[M�lum]

At last there is an official version of what many people already said months ago (and got bashed): Bush government knew about the possibilities of terrorist attacks that had Bin Laden and Fly schools involved.
They knew that hyjacks were planned, but didn't think they would use the planes as suicide weapons...

Wasn't the knowledge that planes could be hyjacked ENOUGH to step up protection?


It's the same story again. The Bush senior government knew about the Kuweit invasion by Iraq a few days before it happened, they even told the Iraqi leaders that the USA wasn't interested in what they were going to do... Well we all knew what happened then.

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: M�lum ]

[KellyHogan]

Exactly. But apparently a troll like me can never be right about anything because I think Quartz is phat.

Greg Palast has also investigated this and it is far more serious than it looks from the outside:
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=103&row=1
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=104&row=1

Real Video from BBC. Needs Real Player. http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/pr...t/attack22.ram

[cdhostage]

Hmm. I think Roosevelt was accused with doing something like this.

This is more serious because an Arab can buy an atom bomb and take out a city.

[maxelson]

How many threats does the US, its citizens and interests get on a daily basis? We will never know. EVER.
These threats are filtered and passed on one by one to appropriate agencies. This threat, actually, this intelligence- not a threat at all- which warned of possible hijackings by OBL (specifically) was passed on to the appropriate agencies (why the FBI was not on this list I'll never know). Too much, in my patriotism enshrouded view, is being made of this.
I mean, what exactly is the implication? That the Government knew what was coming and let it happen? Is that the implication?

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: maxelson ]

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>How many threats does the US, its citizens and interests get on a daily basis? We will never know. EVER.
These threats are filtered and passed on one by one to appropriate agencies. This threat, actually, this intelligence- not a threat at all- which warned of possible hijackings by OBL (specifically) was passed on to the appropriate agencies (why the FBI was not on this list I'll never know). Too much, in my patriotism enshrouded view, is being made of this.
I mean, what exactly is the implication? That the Government knew what was coming and let it happen? Is that the implication?
</STRONG>

Yes, I believe that is the implication.
but more importantly, WHY is that the implication? Is it that Malum and KH would rather paint OBL as a freedom fighter and somehow blame the US for being attacked? I'm not certain.

At any rate, yes the US (and other countries) receive countless threats that they must triage by likelihood before responding to them, otherwise the entire system would grind to a halt tracking down every single lead. Most people do not recall that about 6 months to a year before 9/11 there were dozens of fairly low-interest news stories about the CIA and other agencies preventing planned attacks on embassies and other US targets in europe. So they WERE responding to some threats and WERE successfully preventing them.
The thing to realize is that with a terrorist organization hellbent on murder, their resolve is going to eventually overcome the ability to predict their every move accurately.

I don't like the Bush-packaged administration, but even I do not think they would intentionally allow 9/11 to happen.

oh, and KH: OBL is not a freedom fighter or messiah. He's a spoiled rich brat with a hard-on for mass murder. He's the lowest scum because he uses the lives of innocents to make his political statements because he's too much a sniveling coward to take his own life to make a statement. Just my opinion, of course.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>How many threats does the US, its citizens and interests get on a daily basis? We will never know. EVER.
These threats are filtered and passed on one by one to appropriate agencies. This threat, actually, this intelligence- not a threat at all- which warned of possible hijackings by OBL (specifically) was passed on to the appropriate agencies (why the FBI was not on this list I'll never know). Too much, in my patriotism enshrouded view, is being made of this.
I mean, what exactly is the implication? That the Government knew what was coming and let it happen? Is that the implication?

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: maxelson ]</STRONG>

I agree. Can you imagine if we had a government that swooped down and arrested people every time some intelligence analyst writes a memo?

No free society could operate in such a paranoid climate.

[Myrkridia]

Our country is notoriously unprepared, for everything. We'll probably get hit with some kind of bio/chemical weapon next and our government will say "We have now taken steps to ensure that this kind of attack never happens again."
And until we get things organized, terrorists and other smaller countries are going to continue to do these "kick in the nuts" attacks.

[Ti X]

Ah, the wonderful world of politics! I can't believe how such an absurd accusation could be made against anyone. This is obviously a sick political plot which would have been exploited whether Bush or Gore was in office. It really disgusts me to know that either party would have picked up on the information and used it to slander the other. Really people, who could have prevented this? No one, no how, no way.

