Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Another Bush screw up

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: barry2952

"Worst President Ever"

January 2001 Memo Warned Bush of Al Qaeda Threat

By JoAnne Allen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A newly released memo warned the White House at the start of the Bush administration that al Qaeda represented a threat throughout the Islamic world, a warning that critics said went unheeded by President Bush until the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The memo dated Jan. 25, 2001 -- five days after Bush took office -- was an essential feature of last year's hearings into intelligence failures before the attacks on New York and Washington. A copy of the document was posted on the National Security Archive Web site on Thursday.

The memo, from former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, had been described during the hearings but its full contents had not been disclosed.

Clarke, a holdover from the Clinton administration, had requested an immediate meeting of top national security officials as soon as possible after Bush took office to discuss combating al Qaeda. He described the network as a threat with broad reach.

"Al Qaeda affects centrally our policies on Pakistan, Afghanistan, Central Asia, North Africa and the GCC (Gulf Arab states). Leaders in Jordan and Saudi Arabia see al Qaeda as a direct threat to them," Clarke wrote.

"The strength of the network of organizations limits the scope of support friendly Arab regimes can give to a range of U.S. policies, including Iraq policy and the (Israeli-Palestinian) Peace Process. We would make a major error if we underestimated the challenge al Qaeda poses."

The memo also warned of overestimating the stability of moderate regional allies threatened by al Qaeda.

It recommended that the new administration urgently discuss the al Qaeda network, including the magnitude of the threat it posed and strategy for dealing with it.

The document was declassified on April 7, 2004, one day before Rice's testimony before the Sept. 11 commission. It was released recently by the National Security Council to the National Security Archive -- a private library of declassified U.S. documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

The meeting on al Qaeda requested by Clarke did not take place until Sept. 4, 2001.

"Worst President Ever"

Posted by: MonsterMark

Somebody is really reaching.

Posted by: FreeFaller

So what would you have had us do? A pre-emtive strike against a foreign power based on semi-solid intelligence. We could have invaded a country and then found out that the threat was not as bad a we thought...because without 9/11 most people would have thought that terrorists were not that much of a threat to us here at home. So we would say that we did a good thing liberating a country from the grip of an opressive regime and that we have a responsibility as the worlds sole superpower to promote freedom and protect those who cannot protect themselves. People would have taken to the streets calling GW a warmonger. The pre-emtive strike that would likely have garnered little support in the UN would be condemned by a few familiar nations...some would stand by us in understanding a mounting threat. World opinion of the US would suffer. At home public opinion would be that the money being spent combating the small threat of international terrorism at home could be better spent combating social issues...

Does any of this sound familiar...sounds like Dems have it out for our president no matter what he does.

Posted by: Cubster

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

"Worst President Ever"

January 2001 Memo Warned Bush of Al Qaeda Threat

By JoAnne Allen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A newly released memo warned the White House at the start of the Bush administration that al Qaeda represented a threat throughout the Islamic world, a warning that critics said went unheeded by President Bush until the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The memo dated Jan. 25, 2001 -- five days after Bush took office -- was an essential feature of last year's hearings into intelligence failures before the attacks on New York and Washington. A copy of the document was posted on the National Security Archive Web site on Thursday.

The memo, from former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, had been described during the hearings but its full contents had not been disclosed.

Clarke, a holdover from the Clinton administration, had requested an immediate meeting of top national security officials as soon as possible after Bush took office to discuss combating al Qaeda. He described the network as a threat with broad reach.

"Al Qaeda affects centrally our policies on Pakistan, Afghanistan, Central Asia, North Africa and the GCC (Gulf Arab states). Leaders in Jordan and Saudi Arabia see al Qaeda as a direct threat to them," Clarke wrote.

"The strength of the network of organizations limits the scope of support friendly Arab regimes can give to a range of U.S. policies, including Iraq policy and the (Israeli-Palestinian) Peace Process. We would make a major error if we underestimated the challenge al Qaeda poses."

The memo also warned of overestimating the stability of moderate regional allies threatened by al Qaeda.

It recommended that the new administration urgently discuss the al Qaeda network, including the magnitude of the threat it posed and strategy for dealing with it.

The document was declassified on April 7, 2004, one day before Rice's testimony before the Sept. 11 commission. It was released recently by the National Security Council to the National Security Archive -- a private library of declassified U.S. documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

The meeting on al Qaeda requested by Clarke did not take place until Sept. 4, 2001.

"Worst President Ever"

My father told me something a long time ago, " its better for people to think you might be a little slow, than to open you mouth and REMOVE all doubt". I think this quote is applicable here.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeFaller

...sounds like Dems have it out for our president no matter what he does.

Sounds like ???? He could walk on water and part the seas and all we would hear from the left is how Bush only did it to separate the rich from the poor.

That Richard Clark guy is a real piece of work. Total C.Y.A. guy because he did squat with Clinton over 8 years. I am sorry I share the same name.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeFaller

So what would you have had us do? A pre-emtive strike against a foreign power based on semi-solid intelligence. We could have invaded a country and then found out that the threat was not as bad a we thought...because without 9/11 most people would have thought that terrorists were not that much of a threat to us here at home. So we would say that we did a good thing liberating a country from the grip of an opressive regime and that we have a responsibility as the worlds sole superpower to promote freedom and protect those who cannot protect themselves. People would have taken to the streets calling GW a warmonger. The pre-emtive strike that would likely have garnered little support in the UN would be condemned by a few familiar nations...some would stand by us in understanding a mounting threat. World opinion of the US would suffer. At home public opinion would be that the money being spent combating the small threat of international terrorism at home could be better spent combating social issues...

Does any of this sound familiar...sounds like Dems have it out for our president no matter what he does.

Nooooooooooo. There were 1001 things GW could've, should've done in response to these reports (including the infamous 8/6/01 report "OBL planning an attack on the US using airliners"). First and foremost, he could've cranked up the intelligence machine, put the FAA on alert, tightened security at the airports........... BUT WHAT DID GW DO?? Nada, SQUAT, not a DAMN thing. This lame-ass "Commander In Chief" left the back door UNLOCKED for OBL and AlQuida. GW Bush and his cabnet is as much to blame for 9/11 as OBL.

Posted by: FreeFaller

Most of the items of which you speak would have been largely ineffective. Prior to 9/11 the mentality concerning terrorism was that it was largley a problem outside our borders. The average citizen just did not see it as much of a threat. That's the truth. 9/11 woke us up from our peaceful slumber. If we had ramped up our security it would have only been for a short time...after that the terrorists would strike. That would be if anyone had the forsight to see an attack like the events of 9/11. Prior to this event the hijackings of airplanes were done to get some sort of tangible effect (release of prisoners, money, changes in political stances). The people of the US had never been subjected to the kind of radical religious extremism that the followers of OBL's doctrine were willing to demonstrate. We simply could not fathom as a people the lengths at which these madmen were willing to go. It's all about monday morning quarterbacking...

As for the intelligence agencies of our country...they were lethargic after 10 years of nothing to do... The CIA, NSA, DIA, were trained and prepared to deal with the Soviet threat on a conventional basis. All attempts by the US and USSR (CIS) to infiltrate organizations in South West Asia provided mediocre results at best. We simply did not posess the understanding of Islamic culture enough to investigate their terrorist groups.

After all this I would like to remind you one thing...Sudan offered up OBL's head on a platter and WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON's ADMINISTRATION SAID NO THANKS!!!!!!!!! Who's at fault...everyone...we were all blind. May our eyes never close again...

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

(including the infamous 8/6/01 report "OBL planning an attack on the US using airliners"). First and foremost, he could've cranked up the intelligence machine, put the FAA on alert, tightened security at the airports....

Senator Kerry was privvy to the same information and he passed the buck and the terrorists ended up flying out of HIS airport, Boston Logan! Keep grasping at straws.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Senator Kerry was privvy to the same information and he passed the buck and the terrorists ended up flying out of HIS airport, Boston Logan! Keep grasping at straws.

Typical GOP response, displace the blame. So where DOES the buck stop? Nowhere NEAR the white house according to you!

Posted by: MonsterMark

1st) Just keeping it real. You like to point the finger. I like to point out that there is enough blame to go around.

2nd) Just showing you that putting Kerry in there instead of Bush would have been a huge step backward.

Posted by: FreeFaller

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

1st) Just keeping it real. You like to point the finger. I like to point out that there is enough blame to go around.

2nd) Just showing you that putting Kerry in there instead of Bush would have been a huge step backward.

Yeah, Senator Kerry would have turned us back into a "Paper Tiger"

Posted by: barry2952

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Bryan,

1st, at least now you now realize that Bush shared in the blame for ignoring clear threats. He has to acknowledge that some of the people he left in place and some that he appointed really screwed up. As CIC his obligation was to listen to his subordinates and act. He can't go on blaming his subordinates when he was supposed to be in charge.

2nd, I agree that Kerry was not the best choice, however, Bush is clearly not the man you think he is.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

1st, at least now you now realize that Bush shared in the blame for ignoring clear threats.

What I am willing to acknowledge is that Bush, Kerry, Clinton, Gore, Lieberman, Edwards, Sharpton, Dean, the Constitution Party, the Green Party, etc.,etc.,etc., nobody would have made any difference in office prior to 9/11 because we fat-cat Americans don't do a thing unless we are forced to. Take a long look at history to see that it took an act like 9/11 to get us to start to act and will take an even bigger and more deadly event to finally get us to take these threats seriously. That's just the way it is. To pick on Bush is just not fair, IMHO. Nobody else would have made a difference. But I will also say this. I don't think anybody would have acted as forcefully as Bush did. Thank the good Lord for giving us Bush at the right time in history.

Posted by: Jamler3

C'mon Guys... Why is it that people look to place blame for 9/11...?

To be completely honest... The Bush Admin (At that time) was just fully digesting the whole Al Queda thing and understanding the full impact based on files documents. They have to read through all that stuff... A new admin doesn't come in fully knowledgable of positions, and what to do about international situations that went on for the past 8Yrs. I'm sure Bush, like any others, thought they had a year or so to get up on all the issues related to National Security... Tell me this., did the Military Leaders who were supposed to have their finger on the pulse of International Terrorism have a clue...? Essentially they didn't switch leadership????? The same Generals who were in place under Clinton were there... It is very easy to play Monday Morning QB on this issue... Was anybody in the top executive ranks scraming???

Bush took immediate action! If anything... Bubba and the rest of Clintongate should have fully outlined this threat, if it was as highly present as being suggested, prior to Bush setting foot 1 inside the oval office.

Bottom line... 9/11 happened, and it happened on W's watch and let me tell ya... I am damn glad he was in office... Just imagine Gore in office when that happend...? ( Just imagining a Gore Admin made me shiver) We needed that TX swagger... That 'ALL American" You can't F with us Attitude!!!! The world needed to see a strong America after that!!! We in NY will never forget his inpromptu comment to Trade Center rescue workers.. " I hear you, and the people who knocked down these buildings will hear from ALL of us soon "

No president since F. D. Roosevelt has had to deal with such tragedy....! Read "[i] This I Remember"[i] A book written by Eleanor, that received great attention, yet was eventually revered by both Dem's and Rep's...... She outlines the emotion behind such an impact upon a national leader. We need to establish a plan and unify behind it!!!!!

Posted by: barry2952

My point was that Bush's credibility would be dramatically enhanced with me if he admitted that 9/11 happened on his watch and that he bears ultimate responsibility for it. That all. A simple apology. But that's not what happened. We went into Afghanastan to look for OSL and then attacked Iraq based on terrible intelligence that said there were WMD. Oops!

As far as fully digesting reports of radical Islamic terrorists your time frame is way off. He took office in January and the attack was in September. Why did it take so long to digest?

Posted by: Jamler3

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

My point was that Bush's credibility would be dramatically enhanced with me if he admitted that 9/11 happened on his watch and that he bears ultimate responsibility for it. That all. A simple apology. But that's not what happened. We went into Afghanastan to look for OSL and then attacked Iraq based on terrible intelligence that said there were WMD. Oops!

As far as fully digesting reports of radical Islamic terrorists your time frame is way off. He took office in January and the attack was in September. Why did it take so long to digest?

Again, your looking for Bush to accept reponsibility for something that was, and had been, planned for years... Explain how/why these folks got into our country without issue. Getting Passports and ID's... I don't think Bush has shunned the responsibility at all, and he as been extreamly sypathetic to the American people. I don't know about you, but I lost several friends in the WTC attack and I don't hold our President "Ultimately Responsible". The fact of the matter is that our culture is what enabled this attack. Our way of life. Lack of controls on border crossings, airport security, ports of shore... ALL have been upgraded and improved under this admistration. Fact of the matter is that Clinton had full knowledge of such threats and conditions and did nothing to improve National Security.

So what does having Bush accept full repsponsibility for 9/11 do???
Not a damn thing... And never will... Now lets discuss the infrastructure changes that have been implemented to prevent such occurances in the future... They are vast and wide! 9/11 was a difiicult lesson for all of us, at the cost of over 3 thousand innocent lives... Did FDR take full responsibility for what happened on 12/7? We had known about the fragilities of Japanese relations for years... Your just looking to point a finger... And I say fine, but that don't bring back my friends... Implementing the necessary security measures to hopefully stave off future events of this nature is what works!

Posted by: MrWilson

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

but why would he do that, why would anyone do that...its politics. why doesnt clinton admit that it was his fault? It is everyones fault, no ONE person is to blame.

Posted by: barry2952

Legal question.

Let's say I bought an electrical contracting business. I kept some of the old employees. I hire some new department heads. It was never disclosed to me that there were unsafe practices endemic to the field workers. Reports were made to me by department heads making me aware that these practices are in place and that we are exposed to extreme liability. I do nothing and 9 months later 3,000 people are killed.

Would a court find me responsible?

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Legal question.

Let's say I bought an electrical contracting business. I kept some of the old employees. I hire some new department heads. It was never disclosed to me that there were unsafe practices endemic to the field workers. Reports were made to me by department heads making me aware that these practices are in place and that we are exposed to extreme liability. I do nothing and 9 months later 3,000 people are killed.

Would a court find me responsible?

Yep, sounds like you and your electrical contracting business are screwed. I didn't realize it was your companies' unsafe practices that caused an electrical malfunction that resulted in 2 plane crashes into the WTC.

Posted by: Pepsi2185

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Either way it sounds like someone was asleep at the throttle!!!

"The engines running, but no one's behind the wheel"

Posted by: Pepsi2185

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

I got pulled over for a license plate light burned out, does that count???

Posted by: Pepsi2185

In all honesty, the world trade center thing would be a good reason for him to assume some military control and begins wars of his choosing. I believe he had plans to invade Iraq before september 11th. Im not saying any of this is fact, but its something interesting to think about. Too many strange plans going down in washington for my liking.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

And I should add for all the naysayers that are defending GW's "innocence"....... WHY did GW fight so hard to prevent a full investigation into the events leading up to 9/11 (the 9/11 Comission)?? He fought that investigation tooth and nail every step of the way, right up to refusing to let Condi Rice testify. The ONLY reason a person (let alone a CIC that SHOULD be trying to portray himself to the american people as an up-front, forthright guy) would do something like that is because HIS HANDS ARE DIRTY!!!

I don't remember the exact numbers, but the amount of money budgeted to investigate Clinton's impeachment (an issue of sex, lies and money), was ~ 3X that budgeted for the 9/11 Comission's investigation (an issue of lax national security and DEATHS of 3000 people). Can't 'yall see the corruption and perverse double-standard underlying those facts??

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

I don't remember the exact numbers, but the amount of money budgeted to investigate Clinton's impeachment (an issue of sex, lies and money), was ~ 3X that budgeted for the 9/11 Comission's investigation (an issue of lax national security and DEATHS of 3000 people). Can't 'yall see the corruption and perverse double-standard underlying those facts??

What I saw was a general atmosphere of cooperation in one investigation, and legal wranglings and long, expensive court battles in the other. That's what cost so much. Not saying I agreed with the impeachment, cause I didn't. But this is another example of misleading evidence.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

"General atmosphere of cooperation"??? ROFLMAO. You are kidding, right?

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

"General atmosphere of cooperation"??? ROFLMAO. You are kidding, right?

Compared to the impeachment, are YOU kidding??