English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://www.john-loftus.com/enron3.asp#congress

2006-08-16 09:08:35 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

15 answers

Because he wanted a gas pipeline through afgainistan.

a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs.\\\


remember the billions sent in to them as a reward for cutting poppy production, even though they were just trying to jack up prices.

and remember teh Taliban in Texas? why would they be in Texas???
********************************************************
fun reading.
Debunking the Sudan offered Clinton bin landen myth.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005

********************************************************
more fun reading.......

The Clinton-Gore Plan to Stop Al-Qaeda: Would 9-11 have happened?
Would things be any different had Gore been President? Wouldn’t 9-11 have still happened?

Perhaps not, according to mainstream media source Time Magazine. In their article, They Had A Plan [requires paid subscription], they explain why: After the bombing of the USS Cole the Clinton Administration had drawn up a comprehensive plan for fighting Al-Qaeda. But they didn’t want to execute it with a new President taking office in a few months, so they briefed Bush’s team at the highest levels and told them how important it was that they carry it out. And then Bush did nothing.

Here are the relevant quotes:

[Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy] Berger says he told [his successor, Bush’s Condoleezza Rice], “I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.”
The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, [] who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen [] to become the White House’s point man on terrorism. [He was] chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG)[…]. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole […] he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. […] Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. “We would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office on Jan. 20,” says a former senior Clinton aide. “That wasn’t going to happen.” Now it was up to Rice’s team to consider what Clarke had put together.
Clarke’s proposals called for the “breakup” of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble — Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen — would be given aid to fight the terrorists. Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to “eliminate the sanctuary” where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime. […] In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to “everything we’ve done since 9/11.”

[…]

An aggressive campaign to degrade the terrorist network worldwide — to shut down the conveyor belt of recruits coming out of the Afghan camps, to attack the financial and logistical support on which the hijackers depended — just might have rendered it incapable of carrying out the Sept. 11 attacks. Perhaps some of those who had to approve the operation might have been killed, or the money trail to Florida disrupted. We will never know, because we never tried. This is the secret history of that failure.

This isn’t some low-level employee talking after-the-fact. This is a comprehensive plan at the highest levels of government, with the greatest stress, simply not carried out.

So what was Bush doing instead of cracking down on terrorism? Well, we now know he was busy planning to invade Iraq.

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001120

2006-08-16 09:16:10 · answer #1 · answered by nefariousx 6 · 0 1

1. Shrub's financial dealings with the bin Laden family and the BCCI bank scandal would have been exposed. (Remember the BCCI, the "terrorist international bank" that collapsed in 1989 after losses of US$600m? Incidentally, it was John Kerry who led the investigation of who was responsible....)

2. If there were investigations, 9/11 wouldn't have happened, thus giving the neonazi-cons the excuse to enact their plans.

"[T]he process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
- from the Project for a New American Century website (ca. 1997)

When you hear about the "New American Century", think "Reich of a Thousand Years" to understand what they mean.

2006-08-16 09:21:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

A Unocal executive, Zalmay Khalizad, was negotiating with the Taliban for an oil/gas pipeline through Afghanistan. The Taliban wanted $43 Million; the US promised them a carpet of bombs. Mr. Khalizad is now US Ambassador to Iraq and a neo-con to boot.

2006-08-16 09:14:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Because Clinton's transition team never mentioned them or Osama as any kind of threat, and Clinton's CIA terrorism expert Richard Clarke said that the threat of terrorism was remote.

Why was there no ongoing investigations of the Taliban BEFORE Bush became president? Why were no actions taken after the US Embassy bombings or the USS Cole bombing?

2006-08-16 09:27:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Uh, Bill CLINTON was in office long before Bush - when do you think that these investigations should have been taking place while Billy was inviting them in and teaching them how to fly planes. You cannot plan a terrorist attack in a couple of months - this question is as stupid as asking why Bush didn't prevent Pearl Harbor. You're nuts.

2006-08-16 09:13:53 · answer #5 · answered by Fortune Favors the Brave 4 · 2 1

why did clinton ignore al qaida for 8 years before bush?

Bush was in office for 9 months when it happened...

you think 911 only took 9 months to plan?

You are not seeing clearly on this

2006-08-16 09:12:40 · answer #6 · answered by smitty031 5 · 4 1

Because, like most of the REST of us, he'd never heard of them before- & he didn't care (& he probably didn't know how to SPELL "Taliban"- either!). It took the World Trade Center towers to come crashing down- to get his (& everyone elses) attention. And isn't that always the way?

2006-08-16 09:24:56 · answer #7 · answered by Joseph, II 7 · 0 2

The taliban did nothing wrong. Thats why they were not investigated.

2006-08-16 09:14:31 · answer #8 · answered by Joe K 6 · 0 2

Because he and cheney were in on it from the beginning so they the war mongering bunch that they are could go start war and drive the fuel prices up to fatten their wallets.
Remember that they are big oil people.

2006-08-16 09:15:36 · answer #9 · answered by Biker 6 · 0 2

Because Bush wants to kill everyone in the world. Geez, I thought everyone knew that!

(I know it's true 'cuz I read it on some guys blog)

2006-08-16 09:18:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers