of the CIA and, from all of the space he gets in the book, obviously one of Woodward’s best and favored sources. That very morning, Tenet is wondering about when Osama bin Laden, whom he has been desperately tracking, will strike the U.S. Then “it” happens—and from then onward, the book delineates day-by-day, and sometimes hour-by-hour and minute-by-minute—what supposedly went on in meeting after meeting. From all accounts that I know of, Woodward’s interpretations are exactly right; it is the quotes that are so bothersome.

Another time, he says to Woodward, “I’m the commander—see, I don’t need to explain—I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”

At still another point after the Afghan war has started, the president says to his staff, “Look, our strategy is to create chaos, to create a vacuum.” And Woodward ends the book with another quote from the president, in which he again reflects the obsessive chaos theory of the neoconservatives surrounding him like sentinels and for whom Iraq has become the sina quo non of political existence: “We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.” Whew.
http://www.amconmag.com/01_13_03/geyer7.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC