Why did the George W Bush administration ignore warnings about Al Qaeda for months prior to 9/11?

Question

Officials were summarily dismissed when they tried to bring this matter to the Bush administration's attention.

Answer 1

This administration have no vision at all.
All they're doing in this administration is reacting, reacting to 9/11, reacting to influx of immigrant from mexico, reacting to growing worldwide pressure to really do something about global warming.

Gone are the era of visioners, to go to the moon, to defeat the conspiracy of tyrants in europe, and to spread democratic values to the world.

Simply reacting, with no clear vision what to achieve.

Answer 2

The main reason is probably because the Clinton Administration told the Bush Administration to make bin Laden their #1 defense focus. Since that advice was coming from Clinton, Bush promptly ignored it. Plus they were busy trying to find a way to attack Saddam, and build an oh-so-important missile defense system.

Answer 3

The warnings about pseudo-religious mass-murder groups did not begin in months or years prior to 09/11. Warning about plans to hijack airliners and crash them into buildings go back to the 1990s. The idea of hijacking airliners was a constant for decades of anarchist and national groups; we should have been prepared for the tactic. We had been attacked in half a dozen places, by suicide bombers, for decades again--soldiers, ships and civilian targets. Evidence that Arab nationals wanted to be trained to fly airliners but not to learn how to land them was available--and when reported--was ignored. Clearly ignored also was the extent of financing, advocating of bombing and the protection of extremist groups by national leaders all over the region and the world.
But the worst failure to draw conclusions from facts (to extrapolate), anticipate, be proactive in seeking out evidence etc. may have been an omission--the ignoring of strong and incontrovertible evidence that NOTHING was happening re Al Queda in Iraq. This evidence was not only ignored, lied about, denied, obliterated and actively discouraged--it s opposite was then used as our excuse to remove the linch pin from the entire Near East--Iraq--and do NOTHING ELSE to stabilize, reform nor insist upon change. This failure relative to totalitarian regimes handed billions in oil money and aid for decades to those harboring, aiding or failing to act against 1. "terrorist" organizations,2. theocratic educatrs, 3.reality-hating tsars and 4. West-hating advocates jihadist sentiments and 5. those denying improvement of life for enslaved citizens in their totalitarian pseudo-nations.
Whatever else one can say about the neocons who did nothing for 9 months re Palestine and nothing about Al Queda bank accounts for 7 more months AFTER 09/11, it could not contain the descriptive phrases, "They were realistic; they had a plan; they were honest; they were capable; nor 'they knew what they were doing"."
When you ask yourself are we safer now, after these years of loss and expense and deaths of soldiers, forget what the administration has done. Ask only, "Would someone more intelligent, honest and resolute have done this plus anything more?" If the answer is 'yes'--then once again they had not done enough before, nor during the crisis that they failed to foresee and demonstrably have they have also failed to act adequately ever since.
And that is why I argue that we therefore need new leadership--those who CAN inspect incoming ships, and build international coalition support for efforts against those who harbor, educate, aid and give comfort to those preaching holy war against realists on Earth.

Answer 4

Bush was too busy trying to find a way to bring Saddam's head on a platter to his Daddy. After 9/11 our exalted leader blamed Clinton for everything in spite of Clinton's admission that he could have done more but did let Bush know about the problem of terrorism.

Answer 5

in case you particularly had to be honest there is numerous those that can take the blame for 9/11 whose names in no way arise. It develop into no longer one persons fault and it wasn't something that got here approximately in one day. The quite unhappy element and this is obvious via people who responded you all are so into the blame sport you thoroughly overlook what might desire to have been found out via this. Do you recognize in simple terms how vast this comparable terrorist group is suited right here interior the rustic??? and what's being performed approximately it? precisely, no longer something so are you all going to stand around and blame Obama for no longer doing something approximately it such as you're Bush? no longer rarely. the respond to procure from the guy who choose's he lived in N. u.s. quite have been given to me, maybe you and anybody who responded might desire to provide his answer some concept!

Answer 6

He's stupid, shallow and incompetent. Their main policy goal was to politicize government to try and insure permanent Republican power, and their guiding philosophy was that if Clinton did it, it must be wrong. Clinton kept bin Laden down and pursued him, Bush must ignore him.

All those years of economic prosperity, peace and world respect were obviously failures and had to be corrected.

Answer 7

There are two schools of thought:

Bush was so focused on Iraq even before Sept 11, 2001, he wasn't hearing anything that had to do with anything else, in which case he was almost criminally incompetent in discharging his duties and should have been fired, OR-

Bush and Kompany knew full well the attacks were coming and decided to use them as a way to foment hatred for Muslims and give him the excuse he needed to depose Saddam Hussein, in which case, Bush and Krowd shuld have been considered accessories before the fact and charged with 3,000 charges of Criminal Manslaughter (IF true: UNlike Republicans who convict anyone Rush and Hannity tell them to, even before an actual TRIAL, I say IF true)

Answer 8

How come the same people that blame him for ignoring the warnings before 9/11 are the same ones that criticize what he's trying to do about future attacks?

He should have done more then, but close Gitmo, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and don't tap anyone's phones.

We had a "law enforcement mentality" before 9/11. The Bush Administration finally woke up to the fact that it's not a law enforcement problem, but not everyone seems to realize that.

Answer 9

Probably for the same reason Clinton did not take custody of Bin Laden in the '90s when he was offered up on a silver platter.

Answer 10

Maybe, if so President Clinton ignored the same warnings for 8 years.