Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-23-2012, 07:38 PM
 
Location: Midwest
38,496 posts, read 25,830,486 times
Reputation: 10789

Advertisements

While intelligence is pouring in about Osama's imminent attack on the US, Bush remains on vacation for the entire month of August making a presidential record for the longest vacation.

Quote:
Many of the documents publicize for the first time what was first made clear in the 9/11 Commission: The White House received a truly remarkable amount of warnings that al-Qaida was trying to attack the United States. From June to September 2011, a full seven CIA Senior Intelligence Briefs detailed that attacks were imminent, an incredible amount of information from one intelligence agency. One from June called “Bin-Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” writes that “(redacted) expects Usama Bin Laden to launch multiple attacks over the coming days.” The famous August brief called “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike the US” is included. “Al-Qai’da members, including some US citizens, have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure here,” it says. During the entire month of August, President Bush was on vacation at his ranch in Texas — which tied with one of Richard Nixon’s as the longest vacation ever taken by a president. CIA Director George Tenet has said he didn’t speak to Bush once that month, describing the president as being “on leave.”
New CIA Docs Show Bush Ignored Seven Different Warnings About Imminent Attacks | Crooks and Liars


CIA Documents Show 9/11 Bin Laden Warnings Ignored - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-23-2012, 07:41 PM
 
Location: Area 51.5
13,887 posts, read 13,678,384 times
Reputation: 9174
I'm not sure why it matters. Klinton was offered Osama's head on a silver platter and he declined, saying Osama wasn't important enough to fool with.

Bush's Texas ranch was his white house away from the white house. He worked while he was there. I know that's difficult for libs to comprehend, but he had all the equipment he needed to fully function as president, unlike Obama's many golfing expeditions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2012, 07:49 PM
 
Location: Midwest
38,496 posts, read 25,830,486 times
Reputation: 10789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Cooper View Post
I'm not sure why it matters. Klinton was offered Osama's head on a silver platter and he declined, saying Osama wasn't important enough to fool with.

Bush's Texas ranch was his white house away from the white house. He worked while he was there. I know that's difficult for libs to comprehend, but he had all the equipment he needed to fully function as president, unlike Obama's many golfing expeditions.
I guess it matters because Bush ignored intelligence that would have saved the lives of over 3000 citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2012, 07:51 PM
 
Location: 20 years from now
6,454 posts, read 7,013,265 times
Reputation: 4663
I thought that this was common knowledge, OP. Former CIA Director George Tenet wrote pretty extensively about this problem in his biography a few years back.

But keep in mind that the Al Queda/Usama Bin Laden issue was known for more than a decade before GWB. Alqueda was even responsible for 3 bombings on US Embassies under Clinton in Dar Es Selaam, Tanzania and Nairobi in 1998. Clinton chose to ignore the problem and decided to pass the ball on that one rather than take a chance in the US engaging on war with 'non state actors.' Also keep in mind that the CIA had the opportunity to kill UBL in Sudan in the late 90's, but for some odd political reason, he decided to leave the meal on someone elses table.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2012, 07:52 PM
 
8,560 posts, read 6,411,358 times
Reputation: 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
I guess it matters because Bush ignored intelligence that would have saved the lives of over 3000 citizens.
You shouldn't have had to point that out, but that you did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2012, 07:53 PM
 
Location: Midwest
38,496 posts, read 25,830,486 times
Reputation: 10789
Quote:
Originally Posted by itshim View Post
I thought that this was common knowledge, OP. Former CIA Director George Tenet wrote pretty extensively about this problem in his biography a few years back.

But keep in mind that the Al Queda/Usama Bin Laden issue was known for more than a decade before GWB. Alqueda was even responsible for 3 bombings on US Embassies under Clinton in Dar Es Selaam, Tanzania and Nairobi in 1998. Clinton chose to ignore the problem and decided to pass the ball on that one rather than take a chance in the US engaging in war with 'non state actors.' Also keep in mind that the CIA had the opportunity to kill UBL in Sudan in the late 90's, but for some odd political reason, he decided to leave the meal on someone elses table.
So you are saying that Bush's excuse is, "it is Clinton's fault?"

Quote:
Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 - but didn't get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks.
PressTV - New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2012, 07:56 PM
 
Location: 20 years from now
6,454 posts, read 7,013,265 times
Reputation: 4663
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
So you are saying that Bush's excuse is, "it is Clinton's fault?"


PressTV - New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims
I didn't say that. The problem goes back to Regan if anything. All I'm saying is that it was ignored by more than 1 President. Either way, if you want to be real about it--yes Clinton should have wiped him out as soon as the CIA said that they had a green light on him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2012, 07:59 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,858,743 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
I guess it matters because Bush ignored intelligence that would have saved the lives of over 3000 citizens.
and just what should bush have done? lock down the US? set up the DHS in june? gone to war in afghanistan to try and get bin laden? the left blasted bush enough over his policies and the wars, what would they have said if bush had decided to create a police state to prevent the 9/11 attacks? the problem you have is that there was NO specific time table for the attacks, only the vague "bin laden wants to attack the US".

remember that the same thing happened in 1941 also. again no specific time table just a vague "japan is going to attack the US" warning.

without specific intelligence as to where the attacks will occur, there really is nothing that can be done to stop them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2012, 08:01 PM
 
Location: Midwest
38,496 posts, read 25,830,486 times
Reputation: 10789
Quote:
Originally Posted by itshim View Post
I didn't say that. The problem goes back to Regan if anything. All I'm saying is that it was ignored by more than 1 President. Either way, if you want to be real about it--yes Clinton should have wiped him out as soon as the CIA said that they had a green light on him.
If that is the case, one would think Bush would pay close attention to this intelligence instead of cutting the funding for monitoring, or taking out, Osama.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2012, 08:03 PM
 
Location: 20 years from now
6,454 posts, read 7,013,265 times
Reputation: 4663
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
If that is the case, one would think Bush would pay close attention to this intelligence instead of cutting the funding for monitoring, or taking out, Osama.
I'm not sure how that takes away from the fact that after attacks on US Territory, Clinton should have taken him out when he had the chance. UBL was responsible for deaths of US citizens long before GWB ever got into office. The CIA had the green light on him, Clinton buckled and tumbled on that one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:48 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top