Thread: Bush and Al Qaeda
08-17-2004, 10:24 PM #1
Bush and Al Qaeda
SEPTEMBER 11th,WAR ON TERROR & HOMELAND SECURITY
Focus on Al Qaeda Pre-9/11
In response to Richard Clarke’s book, Dr. Rice asserted, “the fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11.” (03.22.04)
Press Secretary McClellan claims that fighting terrorism was a top priority before
Cheney: Bush “wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with [terrorism] and that process was in motion throughout the spring.”
Bush & Al Qaeda – By The Numbers
0 – Number of meetings held by Vice President Cheney’s counterterrorism task force (which was created in May 2001)
0 – References to Al Qaeda in Dr. Rice’s 2000 Foreign Affairs article listing Bush’s top foreign affairs priorities
0 – References to Al Qaeda in Secretary Rumsfeld 2001 memo outlining national security priorities
0 – References to terrorism is Justice Department's top seven goals for 2001
0 – Number of National Security Council meetings held by Bush administration before invasion of Iraq was discussed (i.e., it was discussed at the very first meeting)
1 – Number of times the Bush administration mentioned al Qaeda prior to 9-11. This was in a notice continuing an executive order issued by President Clinton.
1 – Number of hours President Bush and Vice President Cheney agreed to allow in their joint meeting with the 9-11 panel.
2 – Number of National Security Council meetings on terrorism prior to 9-11 (out of approximately 100).
2 – Weeks into administration when Energy Task Force announced.
2 – Number of public statements by the Bush administration mentioning Osama bin Laden prior to 9-11 (excluding press briefings and press questions which would raise the total to 19)
4 – Minimum number of Al Qaeda millennium attacks thwarted by the Clinton administration (only plots to bomb Seattle, Los Angeles, Brooklyn and Jordan have been specifically identified)
4 – Number of hours Bush spent with Bob Woodward as part of his book, “Bush at War.”
4 – Months into Bush administration when aid to the Taliban was restored.
4 – Months into administration when Energy Task Force report was released.
6 – Months that it would take for Vice President Cheney to respond to draft counterterrorism and homeland security legislation sent to him on July 20, 2001 by Senators Feinstein and Kyl, as stated by his top aid.
6 – Months before 9-11 that Paul Bremer - current Iraq administrator and former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism - claimed that the Bush administration was “paying no attention” to terrorism. “ Bremer stated that the Bush administration would “stagger along until there’s a major incident and then suddenly say, ‘Oh my God, shouldn’t we be organized to deal with this.’”
8 – Months the administration sat on an “urgent” request from its counterterrorism chief (Clarke) to meet about al Qaeda.
10 – Number of meetings of Cheney’s Energy Task force prior to 9/11
12 – Number in thousands of US troops in Afghanistan Winter 2004 (compared to 150,000 in Iraq)
36 – Months passed without any meeting of the Cheney terrorism task force since its formation in May 2001
58 – Number of days President Bush spent in Kennebunkport or at his Crawford ranch from January 21 to September 10, 2001
101– Number of public statements by the Bush administration on his missile defense (aka Star Wars) program from January 21 to September 10, 2001.
104 – Number of public statements by the President Bush on Saddam Hussein from January 21 to September 10, 2001
150 – Number in thousands of US troops in Iraq Winter 2004
700 – Millions of dollars Bush administration diverted from war against Al Qaeda to prepare for Iraq war.
President Bush admitted to Bob Woodward that “I didn’t feel the sense of urgency,” about terrorism before 9/11.
Last edited by Lozgod; 08-17-2004 at 10:27 PM.
08-17-2004, 10:28 PM #2
Whats your point?
08-17-2004, 10:30 PM #3Originally Posted by kdawg21
08-17-2004, 11:14 PM #4
Ok, but you still have not proved anything..........
08-17-2004, 11:15 PM #5
I mean really....... lots of stats but none of them are really relavent
08-17-2004, 11:16 PM #6Originally Posted by kdawg21
08-17-2004, 11:46 PM #7
yeah I dont get the point either. I think its alot cooler that Bush is stomping butt rather than taking the liberal approach. Remember when clinton bribed Yasser Arafat ( a known terrorist)with Billions of dollars to enter into peach talks with isreal only for Arafat to say he would stop at nothing short of Isreals demize. It was a nice photo op anyways.
08-17-2004, 11:49 PM #8Originally Posted by Anhydro78
08-18-2004, 12:14 AM #9
George is just interested in vacations. Cheney too.....he's always at Jackson playing fly fisherman. And boy do those secret service guys ever get alot of skiing in.....
08-18-2004, 12:15 AM #10
i'd rather have bush in there than kerry or worst yet al gore, billy boy sure help us out in 8 yrs also.
08-18-2004, 12:28 AM #11
Yeah ur right.......its good to have a dolt for prez......plus he's tough......a tough dumb guy........kinda like Tyson
08-18-2004, 02:27 PM #12
The CIA had been after bin laden for more than 5 years before 9/11, and increasingly so after the 1998 bin laden-sponsored terrorist bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and tanzania that lead to more then 200 people dying. At that time President clinton directed the US miliary to launch 66 cruise missles into terrorist training cmps in Afghanastan where bin laden was said to be in a high leval meeting. But he left hours before the missles arrived.
In 1999, the CIA commenced a covert operation to train 60 commandos from the pakistn intelligence agency to enter Afghanastan and capture Bin Laden. But the operation was aborted because of a military coup in pakistan. More ambituous and riskier oporations had been weighed in endless meetings with top clinton national security officials.
Intelligence reports then showed bin laden and his key leutenants keep their families with the entourage, and clinton was opposed to any operation that might kill women and children.
A senior leader of Afghanastan Northern alliance (known as SENIORS) that worked undercover with CIA agents wanted to go after the bin laden convoy in a concerted way, proposing an ambush and to shoot everything in sight but when it went to the top levals in the clinton administration they said we cant do that, it would violate us law. (gerald ford signed a presidential ban on assassination)
my point is that clinton and bush both didnt get bin laden in time... clinton had 8 years and bush had 8 months... neither did it that is CIA and FBI's fault for not sharing information.... just my opinion not trying to argue with everyone, trying to make peace
08-18-2004, 02:39 PM #13
bush is a moron and should not be president. He would be mad cool to hang out with and get mashed with. Leader of the free world...NO. Great wingman at the bar...HELL YEA
08-18-2004, 02:49 PM #14Originally Posted by biglouie250
I like that....
08-18-2004, 02:50 PM #15
at least you guys say he would be fun to hang out with, im going to remember you said that next thread!!
08-18-2004, 02:53 PM #16Originally Posted by nickrizz
Hangin with Kerry would be a drag......be like hangin with a dead horse.
08-18-2004, 03:07 PM #17Originally Posted by nickrizz
The turtle- When you jump on the floor breaking your fall with nothing but your chest and you wriggle around creating a large scene around you.
08-18-2004, 05:54 PM #18
Lozgod your logic with sending troops into combat is a little strange to me. Lets look at it this was if you decide you want to be a soldier than what kind of job do you think you will be doing for the next 4 years or so. They decide to put themselves in that situation. But now that Clinton downsized the military and let alot of the older guys go. We are now enlisting kids to go over there. And thats the only reason we are hearing the "soldiers" b!tch about things. My mom has a freind that has a son over in iraq I went to his coming home party and the guy did nothing but B!tch about his job. I flat asked him what the He!! did you think you where gonna be doing when you signed the contract. No reason to cry about it now. I would feel better about it if we still had all the experianced guys still in the military.
If you see that sending people that have a dangerous job off to actually do their job as wrong. What about people that build cell phone towers, or work off shore oil rigs, or barge lines. Each one of those industrys probally has a higher daily mortality rate than the rate we are loosing soldiers over in Iraq. Does that mean the people that run those industrys are evil for putting people in harms way. Or do you believe as I do that you do your D@mn job without b!tching!!!!!!!!! You do realize that the military has a daily mortality rate even when not in the middle of a war. There is a good percentage of Deaths over in Iraq that were caused by equipment failures or just plain moving equipment around.
I could understand if it was a war like the liberal run, congress influenced Kennedy proposed idea a war vietnam. I would not care for this war either if it was run in a way that polatics was dangering american lives. But luckily we have a Republican running this war. Instead of liberal being sensitive to the enemy like Kerry wants and like Kennedy did.
You can hate Bush all you want I dont think hes the best example of a republican either, but it still dont make liberalism right or the better choice !!!!!!!!!!
08-18-2004, 08:35 PM #19Originally Posted by Anhydro78
08-18-2004, 08:50 PM #20
JT2k how do you feel about going over there and protecting all of us while half the d@mn country is crying about what we are doing to them poor people over there.
08-18-2004, 08:53 PM #21
In a class i had a teacher that said we shouldnt go to war because of innocent iraqis, but i said if your going to be against it, say its for the soldiers that might die that are americans
08-18-2004, 09:03 PM #22Originally Posted by Anhydro78
I was in Afghanistan got hurt in the recon phase of iraq about 1 month before the action went down. Im just doing my job is how I feel the millitary has invested lots of money into my training i feel i owe them, The main reason i dont care about what half the country thinks is because i know my friends need me there and i need them once i get there. Its the man beside me of whom i care about and what he thinks, not some person sleeping cozy in there bed at night and bonking there girlfriend. On a side note i enjoy the job i could just get my physical therapy done and not go back to the millitary but i enjoy.
08-18-2004, 09:05 PM #23
JT2K your family and friends and everyone here on ar even if they oppose the war should be proud
08-18-2004, 09:09 PM #24
I appreciate your service!!!!!!
08-18-2004, 09:13 PM #25
Ahh be proud of everyone in iraq right now not me, for they are the ones who are getting the job done and having there hands tied ::. i dont really like to talk about my service because i feel like im being conceded and alot of other people on this board recieve many praises for there service. honestly though all of my friends who i recieve letters from tell me they know they are making a difference and there moral is high.
08-18-2004, 09:21 PM #26
what do you mean "hands tied"?
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)