Originally Posted By RoadTrip I think this is a great article. Of course those on the other side of the aisle will think it's a terrible article. Either way, it's thought provoking. <<Thus was it left for the previous president to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack: You did not try. You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor. You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people. Then, you blamed your predecessor. That would be a textbook definition, Mr. Bush, of cowardice. To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past.>> Complete Article: <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004160/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15 004160/</a>
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Or, You tried and failed. You didn't ignore the evidence of your predecesor. You chose to act conservatively upon the evidence of your own people. Your predecesor does bear some of the responsibility. Life would be easy if it was black and white....but it isn't.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Sorry, but I will never believe the Bush administration could not have done more to prevent 9/11. The whole Moussaoui thing probably sticks in my mind so much because it happened locally. But the FBI had this guy in custody on August 16th. How could they NOT realize what was coming? <<On August 13, Moussaoui paid $6,800 with $100 bills to receive training in a 747-400 simulator. The simulator that Pan-Am uses is operated by Northwest Aerospace Training Corporation (NATCO), a training facility affiliated with Northwest Airlines. Clancy Prevost, the flight instructor assigned to Moussaoui, began to have suspicions about his student. His behavior largely resembled that of other seemingly wealthy men who had come to the center in the past to receive jumbo jet training despite the fact that they'd probably never use it, but some characteristics were unusual. Prevost said later that in pre-simulator instruction, Moussaoui would ask questions that had the right jargon but were otherwise nonsensical. Moussaoui read through the 747 training manuals, but had a lack of understanding of the plane's systems. Prevost was confused as to why Moussaoui would seek simulator time if he lacked basic plane knowledge. After some convincing, his supervisors contacted the FBI, who came to meet with him. (Despite later reports, Moussaoui didn't avoid the training for takeoff and landing.) On August 16, 2001, Moussaoui was arrested by Harry Samit of the FBI in Minnesota and charged with an immigration violation. Some agents worried that his flight training had violent intentions, so the Minnesota bureau tried to get permission to search his laptop computer, but they were turned down. Other materials he had when he was arrested included two knives, 747 flight manuals, a flight simulator computer program, fighting gloves and shin guards, and a computer disk with information about crop dusting. FBI agent Coleen Rowley made an explicit request for permission to search Moussaoui's personal rooms. This request was first denied by her boss, Deputy General Counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman, and later rejected based upon FISA regulations (amended after 9/11 by the USA Patriot Act). Several further attempts failed the very same way. As a result, the chance of finding early evidence passed unused.>> Source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z acarias_Moussaoui</a>
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I think the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration, the Bush I Administration and the Reagan Administration ALL could have done more to prevent 9/11. In fact, they could have done less in some circumstances to prevent 9/11.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy What is important is what has happend SINCE 9/11. We all know Clinton dropped the ball for 8 years as he cheated on his wife and Bush inherited a mess. RT, you keep posting stuff like this, stuff that was covered in 2004 yet you voted for Bush. Why are you so wishy washy?
Originally Posted By ecdc It is a great editorial (I don't think it's quite fair to call it an article, though). It talks about the irony that Republicans claim Clinton was too distracted by Lewinsky to do anything about bin Laden. Of course, Lewinsky was only a big deal because the right chose to make it a big deal. Republicans then were citing the movie "Wag the Dog" after Clinton bombed camps and named bin Laden by name.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Wow, Clinton lobbed a few missles that didn't even hit anything. What a serious warrior Bubba was! You guys who protect this cheating liar are pretty funny.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<RT, you keep posting stuff like this, stuff that was covered in 2004 yet you voted for Bush. Why are you so wishy washy?>> As I've pointed out numerous times... 1) We now know a LOT of things that we did not know in November 2004. 2) I did not think Kerry was a very good candidate. I change my opinion as new information becomes known. That's not wishy-washy; it's intelligent. You, of all people, should have no problem understanding #2.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan First, I don't think the President is a coward. The media and pundits and politicos will spend another week finger-pointing, name-calling and blaming the other side for 'allowing' 9/11 to happen. Meanwhile, the truly important point is this: We know the animal that orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Are we doing absolutely everything in our power to 'bring him to justice'?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Sorry, but I will never believe the Bush administration could not have done more to prevent 9/11< Trippy, hardly a moderate stance...I know you have that Clinton Shrine up there in Minnesota, and he is your hero ( not mocking at all just know to be true from your posts) but let's be real honest here, and even Clinton referenced it in his interview -- no one on the planet saw 9/11 coming the way it unfolded - except those who perpetrated it. Neither person did enough in hindsight and even Bill admitted that...so why flail on W now ? Seems pointless. <Of course, Lewinsky was only a big deal because the right chose to make it a big deal.< And ecdc do you honestly believe for one minute that if this was the case right now for GWB, that Dean and Pelosi and the Dem party wouldn't react the exact same way ? In the world of politics we live in of course they would. If they could have gotten this on Reagan, would have used also. This was a huge error in judgement by a sitting president...but should it have stopped government from proceeding - no, I agree. However when that same person, instead of getting up in front of the American people and saying, hey, I screwed up and I am very sorry, but I am in control of the government and we are progressing as we should, looks me in the television eye and flat out lies about it -- THAT was the issue in my mind 100 times more than the indiscreation. So Bill made the situation much worse without ANY help from the other side of he aisle. That part belongs to him and him alone.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I spoke to a young man from my neighborhood yesterday. He was in Afghanistan with the National Guard up until about a month ago. He was in the hunt for Bin Laden. Fortunately, he knew of only (and I don't say that lightly) 3 casualties. I spoke to his father while he was overseas but just felt like I should walk up to him and thank him for his service. He is a proud young man who feels like he did a lot of good. Just because Bin Laden hasn't been caught or killed doesn't mean that aren't doing good things in Afghanistan. The people of that country, for the most part, are supportive of the American troops and their mission. There is a lot we know now. Roadtrip is right. But there is a lot we don't know. We don't know what the Middle East would be like right now if we didn't go into Iraq. It is easy to say it could have been no worse than when Saddam was in power but the truth is you can't make that statement. His history was one of aggression...against his own people and against his neighbors. Maybe the fact that the terrorists are more active in Iraq is a bad thing...but maybe it is a good thing. Maybe they would be scattered throughout the Middle East and around the World. The television shows with the talking heads want us all to fall on one side or the other. But the truth is that the world mostly operates in gray.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<1) We now know a LOT of things that we did not know in November 2004.>> Like what? That we havn't been attacked in 5 years here in America or that Bush has stopped dozens of attacks since then using his policies? That the democrats have yet to give us a plan to win the war on terror? You are a flip flopper RT who runs with every story you hear as you change your mind on a weekly basis. You voted for Bush because that month you were ticked at the terrorists and you knew Kerry was a joke. Now look at ya saying Clinton was a great president and Hillary would also be great. LOL
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Now look at ya saying Clinton was a great president and Hillary would also be great. LOL< to be fair as you look back, RT has always been a huge fan of Clinton, that is no flip flop.
Originally Posted By bboisvert Some perspective on what Clinton did when given intelligence on UBL .vs what Bush did. -=-=-=- On December 4, 1998, Clinton rec'd a PDB titled "Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks." Quoting from the 9/11 Commission report: To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York City area airports. <a href="http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm" target="_blank">http://www.9-11commission.gov/ report/911Report_Ch4.htm</a> -=-=-=- On August 6, 2001, Bush rec'd a PDB titled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" Quoting from the 9/11 Commission report: He did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so. He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it. That never happened.36 Although the following day's SEIB repeated the title of this PDB, it did not contain the reference to hijackings, the alert in New York, the alleged casing of buildings in New York, the threat phoned in to the embassy, or the fact that the FBI had approximately 70 ongoing bin Ladin-related investigations. No CSG or other NSC meeting was held to discuss the possible threat of a strike in the United States as a result of this report. Late in the month, a foreign service reported that Abu Zubaydah was considering mounting terrorist attacks in the United States, after postponing possible operations in Europe. No targets, timing, or method of attack were provided. We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. Most of the intelligence community recognized in the summer of 2001 that the number and severity of threat reports were unprecedented. Many officials told us that they knew something terrible was planned, and they were desperate to stop it. Despite their large number, the threats received contained few specifics regarding time, place, method, or target. Most suggested that attacks were planned against targets overseas; others indicated threats against unspecified "U.S. interests." We cannot say for certain whether these reports, as dramatic as they were, related to the 9/11 attacks. <a href="http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch8.htm" target="_blank">http://www.9-11commission.gov/ report/911Report_Ch8.htm</a> -=-=-=- To say that Clinton did nothing is ridiculous.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<no one on the planet saw 9/11 coming the way it unfolded - except those who perpetrated it.>> With Moussaoui in custody almost a month before 9/11 the government should have been able to take some precautions. Even if the investigation had not turned up detailed plans, they should have ramped up airport security -- even if it was nothing other than behind the scenes profiling. August 6th Bush was presented with a briefing titled ""Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States". One week later Moussaoui is taken into custody by the FBI after raising the suspicion of a flight school instructor. So in rapid succession we have a report indicating that Bin Laden was going to strike inside the U.S. followed by the arrest of a middle-eastern guy who was trying to learn to fly large passenger planes for no discernable reason. If there was no one in our government who could put that two and two together and get four, they should talk to the folks in Great Britain where they figure stuff like that out.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<Like what? That we havn't been attacked in 5 years here in America>> Or maybe to say that we have been attacked in the last five years and the people that did it have still not been brought to justice.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^^^^ with the CIA and FBI not working together for well over a decade at that point....no, I do not believe there was anyone who could have connected those 2 dots out of thousands of dots, or tens of thousands of dots. To do it today by singling them out of all the other reports is disengenuous. If someone has selected just those two and put them in front of someone - of course - but that was not the state of US Intelligence at that time and we all know that.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<no one on the planet saw 9/11 coming the way it unfolded - except those who perpetrated it.>> I don't even think the terrorists dreamed that the WTC towers would completely collapse.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Bush even ignores his current intelligence - unless of course it supports his agenda. It doesn't. How many months and years have bush and company been saying that we americans are safer because of the actions of his administration? And yet we discover that the consensus of all sixteen of his intelligence agencies say that his actions are actually spreading and diffusing terror, and we are in greater danger than ever before. Bush will never tell you that - even though it's the truth. Bush will even go one better and lie through his teeth that his "plan" is what's keeping us safe. He knows better. He knows what the NIE says. But he doesn't care. It was just announced that they will release a few pages of the report "to end speculation". Bush also said that this report was leaked "for political purposes". Well, duh. It states exactly the opposite of what he's been saying all along. No wonder he's all in bunch about this.
