‘He Kept Us Safe’: Bush Ignored Repeated Warnings Of Terrorist Attack

[Crabtownboy]

Are you surprised?

New documents uncovered by investigative journalist Kurt Eichenwald show that despite repeated, urgent warnings from intelligence officials about an impending Al Qaeda attack, Bush did nothing because his neoconservative advisers told him that the threats were merely a “ruse” and a distraction.

Recalling the evidence compiled by the 9/11 Commission – which Bush, his vice president Dick Cheney, his national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and numerous other officials sought to stymie and mislead – it has been clear for years that they ignored many warnings about Al Qaeda.

Specifically, as Eichenwald points out in his op-ed report, CIA officials sought to warn Bush with a glaring headline in the famous August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” That memorandum represented the culmination of many months of attempts to awaken a somnolent White House to the impending threat of a terrorist attack.

None of that is news, although Republicans like Jeb Bush continue to behave as if the facts uncovered by the 9/11 Commission had never emerged.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/he-kept-us-safe-bush-ignored-repeated-warnings-of-terrorist-attack/

 

[Tom Bryant]

"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

 

[targus]

Crabby left out the usual nonsense about "connecting the dots".

He also forgot about the "firewall" that the democrats erected that prevented the sharing of information between agencies and made sure that no one could connect the dots.

 

[LadyEagle]

CTB also left out the part about terrorism experts testifying on Capitol Hill for years and years before 09/11 happened, even down to the scenario of terrorists flying jet planes into the WTC. Totally ignored by even Bill Clinton after the first WTC terror attack in 1993, as well. And how islamic terrorists were a threat as far back as the first Gulf War. Many people are to blame. Many administrations and Congresses are to blame.

 

[Don]

Y'all know what this is, right? It's a pathetic attempt to shift focus away from the fact that the Obama administration ignored threats and a US ambassador died because of it. It's yet another "not my fault" ploy.

 

[LadyEagle]

Y'all know what this is, right? It's a pathetic attempt to shift focus away from the fact that the Obama administration ignored threats and a US ambassador died because of it. It's yet another "not my fault" ploy.

Yes, Don, we know what it is, but please stay on topic. Thanks. :flower:

 

[Don]

Yes, Don, we know what it is, but please stay on topic. Thanks. :flower:

:laugh: :smilewinkgrin: :tongue3:

If I thought you were being serious....

 

[Arbo]

Yes, Don, we know what it is, but please stay on topic. Thanks. :flower:

With respect, I think Don's precisely on topic.

 

[Don]

With respect, I think Don's precisely on topic.

(psst - I think she was making a comment about CTB's insistence that we "stay on topic"....)

 

[Crabtownboy]

CTB also left out the part about terrorism experts testifying on Capitol Hill for years and years before 09/11 happened, even down to the scenario of terrorists flying jet planes into the WTC. Totally ignored by even Bill Clinton after the first WTC terror attack in 1993, as well. And how islamic terrorists were a threat as far back as the first Gulf War. Many people are to blame. Many administrations and Congresses are to blame.

LE, your argument should be with the author of the article I cited. It was not my writing. Your topic is for another thread. This article was about the Bush admin. being warned and his Neocon advisers telling him to ignore the warnings, there was nothing to them. Now we know from their years of writings that they, the Neocons wanted a war in the Mid-East and they got it. Did they purposely lie to Bush? I have no idea. But 9/11 gave them the very excuse they had been wanting for their war.

I do not fault Bush so much as his advisers. I have said for several years I think Bush was a victim of his advisers.

What is frightening is these are the same folk from whom Romney is getting advise.

 

[saturneptune]

CTB,
Yes, the article is probably true. However, I do not see the purpose you are trying to make. I do not think any President takes office with the attitude, I am going to keep this nation safer than my predecessor. The only point I can think of is to refute the statement of Jeb Bush that President Bush kept us safe.

You know, the issue of safety of your family or you is not a political matter. If I decided to do harm to a family, I am not going to make the first step on my evil check off list of figuring out who is President at the given moment.

Ultimately, the person responsible for your safety and your family's safety from harm is you. The levels of government are there to enforce the law in theory, but no one protects your family like you do. (except the Lord in His mercy of course)

 

[Crabtownboy]

CTB,
Yes, the article is probably true. However, I do not see the purpose you are trying to make. I do not think any President takes office with the attitude, I am going to keep this nation safer than my predecessor. The only point I can think of is to refute the statement of Jeb Bush that President Bush kept us safe.

You are right. The point of the article and the point of the thread is to show that what Jeb and Republicans have been saying simply is not true. It would be much more acceptable to me and I believe to the American people would be for them to say, "A mistake was made. Let's pray it never happens again."

It does give me pause that these are the same folk that are giving Romney advise and I do not believe they have changed their basic premise of having a war in the Mid-East. I do not believe they have learned a thing from the past eleven years. I hope I am wrong, but I see nothing to indicate I am wrong. I did hear one of the Neocons say, "We were right in our policy. It just was not carried out correctly." That is scary and indicated no lessons learned.

You know, the issue of safety of your family or you is not a political matter. If I decided to do harm to a family, I am not going to make the first step on my evil check off list of figuring out who is President at the given moment.

Safety should not be a political topic. We cannot guarantee safety for everyone all the time. The danger of being harmed by terrorists is much smaller than of being hurt in a traffic accident, or a fall at home.

Ultimately, the person responsible for your safety and your family's safety from harm is you. The levels of government are there to enforce the law in theory, but no one protects your family like you do. (except the Lord in His mercy of course)

And at times we are helpless in that protection as in accidents.

As I said in the OP, I have felt for some time that Bush was the victim of bad advisers. For better or worse a president has to have advisers as one person cannot be an expert on everything. Of course as Harry Truman's sign said, "The Buck Stops Here," and, again, for better or worse history will judge the president for decisions made regardless of how good or bad his advisers were.

 

[saturneptune]

Of all the places on earth, it has always been my belief that this is the area we have no business imposing our will on sovereign states. It is one thing to protect Israel, or to deter a national threat, but that has not been the case. This conflict started thousands of years ago, as recorded in Scripture, and will be until the end of time. God is in control everywhere, but this area of the world is unique in the Lord's plan. To think that whoever is in charge in Washington at any given point in time is going to change that is ludicrous. It is the height of arrogance, and a waste of our national resources, not to speak of the sacrifice of thousands of American lives.

 

[LadyEagle]

LE, your argument should be with the author of the article I cited. It was not my writing. Your topic is for another thread. This article was about the Bush admin. being warned and his Neocon advisers telling him to ignore the warnings, there was nothing to them. Now we know from their years of writings that they, the Neocons wanted a war in the Mid-East and they got it. Did they purposely lie to Bush? I have no idea. But 9/11 gave them the very excuse they had been wanting for their war.

I do not fault Bush so much as his advisers. I have said for several years I think Bush was a victim of his advisers.

What is frightening is these are the same folk from whom Romney is getting advise.

Why is my post for another thread when from your article it states:

Recalling the evidence compiled by the 9/11 Commission – which Bush, his vice president Dick Cheney, his national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and numerous other officials sought to stymie and mislead – it has been clear for years that they ignored many warnings about Al Qaeda.

I simply reinforced what your article mentioned!

But let me ask you this, you say it is "frightening these are the same folk from whom Romney is getting advise." I doubt that. I think Mitt Romney is smart enough to surround himself with advisors from all different stripes. That is the way businessmen make decisions, they take all of the opinions of their advisors and settle on a course of action from all different voices. I figure that is the way he will approach the job as Commander in Chief, he will take advice from all camps and draw his conclusions based on what is best for America. So, since Americans are sick of war in the Middle East, shall we just lie back and let the most radical of radicals in the ME acquire nukes? Is that the course you would choose, CTB? Nukes that can be transferred as dirty bombs to NYC or New Orleans, St. Louis, Chicago, Boston? I agree that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were executed wrong....they have been a waste of life, limbs, minds, and treasure.

I have recently discussed this topic with several ex-Marines and now that they are out of the service, they are free to express their opinions. All have told me that going to Iraq and Afghanistan was a mistake, not worth it, and the people there DO hate us, they all hate us, no matter how we tied the hands of our troops with the new Rules of Engagement, no matter how many schools, roads, or bridges we built, no matter how much food and money we gave - they ALL hate us.

Did Bush keep us safe? Well, some would argue that since we took the "war" to them, they concentrated on defeating us over there instead of coming back to our shores and engaging us in our towns and streets. That the IEDs were over there, not here for you to run over on the street on the way to the grocery store, the suicide bombers were over there instead of here at your church or your favorite restaurant. In that sense, our troops did lay down their lives and sacrifice for their country, to keep us safe. Perhaps that was the reasoning behind the Bush Doctrine. But at least under Bush, the US didn't lie down and roll over under islamic tyranny!

Bottom line, CTB, no matter what we do about Iran, we potentially end up on the losing side, either from nukes here or a war in which China and Russia will be engaged since they are funding a lot of Iran's nuclear program, unless we use all of the military might we have left, go back to the ROE of WW2 (if we have troops on the ground), and forget about nation building during a war, go to war to win....

It is tricky. Americans are sick of war and our economy is in shambles, the national debt seems insurmountable. Sorry if you think I'm off topic, but all of these points are relative to the OP and the conversation you started.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Why is my post for another thread when from your article it states:



I simply reinforced what your article mentioned!