Lerkfish has it right, "The thing to realize is that with a terrorist organization hellbent on murder, their resolve is going to eventually overcome the ability to predict their every move accurately."

[TNproud2b]

Terrorist attacks during Clinton presidency = 4

Terrorist attacks during Bush presidency = 1

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>Terrorist attacks during Clinton presidency = 4

Terrorist attacks during Bush presidency = 1</STRONG>

That's a completely ridiculous correlation to draw.
But IF you are going to play that way, to be fair, Clinton was in for 8 years. Bush hasn't completed one year yet. If you divide it up that way, Bush is MORE prone to terrorist attack....but that's a meaningless comparison.

[Ti X]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>Terrorist attacks during Clinton presidency = 4

Terrorist attacks during Bush presidency = 1</STRONG>

You are really ignorant.

Years Clinton was in office = 8

Years Bush has been in office = &gt;2

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Ti X:
<STRONG>

You are really ignorant.

Years Clinton was in office = 8

Years Bush has been in office = &gt;2</STRONG>

additionally, if we are specifically talking about terrorist attacks from OBL's groups, of which there were more than 4 at US targets overseas (not sure where tnproud got his numbers), then one has to look at motivation.

OBL has often stated his anger at the US arose from Papa Bush's Desert Storm and the fact that "infidels" (anyone not muslim) set foot in Saudia Arabia and holy ground. It has since then mutated into an overall arab/muslim/palestinian cause, but it originated from desert storm...so, in effect, Papa Bush actually "caused" all the OBL terrorism that Clinton had to suffer.

But again, that's only if you make really dunderheaded correlations.
The fact is, terrorists have agendas that outlive presidential terms, so to assign "fault" in any strange way to one president or another is really assinine. As much as I hate Bush sr and jr, and even if I think some of their policies create bad international situations, NOTHING justifies or excuses terrorism, and the fault of terrorism is the choices made by terrorists, pure and simple, not whether the current president is dem or repub.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>Terrorist attacks during Clinton presidency = 4

Terrorist attacks during Bush presidency = 1</STRONG>

You know, I'm a Bush partisan, and I very much disliked Clinton's foreign policy. But that kind of comment is just silly.

US policy was incipid about terrorism and there wasn't a call in either party to do anything serious about it until the big one hit home.

Recent administrations since at least the Carter Administration have been quietly acting to improve counterterrorism - basically hardening of facilities, reducing target availability overseas and preparing first responders here at home. The Clinton Administration was actually particularly proactive in these areas. For example, the part of the Pentagon hit had recently been hardened. That program began in direct response to the bombings of the Khobar Towers and the two African Embassies. That hardening program saved many lives when the plane hit.

Another area that Clinton quietly took personal interest was in bio warfare terrorism. And Congress has acted proactively to buy up loose nuclear materials left lying around in former Soviet republics and to assist the former Soviet countries with security.

What no administration took seriously until September 11th was anti-terrorism. Anti-terrorism is taking the fight back to the terrorists and their state supporters. Reagan did do it against Libya in 1986, but unfortunately that was an abberation. After September 11th I think and hope it will be the norm.

This country has a long tradition of keeping petty domestic political rivalries out of foreign policy. I hope we return to that tradition. This is too important to be a political football.

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: SimeyTheLimey ]

[Lerkfish]

sorry, tnproud2, it appears that BOTH republicans and democrats here think that's a silly correlation.

[Ti X]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
[QB]

OBL has often stated his anger at the US arose from Papa Bush's Desert Storm and the fact that "infidels" (anyone not muslim) set foot in Saudia Arabia and holy ground. It has since then mutated into an overall arab/muslim/palestinian cause, but it originated from desert storm...so, in effect, Papa Bush actually "caused" all the OBL terrorism that Clinton had to suffer.
QB]

Yes, although if Clinton was in office he would have had the same pressures placed upon him to protect our oil interests as Bush Sr did, which is exactly the root of all our current problems, oil.

I will branch off here for a minute, this leads us to question our own government and nations dependency on a single resource so heavily. So then, how long and what circumstances will finally prevail in pushing our overly lobbied government to seriously pursue alternative fuel sources?

[jholmes]

Just because we have intelligence that something may happen doesn't mean we can do anything about it.

Ever read At Dawn We Slept? It is Gordon Prange's authoritative investigation of the events leading up to Pearl Harbor and what the US knew and didn't know. We actually had broken the Japanese codes and knew they were going to attack at dawn on 7 December. But due to many factors the attack went off as planned and obviously changed the world. Six months later Congress went looking for scapegoats.

