U.S. Sees Direct Threat in Attack at Kenya Mall

Taft2016

Taft2016

Verified User
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/w...attack-at-kenya-mall.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

NAIROBI, Kenya — Viewing the deadly siege at a shopping mall in Kenya as a direct threat to its security, the United States is deploying dozens of F.B.I. agents to investigate the wreckage, hoping to glean every piece of information possible to help prevent such a devastating attack from happening again, possibly even on American soil.

For years, the F.B.I. has been closely watching the Shabab, the Somali Islamist group that has claimed responsibility for the Nairobi massacre and recruited numerous Americans to fight and die — sometimes as suicide bombers — for its cause.

The Shabab has already attacked most of the major actors trying to end the chaos in Somalia — the United Nations, Uganda, aid groups, the Somali government and now Kenya. The United States has spent hundreds of millions of dollars bankrolling anti-Shabab operations for years, and there is growing fear that the group could turn its sights on American interests more directly, one of the reasons the Obama administration is committing so many resources to the investigation in Kenya.

“We are in this fight together,” said Robert F. Godec, the American ambassador to Kenya. “The more we know about the planning that went into this, the way it was conducted, what was used, the people involved, the better we can protect America, too.”
Click to expand...

This is certainly alarming.

Just scanning the headlines this morning I also saw that 158 people have been killed so far in renewed fighting with Islamic separatists in the southern Philippines Island of Mindanao.
 
Bush allowed us to be hit on our own soil because he kept telling our top terror experts Like Richard Clarke to shut up about AQ because that was Clinton stuff and he didn't care about it.


they way you keep from being hit is to do your due diligence.

You have a president now who is doing that due diligence instead of pretending it means nothing
 
evince said:
Bush allowed us to be hit on our own soil because he kept telling our top terror experts Like Richard Clarke to shut up about AQ because that was Clinton stuff and he didn't care about it.
Click to expand...

I'd really love to see a link that says anything remotely like that.


they way you keep from being hit is to do your due diligence.

You have a president now who is doing that due diligence instead of pretending it means nothing
Click to expand...

Presumably your definition of "due diligence" includes arming the same Al Qaeda folks that attacked us on 9/11?

Presumably your definition of "due diligence" includes warrantless wiretaps, which was really an outrage when Bush did it, but now falls under the category of due diligence.

You may require some sort of medical attention for your Bush Derangement Syndrome. I didn't make any partisan comments about the situation in Kenya but your knee-jerk liberalism and Bush Derangement sent you right over the edge.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

Richard Alan Clarke[1] (born October 27, 1950) is the former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism for the United States.

Clarke worked for the State Department during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.[2] In 1992, President George H.W. Bush appointed him to chair the Counter-terrorism Security Group and to a seat on the United States National Security Council. President Bill Clinton retained Clarke and in 1998 promoted him to be the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council. Under President George W. Bush, Clarke initially continued in the same position, but the position was no longer given cabinet-level access. He later became the Special Advisor to the President on cybersecurity, before leaving the Bush administration in 2003.
 
Early warnings about Al-Qaeda threat[edit source]

Clarke's role as a counter-terrorism advisor in the months and years prior to 9/11 would lead to the central role he played in deconstructing what went wrong in the years that followed. Clarke and his communications with the Bush administration regarding bin Laden and associated terrorist plots targeting the United States were mentioned frequently in Condoleezza Rice's public interview by the 9/11 investigatory commission on April 8, 2004. Of particular significance was a memo[8] from January 25, 2001, that Clarke had authored and sent to Rice. Along with making an urgent request for a meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss the growing al-Qaeda threat in the greater Middle East, the memo also suggests strategies for combating al-Qaeda that might be adopted by the new Bush administration.[9]

In his memoir, "Against All Enemies", Clarke wrote that when he first briefed Rice on Al-Qaeda, in a January 2001 meeting, "her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before." He also stated that Rice made a decision that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism should be downgraded. By demoting the office, the Administration sent a signal through the national security bureaucracy about the salience they assigned to terrorism. No longer would Clarke's memos go to the President; instead they had to pass through a chain of command of National Security Advisor Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke
 
At the first Deputies Committee meeting on Terrorism held in April 2001, Clarke strongly suggested that the U.S. put pressure on both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda by arming the Northern Alliance and other groups in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, that they target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the MQ-1 Predators. To which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz responded, "Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden." Clarke replied that he was talking about bin Laden and his network because it posed "an immediate and serious threat to the United States." According to Clarke, Wolfowitz turned to him and said, "You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist."[10]

Clarke wrote in Against All Enemies that in the summer of 2001, the intelligence community was convinced of an imminent attack by al Qaeda, but could not get the attention of the highest levels of the Bush administration, most famously writing that Director of the Central Intelligence Agency George Tenet was running around with his "hair on fire".[10]

At a July 5, 2001, White House gathering of the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI, Secret Service and INS, Clarke stated that "something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon." Donald Kerrick, a three-star general who was a deputy National Security Advisor in the late Clinton administration and stayed on into the Bush administration, wrote Hadley a classified two-page memo stating that the NSA needed to "pay attention to Al-Qaida and counterterrorism" and that the U.S. would be "struck again."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke
 
you idiots called Clark a "disgruntled employee"

that was a phrase we heard a lot right before 911
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_O'Neill_(Secretary_of_the_Treasury)

they said the same of this man when he resigned from the Bush cabinet out of outrage




Bush Administration[edit source]





Official portrait as Secretary of the Treasury
O'Neill was appointed Secretary of the Treasury by George W. Bush. O'Neill was an outspoken member of the administration, often saying things to the press that went against the administration's party line, and doing unusual things like taking a tour of Africa with singer Bono.

A report commissioned in 2002 by O'Neill, while he was Treasury Secretary, suggested the United States faced future federal budget deficits of more than US$ 500 billion. The report also suggested that sharp tax increases, massive spending cuts, or both would be unavoidable if the United States were to meet benefit promises to its future generations.

Ron Suskind interviewed O'Neill extensively about his tenure in the Bush Administration. He was also given access to a large amount of documentation. In 2004 he produced the book The Price of Loyalty, detailing O'Neill's tenure in the Bush Administration.[6] The book describes many of the conflicts that O'Neill had with the Bush administration. The book also details O'Neill's criticisms of some of Bush's economic policies. O'Neill claims president Bush appeared somewhat unquestioning and uncurious, and that the war in Iraq was planned from the first National Security Council meeting, soon after the administration took office. Which O'Neill views as a violation of earlier guarantees that (then presidential candidate) Bush would refrain from nation building endeavors during his time in office.[7][8]
 
I'm missing the parts about Bush telling Clarke to "shut up" and how Bush "didn't care about Al Qaeda" and that it was "Clinton stuff."
 
911 is the ONLY reason they got the people to fall for attacking Iraq.


they refused to listen to any information about the terror threat from AQ and OBL right until we got hit on our own soil.



They had the info BUT refused to listen and even punished the people who tried to tell them.
 
evince said:
At the first Deputies Committee meeting on Terrorism held in April 2001, Clarke strongly suggested that the U.S. put pressure on both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda by arming the Northern Alliance and other groups in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, that they target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the MQ-1 Predators. To which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz responded, "Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden." Clarke replied that he was talking about bin Laden and his network because it posed "an immediate and serious threat to the United States." According to Clarke, Wolfowitz turned to him and said, "You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist."[10]

Clarke wrote in Against All Enemies that in the summer of 2001, the intelligence community was convinced of an imminent attack by al Qaeda, but could not get the attention of the highest levels of the Bush administration, most famously writing that Director of the Central Intelligence Agency George Tenet was running around with his "hair on fire".[10]

At a July 5, 2001, White House gathering of the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI, Secret Service and INS, Clarke stated that "something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon." Donald Kerrick, a three-star general who was a deputy National Security Advisor in the late Clinton administration and stayed on into the Bush administration, wrote Hadley a classified two-page memo stating that the NSA needed to "pay attention to Al-Qaida and counterterrorism" and that the U.S. would be "struck again."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke
Click to expand...


hell its right there asshole
 
Yeah, I'm still missing the "Shut up," "don't care," and "Clinton stuff" parts.

Speaking of not caring though, Clinton obviously didn't care. He was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter and rejected the offer.

Clinton had a more solid opportunity to prevent 9/11 than Bush ever did.

Only mistake Bush made was prioritizing Bin Laden at the same level that Clinton did. But Bush learned the hard way and reversed course.

Now Obama is arming Bin Laden's old buddies.
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-607356.html


The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August."

Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.
 
Last edited:
Taft2016 said:
Yeah, I'm still missing the "Shut up," "don't care," and "Clinton stuff" parts.

Speaking of not caring though, Clinton obviously didn't care. He was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter and rejected the offer.

Clinton had a more solid opportunity to prevent 9/11 than Bush ever did.

Only mistake Bush made was prioritizing Bin Laden at the same level that Clinton did. But Bush learned the hard way and reversed course.

Now Obama is arming Bin Laden's old buddies.
Click to expand...



dear history rewriting asshole.


do you recall what the entire right I n this country said when Clinton tried to kill OBL?


wag the dog
 
I have proven it all and now you will just pretend you never heard any of this information next time its discussed.

Just like your idiot hero Bush
 
evince said:
dear history rewriting asshole.


do you recall what the entire right I n this country said when Clinton tried to kill OBL?


wag the dog
Click to expand...

No, that was when he tried to distract us from the growing Monica Lewinsky scandal by entering the Serb/Bosnia dispute.

His efforts to get Bin Laden, particularly after the USS Cole incident, were considered necessary, but the executions of those efforts were considered bumbling, half-hearted, and not serious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top