in defence of bush before 9/11 no one could concieve of what actually happened but they cant claim they were not warned: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/w...&ex=1160452800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print Records Show Tenet Briefed Rice on Al Qaeda Threat JIDDA, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 2 â A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleezza Rice and other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat from Al Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday. The account by Sean McCormack came hours after Ms. Rice, the secretary of state, told reporters aboard her airplane that she did not recall the specific meeting on July 10, 2001, noting that she had met repeatedly with Mr. Tenet that summer about terrorist threats. Ms. Rice, the national security adviser at the time, said it was âincomprehensibleâ she ignored dire terrorist threats two months before the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. McCormack also said records show that the Sept. 11 commission was informed about the meeting, a fact that former intelligence officials and members of the commission confirmed on Monday. When details of the meeting emerged last week in a new book by Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, Bush administration officials questioned Mr. Woodwardâs reporting. Now, after several days, both current and former Bush administration officials have confirmed parts of Mr. Woodwardâs account. Officials now agree that on July 10, 2001, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism deputy, J. Cofer Black, were so alarmed about an impending Al Qaeda attack that they demanded an emergency meeting at the White House with Ms. Rice and her National Security Council staff.
this isn't partisan, just as a citizen i'm looking for a reason why nothing was done. no increased security measures, norad readiness, etc. as more and more of these warnings surface in the mainstream media it seems like at the very least some kind of action from the whitehouse was warranted
The question to ask, of course is the following: If Clinton was elected, and given the same info as Bush upon entering office, the warnings...and if he did nothing, and a 9/11 event followed, would the repubs be as unforgiving toward Clinton as they are toward Bush? Not bloody likely...
I suggest you read the 9/11 report. Yes there were warnings. And there were HUNDREDS of meetings held in D.C. discussing al-queda's intentions. However there was zero HARD knowledge of HOW al-queda would strike. And while there was intelligence hinting that al-queda had "sleeper cells" in the U.S. there was no inkling that domestic aircraft would be involved. Consensus was that the most likely targets were overseas..... http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec8.pdf In other words the NYT article contains no new information. Only stuff stated in a two year old report. Gee, I can't IMAGINE the NYT playing politics with 9/11 a month in front of the congressionals......
You have no right to question your Government in a time of war!! Thats downright unAmerican. Borderline treason!! Whats a matter with you??? You want the Enemy to kill us all!?!??
IF? What the hell is that about? He WAS elected. My God, if anyone had knowledge about how dangerous AQ was, it was your beloved Clinton, who was in power for 8 YEARS, during which there were THREE KNOWN AL QAEDA attacks!!
You did not answer the question, of course... Drinking the Bush Kool Aid does that to folks like you...
i believe i heard clinton admitted he failed on al qaeda. admitting failure is the first step in making a change of course. bush has yet to admit he was wrong about al qaeda and iraq "I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." -- President Bush, explaining to key Republicans that he will not withdraw ...
To cover bases. It's not as if the POSSIBILITY didn't exist. Certainly 9/11 wasn't the first terror plot involving hijackings.....