Rice warned of Al Qaeda threat before 9/11

[the number 42]

a/ Bush failed to prevent 9/11
b/ Bush is too 'pro-active' regarding Iraq?
Isn't it perfectly rational to hold both positions? And let's throw in your red herring just for the hell of it.
c/ Clinton is responsible for neither a/ nor b/.
These positions are mutually exclusive? Please tell me how.

B. Bush should have been more pro-active (prior to 9/11).

B directly contradicts A. You can't simultaneously be too pro-active and not pro-active enough.

Oh boy I'm going to stop at this first point, as this stuff is obviously going over your head. Look Russ, you can be very pro active about one thing and totally passive about another. The key here is that - and I can't believe I actually need to explain this - 9/11 was not the work of Hussein or Iraq. They are separate issues.

If you like I will explain the rest to you, but I feel it wouldn't make much difference to you anyway.

 

[russ_watters]

ClintonClintonClinton...

Uh, since you posted the OP and the link it contained (which is what I was referencing in that passage), you do realize you're rolling your eyes at yourself, right? If you didn't want to talk about Clinton, why did you bring him up?

 

[the number 42]

Uh, since you posted the OP and the link it contained (which is what I was referencing in that passage), you do realize you're rolling your eyes at yourself, right? If you didn't want to talk about Clinton, why did you bring him up?

Russ, you need to be aware that you have a little brother of perhaps 8 years old who is logging on using your details. Please restrain him, log on, and post an intelligent response.

 

[Moonbear]

Actually, despite the attempt to use that memo to criticize Bush, I was surprised to find within it information that puts the whole issue into new light for me. If you downloaded not only the memo, but the Dec 2000 strategy that was attached to it, several times it mentions that the proposed strategy would take 3 to 5 years to effectively reduce the threat from al-Qaida. So, even if Bush had taken immediate action on that strategy, without any meetings, discussion or thought, the less than 8 months from when that memo was sent to the 9/11 attack falls far short of 3 to 5 years. As the memo refers to covert CIA operations as part of the strategy, there's no way to know if some of those even were implemented (details of CIA operations within both memos have been blacked out and remain classified). Recommendations also included things like propaganda and securing embassies. The US interests referred to really didn't sound like the US was the immediate target, but US interests elsewhere.

Had I read that memo and been the one responsible for deciding how to act on it, even with some help from hindsight (but trying to recognize the Bush administration didn't have that hindsight to help them at the time), I wouldn't have started with the strikes against the al Qaida training camps, I'd have started out with freezing their financial support. It puts the emphasis on the war on drugs in perspective to see those memos too. Cracking down on what seem like petty crimes, but are listed as specific activities used by al Qaida cells in the US to fund raise would have been on the early priority list. I'd have waited until their finances and ability to recruit were dwindling, then hit with the military strikes (both overt and covert) when they wouldn't be able to rebuild as easily. It would have been a waste of effort early on to start attacking without a means to cripple their finances, because they would just keep rebuilding.

 

[Bystander]

a/ Bush failed to prevent 9/11
b/ Bush is too 'pro-active' regarding Iraq?



Did you get the impression that I was hiding the first assertion? Get reading glasses.

"Hidden" (meaning implicit, not stated explicitly) in "Bush failed to prevent..." Clear enough for you? Also, a false assertion. You have not demonstrated any mechanism for preventing 20 religious loonies from hijacking and flying planes into buildings prior to 9-11. There ain't really any way today --- USAF is going to shoot down passenger planes carrying U. S. civilians? Don't count on it --- the time required for a pilot to launch, intercept, visually confirm a tail number, read it back to his/her controller, have the controller confirm it, relay it to command authority, CA inform another level of decision making, and get permission/orders to fire back to the pilot, who is then going to insist that the order be repeated by the President, or Chrmn of Jt. Chfs., or Sec. of St. before firing is going to exceed the time the loonies need to get where they're going.

Did you get the impression that I am saying that Bush was wrong to invade Iraq because Hussein was such a nice guy? Get a grip.

Russ pointed out that you've been inconsistent in your demands on the chief executive with your statements that he should have done something and that he shouldn't do something. You are asserting that the invasion of Iraq has prevented nothing --- again, a false assertion --- it cannot be demonstrated that nothing would have happened had Hussein been left to his merry way. This is NOT an assertion that he had something up his sleeve for the immediate or distant future. He doeshave a track record that indicates the necessity of taking him and his progeny out --- never put off until tomorrow what you'll wish you'd done today.

 

[the number 42]

"Hidden" (meaning implicit, not stated explicitly) in "Bush failed to prevent..." Clear enough for you? .

No. What haven't I made clear to you about Bush not preventing 9/11?

Also, a false assertion. You have not demonstrated any mechanism for preventing 20 religious loonies from hijacking and flying planes into buildings prior to 9-11.

We're back to the 'reasonable doubt' area. How about if I said that the Bush Administration DIDN'T DO ENOUGH to prevent 9/11? This amounts to the same thing as far as I am concerned. The information was not acted upon, and other people - perhaps ordinary members of the public - might have acted in a way to prevent 9/11. I don't buy the idea that nothing could have been done. Read this again:
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programm...ive/3096451.stm
Two of the hijackers were living with an FBI informant. The CIA knew they were linked to al-Qaeda yet that important information wasn't shared. The best chance of unravelling the plot was bungled".
I understand that it is hard for many of you to seriously consider that 9/11 was preventable, because if it is true, that's tragedy heaped upon tragedy. You have my deepest sympathy over the loss of life, but delusions and distortions by & large don't help.

 

[russ_watters]

There is a bunch from yesterday I'll let go for now. The key point here is this:

What haven't I made clear to you about Bush not preventing 9/11?

Several times now: you haven't made clear that Bush could have prevented 9/11. In fact, your source says quite unequivocably that he couldn't have!

CLARKE: No.

Now, I have stipulated (postulated?) that Bush could have prevented 9/11 with an invasion of Afghanistan as soon as possible after he entered office, but I'm not even sure that that is true (and, in any case, no one has commented on how realistic of a postulate that is and it wasn't even on the table at the time anyway).

What you are arguing (and this is what Moonbear picked up on) is that by implimenting Clarke's recommendations, Bush could have prevented 9/11. And that is quite directly contradicted by Clarke himself.

We're back to the 'reasonable doubt' area. How about if I said that the Bush Administration DIDN'T DO ENOUGH to prevent 9/11? This amounts to the same thing as far as I am concerned.

I'm fine with "didn't do enough," but you've gone far beyond that. And no, "didn't do enough" and "could have prevented" are not the same thing.

I don't buy the idea that nothing could have been done.

You're missing the point: a lot could have been done, and no one is saying that Bush couldn't have done more. He could have! But nothing that Bush could have been done would have had a reasonable chance of preventing 9/11. That's the step you're not taking.

I understand that it is hard for many of you to seriously consider that 9/11 was preventable, because if it is true, that's tragedy heaped upon tragedy. You have my deepest sympathy over the loss of life, but delusions and distortions by & large don't help.

Actually, I have been arguing since the beginning that 9/11 was absolutely, unequivocably preventable. Its just that to prevent it we would have had to act much sooner (years sooner), and that's an argument you just refuse to accept: you want to pin it all on Bush.

 

[the number 42]

Several times now: you haven't made clear that Bush could have prevented 9/11. In fact, your source says quite unequivocably that he couldn't have!

Did I only cite Clarke? What about the links I posted? An FBI informant was living with two of the hijackers, and no action was taken? This isn't a minor slip.

I'm fine with "didn't do enough," but you've gone far beyond that.

Okay, I retract any statement that gives the impression that the Bush Administration could without a shadow of doubt - have prevented 9/11. We agree that they didn't do enough. We proabably disagree over exactly how much more could have been done. But we may never be able to settle this as long as important documents are not declassified e.g. "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States".

...you want to pin it all on Bush.

Almost. I blame everyone who was trusted with the security of your nation at that time, and failed in their duty. As I said, this isn't a minor slip. How can you trust the judgement of these people?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Hindsight shows many things that could have prevented 9/11. Better coordination within the FBI would have caught the plotters before they could act. Taking seriously the idea of airliners as weapons (which goes back a decade or more) could have provided armed marshalls and prevented the plotters from taking over the airliners. Facing up to the tough choices involved could have defended the cities and Pentagon with surface to air missiles. But invading Afghanistan would have done nothing to stop 9/11. The causal effect of Afghanistan, radicalizing a generation of young people from all over the arab world, was way in the past of 9/11.

 

[Bystander]

Did I only cite Clarke? What about the links I posted? An FBI informant was living with two of the hijackers, and no action was taken? This isn't a minor slip.

No laws broken --- what action are you proposing? Scotland Yard vs. the IRA in your neck of the woods might have established certain legal short cuts in the interest of preemptive or proactive law enforcement, but 'twarn't the case in this country prior to 9-11. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies in this country have thousands of hoops to jump through before they can drag someone in for suspicion of nothing. Illegal aliens? Sacred cows before the altars of the ACLU. Talking about blowing up buildings, crashing airliners? Long as they aren't in an airport when they use the words "bomb" or "hijack," they are untouchable. George is going to issue an executive order on the basis of a Clinton staffer's assessment? Not around the U. S. Congress or Supreme Court. Can he ask Congress for legislation tightening approaches to law enforcement with respect to illegal aliens? Yes. When can he expect to see such legislation on his desk for signature? Three, maybe four years, maybe next term.

When was the last time Admiralty hanged, drew, quartered, and gibbeted pirates and other undesirables at Portsmouth?

George ain't the guy who kicks the door in and arrests the thugs and pirates, he's the guy who nominates someone to be his Attorney General. The AG then has 3-5 mos. to get up to speed in terms of who's working for him, what they're doing, and what can be done within the legal framework. The people working for him are legacies from as much as 30 yrs. ago, Nixon administration and later hires. They can do only what the courts and public policies allow.

What do the courts and public policies allow post 9-11? Moussawi is being handled in the regular court system, at enormous expense, rather than being found to be an illegal alien and remanded to a military tribunal. Okay, Jose comes across the Rio Grande, gets caught, called an illegal alien and deported --- end of story. ZM is an IA, and should have been shot or permanently incarcerated for piracy three years ago. A century ago, that's exactly what the sequence of events would have been. Post 1930's law enforcement could not convict Al Capone on anything but tax evasion --- the judicial system in this country did far more to protect, encourage, aid and abet the activities leading to 9-11 than any other institution.

Almost. I blame everyone who was trusted with the security of your nation at that time, and failed in their duty. As I said, this isn't a minor slip. How can you trust the judgement of these people?

"Everyone?" Let's bomb the Brits. It's their former colonies that were so inadequately socialized that this is all happening.

 

[the number 42]

... invading Afghanistan would have done nothing to stop 9/11. The causal effect of Afghanistan, radicalizing a generation of young people from all over the arab world, was way in the past of 9/11.

Agreed. An incongruous case of 'shooting the hornets nest when the horse has bolted'. I fell for the hype at the time (I'm ashamed to say) thinking that we were getting the culprits, but I'm amazed that since that anyone isn't very skeptical about information coming from the Bush Administration.

 

[the number 42]

The FBI and other law enforcement agencies in this country have thousands of hoops to jump through before they can drag someone in for suspicion of nothing.

Right. The people at Camp Delta will be very relieved to hear that

George ain't the guy who kicks the door in and arrests the thugs and pirates...

Right again. He uses bullets and bombs.

 

[the number 42]

Let's bomb the Brits. It's their former colonies that were so inadequately socialized that this is all happening.

More friendly fire, eh? Well, I've already pointed out the UK's involvement in partitioning Iraq twice in previous threads. I'm glad someone was paying attention.

But seeing as you are so keen on the idea of taking responsibilty, why aren't you furious with the Bush Administration for bungling 9/11 on their watch? I'm not saying that history plays no part - of course it does - but I would have thought republicans would be keener than most on individual responsibility (as they are in issues of crime and welfare).

 

[Moonbear]

Let's bomb the Brits. It's their former colonies that were so inadequately socialized that this is all happening.

More friendly fire, eh? Well, I've already pointed out the UK's involvement in partitioning Iraq twice in previous threads. I'm glad someone was paying attention.

But seeing as you are so keen on the idea of taking responsibilty, why aren't you furious with the Bush Administration for bungling 9/11 on their watch? I'm not saying that history plays no part - of course it does - but I would have thought republicans would be keener than most on individual responsibility (as they are in issues of crime and welfare).

Did you really not see the sarcasm in Bystander's reply?

 

[the number 42]

Did you really not see the sarcasm in Bystander's reply?

Aggh! I'm so dumb. Sorry Bystander. If you read some of his previous posts on this thread, this makes Bystander one of the great straight-faced comics of our time.