# 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:** 3
**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 30, 2004, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/41 "2004-01-30T23:16:18Z")
_sighs in despair_ Second long ass post in this thread that this damn server has eatten. I keep getting the ‘database error’ screen and lose my entire post (I THOUGHT I had copied it, but no dice). Too frustrated to go into it all again right now…maybe later when I’m calmer. Couple of small things: > [@blowero](#): > > That’s because you can’t read. Or MAYBE its because your ‘evidence’ isn’t as clear as you THINK it is? Perhaps it only looks really good if you are, you know, biased, blowero? Perish the thought, I’m sure. > [@blowero](#): > > Do you have any evidence, like say…I don’t know…a GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATION, like what I posted, to show that Clinton had the opportunity to catch these AQ guys who were moving in and out of the US, and that he failed to do something that he should have done? Or are you just talking out your ass? No idea what you are asking for here. You seem to be doggedly pursueing the hijack of your own OP though. Are you asking me for proof that AQ was moving in and out of the country, taking flight training in Florida, etc, while Clinton was in office??? Its obvious he did not, in fact, catch any of them, and I’m unaware that he was even on to them in any meaningful way. So, what are you asking me for here? Do YOU have any evidence that Clinton even knew they were there? Here is a thought…why don’t YOU produce some cites for what Clinton supposedly tried to tell Bush? Then we can look and see for ourselves how criminally neglegant Bush was in ignoring all this mountain of ‘evidence’ Clinton had about AQ and terrorist threats and all. Here’s another thought…why don’t YOU lay out how the administration is CURRENTLY fucking up (you know, like from your OP), with some cites to back it up (some unbiased cites would be good…here is a clue, Al Frankens book is not, generally, considered an unbiased source). I notice you’ve not adressed this, simply attacking me. Its YOUR case…make it. > [@blowero](#): > > Rjung and I have already posted a mountain of evidence showing that Bush just didn’t give terrorism a high priority in those first 8 months. It’s not that he was new, and didn’t have time to do anything, it’s that he chose to do other things. And? When did I deny that Bush initially set terrorism as a low priority? He obviously had other things he considered high priority. Again, in RETROSPECT this was a mistake, but only someone as obviously biased as you could fault someone for this. In the eaten thread I went into this in detail, but I just don’t have the heart now. Briefly, you are making some assumptions here without backing any of them up (or by setting double standards). A) That Clinton had all the information and attempted to give it to Bush, and that this information was such that it clearly should have changed the priority on terrorism for Bush to high. Fine, lets see it. B) That Bush setting terrorism to a lower priority is somehow unusual for a new president just getting a handle on things. Do you suppose Clinton set terrorism high when HE first started off? He didn’t focus on terrorism until AFTER the WTC attack (Same as Bush, he had to get burned first), no? Then back it up that he focused on terrorism prior to that and initially in his administration. C) That new presidents coming into office listen to the former presidents (and their administrations) and consider the same things at the same priority levels…even when they come from different parties. Do you suppose that, when Clinton came into office he listened attentively to everything Bush I and his staff felt was important, and used his priorities on things? New presidents invariably set new priorities and go in different directions…thats why we elect new people to the office of president. > [@blowero](#): > > You do know that the 1993 WTC bombers were caught and imprisoned during Clinton’s tenure, right? And since you now say that al Qaeda did it, that sort of blows your claim that Clinton didn’t catch any al Quada guys right out of the water, doesn’t it? He shoots, he scores! Ooooooh, bet that hurts. Yes, I’m well aware that the WTC bombers were caught and imprisoned during Clintons tenure…AFTER THE FACT. I’m also aware that Bush has ALSO caught and imprisoned (some of which without even trials, but thats another story) AQ leadership and spear carriers…AFTER THE FACT. When I said ‘operatives’, I meant it as operating on a mission…not identified terrorists AFTER a sucessful mission. Again, your dual standards are obviously going over your head here. Both presidents, after having the country punched in the nose by a terrorist attack, subsequently focused on terrorism, and then managed, after the fact, to capture AQ leadership and spear carriers. Both administrations, in spite of knowing ObL was a threat, failed to capture HIM, though Bush (well, the US and other countries) managed to take out several of the higher AQ leadership. You lose your bet…it failed to even make a dent, let alone hurt. You have vast capabilities to delude yourself. _watches calmly as blowero’s shot bricks off the backboard and shoots back at him_ > [@blowero](#): > > Besides, I think you’re missing a really big point here. You’ve created a strawman argument along the line of “Since 9/11 happened, it proves Bush didn’t do enough”. THAT’S NOT THE ARGUMENT AT ALL. We’re saying Bush didn’t do enough because… and giving all kinds of evidence, like what people in the administration have said, what journalists have said, how many meetings they had; what initiatives were spearheaded, etc. You and John Mace are refusing to touch any of this evidence, and are desperately trying to keep the argument vague. I wonder why… Giving all kinds of ‘evidence’? _sigh_ Your ‘evidence’ is simply that, at the start of his presidency, Bush chose to set terrorism as a low priority, instead focusing on other things (like his mad economic plans, but thats neither here nor there). That he failed to ‘listen’ to Clinton on what HE thought was important, and that there was obviously bad blood between the administrations (hell, and the men themselves too). Shocker. And all this, when coupled with your trusty rusty, handy dandy 20/20 sneaker scope, clearly shows Bush was culpable and incompetent. Because its so obvious (now) that terrorism is a threat to the US, and so Bush should have set terrorism as his number one priority and listened raptly to everything Clinton and his administration had to say. :rolleyes: > [@blowero](#): > > Why? You want more evidence you can ignore? You know, you rabid Bush-supporters always gripe about how nobody will treat you seriously. Well, I don’t blame people for getting frustrated with you, because you turn everthing into a partisan battle, then refuse to engage in rational debate. Only in your own mind have you produced conclusive evidence showing that the Bush administration is currently fucking up. All I’ve seen so far are scattered mutterings by various officials and journalists that things “appear” to be such and such, and “seem” to be so and so…basic political double speak. I actually hunted back through your cites earlier, but I’m too frustrated to do that now…maybe later tonight. However, what I saw was nothing conclusive by any means…so, lets see some hard facts from some reasonably unbiased sources. Lay it all out instead of your usual sniping. Its YOUR position to lay out, blowero. As to the rest…too funny. So, I’m a ‘rabid Bush-supporter’ am I? :rolleyes: I suppose, in your small mind, anyone who doesn’t go around attacking Bush at every turn MUST be a ‘rabid-Bush supporter’, huh? ‘Rational debate’ for you is to use dual standards. You judge the folks you support by a complete different set of standards an reason than you do those you are against. You are a partisan, so its understandable. I try and judge ALL of them by the same set of standards and reasonable behavior, reguardless of whether I like them or not (FYI, I can’t stand Bush…and don’t like Clinton either for that matter…I voted for neither of them). I’m NOT a partisan, being neither a 'Pub nor a 'Crat, and really could give a shit about all this…I have no dog in this hunt (I think thats the right saying). Anyway, I appologize that I didn’t address your other posts more deeply blowero…I’m a bit frustrated atm at losing my second long post on this board this week and I only had the heart to hit the highlights this time around. Hopefully I’ll be smart enough to save it this time (which, by Murphy’s Law means it will go through fine of course). -XT ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2004, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/42 "2004-01-31T00:45:52Z")
Apparently, “density” must be the Republicans’ strategy for 2004, as now **xtisme** is doing an admirable job surpassing lead on the periodic table… > [@xtisme](#): > > Briefly, you are making some assumptions here without backing any of them up (or by setting double standards). > > A) That Clinton had all the information and attempted to give it to Bush, and that this information was such that it clearly should have changed the priority on terrorism for Bush to high. Fine, lets see it. Very well. Once more, with feeling. > [@](#): > > [_Time_ magazine, 8/4/2002, “Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?”](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html): > > (Clinton’s National Security Adviser Sandy Berger) attended only one of the briefings-the session that dealt with the threat posed to the U.S. by international terrorism, and especially by al-Qaeda. **“I’m coming to this briefing,” he says he told Rice, “to underscore how important I think this subject is.”** Later, alone in his office with Rice, Berger says he told her, **“I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.”** The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen during the Clinton years to become the White House’s point man on terrorism. As chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG), Clarke was known as a bit of an obsessive – just the sort of person you want in a job of that kind. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000-an attack that left 17 Americans dead – **he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda.** The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security “principals” on Dec. 20. But Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to **launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden.** “We would be handing (the Bush Administration) a war when they took office on Jan. 20,” says a former senior Clinton aide. “That wasn’t going to happen.” Now it was up to Rice’s team to consider what Clarke had put together. > > Berger had left the room by the time Clarke, using a Powerpoint presentation, outlined his thinking to Rice. A senior Bush Administration official denies being handed a formal plan to take the offensive against al-Qaeda, and says Clarke’s materials merely dealt with whether the new Administration should take “a more active approach” to the terrorist group. (Rice declined to comment, but through a spokeswoman said she recalled no briefing at which Berger was present.) Other senior officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations, however, say that **Clarke had a set of proposals to “roll back” al-Qaeda.** … The plan was estimated to cost “several hundreds of millions of dollars.” **In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to "everything we’ve done since 9/11."** > > And that’s the point. The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 **were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April,** and then **spent another four months** making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush. > [@xtisme](#): > > B) That Bush setting terrorism to a lower priority is somehow unusual for a new president just getting a handle on things. Do you suppose Clinton set terrorism high when HE first started off? He didn’t focus on terrorism until AFTER the WTC attack (Same as Bush, he had to get burned first), no? When Clinton first got into office, nobody made domestic terrorism into a critical issue, so Clinton’s non-handling of it in his first month is understandable. **Bush has no comparable excuse.** > [@xtisme](#): > > C) That new presidents coming into office listen to the former presidents (and their administrations) and consider the same things at the same priority levels…even when they come from different parties. Do you suppose that, when Clinton came into office he listened attentively to everything Bush I and his staff felt was important, and used his priorities on things? New presidents invariably set new priorities and go in different directions…thats why we elect new people to the office of president. Okay, so let’s say we give you the benefit of the doubt on that point. That means that Bush was either 1. so petty and vindictive that he deliberately ignored the terrorism problem because he disagreed with Clinton, or 2. so stupid that he ignored the eminent threat of terrorism even after it was _spelled out to him._ Petty or stupid? Your choice. Either way, he’s clearly not someone who is qualified to defend this country against terrorism. “Look, sir, a serious and credible terrorism warning!” “Eh, it’s from Bill Clinton. I hate the guy, so ignore it.” > [@xtisme](#): > > I’m NOT a partisan, being neither a 'Pub nor a 'Crat, and really could give a shit about all this… Uh, yeah. :rolleyes: ---
**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 31, 2004, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/43 "2004-01-31T03:52:17Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Apparently, “density” must be the Republicans’ strategy for 2004, as now xtisme is doing an admirable job surpassing lead on the periodic table… Good thing I’m not a republican then, huh you hack? 🙂 But of course you’ve seen right through me…I’m really a republican/conservative spy, completely toeing the party line, right? :rolleyes: Lets see who is dense here old boy. As you seem totally fixated on this article, lets deal with it and move on. I asked: “A) That Clinton had all the information and attempted to give it to Bush, and that this information was such that it clearly should have changed the priority on terrorism for Bush to high. Fine, lets see it.” And you, once again, regurgatate the Time article. How does this, in any way, shape, or form, answer the question I asked? Let me recap the question in smaller words for you: WHAT exactly did Clinton and his boys say that should have changed the priority for terrorism? WHAT was the information? All I see is Clintons boys proposing strategy and policy…I see nothing specific on exactly WHAT the iminent threat was. Maybe you could point out the specific paragraphs where they go into the actual threat. From your own article, since you seem fixated on it: > [@Time article we are all getting tired of seeing](#): > > A senior Bush Administration official denies being handed a formal plan to take the offensive against al-Qaeda, and says Clarke’s \*\*materials merely dealt with whether the new Administration should take “a more active approach” to the terrorist group. \*\*(Rice declined to comment, but through a spokeswoman said she recalled no briefing at which Berger was present.) Bolding mine. He said she said I guess. Source not named (except Rice who’s ‘spokeswoman’ said she didn’t even REMEMBER a briefing by Beger). Nor was it named here in their rebuttal to this: > [@Time article](#): > > Other senior officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations, however, say that Clarke had a set of proposals to “roll back” al-Qaeda. Again, source(s) not named. Let me guess who you believe here. However, the point here is this is a set of ‘proposals’ which are strategy and policy oriented. Why SHOULD Bush have necessarily followed Clintons proposals on strategy and policy on anything, let alone terrorism. Do you suppose Clinton followed Bush I’s proposals on strategy and policy on anything when HE took office?? > [@Time article](#): > > In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, “Response to al Qaeda: Roll back.” Clarke’s proposals called for the “breakup” of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble-Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen-would be given aid to fight the terrorists. Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to “eliminate the sanctuary” where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime. The Taliban had come to power in 1996, bringing a sort of order to a nation that had been riven by bloody feuds between ethnic warlords since the Soviets had pulled out. Clarke supported a substantial increase in American support for the Northern Alliance, the last remaining resistance to the Taliban. That way, terrorists graduating from the training camps would have been forced to stay in Afghanistan, fighting (and dying) for the Taliban on the front lines. At the same time, the U.S. military would start planning for air strikes on the camps and for the introduction of special-operations forces into Afghanistan. The plan was estimated to cost “several hundreds of millions of dollars.” In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to “everything we’ve done since 9/11.” Here is the meat of your article. Read it carefully. Where does it say that an attack on the US was iminent? That the US was directly threatened? What this says is this is how Clintons people wanted policy to be directed (i.e. attacks against AQ, support for the Northern Alliance, etc), without giving any specifics that set a sense of urgency higher priority. And you are shocked that Bush et al didn’t just jump to their feet and fall all over themselves to do what Clinton and his gang though was important?? :rolleyes: Ok, Clarke wanted to increase support to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. Makes sense to me, especially NOW in light of what happened, but THEN? Where was the urgency? Why, in light of what they KNEW then, COULDN’T this wait for a deeper evaluation by Bush and his folks before they acted?? As far as the air strikes go, I’d ask you for an honest answer here, but I can see you are incapable of giving one: The question is, without prior knowledge of 9/11, and with the mood of the country then, what would YOU, rjung, have said on this board if Bush had of (what, 3-4 months into his presidency??) launched air strikes into Afghanistan (an act of war btw, especially if done as they say later…aggressive and massive)…a soveriegn country with nothing more to back it up than vague ‘threats’ by terrorists?? And to REALLY go after the terrorists realistically (to prevent 9/11 as per your article here) they most likely would have had to put troops on the ground…invade in other words. Could it be that you would have said something to the effect that the Afghani’s were no DIRECT threat to the US (especially since, at the time, the last direct attack IN the US was '93)? Haven’t I heard something similar from you on this subject before?? I seem to recall something about Iraq, illegal, unilateral, no direct threat…something. It will come to me I’m sure… > [@Time article](#): > > And that’s the point. The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush. It is quite true that nobody predicted Sept. 11-that nobody guessed in advance how and when the attacks would come. But other things are true too. By last summer, many of those in the know-the spooks, the buttoned-down bureaucrats, the law-enforcement professionals in a dozen countries-were almost frantic with worry that a major terrorist attack against American interests was imminent. It wasn’t averted because 2001 saw a systematic collapse in the ability of Washington’s national-security apparatus to handle the terrorist threat. Based on what? WHO was frantic prior to 9/11 about an iminent threat? They are making this sound like EVERYONE (except Bush and his men of course) KNEW that an attack was iminent. Yet where’s the beef here? Where are the ‘dozens’ of folks, white papers and NIE’s in hand (clearly marked BEFORE 9/11), clearly trying desparately to sound the alarm and showing they simply KNEW an attack in the continential US was iminent?? If it was so pervasive then it should be easy to get a bunch of folks on record who can CLEARLY show they knew all about an iminent attack against the US prior to 9/11 and have all the documentation to back it up. Let me guess…you buy this paragraph hook, line and sinker, correct rjung? And I’m simply unreasonable because I see someone basically talking out their ass here, with nothing to back it up…right? > [@Time article](#): > > The winter proposals became a victim of the transition process, turf wars and time spent on the pet policies of new top officials. The Bush Administration chose to institute its own “policy review process” on the terrorist threat. Clarke told Time that the review moved “as fast as could be expected.” And Administration officials insist that by the time the review was endorsed by the Bush principals on Sept. 4, it was more aggressive than anything contemplated the previous winter. The final plan, they say, was designed not to “roll back” al-Qaeda but to “eliminate” it. But that delay came at a cost. The Northern Alliance was desperate for help but got little of it. And in a bureaucratic squabble that would be farfetched on The West Wing, nobody in Washington could decide whether a Predator drone-an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and the best possible source of real intelligence on what was happening in the terror camps-should be sent to fly over Afghanistan. So the Predator sat idle from October 2000 until after Sept. 11. No single person was responsible for all this. But “Washington”-that organic compound of officials and politicians, in uniform and out, with faces both familiar and unknown-failed horribly. Gee, they chose to institute their own “policy review process”. The bastards. I bet no new president ever did THAT before, huh rjung. How unreasonable of them, right? Hm…Clarke admits the review went “as fast as could be expected”. Interesting…so by April (that would be a WHOLE 4 months into Bush’s presidency) they had reviewed their options and begun formulating plans not just to ‘roll back’ AQ but to ‘eliminate’ it. You are right! Bush did absolutely nothing on terrorism!! He totally dropped the ball. But they didn’t move instantly to implement their plan, failing to be able to look into the future properly (incompetant bastards!!). Probably thought other things were more important when they should have been working 25 hours a day on just this!! > [@Time](#): > > Could al-Qaeda’s plot have been foiled if the U.S. had taken the fight to the terrorists in January 2001? Perhaps not. The thrust of the winter plan was to attack al-Qaeda outside the U.S. Yet by the beginning of that year, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, two Arabs who had been leaders of a terrorist cell in Hamburg, Germany, were already living in Florida, honing their skills in flight schools. Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar had been doing the same in Southern California. **The hijackers maintained tight security, generally avoided cell phones, rented apartments under false names and used cash-not wire transfers-wherever possible. If every plan to attack al-Qaeda had been executed, and every lead explored, Atta’s team might still never have been caught.** Damn! Even their plan, had they moved on it instantly, wouldn’t have worked to avoid 9/11 as they failed to gaze into the future and see what was coming. I can’t believe the incompetence here! Its blinding to anyone who is sitting here in 2004 how they could have been so stupid! I’m sure the last few sentences are a sop to Bush…I’m sure clever and competent Clinton would have seen through the likes of Atta and discovered his team himself. Hell, I’m betting he would have taken Air Force One down and made the arrests himself!! > [@Time article](#): > > But there’s another possibility. An aggressive campaign to degrade the terrorist network worldwide-to shut down the conveyor belt of recruits coming out of the Afghan camps, to attack the financial and logistical support on which the hijackers depended-just might have rendered it incapable of carrying out the Sept. 11 attacks. Perhaps some of those who had to approve the operation might have been killed, or the money trail to Florida disrupted. We will never know, because we never tried. This is the secret history of that failure. Oh goodie…I love ‘what if’ alternate history stuff. So, if we launched an “aggressive campaign to degrade the terrorst network worldwide”, we would have (perhaps) ended up shutting down AQ and preventing 9/11…maybe. (I have this vision of GW launching such a campaign pretty much unilaterally and based on vague and intangeble ‘threats’, and looking on this board and seeing rjung, blowero, 'luci and the rest of the gang howling with fury over it…just can’t get that out of my head for some reason). I’ll buy the theory though that IF we had of launched a massive and aggressive campaign (you DO understand what that most likely means, right? If not out and out war, probably heavy air strikes and spec ops on the ground in places like Afghanistan)…seems plausable to me. What I don’t see is why a NEW president (on already shakey ground due to the fucked up election), only recently sworn in, would have undertaken such a massive venture RIGHT THEN!! There was no sense of urgency…oh, but thats right…simply EVERYONE (except Bush et al) positively KNEW what was going on and what was going to happen. I forgot that part. :rolleyes: I’m probably boardering on getting slapped for cites to that Times article by now from the mods so I’ll stop here for now. The rest of the article goes into such things as the terrorist attacks that happened during Clintons time. My comment on that is, while its pretty clear there were continued terrorist attacks happening against American INTERESTS, only the '93 attack was actually IN the US. The sense as far as I remember at the time was that terrorists were out there, attacking US interests abroad, but that there was no sense that they were a DIRECT threat to US here at home. We were worried about other things like the dot com crash and recession as I recall. Again, it was a real threat, no doubt, but where was the sense of urgency when there were other problems and priorities for Bush? And what the article is putting forth in its ‘what if’ seems implausable…that being a new president, in his first term, with radically different politics and philosophy, should not only follow policy and priority decisions from a previous (and lets be honest…hated) previous administration, but should launch a massive and aggressive ‘war’ against the terrorists…all before his first year even was up (hell, to prevent 9/11 the way they are spelling it out in your article, they would have had to do it in the first few months), and all during a time of economic ressession in the US. And you think that this is a plausable enough scenerio and was reasonable for the new president to do, huh rjung? I see your point, as nearly every new president when they first come into office charge ahead with radical new policies during their first year. :rolleyes: > [@rjung](#): > > When Clinton first got into office, nobody made domestic terrorism into a critical issue, so Clinton’s non-handling of it in his first month is understandable. Bush has no comparable excuse. But even according to your article, Bush in fact DID handle terrorism. He simply chose to evaluate the situation himself and not blindly follow Clintons programs or priorities. I see no proof that Bush totally forgot about terrorism, but that he was moving on it slowly. You are correct that terrorism was a non issue for Clinton when he came into office, and that it WAS an issue when Bush did, though. It was a bad comparison and I retract it. > [@rjung](#): > > Okay, so let’s say we give you the benefit of the doubt on that point. That means that Bush was either > > 1. so petty and vindictive that he deliberately ignored the terrorism problem because he disagreed with Clinton, or > 2. so stupid that he ignored the eminent threat of terrorism even after it was spelled out to him. > > Petty or stupid? Your choice. Either way, he’s clearly not someone who is qualified to defend this country against terrorism. > > “Look, sir, a serious and credible terrorism warning!” > “Eh, it’s from Bill Clinton. I hate the guy, so ignore it.” Or, could it be: 1. Felt no sense of urgency about terrorism and chose to review his options before leaping into what could very well become a shooting war, perhaps putting it off until he had a complete handle not only on the terrorist situation but on his presidency to boot. WHERE is this ‘serious and credible terrorism warning’?? Its not in this article, thats for sure. Are you holding out on us here, rjung? Read it carefully and you’ll see them talk a lot about POLICIES, but I see nothing substantial about actual direct threats to the US…because they weren’t there rjung. Your own article admits that Clinton et al had no clue an attack directly against the US mainland was an iminent possiblility. They talk about helping the Northern Alliance and such, and what they should do, how they should escalate and become more aggressive (which is also too funny…notice Clinton wouldn’t have had to take the heat for kicking off what would have most likely amounted to a war). No where do they show your ‘serious and credible terrorism warning’ in there…just vague ‘threats’ without anything concrete to back em up. So, ya…I can see Bush et al brushing off Clinton and his gang if there wasn’t more of substance than I’ve seen so far. I expect Clinton did much the same thing when he took office from Bush I, that Reagan did something similar when he took office from Carter, etc etc…i.e. decided to review the situation and come up with their own evaluation of the problem and their own solutions and priorities. As to your statement that ‘he’s clearly not someone who is qualified to defend this country against terrorism’ I think he’s clearly not someone who should be running the country period, and have said so numerous times. But oops…I forgot, I’m a die hard ‘Bush Supporter’, right? Certainly one of us is a close minded, knee jerk partisan Hack, rjung…but its not me. So, now that we’ve digressed into the hijack yet again, anything additional to bring up on the actual OP? Like how is the administration fucking up NOW that they KNOW AQ and terrorism is a direct threat to the US? Anyone? -XT ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2004, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/44 "2004-01-31T08:47:17Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Or MAYBE its because your ‘evidence’ isn’t as clear as you THINK it is? Perhaps it only looks really good if you are, you know, biased, blowero? Perish the thought, I’m sure. Well if the evidence rjung and I presented is so awful, why haven’t you even touched it? I see just now you have actually looked at the Time Magazine article (for the first time?) and I’ll try to address your criticism when I have time. But up 'til now, this thread has read like this: Rjung and/or Blowero: Here’s some evidence. Xtisme: Show me some evidence. R/B: Here’s some more evidence. Xtisme: Show me some evidence. R/B: But you haven’t even dealt with the evidence we _gave_ you. Xtisme: Show me some evidence. It’s getting old, buddy. > [@](#): > > No idea what you are asking for here. You seem to be doggedly pursueing the hijack of your own OP though. Uh, YOU hijacked it, pal. Like I said, I can’t let all the bullshit go unchecked. > [@](#): > > Are you asking me for proof that AQ was moving in and out of the country, taking flight training in Florida, etc, while Clinton was in office??? Nope, that’s not what I asked at all. Where did you get that idea from? > [@](#): > > Its obvious he did not, in fact, catch any of them, and I’m unaware that he was even on to them in any meaningful way. So, what are you asking me for here? Do YOU have any evidence that Clinton even knew they were there? Exactly. Clinton didn’t know. We gave you a lot of evidence that shows Bush _should_ have been aware of the terrorist threat, and should have done something. _That’s_ not “20/20 hindsight”, that’s just incompetence. If YOU wish to make the same case regarding Clinton, you need to present comparable evidence that Clinton _should_ have known, not just that he _didn’t_ know. Can you see the difference? I’m trying really hard to explain it to you and I’m not sure why you’re missing it. I’ll repeat if it helps **The criticism of Bush is not simply that 9/11 happened; it’s that Bush was given warnings and failed to act on them.** I’ll give you an analogy if it will help. Let’s say you’re driving your car and the brakes fail. I won’t fault you for that. But suppose someone at the DMV inspects your car, and says the brakes are bad, and you say “I hate the DMV”, choose to ignore them, and do nothing about the brakes. Then you drive the car and the brakes fail. _This_ time I blame you because you should have fixed the brakes. Get it now? You can’t say al Qaeda operated in the U.S., therefore Clinton dropped the ball, just like Bush did. You have to show _evidence_ that Clinton dropped the ball. I wouldn’t dream of being so blithe as to say “9/11, in and of itself, proves that Bush dropped the ball.” No, I took quite a bit of time out of my day to post some EVIDENCE. > [@](#): > > Here is a thought…why don’t YOU produce some cites for what Clinton supposedly tried to tell Bush? Dude, are you kidding? Scroll up the fucking page - it’s there. I swear it is. > [@](#): > > Then we can look and see for ourselves how criminally neglegant Bush was in ignoring all this mountain of ‘evidence’ Clinton had about AQ and terrorist threats and all. Oh, and now it’s strawman time, I see. Now we’re attaching the word ‘criminally’ to it, even though I never used that word. Nice… > [@](#): > > Here’s another thought…why don’t YOU lay out how the administration is CURRENTLY fucking up (you know, like from your OP), with some cites to back it up (some unbiased cites would be good…here is a clue, Al Frankens book is not, generally, considered an unbiased source). I notice you’ve not adressed this, simply attacking me. Its YOUR case…make it. How is the government commission referred to in my OP biased? If anything, it would be biased _towards_ the republicans, not against them. > [@](#): > > And? When did I deny that Bush initially set terrorism as a low priority? He obviously had other things he considered high priority. Again, in RETROSPECT this was a mistake, but only someone as obviously biased as you could fault someone for this. That’s your argument? I’m wrong because I’m biased? That’s it? No, _you’re_ biased, so _you’re_ wrong. Gee, this is fun. > [@](#): > > Briefly, you are making some assumptions here without backing any of them up (or by setting double standards). > > A) That Clinton had all the information and attempted to give it to Bush, and that this information was such that it clearly should have changed the priority on terrorism for Bush to high. Fine, lets see it. Already posted, my friend. And it was Clarke, not Clinton, who attempted to convince Bush. (BTW, Clarke worked for Bush Sr. also, so it’s not like he was some crazy Clinton lackey). > [@](#): > > B) That Bush setting terrorism to a lower priority is somehow unusual for a new president just getting a handle on things. Do you suppose Clinton set terrorism high when HE first started off? He didn’t focus on terrorism until AFTER the WTC attack (Same as Bush, he had to get burned first), no? Then back it up that he focused on terrorism prior to that and initially in his administration. Like I said, that only makes sense if the universe reset itself. You act like Bush didn’t know about the stuff that happened during Clinton’s term. And Bush’s security council had lots of meetings; they just didn’t discuss terrorism very much. How exactly do first-day jitters last 8 months and make you focus on the wrong things? > [@](#): > > C) That new presidents coming into office listen to the former presidents (and their administrations) and consider the same things at the same priority levels…even when they come from different parties. Do you suppose that, when Clinton came into office he listened attentively to everything Bush I and his staff felt was important, and used his priorities on things? New presidents invariably set new priorities and go in different directions…thats why we elect new people to the office of president. Yes, and Bush focused on the wrong stuff, and that was a mistake. And according to the head of the investigating commission, Bush STILL hasn’t fixed the problems that led to his mistake. > [@](#): > > Yes, I’m well aware that the WTC bombers were caught and imprisoned during Clintons tenure…AFTER THE FACT. I’m also aware that Bush has ALSO caught and imprisoned (some of which without even trials, but thats another story) AQ leadership and spear carriers…AFTER THE FACT. When I said ‘operatives’, I meant it as operating on a mission…not identified terrorists AFTER a sucessful mission. Nice backpedalling, there.:rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Again, your dual standards are obviously going over your head here. Both presidents, after having the country punched in the nose by a terrorist attack, subsequently focused on terrorism, and then managed, after the fact, to capture AQ leadership and spear carriers. Both administrations, in spite of knowing ObL was a threat, failed to capture HIM, though Bush (well, the US and other countries) managed to take out several of the higher AQ leadership. Nice logic there. My friend steps in a mud puddle and says, “Hey, Blowero, there’s a mud puddle here”. Failing to heed his warning, I subsequently step in the very same puddle, and say, “Gee, we both made the exact same mistake.”😃 > [@](#): > > I suppose, in your small mind I know this debate is getting heated, but you just crossed a line. We don’t do personal insults in GD. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2004, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/45 "2004-01-31T08:49:08Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Good thing I’m not a republican then, huh you hack? You keep repeating that; maybe someone passing by will be gullible enough to believe you. As it is now, you’re doing the forum equivalent of sitting in a corner with your fingers in your ears – you keep repeating the same assertions over and over, even after it’s been proven that your point is wrong. I’ve had chats with my four-year-old that were more intellectually challenging than this. > [@](#): > > WHAT exactly did Clinton and his boys say that should have changed the priority for terrorism? “I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.” How much more obvious does it have to be, **xtisme?** Or are you going to duck this (again) by requiring me to quote from top-secret briefings before you’ll pull your fingers out of your ears? > [@](#): > > He said she said I guess. Source not named (except Rice who’s ‘spokeswoman’ said she didn’t even REMEMBER a briefing by Beger). Unfortunately for you, it appears Ms. Rice _did_ recall being in the briefing with Berger after all: > [@](#): > > As he prepared to leave office last January, Mr. Berger met with his successor, Condoleezza rice, and gave her a warning. **According to both of them,** he said that terrorism – and particularly Mr. bin Laden’s brand of it – would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined. > –“Planning for Terror but Failing to Act,” _New York Times,_ 12/30/2001 > [@](#): > > Why SHOULD Bush have necessarily followed Clintons proposals on strategy and policy on anything, let alone terrorism. Uhm, because it’s the prudent thing to do? If airline pilot Clinton is going off-shift and handing over the controls to airline pilog Bush, and Clinton tells Bush there’s turbulence up ahead, should Bush just casually blow it off and endanger their passengers’ lives? > [@](#): > > Do you suppose Clinton followed Bush I’s proposals on strategy and policy on anything when HE took office? I’d like to think so, if only because Clinton wasn’t an idiot. > [@](#): > > Here is the meat of your article. Read it carefully. Where does it say that an attack on the US was iminent? That the US was directly threatened? Once again, you resort to the weasley semantic games. “Nobody said anything about an ‘imminent threat,’ so it was okay for Bush to do nothing.” :rolleyes: Yeah, never mind the _USS Cole_ attack, never mind all the early warning signs that terrorism is becoming a bigger issue by the day, never mind the detailed briefings – all that matters to you is whether or not a certain combination of words was used in a certain sequence, isn’t it? What a pathetic dodge. > [@](#): > > As far as the air strikes go, I’d ask you for an honest answer here, but I can see you are incapable of giving one: The question is, without prior knowledge of 9/11, and with the mood of the country then, what would YOU, rjung, have said on this board if Bush had of (what, 3-4 months into his presidency??) launched air strikes into Afghanistan (an act of war btw, especially if done as they say later…aggressive and massive)…a soveriegn country with nothing more to back it up than vague ‘threats’ by terrorists? He rammed a war with Iraq using even less evidence, didn’t he? Now, realistically, if Bush wanted to attack Afghanistan in Spring 2001, it would have been _very easy_ for him to get everyone in the country to support him – all he had to do was get Bill Clinton to corroborate on the threat. But that would actually require working _with_ Clinton, as a peer and former President, instead of playing petty vendettas and dismissing everything he did just because he did them, as Bush appears to have actually done. > [@](#): > > WHO was frantic prior to 9/11 about an iminent threat? Bill Clinton, George Tenet, Sandy Berger, and Richard Clark, at a minimum. Yeah, I know, I know… they didn’t invite _you_ to the secret briefings, so _obviously_ they’re all “talking out of their ass.” :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > But even according to your article, Bush in fact DID handle terrorism. He simply chose to evaluate the situation himself and not blindly follow Clintons programs or priorities. I see no proof that Bush totally forgot about terrorism, but that he was moving on it slowly. Your definition of “handling terrorism” is amazingly lax. As for the argument that Bush didn’t put the same priority on terrorism that Clinton did, because of differences in personal philosophies, you are still left with two choices: either Bush was an idiot for not recognizing the terrorist threat after it was writ large for him, or he was more concerned with his personal vendetta against Clinton to deliberately give terrorism a lower priority. So which one was Bush, stupid or petty? > [@](#): > > But oops…I forgot, I’m a die hard ‘Bush Supporter’, right? Certainly one of us is a close minded, knee jerk partisan Hack, rjung…but its not me. You keep telling yourself that, **xtisme.** Maybe someday you’ll actually live up to the model. As it is now, you’re still sitting in the corner, fingers in your ears, while I’m over here with _facts_ and _cites_ – which is more than what you have. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2004, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/46 "2004-01-31T11:22:04Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Okay, so let’s say we give you the benefit of the doubt on that point. That means that Bush was either > > 1. so petty and vindictive that he deliberately ignored the terrorism problem because he disagreed with Clinton, or > 2. so stupid that he ignored the eminent threat of terrorism even after it was _spelled out to him._ > > Petty or stupid? Your choice. Either way, he’s clearly not someone who is qualified to defend this country against terrorism. > > “Look, sir, a serious and credible terrorism warning!” > “Eh, it’s from Bill Clinton. I hate the guy, so ignore it.” > > Uh, yeah. :rolleyes: You’re doing quite a good job in this thread, **rjung** , (as is **blowero** ), but I think you’re barking up the wrong tree with the stupid/petty thing. I mean, we all know that Bush actually _is_ both stupid and petty, but not necessarily to such a degree. A more plausible explanation is this: - Texas oil guys get really pissed at Clinton for sending cruise missiles into Afghanistan in 1998, thereby fucking up negotiations with the Taliban over the construction of the [Unocal pipeline through Afghanistan](http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/082198.htm). - Number one priority of Bush/Cheney upon gaining office is to sort out the oil situation in the middle east. We know from O’Neill about the Iraq invasion plans being on the agenda from day one. What’s still being hidden is the full details of the negotiations that were started by [Bush and Co with the Taliban](http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01080202.htm). According to the administration, those negotiations were merely polite requests to stop growing opium and to stop harboring Al-Quaeda. Reading between the lines, though, the reason why the administration was being so polite in the first place was because they wanted the pipeline to go ahead. - On 9/11, they realised that “Plan A” wasn’t working too well, so they switched to the “Plan B” that they had probably already worked out. “Plan B” involved invading Afghanistan, installing someone friendly as el-Presidente, say, [ex-Unocal employee Hamid Karzai](http://www.counterpunch.org/tomenron.html), and then going ahead and [building the pipeline](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm). ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2004, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/47 "2004-01-31T17:50:17Z")
\*\*xtisme: “WHO was frantic prior to 9/11 about an iminent threat? \*\*” How about this, just two weeks into Bush’s term? > [@](#): > > 07 February 2001 > > \*\*Tenet: Terrorism Greatest Threat to U.S. Security \*\* > > The **most serious and immediate threat** facing U.S. national security is from the Middle Eastern terrorist network of Usama bin Ladin, says CIA Director George J. Tenet. > > “The threat from terrorism is real, it is immediate, and it is evolving,” Tenet said February 7 in testimony before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “State-sponsored terrorism appears to have declined over the past five years, but transnational groups – with decentralized leadership that makes them harder to identify and disrupt – are emerging.” > > Tenet said that since 1998 bin Ladin has declared all U.S. citizens legitimate targets of attack, which he has demonstrated by attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and his Millennium plots last year. Bin Ladin is currently wanted by the FBI in connection with the 1998 bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in which 224 people were killed. [http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01020701.htm](http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01020701.htm) ---
**Author:** ![dal\_timgar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e57/32.png) [@dal\_timgar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dal_timgar)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2004, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/48 "2004-01-31T18:03:53Z")
On 12/24/94 Algerian terrorists tried to hijack a French plane. They intended to crash it in Paris. It was on the ground in Marsailles and French commandos stormed the plane and killed the terrorists. If they had succeded it would have been the exact same modus operandi as 9/11/1. The FAA should have found out about this some time in 1995. They can’t say it was in Europe and irrelevant to the US because Arab terrorists set off a bomb in the WTC in 1993. 1993 target + 1994 mo = WTC 9/11/1 What was the FAA doing for 6 years? Why weren’t they reinforcing the cardboard doors to the cockpits? Why hasn’t the media been jumping all over the FAA for the last 2 years. The hijacking attempt in France was on FRONTLINE episode TRAIL OF A TERRORIST and I’ve seen it mentioned 2 other times on the boob tube. WHAT THE F\_\_\_? Dal Timgar > [@blowero](#): > > From today’s Los Angeles Times (sorry, no link - I took this from the newspaper): > > 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: > > 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: ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2004, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/49 "2004-01-31T18:30:57Z")
**xtisme** > [@](#): > > I suppose, in your small mind **rjung** > [@](#): > > Apparently, “density” must be the Republicans’ strategy for 2004, as now xtisme is doing an admirable job surpassing lead on the periodic table… [Moderator Hat ON] You guys know personal insults are not allowed in this forum. Quit it or Pit it. [Moderator Hat OFF] [Ed. note: I originally warned blowero for the “small mind” comment, but he did not say it. --G] ---
**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 31, 2004, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/50 "2004-01-31T19:29:26Z")
Well, rjung, I don’t know what to say. The irony of you appealing to sooper secret knowledge is…well, ironic. You are right, I wasn’t privy to their sooper secret discussions, so I suppose that means…well, I’m not sure what that means as far as this discussion goes. I certainly see what it means for YOU though. So, being skeptical is now considered ‘sitting in a corner with your fingers in your ears’…I see. Not much I can say about that. If you have a hard on for Bush, appeals to simple logic aren’t going to phase you, obviously. Especially when you can appeal to sooper secret knowledge I obviously have no access too. > [@rjung from Time article](#): > > “I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.” Well, as I’m intellectually challenged you’ll have to forgive me…this statement does not clear things up for me. To me its political double speak that really doesn’t SAY anything. Or, I should say, it says whatever the reader wants to hear without saying anything of substance. Obviously it means a lot to YOU though as you’ve used it repeatedly. > [@rjung](#): > > How much more obvious does it have to be, xtisme? Or are you going to duck this (again) by requiring me to quote from top-secret briefings before you’ll pull your fingers out of your ears? Duck WHAT?? You figure this statement MEANS something? Well, if it does, its beyond me to see. I’ve not ducked anything here…I’ve laid out my position. I’ll do so again a bit later in this post…again. If you don’t agree (as is obvious) thats fine, but I’ve ducked nothing. I TOLD you (repeatedly) my thoughts on this whole thing. Read back through what I wrote and actually TRY and address some of my points. Or don’t. Whatever. But I’ll say again, your appeal to sooper secret top-secret briefings having all the answers because what you’ve given so far does NOT, and that I’m somehow like a 4 year old because I’m asking for the detail needed to form a real picture is…well, as I said, ironic coming from you. > [@rjung](#): > > Unfortunately for you, it appears Ms. Rice did recall being in the briefing with Berger after all: How you get this from that statement is beyond me (“According to both of them, HE said…”). However, playing devils advocate here, lets say she did go and did say that. Lets look at your quote: > [@Time article](#): > > As he prepared to leave office last January, Mr. Berger met with his successor, Condoleezza rice, and gave her a warning. According to both of them, he said that terrorism – and particularly Mr. bin Laden’s brand of it – would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined. Ok…so, according to Berger, he gave Rice a warning…he said terrorism and particularly ObL would consume far more of her time than she imagined. And from this you derive…what? That terrorism was important? No shit. No specifics either. So we don’t know WHY he said it, or why Rice and the administration chose to make terrorism a lower priority and re-evaluate the entire process…do we? All we have is a bald statement from Berger (and possibly Rice) that terrorism and ObL would take more of her time than she thought it would. Um…you are right, case close. I’m just being a 4 year old not buying this tripe. > [@rjung](#): > > Uhm, because it’s the prudent thing to do? If airline pilot Clinton is going off-shift and handing over the controls to airline pilog Bush, and Clinton tells Bush there’s turbulence up ahead, should Bush just casually blow it off and endanger their passengers’ lives? And they knew this by the sooper secret briefing information, right? Because all I’ve seen so far are policy and strategy discussions…no specifics. So, I’m supposed to take your word for it that somewhere in the sooper secret briefings there was the details that Bush et al was giving by Clinton and his gang that clearly showed an iminent threat…and that Bush chose to ignore this clear information and instead review and re-evaluate the entire process and formulate his own policies and strategies. The funny thing is, the information wouldn’t necessarily be sooper secret NOW…after the fact. Yet you’ve produced no additional cites from Clinton or one of his gang that SHOWS the details of what the threat was that should have caused Bush and co to make this their number one priority and initiate what could very well have been a war. Its more than possible that you are actually RIGHT in your assumptions…but you certainly haven’t proved anything. You are reading into what you’ve shown so far by giving the best of all motives to YOUR side, while the worst of all to the other. And you’ve thrown Occams Razor right out the window IMO. Whats more plausable (for someone NOT blinded by partisanship)? That Clinton et al gave Bush and co specific and tangable information clearly showing an iminent threat to the US homeland, and Bush and co chose to ignore it, and doing so KNOWINGLY put the US homeland at risk? Or that Clinton and his gang gave a briefing that DIDN’T have specifics on a DIRECT threat to the US homeland (possibly showing a trend of increased attacks on US interests abroad), but instead talked about the direction THEY were going in (i.e. policies to step up attacks on AQ and escalate into Afghanistan, proposed support for the Northern Alliance, targetting terrorists money, etc)? I’m pretty sure whats more plausable to YOU, rjung…but think about it for a second from someone elses perspective. Since you accused me of ‘ducking’, I’ll go through it all again…pretty much a repeat of my earlier posts, and lay out my position (again). Pretend for an instant that I really AM neutral and unalligned…just for a second. Pretending? Ok…now, here I am, looking at just this situation. I have what you’ve given me so far…no specific details, no sooper secret knowledge. I see that in your article all the Clinton guys are mentioning broad policy and strategy items without any details specifying a threat to the US directly. Now, I’ve read through your Time article, and even THEY say that Clinton had nothing on the iminent attack of AQ on 9/11, nor on any of the movements of terrorists in and out of the country. That their proposal was for BUSH to go after terrorists in Afghanistan both militarily and financially…to escalate the conflict in other words. Now, just based on what this article says, Clintons people were proposing an escallation of the conflict, and for good reasons in their minds. There was a clear trend of attacks against American interests…abroad. The only attack HERE was the '93 attack against the WTC. Now, without knowing any of those pesky details, but WITH knowing that Clinton didn’t HAVE anything on a specific and direct threat to the US homeland (says so in your article), being neutral (still pretending?) I make the following tenitive evaluations of the situation: 1. In retrosepct this was a big mistake, but Bush didn’t know this at the time, and I don’t believe Clinton gave it much thought either at the time (i.e. the decision by Bush to re-evaluate and do his own plans and priorities), except a vague sense of uneasy that to HIM and his boys things seemed to be escallating out there in the wilderness and SOMETHING had to be done. Certainly Clinton et al didn’t go public AT THE TIME, screaming to the press about it…and I figure they would have (hell, they SHOULD have) if they really suspected a direct threat to the US and felt the Bush administration was ignoring plain facts. Unless its YOUR opinion that Clinton AND his gang would have just sulked because Bush and co chose to ignore their plans and strategy and do it themselves, even though Clintons boys knew there was a direct threat to the US coming…sort of fiddling on the roof while Rome burns. Personally, I respect Clinton enough to feel that if he really did know something vital and saw a threat, he (or some of his guys) WOULD have been screaming to the press about it early on. I might be wrong about this, but afaik, the screaming is a fairly recent development. If I’m wrong and you have something on this, show me and I’ll stand corrected. 