September 11, 2011, marked the tenth anniversary of the worst terrArabist attack on United States soil. Inevitably, this is a time to remember all those whose lives were so cruelly snuffed out.
But it should also be a time to remember those who made this atrocity inevitable–by refusing to acknowledge and address the impending threat from Al Qaeda.
British historian Nigel Hamilton has chronicled their arrogance and indifference in his 2010 biography: American Caesars: Lives of the Presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush.
Writes Hamilton: “Richard Clarke [the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council] had no doubt that Osama bin Laden had been behind the [USS.] Cole bombing in Aden” on October 12, 2000.
“Day after day, week after week, month after month, Clarke attempted to convince his new colleagues there was going to be another attack, either on American installations abroad or at home.”
But Clarke faced a serious handicap: As chef counter-terrorism advisor to President Bill Clinton, he had held cabinet-level access. Although he retained his position under President George W. Bush, he was now denied such access.
This put him at a severe disadvantage when dealing with higher-ranking Bush officials–such as Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice.
These turned out to be the very officials who refused to believe that Al-Qaeda posed a lethal threat to the United States.
“Indeed,” writes Hamilton, “in the entire first eight months of the Bush Presidency, Clarke was not permitted to brief President Bush a single time, despite mounting evidence of plans for a new al-Qaeda outrage.”
Nor did it help that, during his first eight months in office before September 11, Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.
Rice initially refused to hold a cabinet-level meeting on the subject. Then she “insisted the matter be handled only by a more junior Deputy Principals meeting” in April, 2001, writes Hamilton.
Wolfowitz, the number-two man at the Department of Defense, said: “I don’t understand why we are beginnning by talking about this one man, bin Laden.”
Even after Clarke outlined the threat posed by Al-Qaeda, Wolfowitz–whose real target was Saddam Hussein–said: “You give bin Laden too much credit.” Wolfowitz insisted that bin Laden couldn’t carry out his terrorist acts without the aid of a state sponsor–namely, Iraq.
Wolfowitz, in fact, blamed Iraq for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Clarke was stunned, since there was absolutely no evidence of Iraqi involvement in this.
“Al-Qaeda plans major acts of terrorism against the United States,” Clarke warned his colleagues. He pointed out that, like Adolf Hitler, bin Laden had actually published his plans for future destruction.
And he added: “Sometimes, as with Hitler in Mein Kampf, you have to believe that these people will actually do what they say they will do.”
Wolfowitz heatedly traded on his Jewish heritage to bring Clarke’s arguments to a halt: “I resent any comparison between the Holocaust and this little terrorist in Afghanistan.”
Writing in outraged fury, Hamilton sums up Clarke’s agonizing frustrations:
“For Clarke, the sheer obtuseness and sneering contempt of Bush’s senior advisors and colleagues towards officials who had served in the Clinton administration was galling.
“It was as if a sort of willful blindness seemed to afflict the new president [Bush], the vice president [Cheney], the national security advisor [Rice] and her deputy, and the secretary of defense [Rumsfeld] and his deputy [Woflwitz].”
This left only Secretary of State Colin Powell, his deputy Richard Armitage, Richard Clarke and a skeptical Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, to wage “a lonely battle to waken a seemingly deranged new administration.”
Clarke alerted Federal Intelligence agencies that “Al-Qaeda is planning a major attack on us.” He asked the FBI and CIA to report to his office all they could learn about suspicious persons or activities at home and abroad.
Finally, at a meeting with Rice on September 4, 2001, Clarke challenged Rice to “picture yourself at a moment when in the very near future Al-Qaeda has killed hundreds of Americans, and imagine asking yourself what you wish then that you had already done.”
Seven days later, Al-Qaeda struck, and 3,000 Americans died horrifically–and needlessly.
In words that should be angrily remembered by Americans ten years after the atrocity of September 11, Hamilton writes:
“Neither the President, Rice, nor other senior members of the Bush administration would ever admit afterwards to their somnambulance. Nor would any of them be brought to account.”
