Bush had a chance at OBL prior to 9/11

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Black later calculated that all he needed was $500 million of covert action funds and reasonable authorization from President Bush to go kill Bin Laden and "he might be able to bring Bin Laden's head back in a box," Woodward writes.

Black claims the CIA had about "100 sources and subsources" in Afghanistan who could have helped carry out the hit.

I don't buy it. If all this was in place and Clinton had already authorized a hit on OBL, it would have already taken place.

No love for the current admin here, but this story just doesn't smell right.

What you just said makes no sense on any level. Slick was out of office. How was he going to approve something when he isn't President. That's where Bush comes in.

You think the system is this single minded machine that moves like clockwork?

No.

That the system is not a "single minded machine that moves like clockwork" is exactly why I don't buy it.
If Bush did not take terrorism seriously, when do you think those "100 sources and subsources" were developed? The OP does not describe material saying that OBL suddenly became a possible target. It does describe material saying that the reason to take him out had become more urgent.

Tree... meet forest.

 

[ProfJohn]

Former Head of CIA bin Laden Unit Says Clinton Had 10 Chances to Get Terror Mastermind and Bush had one...

Mr. SCHEUER: Oh, I think--I think there's plenty of blame to go around, sir, but the fact of the matter is that the Bush administration had one chance that they botched and the Clinton administration had eight to 10 chances that they refused to try. At least at Tora Bora our forces were on the ground. We didn't push the point. But it's just an incredible kind of situation for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them.

Video of interview

And Tab... when caught Saddam and the war in Iraq didn't end, what makes you think the war on terror ends with Osama?
Osama is a person, islamo-fascism is an ideology, we are at war with the ideology, not the person.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
[ ... ]
And Tab... when caught Saddam and the war in Iraq didn't end, what makes you think the war on terror ends with Osama?
Osama is a person, islamo-fascism is an ideology, we are at war with the ideology, not the person.

I believe Tab's point is that the so-called "War on Terror" is political theater -- "We have always been at war with Eastasia" -- and every good western needs a bad guy to wear the black hat. The Bush propaganda machine put a lot of effort into making OBL a fearsome boogeyman. Killing him too early would be bad for the show, bad for the business of keeping the sheeple blindly compliant and obedient.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Former Head of CIA bin Laden Unit Says Clinton Had 10 Chances to Get Terror Mastermind and Bush had one...

Mr. SCHEUER: Oh, I think--I think there's plenty of blame to go around, sir, but the fact of the matter is that the Bush administration had one chance that they botched and the Clinton administration had eight to 10 chances that they refused to try. At least at Tora Bora our forces were on the ground. We didn't push the point. But it's just an incredible kind of situation for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them.

Video of interview

And Tab... when caught Saddam and the war in Iraq didn't end, what makes you think the war on terror ends with Osama?
Osama is a person, islamo-fascism is an ideology, we are at war with the ideology, not the person.

islamo-fascism is a term made-up by the neo cons and nothing more.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Arguably Bush had 2-3 other possible chances to get OBL.

Once at Tora Bora where troops were on 3 sides (side open to Pakistan was open). Another was I think before Tora Bora.

I don't recall the exact details but it was some town that was also cut off from several directions with planes bombing one of two major exits. The other exit wasn't touched or covered.

I think there may have been a 3rd where supposedly officers from Pakistan were present and would have looked bad if they were caught with the Taliban so they were let go along with hundreds of terrorists by way of planes. That may have been the 2nd instance so there may have only been 2 other chances instead of 3.

I'm not saying the admin knew OBL was with any of these people and purposefully let him go. I don't think it's possible to prove he was there either, but it's not possible to disprove that he wasn't there either.

What is fact is that they did let terrorists go not once but many times. If it wasn't on purpose then it was due to incompetence. Not incompetence of officers, but the administration. No officer covers 3 sides of a mountain when it has 4. Something so basic just doesn't happen at the command level where such decisions are made so one must assume they were told otherwise.

Arguing that we are invading a nation (Pakistan) is moot. Wasn't it the Neo Cons that constantly argue that if you aren't with us you're against us? Think before you write.

Would it be worth a war with Pakistan to possibly get OBL at Tora Bora? Even I have to say yes.

Bottom line is that both Dems and Reps are guilty. They just aren't responsible and no harm will come to any of them. At worst they will leave office and have cushy jobs for the rest of their lives while the innocent die for their crimes.

 

[Craig234]

islamo-fascism is a term made-up by the neo cons and nothing more.

To elaborate on this correct statement:

Fascism is a system of government founded by Mussolini, and pursued by his disciple Hitler, which is when government and big big corporations work together, including under coercion by government. Its strength lies in the combined power of an authoritarian political structure supported by the wealth of the corporations.

Mussolini himself said that a better name for fascism would be corporatism.

It could be said that the current US government has moved towards fascism, as they pursue expanded authoratarian power, and in their relations with big corporations, have moved much closer to them - changing from a regulatory role representing the public, to an enabling role allowing the corporations to write the laws much of the time - in exchange for money.

The "K Street Project" run by Rick Santorum is an instrument of the move to facism, as it was organized as a power consolidation, to force corporations to purge their ranks of democratic lobbyists and end traditional donations to both parties, in exchange for favors and under threat of government retribution in the laws.

Now, it should be pretty clear that Al Queda types are not much about merging government and big corporations, so why the term islamo-fascism?

It's because as with any propaganda of this sort, there's a need to demonize the enmy, and explicitly demonizing "islam" is not a good idea; however, the public is conditioned to hate fascists, going back to WWII and Hitler, and the Bush administration sees benefit to making the public equate their war with WWII, a popular war.

So, they just use the term, even though it's nonsencial, because it has the desired political effect of letting people hate the group they want them to hate, easily, whle allowing them to say they aren't against all of Islam.

It's an inaccurate, corrupt bit of propaganda.

 

[imported_Aelius]

I wanted to clarify and add to Craig234's last statement.

Technically any Western nation with a Central Banking system is already under Corporatism and it's not a move towards it (Fascism). We are already there today.

You can be less or more of a Fascist. It's not an absolute term but the existance of it is. Either it exists or it doesn't. Under Western nations with Central Banking systems Fascism exists. To what degree is up to debate, but the existance of it is not.

Also people need to avoid calling these people Nazis. It's innacurate. Someone who is a Nazi is always a Fascist, but a Fascist is not always a Nazi.

They are Fascists and we live under Fascism. That's accurate.

We haven't moved onto conentration camps, book burnings or the purge of undesirables including our own people, at least not in the way the Nazis did, but I sometimes wonder how far are we from being judged by history. Even if we re-write history books, and God knows we have been doing it for years, we will be judged by history.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Craig234

islamo-fascism is a term made-up by the neo cons and nothing more.

To elaborate on this correct statement:

Fascism is a system of government founded by Mussolini, and pursued by his disciple Hitler, which is when government and big big corporations work together, including under coercion by government. Its strength lies in the combined power of an authoritarian political structure supported by the wealth of the corporations.

Mussolini himself said that a better name for fascism would be corporatism.

It could be said that the current US government has moved towards fascism, as they pursue expanded authoratarian power, and in their relations with big corporations, have moved much closer to them - changing from a regulatory role representing the public, to an enabling role allowing the corporations to write the laws much of the time - in exchange for money.

The "K Street Project" run by Rick Santorum is an instrument of the move to facism, as it was organized as a power consolidation, to force corporations to purge their ranks of democratic lobbyists and end traditional donations to both parties, in exchange for favors and under threat of government retribution in the laws.

Now, it should be pretty clear that Al Queda types are not much about merging government and big corporations, so why the term islamo-fascism?

It's because as with any propaganda of this sort, there's a need to demonize the enmy, and explicitly demonizing "islam" is not a good idea; however, the public is conditioned to hate fascists, going back to WWII and Hitler, and the Bush administration sees benefit to making the public equate their war with WWII, a popular war.

So, they just use the term, even though it's nonsencial, because it has the desired political effect of letting people hate the group they want them to hate, easily, whle allowing them to say they aren't against all of Islam.

It's an inaccurate, corrupt bit of propaganda.

It's an absolute joke that people accept this term to describe militant religious fundamentalism, but it certainly SOUNDS better than "millitant religious fundamentalism." Obviously guys like "prof"john say things like "islamo-facism is an ideology" because they cannot think for themselves long enough to realize the childlike misuse of the english language that has been fed to them.

As for turrism* not stopping with the death of OBL, you'd be right. In fact it would make more of a martyr of the man than he already is, but at least Bush would be living up to THE PACT he made with the American people to find him and "bring em' to juh-stass." You ignore the fact that he not only has failed to deliver on this pact, but that he has TOTALLY GIVEN UP ON IT. For the most violently vindictive administration in the first world, it's *almost* funny how they can't even get their own schtick right.

 

[Thump553]

In a feeble attempt to get this thread back on topic, has anyone else seen this story reported anywhere else but the NY Post? I haven't, and I've seen and read a lot of TV, internet and newspaper coverage about Woodward's new book.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Thump553
In a feeble attempt to get this thread back on topic, has anyone else seen this story reported anywhere else but the NY Post? I haven't, and I've seen and read a lot of TV, internet and newspaper coverage about Woodward's new book.

I assume that since it is in the book that would be another source for the info.

I think the OP is a little misleading. These guys are saying that if we got $500 million they could go get him, but there is no guarantee that their plan would have worked.
A more honest thread title might be "CIA had plan to get Osama pre 9-11, but was turned down"

BTW: this doesn't look any worse than all the plans put in place under Clinton and then turned down right before they were executed. By far the best chance we ever had at Osama was turned down by Richard Clarke because he thought the attempt to capture him looked too much like an attempt to kill him. That is right in the 9-11 report, and was the scene in ?Path to 9-11? that raised so much of a fuss.

One more thing, the NY Daily news article states "Woodward says that Tenet described the meeting as a "tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the 9/11 attacks."
I don't think any thing Bush would have done after going into office would have stopped 9-11, besides catching the pilots once inside the US. From reading the 9-11 report it seems the pilots were in the US in 2000, although most of them went home and returned to the US some time in 2001.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: Craig234

islamo-fascism is a term made-up by the neo cons and nothing more.

To elaborate on this correct statement:

Fascism is a system of government founded by Mussolini, and pursued by his disciple Hitler, which is when government and big big corporations work together, including under coercion by government. Its strength lies in the combined power of an authoritarian political structure supported by the wealth of the corporations.

Mussolini himself said that a better name for fascism would be corporatism.

It could be said that the current US government has moved towards fascism, as they pursue expanded authoratarian power, and in their relations with big corporations, have moved much closer to them - changing from a regulatory role representing the public, to an enabling role allowing the corporations to write the laws much of the time - in exchange for money.

The "K Street Project" run by Rick Santorum is an instrument of the move to facism, as it was organized as a power consolidation, to force corporations to purge their ranks of democratic lobbyists and end traditional donations to both parties, in exchange for favors and under threat of government retribution in the laws.

Now, it should be pretty clear that Al Queda types are not much about merging government and big corporations, so why the term islamo-fascism?

It's because as with any propaganda of this sort, there's a need to demonize the enmy, and explicitly demonizing "islam" is not a good idea; however, the public is conditioned to hate fascists, going back to WWII and Hitler, and the Bush administration sees benefit to making the public equate their war with WWII, a popular war.

So, they just use the term, even though it's nonsencial, because it has the desired political effect of letting people hate the group they want them to hate, easily, whle allowing them to say they aren't against all of Islam.

It's an inaccurate, corrupt bit of propaganda.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Too few people actually understand the principles of fascism. We're on an express train for fascism right now, and the term "islamo-fascism" isn't just misleading propoganda, it's the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Craig234]

I sometimes wonder how far are we from being judged by history. Even if we re-write history books, and God knows we have been doing it for years, we will be judged by history.

I think it's a mistake to assume that people looking back historically will resemble what has usually happened.

We're on the verge of some big changes to the very nature of the relations between government and people, and with such changes come big shifts in how history is viewed. Analogously, Luther and Galileo were viewed far differently by their contemporaries than by history.

Look at the huge gaps between reality and the ideological right today; there's nothing to prevent that from greatly increasing in coming decades, as our society shift backwards away from an 'enlightened' public, middle class with the leisure time and wealth to be informed, with the protection in law of access to information (the Freedom of Information Act dates only to Lyndon Johnson, and even he only signed it reluctantly in a very liberal era) and the restriction on the government against lying to the public. In the same way that the radical shift economically to keep 90% of citizens' wages flat over 25 years while skyrocketing concentrated wealth can be something most Americans are unaware of and unconcerned with even when told, there's no saying that Americans in coming decades will view history reasonably. Look even at how Reagan is remembered by many for 'ending the cold war', while the facts about his crimes, his deficits, and his lack of impact on the end of the cold war (with the fall of the USSR surprising the US government) largely forgotten.

No, it's all too easy to keep a public enthralled with an ideology - it took us a century following Little Big Horn to start to say "wait, maybe the Indians weren't entirely the bad guys, they killed soldiers who had come to slaughter them to steal their land". And the tools for spreading ideology have never been stronger than they are today.

So, I think that the way to make sure history is accurate is to act today to bring down the criminals as much as possible, to spread the truth today. Joseph McCarthy could have gone down a hero in US history had events not turn against him by those who resisted his behavior.

p.s. Thank you for the nice comment, Slash.

 

[imported_Aelius]

I guess we will just have to see how history will judge us. I doubt I will live to see it.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Thump553
In a feeble attempt to get this thread back on topic, has anyone else seen this story reported anywhere else but the NY Post? I haven't, and I've seen and read a lot of TV, internet and newspaper coverage about Woodward's new book.

I assume that since it is in the book that would be another source for the info.

I think the OP is a little misleading. These guys are saying that if we got $500 million they could go get him, but there is no guarantee that their plan would have worked.
A more honest thread title might be "CIA had plan to get Osama pre 9-11, but was turned down"

BTW: this doesn't look any worse than all the plans put in place under Clinton and then turned down right before they were executed. By far the best chance we ever had at Osama was turned down by Richard Clarke because he thought the attempt to capture him looked too much like an attempt to kill him. That is right in the 9-11 report, and was the scene in ?Path to 9-11? that raised so much of a fuss.

One more thing, the NY Daily news article states "Woodward says that Tenet described the meeting as a "tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the 9/11 attacks."
I don't think any thing Bush would have done after going into office would have stopped 9-11, besides catching the pilots once inside the US. From reading the 9-11 report it seems the pilots were in the US in 2000, although most of them went home and returned to the US some time in 2001.

Perhaps you should consider what the thrust of this thread was about, and if you read my OP perhaps you would, instead of using this as another soapbox to pontificate about Clinton again.

NONE of this info in the 9/11 report, this was withheld, I believe on purpose.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Thump553
In a feeble attempt to get this thread back on topic, has anyone else seen this story reported anywhere else but the NY Post? I haven't, and I've seen and read a lot of TV, internet and newspaper coverage about Woodward's new book.

I assume that since it is in the book that would be another source for the info.

I think the OP is a little misleading. These guys are saying that if we got $500 million they could go get him, but there is no guarantee that their plan would have worked.
A more honest thread title might be "CIA had plan to get Osama pre 9-11, but was turned down"

BTW: this doesn't look any worse than all the plans put in place under Clinton and then turned down right before they were executed. By far the best chance we ever had at Osama was turned down by Richard Clarke because he thought the attempt to capture him looked too much like an attempt to kill him. That is right in the 9-11 report, and was the scene in ?Path to 9-11? that raised so much of a fuss.

One more thing, the NY Daily news article states "Woodward says that Tenet described the meeting as a "tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the 9/11 attacks."
I don't think any thing Bush would have done after going into office would have stopped 9-11, besides catching the pilots once inside the US. From reading the 9-11 report it seems the pilots were in the US in 2000, although most of them went home and returned to the US some time in 2001.

Let's walk thru the check-list real quick:

1.) Mention the book, implying that book sales are the motivation. (i.e. Attack the messenger not the message. Typical.) Check.

2.) Argue that the plan presented to Bush may have failed, while in other threads about Clinton's various chances to get OBL, never mentioning the same thing. Check.

3.) Bring up Clinton (for the nth time) in a Bush thread. Check.

About as predictable as it is transparent.

 

[Hacp]

Looks like Bush's tough stance on terrorism is nothing but a mask to hide his incompetence.