Bush's first 8 months fighting terrorism

[Diamond Dandy]

Since Chris Wallace is apparetly not going to take the Clinton challange, perhaps we can put it in perspective on BGP.

 

In a report and interview on Oberman with Paul Kurtz, the NSC Director for Counterterrorism and assistant to Richard Clark, the months before the 911 attack went something like this.

 

On Jan 25th, five days after Bush took office, Richard Clark requested a meeting but was told that the Counter terrorism group was being DOWNGRADED to a cabinent status and "Clinton's Anti Terror Program was being reviewed because Rice felt too much attention was being put on mid east terror groups and needed to be tied in european and asian potential threats as well. Rice felt we needed a new strategy. Clark responded that the mid east groups responsible for the bombing of the Cole were more active and urged a meeting, but was denied. President Bush wanted to concentrate more on "Missle Defense Systems and ignored any response to the bombing of the Cole. Clark was forced to communicate with cabinent members and was not able to get a meeting with RICE until September 4th, 2001, seven days before we were attacked.

 

On Sepetember 10th, at the request of Clark who was trying to raise the level of attention that mid east terror was getting, Sen Diane Finestine requested a meeting specifically regarding mid east terror with VP Cheney, and was told that he would need 6 months to prepare. The next day we were attacked.

 

I won't even go into the brief concerning " bin Laden to attack inside the United States" which was complete ignored because it appears that the entire threat was not taken seriously.

 

It's been five years now and sad to say, and it doesn't appear that we are taking bin Laden any more seriously than we did before 911.

[Rickyp]

Since Chris Wallace is apparetly not going to take the Clinton challange, perhaps we can put it in perspective on BGP.

 

In a report and interview on Oberman with Paul Kurtz, the NSC Director for Counterterrorism and assistant to Richard Clark, the months before the 911 attack went something like this.

 

On Jan 25th, five days after Bush took office, Richard Clark requested a meeting but was told that the Counter terrorism group was being DOWNGRADED to a cabinent status and "Clinton's Anti Terror Program was being reviewed because Rice felt too much attention was being put on mid east terror groups and needed to be tied in european and asian potential threats as well. Rice felt we needed a new strategy. Clark responded that the mid east groups responsible for the bombing of the Cole were more active and urged a meeting, but was denied. President Bush wanted to concentrate more on "Missle Defense Systems and ignored any response to the bombing of the Cole. Clark was forced to communicate with cabinent members and was not able to get a meeting with RICE until September 4th, 2001, seven days before we were attacked.

 

On Sepetember 10th, at the request of Clark who was trying to raise the level of attention that mid east terror was getting, Sen Diane Finestine requested a meeting specifically regarding mid east terror with VP Cheney, and was told that he would need 6 months to prepare. The next day we were attacked.

 

I won't even go into the brief concerning " bin Laden to attack inside the United States" which was complete ignored because it appears that the entire threat was not taken seriously.

 

It's been five years now and sad to say, and it doesn't appear that we are taking bin Laden any more seriously than we did before 911.

 

 

Anything on Oberman has to be taken with a grain of salt and Richard Clark is a disgruntled over being fired. So there were only two requested meetings and nothing else was done concerning terrorism in 8 months.

 

I feel mistakes were made and will continue to be made by the next president but please lets quit blaming Clinton or in this case Bush for the actions of a bunch of cowards. Instead lets make a concerted effort to stop the next attack.

[titletownclown]

It's been five years now and sad to say, and it doesn't appear that we are taking bin Laden any more seriously than we did before 911.

 

I don't know which statement I like better; the above post, or the post in the football forum where a poster stated that Johnson Central would destroy Highlands in football this year. It's certainly close. I must ponder for a bit.

[letabrotherspeak]

Let's see...9 months versus 8 years of this.

 

By the end of Mr. Clinton's first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years.

 

• In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched "Operation Bojinka" to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.

 

• In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.

 

• In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.

 

• In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: "If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." No response from the Clinton administration.

