QandOQuestions and Observations |
||
|
||
| Comments | ||
|
This is great analysis. The specifics give flesh to my overall impression that of Clarke's many lies the one which is the most outrageous is that "Clinton gave the threat of terrorism the highest priority." As to the alleged neglect of Bush I won't pay for Clarke's book so someone else is going to have to enlighten me. Does Clarke specify even one counter-terrorism suggestion he made to the Bush admin which was ignored? Posted by: Terry Gain at March 30, 2004 05:22 PM |
||
|
Terry ... I haven't read his book either (frankly I feel the same as you do about buying it) but I'm under the impression it wasn't the fact that they didn't follow his suggestions, but more about the SPEED with which they proceeded. Its my impression he felt the speed with which they attacked the problem didn't display the proper "urgency" in his opinion. Posted by: McQ at March 30, 2004 05:28 PM |
||
|
So he says, but even if he felt that there was a lack of urgency why would any intelligent fair minded person trust his feelings (if indeed these are his feelings) when Dr. Rice's facial expression gave him the impression that she had never heard of al AL Qaeda (or so he says) Posted by: Terry Gain at March 30, 2004 06:50 PM |
||
|
Obviously he'd missed here interview in 2000 when she discussed Bin Laden at length. Couple that with the fact that 5 days after the Bush administration took office Clarke was pushing a military strike in Afganistan against AQ (that's in my latest post about the use of the military pre 9/11). Perhaps you can see why she looked at him with a bit of a jaundiced eye. Posted by: McQ at March 30, 2004 06:55 PM |
||
|
This connection with UNOCAL is interesting...wonder what kinda donation they made to the DNC prior to this negotiation with the Taliban for the pipe line rights? Is there a connection there to what Albright & Clinton decided? Inquiring minds want to know... Posted by: Alan Macomber at March 31, 2004 03:17 AM |
||
|
Alan...inquire no more. Hamid Karzai (the president of Afghanistan installed by the Bush administration) is a former CIA operative and former Unocal employee. Incidentally, Unocal withdrew from the pipeline project after the US bombed Afghanistan in 1998. A new framework for the pipline was signed in Dec 2002. Posted by: Becky at April 5, 2004 12:44 AM |
||
|
Sorry, Becky, but you've been reading the moonbats again. UNOCAL - which was part of a consortium, although the largest player - withdrew after years of unproductive negotiations on the specifics of the pipeline plan. They withdrew because Afghanistan was simply too unstable, and too dangerous. And they have not expressed the slightest bit of interest since. That "new framework" you cite? Go look for new details on it. It was nothing more than a deal signed among neighboring nations to "agree to pursue a pipeline deal". They haven't gotten interest...certainly not from UNOCAL. Posted by: Jon Henke at April 5, 2004 05:22 AM |
||
|
Heh...I like that -- the moonbats. It's true, I tend to get mired in the conspiracy theories now and again (one of the reasons I enjoy your blog -- it helps to keep me balanced). However, construction has already begun on the BTC pipeline. It is expected to be completed next year. Though it sidesteps Afghanistan, which remains too unstable, Unocal remains a major player. The project never died. Posted by: Becky at April 5, 2004 09:49 AM |
||
|
Wait, let me get this straight. UNOCAL is involved in building a pipeline? Shocking. Since this pipeline to which you refer doesn't pass through Afghanistan, it's hardly "the same one". In fact, the deal to do that pipeline was signed before Afghanistan and Pakistan and Turkmenistan even signed their deal to pursue another pipeline. So, again, it's not the same thing. Posted by: Jon Henke at April 5, 2004 10:20 AM |
||