I think Cato is right on: our intelligence agencies kept the wrong priorities for far too long.
What’s really heartbreaking, actually, is all the near misses we had in uncovering the plot. It isn’t all that hard to see how some very minor changes or a different set of priorities could have very easily tipped the scales. That’s all hindsight, unfortunately, and the fact is that prior to 9/11, it may well be that other issues DID seem more pressing at the time, and you can only do so much for everything.
But I do feel safe in saying that had either Clinton or Bush launched the major offensives on Al Queda that Clarke was pushing for, 9/11 would have been prevented. Clinton’s adminstration gave him an ear too late, and Clinton left the task for Bush, for whatever reason. It took Clarke many months before he could regain someone who’d listen to him in the Bush administration, and by then it was too late (and what there was looked like too little: when 9/11 happened, the Bush administration was just about to start planning a program of pressure on the North Alliance to try and fight the Taliban-- Clarke had called for massive strikes to capture/kill personell, grab their intel, interrogate them, and freeze their assets: something a Bush official described as being “basically everything we’ve done since 9/11”)
Clarke should come out with a book in the not too distant future. That’s sure to be a doozy, because he’s probably the most senior guy still living (the other died in 9/11) who really forsaw something and tried to get something done about it.
While there certainly are steps the gov’t can take to minimize terrorism, the sad fact is that if terrorists are determined to do damage, they will be successful. Remember that the 9/11 hijackers operated within the system that existed at the time. They did things they knew they could get away with. Had better controls been in place, it is likely they would have used different methods. Maybe the better controls would have caught them, but maybe not. A free society like the US cannot be fully secure from terrorism.
Frankly, I’m stunned that we have not seen a rash of suicide bombings in the US yet. If the Israelis can’t stop them, we don’t have a chance.
I don’t think you’re right John. Sure, if someone alone and unknown out of the blue wants to blow themselves up without warning, they can do it. But these are known and watched terrorist rings. The only people who are willing to do things like 9/11 are crazed zealots who have made plenty of waves long before the final act. It’s not so hard to imagine keeping better track of these people. “Palestine” and Israel are quite different: the suicide bombers there have only a border to cross, and sometimes not even that. And their cause is one that draws lots of individual people who only occasionally have to link up with those who’ll supply them with a bomb: before that they are unknowns.
O.K., Al Franken doesn’t give the answer to whether the 1993 WTC bombers were Al Qaeda, but I think the answer can be found here:
Sound like a “no”.
Oh, but then there’s this:
But then I’m having a hard time seeing how the point is how many Al Qaeda guys Clinton caught; wouldn’t the point be what he did to combat terrorism?
Here’s what Al Franken has to say ( I realize that he’s highly partisan, but as far as I can tell, this is at least factually accurate):
Al goes on to refer to this Time Magazine article: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html
which details how Clinton decided not to start a war against al Qaeda during the final weeks of his presidency (Can you blame him? How would that have gone over?) and how Clarke, staying on in the Bush administration, tried desperately to get them to pick up the plan. His entreaties fell on deaf ears.
Not that this was ever my point in this thread, but I don’t really get it when people say Clinton didn’t do anything. It sounds to me like he did a lot. And this whole thing of “well Clinton had all this time and Bush had less than a year” makes no sense whatsover, unless you contend the the universe resets itself whenever a new president takes office. Bush knew what was going on; in fact he had Clarke practically begging him to go after al Qaeda, but he did nothing.
Sorry this has been reduced to the level of partisan mud-slinging, but it’s hard for me to let so much bullshit go unchecked.
I’m a dillitante who takes positions entirely arbitrarily. :rolleyes:
If you can’t tell the difference between arresting the people for a crime they commited, and taking proactive measures against potential terrorist threats, then I guess you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between looking at facts and taking positions entirely arbitrarily.
I ask because an Israeli I know told me that such an event could never have happened in Israel, not only because El-Al airplanes contain armed (plainclothes) guards, but also because:
-the Mossad has informants within all major terrorist groupsin the ME. Many of their agents are jews from Arabic countries, who speak the language and understand the customs.
-the Mossad shares and exchanges intelligence with the intelligence dpartments of the Israeli army, and the civil police…on a daily basis
-the Israelis have elevated profiling to a science…they have software algorithms which can screen large numbers of people, and quickly identify the most likely people who might be terrorists.
Yes, hindsight is always 20/20, and it seems nowincredible that the 9/11 hijackers were allowed toenter and leave the USA so easily. One thing has ALWAYS bothered me…the 4 monsters who arrived at Logan Airport in Boston got into an arguement with the attendent at the parking garage. It got so heated that he called the Stet Police-why the cop didn;t report these guys and arrest them right away is beyond me.
Also, within HOURS ofthe 9/11 disaster, membersof the bin-Ladeen family on Boston had purchased airline tickets and were preparing to leave the counrty…so I don’t think the extended family has had ENOUGH intelligence scrutiny!
Not if you’re into playing “gotcha” games, as John Mace seems fixiated on lately.
I said it before, and I’ll say it again:
The fact that Clinton made a big antiterrorism push is well-documented.
The fact that Bush fumbled the ball when he inherited the mantle is well-documented.
All that’s left is nit-picking over whether the terrorists were from al Qaeda or Hezbolla or whatever, which is a pathetic attempt to muddle the facts and cover up George’s incompetence.
I guess it depends on how you score someone. On any subject (education, national defense, whatever), my interest is in what results have been occomplished, not how much money has been spent or how much legislation has been passed. Neither Clinton nor Bush impressed me on that matter.
Nothing about anti-terrorism activity in there. I guess it must have been lower in priority than “protected millions of acres of American land”.
If you did deeper in the report, you’ll find this:
That’s it. One tiny, tiny paragraph out of about 13 pages of accomplishements. If you can tell me that Clinton’s own summary shows that anti-terrorism was sustantially more than a footnote in his presidential resume, I’m all ears.
So you’re just gonna ignore the stuff I posted because Clinton didn’t brag about it to your satisfaction?:rolleyes: I mean, God forbid the guy should develop a national counter-terrorism strategy and prevent terrorist attacks. Much better to let the attacks happen and then bomb the crap out of random countries, eh?
It starts with discussing the seemingly inexcusable oversight of Israeli intelligence as far as the Six Day War is concerned and also goes into Pearl Harbor. His conclusion is:
It’s also tricky, I think, because Arabic seems to lend itself to a grand operatic style of hyperbolic language (apologies in advance, this is just my theory). Aldebaran, when he posts about Iraq, probably knows full well that America hasn’t “bombed the country back into the Stone Age” and “killed tens of thousands of children” but to his way of linguistic thinking it’s just a way to make a point and not to be taken literally. How much harder it must be to sort through the constant threats of terrorists and glean kernels of truth. And I also agree that, even if we make the airlines a gleaming bastion of security that would make El Al gush with admiration, the terrorists will start with suicide bombers in the Mall of America, or a dirty bomb in the ports of Bayonne or Long Beach, or…
It’s funny. I almost tacked a sentence onto that last post saying that perhaps Clinton was just too modest to brag about his accomplishments, but I thought that was too over the top. Obviously it wasn’t. Clinton has many qualities, but modesty isn’t one of them.
Clinton’s analysis was in Jan 2001. That was as accurate an assessment as you’re going to get. Other posters here claiming he did all kinds of great things is simply revisionist history.
The fact that AQ operatives were training IN the US DURING Clintions ‘big antiterrorism push’ is ALSO well documented. They were moving in and out of the country at will (they were taking flight training in Florida for gods sake). Had they begun planning a year earlier it WOULD have happened during his watch (seems a reasonable assumption to me…they didn’t catch them training why would they have caught them doing the deed??).
So, even though Bush supposedly ‘fumbled the ball’ but Clinton had some vast ‘antiterrorism push’, neither administration had a clue what was coming. Yet its cool with you to give Clinton a pass (who was in office 8 years and had a fully developed administration), inspite of the fact his administration had no more idea AQ was operating in the US or planning what they were planning, but attack Bush for fumbling the ball, in spite of the fact that he was president for what, 8 months when the attack hit? Its cool that in the early days of Clintons admin AQ ALSO attacked (despite trying to dance around AQ having done it…notice it was on their target list AGAIN, guys?) sucessfully the WTC, even if they didn’t bring it crashing down (they certainly WANTED it too)?
Naw, you guys are partisan at all. :rolleyes: And I notice that its been YOU guys focusing on this aspect and not producing anything additional to support your claim that the administration CONTINUES to fuck up. Why is that? If you have more, trot it out.
So you’re gonna go with that argument, huh? Absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Oh, except it’s not absence of evidence, it’s merely absence of evidence in this one place that you picked to look. You’re gonna ignore what I posted, and say, “but gosh, it doesn’t say that in this one place I looked, so therefore it’s not true.” There are no tigers in my backyard; therefore tigers don’t exist. But then it’s not even absence of evidence in the one place you looked either. It says “Developed a national counter-terrorism strategy”. Sounds like he left out a lot of details. That’s because it’s just a talking point. Good thing you’re not my boss. I would have given you my resume, and you would have said, “Blowero, you worked for Cyberdine Systems for 4 years and only did one paragraph worth of work?”.
I mean, geez - if you want to debate the subject and actually refute what I posted, that would be cool. You guys hijacked my thread, but that’s o.k. - it happens. But now you don’t even want to debate it; you just want to make blithe pronouncements and ignore evidence to the contrary.
