Official White House Statement on Post-Hurricane Mortality in Puerto Rico

From tweets [1] [2]:

“When Trump visited the island territory last October, OFFICIALS told him in a briefing 16 PEOPLE had died from Maria.” The Washington Post. This was long AFTER the hurricane took place. Over many months it went to 64 PEOPLE. Then, like magic, “3000 PEOPLE KILLED.” They hired……..GWU Research to tell them how many people had died in Puerto Rico (how would they not know this?). This method was never done with previous hurricanes because other jurisdictions know how many people were killed. FIFTY TIMES LAST ORIGINAL NUMBER – NO WAY!

As early as November 2017, academic studies [3] indicated excess casualties far exceeding the official count. The graphic reproduced here shows alternative estimates as of over three months ago.

As noted here, tweets by Mr. Trump are official government statements. Hence, Mr. Trump is ostensibly speaking for the USG when he makes these statements.

62 thoughts on “Official White House Statement on Post-Hurricane Mortality in Puerto Rico

  1. pgl

    I was sort of expecting Trump to (dis)honor the 17th anniversary of 9/11 but tweeting that only 50 people died in New York City.

    Reply
  2. joseph

    CoRev, you keep harping on this but I am missing the Trump tweet where he said that he would have liked to have done more in Puerto Rico, but he just ran out of FEMA money due to the Obama budget. Perhaps you can point it out.

    Reply
    1. pgl

      CoRev is babbling stupidity as usual. I posted something put out by the Heritage crowd and even these right wingers get that what FEMA spends each year depends on the nature of natural disasters they have to deal with. CoRev is acting like the Federal government does not know how to borrow for emergencies. Which of course may be the dumbest comment EVER!

      Reply
    2. 2slugbaits

      joseph Don’t expect a straight answer from him. He doesn’t even have the courage to score Trump’s response to Maria, but yet he’s just sure all of Trump’s critics are exaggerating. Notice that CoRev won’t even say whether or not he agrees with the 2,975 figure or if he believes the 64 deaths number that his Dear Leader tells him to believe.

      Reply
      1. CoRev

        2slugs, Joseph & pgl, I see you have at least been reading my comments. Obviously pgl still doesn’t understand the Federal Funding steps. I even gave him the link to the Obama FY 2017 Budget Request and copied the specific lines from it where he requested FEMA’s budget cuts, but it was too much for his TDS driven mind to accept. Joseph, did you not understand them either?

        What surprises me is the need to carry over discussions on separate threads where the detail, flow and logic are lost.

        Reply
        1. pgl

          “pgl still doesn’t understand the Federal Funding steps.”

          And I thought your excuse for not implementing the Delenda Plan during the spring of 2001 based on some really dumbass lie from Condi Rice about Actionable Intelligence was the dumbest thing I have ever read. Nope – your Federal Funding steps is indeed to dumbest argument ever made in the history of time. Take a bow!

          Reply
          1. CoRev

            Pgl, out of curiosity were the funds for implementing the plan in any of the budget and appropriations? I’ll answer for you: Nope – asserting that the Delenda Plan was immediately implementable and your LACK OF KNOWLEDGE of Federal Funding steps is indeed the dumbest argument ever made in the history of time. Take a bow!

        2. 2slugbaits

          CoRev See my comment on established OMB procedures to reprogram dollars. And it’s not just the “budget” process; it’s the “budget and execution” process. OMB and the Departments manage the execution side. OMB and the Departments can also ask for additional dollars not included in the original appropriation.

          Reply
          1. CoRev

            2slugs, we have discussed theses processes in the past and basically agree, but I and pgl were commenting directly on the Presidents Budget Request, a specific step of the whole. Pgl, OTH, thinks emergency funding just magically appears or it is just borrowed. Even your simplifiied: “OMB and the Departments can also ask for additional dollars not included in the original appropriation.” is beyond his ken.

      1. pgl

        “Address correspondence and reprint requests to Kevin U. Stephens Sr, MD, JD, Director, New Orleans Health Department, 1300 Perdido St, Room 8E18, New Orleans, LA 70112 (e-mail: [email protected]).”

        Expect Team Trump to accuse Dr. Kevin Stephens of being a Democratic operative!

        Reply
  3. joseph

    To this day, Trump still insists that the numbers for the crowds at his inauguration are wrong. It took Trump eight years to grudgingly admit that Obama was born in the United States. So I wouldn’t expect Trump’s position on the Puerto Rico numbers to change any time soon. He has a demonstrated supernatural ability to deny facts for a very, very long time.

    The OSS prepared a psychological profile of Adolph Hitler in 1940 that said: “His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”

    Reply
  4. pgl

    GWU Research replies to Trump’s latest garbage:

    http://thehill.com/latino/406535-george-washington-university-stands-by-puerto-rican-death-toll-study

    Note the last paragraph:
    “This study, commissioned by the Government of Puerto Rico, was carried out with complete independence and freedom from any kind of interference,” the GW statement states. The study followed multiple other studies using different methods that also estimated the Puerto Rican death toll to be much higher than early estimates that put it at less than 100.

    So when Trump says the Democrats hired GWU – Trump is lying (as usual).

    Reply
  5. pgl

    CoRev is the gift that just keeps giving:

    “CoRev
    September 15, 2018 at 5:24 pm
    Pgl, out of curiosity were the funds for implementing the plan in any of the budget and appropriations? I’ll answer for you: Nope – asserting that the Delenda Plan was immediately implementable and your LACK OF KNOWLEDGE of Federal Funding steps is indeed the dumbest argument ever made in the history of time.”

    9/11 occurred because the Bush Administration could not find the funds to launch the Delenda Plan? Wow – I never knew Bush was such a fiscal hawk that he had to let 3000 innocent Americans die. Thank God ICE has no problem taking funds out of the FEMA budget!

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Pgl is the gift that just keeps giving. Not understanding the Federal Budgeting process nor the fiscal years dates,, he again blames Bush for Clinton’s last budget. Your REPEATED ignorance on just these subjects is breath taking. Correcting your multiple exaggerations, down right lies, and ignorant claims could become a cottage industry if we could find anyone willing to pay.

      Claiming: “9/11 occurred because the Bush Administration could not find the funds to launch the Delenda Plan?” is indeed the dumbest argument ever made in the history of time. Was the Delenda Plan even a plan?
      “In other words, what Clinton and his supporters called a “comprehensive” plan supposedly handed to the incoming Bush administration /b> As David Frum wrote a few days ago, “It is very seriously misleading to suggest that the Clinton administration left behind a plan that would have overthrown the Taliban, destroyed al Qaeda, or stopped or even interfered with the 9/11 attacks. And it is fair to note that the steps they did recommend to their successors were steps they had declined to take themselves, not just in 2000, but over the whole period 1998-2000.”” https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/clinton-and-comprehensive-plan-byron-york/

      BTW, I can find no evidence that the Delenda Plan was ever used, as you have repeatedly claimed. Please clear that up with a link, or this will be considered just another of your lies.

      Reply
      1. pgl

        Babble all you want. Not addressing the clear threat from Al Qaeda was a tragic mistake. If you think FDR for one second would worry about budgetary restraints the day after Pearl Harbor – you are both stooopid and a borderline traitor.

        “I can find no evidence that the Delenda Plan was ever used”

        Really? Ever heard of General Tommy Franks. He is the person who ousted the Taliban in the fall of 2001 using what was known as the Delenda Plan.

        C’mon CoRev – this was a BIG US success which you seem to have no clue about.

        Reply
        1. CoRev

          Pgl, “Really? Ever heard of General Tommy Franks. He is the person who ousted the Taliban in the fall of 2001 using what was known as the Delenda Plan.” Really!? I asked for a link and got another assertion. C BTW, if you for got this was the end of my request re: Delenda: “Please clear that up with a link, or this will be considered just another of your lies.”

          FDRs concerns after the Pearl Harbor attack? Way to deflect from your egregious errors.

          Reply
          1. CoRev

            Menzie, “here is some reading for you on Delenda plan, and how the incoming GW Bush Administration treated the Al Qaeda threat.” How many times is this meme/document going to be referenced. It does not include a plan – see my other reference analyzing the final Clarke submission of this document. Clarke had proposed the same Plan to the Clinton Administration years earlier and they didn’t implement it either.

            Remember this started with a request for what was “actionable” provided by Clarke to Condi Rice. Pgl couldn’t answer that relatively simple question and digressed to the Delenda Plan. He wasn’t able to show a link when and where it was used either.

            BTW on this subject you are playing in my backyard. CINC Centcom, Gen Franks, was one of my customers then. I also supported much of the post 9/11 operations. Don’t follow pgl in this. He is as wrong on Delenda as he was on whose budgets were in force in FY 2002 and FY 2017.

          2. pgl

            I see you have not heard of General Franks or read Clarke’s book. OK. And how did I miss this?

            David Frum wrote a few days ago, “It is very seriously misleading to suggest that the Clinton administration left behind a plan that would have overthrown the Taliban, destroyed al Qaeda, or stopped or even interfered with the 9/11 attacks. And it is fair to note that the steps they did recommend to their successors were steps they had declined to take themselves, not just in 2000, but over the whole period 1998-2000.””

            David Frum writing in the National Review? Frum was paid to lie by them. And that’s your source??? Falling on the floor laughing!

          3. CoRev

            Pgl, I’m Falling on the floor laughing! I see you are still having reading comprehension problems along with your ignorance of Federal Budget Execution and Fiscal year date. You claimed: “I see you have not heard of General Franks…” but miscomprehended my: “BTW on this subject you are playing in my backyard. CINC Centcom, Gen Franks, was one of my customers then.” I realize to an outsider DOD acronyms can be confusing, but not understanding the Gen Franks portion is disturbingly either denial oror just a desperate lie.

            Still you have failed to get those simple links for how, when, where the Delenda Plan was used or listed the actionable items in the various Clarke submissions.

  6. CoRev

    Paraphrase from an interview with Brpck Long, FEMA Administrator this AM. — The emergency management model is: locally executed, state managed and Federally supported for the four main players state. local. private sector and individual. Two of those main players were missing in PR for Maria. FEMA is not the 1st responder but supports them. FEMA is now one of the largest employers in Puerto Rico in trying to rebuild the infrastructure.

    I believe the current FEMA role in PR is not normal if not unprecedented.

    Could the administration done a better job? Of course! That;s why after action studies are done to improve the next disaster response. Other than those items in those studies can anyone identify what it did wrong?

    Reply
    1. pgl

      It is Brock Long who will go down as even worse than Heckuva Job Brownie. The man is a political hack which I guess is why you quote him.

      Reply
  7. Steven Kopits

    Five years ago — could it be that long? — I predicted that we would have a great white shark fatality on Cape Cod. It look longer than expected, but struck closer to home.

    Newcomb Hollow, the beach where the victim was attacked, is our home beach. Indeed, the first responder was my cousin, a physician, who was on the beach with her family at the time.

    What do we do now? I can assure you, the Town of Wellfleet, where the beach is located, is completely unequipped to deal with related policy-level issues. By rights, the Federal government should take the lead in organizing a group to deal with the complex set of safety, economic, recreational, zoological and ecological issues associated with the sharks.

    Reply
      1. Steven Kopits

        DOJ says they are ‘official government statements’, not ‘official White House statements’. At least what I can see.

        As I understand it, an official White House statement is usually a press release cleared through various levels. So when Bill Clinton said, “I did not sleep with that woman’, we took it to be his personal statement, not ‘an official White House statement’.

        Reply
          1. Steven Kopits

            Why don’t you actually listen to what Spicer says:

            “The President is the President of the United States. So, they’re considered official statements by the President of the United States.”

            He does not say they are official White House statements. Indeed, I would argue that he implies they are not official White House statements.

            The White House is an institution separate from the President. Of course, the President heads the White House, and the President can induce the White House to make statements such as the President may like. However, a ‘White House statement’ normally implies a bureaucratic process and some degree of vetting. The President’s tweets normally do not meet these criteria — a sore point with many of the staff at the White House!

            In my experience, when ‘the White House’ says something, it is usually not the President, unless the President is making a not-for-attribution statement, in which case in would typically be attributed to ‘a senior White House official’. (Very LBJ.)

            I would add that the President may tweet far from the White House, for example, on Air Force One over the Pacific Ocean. We would not ordinarily consider these ‘official White House statements’, as they have absolutely nothing to do with the White House.

