The Deafness Before the Storm
By KURT EICHENWALD
IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief†â€" the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies â€" featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.†A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief â€" and only that daily brief â€" in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States†was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,†although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.
“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,†the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.
And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,†including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.†Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.
Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.
That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.
On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.
In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.
Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.
Kurt Eichenwald, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and a former reporter for The New York Times, is the author of “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars.â€
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=1
Worse yet... Bill Clinton had multiple opportunities to either kill or arrest Bin laden... but never did...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/hank-crumpton-cia-clinton-bin-laden_n_1514895.html
QuoteHank Crumpton, a former CIA officer and top counterterrorism official, said in a recent interview that President Bill Clinton's White House missed a golden opportunity to take out terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in 1999.
Bin Laden was in Afghanistan in 1999, Crumpton told CBS's "60 Minutes" in a segment that aired on Sunday. His convoy had been clearly identified by an early edition Predator drone, which at the time didn't have weapons capabilities.
"We saw a security detail, a convoy, and we saw bin Laden exit the vehicle, clearly," Crumpton told CBS's Lara Logan, describing aerial images captured by a drone flying somewhere outside of Kandahar. "The optics were spot in, it was beaming back to us, CIA headquarters. We immediately alerted the White House, and the Clinton administration’s response was, ‘Well, it will take several hours for the TLAMs, the cruise missiles launched from submarines, to reach that objective. So, you need to tell us where bin Laden will be five or six hours from now.' The frustration was enormous."
The administration also denied the CIA's request to engage their on-ground forces, Crumpton said, which could have acted more quickly. The missed opportunity led the CIA to speed the process of arming the unmanned drones with Hellfire missiles, so that they could act more swiftly if they found bin Laden again. U.S. forces have since come to rely heavily on unmanned aerial vehicles to carry out strikes on targets in hostile territory, much to the disapproval of some human rights groups.
Clinton has been criticized for a supposed failure to seize opportunities to kill bin Laden on multiple occasions. A 9/11 commission report, which brought the original release of the drone footage that Crumpton is referring to, led to accusations from Clinton's opponents that he had neglected to act despite a wealth of convincing intelligence.
Crumpton's interview comes as his book, "The Art of Intelligence: Lessons from a Life in the CIA's Clandestine Service," hits the bookshelves. It focuses on the CIA's response to 9/11 and the rapid implementation of covert operations on the ground in Afghanistan. Read advance excerpts at the Daily Beast.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 11, 2012, 03:47:19 PM
Worse yet... Bill Clinton had multiple opportunities to either kill or arrest Bin laden... but never did...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/hank-crumpton-cia-clinton-bin-laden_n_1514895.html
QuoteHank Crumpton, a former CIA officer and top counterterrorism official, said in a recent interview that President Bill Clinton's White House missed a golden opportunity to take out terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in 1999.
Bin Laden was in Afghanistan in 1999, Crumpton told CBS's "60 Minutes" in a segment that aired on Sunday. His convoy had been clearly identified by an early edition Predator drone, which at the time didn't have weapons capabilities.
"We saw a security detail, a convoy, and we saw bin Laden exit the vehicle, clearly," Crumpton told CBS's Lara Logan, describing aerial images captured by a drone flying somewhere outside of Kandahar. "The optics were spot in, it was beaming back to us, CIA headquarters. We immediately alerted the White House, and the Clinton administration’s response was, ‘Well, it will take several hours for the TLAMs, the cruise missiles launched from submarines, to reach that objective. So, you need to tell us where bin Laden will be five or six hours from now.' The frustration was enormous."
The administration also denied the CIA's request to engage their on-ground forces, Crumpton said, which could have acted more quickly. The missed opportunity led the CIA to speed the process of arming the unmanned drones with Hellfire missiles, so that they could act more swiftly if they found bin Laden again. U.S. forces have since come to rely heavily on unmanned aerial vehicles to carry out strikes on targets in hostile territory, much to the disapproval of some human rights groups.
Clinton has been criticized for a supposed failure to seize opportunities to kill bin Laden on multiple occasions. A 9/11 commission report, which brought the original release of the drone footage that Crumpton is referring to, led to accusations from Clinton's opponents that he had neglected to act despite a wealth of convincing intelligence.
Crumpton's interview comes as his book, "The Art of Intelligence: Lessons from a Life in the CIA's Clandestine Service," hits the bookshelves. It focuses on the CIA's response to 9/11 and the rapid implementation of covert operations on the ground in Afghanistan. Read advance excerpts at the Daily Beast.
That's actually not worse.
http://www.youtube.com/v/4V5y_18jPrE
Quote from: Adam W on September 11, 2012, 03:53:17 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 11, 2012, 03:47:19 PM
Worse yet... Bill Clinton had multiple opportunities to either kill or arrest Bin laden... but never did...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/hank-crumpton-cia-clinton-bin-laden_n_1514895.html
QuoteHank Crumpton, a former CIA officer and top counterterrorism official, said in a recent interview that President Bill Clinton's White House missed a golden opportunity to take out terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in 1999.
Bin Laden was in Afghanistan in 1999, Crumpton told CBS's "60 Minutes" in a segment that aired on Sunday. His convoy had been clearly identified by an early edition Predator drone, which at the time didn't have weapons capabilities.
"We saw a security detail, a convoy, and we saw bin Laden exit the vehicle, clearly," Crumpton told CBS's Lara Logan, describing aerial images captured by a drone flying somewhere outside of Kandahar. "The optics were spot in, it was beaming back to us, CIA headquarters. We immediately alerted the White House, and the Clinton administration’s response was, ‘Well, it will take several hours for the TLAMs, the cruise missiles launched from submarines, to reach that objective. So, you need to tell us where bin Laden will be five or six hours from now.' The frustration was enormous."
The administration also denied the CIA's request to engage their on-ground forces, Crumpton said, which could have acted more quickly. The missed opportunity led the CIA to speed the process of arming the unmanned drones with Hellfire missiles, so that they could act more swiftly if they found bin Laden again. U.S. forces have since come to rely heavily on unmanned aerial vehicles to carry out strikes on targets in hostile territory, much to the disapproval of some human rights groups.
Clinton has been criticized for a supposed failure to seize opportunities to kill bin Laden on multiple occasions. A 9/11 commission report, which brought the original release of the drone footage that Crumpton is referring to, led to accusations from Clinton's opponents that he had neglected to act despite a wealth of convincing intelligence.
Crumpton's interview comes as his book, "The Art of Intelligence: Lessons from a Life in the CIA's Clandestine Service," hits the bookshelves. It focuses on the CIA's response to 9/11 and the rapid implementation of covert operations on the ground in Afghanistan. Read advance excerpts at the Daily Beast.
That's actually not worse.
OK... negligent...
Quote from: Adam W on September 11, 2012, 03:53:17 PM
That's actually not worse.
Not at all, but BT is very into the false equivalency thing.
^ So true!
I recall friends,contacts with area emergency agency on general,non-typical 'high alert' for month prior to 11
11 almost as if a relief
Which "emergency agency" was that?
As the Commander In Chief, it is normal & expected for the President to have to take responsibility for any attack on US soil.
But to make claims he was "deaf" or "asleep" is about as silly as claiming FDR didn't know anything about the pending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
The people are dead, nothing is going to change that. Claiming Bush was negligent has as much merit as blaming Constantine XI on the fall of Byzantium to the Ottomans.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 11, 2012, 03:47:19 PM
Worse yet... Bill Clinton had multiple opportunities to either kill or arrest Bin laden... but never did...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNoN403tXU4
There was this documentary that was called something along the lines of "10 failed Bin Laden assassination attempts". In it, both Clinton, and Bush botched numerous Bin Laden assassination attempts; They both are awful concerning anything military IMO. I agree with Bridge Troll concerning Clinton. I know that alot of you hardcore liberals want to make him out to be the greatest president in the world just becuase he had the benefit of the dot.com boom (I'm a democrat BTW), but he did some very questionable military actions, like his disastrous decision to bomb Sudan, and Afghanistan in 98', which really fired up the Taliban/Al Queda etc. Between Bush, and Clinton, there where situations when Osama was in the cross hairs, and the mission was called off because it was too 'high profile'; One mission instead of sending actual US soldiers to take Osama out, foreigners (who tipped Bin Laden) were used, all kinds of inept strategies between those two. I can't remember which mission was which, but between W & Bill, there were 10 failed assassination attempts. IMO Bill Clinton had the best chance to kill him, I remember that much when watching that documentary. Luckily Obama got the job done in killing Bin Laden, something that should have been done a long time ago.
