Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did the Bush admin ever mention terrorism publicly pre 911?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:09 AM
Original message
Did the Bush admin ever mention terrorism publicly pre 911?
Clinton publicly hammered away at the subject continually for years. I cannot recall ever hearing terrorism mentioned by anyone in the Bush administration before 911. Wouldn't it be cool to have a resource comparing the Clinton public response to terrorism/terrorists to that of the Booosh admin pre 911? Is there any online comparison of this? It most certainly would be useful in dispelling their lies and distortions on the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
soleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. I remember Bush throwing out the Hart Rudman report
Which Al Gore had commissioned and took two years to put together, and saying Cheney was going to be in charge of terrorism and come up with his own set of recommendations.

That's all I remember.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Right and Cheneys terrorism "Task force"
that never ever had a single meeting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brotherjohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Of course it did. But it was secret. He won't release the names...
... of the parties he met with b/c names like "Bin Laden", "Mullah Omar", "Price Faisal" might not look good in an election year. Nor would subject matter like oil pipelines to the Caspian Sea.

On second thought, maybe this Task Force was one and the same with the Energy Task Force.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #5
16. Sure sounds like they were protecting their Saudi oil buddies.
If they caught Osama, then they might have to detain him for trial concerning his involvement in the Cole and embassy bombings. His family might disapprove.

If they accidentally killed him while pretending to try to capture him, that could cause their Saudi friends to be angry with them.

They were putting their oil interests above those of the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MetaTrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Are you sure they said 'Task Force'
and not "Tax Cuts"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aprilgirl Donating Member (53 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. That's what I remember also. Condi putting it on the back burner or
at least she was giving excuses for not acting on it. Remember they were engaged more agressively on their "energy policy."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
3. Just heard Madeline Albright
say that the Clinton Administration was often accused of "making it up" whenever they tried to bring the subject of terrorism to the forefront.

OTOH Bush was absolutely focused on Star Wars II, and tax cuts and had little or no interest in terrorism IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skypilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Did Albright just say that...
...to the Independent Commission?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Yep! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmylips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Madam Secretary also said...
that she was very disturbed at the way the bush administration was dismantling and voiding anti terror and foreign policies accomplished by the Clinton administration.

Powell keeps mentioning little man bush. bush was involved and directed....etc. bullshit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skypilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Thanks, both of you.
Edited on Tue Mar-23-04 11:27 AM by skypilot
I'm at work but I would kill to see these hearings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
18. How could they "make up" the Cole and embassy bombings?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grannylib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
6. The transcripts of the hearings should provide a lot of that; it seems
quite clear already that the Clinton administration was far more on top of the situation than the Bushistas could ever hope to be, since their focus was on personal vendettas and financial gain for themselves and their cronies and supporters.
Chimpco et all are without a doubt the most morally, spiritually, intellectually and ethically bankrupt administration in our nation's history, not to mention factually unencumbered...
I want these filth GONE, I want them out of the White House, I want them punished for their crimes and lies and hypocrisy. I want to see them punished in this lifetime; it's not enough for me to believe that they all will burn for this in the next world...
end of rant, sorry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. totally in agreement
i did not realize how corrupt and morally bankrupt they really were until I read House of Bush by Unger. Now I am REALLY on a rant to get these mofos out of office?!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
10. I remember him discussing "Star Wars" , "Tax Cuts", "Stem Cells BAD "
"drilling in ANWR" "Faith Based Initiative"

But I do not remember the Coward mentioning Terrorism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
14. They cut the anti-terrorism budget!!!
Remember that. Remember that. Any time they say terrorism was on their "front burner", ask them why they CUT THE FBI'S REQUESTED ANTI-TERRORISM FUNDS!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
F.Gordon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
15. No!
The Woor on Tar archives begin September 11, 2001:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/resources2.html

This is as close as Bush* ever came to mentioning "terrorism"....

Continuation of Emergency with Respect to the Taliban
On July 4, 1999, the President issued Executive Order 13129, "Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with the Taliban," to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the actions and policies of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The order blocks all property and interests in property of the Taliban and prohibits trade-related transactions by United States persons involving the territory of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban. The last notice of continuation was signed on June 30, 2000.
The Taliban continues to allow territory under its control in Afghanistan to be used as a safe haven and base of operations for Usama bin Laden and the al-Qaida organization who have committed and threaten to continue to commit acts of violence against the United States and its nationals. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to maintain in force these emergency authorities beyond July 4, 2001. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency declared on July 4, 1999, with respect to the Taliban. This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010702-10.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/04/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/01/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grannylib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Which was actually Clinton's work; Chimp just extended it...probably under
duress, since it did not fit in with his plans...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
F.Gordon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Exactly
And this probably had more to do with Cheney's "Energy Task Force" than "terrorism".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
17. threw out the Rudman/Hart report and backed off I/P diplomacy
i recall something about "terrorism back burner" tax cuts was bush* primary issue!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC