I Say Bush Welcomed The 9/11 Attacks - Agree?

[Yallow]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by pintobean (a host of the General Discussion forum).

There is no other explanation. Bush ignored all those warnings and left our country wide open for attack, knowing how much power he would amass if our homeland was attacked. Just look at how much easier the 9\11 attack made it for him to carry out his PNAC plans.

I am not a conspiracy nut. Every single piece of evidence supports this fact.

Bush left us open for attack for a reason.

Anyone with half a brain, and understanding of how the world works would have to agree America was undefended on purpose.

I repeat. Every single piece of evidence supports this FACT.

Jebbie, get lost.

I repeat. Every single piece of evidence supports this FACT.
I repeat. Every single piece of evidence supports this FACT.
I repeat. Every single piece of evidence supports this FACT.

[KansDem]

1. He was expecting them...

He was just told the US was under attack. And he does nothing.

Release the 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission report he had censored and we'll see. Until then, Jebbie can STFU!

[Trailrider1951]

116. Just watch his reaction to this question:

That, my friends, is the reaction of a guilty man.

[hollysmom]

2. in my office, a young man got a call from his sister

saying good bye from tower 2. You could not see that and forget. And I know who is to blame.

[Worried senior]

12. Seeing that young

man get that call had to be one of the worst things in the world.

[hollysmom]

15. I had to walk away, I was a basket case and it was happening to him. I could not help him.

It took months before he could return to work. She called their parents but got an answering machine, so he was her only link.
ETA - I did not know him well, there were people who knew him well around him. I felt like an intruder on an intimate moment.

[Worried senior]

19. I'm sure it was hell

Even not knowing him well and feeling like you intruded in his grief I can imagine it took forever to feel you could hear about the day and not feel the emotions all over again.

[elleng]

3. PNAC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Signatories to Statement of Principles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Signatories_to_Statement_of_Principles = darth + jeb

[Live and Learn]

37. +1 Never forget! nt

[hifiguy]

97. When the question is "Who is behind something horrible?"

PNAC is always a top suspect. Every time.

[elleng]

101. That gang was and continues to be a bunch of bad actors,

the ones with brains the baddest, the ones without, dumbest, and we've been their victims for a long time.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

111. List of PNAC members

http://www.reasoned.org/e_PNAC2.htm

Check out how many names on that list who were lamenting about "a new Pearl Harbor" who, as a result of a the 2000 stolen election, ended up in key positions leading up to 9/11.

[mainstreetonce]

4. I think he was expecting an attack.

He thought it would be on a lesser scale.

You can see it in his eyes as he read about the goat.

[Siwsan]

6. That is what I have long suspected

When I heard that he had blown off that 'Presidential Daily Briefing' that warned of something similar happening, this was the logical conclusion.

[PADemD]

17. It was just a coincidence he was out of town that day.

[arcane1]

58. He was out of town the entire MONTH:

Six months after taking office, President Bush will begin a month-long vacation Saturday that is significantly longer than the average American's annual getaway. If Bush returns as scheduled on Labor Day, he'll tie the modern record for presidential absence from the White House, held by Richard Nixon at 30 days. Ronald Reagan took trips as long as 28 days.

White House officials point out that the president is never off the clock. They refer to the 30 days at his Texas ranch — now it's called the Western White House — as a working vacation. He'll receive daily national security updates and handle the duties of the Oval Office from his 1,583-acre spread near Crawford.

But some Republican loyalists worry about critics who say Bush lets Vice President Cheney and other top officials do most of the work. They're also concerned about the reaction of the average American, who gets 13 vacation days each year.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/august01/2001-08-03-bush-vacation.htm

[hedgehog]

22. I've always thought this - theyexpected an attack,

just not something this big. Does anyone else recall how Bush went into hiding and was flown all over the country? Cheney was running things from his bunker.It's too bad we'll never hear the details of what Bush and Cheney were actually doing that day.

[annabanana]

24. exactly . . .n/t

[elehhhhna]

60. I'm not sure Bush knew much. Someone did. Cheney. Rummy.

I think gwb is somewhat dim and didn't "need to know".

[Maedhros]

67. Cheney was commanding military exercises with the Air Force in New England.[n/t]

[truebluegreen]

86. I remember that very well.

I also remember that the first thing he did when he finally surfaced was assure us that he was OK.
.
.
.
.
.
.
As if anybody gave a shit about that.

[KamaAina]

53. Yup. I describe my position as "LIHOP Lite".

They could not have imagined the scale of the attack any more than the rest of us.

[Chemisse]

5. His administration certainly benefited greatly.

They had a free pass to attack any country they wanted.

I don't think Bush was shrewd enough to plan this, or even to allow this to happen. I think we all know someone who is both shrewd and incredibly evil, and therefore capable of any atrocity one could imagine, including refraining from protecting the US from an attack.

But most real conspiracies fold under the weight of the need for secrecy. The people involved tell someone, even if just their spouses, and eventually it gets out. So I disbelieve nearly all conspiracy theories.

[global1]

9. He Had People Around Him That Were Shrewd Enough To Plan This Or Allow It To Happen....

Maybe the look on his face was the realization that he was had by them. Still he was the President and the buck stops there. He didn't keep us safe and that started the whole ball rolling to present us with what we are stuck with dealing with today.

Even though they say Jeb is the 'presumptive nominee' - we can't afford another Bush in the White House. Look at the people who Jeb has now surrounded himself with.

We can't as a country make the same mistake again.

[Chemisse]

30. It's ludicrous that he could still be considered the 'presumptive nominee' when he is in 6th place.

It just makes it so clear that the GOP picks a candidate and then pushes the voters to line up. Clearly it's not working this time around.

[tblue37]

41. Rubio is more likely. nt

[global1]

66. It Ain't Over Till It's Over....

Jeb has a lot of money in his coffers and well before this whole primary season got started they told us Jeb & Hillary are the 'presumptive nominees'. The powers that be want another Bush vs Clinton race. They feel they win either way. The way it's looking now they have to this point played Bernie down and talk up Hillary any chance they get.

Trump looks like just a foil to keep most of the clown car off the grid - kind of running interference - but he has been keeping Jeb's name in the forefront.

I will feel really manipulated if we wind up with a Bush vs Clinton match. Why do we go through these primaries and debates if they have a preordained outcome?

[Chemisse]

90. That's one of the reasons I least want Bush to win this.

Can't we at least pretend we have a democracy? (Although the two parties are not bound by primary votes, and could really just pick anyone they wanted).

[treestar]

64. I agree. It did just happen

and the Administration may have been negligent not to find out about it (the visas so easily granted to people who were known to have some terrorist ties) things like that.

But once it happened, Bush and Co. strenuously used it to get what they wanted.

[craigmatic]

7. can't start a war of choice without motivating the people first and 9/11 definately did that.

[Ernesto]

14. “some catastrophic and catalysing event

- like a new Pearl Harbor”

PNAC"s dream came true!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

[OnyxCollie]

21. Regarding that quote,

you're missing what the "catastrophic and catalyzing event" is the catalyst for, i.e. an increase in military defense spending.

Addressing the necessity of an informed populace to prevent war, Miller proclaims that “Ignorance of the desires, aims, and characteristics of other peoples leads to fear and is consequently one of the primary causes of aggression.”44 Waltz also acknowledges that war can be the result of a failure to properly educate the mass public, “Their instincts are good, though their present gullibility may prompt them to follow false leaders.”45

Schumpeter asserts that capitalist societies oppose imperialism, and argues that “It must be cloaked in every sort of rationalization”40 in order to avoid the disdain society has for imperialism. From Schumpeter’s research a theory was derived that society’s impression of the motives for imperialism had descended from a ruthless time in history when “kill or be killed” was necessary for survival.41 Schumpeter notes that these beliefs are fostered by the ruling class, which they find serves their needs.42 Thus the elite class crafts a mythos of primal savagery and disseminates it to the other classes to encourage support for its agenda.43

-According to Gramsci, this ideology becomes the base from which politics and economics arise.47 The state becomes the educator, a hegemonic force which constructs the views, ideals, and beliefs of the society it governs.48 “The State is the entire complex of practical and theoretical activities with which the ruling class not only justifies and maintains its dominance, but manages to win the active consent of those over whom it rules.”49 The state professes an ideology that convinces the proletariat that it is operating in the interest of all.50 51 Quoting Bodin, Waltz suggests:

{T}he best way of preserving a state, and guaranteeing it against sedition, rebellion, and civil war is to keep the subjects in amity one with another, and to this end find an enemy against whom they can make common cause.52

Gilpin addresses the need for common cause by noting that “Nationalism, having attained its first objective in the form of national unity and independence, develops automatically into imperialism.”53 And it is Waltz who observes that to set this belief system into motion, a profound and powerful catalyst is necessary: “In every social change... there is a relation between time and force. Generally speaking, the greater the force the more rapidly social change will occur.”54

Rather than continuing to miss the forest for the trees, it would be more productive to pull back and examine how the Bush Administration used 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq and provide lucrative contracts for defense contractors. This is a conspiracy which can actually be proven.

