Kean: 8 years of mistakes led to 9/11 attacks

Star-Ledger (NJ) ^ | December 19, 2003 | BY ROBERT COHEN

[witnesstothefall]

WASHINGTON -- The litany of government missteps leading to the 9/11 suicide hijackings began with the response to the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the chairman of the national commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks said yesterday.

[Peach]

I think you have nailed exactly the leftist's tactics regarding making over the top remarks to inflame the voters, only to back down later.

Did you read about Dean's fund raiser where entertainers used the "n" word, called Condi Rice sexist, racist names and made fun of Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter? The article was called Dean's KKK rally as I recall and was posted on FR.

I've long held the view that the "party of tolerance" is actually the least tolerant party in the country.

Had a Republican's fund raiser included such racist, sexist, ugly remarks, there would be calls for resignation. Dean permitted the remarks to continue, on and on. It's quite a compilation of ugliness.

[joesbucks]

Al Queda attacked us over and over and over again while he dithered. When they attacked during Bush's first term after a bruising election and constitutional crisis, he did not even hesitate to go after the terrorists.

If it was known we dithered for 7 of those 8 years, then why during the 8th year we didn't take decisive action? We waited until they attacked and then went into a country that admittedly is in a sorry state and destabilizing to the region, yet not where the hornets nest (financially or training wise) was hatched.

And don't use the excuse there has been no further attacks on American Soil. What was the time frame from the first attack and the next terrorist attack in the US. Many years.

Either both administrations are complicit or neither of them are.

Reading this makes me feel like I'm reading the conservative version of DU.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

the girl threw her open milk in my daughters face and called her a "Nazi Bitch".

It's going to be a long year between friends.

Friends?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Al Queda attacked us over and over and over again while [x42] dithered. When they attacked during Bush's first term after a bruising election and constitutional crisis, he did not even hesitate to go after the terrorists.

Mark Steyn notes that "the era of big government is over" meant, not that government would do less but that it would a lot of little things. Another way of putting it is that the "big" thing that is "over" is the Democrats' big idea about government.

x42 and his minions and acolytes didn't "dither," they acted decisively to paper over the problem of al-Qaeda. And after the election of Bush the Democrats acted decisively to minimize President Bush's ability to accomplish what the x42 administration would not do.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

Glad Kean clarified his remarks. Previous threads on this the other day seemed to blame the Bush admin. for 9/11.

That was NewsMax reporting. They are so hysterical in their "facts", I simply can't stomach them any more. I find Debka a more reliable source.

[DAPFE8900]

Dude get your head out of the sand..Bush was in office less then 8 months due to the Clinton and Gore attempt to take the country...And remember the clintonazis did not go quitely they made the transition so hard that all of GWs things were not in order till almost march of 2001...So need to look no further then the CLintonazis. They let is slide and slide and when we finally got hit it was devastating...

[TomGuy]

Well, I am relieved to know the truth. I didn't realize, Clinton came up with the plan GWB used to go after Al Qaeda. Live and learn. I'll be darned. But, how does that square with Mattie Albright's admission that "we didn't go after Osama because we didn't have enough intelligence"?

Watching the Clinton machine is like watching the aggitator in some washing machines: swish toward the right, swish toward the left; then spin, spin, spin.

[blackdog]

Yes, friends. The way my daughter sees it is that the other six girls at the table got a good lesson on bad behavior. She figures that liberals showing themselves is the best sell for conservatives possible.

These are very talented college bound kids going to the best school within a hundred miles. They had all just gotten their ACT scores back. My daughter scored a 28. The Dean loving kid scored an 18, and thinks she's going to college on a volleyball scholarship. I think that may have been more central to the argument than Dean or Bush. But I think that is also a perfect background on why democrats behave the same way too. Their futures are based on nothing real or based, and in their control.

[mewzilla]

"We have no evidence that anybody high in the Clinton administration or the Bush administration did anything wrong."

And you're not looking for any, are you...?

[witnesstothefall]

why during the 8th year we didn't take decisive action? We waited until they attacked and then went into a country that admittedly is in a sorry state and destabilizing to the region, yet not where the hornets nest (financially or training wise) was hatched.

You're thinking is extremely cloudy, but I'll respond anyway.

Bush made it "decisively" clear in his campaign that he would give a muscular response to any rogue nations or terrorists that attacked us here or abroad. And that's just what he did.

9/11 was hatched in Afghanistan by al Queda who were protected by their hosts the Taliban. You might recall we invaded and defeated those enemies the month after 9/11, scattering the survivors. You might benefit in being reminded that we still have over 11,000 American troops on that front today.

Either both administrations are complicit or neither of them are.

That sounds like something Marx might say, frankly. Clinton had provocation after provocation to claim a mandate for launching a war, or even just some directed attacks, against terrorist centers. Politically speaking, Bush didn't have that mandate until 9/11.

If you think Bush could have launched a war pre-9/11 on the strength of Clinton's inaction of the previous 7 years, then let's just say I don't think you're too politically astute.

If that doesn't move you, here's Clinton's muscular response when al Queda blew up the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors:

Clinton tells golfers their fairness rebukes USS Cole killers

October 19, 2000

GAINESVILLE, Va. (AP) -- President Clinton told two dozen international golfers Wednesday that their profession gives a "gentle and gentlemanly" rebuke to people like those who killed 17 American sailors of the USS Cole.

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/19/clinton.golf.ap/

[cajungirl]

You are right,,it is going to be a long year between friends and relatives. I don't think we are going to believe the ugliness. It tires me already.

[zook]

"This all started with Carter and his weak response to letting muslim radicals take US Government officials hostage. Then there was the liberal's feel-good have-a-nice-day-people-are-the-same-everywhere movement that blinded most Americans to islamic infiltration."

That was the day this war began. We've been at war for over 20 years, but Bush is the first president to truly realize it.

[cajungirl]

What is so stunning to some freepers is that conservatives and liberals even amongst school children, can be friends and relatives. Many of us don't end friendships or renounce relatives because of their political stripes altho some here would like to see that. It pains me to hear freepers talk disparagingly about their whacko liberal sisters, etc, from whom they are estranged over politics. I think that is why we, down in Louisiana, don't talk politics at family gatherings,,so many shootings over dinner you know!

[joesbucks]

As Rush stated yesterday, there were both house and senate members who were totally up to speed on this. Where were those who are friendly to GWB and explaining the threat.

[Diogenesis]

[RobFromGa]

I'm proud of your daughter, sounds like she'll make a fine adult.

[RobFromGa]

The only choice most of us have is to not discuss these topics with liberal friends and relatives. You can't carry on a lgical conversation about these topics with a liberal, and nobody likes to get their lies and made-up "facts" destroyed.

But sometimes they won't shut up and if you think it's important to stand up for the important things in our world, you destroy a relationship. The alternative is to nod and let them destroy the relationship.

[liberallarry]

If you think Bush could have launched a war pre-9/11 on the strength of Clinton's inaction of the previous 7 years, then let's just say I don't think you're too politically astute

No American President could have launched a war pre-911. Clinton had a lot of options - but war was not one of them.

Even post-911 President Bush has trouble getting Americans - let alone the rest of the world - to support the agressive action he deems necessary, and has to continually rebut charges that he is motivated by concerns other than the security of the country.

[1Old Pro]

The problems is nobody took this threat too seriously. This attitude comes from the top: Bill Clintoon. Sheesh, what a loser legacy. He was impeached. He did nothing about terrorism which led to the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. He ruined the Democrat Party.

To think that Dems still like this guy is totally unfreepenbelievable

[KC Burke]

Either both administrations are complicit or neither of them are

Unfortuantly, that outcome is perfectly suitable to the leftist political machine and the media that supports it. They don't mind Clinton being blamed if Bush is blamed because Clinton is out of office and Bush is in and will bear the heat of the uninformed anger.

If we look at the memos detailing the Democrat strategy in the Senate Intelligence Committee and elsewhere, we see that the whole effort to "investigate" the executive branch in the name of "oversite" is formulated to proceed along a predetermined plan:

1. Appoint panels and committees with sweeping powers (a leftistist favorite as it takes some control away from true governmetn sworn investigators of all branches)
2. Ask for the moon, knowing you will be refused under equal branch issues.
Foster a media based campaign that the refusal may or must hide minor or major facts.
3. Wear down the executive until anything is released, no matter how banal.
4. Take what is released, leaks by leftist fuctionaries and media fabrications of lies and build the media BOMBSHELL of false outrage used to election year advantage.

This is so obviously what we will see in the next six months as to make it almost anticlimatic.

Every assertion must be investigated and torn apart by sites like this if we want to prevent the theft of the next election by this distortion.

It isn't important the to some degree Clinton knew or Bush knew, because neither knew enough. What is important is that the electorate at-large knew and their elected funtionaries knew, and we knew enough to demand action, but we didn't.