Disgustingly, these are the same officials who, afterward, posed as the Nation’s saviors–and branded anyone who disagreed with them as a traitor, practices they continue to this day.
Like this:
Like Loading...
ABC NEWS, BARACK OBAMA, BUREAUCRACY, CBS NEWS, CHRIS MATHEWS, CNN, CORPORATIONS, GEORGIA WORKS, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, PLATFORM TO EMPLOYMENT, REPUBLICAN PARTY, SENATOR AL FRANKEN, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, UNEMPLOYMENT
WHY REGULAR JOBS PROGRAMS DON’T WORK
In Bureaucracy, Business, Politics, Social commentary on September 8, 2011 at 5:56 pmImagine this: A future President seeks to disband the FBI—and offer bribes to career criminals to not rob, rape and murder. To sell his proposal, he chooses as his slogan: “Let criminals be criminals.”
If that sounds impossible, consider this: Politicians on both the Right and Left have adopted just that mindset toward holding corporate employers accountable for their criminal greed and irresponsibility.
Case in point: The Obama administration has signaled that it may adopt a Georgia program that allows businesses to train jobless workers for two months without having to pay them.
Its supporters claim the program—Georgia Works—lets workers get their foot in the door and reduces businesses’ hiring risks. Unions assert that it exploits workers and violates federal labor laws.
The drawbacks to this program:
Mississippi, in turn, has launched the Subsidized Transition Employment Program and Services. Funded with left-over stimulus dollars, it initially covers 100 percent of an employee’s wages, gradually reducing the subsidy for every 160 hours worked.
Its drawbacks:
Then there’s the Minnesota solution. Instead of adopting Senator Al Franken’s proposal to use public monies to subsidize wages, Congress enacted the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act. This gave businesses $13 billion worth of tax credits for hiring unemployed workers.
The drawbacks to this effort:
In Connecticut, another jobs program, Platform to Employment, puts workers through a four-week training period followed by an eight-week tryout at a participating business.
During the tryouts, the employees’ wages are paid by The Workplace, Inc., a private company which raised enough funds to support 100 jobs starting this fall.
The drawbacks to this are:
Meanwhile, the unemployment rate keeps steadily rising. In 2007, 228,000 people were unemployed for 99 weeks or longer, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Today more than 2 million Americans have been unemployed for at least 99 weeks—the cutoff point for unemployment insurance in the hardest-hit states.
And the longer a person is out of work, the less likely s/he is to find an employer willing to hire.
What all these “job creating” programs have in common is this: They apply plenty of carrots–but absolutely no sticks.
Bribes–in the form of tax credits or tax breaks–are liberally applied to entice employers to behave like patriots instead of parasites. But for employers whose refusal to hire condemns their country to economic catastrophe–there are no penalties whatsoever.
A policy based only on carrots is a policy of bribery. A policy based only on sticks is one of coercion. Some people can’t be bribed, and some can’t be coerced. But nearly everyone is open to a policy of rewards and punishments.
Thus, corporations across the country are now sitting atop $2 trillion in profits. But their CEOs are using those monies for:
In short, the one expense they refuse to underwrite is hiring their fellow Americans.
This is because:
They want, in short, to enrich themselves at the direct expense of their country.
In decades past, this used to be called treason.
Yet no major political figure–on the Left or Right–has so far dared to blame employers for selling out their country and destroying its economic prosperity.
No job-seeker, however well-qualified and -motivated, can hire himself onto an employer who refuses to hire.
But corporate CEOs–and their paid political stooges–continue to blame the unemployed for being unable to find employers willing to honor their integrity, qualifications and initiative.
Americans generally–and the unemployed and under-employed in particular–must hold corporate America accountable for its criminal greed and irresponsibility.
Until they do, the United States will continue to sink further into decline–economically, socially and politically.
Share this:
Like this: