Trump Is Right About 9/11

[masterblaster72 0]

I believe hell is freezing over -- second time in a week I agree with this wanker. It's about time someone said it, and I hope the topic gets more attention.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/did-george-w-bush-do-all-he-could-to-prevent-911/411175/

Quote

His latest ugly truth came during a Bloomberg TV interview last Friday, when he said George W. Bush deserves responsibility for the fact that “the World Trade Center came down during his time.” Politicians and journalists erupted in indignation. Jeb Bush called Trump’s comments “pathetic.” Ben Carson dubbed them “ridiculous.”

Former Bush flack Ari Fleischer called Trump a 9/11 “truther.” Even Stephanie Ruhle, the Bloomberg anchor who asked the question, cried, “Hold on, you can’t blame George Bush for that.”

Oh yes, you can. There’s no way of knowing for sure if Bush could have stopped the September 11 attacks. But that’s not the right question. The right question is: Did Bush do everything he could reasonably have to stop them, given what he knew at the time? And he didn’t. It’s not even close.

...

But both Clarke and Tenet grew deeply frustrated by the way top Bush officials responded. Clarke recounts that when he briefed Rice about al-Qaeda, “her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before.” On January 25, Clarke sent Rice a memo declaring that, “we urgently need…a Principals [Cabinet] level review on the al Qida [sic] network.” Instead, Clarke got a sub-cabinet, Deputies level, meeting in April, two months after the one on Iraq.

When that April meeting finally occurred, according to Clarke’s book, Against All Enemies, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz objected that “I just don’t understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden.” Clarke responded that, “We are talking about a network of terrorist organizations called al-Qaeda, that happens to be led by bin Laden, and we are talking about that network because it and it alone poses an immediate and serious threat to the United States.” To which Wolfowitz replied, “Well, there are others that do as well, at least as much. Iraqi terrorism for example.”

By early summer, Clarke was so despondent that he asked to be reassigned. “This administration,” he later testified, “didn’t either believe me that there was an urgent problem or was unprepared to act as though there were an urgent problem. And I thought, if the administration doesn’t believe its national coordinator for counterterrorism when he says there’s an urgent problem and if it’s unprepared to act as though there’s an urgent problem, then probably I should get another job.” In July, the Deputies Committee finally agreed to schedule a Principals level meeting on Clarke’s plan. But the schedule for July was already full, and in August too many Cabinet members were on vacation, so the meeting was set for September.

...

But the same Defense Department officials who discounted Clarke’s warnings pushed back against the CIA’s. According to Eichenwald’s sources, “the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.”

The CIA fought back. “The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” declared the Daily Brief on June 29, noting that the al-Qaeda leader had recently told a Middle Eastern journalist to expect an attack. The following day, the CIA included in its Daily Brief an article entitled “Bin Laden Threats Are Real.” On July 1, the Brief predicted that an attack “will occur soon.”

...

The warnings continued. On July 11, the CIA sent word to the White House that a Chechen with links to al-Qaeda had warned that something big was coming. On July 24, the Daily Brief said the expected al-Qaeda attack had been postponed but was still being planned. Finally, on August 6, the CIA titled its Daily Brief: “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike the US.” The briefing didn’t mention a specific date or target, but it did mention the possibility of attack in New York and mentioned that the terrorists might hijack airplanes. In Angler, Barton Gellman notes that it was the 36th time the CIA had raised al-Qaeda with President Bush since he took office.

On September 4, the Cabinet met and despite Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s insistence that Iraq represented the greater terrorism threat, it approved Clarke’s plan to fight al-Qaeda. On September 9, the Senate Armed Services Committee recommended taking $600 million from the proposed missile defense budget and devoting it to counter-terrorism. According to Gellman, Rumsfeld recommended that Bush veto such a move.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, Clarke’s anti-al-Qaeda plan was sitting on Bush’s desk, awaiting his signature. It was the ninth National Security Presidential Directive of his presidency.

Would the Bush administration have stopped the 9/11 attacks had it taken the threat more seriously? Possibly. On August 3, a Saudi named Mohamed al-Kahtani tried to enter the United States in Orlando, Florida, allegedly to participate in the 9/11 plot. He was sent back home by a customs official whose only concern was that he might become an illegal immigrant. On August 16, FBI and INS agents in Minnesota arrested another potential hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, after being tipped off by his flight instructor. But despite numerous requests, they were denied permission to search his apartment or laptop. These incidents “might have exposed the” 9/11 plot, writes Eichenwald, “had the government been on high alert.”

...

Well worth reading in its entirety.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[jakee 1,257]

They were already obsessed with Iraq and Saddam?

But sure, in 2003 they were just following the evidence, and it just happened to lead to Iraq. What a happy coincidence for everyone

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jclalor 12]

Bush is no more responsible for 911 than Clinton was responsible for the African embassy bombings. I'm obviously no Bush fan, but trump is an idiot and he is only trying to ruffle Jeb.

Trump is just the master "Media whore".

[ryoder 1,391]

I've read numerous articles and one thing that is clear is that the plot probably could have been discovered if the CIA had not stubbornly refused to share info with the FBI.
For the story, just google for: FBI agent Mark Rossini

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ibx 2]

Quote

I've read numerous articles and one thing that is clear is that the plot probably could have been discovered if the CIA had not stubbornly refused to share info with the FBI.

That is true if only it weren't for that pesky separation of powers. But you got rid of that pretty quickly so your all intelligence services can now spy on anyone anytime with any method. Good job America.

[wmw999 2,132]

An awful lot is easy to see in hindsight, including the blindness that led to whatever event. By then you know what facts were actually important and which ones weren't.

Not as easy when things are actively happening; by taking your eyes off one thing to focus on something else, well, you could be wrong. and "fixing" what seems to be broken for one problem can just make possible all the problems that were anticipated by whatever was "broken."

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DanG 1]

Quote

That is true if only it weren't for that pesky separation of powers.

I'm guessing you don't understand what 'separation of power' means in the context of the US government. Actually, I'm not guessing, it is obvious.

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 212]

DanG

Quote

That is true if only it weren't for that pesky separation of powers.

I'm guessing you don't understand what 'separation of power' means in the context of the US government. Actually, I'm not guessing, it is obvious.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,130]

ryoder

I've read numerous articles and one thing that is clear is that the plot probably could have been discovered if the CIA had not stubbornly refused to share info with the FBI.
For the story, just google for: FBI agent Mark Rossini

The plot more or less was discovered. It could have likely been stopped. Sharing of information was one portion. There is no doubt that the pre-occupation with Iraq was another.

[masterblaster72 0]

jclalor

Bush is no more responsible for 911 than Clinton was responsible for the African embassy bombings.

How many times does a president and many members of his cabinet have to be clearly warned about an impending attack from the CIA and FBI before he can be faulted for it? It was communicated to him and various others in no uncertain terms that a big attack was imminent...and in the mayhem and bullshit that ensued, the administration's irresponsibility was swept under the rug.

For this reason I'm glad it's being brought back up -- even if a turd like Trump is forcing the discussion for his own expedient reasons.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[ryoder 1,391]

Chris Matthews piles on: http://www.salon.com/2015/10/20/chris_matthews_applauds_donald_trump_for_destroying_the_falsehood_that_george_w_bush_kept_us_safe_democrats_never_had_the_stones/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ibx 2]

Quote

I'm guessing you don't understand what 'separation of power' means in the context of the US government. Actually, I'm not guessing, it is obvious.

Well... The CIA is an intelligence agency that finds out what is going on internationally, they give politicians there analysis and politicians base policy off of that. They are not allowed to work domestically. So far correct? That would make part of the legislative branch of the government.

The FBI is supposed hunt criminals domestically. That would make them part of the executive branch of the government, correct?

That's why they are not supposed to share information.

If I got this wrong, please explain, I want to learn.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

That would make part of the legislative branch of the government.

No. Why would it?

Quote

That would make them part of the executive branch of the government, correct?

No. Why would it?

Quote

That's why they are not supposed to share information.

They are supposed to share information. Just because the CIA doesn't work domestically doesn't mean that any information they gather on a domestic threat should disapppear into a black hole never to be used.

That would be insanity.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[ibx 2]

I saw this a few years ago in German documentary about 9/11 and why the government failed to predict the attacks. They gave this as one the reasons the FBI and CIA did not cooperate.

Apparently I'm was wrong and learned something on this forum - who woulda thought?

thanks!

[jakee 1,257]

Since we've all got used to living in the new era of near constant (supposedly) imminent threats and fast responses to new inteligence it's worth remembering that 2001 was closer to the end of the Cold War than it is to today.

To an intelligence agency fighting that sort of conventional enemy simply having a source of intel is the top prize. Doing something with the intel is secondary and often not doing anything with intel is even preferable if actioning it would tip off the enemy to your source. So why, in their minds, would the CIA give the FBI info about a possible threat if doing so would be more likely to expose how they got the info?

That kind of institutional inertia, along with mundane stuff like personality clashes and territorial pissings is what stops the flow of info.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DanG 1]

You're right that lack of cooperation may have contributed to the US not seeing the signs in time to prevent the 9/11 attacks. But the CIA and the FBI both fall under the executive branch. The separation of powers doctrine wasn't an issue. Even if the CIA and FBI were in different branches of government, spearation of powers wouldn't prevent them from cooperating. The branches cooperate regularly (though perhaps not efficiently). Separation of powers means that each branch has authority over a certain governmental power. The legislative branch writes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws. One branch is not allowed to perform the others' functions. The concept allows us to have 'checks and balaces' which is intended to keep one branch from gaining too much power. (Cue the conservatives complaining that Obama has become a dictator, and the judicial branch legislates from the bench).

Anyway, the only thing that prevented the CIA and FBI from cooperating on 9/11 was institutional inertia, traditions, and lack of a formal coordination system.

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 212]

DanG

You're right that lack of cooperation may have contributed to the US not seeing the signs in time to prevent the 9/11 attacks. But the CIA and the FBI both fall under the executive branch. The separation of powers doctrine wasn't an issue. Even if the CIA and FBI were in different branches of government, spearation of powers wouldn't prevent them from cooperating. The branches cooperate regularly (though perhaps not efficiently). Separation of powers means that each branch has authority over a certain governmental power. The legislative branch writes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws. One branch is not allowed to perform the others' functions. The concept allows us to have 'checks and balaces' which is intended to keep one branch from gaining too much power. (Cue the conservatives complaining that Obama has become a dictator, and the judicial branch legislates from the bench).

Anyway, the only thing that prevented the CIA and FBI from cooperating on 9/11 was institutional inertia, traditions, and lack of a formal coordination system.

It only Marq Harmon was in the mix, it could have been prevented.

But even then, there would be friction between the agencies.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,635]

www.nytimes.com/2003/07/24/us/9-11-congressional-report-faults-fbi-cia-lapses.html

See also: www.ethicapublishing.com/ethics/4CH1.pdf

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TriGirl 277]

jakee

They were already obsessed with Iraq and Saddam?

But sure, in 2003 they were just following the evidence, and it just happened to lead to Iraq. What a happy coincidence for everyone

Bush campaigned on holding Hussein accountable for UN Res. 1441, which put an end to the hostilities of the 1st Gulf War. One of the conditions was that the Iraqi government not just end any WMD programs, but it had to prove they were dismantled. It did not.

However, the president's fondness for this specific issue certainly clouded his judgement (IMHO), especially by 2003. I submit that once you've committed yourself to a crisis that has emerged in the meantime, perhaps it's best to let your other obsession go to the wayside for a while.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[kallend 1,635]

turtlespeed

***You're right that lack of cooperation may have contributed to the US not seeing the signs in time to prevent the 9/11 attacks. But the CIA and the FBI both fall under the executive branch. The separation of powers doctrine wasn't an issue. Even if the CIA and FBI were in different branches of government, spearation of powers wouldn't prevent them from cooperating. The branches cooperate regularly (though perhaps not efficiently). Separation of powers means that each branch has authority over a certain governmental power. The legislative branch writes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws. One branch is not allowed to perform the others' functions. The concept allows us to have 'checks and balaces' which is intended to keep one branch from gaining too much power. (Cue the conservatives complaining that Obama has become a dictator, and the judicial branch legislates from the bench).

Anyway, the only thing that prevented the CIA and FBI from cooperating on 9/11 was institutional inertia, traditions, and lack of a formal coordination system.

It only Marq Harmon was in the mix, it could have been prevented.

But even then, there would be friction between the agencies.

Both CIA Director George Tenet and National Security Council counterterrorism “czar” Richard Clarke gave repeated, dire warnings about the threat posed by Al Qaeda, only to be brushed off by Bush and his cronies, many of whom insisted from the start that a bigger threat was posed by Iraq, a country that focused their obsession.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Coreeece 2]

ibx

I saw this a few years ago in German documentary about 9/11 and why the government failed to predict the attacks. They gave this as one the reasons the FBI and CIA did not cooperate.

Apparently I'm was wrong and learned something on this forum - who woulda thought?

thanks!

The important lesson here is to do your own research before deciding to parrot your moronic sources of information...

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[ibx 2]

Quote

The important lesson here is to do your own research before deciding to parrot your moronic sources of information...

Well presented with new undeniable information I was willing to learn and change my mind.

How much of your own research have you done to confirm your ridiculous bronze age religion?

[Coreeece 2]

ibx

How much of your own research have you done to confirm your ridiculous bronze age religion?

Probably not nearly as much as you've dedicated to denying the innate concept of God.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[turtlespeed 212]

Coreeece

***
How much of your own research have you done to confirm your ridiculous bronze age religion?

Probably not nearly as much as you've dedicated to denying the innate concept of God.

Innate?

Please.

Don't dillude yourself.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[ibx 2]

Quote

Probably not nearly as much as you've dedicated to denying the innate concept of God.

Maybe you should invest a little bit more time in finding out about the "innate concept" you base your life on...

BTW, it doesn't take a lot of time at all for an intelligent person to realize that a certain concepts are inherently flawed.