Clinton didn't need 9-11 - My two cents worth

[BOSSHOG]

bush needed a catalyst to proceed with the orders he received from the cheney energy task force to secure the iraqi oil fields and get halliburton no bid contracts - MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. If I'm wrong dick cheney, open up the books NOW.

BILL CLINTON'S ADMINISTRATION WAS PURSUING TERRORISTS, NOT TAKING ORDERS FROM CHENEY'S TASK FORCE.

If Clinton had been in office another 8 months, 9-11 would not have happened. Shove that up the ass of your right wing adquaintances.

[DarkPhenyx]

1. I disagree.

9/11 would probably still have happened. Things were that screwed up.

We wouldn't have invaded Iraq because of it though.

[kiahzero]

2. I dunno

Clinton was listening to Clarke... I think if 9/11 were preventable, it would have been prevented under Clinton/Gore or Gore/Lieberman.

[DarkPhenyx]

4. Unfortunately we'll never know.

I don't think Clinton listening to Clarke was the issue. I think the intel system being "broke" contributed more to the events happening than anything else.

[BOSSHOG]

7. But the "broke" system provided incredible chatter the summer 2001

bush wasn't listening to it, nor taking action because of it. He needed a catalyst, and the rest is history.

[DarkPhenyx]

10. which was pretty non-specific chatter.

From everything I've seen yes we should have known something was going to happen. However all the pieces were in different hands, and those people weren't really talking to eachother.

[BOSSHOG]

11. I believe bush wanted "something" to happen

to tend to his orders. He was actively not listening. The commissioner who read the PDB said the contents would set your hair on fire. And Clarke had a plan which was not implemented. bush is at fault. The American people who don't believe it are in denial.

[DarkPhenyx]

13. It's as easy to say that...

..."those who believe are looking for a reason to blame Bush".

Hindsight is 20/20. Once the puzzle is put together it's easy to see where all the pieces go. It's much harder when all the pieces are in a box...or even scatterd among several boxes, with no picture to guide you, and w/o the realization that you are even looking at a puzzle to begin with.

[BOSSHOG]

16. bush wants the pieces scattered

If his administration didn't have so many secrets, the american people would know. Hindsight would not be necessary. cheney has gone to extraordinary lengths to secure the tie breaking vote on SCOTUS to ensure the missing pieces stay missing. Cheney's energy task force would answer damn near all of our questions, of this I am sure.

[DarkPhenyx]

19. Or tell us absolutely nothing new.

We all believe what we want to believe, and our guy is always the hero. *shrug*

I'm figuring this isn't going to get any further.

[BOSSHOG]

3. I think it has been undeniably proven in the last month

that Clinton placed a quantum leap greater priority on terrorists than bush; and that clinton would have payed attention to PDB's. Bush simply had other priorities, that he now must answer for.

[DarkPhenyx]

6. No doubt he did.

But even had Bush been listening, and unless he took OBL out, I think 9/11 would have still occured.

[rusty charly]

5. 9/11

would not have happened because clinton's family does not have financial ties to the bin laden family

[DarkPhenyx]

8. Please explain your rational.

What's the logic behind this conclusion. with links if you please.

[Frances]

12. You asked for links

I would suggest that you read Clarke's book and listen to his interviews.

Clarke is certainly implying that the U.S. would have been safer without Bush in the White House.

If Gore had been president,he would have done everything he could to have seen to it that airports would have been safer (as vp, he made proposals to do so that were blocked by Congress). If he could have enacted his proposals by executive order, then perhaps the twin towers would still be standing.

[DarkPhenyx]

14. So Clarkes book says taht...

...9/11 happened becasue Bush has times to the Bin laden family?

[Stephanie]

15. Here's a link - Cheney needs to explain this

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact

CONTRACT SPORT
by JANE MAYER
What did the Vice-President do for Halliburton?
Issue of 2004-02-16 and 23
Posted 2004-02-09

<snip>

For months there has been a debate in Washington about when the Bush Administration decided to go to war against Saddam. In Ron Suskind’s recent book “The Price of Loyalty,” former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill charges that Cheney agitated for U.S. intervention well before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Additional evidence that Cheney played an early planning role is contained in a previously undisclosed National Security Council document, dated February 3, 2001. The top-secret document, written by a high-level N.S.C. official, concerned Cheney’s newly formed Energy Task Force. It directed the N.S.C. staff to coöperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the “melding” of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: “the review of operational policies towards rogue states,” such as Iraq, and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.”

A source who worked at the N.S.C. at the time doubted that there were links between Cheney’s Energy Task Force and the overthrow of Saddam. But Mark Medish, who served as senior director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian affairs at the N.S.C. during the Clinton Administration, told me that he regards the document as potentially “huge.” He said, “People think Cheney’s Energy Task Force has been secretive about domestic issues,” referring to the fact that the Vice-President has been unwilling to reveal information about private task-force meetings that took place in 2001, when information was being gathered to help develop President Bush’s energy policy. “But if this little group was discussing geostrategic plans for oil, it puts the issue of war in the context of the captains of the oil industry sitting down with Cheney and laying grand, global plans.”

<more>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[DarkPhenyx]

17. I agree.

I see a good reason to link the two, but he really does need to give his explaination.

However...this dosen't justify the above statement.

[Stephanie]

20. Another link - I'm sure you've seen this one

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," September 2000. A Report of the Project for the New American Century.

<snip>The United States cannot simply declare a strategic pause while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today - the F-22 fighter, for example - will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation - the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades.</snip>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[DarkPhenyx]

21. Yes, very familier with it.

Dosen't have anything to do with Clinton and 9/11 however or the quality and positioning of the intelligence leading up to it.

[Burma Jones]

9. I believe that Continuity in Administrations would have deterred 9/11

The Bushies did not want to do anything that the Clintons were doing, so things fell through the gaps. Things like suspected terrorists taking flight lessons. Had Gore continued the policies regarding terrorism, I believe that the confusion over policy shifts would have been minimalized and that people would have been more focused on their mission, not what that mission might be.

[daveskilt]

18. it may still have happened due to intel failures BUT

clinton or gore would not have sat and read a story about a goat while the third and fourth planes were in the air. They would have stepped up and made the hard choices and saved lives on that day. also they would not have used it as an excuse to invade iraq and they would not have cut taxes and hence been able to fund a war on actual terrorism. and this would mean that the economy would be better. and this means people would be hiring. and that means that I WOULD HAVE A DAMN JOB! see its all bush's fault