But let me ask you this, you say it is "frightening these are the same folk from whom Romney is getting advise." I doubt that. I think Mitt Romney is smart enough to surround himself with advisors from all different stripes.

I hope I am wrong. But from what I have read he is talking to the same Neocons that Bush had as advisers. That may well be why he is taking an aggressive line. I believe if we go down that road again it will lead to another and probably larger disaster.

That is the way businessmen make decisions, they take all of the opinions of their advisors and settle on a course of action from all different voices. I figure that is the way he will approach the job as Commander in Chief, he will take advice from all camps and draw his conclusions based on what is best for America. So, since Americans are sick of war in the Middle East, shall we just lie back and let the most radical of radicals in the ME acquire nukes? Is that the course you would choose, CTB? Nukes that can be transferred as dirty bombs to NYC or New Orleans, St. Louis, Chicago, Boston? I agree that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were executed wrong....they have been a waste of life, limbs, minds, and treasure.

I fear we have painted ourselves into a corner concerning Iran. This is extremely dangerous in both directions. I am sure that many leaders in the Mid-East hope we can stop Iran from getting the bomb. I hope we can without a war. Taking on Iran is not like taking on Iraq. It is a much larger country and we are already weakened by our misadventures over there. I doubt we can build a coalition as was built concerning Iraq.

I have recently discussed this topic with several ex-Marines and now that they are out of the service, they are free to express their opinions. All have told me that going to Iraq and Afghanistan was a mistake, not worth it, and the people there DO hate us, they all hate us, no matter how we tied the hands of our troops with the new Rules of Engagement, no matter how many schools, roads, or bridges we built, no matter how much food and money we gave - they ALL hate us.

So true. That is what we accomplished, the hatred of many around the world. The good will felt and sympathy felt by many around the world for the US and our losses after 9/11 was totally squandered.

Did Bush keep us safe? Well, some would argue that since we took the "war" to them, they concentrated on defeating us over there instead of coming back to our shores and engaging us in our towns and streets. That the IEDs were over there, not here for you to run over on the street on the way to the grocery store, the suicide bombers were over there instead of here at your church or your favorite restaurant. In that sense, our troops did lay down their lives and sacrifice for their country, to keep us safe. Perhaps that was the reasoning behind the Bush Doctrine. But at least under Bush, the US didn't lie down and roll over under islamic tyranny!

Bottom line, CTB, no matter what we do about Iran, we potentially end up on the losing side, either from nukes here or a war in which China and Russia will be engaged since they are funding a lot of Iran's nuclear program, unless we use all of the military might we have left, go back to the ROE of WW2 (if we have troops on the ground), and forget about nation building during a war, go to war to win....

It is tricky. Americans are sick of war and our economy is in shambles, the national debt seems insurmountable. Sorry if you think I'm off topic, but all of these points are relative to the OP and the conversation you started.

I only thought you were off topic by bringing Clinton into the conversation.

We can pray that when the current president of Iran leaves office a more reasonable person will take his place. The current president has lost lots of power within Iran. Much of what happens will depend on what their religious leaders dictate to the next president.

Netanyahu is not doing us any favors with his demands. As an American I do not think we should allow him or any other foreign leader to make demands as he has made recently.

But it is Americans who ought to be incensed with Netanyahu. By insisting on red lines and threatening to launch a unilateral strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, Netanyahu is trying to commit the United States to fighting a preventive war on Israel's behalf. In effect, he is demanding that the United States do far more to protect Israel's security than it does for any of its other allies. Netanyahu is also inserting himself into a U.S. presidential campaign to a degree unprecedented for the leader of a close American ally, implicitly echoing the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's charge that the Obama administration is "throwing Israel under the bus."

To fully appreciate the audacity of Netanyahu's demand for still more open-ended American security assurances, it is crucial to recognize just how committed to Israel's security the United States already is. Netanyahu's dissatisfaction notwithstanding, the United States provides Israel with extraordinary levels of economic, diplomatic, and especially military support.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138124/michael-c-desch/bibis-chutzpah

You are right. It is a very tricky and dangerous situation.

 

[Arbo]

(psst - I think she was making a comment about CTB's insistence that we "stay on topic"....)

Can't believe I missed that one.:laugh:

I'll go stand in the corner and wipe the egg off my face...

 

[abcgrad94]

Netanyahu is not doing us any favors with his demands. As an American I do not think we should allow him or any other foreign leader to make demands as he has made recently.

We haven't done him any favors either, by giving aid to Egypt (NOT our friends!) and O ignoring Netanyahu at the same time. Israel is our ally, it's no wonder Netanyahu is frustrated!

 

[Revmitchell]

Why is my post for another thread when from your article it states:

Because he can't respond to it.