9/11 and MS. MCCARTHY
What was Ms. McCarthy's job under Clinton? She was the warner:
By 1991, she was working as deputy to one of the agency's most senior analysts, Charles E. Allen, whose job as"national intelligence officer for warning" was to anticipate major national security threats. Ms. McCarthy took over the job from Mr. Allen in 1994 and moved to the Clinton White House two years later.
What were her policy recommendations?
Some former intelligence officials who worked with Ms. McCarthy saw her as a persistent obstacle to aggressive antiterrorism efforts.
This adds to our understanding of the reason the CIA knew so little and did less about Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. We also understand that far from feeling responsible for the death of thousands of her fellow Americans, MS. McCarthy is furious with the Bush administration for not following her recommended policy of"See no Islamist terrorism; Hear no Islamist terrorism; Do nothing about Islamist terrorism."
When did she leak?
Just after Angela Merkel replaced the anti-American Gerhard Schroeder as the German Prime Minister and before Condoleeza Rice embarked on her maiden trip as US secretary of State to Europe which was specifically designed to open a new, more cooperative phase of EU-US relations.
With her revelations McCarthy not only tried to prevent Rice from enlarging the American anti- terrorist coalition but put significant pressure on its existing coalition partners. In other words she set out purposefully to harm American strategic interests.
Unfortunately, given the Democratic and media response to her outing, we also know that she is not alone in putting partisan politics above vital US interests.
For additional information visit Gateway Pundit
comments powered by Disqus
jean - 4/24/2006
"See no Islamic terrorism; Hear no Islamist terrorism; Do nothing about Islamic terrorism" seems like a harsh assessment, at least based on the linked article. The only example given was one where Ms. McCarthy questioned whether a chemical factory should have been bombed because the evidence was flimsy, and the article seems to at least partially support her.
I wonder what it means to be a "persistant obstacle to aggressive antiterrorism efforts." The term is not defined in the article, which makes it a little unfair to claim that she is part of the reason that 9/11 happened.
What about the "aggressive antiterrorism efforts" that were employed after 9/11 (i.e. torture), which led us to believe that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which was the supposed pretext for our invasion of Iraq? Are we to assume these "aggressive antiterrorism efforts" were A-OK -- if only Ms. McCarthy wasn't here to put a stop to it who knows what we could be learning?
- In Trump’s America, is the Supreme Court still seen as legitimate?
- The Republican Plan to Repeal Obamacare for Everybody But Alaska Might Be Unconstitutional
- Parliament Square in London Is Closer to Having First Female Statue
- Battle Over Confederate Monuments Moves to the Cemeteries
- German WW1 U-boat found off Belgian coast
- Yale history department now emphasizing global history in undergraduate courses
- University of Utah appoints first Mormon Studies professor
- Eric Foner discusses the manipulation of history
- Male historian tapped to lead Department of Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies at the University of Kansas
- Decline in History Majors Continues, Departments Respond