The Logical Bipartisan Insanity of Endless War
https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-logical-bipartisan-insanity-of-endless-war/

War Pays for Some: “A Hunt for Cash”

That’s something for the leading liberal pundit, partisan Democrat, and converted Obama fan Paul Krugman to reflect on. “War,” Krugman informed New York Times readers last August, “doesn’t pay” anymore, if it ever did for “modern, wealthy nations.” This is particularly true, Krugman feels, in “an interconnected world” where “war would necessarily inflict severe economic harm on the victor.”

There’s truth in his argument if by “war” we mean only major military conflicts between large and industrialized states. Such conflagrations are more than unlikely in our current “ultra-imperialist” (Karl Kautsky’s term) era marked by massive cross-national capital investment and global market inter-penetration.

More on Karl Kautsky:

Marxian, Liberal, and Sociological Theories of Imperialism Author(s): E. M. Winslow Reviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 39, No. 6 (Dec., 1931), pp. 713-758

To Hilferding imperialism is a policy of capitalism and not a stage of capitalism itself. Kautsky also held this view, but he differed with Hilferding in regarding imperialism as a policy of industrial (albeit a "highly developed&quot capitalism rather than of financial capitalism. From the policy viewpoint, regardless of how it expresses itself, capitalism conceivably possesses the power to turn competitive imperialism into a cooperative economic internationalism. Kautsky, indeed, came to the conclusion during the war that imperialism is not inevitable or unalterable under capitalism but may yet attain a still higher synthesis, an "ultra-" or "super-imperialism," under which a peaceful policy may be adopted as in the days of Manchesterism, as the best means of eliminating the wastes of competitive warfare and of insuring uninterrupted profits.36 Hilferding likewise thought such an eventuality possible economically but not politically, because of antagonistic interests between the powers.37

Turning to the radical communist representatives of Marxian thought, we find very little originality, but a vast amount of polemical criticism of the theories of imperialism held by Kautsky, Hilferding, and all center and right-wing socialists. The outstanding example of this sort of criticism is found in Lenin's Imperialism.38 Embittered and disillusioned, particularly by the failure of Kautsky, so long regarded as Marx's direct successor, to go the whole way with violent revolution, Lenin makes him the scape-goat for all revisionist "renegades" from true Marxism.

Lenin and the communists generally are hostile to the notion that capitalism is capable of adopting a peaceful policy, even temporarily. The fact that capitalism once went through a peaceful stage is regarded as a mere episode in its development.39 Lenin identifies imperialism with the monopoly stage of capitalism and scornfully rejects the view that it is a mere external policy. He looks upon imperialism as "a tendency to violence and reaction in general,"40 and he brands any suggestion that it is otherwise as the talk of bourgeois reformers and socialist opportunists which glosses over the "deepest internal contradictions of imperialism."4I Granting, says Lenin, that capitalist nations should combine into such an "ultra-imperialism" or world-alliance as that visualized by Kautsky and others, it could be no more than temporary, for peaceful alliances prepare the ground for wars.42

But many elites in rich nations, the US (the world’s sole military superpower) above all, still and quite reasonably see an economic payoff in undertaking military engagements in mostly poor and “pre-modern” but resource-rich nations and regions. In a more classically national-imperialist vein, Washington remains committed to the use of military force in pursuit of the control of Middle Eastern oil (and other strategic energy concentrations around the world) because of the critical leverage such control grants the US over competitor states.

The biggest flaw in Krugman’s argument is his failure to make the (one would think) elementary distinction between (a) the wealthy Few and (b) the rest of us and society as whole when it comes to who loses and who gains from contemporary (endless) war, As the venerable U.S. foreign policy critic Edward S. Herman asks and observes:

“Doesn’t war pay for Lockheed-Martin, GE, Raytheon, Honeywell, Halliburton, Chevron, Academi (formerly Blackwater) and the vast further array of contractors and their financial, political, and military allies? An important feature of ‘projecting power’ (i.e., imperialism) has always been the skewed distribution of costs and benefits…The costs have always been borne by the general citizenry (including the dead and injured military personnel and their families), while the benefits accrue to privileged sectors whose members not only profit from arms supply and other services, but can plunder the victim countries during and after the invasion-occupation.”

[Yallow]

8. The Truth Is Never A Conspiracy

EOM

[brooklynite]

10. You seem to have decided, so not much point debating the issue...

but, no, I don't attribute to evil intent what can be explained by stupidity.

[Adsos Letter]

27. ^this^

You paraphrased a quote I was trying to remember. Still can't remember the exact quote, but you caught the gist of it.

[RobertEarl]

31. Oh?

They are so stupid they stole the election, they raped the economy, and they walked away without any prosecution.

To simply state they are stupid is an indictment of establishment Democrats who must have been even stupider to be overcome by the stupid republicans.

But you seem to have decided that the Democrats were more stupid than them. So there is no use in debating you.

[NobodyHere]

39. +1

[Enrique]

11. one thing that doesn't require speculation

is that it happened on Bush's watch. He at the very least failed to protect the U.S. from the worst attack on the U.S., ever. So they're going to try to paint Trump, maybe they already have, as a conspiracy theorist, but what he said is indisputable fact.

So they can't dispute that fact, all they can do is say "how dare you blame him".

on edit: Yes, they immediately responded as if he had said Bush did it on purpose. Ari Fleischer:

“Donald Trump is getting close to truther territory if he thinks that George Bush is the reason 9/11 happened,” he said. “Does Donald Trump also think that FDR caused Pearl Harbor because that happened under (Franklin) Roosevelt’s watch?"

[Chemisse]

32. Trump didn't seem to imply that at all.

I think the only way they could defend Bush was to suggest he was talking CT. Because obviously - on 9/11 - we were not kept safe, and Bush was president. They just can't argue with that.

[onecaliberal]

36. Richard Clark repeatedly warned Bushco about the threats until they fired him.

The assertion that bush didn't know is ludicrous. He damn well knew something was coming. It was the excuse he needed to go into Iraq and get control of the oil distribution. Cheney's buddies in the MIC were enriched greatly as well.

[malaise]

113. Excellent post

The meme is to paint him as a CT now. All Trump stated was an indisputable fact...it happened on Dumbya's watch so he did not keep America safe - freaking FACT.

[mainstreetonce]

13. Election 2000

Candidate Gore talks of locking cockpit doors.

( sigh)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

16. "Welcomed"? Not so much IMHO

I don't think he's so "evil" that he wanted to sit around while 3K people died (not even sure that I could say that about Cheney) and it's impossible to say if the plot could have been stopped but I don't feel like he did everything he could have to stop it and there appear to have been some missed opportunities to stop it. However, he (and Republicans in general) didn't seem to hesitate much in taking advantage of what happened for political purposes afterwards to get stuff passed/done that they might not otherwise have been able to do.

[Adsos Letter]

29. ^this^

Well said.

[sarisataka]

35. Well stated

in the case of 9/11, much like Pearl Harbor- the evidence was there but no one person had enough of the pieces to put the picture together. There were flags which should have been followed up but were not due to incompetence or hubris.

What Bush did was seize an opportunity that could have been a turning point in world history to lead into a more peaceful and unified world community, instead squandering it on political opportunism.

[Arugula Latte]

50. I don't know ... He certainly had no qualms about slaughtering tens of thousands of Iraqis.

So I don't think the death toll bothered him much.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

89. I'm not sure they cared too much about the potential consequences of their actions in Iraq

If they had, they would've listened to Powell and not done it in the first place. But I don't think I would go so far to say that they "welcomed" the death of 3000 Americans either on 9/11/01- as loathsome as I think Bush/Cheney are (and I think that Cheney is the more "evil" of the two. Bush was largely his puppet IMHO- which, of course, doesn't excuse him from any culpability).

[Arugula Latte]

108. I didn't say he welcomed it; my opinion is that it didn't bother him much.

My guess is that it was "collateral damage" to him. That doesn't necessarily imply MIHOP or LIHOP, but I can see him seeing the political and economic benefit of 9-11 for his administration, and not losing sleep over the dead people that he might have saved had he taken the warnings seriously.

On the other hand, if someone came forward with proof of LIHOP or MIHOP, I would not be surprised.

[wildbilln864]

92. exactly! sociopaths all! n/t

[SalviaBlue]

18. He said so himself: Trifecta.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

20. He was asleep at the wheel

He just wasn't paying attention. I think he is incompetent and should never have been president.

[UCmeNdc]

25. Agree!

[HassleCat]

26. No. I worked for government.

The 9-11 attacks went off as planned, without being detected, because our "intelligence community" is filled with absolute incompetents who build their careers on agreeing with each other. We have several agencies duplicating each others' efforts, and each agency has a large management hierarchy filled with retired military "intelligence" people, huge numbers of "analysts," and various others too lazy or too stupid to think outside the box. When you work for certain sectors in government, you get to see the products of these brilliant minds. It is absolutely infuriating. They issue warnings and alerts that are absolutely meaningless. I am not exaggerating at all when I say they amount to, "Be on the alert for something that may or may not be a terrorist attack, and may happen soon or later, and appears to have no distinguishing characteristics we can give you." I am not at all surprised there were only a couple people in this "intelligence community" who connected the dots, and I am even less surprised they were ignored or dismissed.

[Rex]

28. But we knew already that Bush and Cheney were warned by the intel community

and they knew the type of attack and possibly where it was going to be. So all the laziness is on the part of the BFEE imo.

[onecaliberal]

38. ^^^THAT^^^

The PDB Titled, Bin Laden determined to strike in America. Also included information about them hijacking places and flying into buildings. They knew.

[Rex]

40. There is also documented proof the CIA had surveillance on some of the terrorists in Florida

and elsewhere (for many months). All the WH had to do was tell the CIA to 'bring the suspects in' and as a result the 9/11 attacks might have been foiled then and there.

Of course they never did. One can only wonder as to why.

[onecaliberal]

42. Ding!

"One can only wonder as to why."

That is what seals it for me every time. If they truly cared about what was best for the country and the people, they would have relentlessly pursued them. Bush told us how "terrible" and "evil" they were but when we were watching them it was not a big enough deal to bring them in? Logic defies the thought process that they didn't know.

[Rex]

45. it is so obvious, that the people making excuses for the Bush WH are like open books.

Their agenda is crystal clear. Same intent as the 9/11 commission.

[hack89]

43. That would be the Clinton WH, correct?

Considering the hijackers started flight training in America January 2000.

[Rex]

44. Yes and the Clintons passed on all that information to the Bush WH.

Anything else?

[hack89]

46. Why didn't Clinton simply arrest the hijackers if they knew everything about them?

One phone call was all that was needed, right?

[Rex]

48. You mean for the two weeks he was still in office?

Maybe it took longer than two weeks to find out exactly which group of terrorists they were in Florida? You do know that after three weeks the Bush WH took over?

Nice try at smearing Clinton, but fail. The Bush WH had 8 months to digest this information and did nothing...I am sorry that give you such a sadz.

EDIT - Also the Clinton's were dealing with a bullshit scandal about the Ws being taken off keyboards...funny how a group coming in would make up bullshit when they knew a terrorist attack was immient. I guess all that distraction by Republicans just made it worse and worse right?

But you go ahead and blame the Clinton's and the 3 weeks he had left in the WH as oppossed to the 8 months leading up to the attacks under Republican rule.

[hack89]

51. The hijackers were in a America for an entire year before Bush took office

They were planning well before that.

[Rex]

52. And when The Clinton WH told the Bush WH about it and gave them all the intel

the Bush WH did nothing at all. Thanks, we all know that.

[hack89]

55. If the Intel was that detailed than why didn't they arrest the hijackers?

Instead of writing a memo why didn't they arrest them? What stopped them?

[Rex]

56. They were leaving the WH because the term was up and a new group of people were inbound.

I guess you forget they did not start training in planes until Jan 2000.

[hack89]

62. So for a year they were clueless and two weeks before leaving they knew everything?

Last edited Sun Oct 18, 2015, 05:26 PM - Edit history (1)

or at least enough to arrest the hijackers?

Bush took office Jan 2001 - did you forget that?

[Rex]

68. The Clintons had far less time then the Bush team did and all the info.

The actual training was mid 2000 not, Jan get your facts right. So you want to blame the Clinton WH with less time and less intel than the Bush WH with far more time an intel?

Gooduck with that. You sound like you have a sadz.

[hack89]

82. You said Clinton gave them all this great intel.

I guess it wasn't that good after all.

[Rex]

96. They ignored it all, boy are you a funny one. Nice defence of Bush and Cheney but fail.

It was a lot of stuff. Educate yourself sometimes. Start here.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/media2_oct01.html

They went to great pains not to sound as though they were telling the president “We told you so.”
But on Wednesday, two former senators, the bipartisan co-chairs of a Defense Department-chartered commission on national security, spoke with something between frustration and regret about how White House officials failed to embrace any of the recommendations to prevent acts of domestic terrorism delivered earlier this year.

Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., that they preferred instead to put aside the recommendations issued in the January report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Instead, the White House announced in May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism—which the bipartisan group had already spent two and a half years studying—while assigning responsibility for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by former Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh.

Your defense of the BFEE is totally pathetic. Congrats.

[hack89]

98. If it was actionable intel

Then Clinton should have acted. Right?

If Clinton didn't think it worthwhile to actually do anything then perhaps that Intel wasn't good as you think.

[Rex]

100. Obviously they didn't ignore anything and had it all in the report Bush ignored.

Why do you ignore that one fact?

[hack89]

102. So writing a report is action in your mind?

Instead of arresting known terrorists.

[Rex]

103. No in my mind Bush ignored all warning signs from every security report handed to him

by the Clinton WH. Your mind is to defend Bush for some reason and blame Clinton. Not my problem.

[hack89]

104. You said Clinton gave him everything he needed to stop 911

But that is not really what you meant, right?

[Rex]

105. Yes that is what I meant, fail at mind reading.

[hack89]

106. You said all the WH had to do was tell the CIA to pick up the hijackers

Doesn't that mean real detailed intel?

[Rex]

107. I said Clinton gave Bush all he needed and Bush ignored it all and failed the country on 9/11.

Fail at putting words in my mouth.

[hack89]

109. No. That is exactly what you said in the post

I originally replied to.

[Rex]

110. No you asked me why Clinton did not do something and you would have to ask him personally

since I have no idea why. My statement was that Bush could have stopped 9/11 and did not. Nice try again.

[B Calm]

57. For suspicion?

[Rex]

59. LOL! I love this!

Clinton had 3 weeks while leaving office, and Bush had 8 months with all the intel...but hey blame Clinton! Even when they didn't start training until Jan 2000 in Florida.

It is almost as if someone has a sadz about that fact.

[hack89]

63. The poster I am replying to seems to think it was enough for Bush to arrest them

just trying to figure out what changed after Clinton left office.

[B Calm]

65. Maybe Bush should have kept an eye on them since he was briefed about it?

[Rex]

72. He didn't read the briefing. He said as much.

At this point someone is just sadz at the facts.

[hack89]

83. But was he?

Did the report given to the WH actually name names?

[Rex]

70. A lot more intel and terrorists flying by mid 2000?

No you just want to ignore what I am saying at all costs. Good luck blaming the Clinton WH.

[jberryhill]

69. It said nothing about flying into buildings

[Rex]

73. True it just mentioned hijacking a plane.

[jberryhill]

76. It mentioned explosives, which weren't used...

It mentioned federal buildings in NY, which weren't attacked, and it said dozens of investigations were in progress.

There was no actionable information in it.

However, it was a part of a larger pattern of warnings that the system was flashing red.

[Rex]

77. It also mentioned OBL was thinking about hijacking plane(s).

In retaliation for something.

[onecaliberal]

84. There WAS Intel about them hijacking planes and flying them into buildings.

Richard Clark said so. They knew that during Clinton. Clinton warned bush about the high AlQueda threat.

[jberryhill]

87. Not in that memo

As I mentioned, there was a larger context which was not being addressed appropriately. Fixating on this one memo is dumb

[onecaliberal]

91. I said Intel. Did you read the comment.

I'm not the one fixated on one fucking memo. There was a mountain of threats but no one in the bush admin gave two shits about any of it. They failed to connect the dots and 9-11 is in them. They should have been picking up the individuals under surveillance. If there are threats about hijacking airplanes from people in that part of the world and then middle Easter men going to flying schools in the United States learning to fly on temporary visas, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Read the 5 biggest lies bush told about Iraq. Maybe that would help you.

[Rex]

33. Bush had a chance to be a hero and ignored his own intel community for 8 months.

He also made an enemy out of the Taliban in this time period. I think he and Cheney indirectly helped cause the attacks by ignoring early warnings. They knew the method and were possibly an attack would happen. They failed to take any kind of act to prevent such an attack.

SO they did help, indirectly by not doing their job. All of them.

[Puzzledtraveller]

34. Expecting yes, because he was never in charge anyway

this had been planned long before we knew who Dubya was.

[B Calm]

47. Newspapers in Florida was going to announce the results of their presidential recount

of the state of Florida on 9/12. Seeing how Gore won their recount, I would say yes Bush welcomed the 9/11 attacks.

[Arugula Latte]

49. "You've covered your ass" ...

Yep, I'd say he welcomed them. They allowed them to have their "Pearl Harbor-like" event and proceed with their economic agenda of helping war profiteers do their thing, namely profit through mass slaughter.

[arcane1]

54. Why else would he take a month-long vacation 8 months into his term?

He kept his ass out of DC for a reason.

[Rex]

61. He had to be ready to maybe jump on the Saudi plane that flew out of country the next day.

No doubt they had no idea how we would react. Fortunately for the BFEE, the M$M was already in place to lie their asses off like the NYT did for Iraq. Bush chose not to read the critical intel, yet everyone knew about the memo and intel collected from the Clinton WH.

[jfern]

71. Well, PNAC did say they needed a "new Pearl Harbor" so that we could go to war with Iraq

[Rex]

75. Yeah well that is something else not supposed to be talked about.

Maybe Trump will bring it up, pathetic that we are only talking about this because Trump mentioned it in the news. The news sure would like this all to die back down.

[That Guy 888]

74. I'm in the "Let it happen" camp

I think he/his people didn't know how big the attack was going to be, but they had plenty of warning (which on the surface they ignored).

The bush administration and fellow travelers destroyed a lot of evidence after the fact. The FAA guy who not only destroyed the tape recordings of 9/11, but actually threw the fragments into different trash cans is too secretive for someone not trying to conceal some level of guilt.

[louis-t]

79. I wouldn't say he welcomed the attacks.

More like he relished the aftermath. Made him a 'war president', which I believe he wanted to be.

[Rex]

80. Why would you say that?

[TeddyR]

81. This type of conspiracy theory

Has a place on World Net Daily, not on DU. I'm shocked that there's any support for this wild-eyed speculation on a liberal website. Whatever Bush's flaws, to accuse him of enabling terrorists to kill thousands of Americans is ridiculous.

[Rex]

99. No what is sad is that supposed progressives don't know the history so they post like you do.

Educate yourself, they totally enabled terrorist attacks by ignoring all the intel they were given. Indirectly or directly, I don't give two shits...dead is dead.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/media2_oct01.html

Start there. Thanks.

[Crunchy Frog]

85. Absolutely. I recall it vividly.

It was everything he needed to get his agenda enacted, and his numbers up in the polls, and he milked it for all he was worth.

[Tipperary]

88. I think Cheney welcomed the attacks. I just am not able to give Shrubby that much credit even for

that awful tragedy.

[wildbilln864]

93. 9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money

[mhatrw]

94. Bin Laden Didn't Blow Up the Projects

[Wounded Bear]

95. I wouldn't say welcomed, exactly, but LIHOP...

They were looking for some kind of hit, I do think that the size and scope of the attacks surprised them, but they wanted something to get the ball rolling. After that, their plans were pretty well layed out in the PNAC papers and website.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

112. I'll call the Donald and raise him a: not only did he not keep us safe, but key people associated

with Little Britches actually helped to plan 9/11.

[pandora nm]

114. Bush Knew. Cheney did it!

They didn't expect the buildings to come down.

[rockfordfile]

115. yes

[LostOne4Ever]

117. I absolutely hate the what the man did to our country

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]But I am not so lost in my ideology that I would attribute something that horrific to the man.

He was incompetent beyond imagination, but I don't think he was evil. And most certainly, I don't think he was on the level of a Saturday morning supervillian evil. Carl Rove or Dick Cheney might be that evil but not GWB.

If anything, GWB is a cautionary tale of what happens when you make Archie Bunker President.[/font]

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

118. Without that day he would've been a shitty footnote in history. A failed one termer. At the

very least he probably felt the attacks gave him purpose. I wouldn't doubt in his feeble mind (maybe subconsciously) he was thankful at least for a moment, when he was turned into the big hero by the press and the sheeple. Make of that what you will.