# Debunk this "Rah, Rah Bush!" Email **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 29, 2004, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-rah-rah-bush-email/226489 "2004-01-29T00:48:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2004, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-rah-rah-bush-email/226489/21 "2004-01-31T19:08:13Z")
> [@](#): > > First, the assertion that bin Laden would benefit because of his status as an heir to his family fortune is factually incorrect. He’s been disowned by the bin Laden family Whether he has or whether he hasn’t is a bit more clouded than your unsupported assertation implies. Eg: [New Yorker: A Families Loyalties Divided](http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011112fa_FACT3) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2004, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-rah-rah-bush-email/226489/22 "2004-02-01T12:32:52Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > Once again you have intentionally and maliciously selectively taken only a piece of what I have written in order to make it seem that I have said something which I have not. You are entirely without character and a liar. Mods, where has the Report button gone to? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2004, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-rah-rah-bush-email/226489/23 "2004-02-01T12:34:18Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Mods, where has the Report button gone to? It’s the exclamation mark in the upper right corner. But I don’t think you’ll find much use for it. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2004, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-rah-rah-bush-email/226489/24 "2004-02-03T02:50:00Z")
[Moderator Hat ON] Manny, if you want to say Elvis has no morals, take it to the Pit. This is NOT the place. [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2004, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-rah-rah-bush-email/226489/25 "2004-02-03T04:30:20Z")
The reason why I can only “think” that the Bush Administration royally f@\*%ed up their continuance of Clinton’s antiterrorism program stem from only a few sources. One is [former President Bill Clinton](http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BQh2), who obviously won’t be believed by certain persons who distrust exactly how firm that person’s grip was upon the gearshift of state. Clinton left [Sandy Berger](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2172937.stm) behind to try to underscore the gravity of the problem. Note what one of the Rats Yet to Leave the Sinking Ship has to say about it: > [@](#): > > “The Clinton administration did not present an aggressive new plan to topple al-Qaeda during the transition,” spokesman Sean McCormack said. > > “We were briefed on the al-Qaeda threat and what the Clinton administration was doing about it. These efforts against al-Qaeda were continued in the Bush administration.” Yet we know that the National Security Council met exactly twice on international terrorism during the seven months preceding the disaster and we have a good idea of what the Clinton plan to take out Osama was when it was developed in the wake of the bombing of the _USS Cole_ in October, 2000. Watch Rich Lowry try desperately to find his way out of the bag in [this editorial](http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200310290829.asp). The weasel explanation is that it wasn’t a “formal war plan,” but [the Clinton measures](http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,769399,00.html) included [freezing assets](http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/24/142911.shtml), [continuing to aid countries](http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1207/p9s1-usmi.html) in their respective fights against terrorists, and [hunting Osama bin Laden in his hideouts](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16?language=printer), one potentially successful method of which was the hunting of bin Laden through the use of Predator drones, which repeat were pulled off-line by an indecisive Bush Administration. Failing to disrupt Osama bin Laden’s network in the spring of 2001, when it and even he were visible to our intelligence sources, may have been the key to stopping the tragedy which befell us on that day. We’ll never know now. That’s a statement worth repeating: we’ll never know now. Each of the above Clinton options were of course adopted by the Bush administration–belatedly. And thanks to the institutional reticence of the Bush administration, we’ll likely never know why. Bush covered it, all right. He covered it up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-rah-rah-bush-email/226489.md?page=1)