Quote from: finehoe on September 11, 2012, 04:01:45 PM
Quote from: Adam W on September 11, 2012, 03:53:17 PM
That's actually not worse.
Not at all, but BT is very into the false equivalency thing.
Nothing "false" about it. That article and your version ... are typically one sided. The truth is... the "blame" for this attack falls excusively on obl and his minions. I suppose if you insist on blaming Bush for 9-11 you can also go ahead and blame FDR for Pearl Harbor as there were plenty of indications that was going to happen also.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 12, 2012, 06:43:23 AM
Quote from: finehoe on September 11, 2012, 04:01:45 PM
Quote from: Adam W on September 11, 2012, 03:53:17 PM
That's actually not worse.
Not at all, but BT is very into the false equivalency thing.
Nothing "false" about it. That article and your version ... are typically one sided. The truth is... the "blame" for this attack falls excusively on obl and his minions. I suppose if you insist on blaming Bush for 9-11 you can also go ahead and blame FDR for Pearl Harbor as there were plenty of indications that was going to happen also.
I don't think we know yet (and may never, ever know completely) what the Bush administration knew in advance of 9/11. I think it's charitable to assume they knew something and either discounted it or underestimated it. In hindsight it would appear they were, at the very least, negligent.
I would say it's a false analogy because failing to assassinate a military commander in the field is different than failing to prevent the massacre of US civilians on US soil (assuming you knew about it in advance and didn't do anything).
So it's not the same. But that doesn't mean Clinton didn't drop the ball.
Long story short, it's just not a partisan issue, as much as we want to make it one. 9/11 was blowback from American foreign policy, which has been in perpetuation for decades by both parties...some sort of 9/11 would have happened at some point regardless of whether Clinton or Bush killed OBL.
Quote from: ben says on September 12, 2012, 08:36:18 AM
Long story short, it's just not a partisan issue, as much as we want to make it one. 9/11 was blowback from American foreign policy, which has been in perpetuation for decades by both parties...some sort of 9/11 would have happened at some point regardless of whether Clinton or Bush killed OBL.
True. We have Carter (and Reagan) to blame. And if we didn't end up with OBL and Al Qaeda, we'd eventually end up with something else equally bad at some point. We spent a lot of time and money destabilising the region - and it goes back to the end of WWII.
We're still dealing with Iran and that really has to do with us overthrowing their democratically-elected Prime Minister. You reap what you sow.
If we don't like all the Islamist groups in the middle east, we really have only ourselves to blame - we spent decade undermining and destroying all the leftist, secular groups. The Islamists arose in the resulting vacuum.
^ Yes!! Exactly!!
The preeminent scholar on Blowback theory, Chalmers Johnson (now dead)...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson#The_Blowback_series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson#The_Blowback_series)
We've been breeding anti-Americans and terrorists for the past 100 years.....and we wonder why they hate us!?!
Quote from: ben says on September 12, 2012, 09:04:26 AM
^ Yes!! Exactly!!
The preeminent scholar on Blowback theory, Chalmers Johnson (now dead)...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson#The_Blowback_series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson#The_Blowback_series)
We've been breeding anti-Americans and terrorists for the past 100 years.....and we wonder why they hate us!?!
They hate us for our freedom.
Quote from: ben says on September 12, 2012, 09:04:26 AM
^ Yes!! Exactly!!
The preeminent scholar on Blowback theory, Chalmers Johnson (now dead)...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson#The_Blowback_series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson#The_Blowback_series)
We've been breeding anti-Americans and terrorists for the past 100 years.....and we wonder why they hate us!?!
Thanks for that link. I am going to look those books up and see if I can get them for my Kindle.
Quote from: ben says on September 12, 2012, 08:36:18 AM
Long story short, it's just not a partisan issue, as much as we want to make it one. 9/11 was blowback from American foreign policy, which has been in perpetuation for decades by both parties...some sort of 9/11 would have happened at some point regardless of whether Clinton or Bush killed OBL.
