Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I'd like to know what Bush** did to stop UBL before 9/11, wouldn't you?

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 05:05 AM
Original message
I'd like to know what Bush** did to stop UBL before 9/11, wouldn't you?
This is in reference to Rice's jab at Clinton yesterday for failing to deal with bin Laden "when things were different back in the 90s."

It's common knowledge on DU that BushCo were completely dismissive of the threat bin Laden posed before 9/11, despite their insistence that they were on top of things. So here's their chance to prove us wrong.

What were they doing about UBL from January to September 2001?

What specifically did Bush** do to deal with bin Laden during his first 8 months in office?

Even though it wasn't the 90s anymore, UBL was still sitting in Afghanistan during that time. It was just as Rice describes, "with training camps there, able to carry out operations, able to use the territory of Afghanistan as a base for his operations".

One of those operations was 9/11.

So if BushCo were actively hunting bin Laden before 9/11, they knew where to look. Why haven't they ever told us anything about what they were doing to find him?

I'd really like someone in the Administration to finally explain in detail what steps they took to catch UBL over those 8 months, instead of trying to distract us with their usual lame scapegoating of Clinton. I won't hold my breath, but that's my challenge to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
peace frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 05:09 AM
Response to Original message
1. What do you mean, "stop UBL"?
Edited on Mon Feb-13-06 05:10 AM by peace frog
The Bush family and the bin Laden family have a decades-long, highly lucrative business relationship which Junior would never, under any circumstances (including 9/11) disrupt by capturing and imprisoning one of their own. It could never happen under Junior's watch, and never will while he is pResident, period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 05:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Well its easy to answer: Bush didn't do a fucking thing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 05:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I know that
I pose the question only because THEY keep insisting they've been tough on terror from the start and are always deflecting attention from their inaction by blaming Clinton for failing to do away with bin Laden earlier.

I'm calling them out on it...for the benefit of any readers who still haven't figured out what liars BushCo are when it comes to who missed an opportunity to off bin Laden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rooboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 05:29 AM
Response to Original message
4. Bush made Dick Cheney chariman of an anti-terrorism task force...
to make sure they could contain threats from Al Qaeda.

It never met once.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 06:06 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Yes, Cheney was too busy with his energy meetings
But that's something else they didn't do.

Come on, BushCo and Bushbots! You keep slamming Clinton for taking a shot and missing UBL. You keep telling us Bush** knew of the threat before 9/11 and was on the job. So please tell us precisely what Bush** did to hunt UBL down before 9/11. We'd love to know!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #6
14. Energy meetings and hunting apparently
It is now known that Cheney is an avide gun freak, who goes to the range as much as possible. I get the feeling Cheney isn't as sick as he clams he is.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 06:00 AM
Response to Original message
5. Shh! It's a secret and if Bush were to tell us now what they
were doing 5 years ago to catch Bin Laden, it might jeopardize some secret program he has going on. Besides, Bin Laden might have forgotten that we are looking for him, so we have to be careful not to remind him. Don't worry, Bush will declassify that information and tell us about it when he's in a big enough jam, and always remember that Bush knows what's best to keep you safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. LOL, *thank you* for getting it!
Of course you realize that if what they did to stop UBL is a secret, we'd then have to wonder WHY. Because whatever it was, it wasn't effective. Unless THAT'S the secret.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
7. This is part of what he did..... read at your own risk.....
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=103&row=1


Officials told to 'back off' on Saudis before September 11
by Greg Palast and David Pallister

FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11.

US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied.

FBI documents shown on BBC Newsnight last night and obtained by the Guardian show that they had earlier sought to investigate two of Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington and a Muslim organisation, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), with which they were linked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Hmm...
And here's the backup article from the Washington Post: Spreading Saudi Fundamentalism in U.S.

I appreciate you sharing this. But again, it shows Bush** enabling 9/11, not doing anything to stop it. I'm looking for what they did regarding UBL that was so much better than Clinton. I know the details must be around somewhere...(Checking under my desk)...Nope, not there either!

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
9. 0 - ZIP - NADA - Nothing
He needed 9/11 to happen to make his agenda possible.
There was no way the public or Congress were going to buy an attack on Iraq with out a significant event - a modern Pearle Harbor. 9/11 was that event for bu$h and his regime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Again, I KNOW
I'm familiar with PNAC and all the rest.

Cheesh, I didn't think my original post was the least bit SUBTLE....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 07:29 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. We just can't resist throwing our comments on these posts
It is a way for us to vent
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. I hear ya
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
13. Isn't this the same Condi who said
Bush was "tired of swatting at flies" so took no action against the USS Cole bombers?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
15. Had a consultant in working on our network 9/11/2001, and he started
fuming.

I found out what he was freaking out about - the attacks on the towers. Well before the first tower fell, he was saying "It's Osama bin Laden! It has to be . . ."

Of course, Clinton and co. were pursuing ObL after the USS Cole attack 10/12/2000 . . . was a blurb in the local paper about how it was suspected ObL was in on that - and W (and Rush, Drudge, Hannity, etc.) were intent on finding missing "W" keys on keyboards and whose bottom was on all the sheets on the copy machines . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
16. Well to be fair, the US government DID do something:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
17. Bush had successfully ignored all Clinton administration work on
'terrorism' until 9/11 happened. Bin Laden will remain a free man as long as the GOP is in power and influenced by the neo-cons. I personally believe that Bin Laden is still receiving info about Pakistan's efforts to capture him and money from our own CIA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EndElectoral Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
19. He went on vacation!
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 Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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