9/11 Commission

[Paperpilot]

I am amazed how much time and effort is going into the 9/11 commission when, in fact, they are falling very short of achieving what they were intended to. Instead of discussing mistakes made, with the hope of learning a lesson and not repeating them, the hearings have become a trial of Bush v Clinton. As much as I disliked the Clinton administration I find it hard to believe they, or any other decent American, would knowingly allow Al Qaeda to flourish. The same truth stands for the Bush administration. No one has the right to suggest that any American willingly ignored any threat. It just doesn't make sense to suggest such a thing. Both administrations have done and are doing everything possible to secure this nation. Politics have gotten people to act foolishly. Additionally, Richard Clarke is wasting our time with his worthless, inconsistent testimonies aimed only at book sales. Why would logical, thinking people possibly accept his statements when so much, including his own words, speak to the contrary? Bottom line in regards to 9/11 is this - we got hit hard and no one saw it coming. Everyone tried their best but sometimes the good guys still get hurt. We have learned and no on in America is to blame. All blame lies with an organization call Al Qaeda.

 

[jimnyc]

Welcome to the board, paperpilot

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by Paperpilot
I find it hard to believe they, or any other decent American, would knowingly allow Al Qaeda to flourish.

But the Clinton administration did know about al-Qaeda, and flourish it did. Now though I don't believe they intentionaly allowed this to happen, I believe the consequence was the inevitable result of ineffective leadership on Clinton's part.

Clinton proved he was willing to use force, but his choice of targets was befuddling. Those places he chose to project U.S. strength were not places that could be even remotely construed as being a threat to Americans, domestic or abroad.

With respect to terrorism, it seems he did very little of any great import.

---

True, in his first eight months Bush did virtually nothing with respect to action. He did however choose very early on to change the (create a) counter-terrorism policy sponsored by Richard Clarke. Therefore, Bush immeadiately began the implementation of a more aggressive policy towards terrorism, though Mr. Clarke testified that even had it been implemented on Day 1 of Bush's term, it wouldn't have prevented 9/11.

So what was Bush to do? He inherited a counter-terrorism "expert", accepted his recommendations, and had his suggestions put through the requisite bureaucratic commissions.

It turns out his counter-terrorism "expert" was an incompetent imbecile preoccupied with cyber-security. So I will fault Bush with keeping Clarke on board to begin with.