Bush was warned! But so was Clinton.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
2,166
Location
Connecticut, USA
Is the media really this stupid?

Bush was warned!

Here is the audio excerpt of Bill Clinton in 1996 warning of an Al Qaeda attack against the US:

mp3 file

Portion of interest:
"...At the time, 1996, he (Bin Laden) had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here (from the Sudan) because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America".

We knew in 1996, and could have taken Bin Laden in 1996. Now the media gets into a tizzy because of a non specific warning in 2001? We have non specific warnings since at least 1996. How dumb do the media think we are? (rhetorical question, no need to answer, LOL).

Keith.
 
Exactly! They were both warned. Both administrations failed. Clinton could probably be held more accountable then Bush because he had 8 years in office; up until 9-11 Bush had about 2/3rd of a year in office. Clinton probably could have gotten Osama bin Laden in the Sudan. Now we don't even know where he is-maybe in Iran and unreachable.

Now we need to look to the present and the future. The past is history.
 
I truly believe if you told either Bush or Clinton that Al-Qaida would hijack 4 planes and fly 2 into the towers, 1 into the pentagon and the other into the White House (which was the intended traget), they would have laughed their butts off. If they had got warnings from a reliable source about the WTC being on a hit list, the most likely scenario would be a massive security increase in order to prevent a car bomb or maybe a chemical attack.......we still would have lost 3k people. I think it's time to stop the finger poiting and turn the CIA into what it was intended to be.....an intel agency.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Last_Z:
I truly believe if you told either Bush or Clinton that Al-Qaida would hijack 4 planes and fly 2 into the towers, 1 into the pentagon and the other into the White House (which was the intended traget), they would have laughed their butts off. If they had got warnings from a reliable source about the WTC being on a hit list, the most likely scenario would be a massive security increase in order to prevent a car bomb or maybe a chemical attack.......we still would have lost 3k people. I think it's time to stop the finger poiting and turn the CIA into what it was intended to be.....an intel agency.

I certainly agree and especially with the finger pointing. The scary thing is that the presidential campaigning starts in early January in the candidates first year.
 
"...At the time, 1996, he (Bin Laden) had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here (from the Sudan) because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America".

TWO KEY FACTS FROM 1996:
1. "committed NO CRIME against America"
2. "he WANTED to commit crimes"

Exactly what specific arrest, assassination, or other actions do you suggest Clinton should have taken against a foreigner, living outside the U.S., who has committed no crime against the U.S., let alone a terrorist act? What precedent do you point to? What federal statutes? Kill him -- or even arrest him -- because he "wants" to do something? "Wanting" to commit a crime -- that's your standard for bombing someone in a foreign country? Half the Middle East "wants" to commit crimes against America. Perhaps we should nuke 'em all off the map because Keith says so!

1. EXACTLY WHAT FEDERAL STATUTES DO YOU SUGGEST APPLIED IN 1996 FOR ACTION?
2. EXACTLY WHAT PRECEDENT DO YOU SUGGEST APPLIED IN 1996 FOR ACTION?

Or is this simply another forget-the-facts "Bash Clinton" attack thread?
 
Keith: I noticed you didn't even mention Condi Rice's Cole comment the other day. When pressed why the Bush team didn't respond to the USS Cole attack -- the perpetrators were learned in Jan. 2001 -- Rice made the otherwordly inane comment of "That (Cole) event was "past." Evidently it was old news, so no need to retailiate once we learned who did it. After all, it was "past," and no sense "swatting at flies." So you wanted Clinton to kill a foreigner in Sudan who hadn't as yet committed a crime against the U.S., yet are silent when Rice says the Cole tragedy was "past." I'm sure the 17 dead sailors are all greatly relieved it's "past!"
 
The DrudgeReport is currently showing the PDB memo that the partisan democrats on the 9/11 commission got their undies in a wedgie over:

DrudgeReport

You could have found more useful info on Bin Laden from a search on Google.

Keith.
 
quote:

Originally posted by TC:
Keith: I noticed you didn't even mention Condi Rice's Cole comment the other day.

Must be a slow news day for you TC.

USS Cole attack: October 12th ,2000.

President Clinton retaliation - ....

Oh I see, it is ALL Bush's fault. How silly of me.

Keep parsing Rice's words if you wish, but we ALL have better things to do.

I am not playing in the Blame Game. Neither Clinton or Bush could anticipate 9/11, and the US could have done more over many previous years but didn't. If you wish to blame Bush, I don't think that is a logical conclusion based on ALL of the information out there.

Keith.
 
quote:

Originally posted by keith:


I am not playing in the Blame Game. Neither Clinton or Bush could anticipate 9/11, and the US could have done more over many previous years but didn't. If you wish to blame Bush, I don't think that is a logical conclusion based on ALL of the information out there.

Keith.


Clinton is out of office, we have a chance to do the same to Bush in November.

Bush is the one who's performance appraisal by the voters is coming up in November, not Clinton.

What Clinton did or did not do is irrelevant now, unless he is that standard you want to use to judge what a good President is.
 
quote:

Originally posted by XS650:
What Clinton did or did not do is irrelevant now

You are right, Bush will be judged on his own merits in the election.

We will always have the memory of Clinton to show the hypocricy of todays partisans. I have a very long memory and love to quote facts and dates. The democrat quotes about the danger of Saddam's WMD's are priceless.

The truth shall set you free.

Keith.
 
Interesting...

Democrats Had Same Info as Bush

The link has this to say...


"(Bob) Graham (D-Florida) added that threats of hijacking in an August 6 memo to President Bush were based on very old intelligence that the committee had seen earlier. "The particular report that was in the President's Daily Briefing that day was about three years old," Graham said. "It was not a contemporary piece of information."

Graham's comments contradicted combative statements made recently by the Democratic congressional leadership, and confirmed White House assertions that the only specific threats of al Qaeda hijackings known to the President before September 11 came from a memo dating back to the Clinton Administration.


Oops! The democrats are complaining about inaction on information that THEY had 3 years earlier.

Keith.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Last_Z:
I truly believe if you told either Bush or Clinton that Al-Qaida would hijack 4 planes and fly 2 into the towers, 1 into the pentagon and the other into the White House (which was the intended traget), they would have laughed their butts off.

cool.gif
And even if the govt thought it was credible info, chances are they would have amped up security on flights arriving and departing in New York and D.C., not Boston. I say this being a veteran of "double-secret-probation" when I had to change planes in D.C. a few months after. Had the FBI and CIA been able to share intel back then there's a chance we might have caught the hijackers beforehand, but yaneverknow, hindsight is 20/20. Now the FBI and CIA can share intel...thanks to...the Patriot Act...which the Democrats...oppose.
confused.gif

On 9/11 we just got outsmarted and they just got lucky, plain and simple.

[ April 11, 2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: JohnnyO ]
 
We would have to operate airport security in the same manner as the Israeli’s to have stopped 9/11. The American public is still not ready for that type of inconvenience.

Our airport security is still half-a$$ed by comparison.

We were and still are ripe for the picking.
 
Sunday, April 11, 2004 3:03 p.m. EDT
How Bush Could Have Prevented the 9/11 Attacks

A handful of Sept. 11 widows are outraged that President Bush didn't act on the Aug. 6, 2001, briefing he got from the CIA.

"Everything is in [the President's Daily Brief, or PDB] but the date 9/11," complained Lori Van Auken, whose husband died in the Twin Towers, in comments to the New York Daily News. "You have the who, what, where, why and how. The only thing you don't have is the when."

Actually, as far as the "who" goes, none of the hijackers' names appear in the Bush CIA briefing memo.

And the "what"? Nowhere does the memo warn that hijackers would use airplanes as kamikaze missiles.

"Where"? The memo mentions "federal buildings in New York." But Bush could have closed every one of them and the World Trade Center, which is not a federal building, would have still been packed with 50,000 workers on the morning of 9/11.

