The President Elimination Game

[Sternvogel]

Stubbornly sticking with Chester A. Arthur even though he’s emerging as the 1880’s version of a Survivor contender.

[StusBlues]

@Sternvogel

Stubbornly sticking with Chester A. Arthur even though he’s emerging as the 1880’s version of a Survivor contender.

Why Arthur instead of Ford? Just curious.

[Gyrate]

@Curtis LeMay

If Clinton had been truly concerned than he should have hunted Bin Laden no matter what others thought. According to that article he didn’t launch an another military operation because he was uncertain about it.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but so is Wikipedia:

Capturing Osama bin Laden has been an objective of the United States government since the presidency of Bill Clinton. Shortly after the September 11 attacks it was revealed that President Clinton had signed a directive authorizing the CIA (and specifically their elite Special Activities Division) to apprehend bin Laden and bring him to the United States to stand trial after the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Africa; if taking bin Laden alive was deemed impossible, then deadly force was authorized. On August 20, 1998, 66 cruise missiles launched by United States Navy ships in the Arabian Sea struck bin Laden’s training camps near Khost in Afghanistan, narrowly missing him by a few hours. In 1999 the CIA, together with Pakistani military intelligence, had prepared a team of approximately 60 Pakistani commandos to infiltrate Afghanistan to capture or kill bin Laden, but the plan was aborted by the 1999 Pakistani coup d’état; in 2000, foreign operatives working on behalf of the CIA had fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a convoy of vehicles in which bin Laden was traveling through the mountains of Afghanistan, hitting one of the vehicles but not the one bin Laden was in.

In 2000, prior to the September 11 attacks, Paul Bremer characterized the Clinton administration as “correctly focused on bin Laden”, while Robert Oakley criticized their “obsession with Osama”.

Also, you seem to think bin Laden had something to do with the 1993 WTC attack. He didn’t. We got most of those guys. They’re in jail.

If you’d just said “Clinton” and left it at that I wouldn’t be quibbling, but it’s dumb to blame him for failings that only exist in your own head (and/or on Free Republic).

[amarone]

Time to jump on the Ford bandwagon.

[Skammer]

Is Kennedy the only one left who didn’t even complete a single term? Cetainly the only one who in less than three years got us involved in a war in southeast Asia and nuclear brinkmanship in the Carribean. And the fiasco of a military invasion of a country we weren’t at war with. Just sayin’.

[Sternvogel]

@Skammer

Is Kennedy the only one left who didn’t even complete a single term?

Nope, Taylor (who also died in office) is still around, as are Arthur and Ford, who each served less than one full term after respectively succeeding the assassinated Garfield and the disgraced Nixon.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Gyrate

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but so is Wikipedia:
Also, you seem to think bin Laden had something to do with the 1993 WTC attack. He didn’t. We got most of those guys. They’re in jail.

If you’d just said “Clinton” and left it at that I wouldn’t be quibbling, but it’s dumb to blame him for failings that only exist in your own head (and/or on Free Republic).

From Wikipedia, emphasis on highlighted parts.

In 1996, the CIA established a special unit of officers to analyze intelligence received about bin Laden and plan operations against him, coined the “Bin Ladin unit.” It was this unit that first realized bin Laden was more than just a terrorist financier, but a leader of a global network with operations based in Afghanistan. Given these findings, the NSC encouraged the Department of State to “pay more attention” to Afghanistan and its governing unit, the Taliban, which had received funding from bin Laden. The State Department requested the Taliban to expel bin Laden from the country, noting that he was a sponsor of terrorism and publicly urged Muslims to kill Americans. The Taliban responded that they did not know his whereabouts and, even if they did, he was “not a threat to the United States.” The CIA’s counter-terrorism division quickly began drafting plans to capture and remove bin Laden from the country. However, Marine General Anthony Zinni and some in the State Department protested the move, saying that the United States should focus instead on ending the Afghan civil war and the Taliban’s human rights abuses.[40]

In 1998, Clinton appointed Richard Clarke—who until then served in a drugs and counter-terrorism division of the CIA—to lead an interagency comprehensive counter-terrorism operation, the Counter-terrorism Security Group (CSG). The goal of the CSG was to “detect, deter, and defend against” terrorist attacks. Additionally, Clinton appointed Clarke to sit on the cabinet-level Principals Committee when it met on terrorism issues.[35]

Clinton’s Counter-terrorism Center began drafting a plan to ambush bin Laden’s compound in Kandahar. The CIA mapped the compound and identified the houses of bin Laden’s wives and the location where he most likely slept. The plan was relatively simple, at least on paper. Tribals would “subdue” the guards, enter the compound, take bin Laden to a desert outside Kandahar, and hand him over to another group of tribals. This second group would carry him to a desert landing strip—which had already been tested—where a CIA plane would take him to New York for arraignment. When they completed a draft plan, they ran through two rehearsals in the United States.[41] Confident that the plan would work, the Counter-terrorism Center of the CIA sought the approval of the White House. While they acknowledged that the plan was risky, they stated that there was “a risk in not acting” because “sooner or later, bin Laden will attack U.S. interests, perhaps using WMD.”[42]

Clarke reviewed the plans for Sandy Berger, the National Security Director, and told him that it was in the “very early stages of development” and stressed the importance of only targeting bin Laden, not the entire compound. The NSC told the CIA to begin preparing the necessary legal documents to execute the raid.[43]

The senior management of the CIA was skeptical of the plan, and despite objections, canceled the operation, fearing that the risk to their operatives and financial costs were too high. It is unclear whether or not Clinton was aware of the plan.

As the Counter-terrorism Center continued to track bin Laden, they learned in 1998 that the Saudi government had bin Laden cells within the country that were planning attacks on U.S. forces. CIA Director George Tenet, encouraged by the Saudi’s show of force against bin Laden, asked them to assist in the fight against bin Laden. Clinton named Tenet as his informal “personal representative” to work with Saudi Arabia on terrorism. The Saudis promised Tenet that they would do everything they could to convince the Taliban to release bin Laden for trial in America or elsewhere. The Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal, held various meetings with Taliban chief Mullah Omar and other leaders and received assurance that bin Laden would be removed. Omar, however, reneged on that promise.[35]

On August 7, 1998, bin Laden struck again, this time with simultaneous bombings on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. (see above) The CIA, having confirmed bin Laden was behind the attack, informed Clinton that terrorist leaders were planning to meet at a camp near Khowst, to plan future attacks. According to Tenet, “several hundred,” including bin Laden, would attend. On August 20, Clinton ordered the military to fire cruise missiles at the camp and a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, where bin Laden was suspected of manufacturing biological weapons. While the military hit their targets, bin Laden was not killed. The CIA estimated that they had missed bin Laden by “a few hours.”[40]

At the time of the attacks, Clinton was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal (see below). This led many Republicans in Congress to accuse the president of “wagging the dog”—launching a military attack simply to distract the public from his personal problems. Clinton and his principals, however, insist that the decision was made solely on the basis of national security.[35]

After the attacks failed, Clinton moved his focus to diplomatic pressure. On the advice of the State Department, Clinton encouraged Pakistan, whose military intelligence agency was a patron of the Taliban, to pressure the Taliban to remove bin Laden. After numerous meetings with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the Pakistani’s would still not cooperate.[35] Sharif eventually agreed to allow the United States to train Pakistani special forces to find bin Laden. When Sharif was ousted by Pervez Musharraf, the plan was abandoned.[44]

After encouragement by Richard Clarke, Clinton issued an executive order in July 1999 declaring the Taliban regime as a state sponsor of terrorism.[45] This was followed in October 1999 by a UN resolution sponsored by the United States placing economic and travel sanctions on the Taliban.[46] The Taliban, however, stood by bin Laden, and the United States proposed yet another UN resolution, this time imposing an embargo an arms shipments to the Taliban.[47] The move was meant to weaken the Taliban in their fight against the Northern Alliance in their civil strife. However, the resolution did little to limit the illegal flow of arms from Pakistan.[35]

