Thougts on the 9/11 Hearings?

[Ryan]

Anyone have any? I listened to it on C-SPAN for hours today while I worked and I found it fascinating. It seems that all the accusations that Clinton was doing nothing about terrorism are somewhat skewed - his administration was doing quite a bit within the confines of public opinion/concern. Also, while Bush may or may not have been vigilent in the first few months of his presidency, it is absolutley absurd to lay responsibility on his administration for what happened. I'll leave that to the radical leftists because I don't think they have a leg to stand on after what I heard today.

What did come out regarding Bush's handling of the situation was that he did, indeed, pursure a military strategy against Iraq only days after 9/11 - long before any connection to the regime could be made. We were accused of "leftist conspiracy theory" when we accused the president of this before the war, and now it's coming straight from his administration. I know all you Bushies will say it's OK anyway, but I think you should be ashamed if you do. It is so obvious to anyone with an ounce of intelligence that this was a personal battle for him - a battle launched without regard for the life that would be lost. I think it will end up costing him the presidency, but that is a far smaller price than thousands of others have paid for what he has done.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by Ryan
Anyone have any? I listened to it on C-SPAN for hours today while I worked and I found it fascinating. It seems that all the accusations that Clinton was doing nothing about terrorism are somewhat skewed - his administration was doing quite a bit within the confines of public opinion/concern. Also, while Bush may or may not have been vigilent in the first few months of his presidency, it is absolutley absurd to lay responsibility on his administration for what happened. I'll leave that to the radical leftists because I don't think they have a leg to stand on after what I heard today.

What did come out regarding Bush's handling of the situation was that he did, indeed, pursure a military strategy against Iraq only days after 9/11 - long before any connection to the regime could be made. We were accused of "leftist conspiracy theory" when we accused the president of this before the war, and now it's coming straight from his administration. I know all you Bushies will say it's OK anyway, but I think you should be ashamed if you do. It is so obvious to anyone with an ounce of intelligence that this was a personal battle for him - a battle launched without regard for the life that would be lost. I think it will end up costing him the presidency, but that is a far smaller price than thousands of others have paid for what he has done.

Why are us radical leftists responsible for claiming Bush wasn't doing anything about terrorism? I can't think of any offhand who assert that. I think perhaps some liberal pundits might be concerned with making this argument as much as conservative pundits are about Clinton, but the Left has pretty solidly pointed out that both administration were generating situations that would increase the likelihood of terror against the US. Which administration did what has never been much of an issue amongst us.

[Dionysos]

From the little I heard while sitting at the Atlanta airport it sounded mostly like finger-pointing and CYA talk, not that I'm surprised. Both Clinton & Bush camps have made mistakes in the past decade+ regarding terrorism, and they're both trying to minimize the blame on their side.

I would like to hear more in-depth as to what was said though, is there anywhere online that have archives of the interviews?

[Ryan]

Originally posted by Dionysos
I would like to hear more in-depth as to what was said though, is there anywhere online that have archives of the interviews?

Go to C-SPAN.org. You can also see the whole thing live from the Senate floor. It's really interesting to hear what happens before the media spins it to the masses.

[Ash]

My thoughts are that the Clinton and Bush administration didn't do as much as they should have. They failed the United States.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by Ash
They failed the United States.

That's an understatement.

[johnny861]

What I got out of listening to it this morning, that the issue with intelligence and covert operations has been a problem since the late 80s, when congress and the media attacked the CIA, noting all the bad operations it had conducted in the past and stressed that covert operations were bad for the CIA and for American Interests.

That the CIA administrators that worked then took it as a lesson to be learned for future operations of the CIA. 20 years later the same people in the CIA holding administrator duties still hold this as a lesson for the CIA and carry with them the idea that all covert missions are only setting up the agency for failure.

It's easy to see what happened in hindsight. While this view was taking place in the CIA, Al Qaeda got its start in the 80s and was for the most part completely unknown to the US until 1993...

And it wasn't until 1995, that officials began to take notice that there was such a terrorist organization. In 1996, an office was setup to start monitoring Osama Bin Laden and there were a number of proposals on how to deal with him in both the Clinton and Bush administration, this includes what happened during the embassy bombings, the uss cole, the first trade center bombing, etc. There were a number of questions probing why the CIA never followed through with covert operations suggested in both administrations, which brought the conversation back to the mindset of the CIA officials.



I would seem to me that to a degree that the CIA had realized some of it's shady operations in the past through congressional hearings, the media and public outcry in the past and started a campaign to clean up its act, but in the process, became overly cautious dealing with the mounting problems rising terrorist organizations could potentially cause.

To me, that's a classic case of damned if you do and damned if you don't...

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by johnny861
It would seem to me that to a degree that the CIA had realized some of it's shady operations in the past through congressional hearings, the media and public outcry in the past and started a campaign to clean up its act, but in the process, became overly cautious dealing with the mounting problems rising terrorist organizations could potentially cause.

To me, that's a classic case of damned if you do and damned if you don't...

Agreed. Given the option I would rather they were too agressive, though neither option is free of possibly heinous side effects.

Originally posted by Dionysos
Agreed. Given the option I would rather they were too agressive, though neither option is free of possibly heinous side effects.

Which has been a retort for the war in Iraq. Would we prefer to have gone in and been wrong or to have not gone in and been wrong? Given the choice I think GW made the right decision.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by xiannaix
Which has been a retort for the war in Iraq. Would we prefer to have gone in and been wrong or to have not gone in and been wrong? Given the choice I think GW made the right decision.

Mine was more specifically pointed at the CIA, but your point is well taken.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by xiannaix
Which has been a retort for the war in Iraq. Would we prefer to have gone in and been wrong or to have not gone in and been wrong? Given the choice I think GW made the right decision.

Except that there was absolutely no rational basis for believing that Iraq was an imminent threat. He did this for personal reasons. It took him a few hours to ask for a military options plan to attack Iraq after September 11 - long before "intelligence" was gathered to prove they were an "imminent threat." He had very personal reasons for wanting to oust Saddam, and he put those reasons ahead of what was good for the country, the world, and certainly ahead of the men and women he knew would die over there. Mark my words, this will prove to be one of the biggest foreign policy errors in our history, and Bush and those who supported him will be solely to blame. If what is being said about his handling of this war in the months following 9/11 is true, he is not only a bad president but also a criminal.

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by Ryan
Except that there was absolutely no rational basis for believing that Iraq was an imminent threat. He did this for personal reasons. It took him a few hours to ask for a military options plan to attack Iraq after September 11 - long before "intelligence" was gathered to prove they were an "imminent threat." He had very personal reasons for wanting to oust Saddam, and he put those reasons ahead of what was good for the country, the world, and certainly ahead of the men and women he knew would die over there. Mark my words, this will prove to be one of the biggest foreign policy errors in our history, and Bush and those who supported him will be solely to blame. If what is being said about his handling of this war in the months following 9/11 is true, he is not only a bad president but also a criminal.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if world leaders could be held responsible for the deaths caused by improperly-declared wars? I'd love to see Bush et al. be indicted even just for the deaths of the American men and women they've led to their deaths.

With as many people on here that have talked about that they would watch a public execution of Saddam or bin Laden, I wonder how many would watch the same for the D- to the -ubb to the -ya.

[johnny861]

Yea, you really can't mix up Iraq with the 9/11 attacks in regards to why the CIA was ineffectual in preventing the attacks, unless you are correlating the fact that we had inconclusive intelligence because the stance the CIA has taken.

But even then, I wouldn't pass the blame solely on the CIA as the reasoning for the war in Iraq is a multi-faceted issue.

Originally posted by Ryan
Except that there was absolutely no rational basis for believing that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Imminent means that but for immediate action taking place another will occur.

In that sense I agree - Iraq was no imminent threat.

However, to suggest that Itaq posed no credible threat is silly.

To suggest that GW knew that no WMDs existed is silly. Saddam essentially forced the world to believe he did by his refusing admission to specific sites by the weapons inspectors.

My understanding of the inspectors reports said that although stockpiles of WMDs were not found the means of production were available in terms of facility, technology, expertise and raw materials.

Originally posted by Ryan
He did this for personal reasons.

I find that point lacking in credibilty.

Originally posted by Ryan
It took him a few hours to ask for a military options plan to attack Iraq after September 11 - long before "intelligence" was gathered to prove they were an "imminent threat."

A few hours after the attck many were openly speculating that the attacks were spnsored by Saddam and I would hope the President and his staff we among them.

To suggest that he didn't think Iraq may have been the sponsor would be to accuse him of gross negligence.

Originally posted by Ryan
He had very personal reasons for wanting to oust Saddam, and he put those reasons ahead of what was good for the country, the world, and certainly ahead of the men and women he knew would die over there.

You again make this charge - might you offer some support for it?

Originally posted by Ryan
Mark my words, this will prove to be one of the biggest foreign policy errors in our history, and Bush and those who supported him will be solely to blame. If what is being said about his handling of this war in the months following 9/11 is true, he is not only a bad president but also a criminal.

so marked

[Ryan]

Originally posted by xiannaix
You again make this charge - might you offer some support for it?

Oh, I don't know, calling daddy and telling him "you've been vindicated." This was not just another villainous dictator, this was a man who mocked his father and even tried to assassinate him. This was also a man who very vocally taunted Dubya himself. By all accounts provided to the public, Bush wanted a piece of him long before 9/11 and he jumped at the chance to use that event as a springboard into the war with Iraq.