No one had to die on 9/11, nor in the 2 wars that followed. It was all preventable.
IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning's "presidential daily brief" - the top-secret document prepared by America's intelligence agencies - featured the now-infamous heading: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief - and only that daily brief in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document's significance....
For context and the the rest of the inarguable facts: mobile.nytimes.com
I feel sorry that you hate President Bush so much. If I recall, President Clinton had a great opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden, but chose not to. Granted killing or capturing Osama bin Laden may not have prevented the attacks.
ReplyDeleteHere's an article from Forbes on that. I don't know is this an opinion piece like yours or not.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2011/05/05/bin-laden-lived-to-fight-another-day-thanks-to-bill-clinton/
Peace,
Randy
The Clinton thing is debatable; a 'what if' game. You can play what-if games all day. It's fun, but meaningless. For every "he could have done X" there's an equal and opposite counter agrument. It's a parlor game.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, the Bush thing is the factual historical record, with no 'what ifs' at all.
The inarguable record says that the then-President got almost 6 months worth of briefings that stated that (a) there were teams of hostile AQ agents in the US; (b) they planned a mass attack with large numbers of casualties; (c) and they planned to use airplanes as weapons.
In response, the Bush administration decided to do nothing, and in fact, Bush took a month-long vacation.
That inaction lead to >3000 immediate civilian US deaths, 2 unfunded wars with something north of a quarter million deaths, and staggering debt...
Those are facts, Randy. That's history.
If you want to post a Forbes "what if" fantasy against that, feel free.
And if you want to forgive Bush for the deaths, the wars, the debt, the ersosion of civil liberties, the burgeoning of an orwellian federal government, the near collapse of the global economy, that's OK too. Feel free.
I can forgive him as a person --- he's kind of a dim bulb and was a puppet to the much-smarter neocons around him ---- but I won't forgive the neocon philosophy with its greed, arrogance, sanctimony, and disregard of basic human rights at home and abroad.
That's why it's important to remember what actually happened, and not to let silly what-if fantasies cloud the actual, factual historical record.
After all, those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteThe article doesn't mention that anyone knew that "they planned to use airplanes as weapons". Could you please post a source for that?
To me the most important paragraph in the opinion piece is the second to last beginning with "In the aftermath of 9/11".
No one knew where the attack would take place. Would it be at sports stadiums, malls, power plants, water treatment plants, large cities, planes, large buildings, national monuments, etc... And even if we knew it was planned for the World Trade Centers, I wonder if we would have guessed correctly that they would use planes as missiles? So it appears that you are also playing the "what if" game, perhaps at a different level and with more concrete facts, but still playing "what if".
Here is another article describing an opportunity for Clinton to capture Osama bin Laden. Likewise, I don't know if it's actually true.
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
I admit that I haven't read the 9/11 Report so don't know everything that you do. I'm beginning to believe you think President Bush, *wanted* this to happen or is apathetic about it. Or is he just so naive that he doesn't know that he was being manipulated?
Peace,
Randy
This is a pointless argument. I'm well aware you can find lots of material to "prove" what you want. Have fun with it.
ReplyDeleteIf you'd like to hear some facts, read Richard Clarke's book. He was called the "counterterrorism czar;" his formal title was National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism for the United States.
He was apolitical; he worked for Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush2. His career came to a screeching halt under Bush2, in part because he made himself a pain in the ass trying to sound alarms, which the Bush Administration didn't want to hear.
If the book's too much bother, this has a synopsis: http://www.justiceblind.com/airplanes.html
There's plenty more, but again, this is silly. I cite the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism for the United States, you cite Mansoor Ijaz, an investment banker. I mean, come on.
I'm done with this thread.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteYes, in hindsight it was silly of me to cite Mansoor Ijaz. I noticed the LA Times and thought that was reputable.
And yes, you are correct that I don't have the time to read Richard Clarke's book.
I'm sorry if I'm coming across as a political neocon, I'm really just trying to have a polite political conversation.
Peace,
Randy