In August 1999, Clinton signed a Memorandum of Notification ordering the CIA to develop another plan to capture bin Laden, and giving the CIA the authority to order bin Laden be killed.[48]

Near the end of 1999, the Clinton administration, working with the government of Jordan, detected and thwarted a planned terrorist attack to detonate bombs at various New Year millennium celebrations around the world. The CIA confirmed that bin Laden was behind the plot, which was disrupted just days before the New Year.[40] While many credited Clinton’s new CSG for playing a role in the foiling of these plots, critics claim it was “mostly luck.”[49]

The CIA informed Clinton that they feared the thwarted attacks were just part of a larger series of attacks planned for the new year. Clinton asked Clarke and the CSG to draft plans to “deter and disrupt” al Qaeda attacks.[35]

On October 12, 2000, terrorists attacked U.S. Navy Destroyer, the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen. There was no clear indication during the last months of Clinton’s term of who was responsible.[35] The CIA reported that they had “no definitive answer on [the] crucial question of outside direction of the attack—how and by whom.** Clinton did not think it would be wise to launch an attack based on a “preliminary judgment,”** stating that he would have taken further action had he received definitive intelligence. The CIA was eventually able to confirm bin Laden’s involvement with certainty a week after the Bush administration took office.[40]

As Clinton’s second term drew to a close, the CSG drafted a comprehensive policy paper entitled “Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects.” http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20attachment.pdf The paper outlined a method to “roll back” al Qaeda over “a period of three to five years.” Clarke stated that while “continued anti-al Qida operations at the current level will prevent some attacks, [it] will not seriously attrit their ability to plan and conduct attacks." This policy paper was forwarded to the incoming Bush administration.[40]

Had Clinton been slightly more decisive and forceful; for instance ignoring Pakistan and launching it’s own operations or responding against Al-Qaeda after the USS Cole Bin Laden might have been captured or killed.

[Stowed_Bob]

I’ll throw in with Ford.

[Algorithm]

@Curtis LeMay

Had Clinton been slightly more decisive and forceful; for instance ignoring Pakistan and launching it’s own operations or responding against Al-Qaeda after the USS Cole Bin Laden might have been captured or killed.

Standing on a 12 vs. 6 showing is the right call in the long run, even though the next card may be a 9. It’s easy to look back and say “I should have hit” when, at the time, you really had no clue.

If Kim Jong Il makes a nuclear strike against the US, will you be deriding Bush for ignoring North Korea? Or defending him on the basis that he made correct decisions regarding NK while he was in office? (I realize Bush won’t have many defenders amongst the general populace here)

Back to business, can whoever posts tomorrow’s update please correct Truman’s first name? It’s Harry, not Henry.

[CyclopticXander]

I’m really starting to wonder why Grover Cleveland is still around. My vote is for Cleveland. I’m sure I’ll have to come back when there’s more time after Thanksgiving to lay out my case.

[Gyrate]

@Curtis LeMay

Had Clinton been slightly more decisive and forceful; for instance ignoring Pakistan and launching it’s own operations

True, because antagonizing Pakistan would have been ever-so-useful in defeating Al-Qaeda and would have had no consequences at all.

or responding against Al-Qaeda after the USS Cole Bin Laden might have been captured or killed.

Jeebus, the USS Cole attack was in October 2000. Even with the best will in the world, Clinton couldn’t have done much with less than four months to go in his term, especially considering the rather crucial sentences around one of your highlighted excerpts:

**The CIA reported that they had “no definitive answer on [the] crucial question of outside direction of the attack—how and by whom. **Clinton did not think it would be wise to launch an attack based on a “preliminary judgment,” stating that he would have taken further action had he received definitive intelligence. The CIA was eventually able to confirm bin Laden’s involvement with certainty a week after the Bush administration took office.

I mean, Lord only know what might have happened if we had mistakenly launched an attack against someone who had had nothing to do with a terrorist attack on the US based on poor intelligence and an overriding political will to “get” somebody. Thank goodness our presidents are all men of sense and good judgment…
Is this round over yet?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Gyrate

True, because antagonizing Pakistan would have been ever-so-useful in defeating Al-Qaeda and would have had no consequences at all.
Jeebus, the USS Cole attack was in October 2000. Even with the best will in the world, Clinton couldn’t have done much with less than four months to go in his term, especially considering the rather crucial sentences around one of your highlighted excerpts:I mean, Lord only know what might have happened if we had mistakenly launched an attack against someone who had had nothing to do with a terrorist attack on the US based on poor intelligence and an overriding political will to “get” somebody. Thank goodness our presidents are all men of sense and good judgment…
Is this round over yet?

No any good expert would probably have been able to to realize it was Al Qaeda and with modern tech four months is enough time to launch a commando operation.

[Makeitstop]

IMHO, I think Ford’s pardoning of Nixon was the right thing for him to do. At the time, the public’s faith in the office of President had been shaken, and rightly so. But prosecuting Nixon would have resulted in a long, public trial that would have accomplished nothing in the long run. If he’'d been found innocent, millions would have cried bullshit, and belief in the American justice system would be shaken as well. If Nixon had been convicted, we would have our first (official) criminal in the white house, and the office would never have recovered. Its reputation would be permenantly stained.

Nowadays, most of us respect the presidency. Not necesarily the man in the oval office, but the office itself. And that is because of Gerald Ford. By pardoning Nixon, Ford shifted all the blame and hate upon himself, becoming a lightning rod for critisism and ridicule that continues to this day. He took a hit for the office, and that took serious guts. In the end, I think that America is better for having had Gerald Ford in office.

I vote Taylor, because I cannot say the same for him.

[Gyrate]

@Curtis LeMay

No any good expert would probably have been able to to realize it was Al Qaeda and with modern tech four months is enough time to launch a commando operation.

I defer to your greater knowledge of how long it should have taken a “good” expert in Mid-East radical groups to identify which of the several of them had committed this particular act. Especially as many of the same experts were likely involved in determining whether Iraq had WMDs, an assessment which took much longer and therefore must have been correspondingly more accurate.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Gyrate

I defer to your greater knowledge of how long it should have taken a “good” expert in Mid-East radical groups to identify which of the several of them had committed this particular act. Especially as many of the same experts were likely involved in determining whether Iraq had WMDs, an assessment which took much longer and therefore must have been correspondingly more accurate.

But in reality Al-Qaeda was behind USS Cole, correct?

[as_u_wish]

Oh man, I really hate to see Ford getting dumped on–he was a bit of a non-entity, but he was healing for the nation.

So, I’ve got to pick Clinton or Taylor since they are the only two who have more than one vote to Ford’s 8. EIGHT…cheee.

Ok, Clinton. Come on folks, let’s vote and protect Meeester Ford. He needs our help, he was a bit clumsy ya know?

[amarone]

@as_u_wish

Oh man, I really hate to see Ford getting dumped on–he was a bit of a non-entity, but he was healing for the nation.

We are half-way through the list - non-entities need eliminating!

[Cullain]

Ford. No, he wasn’t the worst president, but he was exceedingly mediocre. And honestly, being eliminated right around the middle of the pack just feels right for Ford.

[Gyrate]

@Curtis LeMay

But in reality Al-Qaeda was behind USS Cole, correct?

Yes. As was finally confirmed after Clinton left office.

[Tom_Scud]

Vote tally:

Ford 9
Clinton 3
Taylor 2
Chester A. Arthur, Grover Cleveland, John F. Kennedy, William McKinley 1 each

I’m going to call this round now so we can get started on the next election.