Would 9/11 have happened if Gore was elected?

[Aeschines]

@Sam Stone

Then Bush came into office, and reinstated the old policy of being briefed daily by the DCI. This made Clarke’s role redundant, and he went back to having to provide opinions to Bush’s intermediaries. I imagine this stuck in his craw, and made him feel like his concerns were being ignored.

As much as I hate Bush, I think this is a big piece of the puzzle. A lot of this is working on a personal level. What a frickfest all round!

[Evil_One]

Once again, I point back to the story broken by Jim Angle of Fox News. He has Clarke on tape from two years ago during a briefing to reporters.

Clarke two years ago:

Clarke this week: “The Bush Administration did not consider anti-terrorism a top priority. By the way, buy my book.”

I apologize to those who find the link annoyingly inconvienient.

[Shodan]

@rjung

:rolleyes:

Assmuing for a moment that this statement is actually true, and not just more Bush Administration revisionist history, doesn’t that show that Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al TOTALLY fucked up their anti-terrorism effort?

No, it doesn’t. It shows that the Clinton administration TOTALLY fucked up their anti-terrorism efforts, since they allowed it to be led by someone who did virtually nothing except talk, and only put together a plan after it was clear that someone else was going to be responsible for actual action.

@rjung

“Okay, guys, it’s time to get serious about terrorism! Let’s put together a world-class caliber team to kick al Qaeda ass! Who should be in it?”
“How about Dick Clarke? He’s been an antiterrorism expert for 20 years, and served under the last three administrations. He’s got qualifications up the wazoo, and sure as hell ain’t a dove afraid of military action when needed.”
“NAH! He worked under Clinton, so fuck that! Let’s leave him out of the loop and ignore all his experience and insights and knowledge!”

Is this what you’re truly avocating, Sam? Think carefully…

More like:

“Okay, guys, it’s time to get serious about terrorism! Let’s put together a world-class caliber team to kick al Qaeda ass! Who should be in it?”
“How about Dick Clarke? He’s been an antiterrorism expert for 20 years, and served under the last three administrations. He’s got qualifications up the wazoo, and sure as hell ain’t a dove afraid of military action when needed.”
“NAH! He worked under Clinton, and they didn’t do shit about terrorism. The terrorists took a crack at the WTC, bombed the Cole, and all Clarke did was talk. Besides, Clarke is obsessed with cyber-terrorism. The next big attack is not going to be computers, it is going to be something like bombs or hijackings. Clarke doesn’t know anything about that. All he wants to do is play politics. We need some serious action - the last eight years have been wasted.”

All this is taking for granted what is clearly not true - that there was clear evidence that terrorist attacks were coming, and that the Left in America would not make loud noises about fascism everytime Bush got serious about terrorism.

Regards,
Shodan

[New_Iskander]

@ccwaterback

As far as George Sr. and the Arab states “bad blood”. Under George Sr., we kicked Saddam’s butt out of Kuwait. Now I’m not exactly sure how all the other Arab states felt about us doing this, but I would be somewhat confident there were at least a couple of them that didn’t cheer us on to victory. And because of this continued meddling in the Arab world, I can be somewhat certain that George Sr.'s aggression towards Iraq was a poke in the eye with a sharp stick to the terrorists.

As far as I can remember, nobody in the whole world ever said that expelling Saddam from Kuwait was a wrong thing to do, even al-Qaeda. They used post-GWI prolonged sanctions against Iraq as evidence of Western oppression of Muslims for their propaganda, but even they never supported Kuwait occupation by Saddam, AFAIK.

As an aside, the only voices against US restoring Kuwait to emir were the ones of a few respectable Americans. Kerry is criticized for voting against GWI and for GWII. I don’t see any inconsistency there. I think it was perfectly reasonable to wish to stay out of Middle East troubles in 1991, and to be compelled to support sending troops into ME in 2001.

Anyway, with great dismay I conclude that ccwaterback didn’t deliver on his promise to prove that “some” Arab states were involved in 9-11. That means that for a long time we’ll have to plod through exchanges like this:

Q.: What reasonable new policies could be implemented in fight against terrorism?

A: Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11! Bush has to go!

[ccwaterback]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing2/witness_mccain.htm

The role of Saudi Arabia in the rise of a global terrorist network deeply hostile to America must be a part of the commission’s deliberations. The role of Saudi policy and Saudi money, from both official and private sources - including members of the royal family - must be fully investigated and made public. Until Saudi Arabia itself was attacked last week, the Saudi leadership and public had clearly failed to acknowledge and learn from the Saudi role in the terrorist attacks of September 2001. The United States and Saudi Arabia cannot enjoy a normal relationship, much less the relationship of allies, as long as Saudi leaders continue to deny and deceive us about Saudi culpability in the rise of extremist terrorism. The U.S. government’s reluctance to address this issue directly must not extend to your work.
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress01/freeh051001.htm

State sponsors of terrorism. The third category of the international terrorist threat is comprised of state sponsors of terrorism, or countries that view terrorism as a tool of foreign policy. Presently, the Department of State lists seven countries as state sponsors of terrorism: Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Cuba, and North Korea. Of these, Iran represents the greatest terrorist threat to the United States.

[ccwaterback]

@New Iskander

Q.: What reasonable new policies could be implemented in fight against terrorism?

A: Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11! Bush has to go!

Then on the other hand, the people that backed Bush’s WMD fallacy all look like buffoons now, especially after his recent yuk-yuk-yuk on the subject.

[rjung]

@Shodan

“How about Dick Clarke? He’s been an antiterrorism expert for 20 years, and served under the last three administrations. He’s got qualifications up the wazoo, and sure as hell ain’t a dove afraid of military action when needed.”
“NAH! He worked under Clinton, and they didn’t do shit about terrorism. The terrorists took a crack at the WTC, bombed the Cole, and all Clarke did was talk.”

“Didn’t do shit”? Vanna, roll the tape:

“Overall, I give them [the Clinton Administration] very high marks. The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama.”
–Robert Oakley, counterterrorism expert under Ronald Reagan

So what did Clinton do to earn praise in his anti-terrorism tactics? There were many fronts on which Clinton fought terrorism. The first was in policy. Clinton tripled the FBI’s anti-terrorism budget. He gave funding to other agencies and organizations to be used against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. He also sought tough anti-terrorism legislation, although the bill presented to him was not as strong as he originally wanted. Clinton had ordered the stockpiling of vaccines for smallpox and anthrax, which became very important after 9/11. Another law signed in by Clinton was an airport security bill.

…An order to kill Usama bin Laden had been given by Clinton to the CIA in 1996 in response to the attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In addition, after the U.S.S. Cole bombing, Clinton begun a plan to attack and destroy terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, to which he tasked counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke.

Clinton’s anti-terrorism work had paid off. There were many spectacular attacks avoided because of his efforts, which Clinton himself talks about. One such thwarted plot was an attempt to kill the pope by Abu Sayyaf, a Filipino terrorist group with suspected ties to al Qaeda. The U.S. also foiled Project Bojinka, a plan to hijack and blow up 12 U.S. civilian airliners in a single day. In reference to his accomplishments, Clinton said:

“When I was president, we stopped planned attacks on the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Los Angeles Airport, planes flying out of Los Angeles to the Philippines, millennium weekend bombs planned for cities in the Northeast and the Northwest, for Jordan, and for a Christian site in the Holy Land.”

There were other things Clinton did that were more similar to what Bush has done, such as sending cruise missles into al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, as well as other attacks on Afghanistan, Sudan, and other nations that had terrorist controlled areas. Even the financial fight against terrorism was also well underway. Clinton had ordered $254 million of Taliban money to be frozen. He had bin Laden money frozen as well.

(Cites for all of the above can be found here)

Frankly, Shodan, if that’s your idea of “didn’t do shit,” then there’s no point in trying to hammer any sense into your head.

[Shodan]

@rjung

“Didn’t do shit”?

Yup, didn’t do shit.

So what did Clinton do to earn praise in his anti-terrorism tactics? There were many fronts on which Clinton fought terrorism. The first was in policy. Clinton tripled the FBI’s anti-terrorism budget. He gave funding to other agencies and organizations to be used against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Which didn’t prevent 9/11 (planned on his watch), the bombing of our embassies, the Cole bombings, etc.

Or would you like to compare levels of spending on anti-terrorism by Bush vs. Clinton? Department of Homeland Security ring any bells for you?

He also sought tough anti-terrorism legislation, although the bill presented to him was not as strong as he originally wanted. Clinton had ordered the stockpiling of vaccines for smallpox and anthrax, which became very important after 9/11.

He “sought” legislation, but didn’t get it. See also above - substitute “Patriot Act”. So, again, compared to Bush, Clinton didn’t do shit.

And the suggestion that smallpox vaccination was necessary as a result of 9/11 is ludicrous. Or are you claiming that al-Queda was responsible for the anthrax attacks?

…An order to kill Usama bin Laden had been given by Clinton to the CIA in 1996 in response to the attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Oh come off it. Clinton is the one who the Sudanese offered on a silver platter, and Slick Willy turned them down. This is more bullshit.

Oh, and by the way - Clinton gives an order in 1996. AFAIK, bin Laden was still alive when 9/11 happened. If you want to present Clinton as effective against terrorists, you are going to have to do better than that. IOW, Clinton is gunning for five years against bin Laden. Bush has only had three.

In addition, after the U.S.S. Cole bombing, Clinton begun a plan to attack and destroy terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, to which he tasked counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke.

And which, six years later, Clarke has done exactly doodly squat about.

Clinton begins a plan, and hands it off to Clarke. Clarke does nothing. Then (finally) Clinton is out, and Bush is in. As a result of Clinton’s venal ineptitude, 9/11 was not prevented. And the same advisor who sat on his hands for years blames Bush for not doing anything.

