Blogs by Alex Drinkwater, Jr.
And now for some truth . . .
4/14/2004 11:48:28 AM
What the media would have us believe about the "intelligence failure" and President Bush's response (or lack thereof) to it is a bunch of CRAP
FROM THE EDITORIAL PAGE OF A MAJOR US NEWSPAPER:
"President Bush has now confirmed, in his own words, that he was as ineffectual in responding to the threat from Al-Qaida prior to Sept. 11 as his harshest critics assert. Asked Sunday about the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, President's Daily Brief, Bush said it gave 'no indication of a terrorist threat. There was not a time and place of an attack.' That is an unbelievable statement. In essence, he's saying that because there was no information available about terrorists hijacking a jetliner in city X for use as a bomb in city Y on such and such a date, there was nothing he could do. And nothing is precisely what he did."
"Bush asks the CIA for a briefing paper on the domestic threat posed by Al-Qaida. It comes to him on Aug. 6 with the alarming headline, 'Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.' The body of the memo says Bin Laden is going to exploit an Egyptian operative's access to the United States 'to mount a terrorist attack.' It says 'Bin Laden prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks.' Most ominously it warns that "FBI information since (1998) indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations of hijackings . . . ."
"Intelligence is almost always fragmentary and frequently inconclusive. You find the end of a string, and if it looks promising (and especially if your superiors take great interest in it), you pull hard. If you are skillful, you gather more string, and your effort widens. More string pullers use the clues you've developed to look for similar string in new places. If they, too, are skillful, you begin to gather enough string to draw some tentative conclusions, and perhaps to take action. That's what Bush failed to do during the summer of 2001."
NONSENSE! As a retired member of the Intelligence Community, i can tell you that the type of "warning" mentioned above is totally insufficient to come to any kind of a conclusion with respect to imminent attack. Consider this from the first paragraph above: "That is an unbelievable statement. In essence, he's saying that because there was no information available about terrorists hijacking a jetliner in city X for use as a bomb in city Y on such and such a date, there was nothing he could do." Under the circumstances, what COULD he do? Stop all air traffic? When? And for how long? Place AA artillery and SAMs on top of important buildings? Which ones? And, again, for how long? And then what, shoot down any stray airliners that come near you?
Amazing. The liberal media always accused Bush of being a "cowboy" who "shoots from the hip." And now they're criticizing him for NOT doing that. How is he handling the War on Terrorism? Well, let's see: he accomplished in 2 months what the Soviets could not do in ten years in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein's in jail, Col. Qadaffi is "coming clean," and the rest of the Middle Eastern potentates are shaking in their boots. Would a President Gore have done as much? Or (God forbid) a "President Kerry?" Think about it.
Post a Comment new!
More Blogs by Alex Drinkwater, Jr.
London - Saturday, August 13, 2011
UBL - Monday, May 02, 2011
The Situation in the Middle East - Monday, March 14, 2011
NATIONAL READ AN EBOOK WEEK - Sunday, March 06, 2011
The National Anthem - Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Speaking Correctly - Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Short Stories - Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Thoughts On E-Publishing - Friday, January 14, 2011
Arizona (again) - Saturday, October 30, 2010
Ghosts of Hanoi - Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Ghosts of Hanoi - Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Ghosts of Hanoi - Thursday, August 05, 2010
Arizona - Tuesday, April 27, 2010
No Nukes . . . - Saturday, April 10, 2010
A New Year, a New Home, and New Challenges - Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Nobel Peace Prize - Saturday, October 10, 2009
Health Care - Wednesday, August 05, 2009
What on Earth Did We Do Last November? - Saturday, June 13, 2009
Election Aftermath - Sunday, November 09, 2008
The "Democratic" Convention - Thursday, August 28, 2008
Here We Go Again - Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Barack Hussein Obama - Thursday, February 15, 2007
Oriana Fallaci - Saturday, December 16, 2006
Not Good - Wednesday, November 08, 2006
It's That Time of Year - Monday, October 30, 2006
What do you call it . . . - Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Hooray for the Pope - Tuesday, September 19, 2006
For a Friend: a Eulogy - Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Plus ca change . . . - Thursday, June 29, 2006
George Galloway . . . - Friday, May 26, 2006
It's 1984! - Friday, April 07, 2006
Isn't it Odd? - Thursday, March 09, 2006
Some Thoughts on Trying to Get Published - Friday, March 03, 2006
Back in the UK - Saturday, February 18, 2006
Cartoons - Tuesday, February 07, 2006
The Libs Are At it Again - Thursday, January 19, 2006
THE LITTLE RED HEN - Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Here We Go Again - Thursday, July 14, 2005
JOHN PAUL II R.I.P. - Saturday, April 02, 2005
The Sharon Statement - Monday, December 20, 2004
VICTORY IS SWEET! - Wednesday, November 03, 2004
A Couple of Items . . . - Thursday, October 21, 2004
Quick Thought on the Debate - Sunday, October 03, 2004
Thank you, Rudy! - Tuesday, August 31, 2004
A Letter to the Editor - Saturday, July 31, 2004
Fat Bastard! - Monday, July 19, 2004
Kerry Doesn't Have Time - Thursday, July 15, 2004
MAKES YOUR BLOOD BOIL - Sunday, May 02, 2004
And now for some truth . . . - Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Latest from Ann C. - Friday, April 09, 2004
From Ann Coulter's Latest Column - Thursday, April 01, 2004
A Few Thoughts on the Elections in Spain - Sunday, March 14, 2004
Wow - Sunday, February 22, 2004
What the Hell? - Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Last Night in London - Sunday, December 21, 2003