Bush knew.

I’d say that this is due largely to all those Rosie O’Donnel liberals out there: 22% of all voters believe Bush knew about 9/11 in advance!

Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. ~rasmussenreports.com

In fact, the poll says that 35% of Democrats believe Bush knew about 9/11 in advance! Perhaps I should repeat that because it helps us to understand the Democratic base and how and why they vote the way they do.

35% of Democrats believe Bush knew about 9/11 in advance!

On a side note I'd say that Segolene Royal is sounding very much like a Democrat, or has read the official liberal playbook...

PARIS (Reuters) - Socialist opponent Segolene Royal said on Friday that France risks violence and brutality if her opponent right-winger Nicolas Sarkozy wins Sunday's presidential election. ~yahoo.com

I can recall many such instances of Democrats warning that "there's going to be violence" if this or that doesn't happen... I believe it is just part of the unhinged nature of liberalism's disconnect with reality. How else could so many believe that socialism could actually work and should be the ultimate goal of society?

Next someone will tell me that President Bush really is trying to kill Hugo Chavez and that, "Radical Christianity," really is, "just as threatening as radical Islam."

Posted by Eric Simonson at May 5, 2007 7:00 AM
Comments
Comment #219573

eric,

Why don’t you look up the percentage who still think Iraq was behind 9/11?

Posted by: Gerrold at May 6, 2007 8:41 AM
Comment #219576

Eric,

Do you have a point?

Also, while you are hunting for Gerrold’s statitics please also find the number of people that still believe BUSH KNOWS ANYTHING!

Posted by: Kim-Sue at May 6, 2007 8:59 AM
Comment #219578

Bush KNEW about 9/11 BEFORE it happened!!!

The CIA, Castro and the Military Industrial Complex conspired to kill JFK!!!

The Mafia killed RFK!!!

The FBI killed MLK!!!

Elvis is still alive in South America!!!

Aliens from Mars are living among us!!!

…and…

Bush KNEW about 9/11 BEFORE it happened!!!

Whew! Now that I got that off my chest, I can finally take off my tin foil hat!

Posted by: Jim T at May 6, 2007 9:05 AM
Comment #219583

Some people still think Roosevelt planned Pearl Harbor. There are all kinds of stupid people out there.

The problem lies with the “fellow travelers” who know better but find it politically convenient to let it go. Those 35% of Democrats are badly misinformed. They are probably among those people who cannot figure out where or how to vote. Nothing can be done to educate those sorts.

The beauty of the system is that we can have a fair number of stupid people and still have things function.

So we should understand that you can fool some of the people all of the time. More informed people should correct them when they can.

Posted by: Jack at May 6, 2007 9:48 AM
Comment #219584

Eric

It does, however, help us understand the Dem base. That is why they can play the Bush hatred card so well.

BTW - you do not have to be stupid to be poorly informed. The Rosie example is very good in this respect. The problem comes when loud mouths like that are given respect they do not deserve. Everybody has a right to speak, but they should have to earn the right to be listened to and we all have the duty to judge.

Posted by: Jack at May 6, 2007 9:51 AM
Comment #219585
I can recall many such instances of Democrats warning that “there’s going to be violence” if this or that doesn’t happen… I believe it is just part of the unhinged nature of liberalism’s disconnect with reality.

And we also had Cheney saying that America would be attacked by terrorists if Kerry won, and we recently had Guiliani saying that more Americans would die from terrorists if the Democrats win the White House in 2008 than if the Republicans do.

Does Eric think those are examples of the unhinged nature of conservatism’s disconnect with reality? Of course not. We all know that Eric attacks his enemies for doing what he and his friends do.

Eric, your hypocrisy is showing again…

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 6, 2007 10:04 AM
Comment #219588

Jack,

“Those 35% of Democrats are badly misinformed. They are probably among those people who cannot figure out where or how to vote.”

You wouldn’t be referring to Miami residents in 2000 who couldn’t figure out how to punch a hole in a piece of cardboard, would you?

Shame, shame, Jack! Naughty, naughty! (slap hand)

Posted by: Jim T at May 6, 2007 10:38 AM
Comment #219599

Bush receieved a memo saying that terrorists would be attacking the United States, perhaps by flying planes into the World Trade Center.

So… they’re right. He did know beforehand.

Posted by: Max at May 6, 2007 12:49 PM
Comment #219601

Jack,

You are hilarious. You say the problem with Rosie is that she is given respect she doesn’t deserve just a week after writing a post about how informative O’Reilly viewers are?

Researchers found that O’Reilly called a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program each night.

“…He calls people names, or paints something in a positive way, often without any real evidence to support that viewpoint.”

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/5535.html

Posted by: Max at May 6, 2007 12:56 PM
Comment #219606

“Researchers found that O’Reilly called a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program each night.”

I challange you to do your own research. The “names” he was calling people that were counted included such horrible names as “liberal”, “conservative”, “pinhead”. Keep looking, you will eventually find something wrong. (hint: If you get tired, look on the left.)

Posted by: tomd at May 6, 2007 1:20 PM
Comment #219610

Max

I was talking about Rosie. You can bring in others if you want, but you agree about Rosie, right?

Posted by: Jack at May 6, 2007 1:32 PM
Comment #219612

Lawnboy said

Eric, your hypocrisy is showing again…
What do you mean “again”? I wasn’t aware that conservative hypocricy ever stopped.

;-)

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 6, 2007 1:36 PM
Comment #219622

“The beauty of the system is that we can have a fair number of stupid people and still have things function.”

Actually we have an UN-fair number of stupid people, thus things don’t function well. If we had a fair number less crap would happen in the Democrat congress and the Republican white house.

Posted by: Don at May 6, 2007 2:46 PM
Comment #219627

The questions is too vague. Does it mean he had knowledge of a threat, or knowledge of the attack because he was in on it. Additionally, this is one third of the Democrats, not two thirds.

Still, there is one big reason why so many might believe that kind of thing. He’s too damn secretive and manipulative.

Bush has shown himself very eager to disregard the will of the people, to use false pretexts to convince people to give him the policy he wants, and to stifle investigation and oversight. Leaders who do that are easy targets for conspiracy theorists.

If Bush trusted the American people more, they’d trust him more. Unfortunately, Bush seems to like being at odds with the rest of us.

Personally, I believe Bush may have had intelligence that indicated possibilities of this, but I don’t think he was in on it. His worse sin was not paying attention to terrorism like he should.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 6, 2007 3:13 PM
Comment #219633

Eric, Bush got a memo, saying it was coming. That is now a matter of record. This is a non-issue to all but those who insist the world is still flat.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 6, 2007 3:52 PM
Comment #219634

Cheney/Bush lies like a rug. That’s why 1/3 of Dems believe he knew 9/11 was on its way. I wonder why 1/3 of Repugs don’t believe it as well. Maybe they are paeleocons instead of neocons.

Did I just break Olielie’s record?

Posted by: Marysdude at May 6, 2007 4:09 PM
Comment #219635

David

Getting a memo with a possible scenario is not the same as knowing in advance.

In my native ciy of Milwaukee is Billy Michell Airport. You remember him. He warned that the Japanese could attack Pearl Harbor. That is one reason the conspiracy theoriest of the 1940s used to say Roosevelt planned that attack.

More thans can happen than do happen. You know if the police had arrested our box cutter terrorist the day before, nobody would have believed they were dangerous and there would just be a big anti-discimination law suite.

Posted by: Jack at May 6, 2007 4:14 PM
Comment #219640

Jack

I was talking about Rosie. You can bring in others if you want, but you agree about Rosie, right?

I brought in O’Reilly, someone who professes to be a real journalist and whom Fox treats as a real journalist. Rosie O’Donell does not ask people to believe she is a real journalist. So, in the big scheme of things, I would say that O’Reilly is the one getting respect he doesn’t deserve, and that Rosie is a celebrity loudmouth who should be able to say whatever she wants. It’s not like she’s purporting to be a balanced journalist whose job is to educate the public.

Posted by: Max at May 6, 2007 4:58 PM
Comment #219642

Jack said: “Getting a memo with a possible scenario is not the same as knowing in advance. “

You are right, Jack. It is not the same as OBL calling Bush on the Red Phone to give him the date, time, and method of the attack. Which in hindsight, is precisely what it would have taken to get this idiot in the White House to take notice.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 6, 2007 5:12 PM
Comment #219643

Jack, who but an idiot would have NOT ACTED after receiving a memo indicating that planes may be used in the near future to attack the United States, and that the chatter picked up by the intelligence community indicates it could be sooner than later?

I don’t know about you, but, I and nearly everyone I know would have taken the memo as grounds to take preventive measures. Of course, I don’t include Bush as one of those in my circle of those I know personally. I suspect from your writings, that even you as President would have acted on that memo. Yet, our current president did not, in any way, shape, or form take protective measures.

Bush was clearly a man elected to a position far beyond his competence level. He has proved that again and again, and continues to do so. As Commander in Chief, he is now searching for a War Czar to take over his role as CIC because even Bush now recognizes he is not up to the job.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 6, 2007 5:19 PM
Comment #219646

David

What measures? In the pre-9/11 climate, would you have arrested those guys with box cutters? Remember how it was? The Clinton guys would not even kill bin Laden. We were in that legalistic world. A little like now, BTW.

Posted by: Jack at May 6, 2007 5:26 PM
Comment #219647

Let’s see…Cheney/Bush knew, in advance, the possibility/likelyhood of an attack on important buildings by hyjacked airliners. He sat in limbo for seven long minutes when he heard that America was under attack…duh! Then he blaimed it all on Saddam…duh! Which 99% of Republicans believed this guy?

Posted by: Marysdude at May 6, 2007 5:26 PM
Comment #219652

Jack, NORAD exercises, communication lines to the president, VP, heightened alert status for our military instead of standing down and disarming for exercises, heightened surveillance at airports overseas, any number of actions were available. None were taken. This idiot just dismissed the memo.

Posted by: David R, Remer at May 6, 2007 5:48 PM
Comment #219653

Jim T. I totally agree!

If anybody can remembering seeing the expression on Dubya’s face at the elementary school in Florida on the morning of Spetember 11th, they would know he was out of his realm of expertise. There was a paradigm shift in American history on that day, and the Bush people were reliving the late 1980’s in policy and practice. The first decade of a new century has been wasted on this menaingless foray in Iraq; all in the name of terrorism. I didn’t realize there was that many bogeymen in the world until Bush was elected.

Posted by: Danny L. McDaniel at May 6, 2007 5:57 PM
Comment #219655

Remer -
None of the things you mentioned would have made a difference. If YOU had been president, had gotten “the memo” and did these things you would be seen as just as much a fool as our current president.

1) That’s just the problem! ONLY the correct action would have stopped 9/11. But no one knew ahead of time what that action should be. Hindsight is so wonderful!

2) Jack is right! Even the correct action would have resulted in a continued UN-AWARENESS of the danger the U.S. was in. We would be discussing how ineffective our criminal justice system is when dealing with terrorists. The terrorists would have been out on bond within hours and would have been back on planes headed for the Trade Center within months.

Posted by: Don at May 6, 2007 6:10 PM
Comment #219656

I blame the fact that most people just cannot believe how simple and incompetent Bush actually is. They cannot understand because he SHOULD have known. They expect the president to bother to read reports and to listen to advisors,not fire them when he does not like them. I have no problem in that regard. I knew he was a dangerious dolt when he was still Texas Governor.

Jack
Admirable loyalty. It amazes me how you can continue to give Bush a pass on this. He failed,he was asleep at the switch ad nauseum. Even worse for America has been his response to the attacks. Invade Iraq? It would have made as much sense to invade Mexico or Poland. Those cpuntries had the same level of complicity in 9/11. And while we are at it lets scare Iran and N.Korea into getting nukes. What a bozo.

Posted by: BillS at May 6, 2007 6:10 PM
Comment #219657

Jack is right! Even the correct action would have resulted in a continued UN-AWARENESS… The terrorists would have been out on bond within hours and would have been back on planes headed for the Trade Center within months.

No. The terrorists trained for years, and it took years before that for Sadaam to find them. If they had been caught, it would probably have scrapped the using planes as bombs idea for good.

Had Bush not been president, it’s likely Gore (or really just anyone else) would have caught the terrorists by simply listening to Dick Clark occasionally and making anti-terrorist activities the priority everyone was saying they should have been.

As far as awareness is concerned, what if we were unaware? I guess that means we wouldn’t have spent hundreds of trillions on this war or wasted it on government programs like Homeland defense and bullet proof vests for attack dogs in Omaha. In other words, we would all be a lot better off, and probably in better shape to deal with a future terrorist threat than now.

Every move Bush has made, for instance, dismantling FEMA, has made us less secure not more. And let’s not even start talking about the damage done to our reputation internationally. How anyone could manage to turn world opinion against the country that was attacked without provocation is beyond me. That will be almost impossible to repair. This country would have been better off without Bush as president in every way.

Posted by: Max at May 6, 2007 6:36 PM
Comment #219663

>>This country would have been better off without Bush as president in every way.

Posted by: Max at May 6, 2007 06:36 PM

Hear! Hear!

Posted by: Maryssdude at May 6, 2007 8:34 PM
Comment #219666

Great posts here by Stephen, David, BillS, and Max.

Did Bush know? Maybe. What we DO know is that the Neocons are megalomaniacs who wanted another Pearl Harbor in order to invade the Middle East and 9/11 convieniently fit the bill. And we know that “Bin Laden was Determined To Strike In The US” and that they “fixed the facts around the intelligence” to sell their pre-emptive war on Iraq to the American people. Finally, we must also painfully acknowledge that these Neocon nutcases didn’t, and still don’t know the first damn thing about waging a war.
That much is obvious.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 6, 2007 8:44 PM
Comment #219668

I want to take this time to thank the following individuals: Adrienne, Marysdude, Max, BillS, Danny L.,David R., Stephen D., ElliottBay, LawnBoy, Kim-Sue, Gerrold.

I’m thanking you for posting on this site continually. Because if you would have been in charge of policy or the military, we would in all liklyhood see an exponential number of people pushing up daisies. From what I continually hear, there is a continual name calling of our President, ranting without constructive comments, and giving the appearance of knowing how to run the country or the military with out any substantial background.
Thanks again.

Posted by: tomh at May 6, 2007 9:01 PM
Comment #219669

tomh
AMEN to post 219668

Posted by: KAP at May 6, 2007 9:22 PM
Comment #219670

Jack-

David
What measures? In the pre-9/11 climate, would you have arrested those guys with box cutters? Remember how it was? The Clinton guys would not even kill bin Laden. We were in that legalistic world. A little like now, BTW.

We busted Rassam, the Blind Shiek and Ramzi Yousef during the Clinton administration, and got the charges to stick.

As for killing Bin Laden, the man’s still walking, so I don’t know what the Bush Administration has over the Clinton Administration in that regard.

The Problem with the Right Wing, yourself included, is that you overestimate the usefulness of having a low threshold of action in terms of information. The fantasy is being able to follow your hunches at will. The reality is that it makes the wild goose chases and fiascoes more likely. It also makes it much more difficult to explain actions, especially when they go wrong.

We are a nation of laws, a civilized country with civil liberties. In the the short term, and in brief or sudden emergencies, people can stand having eggs broken to make omeletes. However, over the long term, few people want that kind of intrusiveness and arbitrary action in the long term, especially with the inevitable abuses and mistakes.

As such, there at least needs to be a compromise made with the legal standards of our country. We are better off not being as prosecution focused as before, but we should keep in mind that putting the terrorists before the dock and sending them to prison makes for a highly visible victory in the war on terrorism. At the same time, we should keep in mind that counterterrorism requires that information as well. We need to balance our interests appropriately, not indulge fantasies that the terrorists are the only people law abiding Americans need to be safe from.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 6, 2007 9:24 PM
Comment #219671

tomh
A “costructive comment”:Impeach now. …Your welcome.

Posted by: BillS at May 6, 2007 9:25 PM
Comment #219672

Max -
“No. The terrorists trained for years, and it took years before that for Sadaam to find them. If they had been caught, it would probably have scrapped the using planes as bombs idea for good.”

Do you even read what you write before you post? This is the craziest argument I’ve read since before the last election cycle.

1) They trained for years…to fly planes.
2) Saddam didn’t hire them…(or did he? If he did, it is good that Bush attacked his country. Yes?)
3) Since when does a terrorist scrap an idea just because he was caught?
4) Dick Clark spins records, Richard Clark worked in the White House. I didn’t know Al Gore even liked the music Dick Clark played. And if he did, how would listening to it help Gore stop terrorists?


Posted by: Don at May 6, 2007 9:33 PM
Comment #219674

Bush dropped the ball plain and simple. The fact is he had indication that such a threat was in the process of planning. 9/11 happened under his watch with his appointees in place. As the cic and the person responsible for the safety of this nation he is the point at which the buck stops.

I can understand how some might believe that he was actually in on the planning. After all this administration has given us a myriad of reasons to doubt and mistrust them. Frequent exhibition of such character flaws generally lead to skepticisim and doubt. Enough lies and deceptions will eventually lead some to believe that just about anything is possible with less than credible people.When they lost their integrity they lost faith in their ability and as a result nobody can be sure if when they speak they are being honest or not.

They created their own problems Eric by abandoning good prinicipals and hoping that voters would not notice. What is really worrisome is that it took so long for the people to see thru that thin veil of deception. I think that this administration lends proof to the idea that voter apathy is a very dangerous thing.


Posted by: ILdem at May 6, 2007 9:44 PM
Comment #219675

tomh wrote:

I want to take this time to thank the following individuals: Adrienne, Marysdude, Max, BillS, Danny L.,David R., Stephen D., ElliottBay, LawnBoy, Kim-Sue, Gerrold.

I’m thanking you for posting on this site continually. Because if you would have been in charge of policy or the military, we would in all liklyhood see an exponential number of people pushing up daisies. From what I continually hear, there is a continual name calling of our President, ranting without constructive comments, and giving the appearance of knowing how to run the country or the military with out any substantial background.
Thanks again.


Wtf?

Where have I said word one about Bush? I think I posted here maybe five or six times, mostly on energy and “rights.” And for that I get hypothetical deaths laid at my feet. Huh.

Posted by: Gerrold at May 6, 2007 9:47 PM
Comment #219677

Gerrold, Tomh never lets facts get in the way of blaming anyone sounding remotely liberal for everything.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 6, 2007 10:03 PM
Comment #219678

Don,

The point is that it took Osama six years or so to put the plan in place. If we had busted the terrorists, it’s doubtful Osama would have started over. Ideally, with international cooperation, we would have already gotten him, as Clinton almost did.

Tomh,

I can’t blame you for your anger. That’s exactly how I feel about this current administration. I feel that all these deaths were completely unnecessary. I feel that all that money could have gone to better things. From my perspective, all we had to do is NOT go into Iraq, and we would have been better off.

Posted by: Max at May 6, 2007 10:11 PM
Comment #219681
Wtf?

Gerrold,

Don’t worry about tomh. He’s hitched his wagon to a losing star, and he doesn’t really ever win an argument. It’s so much easier instead to insult us and fall back on the tired approach of implying that Liberalism == death or anti-Americanism or something.

I shouldn’t even have responded to his trolling, but, heck, I’m commenting on an Eric Simonson article, aren’t I?

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 6, 2007 11:06 PM
Comment #219686

Indeed, Lawnboy.
Personally, being familiar with tomh’s posts and undying allegiance to Bushco’s bloodstained logical fallacies and mountain of failures, I just decided to be deeply flattered by his comment, rather than let it get my undies in a bundle.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 7, 2007 1:24 AM
Comment #219698

tomh-
Democrats and other dissenters like myself don’t have the blood of 3000 servicemen and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians on our hands, the result of a botched post-war occupation.

I can tell you step by step why this has happened, why the Bush administration is responsible. All you can do is presuppose that Democratic leadership would get people killed.

You fellows lost this war because you were more interested in winning the political battle over how to defend this country, than actually using the overwhelming power you had to succeed at doing so.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 7, 2007 8:15 AM
Comment #219703

“as Clinton almost did.”

Hah! Clinton didn’t. He could have. But he failed! He was a bigger loser than Bush!

To claim that they wouldn’t have completed the task if they had been discovered trying to fly with boxcutters in their possession is plainly ignorant. With the legal system prior to 9/11 and the lack of information sharing because of Clinton’s “wall of separation” they wouldn’t even have been prosecuted. Clinton caused the mess that Bush got stuck with. Memo or no memo Bush could do little to prevent the TYPE of attack that was carried out on 9/11 (thanks to Clinton). Security at the airports at that time would not have stopped Muslems with boxcutters.

Let’s look at reality for just a second. Here’s YOUR memo: “Terrorists might attack you with a pushpin sometime in the next four years.” Now, protect yourself! You have intelligence that it could happen. You know the object that will be used. You know the target. You should be able to protect yourself. (But you don’t have anything close to a complete list of terrorists. You don’t know when. You don’t know where [what city]. You don’t know how they are acquiring the pushpins. The people who might know something about this potential attack are not allowed to talk to you about it. Most importantly, you are receiving memos every week about OTHER potential terrorist attacks. I hope you can get to sleep tonight.)

Posted by: Don at May 7, 2007 9:31 AM
Comment #219706

Eric,

What about the 50% of Americans who in 2003 still ebelieved in WMD in Iraq?
What about the 36% who still thought Saddam was in on 9/11 in 2006?
What about the 20% in 2007 who believe the war is being managed correctly by this administration?

You like painting Democrats as irrational conspiracy theorists, when in fact it is you folks on the right that believe in fairytales spread by Rush, Hannity and OReally.
If one of the profits like Rush tell you 9/11 happened because Bill Clinton was raping a cat on the whitehouse lawn you folks start barking the disinformation without checking facts. Everything about the Republican spin machine is speculation, faith and lack of facts. If I don’t tell you the truth and I don’t admit to a lie, I’m being open is not sound policy.
“Faith based” governance and “Faith based” news is a catalyst in the downfall of one of the most corrupt, inept, greedy and arrogant administrations.
You can foam at the mouth all you want Eric. You can point your finger and call names. You can spread as much half-truth as you want. Your party has failed. The world has witnessed what a Republican controlled Congress and Whitehouse can do. Nothing. These two branches under Republican control was an utter failure.
Spin, spin, spin away Eric.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at May 7, 2007 10:10 AM
Comment #219707

Eric,

On a side note I’d say that Segolene Royal is sounding very much like a Democrat, or has read the official liberal playbook…

PARIS (Reuters) - Socialist opponent Segolene Royal said on Friday that France risks violence and brutality if her opponent right-winger Nicolas Sarkozy wins Sunday’s presidential election. ~yahoo.com


I can recall many such instances of Democrats warning that “there’s going to be violence” if this or that doesn’t happen… I believe it is just part of the unhinged nature of liberalism’s disconnect with reality. How else could so many believe that socialism could actually work and should be the ultimate goal of society?

LOL. Sarkozy is the (ultra-)liberalist, not Royal.
In fact, he’s both a neo-conservator *and* an ultra-liberalist, while she’s what in europe we call social-democrat, aka the reformed socialist.

Anyway, she didn’t needs to know that violence could happened as Sarkozy did in past throw oil on the fire in october 2005.
Sadly, she was right (pun unintended), as we currently see, a first time for a french election since long, some riots, violence, arrestations and car burning. Who’s disconnected from reality here, you Eric or her?

I hope it will calm soon, though, as democracy is democracy, the voters choice should be respected.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 7, 2007 10:43 AM
Comment #219708

Back to main topic,

Bush didn’t knew.

He was playing golf and/or in vaccation at his ranch. You can’t blame him when he wasn’t even in charge of anything but himself!?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 7, 2007 10:51 AM
Comment #219712

Stephen Daugherty


“As for killing Bin Laden, the man’s still walking”

maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. there haven’t been any credible sitings that i know of since tora bora. seems odd for someone that took such great joy in taunting the US to just stop. hell seems he was making a new anti american video about twice a month. i know there’s been an occasional voice tape claimed to be bin laden, but thats it, nothing of real substance. if he is dead we may never know, as it is not in his followers best interest to make this known. i can’t prove it, but it seems highly probable that his dna is splattered all over the inside of a cave in tora bora, and if thats the case we will never catch him regaurdless of who’s in office.

Posted by: dbs at May 7, 2007 12:00 PM
Comment #219718

To claim that they wouldn’t have completed the task if they had been discovered trying to fly with boxcutters in their possession is plainly ignorant.

I never said they would be detained if they were found to be carrying box cutters. A far more likely scenario is that a different president may have looked into whether or not flight schools had had any Muslim students in the last year that had acted suspiciously. We know now that some of these flight schools would have said yes. Once their backgrounds were looked into these terrorists may have been locked up. It’s entirely possible 9/11 wouldn’t have happened if Bush had not been president.

(But you don’t have anything close to a complete list of terrorists. You don’t know when. You don’t know where [what city].

Actually, the FBI did have the names of some of the terrorists and were actively looking for them as a part of their investigation into who bombed the USS COLE. The CIA knew the whereabouts of these same people. But the two didn’t share that information. You blame Clinton (I find this incredible) for a lack of shared IT infrastructure between these departments, but that was not the big hurdle. The big hurdle was political. These two departments did not share information as a matter of policy. Had the president ordered that information sharing to happen, as you think one would after receiving the memo that “Terrorists plan to use planes as bombs to attack the US sometime soon”, they may have found these men in time.

Most importantly, you are receiving memos every week about OTHER potential terrorist attacks.

The president was not receiving a memo every week. This memo was unusual. Furthermore, Bush stopped having the regular meetings with Richard Clark that Clinton had. Bush wasn’t bothering to think about terrorism at all.

I can’t prove it, but it seems highly probable that [Osama’s] dna is splattered all over the inside of a cave in tora bora

Or not. Bush decided he had other more important objectives than trying to capture Bin Laden, like selling this unnecessary war. I’m still dumbfounded we didn’t catch this guy.

I hope you can get to sleep tonight.

This is the attitude Republicans promulgated after 9/11, and it’s what led to Iraq. It was always a part of Osama’s strategy to draw the United States into a protracted war it would not be able to win. He believed it would happen in Afghanistan, but instead we overreached with Iraq. If we had not overreacted, we would not have played into Osama’s game. Again, if we had simply done nothing, we would be more secure and better off today.

Posted by: Max at May 7, 2007 12:46 PM
Comment #219720

dbs,

Then, his Tora-Bora splattered DNA have the unique capability to take the former human shape, as seen when he appeared on this 2004’s video, validated by CIA as geniune:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_bin_Laden_video

;-)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 7, 2007 12:56 PM
Comment #219725

Andre M. Hernandez:
“Clinton was raping a cat”

That line is hilarious and unfortunately true. I can’t tell you how many people who identify themselves as conservative often cite how everything is Clinton’s fault. Even six years after he left office!!!

These same individuals often spout the same rhetoric, and talking points that spew from the talking heads at Fox News. Old Rupart has got them all dancing to his tune and they don’t even realize it.

Posted by: Michael at May 7, 2007 2:13 PM
Comment #219726

What is the % that still believe that Sadam had anything with 9/11.

Posted by: Earl at May 7, 2007 2:55 PM
Comment #219732

Oh, and what Bush has done with his plan to save Medicare? Well, according to the latest news insurance companies have been draining the fund even faster (click for story) due to the changes made. Because, private insurance gets 19% over and above the average cost of government coverage per participant. Why? Because, by blind belief and ideology, private enterprise always does things better than the government. But, of course, the coverage is less through private insurance.

So let’s review, shall we? When private enterprise tries to do what the government does in covering the health care of the elderly, it costs 19% more and the client gets less coverage. Hmmm. What happens to ideology in the face of such facts? Just wait, this will have no impact on the “conservatives” in the blog insisting that private enterprise is always more efficient and that the government is incompetent. They are refractory to facts. They are like evangelicals about their beliefs, yet they scorn lib’ruls for being irrational. Yep. That’s their tune.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at May 7, 2007 4:12 PM
Comment #219733

The rats are fleeing the sinking ship (see Rassmussen reports). Even your party mates are abandoning this rotting and leaking vessel you’re valiantly trying to keep afloat as you defend it. Give it up. It’s over. You lost.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at May 7, 2007 4:15 PM
Comment #219737

Philippe Houdoin

i won’t deny the possibility he could be alive. however the tape may not be authentic. try these links. it just seems odd that he would wait so long to throw mud in the eye of the US. before tora bora his messages were far more frequent, and easily authenticated. i don’t think it likely his MO would change, but again this is my opinion, i cannot prove it beyond any doubt. see what you think.


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape2

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead

Posted by: dbs at May 7, 2007 5:18 PM
Comment #219741

Don-
With all due respect, your example is not very realistic. They pay people to investigate acts of terrorism, and to keep track of terrorists. A president could ask, what kind of attacks could be possible. Then he could ask what kind of targets are we looking at.

The terrorists only have a limited number of targets that have the impact which would be worth their time. They could inflict far more serious casualties, with much more regular attacks, but like everybody else in this world, they have economic limits, they can be caught, and they can screw up.

We can therefore act to get in their way, by increasing security at the right places, by increasing the integration of information sharing. Regardless of your boasts of Bush tearing down the wall of separation, he really hasn’t done much. It would be helpful if he did. We could have gotten in the way of some terrorists if the Watchlists had been integrated into the databases on known terrorists.

As for Pushpins? Read a book on Forensics. Some products are not available everywhere. Flight training narrows down the locations where provide considerably. There are any number of clues that could have put us on their trails.

Trouble here is that you’re trying to apologize for Bush’s failure to acknowledge some pretty big warning signs. The truth is, he could have been forgiven for some degree of surprise. Unfortunately, your folks want him portrayed with the impossible spotlessness one only sees in propaganda.

dbs-
Two words: Satellite Phone. If somebody’s picking up on your location by the videos you make, you stop making videos.

Perhaps he is dead. But I’d like to see a body before I admit that. It doesn’t do us much good to make assumptions off of poor evidence. Even if we find DNA in some cave, the contamination from his continued presence and life there confounds definitive statements about whether he’s alive. The body will speak most clearly, where its parts will not.

As for the conspiracy theories? More harm than good. Much of it is Video interpretation, which I can tell you from technical experience is often a laugh and a half. You have to know what you’re looking at, not just think you know.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 7, 2007 6:00 PM
Comment #219744

Stephen Daugherty

agreed. until we have absolute proof it’s better to err on the side of caution. unfortunately if he is dead, we may never know for sure.

Posted by: dbs at May 7, 2007 6:35 PM
Comment #219746

Stephen,

Due respect, “The terrorists only have a limited number of targets that have the impact which would be worth their time.” while technically true, doesn’t mean much. I’ll agree that there are limited set of targets, but I’ll disagree that they are so limited that it is possible to provide 100% fool-proof protection on these targets in a way that is economically feasible for us.

There are thousands if not tens of thousands of targets that can make a point. 9/11 hit one in the top 10, but there are another few thousand targets that at this point can still have the intended impact. We’ve been lucky, good, or both, not to have it happened again yet.

Posted by: Rob at May 7, 2007 7:17 PM
Comment #219754

dbs-
If the man is dead, he’s not going anywhere. If we ask the right people where he’d be currently located, it’s not like he could just up and walk away.

Rob-
Security is rarely based on 100% security. You can, however, put obstacles in the way of the terrorists that make their efforts much more unlikely to succeed.

You ever see those concrete and steel fixtures in the front of retail and electronic’s stores? Those illustrate my point nicely. Enterprising criminals were ramming cars and other vehicles through the front of the store, then taking goods. The barriers don’t make that impossible anymore, it just makes it a lot harder to pull off, and the costs associated with beating that make it less worth their while.

The terrorists could have run their jets into any number of buildings, but they chose a visible symbol of American economic power. They didn’t choose the Chrysler Building. They didn’t run jets into buildings here in Houston, where many of the oil giants have headquarters and big divisions. They wanted to make a big cultural point, attack symbols held in common.

If its mass casualties and paralyzing economic effects they’re going for, there are a limited number of significant targets they could hit, crippling weak points like Boston’s LNG terminal, or the Long Beach port system.

Protect the targets that produce the most damage. You can’t necessarily protect them all, but you can form priorities which will help your efforts to reach a greater level of effiency.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 7, 2007 8:21 PM
Comment #219756

Eric, you forgot to mention that 15% of Republicans also believe that Bush knew. It’s easier to explain the Democrats position than those of the President’s own party. I think that’s the bigger story here.

Posted by: Tim in NY at May 7, 2007 8:45 PM
Comment #219757

I’d say that this is due largely to all those Sean Hannity conservatives out there: 28% of all voters believe Bush is doing a good job!

Overall, 28% of all voters believe the President is competent. Perhaps I should repeat that because it helps us to understand the Republican base and how and why they are an endangered species.

Posted by: oscar at May 7, 2007 8:50 PM
Comment #219758

Personally, I don’t think Bush EVER had a clue. But that Cheney guy…

Posted by: Tim in NY at May 7, 2007 9:02 PM
Comment #219764

“The terrorists only have a limited number of targets that have the impact which would be worth their time. They could inflict far more serious casualties, with much more regular attacks, but like everybody else in this world, they have economic limits, they can be caught, and they can screw up.”
Stephen Daugherty


I’d say the terrorists were pretty smart. They chose to attack those filthy rich folks who manage world trade working in the “World Trade Center” and those in the U.S. military who know nothing but global domination at the barrel of an M-16!

Why, had they flown their planes into Hollywood or crashed into the center of Harlem, Democrats would certainly have made sure that they had hell to pay!

You’re right Stephen, they had to pick those two places to make sure that the Democrats didn’t have any sympathy for the victims and actually support Bush in a war on terror. Bush should have seen the pure genius of the terrorists.

JD

Posted by: JD at May 7, 2007 9:51 PM
Comment #219771

JD,

You seem to forget that the two cities that were attacked, NYC and Washington DC, are two of the most Democratic-leaning cities in the country.

You did forget, right? You’re not just saying ridiculous things to provoke argument, right? You’re not just trolling, right?

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 7, 2007 10:29 PM
Comment #219774

No, Lawnboy.

I’m just being facetious that anyone would think that they can pinpoint the locations of terrorist attacks, the times, the perpetrators, or any other such nonsense.

Perhaps, we should ask all liberals who write to this blog where the next terrorist attack in Iraq is going to take place, since we have such overwhelming information as to the methods they are currently using, and the typical locations that they have hit previously there. Maybe if you can accurately predict it here in this blog, the President may have a position for you at the Pentagon. Any takers?

JD

Posted by: JD at May 7, 2007 10:42 PM
Comment #219777

“the President may have a position for you at the Pentagon. Any takers?”

Nah, he’s just looking for someone else to blame for the next screw up.

Posted by: Rocky at May 7, 2007 10:58 PM
Comment #219778

That was a really good comeback Rocky! I enjoyed that.

JD

Posted by: JD at May 7, 2007 11:03 PM
Comment #219779

Your welcome.

Posted by: Rocky at May 7, 2007 11:17 PM
Comment #219805

JD-

I’d say the terrorists were pretty smart. They chose to attack those filthy rich folks who manage world trade working in the “World Trade Center” and those in the U.S. military who know nothing but global domination at the barrel of an M-16!

You know, I have heard that more from Right-Wingers trying to vilify Democrats and Liberals than from those folks themselves.

The real irony of this post and your comment, as quoted, are that both allege that the irrationality of a few, a minority, represents the opinion of the majority.

When I talk about terrorist targets, I’m not playing these bullshit games of rhetoric. I’m talking about targets that like 9/11 will be hit without the terrorists distributing some poll to find out what the political demographics of the area are. There are common sense ways to harden the targets, discourage the terrorists from attacking them, and mitigate the damage if they are hit.

Unfortunately, you’re counting on an inflammatory, counterproductive war on the other side of the world, one that has increased the ranks of terrorists worldwide, to protect us here.

If I do have any beef with business, it’s their expectation of being bailed out and mollycoddled after their screw-ups cost lives and make them look bad. The Airlines lobbied for years to avoid stricter security standards, in a blind, short-sighted effort to cut costs. Then, when 9/11 knocks their industry into the toilet, they come looking to Washington for hand-outs.

The Chemical industry, among others, lobbied Bush, he who is so committed to defending Americans from terrorist attack, and he gave in. No real requirements to put in safeguards or increase security. But when some enterprising Jihadists comes in and blows a tank full of toxic gas to let it waft over our neighborhoods, I’m sure the chemical industry is going to want some corporate welfare to help it get through the tough times.

The American Government and industry ought to be looking at this from a standpoint of covering butts in the best possible way: by not screwing up. The Chemical industry, as an example, has a great deal to lose if public furor over such an attack drives people to put a debilitating level of regulation on it in the understandable drive to prevent such incidents from ever happening again. The government, legislators and executive branch members alike, have much to lose politically if they ignore years of warnings and let things like this occur.

So why don’t we ditch the immature ideological and financial wish fulfillment, and take the mature position that people ought to to get ahead of these problems. Government and Industry should work together to find a way to honor their duty to safeguard the American people from unnecessary danger.

The picture you paint of our ability to track down terrorists and determine their next goals is practically meaningless. We aren’t that stupid, we aren’t that unlucky, and we surely aren’t that ignorant. These people have to get through our border security. They have to case their target, make plans, gather materials- in short, they have to interact with us, avoid notice, and successfully get the right things in the right places at the right time.

And things can go wrong for them at every juncture.

That’s the marvellous thing. Good as al-Qaeda is, they can screw up. The first time they tried what they did with the Cole, the boat they were using sank under the weight of the explosives. The first time they tried to bring down the towers, they not only failed, but couldn’t have succeeded. Their plan was to tip one tower over into the other, which was physically impossible.

With the Bojinka plot, they were going to blow up multiple jets. They already managed to kill one poor traveller with one of the devices they were using, as a test. A fire in their ad hoc lab brought the authorities, and shut that plot down.

The truth is, we don’t always know everything, but if don’t seek out this information, we’ll surely never know. You give these people far too much credit for their ability to remain under the radar. The 9/11 report shows several places where these people screwed up. We just weren’t prepared to take advantage of that.

The real question at home, is what has Bush done to take advantage of the fact that our enemy is only human? So far, not much. He wants to keep on going with the ineffective “central front” in the war on terror, while the real central front, the one which really counts, remains relatively undefended.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 8, 2007 9:44 AM
Comment #219889

>>Personally, I don’t think Bush EVER had a clue. But that Cheney guy…

Posted by: Tim in NY at May 7, 2007 09:02 PM

Tim,

That’s why I call our president, Cheney/Bush…

Posted by: Marysdude at May 9, 2007 8:38 AM
Comment #219938

Stephen D-
“The terrorists only have a limited number of targets that have the impact which would be worth their time.”

You’re nuts! That limited list of targets fills about 50 pages! We have skyscrapers. Government offices. Financial centers. Oil refineries. Military targets. Shopping malls. Stadiums. etc. etc. all over this country. Major airplane hubs all over this country. Major cities all over this country. They could choose any of thousands of locations that would make a huge impact, similar to 9/11.

Did you know what targets they were going to choose before they attacked? Who knew? Was it in the memo? So who’s realistic here?

“Unfortunately, your folks want him portrayed with the impossible spotlessness one only sees in propaganda.”

Wrongo, Buckwheat! And not so fast! First, you are a liberal Democrat and your job here has been only to tear down Bush and the Republicans. Second, I am not a Republican, nor a Bush supporter (per se). I merely like fairness and objectivity (of which both those on the right and left have lost track). The evidence shows that there was no way for Bush to know where, when, or how the terrorists were going to attack using planes. Terrorists had not been in the business of crashing planes before, merely diverting them. This was new and an unheard of method of terrorism. Certainly the Democrats hadn’t done anything to prevent this kind of attack. Clinton didn’t. Gore didn’t. Harry Reid never spoke about the need to keep terrorists from flying planes into buildings (that is, before it happened on 9/11). So, don’t get so uppity about Bush failing. If Bush is at fault, then all of our political leaders in Washington failed us. Clinton failed most of all, because he failed to capture the mastermind behind the attack on 9/11 when he had “the chance.” Clinton failed to put into place the kind of information sharing that would have led to more control before 9/11. Clinton failed to institute electronic eavesdropping that, under Bush, has kept us from having further major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. To be fair, Bush has done a great job in a few areas and has failed miserably in a few areas.

It’s too bad that puppets like you and your equals on the other side of the fence don’t tell the truth. In the end, this kind of lie-telling for political points hurts the political process. I would rather read a well-thought piece from someone who has dug for truth (you can tell truth because it includes an honest assessment of both the good and the bad) than a politically-motivated piece from a political puppet (which only points out the bad of the opposing party and only the good of one’s own party).

Posted by: Don at May 9, 2007 7:24 PM
Comment #219940

Don,

“Clinton failed most of all, because he failed to capture the mastermind behind the attack on 9/11 when he had “the chance.””

And when exactly was that?
And please don’t say that Sudan was going to give him to us, that old saw was debunked.

“Clinton failed to put into place the kind of information sharing that would have led to more control before 9/11. Clinton failed to institute electronic eavesdropping that, under Bush, has kept us from having further major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.”

