9/11 Mastermind Says George W. Bush Stunned Al Qaeda Through “Ferocity and Swiftness”

newsline.com ^ | 12/1/16 | Rommel Parane

[Ann Archy]

We ROUTED the TALIBAN from Afghanistan with like 200 HORSE SOLDIERS!!

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

I think I’m the only person in the country, save the Bush family themselves, to still like W. it saddened me to see him become so parochial this election, but he’s still a great man.

Great men don't disparage their own citizens to implment a Mexico-first immigration and economic policy.

[Tailback]

I saw it. I was 100% in favor because Iran would be surrounded. I thought the strategy was to go in, depose Saddam, regroup at the Iranian border, then overthrow the ayatollahs.

As soon as I saw us switch to nation building, I knew it was over and we lost.

[Yaelle]

Hey. I am not a fan of W but he is the best of the Bushes I think. And if this is true, that the Bush admin swift military response actually prevented more attacks, I am HAPPY to give him credit. Maybe thousands of people who have been living their lives all this time would have been murdered.

[Yaelle]

One can only imagine how much better America would have been in the aftermath of 9/11, had it leadership of the caliber Trump is already shaping up to possess.

---

Exactly.

[Yaelle]

If you’re a freeper and you like HW, you may be sadly uninformed of his evil deeds.

[SueRae]

I still do. I will never forget those first 2 years.

[max americana]

I came to America because OF Cheney, Rumsfeld and W.

[GJones2]

> Planning can take place anywhere in the world and can be done on the back of a paper towel with a sharpie.

I agree. Still I think it’s quite possible that the post-9-11 retaliation disrupted Al-Qaeda plans, those coming from the top. Actually it’s surprising how ineffective attacks in the United States have been since then, quite a drop-off from 2,996 dead. As you say, a handful of people making plans on the back of a paper towel could carry out most of the attacks that have taken place. The 9-11 attacks took training and coordination. Most lower level attacks don’t. The real danger, in my opinion, is nuclear terrorism, or something on that scale.

Independently of disrupting plans, though, I think it’s a good policy to make terrorists or those they support (and those who support them) pay a price for attacks against the United States. Al-Qaeda didn’t want the Taliban to be overthrown. We may not be able to protect ourselves, but we can let our enemies know that when they hurt us, we’ll hurt them, and we have more power than they do. If we go (through nuclear wars incited by nuclear terrorism), we’ll take everything they value with us (provided we don’t disarm ourselves so much that we can’t).

[bushsupporter30]

I was disappointed too about some of the things he did at the latter part of his presidency, but I still think he was the right man at the right time especially at 9/11. So you are not the only person to like W. Thats why I have not changed my handle.

[piasa]

No, we reacted on October 17th, 2001.

[piasa]

Iraq isn't much different: they fight among themselves, until someone invades. But, Al Queda wasn't hiding there. We should have just left them alone.

The founding leader of the organization known today as "ISIS," Zarqawi, was sitting in Baghdad with a bunch of his mostly Palestinian followers in 2002, a year before we invaded. At the time he had long commanded a smuggling route from Pakistan through Iran to Iraq and from Iraq to Syria and on to Italy. That he had not [yet] formally advertised that he was sworn to serve bin Laden was a technicality of little import since his terrorist organization had a long relationship with bin Laden even by that time and had already been involved in efforts to attack Americans in the Millennium plot of late 1999.

[piasa]

There was no way to prosecute a war against al Qaeda without also prosecuting a war against Iraq...and Iran and Syria, for that matter.

[piasa]

Um, no... you are confusing Richard Clark with Bush, and the bin Laden family with the Saudi Royal family.

Not that bin Laden’s family had anything to do with it either, as they had disowned him. The Saudis pulled his citizenship years before...and outlawed the affiliated terror group al Mujahiroun, a Saudi opposition group led by Egyptian “Captain Hook” later of the Finsbury Park Mosque, in 1986, because the group was trying to overthrow the Saudi government [and was also involved in the more recent London attacks, etc. Hook’s [Bakri’s] son was killed in... guess where?
Iraq.

[Ciaphas Cain]

Disagree. There was NO association between Al-Quaeda and Saddam Hussein. Their ideological differences in regard to Islam precluded such a thing. Iran? That's different. Unfortunately by destabilizing Iraq, Bush BRILLIANTLY opened the door for Iran to wield even more influence in that region than it ever thought possible.

But hey, Saddam tried to kill his daddy, so I guess that was worth the quagmire, the billions of dollars wasted and the thousands of lives lost in a war that never had a clear purpose or end goal...