I want to make it clear that I don’t believe that Bush was in any way responsible for 9/11. But I reject Cheney’s (and others) assertion that any criticism in a time of war is “thoroughly irresponsible”. I’ll be the first to call bull shit on the few people making unwarranted and unfair allegations.
While it’s true that there wasn’t a specific warning about crashing planes into the WTC, the warnings were not the normal warnings that are received on a daily basis. Richard Clarke told the White House on July 5, 2001 (and FBI, INS, FAA) that “something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it’s going to happen soon”. CIA director Tenet was said to be “nearly frantic” with concern since June 22 and was said to have “repeated this so often that people got tired of hearing it”. The alerts of the summer of 2001 were described by counterterrorism officials “as the most urgent in decades”.
Diane Feinstein made public comments and contacted Cheney’s office in the summer expressing concerns with antiterrorism preparations. His chief of staff told her that it might take six months to address her concerns.
Two days before 9/11, Donald Rumsfield threatened a presidential veto over a Senate proposal to divert $600 million from missile defense to counterterrorism.
So are Bush and friends “responsible” for 9/11? No. Could they have done more? Possibly. Is it fair to ask the question? IMO, yes.
I’ve been asserting since Sept. 11th that the White House absolutely, without a doubt had to have had foreknowledge that an attack was coming, so a big fat gleeful “I told you so” to those who denounced me so vociferously for asserting that they knew ahead of time. I feel vindicated … In your face, etc.
Perhaps someday, far in the future, on some guilt-ridden GOP crony’s deathbed, the second half of my pet 9/11 theory will be proven out - that the White House decided to allow an attack to occur because, at the time, the W administration was foundering in an aimless torpor and needed the focus and prestige that only a national crisis could provide. Boy, I wish I could have seen their faces, when the immense scale of the attack played out (certainly far, far greater than they had imagined, to be fair) and they realized the human toll of their politically expedient, wink-and-a-nod permissiveness.
Now it’s time to pay the piper. Personally, I am salivating over the White House’s misfortunes. They are in full panic mode, and I am loving every goddamn second of it.
“I am declaring war on the Pentagon.” - from a speech by Sec. Donald Rumsfeld, Sept. 10th 2001
Cite? I couldn’t find this through Google. Are you sure this wasn’t “I am… declaring … war… on… the Pentagon?”
There is a difference between “there is an attack coming, but we don’t know where, when or how,” and “followers of OBL will hijack 4 or more wide-body Boeing airliners shortly after takeoff and crash them into high profile civilian and government targets, all within 1 hour of each other.”
As far as the rest of your little pet theory, I’m sure that you can borrow a tin-foil hat from one of those Clinton conspiracy theorists.:rolleyes:
I think that’s an insane suggestion RTA, as well as exhibiting an amazingly warped capacity for glee. It suggests a command of information that no-one has. If they had that kind of intelligence and judgement how could they have been in such a parlous political state to begin with? You stupid hateful selfish fucker.
One thing that I haven’t seen mentioned is the relevance of this to discussions about enforcement and intelligence gathering now. There’s been a clamour for greater powers of surveillance (and other things) in the wake of this. But as mswas says, it is understanding the raw intelligence that was the problem, not the quantity or quality of the intelligence. So civil libertarians are quite entitled to say that more power for the spooks is a threat and no answer.
Riiight… building up a resistance to the Thorazine, are we? My standard response to such paranoia is to ask: “If they’re that evil and that powerful, why haven’t they gotten around to eliminating you yet?”
As for the Rumsfeld quote, I’m also skittish about the “from” part. Even if the quote is true (and nothing else in RTA’s post suggests he/she can be trusted for accuracy or coherence) Rumsfeld probably said something along the lines of:
“I am happy to see you all here today. In a moment, our Master of Ceremonies will be declaring this new Starbuck’s officially open, and I’d just like to say hello to my favorite singer, Dionne Warwick and wish her a speedy trip through rehab. I’m proud to sign my name on the dotted ine and… wait, I seem to have lost my pen, darn, I thought I had it, but it’s gone.”
My true and just desserts for paraphrasing a 8-months-ago speech from memory, I suppose. All right, so it goes. Mea culpa.
Rumsfeld speech, 10 Sept.
As for these hysterical insults, it’s the exact same sort of vitriol that I heard directed at me back in September, when I claimed that the White House most certainly did have foreknowledge that an al-Qaeda attack was imminent. Which, wonder of wonders, turned out to be true after all. So you’ll excuse me if I don’t take to heart the sting of your insults? No? Whatever.
That’s okay. We understand delusions breed indifference to reality.
As for Rumsfeld’s speech… well, duh, everyone knows that a statement promising beaurocratic reform is just code for “send in the kamikazes”.
Reagan use to talk about government waste, too. You know what happened after one of big speeches? The Challenger blew up. These guys are tricky. You can’t trust any of them.
Regarding better cockpit security: On at least one (and perhaps both) of the Boston-originating flights, the hijackers were reported to have seized the flight attendants and begun slicing them up, drawing the pilot out of the cabin to intervene. Three-inch armored doors with bank-vault style locks would not have made a difference in the case where a pilot, having no fore-knowledge of the plan, was able to be so easily lured to open and walk out that door.
Regarding Rumsfield’s “War” statement: I’m not sure what RTA’s intention was for posting it, but it had a very specific context (that actually related to one of Bush’s few clearly stated goals from the campaign of 2000). Rumsfield had been brought in to the administration to oversee Bush’s new plan for a re-organized military structure. (The belief was that he would be able to work more easily with the Pentagon, since he was considered an insider and that he would not run into the heel-dragging that a total outsider would encounter.) Before Bush’s Inauguration
Between some of Bush’s intemperate remarks and Rumsfield’s failure to get key Pentagon politicians lined up in his corner, the heel-dragging and resistance to those theoretical changes to the military had already begun by March. By June, pundits were beginning to place bets on when Rumsfield would (be asked to) resign and a more productive Defense Secretary appointed. The Rumsfeld Death Watch Aug. 7, 2001Rummy Death Watch No. 3: Possible Replacements Named! Sept. 7, 2001
Rumsfield’s remarks from late August through early September were clearly intended to take the initiative back on the issue, make his boss happy, and save his job.
Uh, Guin? Why would you wantShodan to have been sarcastic? Read the whole post. From the perspective of Shodan’s slightly right of center position, the SDMB’s “Left” has demonstrated remarkable (overall) restraint and not piled on with a Bush-bashing. The characterization of the board’s “Left” is simply a mild indication of the distance to the right that Shodan stand’s from the center.
Hell yes, that’s a fair question. And it should be asked as well as answered professionally.
To some of the others, it is highly likely that the advanced warning recieved was something along the lines of “getting indications that a terrorists group is planning a big operation in the US soon.” Defend against that.
Like most here I am waiting to hear more. What will not surprise me based on what we have heard so far is that the Bush white house didn’t take the terrorism threat seriously which is why the dots were not connected. Based on how the millenium was treated I think Clinton (or Gore) would have treated these threats far more seriously.
All it took then was the sense of urgency and extra vigilance to get lucky. Who knows what might have happened if the threat had been treated seriously.
The solution was not sounding the alarm about a possible hijacking. The problem was that al Quaeda got such a strong hold in America that they were able to pull this off. By the time it got to a clear-cut plan, it was too late to take preventive measures. Shut down air travel for a month? That might have bought us a year, until they came up with a plan B.
Personally, I cant stand Bush. I will be glad when we get him out of office. I dont think we really know how much info he had. I dont think he needs to be burned at the stake just yet, but I do think it needs to be looked into.
RTA, this is your “pet” theory? Interesting use of words. I think you’d best take a moral inventory of your own heart and soul before pointing your paranoid, delusional finger at someone else.
[quote]
Well now the big news is there might be apartment bombings. Shall we all evacuate our apartment buildings?
[quote]
Yes, all apartment building should be closed for at least a month; and then reopened with the proviso that all residents be strip-searched before entering or leaving the building.
Obviously this solution is no better than the national security advisor’s straw man approach to finding an excuse for the intelligence failure that led to 9/11:
Five or six times ! My word ! Maybe it would be wiser to implement a policy of marginalizing the analysts that come up with these “unthinkable” scenarios, so that the nation is never again put through such stress ? Oh, wait a minute, isn’t that what happened here ? We’d better not look into the matter then, or we’ll find that we’ve created exactly the beaurocracy we wanted, and that would be a real disaster.