9/11
We must never allow another vice-president to oversee so many simultaneous NORAD war games on a single day that the “amazing coincidence” of an attack that takes advantage of this situation could leave our nation’s capital, the Pentagon and the eastern seaboard apparently unprotected for hours on end.
We must never again allow an administration to use such a tragedy to ramrod hastily written, Constitution-hobbling restrictions of our freedoms, so voluminous it was unread by most legislators in advance, to be enacted into law under duress.
We must never again allow the use of a domestic attack as “justification”
for a preemptive attack against a nation that had nothing to do with the event.
There are a lot of things we must never do again, and the terrible legacy of the Bush/Cheney administration provides quite a guide. We owe them that much.
This letter has not been edited.
It was Clinton that ignored these warnings for years prior to Bush and Co. even being elected. While both parties should be held accountable, the liberal left wants to turn a blind eye to the facts that their party holds responsibility too. This is the same party that cries foul anytime federal law enforcement does any type of inveatigation on American soil.
Posted by mickey on September 18, 2007 02:19 PMmickey,
I think that was the August 6,2001 Presidential Daily Briefing that the writer was talking about. Doesn't have anything to do with what party one is in.
What the writer does not understand is that these attacks have been talked about in DC for years prior to 9/11. It was considered an unobtainable goal by the CIA and FBI. Neither one thought these attacks would ever be carried out. But they also were never allowed to get together to discuss it. And when Homeland security was developed FBI thought they were to important to be part of it. They still do not share intelligence with anyone else, they consider themselves above all other federal agencies.
Posted by on September 18, 2007 03:08 PMoh goodie the republic of boulders finest once again speak to us lowly subjects
it is a day to remember also that good ole billy c wished it had happened on his watch. then once again he and maddie could proclaim that they were going to get tough.
Mickey
You are 100% correct in your statement and none of the lefts semantics or double speak changes the facts about The Clinton Presidency's unwillingness to deal properly with the terrorists attacks on the USS Cole and other attacks against Americans or Saddam Husseins violations of the UN Sanctions and shooting at our planes in the no fly zone .
He was to busy womanizing, commiting perjury and had his own legal problems to deal with.
Don Wrege is 100% wrong as is typical for the history and events re-writers in the Rebublic of Boulder.
Posted by Just an Obeservation on September 18, 2007 03:57 PM‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States’
How does this report provide the details to authorities (and Bush) about the date, time, locations, flight numbers, etc... of the next attack?
Answer: It doesn't.
Was Bush suppose to shut down the USA until the jihad sniffing dogs combed every inch of US soil?
There really is already enough mistakes to complain about in this administration. There's no need to artificially manufacture additional failures to blame them with.
Posted by KW on September 18, 2007 04:33 PMbbbbut Clinton,
9 montha into Bush's term and it's Clinton's fault!!
i seem to recall when Clinton was trying to go after Bin Laden and you righties were marching, No War For Monica!! NO WAR FOR MONICA, WAG THE DOG! I believe was the mantra back then. But now since he bowed to the pressure by the right of not going after him it is his fault!! Just an observation says "Clinton was too busy committing perjury and other legal problem to go after the attackers of the Cole" which is stated to be Bin Laden. So now tell me after the attack on the twin towers why does Bush not go after Bin Laden? Why is it Ok for you now that he states he doesn't spend much time on Bin Laden? Why aren't you upset Bush hasn't caught him?
don,another village idiot.Bin Laden started planning the attacks in 96'.The only thing clinton did was to gutt our C.I.A. and military.You notice Bin Laden stay out in the open during the incompetent clinton amd.You meatball libs. keep making up history.
Posted by Keith on September 18, 2007 07:21 PMKW,
I think you're missing the point that, when Bush was presented this report on August 6, his response to the CIA operatives was "All right. You covered your ass." And then he went back to fishing.
No, Bush was not supposed to shut down the whole US of A. But even a cursory investigation would have been nice, especially if the CIA had enough information that they felt it important enough to send operatives in person!
Bush was not responsible for 9/11. But it is my belief, and the belief of many Americans, that a more capable leader may have diverted it.
Posted by Dan on September 18, 2007 07:25 PMKeith,
You stupit concervativ.dum idiott, dont u no Bush ain't doin no lookin for bin laden, he dont care no more cuz he gots to go intwo iraq witch is wat he warnted anyweigh. so now he no luuk fur bin laden cuz he dont be carin, stupid head...
Posted by Karl Cheney on September 18, 2007 07:52 PMImagine that on September 9, 2001 Bush had reported that a plan to use airplanes in an attack against the United States had been discovered by the CIA. Imagine he'd ordered the airports closed, the investigation and detainment of flying school students from the MIddle East. Also imagine that he'd put out an executive order, the only thing capable of making quick changes, that all those in the United States on Student visas who had not reported for class or who were violating the terms of their visas were to be arrested and held. That would have prevented 9/11.
Now imagine the TV and other reporters' response to this.
"Illogical response to unverified reports" "Paranoid nonsense" "Disruption of the entire air traffic system on a rumor."
Add to that all the "experts" informing us that there is no such thing as a group determined to destroy the United States.
Fill in with Dan Rather and his friends having a field day on the totally ridiculous idea of such a thing ever really happening. But we know it did happen so now they press and their friends have to do something negative and they have waited patiently. This is the result.
What our conservative friends never mention is that President Clinton DID act when the WTC was attacked in '93.
The "Bilnd Sheik"and his followers were tracked down like the criminals they were, and were subsequently tried, convicted and punished. All according to U.S and international law.
And President Clinton didn't trash our Constitution to do it.
The only people punished so far by the Bush league have been We the People.
Blaming Liberals will not get Bin Laden behind bars, so give it up cons, your man in the White House is a sadistic, cowardly moron who "cut and ran" to the midwest on 9/11.
The only ones more moronic are the fools who still defend him.
Posted by dmz on September 18, 2007 08:39 PMmomma y,
All they had to do was check the airports and passengers, not shut down the US, plus having a military ready to check out 4 airliners off course for 45 minutes would have been nice instead of doing nothing. I really can't understand anybody defending Bush, he is a terrible public speaker, mangles the english language, not curious about anything, attacked the wrong country, scandals and cronyism galore, stubborn, and does not believe in Science and evolution.. How do you defend that?
Posted by Karl Cheney on September 18, 2007 09:04 PMDMZ. Since you seem to be linked into the inner circle, has the Clinton team told you what they would have done if the towers had collapsed? Criminal law then? Act of war? And just what does international law have to do with an attack that happened within our borders? And what would Hillary do?
I'm one of the "we the People" too, and I don't feel that I have been punished. In fact it was more like punishment during the Viet Nam war, when Lyndon Johnson (D) was President, and people like me were drafted into the service to fight in the war started by John F. Kennedy (D). You know, when Clinton was avoiding the draft and participating in anti-war protests.
So what is the security plan for the President in the event of an attack on the country? Do you think he hopped on AF1 and told the pilot to "take me outta here"? Not sure you can make the cut and run thing stick.
So, from one moron to another, you might want to watch a little less tv, spend a little less time reading the KOS, and bone up on your history. It might do you some good.
Posted by Guess who on September 18, 2007 09:19 PMInteresting question, once the towers were down, the perpetrators dead, what would the Democrats have done?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 18, 2007 09:27 PMALl of you are idiots and the exact problem in this country with you inability to come together.
republican do this!
democrats do this!
all of you should step into traffic befor you breed and spread your idiotc Sheep banter and beliefs to kids.
Posted by Fresh on September 18, 2007 10:46 PMFresh,
I may just have to agree with you on this.
Karl
I just tried to illustrate, not as well as you have, that Bush was and is a target and the prevention of 9/11 would have been mocked and attacked because we didn't have a major tragedy to do as fresh suggests and make all of us step back and think. We would have had no images to be burned in our minds as we saw the attack video played again and again. Karl, your attacks and venom prove that the hatred of Bush would not have permitted those like you to accept the reality of an attack that had been prevented.
Bush might have been able to do something. We don't know. There were prohibitions on sharing information between government agencies so a correlation of the information that was so easy to do in reverse was almost impossible to do prior to the attack. Bush had the authority to change that order and did not.
Whatever we do from here it is helpful to remember that for a few days we were united in the community of grief. The attack DID happen. People DID die and we demanded action and got it. Some of what we got we didn't want. Some of what we wanted we didn't get. Those of us who wanted a real, military in charge, solution were the most betrayed. It is a reality that nothing Bush could have done would have made anyone believe such a plot was real before it happened. It was too extreme to be real. Look at those who still refuse to believe. It is easier to believe that evil people like us did it for reasons of greed or malice than to accept it was done from pure hatred of us, our way of life and our freedoms.
What was attacked on 9/11 wasn't just buildings, it was our purpose, our national presence. For that, it was determined we must be punished with death. Those people are still out there and still plotting. I often wonder what the target of the 4th plane was. The capitol building? My guess is Independence Hall in Philadelphia. They might have been planning to attack a Washington target with the other plane but we will never know. Or at least I hope we won't. The people behind this still hold on to their hate and their determination to kill and destroy.
Defend Bush? Not for the war, not for his lack of resolve to fight it as a war. Never. Attacking him for 9/11 is to blame him for letting his crystal ball permit expire.
Sharon B,
We don'thave to wonder, we know what the Democrats did after the Tower came down. They passed the Patriot Act and voted to authorize Bush to invade first Afghanistan and then Iraq.
Based on the rhetoric coming from the Democrats today it is difficult to recall. They seem somehow like almost completely different people.
Posted by James Jones on September 19, 2007 05:55 AMJames you seem to have forgotten that supposedly Saddam had WMD's and was an imminent threat. None of that was true.