This sounds like a Ron Paul quote.
Quote from: Adam W on September 12, 2012, 09:19:03 AM
Quote from: ben says on September 12, 2012, 09:04:26 AM
^ Yes!! Exactly!!
The preeminent scholar on Blowback theory, Chalmers Johnson (now dead)...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson#The_Blowback_series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson#The_Blowback_series)
We've been breeding anti-Americans and terrorists for the past 100 years.....and we wonder why they hate us!?!
Thanks for that link. I am going to look those books up and see if I can get them for my Kindle.
They're on Kindle. Three of the most important books I've ever read. Read them in order...they build on each other.
First one: http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Edition-Consequences-ebook/dp/B003JH8MAG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1347456354&sr=8-2&keywords=chalmers+johnson+kindle (http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Edition-Consequences-ebook/dp/B003JH8MAG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1347456354&sr=8-2&keywords=chalmers+johnson+kindle)
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 12, 2012, 09:25:20 AM
Quote from: ben says on September 12, 2012, 08:36:18 AM
Long story short, it's just not a partisan issue, as much as we want to make it one. 9/11 was blowback from American foreign policy, which has been in perpetuation for decades by both parties...some sort of 9/11 would have happened at some point regardless of whether Clinton or Bush killed OBL.
This sounds like a Ron Paul quote.
The idea of blowback predates Paul's comment by over 50 years...(originally a CIA idea)
I'd also recommend (After reading the Blowback series, of course): http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-ebook/dp/B000Q67L00/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1347456580&sr=8-2&keywords=overthrow+america%27s+century+of+regime+change+from+hawaii+to+iraq (http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-ebook/dp/B000Q67L00/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1347456580&sr=8-2&keywords=overthrow+america%27s+century+of+regime+change+from+hawaii+to+iraq)
Quote from: stephendare on September 12, 2012, 08:19:18 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 12, 2012, 06:43:23 AM
Quote from: finehoe on September 11, 2012, 04:01:45 PM
Quote from: Adam W on September 11, 2012, 03:53:17 PM
That's actually not worse.
Not at all, but BT is very into the false equivalency thing.
Nothing "false" about it. That article and your version ... are typically one sided. The truth is... the "blame" for this attack falls excursively on obl and his minions. I suppose if you insist on blaming Bush for 9-11 you can also go ahead and blame FDR for Pearl Harbor as there were plenty of indications that was going to happen also.
yes. it was a completely false equivalency, Bridge, which you are indeed very into. As long as something is covered by the blood of jesus (in your case, a democrat was somehow in a sentence using some of the same words) then that seems to vindicate the republican being discussed.
Bush ignored the intellgence and took a lot of vacations. He just wasnt concerned about it, and up to that moment was one of the least popular presidents in our history (and the only one to be booed and have his motorcade egged as he drove to the white house) as a result of his fraudulent supreme court selection to the presidency.
I take no issue with your distortion regarding Bush"ignoring and distorting". But you cannot... in fairness... say that, while ignoring Mr Clinton's "ignores and distorts". That said... I certainly realize that "fairness" while discussing history is not your preferred method. Partisan revisionism is...
What is really sad... is the efforts by finehoe to take a day of victims remembrance... and turn it into a partisan finger pointing fest. I wish I could say I was surprised...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 12, 2012, 10:54:19 AM
What is really sad... is the efforts by finehoe to take a day of victims remembrance... and turn it into a partisan finger pointing fest. I wish I could say I was surprised...
Oh, please. You know what you can do with your shallow moralizing. I note that you were so concerned with showing your respect that you refrained from commenting as well.
Quote from: finehoe on September 12, 2012, 11:01:40 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 12, 2012, 10:54:19 AM
What is really sad... is the efforts by finehoe to take a day of victims remembrance... and turn it into a partisan finger pointing fest. I wish I could say I was surprised...
Oh, please. You know what you can do with your shallow moralizing. I note that you were so concerned with showing your respect that you refrained from commenting as well.
Right back atcha babe...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 12, 2012, 10:54:19 AM
What is really sad... is the efforts by finehoe to take a day of victims remembrance... and turn it into a partisan finger pointing fest. I wish I could say I was surprised...
