April 13, 2004
From the desk of Jane Galt:Question and answer period
I have a question for those who are busy castigating the administration of their choice for 9/11:
In retrospect, it is blindingly obvious that the stockmarket was in a massive bubble. All the information was there. Looking back, we can even pick out signs that it was bound to start crashing shortly after January 1, 2000, as companies scaled back the massive technology infrastructure investments that had been driven by Y2K. It was obvious that as soon as companies began to report their 1Q2000 earnings, the bubble was going to deflate. It was also widely known that the Fed had massively increased liquidity in the runup to Y2K because they were afraid that fears of the bug, or ordinary millenial hysteria, could touch off a bank run. As soon as they turned off the tap, and infrastructure investment bobbled, the unsustainable P/Es were bound to collapse. Anyone could have seen it.So why didn't you? You had all the information you needed. Articles were being written on all of these factors. Many of you work in the technology industry, and knew that companies had pushed forward several years worth of IT spending to meet the 1/1/2000 deadline--and that, therefore, the spending which was driving the astronomical prices of technology companies was going to collapse immediately after the date passed. So how come you didn't use that information to make a fortune? Jus how incompetent are you at managing your finances?
By now, I assume you are sputtering. I'm data mining, you will say; it's a lot easier to trace the events in March 2000 to the Y2K phenomenon when you have the benefit of hindsight to tell you what happened. Plus, while it's true that you had all this information, you also had a ton of other information telling you different things; picking out the threads that turned out to be relevant is nearly impossible prospectively, as opposed to retrospectively. Also, there have been lots of infrastructure booms, liquidity increases, and public scares that didn't lead to a meltdown in the stockmarket. How the hell were you supposed to know?
And what could you have done about it if you did know? You might have known, in general, that the market was in a bubble. Most people in the financial community did know it was a bubble; they just didn't know when it was going to pop, which is why most of them lost their shirts along with most of us. The cost of taking action too soon could be catastrophic; one gent of my acquaintance went short in the market three years in a row. He made a fortune the fourth year, but the first three nearly drove him into bankruptcy. Besides, there were outside constraints on your investment; your 401(k) had limited mutual fund offerings, and your spouse would have killed you if you'd put all your holdings into cash. You didn't fail to make a killing in the market because you're an idiot; it's just that things always look a lot more obvious in hindsight than they were at the time. It's ridiculous to accuse you of being stupid or incompetent just because you didn't act with perfect foresight.
Why, yes it is ridiculous. But all too human. It's a phenomenon known as Hindsight bias, well studied in psychology and behavioural finance. Robert Schiller has an excellent quote on the subject in his book, Irrational Exuberance:
The reason for overconfidence may also have to do with hindsight bias, a tendency to think that one would have known actual events were coming before they happened, had one been present then or had reason to pay attention. Hindsight bias encourages a view of the world as more predictable than it really is.
Investors who succumb to hindsight bias, or managers who manage by it--or voters who vote on it--get significantly worse outcomes than those who fight it; it leaves them prone to making mistakes, because they put too great a faith in their powers of judgement.
By now, I imagine you can see where I'm going with this.
Pointing to a non-specific memo received by the White House, which said that Al-Qaeda meant to attack something in America, sometime, and saying that George Bush or his appointees could therefore have stopped the attack, is ludicrous. First of all, you don't know how many other pieces of information the administration was inundated with, from which you are expecting them to have picked this one as the single item most worthy of action. Second of all, it's not clear whether any action could have stopped the attack at that late date; the much vaunted capture of the Millenium Bomber was the result of a suspicious customs inspector looking for drugs, not some master plan on the part of the Clinton administration. And third of all, both administrations were working under outside constraints, both institutional and political, that would have prevented them from taking the kind of action that we now urge.
You're Bill Clinton in Autumn of 1998. Tell me, specifically, what you would have done to take out Bin Laden, and how you would have persuaded Congress, the military, and the American public to back your plan. Give especial attention to your public relations strategy for responding to members of the Republican congress accusing you of a "Wag the dog" strategy. You must also include your mechanism for the execution or imprisonment of a large number of militants against whom there is insufficient evidence to bring a court case.
You're George Bush in August 2001. Tell me, specifically, what you would have done based on that memo, that would have a reasonable chance of apprehending the hijackers. "Put the government on alert" is glaringly insufficient. The memo says that Al Qaeda may want to hijack an airplane to secure the release of militants, or that it may aim to make some sort of attack in Washington. Given that you do not know which of these, if either, is true, nor when, where, or how the attack will come; given that the "chatter" to which opponents of Mr Bush like to refer has more often not presaged an attack (as we have seen with the numerous "Orange Alerts" and so forth); and given that any measures you take will be expensive and anger some subset of the population, what do you do? If your answers include, with astonishing foresight, such unprecedented things as strip searching passengers on domestic flights or ordering pilots not to open cockpit doors even after hijackers have begun killing passengers, please explain which of the tens of thousands of domestic flights taking off in the United States each day you plan to target; where you will get the extra personnel to do so; how you will respond when the ACLU and the airlines get a preliminary injunction against you for flagrantly violating passengers' civil rights; how you plan to sell the massive delays to the millions of angry passengers; what you are going to do about the inevitable Democratic charges of racial profiling; and how long you plan to keep this up, given that you have no idea whether an attack is due this week, this year, or at all? You must also include a section explaining what you are going to do about the North Korea expert shouting in your ear that you really need to pay attention to this intelligence saying that crazy Cousin Kim may have nukes.
In short, unless you're the kind of genius who manages your own small affairs with 20/20 foresight, this sort of blame game strikes me as pure partisan grandstanding. And if we cannot remove the taint of partisanship from the 9/11 commission, at least we can expect better of ourselves, and our commentariat, than to crassly exploit those tragic events for electoral advantage. Some things are just more important than scoring a win for the team.
Posted by Jane Galt at April 13, 2004 9:08 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksBeing president is hard. Boo f**king hoo.
Actually, I did.
I pulled all my money out of Tech stocks in 1999 (with the exception of Microsoft and IBM) and kept much of it in fairly safe blue-chip funds and other, less violitile investiments (that Japanese currency fund actually did very well). Whereas most people lost 25% or more of their equity in the crash that followed. I lost less than 5%.
But, just to prove to you I'm often not right about things, I remember having conversations with people years before 9/11 about how easy it was to blow up crap in this country and how we needed to be more careful with who we allowed access to certain things. Sarin Gas in the subway, suitcase bombs on planes, etc. I assumed the government understood this since I, an ignorant peon, figured it out. So there is an example of me being wrong. Bush & Co didn't care and didn't do much about it. My mystake.
The problem is that Bush did NOTHING at all. I don't know if heightened alert at the airports with increased security would have prevented 9/11, but it was at least worth trying. With respect to the "Bubble", the only body that could have done anything effective, the Fed, did raise interest rates several times in 2000 in an effort to bring a soft landing. While I agree that it is easier to look backward than forward, this does not mean we should never look backward to see if mistakes were made to avoid repeating them.
The point of Jane's brilliant work was not to say "Being president is too hard". Her point was that the terrorists are responsible for 9/11 not Bush. The Democrat leadership wants to blame Bush, point fingers at Bush, and smear Bush.
But what actions could any president have taken that wouldn't have seemed like an "overreaction", "paranoid policy", "taking our liberties away", etc.
And... What has Bush done since 9/11? Bush has been the strong, steady hand at the wheel guiding us to defeat the terrorists before they can kill more innocent civilians.
What has the Democrat leadership done? When Bush went to Afghanistan they cried that it is too dangerous that Russia couldn't do that. When new tools were given to courts to help find the terrorists people cried that their liberties were taken away. When Bush a year after Afghanistan tried to put teeth into the U.N. mandates that Saddam destroy the WMD's that he has used and the French, German and Russian Intelligence agencies said Saddam had, they cried that we were acting unilaterally and preemtively even though we had a bigger coalition than the first gulf war and had had Iraq strike at our no fly zone planes.
Which way do you liberals want to have it? Pick one. You can't be on both sides of an argument before and after and during our fight against terrorists.
Kate,
If you had been smart, you would have made money. 1999 was far too early. Anybody can tell you that.
Maybe "Bush & Co" knew about the suitcase bomb and Sarin gas subway attacks? I don't recall any successful ones of those types on US soil. Perhaps you and your ignorant peon friends should have figured out the "airplanes as missles" idea and forwarded it on. Thanks for nothing.
Jim English
Chicago
Your quote "Bush did NOTHING at all" is inaccurate. Please read Condaleeza Rice's testimony and the August 6th PDB. The 8/6 PDB talks about 70 investigations by FBI to track down the problem. Condaleeza Rice's testimony stated MANY things that the administration was doing to combat the threat. Including drawing up a more comprehensive plan than Clinton had. This plan was able to be implemented soon after 9/11 because it was already made.
BW,
"The problem is that Bush did NOTHING at all."
Gimme a break.
From the August 6 Daily Brief
"The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2285-2004Apr10.html
The very memo that supposedly is "proof" that Bush had warning of the attack includes this item about 70 full field investigations. There is some dispute now as to the actual number and their relation to bin Laden but no one is disputing that the item appeared in the brief.
President Bush certainly had reason to believe that something was being done regarding terrorists.
Keep spreading the wholly unsupported line of bullshit that Bush did nothing. In light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it only makes you look like a fool.
Jim English
Chicago
Bush and his pals did nothing in response to the warnings they were given except arrange to ensure their own safety.
I do believe they had no specific knowledge of the timing of the threat, though. Otherwise they would have told Bin Laden's family to leave the country beforehand.
Worse than a fool. BW looks to me like he/she is actually an enemy of this country trying to spread propaganda.
The problem with people like BW is that he/she may have actually convinced others that they are correct. It is our duty to keep responding and keep making sure that there is clarity out there.
Humanity's struggle is against confusion. I heard that somewhere and every day that passes it makes more sense.
Not just partisan grandstanding. A lot of America, including me, are still scared and would like to see specific steps using the history of 9/11 in order to create reassuring conditions.
It is not just a matter of "Who is to blame?" but also a question of "Can the next one be prevented?" If it was a matter of Clinton or Bush failures, that would actually be reassuring. More reassuring than "We did everything possible, but it was not preventable."
Just like the word unilateral, the word nothing means something. It is foolish to suggest Bush did nothing when there is overwhelming evidence that proves that is so incorrect.
About the tech bubble, I knew. I used to drive my collegues crazy with my "IT'S A BUBBLE" ranting. The only stock I held was that of my employer (a bank) and I moved all of my investments into bond funds; my 401k into a stable value fund; and bought some real estate. I made a killing from 2000-current. I am essentially retired at 39 - do some consulting on the side.
Many people knew it was a bubble but were unwilling to get out on the fear that it could still go higher / might come back.
As for the rest of your post I agree for the most part. But I do think that some criticism can still be levied against both this Admin and the last one that they did not do enough about something they knew posed a threat. Hiding behind "wag the dog" might work for Clinton era inaction, but if you assume that that is the main reason Clinton did not attack Osama and co. why would you not expect Bush to pick up where Clinton left off and actually do something? This is where the Clarke criticism seems to have some traction.
Bill Clinton's NSA had Bin Laden located and the military poised to take him out. Sandy Berger called the president to get the go-ahead. The president was too busy getting a Lewinsky to take the call. He blew the chance.
Just like he screwed up a military operation against Iraq because he was partying at a golf tournament and repeatedly refused to take Berger's call.
See the book by the Air Force Lt. Col. who was there carrying the nuclear football when it happened.
Several people seemed to have missed the point of the post. OF COURSE you can criticize the Bush and Clinton administrations for not doing 'enough' when you look back and data mine the news, it's that....oh hell, if you can read that entire post and not see it there's nothing I can say.
Except, of course: Orbitron; tell it to Ted Olson's wife.
Has the commission actually presented anything that we can do NOW to prevent another terrorist attack? I mean something more specific than reelect Bush/elect Kerry? Something that we should do no matter which party is in power?
One question for those who think Bush could've prevented it...
What is that something more that Bush could've done above and beyond all that his administration was doing?
Let's go through some options....
1) Starting in September, he could've implemented a more robust security system at the airports that would've called for airlines to have large expenditures on new technology screening devices and a large expenditure on hiring more security personnel. Even then the hijackers might have gotten on the plane because boxcutters weren't excluded and racial profiling is still not aloud.
2) On August 7th, he could've with satellite located Bin Laden's compounds and dropped the MOAB's and 2,000 lb. bunker busting bombs on them. But even then the hijackers came into america during the Clinton time-frame (not blaming Clinton here) and would've carried out the attack still
3) Bush could've expanded the # of FBI investigations from 70 to 140 on August 7th. Would that 5 week period given the FBI enough time and resources to find the hijackers that were planning on doing their deed?
The oh-so-smart elitists liberals who want to act like they are perfect and nothing is wrong in their lives and why is Bush a screw up HAVE YET TO TELL US WHAT BUSH could've done without the populace screaming in outrage about losing their liberties or having to wait in 2 hour airline screenings or invading a country like Afghanistan preemptively.
What is it liberals? What is it that Bush could've done? Tell us !
Megan
Excellent article. I agree completely...
Kate/Whopper
What exactly was Bush supposed to do in eight months? He did what he basically could do- continue with what was already implemented until his admin could come up with a plan. Where is your proof that he didn't care or did nothing?
Orbitron
All they did was ensure their own safety? How so? What's your evidence for that?
Jay
One of the more noxious habits of liberals generally seems to be a vast asymmetry between their expectations of competence of those in positions of authority and others.
Some difference is expected, of course, but I'm talking about expectations of superhuman perspicacity of, e.g., a President (particularly a Republican one), and subhuman sentience of ordinary citizens, and particularly the downtrodden. "They" (i.e., grownups) should have foreseen some unforseeable calamity, while others can be as stupid and comatose as they like, and should suffer no consequences from it. It's a curiously anti-democratic, even elitist, viewpoint, that imputes vastly greater intelligence and judgment to officeholders and other prominent people than to others (rather than the democratic view, that they are peers selected by the electorate to handle public affairs temporarily, the "president of the PTA" model).
This attitude is what leads to the charge that "they" (Bush & Co.) should have foreseen a threat that no one imagined (much less anticipated) beforehand, while my opaque windshield sunscreen bears a helpful suggestion that one should remove it before attempting to drive.
In truth, no one could have foreseen the attack, given the welter of confusing, conflicting, and irrelevant background information, and conducting a post mortem on it is only valuable to the extent it suggests what to do going forward.
And going forward... My personal view is that Bush has gone forward in excellent fashion. He has been hampered by people in the press giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
And going forward... Sean Hannity says it best when he says that 9/11 is like a preview of coming attractions to these terrorists. These terrorists if they aren't stopped might be able to kill a million people in a New York City if they detonate a nuclear bomb there.
North Korea has these things and they have been able to launch satellites. North Korea according to experts therefore can launch ICBM's (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missles) with a nuclear warhead.
Bush is trying to implment a Patriot missle like system that protects america. (Patriot missles are a short range missle system). Liberal elitits want to scream in outrage that this is wrong, that it won't work (yet there have been successes in testing) and will outrage the world.
Well. When Bush tries to do something to prevent a catastrophe and the liberals scream about their liberties, the preemption or the cost... what could Bush have done that would've been ok with liberals and prevented the attack at the same time? How about Kate and Whopper? You are perfect right. Where is the answer?
:)
Maybe if we all keep slamming our heads against the wall like this, something more constructive than infinite permutations on "It was Bush's fault/It wasn't Bush's fault/The panel is a blunt partisan instrument/The panel isn't a blunt partisan instrument" will come tumbling out. But I doubt it.
This comment has been deleted for inappropriate content. If the commenter cares to rephrase without the nasty invective and re-submit, he or she will be permitted to do so. --ed.
We pointed you to read Condaleeza Rice's testimony..
She testified what was done in response to many many terrorist warnings not just the 8/6 memo. The Bush admin was doing way more than the Clinton admin was doing. That is unless you disbelieve Condi and want to attack her credibility and say that she is outright lying. Which would mean that everyone that she says was working on the problem together would be part of the conspiracy to lie.
So. Whopper. Tell us another one. Or.. go read her testimony. Until you do so, you'll be asking the same dumb question over and over again.
My question remains Timothy. It is quite constructive for us to know (from you I guess) what any administration or anyone could've done to prevent 9/11 that would've been palatable to the American people. I listed 3 options that wouldn't even have stopped the attack and wouldn't have been palatable to the people. What is your constructive input?
Folks, don't tell me that "Bush didn't do anything" -- tell me what you would have reasonably done that would have had a reasonable chance of stopping this. As anyone who has ever had a position of responsibility knows, it's easy for the ignorant or the malevolent to stand outside screaming for those in charge to "DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO SOMETHING!" It is considerably more difficult to formulate and implement a plan. Given how close this memo came to the actual events, and given that it was not based on new information, I am unlikely to be convinced that
a) There is something that Bush should have done that would have had a reasonable chance of preventing the attacks
that
b) Clinton can't equally be faulted for failing to do.
Why does it matter if any security measures taken by Bush (who took NONE in response to the PDB) would have been "ok, with liberals?" It doesn't matter if a security measure is ok with me. The government would have implemented it and I would have had to have lived with. For example, if the Bush admin. imposed heigthened scrutiny of would be airline passenger and I wanted to fly, I would have had to accept them or not fly. True leadership means doing the right thing, or at least trying to, whether or not it is "Ok with liberals" or anyone else. I don't claim to be perfect by any strecth and am not expecting perfection from Bush & Co. or any other leader. I am never stated such and don't know why you folks have to resort to this straw man. What I do think is that Bush should have done SOMETHING in response to the warning contained in the PDB. Would it have worked? I don't know. It may well not have, but we will never know. We do know what doing nothing did and it was not pretty.
Er . . . BushWhopper, if the measure is one that you would personally, have screamed about (and consider that, since it would have allegedly prevented 9/11, you would be denied the hindsight to know that it was necessary), then you have no right to demand that the president should have gone ahead and done it anyway without first admitting that you utterly lack the foresight and judgement that you are now demanding from the president.
Hey whopper. We are asking for that something. Until you tell us that something you look silly.
BW, I gave 3 options (being constructive) that wouldn't even have stopped the attack, and wouldn't have been palatable by the American people (People would've screamed to remove Bush because he was paranoid or over reactive or preemptive against Afghanistan).
So... Removing the palatable argument for the short time being (I reserve the right to raise it later), what options or plans should Bush have come up with in 5 weeks (other than what he already was doing) that would've prevented the terrorists (who are the ones ultimately responsible) from doing their evil deed?
If you can't answer then you look silly with your criticism. Grow up.
Finally, to those saying they got out of the market in 2000, that's not good enough. I got out in 1998. But what you're demanding from the Bush administration is very targeted action; something specific to the eight months that he occupied the Oval Office. Otherwise, conservatives can argue that Clinton should have done whatever it was. When you base your criticism on the PDB memo, you narrow the window still further, to a month. I think it is only fair, then, that you explain why you, with your exceptional powers of judgement and intuition, did not wait until February of 2000 and then sell at the top of the market, when it is blindingly obvious that the market was going to fall as soon as Q4 whisper numbers started.
You nail it Jane.
I keep thinking that the more rational or persuasive an argument we make, the more someone with a predisposition for not liking Bush would understand the task at hand they are asking of him.
I can understand that there are people out there who don't like Bush. We have a free country where people can say a whole lot. During the time that some people speak loudly with anti-Bush rhetoric (liberal leadership, academics, journalists) I can see how some people might hear the rhetoric and have the same viewpoint.
What I don't understand is when we ask for some constructive, to the point, suggestions that President Bush could've taken on, we don't get them. It's like talking to my ex-wife. :) I ask the same question, we make the same persuasive point and .... nothing. No suggestion. Nothing constructive.
What is moving forward?
1) Missle Defense
2) Patriot Act
3) Converting 2 Dictator run countries to democracy and putting other islamic extremist nations that this is how a nation of people can be free, prosper and be part of the world community.
Great writing Jane. I was just tuned into you by Hugh Hewitt on 1380 AM in Sacramento, CA.
So far no one seems to be able to provide me with any action that Bush took AFTER receipt of the PDB. That's been my point all along. Again, I have never claimed that Bush could have definitely prevented the tragedy of 9/11. I just don't know. I do know that doing nothing would not have prevented it. Instead of personally attacking me by calling me a traitor as some on here have done, can any of you point to ANYTHING that Bush did in response to the PDB?
BW, I've pointed you to look at Condi's testimony in front of the commision. You keep asking the same silly question over and over again and not looking at her testimony.
I will not do your work for you. I will lead a horse to water by I will not inject the water. She tells what was done before and after the 8/6 PDB. She tells what was done in great detail.
Everytime you ask. I ask you to look at her testimony. You look not only silly now but also LAZY. :) Haven't called you a traitor. But I've said you look silly. Now you look lazy. And you don't realize it. Which makes you look like you can't read the tea leaves which is what you are asking Bush to do. :)
Well, in as much governance does affect the economy, it does make sense to become acquainted with a sensible "state of the union".
I'd like you to consider reading the text for a "state of the union" address that I believe is imperative for this country of ours. To get to it, all you need do is click on the below enclosed U.R.L
http://www.bcvoice.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=205
By the way, the proprietors of the www.BCVoice.com website have provided a couple ways for you to leave your comments.
toodles
\
A Alexander Stella
p.s - also in the event, you'd like some more credentials. Those can be obtained easily enough from the Google search engine. All you need do is use as a search phrase, with quotes and all, the following:
"A. Alexander Stella". Upon your doing so, the monitor screen shall fill with hyperlinks.
Can we assume Bush could not only have done something, but also could have done this something so quietly that the terrorists would not notice and change their plans accordingly?
Jane's absolutely right about the "Do something" exhortation from this who've never been in a position of responsibility.
Here's my guess at what Bush's intelligence briefings looked like:
Fictitious PDBs, week of 9/3/01
Monday: Unconfirmed reports suggest that North Korea may be talking with Libya, possibly about nuclear and/or missle technology.
Tuesday: Intercepted messages between a high-ranking Soviet ex-officer in the Strategic Rocket Forces and Iraq may reflect a renewed desire by Iraq to upgrade its Scud missle capability to increase the threat against Israel.
Wednesday: MI6 believes that Iran is closer to a nuclear capability than previously thought, and may be cooperating with Libya.
Thursday: Sources in the Middle East report that Osama bin Laden has called for more attacks on Americans, perhaps including within the U.S.
Friday: BND has learned that Syria has approached a German firm to buy fermentation equipment that could be used to prepare biological weapons.
Saturday: MI6 bugs in Kofi Annan's office indicate that Annan may be encouraging Iraqi intransigence by promising to impede further pressure on Iraq to allow free inspections.
Sunday: ISI has interdicted opium being transhipped through Pakistan by Abu bin Kerry, who has ties to extremist groups, which may using the revenue to fund terrorist operations in the West Bank.
From which, clearly, he ought immediately to do....what?
He's supposed to overreact to the liberal's joy so they can criticize him so more. :)
Jane, It is emphatically not ignorence or malevolence to demand competence from your elected officials. The facts remain, Bush received warnings and did NOTHING. ZIP. For those of who are citing Rice's testimony as evidence that the admin. did something in response to the PDB, you are quite wrong. Rice's testimony, backed by Bush's own statement this Sunday is that they COULDN'T Do anything because the document was of an historical nature and not a warning and was too vague.
As for the argument that I should be able to come up with a better plan by myself, it's simply ludicrous. Bush has a National Security staff, gets briefings from the CIA, FBI and the military. World leaders return his call. He has an entire political party unified behind him. His Dad was a former president who ran the CIA. He gets paid to work on problems like that. Don't you think he has just a few more resources, than I, a lawyer in private practice armed with GOOGLE? Give me a break!
That said, (and I already did say this in my original post), Bush could have tightened airport security,putting greater scrutiny on would be passnegers. I have long advocated this BEFORE 9/11, having experienced Israeli security on El Al. Would this have prevented 9/11? I don't know and have never claimed it definately would have, but it would have been SOMETHING positive and constructive that he could have done.
Finally, For those of you who think I simply motivated by hatred of Bush, I have this to say to you:I lost friends on 9/11. I am a New Yorker and even worked for a law firm with offices in that building one summer. I personally knew five people who died that day. Forgive me if I seem emotional on this subject. I do oppose Bush politically on most issues, but do not "hate" him.
Looking back at some of the national and international defense priorities of the Bush administration in the first half of 2001, such as ballistic missle defense and busting medical marijuana users in California, I think there was certainly room for improvement. And yes, I thought and said so at the time.
Do you all really think that these two policies were wise? A good use of our defense resources?
Sometimes when I read all the righteous, indignant Bush-defending going on at this site, I think I must be at GOP.com or something.
Is Bush (and his underlings) so brilliant a leader that you can't bring yourselves to even mildly criticize him for having misplaced priorities?
BW,
How have you altered your life style as a result of your reading the posts in this thread? Why?
Jim English
Chicago
Bushwhopper, I too lost people I knew on 9/11, and am a native New Yorker. I care very much about preventing these sorts of attacks. But you're arguing in circles. Bush didn't do anything after the PDB? What should he have done? I dunno, something. How can you expect the president to have taken some effective action, when you, knowing the future, can't think of anything specific he should have done? You're just not making a good case for yourself here.
As for you, Simpleton, this is not an open forum on whether Bush policies in general could have been better. I disagree with many of the administration's policies. That has absolutely no bearing on whether 9/11 was the result of his policies. Again, if you want to link marijuana laws or the ABM treaty to this, you must first propose some plan of action that he could, and should, have taken, but did not because he was too focused on these other things.
Doug, with all due respect, you DID call me a traitor. You said I looked like an enemy to this country, which I am not. I have served in the military (admitted not in combat) and love it. I don't want to see anything like 9/11 happen. Not only did you call me an enemy of my country, but now you lie about it. It is clear that you are not interested in intelligent debate but are only interested, like all too many on the right when they are in "MUST DEFEND BUSH" mode, namecalling.
You can be emotional. But you also being lazy. You chose to ignore Condi's testimony to the commission where she STATES all that the administration did. You incorrectly state "NOTHING.ZIP". Emotional is fine. Incorrect isn't. We are trying to help you.
In her testimony she states many many things that the administration did, changed, started doing, before and after the 8/6 PDB. They more or less were doing ALL OF THAT because of PREVIOUS intelligence. They were not doing all of that because of the 8/6 memo. They were being responsive and responsible after "previous" intelligence and assessments. Things were done after the 8/6 PDB because of that responsiveness and being responsible to the previous information gathered. The 8/6 memo was just more information that basically said Bin Laden wanted to strike, Bin Laden had striked previously, He liked the results, and that 70 investigations are going on to find out the specifics.
Your suggestions:
1)Tighten airport security - That took quite the expenditure. Before 9/11 nobody wanted to make that expenditure. Nobody wanted to wait in longer lines. You are wonderful and magnificent if you think that before 9/11 that this would've been OK with you. Also, Please be fair to Bush. During the Clinton administration a set of suggestions (a report) came out with many ways to tighten airport security. Daschle, Gore and others basically put that plan/report to bed. Very little debate.
2)Oh. That was your only suggestion. :)
Motivation: Emotional is fine. Laziness, Ascribing motives to Bush, being incorrect (saying he did nothing). Honesty if required when striving against confusion. Fairness is required. A sense of perspective is required.
El Al's security could've never been implemented. You are not being honest with yourself if you think so. During the Clinton administration a LESSER security plan was scrapped. Before 9/11 the American people would've never understood or seen sense in waiting, subjecting themselves to searches, etc.
Please be honest. It is ok to be emotional. I think I understand from you that you've read Condi's testimony. I'll lay that one to rest if you concede that the administration was being responsive and responsible to earlier threat assessments and information. ...
Jane,
Why do I have to argue the way that you like? Well, it's your site.
It seems obvious to me that, given that time and money and resources are always limited, that time spent on missile defense and busting wheelchair-bound potsmokers was time that could have been spent on terrorism, domestic or foreign.
But hey, that's just me.
Jane, we (and the others) can argue this in circles but it all comes down to this: Protecting the country from terrorist attacks isn't my job. It's Bush's. He is the one with the resources and with more experiece than I. It's silly to think that here, on a weblog, that I could formulate a better plan to your satisfaction. I have given the only suggestion I can think of and again, am not saying it would have worked for certain, but again, doing NOTHING almost never works. I would have given him credit for at least trying, believe it or not. It is not unlike a Dr./patient situation, where the Doctor is in the much better positio to know, but this doesn't mean that the patient can't have legitimate complaints about the Dr.'s level of copmpetence.
Are you trying to spread propaganda or are you trying to get it right? You can't change the argument. I served in the Navy. You can't change the argument there.
Look at the facts. After viewing the facts, if you continue to say, "he did nothing", you are choosing to get it wrong and choosing to spread propoganda. That is how an enemy of this country operates. If you aren't. Then look at the facts and get it right man.
We are there for you. I was a liberal before 1991. I know how it feels for ya. You'll get there don't worry.
To me it's not about Bush. I only agree with Bush 75% of the time. To us conservatives generally it's about the fact, ideas and issues. Our movement will go on after Bush. Liberal were essentially in power from 1940-1994. They had the House of Representatives, Senate, sometimes the presidency, a majority of governorships, and state legislatures. Things have steadily changes just like my whole core belief system changed in 1991. People are being picked off one by one. People are converting. Now, conservatives are being elected everywhere. A majority of state governorships, legislatures, the senate and House is Republican.
And sadly, Republicans aren't even to the right. Government still grows with Republicans.
The country is about 52/48 right now. Maybe 53/47 in favor of conservatives.
We can help you remove that animosity and emotionalism against Bush or conservatives and hear the fact, issues and ideas as we see them.
I may not be the best spokesperson for conservatives but I know a lot of facts and figures about the economy, environment, government spending and revenues and I'd be happy to have you learn to. 1991 was quite the year for me. 2004 might be quite the year for you.
btw, good thing that this administration's priorities are now adjusted, huh?
It would be really silly if we spent time on things that really don't make us any safer, like say having Ashcroft try to bust Larry Flynt and other porn peddlers.
Lord knows I stay awake at night, worrying about what those dirty porno-makers are doing.
Welp. SimpleSimon. The administration was doing a lot of things the first 8 months.
Example #1: He was expanding Education spending by 11% with Ted Kennedy. Conservatives who understand that 94% of education spending is done by the states and know that 50% of the states budgets are spent on education didn't understand why we should do that.
But, Simple Simon, was that a misplaced priority also?
Example #2: The administration was dealing with an issue that was foisted on him by the press. THat was whether or not the federal govt. should spend money on Stem Cell Research. Conservatives thought that private investors and companies could spend the money more effeciently and get faster results. The administration tried to split the issue and have some spending on remaining stock of stem cells.
Simple Simon, Was that a misplaced use of time? WHy not criticize the media for foisting that issue on him?
Example #3: Administration was coming up with an energy plan during that 8 months. Out of the more than 100 points in the plan, more than 1/2 dealth with conservation the other less than half dealt with beefing up the ability to transport energy and create it. Conservatives thought it was a good approach. Liberals hated it. Nevertheless, it was worked on.
Simple Simon, was that a misplaced priority?
Get my drift.
Easy to criticize. Not easy to be constructive and come up with better solutions.
I've honestly racked my brain given all of the testimony trying to figure out how Bush could've prevented the terrorist attack (committed by the terrorists) with no specific information telling us who, when, how, etc.
Okay, Bushwhopper, let's take your suggestion. What, specifically, would you have done? Federal or airline personnel? Keep in mind that you can't force the airlines to do a damn thing without extensive negotiations. What measures will you put in place? And how will you deal with the political fallout from it. "To hell with the fallout" is not an acceptable answer; you're a politician, not a dictator, and the wording on this threat is so vague as to be practically meaningless.
So again, I ask:
1) What, specifically, would you do if you were Bush?
2) Why should we not equally have expected Clinton to take these measures?
I would, at minimum, expect the Bush admin. to do exactly what the Clinton admin. did to prevent the Millenium attacks: "shake the trees." I don't know what that entailed, but it seems clear that the Bush admin. pretty much left the August PDB in the in-box.
I've looked at Condi Rice's testimony, and all I gathered from it was that the Bush admin.'s plan was to let the FBI do what it does, the CIA do what it does, and the Pentagon do what it does. That hardly sounds like "doing something" to me.
Incorrect, that isn't what Condi's testimony said. Please reread.
Is it your testimony then that Clinton actively did something to prevent the millenium attack. :) Becuase I know what happened there. Would you like to go down that road?
Did Clinton actively prevent the Cole bombing, the 2 US Embassy bombings the first World Trade Center bombing the Oklahoma City Bombing?
Are you actively trying to get it wrong? :)
Bush continued Clinton's policy and was formulating a plan (in that 8 months) to actively eliminate the threat of Al Qaida. Condi talked about it. Go read my friend. Laziness isn't an option against these terrorists. ....
Jane:
First, it simply not true that the gov't cannot do anything with respect airline security without negotiations with the airline industry. Reagan, for example, simply fired the striking air traffic controller and replaced them with scabs. No negotiating about that. He could have put National Guardsment as extra security for example. He could have required greater checks of passengers and luggage through executive order. Airport security is not dicated by the airlines.
Second point. Sometimes leadership DOES require one to say hell with the fallout. I am sorry, but I am not at all worried about Bush's reelection chances, I care more about the safety of American lives.
Third Point. Why would I expect Clinton to have done ANYTHING in reaction to the 8/6/01 PDB. He wasn't president then. If he had received such a memo, I would hope that he would have acted, but simply don't know. Bush got a memo and did nada, despite Doug's intentional distortions of Rice's testimony. Rice's testimony re the memo and the failure to act was that the memo was not a warning and that the info was nonspecific. W
Jane:
First, it simply not true that the gov't cannot do anything with respect airline security without negotiations with the airline industry. Reagan, for example, simply fired the striking air traffic controller and replaced them with scabs. No negotiating about that. He could have put National Guardsment as extra security for example. He could have required greater checks of passengers and luggage through executive order. Airport security is not dicated by the airlines.
Second point. Sometimes leadership DOES require one to say hell with the fallout. I am sorry, but I am not at all worried about Bush's reelection chances, I care more about the safety of American lives.
Third Point. Why would I expect Clinton to have done ANYTHING in reaction to the 8/6/01 PDB. He wasn't president then. If he had received such a memo, I would hope that he would have acted, but simply don't know. Bush got a memo and did nada, despite Doug's intentional distortions of Rice's testimony. Rice's testimony re the memo and the failure to act was that the memo was not a warning and that the info was nonspecific. W
If you've got interesting stuff on how the Millenium attacks were prevented despite the Clinton's admin.'s efforts, rather than because of it, I'd love to hear it. But, unless you've got some impressive credentials (which you may), I find Richard Clarke more credible.
As for the Cole and embassy bombings, the issue isn't if anything was "actively prevented." The issue is whether anyone tried to do anything to prevent them. (And I don't know the extent of the Clinton admin.'s efforts.)
It never occurred to anyone to "blame" 9/11 on the Bush admin. until these hearings revealed that the Bush admin. had no response to intelligence regarding possible hijackings and targeting of buildings. Don't believe me? Ask the FBI agents and FAA employees who have no recollection of any instructions coming from upstairs regarding fairly specific terrorist threats (hijacking, targeting buildings, al Qaeda cells known to be in the US, etc.).
Security Personnel were hired by the airports and airlines. Air traffic controllers were federalized and weren't aloud to strike.
Jane's question remained unanswered. There was a big debate. Tom Daschle wanted the whole new set of security personnel to be paid by the government. Conservatives wanted that to be privatized. Jane's question was... "Federal or Airline Personnel". It mattered. It was hotly contested even after 9/11. How then could it have been done before 9/11? Remember that Congress has the purse strings and therefore Bush can't dictatorially hire a whole new set of people without congress. (Air Traffic controllers were already federalized - focus man).
And given the perspective that he is receiving daily briefs with threats and intelligence gathered about possible desires of terrorists to strike. What gives you the impression that we could've had the National Guard searching our persons before 9/11. You can't honestly sit there and say that you would've been ok with it. You are quick to criticize now. You would've been quick to criticize then.
Last point. You choose to get it wrong about the 8/6 PDB. You latch on to that thing like a baby to a breast. JANE WASN'T ASKING WHAT CLINTON should've done in response to the 8/6 PDB. Bush was formulating plans in general that were more ROBUST than Clinton's (not swatting fly's) and that was a responsible response to the previous almost daily threat assessments and information received. Jane's question is, why didn't Clinton do any of the things that every body is so critical of Bush for not doing when the 8/6 PDB is 14 out of 17 sentences talking about 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000. There wasn't any actionable new information in that PDB. For you to emotionally latch onto it doesn't help any of us when we are legitimately trying to get from you constructive suggestions that were doable.
BW, the air traffic controllers did, in fact, work for the government. Also, there was a force to replace them with immediately: reserve military air traffic controllers.
You would expect Clinton to have done something about the briefing because the main data in the briefing -- that there might, or might not, be attempts to hijack an airplane or bomb a federal building -- stemmed from his era.
You're arguing as if George Bush knew that lives were going to be lost, in which case of course his behaviour would have been negligent. The problem is that he knew no such thing. For the one warning that turned out to be right, he certainly received thousands that didn't pan out -- yet. Shall we bring the economy to its knees in order to prevent every unsubstantiated possibility? Quick: I have uncorroborated intelligence that Al Qaeda may be trying to blow up a bridge or start an outbreak of hoof and mouth disease. How much are you willing to spend to avert this? Remember, all your spending means fewer resources diverted to other things that could save lives, from public health programmes to food inspections.
I can't quite bring myself to believe that you are actually advocating, as you appear to be, that Bush should have called out the national guard in response to a single line in a memo that indicated that there was an uncorroborated report that Al Qaeda might try to hijack an airplane.
In other words, everything you are saying simply confirms the impression that you haven't even tried to imagine what sorts of decisions you might reasonably have made without the knowlege that 9/11 lay one month in the future.
Excellent writing Jane. You do so much better than I.
This is part of a news story where Bob Kerry (D) feels that this could've just as well happened during Clinton's watch...
