Nation Struggles on Offense and Defense, and Officials Still Expect New Attacks By Barton Gellman Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, December 24, 2002; Page A01 Late last year, in secret, the Bush administration erected a provisional defense against nuclear terrorism in the nation's capital U.S. exposure to ruinous attack, more than 15 months into the war with al Qaeda, remains unbounded. The global campaign launched by President Bush has destroyed Osama bin Laden's Afghan sanctuary, drained his financial resources, scattered his foot soldiers and killed or captured some of his most dangerous lieutenants. But there is nothing in al Qaeda's former arsenal -- nothing it was capable of doing on Sept. 11, 2001 -- that the president's advisers are prepared to say is now beyond the enemy's reach.... 'These Guys Continue to Go Back' The gravest risks from al Qaeda combine its affinity for big targets and its announced desire for weapons of mass destruction. "Most sobering to me was their research on chemical weapons, radiological dispersion devices, and their fascination with nuclear weapons," said Downing, who granted no interviews during his White House tenure and had not spoken about it until now. "They are obsessed with them." Terrorism in its latest form has brought home the paradox of "asymmetric war," in which even a powerful nation may be badly hurt by an antagonist of incomparably lesser strength. But the fight with al Qaeda has a symmetry as well. Bush wants to kill al Qaeda from the top, and much the same describes al Qaeda's plan for the United States... Limits on Anticipating Attacks With the dismantling of the Ring Around Washington, officials said, there is no adequate prospect that the unexpected arrival of an atomic weapon or a radiological device -- conventional explosives packed with radioactive materials -- will be detected... Orange Alert on Orange Street Some members of Bush's security team conceive homeland security in offensive more than defensive terms. No amount of spending can prevent a severe attack, one senior team member said, but hardening targets forces terrorists "to make more efforts, spend more resources, to overcome" the defensive measures. And every new effort the terrorists make "gives you more chances to see what they're up to."... Snakes, Weeds and Iraq The FBI, according to sources, has been obliged to shift some emphasis in its counterterrorism and counterespionage units from al Qaeda to Iraq, though senior officials said the shift was modest. And in the event of war with Iraq, formal priorities in intelligence-gathering will give that war first call on scarce resources such as photo interpretation, translation and satellite coverage. "There's no such thing as a tie in priorities," one national security official said. "One of them is going to win, and for the duration of any war it will be Iraq."... Gaps in Homeland Defense As Ridge makes the transition to a new role as secretary of the new Homeland Security Department, he will have major gaps to address. The biggest, in the view of many experts, is port defense. The government's new Transportation Security Agency now screens the shoes of millions of airline passengers but less than 2 percent of the 21,000 shipping containers that arrive in U.S. ports every day. Each is 40 feet long and easily holds the contents of a private home. Customs Commissioner Robert Bonner has said there is "virtually no security for what is the primary system to transport global trade."... http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31589-2002Dec23?language=printer Very sobering article, especially the # of containers crossing our borders unchecked...opportunity is there and we may be very open for another attack. And bringing in nukes if not already here, maybe easier than most think. Combine this with some of the earlier info posted here: Do Terrorists Really Have Nukes Here? Few in the news have already noted: the question is not if, but where and when... (Buffet interview on CNBC) and others ...- There are over 200 documented cases of persons attempting to purchase special nuclear material (stuff to make bombs) or tactical nuclear weapons on the black market.. Does al-Qaida have 20 suitcase nukes? Author claims bin Laden purchased them in '98 from ex-KGB agents for $30 million ... http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=168681#post168681 and we may have another recipe for a disaster.. In the mean time it appears we are going after Iraq non stop mobilizing considerable forces there.. I just hope cool heads prevail and we focus our resources and energies where it matters most. Josh
Thanks for that excellent post, Josh! What really upsets me is that it seems to be the same bullshit over and over again. Granted, hindsight is always 20/20, but Bush Sr. shouldn't have stopped where he did. However, what about Osama Bin Laden? Why don't we hear more rhetoric from our government about him? I'd sure like to see him brought to justice. He's out there somewhere right now -- probably still alive and planning another attack. Why aren't we out looking for Osama right now? I'm sure we are, but shouldn't he also be a priority? If Bush is so gung-ho towards Iraq, that may mean (at least to me) that 9/11 was a state-sponsored activity by Iraq -- who worked with Osama's Al Qaeda to pull it off.
