AWOL on al-Qaida:

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Nolan-Vinny-Sam, Mar 23, 2004.

  1. March 22, 2004 | 11:46 AM ET

    click on the links highlighted inside and tell me that everything is ok... if this is a leader of the free world.. explains the deep shit we are in..

    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/

    Let’s get this straight before the White House propaganda machine twists it with pretzel logic: The Bush administration ignored the al-Qaida threat before 9/11 and panicked (WSJ) on 9/11 when confronted by the deed itself. We still have never received an honest accounting of what took place, and the media—until this Wall Street Journal story--has been remarkably complicit (and complacent) in its pursuit; this is all the more amazing when you consider the fact that this is just about the most written about event in all human history.

    I spend a lot of time on this issue in The Book on Bush, but rarely, if ever, have I seen it explained or even addressed. Take a look at this incredible timeline upon whose sources I relied when I wrote this chapter and see if you can figure out what’s really going on. (Note: When I wrote my Nation column on this topic last year, which is drawn from the book, I did a lousy job of crediting this terrific research. I made sure to do it in the book, but I regret having failed to so as well in the column.)

    P.S. There’s more here and some of that piece’s sourcing can be found here.

    … And Homeland Security, Too. Homeland security is yet another egregious failure of this administration. Time reports:

    "The vast majority of the $13.1 billion was distributed with no regard for the threats, vulnerabilities and potential consequences faced by each region. Of the top 10 states and districts receiving the most money per capita last year, only the District of Columbia also appeared on a list of the top 10 most at-risk places, as calculated by AIR for TIME. In fact, funding appears to be almost inversely proportional to risk. If all the federal homeland-security grants from last year are added together, Wyoming received $61 per person while California got just $14, according to data gathered at TIME's request by the Public Policy Institute of California, an independent, nonprofit research organization. Alaska received an impressive $58 per resident while New York
     
  2. [​IMG]

    the blood of all our bravest, and all the innocent dead, is on the hands of all the war chickenhawks, warmongering, neocon crapheads Nice going a$$holes!!!!!:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:


    http://electroniciraq.net/news/1322.shtml
     
  3. You gotta love it when someone quotes a columnist from the liberal rag The Nation, fails to cite it, and tries to pass it off as an objective assessment of the Bush administration.
     
  4. Turok

    Turok

    Yes, well, objectivity isn't the hallmark of ET Chit Chat.

    JB
     
  5. BSAM

    BSAM

    N-V-S.....

    Are you claiming to be Eric Alterman?
     
  6. jgalt

    jgalt

    Wasn't Bush president for all of 8 months before 9/11? And wasn't Clinton president for 8 years prior, during which the U.S. and rest of the world suffered numerous terrorist attacks with little to no response? And didn't the Sudanese offer to turn Bin Laden over to the U.S., only to have the Clinton Administration refuse citing "no convening authority"? Now who ignored what again?
     
  7. so then, it is inaccurate?
     
  8. Um, well, let's see. The biggest accusation made is that the Bush administration "ignored" the threat of Al Qaida prior to 9/11. In reality, the administration, though potentially warned of the threat, was never given any actionable plan by the departing administration when he it took office only 8 months earlier. The Bush administration was in the process of finalizing an aggressive plan of action when the attack occurred. Under the Clinton administration, on the other hand, which had the previous 8 years to deal with the issue, and knowing that the Taliban was harboring Bin Laden, basically went around in circles using every diplomatic route possible, including asking Saudi Arabia and the UAE to lean on the Taliban. After making empty threats of military force, the Taliban just ignored the US (these facts are corroborated today by testimony before the 9/11 commission). Then Sec'y of State Albright claimed disingenuously that "all" tools were used unsuccessfully to coax the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden. All tools? She seems to have forgotten the most important tool of diplomacy -- military action.

    Alterman is just another hack with 20/20 hindsight who manages to jump to wild ass conclusions with zero evidence.
     
  9. maxpi

    maxpi

    Those Clinton years were amazing. He had PLO guys working in the white house. Everything in the world was done to kiss up to the moslems. I used to scour the periodicals for the words terror or terrorism, same for the TV news. I could never find the words, for awhile they were not part of our common vocabulary. The white house can do that, usually they don't in peace time however. HEAD IN THE SAND ALL THE WAY, "peace in our time" and spend the Govt. money on anything and everything but the infrastructure and the military. That way when the Republicans took over they had to expand the size of the Government just to get the basics done. If we ever get some conservatives with a pair of cojones they will shrink the welfare/teachers union/etc. garbage by 95% and the world will be a better place for it.

    Max
     
  10. If you actually think that the Defense Budget was "gutted" and "cut to shreds" by the Clinton Administration, you are sadly mistaken my friend. The numbers simply don't support your conclusion.

    Furthermore, do you think that Bush's Administration and cabinet was really even the slightest bit interested in what the Clinton Administration had in so far as "intelligence" was concerned? Do you really believe that Condi Rice was interested in what Sandy Berger had in his files?

    I would suggest that the Bush Administration had an incoming "arrogance" about them that was entirely dismissive of what kind of policy the Clinton Administration had, for Bush and his cabinet had a far different agenda. They couldn't have cared less what Sandy Berger thought or said.

    Instead, they were concerned about Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and a National Missile Defense System, and no-f;y zone violations by Iraq. Don't you remember the first 8 months of the Bush Administration?
     
    #10     Mar 28, 2004