| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Judd Gregg | |
| 2004-04-13 | |
Floor Statement on 9/11 Commission, Thursday, April 8, 2004 Â Â Â Â Â Â Mr. Gregg: Mr. President, I hadn't thought that this debate was going to enlarge itself into the issue of the testimony before the 9/11 Commission, but it appears that the other side of the aisle has decided the pension bill is not enough to debate today on this floor, even though that's what it was to be limited to. It raises this issue [9/11 Commission]. So I do think it is appropriate to at least respond briefly; the response could be more extensive, however, I will try to return to the pension bill in the appropriate time. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â To respond briefly to the statements of the Senator from which I found to be outrageous. Maybe the Senator from New York did not listen to the testimony of Mr. Clarke? It is very possible he didn't, because he appears to have decided to make his mind up long before the National Security Advisor, Ms. Rice spoke. I think it was Mr. Clarke who said, in fact I know it was Mr. Clarke who said, in response to his question from Senator Gorton, whose question was, âIf the Administration had put in place every recommendation that you suggested to the prior Administration and to this Administration, and which you put in your memos and statements upon arrival of this Administration in office, if the Administration had done that, in fact if the Administration had pursued every course which had been laid out by Mr. Clarke, who was the guru of terrorism in the prior administration, which I also wish to comment on, would that have stopped the 9/11 event? Would that have prevented the 9/11 event?â A one word answer from Mr. Clarke. "No." and yet we have the Senator from New York come down here today and say just the opposite. I don't think he has the expertise of Mr. Clarke and has certainly not been presenting himself as an expert on terrorism. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Mr. Clarke has presented himself an expert on terrorism, was the expert on terrorism in the Clinton Administration and did say definitively in a one word answer, that no, 9/11 would not have been avoided had everything gone into place I wanted in place, I being Mr. Clarke. And so the statement by the Senator from New York is excessive, to say the least. When he comes here and says that 9/11 could have been avoided. And then when he goes on to accuse this Administration of not learning from lessons of the past. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Well, I'll tell you something, this Administration did learn from lessons of the past. And lessons of the past were the lessons of the Clinton Administration, which when we were attacked, our Embassies were attacked in Africa and when our ship was attacked in Yemen, what was the response of the prior Administration? They lobbed a missile into an empty -- an empty! -- terrorist camp in Afghanistan and then lobbed another missile into the wrong factory in Sudan. And then they washed their hands of Mr. Bin Laden and said they had done their purpose of defeating terrorism. Well, what we learned after 9/11 was that those sort of marginal responses, those sort of tepid responses to terrorism do not work in the present world, and certainty this Administration learned that. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â I hesitate to think where we would be today had Al Gore been elected President. I suspect we would still be negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan. This Administration decided not to negotiate. This administration decided to take action. It went into Afghanistan and it destroyed the base of the Al Qaeda operations in that country and replaced a repressive regime that didn't even allow women out of their houses and supported all forms of terrorism across this globe, and especially the Al Qaeda terrorists. They learned the lessons of the prior Administration, which was: tepid responses donât work. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Then this Administration moved into Iraq. We moved into Iraq. As a government, we voted to move in that direction. Why? Because some of us understood that Saddam Hussein was a significant, dramatic threat to world peace and specifically was a dictator who had used weapons of mass destruction, who was oppressive at a level which hadn't been seen since the times of Nazi Germany, and who had the capacity to use his oppressiveness and his megalomania and his criminal view of the world to our detriment. He was a threat to us because of his ability to pass on that threat, the capacity to pass on weaponry, the capacity to be a sanctuary, and the capacity to be a feeding ground for people who caused us harm. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â We are at war. There is no question about that. And we have, as a government under this President, pursued that war with an aggressiveness which was absolutely appropriate. We have chased these people who wish to do us harm across the globe. We have kicked over the rocks under which they live and we have brought them to justice. Today they fear, their concern is about where they sleep, not who they are going to attack tomorrow. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â That is the type of response we needed as a government and as a nation in light of what happened to us on 9/11. And for the Senator from New York to come down here and say that we did not learn the lessons of 9/11 and the lessons of the prior Administration, which approached terrorism with such tepidness, is an absolute mistake. For them to come down here and say, after Mr. Clarke, who they have held up as the epitome of knowledge and expertise in the area of terrorism, testified in one word that 9/11 could not have been stopped when he said no to that exact question had all his proposals been put in place. For the Senator from New York to come down and make the statement that we could have avoided 9/11 in light of that testimony is I find excessive to an incomprehensible degree. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â I didn't intend to speak on this issue, but unfortunately it was drawn into this debate and I think it required a response. The National Security Advisor today went before the Commission, testified under oath and made a clear and concise statement of how we as a nation are responding to terrorism, how we as a nation are fighting a war against people who have decided to try to destroy our culture and have who have proven their willingness to kill Americans indiscriminately, whether they are men, women or children. We are using all our resources as a result of this President's commitment, which is total and absolute, to bring these terrorists to justice. Statements like the Senator's from New York are not constructive to the debate on that issue. | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #20 The Beard yep that One - i do not see where you link has any relevance to my statement. it is not a secret these dictators are rich because they steal from thier own people. clarke is def no dictator and he did have his book published to coincide with the 9-11 commission. just do not see your point. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-04-13 6:20:32 PM |
| #19 Why bother to address any thoughts from NMM. He is so obviously clueless that he should be assigned the same fate as other poseurs...relegated to the dustbin of unworthy combatant and dismissed out of hand (and reply). |
| Posted by: Anonymous4152 2004-04-13 4:31:21 PM |
| #18 to have his book published. he may not be a dem operative but he certainaly holds his personal finances and vendatta's above the security of the american people First things first Senor. |
| Posted by: The Beard yep that One 2004-04-13 4:05:10 PM |
| #17 The GOP can spin all they like--but on GWB's watch was when 9/11 happened--and BTW Richard Clarke had served since the Reagan Admin--so don't pretend he's a Democrat operative! more partisian brinkmanship! get over it already, WE ARE ALL TO BLAME. but one thing does stand out about clarke - he waited till his scheduled appearance in the 9-11 witchhunt to have his book published. he may not be a dem operative but he certainaly holds his personal finances and vendatta's above the security of the american people. his apology was hollow. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-04-13 1:55:51 PM |
| #16 The GOP can spin all they like--but on GWB's watch was when 9/11 happened.. Yeah sure, the terrorists planned it all in eight lousy months, so it was ALL Bush's fault. Uh huh. Yup, yup. You sure you're not Michael Moore? You're about as clueless as he is. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-04-13 12:13:51 PM |
| #15 Dan has a clue, folks. Who's causing the problems in Iraq at the moment? It happens to be al-Sadr - Tehran's paid-for twerp in Iraq. There are several THOUSAND Iranian "pilgrims" in Iraq, helping out (read Zayad's blog of a couple of days ago, and Michael Ladeen's NRO column from last year). Funny thing, though: Iran is smack-dab in the middle between Iraq and Afghanistan. The US just happens to have troops in... Iraq and Afghanistan. The turbantops happen to know that. They're stirring up trouble in both Iraq and Afghanistan, because they know as soon as we get things settled there, we're gonna move toward the center. That center happens to be Tehran. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-04-13 12:00:34 PM |
| #14 Yes, yes. "On his watch" Great talking point, that. But you know what also happened? GWB sent in the military and kicked the living crap out of them in Afghanistan. That's what. Not a little cruise missile strike at an abandoned camp. Not a baby-formula factory going up in flames. No, he put troops on the ground and kicked the backward-ass Taliban to the curb. All of which came as a great surprise to al-Qaeda. That we are still chasing them around the mountains today is still a cause for concern for them, I'm sure. I think GWB did the right thing. And I'm confident he will continue to the right thing. And if the Islamodingbats try another big attack on us this year, I don't doubt that once more the right thing will be done... politically expedient or not. I've already written to my Congressman expressing my concern about Iran. Please take some time to do the same. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-04-13 10:54:33 AM |
| #13 when are americans going to wake up? the enemy here is iran. it has been for over 20 years. we went into iraq to change the middle east and to defeat iran , there is an old saying "All roads in the middle east lead through bagdad". taking out the talibs was not enough to change iranian, syrian and soddy policy but by going into iraq we put these countries on notice. and if you read anything in the last week hostilities our enemies are desperate. i am surprised they acted so soon but then again if freedom and democracy take hold iraq the ragheads in tehran are doomed. we are winning the larger battle and we as americans need to understand this conflict and what stage it is really in. just remember that our enemies are watching and taking cues. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-04-13 10:46:39 AM |
| #12 NMM -- most of the hijackers came into the country during the Clinton administration. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-04-13 8:47:50 AM |
| #11 Poor NMM: Senator Gregg has effectively pointed out that Clarke, the great terrorism expert, was incompetent, unable to cobble up an effective strategy to stop the biggest terrorist attack on US Soil. Thus, we witness the witless NMM trying to divert the blame from the clintons to bush by treating it like a game of "hot potato", hoping nobody notices that the bar has been raised and that the demand NOW is that the Bush administration do, in 8 months, what the Clinton administration failed to do in 8 years. I've always believed Bush was better than Clinton, but 12 times better, as NMM implies? NMM screams we should have paid attention to what the terrorists are saying, hoping, of course, that we don't notice that Osama Bin Laden, to support his claim of the American Paper Tiger, ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY CITED LIMP WRISTED ACTIONS BY THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AGAINST HIM. Sorry, NMM. The attempt to blame the pitcher in the ninth inning for failing to win the game, when your darling, the preceding pitcher, put the team into so deep a hole that nobody could dig them out of it, only proves you're unfit to give advice on the matter. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-04-13 7:11:09 AM |
| #10 No no no!!! Containment was a losing strategy - a failure. It was just another half-measure like Clinton's missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan. There's plenty of blame to go around: Bush I, the Arab League, the UN, et al - I'm not trying to smear Clinton (even Clinton realized it was a failure and changed official policy to "Regime Change"). The partisan blame game is a dead-end. Nobody can be totally faulted for pre-9/11 misjudgments, using nothing but hindsight. What is unforgivable though is to fail to learn from those mistakes. 12 years of Saddam containment did nothing to weaken him or lessen tyrany and did nothing to halt the growth and spread of terrorism. In fact, it was a direct factor in the rapid growth of terrorism during the '90s continuing up to 9/11 and even past that. The Jihadis listed the sanctions, no-fly zones, Baghdad bombings, troops in Arabia, etc. as their top grievances against us and used this to incite hatred against us and recruit trainees, money, and ideological support to their cause. Read Osama's 1996 fatwah against the U.S. But it wasn't just al-Qaida, throughout the world, the sanctions regime had become the focal point of rage against the U.S. Al Jizzera and other media outlets across the Arab world dutifully parroted Saddam's propaganda about the American-caused humanitarian crises. Europe and the American left (see 60 Minutes' Leslie Stahl's grilling of the inept Madeline Albright) were taking up the offensive from the other flank. It was already a decade-long Quagmire. |
| Posted by: Tokyo Taro 2004-04-13 2:36:02 AM |
| #9 Hey...Big Al endorsed Howling Howard!!!!!!!! That's gotta be worth somethun. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2004-04-13 2:06:05 AM |
| #8 NMM, Algore would have done nothing after 9/11 except surrender to OBL, then I'd be wearing a burqa and we'd all be bowing down to Mecca 5 times a day once Owlie Bore put shari'a law in place like his Islamist Masters told him to. It's EASY to say what both Gore and Sen. Ketchup would do if we ever had the horrific misfortune to have them as POTUS--God Forbid. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-04-13 1:57:19 AM |
| #7 How can anyone seriously (guess) say what Al Gore would have done? I agree with taking out the Taliban--but I also think a lot of our Intel experts Cia or military were diverted too Iraq before the job was really done. Saddam Hussein was not an immediate threat and could have been contained until the mission in Afghanistan--and let's face it--Pakistan was accomplished. I'm more concerned about the Pakistani nutz than anything Saddam was planning! |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2004-04-13 1:17:04 AM |
| #6 No, Clarke isn't a Democratic operative -- why, he was the most important terrorist expert in four different administrations. According to him, anyways. I have to say that some (at least) of what motivates Clarke is his rage over being demoted by GWB. Now then, NMM, let's assume that there's plenty of blame to go around for 9/11, which there is. More important is the follow-on question: what do you DO about it? We know GWB's response. Does anyone seriously think Al Gore would have gone along with an invasion of Afghanistan? Does anyone think that he would have thought seriously about it? Al would have been talked out of it -- you know, the brutal Afghan winter, the fierce Taliban, the French telling him that it's not a good idea and all, the humanitarian catastrophe that awaited, etc. And where would we be today? OBL would have his base camps, his secure operations, and further proof that the US was a toothless, crippled tiger that wouldn't defend itself. Where would we be then, NMM? I ask a serious question, not to attack you, but in hopes that you'll respond seriously. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-04-13 1:11:38 AM |
| #5 but on GWB's watch was when 9/11 happened And it was the culmination of Clinton's fucking around (literally as well). "It's the terrorists stupid". |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-04-13 1:10:01 AM |
| #4 The GOP can spin all they like--but on GWB's watch was when 9/11 happened--and BTW Richard Clarke had served since the Reagan Admin--so don't pretend he's a Democrat operative! |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2004-04-13 1:02:20 AM |
| #3 "Senator Schumer, how about a nice tall glass of SHUT THE FUCK UP?" I'll pour! |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-04-13 12:39:53 AM |
| #2 Gregg should have gone after the weakened recommendations of the Gore Commission after TWA 800 was downed. The ones that were never assigned implementation dates in the final post-lobbying version of the commission report. I heard it suggested today by Roger Hedgecock that we also compile the funds funneled through and assets used by Janet Reno's areas of purview for attacking Microsoft, for attacking Big Tobacco, for activities in Waco, and for activities for the purpose of returning a little kid to Castro. Against these figures we can compare assets and funds engaged in combating OBL by all Departments of Clinton's government in his eight years of office. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-04-13 12:36:43 AM |
| #1 And now for the condensed version: "Senator Schumer, how about a nice tall glass of SHUT THE FUCK UP?" |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-04-13 12:12:40 AM |