-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Washington Post : Bush cites Sept. 11, 2001 frequently...
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Why?
CkG
CaptnKirk
Lifer
UQ -
My recolection is that when Clinton tried several times to hit Bin Laden, the Republican Party played down the
need for the action, and in one case was obsessed with the scent of Monica Lewinsky. Do you think that
if just maybe they would have gone along with Bill Clinton at the time that they might have taken him down ?
Bush 1 wasn't asleep at the switch, because they were just continuing the Reagan support to Bil Laden
who's family had close family ties to the Bush Dynasty, Oil brothers and all.
Bush 2 had been warned point blank in the face by the Clinton Administration, and they blew it off as
not important to thier agenda, after all the Bin Ladens were old family friends that had been doing
business together for years for the good people who were leading our friends in Saudi Arabia.
You would have to go back to the early Reagan Administration when that group was funding and furnishing
Bin Laden with CIA training, and weapons to have stopped what did happen, but of course Ronnie "Had no recollection"
and Ollie took the fall to protect out sacred cow Ray-Gun. Iran contra was not just limited to Iran Money and
weapons to the South American resistance, the web extended into Soviet resistance everywhere.
My recolection is that when Clinton tried several times to hit Bin Laden, the Republican Party played down the
need for the action, and in one case was obsessed with the scent of Monica Lewinsky. Do you think that
if just maybe they would have gone along with Bill Clinton at the time that they might have taken him down ?
Bush 1 wasn't asleep at the switch, because they were just continuing the Reagan support to Bil Laden
who's family had close family ties to the Bush Dynasty, Oil brothers and all.
Bush 2 had been warned point blank in the face by the Clinton Administration, and they blew it off as
not important to thier agenda, after all the Bin Ladens were old family friends that had been doing
business together for years for the good people who were leading our friends in Saudi Arabia.
You would have to go back to the early Reagan Administration when that group was funding and furnishing
Bin Laden with CIA training, and weapons to have stopped what did happen, but of course Ronnie "Had no recollection"
and Ollie took the fall to protect out sacred cow Ray-Gun. Iran contra was not just limited to Iran Money and
weapons to the South American resistance, the web extended into Soviet resistance everywhere.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Terrorists want fear. They got it.
They rejoice when Americans are harmed. We provide targets for them,
They want others to see us as foreign invaders. Done.
We have given Bin Laden everything he could have reasonably hoped for, and maybe more.
I got more.
EXman
Lifer
Man you have a warped view of the last decade. One distortion after another.
As far as if the terroists won or not I'd say short term YES they instilled fear in us. But long term No I think we'll get them as we have gotten quite a few of them already. Get all of them no but get the well financed/organized ones that actually can do the U.S. the most harm I think we are well on our way. Osama is a shadow of himself forced to live on the run in caves never to use a cell or sat phone again for fear a smart bomb will blow him to Hell and not to all his virgins of the afterlife. Osama I think is dangerous in name only that is why he asks for Jihad because he has so little power now to do anything. But I do think for some sick reason young arab muslims are taken by him just because he did hurt us here in America.
And of course Bush cites Sept. 11, 2001 frequently our world changed that day. We cannot take for granted anymore that we are safe here in the states. Regardless of who was president Al Gore, Clinton, Bush Sr, Jr Sept 11 2001 of course would be mentioned frequently it was a terrible day that any President should not so soon forget.
UltraQuiet
Banned
Clinton had more than ample opportunity to hit Bin laden with and without Congressional support/knowledge. There was also a little matter of an executive order severely limiting who the intel services could use an informant. There was also the matter of an underfunded intel Community (Congress's responsibility - ultimately) and a corporate culture of not sharing info. (that still exists today). All of that contributed to our missing the clues about 9/11. Added to what you already posted, you now have the total recipe that made up our missing what might have (that's a big might) allowed us to detect and stop 9/11. Hindsight is 20/20
Your accusations of Bin Laden favortism are unfounded. Although the link is clear between Bush and certain elements of the family, there is no link with Osama. To suggest that the Bush's are responsible for 9/11 or somehow not interested in capturing Osama because of that link is ludicrous. Osama was disowned by his own family years ago.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
My reference to the Bin Ladens were as family ties, not as personal association.
The Bin Laden family today, as back then - are building contractors that are under the
Saudi Royal Family, the 'Oil' association is through the Royal Family, as they were the
ones who ultimately hired the Bin Ladens for their contract work. Usama (isn't the spelling weird ? USA-MA)
didn't like the family business and struck out on his own with family money and CIA backing to take on the
Soviet Invasion in Afganistan, and we trained and armed his 'Data-Base', his faithfull followers - the al Qaeda,.
We knew where to hit the training bases because when he was fighting with our blessing we assisted his effoet,
the enemy was a common element.
When we turned our back on the plight of Afganistan in the time after the Soviets withdrew,
and we said we would help - and didn't, triggered the rise of the opressive Taliban,
which at the time we even supported them as the solution with the least impact to us.
Turns out we were wrong and it just harbored hatred against our oppulant decatatant sociecy (In their eyes)
Could Bush have stopped it ? Don't know, the walls of scilence are still standing between agencies, and
the records seem to have been sealed so we can't find out - yet, maybe not in our lifetimes, as some records
get put away with 'Do not open until all living participaants have died' as conditions of release.
Bush and his administration chose not to accept the intelligence brefings from Clinton's Administration,
they were warned repetedly about the al Qadea and ignored the data presented to them, had they listened
and reacted with thought and a plan they may have been more prepared to make correct actions.
The Bin Laden family today, as back then - are building contractors that are under the
Saudi Royal Family, the 'Oil' association is through the Royal Family, as they were the
ones who ultimately hired the Bin Ladens for their contract work. Usama (isn't the spelling weird ? USA-MA)
didn't like the family business and struck out on his own with family money and CIA backing to take on the
Soviet Invasion in Afganistan, and we trained and armed his 'Data-Base', his faithfull followers - the al Qaeda,.
We knew where to hit the training bases because when he was fighting with our blessing we assisted his effoet,
the enemy was a common element.
When we turned our back on the plight of Afganistan in the time after the Soviets withdrew,
and we said we would help - and didn't, triggered the rise of the opressive Taliban,
which at the time we even supported them as the solution with the least impact to us.
Turns out we were wrong and it just harbored hatred against our oppulant decatatant sociecy (In their eyes)
Could Bush have stopped it ? Don't know, the walls of scilence are still standing between agencies, and
the records seem to have been sealed so we can't find out - yet, maybe not in our lifetimes, as some records
get put away with 'Do not open until all living participaants have died' as conditions of release.
Bush and his administration chose not to accept the intelligence brefings from Clinton's Administration,
they were warned repetedly about the al Qadea and ignored the data presented to them, had they listened
and reacted with thought and a plan they may have been more prepared to make correct actions.
UQ
So you've spoken with the bin Laden family about this? Families often say one thing and do another. I don't believe Osama was disowned as the family now claims. I believe the family made that statement to protect their business interests.
Also the fact remains the US not only supported Saddam the supported Osama in their lust to do anything to combat the now known much exaggerated threat of the USSR.
And the number of terrorists we've killed seems to be referred to here as though it is a finite number when in reality the Bush administration with its invasion and occupation of a Muslim nation has provided an unending supply of new recruits.
Zebo
Elite Member
Not at all IMO he could give two shits about 911 or people who died much like troops who die daily and Iraqis killed who he refuses to do body counts of. It's all about maintianing his grip on power nothing more, hes actually fortunate it happend or else hed be lame duck. Keep population scared and be seen as the savior for thier pain and a problem solver while ignoring the real causes and issues at home.
Only thing we have to fear is fear itself🙂
gistech1978
Diamond Member
and how many terms did mckinley serve?
one?
keep it up, bush admin.
Amusing thing I read in the paper today:
Terrorists attacked America and threatened the personal freedom of Americans. (basically what it said)
Now Bush has introduced lots of acts which take away US citizens personal freedoms to "keep them safer".
Looks like the terrorists have continued their mission without doing much.
I think we gotta get over 9/11. I think it's a sign of weakness, and one we should not show our enemies, that we allowed it to impact us as much as we did, economically, fiscally, and politically. It just encourages more attacks.
Let's put things in perspective: 3000 children a day die of malaria in Africa, and noone is talking about it on the same day, much less 2 years later.
Let's put things in perspective: 3000 children a day die of malaria in Africa, and noone is talking about it on the same day, much less 2 years later.
Zebo
Elite Member
I agree somewhat. But there is the purposeful crimminal homoicial element which makes this much worse. It makes poeple feel unsafe because they could be innocents going about thier daily rutine like work and be a victim. It's like when a serial killer is on the loose and it paralyzis a community because you don't know if you'll be next or not. there is nothing you did to deserve being killed nor nothing you can do to prevent it. This somehow makes it worse and scarier.
a lot of the responses here seem to suggest that precedent = acceptable. other presidents did it? obviously. this much? arguable. would clinton/gore/whoever have done it in this situation? we cant say.
i believe the focus should remain on how the president is currently, in our universe (not the one where dole won the election or clinton somehow got a third term) dealing with and manipulating the situtation.
i believe the focus should remain on how the president is currently, in our universe (not the one where dole won the election or clinton somehow got a third term) dealing with and manipulating the situtation.
Agreed. Whether you feel Bush has similarities to past presidents or other dictators is beside the point...does everyone agree that for Bush to use 9/11 as a tool to further his agenda regarding Iraq(and other issues) is wrong? Is he trying to use fear as a way to keep/get support for his prseidency?
UltraQuiet
Banned
I could ask you the same question, I guess. However I will admit to being influenced by the widespread reports of the disownment. Have there been widespread reports that he has not?
Yes we did. We supported them after a Soviet invasion (Breznev Doctrine) as we should have. The threat can hardly be called "exaggerated" after an invasion. Our mistake there was the same one we made in Iraq after GW 1. And just because he once was on our side doesn't give him a continuous free pass.
right but that doesnt make it acceptable.
"everybody" steals from work...but if i leave with a couple laptops, i should accept the response that my boss would be pretty pissed. there are varying degrees.
i think what is being made clear here is that while other people may have used tragedy in their own favor it at least appeared to also serve a greater benefit than their own ends...and that people seem to not have the same confidence in bush.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