1. That it was reasonable for a new president to want to take a step back and review things himself, make his own policy and strategy decisions and evaluate the situation before committing himself and the country to a drastic course of action. Further, the highly unusual nature of Bush’s election and the VERY narrow margin by which he won didn’t exactly give him a mandate from the people to do anything radical either. This action is in no way unsual for a new president, and only become grave in light of later events on 9/11. 2. Doing anything in Washington takes a LOT of time (reguardless of which party is in charge), especially with the change over of power from one president to another (and especially when going from one party to another), and its not surprising that it was 4 months before Bush and co had finished their own evaluation and begun formulating their own plans on what to do about terrorism. Actually, its surprising to me that they moved this fast to be honest, as I wouldn’t be surprised if something with a real low priority took a year or more to get to that point. So there must have been some sense of urgency after all. I don’t see how this constitutes ‘doing nothing’ as has been asserted constantly. This seems a reasonable course of action to me, based on what they knew at the time, afaik (from the Time article they were formulating plans not just to hurt AQ but to actually destroy it…but the plans were still not complete by September)…again, as rjung repeatedly pointed out, I’m not privy to the sooper secret stuff, so can’t really factor that in except to guess what it MIGHT have been. 1. That even if Bush had of moved immediately on his own plans, it would have done little or nothing (most likely) to prevent 9/11, at least according to the Time article. 2. That even if Bush had of done everything Clinton’s team was proposing as far as strategy and policy goes, this too would most likely have had little or no effect on the outcome of 9/11, as the article admits that Clinton ALSO had no clue about the direct threat IN the US but was focusing abroad. Only a serious escallation (read war most likely) MIGHT have disrupted AQ’s plans in time to prevent 9/11, and it would have had to be started by early spring (according to the article) for it to be effective…mere months after Bush was sworn in. 3. I say a serious escallation MIGHT have had an effect because it seems to have had an effect of disrupting AQ operations by the US destroying Afghanistan in the real universe we actually live in…which was a fairly drastic measure, lets be honest here. However, it certainly hasn’t prevented ALL terrorist attacks by AQ since the destruction of the Taliban…nor has ObL been either captured or killed. So, it MIGHT have had an effect, but then again, it MIGHT not…we’ll never know. The caviot to this is the huge fuckup by Bush in invading Iraq, which has distracted (IMO) from really destroying AQ and rooting out ObL. In the ‘what if’ universe, if Bush had NOT of invaded Iraq, but concentrated on a full scale war against AQ and Afghanistan, perhaps it might have prevented 9/11, or delayed it enough that it would have been sniffed out. 4. Its implausable to me that a new president, ANY new president, would have launched such a systematic, aggressive and massive policy mere months into his presidency unless he had iron clad proof of a direct and iminent threat to the US. 5. Knowing Bush now as we all now do, I find it highly doubtful that if he DID have an inkling (from whatever source) about a real, possible direct threat to the US he wouldn’t have been leaping for joy at the prospect of direct US military intervention into Afghanistan (and probably Iraq too, knowing him). So, it seems implausable to me that IF Clinton did in fact give Bush hard evidence clearly showing a direct threat to the US, that Bush did not act on it militarily, and damn the consequences…he just seems to be that kind of guy to me. A complete loose canon IMO. This is the one thing that could make number 7 moot…real, hard information of an iminent attack on the US. This leads me to believe that Clintons sooper secret knowledge was fairly tenuous, showing trends of attacks against American INTERESTS, but nothing specific against the US homeland. Attacks against American interests, while grave, were not something that would force the kind of frenzy against terrorism that we’ve seen post 9/11, nor something to provoke an immediate and drastic escallation in US policy towards either AQ or Afghanistan…not without careful (and lengthy, its Washington, remember?) evaluation. This is simply how Washington works in peace mode. It takes someone kicking over the ant hill to get us to move quickly on something like this. 1. Far from ‘doing nothing’ at all about terrorism, Bush in fact did move on it (according to your own article) by doing a full evaluation of the situation and begining to formulate his own plans on actions to be taken in the future (if its your assertion he ‘did nothing’ do you have a further cite? Your own article admits that he did in fact move on terrorism, though not as Clinton et al wanted). He did not, however, put a very high priority on it, though he didn’t exactly shelve the whole thing either. It was somewhere in the middle, at a guess. In retrospect he moved too slowly and put too low a priority on terrorism and AQ, and his plans were moving in the wrong direction reguardless (in retrospect, again), but based on whats been provided so far fact wise, its reasonable to assume that, at the time, HE and his boys felt there WAS time to move slowly and carefully on it. Sure, there may have been another attack on a US embassy somewhere, or some other US interest abroad, but thinking coldly, this only hurts America peripherally, and its not something that really rouses the people…and thats the key to doing something more drastic and military…to rouse the people. At any rate, its reasonable to assume that taking even a year would have little effect on the situation overall, as attacks were infrequent and seemingly random, if in the end the US began a program of systematic attacks against AQ and Afghanistan as appearently Bush had planned. Ok…thats it. To me, these tenetive points seem something a reasonable person could make given the limited amount of actual data we have to go on. They don’t seem to ME to be biased or partisan at all, simply using logic and reason and a reasonable evaluation of human behavior in general, and politicians specifically, with a dose of reality of how Washington DC actually works. Tell me why I’m being, lets see, what were all the insults directed at me? Oh ya: Childish, stuborn, stupid, dense, and clearly a partisan conservative/republican. -XT ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/51 "2004-02-02T18:48:02Z")
> [@Gaudere](#): > > blowero > Quote: > I suppose, in your small mind > rjung > Quote: > Apparently, “density” must be the Republicans’ strategy for 2004, as now xtisme is doing an admirable job surpassing lead on the periodic table… > > [Moderator Hat ON] > > You guys know personal insults are not allowed in this forum. Quit it or Pit it. > > [Moderator Hat OFF] Gaudere - you know that **xtisme** was the one who made the “small mind” comment, right? Nice of you to own up to that, xtisme.:rolleyes: ---
**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:** [February 2, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/52 "2004-02-02T18:58:02Z")
Sorry, I thought the thread was dead. Yes, that was me…and I’m sorry for saying it. Did you want to get into all the insults you threw my way prior to that or shall we both just appologize and say tempers were flaring? -XT ---
**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:** [February 2, 2004, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/53 "2004-02-02T19:01:38Z")
BTW, just for the record, I was in the process of writing my last actual post in this thread before the MOD had commented (I never saw it in other words) and I didn’t notice it until you pointed it out to me. As there were no replies to my last post I figured the thread was done. -XT ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/54 "2004-02-02T19:07:02Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, rjung, I don’t know what to say. The irony of you appealing to sooper secret knowledge is…well, ironic. You are right, I wasn’t privy to their sooper secret discussions, so I suppose that means…well, I’m not sure what that means as far as this discussion goes. I certainly see what it means for YOU though. Wow, I can’t believe how badly you missed his point. Rjung said: > [@](#): > > Or are you going to duck this (again) by requiring me to quote from top-secret briefings before you’ll pull your fingers out of your ears? He’s saying, in effect, that you are refusing to acknowledge any of the huge amount of evidence he is giving you, and asking you, sarcastically, “What would it take to satisfy you, top-secret briefings?” In other words, what evidence would be good enough for you? Only that which is impossible to get? I’m afraid I have to agree with rjung. I’m starting to think only a proclamation from God almighty would convince you. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2004, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/55 "2004-02-02T20:39:32Z")
Well, thats hardly surprising of you blowero, as you already support rjungs position and to you the ‘evidence’ thus far presented is open and shut. To me, as I’ve said repeatedly, its not. No where in the evidence presented is there a clear indication of an iminent threat to the US that would cause a new president months into his first term to radically escalate things to the point of war. No where in the evidence presented so far is there anything that would indicated AT THE TIME, that a review and re-evaluation of the policies and proceedures was not something that could safely be done. To me, its perfectly reasonable for Bush (or ANY new president) to want to review the policies and proceedures from a previous administration, if they feel they have the time to do so. I feel that the information presented thus far indicates that Bush DID feel comfortable in doing so. So, ya…I took rjungs statement to be saying that there is information we aren’t privy too (which could very well be true btw) that DID indicate that there WAS an iminent threat to the US and that the new administration should continue to use the previous administrations plans and priorities without review. To me it was a backhanded appeal to sooper secret knowledge…and I thought it was terribly ironic. In fact I burst out laughing when I first read his post to be honest. However, as such evidence of iminent threat directly at the US has not been shown thus far (to my mind at least) I say again…tenitively, and until more information comes to light, based on the ‘evidence’ presented thus far, the actions of the Bush administration at the beginning of their term to re-evaluate terrorism and form their own plans and priorities was a reasonable action. They, in fact DID drop the ball, but only in light of what we know now (i.e. that there WAS, in fact, an iminent threat directly to the US, and that in fact AQ was ALREADY operating in the US, for some years in fact)…not what they knew then. Only in retrospect was it a serious mistake. You don’t accept this. Fine by me. We disagree, as we have before and will again I’m sure. Though you may (and in fact DO, I’m sure) believe I’m ready to give Bush a pass on nearly anything, and I require some writ from God or something before I’ll consider that he could have fucked up, to me the ‘evidence’ presented thus far is to thin to make an informed judgement…unless you are looking at the ‘evidence’ through partisan tainted glasses. To me, the actions, in light of whats been presented thus far, were actions that a reasonable person in the same situation could and would make. The thread is getting pointless IMO. I’ve given you my logic, you don’t accept it. Until more comes to light I really haven’t anything further to add to be honest. You will continue to think I’m a partisan Bush lover who is deluded and pretending to be neutral because I don’t agree with you, and I’ll most likely continue to think that you’ve throw out all of your objectivity on any subject that touches Bush (on other subjects I still usually respect your opinion), and that your reactions are knee jerk toward him on any subject…and that your appeal to someone who disagrees with you on anything that touches Bush is “BUSH LOVING CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICAN!!”. Unless someone else wants to take a stab at this thread to bring in some new blood, I think I’ll retire and just lurk on it. -XT ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/56 "2004-02-02T21:39:30Z")
O.K., I think we need to address xtisme’s huge work of fiction: > [@xtisme](#): > > 1. In retrosepct this was a big mistake, but Bush didn’t know this at the time, and I don’t believe Clinton gave it much thought either at the time (i.e. the decision by Bush to re-evaluate and do his own plans and priorities), except a vague sense of uneasy that to HIM and his boys things seemed to be escallating out there in the wilderness and SOMETHING had to be done. You’re STILL going with your assertion that Clinton didn’t give it much thought, eh? O.K., I guess we’ll just keep clubbing you over the head with those pesky _facts_ that you seem to hate so much: \*\* 1. (Clinton’s National Security Adviser Sandy Berger) attended only one of the briefings-the session that dealt with the threat posed to the U.S. by international terrorism, and especially by al-Qaeda. “I’m coming to this briefing,” he says he told Rice, “to underscore how important I think this subject is.” Later, alone in his office with Rice, Berger says he told her, “I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.” 2. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000-an attack that left 17 Americans dead – he [Clinton] had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security “principals” on Dec. 20. 3. [Berger] set up a series of 10 briefings by his team for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley. 4. Berger: “I’m coming to this briefing,” he says he told Rice, “to underscore how important I think this subject is.” 5. Clarke’s proposals: -“breakup” of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. - the financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. -nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble-Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen-would be given aid to fight the terrorists. - dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to “eliminate the sanctuary” where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime. 1. Clinton made bin Laden a high priority, but wasn’t able to get him: "By early 2000, Clinton was becoming infuriated by the lack of intelligence on bin Laden’s movements. ‘We’ve got to do better than this,’ he scribbled on one memo. ‘This is unsatisfactory.’ (Does that sound like someone who “wasn’t giving it much thought”?) \*\* But of course this and more has already been covered ad infinitum. What’s really cracking me up is that you continue to act completely obtuse to the hard evidence that **rjung** is posting, _then_ when he points these things out over and over, and you are obtuse over and over, you accuse him of being “obsessed”. > [@](#): > > Certainly Clinton et al didn’t go public AT THE TIME, screaming to the press about it…and I figure they would have (hell, they SHOULD have) if they really suspected a direct threat to the US and felt the Bush administration was ignoring plain facts. Another weak argument. You’re saying that because Clinton didn’t “scream to the press”, that proves he wasn’t concerned with terrorism. I’m almost speechless; that’s such an absurd argument, I can scarcely believe you would seriously post such a thing. I could write a whole page on this, but just briefly, a former president would not “scream to the press” because his successor did not implement his policies; that is, unless he’s a total idiot. And I don’t think Clinton’s a total idiot. You don’t fight terrorism by screaming to the press. > [@](#): > > Unless its YOUR opinion that Clinton AND his gang would have just sulked because Bush and co chose to ignore their plans and strategy and do it themselves Here’s the problem: The Bush admin _didn’t_ do it themselves. What they did was basically Jack shit. They sat on their butts for 8 months. > [@](#): > > , even though Clintons boys knew there was a direct threat to the US coming…sort of fiddling on the roof while Rome burns. Uh, you have that exactly backwards. BUSH “fiddled while Rome burned”. Your desire to blame Clinton apparently knows no bounds. What would you have Clinton do? Stage a coup and take over the government from Bush? > [@](#): > > Personally, I respect Clinton enough to feel that if he really did know something vital and saw a threat, he (or some of his guys) WOULD have been screaming to the press about it early on. I might be wrong about this, but afaik, the screaming is a fairly recent development. If I’m wrong and you have something on this, show me and I’ll stand corrected. What the fuck are you talking about? Clinton isn’t screaming now. He was never screaming. Let’s just imagine for a second that Clinton _did_ “scream to the press”, whatever the hell that means. Bush supporters would have bitched about it to high heaven, and you know it. Republicans would have gotten their collective panties so wadded up, it would have taken the Jaws-of-Life to cut 'em out. You’re just grasping at straws. You don’t have any evidence to refute what we’re saying, so you’re just making up completely absurd scenarios. How sad. > [@](#): > > 1. That it was reasonable for a new president to want to take a step back and review things himself, make his own policy and strategy decisions and evaluate the situation before committing himself and the country to a drastic course of action. Further, the highly unusual nature of Bush’s election and the VERY narrow margin by which he won didn’t exactly give him a mandate from the people to do anything radical either. This action is in no way unsual for a new president, and only become grave in light of later events on 9/11. Oh, sure - Bush, Mr. Unilateral, was waiting for a mandate. That’s rich. > [@](#): > > 1. Doing anything in Washington takes a LOT of time (reguardless of which party is in charge), especially with the change over of power from one president to another (and especially when going from one party to another), and its not surprising that it was 4 months before Bush and co had finished their own evaluation and begun formulating their own plans on what to do about terrorism. Actually, its surprising to me that they moved this fast to be honest, as I wouldn’t be surprised if something with a real low priority took a year or more to get to that point. So there must have been some sense of urgency after all. excuses, excuses… This is what the Time article says: “The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush.” It wasn’t “4 months before Bush and co had finished their own evaluation”, as you claim, it was 4 months before they even STARTED looking at it. > [@](#): > > I don’t see how this constitutes ‘doing nothing’ as has been asserted constantly. This seems a reasonable course of action to me, based on what they knew at the time, afaik I disagree. > [@](#): > > (from the Time article they were formulating plans not just to hurt AQ but to actually destroy it…but the plans were still not complete by September)…again, as rjung repeatedly pointed out, I’m not privy to the sooper secret stuff, so can’t really factor that in except to guess what it MIGHT have been. Well the word of administration insiders who say that it was not a high priority for Bush kind of puts the lie to that assertion. And like I said, I’m pretty sure you wildly misinterpreted what rjung was saying. And I know people frown on spelling corrections, but please, it’s spelled SUPER. I just can’t bear to see you spell it wrong so many times. So go ahead and flame to your heart’s content; it’s worth it if you’ll stop writing “sooper”. > [@](#): > > 1. That even if Bush had of moved immediately on his own plans, it would have done little or nothing (most likely) to prevent 9/11, at least according to the Time article. No, they didn’t say that. They said it _might_ not have done anything. At any rate, such conjecture truly _is_ an example of the “20/20 hindsight” thing you keep parroting. > [@](#): > > 1. That even if Bush had of done everything Clinton’s team was proposing as far as strategy and policy goes, this too would most likely have had little or no effect on the outcome of 9/11, as the article admits that Clinton ALSO had no clue about the direct threat IN the US but was focusing abroad. Only a serious escallation (read war most likely) MIGHT have disrupted AQ’s plans in time to prevent 9/11, and it would have had to be started by early spring (according to the article) for it to be effective…mere months after Bush was sworn in. Yes, we all saw that part. But you’re just obfuscating now. We need to get back to the point. You hijacked my thread with your false assertion that Clinton did nothing to combat terrorism. But in fact, Clinton did a lot. You keep trying to misdirect _away_ from what Clinton did vs. what Bush did with your “what ifs” and your “but x,y,z happened on Clinton’s watch”. I will keep saying this until it sinks in: We’re not discussing what terrorist events happened per se; we’re discussing what Clinton did to combat terrorism vs. what Bush did. That was your hijack, and I’m not gonna let you weasel out of it now that the facts are turning against you. > [@](#): > > The caviot to this is the huge fuckup by Bush in invading Iraq, which has distracted (IMO) from really destroying AQ and rooting out ObL. In the ‘what if’ universe, if Bush had NOT of invaded Iraq, but concentrated on a full scale war against AQ and Afghanistan, perhaps it might have prevented 9/11, or delayed it enough that it would have been sniffed out. I’m not sure how that could have prevented 9/11, since those are things that occurred _after_ 9/11, but if I understand you correctly, I think we’re in agreement. Iraq was a foolish sidetrack that did nothing to deal with the _real_ problem. > [@](#): > > 1. Its implausable to me that a new president, ANY new president, would have launched such a systematic, aggressive and massive policy mere months into his presidency unless he had iron clad proof of a direct and iminent threat to the US. Ha, ha - when has lack of a direct and imminent threat to the U.S. ever held back Bush? > [@](#): > > 1. Knowing Bush now as we all now do, I find it highly doubtful that if he DID have an inkling (from whatever source) about a real, possible direct threat to the US he wouldn’t have been leaping for joy at the prospect of direct US military intervention into Afghanistan (and probably Iraq too, knowing him). So, it seems implausable to me that IF Clinton did in fact give Bush hard evidence clearly showing a direct threat to the US, that Bush did not act on it militarily, and damn the consequences…he just seems to be that kind of guy to me. A complete loose canon IMO. This is the one thing that could make number 7 moot…real, hard information of an iminent attack on the US. Sorry, I can’t parse this; it’s too muddled. Did you mean Bush _would_ have been leaping for joy? The rest of what you wrote is just conjecture and/or being a Bush apologist. Since our posts are getting so long as to be unreadable, I’m going to stop here. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/57 "2004-02-02T22:20:42Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > No where in the evidence presented is there a clear indication of an iminent threat to the US that would cause a new president months into his first term to radically escalate things to the point of war. Oh for fuck’s sake, xtisme! You can’t have it both ways. You can’t both blame Clinton _and_ say there was no threat. You just got done lambasting Clinton for not eradicating al Qaeda from the U.S., then you turn around and say there was no imminent threat. Whatever. Now you’re asking us to _prove_ there was a threat? Of course there was a threat. You talked about it yourself. My God - next you’ll be asking for proof that the sky is blue. > [@](#): > > No where in the evidence presented so far is there anything that would indicated AT THE TIME, that a review and re-evaluation of the policies and proceedures was not something that could safely be done. Oh please. Nothing we posted indicates any urgency was required - nothing except ALL OF IT. > [@](#): > > To me, its perfectly reasonable for Bush (or ANY new president) to want to review the policies and proceedures from a previous administration, if they feel they have the time to do so. I feel that the information presented thus far indicates that Bush DID feel comfortable in doing so. Well that makes one of us. > [@](#): > > So, ya…I took rjungs statement to be saying that there is information we aren’t privy too (which could very well be true btw) that DID indicate that there WAS an iminent threat to the US and that the new administration should continue to use the previous administrations plans and priorities without review. To me it was a backhanded appeal to sooper secret knowledge…and I thought it was terribly ironic. In fact I burst out laughing when I first read his post to be honest. I’m 99.999999% sure that you’re wrong, so your laughing fit was completely random. I’ll wait 'til rjung confirms it. > [@](#): > > The thread is getting pointless IMO. I’ve given you my logic, you don’t accept it. It’s not logic, it’s just obtuseness, wild speculation, and obfuscation. I agree with rjung, you’re just putting your fingers in your ears and repeating the same bald assertions over and over. Your logic is a joke; it’s based on faulty premises like “Clinton would have screamed to the press”. Sorry, man - that just doesn’t cut it. > [@](#): > > Until more comes to light I really haven’t anything further to add to be honest. You never added anything of substance to start with. And this sense of frustration you seem to be implying? Double that, and you’ll know how _I_ feel. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/58 "2004-02-02T22:27:15Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Sorry, I thought the thread was dead. Yes, that was me…and I’m sorry for saying it. Did you want to get into all the insults you threw my way prior to that or shall we both just appologize and say tempers were flaring? > > -XT I accept your apology. The rule is “attack the argument, not the poster”. If I personally insulted you (not just attacked your argument), feel free to point out where, or email the moderator, and I will of course apologize. But I’m not aware of having done so. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2004, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/59 "2004-02-03T00:40:34Z")
I’ll just say that **blowero** has more patience than I do. I’ve got better things to do with my time than to bang my head against a lead wall. 😉 ---
**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:** [February 3, 2004, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314/60 "2004-02-03T01:28:40Z")
Long ass post here blowero…all in response to your last few posts. Seems its just you and me, least when I started this post it was. Last post for me if you don’t actually attempt to address my points, instead of trying to be witty and sarcastic and snotty, and simply attack me. Mind you, I don’t MIND witty, sarcastic and snotty (I do it myself) IF you actually address my points, and write something of substance. * * * Round and round we go on this, ehe blowero? I give you my arguements, and you…parrot back the same old things, over and over again, as if they mean something. Instead of explaining WHY you think they mean something, your debating style seems to be to continually parrot back, over and over and over again, the same tired tripe. Do you ever have an ORIGNINAL thought? If Sailor or rjung or 'luci isn’t there to back you up, you seem to resort to simple regurgatation. Last try for me to get through to you. I see you are up for your same insulting tricks, in spite of what you say your latest post. C’est la vie with you I guess. > [@blowero](#): > > Oh for fuck’s sake, xtisme! You can’t have it both ways. You can’t both blame Clinton and say there was no threat. You just got done lambasting Clinton for not eradicating al Qaeda from the U.S., then you turn around and say there was no imminent threat. Whatever. Now you’re asking us to prove there was a threat? Of course there was a threat. You talked about it yourself. My God - next you’ll be asking for proof that the sky is blue. Of, for fucks sake blowero! I DON’T blame Clinton, so what the fuck are you talking about?? I SAID that there was no CLEAR INTELLEGENCE that there was a DIRECT threat to the US (i.e. the US HOMELAND you bone head), and you haven’t proven I’m wrong. They (NONE OF THEM!!) knew that AQ was operating in the US, so they didn’t KNOW THERE WAS AN IMINENT THREAT FOR FUCKS SAKE (to use your own term)!! In RETROSPECT we certainly know this…but at the time they didn’t. Clinton didn’t. Bush didn’t. I’m not asking you to prove there was a threat…I’m ASKING you to prove that Bush (or Clinton) KNEW that there was an iminent threat to the US, thus causing Bush to NOT re-evaluate the situation and form his own policies and proceedures to deal with terrorism. Right? This is the heart of the arguement and you’ve never addressed it. When did I EVER attack Clinton for not lambasting AQ?? Cite? I said he didn’t catch on…Bush didn’t catch on. NO ONE KNEW! Get it?? Reading comprehension would be a big help here. You are twisting my words for all you are worth. Why not instead address my ARGUEMENTS. I think I’ve laid them out pretty well, and reasonable clearly. > [@blowero](#): > > Oh please. Nothing we posted indicates any urgency was required - nothing except ALL OF IT. Try NONE of it. What you posted says that CLINTON and HIS administration were CONCERNED, and SUGGESTED that BUCH continue with operations, policies and proceedures that CLINTON had outlined, and even SUGGESTED that BUSH ESCALLATE and ENHANCE on them. No where…NO WHERE…have you SHOWN WHY BUSH SHOULD FOLLOW THIS ADVICE AND NOT DO HIS OWN EVALUATION OF THE SITUATION AND FORM HIS OWN POLICIES AND PROCEEDURES!! Just because Clinton says he should follow them? Just because Clintons staff THOUGHT it was a good idea?? If you think you HAVE shown this, by all means point it out…but please don’t drag out the same old tired lines from the Time article again. No where do they show WHY Bush should NOT have done his own evaluation of the situation and formed his own policy. Explain WHY its unreasonable for Bush to have done his own evaluation of the situation blowero. Try addressing my point, not attacking me…maybe you’ll get somewhere. Two things to keep in mind here (strives for patients): A) There had BEEN no attack IN the US since '93 (7 YEARS man!)…and there was NO indication one was going to happen any time soon either (neither Clinton OR Bush had a clue AQ was planning 9/11). B) In spite of what Clinton was doing (and I think it was a lot, personally), attacks were STILL HAPPENING PERIODICALLY!! So, it makes sense to me, whose brain is not besotted with hatred towards Bush, that a re-evaluation and reformulation of plans was NOT AN UNREASONABLE THING TO DO AT THE START OF A NEW PRESIDENCY BEFORE JUMPING INTO SOMETHING THAT MIGHT TURN INTO A FULL SCALE WAR!! Get it?? > [@blowero](#): > > Well that makes one of us. …who can think straight. And his name is xtisme in this thread. > [@blowero](#): > > I’m 99.999999% sure that you’re wrong, so your laughing fit was completely random. I’ll wait 'til rjung confirms it. Your Honor, counsel is leading the witness. 🙂 Well, thats how I read it anyway. > [@blowero](#): > > It’s not logic, it’s just obtuseness, wild speculation, and obfuscation. I agree with rjung, you’re just putting your fingers in your ears and repeating the same bald assertions over and over. Your logic is a joke; it’s based on faulty premises like “Clinton would have screamed to the press”. Sorry, man - that just doesn’t cut it. Well, ONE of us certainly is. My logic is based on reasonable actions by reasonable men. My logic is based on looking at the actual situation IN CONTEXT with the time, at reviewing ‘evidence’ you insist on continueing to regurgatate critically…actually LOOKING at what they are saying there, and attempting to be as objective as I can and ALSO filter out the political double speak and back covering. I’m sorry you think its a joke. I have to admit I think YOUR arguements are a joke too. Where does that get us? Its obvious to me that you and rjung too have had a hard on for Bush for some time. Would you deny it?? Its equally obvious to me that, especially recently, anyone who disagrees with you as far as Bush goes is immediated labled, by YOU, to be a full Bush supporter, deluded, dense, stupid, etc etc, no matter how thin your ‘evidence’ is. > [@blowero](#): > > You never added anything of substance to start with. And this sense of frustration you seem to be implying? Double that, and you’ll know how I feel. I’ve addressed it over and over. YOU have never actually addressed any of my counter arguements. All you’ve done is attack ME, blowero, and regurgatate, over and over, the same stuff from the same source…stuff I’ve already explained why its not convincing, and who’s points you’ve never even attempted to counter. Instead, you just post it again, as if posting it enough times will somehow make it what its not…a clear indication of an iminent threat directed at the US homeland, that would cause a new president to escalate the situation in the first months of his presidence without a full review and re-assessment of the situation and use plans and proceedures of a former president and his administration. Read back through my posts…I’ve laid my position out. Read back through YOUR posts…where has this been addressed? All I see are attacks directed at me, without addressing my points. Much as I lump him with you, at least rjung has attempted to address my points. And ya…I’m pretty frustrated by this discussion. You seem to be deliberately baiting me, but you don’t seem to be actually addressing my points, just trying to point and say “look how stupid this tool is” over and over again. Then you misrepresent my position (see your first cite above and my reply), based on god knows what. I certainly don’t. * * * Christ, my post is too long!! OMG! Well, I’ll cut it in half here, and post the next half in a separate post. -XT [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-u-s-government-drop-the-ball-prior-to-9-11/226314.md?page=4)