Maybe it's my fault for not being very specific and just making a fairly simple point in my last blog, but poor ol' [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]reducto[/url] misunderstood entirely. Either that, or his blind defense of Bush prevents him from acknowledging valid dissension.
In case you missed it, I made a pretty basic observation not on the August 6 PDB itself, but on the administration's feeble attempt at defending its actions- or lack thereof, actually. My point was that to claim there was no immediate action taken because there was no 'smoking gun' to signify this need is not a convincing explanation [b]given the fact that Bush chose to attack Iraq[/b] in a pre-emptive strike. In case you weren't aware, though I'm sure reducto was, I did not support the move to attack Iraq, as I did not feel that there was a convincing, if any, justification for war. My criticism of Bush's defense that al-Qaeda wasn't attacked because there wasn't enough information detailing their intentions is not necessarily that he should have attacked regardless, but that Bush has no room to claim this approach at foreign policy when his stylings favor pre-emption. It is a bit hypocritical for Bush to say that war in Iraq was warranted based on the intentions of Hussein but no action against al-Qaeda was immediately necessary, given basically the same information. We have known for years that both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were dangerous and capable of attacking us. Hussein violated UN resolutions and refused to say whether he had WMD or not. We can leave the debate over whether this justified a war or not alone for right now, but all this says is that we knew Hussein was capable of attacking and that he may have had intentions to do so. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda differ from the threat posed by Hussein in that it is a terrorist group, not a nation-state. They defy UN regulations, as they are not subject to them, and continually plot against the US. We've known for years that they had intentions to attack us. Though the PDB does not state specifically that terrorists had plans to hijack airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, it did state that members of al-Qaeda had entered the country and were planning on attacking on American soil. There was information that should have been looked at and dealt with. Whether or not the information would have been enough to thwart the mission of 9/11 or not had it been immediately acted upon, I do not know. How important that is, I also don't know. My opinion is that the threat was obvious and somehow the significance was not understood or acted on by those in power. No matter who you are, you have to agree that not enough was done to prevent 9/11.
Now let me try and answer reducto's questions: [i]"Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."
Question: given the US policy on terrorism as lawbreaking, how could we have arrested bin Laden for this? The policy of preemption wasn't completed until Sept. 4. On what grounds would we then arrest Bin Laden?[/i]
Arresting bin Laden doesn't even have that much to do with this information. I think the fact that al-Qaeda was planning on finishing Yousef's job is pertinent enough to at least take some action to protect the World Trade Center.
[i]Question: what solid intel, in the memo or otherwise, would have indicated planes flying into buildings? And, what, again, was the US to do pre-911 with the US policy in place, and pre-Bush doctrine, that would have stopped this?[/i]
What solid intel indicated that Hussein had WMD, and is that intel to be trusted? Hmm... If we had known that planes flying into buildings was the plan, we definitely should have been able to prevent it. Even without that very specific knowledge, it was known, or should have been known, that bin Laden was planning on attacking, that the WTC were targets, and that this threat was serious. And, sweetheart, if you're so stuck on the horrible policies in place before Bush, why the hell didn't Bush change the policies- [b]he[/b] was in office then.
[i]Question: Given US policy at the time, why didn't CLinton arrest these folk for plotting attacks in 1998?[/i]
Well, that is a somewhat valid question. Was Clinton aware of this? And on what grounds would he have them arrested, exactly- recruitment?
[i]"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
"The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives."
Question: What, do you think, the President could have done if he knew the FBI was on the job and, at the same time, was crafting his terror policy? Is he psychic? Where's the specific threat?[/i]
You're right, there is no specific threat. But the fact that there is a clear threat at all is enough to expect some action to have been taken.
Look, I don't think it makes much sense to blame Bush or to blame Clinton, or either of their administrations for the attacks. However, there has to be some responsibility in terms of protecting the nation. I don't think it is stupid to want answers from the administration, especially when all the 'answers' given only raise more questions.
Yeah, I don't blame Clinton or Bush either--they both dropped the ball to some extent or other. But there's plenty of blame to go around beyond the man at the top. The difference is the stakes for the Republicans are higher--Bush is running for office, Clinton isn't. Hence the intense defense of Bush, and the desperate attempt to pass the buck BACK to Clinton.
I thought James wasn't even going to vote for Bush. ::shrugs::
I thought he was gonna fill in a blank and put in his daddy's name for prez instead. That's what he said on his other weblog.
posted by: SamAdams (reply)
post date: 04.11.04 (6:23 pm)
Reply to: whoisjohngalt
You may give Bush the benefit of the doubt. I don't for the following reasons:
1. It is his job to follow-up with the CIA & FBI to ensure that they are taking all steps necessary. Both agencies deny that Bush/Rice actually asked them to seek out Al Qaida operatives in the USA...
2. At minimum, Bush/Rice should have advised Americans about of threat of terrorism.
I fully acknowlege that a valid argument can be made that no one (neither Clinton, nor Bush) could have foreseen that the 9/11 tragedy could be so horrific.
But even ex-Cabinet Officials and Pentagon offiicals confirm that Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld were overly obsessed with Iraq and not paying sufficient attention to terrorism. (There was NO EXCUSE to invade Iraq using 9/11 to scare Americans into believing in some fantastic non-existent link and phony WMDs)...
Moreover, Bush has obstructed the 9/11 commission from the outset. There is more behind the scenes than we are being told.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 04.11.04 (6:46 pm)
i don't think bush did a good job. if 9/11 had happened under clinton the republicans would have blamed him and would have crucified sandy berger, national security adviser.
bush doesn't seem to be held accountable for anything. it is sad.
You all sure set the performance bar LOW for Dubya don't you? Apparently in your estimation, the President isn't accountable for anything (oh yes, I correct myself, for sex scandals-- that's awful)-- but for not taking ANY action? That's okay!
Bush did not take ANY actions to prevent 9/11. Did Clinton? We don't know: the disaster didn't happen on his watch. When disasters DON'T HAPPEN, those who prevent them don't get CREDIT... But they sure as hell deserve the blame, when they don't do enough to prevent them... In your attempts to sound "fair", you sound foolish.
Reply to: CheckItOut
"You all sure set the performance bar LOW for Dubya don't you? "
Can you blame us--just listen to the man speak for God's sake. ;) Seriously though, yes, low expectations have played a large role in Bush's "successes". Look at the 2000 debates for the best example.
And as I said to Sam, I think Bush should be held accountable for putting it on the back burner, so to speak. However, a lot of other failures helped lead up to that. Had the CIA/FBI had come forward with everything they knew, perhaps Bush would have done something different. And had he pushed them, maybe they would have. We'll never know...
I guess I should have written, "I don't ENTIRELY blame Clinton and/or Bush...". Little clarification there.
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 04.12.04 (10:26 am)
The fact is that all these statements that nobody could have forseen 9/11 is a big lie. I'm sure that lots of people who knew about the first WTC bombing suspected that it's only a matter of time before they try again.
As for airport security, airports used to have signs advertising what sorts of weapons could be brought on board. At the time, I thought our security was laugable. It's no longer funny. We advertised that you can take a 3 inch knife on the plane and nobody cared.
Now we found the problems, so we slammed the front door shut and left the back door open. We've seen terrorists blow up trains in Spain with small bombs. We did nothing to prevent such bombs from getting on airplanes or into airports in another way that will arouse no suspicion.
If somebody blows up an airplane now, will the White House say that nobody could have forseen it? Probably. Will it be true? Of course not.
"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins
