🚀 go-pugleaf

> >Well, I don't see any evidence that Bush knew that anything like
> >September 11th could occur. His intelligence briefings only mentioned
> >very generalized threats, and they were numerous. If there were
> >intelligence failures, then the fault likely came further back on the
> >line with individual agencies. In that respect, it might actually be
> >similar to FDR and Pearl Harbor in that the president wasn't
> >responsible.

> I don't generally include you in the "hopeless sycophant" list. You,
> unlike others in your camp, always put forth a well-reasoned arguments
> with cites ... and you generally avoid ad hominem attacks.

Thanks for the compliment, and for what it's worth, I've always
classified you in a similar way. It's always nice to know that not all
the people in here are like vonoroach or Ruben.

> Personally, I think the jury's still out on whether the Bush
> administration knew that "anything like September 11th could occur."
> 
> I think there were certainly enough clues going way back -- pre Bush
> II --  to indicate that some sort of big terrorist attack on U.S. soil
> was in the works. And from what I've read so far, there were some
> distinct warnings in the months leading up to September 2001 that
> something was in the offing.

It is true that there was evidence, the problem is, what reached the
president? Right now, it appears that Bush was only informed of a
general threat with little evidence as to the time, place, and means
of attack.

It's more likely that there were failures at individual intelligence
agencies, but even then I'm a bit skeptical of assigning blame. We
have numerous intelligence gathering agencies, none of which
communicate very well, all dealing with a massive amount of
information. You can centralize these agencies to make them more
effective, but then you run the risk of a "police state" under a
Hoover-esque leader.

But investigations focusing on our intelligence apparatus are still
needed to see how we can make them more effective. The truth is, this
has been long overdue, and more than cosmetic changes are required.
Senator Graham seems to have the right idea (from the Chronicle):

Some key members of Congress, including Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla.,
chairman of the Intelligence Committee, promised to keep the attention
on the CIA and the FBI. Graham said it was not the president's job to
gather and analyze intelligence, or "connect the dots."

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/topstory2/1416646

> I have no doubt that if Gore were in office rather than Bush, the
> Republicans would be using the "lack of warning" and "he knew"
> arguments to make political hay just as the Democrats are with Bush.
> There is enough blame to lay on all sides.

I agree that you could expect the same thing from certain GOP
partisans were Gore in office. Many Republicans have been trying to
blame Clinton for 9/11, which is completely wrong and stupid. Even if
one believes Clinton's policy towards Al Qaida was deficient, there is
absolutely no reason to believe that he was allowing them to operate
with impunity. He at least secured UN sanctions against the Taliban,
and convictions against Al Qaida terrorists were garnered during his
term of office.

> In either case, I think it does behoove us to take a look deeper into
> what really *was* going on across the spectrum. Who knew what, and
> when? What was done with the information, and what can we learn from
> that? What is the relation of Unocal, pipelines, Hamid Karzai, the
> Taliban and the Bush administration to all of this? I could care less
> if U.S. interests were working to secure pipeline rights across
> Afghanistan ... I just want "them" to be honest about it. And I don't
> want to hear the Bushies suggesting that inquiries into the facts are
> somehow "unpatriotic" -- that's simply bullshit.

Bush does have cause to worry that an investigation of September 11th
may turn into a partisan witch-hunt, especially after the impeachment
of Clinton exposed a far more partisan atmosphere in Washington. The
bill currently proposed in the Senate to investigate the attacks was
actually sponsored by Senators Lieberman and McCain, neither of which
are exactly friendly towards Bush.

I'd welcome an unbiased investigation, I just wonder whether or not
that's actually what we're heading towards. I hope the Senate follows
the advice of people like Senator Graham in this case, and tries to
pursue an invesitgation aimed at improving our intelligence agencies,
not scoring political points. Until then, I'm skeptical.