Time: Bush and 9/11: What We Need To Know (Wow!)

[Beetwasher]

This is pretty damn good!

--snip--

Berger believed al-Qaeda was the greatest threat facing the U.S. as Clinton left office. Rice thought China was. What were President Bush's priorities? Was he aware of the Berger briefing? Did he consider an aggressive response to the bombing of the Cole or to the al-Qaeda millennium plot directed at Los Angeles International Airport—which was foiled on Dec. 14, 1999? Did he have any al-Qaeda strategy at all? Rice, who has not yet testified under oath, decided to review counterterrorism policy; the review wasn't completed until Sept. 4. A related question along the same lines: Why didn't you deploy the armed Predator drones in Afghanistan? The technology, which might have provided the clearest shot at Osama bin Laden before 9/11, was available early in 2001. But the CIA and the Pentagon squabbled about which agency would be in charge of pulling the trigger. The dispute wasn't resolved until after 9/11. Were you aware of this dispute, Mr. President? Why weren't you able to resolve it?

--snip--

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,600843,00.html

[librechik]

1. Clinton wanted to declare war on Al Quaeda

but thought it was too close to the election and would be slammed by the GOP as a campaign ploy...

"Why didn't you respond to the al-Qaeda attack on the U.S.S. Cole? The attack occurred on Oct. 12, 2000; 17 American sailors were killed. The Clinton Administration wanted to declare war on al-Qaeda. An aggressive military response was prepared, including special-forces attacks on al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. But Clinton decided that it was inappropriate to take such dramatic action during the transition to the Bush presidency. As first reported in this magazine in 2002, Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and counterterrorism deputy Richard Clarke presented their plan to Condoleezza Rice and her staff in the first week of January 2001. "

btw, Joe Klein, I didn't know Clinton knew in OCT 2000 that he would be transitioning to a Bush presidency.Dumbass.

[blm]

11. You misunderstood what he said.

It was in Jan.2001 that the Predator was able to be armed. Clinton was leaving that decision to use it to Bush. I think Clinton really thought Bush's team would understand the gravity of the situation.

[BabsSong]

2. Point---

I remember when Clinton deffered to Bush presidency on the "reaction" to the Cole. The elections came about just weeks later and, of course, everything was up in the air until Decemember. Putting together a 'war' doesn't happen overnight. It was going to have to be deffered to the new Bush team. BUT the real question these asshole reporters should be asking and pointing to is that instead of them pointing all the time at Clinton, why didn't Mr. Gung-Ho and his group start launching against al Qaeda (they had the intelligence briefings) the minute Bush's hand hit the Bible. Obviously, Bush didn't give a rat's ass. Remember, he immediately started to pick fights with China. How come the repukes don't answer about this?? In other words, Bush wasn't concerned about bin Laden enough to lift a finger. Clinton at least tried to take him out several times.

[blm]

12. Incorrect. They strongly SUSPECTED it was Al Qaeda when it happened.

They didn't have the conclusive evidence until Dec.

[hang a left]

3. Here is a little more

Snip>

Indeed, the second category of questions revolves around the President's interest in and awareness of the al-Qaeda threat. As late as Sept. 10, after the assassination of Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, Bush was asking in his national-security briefing about the possibility of negotiating with the Taliban for the head of bin Laden. "If he had studied the problem at all," an intelligence expert told me, "he would have known that was preposterous." As early as Aug. 6, Bush had been told that al-Qaeda was planning to strike the U.S., perhaps using airplanes. What was his response to that? How closely was he following the intelligence reports about al-Qaeda activity, which had taken an extremely urgent tone by late spring? Another intelligence expert proposed this question: "Did he ever ask about the quality of the relationship between the CIA and the FBI?"

Obviously, the President couldn't be responsible for knowing that the FBI was tracking suspicious flight training in Arizona or that the CIA had an informant close to two of the hijackers, but was he aware of the friction between the two agencies? Was he aware that John Ashcroft had opposed increasing counterterrorism funding for the FBI?

Finally, there are the questions about the President's actions immediately after 9/11. Specifically, why did he allow planeloads of Saudi nationals, including members of the bin Laden family, out of the U.S. in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks? Who asked him to give the Saudis special treatment? Was he aware that the Saudi Arabian government and members of the royal family gave money to charities that funded al-Qaeda?

It is easy to cast blame in hindsight. Even if Bush had been obsessed with the terrorist threat, 9/11 might not have been prevented. But the President's apparent lack of rigor—his incuriosity about an enemy that had attacked American targets overseas and had attempted an attack at home—raises a basic question about the nature and competence of this Administration. And that is not a question the Republicans want you to take to the polls in November.

End of Article>


Wouldn't you just love to see this story on the cover of Time?

"What Did the pResident know and when did he know it?" Doesn't that have a nice ring to it. That would shake the foundations of this cabal. Do you think there is a chance it could happen?

[BabsSong]

4. You know, there 's something else here

It's one thing if when Bush took over the last thing bin Laden had done was like the Trade Center bombings and thus something not standing right out on the front burner as immediate issue. BUT, the Cole had been hit and it was deffered to his new administration to respond. They had the tape that NBC is airing today of not just bin Laden spotted but the mobs of people in just one of his training camps. When the warnings that he was planning something and it could involve planes, etc. hit this administration, why did they just sit there and be all involved with anything but the al Qaeda situation?? The recent Cole strike one would think would have at least pushed this to a top priority spot where Bush would ask FBI/CIA to find out if they were training pilots, etc. anywhere. In other words, when the Cole had just happened to re-remind you of bin Laden, why did Bush fall asleep when new bin Laden intentions hit his desk??

[jmags]

5. Along those lines, how come in the first NSC meeting was Iraq

the priority of the meeting, and Al Queda apparently not even mentioned? IMO, that was the most damning information out of Ron Suskind's book and that ties along nicely with this Time piece.

I truly believe they purposely ignored the Al Queda threat. It seems beyond the dictates of common sense for them to ignore it for other reasons, when the outgoing Clinton administration presented the treat as urgently as they did.

[skeptic9]

8. A cynical answer: Iraq is near the top among countries in oil reserves...

While natural gas is plentiful in Afghanistan, it can't be transported to the US as efficiently as crude oil. Further, pipelines would need to be built to supply Afghan natural gas to Russia or India, two countries Western energy companies cannot rely upon to be stable customers. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html

Dubya's and Cheney's top foreign policy priority at the time seems to have been "energy security" (in other words, rewarding their friends in the energy bidness). Someday, the substance of the secret meetings Cheney held with Dubya's energy transition chairman Ken Lay and other oil bigwigs will be revealed. We already know that oil maps of Iraq were among the exhibits distributed to the still-secret list of attendees:

See http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.b_PR.shtml

IMO, the occupation and exploitation of Iraq could have been explicit items for discussion at Cheney's meetings, and then could have driven the NSC agenda.

[ramapo]

6. Vacation got in the way

Bush* was too busy planning his vacation time to worry about silly things like bin Laden

[cmayer]

7. This will keep bubbling, until ...

the 9/11 Commission releases its report. My guess is there will be many unanswered questions. At that point it will turn into a firestorm as the press asks "what about this". This is the first time it will penetrate the public perception in a major way.

Goodbye Bush*.

[Comadreja]

9. You are more optimistic

about the impartiality of the press than I.

[skeptic9]

10. kick

[T Bone]

13. So China was their first concern ? Maybe that explains the intell

plane getting too close to the Chinese coast, getting forced down and ended up sent back to us in a box in pieces. Probably snarky Condy's flawed advice to fly those planes closer to the Chinese coast.
"That should work, Mr. pResident."

Maybe they weren't concerned about the Cole inicident and what it portended for the future since the contract comapany refueling the Cole and sub-contracting to the terrorists who did it was Halliburton, Cheney's 'company'? :shrug: