Clinton Administration ultimately responsible for 9/11

[Jenks]

Re: Clinton Administration ultimately responsible for 9/11

Why would they bury ONE jet? :? Jets aren't in violation of any international treaty.

This looks made up to me. Like it could have gone down something like this:

"Private Johnson, we've got orders for you and Private Smith to go bury that Iraqi jet." "We're going to dig it up a few months later so the American public will think, 'Oh, those sneaky iraqis, i'll bet they buried the WMDs too!, i'll bet they bury EVERYTHING!' "

Or the Iraqi's really do bury everything, and in the desert somewhere are mounds of weapons, jets, and picnic baskets and other stuff.

[thesightless]

Re: Clinton Administration ultimately responsible for 9/11

we will never know. in my opinion they obviously hid the jet, these things just don t get lost. they cost hundreds of millions per each one. all i am saying is that there very well might be shit hidden somewhere. emphasize might. not saying deinetly, not saying no way. shit we found a jet. it isnt small. just might. :? sorry for hijack.

[Jenks]

Re: Clinton Administration ultimately responsible for 9/11

screw the hijack, this wasn't going anywhere anyway, lol..

so answer me this...

"Why hide a jet?"

[thesightless]

Re: Clinton Administration ultimately responsible for 9/11

dude, i dont know why. im a CPA in NYC. not an iraqi military official. my army experience is forensic accounting. i am just saying maybe. the fact that the jet was hidden is there. its possible something smaller might be hidden too.


only arguing the ""maybe"". nothing else.

[Jenks]

Re: Clinton Administration ultimately responsible for 9/11

maybe i crapped my pants, maybe i didn't, i'm no forensic accountant, my only expertise is in wondering why they buried a jet in the desert. Suspect on OUR part, not theirs imo.

:P

[robprunzit]

Re: Clinton Administration ultimately responsible for 9/11

Hey sightless, thanks for the comments. Though you probably know I follow your reasoning very far. One thing for sure, I'm glad to hear at least 'question' in your dialogue. No one really knows anything about what Bush knew or didn't know, or how those fu#$ers could get away with such an incredible plan. But, they did it, and probably will again, even though it will be harder for them next time. We will get slack, as always, and they will hit us, and we will start the blame game all over again.

Did Bush know, I really don't think so, but who knows for sure. Could Clinton have changed the scope of things ... definitely!

I do think the terrorist are ahead of us though. I heard a month ago that they have a way of sending info in the form of files over the internet thru Ebay with some encrypted passworded something-er-another. Sounded new to me. So hopefully our guys can figure it out faster than the bad guys know we are in their heads.

Oh btw, that site you linked for the jet pix is a bad site. It loads bad stuff in your computer. One of my blockers when freaking crazy and shut down my browzers completely. Thats a good thing though, cause I have had too virus bugs in the past year. So be careful bro. The pix were great though, and I still believe the poisons are out there somewhere. Much easier to hide that crap than a jet.

[neoee]

Re: Clinton Administration ultimately responsible for 9/11

maybe i crapped my pants, maybe i didn't, i'm no forensic accountant, my only expertise is in wondering why they buried a jet in the desert. Suspect on OUR part, not theirs imo.

:P

I doubt we actually had anything to do with this. My guess is someone/group from Saddam's forces saw things going to shit and basically thought they might be able to sell this off an make a buck once things settled down. If we were going to bury anything it would probably be a nuke or chemical weapons so we could go 'Look, we found WMD's!'.

[neoee]

Re: Clinton Administration ultimately responsible for 9/11

Anyways back to the original subject. Rob I think you understimate what Clinton's administration was doing and how much sleeping Bush's was doing:

Early 2001: Bush Staffers Less Concerned with Terrorism

Clinton and Bush staff overlap for several months while new Bush appointees are appointed and confirmed. Clinton holdovers seem more concerned about al-Qaeda than the new Bush staffers. For instance, according to a colleague, Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, had become ?totally preoccupied? with fears of a domestic terror attack. [Newsweek, 5/27/02] Brian Sheridan, Clinton's outgoing Deputy Defense Secretary for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, is astonished when his offers during the transition to bring the new military leadership up to speed on terrorism are brushed aside. ?I offered to brief anyone, any time on any topic. Never took it up.? [Los Angeles Times, 3/30/04] Army Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick, Deputy National Security Adviser and manager of Clinton's NSC (National Security Council) staff, still remains at the NSC nearly four months after Bush takes office. He later notes that while Clinton's advisers met ?nearly weekly? on terrorism by the end of his term, he does not detect the same kind of focus with the new Bush advisers: ?That's not being derogatory. It's just a fact. I didn't detect any activity but what [Clinton holdover Richard] Clarke and the CSG [Counterterrorism and Security Group] were doing.? [Washington Post, 1/20/02] Kerrick submits a memo to the new people at the NSC, warning, ?We are going to be struck again.? He says, ?They never responded. It was not high on their priority list. I was never invited to one meeting. They never asked me to do anything. They were not focusing. They didn't see terrorism as the big megaissue that the Clinton administration saw it as.? Kerrick adds, ?They were gambling nothing would happen.? [Los Angeles Times, 3/30/04] Bush's first Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Henry Shelton, later says terrorism was relegated ?to the back burner? until 9/11. [Washington Post, 10/2/02]
People and organizations involved: Bush administration, Clinton administration, Hugh Shelton, National Security Council, Donald Kerrick, Counterterrorism and Security Group, Sandy Berger, Brian Sheridan, al-Qaeda

April 20, 2000: Some Complain Clinton Administration Focusing Too Much on Terrorism
The Washington Post writes, ?With little fanfare, [President Clinton] has begun to articulate a new national security doctrine in which terrorists and other ?enemies of the nation-state? are coming to occupy the position once filled by a monolithic communist superpower.? In his January 2000 State of the Union address, President Clinton predicts that terrorists and organized criminals will pose ?the major security threat? to the US in coming decades. However, some claim that a ?preoccupation with bin Laden has caused errors in judgment.? National Security Adviser Sandy Berger counters that the threat of large-scale terrorist attacks on US soil is ?a reality, not a perception. ... We would be irresponsible if we did not take this seriously.? Counterterrorism ?tsar? Richard Clarke predicts that the US's new enemies ?will come after our weakness, our Achilles heel, which is largely here in the United States.? [Washington Post, 4/20/00]
People and organizations involved: Osama bin Laden, William Jefferson ("Bill") Clinton, Sandy Berger, Richard A. Clarke

Mid-August 1998-2000: US Submarines Ready to Attack bin Laden
Within days of the US African embassy bombings, the US permanently stations two submarines, reportedly in the Indian Ocean, ready to hit al-Qaeda with cruise missiles on short notice. Missiles are fired from these subs later in the month in a failed attempt to assassinate bin Laden. Six to ten hours' advance warning is now needed to review the decision, program the cruise missiles, and have them reach their target. However, in every rare opportunity when the possibility of attacking bin Laden occurs, CIA Director Tenet says the information is not reliable enough and the attack cannot go forward. [Washington Post, 12/19/01; New York Times, 12/30/01] At some point in 2000, the submarines are withdrawn, apparently because the Navy wants to use them for other purposes. Therefore, when the unmanned Predator spy plane flies over Afghanistan in late 2000 and identifies bin Laden, there is no way to capitalize on that opportunity. [Clarke, 2004, pp 220-21] The Bush administration fails to resume the submarine patrol. Lacking any means to attack bin Laden, military plans to strike at him are no longer updated after March 2001. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (B)]
People and organizations involved: al-Qaeda, George Tenet, Osama bin Laden, Bush administration, Clinton administration

January 10, 2001-September 4, 2001: Armed Predator Drone Is Readied, but Unused
Even before President Bush's official inauguration, Clinton holdover counterterrorism ?tsar? Richard Clarke pushes National Security Adviser Rice and other incoming Bush officials to resume Predator drone flights over Afghanistan (originally carried out in September and October 2000) in an attempt to find and assassinate bin Laden. [Washington Post, 1/20/02; CBS News, 6/25/03] On January 10, Rice is shown a video clip of bin Laden filmed by a Predator drone the year before. [Washington Post, 1/20/02] Clarke learns of an Air Force plan to arm the Predator. The original plan calls for three years of testing, but Clarke pushes so hard that the armed Predator is ready in three months. [New Yorker, 7/28/03] A Hellfire missile is successfully test fired from a Predator on February 16, 2001. [CBS News, 6/25/03] In early June, a duplicate of the brick house where bin Laden is believed to be living in Kandahar, Afghanistan, is built in Nevada, and destroyed by a Predator missile. The test shows that the missile fired from miles away would have killed anyone in the building, and one participant calls this the long sought after ?holy grail? that could kill bin Laden within minutes of finding him. [Washington Post, 1/20/02] Clarke repeatedly advocates using the Predator, armed or unarmed. However, bureaucratic infighting between the CIA and the Air Force over who would pay for it and take responsibility delays its use. Clarke later says, ?Every time we were ready to use it, the CIA would change its mind.? [New Yorker, 7/28/03] Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Steve Hadley decide to delay reconnaissance flights until the armed version is ready. In July 2001, Hadley directs the military to have armed Predators ready to deploy no later than September 1. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (D)] The issue comes to a head in early September, but even then, a decision to use the Predator is delayed [New Yorker, 7/28/03]
People and organizations involved: Richard A. Clarke, Central Intelligence Agency, Stephen Hadley, Condoleezza Rice, Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush

I find the following especially interesting since Wolfo's part of the PNAC:

April 30, 2001: Wolfowitz in Deputy Secretary Meeting: Who Cares About [bin Laden]?
The Bush administration finally has its first Deputy Secretary-level meeting on terrorism. [Time, 8/4/02] According to counterterrorism ?tsar? Richard Clarke, he advocates that the Northern Alliance needs to be supported in the war against the Taliban, and the Predator drone flights need to resume over Afghanistan so bin Laden can be targeted. [Clarke, 2004, pp 231] Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz says the focus on al-Qaeda is wrong. He states, ?I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden,? and ?Who cares about a little terrorist in Afghanistan?? Wolfowitz insists the focus should be Iraqi-sponsored terrorism instead. He claims the 1993 attack on the WTC must have been done with help from Iraq, and rejects the CIA's assertion that there has been no Iraqi-sponsored terrorism against the US since 1993. (A spokesperson for Wolfowitz later calls Clarke's account a ?fabrication.?) [Clarke, 2004, pp 30, 231; Newsweek, 3/22/04] Wolfowitz repeats these sentiments immediately after 9/11 and tries to argue that the US should attack Iraq. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage agrees with Clarke that al-Qaeda is an important threat. Deputy National Security Adviser Steve Hadley, chairing the meeting, brokers a compromise between Wolfowitz and the others. The group agrees to hold additional meetings focusing on al-Qaeda first (in June and July), but then later look at other terrorism, including any Iraqi terrorism. [Clarke, 2004, pp 30, 231-32] Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff I. Lewis ?Scooter? Libby and Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin also attend the hour-long meeting. [Time, 8/4/02]
People and organizations involved: Northern Alliance, Richard Armitage, Bush administration, Stephen Hadley, Taliban, Richard A. Clarke, Richard ("Dick") Cheney, Promis, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Central Intelligence Agency, John McLaughlin, Paul Wolfowitz

September 4, 2001: Debate Heats Up over Predator Drone; Decision Again Delayed
Attendees to an important cabinet-level meeting on terrorism have a heated debate over what to do with the Predator drone. Counterterrorism ?tsar? Richard Clarke has been repeatedly pushing for the use of the Predator over Afghanistan (in either armed or unarmed versions), and he again argues for its immediate use. Everyone agrees that the armed Predator capability is needed, but there are disputes over who will manage and/or pay for it. CIA Director Tenet says his agency will operate the armed Predator ?over my dead body.? [Washington Post, 10/2/02] Clarke recalls, ?The Air Force said it wasn't their job to fly planes to collect intelligence. No one around the table seemed to have a can-do attitude. Everyone seemed to have an excuse.? [New Yorker, 7/28/03] National Security Adviser Rice concludes that the armed Predator is not ready (even though it had been proven in tests during the summer), but she also presses Tenet to reconsider his opposition to immediately resume reconnaissance flights, suspended since September the year before. After the meeting, Tenet agrees to proceed with such flights. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (C); 9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (D)] The armed Predator is activated just days after 9/11, showing that it was ready to be used after all. [Associated Press, 6/25/03]
People and organizations involved: George Tenet, Richard A. Clarke, Condoleezza Rice

December 2000: Incoming Bush Administration Briefed on Terrorism Threat; Apparently Ignores Recommendations
CIA Director Tenet and other top CIA officials brief President-elect Bush, Vice President-elect Cheney, future National Security Adviser Rice, and other incoming national security officials on al-Qaeda and covert action programs in Afghanistan. Deputy Director for Operations James Pavitt recalls conveying that bin Laden is one of the gravest threats to the country. Bush asks whether killing bin Laden would end the problem. Pavitt says he answers that killing bin Laden would have an impact but not stop the threat. The CIA recommends the most important action to combat al-Qaeda is to arm the Predator drone and use it over Afghanistan. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04; Reuters, 3/24/04 (B)] However, while the drone is soon armed, Bush never gives the order to use it in Afghanistan until after 9/11 (see September 4, 2001).
People and organizations involved: George Tenet, al-Qaeda, Central Intelligence Agency, James Pavitt, Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice

I suppose thats enough reading for now :P

[eye-p]

Re: Clinton Administration ultimately responsible for 9/11

No, thats not enough. How about we look at Clintons response:

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/082198attack-us.html

Here is the heading of this article:

U.S. Cruise Missiles Strike Sudan and Afghan Targets Tied to Terrorist Network

April 21, 1998.

Case.

Closed.

[robprunzit]

Re: Clinton Administration ultimately responsible for 9/11

Neoee, thanks for the reading material, though I'm crossed eyed now, maybe I'll change my nickname to x-eyed. Well, I do have some concern about Bush's set up time, responce, and possible overlooking of some instances in those first 9 months, but it doesnt add to or take away from Clinton's failure to take advantage of many circumstances in his 8 years in office.

So much of this makes me wonder what the president actually does to make himself aware of the intelligence at his fingertips. How does he and his team regard threats as not important, somewhat, and very important details to pursue.

I'm sure its not an easy job!

[robprunzit]

Re: Clinton Administration ultimately responsible for 9/11

No, thats not enough. How about we look at Clintons response:

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/082198attack-us.html

Here is the heading of this article:

U.S. Cruise Missiles Strike Sudan and Afghan Targets Tied to Terrorist Network

April 21, 1998.

Case.

Closed.

eye-p
Maybe I'm sleepy at the moment and don't know what your point is. Are you considering this a sufficient responce or non-sufficient responce?

I remember that day and watched the news unfold, after a day or so, the details of the aspirin factory became clear and maybe a janitor had been killed inside since it was done at night.

At the moment, I felt glad that Clinton was stepping up to the plate and hitting back, but it turned out to be a 'no-blow' in the end.

What about the USS Cole, and the 1st World Trade Center attacks? What about the opportunity Clinton had to take Bin Laden from Sudan, but allowed him to go into Afghanistan when the Saudis declared they wouldn't take him?

Maybe Clinton had his eye on some young bods, and specially fermented cigars from the region known 'south of the beltline'. Well, can we blame him? Whats more important: National Security, or Personal Gratification?

[robprunzit]

Re: Clinton Administration ultimately responsible for 9/11

an interesting link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39770-2004Jul9.html

[eye-p]

Re: Clinton Administration ultimately responsible for 9/11

No, thats not enough. How about we look at Clintons response:

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/082198attack-us.html

Here is the heading of this article:

U.S. Cruise Missiles Strike Sudan and Afghan Targets Tied to Terrorist Network

April 21, 1998.

Case.

Closed.

eye-p
Maybe I'm sleepy at the moment and don't know what your point is. Are you considering this a sufficient responce or non-sufficient responce?

I remember that day and watched the news unfold, after a day or so, the details of the aspirin factory became clear and maybe a janitor had been killed inside since it was done at night.

At the moment, I felt glad that Clinton was stepping up to the plate and hitting back, but it turned out to be a 'no-blow' in the end.

What about the USS Cole, and the 1st World Trade Center attacks? What about the opportunity Clinton had to take Bin Laden from Sudan, but allowed him to go into Afghanistan when the Saudis declared they wouldn't take him?

Maybe Clinton had his eye on some young bods, and specially fermented cigars from the region known 'south of the beltline'. Well, can we blame him? Whats more important: National Security, or Personal Gratification?

I will address these things 1 at a time.

1. The first WTC attacks came 8 days into the Clinton presidency. 8 days. He didnt blame GHWB, as he easily could have, rather the FBI tracked down those responsible and they are now rotting in jail. How many people have been convicted for 9/11, or the Anthrax attacks? ZERO.

