War against terror

[denoir 0]

Blair meets Gaddafi [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

Tony Blair says Libya's Muammar Gaddafi is willing to make "common cause" with Britain in the fight against terrorism.

After shaking hands with Colonel Gaddafi at the start of the historic talks, the prime minister said there was real hope for a "new relationship".

People should not forget the past, but should move beyond it, Mr Blair said.

Thursday's Tripoli meeting follows Libya's renunciation of weapons of mass destruction in December. Mr Blair said such changes were "extraordinary".

As the talks took place , it was announced Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell had signed a deal worth up to Å550m for gas exploration rights off the Libyan coast. It was also announced that British police officers would travel to Libya on 3 April to continue investigations into the murder of Wpc Yvonne Fletcher.  The police officer is thought to have been shot dead by a gunman inside the Libyan embassy as she helped police a demonstration outside it in 1984.

Mr Blair's visit has been criticised by some politicians and received a mixed response from relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing.  Asked if he had felt queasy about meeting Colonel Gaddafi, Mr Blair said: "It was strange given the history to come here and do this and of course I am conscious of the pain that people have suffered as a result of terrorist actions in the past.

"But the world is changing and we have got to do everything we possibly can to tackle the security threat that faces us."

That meant pursuing terror groups but also offering partnership to states renouncing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Mr Blair said he had been struck by how Colonel Gaddafi wanted to make "common cause with us against al-Qaeda, extremists and terrorism".

He insisted he was aware of potential pitfalls.

"Trust on both sides will take time to establish," he argued. But the signs are better than they have been for many years. And the future prize in terms of security not just of this region but the wider world - indeed our own country - is great."

Earlier, the two leaders let photographers into the start of their meeting in a Bedouin tent on the outskirts of Tripoli. As he greeted the Libyan leader, Mr Blair said: "It's good to be here at last after so many months."

Colonel Gaddafi spoke first in Arabic before switching to English to tell the prime minister: "You did a lot of fighting on this issue and seem exhausted."

Mr Blair replied: "There's been a lot to do."

The Libyan leader added: "You look good, you are still young."

'Historic'

It is the first visit by a British prime minister since 1943 and comes after US Assistant Secretary of State William Burns this week became the most senior American to visit since the 1969 coup which brought Colonel Gaddafi to power. BBC News political editor Andrew Marr said: "This is an absolutely pivotal moment in the history of the region, possibly even in the history of the war against terrorism."

As well as an offer of help training military personnel, which could involve Libyan officers coming to the prestigious British academy at Sandhurst, Libya will also be hoping for key UK backing to ease international restrictions. In addition to Shell, other British firms have already begun tapping the opportunities in Libya.

Among them is defence contractor BAE Systems, which says it is in talks over aviation projects. Tony Blair's visit to Libya has divided families of those killed at Lockerbie. American Kathleen Flynn, whose son John Patrick died, said she found the trip was "insulting".

But Jim Swire, of the UK Families Flight 103 campaign group, said the visit would "greatly diminish the chances of a backsliding of support for terrorism".

UK opposition leader Michael Howard said it was very odd timing for Mr Blair to visit Libya straight from a memorial service for those killed by terrorists in Madrid. Mr Howard said he did not oppose contact with Libya but thought it should have been at a less senior level. Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said the potential prize of helping Libya "in from the cold" made Mr Blair's risk worth taking.

Now isn't this lovely. Gadaffi who is at least as bad as Saddam was and who is known for sponsoring terrorists is now our new best friend. What this shows best is how the Iraq war had nothing to do with the war on terror or with Saddam.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The most iteresting part of the 9/11 Commision enquiry was this. It Shut all the Republican Sniping up.

Quote[/b] ]Clarke was ready for that challenge. "Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raised it," he said, noting that he registered as a Republican in 2000 and served President Ronald Reagan. "The White House has said that my book is an audition for a high-level position in the Kerry campaign," Clarke said. "So let me say here, as I am under oath, that I will not accept any position in the Kerry administration, should there be one."

When Clarke finished his answer, there was a long pause, and the gallery was silent. Lehman smiled slightly and nodded. He had no further questions.

It is very simple realy

All of Clarke's statements are legal testimony none of the sniping against the man who argued for a strong US Defence against terrorism is.

If he has lied then he must go to jail. Are the Republicans willing to take him to court where they must swear their statements too? Do you hear that? It is the sound of a testomonial Atom bomb going off in the White House.

Condoleezza Rice Dare not even take the stand instead the woman who has made 29 Misleading Statements to start the war in Iraq can tell as many lies as she wishes via a partisan Fox News who will not test her for they have not the Journalistic integrety.

Kind Regards Walker

[Balschoiw 0]

Hey Blair had only good intentions

Oil giant Shell signs Libya deal

Do you need any more explanations ?

They are selling their morale once more and claim to do it for higher goals.

Excuse me !

Gadaffi was behind Lockerbie !?!

He is a top financer of international terrorism and Blair dares to shakes hand with him AFTER he went to Madrid to visit the

memorial for the victims of the train bombings !

Blair seems to have a very flexible moral.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Condoleezza Rice Dare not even take the stand instead the woman who has made 29 Misleading Statements to start the war in Iraq can tell as many lies as she wishes via a partisan Fox News who will not test her for they have not the Journalistic integrety.

Why is not Clarke going on Hardball (MSNBC) and O'Reilly (Fox News) Factor to do a interview (they are consider tough venues)? Rice as been saying the same stuff on all networks not just Fox News.

Quote[/b] ]Why wont Condoleezza Rice, George Bush jnr. Donald Rumsfeld and the Rest of TBA

Apologize for the failure of US Defence in 9/11 as Richard Clarke Has?

What about Clinton and co.? It is stupid to point fingers. Both admins. did not act aggressively enough to prevent terrorism. 9/11 comission findings should be looked to see HOW terrorism can be prevented in the future not to blame who did not stop it.

Quote[/b] ]Once again your grabbing for anything you can get no matter if it makes sense or not. Anyway it´s FOX again. I don´t see them as trustworthy source. My opinion.

He was on TAPE saying that.

Here something from his Interview from 2002

Quote[/b] ]

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

Quote[/b] ]

ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.

Quote[/b] ]

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

Quote[/b] ]

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

[walker 0]

Hi billybob2002

October 2002 so in fact this stuff happened after 9/11 not before.

You realy need to READ your evidence you just proved the case against your argument     You Just love those eggs mate. Ever thought of changing your name to Crusty the Clown?

In other words all this proves is that after 9/11 TBA had a panic on to put a plan together and as the man under Condoleezza Rice who had been trying to tell her they needed to action this plan 8 months before they grabbed it and used it all.

Condoleezza Rice still wont go before the 9/11 commision. What has she got to hide why wont she take the stand as even the CIA chief has?

Condoleezza Rice, George Bush jnr. Donald Rumsfeld and the Rest of TBA still have not Apologized for the failure of US Defence in 9/11 as Richard Clarke Has.

When will they apologize?

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]

October 2002 so in fact this stuff happened after 9/11 not before.

You realy need to READ your evidence you just proved the case against your argument      You Just love those eggs mate. Everthought of changing your name to Crusty the Clown?

In other words all this proves is that after 9/11 TBA had a panic on to put a plan together and as the man under Condoleezza Rice who had been trying to tell her they needed to action this plan 8 months before they grabbed it and used it all.

In the interview he talking what was going on before 9/11 not after. Bush and co. were trying.

[walker 0]

Quote[/b] ]

October 2002 so in fact this stuff happened after 9/11 not before.

You realy need to READ your evidence you just proved the case against your argument      You Just love those eggs mate. Everthought of changing your name to Crusty the Clown?

In other words all this proves is that after 9/11 TBA had a panic on to put a plan together and as the man under Condoleezza Rice who had been trying to tell her they needed to action this plan 8 months before they grabbed it and used it all.

In the interview he talking what was going on before 9/11 not after. Bush and co. were trying.

Hi billybob2002

Yes it proves beyopnd all possible doubt he was arguing the case for the action against Al Qaida before 9/11 but it is plain historical fact TBA took no ACTION till after 9/11 when his whole plan was grabbed by TBA 8 months late.

Another Egg on your face.

Man that is masochistic.

Condoleezza Rice still wont go before the 9/11 commision. What has she got to hide why wont she take the stand as even the CIA chief has?

Condoleezza Rice, George Bush jnr. Donald Rumsfeld and the Rest of TBA still have not Apologized for the failure of US Defence in 9/11 as Richard Clarke Has.

When will they apologize?

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

This is a big non-issue. Does Clarke have an agenda? Of course, it's not a bloody coincidence that he started to sell his book now. If he wanted to apologize to the American people he should have done it 12/9 2001. If he wanted to criticize Bush on his actions before the attack he should have done it the day after those planes slammed into the WTC. Instead, he was a good boy and defended the Bush administration until he resigned for reasons we don't know about.

What Bush did before 11/9 is irrelevant. Nobody saw this coming. Clinton did not and Bush didn't either. What is a relevant discussion is what Bush did after the attacks, when the AQ threat was in his face. Is America and the world safer? The answer is a big no and that's where Bush's failure is. He went to war with a non-threatening third party instead of focusing on the terrorist threat. He made the divisions between the muslim and the western world greater. He managed to divide the western world, making it more difficult to keep a united front in the war on terror. That is what his failures are.

Talking with 20/20 vision of what he possibly might have known if he had done something before the attacks is a waste of time and more importantly it takes focus from Bush's real failures - which were in what he did after the attacks.

Overall, I think that Clarke is promoting himself and in that he is actually helping Bush because it takes the focus off the Iraq war.

[billybob2002 0]

Have you looked at the interview?

Quote[/b] ]

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

action

Quote[/b] ]ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.

action

Stop trying to blame only TBA for 9/11, previous admin and TBA both slipped up.

Quote[/b] ] Instead, he was a good boy and defended the Bush administration until he resigned for reasons we don't know about.

He left after not getting appointed to the number 2 spot in Homeland Security dept...

Crap! Late for Class, again

[Akira 0]

What Bush did before 11/9 is irrelevant. Nobody saw this coming. Clinton did not and Bush didn't either.

Actually it is quite relevant. The very point of Clarke and the testimony is that there were frequent warnings and intel. You yourself have said that the German Intel had given the US intelligence a tip about the coming attack. And TBA did nothing, and then used the attack as a lauching point for his much sought after DW2.

It also shows that Clinton had authorized the killing of Bin Laden after the embassy bombings, and was actively pursuing "elimination".

One thing this hearing has done has given me more respect for Clinton, and far less for the high-and-mighty Republicans.

[denoir 0]

Actually it is quite relevant. The very point of Clarke and the testimony is that there were frequent warnings and intel. You yourself have said that the German Intel had given the US intelligence a tip about the coming attack. And TBA did nothing, and then used the attack as a lauching point for his much sought after DW2.

If this conversation had taken place, then sure:

Quote[/b] ]

Tenet: Dude, tomorrow some bad dudes are going to fly planes into buildings and shit.

Bush: Whatever dude, don't come to me with all this negative shit.

The fact is however that the CIA never gave any real specific warnings. It was an intelligence failure. All the warnings got lost in the various intelligence agancies. Bush was not warned with any specifics. And it's not his job to act upon vague warnings and vague intelligence.

[Akira 0]

I disagree.

Whether vague or specific, his job is to follow up and take action against any threat that may come against this nation (or give an order that such action be taken). By that time, the threat of Al-Queda was well known, enough so that the leader was being pursued by the former administration for "elimination". He was already wanted for the bombings in Kenya, and missiles had been lauched against him.

So why did this threat get downgraded in the next administration. Why were repeated warnings and briefings ignored by the incoming administration?

Because Bush was only interested in Saddam, so much so that allegedly after 9/11 he was already actively looking for a way to get Iraq in the picture. This blindedness only helped 9/11. After all. This plan took over a year to get going.

That is what the testimony is about. That is why it is quite relevant. No direct specific conversation needs to take place. The awareness is what is important. The ignoring of the threat in favor of a vendetta is quite relevant.

They sure were willing to follow the "intel" on Iraq after all.

[walker 0]

Hi Denoir

As I have said on many occasions the reason that proper intelligence never got through to TBA and George Bush Jnr. was Donald Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans.

TBA Set up The Office of Special Plans to filter all intelligence going into TBA.

It was The Office of Special Plans an amatuer spy organisation containing political apointees that prevented intel other than half truths, lies and fake intel about Iraq from reaching TBA.

Since the system was set up by TBA to start the war on the none existant threat of Iraq and never existed before TBA set it up. TBA are responcible for that intelligence filter failure.

That is why TBA can be blaimed for the failure in US Defence against terrorism that lead to 9/11 and the Iraq war hunt for imaginary enemies. While the Real War on terror continues to be lost with now monthly bombings.

George Bush Jnr. truly has failed his country at a time of war and the world is truly a more dangerous place with the now monthly bombings.

Kind Regards Walker

[Balschoiw 0]

The US administration has been warned about 9/11 by the following countries: Germany, Egypt, Russia, Israel

-In June 2001 the german BND sent a warning to USA and Israel. They gathered intel on a middle east terror plot that contained planes used as weapons to attack important symbols of american and israelite civilization.

- on 13th of June the egyptian government sent a level 1 terror warning to the TBA, based on a video where Bin Laden himself addressed G.W Bush and proposed a major attack on the USA. The message came short before the G8 meeting in Genua. As a result AA units were placed around Christoph - Columbus airport in Genua. He also mentioned a plane filled with explosives.

- Russian intelligence service contacted the TBA in august with an imminent terror threat. Putin confirmed this on the 15th of september on MSNBC. He said he ordered his intellegance to contact the TBA immedeatly because they had intel that 25 pilots have been trained for a suicide commando. They also knew that the targets were airports and governmental buildings. Putin made sure to say that he warned them on level 1. It´s the warning level that indicates highest alert level. Means : Act of terror directly ahead.

- Israel (Mossad) also contacted the FBI and the CIA in august with the following information:

At least 200 terrorists have infiltrated the US to execute a major assault on the USA.

The contact said it would be "a very big target"

This was also confirmed by an unnamed White House employee.

I will not list sources right now, but if you insist I´ll do.

There are other indicators that TBA did not enough to preven the attacks but the above list shows you already that they have failed miserably.

Edit: Typodevil

[shinRaiden 0]

Transcript of private press briefing from Clarke - Aug 2002

Quote[/b] ]Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

[denoir 0]

As I have said on many occasions the reason that proper intelligence never got through to TBA and George Bush Jnr. was Donald Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans.

OSP is military intelligence i.e Pentagon. It's not CIA and certainly not FBI. Very big difference.

It's the CIA that should have sniffed up something when it was going on, before the hijackers came into the country. Customs should have never let them through. FBI should have known that they were in the country etc etc. The list goes on of errors made. And it had nothing to do with Bush.

[theavonlady 2]

The US administration has been warned about 9/11 by the following countries: Germany, Egypt, Russia, Israel

Which terrorist organization are the following attacks attributed to:

1993: World Trade Center bombing

1996: Killing of 19 US soldiers in Saudi Arabia

1998: East African bombings of two US embassies

2000: Attack on USS Cole in Yemen

Who was at the helm of the US presidency at the times all of those events occurred?

[shinRaiden 0]

1979: Tehran Embassy

1983: Beirut USMC barracks

Yeah, different groups, but it set the precedent. The handling has been confused at best until now.

[Akira 0]

The US administration has been warned about 9/11 by the following countries: Germany, Egypt, Russia, Israel

Which terrorist organization are the following attacks attributed to:

1993: World Trade Center bombing

1996: Killing of 19 US soldiers in Saudi Arabia

1998: East African bombings of two US embassies

2000: Attack on USS Cole in Yemen

Who was at the helm of the US presidency at the times all of those events occurred?

If you want to go that road can also throw the 80's in there. What of all those?

But the most important is who was in charge when the deadliest attack of them all came? And in this country?

Quote[/b] ]It's the CIA that should have sniffed up something when it was going on, before the hijackers came into the country. Customs should have never let them through. FBI should have known that they were in the country etc etc. The list goes on of errors made. And it had nothing to do with Bush.

You forget the stories (proven by letters and memos) where the CIA and FBI did send warnings to Washington about suspicious people in flight schools. These were ignored by the TBA.

They did know they were in the county. Field agents knew they were at flight schools and training. They gave their superiors and Washington warnings and suspicions. All went unheeded.

That is the criminality of the TBA. They weren't Saddam after all.

[theavonlady 2]

1979: Tehran Embassy

1983: Beirut USMC barracks

Yeah, different groups, but it set the precedent. The handling has been confused at best until now.

During a 7 year span, with the above listed major attacks attributed to Al Qaeda, what did the ever so rough and tough Clinton administration do?

[denoir 0]

You forget the stories (proven by letters and memos) where the CIA and FBI did send warnings to Washington about suspicious people in flight schools. These were ignored by the TBA.

They weren't ignored by Washington but by the FBI and CIA.

They were ignored by the middle and higher levels of the agencies. It's not Bush's job to know what terrorists are where and if they pose a risk. That is what the agencies are there for. The president makes executive decisions - he does not deal with the small details.

Edit: strange sentence made understandable

[noundo 0]

@Denoir: Are you arguing for or against the Bush Administration?

[theavonlady 2]

The US administration has been warned about 9/11 by the following countries: Germany, Egypt, Russia, Israel

Which terrorist organization are the following attacks attributed to:

1993: World Trade Center bombing

1996: Killing of 19 US soldiers in Saudi Arabia

1998: East African bombings of two US embassies

2000: Attack on USS Cole in Yemen

Who was at the helm of the US presidency at the times all of those events occurred?

If you want to go that road can also throw the 80's in there. What of all those?

But these are attributed to Al-Qaeda and all under Clinton's terms. And these did not happen all within a short span just before he left office. They occurred over a seven year span.

Quote[/b] ]But the most important is who was in charge when the deadliest attack of them all came? And in this country?

It's no more or less important. They're both important, especially since it sure looks like security stank years before Bush came into office.

Quote[/b] ]You forget the stories (proven by letters and memos) where the CIA and FBI did send warnings to Washington about suspicious people in flight schools. These were ignored by the TBA.

How many other threat and warning messages were conveyed to "Washington" which were considered just as threatening or more so at the same time.

Quote[/b] ]They did know they were in the county.

They were in the country before Bush was president.

Quote[/b] ]Field agents knew they were at flight schools and training. They gave their superiors and Washington warnings and suspicions. All went unheeded.

Again, how many other similar warnings were conveyed up the ladder at the same time?

Quote[/b] ]That is the criminality of the TBA.

This is a lynching.

[denoir 0]

@Denoir:  Are you arguing for or against the Bush Administration?

I'm arguing that the Bush administration failed with their actions after the WTC attacks and not before. I'm against Bush but I don't blame him for not preventing the attacks. I blame him for sabotaging the 'war on terror' by going to Iraq.

[ralphwiggum 6]

1979: Tehran Embassy

1983: Beirut USMC barracks

Yeah, different groups, but it set the precedent. The handling has been confused at best until now.

During a 7 year span, with the above listed major attacks attributed to Al Qaeda, what did the ever so rough and tough Clinton administration do?

a better question is:

what did Reagan administration do to stop these two attacks?