When someone says 9/11 is Clinton's fault, tell them about this

[Minstrel Boy]

All credit to Paul Thompson and his timeline.

I find this remarkable, and it's never mentioned:

Late 1998-2001: "The US permanently stations two submarines in the Indian Ocean, ready to hit al-Qaeda with cruise missiles on short notice. Six to ten hours advance warning is now needed to review the decision, program the cruise missiles and have them reach their target. On at least three occasions, spies in Afghanistan report bin Laden's location with information suggesting he would remain there for some time. Each time, Clinton approves the strike. Each time, CIA Director Tenet says the information is not reliable enough and the attack cannot go forward. (Washington Post 12/19/01, New York Times 12/30/01)"

Late January 2001: "Even as US intelligence is given conclusive evidence that al-Qaeda is behind the USS Cole bombing, the new Bush administration discontinues the covert deployment of cruise missile submarines and gunships on six-hour alert near Afghanistan's borders that had begun under President Clinton. The standby force gave Clinton the option of an immediate strike against targets in al-Qaeda's top leadership. (Washington Post 1/20/02)"

So, Clinton approved three strikes on bin Laden, each of which were shot down by Tenet. And one of Bush's first acts on taking office was to discontinue the covert cruise missile deployment capable of targetting al-Qaeda leadership.

Rhetorically speaking, WTF is up with that?

[KeepItReal]

1. Don't forget how the Republicans refused to spend $ on aviation security

"On July 25, 1996, President Clinton directed Vice President Gore to establish the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. The President asked for a report in 45 days on how to deploy the latest technology to detect the most sophisticated explosives. This report meets that request. It goes further to recommend non-technology improvements, primarily the shift from an adversarial relationship between government and industry to a new consortium, a partnership that will be the framework for our future recommendations."

http://www.airportnet.org/depts/regulatory/goreini.htm

"The Gore Commission estimated the eventual cost of implementing all of its recommendations would be between $2.5 billion and $8 billion (the final cost would have depended on which technologies were used).

But the airline industry was not concerned about possible terrorist attacks. TWA spokesman John McDonald was quoted in a 1996 Newsday article as saying: "TWA last year carried 21 million people and we didn't have a single plane blown out of the sky by someone who carried a bomb on the plane through security… I don't see it as an issue. The reality is, it hasn't occurred."

And the airlines made sure their views on costly anti-terrorism regulations were heard on Capital Hill. The industry had contributed to the 1995-96 campaigns of 10 of the 12 members on the House Appropriations subcommittee on transportation - - the committee that funds the FAA. The Senate Aviation Subcommittee had similar ties to the airline industry: eight of nine Republican senators serving on that subcommittee in 1996 had received airline PAC contributions; only one of the eight Democrats on that subcommittee did. "

http://www.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=4532

[HawkerHurricane]

2. Makes me wish I were at my home computer.

Somebody remind me to cut and paste this a pass it around.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. Simpler weapon for you: "Clinton handed over the reigns to Bush and

Bush dropped the ball. What more evidence do you want (insert freeper-friend's name)?"

or:

"Who was President on 9/11?"

[central scrutinizer]

3. don't forget the Hart-Rudman report

that Clinton commissioned and which the maladministration pointedly ignored

[bluescribbler]

10. maladministration

I like that. Mind if I use it?:yourock:

[lostnfound]

5. Tenet also met with top ISI who'd funded hijacker Atta..

I'd read (in a Gore Vidal book) that on the morning of 9-11, Tenet was meeting with the head of the Pakistani ISI (intelligence service), Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, a man who had sent $100,000 to hijacker Mohammed Atta just a couple of months before.

Mahmoud "lost his job" over the $100K (or over not covering his tracks)-- guys are locked up in Guatanamo for a whole lot less..

Don't know what it means. Maybe means Tenet is a really bad guy, or maybe it means that Mahmoud has a sick sense of humor. Maybe it was humanitarian assistance -- you know, like the $43 million to the Taliban (?) back in April 01...

With all the smoke and mirrors, who can we believe? It's easy to know who we CAN'T believe.

[Old and In the Way]

19. Welcome aboard lostnfound

Gore's book of essays, "Dreaming of War" is excellent and I recommend everyone read it.

But if you want real detail on the CIA/Pakistani connection, check out the 9/11 timeline on www.cooperativeresearch.org. Paul Thompson, a poster here, has written the definitive compilation of the entire event event.

[Hanuman]

6. Just curiously...

in 1996, Clinton refused to implement a plan that would have captured Bin Laden and about a hundred of his top aids as they were flying around in a chartered coomercial jet on their way to a meeting in Pakistan. This is off the top of my head, so I don't remember the exact details, but the plane made a few landings and refuelings and there was a plan in place to either take the plane on the run way or use 5 US military jets and force it down in flight. Each opportunity came and went.

Plus there is the Sudanese offer to extradite Bin Laden when he was living in the Sudan in exchange for favors. This offer was also refused.

Hey look- I really do think that to a certain extent, hindsight is 20/20, and had Clinton known what Bin Laden was about to pull off, he certainly would have taken him out. But to lay Bin Laden's deeds at the feet of Bush is a too narrow interpretation of the evidence.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. No evidence against bin Laden until African embassy bombings

and even THAT evidence was questionable.
However, the USS Cole bombing was the last straw, and the importance of getting bin Laden was finally put above any legal bar. With that knowledge, Bush still chose to put the terroist fight and the priority of getting bin Laden on the back burner. Bush's and Ashcroft's machinations from January to 9/11 belie their intentions of pursuing other issues at the expense of the fight on terrorism.

In 1996 there was not a legal grounds to do anything to bin Laden.

[WENSTJDON]

11. well, I just read in Al Franken's book

"Lies and The Lying Liars who tell them", a passage
on page 113 about this Sudan business and the guy - Mansoor Ijaz-
who served as the middleman between the U.S. and Sudan. According to Sandy Berger, Mr. Ijaz "was an unreliable freelancer, pursuing his own financial agenda." Mr. Franken has all the passages well sourced in his book. I suggest you take a look at it before believing
that it is all President Clinton's fault that Bin Laden is still alive.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. also, the Sudan "aspirin factory" was in fact a WMD lab

the chemical tracers were actually found upon inspection of the rubble to prove WMD were being made, stored, or otherwise at the target site.

[noonwitch]

18. I always said "How hard would it be to disguise a chem weapons factory

as a pharmaceutical plant? I'm not a scientist, but I would think that some of the same equipment and materials are used at both.

[Hanuman]

14. I didn't say it was "All Clinton's fault..."

What I DO say is a pox on both their houses for their failures leading to Sept. 11.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

16. I say a pox on the freeper/Limbaugh/Hannity idiots

who refuse to acknowledge that Bush had all the apparatus at his disposal to protect 3000 Americans on 9/11 and he failed to do so.
AND they blame Clinton. Sorry but Clinton was gone 8 months and Bush had not a clue.

[priller]

15. The Sudanese offer is doubtful

That offer was supposedly made a Mansoor Ijaz, a man with "business connections" to the Sudanese govt, whatever that means. His claims, while hyped endlessly by NewsMax, Fox News, and other parts of the right-wing anti-Clinton machine, are contradictory at best, and largely without evidence. Clinton admin officials say they didn't deal with Ijaz because they were already working with the Sudanese govt. "Why use a back door, when we were already using the front door?"

What the Sudan govt did offer was to extradite bin Laden to Saudi Arabia, and the Clinton admin worked for over 2 months to try to make that happen. But in the end the Saudis had no desire jail or execute him.

AFAIK, there was never an official offer to give bin Laden to the Americans, despite what Ijaz claimed.

[Zuni]

8. Bush was weaker on terrorism pre 9/11 than Clinton

It is obvious. Bush had almost 9 months to repair the 'grave damage' that FReepers and the like say that Clinton did to our national defense. He did nothing.
He was briefed on OBL and Al-Q. He was warned several times before 9/11 about a possible major terrorist strike. He did nothing.

There is a book out about Clinton called 'Dereliction of Duty'. That title applies even better to Bush, who came into office not long after the USS Cole Bombing.

[kentuck]

9. He didn't want to hit a camel in the ass with a million dollar missile....

Remember that?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. No so he used an $87 billion war. nt

[spanone]

17. Don't forget, congress already gave him 79 billion -you do math