How Bush Could Have Prevented the 9/11 Attacks

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by jimnyc, Apr 12, 2004.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    A handful of Sept. 11 widows are outraged that President Bush didn't act on the Aug. 6, 2001, briefing he got from the CIA.

    "Everything is in [the President's Daily Brief, or PDB] but the date 9/11," complained Lori Van Auken, whose husband died in the Twin Towers, in comments to the New York Daily News. "You have the who, what, where, why and how. The only thing you don't have is the when."

    Actually, as far as the "who" goes, none of the hijackers' names appear in the Bush CIA briefing memo.

    And the "what"? Nowhere does the memo warn that hijackers would use airplanes as kamikaze missiles.

    "Where"? The memo mentions "federal buildings in New York." But Bush could have closed every one of them and the World Trade Center, which is not a federal building, would have still been packed with 50,000 workers on the morning of 9/11.

    How about the "why" cited by Mrs. Van Auken? The CIA briefing says that "after US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington." But those attacks were launched by President Clinton, not Bush.

    And the "how"? The memo makes no mention of hijackers overtaking U.S. flight crews with small knives.

    Of course, if President Bush had treated the Aug. 6 PDB as actionable intelligence, there are indeed several measures he could have taken that would have guaranteed that a Sept. 11-style attack on America would never have happened.

    * Because the CIA memo mentions only Osama bin Laden by name, Bush would have had to round up any and all of bin Laden's potential followers inside the U.S., i.e., every Muslim in America, and throw them into internment camps - just as FDR did with Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor.

    * Since reporters have been able to sneak any number of weapons past airport screeners even with post-9/11 security measures in place, President Bush would have had to close all of America's airports to completely eliminate the possibility of hijackings.

    * In order to protect against another Millennium Plot bombing attack - which the memo explicitly refers to - Bush would have had to order that all shopping malls, schools, museums, movie theaters, train stations, large office buildings and other potential high-value targets be closed till further notice.

    * Because Millennium Plot potential bomber Ahmed Ressam tried to sneak across the Canadian border, Bush would have had to seal both the Canadian and Mexican borders until the war on terrorism was won.

    * In order to assure the elimination of the bin Laden threat, Bush would have had to launch a pre-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan. If the master terrorist ran to Pakistan, the U.S. would have needed to invade that country as well.

    Had Bush taken the above steps, the economy would have been in shambles, the airline industry destroyed, most of the nation unemployed, the U.S. at war, and 6 million Muslims - nearly all of them innocent - would be behind bars.

    But the Sept. 11 attacks would have been prevented - at least for the few months that it would have taken for the Congress to impeach and remove President Bush from office for massive abuses of power.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/11/151412.shtml
     
  2. JIHADTHIS
    Offline

    JIHADTHIS Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,055
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Mowing a grassy knoll....
    Ratings:
    +22
    Hindsight is 20/20...........

    Great points Jim. It's sad how they show Ben-Veniste on TV and say he's part of an "independent" inquiry. What a crock of shit. Too bad they can't take their own advice and "moveon".
     
  3. krisy
    Offline

    krisy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Thanks Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +112
    Great points jim. I don't if this Lori Van Auken is the same woman I have been seeing on all the news shows,but if it is,she is out for Bush. She has a definite agenda. I'm sorry for her loss,but she rarely mentions anything about what Clinton could have done. I saw one of these widows(possibly her) on Deborah Norville a few weeks ago and she was hollaring about Bush reading a book to school children while 9-11 was happening. She acted as if he purposely planted himself in that school and knew it was going to happen.When asked about Clinton,the response from a lot of these widows immediately turns into-"we aren't trying to place blame". It's ridiculous. On top of that,we all know Condi Rice said there was nothing specific in that briefing as you have pointed out. I don't think this stuff is flushing with the American people the way those idiots in the 9-11 commossion wanted it too. It was far too partisan . I said it before,they made complete fools of themselves! I don't know that I believe Clinton was at fault for 9-11. I think the intelligence wasn't there. But, it is a fact that he did not react to other terrorists attacks strongly enough. The 9-11 commission,IMO,is a joke.
     
  4. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    I love the bias that these few widows get a voice but the thousands of other people that had family and friends die in the WTC or the Pentagon and approve of the War on terror arent being filmed on TV and asked what they think. Such BS when the voices of the few claim to speak for the voices of the many.
     
  5. _dmp_
    Offline

    _dmp_ Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    854
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +7

    which would have resulted in something like this:

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5155
     
  6. preemptingyou03
    Offline

    preemptingyou03 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    369
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +4
    DMP, your "alternate history" post was right on.
     
  7. krisy
    Offline

    krisy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Thanks Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +112

    They are getting a voice because they have an agenda. Dragging all these politics into 9-11 is going to make people forget that we are one and can stand united as a country. I have seen a couple Bush supporters talking about 9-11. One on Joe Scarborough(sp?!) of course. The other guy was on Chris loudmouth Mathews and he grilled him about his support for Bush. I really don't see how ATTEMPTING to make Condi look stupis will solve anything. We all know that Bush is the man to fight terror in this country,the only one with the guts to stand up to these people.
     

Share This Page