the attack on the world trade center was forecasted, and sent in a memo to George Bush. It was even titled something like 'Bin Laden planning attacks on big buildings in New York'. Bush disregarded the intelligence. Should he be trusted with our security, since he failed so badly in August of 2001?
2006-07-18
03:13:43
·
24 answers
·
asked by
hichefheidi
6
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Stupid..., CLinton told Bush that Bin Laden would be his biggest concern, and STILL Bush ignored ALL of the evidence that the attacks were coming. Clinton had dealt with intelligence on bin laden, for years. And, he called meetings of top priority to discuss the intelligence when it came in. These attacks happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's. You can't blame Clinton for the Bush administration. Just read the 9/11 commission reports. They are non-partisan.
2006-07-18
03:26:37 ·
update #1
cosaxteacher, they didn't say that it would be the WTC, they said it would be big buildings in New York. The WTC was a big building in New York. Bush didn't see it coming, and neither did we, because NONE of us read the memo. But, it was Bush's job to read that memo, and take it seriously. And, he disregarded it.
2006-07-18
03:29:51 ·
update #2
playtoofast, your fear is interrupting your thought process. I can't understand anything you just said, except, why don't you read the 9/11 commission reports. They are non-partisan
2006-07-18
03:32:01 ·
update #3
appollo, there is no link from Al-Qaeda to Iraq. People whose job it was to investigate this matter, found that to be the truth. Again, non-partisan.
2006-07-18
03:34:14 ·
update #4
therandman, start a blog if you want to discuss Clinton My question was IS Bush the right person for the job, and since you feel that 9/11 was just one little mistake, I guess you feel he is the best man for the job. The 9/11 commisiion found no link to Al-Qaeda and Saddam. And, it was their job to investigate the matter, so I'm going to trust this non-partisan report.
2006-07-18
04:08:54 ·
update #5
There certainly was an intelligence foul-up before 911 but I'm not sure if Bush can get too much blame for not preventing the attacks. The real foul-up was his policies after the attacks. His invasion in Iraq (and yes, Iraq had absolutely connection to 911) has been the greatest Al-Queda recruitment drive they could have wished for.
What were the Americans thinking in voting for such an obvious idiot
2006-07-18 03:23:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Can you provide a source that says the WTC was actually already targeted? I've read bits and parts of the 9/11 commission findings and there was never any credible information that the WTC was the set target. There was plenty of info that they were planning an attack, but no set target, no when, no how.
So now that you responsed to us, the point is, there are A LOT of tall buildings in New York. In case you didn't notice, the world record for tallest building in the world has been held in New York until the last 10-15 years. They also had no credible evidence of how the attack would happen.
If all you want to do us spread hate, which is what you are doing, leave the god damn country! If you don't like it, leave! Why don't you try running and protecting a country! I'd bet money you'd do a crappier job then him since all you do is dwell on the past. It isn't like we have to worry about re-electing him because he leaves in 2.5 years.
2006-07-18 03:18:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Let's consider that terrorist activites against America grew during the 8 years Clinton was in office. In Feburary 1993 there was a terrorist attack on the WTC. Clinton did nothing. In October 1993, Clinton got us involved in a Somilian Civil War where our helicopters with Army Rangers was shot down. Clinton went to save the troops but did not use enough force to overcome the militia and retreated - This lead to Bin Laden's labeling of America as a Paper Tiger. In 1998 the US Emabassies in Tanzania & Kenya were bombed by Al Queda and Clinton did nothing. In 2000, under Clinton's watch the USS Cole was bombed killing 17 troops. Clinton's response was nothing.
In 1995, per the direction of Clinton, Jamie Gorelick (Clinton's # 2 in the Justice Dept.) wrote a directive to Federal Agencies not to share information on terrorist, criminials or activities. This directive prevented the FBI & CIA from sharing information which could of directly connected the 911 terrorist with Al Queda.
All of these events displyed Clinton's lack of intergity and emboldened the Al Queda Terrorists and lead to the tragic events of 911.
Now that being said - I will answer your question with one difinitive question - Has any other terrorist attack occured on American Soil since Bush has gone on the offensive? No Attacks = He is the best person to potect our intrest as well as America's currently.
As far as the memo's - He is bombarded with threats to america & americans everyday. He has to take the information given to him, talk to advisors and then address the ones that have priority. Since Gorelick blocked federal agencies from communicating and sharing ALL information that may have lead to Bush disregarding the Bin Laden Big Buildings attack. Heck, even today Bin Laden is putting out threats for big attacks throughout the world.
2006-07-18 03:54:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by therandman 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
No.Some nationalists,including anchorpeople on the FOX "news" have even gone so far as to suggest that "we havent been attacked in the past 5 years"(therandman did this also).Problem with this sneaky logic is that if that were so,you could say that under President Carter we were NEVER attacked by terrorists,and under Bush we were,so Carter is better at foreign policy than Bush,right?The logic is transparent.
The evidence does point to Bush ignoring the warning signs of 9/11,suspiciously for the political gain of having an excuse to Finish his father's job in Iraq and get re-elected as a "wartime" president.
2006-07-18 03:28:48
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Okay, you're right about one thing. President Bush was given prior warning that an attack was imminent. Even with the title that you gave the report, how specific is it? That leads to these questions:
1. Where are the attacks coming from?
2. When?
3. How are they planning to attack?
4. And WHO exactly is planning to attack?
Those are very important questions that were NOT answered in the addendum given to President Bush.
Also, using the logic you're using, I guess since Pearl Harbor happened on FDR's watch, he wasn't a good president either?
Actually, we were also attacked under Carter, Reagan, the first Bush, Clinton (I believe something like seven or eight times), and under this Bush...once.
BTW, I would never call you a "stupid liberal". I think you're quite intelligent, actually.
2006-07-18 03:30:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
YES!!! Clinton was playing with the interns all the time and that is why we were attacked on 9/11. If you remember, the world trade was attacked in 1993, the two American Embassies were
destroyed, the Kobal towers were attacked in saudi Arabia, and
the USS KOLE was hit and nothing was done and these terrorists seen that as a weakness on the US's side and guess
who was President, Billy-boy "Slick Willie" Clinton. Why don't people talk this idiot like they do President Bush???
2006-07-18 03:28:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by Vagabond5879 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Consider the eight attacks against our country and it's embassies around the world since 1991 and nothing was done by the president that was in office, add to that the fact that that same president, following Oklahoma city Waco and Rubie Ridge, made it his policy to turn most of the united states intelligence capabilities to DOMESTIC interests. and you would have your answer. Take into account he had eight years to try to stop the problem and couldn't or wouldn't. and the current president had eight months...
It is funny that in peoples reaction to the Preemptive attacks against the country that was most likely to promote proliferation of weapons that would most likely do US harm, according to the same president as above, Is criticism, by the same people who think we should have attacked the country that was harboring the terrorists, preemptively,.
I see all the time people saying that Bush should have taken Clinton's memos and warnings about Al Qaeda and he should have done something but they do not want to think about the fact that he also said that IRAQ was our Biggest threat. Then when Bush does something about, according to Clinton, our Biggest threat. You all whine and say it is wrong..
Funny Irony ......................................................................................................
As for the "there was no link between Al qaeda and Iraq" theory.
Where was the Most deadly terrorist in the world ( next to Bin Ladden) In the months leading up to the Iraqi invasion???
Who was giving him medical attention and sanctuary???
The same way The Taliban was giving sanctuary to Bin Ladden??
2006-07-18 03:32:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well another brainiac heard from. Have you heard about Pearl Harbor? I think Hawaii is still part of the US. These attacks were planned long before President Bush came into the white house. The WTC was bombed during the Clinton Administration. Who ever your handler is that is feeding you this information needs to bone up on their facts.
2006-07-18 03:26:04
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well considering the plan was in motion before Bush was elected into the White House I think that you question isn't accurate.
Also, if you are going to make "points" about intelligence that Bush "received" and "ignored" where is your babble about the "great" Bill Clinton and what he did to prevent these terrorist acts?
And to all of you who think that George Bush was the one who orchestrated 9/11 either get a grip or get out.
2006-07-18 03:16:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Even with intelligence that says an attack is eminent, one cannot forecast the when and the how. Could it be that the Patriot Act (Bush's baby) has prevented other attacks...there is evidence that it has...that is protection.
I think 9-11 would have happened no matter who was in office...it was a brilliant plan that was well-executed (no pun or disrespect intended). Who knows.
2006-07-18 03:28:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by redfernkitty 3
·
0⤊
0⤋