PDA

View Full Version : wolfowitz: "Who cares about a little terrorist in Afghanistan?"




zimv20
Mar 21, 2004, 10:51 PM
link (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040321/nysu007a_1.html)


NEWSWEEK: In the Months Before 9/11, Justice Department Curtailed Highly Classified Program to Monitor Al Qaeda Suspects in the U.S.
Sunday March 21, 10:51 am ET

'They Came in There With Their Agenda and [Al Qaeda] was not on it,' Says Former Counterterrorism Chief Clarke of Bush Administration

NEW YORK, March 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Newsweek has learned that in the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called "Catcher's Mitt" to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States, after a federal judge severely chastised the FBI for improperly seeking permission to wiretap terrorists. During the Bush administration's first few months in office, Attorney General John Ashcroft downgraded terrorism as a priority, choosing to place more emphasis on drug trafficking and gun violence, report Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff and Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas in the March 29 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, March 22).

Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism chief of the national-security staff, tells Newsweek that at an April 2001 top-level meeting to discuss terrorism, his effort to focus on Al Qaeda was rebuffed by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. According to Clarke, Wolfowitz said, "Who cares about a little terrorist in Afghanistan?" The real threat, Wolfowitz insisted, was state-sponsored terrorism orchestrated by Saddam Hussein.

In the meeting, says Clarke, Wolfowitz cited the writings of Laurie Mylroie, a controversial academic who had written a book advancing an elaborate conspiracy theory that Saddam was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Clarke says he tried to refute Wolfowitz. "We've investigated that five ways to Friday, and nobody [in the government] believes that," Clarke recalls saying. "It was Al Qaeda. It wasn't Saddam." A spokesman for Wolfowitz describes Clarke's account as a "fabrication." Wolfowitz always regarded Al Qaeda as "a major threat," says this official.

(more)



wwworry
Mar 22, 2004, 08:09 AM
the scary thing is that the taliban still control large parts of Afghanistan or have retaken control. Also, Afghanistan has reclaimed its spot at the top of world opium suppliers.

Bush talks about Iraq but the real enemy gets stronger.

Juventuz
Mar 22, 2004, 09:51 AM
the scary thing is that the taliban still control large parts of Afghanistan or have retaken control. Also, Afghanistan has reclaimed its spot at the top of world opium suppliers.

Bush talks about Iraq but the real enemy gets stronger.

Care to share what "large parts" of Afghanistan the Taliban still controls or has retaken control of?

IJ Reilly
Mar 22, 2004, 11:21 AM
Care to share what "large parts" of Afghanistan the Taliban still controls or has retaken control of?

It's probably more accurate to say that the Afghan government continues to have little authority outside of Kabul. Most of the country is run by tribal warlords, whose loyalties are for sale.

zimv20
Mar 22, 2004, 11:36 AM
some recent news from afghanistan

Afghan Minister, 50 to 100 Others Killed (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=516&e=1&u=/ap/20040321/ap_on_re_as/afghan_assassination)
US Afghan allies committed massacre (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1174554,00.html)
For More Afghan Women, Immolation Is Escape (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00A14FA3D5A0C7B8CDDAA0894DC404482)
American troops are killing and abusing Afghans, rights body says (http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1164511,00.html)
Heroin to flood Britain after Taliban's fall (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=497314)

Juventuz
Mar 22, 2004, 12:09 PM
How exactly are the links related the Taliban?

zimv20
Mar 22, 2004, 12:36 PM
How exactly are the links related the Taliban?
i never said they were. i thought you and others might like to know what's been going on there the past few weeks.

is your sole criterion for judging the situation in afghanistan "to what extent have the taliban come back?"

skunk
Mar 22, 2004, 01:38 PM
i never said they were. i thought you and others might like to know what's been going on there the past few weeks.

is your sole criterion for judging the situation in afghanistan "to what extent have the taliban come back?"

Did they ever go away? If so, who is carrying out the daily attacks on foreigners and ISAF? And who are all those US soldiers fighting? Ghosts?

zimv20
Mar 22, 2004, 01:45 PM
Did they ever go away?
it very much seems like once kabul was captured, attention was focused elsewhere. the taleban went into hiding and most of the country fell once again under control of the warlords.

karzai was put into power, underfunded and basically left w/ a mess. but by then, the administration was already making its iraq war case.

Juventuz
Mar 22, 2004, 01:45 PM
My criteria to this particular thread is....

"the scary thing is that the taliban still control large parts of Afghanistan or have retaken control. Also, Afghanistan has reclaimed its spot at the top of world opium suppliers."

I'm simply trying to find out how much control the Taliban still holds. I thought you were trying to provide links to back his statement. If you weren't then I apologize.

zimv20
Mar 22, 2004, 01:50 PM
I'm simply trying to find out how much control the Taliban still holds. I thought you were trying to provide links to back his statement. If you weren't then I apologize.
no worries.

the NYT article about women lighting themselves on fire had some reports on what it's like to live in the countryside under control of the warlords. unfortunately, the rest of the article seems to be available only if purchased (i first read it a few days ago).

wrt the taleban, i don't know. they're clearly still operating, it's hard to ascertain from here what would constitute "control" or who actually has it in what quantities.

regardless, my reason for starting the thread was to inform how little the administration was paying attention to the terrorism threat pre-9/11, as nicely summed up by wolfowitz's (outrageous) statement.

skunk
Mar 22, 2004, 02:00 PM
it very much seems like once kabul was captured, attention was focused elsewhere. the taleban went into hiding and most of the country fell once again under control of the warlords.

karzai was put into power, underfunded and basically left w/ a mess. but by then, the administration was already making its iraq war case.

My question was rhetorical.... :)
But thanks for the analysis.

zimv20
Mar 22, 2004, 02:13 PM
My question was rhetorical.... :)

on my headstone: "He answered rhetorical questions"

skunk
Mar 22, 2004, 02:33 PM
"He answered rhetorical questions"

That's cool: so did Cicero :)

wwworry
Mar 22, 2004, 03:55 PM
Last weeks New Yorker had a big article on it. Which is not on thier web site now.

but also this:
Bush lapses have only helped al-Qaida (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/2456420)

It's now clear that by shifting his focus to Iraq, Bush did al-Qaida a huge favor. The terrorists and their Taliban allies were given time to regroup; the resurgent Taliban once again control almost a third of Afghanistan, and al-Qaida has regained the ability to carry out large-scale atrocities.

I know it's Krugman so you won't believe it

and

http://www.japantoday.com/gidx/news278527.html

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080503A.shtml

just look up on google news about fighting in Afghanistan with Al Qaida and the Taliban. It's not over yet.