Are you serious? I highly doubt finehoe was "taking" anything "away" from any victims...let's not be melodramatic.
Let's not forget there are more victims than just those that died on 9/11, both past and present. Let's not get tunnel vision. We've have one tragedy of this magnitude over the past decade and a half...what about the people who experience tragedy everyday?
Continue on, finehoe!
Quote from: stephendare on September 12, 2012, 12:30:00 PM
So, the president who was in office when America was attacked, who had been handed warning specifically about the kind of attack which actually took place, by the individual named in the warning gets criticized.
You helpfully try and make some belabored point about how a previous president of a different party was actually responsible for this gross negligence, and you think finehoe is being partisan?
Maybe you should back that projector up there, Bridge Troll.
Agree.
BT, by your own logic, if Clinton is "more responsible" than Bush, than Bush I was more responsible than Clinton, and Reagan was more responsible than Bush I, and Carter was more responsible than Reagan...you see where this leads? Nowhere.....
Quote from: ben says on September 12, 2012, 12:36:16 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 12, 2012, 12:30:00 PM
So, the president who was in office when America was attacked, who had been handed warning specifically about the kind of attack which actually took place, by the individual named in the warning gets criticized.
You helpfully try and make some belabored point about how a previous president of a different party was actually responsible for this gross negligence, and you think finehoe is being partisan?
Maybe you should back that projector up there, Bridge Troll.
Agree.
BT, by your own logic, if Clinton is "more responsible" than Bush, than Bush I was more responsible than Clinton, and Reagan was more responsible than Bush I, and Carter was more responsible than Reagan...you see where this leads? Nowhere.....
Sigh... What I said was... the article is one sided. I don't think Clinton was
more responsible. I also don't think Bush was blameless. This sad episode goes back 20 years for chrissake. Do you honestly believe had Al Gore been president he would have been able to stop it? Someone here even blamed Reagan for "creating obl". If we want to have a discussion regarding breakdowns within the national security apparatus and intelligence gathering, acting and not acting on the data lets do it... there is plenty of blame to go around.
We find out at the time... CIA and FBI were forbidden to collaborate and share information. This didn't just happen when Bush took office... it had been in place for a Loooong time. Bush fixed that BTW...
We find out there was virtually no mechanism in place to coordinate a counter to this sort of attack via communication channels. The FAA and various civilian authorities had great difficulty communicating with the Air Force and vice versa. F-16's were not scrambled until after the second plane hit... and were vectored all over the east coast in a futile effort to intercept the last two. This has also been fixed.
There were also security issues at airports, immigration, visa, passport... etc.
We have been reminded over the years... of the problems related to "connecting the dots". Sometimes the dots connect very easily... after the fact. Other times it shows that dots can be connected that reveal a faulty conclusion.
Clinton looked at the "dots" presented to him and decided not to take action. Bush looked at the "dots" provided him... and also took no action.
Had the article... or finehoe... or stephen acknowledge ANY of these things there really would be no argument. Please tho... feel free to continue to blame Bush for this attack... I know it makes you all feel better... and really... that's what it is all about... 8)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 12, 2012, 01:50:41 PM
I don't think Clinton was more responsible.
Yet you said
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 11, 2012, 03:47:19 PM
Worse yet... Bill Clinton had multiple opportunities to either kill or arrest Bin laden...
Saying that it was worse for Clinton not to go after bin Laden in Afghanistan than it was for Bush to ignore the CIA warnings of an impending attack on US soil certainly sounds like you think his was the greater failing.
The fact of the matter is Bush was president when the CIA noted this and had the intelligence been taken at face value, and acted upon, at the very least some of the mass murderers - two of whom had been arrested or stopped and released - would have been removed.
sad to think that the whole thing might have been prevented.
Quote from: finehoe on September 12, 2012, 02:13:51 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 12, 2012, 01:50:41 PM
I don't think Clinton was more responsible.
Yet you said
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 11, 2012, 03:47:19 PM
Worse yet... Bill Clinton had multiple opportunities to either kill or arrest Bin laden...
