U.S. Terrorism Policy Spawns Steady Staff Exodus

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrBrau1

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
10,436
Location
Verplexed in Vermont
U.S. Terrorism Policy Spawns Steady Staff Exodus
By Caroline Drees

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has faced a steady exodus of counterterrorism officials, many disappointed by a preoccupation with Iraq they said undermined the U.S. fight against terrorism.

Former counterterrorism officials said at least half a dozen have left the White House Office for Combating Terrorism or related agencies in frustration in the 2 1/2 years since the attacks.

Some also left because they felt President Bush had sidelined his counterterrorism experts and paid almost exclusive heed to the vice president, the defense secretary and other Cabinet members in planning the "war on terror," former counterterrorism officials said.
"I'm kind of hoping for regime change," one official who quit told Reuters.

The administration's handling of the battle against terrorism is a key issue for the presidency, and could be key to Bush's re-election effort.
Similar charges were made by Bush's former counterterrorism czar, Richard Clarke, who told the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the administration ignored the al Qaeda threat beforehand and was fixated on Iraq afterward. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice testifies before the 9/11 panel on Thursday.

"Iraq has been a distraction from the whole counterterrorism effort," said the former official, adding the policy had frustrated many in the White House anti-terrorism office, about two-thirds of whom have left and been replaced since Sept. 11.

The administration vehemently denies the accusations, and says it is making strong progress in the global war on terror.



HIGH TURNOVER

Roger Cressey, who served under Clarke in the White House counterterrorism office, said: "Dick accurately reflects the frustration of many in the counterterrorism community in getting the new administration to take the al Qaeda issue seriously."

Cressey left the office in November 2001, when he became chief of staff of the White House's cybersecurity office until September 2002.
The attrition among all levels of the Office for Combating Terrorism began shortly after the attacks and continued into this year. At least eight officials in the office -- which numbers a dozen people -- have left and been replaced since 9/11. Several of the officials were contacted by Reuters.

The office has been run by four different people since the attacks, and at least three have held the No. 2 slot. "There has been excessively high turnover in the Office for Combating Terrorism," said Flynt Leverett, who served on the White House National Security Council for about a year until March 2003 and is now a fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank.

"If you take the (White House) counterterrorism and Middle East offices, you've got about a dozen people ... who came to this administration wanting to work on these important issues and left after a year or often less because they just don't think that this administration is dealing seriously with the issues that matter," he said.

Rand Beers, a former No. 2 in the office who quit last year over the administration's handling of the war on terrorism, told Reuters the turnover had been "unusually high" since the hijacked airliner attacks in New York and Washington.

"And one of the reasons is frustration with the way counterterrorism policy has been conducted, including the focus on Iraq," said Beers, who now serves as a foreign policy adviser for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who hopes to unseat Bush in November.

The White House denied there had been unusually high turnover, saying staff tended to be on limited assignments from other federal agencies. A senior administration official said it was "absolutely untrue" Iraq was diverting attention from overall counterterrorism efforts.

Another official said it was wrong to link all the numerous departures to policy concerns over Iraq.
Several current and former officials said burn out from job stress also contributed to high turnover in the office, as did frustration among some staff about the limits of their influence over policymaking in general. Many National Security Council staffers only stay 18 months to two years.
One current counterterrorism official said while the Iraq campaign had been a "huge resource drain," this held true for all major events that compete for scarce resources.

"There's a problem of too few counterterrorism staffers to begin with ... and with the focus on any big issue like Iraq, it is a distraction from the overall counterterrorism effort," the official said.


Bush has the answers. He doesn't need experts to advise him. Jesus Christ will guide him.
 
The vast majority of the military units in Iraq currently would not be involved in any hunt for Al Quada in the first place.

I'm sorry these officials think that the United States only faces one type of threat to its security. The President recognizes all the threats to US security and knows how to set appropriate policy to deal with all these threats.
 
Last edited:
MrBrau1 said:
It seems 1/2 the people who work w/ Bush wind up leaving one way or another, and disagreeing w/ his policy.

There have been plenty of them. But then there is always alot of disagreement in politics.
 
STING2 said:
I'm sorry these officials think that the United States only faces one type of threat to its security. The President recognizes all the threats to US security and knows how to set appropriate policy to deal with all these threats.

Haha...good one. Too bad the left has generally been correct on everything involving Iraq, starting from the lack of WMDs to Iraq's subsequent rebelliousness following the "end" of Gulf War II.

Maybe Bush should stop surrounding himself with PNAC reactionaries and find someone who isn't in this to fulfill some kind of pre-determined agenda, whether to avenge Bush I's failures in Gulf War I or to fulfill some kind of apocalyptic Biblical prophesy that rolls around their thick skulls?

