Anyone else get the feeling that 9/11 would probably not have happened if we hadn't elected Bush?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
The Mansoor Ijaz lies have been debunked.

Even if the story were true, it would not disprove the point I made in my post about Clinton's overall activities, any more than Tora Bora would have disproven an overall much stronger set of activities by Bush, had they happened, which they didn't. An exception doesn't disprove a rule.

But it's not true, according to the credible information we have.

(This RNC talking point about Mansoo is) a lie meant to disguise the miserable job that Republicans have done at avenging 9/11, and it's being promoted with increasing desperation as we approach the mid-term elections.

The lie is that Bill Clinton had an easy opportunity to capture Osama Bin Ladin, but let him get away.

It's one thing to hear this on Fox News; America's Propaganda Network predictably allows this contention to go unrefuted by discoverable facts. It's quite another thing when the lie has become so pervasive that ABC feels entitled to air a "docu-drama" which supports that lie...

This warped account is pure wing-nut fantasy. It's both fictional and irresponsibly untrue. But is it even truthy?

Richard Clarke, a terrorism expert who served under Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and George W. Bush, refutes this claim utterly. Clarke does describe an incident in which Clinton hesitates on a question of international law until Al Gore persuades him to be more aggressive. But Clarke maintains that at no time was Clinton ever given an opportunity to capture Osama Bin Ladin that he failed to give the go order.

And if Richard Clarke's testimony isn't good enough for you, the 9/11 Commission itself discredits the claim that Clinton ever refused an offer of Osama bin Ladin on a silver platter.

What Really Happened
According to the official findings of the Commission, the Clinton Administration was looking for ways to capture Osama Bin Ladin as early as 1996, when he was still thought to be a mere financier of terrorist organizations and not the criminal mastermind that we know him to be today.

In 1997 the Clinton Administration considered a plan to ambush Bin Ladin when he traveled between Kandahar and Tarnak Farms, a location intelligence assets suggested was Bin Ladin's primary residence. However, when the Administration received reports that Afghan rebels attempted this ambush and failed, they refocused their energies on a plan involving a night-time raid on Tarnak Farms itself.

The Commander of Delta Force was uncomfortable with the new plan as drawn up. And the Commander of Joint Special Operations Forces, Lt. General Michael Canavan felt that the plan was too complicated for the CIA to carry out. Meanwhile, Sandy Berger began to doubt that the intelligence we were receiving from Afghan tribals was reliable.

Counterterrorist Center officers briefed Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh, telling them that the operation to raid Tarnak Farms had about a 30 percent chance of success. Richard Clarke thought the mission as planned, which relied heavily upon local Afghan tribals, was "half-assed."

CIA Director George Tenet scheduled a meeting with the principals to get the go-ahead on the mission (including cabinet members and the President). But this meeting never happened.

After a dress-rehearsal of the operation, George Tenet himself shut down the mission, and says he made the decision alone. The plan was never even submitted to the White House for approval.

(Much less were eager operatives watching Osama Bin Ladin eat crackers in his Lazy-Boy Lounger, unable to capture him only because Bill Clinton was too chicken to give the order.)

What We Know
What we do know is that after Osama Bin Ladin bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Bill Clinton personally ordered simultaneous military strike camps in Afghanistan, and was roundly criticized by Republicans for "Wagging the Dog" to distract from his Monica Lewinsky scandal.

We also know that President Clinton sent strong Memoranda to the CIA reiterating that they were authorized to use tribal assets or other means to hunt down Osama Bin Ladin, and kill him if necessary. And we know that President Clinton personally negotiated with the leader of Pakistan and secured a joint plan to capture Bin Ladin - plans that evaporated when Mr. Sharif was violently overthrown by General Pervez Musharraf.

We also know that President Clinton demanded daily intelligence reports about Bin Ladin after 1998 and that his administration successfully thwarted a Millenium Attack - with connections to what we would eventually understand to be Al Qaeda - by arresting an Algerian Jihadist smuggling a load of explosives into the U.S.

And finally, we also know that when the Bush Administration transitioned into power, they did not agree with Clinton officials that terrorism should be the major priority of their administration until after September 11, 2001.

Certainly, the attacks on the United States cannot be said to be Mr. Bush's fault. The blame lies squarely with the terrorists.

But neither can it be tolerated when apologists for the Bush Administration try to hide their failures with unfounded, slanderous accusations against the previous administration.

Link to article

Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.

And - you neglected to mention - he's worked for Fox News.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
To Blankaigst1,

Interesting that you brought that Sudanese thing up again---that Clinton could have gotten the Sudenese to turn Ossama over---turns out that was a rumor---the 911 commission did examine that allegation specifically and in detail------AND CONCLUDED THERE WAS NO FACTUAL BASIS TO IT.---just another widely floated untruth.

And yes---Tora Bora was very post 911.----with fact---Bush has now had five years to get Bin Laden----and has nothing except empty rethoric and hot air to show for it. Bin Laden is a slippery character---and its like the big one got away fish stories.---I don't want to hear them because everyone has their own version---I believe it when I see the fish caught.

The question now is---is GWB aiding or preventing terrorism----and I have to conclude---and with the national intelligence estimate concurring--that GWB is so inept that he is actually promoting the terrorist cause.--------hardly anyone's definition of a wise and effective leader.-----his intention may be good---but his brain is missing in action.
 

eleison

Golden Member
Mar 29, 2006
1,319
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234


You say if Bush had Osama in the crosshairs before 9/11 he'd have got him. Why would that change after 9/11 that he no longer would get him when he had him in the crosshairs?


If Osama was in the crosshairs of the US in tora bora, why would Bush let him go? The unpopular war in Iraq and Afganistan -- killing Osama would help Bush's poll numbers and silience reporters. Doesn't make sense. Maybe there is a grand plan that prevented Bush from eliminating Osama.. However, bush is pretty stupid.. I dont' think Bush has an grand plan that would require thinking multiple steps ahead.

The only common sense thing is that Osama slipped away before anyone really knew he was there. Like I said, ever since Bush sent in the marines in the Middle East, Osama is very scared and is trying his best to hide from the USofA... Unlike when Clinton was in office.. Osama is no longer in plain sight... After all, didn't Bush and company get rid of that guy that beheaded Berg? Bush doesn't have any reservations about killing terrorists..
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
If Osama was in the crosshairs of the US in tora bora, why would Bush let him go? The unpopular war in Iraq and Afganistan -- killing Osama would help Bush's poll numbers and silience reporters. Doesn't make sense.

First, the point is that you said how Bush would get him if he were in our sites - but he was and Bush didn't.

Second, as to why Bush allowed bin Laden to escale - it had to do with choosing to let other forces capture him instead of US forces. It was just another boneheaded plan from the same people who refused post-war planning and thought we'd have flowers at our feet because they did not know about Iraq; their understaffing caused a lot of problems.

Maybe it was part of the 'do it light' approach of Rumsfeld, maybe it was to try to build the relationship with Musharaf, who knows the reason he did it - but his administration messed it up. We have clear info, in contradictin to your suggestion that bin Laden wasn't there, that he was and could have been apprehended.

Regarding your suggestion that Bush possibly let him go, there are conspiracies discussed, but I have not seen evidence for them, despite such things as the bin Laden family and Bushes having relationships in the Carlyle Group (if Saddamn had had those relationships, they'd surely have been cited as evidence of a Saddam-9/11 connection by the right).
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Once upon a time, Farmer John had a chicken ranch - and he slowly became aware that there was a snake trying to get into the hen house. He'd find some tracks in the dirt here and there - even seen the snake a couple times, tried to kill it, but the snake was quick and managed to escape him.

People around Farmer John knew of his troubles, and the danger it posed to his stock of hens and to them as well - it was the talk of the town as the other farmers had seen the danger and felt its wrath...

The new man in town, Farmer Pete came in to take over John's hen house. As John left, Farmer Pete was warned of that snake - the snake that posed a real threat to all in the town. Farmer Pete shook hands with John, thanked him and bid him goodbye.

Farmer Pete checked on the hen house, all seemed fine. He left the door to the shack open as he went up to the main house and sat down for a spell, having a smoke of his pipe.

Hours later, Farmer Pete returned to the hen house to find all the hens dead and the trail of the snake that had slithered off into the woods - long gone, beyond capture, beyond touch.

Farmer Pete looked over the scene of destruction, and muttered: "Why didn't Farmer John do more!?!"
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: eleison
Originally posted by: Craig234


You say if Bush had Osama in the crosshairs before 9/11 he'd have got him. Why would that change after 9/11 that he no longer would get him when he had him in the crosshairs?


If Osama was in the crosshairs of the US in tora bora, why would Bush let him go? The unpopular war in Iraq and Afganistan -- killing Osama would help Bush's poll numbers and silience reporters. Doesn't make sense. Maybe there is a grand plan that prevented Bush from eliminating Osama.. However, bush is pretty stupid.. I dont' think Bush has an grand plan that would require thinking multiple steps ahead.

The only common sense thing is that Osama slipped away before anyone really knew he was there. Like I said, ever since Bush sent in the marines in the Middle East, Osama is very scared and is trying his best to hide from the USofA... Unlike when Clinton was in office.. Osama is no longer in plain sight... After all, didn't Bush and company get rid of that guy that beheaded Berg? Bush doesn't have any reservations about killing terrorists..

If you killed Osama, it'd be over. There wouldn't really be anyone to chase after.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Bush deserves full credit for a lot of bad things, but I don't think 9/11 happened because of Bush in any way. Although there's some evidence that terrorism was higher up on the federal radar before Bush, I don't see a strong likelihood that it would have made any difference WRT 9/11.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Why did Bush let Osama get away at Tora Bora is a valid question to ask---and the answer connects with why we are losing in Afganistan now.

1. You have to understand that Afganistan has not had a stable government since 1937---but I pile of various factiosn tried to form a governments that did not last long.

2. Then the soviets invaded and installed a puppet government backed by soviet troops---various Afgani elements---loosly called the mujahadeen opposed the government with basically ineffectual terrotist tactics---then Ronald Reagan had the brainfart to aid these rebels---sending in the CIA to train them in hit and run tactics---and armed them with US made stinger missles---at the same time various islamic arab types came in to help also--including Ossama Bin Laden---pretty soon Soviet choppers were being shot down and the soviets were in real trouble---and finally left Afganistan---but with the nose of the Russian bear properly tweaked--the US abandoned Afganistan also.--and Afganistan decended into another civil war. Predictably the heads of various factions of the mujahadeen were fighting each other for control of the Afganistan---untimately the Northern Alliance gained enough hegmony to form a government---that ended up being very corrupt---and financed operations by banditry and opium cultivation. The Tailban came to power because it sought to break the powers of the war lords, restore law and order, and in the process they largely stamped out opium production.---once looting and banditry were stamped out---commerce became possible and trade routes could open up--and Pakistan also benefitted---few liked the Sharia law.

Then Ossama Bin Laden returned asking for santuary---and ingradiated himself to Mullah Omar by warning of an assassination plot against Mulalh Omar---then Ossam assassinated the head of the Northern Alliance still fighting the Taliban--a charasmic fellow named Massoud---and a few days later struck the US with 911. An angry US demanded Afganistan turn over Bin Laden---the Tailban decided not to---and Bush invaded.

And under the premise that the enemy of my enemy is my friend---GWB decided to ally with the hated Northern Alliance--kicked the tailban out of power---and more wisely allowed the
more ethnically more numerous Pastuns form most of the government---which they did and now Afganistan has democracy in the city of Kabul---everywhere else the warlords are back and running things for their benefit--and the locals outside of Kabul--its no government at all excepy by warlords who encourage opium production and banditry. But those are now current conditions four years later---but in teh process of routing teh terrorists and remaiining tailban---they made a last stand a tora bora---and its more 20 20 hindsight than then present knowledge--that Osama was in that last stand group---but to keep US casualities low--Rummy decided to use the Northern Alliance to do the hard fighting---and their interests were to break the power of the tailban--so they could get back in charge of at least part of the goivernment--and they had no grudge against Ossama--and probably let him pass instead of making any effort---whereas if Rummy had committed US troops---their objective #1 would have been get Ossama.

But as I said--here we are four years later---and in the country side---the Tailban is filtering back and re-establishing some order--and they not US troops have the people support.
And now Frisk himself is even suggesting making the Tailban part of the government.--because in the countryside--these warlords in charge are incredably corrupt.

Thats my basic understanding of the chain of events---and a wiser leader could have used the good parts of the Tailban and moderated the bad---as it is--we have made Afganistan alot worse in the name of democracy.---and have made deals with the devil---which often come back to haunt us later--even though they seem expediant at the time.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
From the factcheck.org post of earlier
Who got closer?

Clinton: I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.

Debatable: Clinton probably came within hours of killing bin Laden on Aug. 20, 1998 when the US attacked training camps in Afghanistan near Khost, where the CIA believed terrorist leaders were gathering to plan further attacks in the wake of earlier bombings of US embassies. The cruise missile strikes, launched from Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea, mostly hit their targets but missed bin Laden, most likely by just a few hours (9/11 Report, p. 117).

That's the last time an attack was launched until after 9/11. Bush probably came close too, however. Newspaper accounts have quoted unnamed intelligence officials saying that bin Laden narrowly escaped capture in the battle of Tora Bora, Afghanistan, in late 2001, primarily because no U.S. ground troops were in the area at the critical time. The failure to capture bin Laden there became an issue in the 2004 presidential election. Last year, the CIA field commander at Tora Bora, Gary Bernsten, said he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was hiding in the Tora Bora mountains, and could have been caught.

Who came closer? Clinton's claim is plausible, but the publicly available evidence isn't sufficient to prove the case either way.
Factcheck.org

Both got "close" but neither of them did. Getting "close" does not count in matters like this. Like the old saying, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: mfs378
With Richard Clarke being demoted, and Rice giving the CIA people the runaround among other revelations from Woodward's book, doesn't it seem like there is a good chance we would have stopped 9/11 if Bush hadn't taken office? I get that feeling ...

I bet you do. everything is allways the Presidents fault! unless they are a Dem. who makes you think these things?
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Better Yet I'm glad Gore wasn't in charge especially seeing him get so nutty and bitter over the past few years.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Both got "close" but neither of them did. Getting "close" does not count in matters like this. Like the old saying, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
And even then you have to be really close.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Typically from our intelligence sources it takes about 2 years for Al-Qeada to plan and execute an attack. That means that under Clinton, the terrorists planned all these attacks. They attacked the USS Cole, they attacked previously the World Trade Center, and they bombed our Embassies in Africa. What action on behalf of Clinton was there to get them to stop what they were doing???
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
ProfJohn, Clinton launched cruise missiles based on intelligence to try to get bin Laden. Bush, according to Woodward, chose not to make the effort to launch any missiles at bin Laden, saying he didn't want to shoot the missiles because he didn't want to miss. Clinton in a number of incidents came *closer* than Bush; close does count.

One reason it counts is that the Bush administration has asserted that the #1 reason to elect them over the democrats is how they're more effective at fighitng Al Queda and criticizing the democrats, with many republicans suggesting that Clinton didn't do enough but Bush did, pre-9/11. So, when in fact Clinton did more, that's an important correction.

It's funny how Bush was worried about missing when the target was terrorist trainig camps, but he launched *50* attacks at places Saddam was suspected to be, and was so reckless with Iraqi civilans that he was 0 for 50, killing many civilians in the process. How solid could the info have been to justify killing civilians, when he's 0 for 50.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Anybody who thinks if GWB wasnt president, 9-11 wouldnt have occurred has a serious case of delusion.

I can tell you if Gore got his wish and cherry picked ballots and won, 9-11 would have happened just the same.
 

palindrome

Senior member
Jan 11, 2006
942
1
81
Originally posted by: mfs378
With Richard Clarke being demoted, and Rice giving the CIA people the runaround among other revelations from Woodward's book, doesn't it seem like there is a good chance we would have stopped 9/11 if Bush hadn't taken office? I get that feeling ...

Stupidest thread ever

/end
 

glugglug

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2002
5,340
1
81
Originally posted by: mfs378
With Richard Clarke being demoted, and Rice giving the CIA people the runaround among other revelations from Woodward's book, doesn't it seem like there is a good chance we would have stopped 9/11 if Bush hadn't taken office? I get that feeling ...

Yes.... sort of.
More specifically, another administration would not have orchestrated 9/11.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Anybody who thinks if GWB wasnt president, 9-11 wouldnt have occurred has a serious case of delusion.

I can tell you if Gore got his wish and cherry picked ballots and won, 9-11 would have happened just the same.

No, they have the same inability to form an accurate opinin you do - we can't know for sure it would or would not have been prevented. We know Gore would have done more to try.

And you have the 2000 facts wrong. Had Gore's lawsuit for 'cherry picked' counties won, he would *not* have won the presidency.

However, had all the ballots in the state where the voter's intent was clear been counted, he *would* have won. It's clearly the case he was the choice of the people.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Anybody who thinks if GWB wasnt president, 9-11 wouldnt have occurred has a serious case of delusion.

I can tell you if Gore got his wish and cherry picked ballots and won, 9-11 would have happened just the same.

No, they have the same inability to form an accurate opinin you do - we can't know for sure it would or would not have been prevented. We know Gore would have done more to try.-- proof or just speculation??


And you have the 2000 facts wrong. Had Gore's lawsuit for 'cherry picked' counties won, he would *not* have won the presidency.

However, had all the ballots in the state where the voter's intent was clear been counted, he *would* have won. It's clearly the case he was the choice of the people.

 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: mfs378
With Richard Clarke being demoted, and Rice giving the CIA people the runaround among other revelations from Woodward's book, doesn't it seem like there is a good chance we would have stopped 9/11 if Bush hadn't taken office? I get that feeling ...

I think that whole idea is ridiculous. Yeah, Al Gore and Clinton did a wonderful job stopping terrorist attacks, *cough* WTC1,African Embassies, USS Cole *cough*. Al Gore would've stopped those terrorists himself with some mind control device he invented while he was taking a break from inventing the internet.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
28,433
20,423
146
I don't think it would have been prevented, but we wouldn't be involved in 'Nam part II though.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: mfs378
With Richard Clarke being demoted, and Rice giving the CIA people the runaround among other revelations from Woodward's book, doesn't it seem like there is a good chance we would have stopped 9/11 if Bush hadn't taken office? I get that feeling ...

As a Clinton loving, Bush hating liberal let me just say..

STFU.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Jedi, I posted before on the facts showing that Gore would have done more than Bush did before 9/11 to *try* to prevent Al Queda attacks, and to atttack Al Queda.

In a couple sentences, while we know the very low attention it had from the Bush administration, Gore was not only in agreement with Clinton's increased efforts against Al Queda leading to the creation of the plan for attacking them in Dec 2000 - on at least one occassion he'd persuaded Clinton to launch an attack that Clinton was being cautios about. Clinton would - we know from what he's said - have launched the plan against Al Queda in Dec 2000 had Gore won the election, with Gore in agreement; instead, he let Bush decide, and gave him the war plan, his administration warning Bush that Al Queda would be the #1 threat for them. Knowing Gore was in agreement with going after Al Queda, in agreement with the war plan, we know he'd have done more than Bush did.

And as I said, I don't see any way to know now if the efforts would have uncovered the plot.