Skip to main content

View Diary: Bush's lies go mainstream (170 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Can someone tell me (none)
    Why is 9/11 a gift to Bush?  It happened while he was President.  How can Bush say that he's better on national security?  Were we secure on 9/11?  Why not?  Many people are operating under the assumption that we never knew 9/11 could happen.  If there's any solid evidence that we knew that AQ would hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings,  Bush cannot escape blame.  I don't know if the 9/11 comm. will shed light on this.  
    •  The problem is this. (none)
      The "intel" that Bush received prior to 9-11 was the same "intel" that was dismissed by Clinton.

      Don't forget that 9-11 was the 2ND attack on the WTC. That one wasn't stopped either. Neither was the OKC bombing or the attack on the Cole.

      Of course we knew that 9-11 COULD happen. Anything COULD happen. It's just that the intel didn't show there was anything that needed to be acted upon.

      Now Bush is in trouble for the exact opposite problem. Acting on intel that showed something COULD be true.

      •  Two points (none)
        First, I didn't see any indication that Clinton ignored pre 9/11 intel on AQ hijacking airplanes.  Please post a link if you have one.

        Second, I understand that there were other terrorist attacks.  It's fair to say that if Clinton is to blame for the first WTC attack, Okla. City and the Cole, Bush must be blamed for 9/11.  The right blames every terrorist attack on Clinton, but what else is new.    

        •  Exactly (none)
          You can't hold Bush accountable for 9-11 unless you are willing to hold every other president accountable for every bad thing that happened under his watch.

          Here's a link on the warnings:

          "But warnings of al Qaeda attacks on the United States began as far back as 1995, when an accomplice of Ramzi Yousef -- mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -- told Philippine authorities that he learned to fly at U.S. flight schools and had plotted to hijack an aircraft and crash it into the Central Intelligence Agency's Langley, Virginia, headquarters."

          •  warnings (none)
            Bush's team was briefed at the highest levels of urgency by the departing Clinton administration.  They were warned again and again that there was a serious threat, even specifically about airplanes into buildings.

            Simply put, they chose to trashcan just about everything Clinton did, said, and stood for, and in doing so lost our grip on the Bin Laden situation, our prosperity, our international reputation, and our stability.

            Plus, recall, the Bushes and the Bin Ladens go way back- they have a lot of bidness interests in common.  There was not a lot of motivation for a Bush to take out Bin Laden.

            until now, when he would be a super nice entree at the Republican October Surprise Cotillion that they are frantically pulling together.

            •  Sources? (none)
              Do you have a source for your claim that Clinton told Bush that there was a serious threat?

              Clinton had the opportunity to have bin Laden taken out and let it go.


              There is plenty of blame to go around. No attempt to lay it all at the foot of Bush is going to fly.

              Intelligence gathering capabilities were decimated when Clinton made the new rule preventing the CIA from recruiting so-called "shady characters". This meant that the CIA couldn't recruit Al-Qaida members or for that matter Iragi officials to get inside information.

              Kerry sponsored a bill to cut CIA intelligence gathering funding. The excuse was that he didn't like the CIA relying on high tech. The reality is that high tech was all the CIA COULD use because of the new rules.

              Now people are trying to lay the blame for these failures on either Bush or the CIA as if the Democrats will somehow be protected from the resulting fallout.

              Do you think the Bush administration is going to sit idly by and take the heat? Or do you think that they will use the information mentioned above to spread the blame?

              There are plenty of real issues to attack Bush on that will stick. Why waste resources on those that either won't stick or will likely backfire?

              Catapultatem Habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

              by Sasquatch on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 08:24:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  actually apparently the intel DID show (none)
        that we needed to act.

        What is now on the public record is that Sandy Berger tried to tell Condi Rice that Al Qaeda would be their most serious probelem, but she ignored him.   Ashcroft had actually moved to cut the counter-terrorism budget of the FBI.

        While we do not know all fo the specifics, Bush was apparently briefed that there was an imminent threat of an attack by Al Qaeda, during the summer, including apparently one briefing on August 6 by Richard Clarke, who was in charge on coun ter-terrorism for the NSC, and who had been there at least since Bush 41.

        And what is very interesting is the refusal of this administration to let the Seante or the 9-11 panel see the presidents' daily intelligence briefs for the period in question   -  it leads to concern that something is being hidden.

        We also note that on MTP arbusto said that the Senators had seen the same intelligence he had and vogted to supporthim on the war.   So now we have a choice

        a)  if they saw the same intelligence as the president with respect to Iraq, then there is already a precedcent for this administration releasing stuff from the daily birefs, and thus has no justification for withholding same for 9-11 and Seante panels

        b)  if they did NOT see the same as the president saw, the President at a minimum has again misled the American people about how the decision to go to war was made.  Further, if he did NOT share all of the intelligence he had, then it is just as likely that had he done so it would have weakened the case he was making for the authorization for the use of force.

        c)  several Senators have now publicly said that the evidence they were presented was not all that persuasive.   It such IS the case, then every Senator who did vote to support the ware SHLD be held to account for that vote, for not fulfilling their constitutional responsibilities.

        i m a teacher & proud of it

        by teacherken on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 09:27:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site