so maybe 'no inkling' is going a little far
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bush was warned about sept 11.
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
You did not answer the question, of course...
Drinking the Bush Kool Aid does that to folks like you...
Unlike you, I'm not drinking anything. You would rather argue semantics and parse sentences than face the facts. Bush took action after 911. Except for bombing an aspirin factory, Clinton took no action after at least 3 attacks during is EIGHT YEARS in office. It really is that simple.
Quote from Pabst:
To me inkling= information. Did any EVIDENCE of a terror plot involving U.S. airliners filter up to the WH? No.
no problem, we can go with that. the fact is they certainly had an inkling
What evidence were Clinton and Clarke working off of when Clinton put US airports on maximum security in 1998? Can one attribute that to good intuition?
On December 4, 1998, the Clinton administration received a President's Daily Brief entitled "Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks."
Quote from Avid_Consumer:
no problem, we can go with that. the fact is they certainly had an inkling
What evidence were Clinton and Clarke working off of when Clinton put US airports on maximum security in 1998? Can one attribute that to good intuition?
What action did Bush take before 911, knowing about the 3 attacks, and being such a "Commander and Chief" and Hawk republican?
Did Bush even discuss the attacks in his campaign speeches?
It really is that simple...
Did Bush even discuss the attacks in his campaign speeches?
It really is that simple...
Quote from Arnie:
Unlike you, I'm not drinking anything. You would rather argue semantics and parse sentences than face the facts. Bush took action after 911. Except for bombing an aspirin factory, Clinton took no action after at least 3 attacks during is EIGHT YEARS in office. It really is that simple.
Clinton cited Richard Clarke over and over during the interview, and said that he ""left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for incoming Bush officials when he left office.
So let's hear what Clarke had to say about this:
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
WASHINGTON â The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.
RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
(Furthermore, to Clinton's claim the Bush Administration "did nothing"):
Richard Clarke: Over the course of the summer â last point â they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
]And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.
QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the â general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
ANGLE: OK.
QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?
CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues â like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy â that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.
QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...
CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.
ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?
CLARKE: In October of '98.
QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?
CLARKE: Right, which was in September.
QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...
CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.
QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?
CLARKE: There was no new plan.
QUESTION: No new strategy â I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...
CLARKE: Plan, strategy â there was no, nothing new.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,115085,00.html
So let's hear what Clarke had to say about this:
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
WASHINGTON â The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.
RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
(Furthermore, to Clinton's claim the Bush Administration "did nothing"):
Richard Clarke: Over the course of the summer â last point â they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
]And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.
QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the â general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
ANGLE: OK.
QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?
CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues â like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy â that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.
QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...
CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.
ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?
CLARKE: In October of '98.
QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?
CLARKE: Right, which was in September.
QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...
CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.
QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?
CLARKE: There was no new plan.
QUESTION: No new strategy â I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...
CLARKE: Plan, strategy â there was no, nothing new.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,115085,00.html
So Bush the savior and protector was presented the plan, and saw no reason to do anything different.
Hmmm....
Then it would follow, that in Bush's and his administration's opinion, Clinton did nothing wrong...no need to do anything but "STAY THE COURSE"
Well, it is not as if anyone has ever accused Bush of being a visionary or anything beyond a reactionary president, anyway....
Hmmm....
Then it would follow, that in Bush's and his administration's opinion, Clinton did nothing wrong...no need to do anything but "STAY THE COURSE"
Well, it is not as if anyone has ever accused Bush of being a visionary or anything beyond a reactionary president, anyway....
Quote from hapaboy:
Clinton cited Richard Clarke over and over during the interview, and said that he ""left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for incoming Bush officials when he left office.
So let's hear what Clarke had to say about this:
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
WASHINGTON â The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.
RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
(Furthermore, to Clinton's claim the Bush Administration "did nothing"):
Richard Clarke: Over the course of the summer â last point â they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
]And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.
QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the â general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
ANGLE: OK.
QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?
CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues â like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy â that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.
QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...
CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.
ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?
CLARKE: In October of '98.
QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?
CLARKE: Right, which was in September.
QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...
CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.
QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?
CLARKE: There was no new plan.
QUESTION: No new strategy â I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...
CLARKE: Plan, strategy â there was no, nothing new.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,115085,00.html
People who think 9/11 was preventable from an intelligence view are just slightly less moonbatty than those who think Bush actually participated in 9/11.
Shit happens. Again and again and again.
Meaning it will happen once more. And a time after that. In between there will be instances when we win. But as Bush says, they only need to go undetected once.
As we speak the government knows or at least assumes that al-queda guys are in the U.S. ready to attack. Now what? How many calls a week do you think authorities receive of "suspicious Muslims"? Federal law makes profiling legally impossible. I'm sure these guys know to use untraceable throwaway cell phones. They send e-mails to yahoo accounts from public ISP's. they stay on the move. And they're unknown as people. Hell there's wanted KILLERS travelling around the country who can't be apprehended. That's why there's an FBI ten most wanted list. Do you think if some Mexican who killed a cop in L.A. is sitting around in an apartment in El Paso he's easy to find?
But yet laughably, those who MOST oppose both the Patriot Act and racial profiling are the one's freaking out over how these 19 guys got away with it.
Shit happens. Again and again and again.
Meaning it will happen once more. And a time after that. In between there will be instances when we win. But as Bush says, they only need to go undetected once.
As we speak the government knows or at least assumes that al-queda guys are in the U.S. ready to attack. Now what? How many calls a week do you think authorities receive of "suspicious Muslims"? Federal law makes profiling legally impossible. I'm sure these guys know to use untraceable throwaway cell phones. They send e-mails to yahoo accounts from public ISP's. they stay on the move. And they're unknown as people. Hell there's wanted KILLERS travelling around the country who can't be apprehended. That's why there's an FBI ten most wanted list. Do you think if some Mexican who killed a cop in L.A. is sitting around in an apartment in El Paso he's easy to find?
But yet laughably, those who MOST oppose both the Patriot Act and racial profiling are the one's freaking out over how these 19 guys got away with it.
Quote from Pabst:
On December 4, 1998, the Clinton administration received a President's Daily Brief entitled "Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks."
that's all i'm really after, acknowledgement that even though bush may not have received a piece of paper that's been publicly released citing domestic hijacking (not sure maybe there is one), with Clarke still in his role, the same DCI giving bush his PDBs as Clinton, it seems absurd to say that the Bush admin had no evidence, and especially no inkling that al qaeda could attempt to use US aircraft