Well, them and the OP.
I am usually pretty anti-Bush on these boards. Just don’t really like or agree with him. In this case though, pointing fingers doesn’t seem very appropriate, at least with the information we have. What we need to do as a government is learn from our mistakes and miscommunication and try to prevent something like this from happening again.
Really, the only problem I have is that when Bush said that we had no warning whatsoever that something like this might happen. He received a report in August at his ranch that speculated that something like this might happen. This administration scores no points with me as long as they continue to be as secretive as possible.
If what is said about Ashcroft is true (and I’m not 100% up-to-date on all that’s been released), I would say it is a wise move because Ashcroft is a very high-profile target. Perhaps, just perhaps, someone thought they were reducing the chances of a hijacking by taking high profile targets away from potential hijackers.
Actually, that’s how sessions go when you are trying to evaluate an unknown. You throw everything at the wall, see what sticks. Then you look at everything on the ground, see how it arranged when it fell for new clues, take notes, and start again. Over and over. I’m not saying mine is the right answer and yours is wrong. I’m only saying is that there are many, many sides to the issue. Given that there is a lot of sensitive information that could be detrimental to our overall intelligence efforts if released, we are probably not getting the whole picture (neither, likely, is the whole of Congress). If I’m going to err, I’m going to err on the side that says the President/FBI/Det. Munch/Underdog would have prevented these events had they had any usable knowledge, and not try the knowledge they had in hindsight. Of course, I also don’t look at the answers to the crossword before I’ve finished.
From the AP:
I.e., they’re all a bunch of LYING murderously negligent assholes.
And I got an email telling me to stay out of the malls on Halloween. I also have been told to be on super secret dog dare high alert for nine months and guess what…those turned out to be empty threats.
You think when it didn’t happen in a year or so they began to maybe dismiss it a bit? Or should we have shut down the country to all air travel just to be safe?
j
And for the apologists who’ve checked into this thread, I’ll clarify something that I naively thought would not require clarification.
If I’d thought they were literally murderers, I’d’ve used that word. To call someone “murderously negligent,” while perhaps a bit histrionic, is not the same thing as calling them murderers. Their negligence, insofar as it contributed to the ease with which AQ pulled this off, contributed to the murder of X,000 people. Therefore, to that extent, their negligence was “murderous.”
What negligence? I’m not saying ObL mailed them a post card that read, “Dear American Satan. On September 11, 2001, my minions will crash fully fueled 747s into the WTC and the Pentagon. Wish you were here.” The apologists seem to be claiming an ignorance of the “specifics” as their only defense.
This of course is bullshit spin. They had enough info for any third-rate detective to deduce the possibility that–SPECIFICALLY–followers of Osama bin Laden might be thinking about suicidally crashing an airplane into the Pentagon, or other government buildings.
AT A MINIMUM, they should have mandated secure cockpit doors on all jetliners.
This would have been the minimally competent action taken by an EFFECTIVE government intelligence apparatus; one that was making the minimal effort to coordinate and analyze incoming intelligence.
The intelligence was there; nobody did the math.
Well, I certainly don’t see why Bush personally should have put the pieces together, or even Rummy or Rice. They have people to do data analysis, Bush’s job is to decide what to do about it.
But then again. 9/11 is a week and a half after the end of Bush’s month-long vacation in Crawford (in August). and it certainly seems reasonable to expect that Al Qeida knew that (and may have taken advantage of the the fact that the government was in partial stand-down during that month) to finalize their plans.
Congress was also in recess during the month of August, so Wash was in some ways shut down. It would seem likely that higher ups in the intelligence community would time their vacations to match that of the executive/legislative branches.
Furthermore, we know that Clinton was very concerned about Bin Laden. He had an attack boat on station for most of his last term (since the embassy bombing) just waiting for a chance to send a cruise missile up Bin’s ass. One of the first things that Bush did was to shut that operation down. This act certainly suggests that Bush didn’t take Bin Laden as seriously was Clinton did.
We have the intelligence that Bin Laden, whose MO is to blow things up, was planning to Hijack an airplane. I can see how the Admin would discount that possibility because it seems out of character for him, but if they DID take it seriously they had to have known that he planned to do something more deadly than grab a bunch of hostages and make demands. The notion of an intentional crash seems pretty obvious when you know that a suicide terrorist plans to hijack an airplane.
The fact that they told the Pres about the potential hijacking in August suggests that they took the possibility of a hijacking seriously. Rice and Ari now claim that they could not have known that Bin Laden planned to make planes into missiles, but that just makes them incompetent at data analysis, What else would he do with them?. This is not a guy looking for a platform to broadcast his message, this is a guy looking to do damage to American interests. The Bush Admin seems to be claiming that they didn’t ever connect up Bin Laden’s pattern of behavior with the knowledge that he was panning a hijacking. I’m inclined to believe that’s a lie, because if it’s true, then that’s pretty incompetent, and the past accomplishments of Rice, Rums, etc
aren’t the sort of things incompetent people do. (Bush, on the other hand, is a lifelong incompetent, but remember, we aren’t expecting him to do the data analysis personally).
I’d be much more inclined to believe them if they said that they hadn’t believed that the hijacking was actually one of Bin Laden’s plans, than what they are saying now: That they had believed the hijacking, but didn’t think it would be deadly.
Still, the intelligence failure is at a lower level, What Bush can be faulted for is de-emphasizing the threat of Bin Laden (relative to Clinton). and possibly creating the lack of attention in the lower ranks that in turn lead to the failure to put the pieces together.
Now that I think of it, I’d be willing to give long odds that the fact that the attack came in September, just after Bush’s vacation, was not a coincidence at all. I’ll bet that Bin Laden is apt to believe that the inattention of the Pres is more important than it really is; Because HE lives in a very autocratic society…
Ya know, so far I’m not really upset about the revelations of the past few days. We’ll see where this leads.
What I am pissed off about is the defense being put forward by the Bush Administration - that they had “nothing specific”
Not specific? What, we can’t figure anything out until we intercept a phone conversation from Osama to Achmed telling him to take a flight from Boston “and don’t forget to bring your knives”? Isn’t that the point of analyists - to analyze snippets of information and figure out what they mean?!!
It may well turn out that the Bushies didn’t have enough snippets for even a good analyst to have figured it out ahead of time. But the current line is bullshit - of course you had nothing specific. The question is - did you have enough to figure it out?
Sua
I guess Condoleeza ignored the information because it was assembled by liberals ? Or maybe as recently as yesterday, she thought that this information would never become public, and it would be safe to pull the wool back over everyone’s eyes ? The president can only act on information that he has, but Condoleeza had a responsibility to put things together. Apparently she still hasn’t got the hang of that.
But wasn’t Clinton in office two years ago, lissener? ( I am not pointing a finger at Clinton, just away from Bush…for now)
Tretiak believe the point being made by those quotes is that the Bush Admin stance of “we couldn’t have known they’d fly planes into buildings to blow them up” isn’t necessarily accurate, since the idea had been brought up before.
You know, once again, I knew I should’ve anticipated this, but I keep having faith in the millions . . .
A. I never said (have never said) that Clinton is any kind of hero of mine. And though he DID specifically target ObL, those attempts failed.
B. The failure of intelligence that happened on Bush’s watch included more than the 1999 report. It was not on Clinton’s watch that the SPECIFIC intelligence of ObL’s possible highjacking plans surfaced; that there was a NOTED trend of unqualified Arabs on student visas were going to flight school–and even that one flight school owner told the FBI of the Arab student who didn’t want to learn to land!
I mean, come on, do the effing math! The clues were there! If I can deduce from those items of intelligence that a follower of ObL might someday think about crashing a plane into a building, surely an intelligence professional should be capable of the same level of reasoning?!?! What are they there for?
If “the idea had been brought up before” is the appropriate standard, there’s no reason to read those boring government reports. Instead, we can just read the collected works of Tom Clancy.
Bildo What are you saying?
The quote cited was from a government report, in 1999 suggesting that OBL’s group may use an airplane against a building. in 2001, Bush is advised of the link OBL/hijacking.
Bush today says ‘he couldn’t have known that OBL would use a plane as a missile’. Of course he could have known, since the government apparently knew/speculated that it was possible for 2 years prior.
haven’t a clue what you’re attempting to say re: Clancy.
FTR - I don’t believe that Bush et al are ‘responsible’. However for him to claim at this point that he had ‘no way of knowing it could be done’ is, well not entirely accurate, now, is it.
Billdo putting aside that actual people are paid to sift through the information – hey, shouldn’t we ask for a refund at the very least? – your Tom Clancy comment is quite ironic…
Or did you forget that the after Sept. 11th, Hollywood scriptwriters were tapped for their terrorist plot insight? They didn’t need to read the book – they caught the movie.
There is no evidence at all that Ashcroft flew in private planes because of a threat of terrorist hijackings. Why would Obl target Ashcroft? I can see the President, but the Attorney General? There’s a good chance Obl didn’t even know who Ashcroft is, as he’d only been in office several months. Isn’t the conventional wisdom that the terrorists plans began much earlier?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml
According to the article, the FBI recommended he not fly commercial due to an “unspecified threat”. Probably from some person or persons unhappy with his appointment/confirmation, IMHO. But foreign terrorists? Don’t think so.
Well, since it is so clear and obvious, perhaps you can let the rest of us know what ObL and Co. are going to do next.
Go ahead - I’ll wait.
And incidentally - color me impressed. Even a board with a fairish contingent of leftwing commie flag-burner-defending hommosexshul-condoning motherhood-questioning sandal-wearing bean-sprout-eating vegan atheist pinko neo-socialist pervert hippie smart-alecks -
still can have the kind of objectivity about Bush that I wish I had towards MY political opponents.
Well done!
If you don’t mind kudos from the far, far, far right.
Regards,
Shodan
Don’t you love the unbiased media? It would probably have killed them to point out that exactly two years before Sept. 11, 2001 it was Sept. 11, 1999, and that the “executive branch” was “Bill Clinton and Al Gore.”
I’d sure like to know just exactly if, and to what degree, Clinton and his Cabinet briefed the incoming Bush administration on this report and their opinions of it.
Don’t you love the unbiased media? It would probably have killed them to point out that exactly two years before Sept. 11, 2001 it was Sept. 11, 1999, and that the “executive branch” was “Bill Clinton and Al Gore.”
I’d sure like to know just exactly if, and to what degree, Clinton and his Cabinet briefed the incoming Bush administration on this report and their opinions of it. **
[/QUOTE]
Nope, “warning” has a W in it, so it didn’t happen.
Isn’t the fact that a hijack was threatened by a known terrorist who had taken previous action against the U.S. enough to warrant increased security measures regardless of the lack of knowledge of details such as (1) how the hijacker(s) would use the subject aircraft; and (2) exactly how or when such attack may occur?
“Murderously negligent assholes?” = manslaughterers?