America is crumbling while it wastes trillions on wars.

[Mac-7]

[Q

I disagree for the reason that you stated:

Bin laden and the terrorists were based in afghanistan

Yes and we had him in the winter of 2001 but Bush didn't pursue him aggressively enough. Then he took the eye off the prize by putting the great majority of the military resources into invading Iraq, that had nothing to do with 911.

If we had managed post 911 right we would have relentlessly hunted down and killed Bin Laden in the months after 911. We had the whole civilized world on our side and it would have been a great swift victory.

However, Bush and the Neocons waylaid that righteous agenda to remove Saddam from power and that was the wrong thing to do.

You have bush confused with bill clinton who the drop on bin laden before 911 but refused to authorize a strike

 

[Flash]

[Q

I disagree for the reason that you stated:

Bin laden and the terrorists were based in afghanistan

Yes and we had him in the winter of 2001 but Bush didn't pursue him aggressively enough. Then he took the eye off the prize by putting the great majority of the military resources into invading Iraq, that had nothing to do with 911.

If we had managed post 911 right we would have relentlessly hunted down and killed Bin Laden in the months after 911. We had the whole civilized world on our side and it would have been a great swift victory.

However, Bush and the Neocons waylaid that righteous agenda to remove Saddam from power and that was the wrong thing to do.

You have bush confused with bill clinton who the drop on bin laden before 911 but refused to authorize a strike

You are correct in that Slick Willy let Obama go. However, the US forces had him holed up at Tora Bora and we let him escape.

The end is result is the same. The difference is that Slick Willy did it out of weakness and Bush did it out of stupidity.

 

[Mac-7]

[Q

I disagree for the reason that you stated:

Bin laden and the terrorists were based in afghanistan

Yes and we had him in the winter of 2001 but Bush didn't pursue him aggressively enough. Then he took the eye off the prize by putting the great majority of the military resources into invading Iraq, that had nothing to do with 911.

If we had managed post 911 right we would have relentlessly hunted down and killed Bin Laden in the months after 911. We had the whole civilized world on our side and it would have been a great swift victory.

However, Bush and the Neocons waylaid that righteous agenda to remove Saddam from power and that was the wrong thing to do.

You have bush confused with bill clinton who the drop on bin laden before 911 but refused to authorize a strike

You are correct in that Slick Willy let Obama go. However, the US forces had him holed up at Tora Bora and we let him escape.

The end is result is the same. The difference is that Slick Willy did it out of weakness and Bush did it out of stupidity.

The Tora Bora incident was a failed mission by US commanders on the ground who relied on friendly afghan fighters to close the back door

 

[Rigby5]

[Q

I disagree for the reason that you stated:

Bin laden and the terrorists were based in afghanistan

Yes and we had him in the winter of 2001 but Bush didn't pursue him aggressively enough. Then he took the eye off the prize by putting the great majority of the military resources into invading Iraq, that had nothing to do with 911.

If we had managed post 911 right we would have relentlessly hunted down and killed Bin Laden in the months after 911. We had the whole civilized world on our side and it would have been a great swift victory.

However, Bush and the Neocons waylaid that righteous agenda to remove Saddam from power and that was the wrong thing to do.

You have bush confused with bill clinton who the drop on bin laden before 911 but refused to authorize a strike

The reason Clinton did not strike on bin Laden was because it was right at the end of his term, so he deferred.
He had ensured Bush was adequately informed and warned.

{...
President Bush on Saturday, 10 April 2004, became the first sitting president ever to release publicly even a portion of his Daily Brief from the CIA. The page-and-a-half section of the President's Daily Brief from 6 August 2001, headlined "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," had generated the most contentious questioning in last week's testimony by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice before the commission investigating the September 11th attacks. Dr. Rice continued to insist that the Brief did not amount to a real warning, while several commissioners seemed to think otherwise.

These contrasting interpretations dominated the weekend's news. For example, President Bush commented on Sunday that the "PDB said nothing about an attack on America. It talked about intentions, about somebody who hated America - well, we knew that. … The question was, who was going to attack us, when and where, and with what." (Note A1) Meanwhile, the Sunday news analysis in The New York Times began with the following summary: "In a single 17-sentence document, the intelligence briefing delivered to President Bush in August 2001 spells out the who, hints at the what and points towards the where of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington that followed 36 days later." (Note A2)

The American people can decide for themselves about the warning quotient, now that the text of the Brief is public. Even with the text, we don't really know what the President knew and when he knew it. According to the CIA and the 9/11 commission, there were 40 other mentions of Al Qaeda or Bin Laden in the President's Daily Briefs before 9/11. Most of those presumably came during what Dr. Rice called "the threat spike" of June and July 2001. The August 6 Brief came on the downside of that spike, so the other PDB reports may be more (or less) alarming. Until these are released - and Saturday's release shows it can be done with minor deletions to protect sources - neither the American public nor the 9/11 commission can move on to the next question: "What did the President do and when did he do it?" Or, perhaps most important, how do we fix our vulnerabilities, rather than just hide them?

But the release of the Brief raises a number of questions not addressed so far in the press coverage. One is the contrast between the now-released text and what various White House officials said about it over the past two years. A second revolves around renewed claims by the White House and the CIA that this release sets no precedent for release of similar or future information. A third points to the larger question of whether the sustained secrecy around this Brief really made our country more secure, or less so. For the moment, this updated posting includes the following:
...}
The President's Daily Brief

 

[Rigby5]

[Q

I disagree for the reason that you stated:

Bin laden and the terrorists were based in afghanistan

Yes and we had him in the winter of 2001 but Bush didn't pursue him aggressively enough. Then he took the eye off the prize by putting the great majority of the military resources into invading Iraq, that had nothing to do with 911.

If we had managed post 911 right we would have relentlessly hunted down and killed Bin Laden in the months after 911. We had the whole civilized world on our side and it would have been a great swift victory.

However, Bush and the Neocons waylaid that righteous agenda to remove Saddam from power and that was the wrong thing to do.

You have bush confused with bill clinton who the drop on bin laden before 911 but refused to authorize a strike

You are correct in that Slick Willy let Obama go. However, the US forces had him holed up at Tora Bora and we let him escape.

The end is result is the same. The difference is that Slick Willy did it out of weakness and Bush did it out of stupidity.

The Tora Bora incident was a failed mission by US commanders on the ground who relied on friendly afghan fighters to close the back door

Wrong.
The problem with Tora Bora is that the US first concentrated on taking Kabul, for years, letting everyone escape Tora Bora. There was no one there by the time the US decided to target it.

 

[Rigby5]

[Q

I disagree for the reason that you stated:

Bin laden and the terrorists were based in afghanistan

Yes and we had him in the winter of 2001 but Bush didn't pursue him aggressively enough. Then he took the eye off the prize by putting the great majority of the military resources into invading Iraq, that had nothing to do with 911.

If we had managed post 911 right we would have relentlessly hunted down and killed Bin Laden in the months after 911. We had the whole civilized world on our side and it would have been a great swift victory.

However, Bush and the Neocons waylaid that righteous agenda to remove Saddam from power and that was the wrong thing to do.

You have bush confused with bill clinton who the drop on bin laden before 911 but refused to authorize a strike

You are correct in that Slick Willy let Obama go. However, the US forces had him holed up at Tora Bora and we let him escape.

The end is result is the same. The difference is that Slick Willy did it out of weakness and Bush did it out of stupidity.

No, bin Laden was never at Tora Bora, and it was always a fake diversion.
Clinton could not legally attack bin Laden.
Bush could.

 

[Flash]

[Q


No, bin Laden was never at Tora Bora, .

You may be confused.

How Osama bin Laden Escaped

How Osama bin Laden Escaped

In December, 2001, a small group of U.S. special operations forces had al Qaeda's main man cornered in Tora Bora. Days later, he crossed the border into Pakistan unnoticed. Here is the story of the White House policy that let him get away.

 

[Mac-7]

[Q

I disagree for the reason that you stated:

Bin laden and the terrorists were based in afghanistan

Yes and we had him in the winter of 2001 but Bush didn't pursue him aggressively enough. Then he took the eye off the prize by putting the great majority of the military resources into invading Iraq, that had nothing to do with 911.

If we had managed post 911 right we would have relentlessly hunted down and killed Bin Laden in the months after 911. We had the whole civilized world on our side and it would have been a great swift victory.

However, Bush and the Neocons waylaid that righteous agenda to remove Saddam from power and that was the wrong thing to do.

You have bush confused with bill clinton who the drop on bin laden before 911 but refused to authorize a strike

The reason Clinton did not strike on bin Laden was because it was right at the end of his term, so he deferred.
He had ensured Bush was adequately informed and warned.

{...
President Bush on Saturday, 10 April 2004, became the first sitting president ever to release publicly even a portion of his Daily Brief from the CIA. The page-and-a-half section of the President's Daily Brief from 6 August 2001, headlined "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," had generated the most contentious questioning in last week's testimony by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice before the commission investigating the September 11th attacks. Dr. Rice continued to insist that the Brief did not amount to a real warning, while several commissioners seemed to think otherwise.

These contrasting interpretations dominated the weekend's news. For example, President Bush commented on Sunday that the "PDB said nothing about an attack on America. It talked about intentions, about somebody who hated America - well, we knew that. … The question was, who was going to attack us, when and where, and with what." (Note A1) Meanwhile, the Sunday news analysis in The New York Times began with the following summary: "In a single 17-sentence document, the intelligence briefing delivered to President Bush in August 2001 spells out the who, hints at the what and points towards the where of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington that followed 36 days later." (Note A2)

The American people can decide for themselves about the warning quotient, now that the text of the Brief is public. Even with the text, we don't really know what the President knew and when he knew it. According to the CIA and the 9/11 commission, there were 40 other mentions of Al Qaeda or Bin Laden in the President's Daily Briefs before 9/11. Most of those presumably came during what Dr. Rice called "the threat spike" of June and July 2001. The August 6 Brief came on the downside of that spike, so the other PDB reports may be more (or less) alarming. Until these are released - and Saturday's release shows it can be done with minor deletions to protect sources - neither the American public nor the 9/11 commission can move on to the next question: "What did the President do and when did he do it?" Or, perhaps most important, how do we fix our vulnerabilities, rather than just hide them?

But the release of the Brief raises a number of questions not addressed so far in the press coverage. One is the contrast between the now-released text and what various White House officials said about it over the past two years. A second revolves around renewed claims by the White House and the CIA that this release sets no precedent for release of similar or future information. A third points to the larger question of whether the sustained secrecy around this Brief really made our country more secure, or less so. For the moment, this updated posting includes the following:
...}
The President's Daily Brief

Thats bullshit

or maybe just wishful thinking on your part

the excuse clinton gave was that bin laden had not broken any US law

 

[whitehall]

The (democrat) House Speaker's district is in chaos with shit and dirty needles littering the sidewalks but she seems unconcerned. The President is trying to make "America great again" and democrats assault anyone who agrees with him. Trump just negotiated a fragile cease fire in Afghanistan and democrats want to impeach him again while they support a socialist. What's wrong with America? Figure it out.