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Democrat 9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey insisted Tuesday that the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks could just as easily have happened during the Clinton administration as the Bush administration.
"What happened that allowed us to be so relaxed on the 11th of September at our airports?" Kerrey asked former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno during the question and answer phase of her testimony before the 9/11 commission.
"I wasn't in office, so I can't ..." Reno replied, before Kerrey interrupted, dissatisfied with her answer.
'Relaxed'
"You were just as relaxed going out of office as [the Bush administration was] on the 11th of September," Kerrey declared.
"This attack could have easily happened on your watch. We were just as vulnerable while you were attorney general as we were with John Ashcroft as attorney general."
Reno never answered Kerrey's question, but did speak of the need for the government to be on its toes at all times.
Jane:
1. Your analysis of the controller situation is accurate and confirms what I have been trying to say. Airline/airport security is not wholly in the hands the airlines and private industry as your earlier post suggested. Remember, the USCT upheld Harry Truman's outright seziure of steel mills by executive order in the name of national security. Getting federal power involved in national security issues, even when private industry is involved can and has been done before.
2. Your statement regarding Clinton and the briefing is simply mindboggling. Clinton couldn't possibly done anything in response to it. The date of it is 8/6/01 and he left office on 1/23/01. There's no way he could have responded to a briefing that he never received and even if he had by some quirk, no longer had authority to act. Whether he could or should have done more in response to some of the info that comprised the memo is another question, but the fact remains, it wasn't Clinton who was warned with the PDB, it was Bush. I don't know what alternative universe that Clinton would have had to enter to respond to the warning contained in a memo written after he left office.
Third-Yes I AM suggesting that Bush might have deployed elements of the national guard. Hell, I see them EVERY DAY at Grand Central as I wait for the 4 to take me to Bowling Green. And where would the money have come from: How about not goin to an unnecessary war with Iraq? Or scaling back the second or third round of tax cuts, assuming you dont' want to cut social programs, which while I am not a big advocate of that, I would be willing to cut back to prevent terrorist attacks in the USA.
And no, I am not aruging that Bush KNEW lives we be lost, but he clearly had a warning that they COULD be and his response, if that it can be called did not work. Yet again, I reiterate that I don't claim that taking new security measures would have stopped the attack. I simply don't know. I am simply arguing that it may have prevented it.
All they did was ensure their own safety? How so? What's your evidence for that?
Ashcroft stopped taking commercial flights, for one.
Rice tipped off at least one of her friends to do the same, for another.
BW,
It is emphatically not ignorence [sic] or malevolence to demand competence from your elected officials. The facts remain, Bush received warnings and did NOTHING.
[…]
As for the argument that I should be able to come up with a better plan by myself, it's simply ludicrous. Bush has a National Security staff, gets briefings from the CIA, FBI and the military. World leaders return his call. He has an entire political party unified behind him. His Dad was a former president who ran the CIA. He gets paid to work on problems like that. Don't you think he has just a few more resources, than I, a lawyer in private practice armed with GOOGLE? Give me a break!
[…]
Protecting the country from terrorist attacks isn't my job. It's Bush's. He is the one with the resources and with more experie[n]ce than I.
[…]
I have given the only suggestion I can think of and again, am not saying it would have worked for certain, but again, doing NOTHING almost never works.
The above is exactly the point about expecting more from the grownups just because they are grownup. You are imputing powers to him that you yourself cannot imagine - surely one of them would have permitted him to forestall this calamity?
It is fundamentally magical thinking, as though any President (not just Bush; Clinton, or anyone else for that matter) can just click his heels and a Jack Ryan will jump out of a Tom Clancy novel and sort out the bad guys.
Not going to happen. Sure, Bush has more resources, his daddy used to run the CIA, he knows people who can throw a wicked slider, world leaders return his call (most of them, anyway), so he should have done….well, SOMETHING, right?
What, exactly?
Here's the point: Bush may have more resources, but you are now in a VASTLY better position than Bush was then, because you KNOW perfectly well exactly what happened, and he had to make a decision when he had no idea what was coming, nor even any indication that anything was coming. And yet you can still only think of one suggestion, and admit that it may not have worked anyway.
Think of it in the sports context. Barry Bonds is paid to hit home runs. It's his job. He has hitting coaches, batting practice pitchers, video analysis, reports on opposing pitchers, years of experience…the works. Yet the other day a rookie Padres pitcher (from MIT!) made him look stupid with an offspeed pitch. Bonds guessed wrong at what was coming – and he only had to choose between four possible pitches, at most.
So…is Bonds incompetent?
In a less lighthearted example, JFK had the FBI, the CIA, a National Security apparatus, the Secret Service, command of the military, his daddy had been ambassador to Britain, world leaders returned his calls, the works...and yet he failed to duck at the operative time.
You wouldn't have ducked either, nor would I, nor would anyone else. That's the point. Bush, JFK, you, and I are all mere mortals, and really not that different. In the same situation, with the same information, we likely would have done pretty much the same thing.
Occam, This theory that the President of the USA should be held to the same standard as your average Joe or Jane is just absurd. This is nothing wrong or childish. In fact, it is quite rational. I am not expecting more from Bush because he is a "grownup" I am expecting more from him because of 1. It's his job. I have job that has nothing to do with national security. I am just an amateur commentator on a weblog. One usually expects better results from the pros. 2. He has access to much more info. I have access to only what I can get on the net, the newspapers or the media. It would be assine to expect him and me to be held to the same standard.
Your Bonds example is what is off point. A batter has to make a split second decision when facing a pitch. Bush had more than a month. I am not expectign him to "click his heels" and have a "Jack Ryan" appear" (although one does seem to have appeared in Illinois this year), I am expecting him to respond to a credible threat presented to him by professionals. No amount of Bush sycophany can excuse his failure to do ANYTHING.
BW, You don't listen much. Jane wasn't asking for what Clinton should do after the 8/6 PDB. Only you latch to that. We are asking what should've Bush done with all of the warnings that he was receiving just like Clinton received. The 8/6 PDB does not have actionable information in it.
You are doing yourself a disservice by not reading what we write and just spouting.
Doug, yes Jane DID post that Clinton should have done something in response to the memo. Her own words, if you bothered to read them were that "You would expect Clinton to have done something about THE BRIEFING" (emphasis mine). Note, she didn't say "about the information that was the substance of the briefing" but of the briefing itself. You do yourself as disservice when you accuse me of not reading something when it is clear that I have read it and you have not.
Bushwhopper, I'm not stupid, nor do I believe that Clinton can travel in time. What I meant was that Clinton should have done something about the information in the briefing, not the briefing itself. Quibbling about trivial typos does not strengthen your case.
Jane, I never said you were stupid, but you did use that language. If you claim it was a typo, I accept you at word, but it isn't always easy to ascertain what people mean in a forum such as this. The only thing I can go by is your word as it is written.I did not mean to quibble, but was responding to what you posted. Of course, even at that, Clinton couldn't be expected to respond to the substance of the memo either, since it detailed a threat in 2001, after he left office.
Bushwopper:
1. the analysis shows that the Feds controlled a completely different aspect of airport security, and not one that anyone thinks could have helped. nothing there gets them control of screening passengers. And the Supremes in fact did not uphold Truman's seizure, they said it was unconstitutional. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 759 (1952).
2. As to the brief I think what people here are getting to with Clinton comparissons is that the brief wasn't really new information (yes the categorization that it is all historical is incorrect, but it is largely so, and that which it predicted for the future wasn't really new) In the late '90s early 00's we knew Al Queda was planning attacks against us, without a much more specific threat you can't go above the normal CT stuff you plan to do. Now maybe you think Bush's CT should overall have been more robust, but then Rice's comments about how they were prepping that are relevant, and its also relevant that Clinton's overall CT wasn't more robust.
3. It is not realistic to expect anyone to have allowed broad Guard searches, especially given how vague the info was that it was even an airport target. And God only knows what other chatter you have to respond to, it would be prohibitively expenisve to call at the guard for all of them. Giving up social programs is nice of you, but really Congress was going to do that? Giving up tax cuts does no good if you think tax cuts help the economy, and little good even if you have the budget money cause Congress still allocates it, so you still have to get more CT in the budget.
You say Bush had a warning that lives could be lost, this is daily stuff at 1600 Penn. The report says the info is uncorroborated, it talks about a hijacking threat from 1998, and that there are patterns of suspicious activity consistent with hijackings or other attacks (meaning anything) This Memo is not specific enough to get a specific response, hell it even suggests traditional hijacking which just would not have been nearly as severe a security concern, and would have warranted a different response. If you think that Bush's overall CT policy was just bad thats one thing. But then you have to deal with that the general Bush terrorism picture is the same a Clinton's. And also that Kerry wasn't exactly standing up for budget cuts to fund more CT either, even though the man was on the Senate Intelligence Commitee until 2000, and on Foreign Affairs after, and the U.S.S. Cole and the embassy attacks had been public knowledge. Yes, its Bush's job, but failing to combat an unanticipated and not particularly anticipatable problem (the specific attack) is hardly as telling as general CT performance, or performance after the attack. Also, its part of Kerry's job too.
The INFORMATION in the memo is what she was referring to. It's as if you didn't read the memo because you keep referring to the date of the memo and referring to it as if it had actionable information and current information.
As Jane said, we could all understand her except you. Take time to understand what we are saying. We have actually honestly tried to understand how Bush could really have done "SOMETHING" as you say. :)
Congratulations Doug. You have just torn your credibility to shreds and I didn't have to do a single thing. I have long been arguing that Bush did nothing in response to the memo. You keep chanting "Read the testimony" and insisting that Rice had testified that the Bush administration HAD taken action in response to the memo. I stated that Rice had testified that there was no actionable information in the memo and that the admin. could not have acted. Now YOu are the one clinging to this phrase, after arguing that Bush really had done something.
bw etc
we ask that you provide a solution because you are complaining about what bush is doing, complain that he didn't do anything before, and don't seem to productive. saying that its not your job is ducking the question: we're supposedly trying to move forward and have a discussion, and we all supposedly want the US and the West to eliminate terrorism and make people better off (i.e. jetsons future).
