Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
This Guy Says Bush Ignored 9/11 Warnings.  
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6609 posts, RR: 20
Posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1516 times:

Paul O'Neill--the sequel!  Laugh out loud

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040320183709990004

Bush's Ex-Terror Adviser Says Bush Ignored Threats

NEW YORK (March 21) - A former White House anti-terrorism adviser has accused U.S. President George W. Bush of ignoring terrorism threats before the Sept. 11 attacks and of making America less safe.



Richard Clarke, Bush's top official on counter-terrorism who headed a cybersecurity board, told CBS "60 minutes" in an interview to be aired on Sunday he thought Bush had "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

"I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11," Clarke told CBS.

Clarke, who was an adviser to four presidents, says in a book to be published next week that the Bush administration should have taken out al Qaeda and its training camps in Afghanistan long before the attacks of Sept. 11, for which the militant network was blamed.

"I think the way he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11, has made us less safe," Clarke told CBS.

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the Bush administration followed former President Bill Clinton's policy on al Qaeda until it had developed its own terrorism strategy.



In a transcript of a NBC News interview, made available by the White House on Saturday, Rice said terrorism was a high priority for Bush from the outset of his term.

"We did pursue the Clinton administration policy and pursued it actively, until we could get in a place a more comprehensive policy -- not to roll back al Qaeda -- but to eliminate al Qaeda," Rice said.

She said Bush had only been in office 230 days when the Sept. 11 attacks happened.

"Even if we had been able to do it in 190 days, or 150 days, it was a policy that our counterterrorism people told us was going to eliminate al Qaeda over three to five years," she said. "This was not something that was going to stop September 11th."

Asked why the government did not retaliate after intelligence in Spring 2001 showed al Qaeda was behind the bombing of the USS Cole warship in Yemen, Rice said:

"We were concerned that we didn't have good military options, that really all we had were options like using cruise missiles to go after training camps that had long been abandoned and that it might have just the opposite effect, it might, in fact embolden the terrorists, not frighten them, or not think that they were being taken seriously."

CBS said Clarke asserts in his book, "Against All Enemies," that Bush ignored ominous intelligence "chatter" in 2001 about possible terror attacks, but Bush's National Security counsel, Stephen Hadley, said Bush did hear those warnings and was impatient for intelligence chiefs to develop a new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda.

"All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas. But interestingly enough, the president got concerned about whether there was the possibility of an attack on the homeland," Hadley told CBS.

He said "the president put us on battle stations. He asked the intelligence community: 'Look hard. See if we're missing something about a threat to the homeland."'

Clarke, who left his position in February 2003 after 30 years in government service when the White House transferred functions of the cybersecurity board to Homeland Security, said Bush's decision to invade Iraq had strengthened terror groups.






I will definately be watching this very important..... Wait, is this opposite The Simpsons?


Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCVG777 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1251 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1478 times:

Clarke, who was an adviser to four presidents, says in a book to be published next week that the Bush administration should have taken out al Qaeda and its training camps in Afghanistan long before the attacks of Sept. 11, for which the militant network was blamed.

Pre-emptive strikes against al-Qaeda/Afghanistan? I don't think that would have gone over very well pre-9/11. Even now there is a giant debate whether pre-emptive strikes are "right." And, how many people (as in citizens) truly understood just how big of a threat al-Qaeda was to American soil back then?

Also, taking out the training camps in Afghanistan within the first 230 days Bush had been in office wouldn't have prevented the attacks. They were in the planning for several years.

My 2 cents.

CVG777


User currently offlineVectorVictor From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1476 times:

Where's Mr. Clarke critisim of Clinton administration?

NBC news aired Predator surveillance video tape last week from '99 or 2000 that show a cadre of probable undesirables milling about in what was reputed to Osama's compound complete with a tall, white-robed fellow soundly protected by bodyguards.

A surgical strike that could have prevented 9-11?


User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1470 times:

It's pretty obvious to me Dick Clarke is covering his a*s by pointing a finger at someone else.


You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4466 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1469 times:

I think this man is making claims because he has a book coming out within two weeks and nobody would want to read it without this "claims".


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8193 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1460 times:

I don't think a military strike on a bunch of shepherds in Afganistan would have saved the twin towers. However there was a lot of chatter - the Russians and the French (yes, those evil bastards) warned the US throughout 2001 that suicide pilots were being trained and / or were in the US planning an imminent attack. What might have worked is some kind of security for US domestic flights, which there wasn't pre 9/11 (and I am yet to be comvinced that this has changed since).

Hey, I was on holiday in Beirut September 1 til September 10, and everyone I spoke to (taxi drivers, waiters, neighbours) all thought something was going to happen. There had simply been too much dicking around by the US in Saudi, Israelis harassing the Lebanese (my afternoon nap was interrupted every day by Israeli AF jets busting the sound barrier over Beirut), too many Iraqis dying because of sanctions, you name it. You didn't need to be "in the loop" (which W clearly wasn't, anyway) to know something was coming.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineJAL777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1454 times:

Hey, I was on holiday in Beirut September 1 til September 10, and everyone I spoke to (taxi drivers, waiters, neighbours) all thought something was going to happen.

Can you elaborate on this...


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1448 times:

This, coming from someone who was appointed to their position in counter-terrorism by Clinton and is angry for being relegated to a nonplayer role by the current administration. Also, as pointed out above, he has book coming out so he needs to try and boost sales. Hmmm, haven't we heard this before? Oh yeah, Paul O'Neil tried this same basic thing when his book came out and the only result was some liberals foamed at the mouth for a few weeks.

President Bush was in office for 230 days before September 11th, which included a shorter than usual transition period due to the Dems trying to steal the election in Florida. It takes him months just to get his team in place, including just getting a new FBI director in September. The terrorists who carried out Sept. 11th were already in place in the US before Bush was even sworn in. If President Bush had launched military action into Afghanistan before September 11th, (which would not have had any effect on the terrorists already in the U.S.) the left would have been screaming about preemptive action and how dare President Bush do this without justification. A damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The liberals would have criticized President Bush regardless of actions he may or may not have taken.

Clarke would have grounds to criticize Bush if he and the Clinton Administration had actually DONE any counterterrorism themselves. Instead, all we have here is the pot attempting to call the kettle black.

"After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today."



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

B757300, if I follow your logic, and Clinton is responsible for 9/11: in this case, Bush is responsible for 3/11, right?  Nuts

Aznar (right conservative) was 8 years in charge of Spain, and something cruel happened too.

The world of today is not safer at all, en contraire.

B757300: you clearly forget that there is a second victim: the people in the Middle-East, who have nothing to do with terrorism (and actually most people in the ME have nothing to do with terror).

They are already for more than 20 years the victim of what the extremists do in the Western World. Only look at how much people died in the ME the past 20 years due to military actions/dictatorships/...

When are you going to realize that there IS a small progressive population, that hopes to create a democracy?
The problem is that you can't force a democracy, this has to grow.

If you help this progressive part, they will be able to grow, and also democracy will grow. And those people ask the Western World to help them.

It is our responsability, more than ever, to pay attention to the problems of those people who are already for more than 20 years the victim of the media who likes to generalize terrorism and the Islam.

The war you want to fight on terror is a wrong war. It is my opinion that Al Qaeda does not exist anymore. The problem of today is that a lot of small extremistic groups (and all have their reasons) are handling on their own, 'in the name of Al Qaeda'. There is no central institution anymore that says who has to do what. Due to this, it is of no importance whether OBL is caught or not (he has nothing to say anymore anyway).

You will not be able to fight terrorism with bombing Iraq. Create democracy in a peaceful way first, pay attention to the problems of the ME-ers, and you will see that your terror-problem will solve itself.

I'd like to write much more about this, but of course there is the language barrier...


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8193 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1418 times:

JAL777, sure. Some friends of the family are Armenian-Lebanese (Christian) and have a house in the mountains above Beirut. They invited me to stay for a week (and a bit), it was really nice. Beirut is a lovely city, food history music babes etc. The Lebanese love to talk about politics more than anything else and every conversation that week started with someone saying, "I can't believe no-one's hit the Americans yet." I referred to the Israeli harassment of Beirut, sonic booms every day, and of course less than 24 hours of electricity due to some of the country's powerplants being bombed by Israel in (I think) 2000. It doesn't achieve anything except make a lot of enemies for the USA and it's surrogates. No Lebanese I spoke to since the horrible events of 9/11 expressed anything other than horror at the destruction and death toll, but at the same time, no-one can possibly have been surprised by it.


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineJAL777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1414 times:

No Lebanese I spoke to since the horrible events of 9/11 expressed anything other than horror at the destruction and death toll, but at the same time, no-one can possibly have been surprised by it.

Oh I don't doubt that... its just that they way you said it (everyone I spoke to (taxi drivers, waiters, neighbours) all thought something was going to happen) it sounded like everyone knew what was coming. Now I know that is not true but its akin to those wacky Jewish conspiracy theories. (Like all jews took September 11 off.)


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8193 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1402 times:

JAL, indeed no-one knew the specifics of course, but you didn't need to be a rocket scientist to know that the status quo couldn't continue unanswered forever. Try telling that to the dickheads in Washington, they are being more provocative than any previous administration (even Reagan), I hope they're gone soon, for the safety of all Americans.


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1381 times:

There is an awful lot of talk surfacing lately about Bush and the way he has handled the Iraq/terrorism issues facing the US.

Some of it is quite believable and some is way out there. Like most stories, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The most disturbing one (and most believable as far as I'm concerned) is that Bush under Rumsfeld's advise planned an attack on Iraq at immediately after the 9/11 attack, because apparently Afghanistan had nothing of value (monetary or otherwise) to attack or to finance and invasion. They then needed to sway public opinion around to support the invasion of Iraq on shaky legal and moral grounds.

Either way, I don't see how the American people can place this guy in power again with all the mystery surrounding his actions and the damage it has done to foreign relations and the economy. Oh wait…the economy is OK. After all the US is getting some of that Iraqi oil revenue…


User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1376 times:

There is an awful lot of talk surfacing lately about Bush and the way he has handled the Iraq/terrorism issues facing the US.

Some of it is quite believable and some is way out there. Like most stories, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The most disturbing one (and most believable as far as I'm concerned) is that Bush under Rumsfeld's advise planned an attack on Iraq at immediately after the 9/11 attack, because apparently Afghanistan had nothing of value (monetary or otherwise) to attack or to finance and invasion. They then needed to sway public opinion around to support the invasion of Iraq on shaky legal and moral grounds.

Either way, I don't see how the American people can place this guy in power again with all the mystery surrounding his actions and the damage it has done to foreign relations and the economy. Oh wait…the economy is OK. After all the US is getting some of that Iraqi oil revenue…


User currently offlineScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1368 times:

Is that continues to recovery with the economy after 9/11 and what are you still think about anything else is going on lately?

User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6609 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1364 times:

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today."

Maybe he was too busy defending his private sex life.  Insane



Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlineMD11LuxuryLinr From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1385 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1330 times:

...."Maybe he was too busy defending his private sex life."..

Yeah, from the childish republicans who were trying desperately (with no avail) to get him impeached.. Lying about a bl*wjob under oath. Christ they're pathetic..  Insane



Caution wake turbulence, you are following a heavy jet.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1298 times:

The most disturbing one (and most believable as far as I'm concerned) is that Bush under Rumsfeld's advise planned an attack on Iraq at immediately after the 9/11 attack,

That's fully documented in Bob Woodward's Bush at War. It was Wolfowitz who championed hitting Iraq. Rumsfeld was lukewarm to the idea, but seemed to warm up to it quickly. Powell was against it. Cheney was against it. Bush told Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld to "get back in the box" and forget it.

Charles


User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1285 times:


Well, here is another guy trying to sell a book, these people have no shame. Where was this guy last year, or the year before? Blaming President Bush, the guy wasn't even in office for a year, the 9/11 plot was planned long before Bush was even on the campaign trail. I would actually listen to the guy, if he was not selling a damn book, and oh, we are in an election year, more reason for people to buy his book and profits for him.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1283 times:

I blame the liberal media.


" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8193 posts, RR: 54
Reply 20, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1254 times:

Cfalk, get real. While I haven't read the book yet, "Powell was against it. Cheney was against it. Bush told Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld to get back in the box and forget it." Come ON! Powell was all in favour of the invasion! I saw his ridiculous presentation at the UN where he lied through his teeth about a couple of trucks being proof of a chemical program etc etc. The man was gagging for it. (Because I don't think he's stupid enough to have actually believed what he was saying at the UN.) And according to O'Neill's book (The Price Of Loyalty), Bush raised the idea of an invasion of Iraq at his very first cabinet meeting. And Cheney, well, how much money is his old company making from all this? More than you can shake a stick at. Plus the stick.


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineVectorVictor From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1249 times:

Cedarjet, Cfalk is not talking about early 2003, but rather very early after 9-11 i.e. launching an attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan.

User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1244 times:

Come ON! Powell was all in favour of the invasion! I saw his ridiculous presentation at the UN where he lied through his teeth about a couple of trucks being proof of a chemical program etc etc.

Cedarjet, the Secretary of State's job is not to conduct foreign policy like he wants to. His job is to conduct the President's foreign policy as best he can. Bush calls the shots. Powell must do the job as best he can, even if he does not agree. He may voice his disagreement to the President, and if the President changes his mind, fine, if not, he must advocate the President's policy as if it were his own. It's like being a lawyer. You don't have to like your client, or even believe in his innocence (if you are defending in a murder trial). But it is your job to represent his interests.

Bush raised the idea of an invasion of Iraq at his very first cabinet meeting.

As he should have. The Iraqi situation was a massive failure of U.S. foreign policy during the 90's, and had cost millions of lives before Bush came to office. I would hope that he did look at options to break the status quo. As it was, the idea was discussed and shelved as a low priority. Remember Bush concentrated mainly on domestic issues up until 9/11, and foreign policy was not high on his agenda.

And Cheney, well, how much money is his old company making from all this? More than you can shake a stick at. Plus the stick.

Not much any more, there is a Pentegon investigation going on, and payments worth many hundreds of millions of dollars are being withheld from Halliburton. There is no question that Halliburton has been greedy, and tried to inflate their profits from the war, and I hope that they get the book thrown at them, both in penalties from the Defence Department and in lawsuits by their shareholders, who in the end will pay the bill. But I have seen no evidence that Cheney himself has tried to use his influence unethically.

Charles


User currently offlineDc10guy From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1228 times:

I think Dubya and crew are worried about this for one reason ... Its true. We have a blinded by greed buffoon for a president. The worst part of it is seeing all the rightwing ditto heads standing up for this a-hole. Can anyone be that blind ??? I guess they can.


Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
User currently offlineCwapilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 17
Reply 24, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1202 times:

Then there are those like DC10guy who are so blind that they are willing to believe ANYTHING said by ANYONE that may be negative about this president, regardless of how illogical or plan ridiculous. The fact is, this guy was NOT appointed by Bill Clinton, he was appointed by Bush's father. Under his watch, several major terrorist plots were carried out against the United States and allies, and he has a vested interest in seeing to it that someone else gets the blame. He was brimming with nothing but glowing praise up until someone else got his coveted Deputy Director of Homeland Security job. Now, he would like to get back at the guy that squashed his dreams by attempting to influence the election, knowing full well that all it takes for some people is for it to be said for it to be true. He would also like to let everyone know that his NEW BOOK is now available and barnesandnoble.com, amazon.com.....you get the picture. He's the greedy bastard attempting to use 9/11 and the political debate to cash in.



Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
25 Dc10guy : But Cwapilot, Dubya is the president... Shouldn't he have the American peoples interests in mind first ??? Mr. Clark is simply pointing out that he do
26 BN747 : I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for the neo-con/Bush supporters...they must be scared as hell to wake-up ... wondering each day "what the hell is
27 N79969 : I tend to believe Clarke here. I do not believe that he is not simply trying to sell books...by writing it he simply has invited retaliation from an i
28 BN747 : I agree N79969, but I think it's clear now, why immediately after 9/11...the gov't rushed victim's family's to choose between a quick settelment cash
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Western Culture Is Doomed, Says This Guy posted Mon Jan 9 2006 18:46:19 by Rabenschlag
9/11 How This Guy Knew That Much? posted Sat Aug 10 2002 00:28:53 by Agrodemm
Poll: More Americans Blame Bush For 9-11 posted Tue Sep 12 2006 20:57:24 by Rammstein
This Guy Is Becoming My Favorite Human Being! posted Sat Aug 19 2006 23:18:36 by NIKV69
Video: What Would You Do To This Guy? posted Mon Jun 26 2006 00:11:28 by JetsGo
Libby Says Bush Authorized CIA Leak posted Thu Apr 6 2006 18:00:16 by Texan
Klaus, Does This Guy Know What He's Talking About? posted Mon Apr 3 2006 15:48:18 by Dougloid
Would You Fight This Guy? posted Thu Mar 16 2006 21:25:56 by AAFLT1871
This Guy Has A Woman's Name! Any Other? posted Sun Mar 5 2006 19:47:46 by RootsAir
How Did This Guy Survive? (Video) posted Sat Feb 11 2006 20:06:31 by AAFLT1871