            So, Sean Spicer is lining up on my side. Who else do you have?

          2. Menzie Chinn Post author

            Steven Kopits: OK, Federal judge says these communications are official government communications, hence, they cannot be blocked; see here. And it’s not just Trump that views these statements as official; so too does DOJ, as I mentioned before.

            By the way, when I worked at CEA, every email I sent was archived as an official Executive Office of the President document. You might not think an email is “official”, but as far as I can tell, the USG does.

          3. Steven Kopits

            The title of the post is “Official White House Statement on Post-Hurricane Mortality in Puerto Rico”

            Unless you can demonstrate to me otherwise, these are not official White House statements. They may be construed as official statements by the President of the United States, but they are not official White House statements. There’s a difference, and as a guy who worked in the White House, I am surprised you don’t know that. If you had written, ‘Trump’s Official Statement on Puerto Rico’, yes, the tweets can be construed as such. I personally am not sure that a Trump tweet has any more substance than the President’s momentary impulses, but strictly speaking, they could be construed as official statements, for example, in an obstruction case.

            In any event, you remember the bit where I said you can, within limits, tailor your titles with a bit of yellow journalism? This is outside those limits. Unless you can show otherwise, your title is factually incorrect.

            By the way, the White House actually needs an official statement on the topic. But tweets are not that.

          4. Menzie Chinn Post author

            Steven Kopits: DoJ construes them as Presidential documents, a Federal judge interprets them as official documents. Then WH Press Secretary says they are Presidential statements. I’ve provided links. And yet you say “no”. Some legal documentation for your stance would be welcome.

          5. Steven Kopits

            So you believe all Presidential statements are White House official statements. OK. You don’t see a distinction, and I do.

      1. Steven Kopits

        I didn’t claim they weren’t ‘official statements’ of some sort*, only that they weren’t ‘official White House statements’. There’s a difference.

        * Here’s the difference. If you’re Kim Jong Un and Trump tweets “We’re going to invade North Korea”, then you’re probably going to finish your game of gin rummy with Dennis Rodman without any worry. If the White House issues that statement, you’re probably going to warm up the ICBMs.

        Reply
        1. pgl

          ‘I didn’t claim they weren’t ‘official statements’ of some sort*, only that they weren’t ‘official White House statements’. There’s a difference.’

          Lord – this is precisely why no one cares what you write. It is argumentative gibberish.

          Reply
        2. baffling

          steven, if the president steps up to the microphone in the oval office and makes a proclamation, is that an official white house statement?

          Reply
          1. Steven Kopits

            It could be. If it were prepared statements, then ordinarily yes.

            But if he says, “Nice blue dress. Monica has one just like it.” That ordinarily would not constitute an official White House statement. Thus, when the President slams Rosie O’Donnell with a tweet at four in the morning, the Today Show at 8 am does not say, “This morning, an official White House statement condemned Rosie O’Donnell as unattractive.” I do not believe that has happened.

            That’s why the WH press secretary nowadays tends to make clear distinctions between what the President says and the WH position. If you asked General Kelly, “Sir, does the White House take the official view that Rosie O’Donnell is unattractive?”, the General would reply, “This is the President’s personal view. The White House takes no position on the attractiveness of any person, including Ms. O’Donnell.” And if Trump forced Kelly to do that, I have no doubt he would resign.

            So, there is a material difference between the President and the White House today. Hence the editorial.

            https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

      2. 2slugbaits

        Interestingly enough, the two iPhones that Trump uses (one for phone only and the other for Twitter only) were provided by the government; i.e., they are government property. Of course, neither phone is NSA compliant because no iPhone is NSA compliant, but that’s another matter and isn’t a problem as long as he restricts his tweets to unclassified and non-FOUO stuff. This is no different than what we had under Obama, who initially wanted to use his own personal phone, but that got nixed. Anyway, if Trump’s tweets are not considered official WH statements, then why is he routinely using government property for unofficial purposes? Anyone else would be censured at a minimum and fired if that behavior persisted. So at a minimum Trump owes us an explanation as to why he is using government resources for unofficial business.

        Reply
        1. Steven Kopits

          Presidential tweets are still official, Slugs, at least if they reflect policy or politics. (If Trump tweeted that he wanted a pizza, that would be personal business.)

          In any event, Trump tweets qualify as official Presidential statements (at least in theory). But they are not ordinarily official White House statements unless processed through the institution, ie, EOP, COS, WH counsel, etc. So, when the press writes that something is ‘approved by the White House’ or ‘the White House reported’, this usually means the institution, not the President. The President, first, is distinct in that he is a person and, second, as President may hold views or comment on issues that have not been cleared through the White House staff. Similarly, the White House may make statements that have not been cleared by the President, ie, if some topic has been delegated to either the COS or press secretary. This might include, for example, an update on hurricane relief efforts or the date and time of the Easter Egg Roll, something like that.

          So, the president heads the White House, but the two are distinct.

          Reply
          1. Menzie Chinn Post author

            Steven Kopits: COS and WH Counsel *are part of* EOP. By the way, all CEA and OMB and in fact any email sent on the WH system is a Presidential document according to National Archives. Geez.

          2. Steven Kopits

            Oh, so you actually know the distinction between a White House statement and a Presidential statement. So you’re aware your title is incorrect.

  8. joseph

    Just when you thought they couldn’t go any lower, today the Director of FEMA Brock Long went on TV to provide excuses for the excess deaths in Puerto Rico and said that after natural disasters spousal abuse goes through the roof and you can’t blame Trump for that.

    Reply
    1. pgl

      Brock Long is CoRev’s hero but notice even CoRev will not defend this garbage! Long is not the FEMA director – he is a Trump political operative. No wonder so many people died as a result of Maria.

      Reply
  9. joseph

    Sheesh, Kopits never gives up.

    First it’s deaths are going to be lower because of premature deaths.
    Next it’s deaths are going to be higher because of PROMESA.
    Then it’s Official Statements aren’t Official Statements, so what’s the point anyway. No it doesn’t make any sense. It’s throwing dust in your eyes to distract you.

    I hesitated to post the “Official Statement” of FEMA Director Brock Long because I dread the tedious “statistical analysis” Kopits will post on spousal abuse in Puerto Rico.

    It seems there is no limit to the abasement Kopits will subject himself to in defense of the Dear Leader.

    Reply
  10. pgl

    “Menzie, “here is some reading for you on Delenda plan, and how the incoming GW Bush Administration treated the Al Qaeda threat.” How many times is this meme/document going to be referenced. It does not include a plan”.

    CoRev – are really this dumb? The memo had an Appendix B which was the DeLenda Plan. Seriously dude – you need remedial reading – badly!

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Pgl, yes there is an Attachment with Tab B titled Pol-Mil Plan for al-Qida tot he Clarke memo.
      This now growing long discussion is because you could not, and still have not answered the original question of what actionable items were in the Clarke Memo? After failing to answer this, you shifted to asserting that the Clarke’s Delenda Plan was what was later implemented.

      This, I think, is as good description of what was within that still classified document:
      ” The plan also calls for drafting plans for possible US military involvement, “but those differences were largely theoretical; administration officials told the [9/11 Commission’s] investigators that the plan’s overall timeline was at least three years, and it did not include firm deadlines, military plans, or significant funding at the time of the September 11, 2001, attacks.” [Washington Post, 3/27/2004; ” http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a082798delenda
      Concepts, theories, incomplete contingency recommendations and recommendations expanded/focused policy changes are not actually actionable until details are fleshed out. Which leaves the primary actionable item to flesh out the proposals in both the memo and the plan. Delenda was not an actionable plan until this step was completed, but it was a typical DOD White Paper outlining alternatives and contingencies for solving a perceived problem.

      After 9/11 those steps took on an increased importance and were quickly completed. I know, because I was a small part of that action level planning. Accordingly, this quote: ” According to one senior Bush administration official, the proposal amounts to “everything we’ve done since 9/11.” [Time, 8/12/2002]” (also from the above reference) is surely an understatement of what resulted after 9/11 in the Federal Government. Many, many items were implemented both within and without the outline of Clarke’s plan.

      Reply
      1. pgl

        What did Condi Rice do following January 25? Not a damn thing. Every general in the know back then knew the ONLY person working on this was Richard Clarke. So yea – she was even more incompetent that I had originally suggested.

        Look – Condi Rice is a liar making excuses for not defending the homeland. How much has she paid you to defend her incompetence?

        Reply
  11. pgl

    CoRev treats us to some nonsense ala David Frum regarding whether the Clinton Administration presented them with the DeLenda Plan (they did) which was part of this blatant dishonesty ala Byron York:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/clinton-and-comprehensive-plan-byron-york/

    So many lies, so little time but let me pick this one out:

    “Berger did not recall seeing or being briefed on the Blue Sky memo. Nor was the memo discussed during the transition with incoming top Bush administration officials.”

    That is why Condi Rice claimed but Berger testified to the committee that he personally met with Rice on December 20, 2000 to talk about these issues. We all Rice lied a lot during these hearings. Of course this was on Sunday so maybe Rice was preoccupied with the days NFL games than doing her job as upcoming National Security Adviser.

    Reply
  12. pgl

    ‘I hesitated to post the “Official Statement” of FEMA Director Brock Long because I dread the tedious “statistical analysis” Kopits will post on spousal abuse in Puerto Rico.’

    I hope some reporter asks Mr. Long if he has stopped beating his wife. Yea – I know this is a disgusting bait and switch question but Long is a very disgusting person.

    Reply
  13. pgl

    “Remember this started with a request for what was “actionable” provided by Clarke to Condi Rice. Pgl couldn’t answer that relatively simple question and digressed to the Delenda Plan. He wasn’t able to show a link when and where it was used either.” – CoRev

    Do you get paid by the word or by the lie? I get you think you are cute with your actionable but when Tommy Franks ousted the Taliban in the fall of 2001 – that was real action. And he was carrying out what was called the Delenda Plan which was attached as Appendix B in the January 25, 2001 (the one you falsely claimed was not part of the memo). A military plan that ousted the Taliban is nothing more than a digression to you? Just wow!

    What is it CoRev – are you really this incredibly stupid? Or do you think others here are so brazenly stupid that they do not see through your clever little lies.

    Such as – your lie that the Federal government was left with no funds to address the aftermath of Maria which you somehow blame on Obama. Hey continue with your cute dishonesty. The rest of us are laughing – at you not with you!

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      What is it pgl – are you really this incredibly stupid? Or do you think others here are so brazenly stupid that they do not see through your clever little lies. The Delenda Plan is still classified and I doubt seriously you have the credentials and the need to know what is in it.

      Pgl asserts : “Tommy Franks ousted the Taliban in the fall of 2001 – that was real action. And he was carrying out what was called the Delenda Plan which was attached as Appendix B in the January 25, 2001 (the one you falsely claimed was not part of the memo). A military plan that ousted the Taliban is nothing more than a digression to you?” Let me help with your reading comprehension. I provided this quote earlier:
      ” and it did not include firm deadlines, military plans or significant funding at the time of the September 11, 2001, attacks.” [Washington Post, 3/27/2004; ”

      A military plan is a unique document, and in your ignorance it is understandable you did not know that. Continually asserting Delenda was more than it was and implementable without knowing what it contained is just a sign of your need to argue. BTW, I supported the several military plans, and they were far from theoretical.

      Why do you continue lying? Such as – your lie that I claimed the Federal government was left with no funds to address the aftermath of Maria. The FEMA FY 2017 budget under which the initial Maria was funded was the last Obama budget. Please learn the dates for Federal fiscal years instead of continuously embarrasing yourself. You’ve repeated this mistake for seeks now. Even a child learns from their mistakes. You still have not.

      Show us the links supporting the assertions!

      Reply
  14. pgl

    “CINC Centcom, Gen Franks, was one of my customers then”.

    You worked for Halliburton? Figures you would work for a company that lied to its shareholders about its accounting and milked the Federal government during Iraq! Now if you know Franks, then how come you have no clue that he ousted the Taliban? Are you really this dumb? Or do you have a clue how he did it – following the game plan drawn up by Richard Clarke. CoRev – corrupt as well as serially dishonest!

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Pgl, “You worked for Halliburton?” I can hardly catch my breath from laughing so hard. Your comment now officially goes beyond ignorant. Are you really so dumb think clients/customers are only used in civilian organizations and NOT common terms even within the Federal Government, and even within DOD.

      How you coming in getting those links to the DOD’s use of that theoretical game plan drawn up by Richard Clarke?

      Reply
  15. pgl

    CoRev loves this term “actionable intelligence”. Although it strikes me as a rather stupid excuse, we have heard it before. Guess where?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/politics/testimony-of-condoleezza-rice-before-911-commission.html

    “Testimony of Condoleezza Rice Before 9/11 Commission”

    Yes – the incompetent National Security Adviser who could not be honest about this. Can we count the lies?

    “The terrorists were at war with us but we were not yet at war with them.”

    Well – Clinton tried to take out OBL. Maybe he did not do enough but Bush and Rice decided to do NOTHING between January 20 and September 11.

    “And under President Bush’s leadership we will remain at war until the terrorist threat to our nation is ended.”

    Seriously?

    “Members of Sandy Berger’s N.S.C. staff briefed me along with other members of the national security team on counterterrorism and Al Qaeda. This briefing lasted for about an hour and it reviewed the Clinton administration’s counterterrorism approach and the various counterterrorism activities then under way. Sandy and I personally discussed a variety of other topics, including North Korea, Iraq, the Middle East and the Balkans. Because of these briefings and because we had watched the rise of Al Qaeda over many years, we understood that the network posed a serious threat to the United States. We wanted to ensure that there was not respite in the fight against Al Qaeda. On an operational level, therefore, we decided immediately to continue to pursue the Clinton administration’s covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network.”

    Rice at first denied Berger told her about the Al Qaeda threat and plans to counter it. But now she admits that he did advise her? The problem was that the Bush White House stopped emphasizing the threat.

    “I took the unusual step of retaining Dick Clarke and the entire Clinton administration’s counterterrorism team on the N.S.C. staff. I knew Dick Clarke to be an expert in his field as well as an experienced crisis manager. Our goal was to ensure continuity of operations while we developed new policies.”

    Whoa Nelly – she demoted Clarke and just ignored him for months.

    “From Jan. 20 through Sept. 10 the president received at these daily meetings more than 40 briefing items on Al Qaeda. “

    Yea especially that August 6 PDB which I guess Condi never read the headline!

    “This new strategy was developed over the spring and summer of 2001 and was approved by the president’s senior national security officials on Sept. 4. “

    Well Clarke worked on this alone. And September 4 was when Condi finally gave Bush that DeLenda Plan that worked so well – but a bit late to prevent 9/11.

    “While we were developing this new strategy to deal with Al Qaeda, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-Al Qaeda initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke to me in an early memorandum after we had taken office. Many of these ideas had been deferred by the last administration. And some had been on the table since 1998.”
    That January 25, 2001 memo she first denied getting. And the ideas that had been on the table since 1998 were the ones that worked during late 2001. But Condi told this committee that there was no actionable intelligence? God – she outdid herself with both stupidity and dishonesty that day!

    BTW – the record was clear. After the sinking of the USS Cole – U.S. foreign policy was to take out the Taliban if it were found out that Al Qaeda did it. We learned that they did it in February 2001. But by then Bush and Rice were in charge and they totally dropped the ball. And then lied again and again to cover up their failures.

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Wow! Apparently you do NOT know what actionable intelligence means to some one responsible for national security? HINT – it does not mean changing policy, but usually means putting troops or similar resources into motion OR CHANGING THE OBJECTIVES OF THOSE ALREADY IN MOTION. (A HINT FOR LATER COMMENTS)

      Your astounding ignorance shows in your complete misunderstanding of this:
      “On an operational level, therefore, we decided immediately to continue to pursue the Clinton administration’s covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network.” (hint hint)
      and how it contradicts your ignorant conclusion which I fixed below:
      “BTW – the record was clear. After the 1998 al-Qaeda’s August 7 bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224 people – U.S. foreign policy was to take out the Taliban. ” Refer back to covert action authorities and other efforts above. (The remainder was just more of pgl’s ignorance and blind idiotic hatred. ) BTW, Clinton failed in this policy.

      Bush was mostly successful in destroying the al Qaeda network, except a bad decision by your hero Gen Franks was instrumental in allowing Bin Laden and several other leaders to escape Tora Bora.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.