Saying that it was worse for Clinton not to go after bin Laden in Afghanistan than it was for Bush to ignore the CIA warnings of an impending attack on US soil certainly sounds like you think his was the greater failing.
The fact of the matter is Bush was president when the CIA noted this and had the intelligence been taken at face value, and acted upon, at the very least some of the mass murderers - two of whom had been arrested or stopped and released - would have been removed.
That was in response to your predictably one sided article... you are so famous for. My responce may have been a bit of an exaggeration... but I also said...
QuoteThat article and your version ... are typically one sided. The truth is... the "blame" for this attack falls exclusively on obl and his minions. I suppose if you insist on blaming Bush for 9-11 you can also go ahead and blame FDR for Pearl Harbor as there were plenty of indications that was going to happen also.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 12, 2012, 02:21:06 PM
That was in response to your predictably one sided article... you are so famous for.
The article was about specific intelligence presented to the Bush Administration before 9/11. If it doesn't talk about something that happened ten years prior, that doesn't mean it is "one sided". Not everyone shares your propensity for false equivalency. Talk about predictable.
Quote from: finehoe on September 12, 2012, 02:33:53 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 12, 2012, 02:21:06 PM
That was in response to your predictably one sided article... you are so famous for.
The article was about specific intelligence presented to the Bush Administration before 9/11. If it doesn't talk about something that happened ten years prior, that doesn't mean it is "one sided". Not everyone shares your propensity for false equivalency. Talk about predictable.
Just showing you I can be as blindly partisan as you are... if I need to.
So are you now ready to talk about Alllllllllllllllllll the failures of our government leading up to and including the attack? Or are you content with the "Bush did it thesis"? If content... that is fine... I moved on long ago...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 12, 2012, 02:40:26 PM
Just showing you I can be as blindly partisan as you are... if I need to.
Oh, that's been shown over and over again.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 12, 2012, 02:40:26 PM
So are you now ready to talk about Alllllllllllllllllll the failures of our government leading up to and including the attack? Or are you content with the "Bush did it thesis"?
The name of the thread I started is "
Bush White House Was Deaf to 9-11 Warnings". If you want to expand the topic, start your own thread.
lol... thought so... 8)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 12, 2012, 02:46:50 PM
lol... thought so... 8)
Well, any discussion of governmental failures in this matter would be an affront to the victims. [cue crocodile tears]
Quote from: stephendare on September 12, 2012, 03:18:21 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 12, 2012, 02:40:26 PM
Quote from: finehoe on September 12, 2012, 02:33:53 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 12, 2012, 02:21:06 PM
That was in response to your predictably one sided article... you are so famous for.
The article was about specific intelligence presented to the Bush Administration before 9/11. If it doesn't talk about something that happened ten years prior, that doesn't mean it is "one sided". Not everyone shares your propensity for false equivalency. Talk about predictable.
Just showing you I can be as blindly partisan as you are... if I need to.
So are you now ready to talk about Alllllllllllllllllll the failures of our government leading up to and including the attack? Or are you content with the "Bush did it thesis"? If content... that is fine... I moved on long ago...
This is nonsense. Under this theory, it isnt possible to identify and potentially solve any problem.
This is the reasoning that powers the gridlock that has shut down our civiv instiutions Bridge Troll and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Your right... I am certainly ashamed... that I took finehoe's bait... and even got into this discussion with either of you.
Quote from: stephendare on September 12, 2012, 03:18:21 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 12, 2012, 02:40:26 PM
Quote from: finehoe on September 12, 2012, 02:33:53 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 12, 2012, 02:21:06 PM
That was in response to your predictably one sided article... you are so famous for.
The article was about specific intelligence presented to the Bush Administration before 9/11. If it doesn't talk about something that happened ten years prior, that doesn't mean it is "one sided". Not everyone shares your propensity for false equivalency. Talk about predictable.
Just showing you I can be as blindly partisan as you are... if I need to.
So are you now ready to talk about Alllllllllllllllllll the failures of our government leading up to and including the attack? Or are you content with the "Bush did it thesis"? If content... that is fine... I moved on long ago...
This is nonsense. Under this theory, it isnt possible to identify and potentially solve any problem.
This is the reasoning that powers the gridlock that has shut down our civiv instiutions Bridge Troll and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Amen