Do You Believe The Bush Admin. Stance?
Eviscerator
Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13946Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13946Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">...on pre-9/11 intelligence?</div> All of this news lately about the pre-9/11 intelligence has got me all riled up. Here's an old article I dug up about John Ashcroft, who in July 2001 was instructed not to fly commercial aircraft for the remainder of his term. The FBI instructed him of this, and also informed him as to the reason: there was a securitry threat.
<a href='http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml' target='_blank'>Ashcroft Flying High</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(CBS) Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.
In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.
"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.
A senior official at the CIA said he was unaware of specific threats against any Cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself, in a speech in California, seemed unsure of the nature of the threat.
"I don't do threat assessments myself and I rely on those whose responsibility it is in the law enforcement community, particularly the FBI. And I try to stay within the guidelines that they've suggested I should stay within for those purposes," Ashcroft said.
Asked if he knew anything about the threat or who might have made it, the attorney general replied, "Frankly, I don't. That's the answer."
Earlier this week, the Justice Department leased a NASA-owned G-3 Gulfstream for a 6-day trip to Western states. Such aircraft cost the government more than $1,600 an hour to fly. When asked whether Ashcroft was paying for any portion of the trips devoted to personal business, a Justice Department spokeswoman declined to respond.
All other Bush Cabinet appointees, with the exception of Interior and Energy with remote sites to oversee, fly commercial airliners. Janet Reno, Ashcroft's predecessor as attorney general, also routinely flew commercial. The secretaries of State and Defense traditionally travel with extra security on military planes.
The Justice Department insists that it wasn't Ashcroft who wanted to fly leased aircraft. That idea, they said, came strictly from Ashcroft's FBI security detail. The FBI had no further comment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This little piece of information seems to have been lost lately. It seems quite relevant, however.
So my question to you: do you believe the official Bush Administration stance about pre-9/11 intelligence in regards to al Qaida's intention of using commercial airliners to attack key targets? Do you believe Condi Rice is telling the truth when she says they did all they could? Is 9/11 another Pearl Harbor?
<a href='http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml' target='_blank'>Ashcroft Flying High</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(CBS) Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.
In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.
"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.
A senior official at the CIA said he was unaware of specific threats against any Cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself, in a speech in California, seemed unsure of the nature of the threat.
"I don't do threat assessments myself and I rely on those whose responsibility it is in the law enforcement community, particularly the FBI. And I try to stay within the guidelines that they've suggested I should stay within for those purposes," Ashcroft said.
Asked if he knew anything about the threat or who might have made it, the attorney general replied, "Frankly, I don't. That's the answer."
Earlier this week, the Justice Department leased a NASA-owned G-3 Gulfstream for a 6-day trip to Western states. Such aircraft cost the government more than $1,600 an hour to fly. When asked whether Ashcroft was paying for any portion of the trips devoted to personal business, a Justice Department spokeswoman declined to respond.
All other Bush Cabinet appointees, with the exception of Interior and Energy with remote sites to oversee, fly commercial airliners. Janet Reno, Ashcroft's predecessor as attorney general, also routinely flew commercial. The secretaries of State and Defense traditionally travel with extra security on military planes.
The Justice Department insists that it wasn't Ashcroft who wanted to fly leased aircraft. That idea, they said, came strictly from Ashcroft's FBI security detail. The FBI had no further comment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This little piece of information seems to have been lost lately. It seems quite relevant, however.
So my question to you: do you believe the official Bush Administration stance about pre-9/11 intelligence in regards to al Qaida's intention of using commercial airliners to attack key targets? Do you believe Condi Rice is telling the truth when she says they did all they could? Is 9/11 another Pearl Harbor?
Comments
Apparently I don't know my history very well.... please explain
This isn't a topic on Pearl Harbor. But to answer your question, here's the short of it. FDR was determined to involve the U.S. in WW2, for he did not want the U.S. to remain isolationist and he wanted to partake in the fight for freedom in Europe. Prior to Pearl Harbor, a full 88% of the American population directly opposed U.S. involvement. FDR won the election in 1940 on a peace platform, promising the American people what they wanted to hear: that he would not get the U.S. involved in the war. So with the vast majority of Americans opposing war, but FDR really wanting to go to war, he had to find a way to make it look like we absolutely had to go to war. Pearl Harbor was that ticket. But he had earlier plans...
First, he instructed his advisors to come up with a plan to provoke Germany into attacking U.S. interests; to commit an overt act of war, the likes of which would require retribution, and full-blown war. Germany after all was the bad guy in Europe, and that's who FDR really wanted to engage. His advisors did so, and FDR followed through with them. Germany (specifically Hitler,) however, had learned from WW1 and most certainly did not want to involve the U.S. in the war, for it would likely mean ultimate defeat. We know this to be true because that's exactly what happened. Hitler gave standing orders to his forces not to engage U.S. ships, and they were very careful in following through with that order. The Axis most decidedly did not want to wake a sleeping giant.
Having tried without luck with Germany, FDR turned to Japan. Again, he instructed his advisors to come up with a plan to provoke Japan into committing an overt act of war against the U.S. Japan signed The Tripartite Treaty with Germany and Italy in 1940, ensuring that an act of war by Japan against the U.S. would give "backdoor" access to declaring war on all three... which of course meant Germany. These plans included freezing all of Japan's interests in the U.S., closing the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping, a complete trade embargo, sending hostile notes to the Japanese ambassador implying military action, and finally an ultimatum that Japan withdraw all troops from China and Indochina. FDR enacted every single one of these plans.
Japan being an island was dependent on foreign oil and trade. Especially oil, of which much of it came from the U.S. The trade embargo was essentially choking them. Having received nothing but hostile messages from the U.S. while trying to negotiate an end to the embargo, Japan eventually felt that war was inevitable. They had no choice but to begin an attack. FDR had advance knowledge of this plan, from multiple sources. He purposefully witheld this advance information from the U.S. forces in Hawaii so as to ensure that it was Japan that "fired the first shot." War immediately followed, of course. All of it was avoidable, but FDR did not want to be left out of WW2.
Below are some links you can read for further details. But let's not continue this part of the discussion, and instead get back on topic. My point in referring to PH is only for whether you think the Bush Administration used 9/11 as an excuse for going to war with Iraq. IE, a backdoor method for invading and occupying Iraq, even though there was and is absolutely no connection between Iraq and 9/11.
I take it one step further. Pearl Harbor was essentially "allowed" to happen. FDR didn't bomb the ships, but he could have prevented it. This discussion is whether you think the same thing has happened with 9/11 and Iraq... did Bush allow 9/11 to happen so that he could invade Iraq, and wage his "war on terror" wherever he feels like it? Rumsfeld came up with some plans for attacking Iraq the very afternoon of 9/11, even though there wasn't a shred of evidence pointing to Iraq. This war on terror has a very fuzzy enemy... one without a name and without a specific locale. Bush has used 9/11 to invade two foreign countries and depose their leaders. Where else is he going to take it? Do you believe they truly did "all they could" to fight terrorism prior to 9/11, or were they purposefully witholding information, like FDR, to make it so that the enemy struck us first?
<a href='http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/06-04-2001/vo17no12_facts.htm' target='_blank'>Pearl Harbor: The Facts Behind the Fiction</a>
<a href='http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-2/ww2.htm' target='_blank'>What Really Caused World War 2?</a>
Errr, there's one rather major flaw in that logic: the US never declared war on Germany; Hitler declared war on the US in early 1942. Indeed, FDR was rather against US involvement in Europe, as was most of the nation as you pointed out. The Axis treaties were also not as strong as your sources made them out to be; if they were, Japan never would have attacked the US and would instead have invaded Siberia, thus tieing down the armies that in 1941 saved Moscow.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Having tried without luck with Germany, FDR turned to Japan. Again, he instructed his advisors to come up with a plan to provoke Japan into committing an overt act of war against the U.S. Japan signed The Tripartite Treaty with Germany and Italy in 1940, ensuring that an act of war by Japan against the U.S. would give "backdoor" access to declaring war on all three... which of course meant Germany. These plans included freezing all of Japan's interests in the U.S., closing the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping, a complete trade embargo, sending hostile notes to the Japanese ambassador implying military action, and finally an ultimatum that Japan withdraw all troops from China and Indochina. FDR enacted every single one of these plans.
Japan being an island was dependent on foreign oil and trade. Especially oil, of which much of it came from the U.S. The trade embargo was essentially choking them. Having received nothing but hostile messages from the U.S. while trying to negotiate an end to the embargo, Japan eventually felt that war was inevitable. They had no choice but to begin an attack. FDR had advance knowledge of this plan, from multiple sources. He purposefully witheld this advance information from the U.S. forces in Hawaii so as to ensure that it was Japan that "fired the first shot." War immediately followed, of course. All of it was avoidable, but FDR did not want to be left out of WW2.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US embargos on Japan was a direct result of Japan's militant spread throughout Asia. You seem to be saying that Japan was antagonised into the war; the fact is that Japan's government was, by the 1930's, dominated by militant elemants who were determined to carve out an empire in the East, what they called a Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere. Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and then China in 1937, all the while building up major naval forces to engage British forces in South East Asia. The Pearl Harbour attack was an attempt at a pre-emptive strike: the goal was to eliminate he US Pacific Fleet and keep America out of the fighting for long enough to allow Japan to take South East Asia, after which it was hoped a peace could be made. The major mistake was that by chance the 4 carriers of the Pacific Fleet were outside of Pearl at the time.
The article that you linked to also makes some assumptions about the capabilities of Pearl Harbour as a defensive position. Naval experts prior to 1941 believed Pearl Harbour to be impregnible, much like the British base at Singapore. The fact that both bases were attacked and overrun so easily was a huge blow to conventional military thinking in both the US and Britian. Pearl was not considered to be any more vunerable to enemy attack than Singapore was.
Did the US government think that Japan was a threat? Certainly, hence their embargos. Did they know about the Pearl Harbour attack? Nothing I have read in 4 years of a history degree, including the links you provided, have indicated that in the slightest. The document you linked to was big on assumptions, low on actual facts.
perhaps one of the most interesting/telling thing is the way the administration has set up this 9/11 commision.
running on a tight deadline, with a carefully selected pannel (the most outspoken of whom was replaced after he said the wrong things), being denied thousands of documents (ie. a blatantly blinkered view), then accepting some stupid deal to have 2 hours of rice talking in circles on condition that no other white house official could testify.
such a joke.
Why would the govenrment set up such a flawed commission, surely this suggests they have something to hide (collusion or just incompetance? who knows).
there are so many other weird things that happened that just cant be explained.
(I know its overstated, but ive yet to see a good explaination.)
why when Bush has recieved warnings of the magnitude of 'Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US', THEN has word of a plane flying into the first tower, THEN has word of a plane flying into the second tower, THEN dedcides to sit and listen to some kid talk about goats, does nobody a) question the mans ability to lead a nation. b) question the mans sanity.
im not even going into all the stuff about no other such steal structure collapsing to fire. EVER. or building 7 mysteriously free falling in an apparent controlled decent despite not being hit. Or the south tower collapsing before the north despite being hit later and with significantly less of the fuel entering the building.
Mainly Because these kind of inexplicable events seem to only point towards controlled demolision, and thats pretty far out even for my hippy thinking.
(doesnt change the facts that these things happened. inexplicably.)
what about the fighter jets usually scrambled to intercept flights which go off course.
<b> the standard time for such jets to be in the air is 10 mins </b>
the jets that day took 34 mins. 24 mins extra is unprecidented. This was after the planes had hit the WTC. this extra 24 mins allowed the attack on the pentagon to happen.
As a healthy contribution to this thread, I'd like to point out a very long but very informative article from Andrew McCarthy who is "a former chief assistant U.S. attorney who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others."
<b><a href='http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/mccarthy200404130845.asp' target='_blank'>What About the Wall?</a></b> was just posted on <i>National Review Online</i>
This article details the failures of the intelligence community and the history behind how the failures were devoloped. While many would like to drop all of this on the current administration, comparing the nine months of their term prior to the WTC attack against the decades of terrorist activity and Washington hand wringing should help break this vacuum.
Ahhh yes... As has been said before... Duh! We already knew Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US ( WTC 1993 ), so this was not news. The particular paper with that title had no specific information about US attack intentions. It did have specific information about foreign attack intentions and I beleive stuff was done in regards to such information. So there was no mysterious increase in magnitude from that paper as there was no increase in magnitude because it changed nothing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->THEN has word of a plane flying into the first tower, THEN has word of a plane flying into the second tower<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was what... 15 minutes between the two planes being flown into the towers? It would probably take at least that long to even confirm that the first plane actually was a plane... And even then you have a great deal more to figure out... Like how serious is it really ( this isn't as easy to answer as one may think ). What happened ( specifics that is ). Who did it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->THEN dedcides to sit and listen to some kid talk about goats<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He was already involved with these students when the planes hit... He was notified that something happened but I do not believe they had any specifics. They probably didnt even know the first was a plane immediately. So he waited for more information and finished what he was doing. No need to automatically jump to conclusions and start yelling that the sky is falling. Yeah... That's what we want to see from our nation's leader.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->im not even going into all the stuff about no other such steal structure collapsing to fire. EVER.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahhh... Lets see... Was fire the ONLY contributing factor into the collapse of the towers? Could a huge metal plane flying really really fast and colliding with it not have any influence on it? Yes, the WTC were designed to survive should they be struck bya plane, but that was with a smaller plane than those used. Not only that, but these planes were practically topped off with jet fuel since they were cross-country flights. And because those were not ordinary fires either... They were fueled by jet fuel. They were far hotter and more fierce than you give credit or want others to believe.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->or building 7 mysteriously free falling in an apparent controlled decent despite not being hit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apparent controlled decent? Now you're making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. Lets stick with what's known please.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Or the south tower collapsing before the north despite being hit later and with significantly less of the fuel entering the building.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Significantly less fuel? I seriously doubt it was as significant as you claim. Regardless, there is still the fact that a plane crashed into the building. Why did it collapse sooner? Because it was hit lower. With it being hit lower and the structure being damaged there was FAR more weight and pressue on the impact site. This is what contributed to the second tower falling first.
Yes... The Bush administration stance is for the most part quite believable.
There was plenty of evidence that a huge attack was being planned on US soil. There was evidence that planes might be used. There were middle eastern men taking flying lessons and not caring about how to take off or land.
Add to that the fact that Ashcroft and Cheney *both* stopped flying commercially...
No, it's not possible that the administration could have known that four planes would be hijacked on Sept. 11th. But there's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that they did not give terrorism the high-priority attention it deserved.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Add to that the fact that Ashcroft and Cheney *both* stopped flying commercially...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Better safe than sorry. This just says that the IDEA of terrorrists attacking planes was already known and considered. Now, their actions do not necessarily have to be linked to planes being used as bombs... It could just be as simple as terrorrists are known to target planes.
I could even propose that their following of such precautions shows that they were paying attention to terrorrists.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But there's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that they did not give terrorism the high-priority attention it deserved.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Hindsight really is 20/20. Of course we can connect all the dots now that events have happened, but before 9/11 there were policies and practices that had been in place for YEARS that contributed to the disaster ( but the ultimate blame rests on the terrorrists themselves ).
The Bush administration gave terrorrism at least the same priority that the Clinton administration did. You cannot expect the Bush administration to make sweeping changes when it is not known that sweeping changes are needed within the intelligence community... Or even if some were known to be needed, not politically possible prior to 9/11.
Are there things that could have been done to possibly prevent 9/11? Oh definitely, but there is no one thing and there was probably very little to nothing that Bush could have done in those 8 1/2 months in office. To prevent 9/11 things would've needed changing long before Bush took office.
So I'll say it again, it is possible that 9/11 could have been prevented, but the likelihood of that possibility would only significantly increase were various actions taken over a period of several years... Not 8 1/2 months.
As for most of the people going on the stand about 9/11 now and plead completely ignorant I don't trust at all.
Yes, I'm combining multiple sources. And if those sources never reached the people who needed to hear them, then something went wrong. VERY wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bush administration gave terrorrism at least the same priority that the Clinton administration did.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not true. I'll be back shortly with evidence.
This is not true. I'll be back shortly with evidence. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're gonna be hard presssed. Stalwart conservative Ann Coulter wrote an article as such:
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, DEMOCRAT
In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.
Clinton, advised by **** Clarke, did nothing.
In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.
Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."
In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by **** Clarke, did nothing.
