Path to 9/11

[Tolstoyevsky]

Last night, ABC aired a fascinating movie based on the true events. The movie portrays a president Clinton incapable of fighting terror, since he was too busy denying allegations of sexual misconduct. The movie also depicts Sandy Berger as an irresponsible courtier more interested in furthering his own career than in killing Bin-Laden; as for Madeleine Albright...she knew as much about foreign policy as a goat herder knows about semiotics.

While ABC and other responsible television stations aired exciting documentaries and movies on 9/11, CBC aired a story portraying 9/11 as a Republican conspiracy....just after "Why We Fight", a documentary criticizing defence spending, the American armed forces etc. For how long is the Canadian tax-payers' money gonna be wasted on CBC (Layton's mouth piece)?

 

[Red 6]

I'm not sure how much credence I'd give to some of what was depicted on the show. There has been quite a bit of controversy here in the past week or so about some of the scenes and so forth. Remember, it was a "docudrama", not a documentary.

 

[Tolstoyevsky]

I'm not sure how much credence I'd give to some of what was depicted on the show. There has been quite a bit of controversy here in the past week or so about some of the scenes and so forth. Remember, it was a "docudrama", not a documentary.

Yes, the left-wingers in the States are in an uproar: Clinton, Berger, Albright and Tenet are threatening to sue. Truth hurts I guess...

 

[scoutfinch]

The suggestion that Madeleine Albright is/was uninformed regarding international relations and foreign policy is laughable at best, libellous at worst.  While I hesitate to rely on Wikipedia as authority for anything, I have heavily borrowed from their biography to capture Ms. Albrights academic and professional credentials:

Academic and public career

-- Awarded a B.A. from Wellesley College with honors in Political Science,

-- studied at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University

-- received a Certificate from the Russian Institute at Columbia University,

-- received her Masters and Doctorate from Columbia University's Department of Public Law and Government.

--  awarded Honorary Doctors of Laws from the University of Washington in 2002 and the University of Winnipeg in 2005.

1976 to 1978:  Chief Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Edmund Muskie.

1978 to 1981: a staff member of the White House and the National Security Council (Albright was an important Carter Administration official responsible for the formulation of foreign policy legislation)

1981 to 1982:  awarded a fellowship at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars at the Smithsonian Institution following an international competition in which she wrote about the role of the press in political changes in Poland during the early 1980s.

1981 to 1982: Senior Fellow in Soviet and Eastern European Affairs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, conducting research in developments and trends in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

1981: co-founded the Center for National Policy. She also served as President of the organization.

1982:  Albright was appointed Research Professor of International Affairs and Director of Women in Foreign Service Program at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in international affairs, U.S. foreign policy, Russian foreign policy, and Central and Eastern European politics ( She was voted "best teacher" four times).

Before becoming Secretary of State, Albright served as a member of President Clinton's Cabinet. Today, Secretary Albright is once again a professor at Georgetown.

She was appointed US Ambassador to the UN in 1993 until 1997.

She was appointed as the 64th Secretary of State for the United States in 1997, until 2001.


Hardly a women with a glancing familiarity with international relations and foreign policy, don't ya think?

 

[scoutfinch]

If you really would like some insight as to the governmental failures leading to 9/11, I commend for your reading Richard A. Clarke's book "Against all Enemies".  I would also suggest you listen to the testimony before the 9/11 Commission of both Cohen and Clarke.  It is very informative as to the priority of the newly minted Bush administration in early 2001.

 

[Tolstoyevsky]

The suggestion that Madeleine Albright is/was uninformed regarding international relations and foreign policy is laughable at best, libellous at worst.  While I hesitate to rely on Wikipedia as authority for anything, I have heavily borrowed from their biography to capture Ms. Albrights academic and professional credentials:

Academic and public career

-- Awarded a B.A. from Wellesley College with honors in Political Science,

-- studied at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University

-- received a Certificate from the Russian Institute at Columbia University,

-- received her Masters and Doctorate from Columbia University's Department of Public Law and Government.

--  awarded Honorary Doctors of Laws from the University of Washington in 2002 and the University of Winnipeg in 2005.

1976 to 1978:  Chief Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Edmund Muskie.

1978 to 1981: a staff member of the White House and the National Security Council (Albright was an important Carter Administration official responsible for the formulation of foreign policy legislation)

1981 to 1982:  awarded a fellowship at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars at the Smithsonian Institution following an international competition in which she wrote about the role of the press in political changes in Poland during the early 1980s.

1981 to 1982: Senior Fellow in Soviet and Eastern European Affairs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, conducting research in developments and trends in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

1981: co-founded the Center for National Policy. She also served as President of the organization.

1982:   Albright was appointed Research Professor of International Affairs and Director of Women in Foreign Service Program at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in international affairs, U.S. foreign policy, Russian foreign policy, and Central and Eastern European politics ( She was voted "best teacher" four times).

Before becoming Secretary of State, Albright served as a member of President Clinton's Cabinet. Today, Secretary Albright is once again a professor at Georgetown.

She was appointed US Ambassador to the UN in 1993 until 1997.

She was appointed as the 64th Secretary of State for the United States in 1997, until 2001.


Hardly a women with a glancing familiarity with international relations and foreign policy, don't ya think?

Hmmm, let's analyze the facts (facts, not diplomas): just before sending a couple o' missiles to kill bin-Laden, she warns the ISI, the Pakistani inter-services intelligence, of the plan. The result? Bin-Laden was warned and escaped. Now, I don't care how many degrees you have, but if you don't know that the ISI is infiltrated by bin-Laden sympathizers, and that the Pakistani government is duplicitary at best, well, you pretty much suck...and endanger national security.

As for degrees and diplomas, let me just say that Pol Pot studied at the Sorbonne...Oh yeah, one more thing: instead of paste and copying from the Net, simply write the shortcut, OK?

 

[scoutfinch]

Tolstoyevsky:

"Oh yeah, one more thing: instead of pasting and copying from the Net, simply write the shortcut, OK?"

FYI, I heavily edited the passage so why don't you keep your comments regarding the contents of the post to yourself before you AGAIN p*ss off people on this Board.  You don't seem to understand that people here engage in civilized discourse about subject matter and DO NOT require or appreciate your flippant comments with respect to their posts.  You have a very poor capacity for arguing the facts and instead all of your posts devolve into ad hominem attacks on people who post opinions contrary to yours.

I do not intend to engage in a repeat performance of your last series of posts that resulted in a ridiculous waste of bandwidth that was eventually deleted. 

So, if you intend to discuss things like an ADULT, I would be pleased to continue the discussion with you, particularly in light of your comments regarding the ISI.  Otherwise, just bugger off and let the big people carry on an adult conversation, okay.

 

[Tolstoyevsky]

Tolstoyevsky:

"Oh yeah, one more thing: instead of pasting and copying from the Net, simply write the shortcut, OK?"

FYI, I heavily edited the passage so why don't you keep your comments regarding the contents of the post to yourself before you AGAIN p*ss off people on this Board.  You don't seem to understand that people here engage in civilized discourse about subject matter and DO NOT require or appreciate your flippant comments with respect to their posts.  You have a very poor capacity for arguing the facts and instead all of your posts devolve into ad hominem attacks on people who post opinions contrary to yours.

I do not intend to engage in a repeat performance of your last series of posts that resulted in a ridiculous waste of bandwidth that was eventually deleted. 

So, if you intend to discuss things like an ADULT, I would be pleased to continue the discussion with you, particularly in light of your comments regarding the ISI.  Otherwise, just bugger off and let the big people carry on an adult conversation, okay.

Your wish is my command.

 

[muskrat89]

Oh yeah, one more thing: instead of paste and copying from the Net, simply write the shortcut, OK?

Cool your jets, champ. If you have a problem with a post, use the "Report to Moderator" function. Otherwise, "respect between users" is a Forum Guideline. Let's keep things civil, shall we?

Otherwise, just bugger off and let the big people carry on an adult conversation, okay.

Scoutfinch, you too, por favor.

 

[scoutfinch]

Thanks muskrat. 

I will let the topic cool down before I post again. 

I believe that Tolstoyevsky has raised some valid facts regarding the Pakistani involvement, in particular the ISI; however, he has failed to place the facts within the context of international relations.  As a result, a response to his last post will only result in further deterioration of the thread as I suspect casting some light on his *facts* will engender another knee jerk response from him. 

I would love to hear what a few other, well informed Board Members have to say (paracowboy comes to mind quickly).

 

[Tolstoyevsky]

"I believe that Tolstoyevsky has raised some valid facts regarding the Pakistani involvement, in particular the ISI; however, he has failed to place the facts within the context of international relations."

If by "context of international relations" you mean the justified apprehension that an American missile in Pakistani air space could have been mistaken for an Indian nuclear weapon, I was aware of that. The problem, however,lies with the timing. The Clinton administration warned the ISI well in advance, giving the Al-Qaeda sympathizers enough time to warn bin-Laden.

 

[scoutfinch]

That was only one aspect of the dilemma to which I referred.  Unfortunately, it is not so uni-dimensional as you have indicated.

Before we go any further, may I ask as to the source of your information for your posts? I recognize that there is likely more than one but could you please identify a few sources upon which you base your opinions?

 

[HItorMiss]

Tolstoyevsky

your opinions might carry more weight if you filled out your profile, I'm sure you have the requisite experience and intelligence to carry this conversation on but it's hard to take anything you say with more then a grain of salt with a blank profile.

Hit

 

[Tolstoyevsky]

Tolstoyevsky

your opinions might carry more weight if you filled out your profile, I'm sure you have the requisite experience and intelligence to carry this conversation on but it's hard to take anything you say with more then a grain of slat with a blank profile.

Hit

I'm not doing any missionary work, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm just expressing and defending my opinions, just like everybody else...

 

[HItorMiss]

Sure but without telling us where your experience lies and where your opinion comes from it's the ranting of a half retarded monkey, sure it's funny to watch but I'm not taking the rantings seriously at all.

 

[scoutfinch]

Sigh.... Tolstoyevsky -- you were being given some very solid advice by a HIGHLY regarded member of this Board. 

Unless you have an operational reason for not completing your profile, you will not have much credence with people here until you do so.  Unless you want people here to believe you are a troll, you should complete your profile.  You claim to be waiting for BOTC/IAP so you obviously have information you can fill in. 

Again, your flippant comment regarding misisonary work was not necessary.  You were simply being advised as to how to have your opinions regarded in a bit better light.

 

[Tolstoyevsky]

That was only one aspect of the dilemma to which I referred.  Unfortunately, it is not so uni-dimensional as you have indicated.

Before we go any further, may I ask as to the source of your information for your posts? I recognize that there is likely more than one but could you please identify a few sources upon which you base your opinions?

"Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror" by Richard Miniter

"Intelligence Failure: How Clinton's National Security Policy Set the Stage for 9/11" David Bossie

"Clinton Confidential: The Climb to Power : The Unauthorized Biography of Bill and Hillary Clinton" by George Carpozi
 
"The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs" written by your friend Albright

"An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror" Frumm (fellow Canadian) and Perle

 

[scoutfinch]

With all due respect, most of the sources you cite are to the right of the political spectrum (and before you start jumping up and down, I said most as only Albright would be the exception).  None of your sources are scholarly in nature which leads me to believe that your opinion is formed from a political position rather than an academic one.  Is this a fair assumption?

Have you read Michael Schaeur's two books:

Imperial Hubruis; and
Threw our Enemies Eyes?
Schaeur is an ex-CIA analyst.  He was the first director of the OBL desk (the first non-geographical desk of the CIA).  He is absolutely apolitical.  In fact, I would say that he thinks both the Clinton and Bush administrations dropped the ball!  I commend them for your reading as well.  Both are very informative and discuss the ISI issue in depth.  So does Stephen Coll's The Ghost Wars.

 

[Tolstoyevsky]

With all due respect, most of the sources you cite are to the right of the political spectrum

...and so am I.

as for Michael Schaeur's, he's a Carterite, his books are nothing but left-wing rubbish. It's like Layton ghost-wrote them.

 

[Centurian1985]

The suggestion that Madeleine Albright is/was uninformed regarding international relations and foreign policy is laughable at best, libellous at worst.  While I hesitate to rely on Wikipedia as authority for anything, I have heavily borrowed from their biography to capture Ms. Albrights academic and professional credentials:

Educaton does not equal capability, as has been stated several times on this site.  What your statistics fail to show is her level of failure in many of her political positions.  She did well within the USA but was considered a failure outside of the USA.

1984 - Foreign policy adviser to vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro (who failed to get elected)
1988 - Foreign policy adviser to presidential candidate Michael Dukakis (who failed to get elected)
1993 - Appointed ambassador to the UN, her first diplomatic post, where she had a poor relationship with United Nations Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali. (the point of a UN ambassador is to have good relations with the UNSG)
1994 - Rwanda genocide, fails to take any action.
1998 - Turns down requests for extra security at the US Embassy in Nairobi  prior to it being bombed. Also failed to take action to prevent bombings in Tanzania.
1999 - Prior to the Kosovo War, predicts Milosevic will fold after three days of bombing despite all evidence to the contrary.

Most of these comments come from the Wikipedia site.  She's probably a very good administrator, but has a very poor record of achievement when it comes to making important decisions.  In fact, she is so brilliant that since she 'left' politics in 2001, she hasnt had an important job since.