How about the "why" cited by Mrs. Van Auken? The CIA briefing says that "after US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington." But those attacks were launched by President Clinton, not Bush.

And the "how"? The memo makes no mention of hijackers overtaking U.S. flight crews with small knives.

Of course, if President Bush had treated the Aug. 6 PDB as actionable intelligence, there are indeed several measures he could have taken that would have guaranteed that a Sept. 11-style attack on America would never have happened.

* Because the CIA memo mentions only Osama bin Laden by name, Bush would have had to round up any and all of bin Laden's potential followers inside the U.S., i.e., every Muslim in America, and throw them into internment camps - just as FDR did with Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor.

* Since reporters have been able to sneak any number of weapons past airport screeners even with post-9/11 security measures in place, President Bush would have had to close all of America's airports to completely eliminate the possibility of hijackings.

* In order to protect against another Millennium Plot bombing attack - which the memo explicitly refers to - Bush would have had to order that all shopping malls, schools, museums, movie theaters, train stations, large office buildings and other potential high-value targets be closed till further notice.

* Because Millennium Plot potential bomber Ahmed Ressam tried to sneak across the Canadian border, Bush would have had to seal both the Canadian and Mexican borders until the war on terrorism was won.

* In order to assure the elimination of the bin Laden threat, Bush would have had to launch a pre-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan. If the master terrorist ran to Pakistan, the U.S. would have needed to invade that country as well.

Had Bush taken the above steps, the economy would have been in shambles, the airline industry destroyed, most of the nation unemployed, the U.S. at war, and 6 million Muslims - nearly all of them innocent - would be behind bars.

But the Sept. 11 attacks would have been prevented - at least for the few months that it would have taken for the Congress to impeach and remove President Bush from office for massive abuses of power.
 
I dont think you can simply blame the president for all of this, especially Bush. Clinton yes, he had an attack under his belt-yet did nothing. The next time there were several three letter agencies that had clues of their own, but due to red tape and paranoia, no one knew what the others had. No one person knows what each intel agency has. And unless you get proof of the exact way they were going to attack, you cant do anything. Imagine sometime in July or August 02, someone gets a hunch there may be an attack of some kind, so everybody locks everything down, crawls up everyones arse with a microscope looking for God knows what, and nothing happens. Say that happens two or three times, do you think we as free citizens would stand for that too many times? Probably not. We are looking to place blame in the wrong spot, all of the blame needs to go to the kind of people that did this. Not us. No American would have let that happen. Thats like people blaming God for letting bad things happen to good people, its not his doing, but he gets blamed. We need to focus our energy and attention squarely where it belongs, on those who blaspheme the Muslim religion and use it as an excuse to kill innocent people. We do not need to be pointing fingers at our own right now.
 
If these attacks had happened on Clinton's watch we would be going through this same process. As well I can hear the screams from the Right that Democrats can't protect Americans because they won't or don't take action. Well as this inquiry has been going on we have been seeing that Republicans also won't or don't take action, even when there is evidence to do something, anything. The Bush Administration did NOTHING, not one thing. Bush as usual was on holiday at his ranch and nobody thought to sit in a room together and say we need to do some things to try (just try) to protect Americans better, not 100%, just better. I get a kick when I hear Condi and the rest saying, well the intelligence didn't tell us when, where, how, who!! Gee what do you need, an invitation!! The title alone of the August 01 PBD should have been enough. How stupid does this make our law enforcment and government look. Nobody at high level even made a phone call, at least one they are willing to "declassify". As well the PBD did not mention Iraq yet right after the attack Bush is Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. I still believe that the Bush Admin. wanted an incident to justify an invasion of Iraq. They came into office with that mindset. What else can describe the total disinterest about intelligence and Clarke's warnings.

[ April 12, 2004, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: needtoknow ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by needtoknow:
The Bush Administration did NOTHING, not one thing.

One thing I can think of is that Bush did manage to get his FBI director confirmed between the briefing and 911. Maybe if he had his team in place, they would have done more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom