This was the header on a folder on Secratary Rices desk three months before 9/11. she got a promotion for ignoring Bin laden.. they wanted this war...
2007-09-10
08:53:21
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
Yes Clinton didnt get him either. Whats your point , cant you focus on the question? Rice ignored the report from the cia...end of story.. and bush either didnt know or just has a lame administration.. So thats your new platform for failure Clinton didnt. wow you can justify all failures with that excuse ,, Clinton is a liberal comie what does that have to do with Bush being a failure? Thats not a good excuse.. we had army rangers wathching bin laden on 911 and they were ordered to let him go.. then the Taliban captured him and offered him to pakistan for trial Bush said no and began bombing... they didnt want him,,.. he could have been taken out... Bush n co have better things to do, selling missle defense systems and such..
2007-09-10
09:11:04 ·
update #1
You freakin Idiots it was on the news every day when they heard Richard clark tesify before the senate..and Condoleeza rice admited it in the hearings also, they were broadcast on national tv .. wake up you fools..
2007-09-10
09:14:10 ·
update #2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2285-2004Apr10?language=printer
2007-09-10
09:21:44 ·
update #3
Here it is.. i just read it again it actualy says that bin laden planning an attack to retaliate for the cruise missles Clinton sent after him,, It was spelled out in black and white...
2007-09-10
09:25:09 ·
update #4
The gubmint how much are you paid to post?
2007-09-10
09:27:26 ·
update #5
funny how these conservatives here dont even think its true.I mean, sure, fox news didnt make a big deal about it. but shouldnt a conservative whos concerned with security know this
2007-09-10 09:53:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Of course the PDB said nothing about using those commercial airliners as missiles, just that there might be a threat of hijackings for political purposes, so the FAA continued the alert that had been in place for several months already. This was the same basic intelligence that had been circulated for at least the previous 5 years, so it's not like it was some earth-shattering new revelation.
And it was the PDB from August 6, just over a month before 9/11.
Edit: I know there's a dearth of well-informed and non-psychotic posters on the Politics board, but do try to get beyond that blue haze you seem to view things through and read the whole thing as written. It explicitly states that the intelligence indicated hijackings MIGHT be used to gain the freedom of the Blind Sheikh. That's all, no more, no less.
2007-09-10 09:16:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by thegubmint 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes. Despite the entire political rhetoric you listen out of Europe approximately Iraq, all European international locations and the US were watching for an excuse to enter Iraq considering that the past due eighty's. You can attempt to rationalize away the have to cast off Saddam Hussein from vigour all you wish, however the capabilities chance he provided concerned all of Europe and the US. The undeniable fact that Hussein was once in a position to switch all his wmd's to Syria earlier than they would be recovered, must have additionally made Syria a goal instantly. There are many blissful Iraqis at present due to the fact of the invasion. The trouble stays with their Islamic clerics that misinform the folks. If the clerics had been sincere , the issues might be few. one hundred% of the issues in Iraq and the leisure of the Islamic managed nations is Islam-now not the Jews, or Americans.
2016-09-05 09:05:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by widdison 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Some people think the Iraq war was planned 8 months before September 11
2007-09-10 09:03:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
See, this was made an issue of during the 9/11 Commission hearings. It was politicized greatly, but never really confirmed.
There are ways to determine the truth - or at least close to the truth - about things like this. I suggest you exhaust all of your personal resources trying to identify the TRUTH before you make broad accusatry statements like the one you make here. Much less chance of you making a fool of yourself.
AND, calling names will not generate an intelligent response. The truth I am speaking of will not be found in the New York Times. It's important to understand politics in order to understand my answser. I can't teach you. But, please, try to be civil.
2007-09-10 09:10:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by JustAskin 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
what date and buildings were cited on the report , or was it just a clue that he might maybe use some planes and maybe will hit some buildings within the United States . Also did that report site the 10 times Clinton failed to capture laden , or did you read it on moveon.org
2007-09-10 09:01:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by neo-libs-can't-grasp-reality 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
I've heard all this before, they had a plan to improve America were just waiting for something to happen so could implement it.
2007-09-10 09:01:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by Points whore 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
That was a ruise to distract the we used our own airliners to attack our own contr to get the Patriot act passed
2007-09-10 09:38:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
and you only found out about this now?
The rest of the world has known that for the last 5 years!
2007-09-10 09:10:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by Black Star Deceiver 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I am pretty sure you got that wrong,
Bush plans to use comercial airliners to attack America? was what was really written.
2007-09-10 08:59:34
·
answer #10
·
answered by Edge Caliber 6
·
1⤊
2⤋