Posted by Obvious on September 19, 2007 07:28 AMGuess Hoo,
(and other appeasers for GW)
The facts speak for themselves
He deserted his post during Vietnam , and also on 9/11.
if thats not "cut and run" then you cons need to find a different pejorative.
Cons have a hard time accepting that W is what he is.
A coward and HORRIBLE prez.
Obvious
No I do remember the conditions. You might wnat ot go back and look at the comments of, say, Hillary Clinton in re Saddam made at the time.
Decisions of this type will always be made based on the best information available at the time.
When it develops that the information was incorrect there are a couple of alternatives.
One, acknowldege the reality and get on with things.
Two, concoct conspiracy theories and hope to exploit the situation to some political advantage.
The selection you make depends on whether your concern is based on national or partisan interests.
Posted by James Jones on September 19, 2007 09:33 AMDMZ is correct. George W Bush is doing his part to continue the legend of the Bush Crime family that was started by his grandfather, Prescott Bush, who as the director of the Union Bank of New York, managed HItler's money and helped fund the NAZIS. Prescott Bush did not care that Amercans were dying in the war as long as he could make a buck off it. The same goes for George W Bush, who has banking ties with his buddy Osama Bin Forgotten and cares not how many Americans die in his war, as long as we get the oil. Like Grandpa, like Grand son.
Posted by IT IS SO on September 19, 2007 09:38 AMAll said in anger is nothing but emotion salted with the spice of ignorance. Let's make it easy; if someone threatens you, act accordingly, before they get the chance to put action to their words.
If someone says to you they are going to kill you is it wise to wait until they try to do it. Hell no!! You act accordingly to the threat by preempting any possibility of their accomplishing the intended action, thereby acting instead of reacting.
What's so damned hard about understanding that that the politicians don't seem to get. If Bin Laden issued a threat in 1996 or whenever it was, we should have taken the nut out within a hour of his doing that. Don't you just know that would of put the terrorist in a swamp of confusion about whether they really wanted to sacrifice themselves, knowing that they would not have the time to do it right so they would get 100 virgins or whatever in their conception of heaven, because we would erase them from the face of the planet before they had a chance to pray to Allah.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 19, 2007 09:43 AMsharon b.,The dems would of finance W.M.D.'S for Al Qaeda.
Posted by Keith on September 19, 2007 09:58 AMDMZ how about naming the people who were part of and planned the 93 attack? That way we can find out that your comment is just a bit off on the fact that all were caught, tried and convicted. Not a Bush apologist, but lets keep the facts straight and not aligned with political affiliations here.
Posted by on September 19, 2007 10:08 AMKeith you mean like the sale of poison gas and helicopters the administration of St. Ronny the Forgetful dispatched Rummy to seal with a handshake?
Posted by davis X. Machina on September 19, 2007 10:12 AMHey Davis what about the Sarin gas in Syria? Care to shed some light on that? Hmmm wonder where they got that stuff?
Posted by on September 19, 2007 10:22 AMLogic on here
Clinton and his cronies has multiple shots at Osama. One of the best chances was nixed because Osama was with Saudi Prince and the administration could not take that chance as there was a multibillion fighter aircraft deal in process with the Saudis
Reasoning on this? Would not have mattered if Clinton killed Osama, somebody else would have taken his place. But it is ok to hack on the current administration because Osama is still here. Solid logic if you are a partisan hack.
Plenty of things to beat the current administration over, but using this kind of logic is insane
This bickering is meaningless. Accusing Bush or Clinton isn't going to resurrect the dead. Quit using their deaths for partisan purposes.
There are people in other parts of the world who wish to harm us but they also have some grievances over our international policies that we need to consider. Do we need to be Israel's proxy army in the Middle East? Do we need to be spend billions a year propping up their government? Do we need to spend a trillion dollars ethnically cleansing Iraq? Do our multi-national corporations need to exploit underdeveloped countries and try to extract as much wealth as possible for them?
We need to reconsider how we relate to the rest of the world because I can guarantee you that the Righties can't kill every would-be terrorist on the planet. Mission impossible folks so you better start thinking of how our over sized national egos can deal with a world of diminshing resources. My vote is to work for a more peaceful and prosperous planet that benefits all people rather than try to build a militaristic culture that sees the bullet as the only solution to every problem. That way leads to bankruptcy and perpetual conflict. There is another way and JC showed us how to find it.
Posted by Wes on September 19, 2007 11:07 AM9/11 was just the stage to help get all us folks shocked into submission. Like I haven't seen that before. Check this out and see if you can or cannot see some logic in our 9/11 event.
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/short-film
Posted by RP McMurphy on September 19, 2007 11:07 AM
Great Wes you just caused Charles to choke on his lunch. Do we need to call 911 Charles? 1 for yes and 2 for no
Posted by on September 19, 2007 11:19 AM