Had the oppurtunity yesterday, after a long morning at the dentist, to watch the hearings of Cohen and Rummy. It became obvious that the Clintononian reasoning behind not going after Al quida after the Uss Cole and embassay bombing was because as Cohen put it - We didn't think the American people had the stomach for it. Just like Clinton and his group of inepts to say something like that. He basically blamed a lack of action on the American people. UNREAL.
A few other interesting notes about Cohen testimony.
1. It appears wag the dog ( the movie ), played a part in Clinton foriegn policies ( which obviously were not a movie).
2. Cohen's using the fact that we have not got bin laden post 9/11 then how could we have possibily had gotten him pre 9/11?
- that statement was blown out of the water by a commission member nicely.
3. halfbrights statement was enlightening as she stated that there were some members of congress ( republicans ) animate about wanting to go after bin laden after the previous bombing on the embassy and the Cole. stating - granted we now have 20/20 hindsight, they were right.
Clinton and his group of ineptsv allowed 9/11 to occur, and they know it. Covering up seems to be the clinton administrations only policy.
1. It appears wag the dog ( the movie ), played a part in Clinton foriegn policies ( which obviously were not a movie).
2. Cohen's using the fact that we have not got bin laden post 9/11 then how could we have possibily had gotten him pre 9/11?
- that statement was blown out of the water by a commission member nicely.
3. halfbrights statement was enlightening as she stated that there were some members of congress ( republicans ) animate about wanting to go after bin laden after the previous bombing on the embassy and the Cole. stating - granted we now have 20/20 hindsight, they were right.
Clinton and his group of ineptsv allowed 9/11 to occur, and they know it. Covering up seems to be the clinton administrations only policy.
Rumsfield testified that although many of Bush's cabinet members were yet to have cleared confirmation hearings, ( were held up and delayed by democrats more than six months after GW took the oath of office) that: nobody in the Bush administration was anyone given any information, from the Clinton administration, in regards to the possibility of jets being highjacked and flown into buildings.
It is apparent that the transition and transfer of intelligence, or lack there of, didn't not occur smoothly. From the day Bush took the oath of office his appointments to his administration were held up by the democrats. Not good - looking back now, huh?
It is apparent that the transition and transfer of intelligence, or lack there of, didn't not occur smoothly. From the day Bush took the oath of office his appointments to his administration were held up by the democrats. Not good - looking back now, huh?
If you ask me, this whole 9/11 hearing is a waste of time and money.
Everyone knows that the terrorist threats weren't a high priority at the time because nothing had happened on US soil.
I mean just think about it, and use some common sense. At the time, nobody thought anything like 9/11 would happen, therefor you don't waste time on it. Unfortunately it did and we are taking care of it.
Everyone knows that the terrorist threats weren't a high priority at the time because nothing had happened on US soil.
I mean just think about it, and use some common sense. At the time, nobody thought anything like 9/11 would happen, therefor you don't waste time on it. Unfortunately it did and we are taking care of it.
I'm sure there will be books written on the 9/11 commision hearings that should sell pretty good to the political junkies. Be careful when choosing the author though of the books as you certain to get different distortions. I don't think the 9/11 commision is a waste of time and as far as the money goes, well - they would have likely wasted it elsewhere. It's good to get a first hand footage when basing your opinion on the commission hearings, IMO. It's almost as good as the hearings before the supreme court on Gore v. Bush, just so you get what I find exciting about politics!
I think the fact that the debate surrounding these hearings (in media and on message boards) is focusing on blame Bush or blame Clinton is astoundingly narrow-minded. It would seem that if these attacks could have been avoided, there is probably enough blame to be laid on both sides, at least evenly enough to make the discussion moot. Partisanship over safety -- baffling.
x,
The attacks could have been avoided. That was the overall just of the hearing yesterday. A big part was spent on why did we not get bin laden years before the 9/11 attacks? US policy toward the al quida, bin laden, taliban, and Iraq prior to 9/11 was unclear under clinton and the decisions not to go after bin laden after bin laden declared war on the US has to be questioned.
A commission member ask of Cohen if he thought GW neglected his duties by not declaring war on al quida on day one of his term. Of course, Cohen smiled and said no.
Not attempting to place blame in this case, just letting the mud stick where it should.
The attacks could have been avoided. That was the overall just of the hearing yesterday. A big part was spent on why did we not get bin laden years before the 9/11 attacks? US policy toward the al quida, bin laden, taliban, and Iraq prior to 9/11 was unclear under clinton and the decisions not to go after bin laden after bin laden declared war on the US has to be questioned.
A commission member ask of Cohen if he thought GW neglected his duties by not declaring war on al quida on day one of his term. Of course, Cohen smiled and said no.
Not attempting to place blame in this case, just letting the mud stick where it should.
Let me re-word that, then. Making this into a partisanship issue (among us outsiders) takes away real debate about to prevent it from happening in the future. I would worry that citizens may become complacent if they can blame the attacks on the past mistakes of a few, rather than a general, continuing, pattern among the many, which is more likely the case.
I think it was one of those things that wasn't a big issue before 9/11. Sure Bin Laden and Al Queda were bad people but they weren't directly effecting the American people at the time.
Yes, the attacks could have been prevented had anyone really believed that Al Queda would pull something off like they did. However, I don't see how anyone could anticipate something like this.
Yes, the attacks could have been prevented had anyone really believed that Al Queda would pull something off like they did. However, I don't see how anyone could anticipate something like this.
"Fool me once alright, fool me twice, then I'm an idiot." ( notice how I've purposely let clinton off the hook). The complacency took place from 1993 to 9/11/01. Complacency regarding terrorism will be less likely rather than more likely in the future no matter how you interpret the 9/11 hearings.
Yeh, no doubt that the movie producers of wag the dog saw no purpose in a war against anything, no matter how bad. Clinton was a panzy ass commander and chief regarding al quida.
Yeh, no doubt that the movie producers of wag the dog saw no purpose in a war against anything, no matter how bad. Clinton was a panzy ass commander and chief regarding al quida.
KMAN,
It is obviously apparent now, to us, the average joe citizen, that not only would al quida pull something like 9/11 off but that they actually could pull it off. Yes, 9/11 did change the world forever, but remember, there were always those members on capital hill telling the clinton administration to go harder after bin laden, al quida, the taliban. These views seldomly made the news and clinton avoided them like the plague as "negotiation between the US and pakistan were ongoing and we did not want to upset pakistan". Like halfbright said - those that said we should have went after al quida prior to 9/11, were in retrospect, correct. I ask who were those people? - do we not want to listen to them in the future? ( ahh! couldn't do that, as they may be republican war *****rers!)
It is obviously apparent now, to us, the average joe citizen, that not only would al quida pull something like 9/11 off but that they actually could pull it off. Yes, 9/11 did change the world forever, but remember, there were always those members on capital hill telling the clinton administration to go harder after bin laden, al quida, the taliban. These views seldomly made the news and clinton avoided them like the plague as "negotiation between the US and pakistan were ongoing and we did not want to upset pakistan". Like halfbright said - those that said we should have went after al quida prior to 9/11, were in retrospect, correct. I ask who were those people? - do we not want to listen to them in the future? ( ahh! couldn't do that, as they may be republican war *****rers!)
