I don't think anyone here said, "By the way, the Clinton administration did everything they could about terrorism." There were plenty of faults there, too. Don't put words in my (I'm assuming I'm one of the "Dems" referenced in your post, despite the fact that I have never been a registered Democrat in my life) mouth. That doesn't change the fact that Bush received explicit warnings directly before the attacks alerting him to their specific nature and time. They happened under his watch (or failure to watch) and so he gets the blame. If this was the Clinton administration, I would be saying the same things.Spectral Glider said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nuclear arms reportedly found in Iraq: Interior Minister calls report stupid
- Thread starter Cooter
- Start date
- Status
No, you brought the briefing up to prove Bush was either collaborating with Osama or knew about 9/11 before hand.
Let me prove it to you since you seem to have a short term memory.
My original post:
You then bring up the briefing in an attempt to prove you are not kooky in thinking this way
I then said:
And it went from there.
And why didn't this prompt Bush to bring some of the CIA and FBI into a meeting and say, "what are we going to do about this?". The CIA, FBI, and the government knew something bad was going to happen, why didn't they pursue the matter further?
Miscommunication between intelligence agencies and the government allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur. A lack of initiative on the part of the Bush Administration is a part of the problem.
The CIA and FBI knew some of the hijackers beforehand, these people were being followed around in the US. Why didn't the Bush Administration ask these guys what was happening? Nevermind simple solutions like locking the cockpit door, or increasing airport security, the least he could have done is ask security to screen all those with the name "Mohammed Atta", and the names of the other known hijackers.
Fight for Freeform said:
We've been over this, Bush is dumb.
MSW said:
And the implication that administration wants things spelled out for them before acting is nonsense. That's never going to happen, so when Rice stands up and says "We didn't know when, where, how, etc." I have zero sympathy. That 6 August memo basically said that something was up, and it was her - and the CIA and FBI's - job to follow through and find out.
human5892 said:
Not to be argumentative, but I feel that the Clinton Administration DID to everything in its power to combat terrorism. I especially feel that way after having recently read "Against All Enemys" by Rickard Clarke. They stopped numerous terrorism attacks. Most notably was the Millenium attacks which were to take place in several US cities and harbors. The report Clarke had drawn up following that event wasn't viewed for months by the President. Sadly, the whole Monica thing cripled him politically and instead of forcing change in combating terrorism before leaving office, he decided to leave it up to Clarke to get Bush's attention.
"in July of 2001, so we were readying for a principals meeting in July, but the principals' calendar was full, and then they went on vacation, many of them, in August, so we couldn't meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September" -Richard Clarke at the 911 commision
Blackace said:
Interesting ....
... except for the fact that NO Kamikazes were used at Pearl Harbor. They weren't even put into battle until later in the war, when the Japanese (more or less) knew they couldn't win the battle conventionally. The reason so much was destroyed at Pearl Harbor is because they caught the American Navy with their pants down (remember, only two US planes got off the ground - the Japanese forces faced virtually no resistance), not because of kamikazes. I am 99% sure that kamikazes were NEVER used to attack anything other than Navy ships in Pacific battles.
Undoubtedly, Bush did not know the exact date and time of the event, but according to that memo alone, he had a pretty good idea of the location (New York), the targets (federal buildings), and the method of attack (hijacking planes). I think that qualifies as more than just a vague threat.MSW said:
3rdman said:
I haven't read Richard Clarke's book, so you may be much more informed on Clinton's antiterror activities than I. In truth, I was mostly thinking of run-of-the-mill newspaper stories when I made that remark, mostly stating that Clinton did not treat bin Laden as a high enough priority and things like that. Whether those articles are accurate or not, I'm sure Clinton also did quite a bit to stop specific terror attacks as well, as you said...especially since during his tenure in office we really didn't have any notable ones (that I can recall; I can only think of Oklahoma City as a major one, and that was internal).
Hitokage said:Wait...
I said the comment was in response to the idea that planes being used to crash into things was unfathomable, not necessarily buildings, per se...
If that's the source of confusion here.
Weak. Regardless, it's relatively irrelevant since hindsight's 20/20... if you or your grandfather really believed there was a clear and present danger to skyscrapers from suicidal airline hijackers, then you really sat on your hands this time. It's easy to be an armchair critic playing Monday morning quaterback.
Either you or your grandfather need to be less anal about human language... when people say "unfathomable" conversationally they do not usually mean "no one has ever thought or imagined it", it typically means "no one would expect it." Everyone in America lived with the expectation of NOT having our passenger jets crash into our skyscrapers. We clearly imagined the possibility (we have lights atop them), but people lived and worked in them nonetheless.
Basically, you grandpappy's remarks are a smartass crack that trivializes the tragedy. As if- if only someone had only remembered the Japanese kamakazi's in WW2 the WTC would not have fallen. You could live in paranoia and fear that every evil that has ever happened will happen again, but that's unrealistic, unexpected, and "unfathomable". People don't expect to get hit by cars, die of heart attacks, or become terrorist targets... if the victim says, "I never imagined a drunk driver in a SVU could plow through my living room." or "I was shocked..." We don't snidely say, "What? You've never heard of physics?"
You know, atomic bombs were dropped in WWII too... maybe we should living as if nuclear attack is imminent?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked