# Did the U.S. government drop the ball prior to 9/11? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 27, 2004, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314 "2004-01-27T19:25:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/1 "2004-01-27T19:25:23Z")
From today’s Los Angeles Times (sorry, no link - I took this from the newspaper): > [@](#): > > Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, plot, obtained a visa to come to the United States just weeks before the attacks despite being under a federal terrorism indictment, a report by the federal commission investigating the attacks revealed Monday. > > And as many as eight of the hijackers entered the country with doctored passports that contained “clues to their association with Al Qaeda” that should have been caught by immigration authorities, commission investigators said. At this point, is there any doubt that U.S. intelligence had the opportunity to thwart 9/11, but failed to do so? Why aren’t heads rolling? Even more damning: > [@](#): > > …commissioners and investigators on the panel voiced concern that certain agencies have not come to grips with the magnitude of the problems that allowed Al Qaeda operatives to slip past security systems and checks. > > “We are not sure that these problems have been addressed,” said Philip Zelikow, executive director of the commission, referring to failures to put Al Qaeda operatives on federal watch lists. “We are not sure they are even adequately acknowledged as a problem.” Even at this late date, it appears that the security lapses that allowed the hijackers to slip through are _still_ an issue. IMO, the U.S. government is engaging in a massive campaign of obfuscation. They don’t need more wiretaps and searches without warrants, imprisonment without due process, military campaigns overseas, or vague “terror threat levels”, they need to _act_ on the information they already have. It would be nice to hear some sort of admission from _somebody_ that they screwed up, but we all know that’s never going to happen. And even scarier: > [@](#): > > [Customs and Border Protection inspector Jose] Mendelez-Perez said that leading up to Sept. 11, customs officials were discouraged by their superiors from hassling Saudi travelers, seen as big spenders who made frequent visits to theme parks in the Orlando area. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/2 "2004-01-27T19:51:51Z")
This doesn’t seem like a major revelation to me; it’s been well-known that the Bush Administration completely fumbled the ball on fighting terrorism when they inherited it from the Clinton administration: > [@](#): > > [**Top security advisers met just twice on terrorism before Sept. 11 attacks**](http://www.detnews.com/2002/politics/0207/01/politics-526326.htm) > President Bush’s national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions, officials say. > > The White House acknowledged the dearth of top-level meetings devoted to the subject of terrorism by the “principals committee” of the National Security Council. Yet it has aggressively defended the level of attention, given only scattered hints of al-Qaida activity. > > _…snip…_ > > Critics said the low number of terrorism meetings by the most senior members of the security council indicated the administration’s priorities were elsewhere. > > “What were the principals doing to bring this to the attention of the president?” asked P.J. Crowley, council spokesman for the Clinton administration. “Given our growing understanding of this threat that we built in '90s about the emerging threat of terrorism, they just didn’t seem to get it.” > > Clinton officials said their council principals met every two to three weeks to discuss terrorist threats after mid-1998. Those meetings increased during times of heightened terrorist concerns, such as immediately prior to the millennium celebrations, when the principals met nearly every day to discuss threat levels. > > _…snip…_ > > In the last months of the Clinton administration, as early as November 2000, the security council had determined that al-Qaida was responsible for the Oct. 12 bombing of the destroyer USS Cole, which killed 17 sailors. Bush first linked al-Qaida to the Cole bombing publicly in his speech to Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks. > > “This was a failure in the Bush administration to recognize the nature of terrorism and its impact on the United States,” said Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA chief of counterterrorism operations and analysis. “Everybody felt that it was a chronic phenomenon, it would continue and the best we could hope was to contain it.” Or, as Al Franken wrote in his latest book, the Bush Administration decided the best way to combat terrorism was to conduct [_Operation: Ignore_](http://www.thepoorman.net/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=2244): > [@](#): > > Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger remembered how little help the previous Bush administration had provided to his team. Believing that the nation’s security should transcend political bitterness, Berger arranged ten briefings for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley. Berger made a special point of attending the briefing on terrorism. He told Dr. Rice, "I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject. ‘’ … > > After Berger left, Rice stayed around to listen to counterterrorism bulldog Richard Clarke, who laid out the whole anti-al Qaeda plan. Rice was so impressed with Clarke that she immediately asked him to stay on as head of counterterrorism. In early February, Clarke repeated the briefing for Vice President Dick Cheney. But, according to Time, there was some question about how seriously the Bush team took Clarke’s warnings. Outgoing Clinton officials felt that **"the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism."** > > _…snip…_ > > The public face of Operation Ignore would be an antiterrorism task force led by Vice President Cheney. Its mandate: to pretend to develop a plan to counter domestic terrorist attacks. Bush announced the task force on May 8, 2001, and said that he himself would “periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.” **Bush never chaired such a meeting, though. Probably because Cheney’s task force never actually met.** Operation Ignore was in full swing. > > _…snip…_ > > On Operation Ignore Day 208, Ashcroft sent his Justice Department budget request to Bush. It included spending increases in sixty-eight different programs. Out of these sixty-eight programs, less than half dealt with terrorism. Way less than half. In fact, **none of them dealt with terrorism.** Ashcroft passed around a memo listing his seven top priorities. Again, terrorism didn’t make the list. > > On that day, I left for Minneapolis to visit my mom and play some charity golf. > On the next day, the world shook. > > The day after that, they started blaming Clinton, covering their tracks, and accusing liberals of blaming America. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/3 "2004-01-27T20:55:33Z")