Same situation. This was a paradigm shift in the way terrorists operate. Even if we knew there was to be a hikacking (which hadn't successfully happened in the US in 20 years) who would have guessed it could have been abouit turning planes into truck bombs? No one could have anticpated this because unless you get your ideas about National Security threats from Tom Clancy, there was no precident.

BTW - why wasn't the FBI informed? My understanding is that the FBI is charged with Investigating and solving crimes that have been committed rather than crime prevention. Hence the creation of the Homeland Security bureaucracy.

&lt;edit&gt;
My understanding of the oil situatiuon is that since the 73 embargo the US has reduced it';s dependence on Middle Eastern oil to 10% of our national usage. Our country has run on oil for the last century and it's very difficult to turn around a ship this big.

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: jholmes ]

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ti X:
<STRONG>So then, how long and what circumstances will finally prevail in pushing our overly lobbied government to seriously pursue alternative fuel sources?</STRONG>

I think and pray that we are. It's called "the Caspian."

Why do you think Putin loves Bush? It's not just because of his little problem in Chechnyr.

[Ti X]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
<STRONG>

I think and pray that we are. It's called "the Caspian."

Why do you think Putin loves Bush? It's not just because of his little problem in Chechnyr. </STRONG>

Ridiculous, isn't it?

[TNproud2b]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>sorry, tnproud2, it appears that BOTH republicans and democrats here think that's a silly correlation. </STRONG>

drats, foiled again

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ti X:
<STRONG>

Ridiculous, isn't it?</STRONG>

No, it's sensible. I'm all for alternative fuels like nuclear, geothermal, wind, wave, etc) for power generation. But realistically oil will be a necessity for the foreseeable future.

Given that, I'd rather buy it from people who appreciate our business and who don't think the way to thank us is to fund little two legged hate-guided missiles.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Ti X:
<STRONG>

Yes, although if Clinton was in office he would have had the same pressures placed upon him to protect our oil interests as Bush Sr did, which is exactly the root of all our current problems, oil.
</STRONG>

Just wanted to point out that I qualified what I said as a correlation equally as ridiculous as Tnproud2's. When you quoted that out of context it appears as if I am truly avocating that as a direct cause.

My point was that if you make these types of questionable correlations, they can be made with either political party.

This does not negate your point about oil, however, just wanted to clear up any potential misconception.

[krove]

The only thing the media has even mentioned about the possibility of knowing "something" before 9-11 was a letter written by an FBI field agent in Arizona. The press got a hold of one paragraph stating to the effect that this ONE agent believed that terrorist organizations might attempt to take over one or more aircraft.

Things this letter does not note:
When an attack (if any) might take place
Who exactly might be organizing such a plot
Where such training and take over might take place

Now this agent did some investigating of flight schools in Arizona but turned up nothing. What you've got here is ONE agent that had little proof of something he suspsected. He had no leads as to the major question, "could 9-11 have been averted?" With this letter, the answer is simply NO.

They may have had inkilings, but certainly they did not have enough (based on this letter) to do much of anything. Think about it, the public wouldn't warm up to the idea of armed guards blanketing the nation's airports without a precedent - there would be outcries from civil liberties groups, etc. Without much to narrow the search parameters, the government couldn't do much of anything with this.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>Terrorist attacks during Clinton presidency = 4

Terrorist attacks during Bush presidency = 1</STRONG>

As if the standing president has anything to do with it. That is not what you are implying, is it?
If it were, the point would not stand.

Clinton- 8 years. Bush- almost two.
Clinton- nasty attacks. Bush- single worst, most deadly act of terrorism on American soil.
Clinton- those killed run into low double digits.
Bush- 4 figures.

There were probably hundreds of attacks and plots thwarted over the last 15 years. And we will never know about them. And that would cover all of those administrations over that period.

[Millennium]

Vague threats. That's all they were. It makes no difference, in the end; even if he did know, there was nothing he could have done.

Or would you rather they locked down the whole country, instituted Big Brother, and generally scrapped the last vestiges of freedom in this nation, just in anticipation of something they had no way of knowing would actually be carried out, to say nothing of what the planes would have been used for?

This is whaty annoys me about most of the Bush critics. I'm no Bush advocate myself, but I see him getting thrust into a ton of no-win situations, and then people blaming him for not winning. That just isn't right. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to hate the guy, but not being Superman isn't one of them.

[theUpsetter]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>

As if the standing president has anything to do with it. That is not what you are implying, is it?
If it were, the point would not stand.

Clinton- 8 years. Bush- almost two.
Clinton- nasty attacks. Bush- single worst, most deadly act of terrorism on American soil.
Clinton- those killed run into low double digits.
Bush- 4 figures.

There were probably hundreds of attacks and plots thwarted over the last 15 years. And we will never know about them. And that would cover all of those administrations over that period.</STRONG>

Perhaps TNproud2B's assertion would have been more effective had he contrasted what Clinton did about those 4 attacks vs. what Bush as done about one.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>Exactly. But apparently a troll like me can never be right about anything because I think Quartz is phat.</STRONG>

Sometimes you are correct. The problem is, you believe you are always right = troll. Send that truth to Greg Palast.

[Pauline]

When OBL's name was mentioned though that should have sent warning bells off. Plus something iffy was going on with the stock market a few days before it happened which if I remember right in the past has happened prior to terrorist attacks and can indicate them soon before they happen. I'm not talking minor changes to the market but major one.

So when they saw what was going on there plus some other things it should have told those who are in the secret service and 'trained' to watch out for these things something was going down. I remember a couple of days before September 11th on another forum I was on someone said something was wasn't right due to what was happening in the stock market and thought something might happen.

I'm not saying they should have shut down airports or anything like that but if they had prior warning about possible attacks using planes and OBL was mentioned they should have at least stepped up airport security in regards to the hijackers managing to get knives on board.

[maxelson]

Eh, different situations, different leadership styles, different needs, different diplomatic observations, different time frames, different administrations. All of this "He would have done this" and "He would have done that differently and gotten this result" is not only speculative, it is, IMO, useless.
Once again, as if either leader could have stopped the terrorism. As if Bush will. As if the NEXT guy will. No one has yet addressed the root of these issues. Cannot make a cure until you've established the sickness. So, they are bloodthirsty maniacs who think nothing of killing thousands and, in fact, rejoice at it? Yeah, and WHY are they that way (and let's not discuss ideology and idealisms, etc, etc... that is too easy and does not, I think, address the real cause)? What MAKES these people what they are (besides their own sick choices)?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by theUpsetter:
<STRONG>

Perhaps TNproud2B's assertion would have been more effective had he contrasted what Clinton did about those 4 attacks vs. what Bush as done about one.</STRONG>

I'm curious...do YOU have any idea what Clinton's response was, and the public reactions? I was working on a OBL timeline for my paper that outlined much of what Clinton did in response that was summarily criticized by everyone for being too much response.

[krove]

Originally posted by Pauline:
<STRONG>When OBL's name was mentioned though that should have sent warning bells off. Plus something iffy was going on with the stock market a few days before it happened which if I remember right in the past has happened prior to terrorist attacks and can indicate them soon before they happen. I'm not talking minor changes to the market but major one.

So when they saw what was going on there plus some other things it should have told those who are in the secret service and 'trained' to watch out for these things something was going down. I remember a couple of days before September 11th on another forum I was on someone said something was wasn't right due to what was happening in the stock market and thought something might happen.

I'm not saying they should have shut down airports or anything like that but if they had prior warning about possible attacks using planes and OBL was mentioned they should have at least stepped up airport security in regards to the hijackers managing to get knives on board.</STRONG>

I guess I'll repeat it again: they did NOT have prior warning as to specific acts, targets, or time.

I for one don't think the President of the United States would order any military action based on a report by one, repeat ONE FBI agent a few months (not days) before 9-11.

No one has the capability to monitor the stock market in real time to analyze for funny-business of which I am aware, and certainly stock market funny business (if caught) would not translate into: "Mr. President, I recommend that we invade Afghanistan. We have received reports from our super computer over at the Pentagon that the NASDAQ is reporting strange fluxuations. A terrorist attack MUST be imminent." That's a load of BS...

Stop talking about what-ifs, and get to the facts. We had inklings, but nothing substantial on which decisions could be based.

[edit] spelling...

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: krove ]

[theUpsetter]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>

I'm curious...do YOU have any idea what Clinton's response was, and the public reactions? I was working on a OBL timeline for my paper that outlined much of what Clinton did in response that was summarily criticized by everyone for being too much response.</STRONG>

I'm no longer quite clear on the fact, but I think his only response was to lob a cruise missile at an asprin factory. He did say many times that the perpetrators would not get away with what they did.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>I'm no Bush advocate myself, but I see him getting thrust into a ton of no-win situations, and then people blaming him for not winning. That just isn't right. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to hate the guy, but not being Superman isn't one of them.</STRONG>

???

Let's just be blunt about the political consequences of 9/11: It was the best thing that could have happened to Bush's presidency. That's why Republicans are selling pictures of Bush on 9/11 to Republican donors. That doesn't sound like a no-win situation.

As for Clinton - he bombed bin Laden, but did the Republicans show unity behind their president? No, they criticized him for supposedly wagging the dog. He was criticized for doing something about bin Laden, and then criticized again for not doing enough. Bush on the other hand has been adored by the media and both parties as the bumpkin who rose to the occasion.

About Bush knowing terrorism was coming - we ALL knew it. Whether we chose to think about it is a different story. Bin Laden had been publicly saying he was at war with the US. He had already attacked US interests several times: Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Cole. We had attacked back in Afghanistan. Of course he was going to attack us again. He said he would.

But I was surprised that they had already suspected something was up with the flight schools. THAT sounds like a real screw-up. Not Bush, but the FBI and/or CIA.

[osiris]

This is not news - Of course Bush knew of an attack! After all, his oil buddies had little
success with the Taliban in building an Afghanistan Pipeline back in 1997. Then after the talks failed, UNOCAL (The pipeline developer) had a little meeting with Congress.

BBC Taliban Story

And from what I recently read from the Congressional Record re: UNOCAL / US (dated 1998):

US - UNOCAL Committee

" From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company."

It appears as though the US has threatened the Taliban for their oil in the past.... What's the expression - when push comes to shove?


BTW It was Haliburton (formerly owned by Cheney) that was to do the construction.

[xi_hyperon]

But why did the FBI downplay its own warning about the influx of middle easterners trying to get pilot licenses, security clearances at airports, etc.? I think it is true, this should have had a big fat red flag stuck to it and forwarded to higher levels. I understand this LESS than I understand Bush's situation.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by cdhostage:
<STRONG>This is more serious because an Arab can buy an atom bomb and take out a city.</STRONG>

Only arabs can buy nuclear weapons? Or is it that we should be worried because _arabs_ can buy them, but not because asians, or black, or whites, or american indians can?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
<STRONG>But why did the FBI downplay its own warning about the influx of middle easterners trying to get pilot licenses, security clearances at airports, etc.? I think it is true, this should have had a big fat red flag stuck to it and forwarded to higher levels. I understand this LESS than I understand Bush's situation.</STRONG>

Hindsight is 20/20.

[chris v]

A larger question is, how does this dovetail with the allegations (don't flame me-- I SAID allegations i.e. unproved) that the CIA had drawn a bead on OBL earlier in the year, but were told to back off by the Bush administration because of ongoing negotiations with the Taliban to run a pipeline across Afghanistan to open water.

Don't make me look up the source on this-- I've got it bookmarked somewhere, I think-- I do recall it was vague, but it still piqued my curiosity.

CV

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>Exactly. But apparently a troll like me can never be right about anything because I think Quartz is phat.</STRONG>

&lt;completely off topic&gt; You do know what phat is an acronym for, don't you? Pretty Hot And Tempting. So you like Quartz now?&lt;/back on topic&gt;

BlackGriffen

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by theUpsetter:
<STRONG>

I'm no longer quite clear on the fact, but I think his only response was to lob a cruise missile at an asprin factory. He did say many times that the perpetrators would not get away with what they did.</STRONG>

He also launched missiles at two training camps in Afghanistan. The Sudanese factory bombing may or may not have been a foul up, but the missiling of the terrorist training camps was definitely not. In fact, Osama might have been killed if he wasn't away that day.

IIRC, his critics called them the "Monica missiles," and accused Clinton of a "Wag the Dog" (a new movie at the time) scenario.

BlackGriffen

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
<STRONG>

Hindsight is 20/20.</STRONG>

True, and I don't know the volume of such tips the FBI gets. I guess it boils down to whether (and to what degree) the FBI follows up. If they can't do so, they need more resources.

[tinrib]

Originally posted by theUpsetter:
<STRONG>

Perhaps TNproud2B's assertion would have been more effective had he contrasted what Clinton did about those 4 attacks vs. what Bush as done about one.</STRONG>

Totally off topic - and I guess this should really be in a PM but I've clicked reply now...

upsetter I u/led an mp3 for a friend the other day but I think you will like it too. http://www.blackshoals.net/~david/HORACE~7.MP3

I am getting cable next week - wanna drop me a mail ([email protected]) and we can swap notes (pun intended)

sorry you guys can get back to evil GWB now

[mbryda]

Someone (news pundit, IIRC) said:

OBL bombed the US Embassy, Clinton vowed to hunt down and make those responsible pay...Nothing happened
OBL bombed the US Ship (Cole?) Clinton vowed to hunt down and make those responsible pay...Nothing happened
OBL made the single most deadly terrorist attack on a country...Bush vowed to hunt down and make those responsible pay...Now we're actualy DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT....

Maybe if Clinton would have done something we wouldn't have had 9/11....

[debaser76]

Originally posted by Ti X:
<STRONG>
I will branch off here for a minute, this leads us to question our own government and nations dependency on a single resource so heavily. So then, how long and what circumstances will finally prevail in pushing our overly lobbied government to seriously pursue alternative fuel sources?</STRONG>

I'm afraid that will never happen. Not as long as the some of the biggest campaign sponsors come from the automobile and oil industry. Why do you think better safety standards haven't been imposed? Why do you think better fuel consumption standards haven't been imposed? MOST politicians only look out for the public's best interest when their campaign sponsors let them. Bush cut the EPA's funding in half within his first few months in office. Why would anybody think that an agency, that is there to ensure that our environment stays "clean," is something that is so frivilous that its funding can be slashed? I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. And don't get me wrong, Clinton did very little for our environment too. When the government is no longer there to help the powerless (the average person), what are we supposed to do? Pray for alternative fuel sources? Rub the buddha's belly and hope for good luck at the next election?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by mbryda:
<STRONG>OBL bombed the US Embassy, Clinton vowed to hunt down and make those responsible pay...Nothing happened
OBL bombed the US Ship (Cole?) Clinton vowed to hunt down and make those responsible pay...Nothing happened
OBL made the single most deadly terrorist attack on a country...Bush vowed to hunt down and make those responsible pay...Now we're actualy DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT....

Maybe if Clinton would have done something we wouldn't have had 9/11....</STRONG>

Neither of them got bin Laden. If you're going to say "Nothing happened" about Clinton's actions, then "Nothing happened" with Bush's, either.

[kman42]

I find it interesting that people are arguing over whether or not there were specific threats prior to September 11 when that is clearly not the big issue. Specific or not we should all be perfectly clear that we now live under a very real veil of threat. We did before, but failed to face up to it. The question should not be how do we eliminate specific threats or thwart specific acts of terrorism. Rather, we should concern ourselves with why people want to threaten us in the first place. It's not like people are just out to kill Americans for the fun of it. Terrorists have specific complaints and agendas. We may not approve of their methods, but we must recognize their dissatisfaction with America or we will pay a far worse price than we did on Sept. 11. The way to eliminate terrorists attacks is not to prevent every specific threat, but to aleviate the underlying causes.

I am not advocating cowering to terrorists or allowing them to set the American foreign policy agenda. I strongly believe, however, that if we don't start paying close attention to how our foreign policy affects other countries and their people that we will continue to have attacks on American soil. For far too long our policies have discounted the opinions and needs of the global community. It's time we stop playing isolationalism and start engaging other countries as equals.

I'm not going to get into a partisan debate. It seems rather obvious to me that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are very interested in this sort of engagement right now and that scares me dearly. The best evidence of this lately is the bellicose tone of the House resolution in support of Israel passed last week. This resolution was completely unnecessary and does nothing to relieve tensions in the region. Rather it simply reinforces our intractable position and lack of interest in engaging in useful dialog with foreign countries.

kman

[maxelson]

Originally posted by mbryda:
<STRONG>Someone (news pundit, IIRC) said:

OBL bombed the US Embassy, Clinton vowed to hunt down and make those responsible pay...Nothing happened
OBL bombed the US Ship (Cole?) Clinton vowed to hunt down and make those responsible pay...Nothing happened
OBL made the single most deadly terrorist attack on a country...Bush vowed to hunt down and make those responsible pay...Now we're actualy DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT....

Maybe if Clinton would have done something we wouldn't have had 9/11....</STRONG>

There's that damned if you do thing again. Your remarks re "Nothing happened" are not true. Look up the history and get back to us.
And blaming Clinton for this is about the silliest thing I have heard on this topic. It is wild shooting from the hip and nothing but. Let me guess. You would be what we call a "Clinton Detractor". Laying the blame on a president... ANY president is absurd and it oversimplifies the issue and does no justice. It is needless. The mess we are in here is part of a long history. A HUGE series of events which spans decades and, if you really need to blame someone for the whole thing, blame T.E. Lawrence.

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: maxelson ]

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by mbryda:
<STRONG>Someone (news pundit, IIRC) said:OBL made the single most deadly terrorist attack on a country...Bush vowed to hunt down and make those responsible pay...Now we're actualy DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT....

Maybe if Clinton would have done something we wouldn't have had 9/11....</STRONG>

(forgive in advance the bandwidth, this is a small portion of the OBL timeline I've been preparing for our paper.)

1988
-- Bin Laden establishes �al Qaeda,� (The Base), an organization of ex-mujahedeen and others to channel fighters and funds to the Afghan resistance.
1990
-- August 2 -- Iraq invades Kuwait.
-- The Saudi government allows U.S. troops to be stationed there. Bin Laden is outraged writes treatises against the Saudi regime.

1991
-- April -- Bin Laden is confined for his opposition to the Saudi-U.S. alliance and flees first to Afghanistan and then to Khartoum, Sudan.
--- US troops fight Persian Gulf War and then establish a large permanent military presence in the region, including Saudi Arabia -- the land of "the two most holy places" in Islam--Mecca and Medina.

1992
-- Bin Laden states that Al Qaeda should cooperate with other terrorist organizations to attack the United States and its allies stationed on the Saudi peninsula, and the Horn of Africa, including Somalia.
-- December 29 -- A bomb explodes in a hotel in Aden, Yemen, where US troops had been staying while en route to a humanitarian mission in Somalia.

1993
-- February 26 -- a bomb at the World Trade Center kills six and wounds hundreds. Six Muslim radicals, who U.S. officials suspect have links to bin Laden, are eventually convicted for the bombing.
-- October 3 & 4th-- Eighteen U.S. servicemen, part of a humanitarian mission to Somalia, are killed in an ambush in Mogadishu. Bin Laden later says that some of the Arab Afghans were involved and calls Americans "paper tigers" because they withdrew from Somalia shortly afterwards.
-- Sudan is placed on State Department's list of countries that sponsor terrorist activities.
-- According to the U.S. government, bin Laden's followers try to obtain nuclear weapon components and work with Sudan's NIF to develop chemical arms.

1995
-- February/March -- Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, is captured in Pakistan and extradited to the United States. Investigators believe he is financially linked to bin Laden and stayed at a bin Laden financed guest house while in Pakistan.
-- June -- Bin laden believed linked to unsuccessful assassination attempt of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Addis Ababa.
-- August -- Bin Laden writes open letter to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia calling for a campaign of guerrilla attacks to drive U.S forces out of the kingdom.
-- November 13 -- Five Americans and two Indians are killed in the truck bombing of a US-operated Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh. Bin Laden denies involvement at the time but praises the attack.

1996
-- May -- Sudan expels bin Laden, his three wives and ten children under pressure from the United States and Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden moves to Afghanistan and declares a jihad, or holy war, against U.S. forces.
-- Nineteen U.S. soldiers die in a bombing of the Khobar military complex in Saudi Arabia.
-- The United States indicts bin Laden on charges of training the people involved in the 1993 attack that killed 18 U.S. servicemen in Somalia.

-- Spring -- President Clinton signs a top secret order authorizing the CIA to use any and all means to destroy bin Laden's network.

-- June 25 -- A large truck bomb devastates Khobar Towers, the US military residence in Dhahran, killing 19 servicemen. U.S. investigators believe bin Laden was somehow involved.

-- August -- A secret grand jury investigation begins against Osama bin Laden in New York.

-- August 23 -- Bin Laden signs a Declaration of Jihad outlining his organization's goals: drive US forces from the Arabian Peninsula, overthrow the Government of Saudi Arabia, liberate Muslim holy sites, and support Islamic revolutionary groups around the world. He declares that Saudis have the right to strike at US troops in the Persian Gulf.

1997
-- July -- Islamic sources say a US-backed multinational mercenary force is formed with the aim of abducting or killing bin Laden. Witnesses claim to see 11 black Land Cruisers crossing into the Afghan city of Khost along with 2 helicopters.

1998
-- bin Laden returns to Afghanistan.
-- February -- Bin Laden issues joint declaration with the Islamic Group, Al Jihad, the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh and the "Jamaat ul Ulema e Pakistan" under the banner of the "World Islamic Front," which stated that Muslims should kill Americans including civilians--anywhere in the world.
-- June -- A raid is conducted in Albania against an Islamic terrorist cell by security personnel from the U.S. and Albania. Two suspected employees of bin Laden are arrested. The CIA takes custody of a van-load of documents and computer gear. Another raid two weeks later nets more suspected bin Laden associates, two Egyptian nationals, who are turned over to anti-terrorist officials in Egypt. All were associated with the Islamic Revival Foundation.
-- June 8 -- The grand jury investigation of bin Laden, initiated in 1996, issues a sealed indictment, charging Bin Laden with "conspiracy to attack defense utilities of the United States." Prosecutors charge that bin Laden heads a terrorist organization called al Qaeda, the base, and was a major financier of Islamic terrorists around the world.
-- August 7 -- Truck bombs explode outside U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people. This is the eighth year anniversary of United Nations sanctions against Iraq and the ordering of U.S. troops into the Gulf region. Iraq informed the US Security Council that it was not going to tolerate the continuation of the sanctions beyond the eighth year anniversary.
-- August 12 -- The Small Group of presidential advisors meet with Clinton, reportedly with evidence that bin Laden is looking to obtain weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons to use against US installations. US intelligence also reportedly intercepted a mobile phone conversation between two of bin Laden's lieutenants that implicated them in the embassy bombings.
-- August 20 -- President Clinton orders cruise missile attacks against suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. Sudan vehemently denies the plant was producing chemical weapons.
-- US adds bin Laden's name to list of terrorists whose funds are targeted for seizure by US Treasury.
-- Intelligence officials found financial transactions between bin Laden and the Military Industrial Corporation--a company run by the Sudan's government.
-- November 4 -- A new superceding indictment is issued against bin Laden, Muhammad Atef and a host of other suspects. They are charged with bombing of two US embassies and conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad. Two rewards of $5 million each are offered for Atef and bin Laden. Atef is described as bin Laden's chief military commander.
1999
-- January 16 -- The US Attorney's office files its most complete indictment to date of Osama bin Laden and 11 other suspected members of his terrorist organization. The grand jury charges the men for conspiring to kill American nationals. The first count of the indictment charges that several of the co-defendants, acted with other members of "al Qaeda," in a conspiracy to murder American citizens. The objectives of the terrorist group allegedly include: killing members of the American military stationed in Saudi Arabia and Somalia; killing United States embassy employees in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; and concealing the activities of the co-conspirators by, among other things, establishing front companies, providing false identity and travel documents, engaging in coded correspondence, and providing false information to the authorities in various countries.

2000
-- Algerian Ahmed Ressam pleads guilty in connection with a failed plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport during the millennium celebrations. He claims he was trained in urban warfare and explosives at an Afghanistan camp run by bin Laden.
-- Suicide bombing of U.S.S. Cole in Yemen which kills 17 and injures 39 is later linked to bin Laden.

Sources: CNN, CBC, Canada, PBS, the American Central Intelligence Agency, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, US News and World Report, Reuters, Mideast Mirror, al-Hayat & al-Arab

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>
There's that damned if you do thing again. Your remarks re "Nothing happened" are not true. Look up the history and get back to us.</STRONG>

I just did that for him....hehe

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>

I just did that for him....hehe</STRONG>

Once again, mssr. Le Lerk, I am bowing to the great reference library that IS you!
You da man.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>

Once again, mssr. Le Lerk, I am bowing to the great reference library that IS you!
You da man. </STRONG>

Well, what isn't in the timeline, but others have pointed out was that when Clinton ordered the bombings, the republicans accused him of trying to misdirect attention away from the monica lewinsky affair, invoking the term "wag the dog" from the Dustin Hoffman movie.

It would disingenous now for that same group to accuse him of doing nothing, when previously they accused him of doing too much, and ignoring the very real credible threat at the time because they were so hell-bent on impeachment.

But regardless, this is a rabbit hole sidetrip. The real point is, OBL is neither democratic or republican, he doesn't care who is president, really. Therefore to claim that who is president would have stopped or exacerbated 9/11 is just plain dumb, and is using 9/11 as some sort of senseless political football to prove things it can't.