Quote:

whomod said:

The issue is that Bush was warned about terrorist plots and DID NOT RESPOND.



That is, of course, liberal spin, and not fact.

Quote:

Whomod said: Clinton recieved similar warnings in the 1990s and put everyone at high alert meeting with his security staff every day. A CAR WAS STOPPED WITH EXPLOSIVES AT THE CANADA BORDER. These explosives were to be used to carry out an attack by Al-Queda on LAX .



More liberal spin, and blatant distortion. The millenium incident on the Canadian border was only stopped because a Canadian border guard, with no knowledge of an increased alert status, saw something suspicious about the car and thought it might contain drugs. This capture had nothing to do with a Clinton-orchestrated alert.

Likewise, in today's 9-11 investigation hearings, Clinton was criticized for not pressing for greater action against Al Qaida and Afghanistan after the bombing of marine barracks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1995, or the two bombed U.S. embassies in 1998, or the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen in October 2000. Any one of these incidents could have, similar to 9-11-2001, been used by Clinton to sell to the nation that war had been declared on the United States, and that invasion of Afghanistan and possibly other terrorist bases was necessary.

But Clinton was more interesteed in maintaining his popularity, rather than the long-term security of the nation. He was concerned that the people would not support a war, and that a war would thus decrease his popularity. That was Clinton's primary concern, over long-term national security.




Quote:

whomod said:


The CIA (or FBI I forget exactly) knew about two of the people who took part in the 9/11 terror attacks. If they had been warned about the increase in chatter that had only been seen back in the Clinton administration when they found explosives in the car, then they might have acted on that information. THEREFORE, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THEY COULD HAVE PREVENTED 9/11.

I rest my case.

(This all according to interview with former Clinton security staffer on 60 Minutes and inependent investigative work by 60 minutes crew.)



Another distortion. The key word is that maybe an increased terror alert might have caused FBI and CIA intelligence to be combined and pre-emptively capture the terrorists before they seized airliners on 9-11.
But there were no guarantees of this.
And as has been stated many times prior, the FBI and CIA were very jealous and territorial with their investigations and were not prone to sharing information. Middle managers downplayed agents' warnings and didn't send their assessment warnings up the chain of command. As TIME reported in two cover stories on "whistle blowers".
But for some pathological reason, you want to blame it all on Bush.

Yes, Bush could have ordered a higher alert status. But if he put the nation on maximum alert, there's no guarantee it would have changed anything.

David Kay and so many others have called it an intelligence failure, consistent with similar intelligence failures through several administrations, the blame can't all be heaped at Bush's door.
Whereas you, for whatever pathological reason, prefer to blame it all on Bush. But that doesn't gel with the facts.

--------------------

Quote:


( from the "It's not about oil or Iraq..." topic, page 24: )
Mister JLA said:
.
That doesn't change the fact that blahblahblah neocons this, neocons that, conspiracy...Haliberton...Cheney, where was Bush on 9/11...? he duped the American public...lies, lies, lies, the average American doesn't question things like I do, since I care more and am smarter...here in California...blahblahblah.


Signed,

whomod.