In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by **** Clarke, did nothing.
Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.
Clinton, advised by **** Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.
In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.
Clinton, advised by **** Clarke, did nothing.
In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.
On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by **** Clarke, did nothing.
On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.
Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.
On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.
Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."
The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 ? when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.
In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by **** Clarke, did nothing.
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, REPUBLICAN
Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was "tired of swatting flies" ? he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.
On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.
Clinton also had an opportunity to capture Osama on several occasions. Sudan offered his up to 4 separate times and each time Clinton declined.
1) Clinton had developed an extensive plan to eliminate Al Qaeda, which was unfortunately finished only a few weeks before Bush's inaugeration. Rather than start a war and leave office, Clinton decided to wait and give the plan to Bush. It was never implemented.
2) 10 briefings were set up for Ntl. Security Advisor Condaleeza (sp?) Rice by her predecessor Sandy Berger. He personally attended the briefing on terrorism, saying "I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general and on Al Qaeda specifically than any other subject." Time Magazine asked Rice about it. She declined to comment, but a spokeswoman said she could recall no briefing at which Berger was present. However, on Dec. 30 2001, a NY Times article reported that *both* Berger and Rice had commented on that very meeting.
3) Richard Clark (remember him?) was asked by Rice to stay with the administration as Head of Counter-terrorism. In Feb 2001, Clark gave his C-T briefing to Cheney. Time Magazine quoted outgoing Clinton staff as saying "the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism."
4) Feb 15 2001: "...The Hart-Rudman report warned that 'mass casualty terrorism directed against the US homeland was of serious and growing concern' and said that America was woefully unprepared for a catastrophic domestic terrorist attack, and urged the creation of a new federal agency: a National Homeland Security Agency..."
5) Rather than create a Dept. of Homeland Security, Bush created an anti-terrorism task force led by VP Cheney. Bush said he would "periodically chair a meeting" of the National Security Council to review these efforts. Bush never chaired such a meeting, and Cheney's task force never met to discuss *anything*.
6) July 10: a Phoenix FBI agent sent a memo to FBI HQ regarding middle-eastern flight-school students. He suggested that Al Qaeda might be trying to infiltrate the US civil aviation system. The memo was dismissed.
7) July 16: Clark's plan was approved and sent to the Principles Commitee - Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, CIA director George Tenet, and Colin Powell. A meeting was put off till Sept 4 because too many of the people involved were *vacationing* (on a side note, Bush spent 42% of his first 7 months in office at Camp David, in Kennibunkport, or at his ranch in Texas).
8) Aug 6: <b>Tenet sent a memo to President Bush entitled "Bin Laden Determined to strike in US" and warned that Al Qaeda might be planning to hijack planes</b>. Bush did nothing to follow up the memo. Two days earlier, Bush had left for the longest presidential vacation in 32 years.
9) Aug 16: INS arrests Zacharias Musawi, a flight school student who didn't seem to want to learn how to take off or land a plane. <b>The arresting agent said Musawi seemed like "the type of person who could fly something into the World Trade Center</b>." A Minneapolis FBI agent in another memo suggested that a 747 loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon. Side note: in 1996, the Clinton administration thwarted an Al Qaeda plan to hijack a plane and crash it into CIA HQ.
10) Alarmed by internal intelligence, acting FBI Director Pickard asked Ashcroft for $58mill to hire new staff to "detect foreign terror threats." On Sept 10, Ashcroft turned him down. $58 million, by the way, is PEANUTS in the national budget.
11) Sept 9: Congress suggests $600mill be moved from a Missile Defense program to counter-terrorism programs. The MD program is estimated to cost between $150bill and $230bill. Rumsfeld threatened a presidential veto for this diversion of ~0.3% of the MD budget.
12) Sept 10: Ashcroft sends a Justice Dept. budget request to Bush, asking for spending increases in 68 programs -- none of which dealt with terrorism. Ashcroft also sent around a memo of his 7 top priorities... none of which was terrorism.
____________
Regarding Clinton's track record... first of all, in my opinion it's a much better thing to *stop* attacks than to counter-attack after the fact.
1) The WTC bombing happened all of 38 days after Clinton took office. No one, however, blamed Bush Sr. for letting this one happen. What did Clinton do? Captured, tried, convicted, and imprisoned those responsible.
2) The following terrorist attacks *didn't* happen on Clinton's watch:
-a- assassinating the Pope
-b- blowing up 12 airliners simultaneously
<i>(These were planned by the same people who pulled off the WTC bombing, the ones currently in prison)</i>
bombings of:
-c- UN HQ
-d- FBI building
-e- Israeli embassy in Washington
-f- LA and Boston airports
-g- Lincoln and Holland tunnels
-h- GW Bridge
3) Clinton tripled the FBI CT budget and doubled CT spending overall.
4) Rolled up Al Qaeda cells in 20 countries
5) <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by **** Clarke, did nothing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, Clinton struck targets with Tomahawk missiles in retaliation for these bombings. He was even complimented by Gingrich for the action.
6) Immediately after the bombings, Clinton issued a directive authorizing the assassination of Bin Laden.
7) and much, much more.
8) "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him." Clinton's administration was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort." --Washington Post
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Clinton also had an opportunity to capture Osama on several occasions. Sudan offered his up to 4 separate times and each time Clinton declined<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is inaccurate. A pakistani-american claims to have been a middle-man between the US and Sudanese governments regarding this "offer." Berger met with the man once and decided he was an unreliable and primarily self-interested source. The US does not conduct diplomacy through self-appointed private individuals, but did contact the Sudanese government. There was no offer made, though the government pursued every lead.
Regarding the USS Cole: after the attack, Clinton directed Richard Clark to come up with a comprehensive plan to <b>eliminate Al Qaeda</b>. That plan is what Clark and Clinton left to the Bush administration... and what the Bush administration ignored and delayed until Sept 11th forced them to act. <b>That plan includes "everything we've done since 9/11," to quote a senior Bush administration official.</b>
I'm not sure where Ann Coulter got her facts, but the two chapters on her in Franken's book leave her credibility fairly suspect. To paraphrase Franken, her most recent book is full of vicious invective bolstered by the shoddiest research this side of the Hitler Diaries.
Sorry for the multiple edits; I'm still picking up bits (mostly in defense of Clinton and to repudiate Coulter's claims).
I'm not trying to get into conspiracy mode here, I'm just asking what is better for a politicians public image: The complete absence of a tragedy, or the close-call avoidance of a tragedy whichs prevention can in some way be linked to the politicans actions - or that simply allows him to look good while congratulating some heroes on national TV.
Can we see some of her sources? Ann Coulter isn't exactly known for <a href='http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=coulter&sp-a=sp100115c6' target='_blank'>rock solid, un-biased, well-researched information.</a>
But here's a freebie:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.
Clinton, advised by **** Clarke, did nothing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If, by nothing, you mean 'catch, try, and imprison those responsible', then yes, they absolutely did nothing. Coil has already done a nice job listing Clinton's anti-terror initiatives, which <i>were</i> tied to this, so I'll let him fill in the rest of the details.
Also, note this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by **** Clarke, did nothing.
On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.
Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not only does she (for 'comedic' effect, I guess) downplay the missile attacks (which, at the time were lauded by Newt Gingrich), she assumes that because they took place a whopping 13 days after the attack, they have nothing to do with them. Fine by me-- by this logic, our attack on Afghanistan wasn't connected to 9/11.
And along this line of reasoning, does this mean that part of the blame also lies with Republican law makers who tried their hardest to keep Clinton off balance and on the defensive with hostile investigation after investigation? Were they so disrespectful of the American political process that they wanted to neutralize and remove a twice elected president against the wishes of the American people? Do they hate America that much?
Note: Yes, that was meant to be ironic hyperbole. Just showing how flimsy and contentious the argument gets when we start playing Coulter-rules politics.
Also, food for thought: If Clarke was as obviously incompetent as a robust scholar such as Ann Coulter would have us believe, why did Bush 43 keep him on board?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Clinton also had an opportunity to capture Osama on several occasions. Sudan offered his up to 4 separate times and each time Clinton declined. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can I see some of your evidence and support here? We've all heard this story numerous times, from many different sources, to the point where it's become one of those 'telephone' like games. Hannity simplifies it, and then Coulter simplifies his version . . . . on and on. Now it's gotten to the point where Clinton was supposed to have the hindsight that we won't hold Bush accountable for, and he's turning down a no strings attached offer simply because he hates America, apple pie, and puppies.
Interesting also that the 'intermediary' who tried to broker this situation (and whose word many of the accusations flying are based upon) now works for Fox News. Imagine that.
Again, that Coulter article is mostly gibberish and crass oversimplification. I'll let Coil's list counter it.
But go ahead and try to blame it all on Clinton-- I've got a secret for you:
This is Reagan's fault. This is Bush 41's fault. This is Clinton's fault. <i>And</i> this is Bush 43's fault.
All this does is cause people to lose what little faith they had in the government, and create stupid conspiracy theories "omg Bush, Russia, Peru, and the evil Jews planted bombs in the WTC and had fake paper planes strapped to missiles fly into the towers. Meanwhile Rumsfield blew the Pentagon up with a coffee maker and a tuning fork."
To stay relevant it's good for us to keep the government in check but it's just become a way for the two parties to bash each other at this point.
you break that first point into 3 parts, which I dont think is fair, given that the point was cumulative.
these things on their own can be argued against. but not all togeather.
when you know people are determind to attack, then hear of an attack, you put two and two togeather, you act, or at the very least you move to a secure location, especially if your the commander in chief. What you dont typically do is forget about the immediate worries of your country in the sweet stories of school kids.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ahhh... Lets see... Was fire the ONLY contributing factor into the collapse of the towers? Could a huge metal plane flying really really fast and colliding with it not have any influence on it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[lifted from <a href='http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html' target='_blank'>This Mildly Inflamatory Site</a>]
<img src='http://www.greatbuildings.com/drawings/World_Trade_Tower.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
The Support columns in the WTC were in the centre of the building. they took up a large amount of the total floor space.
They columns were constructed of concreate covered steel.
The collision on the North Tower, hit the rectangular support structure full on in the side ( a perfect hit, for causing maximum damage ).
The collision on the South Tower, hit the rectangular support structure off centre on the front ( probably the worst they could have achieved).
[[bear with me, this is going somewhere, honest ]]
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And because those were not ordinary fires either... They were fueled by jet fuel. They were far hotter and more fierce than you give credit or want others to believe.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[From the same source.]
typically, the highest temperature youll see from a kerosene fueled fire is 360 degrees F, ,this is when the kerosene starts to boil and the vapour is quickly burned off (the huge fireballs).
either the kerosene burned for an extended period below its boiling point.
or it burned quickly at the boiling point.
either way, temperatures reached would not have been sufficient to melt 200,000 tonnes of steel (which btw would require temperatures of 1500 degrees F).
another point, steel conducts heat, so the energy would be absored by the whole before one part melted.
couple this with the fact that alot of the kerosene from the south tower actually burnt outside the building
[this fireball]
<img src='http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/I17787-2001Sep12.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
and you really have to start to wonder why the South Tower fell before the North.
im not sure what im trying to say with this, things just dont seem to add up is all I guess.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Apparent controlled decent? Now you're making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. Lets stick with what's known please.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
check out <a href='http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html' target='_blank'>These Videos</a>
the top video originally aired on CBS, even has a presenter comment on how similar its fall appears to a controlled decent.
I don't have anything else to say - the other posters are doing quite a good job of making my point (thanks guys!).
All this does is cause people to lose what little faith they had in the government, and create stupid conspiracy theories "omg Bush, Russia, Peru, and the evil Jews planted bombs in the WTC and had fake paper planes strapped to missiles fly into the towers. Meanwhile Rumsfield blew the Pentagon up with a coffee maker and a tuning fork."
To stay relevant it's good for us to keep the government in check but it's just become a way for the two parties to bash each other at this point. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, good point, but it's not a secret.
However, to say that it's <i>all</i> their fault indicates that our system must be flawless, which it isn't, and I'd prefer that we accept our faults and try to learn from them and improve our security instead of burying our head in the sand.
If there's one thing I'd have to fault most in this country it's our political disharmony. On both sides, it's not so much doing what's best for the country as it is doing what's most likely to show the other side up/**** them off.
If you asked me about this thing before 9/11 commission, I may have stand by Bush that he couldn't have prevented it (even though, I'm not his favourite fan).