2. The USS Cole happened in 1998. Surely you remember 1998. Clinton was for some reason occupied. In fact, the rightwingers all accused Clinton of "wag the dog" in responding to any crisis, since the blowjob scandal was happening. I guess attacking isolated training camps in Afghanistan isnt good enough a response? And if you really want to talk about missing your target, you can explain why we havnt gotten OBL yet, or you can explain what Iraq has to do with 9/11. I wait for your response.

3. Sudan NEVER offered Bin Laden to Clinton. Sorry. Never happened. The source of this story, a pakastani named Monsoor Ijaaz(sp) has been totally discredited and now shows up on Fox News occasionally. Further, the 9/11 commission also debunked the Sudan claim. So did Richard Clarke.

However, since we are on the subject, how about we talk about the Taliban? Do you remember right after 9/11, when Bush told the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden? The taliban replied, "show us proof that he was involved with 9/11 and he is all yours". Well, you might know that NO EVIDENCE HAS EVER COME OUT THAT BIN LADEN WAS INVOLVED WITH 9/11. None. Isnt that a bit strange?

Thats the funny part. Condi Rice said that they had overwhelming evidence that OBL did 9/11. Yet, it has NEVER been made public? Doesnt that seem strange to you AT ALL?


Look, you can deflect and obfuscate all you want, but at the end of the day, this is just more excuse making for GWB. And for what?

[thesightless]

Re: Clinton Administration ultimately responsible for 9/11

?

Well, you might know that NO EVIDENCE HAS EVER COME OUT THAT BIN LADEN WAS INVOLVED WITH 9/11.

not arguing here, but wasnt there a few video confessions? and its hard to find him because we are in a dumb war. the region itself isnt an American ally either, he could be in a random persons basement for all we know. it would be like an american citizen bombing a islamic holy site and hiding in America. not many would hand him over to our authorities. .... just a thought. he could be in manilla, london, moscow, or seatlle, no one will know, because no one over there is realiable enough to give him away. that and we cant prosecute dead people.

those thoughts, and it was david rose, a english reporter who first said that sudan offered him to us.(not sure of the facts, but he was the author, published in a vanity fair article about 8 weeks after the first attacks in the 90's) at least that is what Sudan has told us. http://www.sudanembassy.org/asp/print.asp?ID=66

that's thier official webiste for thier embassy here in US.

[toasty]

Re: Clinton Administration ultimately responsible for 9/11

Do you remember right after 9/11, when Bush told the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden? The taliban replied, "show us proof that he was involved with 9/11 and he is all yours". Well, you might know that NO EVIDENCE HAS EVER COME OUT THAT BIN LADEN WAS INVOLVED WITH 9/11. None. Isnt that a bit strange?

Thats the funny part. Condi Rice said that they had overwhelming evidence that OBL did 9/11. Yet, it has NEVER been made public? Doesnt that seem strange to you AT ALL?

I'm a little fuzzy on what you mean here. Are you implying that OBL is not responsible for 9/11? As sightless points out, I do think there was some video where he claims responsibility and other video that strongly suggests his involvement.

Assuming arguendo for a moment that there is not any hard and cold evidence that OBL was actually responsible for 9/11, he's openly been a cheerleader for the act itself and an advocate for future simlar acts. Maybe it's just me, but I think that if someone gets on global TV professing a desire, intent and ability to do us imminent harm, we ought to be able to go in and take them out. I could really care less if he actually ordered the attacks.

Before anyone jumps on me for what would appear to be an incongruent position vis-a-vis my many anti-Bush/Iraq posts, I do want to make it clear that my primary beefs with Bush and Iraq are:

1. Timing: We should have wrapped up Afghanistan/Taliban/OBL before going in there.

2. Honesty: Regardless of the fact that I can understand and appreciate the need to get rid of a guy that has repeatedly thumbed his noses at the world until the last possible moment, I personally don't think he was honest about the reasons for going into Iraq, or giving him the benefit of the doubt, that his analysis was based upon willful blindness.

3. Competence: Even if you believe Bush was 100% honest about the reasons for going to Iraq, the planning wasn't there and he's left us in a terrible spot.

Not looking to hijack the thread with all the Iraq stuff, just protecting myself from "hypocrite"-type responses.