Why is 9-11 not counting as a minus on this Administration's report card?

[Pontiuth Pilate]

No flames, or I'll be the first to PM the mods and ask for this thread to be closed

So, we all know that:

1. 9-11 was supposedly the result of massive mistakes throughout the executive branch - miscommunication between agencies, poor reaction time, etc.

2. It was the bloodiest single day in American history when we were attacked on our own soil by an outside enemy. It was also the bloodiest terrorist attack ever committed against Americans anywhere.

3. Some of the agents in the Clinton Administration left documentation, or briefed their new counterparts, on the threat Osama Bin Laden posed. It's common knowledge that this information was discarded, and that those who recognized that threat [ie the Phoenix memo, etc] were shunted off to the side and/or ignored.

4. Osama Bin Laden has yet to be caught.

5. Our security is still woefully, well, insecure. Despite reorganization at the top, there hasn't been much improvement at the ground level. The Economist has had a series of articles on this - and it's hardly a left-leaning newspaper.

So the overall question - why is the biggest failure of the Bush administration being seen not only not as a liability, but as "the day when everything changed for Bush" for the BETTER, to paraphrase one poster?

 

[The Yankee]

Because it's a plus. Somehow he led us all to a great victory over the terrorists and somehow, if Gore were president, we'd all be dead. At least, that's a lot of what I heard. I don't expect people to say that here, though.

 

[Norlamand]

It's hard to say it isn't a minus. If 9-11 had never happened would Bush be better off now or worse? The blow to the economy after 9-11 would never have happened and the economy may well have been better off by this point. He also wouldn't have likely invaded Iraq. So given that scenario, no war in Iraq and a good economy, he would actually be better off now than he is.
Most people seem reluctant to blame the administration for a sucker punch that nobody saw coming despite the fact that the signs were there for years in advance.

 

[omichyron]

simple: the liberals initially were the ones saying we shouldn't throw blame around because the conservatives were blaming everyone from homosexuals to feminists for causing God to lower his mystical bubble of protection and now the liberals don't have the brains to change gears.

 

[The Chosen One]

Mainly because the previous administration had plenty of chances to declare war on terrorism but failed to do so, they just lobbed a few cruise missles. Anyone remember the Cole bombing and the embassy bombings in africa?

 

[amadeus]

So, a new president is expected to correct the errors of the last eight years of the previous adminisration (slashing CIA and military funding) in eight months?

 

[delsully]

Was it not the mantra of the Bush campaign to promote "accountability"? He must of stammered over that word a thousand times before the election.

 

[Ossric]

9/11 will only "help" Bush get reelected. When the Democrats start talking about the mess in Iraq, Bush will keep saying 9/11 & terrorists about a hundred times in his speeches. Allthough the US government has already admitted that there was no real conection with Al Qaeda, they have hammered on that issue for so long that the majority of the US citizens still believe that Sadam is connected to Al Qaeda. Just watch, his reelection will be all about 9/11 & terrorists...

 

[WickedSmurf]

I agree with you there PP, this obvious lack of sharing vital intelligence between different agencies was fatal.

And the "war on terrorism" or whatever it is has NOT been won. Kinda fun to see that people think so.. It will never be won either.

But if you have the right propaganda machine nothing is impossible, right?

 

[Neomega]

Because this is the America of Jessica Lynch.

What? You just let 3000 Americans be incinerated by jumbo jets flying into skyscrapers? Well, we love you Mr. President, Anything you ask, anything, wait... here is the constitution...... let us wipe it for you!

What? You got lost, flipped your rigg, and hardly fired a shot from your jammed rifle? Have a bronze star Pvt. Lynch! Also, take this million dollar book and movie deal for displaying the competence of the U.S. military so brilliantly!

Oh, what? You stormed the beach at Normandy, picked up a wounded soldier and gave him refuge while bleeding from a bullet wound to earn your bronze star? Well America loves victims now, not heros.


edit: history side note, I believe one of the days in the battle of Antietam was actually the bloodiest day in American history.

 

[Sickman]

Because he is republican...?

Can I get my cookie now?

Sorry for this but...
As sidenote I must say that I hadn't noticed Rmsharpes signature before this thread.
LOL...

Just think about it...Ronald Reagan for four terms?
I bet there wouldn't be anybody anymore anywhere.

 

[Kentonio]

The US government did not 'allow' this to happen, that is plainly nonsense, the standards that many people, most usually liberals ironically enough, set on the American Intelligence agencies is frankly staggering. The real irony of course comes with the fact the Democrats are always the first to cut spending on these things while expecting miraculous results.

How many warnings of terrorist activities do you think the CIA/FBI/NSA etc hear about in a year? In Britian we get this crap on a regular basis so considering the much larger size of America one can only presume the amount is far larger. Most of these warnings are so loose, so vague, that it would take immense amounts of time and manpower to dig deep enough to find out exactly what the warning was really about, if indeed you could ever actually find out and if indeed the warning wasnt just some bull**** made up to distract you.

Now consider how many planned terrorist activities are never actually heard about by the intelligence services. Why? Because theres no real reason why they SHOULD get to hear about these things, it is a testament to the good work they do that they successfully get as much information as they do.

Imagine a small group of say Saudi dissidents, they are pissed off that the US plays such a strong role in Saudi affairs and decide they have had enough. Several of their members are extremely well off and they decide they are going to arrange a bombing on US soil using fundementalists to do the actual travelling and risk taking while the dissidents themselves fund the whole deal. At what point in this operation do US intelligence get to find out about it? How do they find out about it? Basically they hope someone talks and thats pretty much the whole sum of things. Whether its an actual informant or whether they hear something while listening in on something completely different, it all comes down to pure luck eventually.

People say that the intelligence agencies were watching the bombers at the time that they were taking flying lessons in the States. Well shock horror they are watching a LOT of people who have appeared on their lists for one reason or another. But does watching actually mean physically watching? No, not usually unless its something very important. Watching generally just means keeping tabs on. So then the US intelligence agencys hear some warnings about a possible attack. What are they supposed to do now? Are they supposed to arrest everyone they are currently watching on the vague chance they they might be involved (Bear in mind we could well be talking about thousands of people)? Are they supposed to put them all under 24 hour surveillance (yeah right)? What exactly the hell are they supposed to do against an enemy that is hidden amongst your own people and who fights without rules, without morals and without warning?

You Americans should be thanking God you have such a bloody effective intelligence service over there that can and does achieve some quite miraculous results. The people who sit sniping about their failures should maybe learn a little about what they are talking about before they start throwing blame around.

 

[Speedo]

I don't really think that the Bush administration can be truly blamed for 9/11, except for the fact that Bush was president at the time. I don't really see any way that they could have prevented it. Do you really think that people would have stood for "tighter" airport security, homeland defense dept, and etc, until 3000 body bags were laid at their feet?

 

[The Yankee]

Probably not, Speedo. However, now that this happened, we should at least know what they knew and what they attempted to do to prevent it. We can make judgements from there. As someone not privvy to intelligence data, I cannot go off on a tandem about this or that. However, I think that the people who see this as a "plus" are somewhat misguided. Which brings us back to my thread about political tools....but that's something else for another time and on that thread.

I think it is a good time to seriously question what happened and not some lame attempt at an investigation whose results keep getting put off. This isn't September 12th, when people feared more attacks and more death and we needed to unite for our country. Now, we must find out what happened and why. Whether Bush or his team are at fault can be determined later. Even if they aren't at fault, even if it is just something beyond the scope of our intelligence teams (they can't be everywhere, you know), then we should know that with evidence. That is all.

No Bush bashing or anything required.

 

[rilnator]

I agree with Speedo. There are hundreds of ways terrorists could attack and in such a large nation it would be hard to keep tabs on every suss monkey.
In tough times the population generally rallies behind their leader. Didn't Bush snr have have one of the highest approval ratings for a US president ever during the initial gulf war?

 

[Speedo]

I agree, we should look back at what they did and didn't do and attempt to learn from it. I just think that even if Bush & Co. had done everything "right" that was realistically possible, I don't think it would have helped. If you really wanted to stop 9/11, you would probably have to go back 10+ years.

So in my book itself 9/11 is neither plus nor minus- however, actions resulting from 9/11 get a big minus. IMO, it could have potentially been a big plus for him... but of course a lot of poeple see it that way anyhow....

 

[Ayatollah So]

Originally posted by Speedo
I agree, we should look back at what they did and didn't do and attempt to learn from it. I just think that even if Bush & Co. had done everything "right" that was realistically possible, I don't think it would have helped. If you really wanted to stop 9/11, you would probably have to go back 10+ years.

While it's true that some/most of the perpetrators had been in America for years, the Phoenix memo was a big fat clue that might have led to prevention or partial prevention. The student pilot who wasn't interested in learning how to land could have connections that might be traced. And other flight instructors might have recognize similar patterns, had they been questioned.

Would a different climate at the top have led to taking the Phoenix memo seriously? I dunno.

A few months before 9/11, the Hart-Rudman report from Congress advocated many improvements in anti-terrorism security. The White House response?

Actually, Hart-Rudman did gain impressive backing in Congress from the top Republican members of the national security set, at a time when they controlled the Senate, and vigorous support from Donald Rumsfeld at Defense. Hearings were scheduled for the week of May 7. But the White House stymied the move. It did not want Congress out front on the issue, not least with a report originated by a Democratic president and an ousted Republican speaker.

The above is from
this website.

 

[The Yankee]

Let's just say that some thing or some things went wrong and hope those holes will be covered. It makes no sense to blame Clinton or Bush on this unless you have hard evidence that some spook went up to the President, said "this will happen next week," and the President said "no." Usually, the President has less to do with these things as some people might think.

There should be an effort to get a very serious investigation done on this matter and not delay the findings any more than they already have. That just raises suspicion for me.

 

[cgannon64]

Because a bunch of construction workers chanted "USA" when Bush visited the site. And that picture that is suspciously like the one from WWII. And because we had a swift victory over Al Qaeda in Afgahnistan.

 

[The Yankee]

Don't forget the flight suit!

Yeah, I'm just poking good fun here. Although, some of this is actually taken into account with many people. I fail to understand why that is.