Sep 07 2006

Must Read On Missing Bin Laden

6 responses so far

6 Responses to “Must Read On Missing Bin Laden”

1. carol johnson says:

   September 7, 2006 at 2:32 pm

   As per a commenter at Free Republic:

   “THE WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM was buzzing. It was fall 1998 and the National Security Council (NSC) and the “intelligence community” were tracking the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, the shadowy mastermind of terrorist attacks on American targets overseas. “They’ve successfully triangulated his location,” yelled a “Sit Room” watch stander. “We’ve got him.”

   Beneath the West Wing of the White House, behind a vaulted steel door, the Sit Room staff sprang into action. The watch officer notified National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, “Sir, we’ve located bin Laden. We have a two-hour window to strike.”

   Characteristic of the Clinton administration, the weapons of choice would be Tomahawk missiles. No clandestine “snatch” by our Special Operations Forces. No penetrating bombers or high speed fighter aircraft flown by our Air Force and Navy forces. No risk of losing American lives.

   Berger ambled down the stairwell and entered the Sit Room. He picked up the phone at one of the busy controller consoles and called the president. Amazingly, President Clinton was not available. Berger tried again and again. Bin Laden was within striking distance. The window of opportunity was closing fast. The plan of attack was set and the Tomahawk crews were ready. For about an hour Berger couldn’t get the commander in chief on the line. Though the president was always accompanied by military aides and the Secret Service, he was somehow unavailable. Berger stalked the Sit Room, anxious and impatient.

   Finally, the president accepted Berger’s call. There was discussion, there were pauses and no decision. The president wanted to talk with his secretaries of defense and state. He wanted to study the issue further. Berger was forced to wait. The clock was ticking. The president eventually called back. He was still indecisive. He wanted more discussion. Berger alternated between phone calls and watching the clock.

   The NSC watch officer was convinced we had the right target. The intelligence sources were conclusive. The president, however, wanted a guaranteed hit or nothing at all.

   This time, it was nothing at all. We didn’t pull the trigger. We “studied” the issue until it was too late – the window of opportunity closed. Al-Qaeda’s spiritual and organizational leader slipped through the noose.

   This lost bin Laden hit typified the Clinton administration’s ambivalent, indecisive way of dealing with terrorism. Ideologically, the Clinton administration was committed to the idea that most terrorists were misunderstood, had legitimate grievances, and could be appeased, which is why such military action as the administration authorized was so halfhearted, and ineffective, and designed more for “show” than for honestly eliminating a threat.”

   …..

   Dereliction of Duty, page 129 –131, Lt. Col. Robert ‘Buzz” Patterson, USAF (Ret.) 2003, Regenery Publishing Inc., Air Force Aid to President Clinton, May 1996 to May 1998

   Carol

2. pull says:

   September 7, 2006 at 3:09 pm

   I do not see anything new here.

   What I do not doubt is that Michael Scheuer is telling the truth here. This is the same guy going around operating as puppet for the far left. This is the same guy that has been lying about what is going on. This is the same guy who has issued statements like that ‘Congress is controlled by Jews’.

   Personally, while I know he is capable of knowing the difference between good and evil… and I am good at telling the difference between words with truth in them and words without… I would not have such a man clean up the shit from my dog.

   Oddly, he is the same sort of guy as the “See No Evil” author… whose book “Syriana” claims to be based on. Both worked in the CIA. Both found disturbing information about the Islamist threat and the Left. Both have betrayed all of this. All of it.

   The problem is the Left here. Conservatives may have done thing like pull 0ut of Lebanon, but far and wide the biggest obstacles the US has had in fighting our enemies has come from the Left. These guys, like Scheuer are a big part of the problm. They know what the problem is, but they lie about it.

   We are never going to win as long as we have these kinds of guys in top positions. Never. It is sickening.

3. pull says:

   September 7, 2006 at 5:08 pm

   New update on the 9/11 censoring story:

   http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-wk-channel7sep07,0,6155461.story?coll=cl-tv-features

   Can we edit Farenheit 9/11, Syriana, and all of the other “true stories” from the Left? No, because there would not be anything left if they did that.

   Nothing.

4. Ken says:

   September 7, 2006 at 5:44 pm

   Pull is overly offended by Scheuer telling the essential truth
   about”the Lobby”‘s (of Mearsheimer and Walt) control of Congress.

   But what isperhaps more objectionalbe-: he confuses conservative non-interventionism with Leftism. The war he wants continued
   waging however is truly Wilsonian liberal “democracy-
   exportation” masquerading as conservatism….also known
   as “neoconservatism.”

   Mearsheimer and Walt , also, are conservative “realists”
   subject to “Pull”s confusion with “leftists” .

5. pull says:

   September 7, 2006 at 6:24 pm

   On Ken’s Post:

   I am offended by Nazi doctrine. It is Nazi doctrine to claim ‘the Jews control congress’, as Michael Scheuer has done.

   To some, I am sure, this “overly” offends.

   No doubt to many Islamists and Neo-Nazis this would be seen as being “overly” offended. They treat the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” like we treat the Bible.

   As far as ‘the Jews controlling national policy’, most anti-semites believe this stuff about their mystical control over the US. This is good in a sense because they always miss their real enemy here, those who really control America (currently) — moderate conservative Christians.

   I do consider Chamberlain conservatives pseudo-conservatives. “Non-interventionist conservatives” are pseudo-conservatives… ‘Chamberlain conservatives’.

   What do you call conservatives who hold many of the same doctrines as the Nazis? I do not call such conservative “conservative”, they are right wing, but not American conservative.

   Ultimately, Michael Scheuer is Leftist, not because he holds some conservative beliefs which he doesn’t really believe in… but because he dances a jig in their favor, at their behest. You can see the strings.

   It so happens this same dance is to the Islamists, as well, but this is another trait of modern Leftists, what ever their ilk may be.

   It is so sad today that so many Americans and other Europeans are turning to Nazi doctrine, betraying their own country. Of course, guys like Michael Scheuer claim to hold conservative beliefs. How else could they gain positions of trust within government?

   (I should note, even the CIA Book Review is said to have found his book ludicrous and did not think anyone would take it seriously. So, it is not like, today, such insanity is mainstream, and surely not so pervasive in our intelligence agencies as it may seem by some of the publicity hounds like Michael Scheuer.)

6. pull says:

   September 8, 2006 at 5:24 am

   Not that anyone will read this, but…

   Apologies here… this is very useful post especially in light of this recent call for censorship by the Democrats of a network television show to match Democratic party platform version of reality.

   I have also not meant to be so harsh against “non-interventionist” conservatives. Not all, perhaps, are Chamberlain conservatives. Heh. 🙂 Someone railroaded my problem with Scheuer which is cut and dry: he is preaching Nazi doctrine. It is sussied up and he is largely a closet Nazi, but it is hard core Nazi doctrine.

   If anybody wishes to openly defend their support of the idea that “the Jews run America” or any other Free World country except Israel, please, go ahead. Put your beliefs out here in the open.