Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Get a grip. The first article -- hey, I was feeling lucky -- is from the Guardian, and is based on an article in Time magazine. Let me repeat: Time magazine -- the one formerly owned by Henry Luce.
|
it is still full of subjective charecterizations of what Berger may have told Rice, ie how detailed was his "plan." plus, Time is very anti-Bush.
But anyway, lets assume he had come up with a plan to attack Afghanistan, and told Rice.
What else did Rice get briefed on? That is, was it "here's the number for good Chinese, and here's the Chauffer's birthday, oh and first thing, you gotta go get Afghanistan" or was it more a mention in 3 days of briefing about where everything stood?
Given that by then most of 9/11 was in progress, how would the plan have done anything? Why didn't he mention the CIA reports of hijacked jets as missile? Should she have moved for stricter airport security based upon his "plan?" Given that the dems in the Senate stalled airport security changes for months AFTER 9/11, what changes should she have suggested?
I've heard that a plan to take out the Taliban hit Rice's desk on 9/10, your article says 9/7, but at least Bush would have done something.
You understand the timeline, right?
August 1998 OBL blew up 2 embassies- we sent cruise missiles to hit some mountains.
At some point prior, we were offered OBL, and chose not to take him.
In Oct. 2000, OBL blew up the Cole.
My story: I believe the Clinton response was to blow up more mountains, and in deference to your evidence perhaps stick some vague plan into a lengthly briefing about doing something now that they were not at the switch. Berger, egg on face 9/12 and his boys at NYT/WP then paint this misinformed picture.
Your story: you agree with the African embassies and our response, and that we took a pass on capturing OBL. You believe that in 10/00 when the Cole was bombed, the Clinton administration decided not to start its "plan", but wait to brief Bush so he didn't inherit a war. It would be fairer to make him start one over attacks 6 months to 3 years cold.
2 problems with your story:
How is it fair to Bush for Clinton to take an apparent pass on overt action in response to an attack, but to give Bush this"plan," and then ask Bush to go start a war? Can you say Global Cowboy?
And, how long did the plan estimate the "war" would take? It seems to me, a few months of heavy bombing would have gone along way to having the war over before Bush took over.
The fact is, Bush was going to take out Afghanistan, before 9/11, unfortunately, for 3000 people, the plan should have been put in place in 1998, and it was too late.
Quote:
|
Is the world much simpler when you simply ignore inconvenient facts? Does it make your meds cheaper?
|
my meds are limited to alcohol and wine now. Alcohol is state price controlled so ignorance is a neutral factor. Wine is my pretension, so I don't do much to make it cheaper.
