BalkanForum - das Forum für alle Balkanesen
Erweiterte Suche
Kontakt
BalkanForum - das Forum für alle Balkanesen
Benutzerliste

Willkommen bei BalkanForum - das Forum für alle Balkanesen.
Seite 3 von 6 ErsteErste 123456 LetzteLetzte
Ergebnis 21 bis 30 von 54

"Counter Clinton Library" wird in den USA gebaut..

Erstellt von Partibrejker, 16.07.2004, 20:21 Uhr · 53 Antworten · 4.327 Aufrufe

  1. #21
    Zitat Zitat von Partibrejker
    "Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history."

    -Mansoor Ijaz, L.A. Times, December 5, 2001


    Machen wir mal einen Test mit unserem Kennedy-Boy hier:


    Did you know ......
    Erstmal.. Ich bin KEIN Boy, sondern weiblichen Geschlechts.
    Dann gibt es da doch die ein oder andere Sache, die nicht gerade von überragenden Fähigkeiten der Bush-Admin. zeugen:

    - Bush's failed Mideast policy is creating more terrorism (http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings...004506A17.html)

    - Bush 'failed abjectly' to protect America
    Reports by Alec Russell in Washington
    (Filed: 25/03/2004)

    President George W Bush was embroiled in a heated battle over his credibility as a strong leader yesterday after his former anti-terrorism co-ordinator said the administration had failed abjectly in its duty to protect America.

    Richard Clarke, a former insider who has rocked Washington with a book alleging that Mr Bush badly under-estimated the terrorist threat before September 11, landed another wounding blow on the White House in his statement to a federal commission investigating the attacks.

    Richard Clarke: 'Those entrusted with protecting you failed you'

    "It is finally a forum where I can apologise to the loved ones of the victims of September 11," Mr Clarke said.

    "Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard but that doesn't matter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask for your understanding and forgiveness."

    With the campaign for November's election heating up and national security a key issue, Mr Clarke's testimony was one of the most highly-charged political statements of this presidency.

    While Mr Bush's aides accept that the difficulties in Iraq may yet lose them a few votes, they regard his image as a war leader and his stalwart response to the September 11 attacks as his strongest suit and will not want Mr Clarke's suggestion of failure to take root.

    In a sign of their concern, Mr Bush's supporters went into public relations overdrive, dismissing Mr Clarke's remarks as crude politics and suggesting he was motivated by resentment at being overlooked for a top job and by his friendship with senior Democrats.

    The White House issued a copy of his resignation letter in January 2003 when he praised Mr Bush's "courage, determination, calm and leadership" on September 11. "It has been an enormous privilege to serve you these last 24 months," he added.

    Fox News, the Right-wing network, leaked an off-the-record briefing from August 2002, five months before Mr Clarke's resignation, in which he said the administration had decided soon after taking office to "vigorously pursue" existing policy against al-Qa'eda.

    Asked by the commission why the tone of his book was so different from the briefing, Mr Clarke said that his job was to make the president's policies look as good as possible.

    He also denied charges of partisanship. "I've been accused of being a member of John Kerry's campaign team several times this week, including by the White House," he said.

    "So let's just lay that one to bed. Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000, and I asked for a Republican ballot." He ruled out accepting a job in any future Kerry administration.

    Earlier Mr Bush had a welcome boost when George Tenet, the CIA chief, gave a sweeping defence of his record in the eight months between his assuming office in January 2001 and the attacks.

    Mr Tenet said warnings of a terrorist attack "lit up" in the weeks before September 11, indicating that "multiple spectacular attacks were planned and that some of the plots were in their final stages". But "the reporting was maddeningly short on actionable details".

    He said attempts to pre-empt the attacks were hampered by bureaucratic feuding between the FBI and the CIA and that, during President Bill Clinton's presidency, there was confusion over whether the CIA was authorised to kill Osama bin Laden.

    But he denied that Mr Bush had under-estimated the threat. "Clearly there was no lack of care or focus in the face of one of the greatest dangers our country has ever faced," he said.

    He praised Mr Clinton and said both presidents took the threat seriously. But the CIA had no warning of the September 11 plots. "We didn't steal the secret that told us what the plot was. We didn't recruit the right people or technically collect the data, notwithstanding enormous efforts to do so."

    The commission is a bipartisan body set up to investigate the September 11 attacks. Mr Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney, Mr Clinton and his vice-president, Al Gore, will testify in camera. Its final report is expected by July 26. (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...25/wbush25.xml)

    -----

    Secondly, die Bush-Administration hat sich ja nach der Machtübernahme auch nicht gerade nach der Jagd nach BinLaden überschlagen.. bzw. die drakonischen Patrioten-Gesetze nach 9/11 werden sicherlich auch keinen neuen Anschlag vermeiden. Die Ereignisse in Guantanamo Bay (Hat da der Surpreme Court nicht drüber entschieden ??? - ""Der Supreme Court hat die Bush-Administration an die rechtsstaatliche Kette gelegt"
    [http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/17794/1.html] )
    und in Abu Ghraib werden eher noch mehr Terroristen hervorbringen.

  2. #22
    [quote="Partibrejker"]
    Zitat Zitat von KennedyFan

    Ich verlasse mich doch auf mein amerikanischen Quellen...

    Bei Deutschen weiss man nie, welcher Linke dahintersteckt...
    Na da habe ich doch was für Dich:

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...11.commission/

    Clarke: Bush didn't see terrorism as 'urgent'
    9/11 panel hears from Berger, Tenet

    Wednesday, May 19, 2004 Posted: 1:16 AM EDT (0516 GMT)


    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's former counterterrorism chief testified Wednesday that the administration did not consider terrorism an urgent priority before the September 11, 2001, attacks, despite his repeated warnings about Osama bin Laden's terror network.

    "I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue," Richard Clarke told a commission investigating the September 11 attacks.

    Clarke has ignited a firestorm with his assertions that the Bush administration failed to recognize pending terror attacks against the United States and that the president focused too much on Iraq after September 11 -- charges the White House has vigorously disputed. (Full story)

    Clarke's testimony, while foreshadowed by his new book assailing Bush's stewardship on national security, was gripping, and marked the climax of an extraordinary two days of nationally televised hearings by the commission. (Bush, Clinton figures defend terrorism policies)

    The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, as the 10-member bipartisan panel is formally known, is charged with coming up with an authoritative account of events leading to 9/11, including any security and intelligence lapses. (CNN Access: Clarke: 'White House is papering over facts')

    The hearings played out against the backdrop of the race for the White House, in which the question of national security has become critical for both Democrats and Republicans.

    Clarke said he and CIA Director George Tenet "tried very hard to create a sense of urgency," but their warnings were not heeded.

    "Though I continued to say it was an urgent problem, I don't think it was ever treated that way," Clarke said. But Secretary of State Colin Powell told the panel Tuesday that terrorism was recognized as a priority by Bush even before the new administration took office. (Bush administration rejects Clarke charges)

    Frustrated by what he saw as an inadequate response to terrorism, Clarke sent a memo to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice one week before the deadly attacks, blasting the Defense Department for not doing enough against al Qaeda and criticizing the CIA for holding up a plan to arm Predator drones.

    In that memo -- detailed in a commission staff statement -- Clarke told policy-makers to "imagine a day after hundreds of Americans lay dead at home or abroad after a terrorist attack" and to ask themselves, "What else they could have done?"

    Clarke began his testimony with an apology to loved ones of those roughly 3,000 people killed in the attacks on airliners, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

    "Your government failed you, and I failed you," he said. "We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed you. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness."

    Later, on CNN's "Larry King Live," Clarke said the Clinton administration's approach to a similar threat before the turn of the millennium -- on which top officials held daily interagency meetings and actively sought information from within their own agencies -- shows that a similar approach might have worked to prevent the September 11 terrorist attacks.

    He said that prior to 9/11, people within the FBI knew that two of the 19 hijackers were in the country, but that information never made its way up to the highest levels of power.

    "If Condi Rice had been doing her job and holding those daily meetings the way Sandy Berger did, if she had a hands-on attitude to being national security adviser when she had information that there was a threat against the United States ... [the information] would have been shaken out in the summer of 2001," Clarke told King.

    Samuel Berger, who was national security adviser to former President Clinton, also testified Wednesday.
    Absence of Rice noted

    Several members of the commission voiced their displeasure that Rice, who's appeared on numerous TV talk shows, didn't appear before the panel.

    Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage came under sometimes prickly questioning from those members who saw him as Rice's replacement.

    After panel member Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democrat, referred to Armitage as Rice's "doppelganger," Armitage shot back, "I'm not here as Dr. Rice's replacement. I'm here as someone who's been involved in counterterrorism for several administrations over a long period of time."

    Ben-Veniste asked Armitage to comment on statements Rice has made recently in the media. When Armitage said he couldn't because he didn't know what Rice had said, Ben-Veniste asked, "Do you own a television?"

    "Yes, and it's generally on. And I won't tell you what it's on," Armitage answered, although in an exchange with Commissioner Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, he conceded it's tuned to basketball.

