Bush was trying to play down all the hype that bin Laden wanted in order spread his hateful propaganda. I seem to remember, that regardless of the word games Bush was playing, the invasion of Afghanistan and the butt kicking that al Qaeda and the Taliban took says Bush very much cared about what bin Laden was up to.

Honestly, I don’t care how much “butt kicking” goes on if Bin Ladin is still able to plan attacks in London and Madrid and possibly here. I like the old fasioned non butt kicking where someone set something up without a lot of political postering and made the bad guys go away. Actually, Bin Laden is pretty much exactly up to the same stuff as he was when he attacked us.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=166729&title=exit-strategy

I haven’t said one thing about Liberman. BTW he isn’t saying that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. He is talking about al Qaeda in Iraq who do follow that same goals and ideology as those who actually did carry out he attack.

*ahem* look at the very top of your browser. The very top. What is this thread called?

I never said and have never said or thought that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

But here you are trying to defend Joe Liberman when he says they were! This is what the whole thread is about! This is a lie perpetuated so much that before the last election 2/3 of the people did think Sadam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

The version that say that U.S. government was involved is much less believable that the one that says that al Qaeda planned, financed, and coodinated the 9/11 attack.

If you go back, I said they were not involved – and more’s the pity.

Our government under Bush was at the very least incompatant and at most compliciant.

So while Clinton at least tried to kill bin ladin, Bush did NOTHING before the 9/11 attacks. Hell, he said he didn’t care about bin ladin 6 months after the attack.

And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

So, going on what I said (and not what you said I said) there is evidence that the president did not care about bin ladin after the 9/11 attacks, and certanly not before!

“Um, just an FYI, Tracy, 9/11 was a conspiracy.”

Sure it was a conspiracy….by al Qaeda. Are you suggesting the the U.S. government helped plan and execute the attack?

Ok, just so we are clear. We both agree that it was a conspiracy, we just disagree on the paticulars of who, other than al Qaeda, was involved. Our government under Bush was at the very least incompatant and at most compliciant. There is evidence for this, namely in the presidental daily breafing. Hell, after Katrina, proving the Bush administration compatant is the new challange. You, however, seem to think that Iraq was behind the attacks. There is much less (and infact no) evidence for this. Despite this, you mock people who believe in one version of events and then support a much less believable series of events.

You are both drug addled fools. Now go to end of the line and pick up some additional reasoning skills. And stop listening to Fox Noise, it will rot your tiny brains.

Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn’t gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would — who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East. Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question — my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens. You know, I’ve heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of “we’re going to stir up the hornet’s nest” theory. It just doesn’t hold water, as far as I’m concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it’s part of — and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case.

Full transcript here

Maybe he thinks that they’re shooting an album cover?
—————-

Tracy, gummitch is right, you’re just making sh1t up as you go. Why don’t you just go, your brain/a$$ must hurt by now.

Tracy_5 Says:

“The authors found that militaries tended to be most effective when used against terrorist groups engaged in insurgencies in which the groups were large, well armed, and well organized.”

Like in Iraq? Oh, but Petraeus was right…I forgot.

Um… no. In Iraq the insurgencies were multiple, not well organized at all, and blended into the civilian population effortlessly.

(They were well-armed. We can thank the brilliant planners of the invasion for that — well, them and whoever “lost” $12 billion in cash.)

Shinseki was right. In 2002. When he said “several hundred thousand troops” would be needed to secure the country after an invasion. Little Donny Rumsfeld didn’t want to hear that. Or more precisely, he didn’t want the American people to hear it. So he canned Gen. Shinseki.

Petreaus didn’t back the Surge™ until Bush told him to.

Tracy_5 Says:

So since the Bush didn’t treat the al Qaeda threat as seriously as he should have, which he totally agree he didn’t, that automatically means that he wanted 9/11 to happen?

See, Trace, it’s statements like this that earn you your richly deserved reputation for density.

You make wildly inaccurate judgments based on your own biased misreadings of people’s statements and then present them as another’s argument. That, my friend, is known as a Straw Man. Although in your case I’m willing to accept that it may simply be thickness.

Either way, it’s tiresome.

You claim at least four times in your post of 11:51 that I said Bush wanted 9/11 to happen (although you only bolded it twice), and you base your entire dismissal of my point on that misreading.

I’d ask you to read my posts again, carefully, except that I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t do any good. You just don’t seem to have the requisite level of reading comprehension. Maybe your mind gets short-circuited by right-wing buzzwords or prejudices of “liberals”, but whatever it is, you really seem to have a hard time getting it.

Cheers,

Tracy_5 Says:
“Read it and get back to us.”

Where did I say that the military is the ONLY way to curb terrorism?

I never made that claim. But since you’re so enamored of the Bush War on Terror, I thought it might interest you to know that the right-wing Rand Corporation found that over the last four-plus decades, military action has been found to be singularly ineffective among the three primary means of dealing with the problem. Yet that was the one Bush chose to focus on. So it should be no surprise that terrorism is no less a threat today than it was seven years ago.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

…so exactly where does it say the al Qaeda will strike on 9/11/01?

You love reading shit into people’s words, don’t you?

When did I ever claim that the PDB gave a date? I didn’t. Bush had forewarning of an attack, and he did nothing.

Again you are saying the the Bush adminstration or someone in the administration knew al Qaeda was determined to strike means that they “just let it happen?”

I don’t see any way around that inconvenient truth.

They were warned. Multiple times. And they did nothing. An attack happened. What other conclusion can one draw?

If you are suggesting this you are screwball and half. Clinton knew al Qaeda was “determined to strike” ever since the 1998 Kenya U.S. embassy bombings. Given this fact, did Clinton know about the 9/11 plot, again conceived in 1999, and just “let it happen”,

You’re going even further off the rails than usual. You made a point of saying that the 9/11 plot was “conceived in 1999″ as if this indicts Clinton somehow. What does it mean? Are you implying that because Clinton was president in 1999, he should have known about this plot that would not be put into action until eight months after he left office?

Did 9/11 happen while Clinton was in office? No.

i.e. never divulged the information about the plot to the Bush administration.

Um… try doing a little research, Trace.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4494777

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22231-2004Mar24.html

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/10/16/707/04491

You apparently are saying that a threat warning given to the Bush administration constitutes the complicity in the terroris act.

You apparently have some trouble with the English language.

“But someone in his administration knew.”

I am sure Bush knew that al Qaeda was “determined to strike”, but that doesn’t mean he knew when.

I’d like to think that a president can take necessary steps to protect the nation even if he’s not told exactly when an attack will occur. Bush was told, and continued his vacation. He did NOTHING.

“And Clinton was… what? In on the planning?”

LOL! Of course not. What are you asking such an obtuse question?

I’m just trying to figure out why you make such a point of noting that a plot was hatched in 1999 when Clinton was in office, as if that gives him some responsibility for the plot. It’s just a weird implication.

“….when Clinton sent cruise missiles in the Sudan in an attempt to get bin Laden. Almost got him, too. Missed him by mere hours.”

You think that when Clinton sent in those cruise missles that was the only time he had to do it? Are you saying that the timiming was all a coincidence? LOL!

Um… yeah, if he got information and acted on it. Do you understand the concept of “timing” in pursuing terrorists? Had he delayed a day, in order to make it look better, he would have missed bin Laden by a day and a few hours.

Are you suggesting that Clinton delayed the strike?

“Since when does “allow” require foreknowledge? “Allow” also means “to permit by neglect, oversight, or the like: to allow a door to remain open.”

Yes, Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. That’s what I’m suggesting.”

When I hear someone say that Bush “allowed” 9/11 to happen that means to me that he knew it was going to happen

Well, you’re fu(king wrong about that, aren’t you?

Is it a coincidence that the attack perfectly suited the foreign policy needs of PNAC, the Neocons and the entire Bush administration?

Maybe yes, maybe no.”

Careful. You are walking a tight rope on the brink of becoming sucked into the most insane conspiracy theories since Roswell.

Frankly, I don’t really care what you think of me. You’ve demonstrated that you have a real struggle with logic, language and factual anlysis.

fact. Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. he was warned of an impending attack and did nothing. Perhaps if he’d been given the date as well, then he would have made a call or two. But as it was, an unspecific warning wasn’t enough to spur him to action.

That cannot be argued.

Neither can it be argued that PNAC published a paper in 1997 stating that “a new Pearl Harbor” might be necessary to move the nation to support their plans to remake the Middle East.

There’s no proof that anyone of those people had any active part in the attack. There’s no proof that anyone of them had any foreknowledge of it. They probably were just exceptionally well prepared for such an event in case it should occur.

But the fact is that no one benefitted from the attack on 9/11 more than George W. Bush.

Tracy_5 Says:
“Oh, I see. It’s because you’re confused.”

No, TP was trying to make up crap.

No one said or even implied that “there was no AQI prior to the surge.”

That was a stupid straw man that, in your own mind, may be a dancing scarecrow with a brain and a song in his heart. But to the rest of us, it’s just a pathetic straw man.

This person is one sick puppy!

Tracy_5 Says:
how long does Obama reasonably have before it’s ALL on him? A year? Is a year enough time?”

I don’t know. I guess it depends on how much he dismantle’s the operations that are in place today covert or otherwise that have obviously prevented another 9/11.

There’s something you should read about this very issue.

Something from the Rand Corporation.

Turns out military action not the best way to curb terrorism.

Read it and get back to us.

Tracy_5 Says:
“I still haven’t gotten even a halfway decent explanation for why you assumed TP or anyone here thought such a thing.”

Because the people at TP were trying to get everyone here to think that AQI isn’t associated or linked to bin Laden’s al Qaeda. Hussein Toasterhead agreed that AQI and bin Laden’s al Qaeda are linked.

Oh, I see. It’s because you’re confused.

I should have guessed.