But he won't support the creation of the commission, wouldn't release the documents, wouldn't let Rice testify, have yet to accept responsibility for anything (it's always someone else fault), character assisnate every single whistle-blower.
I really just don't give this admin any credits any more. Why hide anything if you're innocent?
Sure, Al Queda is the bad guy. But if NYPD received hints that a robbery will take place at Mr.J's home, and doesn't take actions to protect him at all, NYPD is at fault here.
If anyone would like to see further proof of the administration flat-out lying through its teeth, look no further than Rumsfeld. He's been <a href='http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/' target='_blank'>caught lying on national television.</a> This man is crooked to the bone. Watching the video and seeing him squirm when caught in a outright lie is really quite fun.
I would hardly call him crooked to the bone, just because he can't remember every word that comes out of his mouth. They played a word game with him, just like he plays word games with us.
What does that mean.
Maybe the rest of the world doesn't WANT to be Americanized/annexed -- I mean "fixed"?
*2nd ill placed family metaphor of the day* It's like when your mother tells you to put on a jacket it's cold out, and you don't just to spite her, then you go outside and your cold and you wish you had your jacket but that just makes you madder.
Ok so I went out on limb with that one, but you can see what I mean, I know it sounds so arrogant to say our lives are so much better and so would there’s if they would just submit, but I think in this case it's true and those in power there see that and get worried so they demonize us.
Is it our job? yes/no <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
perhaps one of the most interesting/telling thing is the way the administration has set up this 9/11 commision.
running on a tight deadline, with a carefully selected pannel (the most outspoken of whom was replaced after he said the wrong things), being denied thousands of documents (ie. a blatantly blinkered view), then accepting some stupid deal to have 2 hours of rice talking in circles on condition that no other white house official could testify. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok here we go,
The 2 hours of Dr. Rice's testimony that you saw and the censored documentes were for the public. If you bothered to watch any of the testimony you would know this. Dr. Rice had given hours of testimony going over more than what she said in the public one. We only saw the public one because, dare I say it, some of the commisioners were playing politics and demanded rice testify in public. All of the commisioners have the clearance to see the classified documents. The black marks are on the PDB because they had to put them there for public purposes. The only thing that you have right is the deadline.
*2nd ill placed family metaphor of the day* It's like when your mother tells you to put on a jacket it's cold out, and you don't just to spite her, then you go outside and your cold and you wish you had your jacket but that just makes you madder.
Ok so I went out on limb with that one, but you can see what I mean, I know it sounds so arrogant to say our lives are so much better and so would there’s if they would just submit, but I think in this case it's true and those in power there see that and get worried so they demonize us.
Is it our job? yes/no <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is exactly the attitude that makes so many liberals terrified of Bush and neo-cons like him.
The days of imperialism are over! We don't run around the world, planting flags and claiming land in the name of the Queen anymore. Just because their way of life is different than ours doesn't make it our duty to make it "better." It's extraordinarily arrogant to *assume* you know what's best for an entire culture you know barely anything about.
reasa, unless you're Muslim or have a degree in Middle-Eastern Studies, you're just not qualified to speak on what countries like Iraq want. Hell, a good number of middle eastern people are repulsed by American attitudes, values, morals, etc.
To buy into your metaphor, let's say you're the US/my mother, and I'm Iraq/your son. You tell me to put a coat on because it's cold out. Sure, it's cold. But you've never bothered to learn/understand the fact that I and people like me relish the cold and view it as a fundamental obstacle. Braving the cold helps prove we're *alive* and strong.
That, and <i>you're not actually my mother</i>, so it's really none of your business whether I put a coat on or not.
Perhaps it's part of the culture of the largest most powerful countries to impose their cultures on other weaker countries. Look at Rome, the entire Empire thrived off conquest, lived off conquering new lands and converting new people. What happened to the Roman Empire when it couldn't expand anymore, its economy collapsed and the Empire began to decline.
Now look at American history for the majority of it we have been expanding and gaining new lands, and have become ever more powerful, but lately we have run out of land to conquer, lost the frontier. You can see what I'm saying, and I think it's a very valid point.
Edit: I love adding my argument after I post a quick one sentence then actully think...