Bush knew of Hijack threat before it happened

[Eagler]

What seemed odd to me was the fact slick willie only lobbed a few missiles at whatever (supposedly OBL) when his arse was in boiling water here at home. Seemed to be a distraction, which the media happily adverted to. Can anyone tell me what Bush may have been trying to advert attention from here at home by supposedly allowing the 9/11 attack and the following War on Terrorism?

Oh yeah, he and his military industry buddies are getting rich off the never-ending war  - I forgot

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by H. Godwineson
A couple of points to ponder;

1.  The terrorist threat grew significantly during Clinton's watch.  What measures did he take to counter it?  How well did they prepare the American people for the possibility of a terrorist attack?

2.  Had you been President in the month prior to 9/11, what actions would you have taken given the amount of information available to President Bush?  Remember, all you have to go on is a single, vague memorandum lost among a vast pile of similar documents about threats all over the world.

Not so easy, is it?

Regards, Shuckins

1. What measures did Bush take to couter it.  How well did Bush prepare the American people for a terrorist attack.

2. It's extrodinarily easy.  Wait to see if an actual attack happens.  If it happens, declare a war on "Terrorism" (but only types of terrorism that are unpopular at home).   And ride that puppy for all it's worth.  

If my popluarity starts to slip or anyone questions my leadership.  Call them unamerican and announce that there's going to be another attack...like real soon...really, so ya better support me because we are at...ya know...war, war against terrorism.

Watch as every other country, with conflicts internal or external, declare their battles, opressions, etc. to be Wars Against Terrorism (tm).

[AKIron]

Originally posted by wsnpr


LOL it is sad how we ignore what effects US foriegn policy has on other people's right to self determination and democracy. Multinational corporations have been controlling other 2nd and 3rd world nations' economies and their political leaderships for decades now.

I don't know what you find humorous. Who is ignoring the effects of US foreign policy?

Are you implying that the U.S. is repressing the economies or democracy in other nations? Can you be more specific?

[Kieran]

Thrawn-

You now have the information Bush had. Assume 9/11 has not yet happened- tell me, how are you going to stop it? Be detailed, but remember:

1. If you impose on the public without undeniable proof they will rebel, and the opposite party will exploit the unpopularity of your decision.

2. The types of decisions you have to make will endanger an already shaky economy.

3. Assuming you act upon the information, you are going to be paying special attention to Muslims and Arabic-looking people. Racial profiling? Hmm, we just love that practice in America...

This of course assumes you can look at the evidence and pinpoint the day, the hour, the flights, and the targets. Assuming you don't you are left with striking at bin Laden before the attack, but this can be construed as provocation and justification for the ensuing 9/11 attack.

So, what should a president do?

Now, what should a president do afterwards? You think sending missiles over has stopped anything in the past? I don't. You think Clinton ever showed resolve to pursue terrorists? I don't. Now I don't agree with the mixed messages we are sending the world with regard to Israel and its current situation with the PLO, but it doesn't for a second suggest to me it is time to give up on bin Laden. It isn't about fairness, it's about that terrorist being dead and the message it sends.

And don't lay any of that "yeah, and more terrorists will rise up and take their places" crap, either. That's defeatist and leaves us wringing our hands in silence, hoping some guerilla oranization doesn't decide to topple our industrial giant of a country. They're gonna keep coming, so I say we keep kicking their butts 'til the bitter end. The free ride is over. Sorry that happens to help Bush, but it also happens to be the right thing to do.

[Intrepid]

Let's go even further: assume that the FBI had information on the exact date, time, flight number, and descriptions of suspects. So they raid all the planes, and arrest the 19 dirtbags.

...And then what? Not much, I imagine. Oh, CAIR and it's ilk would be having a fit, of course, complaining to everyone including George W. about profiling and unfair targeting of Arab-Americans. After all, just what did the FBI find? Some box cutters? Those aren't illegal on airplanes. Flight manuals? These men were all attending accredited flight schools, trying to achieve the American dream, etc. etc. So they had one-way tickets: is that a crime? Funeral shrouds? Are you honestly arresting these men for bringing white sheets onto a plane? Korans? So because these men are pious Muslims, you dare to assume...! And really, folks, come on: flying a Boeing into a skyscraper? You've been watching too many movies! Who would come up with something this complicated, when a truck bomb in a garage would do just as well?

And so on and so on. I'm sure at least half these men would have been released within a couple of days. Profiling would be discussed at length on CNN and PBS. Several specials would be made, with weeping, hijab-wearing photogenic young women, describing in perfect Midwestern English the ordeal of being singled out by airport security. American Airlines would issue an apology, and make a contribution to the Arab-American Anti-Defamation Society, with a promise of more "outreach efforts." Norman Mineta would be outraged! and put in all sorts of new restrictions designed specifically to avoid giving extra scrutiny to "people of Middle Eastern appearance." (hey! wait a second!) George W. would go on the record saying that "pro-filling" is "discriminatational" and against everything he holds dear. Clinton would tell a story of his Lebanese-American great-uncle who was once denied entry into the White House. Al Gore would talk about his years of service under Lawrence of Arabia. Pretty soon, the whole thing would be forgotten as another embarrasing example of the Latent Racism in American Society.

Until one day, another group of men board an airliner...


Little Green Footballs

[Thrawn]

Kieran, I don't think that Clinton necessarily acted correctly.  I do want to see Clinton and Bush painted with the same brush though.



Intrepid, quite the imagination you have.  No need to get all workd up over a piece of fiction though.

[wklink]

Hard to paint Clinton and Bush with the same brush to be honest.

GWB had all of 8 months in office when the World Trade Center's came crashing down.  Bill Clinton had 8 years-that's a significant difference.   Bill Clinton had how many attacks during his watch-The USS Cole, the WTC #1, the attack on the air force tower in Saudi Arabia, the attacks on US Embassies.  In all of these attacks he-and his administation-either failed to find or  destroy the organization responsible for this carnage.  The pilots that took down the WTC came to the US during Clinton's Presidency, not George W. Bush's.

Lets face it, Bill Clinton wouldn't have gone after Osama seriously short of an attack on the World Trade Center.  I don't think that GWB would have let it get that far if he had been president.  There was plenty of warning, over 7 years ago but another president didn't listen to it.  Lets put the blame where it belongs.

[Innominate]

I'm just glad we didn't end up with Al Gore.  We probably would have ended up simply sending a few more cruise missled into afganistan.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Innominate
I'm just glad we didn't end up with Al Gore.  We probably would have ended up simply sending a few more cruise missled into afganistan.

Bingo!

Either that or the DNC would have asked for campaign contributions from them and called the al Qaeda and Taliban forces  our allies.

[CH3]

......and called the al Qaeda and Taliban forces our allies

Errm, actually until the early '90s they were your allies, US foreign policy was directly responsible for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism which was funded to the tune of billions of dollars dollars, mainly with the aim of pissing off the USSR. It's only now that we're seeing the unpleasant effects of this misguided policy

[Eagler]

Originally posted by CH3
......and called the al Qaeda and Taliban forces our allies

Errm, actually until the early '90s they were your allies, US foreign policy was directly responsible for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism which was funded to the tune of billions of dollars dollars, mainly with the aim of pissing off the USSR. It's only now that we're seeing the unpleasant effects of this misguided policy

I was suggesting after 9/11 ...

At the time (while we were aiding them -way pre 9/11) they were the lesser of two evils when compared to the USSR. Friends today are tomorrows enemies and vise versa. Just have to know when to hold em and when to fold em...

[Masherbrum]

Al Queda threw gasoline on a fire that should have been ignored.  You diddlyed up Al Queda.

Masher

[AKIron]

Originally posted by CH3
......and called the al Qaeda and Taliban forces our allies

US foreign policy was directly responsible for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism

While the U.S. did support Afghanistan in throwing off an invading oppressor, I call roadkill on your statement regarding the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

While the Afghans may have succumbed to forced communism without U.S. help it is a fundamental belief among Americans that all peoples should be free to choose their own beliefs, lifestyles, and religions. If it means helping a people to be free today even though they may hate us tomorrow so be it. A bit melodramatic, but nonetheless true.