Newly released CIA doduments indicate Bush warned several times about Bin Laden.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,039
48,034
136
Bin Laden wasn't a serious threat then. Had be been the ONLY potential terrorist on the planet I am sure Bush would have been more focused on him. There are tons of these types of guys out there everyday that the public doesn't get to hear about.

That's ridiculous. Bin Laden was recognized as the single most dangerous terrorist to US interests on Earth at the time of the attack.

The federal government screwed up and it did so on Bush's watch. He's got to take a good part of the blame for that because not only does the buck stop with him, it appears that he deemphasized counterterrorism operations. That being said, Bush was still pretty new at the time and Clinton failed to get the guy for years, so some of that is on him too. In the end though we were just all around unprepared, there's enough blame to go around for everyone. I blame Bush far more for his response to the attack than for the attack itself.
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
Cheaters can always win when the opponent is required to play by the rules.

Now had we just turned loose hunter/killer teams on terrorist targets, the situation would be reversed

Meh...soon enough another topic will come up where you will be excusing something the US has done with *all is fair in war* or * this shit happens in war*
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Those threats were always overseas. The violence was never extended to US landfall after the first attempt at the WTC in the basement garage bombing. Yet every month someone associated with the West was targeted.

WTF does what you wrote have to do with what he said? He said bin Laden was not a serious threat. How many other terror organizations have blown up US warships and US embassies?
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Was it obvious that commercial airliners were going to be used to destroy the two tallest buildings in NYC and hit the pentagon? If not I'm not entirely sure what he was supposed to do, the failures were with multiple agencies that day.

Take a look at this pre 9/11 war game:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3533.htm

Washington, D.C., Nov. 3, 2000 — The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid. An Arlington Fire Department chief dispatches his equipment to the affected areas.

etc.

I loved how Condi Rice et al back in the day pretended to be shocked, shocked at the idea of passenger aircraft being used as missiles.
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
I don't know why everyone is making excuses for such a traitor to the American people.

The truth is that he (and especially Dick Cheney) wanted it to happen. That's an ugly truth for many who trust agents of the state, but the more people who realize it, the better off we'll be.

Go back into your hole.

Unless you have the proof, shut it up.
And if you have the actual proof; both would be up for treason.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
That's ridiculous. Bin Laden was recognized as the single most dangerous terrorist to US interests on Earth at the time of the attack.

The federal government screwed up and it did so on Bush's watch. He's got to take a good part of the blame for that because not only does the buck stop with him, it appears that he deemphasized counterterrorism operations. That being said, Bush was still pretty new at the time and Clinton failed to get the guy for years, so some of that is on him too. In the end though we were just all around unprepared, there's enough blame to go around for everyone. I blame Bush far more for his response to the attack than for the attack itself.
To the US itself or to US interests.

Big difference

Counter terror was being gutted by Clinton and Congress.
Politicians felt that technology was better than HUMINT, cheaper and less political
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
WTF does what you wrote have to do with what he said? He said bin Laden was not a serious threat. How many other terror organizations have blown up US warships and US embassies?

What evidence at the time was available and confirmed that he was a threat to the US soil?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Meh...soon enough another topic will come up where you will be excusing something the US has done with *all is fair in war* or * this shit happens in war*

Do you have a better answer?

You want to play the game with one hand behind your back because to fight dirty and win would offend your sensibilities.

Everytime you give the opponent a chance; someone will die on your side.
Fights are to be won as quickly as possible. Drawn out fights sap strength and will.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Take a look at this pre 9/11 war game:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3533.htm

Washington, D.C., Nov. 3, 2000 — The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid. An Arlington Fire Department chief dispatches his equipment to the affected areas.

etc.

I loved how Condi Rice et al back in the day pretended to be shocked, shocked at the idea of passenger aircraft being used as missiles.

The issue is they were preparing for a disaster after the fact. A plane crash.

Nothing was anticipated that a plane was to be HIJACKED and crashed.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
The issue is they were preparing for a disaster after the fact. A plane crash.

Nothing was anticipated that a plane was to be HIJACKED and crashed.

That is simply factually incorrect. It was known that Al-Qaeda had attempted similar attacks years before 9/11. You can try and spin it however much you want to but it doesn't alter the facts:

Attacks Using Planes as Weapons

Careful examination of the published record clearly shows these claims there were no warnings are simply not true. Historically there have been many attacks using planes as weapons, an obvious example being the kamikaze strikes by Japanese pilots on Allied ships in World War II. More recently, in 1994, there were three separate attempts to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. A disgruntled Federal Express worker tried to crash a DC-10 into a company building in Memphis but was overpowered by the crew.A lone pilot crashed a small plane onto the White House grounds, just missing the president&#8217;s bedroom. An Air France flight was hijacked by a terrorist group linked to al-Qaeda, with the aim of flying it into the Eiffel Tower; however, French Special Forces stormed the plane while it was refueling.[New York Times, 10/3/01]

In January 1995, acclaimed 9/11 &#8220;mastermind&#8221; Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others were within weeks of implementing a massive plot named Operation Bojinka when they were foiled by authorities in the Philippines. This plot involved the simultaneous bombing of up to a dozen passenger airliners flying over the Pacific Ocean. But in some variations of this plan, planes were to be hijacked and flown into &#8220;key structures&#8221; in the United States. According to a US intelligence analysis shortly after the plot was uncovered, &#8220;The World Trade Center, the White House, the Pentagon, the Transamerican Tower, and the Sears Tower were among the prominent structures that had been identified in the plans that we had decoded.&#8221; [Village Voice, 9/26/01] One pilot, Abdul Hakim Murad (who incidentally learned to fly in US flight schools), confessed that his role was to crash a plane into CIA headquarters. [Washington Post, 9/23/01] Details of Operation Bojinka were widely known within the US government. Yet Khalid Shaikh Mohammed escaped capture and later stated that the 9/11 attacks were essentially a refinement and resurrection of Bojinka. [Australian, 9/9/02] Even the fact that Mohammed would have led a resurrection of Bojinka should have been no surprise, because in 1997 the intelligence agency of Qatar, where Mohammed had been hiding, told the US that Mohammed was once again planning &#8220;to hijack some planes.&#8221; [UPI, 9/30/02] In June 2001, US intelligence additionally learned that Mohammed was interested in &#8220;sending terrorists to the United States&#8221; and planning to assist their activities there. [Los Angeles Times, 12/12/02]

http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayairdefense
 
Last edited:

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
What evidence at the time was available and confirmed that he was a threat to the US soil?

again, what does what you're saying have to do with what alkeymist said? Or are you arguing a different point? If so, an embassy is considered US soil...
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
19
81
again, what does what you're saying have to do with what alkeymist said? Or are you arguing a different point? If so, an embassy is considered US soil...

dude, you never specified in the quote EK responded to that you were focused on me.

WTF is your point?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Ah, the armchair generals here - all using hindsight and saying people who could not see the future are stupid.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Ah, the armchair generals here - all using hindsight and saying people who could not see the future are stupid.

If you've ever worked in intelligence you will get to understand your target intimately. The problem then becomes your boss and their boss. As was pointed out many times in this thread, Al Qaeda was very fond of airplanes going into buildings before 9/11/2001.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
19
81
If you've ever worked in intelligence you will get to understand your target intimately. The problem then becomes your boss and their boss. As was pointed out many times in this thread, Al Qaeda was very fond of airplanes going into buildings before 9/11/2001.

are you GI Joe?
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,596
475
126
Attacks Using Planes as Weapons

Careful examination of the published record clearly shows these claims there were no warnings are simply not true. Historically there have been many attacks using planes as weapons, an obvious example being the kamikaze strikes by Japanese pilots on Allied ships in World War II. More recently, in 1994, there were three separate attempts to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. A disgruntled Federal Express worker tried to crash a DC-10 into a company building in Memphis but was overpowered by the crew.A lone pilot crashed a small plane onto the White House grounds, just missing the president&#8217;s bedroom. An Air France flight was hijacked by a terrorist group linked to al-Qaeda, with the aim of flying it into the Eiffel Tower; however, French Special Forces stormed the plane while it was refueling.[New York Times, 10/3/01]

As the idea of using planes as guided missiles was known to people who were in communication with U.S. government agencies so the idea idea that this method of attack was not a surprise.

Any member of the Bush administration who said otherwise was just severley misinformed at the very least.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,287
36,413
136
That is simply factually incorrect. It was known that Al-Qaeda had attempted similar attacks years before 9/11. You can try and spin it however much you want to but it doesn't alter the facts:

Attacks Using Planes as Weapons

Careful examination of the published record clearly shows these claims there were no warnings are simply not true. Historically there have been many attacks using planes as weapons, an obvious example being the kamikaze strikes by Japanese pilots on Allied ships in World War II. More recently, in 1994, there were three separate attempts to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. A disgruntled Federal Express worker tried to crash a DC-10 into a company building in Memphis but was overpowered by the crew.A lone pilot crashed a small plane onto the White House grounds, just missing the president’s bedroom. An Air France flight was hijacked by a terrorist group linked to al-Qaeda, with the aim of flying it into the Eiffel Tower; however, French Special Forces stormed the plane while it was refueling.[New York Times, 10/3/01]

In January 1995, acclaimed 9/11 “mastermind” Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others were within weeks of implementing a massive plot named Operation Bojinka when they were foiled by authorities in the Philippines. This plot involved the simultaneous bombing of up to a dozen passenger airliners flying over the Pacific Ocean. But in some variations of this plan, planes were to be hijacked and flown into “key structures” in the United States. According to a US intelligence analysis shortly after the plot was uncovered, “The World Trade Center, the White House, the Pentagon, the Transamerican Tower, and the Sears Tower were among the prominent structures that had been identified in the plans that we had decoded.” [Village Voice, 9/26/01] One pilot, Abdul Hakim Murad (who incidentally learned to fly in US flight schools), confessed that his role was to crash a plane into CIA headquarters. [Washington Post, 9/23/01] Details of Operation Bojinka were widely known within the US government. Yet Khalid Shaikh Mohammed escaped capture and later stated that the 9/11 attacks were essentially a refinement and resurrection of Bojinka. [Australian, 9/9/02] Even the fact that Mohammed would have led a resurrection of Bojinka should have been no surprise, because in 1997 the intelligence agency of Qatar, where Mohammed had been hiding, told the US that Mohammed was once again planning “to hijack some planes.” [UPI, 9/30/02] In June 2001, US intelligence additionally learned that Mohammed was interested in “sending terrorists to the United States” and planning to assist their activities there. [Los Angeles Times, 12/12/02]

http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayairdefense


Thank you. I've seen that ignorant claim a number of times here on this forum and have refuted it in the past but you beat me to it here. As Richard Clarke said, the use of airliners as "poor man's cruise missiles" wasn't exactly unheard of before 9/11. He cited NORAD and FAA training drills in 1997 iirc. Cheney, Rove and Bush were all full of shit. People like Norman Mineta who went along with all their whitewashing were likewise full of shit.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
LOL, look at all these bin laden/bush apologists.

Bin Laden wasn't even on Bush's mind AFTER 9/11.

Just a reminder that bush said he didn't care about Bin Laden and not only that , he disbanded the CIA unit tasked with hunting him down back in '05 or '06.

Hindsight is 20/20? Even in hindsight, Bush fucked up.

Funny thing is, even after Bush tried his best to sabotage the capture/killing of Bin Laden, conservatives still give him credit for bringing him down rather than Obama, which is the most baffling thing ever.

LOL conservatives.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,287
36,413
136
solid evidence the US is crippled by political correctness.


Condi Rice wouldn't let our foremost authority on counter-terrorism to speak with the President about the imminent threat he was trying to protect us from because "it wasn't appropriate" Seems like one of the more baffling examples of PC, kinda like firing the majority of our Arabic translators because they were gay.

No pooch too ugly, too mangy for the pubs to screw... their behavior towards terrorism from the early Clinton days through to the snuffing of Osama is reason enough for me to never vote for them again.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Well, the important thing is that after 2 wars, billions of dollars, patriot act, Homeland security, body scanners, tighten borders, etc.. the world is a much safer place now, and no one in the US is fearful of such a thing happening again

I think Earl, Neuman, and the other loony lefties are telling us is that Bush should have put Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping, and all of the other great things they love so much that they praise Obama for continuing, into effect much sooner. A pre-emptive police state, if you will. Then we would have gotten that wascally wabbit Bin Laden.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,596
475
126
President Obama did try to close Gitmo...

Another branch of the government blocked the efforts. Mainly by making it impossible to find another secure location to jail the detainees who should be detained.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/congress-deals-death-blow-gitmo-closure/

Congress on Wednesday signaled it won&#8217;t close the prison at Guantanamo Bay or allow any of its suspected terrorist detainees to be transferred to the U.S., dealing what is likely the final blow to President Obama&#8217;s campaign pledge to shutter the facility in Cuba.

The move to block the prison&#8217;s closure was written into a massive year-end spending bill that passed the House on Wednesday evening on a vote of 212-206, part of a last-minute legislative rush by Democrats to push through their priorities before ceding the House to Republican control in January.


Remember President Obama didn't enjoy a 60 vote supermajority in the Senate for very long because Al Franken who became the 60th vote wasn't seated at the usual time due to a very contentious close election. That Minnesota election wasn't resolved until late June.

Then Senator Kennedy fell ill a few months after Sen. Franken was seated. This illness severely limited his appearances in the senate until his death in August 2009

In any case even if Sen. Kennedy was able to stay healthy for a few more years the Democratic party would still have had a hard time wrangling the moderate and more fiscally conservative Democratic Senators.

I guess the lesson to all politicians should be to be very careful when it comes to making promises :p