PDA

View Full Version : why bush admin dropped the ball in preventing 9/11


tony hipchest
03-07-2009, 12:44 AM
its all in the 9/11 commission report. its nothing new. in fact, i have cited articles in the past (that have either gone ignored or simply killed a thread).

but with recent allegations (on this board) that clinton didnt do shit to go after al qaeda, coupled with assertations of how safe bush has kept us since, brings all of this to a head once again.

-clinton left a comprehensive plan to go after al qaeda
-the tools were in place to do it effectively and efficiently (predator)

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0900predator&scale=2#a0900predator.

(warning: many pages of reading and dozens of citations contained within)


Be aware that al-Qaeda sleeper cells in the US are not just a potential threat, but are a “major threat in being.” Additionally, more attacks have almost certainly been set in motion (see January 25, 2001). [Washington Post, 1/20/2002] Rice’s response to Clarke’s proposal is that the Cabinet will not address the issue until it has been “framed” at the deputy secretary level. However, this initial deputy meeting is not given high priority and it does not take place until April 2001. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 230-31] Henry Shelton, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman until 9/11, says, “The squeaky wheel was Dick Clarke, but he wasn’t at the top of their priority list, so the lights went out for a few months. Dick did a pretty good job because he’s abrasive as hell, but given the level he was at” there was no progress. [Benjamin and Simon, 2002, pp. 335-36; Los Angeles Times, 3/30/2004] Some counterterrorism officials think the new administration responds slowly simply because Clarke’s proposal [B]originally came from the Clinton administration. [Time, 8/4/2002] For instance, Thomas Maertenson, on the National Security Council in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, says, “They really believed their campaign rhetoric about the Clinton administration. So anything [that administration] did was bad, and the Bushies were not going to repeat it.” [New York Times, 3/24/2004; Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 3/25/2004] The Bush administration will finally address the gist of Clarke’s plan at a cabinet-level meeting on September 4, 2001, just one week before 9/11 (see September 4, 2001). Clarke will later comment that the plan adopted “on Sept. 4 is basically… what I proposed on Jan. 25. And so the time in between was wasted.”

-ironic how the cia and fbi drug its feet for several years, ignoring obvious intelligence and clintons wishes to attack bin laden.

-ironic how reps accused clinton of being obsessive about bin laden as a diversionary tactic to the lewinsky scandal.

-ironic how the cia/ bush family/ bin laden family are all connected.

-ironic how bush considered going after bin laden simply as "swatting at flies".

-ironic how the bush's could turn a blind eye on a family friend/buiseness partner, yet still have such an obvious "hard on" for waging war against iraq (to settle unfinished business).

-ironic how the fbi/cia can drag its feet on obvious evidence ot a bin laden threat, yet miraculously produced conclusive evidence of the existance and threat of WMD.

-ironic how the people we helped to protect and defend (by setting up bases on their holy land) produced the majority (18 of 19?) of the terrorists who flew planes into our WTC and capitol.

-ironic how the predator loaded with hellfires wasnt seen as an effective tool until immediately after 9/11 (after it had already proven effective in capturing close up surveilance of bin laden, and being capable of delivering the missles).

-ironic that the only major job condi rice has even been mentionned as a potential suitor for is with the cleveland browns. (and that was nothing more than crazy talk).

MACH1
03-07-2009, 12:59 AM
ignoring obvious intelligence and clintons wishes to attack bin laden.

-ironic how clinton had several chances at taking bin laden out but didn't. Must be bush's fault too? :rolleyes:

fansince'76
03-07-2009, 01:04 AM
-ironic how the perpetrators of 9/11 were physically in this country and the planning of the attack was in the works for YEARS before the actual attack took place, which was in what, the eighth MONTH of GWB's tenure? Yep, all Bush's fault. Did the "comprehensive plan to go after al Qaeda" that "Bubba" so graciously left behind for GWB to pursue include lobbing cruise missiles at aspirin factories in Sudan? :coffee:

tony hipchest
03-07-2009, 01:27 AM
-ironic how clinton had several chances at taking bin laden out but didn't. Must be bush's fault too? :rolleyes:
as the link clearly shows, if i had to place blame on anybody i would put that on the CIA/FBI (but i can see where its more convinient for the ribs to place it on obama/clinton/dems as if its one person who is actually running the show.)
-ironic how the perpetrators of 9/11 were physically in this country and the planning of the attack was in the works for YEARS before the actual attack took place, which was in what, the eighth MONTH of GWB's tenure? Yep, all Bush's fault. Did the "comprehensive plan to go after al Qaeda" that "Bubba" so graciously left behind for GWB to pursue include lobbing cruise missiles at aspirin factories in Sudan? :coffee:

hmmmm....

a bunch of saudis setting up shop in our country after george sr, set up shop in their country.

go figure. :coffee:

yep. its all "bubba"s fault! :rolleyes:

atleast "bubba" was capable of kicking off this nations first comprehensive counterterrorism approach, as opposed to his predacessors who thought the "war on drugs" was much more important.

BrandonCarr39
03-07-2009, 01:49 AM
Nah-even if Al Gore was President, this "inside job" would have still happened.

IF Gore were President, 9/11 still would have happened, Gore would have declared war in Iraq, Bill O'Leilly and Keith Olbermann would have called conservatives "Right-wing moon bat traitors", etc, etc.

augustashark
03-07-2009, 02:00 AM
as the link clearly shows, if i had to place blame on anybody i would put that on the CIA/FBI (but i can see where its more convinient for the ribs to place it on obama/clinton/dems as if its one person who is actually running the show.)


hmmmm....

a bunch of saudis setting up shop in our country after george sr, set up shop in their country.

go figure. :coffee:

yep. its all "bubba"s fault! :rolleyes:

atleast "bubba" was capable of kicking off this nations first comprehensive counterterrorism approach, as opposed to his predacessors who thought the "war on drugs" was much more important.

Do you actually believe this crap you type? See you make a post that some people would read as actual facts, but in reality it is nothing more then your liberal bias. Why don't you just stick to the threads you know, like the ganga thread. Hippie.

tony hipchest
03-07-2009, 02:07 AM
Nah-even if Al Gore was President, this "inside job" would have still happened.but bin laden may have been dead. :noidea:

that s a great excuse fot the incoming administration to ignore what was laid on their table.

in the meantime, we're still hunting for him (i think) which still takes lots of money....

tony hipchest
03-07-2009, 02:41 AM
Yep, all Bush's fault.:

please be able to separate the "bush admin" from the man himself before putting words into my mouth.

the evidence clearly shows condi rice bears some blame and the evidence most definitely shows the CIA/FBI (of both administrations) shoulder plenty of blame.

with a non partisan effort i am simply showing how blaming 1 single person for all of our nations troubles is a simple case of not seeing the forest beyond the trees..

ShutDown24
03-07-2009, 03:19 AM
Even though President Bush and his administration has been out of the spotlight for well over a month now shortsighted, easily influenced, non-intellectual Americans still find a way to blame the past regime for everything... It happened. Move on. The only way having another group of politicians in the executive office during those times could have changed anything would have been for Jesus Christ himself to have been Commander-In-Chief.

For a group of people who talk so much about "change" and "moving forward" Democrats sure have one hell of a hard time getting beyond the fact that their opinion on the past is irrelevant. Shut up and give us world peace already which you've been promising for as long as I can remember. And I voted for Obama.

HometownGal
03-07-2009, 08:37 AM
Change We Can Believe In . . . . :jerkit:

Not in Washington and most certainly - not on this board. :rolleyes: :coffee:

fansince'76
03-07-2009, 09:28 AM
please be able to separate the "bush admin" from the man himself before putting words into my mouth.

the evidence clearly shows condi rice bears some blame and the evidence most definitely shows the CIA/FBI (of both administrations) shoulder plenty of blame.

with a non partisan effort i am simply showing how blaming 1 single person for all of our nations troubles is a simple case of not seeing the forest beyond the trees..

-ironic how bush considered going after bin laden simply as "swatting at flies".

Your words, not mine. And since you like to play semantics in these political threads so much, this post will be the last I say about any of it. I'm very well aware of the fact that BOTH administrations didn't do enough to prevent 9/11, which is why I haven't really said anything about any of it up to now. But this whole thread was predicated on an attempt to throw the blame for the whole thing into one administration in particular's lap, and by extension, one man's lap who was the chief executive of said administration.

GBMelBlount
03-07-2009, 11:08 AM
tony hipchest

....coupled with assertations of how safe bush has kept us since, brings all of this to a head once again.

wtf is "assertations"?

If it means an irritating ass, then I think you should get recognition for inventing the word. :chuckle:

devilsdancefloor
03-07-2009, 11:12 AM
Change We Can Believe In . . . . :jerkit:

Not in Washington and most certainly - not on this board. :rolleyes: :coffee:

http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/3/3/7/gumby12001/f_chaaaaangexm_675f3a5.jpg

KeiselPower99
03-07-2009, 11:54 AM
Why are we still pointing fingers 8 years later? Instead of blaming Bush why dont we acknowledge the fact that W kept attacks off of our shores since then. Sometimes I think you libs post stuff that is clealy right and you twist it just to see us get pissed.

MasterOfPuppets
03-07-2009, 12:34 PM
don't you guys get tired of arguing over the same stupid shit ? :noidea: the bottom line is ALL politicians are freakin lying corrupt dirtbags, and ain't none of em worth defending. :popcorn:

GBMelBlount
03-07-2009, 01:47 PM
don't you guys get tired of arguing over the same stupid shit ?

nope

Dino 6 Rings
03-07-2009, 08:17 PM
The Fault of the 9/11 Terror Attacks is not Bush's, Clinton's, Reagan's or even Jefferson's (check out your history and read up on the Barbary Coast Wars)

9/11 Is 100% the Fault of Islamic Religious Fundementalists who hate the USA because we have the Right To Vote, The Right to Free Speech, The Right to Earn Wages, Our Women have Equal Rights, All Race, Religions and Creeds have Equal Rights and that is the Exact Opposite of what their Flawed Religion Teaches them.

This is not a New War, this is not a New Fight. They, the Fundementalist, Live in the year 640 way of thinking Radicals have been at War with Western Civilization since the founding of the Religion. It really became a huge problem with the start of Wahhabism in the 1700s. That's when instead of Progressing Foward like all the other people in the world, they decided, hey, lets go back to the old way of doing things. Seriously Flawed.

Preacher
03-08-2009, 10:09 AM
as the link clearly shows, if i had to place blame on anybody i would put that on the CIA/FBI (but i can see where its more convinient for the ribs to place it on obama/clinton/dems as if its one person who is actually running the show.)


hmmmm....

a bunch of saudis setting up shop in our country after george sr, set up shop in their country.

go figure. :coffee:

yep. its all "bubba"s fault! :rolleyes:

atleast "bubba" was capable of kicking off this nations first comprehensive counterterrorism approach, as opposed to his predecessors who thought the "war on drugs" was much more important.

Wow that is pretty historically ignorant.

First, we came by Saudi INVITE to protect.

Second, the first "comprehensive" counter-terrorism approach was birthed in 1980 in the wake of the Iran hostage rescue debacle. A entire CT subsection of the military was created, including Navy SEAL team 6 led by Richard Marcinko, an Air Force wing, and also army and marines.

Created via generals in the Pentagon, they were a quick response unit to terrorism. When the Achille Lauro was taken hostage, SEAL Team 6 was on approach, just minutes out retaking the ship when the terrorists left.

Clinton was 12-14 years later in the terrorist game.

Furthermore, terrorism changed. In the 70's and 80's, it was limited in scope and funded in a large part via the eastern bloc. Iran helped create and fund mideast terrorism as well. But they infused a religious aspect to it. While the Easter Bloc funded terrorism (and trained them), it was an east-west struggle. Most of those groups, including Beider Meinhoff, the Red Brigades, disappeared after the fall of the wall and communism. The muslim connections (and there are many between the German Marxist terrorists and the muslim terrorists such as PLO) changed in the 90's and 00's. Fact is, very few caught the change. . . and NONE of our presidents did until 9-11.

Carter, Reagan, Bush AND CLINTON, all took the same course of action, understanding that while military may need to be used, terrorism was a crime, not an act of war, and the terrorists would be treated as normal criminals (CT units like the SEALS were made to memorize the miranda rights even).

I do not fault any of the presidents for this choice. It was a legitimate way to DE-legitimize the terrorists in the eyes of the world. However, NO ONE understood the world-wide reach and change of tactic Al-Queda would thrust on 9-11.

Hindsight is foolish, and ignorant, when one is trying to place blame for specific anti-terrorism decisions.

In general however, if anyone wants to place blame, put it on Carter and France. They were the ones that protected Khomeini and allowed the Shah to fall. Mideast terrorism in its current form can be traced directly back to the disruption caused by the Iranian muslim state.

Hammer Of The GODS
03-08-2009, 04:45 PM
don't you guys get tired of arguing over the same stupid shit ? :noidea: the bottom line is ALL politicians are freakin lying corrupt dirtbags, and ain't none of em worth defending. :popcorn:


RIGHT ON BROTHER!