Quote:
Originally Posted by janmcn
The president's daily briefing on August 6, 2001 said "Al Queda determined to attack US". What could be more clear than that? And the president's response was "okay, you covered your ass, now get out of here". Look it up.
|
Boogie already responded to your point (ie generalized report of a threat in the PDB vs specific actionable intelligence) so I won't repeat it here. I also agree with Chi about if something happens on your watch, you own it. That’s also true. However, let’s not get diverted but rather focus on this thread which is the contrast between the UK and US’s response to the current 2014 Islamic threat.
13 years after 9/11, the threat from Radical Islam is clear to all except those who wish to deny it. That is to say, the threat is objectively true, and especially as manifested in ISIS. It also includes a soon to be nuclear armed Iran. I’m assuming you agree that a clear and present threat to the US from Radical Islam (Shia and Sunni) exists. If not, please speak up because that’s the fundamental assumption for what I’m about to argue next … that if a mass casualty attack now occurs on US soil, it will be an impeachable offense.
My reason for arguing this is the threat is clear, and yet unlike the UK, we have no strategy to deal with it. That is a failure of executive leadership on a major scale, and a dereliction of the constitutional duty for any Commander in Chief to protect the country. This assertion applies to any President, current or future, and regardless of party. It is not meant to be a partisan statement so please don’t make it one.
We are no longer talking about a bunch of rag tag guys living in caves who periodically surface with viable attacks. ISIS controls a large territory, is a de facto state, has captured large amounts of US military equipment, and controls hundreds of millions of dollars with more coming in every day. They have a charismatic leader who has a doctorate in Islamic Studies who views himself as the modern day Caliph. They even produce an annual report and use “metrics.” See this link, but be advised it is most unpleasant to read. Al Qaeda disavowed ISIS as even they thought their methods were too brutal.
ISIS, Inc. ? Jihadists attract investors, fighters with annual reports & glossy PR ? RT News
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is their leader. The Washington Post describes him as a “…shrewd strategist, prolific fundraiser and ruthless killer.” He is apparently our generation’s Hitler who, if left unchallenged will only grow stronger.
How ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi became the world’s most powerful jihadist leader - The Washington Post
al-Baghdadi was a US captive and released years ago before people realized what he is truly capable of. His last words to his captors were “ see you in New York.” That’s rather chilling.
The bottom line is … we need an aggressive strategy that emphasizes offense. We need to go after them where they live and not wait for them to attack us where we live. ISIS needs to be destroyed, root and branch, and not “managed.” We need leadership to show us the way to victory and protection from the threat. Do you really disagree with any of that? If so, please explain why.
I also repeat that, given today’s circumstances, should a mass casualty attack or series of attacks occur in the US homeland in 2014 or beyond, any President who fails to protect us will be viewed as deserving of impeachment by pretty much everyone across the ideological spectrum.