Ah, more of that brilliant Maceian logic. After all, everyone knows the level of accomplishments a man has is in direct proportion to how much noise he makes about it. :rolleyes:
By that logic, George W. Bush must be the most effective antiterrorism fighter known to history, given how often he toots his own horn on the topic. That’d explain why Osama Bin Laden is still laughing his ass off, why our fighting forces are spending all their time in Iraq on a mission that the Army War College declared had nothing to do with terrorism, why insurgents are attacking American servicemen on a daily basis in Iraq, and why al Qaeda is still attacking targets worldwide. :smack:
If 9/11/01 was 9/11/00, then you’d have a point, but as it is, this is pure speculation, and you know it.
The Clintons knew near the end of Bill’s term that the threat of terrorism was on the rise, and that the nation was at a growing risk of a major strike. That’s why they held those briefings with their incoming Bush counterparts to warn them about the danger. How you translate this into “neither administration has a clue” is beyond me.
Ah, more conservative logic. “Since we haven’t heard of any progress in fighting terrorism – instead of wasting time in Iraq – we must assume Bush is no longer fucking things up”???
I think this is valid speculation to be honest. Did Clinton (or, more precisely anyone in his administration) have even a hint that AQ was moving in and out of the country and conducting training excersises, etc? If so I’m unaware of it. If this is your assertion feel free to trot out the proof that Clinton et al was onto AQ prior to Bush taking office…hell, or AFTER he took office for that matter but before 9/11/01.
So, speculating as you put it, IF AQ had of started a year earlier then it WOULD have happened just the same on 9/11/00 IMHO. And I STILL wouldn’t be blaming Clinton either, and neither would you…but the OTHER side still would be howling (sort of like, well, you about Bush) for Clintons head. sigh
I’m unaware of anything substantial that was passed on except vague warnings of ‘the rise of terrorist threats’. If anything more substantial (like, say indications that AQ was opperating in the US, training in the US, hints of actual plans, etc) were made by Clinton et al to Bush and co then I don’t know about them. It would help your case a lot to trot them out as I’ve never seen anything of substance on this (that wasn’t partasan BS) and I’m willing to be convinced. Unlike YOU (and the OP) I have an open mind and really don’t have a dog in this fight…I can’t stand Bush OR Clinton.
So, anyone who doesn’t have his fingers in his ears screaming “Bush is EEEVVVIIILLL!!” repeatedly at the top of his lungs is ‘conservative’ (and probably a Bush lover) in your mind, ehe rjung? Too funny. And I’m supposed to just basically believe that Bush is fucking up on homeland security etc based on…the few shreds of speculation in the OP? And if I produced something this thin on a position YOU were involved in, you’d just believe me, right? I’ll keep that in mind next debate.
Lets try this again. Lets leave aside the hijack, as, unlike the OPs ridiculous assertion, you’ve spanked no one on it, as you’ve yet to show that for all the noise Clintons vast anti-terrorist programs were at all EFFECTIVE in stopping AQ from moving at will into and out of the US…it again breaks down along partasan lines afaiac. So, leaving that aside…you and the OP are asserting Bush CONTINUES to fuck up on homeland security and his terrorist policies. Fine by me, and a much more serious problem anyway than throwing blame for something thats done and gone. I’m neutral about the assertion that Bush continues to fuck up as I really don’t know one way or the other. Do you have anything else to back it up besides hand waving? I won’t ask the OP because its appearent he can’t read from his reply to an earlier post by me…so I’m asking you rjung. You have anything substantial to back up Bush’s continued fucking up on his terrorist policies and homeland security? If so trot it out. Convince me. I more than half suspect you are right, but thats my OWN antipathy of Bush talking…you’ve certainly made no solid case so far.
Did you even glance at what I posted? Did you take a look at the Time Magazine article? When it described in detail the comprehensive plan Clinton developed to take out al Qaeda, did you see something shiny across the room and zone out? What part of “presidential directive to assasinate Bin Laden” didn’t you understand?
Now, if you want to fault him for not acting soon enough; that he should have taken out al Qaeda before the USS Cole bombing, then you might have a reasonable point. But you absolutely cannot say that Clinton did nothing, and that he had no idea that al Qaeda was a problem.
In fact, what you’re saying just tends to prove my point. Granted, Clinton didn’t put all the pieces together regarding al Qaeda until the last month of his administration, when it was too late to take action. BUT BUSH HAD ALL THAT INFORMATION FROM DAY ONE. He had the same guy (Clarke) that was IN CHARGE of figuring out how to take out al Qaeda.
Your argument that Bush was new to the job just doesn’t wash. Remember what rjung already posted:
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.
WHAAAAAAA??? Are you talking about the 1993 WTC bombing?
Uh, didn’t you post this earlier?:
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.
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…
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.
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?
