HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Aug 26, 2004 In order that we might gain a little insight into Presidential Directives I thought it would be helpful to review those of GW. First of all let us understand what a Presidential Directive is and what the intended use is. From the web site www.fas.org I found that these directives have been termed and couched many ways since their inception depending on their exact use. Basically, they involve the President’s creating an official declaration for an array of uses. Some of those might be to establish new policy, to arrange for or to stop action, or to give official notice of actions or policy changes. Each Administration selects how they want to outline such directives and GW has used the letters NSPD or National Security Presidential Directives as his acronym. His first came on February 13, 2001. (www.fas.org) This directive established his National Security Council System, it outlined the participants, determined how, and when, they were to meet and what they would discuss, as well as to abolish the prior chain of command and directives issued under the Clinton Administration. This directive was supposed to integrate all facets of national and international security dealing with military, economic, and intelligence responsibilities. But did it do its job in the terrorist incident of 9/11? And if not, who is to blame? Since GW created it shouldn’t he ultimately be held responsible, after all he is the commander and chief? Somewhere between February 13, 2001 and May 9, 2001 (www.fas.org) he (GW) also sent out some other directives dealing with nuclear offense and defense posturing and intelligence. The exact context of those meetings is still somewhat ambiguous until the intelligence meeting on May 9th. On this date GW asked for a “comprehensive review” of US intelligence capabilities. Two panels were created to conduct this review. One headed by George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and the other by Condoleezza Rice. This report was due for review with the president during the summer of 2001. The follow up for this meeting is missing. Don’t we deserve to know about this missing meeting? Directives resume on October 25, 2001 and the topic of that directive is combating terrorism. (www.fas.org) This directive is more than a month past the terrorist incident of 9/11. Why did it take GW and his newly appointed review committee so long to issue this one? Let us delve into that directive and see if we can find any hints. After clicking on that directive I was notified that it was classified, so I guess we will never know what wealth, or lack, of information that one held. The directive from October 25th, 2001 then skips forward to 2003 and 2004 where GW talks (www.fas.org) about the use of force against Afghanistan and the Taliban and the findings of the 9/11 commission. Below please find a direct quote from that test. On April 1, 2004, the White House released the following characterization of this otherwise classified document: The NSPD called on the Secretary of Defense to plan for military options "against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics." The NSPD also called for plans "against al Qaeda and associated terrorist facilities in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control-communications, training, and logistics facilities." In testimony before the 9-11 Commission on March 23, 2004, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld presented this description of the strategy contained in NSPD-9: "The objectives of the new strategy were: o To eliminate the al-Qaeda network; o To use all elements of national power to do so -- diplomatic, military, economic, intelligence, information and law enforcement; o To eliminate sanctuaries for al-Qaeda and related terrorist networks – and if diplomatic efforts to do so failed, to consider additional measures. The essence of this strategy was contained in NSPD-9. It was the first major substantive national security decision directive issued by this Administration. It was presented for decision by principals on September 4, 2001 – 7 days before September 11th. The directive was signed by the President, with minor changes, and a preamble to reflect the events of 9/11, on October 25, 2001." Above taken from the web site www.fas.org. I don’t know about you, but I find this sort of curious. What happened to diplomacy? How could GW plan this directive before the terrorist activities of 9/11? Why would he plan a war before we had reason to attack? On December 11, 2002, the following directive was issued and it pertained to WMD and the use of force, including nuclear force to secure the US and our allies from further terrorist incidents. (www.fas.org) Specifically, it defines a three- fold approach to WMD’s. Part one deals with the interdiction, part two is deterring, and the final part is destruction/mitigation of WMD’s. Export controls and sanctions will be strengthened according to this directive. But are our ports safer now? What ever happened to those WMD’s? Why did the lead weapon’s inspector suddenly die before his report was due? What clues may have been hidden there that we will never uncover? After that directive there are a couple more that is classified and unavailable to the general populace that deal with training of Iraqi forces and movement of military forces used in Colombia. (www.fas.org) In January or 2003 there appears to be a classified directive regarding the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. (www.fas.org) What is GW’s plan for reconstruction and who will handle what? Keep reading and you’ll soon find out! April 23, 2004 comes the next unclassified directive dealing with bio-terrorism and here is what GW has to say on that topic; (www.fas.org) "Bioterrorism is a real threat to our country. It's a threat to every nation that loves freedom. Terrorist groups seek biological weapons; we know some rogue states already have them.... It's important that we confront these real threats to our country and prepare for future emergencies." At this time GW strengthened, financially, our bio-defense and threat awareness to potential biological warfare. (www.fas.org) Didn’t we sell chemical warfare to the Middle-East not too long ago? Is it our policy to be Indian-givers? GW’s final directive from this web site was dated (www.fas.org) May 11, 2004 and dealt with US government operations in Iraq. In this directive he outlines how he wants to begin handing over Iraq to the Iraqi’s by June 30th, 2004. He delineates who is ostensibly to head up what faction of their new government and how they are to answer to the US Secretary of Defense, who has ultimate responsibility to direct their new government. So there you have it the new Iraqi government has no real authority, they are merely a figurehead government for our government. In closing, it is my hope that this will educate and enlighten those of you that think GW is the best man for the job. It appears to me that GW has quite a few things that need to be addressed and understood before anyone can, or should, vote to re-elect him. Is he equal to the task? Do we deserve four more years of lies and cover-ups? You be the judge! Reference: www.fas.org ------------ About the author: Michelle Malsbury was born and raised in Champaign, Illinois. She attended Parkland College and the University of Illinois before graduating from the University of Phoenix with her degree in Business Management. Currently she is working on her master’s degree in Organizational Management while concurrently pursuing her lofty writing ambitions. Ms. Malsbury moved to south Florida in 1983 and resides between the Keys and Apalachicola, allowing her to experience the southernmost and nearly northernmost beauty in the state of Florida. Travels have taken her from Europe through the Caribbean, Central America, Mexico, and across much of the United States. Michelle has been a bartender, real estate agent, flight attendant, beauty contestant, yacht broker, and commodities broker over the years, but writing is her passion. She enjoys outdoor activities like sailing, waterskiing, hiking, and fishing as well as reading, music, playing with her pets, and writing. “Three Years With Adonis” is the first to be published of several books that she has written. In addition to “Three Years With Adonis”, she has authored four other books and three screenplays while continuing to explore all that life hands her. "Three Years With Adonis" will be available eary 2005. Email Michelle Malsbury: abuchez@mchsi.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