Melon
 
melon said:


Haha...good one. Too bad the left has generally been correct on everything involving Iraq, starting from the lack of WMDs to Iraq's subsequent rebelliousness following the "end" of Gulf War II.

Maybe Bush should stop surrounding himself with PNAC reactionaries and find someone who isn't in this to fulfill some kind of pre-determined agenda, whether to avenge Bush I's failures in Gulf War I or to fulfill some kind of apocalyptic Biblical prophesy that rolls around their thick skulls?

Melon

Ahh yes, the wonderful "left" and their policy towards Saddam. It was the "Left" that claimed that Sanctions would get Saddam out of Kuwait in 1990/1991. It was the "Left" that claimed that the US and Coalition would lose 50,000 people in retaking Kuwait from Saddam.

Iraq is a country of 25 million people, but apparently there are those that think a few thousand TERRORIST speak for them all.

The United States has had a policy of INSURING the disarmament of Saddam over the past 12 years. The methods used prior to the invasion of Iraq (by the Bush administration) FAILED to insure that Saddam was disarmed.

It is a Republican administration not a Democratic administration that has achieved the disarmament of Saddam and removed him from power. The Democrats failed to do either.

I think the "Left" should save their wild conspiracy theories for Oliver Stone.
 
STING2 said:
I think the "Left" should save their wild conspiracy theories for Oliver Stone.

And the "Right" should save their agitprop for Leonid Brezhnev.

Melon
 
STING2 said:

Iraq is a country of 25 million people, but apparently there are those that think a few thousand TERRORIST speak for them all.

You would call the uprising problems in Iraq at the moment a terrorist problem?!?
 
TylerDurden said:


You would call the uprising problems in Iraq at the moment a terrorist problem?!?

"Terrorism" is the new "Red Scare." So, rather than blaming all the evils of the world on "communists," now it is time to blame all the evils of the world on "terrorists." It is so easy to oversimplify conflicts and dehumanize your opponents this way.

Melon
 
melon said:


"Terrorism" is the new "Red Scare." So, rather than blaming all the evils of the world on "communists," now it is time to blame all the evils of the world on "terrorists." It is so easy to oversimplify conflicts and dehumanize your opponents this way.

Melon

I'm glad someone said this, I thought I was the only one who thought this.
 
melon said:


"Terrorism" is the new "Red Scare." So, rather than blaming all the evils of the world on "communists," now it is time to blame all the evils of the world on "terrorists." It is so easy to oversimplify conflicts and dehumanize your opponents this way.

Melon


EXACTLY :|
 
melon said:


"Terrorism" is the new "Red Scare." So, rather than blaming all the evils of the world on "communists," now it is time to blame all the evils of the world on "terrorists." It is so easy to oversimplify conflicts and dehumanize your opponents this way.

Melon


Oh, I'm sorry that I called the "freedom fighters" of fulluja terrorist. After all its not terrorism to murder civilians helping to transport food and then cut their bodies up and hang them on a bridge, right? Its not terrorism to attack Iraqi civilians and the coalition soldiers that are helping them build a new country after Saddam, is it? Its not terrorism to blow up the UN headquarters in Baghdad, right? Its not terrorism to massacre people during a religious event, right? Its not terrorism to murder a Shia religious leader because of political differences, right? Its not terrorism to attack and murder dozens of Iraqi's waiting in line to start training as policeman, right?

These are all examples of legitimate resistence of "freedom fighters", right?

Anyone who would call the above actions terrorism has a very simplistic view of things indeed, right?

There must be some way to explain the above actions as the actions of freedom fighters and not terrorist, right?
 
TylerDurden said:


You would call the uprising problems in Iraq at the moment a terrorist problem?!?

Yes, and I think most people would as well unless you have a different way of describing people who murder people transporting food and cut their bodies up and hang them on a bridge, or murder Iraqi citizens waiting in line to become Police, or murder humanitarian workers rebuilding communities ravaged by years of Saddam's rule, or attack and murder of coalition troops in the country engaged in trying to produce a standard of living that Iraq has never seen.
 
STING2 said:
Oh, I'm sorry that I called the "freedom fighters" of fulluja terrorist. After all its not terrorism to murder civilians helping to transport food and then cut their bodies up and hang them on a bridge, right? Its not terrorism to attack Iraqi civilians and the coalition soldiers that are helping them build a new country after Saddam, is it? Its not terrorism to blow up the UN headquarters in Baghdad, right? Its not terrorism to massacre people during a religious event, right? Its not terrorism to murder a Shia religious leader because of political differences, right? Its not terrorism to attack and murder dozens of Iraqi's waiting in line to start training as policeman, right?

These are all examples of legitimate resistence of "freedom fighters", right?

Anyone who would call the above actions terrorism has a very simplistic view of things indeed, right?

There must be some way to explain the above actions as the actions of freedom fighters and not terrorist, right?

See what I mean? The neocon world is completely black-and-white. "Terrorists" or "freedom fighters." Just because Dubya declared the war over doesn't mean it is over. What Iraq has degenerated into is guerrilla warfare, not terrorism. The U.S. is a foreign occupier, and whether guerrilla warfare is justified or not is not the question I am asking or answering. But that is what it is--not terrorism.

Needless to say, this kind of degeneration is precisely what the left predicted. Dubya and his crew of ideologues just thought that this would be a simple conflict, where soldiers would just roll over and play dead. But that is not how a war operates, and we had best stop abusing the word "terrorist" to the point of idiocy the same way previous generations abused the word "communist." That's how we got into this mess to begin with.

Melon
 
We've got a mix of things here and all sides are over simplifying the labels. Terrorist attacks in the south (police station bombings), radical muslim uprisings in Fulluja, Syrian (and others) mercenaries (?).

There is no coordinated represented army taking on the US. This is a collection of various factions, each with their own ideas, trying to exert or take power over areas with fear.
 
melon said:


See what I mean? The neocon world is completely black-and-white. "Terrorists" or "freedom fighters." Just because Dubya declared the war over doesn't mean it is over. What Iraq has degenerated into is guerrilla warfare, not terrorism. The U.S. is a foreign occupier, and whether guerrilla warfare is justified or not is not the question I am asking or answering. But that is what it is--not terrorism.

Needless to say, this kind of degeneration is precisely what the left predicted. Dubya and his crew of ideologues just thought that this would be a simple conflict, where soldiers would just roll over and play dead. But that is not how a war operates, and we had best stop abusing the word "terrorist" to the point of idiocy the same way previous generations abused the word "communist." That's how we got into this mess to begin with.

Melon

George Bush NEVER declared that any war was over. Thats just more horse dung from the left.

The United States along with 36 other countries are helping rebuild Iraq with the Approval of 3 United Nations Security Council resolutions!

By your definition should we call the actions of Humas and Hezbollah "guerrilla warfare". Is the bombing of Israely teens listening to U2 in a club, "guerrilla warfare"?

Do you honestly consider the murder of aid workers transporting food and the subsequent mutilation of their bodies to be "Guerilla warfare" but not terrorism?



The left predicted that a million people would die in the invasion of Iraq and that millions more would be refugees. They were flat out wrong.

There is no mass uprising in Iraq but there are terrorist and Saddam loyalist that the Bush administration has always aknowledged.

The fact based on latest polls done is that unlike the "Left" most Iraqi's support what the Coalition did in invading Iraq last year. Most Iraqi's feel life is better for them now than before the war.

Those are just a few facts that the "Left" should stop and think about.

Before the "Left" attempts to re-write history again, lets remember that the United States and other countries with the approval of the UN have had a serious policy to contain and disarm Saddam for the past 12 years. This is not something that just came up after 9/11. In light of the failures of prior actions in attempting to disarm Saddam as required by UN resolutions and the Gulf War Ceace Fire, the Coalition took the necessary action to achieve the objectives of the United Nations in regards to Saddam and Iraq.

The Liberal Left had it wrong in the Cold War just as they do today. Pretending the threat does not exist will not make it go away. Flower power does not work with terrorist and dictators. The use of military force is sometimes necessary and it is a must that the military remain strong and capable of insuring national and international security.
 
STING2 said:
George Bush NEVER declared that any war was over. Thats just more horse dung from the left.


That's right. His announcement last year was just more agitprop...declaring the war is over implicitly using inexplicit language.

The United States along with 36 other countries are helping rebuild Iraq with the Approval of 3 United Nations Security Council resolutions!

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

By your definition should we call the actions of Humas and Hezbollah "guerrilla warfare". Is the bombing of Israely teens listening to U2 in a club, "guerrilla warfare"?

More neocon polarization. Iraq is not Israel. Not all Arabs are Hamas and Hezbollah. And neither of these groups are in Iraq, nor has the U.S. invaded either Israel or Palestine.

Do you honestly consider the murder of aid workers transporting food and the subsequent mutilation of their bodies to be "Guerilla warfare" but not terrorism?

They are in a war zone. Only horse dung said that the war was over, remember?

The left predicted that a million people would die in the invasion of Iraq and that millions more would be refugees. They were flat out wrong.

And Bush thought the U.S. could walk into Iraq, make a short little war, and all the ayatollahs in the Iraq would just roll over and thank him.

There is no mass uprising in Iraq but there are terrorist and Saddam loyalist that the Bush administration has always aknowledged.

Nope...guerrilla warfare from a war.

The fact based on latest polls done is that unlike the "Left" most Iraqi's support what the Coalition did in invading Iraq last year. Most Iraqi's feel life is better for them now than before the war.

Polls smollz. We aren't talking about popular conceptions, nor are we talking about this subject whatsoever. I'm sure the vast majority of Vietnamese weren't soldiers either, but that didn't mean that all of the Viet Cong were "terrorists"--although I'm sure that if Bush were president then, he would have tried.

Before the "Left" attempts to re-write history again, lets remember that the United States and other countries with the approval of the UN have had a serious policy to contain and disarm Saddam for the past 12 years. This is not something that just came up after 9/11. In light of the failures of prior actions in attempting to disarm Saddam as required by UN resolutions and the Gulf War Ceace Fire, the Coalition took the necessary action to achieve the objectives of the United Nations in regards to Saddam and Iraq.

"The Coalition"...you mean, the U.S.?

The Liberal Left had it wrong in the Cold War just as they do today. Pretending the threat does not exist will not make it go away. Flower power does not work with terrorist and dictators. The use of military force is sometimes necessary and it is a must that the military remain strong and capable of insuring national and international security.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. You've diverted from the subject yet again. Questioning Generalissimo Bush on *anything* seems to hit a nerve with you. I wasn't making a value judgment on the war; only with the language describing it. And since you have trouble reading what I have been trying to say, allow me to point it out for you:

Calling the insurgents in Iraq "terrorists" is a blatant abuse of the word.

So focus on that, and stop the rest of the neocon propaganda. We can tackle that crap on a later date.

Melon
 
melon,

"That's right. His announcement last year was just more agitprop...declaring the war is over implicitly using inexplicit language."

Bush announced on the Aircraft Carrier last May that major military operations in regards to the removal of Saddam's regime were over.

But the left will twist that to fit whatever angle they want to try in attacking Bush.

"Yadda, yadda, yadda..."

A nice response to factual information.

"More neocon polarization. Iraq is not Israel. Not all Arabs are Hamas and Hezbollah. And neither of these groups are in Iraq, nor has the U.S. invaded either Israel or Palestine."

#1 I did not say Iraq was Israel.

#2 I did not say all Arabs are Hamas and Hezbollah.

#3 There are elements in Iraq that may have dealings with Hamas and Hezbollah or are in fact members. 20% of the insurgents in Falluja are from outside of Iraq.

The Question was:

By your definition should we call the actions of Humas and Hezbollah "guerrilla warfare". Is the bombing of Israely teens listening to U2 in a club, "guerrilla warfare"?



"They are in a war zone. Only horse dung said that the war was over, remember?"

the question was:

Do you honestly consider the murder of aid workers transporting food and the subsequent mutilation of their bodies to be "Guerilla warfare" but not terrorism?


"And Bush thought the U.S. could walk into Iraq, make a short little war, and all the ayatollahs in the Iraq would just roll over and thank him."

The Bush administration has accomplished multiple US and international objectives toward Iraq that the prior administration failed to do. George Bush never said "short little war" or that the development of Iraq would be easy. He never said the troops would be home by Christmas or anything like that.



"Polls smollz. We aren't talking about popular conceptions, nor are we talking about this subject whatsoever. I'm sure the vast majority of Vietnamese weren't soldiers either, but that didn't mean that all of the Viet Cong were "terrorists"--although I'm sure that if Bush were president then, he would have tried."


The polls are accurate information and a good indicator of conditions and progress in Iraq. I guess its not surprising the "Left" would dismiss such facts as they certainly do not bolster the image of total failure that they try to paint on everything Bush does.

The majority of Vietnamese were not soldiers or Vietcong. Having read and heard what the Vietcong typically did to South Vietnamese citizens in towns they took, I would indeed consider them terrorist.


" "The Coalition"...you mean, the U.S.?"

Ok, you don't consider it a coalition, please tell me what a "coalition" would be then. Be specific and provide an historical example.

"Yadda, yadda, yadda. You've diverted from the subject yet again. Questioning Generalissimo Bush on *anything* seems to hit a nerve with you. I wasn't making a value judgment on the war; only with the language describing it. And since you have trouble reading what I have been trying to say, allow me to point it out for you:"

I was responding to the Cold War stuff you brought up into this as well as making a general point.

I've already provided several examples as to why the use of the word terrorist, describing the enemy in Iraq, is not at all a blatant abuse of the word.

You didn't answer my specific questions in regards to what terrorism is?

Do you consider Hamas to be terrorist?

Do you consider the IRA to be terrorist?

Do you consider the Taliban to be terrorist?

Do you consider ETA to be terrorist?

Do you consider all the members of Al Quada to be terrorist?

What is your definition of terrorism and why is it that people who murder people transporting food and mutilate their bodies are not terrorist?

Do you think the 18 childern that were killed on their school bus in Basra yesterday died as a result of an act other than terrorism?
 
Back
Top Bottom