Back when Rudy Guiliani said there were no attacks on Bush's watch I said it wasn't a mistake. I said it was an attempt to push 9/11 back onto Clinton's watch. After all, if there were no attacks during Bush's watch, that big attack called 9/11 that happened sometime around the turn of the century. The voters are getting younger and younger and yes, the day will come when a large proportion of voters don't know the exact year 9/11 happened. But when they're watching Fox News, or sadly even the so called "liberal media" and somebody says there were no attacks on Bush's watch what are they to think? But it's not only the "no attacks on Bush's watch" that are attempts to push 9/11 back onto Clinton's watch. "Bush kept us safe" also implies that the largest terrorist attack in the history of the United States didn't happen on his watch. And as for "only one attack under Bush" statement, voters who don't remember 9/11, and don't remember the exact year, when they hear "only one attack" and they've been hearing over and over and over again that Bush kept us safe, they're going to assume that it was some small rinky dink attack. They're certainly not going to think "that must have been 9/11"
Oh please -people have been saying it was due to Bush's efforts we weren't attacked AGAIN after 9/11. And people with normal brains know it isn't an attack that was the fault of Bush when he had been President for less than 9 months at the time. No one personally blamed Clinton either for the World Trade Center bombing that occurred on HIS watch either -one that he went out of his way to portray as having been an isolated attack carried out by a couple of whackos, one in which he deliberately delayed the release of intelligence findings that it was not only an Al Qaeda attack -but one that had most likely been sponsored by...wait for it.........IRAQ! How many today STILL don't know that Iraq under Saddam Hussein most likely sponsored the WTC bombing? And they don't because that is uncomfortable information for the left to deal with so they would rather it just be ignored and buried -and if necessary, history re-written. After all, look how many liberals still keep up that LYING ASS BULLSHIT that the US not only put Saddam in power (when in fact the US put in place an immediate unilateral embargo against him after he slaughtered more than 700 Iraqis on the grounds they were all CIA spies) but ARMED him with chemical weapons in violation of the UN treaty the US both initiated and signed! Yeah, lowering our guard for the matter of WEEKS an attempt was made to test a possible relationship with the guy during the Iran-Iraq war because as bad as this guy was, we knew Iran was even worse -amounted to claims Rumsfeld smuggled in chemical weapons in a briefcase! In spite of the fact UN inspectors know exactly where he got them and with whose help -which was never ours but certainly was with the help of France and Russia! But hey when the truth doesn't work for the left -and it usually doesn't -they just create and repeat lies about it to this day and no amount of FACTS will make them stop. And THESE are the people in control of our children's textbooks moron! (And so much for that total bullshit there was no way Saddam Hussein would have worked with Al Qaeda when in fact he was known to have done so on several occasions.)
But if you really feel this burning desire to insist 9/11 was the personal fault of a President, do you REALLY want to go there? How does Bush bear responsibility for an attack that was planned 3 years before he was elected and was already in operational mode before he was sworn in? Who was President when it was still in the planning stages and the most easily intercepted? Who was President when the US just kept looking the other way to the fact the Taliban had given Al Qaeda safe haven to plot, plan and train for its war against the US? Who did nothing more effective to stop them than lob a few cruise missiles up the ass of a camel and into empty tents? All the hijackers were already in this country -legally -even before Bush was elected. While CLINTON was President. Its only fate the attack date had already been set -regardless of who was going to be President. The first hijackers entered this country in Jan. 2000. The rest were all here -legally -by early summer 2000. How is it Bush's fault when by the time they had entered this country even before the election took place, they were no further communications made about this that could even have been intercepted, much less provide actionable intelligence that revealed any details of this plot? Chatter had increased even before Bush won the election - but it was blind chatter -meaning the people chattering only knew something was up but no idea what it was.
And please do NOT drag out that STUPID LYING ASS bullshit about Bush receiving a report titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US" as if that is proof of a damn thing. That is one of the most vicious smears and deliberate intent to use this man's efforts to get in front of a terrorist organization that had UNDER CLINTON attacked US interests around the world EIGHT TIMES with nothing but a limp-wristed response from Clinton. This is a report Bush specifically requested on the background of this organization -his daily briefings were about CURRENT stuff and for the current stuff, there was a total absence of any knowledge of anything. We have something like 32 different federal and military intelligence agencies and not one penetrated ANY detail of this plot.
First of all that was a background report HE asked for -if he hadn't asked for a historical background on on them, he would never have gotten it at all. The title was restating the OBVIOUS because anyone aware of this group knew good and well Bin Laden had publicly insisted we were vulnerable enough to be attacked on our own soil and so weak that we would give up a lengthy fight because we are basically a weak and immoral people incapable of taking on the burden of a sustained war. The fact deceitful lying assholes think that title somehow told Bush something he just never knew before and was something that provided actionable intelligence -is FAR FAR FAR worse than Guliani saying no FURTHER attacks occurred on Bush's watch instead of leaving the impression no attacks happened at all. And believe me only liberals love to re-write history in order to manipulate and brain wash children so I have no doubt some ******* asshole will try to produce a zillion text books claiming Bush ignored this report and because he did, he LET 9/11 happen. And since the left made an all out effort years ago to grab control of the government run education process in order to turn it into an indoctrination process instead we all know THAT is a far more likely scenario that your whiny ass phony complaint.
There was no new intelligence in that background report, it was intended to give Bush more background info on Al Qaeda, not try to get him to DO something. The intelligence on current activities were given to him every single day in his daily briefings -unlike Clinton who didn't even meet with the director of the CIA for more than 2 years, Bush met with him EVERY SINGLE DAY. It didn't matter at that point -it was too late because the plan had already moved into its operational stages and only LUCK would have changed the outcome. Clinton gutted the CIA, couldn't be bothered to meet with the DCIA at all -but sure, this was something Bush could have stopped. LOL
That report by the way is or was available online in its entirety -I read every word of it and if you can find the part that should have told Bush there was an ongoing plan to crash planes into buildings -you find it. The report discussed some of the possible things Al Qaeda might consider, none of which were backed up by intelligence but just people trying to figure out what Al Qaeda might find appealing to try next. The only mention of hijackings was in relation to maybe they would hijack a planeload of people and hold them as a bargaining chip and demand the release of the blind sheik. Not exactly on the same scale as reality, is it? If you think Bush -but not a single one of our intelligence agencies -actually had enough information to prevent this attack, find it and then lets discuss what you think he should have done? Shut down all airline flights? When should he have done that -and for how long since simply shutting them down still doesn't stop the attack once they are started again. There was never at any time any actionable intelligence on this attack and the blame for that largely lies with both Congress under Clinton and Clinton himself, both of which deliberately gut our intelligence capabilities and forced it to change from relying more on human intelligence to "spy gadgets" which are a poor substitute. As we all found out first hand.
But under Clinton Al Qaeda attacked US interests on average every 16-18 months Clinton was in office. And there was NEVER an effective response to any of them in spite of the fact they were clearly escalating in their plots and lethality. The fact Clinton failed to do anything substantial in response to the nonstop attacks on US interests by Al Qaeda is THE reason Bin Laden specifically said we could be hit right here on our own soil. And he predicted we would again respond to even that with another limp-wristed and ineffective response as well. Had Clinton or Gore been in office -I think he would have been correct. Clinton FEARED the possibility of having to face up to an attack carried out by a foreign interest or country like Iraq -which is why he immediately treated the WTC bombing like it was a low level crime, never bothered to visit the site, downplayed the attack and the intelligence that this had been an attack carried out by Al Qaeda operatives sponsored by Iraq was not made public until after Clinton left office. A report by the way that was largely ignored by our Clinton loving media.
I could write an entire post on why the next step in the war had to be against Saddam Hussein -THE second largest sponsor of terrorism in the world and why our efforts were going to be doomed as long as he remained in power. And write another one on the evidence that at the very minimum Saddam Hussein was aware of 9/11 well in advance of the attack -so much so he believed he would be tied to it -which is why he went into hiding a few weeks before the attack in spite of the fact there was nothing going on ANYWHERE to explain that decision - and didn't emerge until he crawled out of that hole in the dirt and surrendered to US troops. The only other time in his 35 years of killing an average of 75-125 Iraqis per day regime he went into hiding was on the eve of the Gulf War with the US led forces.
Everyone knows good and well when 9/11 happened, no text books will be changed to alter that date in case you are just BESIDE yourself fretting about your own STUPIDITY. But certainly it has been mentioned more than once that after that attack Al Qaeda was never able to carry out another attack on US interests during Bush's term. They were at that point fighting the people we WANT them to face -not civilians, not unarmed men, women and children -but the best trained, best armed and most likely to survive a confrontation with Al Qaeda. Naturally they would prefer to return to killing the unarmed since the odds work out better for them -and the insistence we surrender the war will guarantee once again the people who will be confronted by terrorists are those least likely to survive it. For some strange reason, the left actually prefers that.
We are at risk that our history will be re-written because there is a concerted effort to that already and they are having some real success with it. But it is the left doing it and the LEFT controls our educational system. So if anything it is actually far more likely the finished version will have Bush being given a dire report stating every detail of 9/11 that urged him to immediately shut down our airlines in order to give them time to pick up the would-be attackers who were all known by name, where they lived and what they were all up to -and Bush just picked his nose while reading it then tossed it in the huge "not interested" stack on his desk and went looking for another bag of fried pork rinds instead -rather than the bullshit you are worried about just WRINGING your hands that those evil conservatives will actually alter dates or even teach children that someone else entirely was actually President on 9/11. Get a real life already.
