And recall that Ken Williams of Phoenix had gone to the CIA in July with his FBI memo warning of Bin Laden using hijacker pilots to attack targets inside the US.
But Bush ordered the FBI in August 2001 to stop investigating Saudi's in the US who were helping AlQaeda and the hijacker pilots and Hamas. Some of these men were Bush campaign donars and business partners associated with Harken Energy and with Holy Land Foundation in Dallas.
If I werer to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, was Bush blinded by his associations with these Saudi men in August 2001? Is Bush still blinded by his associations with these men like Khalid Mafhouz and Prince Abdullah? If he is still blinded, someone had better get to Bush quick and wake him up.
If Bush was not blinded, then why did he block the FBI investigation? In a democracy, we the people have the right to demand that even the Presient himself explain and account for his own actions and not by way of spin meisters out of the White House ,the FBI or DOJ.
But Bush ordered the FBI in August 2001 to stop investigating Saudi's in the US who were helping AlQaeda and the hijacker pilots and Hamas. Some of these men were Bush campaign donars and business partners associated with Harken Energy and with Holy Land Foundation in Dallas.
What's the source for this information?
Please site specifics. Isn't this a pretty broad statement to make without supporting documentation?
But the real question is, when did our government know and why wasn't anything done? We had plenty of warnings something would happen, it was only a matter of time. The warnings Bush received were vague. Like others have pointed out, if Arabs, Muslims or other people from the ME were known to be planning attacks, Bush would have been vilified for racial profiling. Seems to be a lose-lose situation for his administration.
So quickly people forget. Especially when those people are democrats/liberals/psuedo-conservatives. Although some would like to believe Bush knew, all roads lead to the previous administration.
*The first World Trade Center bombing was on February 26, 1993, one month into the Clinton Administration. The terrorists - Egyptians and Palestinians -- blew a hole six stories deep beneath the North Tower intending to topple it onto the South Tower and kill 250,000 people. It was - in the words of the definitive account - "the most ambitious terrorist attack ever attempted, anywhere, ever." Clinton did nothing. He did not even visit the site. Worse, he allowed the attack to be categorized as a criminal act by individuals, even though its mastermind - as the administration soon discovered -- was an Iraqi intelligence agent named Ramzi Youssef.
*The second attack took place 10 months later in Mogadishu, Somalia. It was an attack on American military forces who were in country to bring food to the starving Somalis. In the battle, which has been memorialized in Black Hawk Down, eighteen American soldiers were killed and the body of one was dragged through the streets in a gesture designed to formally humiliate the world's greatest super power. Clinton's response? He turned tail and ran.
*In 1995, Ramzi Youssef was captured in the Philippines with plans to use commercial airliners to blow up CIA headquarters among other targets. This al-Qaeda plot was termed "Operation Bojinka," which means "the big bang."
*After the discovery of "Operation Bojinka," Al Gore was appointed to head a task force to tighten airport security. Its key recommendations, which would have prevented 9/11, were rejected by the White House on the grounds that they might be construed as "racial profiling."
*In 1996 the Khobar Towers - a barracks housing U.S. soldiers was blown up in Saudia Arabia by Iranian and Palestinian terrorists acting on behalf of al-Qaeda. Nineteen U.S. servicemen were killed but the Saudis refused to cooperate in tracking down the killers.The Clinton Administration did nothing.
*In 1998, the year of Lewinsky, al-Qaeda blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania- under any circumstances an act of war. Two-hundred-and-forty-five people were killed and 6,000 injured, mainly Africans. Clinton's response? The infamous strike on a medicine factory in the Sudan and a spray of missiles into an emptied terrorist camp in Khost.
*In October 2000, al-Qaeda attacked the U.S.S Cole, an American warship, killing 17 servicemen. Another act of war. The Clinton response? Nothing. Every year that these terrorist attacks were taking place, Democrat congressional leaders supported bills to cut U.S. intelligence funding and/or hamstring CIA operations, and/or prevent the tightening of immigration controls - all of which would have strengthened American defenses against an al-Qaeda attack.
*Meanwhile, the principle ally of Saddam Hussein, the architect of suicide bombing, the creator of the first terrorist training camps, and the apostle of terror as a redemptive social cause -- Yasser Arafat -- was a "partner in peace" and the most frequent guest at the Clinton White House among foreign heads of state.
*Despite the fact that Republicans had fought Democrats for eight years over the military and intelligence budgets, over immigration and security issues, despite the alliances that leftwing Democrats had made with America's enemies in the UN, despite the obstructionism of Senate Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy in opposing domestic security measures and efforts by the Justice Department to bring al-Qaeda to heel, Republicans refused to point a partisan finger on issues of war and peace. Now their self-restraint has come back to haunt them as the Democrats seek to shift the blame they have done so much to earn to the shoulders of their political opponents.
*The Democratic attack on George Bush is based on an intelligence analysis he received a month before 9/11, which indicated that al-Qaeda terrorists were planning to hijack planes. The described threats in this analysis came under the category "general" meaning they did not specify time, place or method, and they were uncorroborated. The reports the President received in the months prior to 9/11 described targets that were mainly overseas - in the Arabian Peninsula, Israel, Italy, Paris, Rome and Turkey. On the slim reed of the existence of a possible hijacking threat in the United States - included with all these others -- the Democrats have built their treacherous case.
You've made this point before -- do you have a reference or link? Not challenging -- just asking.
OK, I'll be the third person on this thread to ask where is your definative proof of this?
If you don't respond then my only logical conclusion is to beleive you have no real proof of this and are just buying into some lame conspiracy theory.
"WHERE'S THE BEEF" for this beef?! need supporting evidence for this possible OUTRAGE!!
Dear G_d Patrick...A Republic!
As much as I hate saying it you're part of the problem! You don't even know the form of government we are supposed to have! I say "supposed to have" because for all practical purposes you are correct. America is a democracy now.
Our Founders are turning over in their graves!