    The White House refused to let Rice testify at Wednesday's hearing on the grounds that having a sitting national security adviser give public testimony would infringe on executive privilege.

    Unlike Cabinet secretaries who routinely testify before Congress, Rice is considered a member of the president's own staff, which the White House maintains makes it inappropriate for her to testify.

    Armitage told members of the commission that Rice, who provided more than four hours of private testimony to the panel, would have preferred to appear Wednesday to answer their questions.

    "I think Dr. Rice, if she was left to her own personal judgment, she'd be very pleased to be here," he said.
    Armitage testimony

    start quoteI don't think any of us, or anyone who's worked on these issues, can feel any sense of satisfaction with 3,000 of our fellow citizens horribly murdered. end quote
    -- Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage

    Armitage said that after Bush came to office he said he was "tired of swatting flies" when it came to al Qaeda.

    "He gave us a little more strategic direction. It was clear to us ... that we had to go to the elimination of al Qaeda."

    The result was a new strategic counterterrorism plan completed just a week before September 11, after more than seven months of work. Armitage said that in hindsight, developing the plan took too long.

    "The words of Samuel Clemens come to mind, and this is that even though you're on the right track, you can get run over if you're not going fast enough. And I think it is the case. It's certainly in hindsight that we weren't going fast enough," he said.

    "You can make your own judgments about whether we were moving faster or slower than other administrations."

    Armitage also said that he thinks people in both the Clinton and Bush administrations were working "terrifically hard" trying to counter the threat of terrorism.

    "A lot of people in successive administrations, working just as hard as they can on the issue, is not a source of satisfaction for anyone," he said. "I don't think any of us, or anyone who's worked on these issues, can feel any sense of satisfaction with 3,000 of our fellow citizens horribly murdered."

    Armitage also said Tenet, on at least one occasion, talked about the possibility that aircraft could be hijacked. But he added, "I just don't think we had the imagination required to consider a tragedy of this magnitude."
    Berger testimony

    Earlier, the commission revealed more detail about what it characterized as poor coordination and communication among various agencies dealing with terrorism, dating back to prior administrations.

    For example, the CIA did not believe it had the authority to kill terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden -- even though the National Security Council and senior legal advisers in the Clinton administration believed otherwise -- the commission said in a statement.

    Berger said he was unaware of any confusion the CIA may have had about what it could do.

    The testimony and staff statement highlight a long-standing criticism about national policy coordination before September 11 -- that interagency rivalries and poor communication impeded the effort to fight terrorism.

    "Senior legal advisers in the Clinton administration agreed that, under the law of armed conflict, killing a person who posed an imminent threat to the United States was an act of self-defense, not an assassination," the staff statement on intelligence policy said. "... But if the policy-makers believe their intent was clear, every CIA official interviewed on this topic ... told us they heard a different message."

    Specifically, the CIA believed they could only kill bin Laden -- who would be alleged to have orchestrated the 9/11 attacks -- in the context of a capture, according to the staff statement.

    Other agency differences were on display Wednesday.

    story.thompson.911.book.jpg
    Commission member James R. Thompson reads a copy of Richard Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies," Wednesday in the hearing room.

    Berger told the panel that the FBI believed there was "not a significant al Qaeda presence in the United States" before 9/11 and that the agency believed, "we have it covered."

    Berger urged the panel to examine the FBI's role. "I hope you will look at this, I know you will because I think that there was a sclerosis here," he said.

    Clarke also questioned the FBI's capabilities, telling the panel that he didn't think before 9/11 the FBI "would know whether or not there was anything going on in the United States by al Qaeda."

    In his testimony, Berger also made a point of stressing his advice to his successor, Condoleezza Rice.

    He said he told her that "she'd be spending more time on terrorism and al Qaeda than any other issue."
    Tenet testifies

    Earlier, Tenet told the commission that both the Clinton and Bush administrations took the threat of terrorism seriously and worked actively to disrupt al Qaeda.

    "There was no lack of care or focus in the face of one of the greatest dangers our country has ever faced," Tenet said.

    In a a staff statement on intelligence released Wednesday, the commission said "no agency did more to attack al Qaeda" than the CIA, but said there was an absence of a "robust, offensive, engagement across the entire U.S. government."

    Tenet said the CIA, working with other agencies around the world, disrupted a number of terror plots during the alert leading up to January 1, 2000, celebrations.

    But he said that the United States was "not systemically protected" against terrorism before the September 11 attacks.

    Tenet said antiterror efforts were complicated because of the failure of various intelligence agencies to integrate data.

    If intelligence had been shared, "We might have had a chance" to prevent the attacks, he said.

    However, Tenet said he didn't think U.S. capture or killing of bin Laden would have prevented the attacks because the plot was already in place.

    The failure to prevent the attacks was not purely a matter of intelligence sharing, he said.

    "We didn't steal the secret that told us what the plot was, we didn't recruit the right people or technically collect the data, notwithstanding enormous effort to do so," Tenet said.

    Tenet told the panel that the CIA began focusing on bin Laden in the early 1990s, even before bin Laden emerged as a leader of Islamic terrorist planning. Tenet said the CIA set up a special unit in 1996 to track bin Laden.

    The CIA director testified that the terrorism threat changed fundamentally after bin Laden moved his operation in 1996 to Afghanistan, where he was sheltered by the country's Taliban rulers.

    He said that in 1999 -- after bin Laden issued a 1998 fatwa calling on Muslims to kill Americans -- the CIA began developing a new plan to develop human and technical resources to use against bin Laden. "

  3. #23
    Avatar von Grobar

    Registriert seit
    14.07.2004
    Beiträge
    9.644
    Zitat Zitat von KennedyFan
    texttext ..........................He said that in 1999 -- after bin Laden issued a 1998 fatwa calling on Muslims to kill Americans -- the CIA began developing a new plan to develop human and technical resources to use against bin Laden. "
    Wie die Amis Handeln war seither klar.
    Feindbilder:
    Platz1: Der Russe
    Platz2: Wer grad will

    Nun...ich denke mal das Platz 1 bleiben wird da die Russen da einfach den schwarzen Peter haben mit nem konservativen Praesidenten.
    Da hilft Putin auch kein Tschetschenien.

    Platz 2 hat sich mittlerweile Osama und Konsorten fest reserviert.
    Der typ und die seinen hoeren mit ihrem Religioesen Quatsch ja nicht auf wenn die Demokrats kommen.

    Was den Vorwurf gegen Bush betrifft er habe Osama nicht ausreichend ernst genommen............sorry...das haette ein Clinton auch sehen koennen wenn er gewollt haette....

  4. #24
    Zitat Zitat von Grobar
    Zitat Zitat von KennedyFan
    texttext ..........................He said that in 1999 -- after bin Laden issued a 1998 fatwa calling on Muslims to kill Americans -- the CIA began developing a new plan to develop human and technical resources to use against bin Laden. "
    Wie die Amis Handeln war seither klar.
    Feindbilder:
    Platz1: Der Russe
    Platz2: Wer grad will

    Nun...ich denke mal das Platz 1 bleiben wird da die Russen da einfach den schwarzen Peter haben mit nem konservativen Praesidenten.
    Da hilft Putin auch kein Tschetschenien.

    Platz 2 hat sich mittlerweile Osama und Konsorten fest reserviert.
    Der typ und die seinen hoeren mit ihrem Religioesen Quatsch ja nicht auf wenn die Demokrats kommen.

    Was den Vorwurf gegen Bush betrifft er habe Osama nicht ausreichend ernst genommen............sorry...das haette ein Clinton auch sehen koennen wenn er gewollt haette....
    Nun ja, die Russen haben ja außenpolitisch nicht mehr viel zu melden, deshalb dürfte Osama inzwischen Platz 1 übernommen haben-- die diletantische Der-Feind-meines-Feindes-ist-mein-Freund-Politik
    haben die USA erst in eine schwierige Lage gebracht. Schließlich haben
    die US die Taliban ja unterstützt - gg die Sowjetunion. Auch der Irak war mal Verbündeter..

    Was 9/11 betrifft, so würde ich keinem der Präsidenten eine eindeutige Schuld zuweisen wollen, was mich nervt, sind etwaige Behauptungen der Bush-Admin. Clinton hätte verhindern können. Nun das hätte Bush wohl auch..
    Das Problem ist doch folgendes: Wie kann man Terroristen erkennen, wenn diese strafrechtlich noch nie auffälig geworden sind ? Die einzige Auffälligkeit waren doch die Reisen nach Pakistan und Afghanistan gewesen, wo nur der Pass hätte "zufällig" verloren gehen können .. und kurac kannste dann beweisen.

  5. #25

    Registriert seit
    14.07.2004
    Beiträge
    1.190
    Sorry for the "Boy"...didn't know you're a "Gal"...!!!

    Du weisst bestimmt was "Liberal Media Bias" ist und heisst...???

    ...und wenn nicht, dann findest du bestimmt hier eine Erklaerung:


  6. #26
    Zitat Zitat von Partibrejker
    Sorry for the "Boy"...didn't know you're a "Gal"...!!!

    Du weisst bestimmt was "Liberal Media Bias" ist und heisst...???

    ...und wenn nicht, dann findest du bestimmt hier eine Erklaerung:

    Es sei Dir verziehe..

    Nein, das sagt mir nix.

  7. #27
    Avatar von Denis_Zec

    Registriert seit
    14.07.2004
    Beiträge
    1.742
    also erst mal an alle:

    postet hier doch bitte keine bücher, wer soll denn das alles lesen ? bringt ne kurzform und dann kann man sich ja drüber unterhalten.

    @kennedyfan

    lass dich doch von partibrejker nicht provozieren. der würde noch an bush glauben, wenn der selbst zugeben würde, dass er geschummelt hat. blind bleibt blind egal wie die dick die brillengläser sind.

  8. #28

    Registriert seit
    14.07.2004
    Beiträge
    1.190
    Zitat Zitat von Grobar
    Wie die Amis Handeln war seither klar.
    Feindbilder:
    Platz1: Der Russe
    Platz2: Wer grad will

    Nun...ich denke mal das Platz 1 bleiben wird da die Russen da einfach den schwarzen Peter haben mit nem konservativen Praesidenten.
    Da hilft Putin auch kein Tschetschenien.

    Platz 2 hat sich mittlerweile Osama und Konsorten fest reserviert.
    Der typ und die seinen hoeren mit ihrem Religioesen Quatsch ja nicht auf wenn die Demokrats kommen.

    Was den Vorwurf gegen Bush betrifft er habe Osama nicht ausreichend ernst genommen............sorry...das haette ein Clinton auch sehen koennen wenn er gewollt haette....
    Die Russen haben schon lange nicht mehr den "Schwarzen Peter"....
    ...so wie ich es hier mitbekomme, haben die Saudis diesen uebernommen...

    Die Islamofaschisten Rund um Osama und Arafat stehen ganz oben auf der Liste...und alle die, welche diese auf irgendwelche Art untertuetzen oder verteidigen...

  9. #29
    Zitat Zitat von Denis_Zec
    also erst mal an alle:

    postet hier doch bitte keine bücher, wer soll denn das alles lesen ? bringt ne kurzform und dann kann man sich ja drüber unterhalten.

    @kennedyfan

    lass dich doch von partibrejker nicht provozieren. der würde noch an bush glauben, wenn der selbst zugeben würde, dass er geschummelt hat. blind bleibt blind egal wie die dick die brillengläser sind.
    Ach, so leicht lass ich mich nicht provozieren.. Ich will nur verstehen, wie um Himmels Willen man Bush wählen kann.. ich hab's immer noch nicht verstanden. 8O Das geht doch niiiiiiiicht.

  10. #30
    Zitat Zitat von Partibrejker
    Zitat Zitat von Grobar
    Wie die Amis Handeln war seither klar.
    Feindbilder:
    Platz1: Der Russe
    Platz2: Wer grad will

    Nun...ich denke mal das Platz 1 bleiben wird da die Russen da einfach den schwarzen Peter haben mit nem konservativen Praesidenten.
    Da hilft Putin auch kein Tschetschenien.

    Platz 2 hat sich mittlerweile Osama und Konsorten fest reserviert.
    Der typ und die seinen hoeren mit ihrem Religioesen Quatsch ja nicht auf wenn die Demokrats kommen.

    Was den Vorwurf gegen Bush betrifft er habe Osama nicht ausreichend ernst genommen............sorry...das haette ein Clinton auch sehen koennen wenn er gewollt haette....
    Die Russen haben schon lange nicht mehr den "Schwarzen Peter"....
    ...so wie ich es hier mitbekomme, haben die Saudis diesen uebernommen...

    Die Islamofaschisten Rund um Osama und Arafat stehen ganz oben auf der Liste...und alle die, welche diese auf irgendwelche Art untertuetzen oder verteidigen...
    SO MY DEAR, dann kannst mir sicher sagen WER die Taliban im Kampf gg die Sowjetunion unterstützt hat ? HM?!

Seite 3 von 6 ErsteErste 123456 LetzteLetzte

Ähnliche Themen

  1. Antworten: 260
    Letzter Beitrag: 18.08.2011, 19:12
  2. Bill Clinton ehrt Tony Blair "Freiheitsmedaille"
    Von Mastakilla im Forum Politik
    Antworten: 81
    Letzter Beitrag: 14.09.2010, 16:38
  3. Antworten: 12
    Letzter Beitrag: 25.02.2009, 21:11
  4. "Counter Strike 2" kommt vielleicht
    Von Sultan Mehmet im Forum PC, Internet, Games
    Antworten: 0
    Letzter Beitrag: 02.03.2008, 20:08