Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In August 2002 Richard A. Clarke, former chief counter-terrorism adviser, discusses US strategy in dealing with islamic terrorists:
RICHARD CLARKE: 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.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the -- general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against, uh, the previous team to me.
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.
ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?
CLARKE: You got it. That's right.
Richard A. Clarke
Former chief counter-terrorism adviser
August, 2002
you much for your lies, tx
You mean so much for Clarke's lies...and yours???? What does Richard tell Condi, in Jan of 2001?
Attached is the year-end 2000 strategy on al Qida developed by the last Administration to give to you. Also attached is the 1998 strategy. Neither was a "covert action only" approach.
...
Using the 2000 paper as a background, we could prepare a decission paper/guide for a PC review.
Caught lying again....and we wonder why the FOIA is so important...this is how we see through the lies, spin and crap, like yours.
This country will never turn itself around and fix itself if people spend their timing blaming one party or the other.
Do you guys think it doesn't count if "the other guy" did it ?
The way I see it is that BOTH parties contributed to our situation. Does it have to be 50-50 ??
I look at that huge debt/deficit number for the USofA and I don't think "D" or "R"..I think "What has our government done to us?"
Until the nation settles on how to fix this problem and what type of leadership it wants these debates will continue. It is simply part of the political process for the type of system we have.
At one time I was actually in favor of supply-side economics but the dynamics under which the original concepts under which supply side economics was originally introduced have changed. Globalization and technology has completely change how and where capital is allocated for investment. The capital that used to go to invest in businesses and factories and jobs in the United States is now going to China, India, Brazil, and other emerging market countries with high growth economies. In additional capital that used to go toward investing in business is now increasingly used for speculation. Why? It's simple when capital is allowed to flow freely it ALWAYS flows where there is the greatest return on investment.
I think its patently ridiculous to use the same economic policies of "Trickle Down Economics" when the economic dynamics have change. Economic policy needs to focused on entrepreneurship and small business growth. Not on making sure Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and J.P Morgan Chase continue to rake in billions.
In mere size, in scope the tax breaks went to a less than 2% of the tax paying population.
Why keep those tax breaks in place putting $700 BILLION more into the debt, so that they can keep on AVG. $100,000 more in their pockets of taxpayers who make between $1M and $6.5M/yr?
Those who make between $250,000 and $500,000 would pay an extra...wait for it...$532.
What's more important...letting those who make over $1,000,000 keep huge tax breaks, or those who make less than $250,000 keep that $532 on average. That's what you're going to take to the American people? You want to fight to keep the tax breaks so that people making over $1M dollars per year can keep their $100,000...versus people making less than a combined $250,000 can keep their $532. Please...please...keep making that argument.
Tell that to the 760,000 sole proprietorships that that tax will hit. Yes, that's the number of small business owners it will hit that make over $250,000 and up to $10,000,000. Let me see you argue for that with an unemployment rate of 9.6%.
What part don't you get? Cutting taxes does not cause 'the hole' of debt. SPENDING causes 'the hole.' Cut spending accordingly.
What part do you not get??? Cutting taxes to below levels of what your spending causes debt. If you've already cut to the bone on spending levels, if you reduce income, you're going to have debt. If you keep basic service and minimal spending levels stable, yet continue to reduce income from those who do not need it, YOU PUT THE BURDEN OF THE HOLE in budget plans on those WHO CAN NOT sustain it.
And the fallacy hole goes round and round. The elite continues to say they need more tax breaks to spur investment and jobs...yet with all the tax breaks they get and less tax on investment they have, they create LESS jobs, PAY less wages, INVEST less, and HOARD more.
So you want us to believe, that had Bush not implemented the tax cuts that tax revenue under him would have soared even faster then it did? We were already pulling in more revenue under Bush then under Clinton. Sounds like you are making the case that under Bush's leadership, our country was in an economic boom, and if Bush were to have just raised taxes a bit, it would have been the biggest boom in America's history.
The 8 year period you're referring to are talking about INCOME. Not Tax cuts. In the 8 years that BUSH was President, INCOMES declined.
Nice try, but you're not even in the same conversation on this point.
Until the nation settles on how to fix this problem and what type of leadership it wants these debates will continue. It is simply part of the political process for the type of system we have.
At one time I was actually in favor of supply-side economics but the dynamics under which the original concepts under which supply side economics was originally introduced have changed. Globalization and technology has completely change how and where capital is allocated for investment. The capital that used to go to invest in businesses and factories and jobs in the United States is now going to China, India, Brazil, and other emerging market countries with high growth economies. In additional capital that used to go toward investing in business is now increasingly used for speculation. Why? It's simple when capital is allowed to flow freely it ALWAYS flows where there is the greatest return on investment.
I think its patently ridiculous to use the same economic policies of "Trickle Down Economics" when the economic dynamics have change. Economic policy needs to focused on entrepreneurship and small business growth. Not on making sure Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and J.P Morgan Chase continue to rake in billions.
I agree. The "trickle down" is still working..but it's not here in the US.
A growing consumer base is happening in China, India, Brazil and it's from the trickle down of the multi-nationals building plants (offices and mfg), training the people and paying their salaries.
The old rules just do not apply in a global economy which is what we have become. Chanting "bring the jobs back" won't work but people just have not come to the realization yet.
You need new rules, rules that take into account who we are competing with.
So you want us to believe, that had Bush not implemented the tax cuts that tax revenue under him would have soared even faster then it did? We were already pulling in more revenue under Bush then under Clinton. Sounds like you are making the case that under Bush's leadership, our country was in an economic boom, and if Bush were to have just raised taxes a bit, it would have been the biggest boom in America's history.
To talk about federal revenue with talking about federal spending gives the revenue increases no context. Remember the real issue is the DEFICIT. The reason the Republican Party has swung so hard left is even they are alarmed by the increase in federal spending under the Bush 43 Administration.
What they fail to understand is at least right now that increased federal spending is NECESSARY to stop the effects of the recession from becoming deeper. The time to reduce federal spending is when the economy has recovered.
txgolfer130...you posted that if incomes are down then revenue is down.
Ok..then why isn't the Fed trimming back to account for that ?
If it's down ALL over and folks are cutting back then it's a no brainer that the Fed gov needs to do the same. What I see going on is that they are ADDING to the budget even with income/revenue down..not even holding to last years number. Giving them more taxes will not curb their appetite for spending more than they can generate in revenue.
Actually cuts in federal spending now would deepen and prolong the recession. If nobody is spending money no economic growth can take place. The time to cut federal spending is AFTER the economy has recovered NOT during a recession.
The level debt definitely exploded under the Bush thanks to his highly regressive tax cuts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