And the lefties on the SDMB lap it up like little kitties at a milk saucer.

Clinton’s anti-terrorism work had paid off. There were many spectacular attacks avoided because of his efforts, which Clinton himself talks about.

If you want to believe a known and established liar like Clinton, go ahead. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool rjung eighteen thousand, six hundred and fifty eight times, shame on Clinton.

There were other things Clinton did that were more similar to what Bush has done, such as sending cruise missles into al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, as well as other attacks on Afghanistan, Sudan, and other nations that had terrorist controlled areas.

Sounds like they are talking about the “wag the dog” thing Clinton pulled in a effort to prevent his impeachment. Or else bombing the aspirin factory.

Are you now admitting that Iraq was involved in terrorism, and thus Clinton’s missiles the day before the impeachment should thus count? If so, I will be glad to hear your apologies for stating that the war against Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.

Again, if you want to point to this kind of shit as examples of Clinton effectiveness, I will point out
a)It prevented neither 9/11, the Cole attacks, the first attacks on the WTC, nor the bombing of our embassies.
b)If Clinton did such a bang-up job against the terrorist camps in Afghanistan, why were they still there in 2001?

@rjung

Frankly, Shodan, if that’s your idea of “didn’t do shit,” then there’s no point in trying to hammer any sense into your head.

Not unless you find some sense to hammer. You aren’t likely to find any looking in the Clinton administration. Nor do I expect you would recognize any if you saw it.

Clinton does nothing to prevent 9/11, which was planned and trained for on his watch. He does nothing to eliminate bin Laden, who carried out his first attack on the WTC during his watch. He says about Iraqi WMD exactly what Bush said. But you claim it is a lie when Bush says it, but evidence of a strong anti-terror stance when Clinton says it.

Partisan horseshit. As usual.

Regards,
Shodan

[Squink]

Seriously rjung, the Bush administration had more serious matters to attend to in 2001 than continuing Clinton’s anti-terror initiatives, Discrediting Clinton: White House vandal scandal

[flickster]

@Squink

Seriously rjung, the Bush administration had more serious matters to attend to in 2001 than continuing Clinton’s anti-terror initiatives, Discrediting Clinton: White House vandal scandal

Still thanking my lucky stars the Bush administration decided NOT to continue Clinton’s do nothing initiatives.

[New_Iskander]

ccwaterback,

I absolutely agree with you (and McCain) about everything concerning Saudi Arabia. However, there wasn’t any “bad blood” between Bush Sr. and Saudis about Saddam.

Regarding Freeh’s quote you cited, do you suggest we should have attacked Iran instead of Iraq? Or what else?

I always supported Bush on removing Saddam, but always opposed his hyping WMD issue too much.

[New_Iskander]

rjung and Shodan,

I think both Clinton and Bush were doing a great deal, both were reasonably sure they were doing enough and, in the hindsight, both were wrong. I wouldn’t blame any one of them any more than the other. The point is to realize what could be done better in future.

[ccwaterback]

@New Iskander

I absolutely agree with you (and McCain) about everything concerning Saudi Arabia. However, there wasn’t any “bad blood” between Bush Sr. and Saudis about Saddam.

I think maybe we are mixing too many issues here and we are both getting confused.

It’s late, I don’t know what I think anymore.

I had a big battle with an ultraconservative friend of mine during the Bush WMD hype, and the invasion of Iraq was imminent. We had our own little “pit thread” going for a couple weeks. I decided to take off the gloves because I didn’t want to lose her as a good friend.

My arguments were as follows:

1. Just because Saddam is a crazy, blood-thirsty killer, that does NOT give us the right to invade Iraq and dethrone him. There have been plenty of other similar leaders of other countries that we did nothing about. Examples upon request.

2. Our major allies, and the UN in general were against it. I know the UN can be a bunch of pansy-asses, but when France, Germany, Japan, etc. say chill, I think we have to step back and count to 10.

3. At what price? In dollars, human life, and diplomatic backlash.

4. One of Bush’s objectives is/was to get a somewhat US friendly government in Iraq, and hopefully democratic. I think it’s obvious now that a democracy in Iraq will be nearly impossible. Whoops, now what do we do?

5. (… mind went blank, it’s too late, to be continued …)

[Dave_D]

This link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinca
makes it sound as though Bojinca wasn’t stopped because of Clinton but because the terrorists accidently set fire to their apartment.(And lost their laptop with all their plans in the process. Unless you want to start arguing Clinton has the power to start fires telepathically and used that power against Yousef and the rest.)

[rjung]

Shodan, please be reminded that this is the Straight Dope Message Board, and not FreeRepublic.com – when someone gives you a list of events, with cites and references up the wazoo, merely responding “I don’t care, Clinton did those things, therefore they suck” is not a valid method nere.

Would you care to actually refute that list of Clinton’s anti-terrorism activities with real references? Or shall we conclude you’re shooting blanks and are merely spreading bullshit from Bush’s Crawford ranch?