Congratulations, Kicking, on indeed providing the first major laugh of the New Year with your lame response! Furthermore, not only are you ignorant, but you also proved yourself to be a failed clairvoyant - the Fox News channel is far from being my favorite channel. I never said Iraq attacked us on 9/11. If you had bothered to read my previous post, you would have noticed that I said this is a war necessary to prevent weapons of mass destruction getting into the hands of terrorists who would use them against us. You cannot deny that Saddam has harbored and financed terrorists! Do you doubt that he would not make such weapons available to terrorists?!? As far as the war in Afghanistan being a failure: do you consider the fact that we removed the Taliban, killed numerous Al Queda fighters and obliterated their training camps, forced Bin Laden into hiding like a scared dog, and caught many of his lieutenants and top commanders a failure?!? Sure, it hasn't been a complete 100% success since we didn't capture Bin Laden, but that doesn't mean we won't get him. The President said this was a war that would be ongoing. He never promised the immediate and complete destruction of Al Queda. This is a really dumb statement. Tell that to the anti-terrorist units in law enforcement agencies around the world who have had tremendous success against terrorists. Kicking, you are one of the sad people, an appeaser. You prefer to sit around and discuss what you believe to be root causes while offering no solution. All you do is rant and rave and never offer a single proposal on how to deal with this problem. You're all noise. People like you cannot understand that when the threat is of a nuclear/biological/chemical nature, waiting for the smoking gun is not an option. Because of the precise nature of the threat, we must choose the battleground to be on their shores rather than on our own. Speaking of foreign shores, how convenient it is for you to be sitting somewhere in Europe, unthreatened by Al Queda, criticizing my government. I would really like to know your nationality and where you're living. Next time you respond to my post, please, for the umpteenth time, offer to this board what you think the US should be doing as a response. I promise I'll TRY not to laugh....
U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds Michael Dobbs - Washington Post Staff Writer December 30, 2002 High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally. Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions. A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague. -cont- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52241-2002Dec29.html
December 30, 2002 Inspecting the Pregnant Woman, Arresting Her Husband We all know that airport security is extremely important -- we must protect our airways (and, by extension, our buildings) from terrorists. Sometimes airport security inspections go too far, however. Nicholas Monahan has written an article for LewRockwell.com in which he recounts his experiences with airport security. Nicholas was flying from Portland Internatinoal Airport to Las Vegas on October 26th of this year to attend a friend's wedding. At the airport both he and his pregnant wife were singled out for special searches -- suggesting that something about them prompted airport screeners to suspect that they were terrorists. His pregnant wife was singled out for an especially "intrusive" search. His wife began crying, explaining "Iâm sorry...itâs...they touched my breasts...and..." That was enough for Nicholas. He was angry. He walked up to the inspector who had searched his wife and demanded an explanation. He wasn't given one, though: Of course when I say she "told me later," itâs because she wasnât able to tell me at the time, because as soon as I demanded to know what the federal employee had done to make her cry, I was swarmed by Portland police officers. Instantly. Three of them, cinching my arms, locking me in handcuffs, and telling me I was under arrest. Now my wife really began to cry. As they led me away and she ran alongside, I implored her to calm down, to think of the baby, promising her that everything would turn out all right. She faded into the distance and I was shoved into an elevator, a cop holding each arm. After making me face the corner, the head honcho told that I was under arrest and that I wouldnât be flying that day â that I was in fact a "menace." Now it's certainly psosible that Nicholas overreacted when questioning the female security officer. Perhaps he seemed "menacing". Perhaps his face was red with anger. We don't know. The fact is, however, that this situation could have been resolved quickly if someone had stepped in and calmed everyone involved down. Instead they decided to handcuff Nicholas. Let's set aside the fact that Nicholas and his wife obviously aren't terrorists. It doesn't matter -- they should have been searched, and thoroughly. The real issue here is that the police arrested Nicholas. They brought him to the airport's jail -- yes, the airport has a jail -- and asked him whether he was on drugs (or if he should be). They then decided to charge him with a misdemeanor (they were doing him a "favor" by not charging him with a felony). There must be a system of oversight to protect innocent American citizens from a law enforcement complex that is out of control. For years Americans have had to endure the hardships fostered by the War on Drugs. Now we have to endure the hardships of the War on Terror. And when will it get better? So far it only seems to be getting worse. http://www.warblogging.com/archives/2002_12.php
But isn't the neocon position that al qaeda hates "freedom" and "prosperity"? Why aren't free and prosperous Europeans also threatened?
So they got put to sleep by the Iraqi's sales pitch. From the same article: While Rumsfeld was talking to Hussein and Aziz in Baghdad, Iraqi diplomats and weapons merchants were fanning out across Western capitals for a diplomatic charm offensive-cum-arms buying spree. In Washington, the key figure was the Iraqi chargé d'affaires, Nizar Hamdoon, a fluent English speaker who impressed Reagan administration officials as one of the most skillful lobbyists in town. "He arrived with a blue shirt and a white tie, straight out of the mafia," recalled Geoffrey Kemp, a Middle East specialist in the Reagan White House. "Within six months, he was hosting suave dinner parties at his residence, which he parlayed into a formidable lobbying effort. He was particularly effective with the American Jewish community." One of Hamdoon's favorite props, says Kemp, was a green Islamic scarf allegedly found on the body of an Iranian soldier. The scarf was decorated with a map of the Middle East showing a series of arrows pointing toward Jerusalem. Hamdoon used to "parade the scarf" to conferences and congressional hearings as proof that an Iranian victory over Iraq would result in "Israel becoming a victim along with the Arabs."
Europe as a whole has not been wholly threatened by Al Queda. Britain has for supporting us. In the grand scheme of things, though, one could say the entire democratic world is threatened by Al Queda and militant Islam. My point in saying Kicking wasn't threatened by Al Queda was said in the context of the here and now. They haven't been attacked (yet) as we have...