Hindsight is always 20/20. We’ll never know whether or not the same thing would have happened under Clintons watch (or I suppose Gore’s), so you can always speculate. However, DURING Clinton’s watch the hijackers ALSO entered the country…for flight training. This thing was years in the planning and training, and Bush hadn’t even been in office a year when they turned it loose. We won’t even mention that they managed to blow a hole in the WTC in '93 also (or was that Bush I’s fault?). I’d say its reasonable to assume that, barring pure luck, the same exact events would have happened in the same exact way. Why? Well, the low level smuckies that do the actual work passing folks into the country or looking at the intellegence or searching for bad guys don’t change with the administration. Only the TOP guys change, not the worker bees at places like the Port Authority, CIA and FBI, etc. So it would most likely have been the same group of folks doing the actual work, and they most like would not have caught it either. Did they drop the ball? Sure they did…it happens. Intellegence dropped the ball for Pearl Harbor too, and countless other times. These are human beings, and they make mistakes, they look at the data but don’t see the patterns, they fuck up. Is the Administration dancing and weaving or trying to pass the blame? Sure they are…who wouldn’t be?? You think if the same thing happened on Gore’s watch he’d be saying “Ya, I fucked up, American People. Was all my fault. Woops.”?? Get real. I think its pretty disingenuous to blame Bush (OR Clinton) for failing to do whatever to prevent 9/11…or even blame the poor bastards that simply missed the clues in the countless piles of data they see every day. Sometimes the bad guys win too. Its always nice to be able to look back with 20/20 hindsight and say that YOU would have been smart enough or lucky enough to see what they didn’t. Hell, I do it all the time when I play “what if” with history. -XT ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/4 "2004-01-27T22:16:02Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Hindsight is always 20/20. Aside from that being a meaningless platitude, it ignores the opinion by the head of the _government commission_ that investigated: > [@](#): > > We are not sure that these problems have been addressed," said Philip Zelikow, executive director of the commission, referring to failures to put Al Qaeda operatives on federal watch lists. “We are not sure they are even adequately acknowledged as a problem.” He’s not just saying: “You guys screwed up”; he’s also saying “You still haven’t fixed the problems that _caused_ the screwup.” So much for 20/20 hindsight. > [@](#): > > We’ll never know whether or not the same thing would have happened under Clintons watch (or I suppose Gore’s), so you can always speculate. Hmmm…not sure if this is a response to the OP, or to rjung, but for myself, I don’t believe I mentioned Clinton or Gore at all. Why do these things always turn into, “Oh yeah? Well Clinton would have done x, y, and z.” This is not speculation; it is evidence uncovered by the commission. > [@](#): > > However, DURING Clinton’s watch the hijackers ALSO entered the country…for flight training. This thing was years in the planning and training, and Bush hadn’t even been in office a year when they turned it loose. We won’t even mention that they managed to blow a hole in the WTC in '93 also (or was that Bush I’s fault?). I think you’re missing the point - in 2 ways: 1.) The article is not saying that the success of the hijackers means _ipso facto_ that the Bush administration screwed up; it’s saying that there are _specific reasons_ why they screwed up, reasons that haven’t been corrected. _If_ all the hijackers had airtight travelling papers, and there were no suspicions that should have been raised, that would be one thing. But that’s not the case; it sounds like they _had_ the right clues to catch the guys, but failed to. To say, “but stuff happened when Clinton was president” is not a valid comparison. A valid comparison would be to give evidence as to specifically _how_ the Clinton administration screwed up. Read rjung’s post - Clinton was doing a lot more to address the problem of terrorism. Since Bush had the advantage of knowing everything that already happened under Clinton’s watch, he should have been doing _more_, not less. 2.) Why should this even be a comparison of Clinton and Bush? Let’s pretend you _can_ prove that Clinton dropped the ball - that doesn’t absolve Bush. > [@](#): > > I’d say its reasonable to assume that, barring pure luck, the same exact events would have happened in the same exact way. Why? Well, the low level smuckies that do the actual work passing folks into the country or looking at the intellegence or searching for bad guys don’t change with the administration. Only the TOP guys change, not the worker bees at places like the Port Authority, CIA and FBI, etc. So it would most likely have been the same group of folks doing the actual work, and they most like would not have caught it either. Not true. Remember that the story came out awhile ago that lower-level FBI people had suspicions about these guys, and were rebuffed by their _superiors_. And as I pointed out in the OP, today’s article says: “customs officials were discouraged **by their superiors** from hassling Saudi travelers.” No, this is shaping up to be a failure from the top down. > [@](#): > > Did they drop the ball? Sure they did…it happens. Yeah, it happens. And when it does, there ought to be some 'splainin to do, don’t you think? > [@](#): > > Intellegence dropped the ball for Pearl Harbor too, and countless other times. These are human beings, and they make mistakes, they look at the data but don’t see the patterns, they fuck up. Is the Administration dancing and weaving or trying to pass the blame? Sure they are…who wouldn’t be?? You think if the same thing happened on Gore’s watch he’d be saying “Ya, I fucked up, American People. Was all my fault. Woops.”?? Get real. C’mon, I was expecting some better arguments than, “Oh, yeah - well Gore would have done it too.” > [@](#): > > I think its pretty disingenuous to blame Bush (OR Clinton) for failing to do whatever to prevent 9/11…or even blame the poor bastards that simply missed the clues in the countless piles of data they see every day. Sometimes the bad guys win too. Its always nice to be able to look back with 20/20 hindsight and say that YOU would have been smart enough or lucky enough to see what they didn’t. Hell, I do it all the time when I play “what if” with history. 1.) I didn’t say I could do better, but then I’m not the president, or the head of the FBI, or the head of the CIA. 2.) It’s not just that they screwed up, it’s also that they have failed to rectify the problem, and are obfuscating the real issues with an overly aggressive and misdirected foreign policy. 3.) Being lax with Saudis entering the country because they’re rich is not “simply missing the clues.” Nor, as rjung pointed out, is woefully inadequate planning to deal with an obvious threat. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/5 "2004-01-27T23:58:14Z")
I really wish, for once, you’d read what I write, as opposed to what you THINK I am saying. I’m not saying that Clinton bad, Bush good. I’m not saying its all Clinton’s fault. YOU are the one implying its all Bush’s fault, I’m not the one attempting to absolve either of them…nor to blame them out of proportion or to ascribe any superhuman abilities to either of them in knowing from the myriad things out there that this was going to happen. I’m saying that sometimes the bad guys win reguardless of what you do. Some times the good guys fuck up and miss things that are obvious in hindsight and thus give the bad guys the breaks they needed to pull it off. Meaningless platitude? Sure, whatever you say oh gazer into the future. Now, if we are talking about the measures put into place post 9/11 and they are CONTINUEING to screw up, thats a different kettle of fish. I haven’t really looked deeply into this issue to be honest, going mostly on the empirical fact that no new attacks have happened in the US since 9/11. Probably the wrong attitude, but I don’t live and breath this stuff and haven’t really seen anything glaring wrong with what they are doing. I’ll have to look into it closer. From blowero > [@](#): > > Not true. Remember that the story came out awhile ago that lower-level FBI people had suspicions about these guys, and were rebuffed by their superiors. And as I pointed out in the OP, today’s article says: “customs officials were discouraged by their superiors from hassling Saudi travelers.” No, this is shaping up to be a failure from the top down. Oh, if only they had of listened. _sob_ Do you have any idea how much raw intellegence data is collected daily? Do you have a clue how many different ‘lower level’ view points, position papers, analysis, NIE’s, etc are written daily? Which ones should those superiors agree with?? The one’s flagged “Have looked into the future and KNOW this one of the 1000 reports you get today is vital!!”?? Even if they read them and fully absorb them, how do you MAKE someone fit all the pieced together? Were they just supposed to KNOW that this piece of info over here goes with that piece over there…and that its all vital? And its all Bush’s fault somehow that they DIDN’T see it, didn’t put it all together?? The intellegence game seems to be a guessing game, where you get scraps of data (much of it false or unclear) and you have to form a picture. Sometimes you are smart and lucky and guess right…sometimes you fuck up and guess wrong, or miss a vital piece. And sometimes the bad guys get all the breaks and pull something off. To my mind, from what I’ve read in the past, 9/11 was a golden beebee…everything went right (or wrong depending on your perspective) in a cascading series of improbably events that lead to what happened. Any one of them could or even would have derailed it…but it didn’t work out that way. Frankly I would be surprised if someone DIDN’T see parts of 9/11 and the clues that it was going to happen. Of COURSE some folks did. The problems are A) Sifting through the mountain of data to find the gems that are there, B) Compiling them together to form a COMPLETE picture in a timely manner, C) Getting a fully compiled and documented case to the folks that can do something about it. Because as you work your way up the food chain in the government, your data becomes more and more sifted and processed, and only the very best cases and info (in theory) get to the top (and even then, sometimes they are wrong. Can you say WMD?) As far as I know, no serious paper was ever sifted to anywhere close to the top about 9/11 PRIOR to the event. Its really easy, after the fact, to look BACK at the data and see everything. Its easy for some low level guy to stand up and say “I KNEW it was going to happen. See, I had this NIE written 2 weeks before stating that so and so was trying to come into the country, blah blah blah, and if only my supervisor had of listend to me.” From blowero > [@](#): > > Yeah, it happens. And when it does, there ought to be some 'splainin to do, don’t you think? Afaik there WAS. I thought that post 9/11 there was a full congressional examination of the various intellegence organs where they pretty much grilled the folks involved to find out what went wrong. Isn’t that were most of this stuff you are using came from? What more do you want from them…burning at the stake or something? The idea is to figure out what went wrong so we can learn some lessons, not a witch hunt for some poor schmuck that didn’t put the various clues together. Again, if they haven’t learned any lessons or changed anything fundamentally with reguards to flaws found in the system, then thats another kettle of fish. But you seem to be implying you want some kind of witch hunt here. From blowero > [@](#): > > C’mon, I was expecting some better arguments than, “Oh, yeah - well Gore would have done it too.” Why? You are trying to lay the blame for ALL of this squarely on Bush after all, as if its all his fault. All I’M saying is it was a fuck up that would have happened to whoever was sitting in the oval office, because the President isn’t exactly in control of everything. You are trying to do a Bush bash here, as usual, and pile up the blame squarely on Bush’s back. Hasn’t he done enough REAL shit you can legitimately pile on him without resorting to this? Christ man, the guy has pretty much ruined the economy, piled on unbelievable debt, and gotten us into a war we didn’t need to have! What, he has to drink the blood of children and push baby puppies into the croc pond as well for you?? From blowero > [@](#): > > 1.) I didn’t say I could do better, but then I’m not the president, or the head of the FBI, or the head of the CIA. Thats EXACTLY what you are implying, and you know it. “They are just too stupid to see these OBVIOUS clues (obvious after 9/11 of course)! If only someone smart was there. Damn Bush!! Its all his fault!!” From blowero > [@](#): > > 2.) It’s not just that they screwed up, it’s also that they have failed to rectify the problem, and are obfuscating the real issues with an overly aggressive and misdirected foreign policy. Agreed. Completely btw. IF the currently administration is in fact screwing up (I really have no opinion on this as I don’t know enough about it) then it DOES fall squarely on them…and may they be damned for it. Unfortunately what you’ve put into the OP so far does NOT paint a clear picture that problems haven’t been addressed and that they continue to screw up by the numbers. If you have more information to make this case, by all means trot it out and lets look at it. From blowero > [@](#): > > 3.) Being lax with Saudis entering the country because they’re rich is not “simply missing the clues.” Nor, as rjung pointed out, is woefully inadequate planning to deal with an obvious threat. And when did this policy start? How long had it been in effect? Obvious threat prior to 9/11?? Are you making the claim that when Bush came into to office, he sent around a memorandum to the Port Authority stating “Please don’t harrass Saudis coming into the country as they are rich. Thank, The Chief.”?? In light of what happened (i.e. 9/11), sure it looks like a stupid policy (hell, it WAS a stupid policy)… NOW that we KNOW they are a threat. They were an OBVIOUS threat in retrospect, sure enough. Is that policy still in effect btw? However, BEFORE 9/11 we were pretty much fat, dumb and happy and the Saudi’s were hardly on the radar screen as a serious threat to the US. At a guess, that de facto policy was probably in effect for a decade at least before then…maybe longer. And, I’m guessing, it came from the same folks that frowned on ‘profiling’. Wonder who THEY are, blowero… In short, while you call my statement of 20/20 hindsight “a meaningless platitude”, its EXACTLY what you are doing with this statement, and others. I don’t blame you, to be honest. Someone struck your knee with a hammer and you kicked. If the situation were reversed and Gore had of won (and had 9/11 happened pretty much the same way, as I have no doubts it would have), I’d be writing this exact same thing I’m writing now, but it would be december or one of the other side I’d be argueing with instead (and you’d be strangely quiet or helping me out as the other side foamed at the mouth about Gore)…and I’d be defending a man (Gore) I have no more liking for than I have for Bush. Such is life. -XT ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2004, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/6 "2004-01-28T00:39:40Z")
I think we can safely say that gov’t dropped the ball. This is obvious **on the face of it**. I mean, an al-Qaeda linked group tried to blow up the WTC in the early 90s and we know another group tried to hijack multiple international flights to blow them up over the Pacific in the same general timeframe. It doesn’t take rocket science to see that airplanes and large US business structures are targets for terrorism and maybe put the two together. But as for the “Clinton’s folks warned everyone and Bush did nothing”, I could just laugh it weren’t such a serious and sad subject. Clinton did jack-shit about al-Qaeda while he was in office. Bush continued that policy. Those are the facts. It doesn’t much surprise me that Americans didn’t act until disaster struck. Most people tend to be that way, and the US is a pretty damn safe place (unlike Europe with a long history of seperatist groups, politically motivated terror bombing and the like). ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2004, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/7 "2004-01-28T07:49:36Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Clinton did jack-shit about al-Qaeda while he was in office. You still watching Fox News? > [@](#): > > [ **Clinton NSC attacks Miniter,** > _The Washington Times_](http://dynamic.washtimes.com/print_story.cfm?StoryID=20030922-090026-8355r) > "As counterterrorism and foreign policy professionals and veterans of the NSC staff in the years proceeding September 11, we have heard our share of misstatements and conspiracy theories about terrorism. But nothing quite compares to Richard Miniter’s book “Losing Bin Laden,” which includes a number of erroneous allegations about the Clinton administration’s counterterrorism record, many of which were then published in this newspaper. > > "First, Mr. Miniter recycles old, false Sudanese claims that the Clinton White House declined access to Sudan’s intelligence files on al Qaeda and that an unnamed CIA official declined an offer from Sudan in 1996 to turn Osama bin Laden over to the United States. > > “No one should believe these allegations by Mr. Miniter’s source, Fateh Erwa — a Sudanese intelligence officer known for his penchant to deceive — that there was an offer to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Certainly, **no offer was ever conveyed to any senior official in Washington.** Had the Sudanese been serious about offering bin Laden to the United States, they could have communicated such an offer to any number of senior Clinton administration officials. It did not happen.” > > _…snip…_ > > "Another charge in the book is that President Clinton failed to retaliate immediately after the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 despite the fact that responsibility for the attack was clear. …When the USS Cole was hit in October 2000, al Qaeda was a prime suspect. But other terrorist groups and states which had attacked us before were also potentially responsible. > > “It was appropriate that Mr. Clinton wanted conclusions from his chief intelligence and law enforcement agencies before launching broad retaliatory strikes on al Qaeda and Taliban targets in Afghanistan. **Definitive conclusions from the CIA and FBI on who was behind the Cole were not provided to Mr. Clinton for the remainder of his term.** ” > > _…snip…_ > > “Even without conclusions from the FBI and CIA on the Cole, bin Laden and his lieutenants were still hunted to the last day of Mr. Clinton’s presidency for al Qaeda’s 1998 attacks on our two embassies in Africa. And **if the Clinton administration dropped the ball in responding to the Cole bombing, why didn’t the incoming Bush administration pick it up in January, 2001?** ” > [@](#): > > [**Clinton Administration Anti-Terrorism Initiative**](http://www.cdt.org/policy/terrorism/adm-anti-terror-otl.html) > I. Actions Already Announced by the President > (1) Pass the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995 > (2) Provide more tools to federal law enforcement agencies fighting terrorism > (3) Conduct terrorism threat assessment of every federal facility in the country within the next 60 days > (4) Direct GSA to replace the federal building in Oklahoma City. > (5) Direct the FBI Director, the Attorney General, and the National Security Adviser to prepare a Presidential Decision Directive authorizing any and all further steps necessary to combat foreign and domestic terrorism. > > II. New Legislative Proposals > (1) INVESTIGATIONS > (2) PROSECUTION > (3) PENALTIES > [@](#): > > [**"The Clinton Wars" Excerpts: How the GOP Undercut Clinton’s Efforts to Fight Terrorism**](http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/08/18_blumenthal.html) > With permission of the author and his publisher (Farrar, Strauss and Giroux), BuzzFlash is first offering a section (beginning on page 656 of the book) that details **how the Republican Congress and former FBI Director Louis Freeh (who allied himself with the anti-Clinton forces) undercut Clinton’s efforts to fight terrorism.** The excerpt also touches upon how after the impeachment trial, pseudo-scandal mongering by the media – including the _New York Times_ – helped deflect public attention from President Clinton’s struggle with terrorism. > [@John Mace](#): > > Bush continued that policy. Those are the facts. Well, you’re half right, at least. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2004, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/8 "2004-01-28T17:25:43Z")
**rjung** : Nice little list of bureaucratic shuffling during the Clinton Administration that you have outlined. But unless you can come up with a list of significiant numbers of al-Qeada opperatives captured or killed by that adminstration, I’ll stick by my claim: **Clinton did jack-shit about al-Qaeda.** If Louis Freeh was a problem for Clinton to execute his counter-terrorism activities, Clinton should have fired him and replaced him with someone else. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/9 "2004-01-28T17:42:31Z")
Despite having done all the things you listed, rjung, I’m unaware of ANY AQ operatives caught during Clintons reign…and this with them moving in and out of the country, including taking flight training in Florida. Its funny that you can come down like a ton of bricks on Bush over the failure to prevent 9/11 (in spite of the fact he had been president for less than a year) but give Clinton a pass even though HE didn’t catch on either. To me they are both equally guilty…or innocent. Personally, as I said before, I just think this was a case where the bad guys got all the breaks in spite of what either administration was doing. I don’t blame either of them (personally) nor do I necessarily blame the worker bee’s who ACTUALLY fucked up and missed the clues. It happens. Hopefully we learned some lessons and it won’t happen again any time soon (I think its wishful thinking to believe it won’t EVER happen again…sometimes the bad guys win too). Now, if the OPs position that the Bush administration is STILL not learning lessons and is fucking up is correct, thats another matter. However, I haven’t seen it demonstrated one way or the other yet, and my limited search on the subject seems to break down along partisan lines so far. If you have anything about them CONTINUEING to fuck up, by all means trot it out guys. -XT ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2004, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/10 "2004-01-28T19:07:39Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I really wish, for once, you’d read what I write, as opposed to what you THINK I am saying. I’m not saying that Clinton bad, Bush good. I’m not saying its all Clinton’s fault. Did I _say_ you said that? Here’s what you said: > [@](#): > > We’ll never know whether or not the same thing would have happened under Clintons watch (or I suppose Gore’s), so you can always speculate. However, DURING Clinton’s watch the hijackers ALSO entered the country…for flight training > […] > We won’t even mention that they managed to blow a hole in the WTC in '93 also (or was that Bush I’s fault?). > […] > You think if the same thing happened on Gore’s watch he’d be saying “Ya, I fucked up, American People. Was all my fault. Woops.”?? Get real. And here’s what _I_ said: > [@](#): > > Why should this even be a comparison of Clinton and Bush? You were clearly trying to draw a comparison. Let’s stick to the subject, shall we? > [@](#): > > YOU are the one implying its all Bush’s fault, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA!!! That’s priceless. As soon as you get done wrongly accusing me of not “reading what you wrote”, you do so with what _I_ wrote. I challenge you to find any such statement in my OP; in fact, I challenge you to even find the word “Bush” in my OP. > [@](#): > > I’m not the one attempting to absolve either of them… That’s my point - crying about how Clinton didn’t do any better (and BTW, rjung spanked your ass on that false assertion) _doesn’t_ absolve Bush, so why did you even bring up Clinton? > [@](#): > > nor to blame them out of proportion or to ascribe any superhuman abilities to either of them in knowing from the myriad things out there that this was going to happen. I don’t think you really read the quotes from the article. No “superhuman abilities” should have been required. See, you’re making up your own story where the U.S. government made a _reasonable_ oversight in not preventing 9/11. The _real_ story appears to be that they should have been able to prevent it. The evidence is showing that they _should_ have been able to, not just that they _could_ have been able to. If you have evidence to the contrary, then post it, but don’t just make stuff up. > [@](#): > > I’m saying that sometimes the bad guys win reguardless of what you do. O.K., but that’s not the case here. If it were a situation where it would have happened no matter what we did, then O.K.; but that doesn’t seem to be the situation. Your statement is irrelevant to this situation. > [@](#): > > Some times the good guys fuck up and miss things that are obvious in hindsight and thus give the bad guys the breaks they needed to pull it off. Meaningless platitude? Sure, whatever you say oh gazer into the future. Since we’re laying out platitudes here, how about this one? - Those who do not learn from past mistakes are doomed to repeat them. > [@](#): > > Now, if we are talking about the measures put into place post 9/11 and they are CONTINUEING to screw up, thats a different kettle of fish. Hello? Anybody home? Did you read what I wrote?: > [@](#): > > It’s not just that they screwed up, it’s also that they have failed to rectify the problem, and are obfuscating the real issues with an overly aggressive and misdirected foreign policy. And this from the article? > [@](#): > > “We are not sure that these problems have been addressed,” said Philip Zelikow, executive director of the commission, referring to failures to put Al Qaeda operatives on federal watch lists. “We are not sure they are even adequately acknowledged as a problem.” That’s _exactly_ the kettle of fish we’re discussing. > [@](#): > > I haven’t really looked deeply into this issue to be honest, Well until you do, perhaps you should STFU. > [@](#): > > going mostly on the empirical fact that no new attacks have happened in the US since 9/11. 9/11 was an anomaly. The fact is that there are few terrorist attacks on US soil. There were a couple years in there right _before_ 9/11 with no terrorist attacks either. Are you saying the Bush administration went back in time to cause that? It reminds me of the story of the guy with the statue on his front lawn to “keep the elephants away”. His friend says, “but there aren’t any elephants around here”, and he says “See, it works.” > [@](#): > > Probably the wrong attitude, but I don’t live and breath this stuff and haven’t really seen anything glaring wrong with what they are doing. I’ll have to look into it closer. Please do. [quote] \>From blowero Quote: Not true. Remember that the story came out awhile ago that lower-level FBI people had suspicions about these guys, and were rebuffed by their superiors. And as I pointed out in the OP, today’s article says: “customs officials were discouraged by their superiors from hassling Saudi travelers.” No, this is shaping up to be a failure from the top down. Oh, if only they had of listened. _sob_ Do you have any idea how much raw intellegence data is collected daily? Do you have a clue how many different ‘lower level’ view points, position papers, analysis, NIE’s, etc are written daily? Which ones should those superiors agree with?? The one’s flagged “Have looked into the future and KNOW this one of the 1000 reports you get today is vital!!”?? Even if they read them and fully absorb them, how do you MAKE someone fit all the pieced together? Were they just supposed to KNOW that this piece of info over here goes with that piece over there…and that its all vital? And its all Bush’s fault somehow that they DIDN’T see it, didn’t put it all together?? [quote] Oh, I see. You haven’t looked into this, but all of a sudden you’re an expert on intelligence gathering and are able to definitively state, in contradiction to the opinion of the people who have investigated the issue, that the intelligence agencies should be excused because they just had too much stuff on their desk. Sorry, but that’s not what the evidence shows. > [@](#): > > (and even then, sometimes they are wrong. Can you say WMD?) Oh, please. You just _had_ to open that can of worms. It’s obvious at this point the the Bush administration _knew_ they were relying on dubious evidence with regard to the WMDs. Can you say yellowcake? aluminum tubes? It wasn’t just an oversight, it was deliberate. Anyone who can’t see that is in denial. > [@](#): > > As far as I know, no serious paper was ever sifted to anywhere close to the top about 9/11 PRIOR to the event. Hence the problem. > [@](#): > > Its really easy, after the fact, to look BACK at the data and see everything. Its easy for some low level guy to stand up and say “I KNEW it was going to happen. See, I had this NIE written 2 weeks before stating that so and so was trying to come into the country, blah blah blah, and if only my supervisor had of listend to me.” So what’s your point? If you’re admitting that they screwed up, then there’s really no debate here. > [@](#): > > \>From blowero > Quote: > Yeah, it happens. And when it does, there ought to be some 'splainin to do, don’t you think? > > Afaik there WAS. I thought that post 9/11 there was a full congressional examination of the various intellegence organs where they pretty much grilled the folks involved to find out what went wrong. Isn’t that were most of this stuff you are using came from? What more do you want from them… What do I want? 1. Should have started the investigation sooner, rather than balking. 2. Shouldn’t have portrayed it as a situation where the hijackers had airtight papers and couldn’t possibly have been discovered, when they knew that wasn’t true. 3. Deal with the real security issues and stop the obfuscation. > [@](#): > > The idea is to figure out what went wrong so we can learn some lessons, not a witch hunt for some poor schmuck that didn’t put the various clues together. Who said it was a witch hunt for a “poor schmuck”? The breakdown was at the top levels - _that’s_ where the witch hunt should be. And the _problem_ is that they don’t seem to be learning any lessons. > [@](#): > > Again, if they haven’t learned any lessons or changed anything fundamentally with reguards to flaws found in the system, then thats another kettle of fish. But you seem to be implying you want some kind of witch hunt here. As I said, that’s _precisely_ the kettle of fish we have. > [@](#): > > \>From blowero > Quote: > C’mon, I was expecting some better arguments than, “Oh, yeah - well Gore would have done it too.” > > Why? Because it’s a lame, cop-out argument that just reduces the debate to partisan mud-slinging. It’s a cheap, ready-made excuse; Bush can do no wrong because “Gore would have been worse”. Whatever. > [@](#): > > You are trying to lay the blame for ALL of this squarely on Bush after all, as if its all his fault. This is a debate about whether the U.S. government dropped the ball. You can read whatever you want into it. You’re the one who turned it into a Clinton-bashing fest. And then rjung decimated you on that issue. Don’t blame your own partisan polarizing on me. > [@](#): > > All I’M saying is it was a fuck up that would have happened to whoever was sitting in the oval office, because the President isn’t exactly in control of everything. Actually, the president kinda _is_ in charge of that stuff. You know, Commander-in-Chief and all. It’s not _all_ the president’s fault, though; the failure was mainly in the CIA, FBI, and immigration departments. But since you keep wanting to turn this into a Bush vs. Clinton thing, I’ll oblige. When Bush 's people hold only 2 meetings to discuss terrorism in the 8 months prior to 9/11, compared to Clinton’s people’s once every 2-3 weeks, then one wonders what _would_ have happened if someone more competent were in office - someone who was genuinely concerned with national security, and not just “getting” Saddam. It kind of cracks me up how you want to give Bush credit for the lack of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil after 9/11, but any time he fucks up, then he’s not “in control of everything”. Tee hee. > [@](#): > > You are trying to do a Bush bash here, Actually, I wasn’t. _You_ brought it up. > [@](#): > > as usual, and pile up the blame squarely on Bush’s back. Hasn’t he done enough REAL shit you can legitimately pile on him without resorting to this? Christ man, the guy has pretty much ruined the economy, piled on unbelievable debt, and gotten us into a war we didn’t need to have! What, he has to drink the blood of children and push baby puppies into the croc pond as well for you?? Yeah, guess you’re right. Who cares if 3,000 people got killed? - it doesn’t matter if it could have been prevented. Let’s just not worry about it. > [@](#): > > Thats EXACTLY what you are implying, and you know it. “They are just too stupid to see these OBVIOUS clues (obvious after 9/11 of course)! If only someone smart was there. Damn Bush!! Its all his fault!!” Yeah, that’s exactly what I said.:rolleyes: I linked to an article which quoted an expert as saying that they _should_ have been able to see the clues. Please stop mischaracterizing my position. When _you_ are the head of a government commission, I’ll take your opinion over another. But since you aren’t… > [@](#): > > \>From blowero > Quote: > 2.) It’s not just that they screwed up, it’s also that they have failed to rectify the problem, and are obfuscating the real issues with an overly aggressive and misdirected foreign policy. > > Agreed. Then I don’t get why you’re arguing with me. > [@](#): > > Completely btw. IF the currently administration is in fact screwing up (I really have no opinion on this as I don’t know enough about it) then it DOES fall squarely on them…and may they be damned for it. Unfortunately what you’ve put into the OP so far does NOT paint a clear picture that problems haven’t been addressed and that they continue to screw up by the numbers. If you have more information to make this case, by all means trot it out and lets look at it. I’ve got a better idea. Why don’t you refute what’s been presented here, rather than knocking down straw men? If it’s not clear, tell us why. > [@](#): > > \>From blowero > Quote: > 3.) Being lax with Saudis entering the country because they’re rich is not “simply missing the clues.” Nor, as rjung pointed out, is woefully inadequate planning to deal with an obvious threat. > > And when did this policy start? How long had it been in effect? Obvious threat prior to 9/11?? Are you making the claim that when Bush came into to office, he sent around a memorandum to the Port Authority stating “Please don’t harrass Saudis coming into the country as they are rich. Thank, The Chief.”?? Uh, _you’re_ the one who wants to make this all about Bush, not me. And yes, people coming from Saudi Arabia _should_ have been an obvious threat, and shouldn’t have been overlooked as such just because they have a lot of money. And I don’t see your point. Are you saying that Jose Mendelez-Perez, the Customs and Border Protection inspector is a liar? I realize that in your eyes he’s just a “low level smuckie” and thus bears the sole blame for any mistakes, but c’mon… > [@](#): > > In light of what happened (i.e. 9/11), sure it looks like a stupid policy (hell, it WAS a stupid policy)… NOW that we KNOW they are a threat. They were an OBVIOUS threat in retrospect, sure enough. Is that policy still in effect btw? You don’t get out much, do you? You think we didn’t know that terrorists were coming out of Saudi Arabia? Where do you think Osama came from? > [@](#): > > However, BEFORE 9/11 we were pretty much fat, dumb and happy and the Saudi’s were hardly on the radar screen as a serious threat to the US. They _should_ have been. > [@](#): > > At a guess, that de facto policy was probably in effect for a decade at least before then…maybe longer. And, I’m guessing, it came from the same folks that frowned on ‘profiling’. Wonder who THEY are, blowero… Yeah, just pile more assumptions on top of your strawmen.:rolleyes: > [@](#): > > In short, while you call my statement of 20/20 hindsight “a meaningless platitude”, its EXACTLY what you are doing with this statement, and others. No, it’s not. I explained why, and you haven’t addressed what I said at all. > [@](#): > > I don’t blame you, to be honest. Someone struck your knee with a hammer and you kicked. If the situation were reversed and Gore had of won (and had 9/11 happened pretty much the same way, as I have no doubts it would have), I’d be writing this exact same thing I’m writing now, but it would be december or one of the other side I’d be argueing with instead (and you’d be strangely quiet or helping me out as the other side foamed at the mouth about Gore)…and I’d be defending a man (Gore) I have no more liking for than I have for Bush. Such is life. Wow, that’s pretty funny, you accusing me of knee-jerking, after what you just wrote. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2004, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/11 "2004-01-28T19:17:59Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Now, if the OPs position that the Bush administration is STILL not learning lessons and is fucking up is correct, thats another matter. What do you mean “if”? It’s my position, and I said so. READ, man - READ! > [@](#): > > However, I haven’t seen it demonstrated one way or the other yet, and my limited search on the subject seems to break down along partisan lines so far. If you have anything about them CONTINUEING to fuck up, by all means trot it out guys. If the opinion of the head of the government commission that was formed to investigate the matter isn’t enough for you, then I’m not sure what you’re looking for. Did you want me to email God and ask him? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2004, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/12 "2004-01-28T20:59:45Z")
We’ve already had several threads on the topic of partisan blame, my favorite, of course, being my own in which I argued that it was sheer nonsense to blame Clinton’s administration with deriliction of duty without adding equal if not more blame to Bush’s administration (my major point was that the “difference in time-they-had” issue was both irrelevant and misguided). The only legitimate type of criticism, I argued winningly, was criticism that spanned across partisan lines and got down to the agency levels. In a pit thread, I laid out what I thought was a plausible case for why a Gore administration would have resulted in the prevention of 9/11, though largely because of speed-of-transition issues and luck more than any special meritous conduct. Which I think illustrates the point that whether or not anything could have been different, at basic fault are some issues that are the same no matter what administration we’re talking about, and which remain problems today. No one was listening to the people who WERE making noise about this, because it just didn’t fit our interests and political pressures on any side of any aisle. Fighting terrorism preventatively, as opposed to retributively, didn’t and doesn’t pay pork all that well. When you succeed, nobody cares much about what didn’t happen. Bush found a way to make it pay by making the solution be massive military campaigns, but although that was a step in at least the right direction (a step too late, of course) even that seems like a panacea for our real weaknesses in language, intel, and international authority which we still lack. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2004, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/13 "2004-01-28T21:19:14Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > **rjung** : > Nice little list of bureaucratic shuffling during the Clinton Administration that you have outlined. Nice little dodge of the point there, **John.** “I don’t care if you’ve got a big list of Clinton’s anti-terrorism efforts! I don’t care if he tripled the FBI’s antiterrorism budget! I don’t care if he made fighting terrorism a high priority! If it doesn’t spell _al Qaeda_ by name, I’m not listening!” You’ve learned your lessons from _sensei_ O’Reilly very well. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > But unless you can come up with a list of significiant numbers of al-Qeada opperatives captured or killed by that adminstration, I’ll stick by my claim: > > **Clinton did jack-shit about al-Qaeda.** **John,** you’re not new to the SDMB, so either you’re being deliberately dense or you’re too doped up on cold medicine to think straight. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I’m obligated to remind you that this is Great Debates, not Fox News – _If **you** make the bullshit claim, **you** have to give the cite for it._ The assertion that Clinton made fighting terrorism a major concern is well-documented. The assertion that George W. Bush sat on his hands when he inherited the mantle from Clinton is also well-documented. All we’ve got from you is nit-picking over whether the terrorists were from _al Qaeda_ or _Hezbolla_ or whatever; frankly, if that’s the best limp-wristed counterargument you’ve got to work with, then your position must be truly pathetic indeed. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2004, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/14 "2004-01-28T21:21:52Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Which I think illustrates the point that whether or not anything could have been different, at basic fault are some issues that are the same no matter what administration we’re talking about, and which remain problems today. No one was listening to the people who WERE making noise about this, because it just didn’t fit our interests and political pressures on any side of any aisle. Fighting terrorism preventatively, as opposed to retributively, didn’t and doesn’t pay pork all that well. Yes, the failures were at the agency level, and we can color-code and drop bombs on Iraq 'til the cows come home, and it’s not gonna do diddly squat. The whole point is that rather than sticking pins in the Saddam voodoo doll, we should have been focusing on closing those glaring holes in our national security. ---
**Author:** ![Eveready](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/87869e/32.png) [@Eveready](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eveready)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2004, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/15 "2004-01-28T21:22:26Z")
I think the problem lies with the CIA, FBI, NSA, Immigration, and The State Department. They just didn’t share information with each other. Perhaps the Department of Homeland Security corrected this but I guess that we will see. This lack of communiction was a result of the culture in the various agencies and fixing this was not politically feasible before 9/11. > [@xtisme](#): > > Despite having done all the things you listed, rjung, I’m unaware of ANY AQ operatives caught during Clintons reign Weren’t some of the people that were arrested for the first World Trade Center bombing AQ operatives? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2004, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/16 "2004-01-28T21:35:05Z")
> [@Eveready](#): > > I think the problem lies with the CIA, FBI, NSA, Immigration, and The State Department. They just didn’t share information with each other. Perhaps the Department of Homeland Security corrected this but I guess that we will see. Hmmm…I’m pretty skeptical about that. Has Homeland Security actually closed any of the gaps between agencies, or has it just added _more_ beauracracy to the mix? > [@](#): > > Weren’t some of the people that were arrested for the first World Trade Center bombing AQ operatives? I didn’t want this to turn into a “What did Clinton do?” debate, but since I obviously can’t stop it, I’ll check my copy of Al Franken’s book when I get home. I know a lot of people hate him, but I recall he _did_ give a good accounting of all that was done to fight terrorism during the Clinton years. I can’t recall the specific answer to your question, but I bet it’s in there. ---
**Author:** ![Eveready](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/87869e/32.png) [@Eveready](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eveready)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2004, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/17 "2004-01-28T21:50:45Z")
I’m kind of skeptical myself beauracracy inertia can be very strong. Sorry about more of the Bush vs. Clinton stuff. I always thought that it didn’t matter who was in office (Republican or Democrat) they would not have been able to stop 9/11 from happening. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2004, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/18 "2004-01-28T22:12:04Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Nice little dodge of the point there, **John.** “I don’t care if you’ve got a big list of Clinton’s anti-terrorism efforts! I don’t care if he tripled the FBI’s antiterrorism budget! I don’t care if he made fighting terrorism a high priority! If it doesn’t spell _al Qaeda_ by name, I’m not listening!” You’ve learned your lessons from _sensei_ O’Reilly very well. :rolleyes: Since we’re talking debate tactics here, that was a nice little _ad hominem_, a heaping helping of strawman, served with a final course of Poisoning the Well. You are correct in that I don’t care how many bills WJC pushed thru Congress or how many agencies he shuffled around. If he didn’t accomplish anything concrete, then he didn’t do jack-shit. I don’t have to prove whether they did anything, as I’m not the one making an asertion. If I say I don’t believe God exists, it’s not incumbent on my to prove that he doesn’t. It’s incumbent on you to prove that he does (if you believe it). Show us what Clinton did that actually resulted in the al-Qaeda operation being even slightly hindered. And yes, we are talking al-Qaeda here. Hezzbulla is not an organization attacking US targets on US soil. Clinton knew about the dangers that al-Qaeda posed to the US from the early 90s bombing of the WTC. The FBI put ObL on it’s Top Ten Most Wanted list in Jun '99. Listen. I’m not saying I blame Clinton. I’m saying that few if any people in authority were smart enough to realize what a threat al-Qaeda was. Not Clinton, and not Bush. Coming up with some folks after the fact who claimed they knew it was coming is great 20/20 hindsight, but it proves nothing. There were plenty of people predicting chaos due to the Y2K bug, but it didn’t happen. You can always go back after the fact and find someone who predicted some event. BFD. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2004, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/19 "2004-01-28T22:12:09Z")
> [@Eveready](#): > > Sorry about more of the Bush vs. Clinton stuff. Not at all - I didn’t mean to blame anyone; you were just responding to others. It seems like the inevitable direction my thread is going to take, in spite of my best intentions - so be it. > [@](#): > > I always thought that it didn’t matter who was in office (Republican or Democrat) they would not have been able to stop 9/11 from happening You may be right. Even if Bush hadn’t engaged in “Operation Ignore”, and _had_ done more to address the terrorism threat, could he have changed that entrenched beauracracy in all those government agencies, and gotten them to “play nice” with each other in such a short time? Perhaps not. Should that take anyone off the hook? I don’t think it should. The bigger issue is whether we’ve learned anything from those failures, and Zelikow (executive director of the commission) seems to be suggesting that we haven’t. I’m still waiting for evidence to the contrary (other than “you haven’t seen any elephants around here, have you?”) ---
**Author:** ![Fang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/96bed5/32.png) [@Fang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fang)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2004, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/20 "2004-01-28T22:41:59Z")
Don’t really have the time to jump in the debate right now, but I thought this [Cato Institute analysis](http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-265.html) (from 1996, interestingly enough) makes a good point: > [@](#): > > America’s intelligence agencies should devote their resources to the most serious security threats, principally international terrorism and adverse political trends. Instead, the Clinton administration has diverted the intelligence community to economic espionage. > > The economic espionage mission is based on faulty assumptions and damages relations with governments whose cooperation we may need in dealing with significant security threats. Indeed, Washington’s use of the Central Intelligence Agency for economic spying has already led to ugly incidents with Japan and France. The focus on commercial espionage also creates a myopic perspective from which developments such as massive corruption in another country are seen as merely economic factors, rather than harbingers of political instability. > > There are more than enough bona fide security problems in the world to command the full attention of the intelligence community. The most serious is international terrorism. Penetrating and neutralizing shadowy and secretive terrorist organizations will pose a daunting task for the intelligence agencies. There are also disturbing political trends that warrant close scrutiny, including the continuing turbulence in Russia; China’s emergence as an assertive, if not abrasive, great power; and early signs of a Beijing-Moscow axis motivated by hostility toward the United States. > > It is essential, not only that the intelligence agencies focus their efforts on such actual or potential security problems, but that policymakers listen to the agencies’ assessments, especially when those assessments raise questions about the wisdom of current U.S. policy. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration all too often seems indifferent if not hostile to such valuable early warnings. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314.md?page=2)