Given that premise that we agree on the goal, just not on how to get their, you're being asked to get out of the negative attack mode and provide constructive criticism. Many here have criticism of the bush administrations policies and execution of strategy, and we also say how things ought to be (Jane wants growth, dislikes government and taxes, would have free market increase growth, as would I, and we both highlight how tax system works at cross-purposes and destroys value).
I've provided ideas as to how people could do things that I would approve of that would accomplish goals. The bush bashers here aither simply criticize pr demand actions that they themselves oppose but say that its a leadership funciton to ignore opposition. These positions are rather astonishing.
I have never advocated a position that involved doing something I abhor and would protest but yet believe that someone should do it anyway. I can't quite understand the thinking that goes into creating such a position.
Ideal world, orbitron and BW, what would you do taht would have stopped 9/11 on the following dates, given available information: 9-10, 8/6, inauguration day, 1993, 1982, 1979??? extra credit for policy that would have received the nations approval, no credit for doing something that you would have opposed at the time/oppose now.
personally, I'm not entirely sure what would have worked on 9-10 or 8-6 that would have been enough and reasonable, never mind acceptable. inauguration day has same problems, but maybe a global, no-holds barred war on terror everywhere would have helped if there were no rules inside or outside the US on terror investigations (there still are, unfortunately). 1993 should have seen massive attacks against Al-quaeda, etc. 83 should have seen the invasion of lebanon and syria, while 79 should have seen carter threaten iran with complete annihilation (at least of tehran and Quom, if not entire country) unless the embassy workers were released within 24 hours (would have been possible as long as you reassured the sovs that it was pure punishment for taking hostages)
few of these actions would have been supported by the public, they were necessary, and i would have supported them and still do... what woudl you do to win?
Tom, Thank you for a thoughtful, well written post. I think you make some excellent points. I do take issue with a few things, however.
1. Yes, national security is a part of Kerry's job, as it is of all senators on the committe and in fact all 100 senators if a measure like airline security or the Patriot Act makes it to the senate floor. But the President is clearly the most powerful actor in the field of national security and is the only one who can act unilaterally. Congress cannot. The issue of this whole thread was what Bush should have done in response to the PDB. Congress doesn't get the PDB and even if it did, one would not expect that the one senator to have acted upon it in a timely manner. Whether Kerry or Clinton or anyone else could have done better is not really on point here.
2. While the memo is largely historic, it is not wholly so, as you have noted. This flies in the face of Rice's assertion about it and calls her credibility into question as it does Bush's for standing by her.
3. The issue that the memo referred to a traditional hijacking and not a 9/11 type is a cavil. It doesn't matter WHAT the terrorists wanted to do with the planes. Preventing a hijacking would have prevented any nefarious plans they might have had be it holding hostags, obtaining safe have in another country or ramming the jets into buildings.
BW,
It's his job.
Whether it's his job or not is irrelevant. He's just a man in a job. Unlike being Pope, being President doesn't confer infallibility. You could become President. No mystical transformation would take place at your Inauguration.
One usually expects better results from the pros.
Better, yes. Perfect, no. See the Barry Bonds analogy above. Bonds fails two times out of three, and is on his way to the Hall of Fame.
Since you're a lawyer, put it in the legal context. What trial lawyer never lost a case, what judge never had an opinion overturned?
He has access to much more info. I have access to only what I can get on the net, the newspapers or the media. It would be assine [sic] to expect him and me to be held to the same standard.
I agree that holding you to the same standard is inappropriate - you should be held to a much higher standard, because you know what happened. You could propose now that all aircraft should have been grounded for the month of September, or that we should have placed barrage balloons around the WTC, and people would debate the proposal seriously on its merits. Any President doing the same thing before 9/11 would have been removed for mental incapacity.
A batter has to make a split second decision when facing a pitch. Bush had more than a month.
I don't subscribe to the timescale point for several reasons. First, a batter need only choose between a couple of possibilities. He can guess randomly and probably be right 1/3 or 1/4 of the time. A President has literally thousands of issues pressing themselves upon him, so stochastic decision-making is not an option.
And, of course, a batter is there to hit, so a pitch coming at him is not a surprise. A more appropriate extension of the Bonds analogy might be Bonds walking to the plate when a fan rushes out the stands and clips him (in the football sense). No precedent, no specific warning, no reason to suspect it was coming, just general knowledge that some fans sometimes get out of hand, some fans don't like Bonds, and doubtless some yell abuse at him. But nobody saying, "I'm going to come down out of the stands and clip you at your next at bat."
Second, a month is a blink of the eye in terms of the affairs of state. Identifying and penetrating a terrorist network, ascertaining the time and place of a specific threat, taking steps to ward off the threat...all take time.
FDR didn't see Pearl Harbor.
Truman didn't foresee a North Korean attack.
Eisenhower didn't expect the Suez Crisis.
Kennedy didn't anticipate the Cuban missle crisis - or Oswald.
Johnson was surprised by the Tet offensive.
Nixon never dreamt he'd be forced from office.
Ford never dreamt he'd be President.
Carter didn't anticipate the Iranians would occupy the Tehran embassy.
Reagan was caught flatfooted by the bombing of the Marine barracks.
Bush Sr. was doubtless stunned that he lost re-election.
Clinton was (sorry) caught with his pants down on the USS Cole and the WTC bombing.
For my part, I thought the Colts would whomp the Jets in Super Bowl III. Oops.
What could Bush have done?
First you can't say "to Hell with the political fallout" unless you've got more definite information than Bush had. Not unless you like the idea of presidents getting impeached every couple of years; there were tons of warnings of things that never happened.
Second, if Bush changes airline security in a big way, he'd tip his hand. The bad guys would know why he was doing it, even if no one else did. Even if they didn't know that he knew, they'd know their attack would fail, and they'd simply wait for another opportunity. Unless Bush started launching offensive operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere (again, without the American people having a clue why he was doing so), the bad guys could wait however long it took until a vulnerability showed itself. And that hypothetical alternate attack could have taken a lot more lives; it was just dumb luck that the kamikaze pilots hit the buildings way too high to trap nearly everyone inside and send them crashing down almost immediately.
So what could he have done.
Given perfect foresight, his best bet would be to quietly pass the word among pilots that a hijacker who wants the controls only needs them if he wants to do something he can't get a pilot to do even at gunpoint, which pretty much means crashing the plane on purpose; thus, they might as well defend the controls with their lives and the lives of everyone on board, since those lives are all forfeit if the bad guys get their ugly mitts on the stick.
Given less than perfect foresight (i.e., what the Administration actually had), he could have stuck to the age-old principle that weapons in the hands of the bad guys' intended targets probably won't hurt anything and might help in a big way. Dropping the rule against carrying weapons on board might have altered the outcome (assuming that the usual suspects didn't scream so loudly that the bad guys would learn about the armed passengers and abandon the plan). And please spare me the nonsense about explosive decompression; bullet holes do not cause explosive decompression of an aircraft, and an aircraft with bullet holes can almost certainly land safely as long as someone survives who knows how to land it and is willing to do so.
Either way, if an attempted attack is thwarted, that's even better in the long run than no attempt at all. Again, the bad guys committed to this plan rather than waiting and running an alternate one, and investigation would reveal that the kamikaze attack that the bad guys were attempting would (assuming it would have been competently carried out, which in the case of the thwarted attack we'd have no way to dispute) have claimed 40,000 to 50,000 lives, thus providing the political support for going after the bad guys on their home turf and thus disrupting their ability to attempt alternate plans.
There are two points that I wish would be addressed by the people who are critizing Jane's post. First, there are many potential threats like that mentioned in the memo of August 6th, 2001. If the President were to respond to each of these as robustly as you people wish, we would be on our way to a security state with little freedom. Is that what you desire? Second, the evidence in the memo had far less corroboration then the evidence for WMD (which included evidence from the intellgence agencies of other countries, for example) in Iraq. I will believe that you sincerely think that the memo gave Bush enough evidence to act as you think he should have if you also admit that the WMD evidence gave Bush enough evidence to act in Iraq. Similarly, how do you know that invading Iraq did not avert some disaster, for which the memos have not been released? Remember, the release of any such memo would burn an intellgence source in Iraq, so these releases would not occur for years. Therefore, are you fine with deposing Saddam in Iraq for national security reasons?
We have a winner! Congratulations Ken! After only 73 posts someone has actually answered the question. Unfortunately, Ken appears not to be sufficiently critical of the President to claim the prize. Too bad Ken.
So, BW, what do you think? Would you have armed the pilots or passengers? Would you have suggested to the pilot's association that they quietly recommend to their members that they change the previous policy and refuse to cooperate with hijackers? All based on what is in the memo. Well, would you?
Please let us know.
Jim English
Chicago
BushWhopper, your line of reasoning is mystifying. You're a lawyer, I gathered? You sound like one who is circularly arguing an intellectually dishonest case to the bitter end, not because s/he has more than a snail's chance at the Indy of winning, but rather just to make sure the client pays up. Who is paying you for this, or do you also do this sort of thing during your free time for personal amusement?
I assert that you have made a complete red herring out of the memo. You have (1) failed to show that it should have been unusually significant in light of the usual intelligence stream the Office of the POTUS has to deal with daily; (2a) failed to show that the information was unique and actionable; (2b) failed to show that the information therein was substantially more than a rewarmed version of the Clinton-era information the Bush team was already responding to; and (3) failed to show that any alternative strategies were politically tenable.
As such, I submit that your assertion that Bush 'did nothing' in the month following 8/6 is facile and vaccuous, and hence, an inadvertent case study in the sorts of fallacious hindsight reasoning our host discussed in her post.
The various arguments you have since dismissed as other person's credibility losses, etc. are, IMO, largely legitimate attempts to discover whether you really have answer to the above points, or whether you are too emotionally involved in this issue to even possess a rational viewpoint. The results so far are not especially encouraging.
BW
I've been consistently saying that Bush did a lot more than Clinton. It was a responsible response that his administration was taking and it was more of a response after receiving information on a daily basis.
Only you BW are latched onto the 8/6 memo. I've been consistently saying that the 8/6 PDB is irrelevant to the point that 14 out of 17 sentences deal with things during the Clinton administration. The other 3 sentences are so speculative and have no actionable information.
Why does it matter to you so much that Bush acted on the 8/6 PDB when he was acting with greater vigilance since the inauguration. Condi Rice detailed that they continued all Clinton policies and started, finished and changed for the better other procedures and policies. There was plans above and beyone what the Clinton Administration made to remove Al Qsida as a threat.
Does it matter to you at all BW that Bush had more action and more responsive and responsible acting to the information that he was receiving?
Big picture perspective matters. It is what we are asking for when we ask what could Bush have done without looking paranoid. Without looking like he was overreacting to a speculative non-detailed breif that he receives in various forms often. Without spending so much money on security for airlines, borders, chemical plants, nuclear plants etc. Being able to get theses spending bills through congress in less than 8 months....
Also, latching onto an 8/6 PDB and saying what did Bush do in response to that but overlooking all of the additional things the Bush administration was doing in general in response to the information they were receiving often is like saying the following:
Hey Shaq, we know you made every free throw and scored 30 points in the game but your reaction to Chris Weber's scoot to the left and then scoot back to the right was slow and it makes you look like you were unresponsive to the Chris Weber threat. How do you respond Shaq?
I know. I know sports analogies are never on target. But we in this posting honestly hope BW that you are starting to understand. Only you have latched onto the 8/6 PDB and have been requiring a higher "God" like "genius" standard of everyone else. Yet you can't even understand what half of us are writing to you. I hope for our country's sake that people like you either a) really take the time to understand issues better b) stop trying.
I tell you what. Because I have patience.... and you want to latch onto that 8/6 PDB. Let's go through this exercise.... Write Down for all of us in this group the 3 sentences that made it clear for you that something had to be done. Then write a 3 sentence solution that would've a) stopped the attack that we know in hind sight happened b) didn't cost money so it didn't have to go through congress in a 5 week period c) Would've been palatable to people of color, and people who care so much about civil liberties .
We'll all wait for those 6 sentences. Until then I don't think you deserve our honesty and our willingness to help you.
Bushwopper, I disagree.
1. While, yes, after inauguration Bush is really the only one who can change the issue, but just like you haven't been holding Bush to being succesful, but just to "do something", I am holding Kerry to doing that. I think it is relevant because the clear subtext of blame or not blame Bush is in relation to is there someone better to vote for. I think Kerry had basically the same information as Bush. He was on the intelligence committee, he gets briefed on these issues, maybe not as well as the President, but it isn't like the memo is full of smoking guns. It is almost entirely historical, with the non-historical parts being and FBI information is consistant with that threat (airports) or other attacks. All that really conveys to the President is that al Queda continued to be a threat. Kerry knew that and he wasn't calling for major changes in airline screening either. I don't see why anyone else would have been better than Bush, so I don't see how I can blame him.
2. The memo is historical, and then says "FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." Thats it. I don't think that changes things enough to call Rice's credibility into question. Rice was not technically accurate, but only by truly pedantic nitpicking. The memo basically says current information (based on suspicious activity not new certainty) is consistent with our previous threat assesment. Thats pretty historical.
3. I think it matters greatly what the terrorist's wanted to do with the planes. It effects what solutions are good ideas. For example, Ken's point about arming pilots or perhaps locking the cockpit doors. We had seen hijackings before and we chose against these options because given a traditional hijacking people decided it was better to have the pilots cooperate, get the plane on the ground at some point to refuel, and then have CT experts deal rather than have a firefight in the plane, or have the terrorists kill passengers because the pilots won't cooperate. Clearly that option weighs out differently if everyone is dead once the terrorists gain control of the plane. Also, if all your facing is a traditional hijacking (and remember only a questionable chance of that given the information in the memo) there is a much lower risk of death. In such a case its arguably not worth it to cause the major economic dislocation of new security measures to solve the problem. Just like a lot more is justified if we think people have a nuke, than if we think they have an OK city fertilizer bomb. And we have known about the general risk of normal hijacking for years, and most people before thought our security measures were acceptable.
Why are we even talking to BW? Here's a guy who says (for all I can tell with a straight face), "He could have put National Guardsmen for extra security". Exactly how this would have prevented the 9/11 attacks, where the perpetrators just waited politely in line to board like everyone else, carrying their completely legal at the time boxcutters, is left as an exercise for the readers. Sure seems like Pure Troll territory to me.
My own tech wreck story:
I completely moved out of telecoms (lesser firms like ADCT) almost on the day of their high.
I bailed on Internet stocks earlier (as a Netscape/Infoseek shareholder I did pretty well, but of course missed some AOL peaks).
I took it on the chin with firms like AAPL (sentimental; now I'm ruthless about holding them, and anyway a small position), and AMD (which continued rising after the crash... for a while, and I did bail pre-9/11), however one or two losers is typical in a boom year, and I got in low on both companies.
So where did I put the money from stock sales? What one sector looked safe to me after tech/old economy had a breather and telecoms/nets went into the toilet?
Biotech.
Primarily firms which, having no profits to speak of, would be unaffected by any revenue shortfalls.
Great strategy. Thanks. I'm obviously a genius. However, sometime in March, Bubba and Tony Blair came out with their can't patent a gene crap; biotechs ate it well before Waco on Wall Street, I was better off than people who'd stayed in tech, but I wasn't in gloat territory.
Conclusion: Shit happens. Corollary: even if we'd been making jokes to ourselves about feds busting dumbass Arabs after some Florida flight instructor mentioned swarthy students taking classes on how not to land planes, other stuff would've gone down with Al Qaeda eventually, and it could well have been worse.
I do, however, hold Clinton responsible for the biotechs.
Megan, terrific post. Well argued. I'll ignore some of the rather childish Bush-hating rants in this thread to cut to a broader point -- the myth of omniscient govt. Surely, as those great Austrians, Hayek and von Mises have pointed out, the ability of a big, bureaucratic govts. to figure out the future from the mass of data coming their way is incredibly limited. Socialist central planning is doomed for that reason. And so, I would argue, are failsafe security systems against terror. Of course, no-one wants to hear that fact, but it is the truth.
Doug; There is a reason I am "fixated" on the PDB, as you put it. The reason is that its the subject of the thread. Jane opened the thread and asked "You're George Bush in August 2001. Tell me, specifically what you would have done BASED ON THAT MEMO. (emphasis mine). THAT'S why I have focused on. It's the subject of the thread. Focusing on actions Bush took before hand or after 9/11 aren't responsive. Talking about the investigations that were going on beforehand don't matter. Your repeated raising of these issues show that you are either obfuscating or don't understand the subject matter being discussed, or some combination of both. Please reread Jane's original post. As for your honesty, I haven't seen any evidence of it. Your posts are full of lies, like the democratic leadership opposing the invasion of Afghanistan (Daschle and Gephardt supported it) and the liberals "being in power" from 1940-1994 (Reagan was a liberal?) Spare me your blather about "helping me" get it, when it is clear you don't get it yourself. Physician, heal thyself!
Lots of great analysis about whether Bush should or shouldn't have been able to do something before September 11. But WHY is there the impression that the commission is finding fault with the Bush administration and that this is a problem? The commission's PURPOSE is to try to find need for improvement. It will come up with something (if only to justify its existence, though one hopes for more), and it will probably in the end be a balanced something that focuses on critiquing mechanisms of government (communications btwn CIA and FBI or whatever) rather than on decisions of individual leaders.
So WHY the impression? Because half of the public (and journalists) believe and have consistently believed that the Bush admin is doing a lousy job on security (poor reconstruction process in Afghan, lost focus on Bin Laden/ al-Qaeda, wasted resources and stirred up terrorists in Iraq, etc.), and Bush indicates that his reelection campaign will center on his "strength" in the "war on terror". That half will grasp at any straw that might have some chance of convincing the OTHER half (which believes that everything is fine in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen/Saudi Arabia, and that Iraq needed to be taken care of at any cost) that maybe Bush wasn't as great as he said he was on this security issue, and therefore speeding them out of office come November. It is the classic opportunistic move -- criticize where the message will be clearest, not where criticism is most deserved -- that both polar forces in politics have used again and again, decade in, decade out.
However, being of the former half myself, I am willing to temporarily forget my stated opinion in September 2001, still held now, that one can't reasonably expect to have prevented 9/11, and to enthusiastically join in the latest, Clarke-waving chorus of Bush-bashing -- in the feeble hope that THIS at last will be enough for those red state masses to see the light and vote blue in 6 months. Ah, THAT is what being an American in the 21st century is all about! ;-)
Has anyone considered that Clinton had about as much information before the Cole and the embassy attacks as Bush did before 9/11? While the devastation can't be compared, the lack of/profusion of information and inability or ability to act decisively certainly can be. Should we open probes in to all attacks and see who could have or should have prevented what?
The fact is, without specifics, all anyone can do is investigate to the best of our ability. Yes, Bush had information about potential hijackings. But he also had information about a myriad other possibilities. So did some committees in Congress. I'm sure there were many ordinary Americans that realized the hatred of our country was, and is, so fierce that it was only a matter of time until we were struck on our own soil. The fact remains, until we were hit and realized the severity of the threat, NO ONE was willing to spend the resources necessary to protect us from every conceivable and possible method of attack, let alone threats and methods we were only beginning to comprehend.
These hearings should not have degraded in to a partisan issue, they should be a learning tool, plain and simple. We should not be seeking to condemn anyone, but to protect everyone. We're all great "Monday Morning Quarterbacks." I find it reprehensible that any of our elected officials would be using the devastation of 9/11 for political gain.
ABR - For those who consider terrorism to an important factor in deciding who to vote for, IMHO it isn't enough to convince people that Bush is doing a lousy job in the war on terror. You also have to convince people that Kerry would do a better job. The Kerry campaign's case to this point, as far as I can tell, has been to argue that the war on terror should be an intelligence & law enforcement matter. This argument doesn't work very well with those who believe that a lot more is required.
I'd like to propose an objective standard for who can point the finger: call it the Churchill criterion.
Before WWII Churchill spent a decade in the political wilderness for vehemently advocating a strong posture against fascism, counter to the then prevailing appeasement current, until he returned as Prime Minister in 1940.
For my money, the only people who can point the finger now about 9/11 are those who can establish that they spoke clearly, distinctly, and strongly (no vague and ambiguous horoscope-style predictions, please) about the threat of suicidal hijackers crashing planes into targets before 9/11.
To my knowledge, no such people exist.
Alan H.:
You are right. Unfortunately a lot of the anti-Bush crowd feels strongly that an ant could do a better job of preventing further anti-western terrorism than Bush, and moreover that this is self-evident. This very feeling prevents them from coming up with the types of arguments that might convince people on the Bush side, or on feeling like they need to push the virtues of alternative plans.
Furthermore, if Kerry gets elected he will basically have his hands tied by the commitment to Iraq so his planning has to work this in. If this campaign were being held in early 2002-2003 both sides would have much more freedom to propose positive plans.
It seems to me that people who blame Bush for 9/11 can largely be divided into two groups.
1. People who take a child-like approach to government, expecting it to make all the monsters in the closet go away and to buy them ice cream on Sundays.
2. Statists, who have an almost religious faith in government (as long as the "correct" people are in power).
The first group value security above all, and expect that security to be provided by Mommy and Daddy in Washington. If the security is wanting, then whoever was in Washington that day screwed up. Case closed, nothing else need be said or considered (and could we have strawberry ice cream instead of chocolate this Sunday?).
The second group has such faith in the power of the state that any failure of the government to deliver perfection must, by definition, indicate someone fell asleep on the job. After all, government can do anything as long as the right people are in charge.
There is probably some considerable overlap in these two groups.
Since almost everyone in these groups would naturally lean leftward, politically, the fact that a Republican was in office on 9/11/01 just fans the flames.
The fact that Bush will not accept responsibility, beg for forgiveness, and submit himself for ritual flogging, just makes it worse.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
I should probably point out that in my previous post I excluded those who are attempting to point blame at Bush for blatantly partisan purposes, or to deflect blame from themselves. I'm talking about those who truly believe Bush was criminally negligent and/or actively complicit in the attack.
Mycin, How do you account for conservatives who blame Clinton for 9/11, the Cole or the First WTC attack? There are clearly many Republicans and/or conservatives who blame Clinton for 9/11. All one has to do is to log on to a website like Newsmax for example or listen to Sean Hannity for a few minutes. To deny that these people exist would be folly, but their existence does blow your theory to pieces. Clearly, these people can't be liberal "Mommy Statists" can they?
Simpleton wrote:
"Looking back at some of the national and international defense priorities of the Bush administration in the first half of 2001, such as ballistic missle defense and busting medical marijuana users in California, I think there was certainly room for improvement. And yes, I thought and said so at the time.
Do you all really think that these two policies were wise? A good use of our defense resources?"
I don't have a problem with ballistic missile defense, per se, as I've heard compelling arguments on both sides of the issue, and at least national defense is explicitly stated in the Constitution as a valid function of the federal government.
I agree that the medical marijuana thing was foolish. I also think the recent smut crackdown is foolish, squared.
But why stop there? What about all the other things we've come to demand from the government? How about the resources that were being spent, for example, to:
- Make sure my Dad couldn't replace the lateral line on his septic system on private land without permission from the EPA.
- Enforce rules dictating how much water the commode tanks in my house can hold.
- Prevent anyone but the government from having a pistol magazine that holds more than 10 rounds in a gun made after a certain, arbitrary date.
- Fund some artist of questionable talent to produce "art" which no one would buy, the main feature of which was that it offended as many of those up-tight, self-righteous (tax-paying) Christians as possible.
Obviously, I could go on all day.
If we're going to start blaming 9/11 on the government being distracted by non-defense issues and "misplaced priorities," we've got a lot of blaming to do. And, the left will have more than their share of it.
As Jane mentioned in a recent post, ultimately, the blame for 9/11 rests with We, the People. The government is doing what we, collectively, demand of it. If we'd stop demanding it try to do everything and that it focus on a few, central functions (like the Constitution originally envisioned), it might be able to do those few functions more efficiently and with less distractions. This isn't Bush's fault, nor Clinton's, Bush I's, Reagan's, or Carter's. It's ours.
Rembrandt,
See my second post about not talking about blame being placed for partisan purposes or to deflect blame from themselves. This would apply here, as well. There's also a lot of defensive, "well, if you're gonna blame Bush for policy X, you have to blame Clinton, too, because he was at least as bad at policy X" going on.
For my part, I couldn't stand Clinton. I'm not that fond of Bush, either, for that matter. They're both way to fond of big government for my tastes, among other things. But, I don't blame either of them for 9/11. I blame the terrorists.
I have a much lower opinion of government's ability to solve all the real and imagined problems in the world than many people have. I suspect most of the "Bush Defenders" would say the same and, setting aside partisan sniping and defensive rhetoric, would no more blame Clinton than Bush.
The real question should not be who can be blamed, but who do we think will do a better job of dealing with the situation as it is today, so that tomorrow is less dangerous than it might be? Or, in other words:
"Sometimes stuff happens, someone's got to deal with it, and who you gonna call?" -- Dr. Peter Venkman, 1984
And this...
News Article That Counteracts Bush Blamers
...rounds out the discussion I hope.
How come no one is answering the first part of this post? Is it just because Clinton and 1998 are old news?
The question was/is what should Clinton have done in Autumn 98 to to take out Bin Ladin and how you would have pursuaded Congress, the military and the public to back the plan, keeping in mind that you will face "Wag the Dog" charges from GOP members of Congres and how you would deal with a large number of militants against whom there is no court case.
Interesting question. There were 2 opportunities where Bin Laden could've been taken during the Clinton years and Clinton said no. One was an offer from the Sudanese. One was a sighting by the Predator which is an unmanned aircraft that is actually armed.
Where does that get us? Nowhere. Terror is bigger than Bin Laden. It not stoppable given the 8/6 PDB. September 11th would probably have happened with or without Bin Laden in custody.
It is the big picture perspective that many people are lacking that sticks the conversation onto just the 8/6 PDB or the blame Clinton for not taking out Bin Laden.
It is exactly the problem that Ashcroft and Rice testified about that there was a systematic and structural problem.
Another point is.. None of us conservative types really thought of it as necessary for 2 years to blame Clinton for 9/11. There were a few rumblings talking about cuts in the CIA budget and what not but they were just that... a few rumblings. But the left has just about taken an all out offensive trying to make sure that Bush is defeated in November because they are saying that the Bush administration is responsible, owes an apology, knew and did nothing. and on and on.. It is absolutely irresponsible rhetoric that isn't born of truth and only emboldens the enemy.
Blunt but my feeling.
A non-moderate that I agree with whole heartedly
What does she say? Please read it. But it really takes liberals to task who think Bush had the power to do something after the "8/6 PDB" when it was liberals themselves who were criticizing the Bush administration for actions that they think he could've taken before 9/11 when he couldn't even take these actions AFTER 9/11.
Intellectual dishonesty by liberals I'd say.
Liberals are fine when they advocate being very compassionate and feeding people fish instead of teaching people how to fish, but when liberals do this they are at their worst.
Liberals hatred for conservatives ultimately come out. Liberals view of conservatives as "mean spiritedness" comes out. And for liberals the ends justify the means when they do this.
Doug, aren't YOU being and hatefull toward liberals when you use absurd generalizations like the above? You when you accuse all of them of being Machiavellian and therefore amoral? What makes your brand of hatred for liberals any better than the hate that you feel that liberals show for conservatives?
Doug, aren't YOU being and hatefull toward liberals when you use absurd generalizations like the above? You when you accuse all of them of being Machiavellian and therefore amoral? What makes your brand of hatred for liberals any better than the hate that you feel that liberals show for conservatives?
You do have a point. I shouldn't generalize... But when you do poll taking you'll see generalizatons such as:
1) 40% of Americans think that Bush is against the environment (not naming a specific poll here but you can get my drift). Who are those 40% of Americans? They are liberals. They vote Democrat. They vote party line. Their views are liberal.
2) 40% of Americans think that Bush lied to America about WMD. Who is that 40%? It's the people who listen and agree with liberal news sources.
On both of these examples you can see a different trend from Conservatives. You'd see the following:
1) Conservatives understand that 99.9% of the people are FOR the environment, we just differ on the set of solutions. For that difference in the solution we are lambasted and called names worse than liberal or conservative.
2) Conservatives understand that the French, German, Russian, British, American Intelligence agencies and the UN all thought that Iraq had the WMD's. Conservatives recognize that they were there be