As did Bush Sr. and Reagan before him. There is plenty of blame to go around and none of it helps with the situation we are now in.

Let’s fix the problem, not the blame.

On a side note, NBC announced a meeting of Republicans in Congress, the SoD, and the President.
It seems that Congressional Republicans are asking the President to be more “candid” with the American people about Iraq.

I guess it’s time to poop or get off the pot.

Posted by: Rocky at May 9, 2007 7:51 PM
Comment #219957

>>”Clinton failed to put into place the kind of information sharing that would have led to more control before 9/11. Clinton failed to institute electronic eavesdropping that, under Bush, has kept us from having further major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.”

Posted by: Rocky at May 9, 2007 07:51 PM

Rocky,

Your response to this was good, but you forgot to mention that Clinton left Clarke to help the new administration with the Iraq problems, and Cheney/Bush muffed it. Clinton left several memos and policies for the new administration, and they were ignored/discarded. Clinton left the most important message of all…Osama benLadin is the United States worst terror threat, and that was also ignored.

Clinton may have botched a missle strike to get benLadin, but he set in motion the investigations that ultimately cornered the blind Imam and many of the Cole and embassy bombers.

Bush gave up on benLadin, and lied us into Iraq…which of the two are least culpable?

Posted by: Marysdude at May 9, 2007 11:18 PM
Comment #219961

Marysdude,

What happened, happened.

Culpability can only be viewed with the long lens of history.
Everybody screwed the pooch on this one and we need to figure out what we will do next, and not bitch about what has happened in the past.

I have no doubt that this surge isn’t going to work out as planned.
Violence in Iraq is up and the American people’s confidence is waning.
Our military is strapped and it may be time to institute a draft, and Bush may need to actually become “Presidential” to see this “war on terror” thing through to it’s ultimate end.
Winning isn’t everything, but losing sucks.
We will soon see whether America can retake it’s place as the pre-eminant power on the planet, or fall back into the shell we occupied just after WW1. Either way we have pissed off more than a few people in the world and it will all be uphill for quite a while.

Hey, maybe we can call in all of those Marshall Plan markers to help rebuild our military.

Posted by: Rocky at May 10, 2007 12:25 AM
Comment #219987

Don,

Please, do not use the term Buckwheat. We must remain racially sensitive on this blog.

Thanks,

JD

Posted by: JD at May 10, 2007 10:04 AM
Comment #220068

Don-
First, not all over those potential targets have equal priority or value for the terrorists. Second, it’s not as if we’re short-handed in terms of the number of states, counties, parishes and municipalities that could help us. Third, even if we can’t protect them all, we should protect a good portion.

It’s not nuts to want this kind of protection, it’s only sensible. Does that mean posting guards at every location? No, it may be as simple as moving certain facilities to safer locations, switching to safer chemicals to do the same processes, or things like that.

What are you going to say when we get hit again, and it’s something blindingly obvious we should have been protecting?

I am a Liberal Democrat, but before Bush’s screwups started endangering us all, I didn’t feel the need to do more than grumble. I might have even gotten to like him if he had kept his promises and done more to protect us here.

The evidence does not show that there was no way for Bush to find out what the terrorists were doing and get in the way of it. You should read in the 9/11 commission report just how many opportunities were passed up. The Clinton Administration had counterterrorism as a priority, and they successfully foiled a number of plots. They didn’t need 9/11 to wake them up.

Just because terrorists had not crashed planes, didn’t mean they wouldn’t. It’s something we should have considered, though we hadn’t yet had a wake-up call to take it seriously. We should not wait for terrorists to use new plans to try and figure out what they may be. We should game that out ourselves.

I have every right to get “uppity” about Bush’s record on counterterrorism at home. Nobody can say he wasn’t warned. Nonetheless, he continues to believe that this war will protect us, when the likelihood is, the enemy’s already here, already planning. Bush has also failed, having been given this warning, to make much headway in getting the departments to share information. And lets not talk about Bush’s failure to capture Bin Laden when he had the chance.

As for electronic eavesdropping? He had FISA. The data mining tried to find people by keywords, and was not only excessively intrusive, but hardly worth the expense. The keywords for an attack were often confused by the computer with that for the real thing. It wastes our time with erroneous results.

Call me all the names you want, call me a liar, but quit this pessimistic complacency. We can’t protect America sitting down, and we’re certainly not going to find what we don’t look for.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 11, 2007 8:01 AM
Comment #220458

“I am a Liberal Democrat, but before Bush’s screwups started endangering us all, I didn’t feel the need to do more than grumble. I might have even gotten to like him if he had kept his promises and done more to protect us here.”
Stephen Daugherty

Stephen, no successful terrorist attacks upon the U.S. in the last five years under President Bush. What’s your gripe now?

“The evidence does not show that there was no way for Bush to find out what the terrorists were doing and get in the way of it. You should read in the 9/11 commission report just how many opportunities were passed up. The Clinton Administration had counterterrorism as a priority, and they successfully foiled a number of plots. They didn’t need 9/11 to wake them up.”

Are you telling me that the terrorists waited for Bush to take office before training for their fatal flights? Are you saying that everything was hatched under Bush’s watch? Yeah? Just keep thinking that if Clinton were still President 9/11 would have never happened! Talk about the blind idolatry of conservatives for Bush, you just made die-hard conservatives look like left-leaning moderates with your Clinton-gasm!

JD

Posted by: JD at May 15, 2007 7:25 PM
Comment #220839

On Augest 6, 2001 George Bush recieved a daily breifing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”
On September 11, 2001 George Bush recieved word that “the nation is under attack”
Augest 6, 2001 is BEFORE September 11, 2001.
Ergo George Bush knew about an immenant attack BEFORE 9/11.
Maybe that is why he read ‘My Pet Goat’ for seven minutes after being told “the nation is under attack”
But why exactly George Bush would decide that the purportratior of 9/11 is OK to be free “I just don’t care about Osama Bin Laden.” I will never know

Posted by: FDRules at May 19, 2007 2:42 PM
Post a comment