Pre-9/11, Bremer hit Bush on terror http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-bremer30.html WASHINGTON -- L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, said in a speech six months before the Sept. 11 attacks that the Bush administration was ''paying no attention'' to terrorism. ''What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?''' Bremer said at a McCormick Tribune Foundation conference on terrorism on Feb. 26, 2001. AP
the same thing sould be said for any president/official pre 9/11. It wasnt Clinton's or Bush's fault. Everyone is an expert after the fact...
Apparently, Bremer was an expert before the fact. The speech was in February 2001. I have never absolved Clinton of anything related to terrorism, but it is instructive that people giving random speeches apparently recognized threats that our government did not -- regardless of who was president at the time.
Recognizing that a potential threat exists is one thing, narrowing down that threat to a possible incident, and being able to prevent it, is another. Intelligence is given daily that a terrorist attack might occur here or there. Being able to filter out the bull and qualify the info/source, especially with a pre 9/11 mindset is another..
The reason Bush is a foreign policy failure is that EVEN NOW HE DOESN'T GET IT. He STILL ignores non-state actors. Say what you will about the Clintonistas, they recognized the threat.
Bremer could be a prophet or "could have known something". And he is now the viceroy of Iraq. I mean haven't you read anything regarding the conspiracy theories about 9-11 running around? One of the more frequent is that some conspirators could have let things happen, even if they could have prevented it, for political (strategical) profit. You and me who are rational and cautious ppl see only "an expert who happened to foretell well" but conspiracy theories lovers will have an erection.
Yes, but we liberals believe in 'personal responsibility'. When something bad happens when you are in charge, then you have some responsibility for that. Say for example during Bush's presidencey that unemployment rose, the stock market crashed, the worst terrorist event in domestic history occurred, that the gap between rich and poor widened measurably, that a war was started 'preemptively' to rid a country of WMD that didn't exist... Those things would be at least partially the result of the actions of the people in charge, at least by this crazy liberal notion that the buck may stop somewhere.
Ironic then, since liberals spend all their time and campaigns helping the disadvantaged. dedicating themselves to spending their time wiping the arses of everyone who isnt up to taking care of themselves. But heh, YOU brought it up. You can argue these, I'll give that to you. This : is just plain stupidity. Take a course in economics, hell even read a book on investing. Even the furthest left on this board can admit that the dot.coms were driving the stock market and it was was due to burst, and nothing could have been done to stop it.
I could bring up the fact that Clinton ordered a few missiles to be fired off in the desert, hoping to kill OBL. But I wont hold it against him, I leave that for the monday morning QB's and armchair generals.
You mean when the middle class grew, the economy grew, and we went from massive budget deficits to massive budget surpluses? We need more of that kind of stuff going wrong.
There you go again. When it isn't Bill Clinton's fault "nothing could be done to stop it." That should be the mantra of the right: "Nothing could be done about it." If you recall, it was the lefties that said "This is a bubble." The other side of the aisle wanted to privatize social security.
You do realize that on Feb 26, 2001, Bush was in office for just a month, right? And that the Bremer Report that he was commenting on was released in June 2000? Put two and two together and you realize that Bremer was issuing his dissatisfaction with an administration (Clinton's) that spent 7 months doing nothing. This article is just another in a daily barrage of examples of liberal media bias. They trumpet false headlines like "Bremer criticized Bush seven months before 9/11" blah, blah, blah. People with an ounce of common sense realize that Bush was barely in office. But, the media obviously is appealing to the Democrat base of morons who will screw up a ballot even in Kerry is the only name on the list.
Liberal media bias. Liberal media bias. Liberal media bias. Liberal media bias. Ok, it's only funny the first few times.
That's completely wrong. Here's the actual quote: ------------ "The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem of terrorism," Bremer said in remarks to the Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation. "What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?"' ----------- He specifically directs his criticism toward Bush. And, people who followed the terror issue closely had already had plenty of opportunity to observe how high a priority the Bush administration placed on terrorism, even before they took office. You know, if you're going to insult the intelligence of people who disagree with you, you might want to have some idea of what you're talking about first.
Bremer does the foot-in-mouth two-step: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=6&u=/ap/20040502/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bremer_bush
In a statement Sunday, Bremer said his remarks three years ago "reflected my frustration" that none of his commission's recommendations had been implemented by Clinton or the new Bush administration. "Criticism of the new administration, however, was unfair. President Bush had just been sworn into office and could not reasonably be held responsible for the Federal Government's inaction over the preceding 7 months," Bremer's Sunday statement said. "I regret any suggestion to the contrary. In fact, I have since learned that President Bush had shared some of these frustrations, and had initiated a more direct and comprehensive approach to confronting terrorism consistent with the threats outlined in the National Commission report. "I am strongly supportive and grateful for the President's leadership and strategy in combating terrorism and protecting American national security throughout his first term in office."
Gee Ian. I am sure glad that you brought that to my attention. I was having such a hard time judging the credibility of the original statement directed at Bush before Bremer worked for him, and the comments he makes now doing a Michael Jackson Moonwalk as the GWB Lotion Boy in Baghdad. I am also shocked -- shocked I tell you -- that someone from the Bush Administration would blame something that happened under Bush's watch on Clinton.
Bremer is the winner in the real-life political version of the "spejic plan of appearing super intelligent on the Internet". The plan consists of putting out lots of fact based but amazing predictions of the future. When you are wrong, it is forgotten. When you are right, you are seen as an angelic herald. There were hundreds of people telling the newly elected Bush that if their particular issue (environment, health care, taxes, immigration, type of flowers in the White House garden...) was not taken care of, it would mean catastrophe. It just happened that one guy's issue actually became a crisis during Bush's term. Without having any real, direct information on the Sept 11 attacks (and from reading the report, there wasn't), I don't see the difference between Bremer's predictions and those of Sylvia Browne. You can't spend your life reliving the Twilight Zone episode "Nick of Time".