 

• In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton's critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case.

 

Still, "Operation Infinite Reach" was weakened by Clintonian compromise. The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan's army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan's links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.

 

• In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda's Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke's objections, policy reverted to the status quo.

 

• In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.

 

When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"

 

There is much more to Mr. Clinton's record--how Predator drones, which spotted bin Laden three times in 1999 and 2000, were grounded by bureaucratic infighting; how a petty dispute with an Arizona senator stopped the CIA from hiring more Arabic translators. While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them.

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009001

[scooterbob]

A disgruntled former employee with books to sell and with revenge on his mind, and not under oath, "testifying" to Keith Olbermann (may as well have been James Carville) and some of you accept it as absolute fact. Amazing, but a good example as to why we will never close the gap separating us in this country.

[letabrotherspeak]

Clinton, in the interview made reference to Clarke's book roughly a dozen times. However, examination of the the book, contradicts many of what Clinton was elaborating on.

[Diamond Dandy]

The thread is about what Bush did, or didn't do in the leadup to 911.

 

We have already seen a fictional movie by Disney and countless accusations regarding the Clinton Admin.

 

No one here can tell us what Bush did to keep us safe before 911?

 

Didn't think so.

[sportsfan41]

Since Chris Wallace is apparetly not going to take the Clinton challange, perhaps we can put it in perspective on BGP.

 

In a report and interview on Oberman with Paul Kurtz, the NSC Director for Counterterrorism and assistant to Richard Clark, the months before the 911 attack went something like this.

 

On Jan 25th, five days after Bush took office, Richard Clark requested a meeting but was told that the Counter terrorism group was being DOWNGRADED to a cabinent status and "Clinton's Anti Terror Program was being reviewed because Rice felt too much attention was being put on mid east terror groups and needed to be tied in european and asian potential threats as well. Rice felt we needed a new strategy. Clark responded that the mid east groups responsible for the bombing of the Cole were more active and urged a meeting, but was denied. President Bush wanted to concentrate more on "Missle Defense Systems and ignored any response to the bombing of the Cole. Clark was forced to communicate with cabinent members and was not able to get a meeting with RICE until September 4th, 2001, seven days before we were attacked.

 

On Sepetember 10th, at the request of Clark who was trying to raise the level of attention that mid east terror was getting, Sen Diane Finestine requested a meeting specifically regarding mid east terror with VP Cheney, and was told that he would need 6 months to prepare. The next day we were attacked.

 

It's been five years now and sad to say, and it doesn't appear that we are taking bin Laden any more seriously than we did before 911.

 

 

Someone would call it downgrading, other would call it consolidating resources so that things don't go unnoticed or not communicated to everyone that needs to know the important info. Also by saying Rice was wrong to want to focus more attention on Europe is just dumb sense it's common knowledge that terrorist activity has spread heavily to that area and thos involved in 9/11 also had ties there,perhaps we were just late getting more eye's there...

 

As for saying the search to find Bin Laden hasn't improved, well that's a matter of opinion, bc it's certainly not based on fact, and we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

[Diamond Dandy]

Someone would call it downgrading, other would call it consolidating resources so that things don't go unnoticed or not communicated to everyone that needs to know the important info. Also by saying Rice was wrong to want to focus more attention on Europe is just dumb sense it's common knowledge that terrorist activity has spread heavily to that area and thos involved in 9/11 also had ties there,perhaps we were just late getting more eye's there...

 

As for saying the search to find Bin Laden hasn't improved, well that's a matter of opinion, bc it's certainly not based on fact, and we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

So what did Bush do to protect us in the buildup to 911?

[bugatti]

So what did Bush do to protect us in the buildup to 911?

 

I mean this with no disrespect at all, Diamond Dandy.

 

I am not a big "conservative" or "liberal" guy, but sitting around trying to tip the scale as to who did what to the build-up to September 11th is going to solve what? (There is a difference in noting mistakes to improve upon and trying to lift one guy above another) Can we all just leave it at the President(s) were about as prepared for the attack as 99.9% of the United States..... in that they were not ready for it at all. The further 9/11 leaves us behind, the more compelled people feel they can try to lay the blame on someone (or maybe that is because elections are approaching).... why is it blame is only assed to one political party, time and time again?

 

:madman: :mad: Politics:mad: :madman:

[Diamond Dandy]

I mean this with no disrespect at all, Diamond Dandy.

 

I am not a big "conservative" or "liberal" guy, but sitting around trying to tip the scale as to who did what to the build-up to September 11th is going to solve what? (There is a difference in noting mistakes to improve upon and trying to lift one guy above another) Can we all just leave it at the President(s) were about as prepared for the attack as 99.9% of the United States..... in that they were not ready for it at all. The further 9/11 leaves us behind, the more compelled people feel they can try to lay the blame on someone (or maybe that is because elections are approaching).... why is it blame is only assed to one political party, time and time again?

 

:madman: :mad: Politics:mad: :madman:

 

Can't leave it in the past when the Republican party intends to make the war on terror the center point of the 06 elections. 911 happend on Bush's watch.

The latest intelligence estimate states that Iraq is creating new terrorist.

They want to tell us that we haven't been attacked in five years but in reality we are being attacked, killed and maimed everyday. Maybe not inside the US but these kids giving their lives are from Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and accross the nation. They want us to support more of the same by putting themselves out there as the party of security then let them take the Clinton challange and tell us exactly what they did to protect us before 911, because obviously it was not enough.

[YAKOFNORWEGIA]

Maybe this is wrong, but I don't need a President or King to be responsible for me. I don't want to depend on any government. I will follow the rules of this great country becuase that is what I am asked to do. If Mr. Clinton would have decided that it is in the best interest of this country for me to risk my life at a time when I volunteered to do so I would have gone. I may not have agreed, but I would have gone. No regrets. Is it the principal's fault that there was a shooting in a Colorado school yesterday. No. We cannot control the actions of others. We either choose to be reactive or proactive to a potential problem. Whether right in some eyes or not our Commander in Chief has chosen to be proactive, therefore we must go on, no regrets.

[Diamond Dandy]

Maybe this is wrong, but I don't need a President or King to be responsible for me. I don't want to depend on any government. I will follow the rules of this great country becuase that is what I am asked to do. If Mr. Clinton would have decided that it is in the best interest of this country for me to risk my life at a time when I volunteered to do so I would have gone. I may not have agreed, but I would have gone. No regrets. Is it the principal's fault that there was a shooting in a Colorado school yesterday. No. We cannot control the actions of others. We either choose to be reactive or proactive to a potential problem. Whether right in some eyes or not our Commander in Chief has chosen to be proactive, therefore we must go on, no regrets.

 

OK....so what steps did the Bush Admin take to keep us safe before 911?

[UKMustangFan]

OK....so what steps did the Bush Admin take to keep us safe before 911?

 

 

You really have the warped view that Bush is responsible for everything that goes wrong in this country aren't you?

 

Bottomline, the only people to blame for 9/11 are the terrorists.

 

 

Let me guess you think the TO fiasco was Bush's fault also.. :rolleyes:

[YAKOFNORWEGIA]

OK....so what steps did the Bush Admin take to keep us safe before 911?

If owner and I were in bar and a fight broke out I wouldn't depend on him to take care of me. I don't care if he had the number of bouncers increased, wrote me a letter and warned of a possible fight, changed the color of the neon sign, whatever. If the people there decided to have jihad on the bar there is nothing that the owner could do. I would be on my own. If it happened to be my brother in that bar with the owner and my father said you will have to go fight those guys. I wouldn't say that was a stupid reason and it really happened not because of the jihadist but because the manager didn't pay attention. I would just go.

 

Tell me this, at what point did you fear for your life before 9/11 and at what point did you fear for your life today? If you will still get on a plane today or visit the Capitol then something, somewhere is being done right.