Bush’s legacy is of incompetence, not security

Phil Ventura, Las Vegas

Sun, Jul 6, 2008 (2:04 a.m.)

I find it peculiar that in his June 27 letter Everett Campbell cites the fact that “there has not been a terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11” as a positive aspect of George W. Bush’s legacy.

In contrast I would point out that the 9/11 attacks might not have occurred if the president had not ignored the warnings of the CIA, his chief counterterrorism adviser and other U.S. security agencies that were emphatically trying to convince him that a terrorist attack was imminent. His poor judgment and disregard for the competent advice of our country’s security professionals seems more suited to his legacy.

The president’s misguided response to the 9/11 attacks is his true legacy. His ever-changing missions of finding WMD, seeking regime changes, spreading democracy, etc., have taxed our brave troops to extremes that no loyal soldier should have to endure.

Since we have wasted billions of dollars fighting a senseless war in Iraq, money that could have been spent on America’s security, it should be no surprise to anyone that another terrorist attack might occur at any time. I hope only that a man of more competence is leading our country if, or when, it does happen.

Discussion: 21 comments so far…

By AgMallard

7/6/08 at 8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Not to mention that “taking the fight to the terrorist” (big election year battle cry by the Bush gang) lacks ethics and morals… Really, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths later and Bin Laden remains at large. Where is the justice when innocent Iraqis die on the “front line” of this contrived war on terror? Odd wouldn’t ya say for a man that professes to have a deep Christian moral stance. Finally on this holiday weekend, big respect for all the woman and men of our armed services that risk it all for our country despite being sent into battle by this egomaniacal empty suit.
By jfnance32

7/6/08 at 9:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

I guess we should go back to the pre 9/11 days.

Clinton did an excellent job. He only let the terrorist seek into the country and they took flight lessons under his watch.

He did very little to kill Bin Laden. Under Clinton's watch, Bin Laden's crew attacked the USA three times: 1) First attack on the World Trade Towers 2) The African embassy attacks 3) USS Cole attack

Yeah, lets go back to the Clinton plan.

Mr. Bush ---- Thank you for protecting the homeland and for killing ten of thousands of 9/11 wanna be's.
By PhilVentura

7/6/08 at 11:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

It's not about Clinton anymore.
In 2001 terrorists and terrorist wanna be's were located in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Sudan, etc. Thanks to the President's misguided "war on terror" Iraq is now a breeding ground for anti-Americanism.
By jfnance32

7/6/08 at 11:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

If Obama gets elected then he already has stated that he wants to return to Clinton's policy of appeasement toward our enemies.

We should expect similar results.
By JohnF

7/6/08 at 1:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

jfnance,

Your idea of a justification for Bush seems to be to attack his predecessor. How about framing an argument for your guy?

You attack Clinton for failing to kill bin Laden. How's Bush's plan to do that going?

If you want to criticize Clinton for attacks on Americans that took place on foreign soil, then how do you justify the 4,000 American deaths our enemies have inflicted on us in Iraq? They weren't killing Americans in Iraq during the Clinton administration.

Here's a simple way to gauge whether Clinton or Bush did a better job of protecting this country. Add up all the American lives lost due to terrorist attacks in the years 1993 - 2000. Now add up all the American lives lost due to terrorist attacks from 2001 - the present day, both here and abroad.

There's no contest.

We're seven and a half years into the Bush Presidency. At what point will he become responsible for the consequences of his own actions? Based on your outlook I wouldn't worry about Obama becoming President; Bush will be responsible for anything he does anyway (unless, of course, Clinton's responsibility for all things bad extends even beyond Bush's term in office).
By jfnance32

7/6/08 at 1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

You need to read. I said, "Mr. Bush ---- Thank you for protecting the homeland and for killing ten of thousands of 9/11 wanna be's." Bush killed a lot more terrorist than Clinton could ever dream of.

"Add up all the American lives lost due to terrorist attacks in the years 1993 - 2000."

Yes lets do count up American civilians lives. 9/11 was more Clinton's fault than Bush's. Clinton had 8 years to stop Bin Laden. Bush had 8 months to do so. Over 2,000 American civilians have lost there lives due to Clinton's failure. You WILL NEVER ADMIT CLINTON'S FAILURE!!!!!!

Bush is respondible for protecting the homeland from 2002 until 2008. He is respondible for killing tens of thousands of 9/11 wanna be's.

Thank you Mr Bush for pushing the war off our homeland and putting the front line in the middle east where it should be. So that our brave and professional soldiers can kill the enemy without worrying about a strike on the homes of their families in the USA.
By sooo_gothic

7/6/08 at 2:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Getting a little plaintive there. Why don't we also remember that when Bush took office he took more holidays than any other president before. So while a recommendation to stop Bin Laden was sitting in the to do pile, he was playing golf. The guy has seriously messed up. Not to say Clinton didn't have his own faults, but he hasn't recklessly wasted so many American lives.
By jfnance32

7/6/08 at 3:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

The Bin Laden Story:

1) Attacks World Trade Center in 1993.

Clinton's response: Sees his girlfriend

Bin Laden: In 1996, Sudan offers Bin Laden to the US but Clinton declines for he is busy with his girlfriend.

2) US Embassies are attack in 1998.

Clinton's response: Sees his girlfriend

Bin Laden: Still not hiding and in fact walking around waving and giving interviews. In fact in 2000, CIA drones takes pictures of Bin Laden walking around.

3) USS Cole is attacked in 2000

Clinton's response: Sees his girlfriend

Bin Laden: He finally starts to hide for he realizes that his buddy Clinton is about to leave office.

From 1996 to 2000, 9/11 terrorists (or called by liberals freedom fighters) got VISAs and started to get flight training.
By JohnF

7/6/08 at 4:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

jfnance,

I believe the subject of the letter and the subsequent conversation is George W. Bush's record on terrorism. Not Bill Clinton's.

"Bush killed a lot more terrorist (sic) than Clinton could ever dream of."

Bush CREATED a lot more terrorists than Clinton ever dreamed of.

On August 6, 2001, President Bush was given the now-famous briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." In that report, he was told, "FBI information... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." By the way, the New York Times reported that, "The warning came in a secret briefing that Mr. Bush received at his ranch in Crawford, Tex." In other words, while he was on vacation.*

The 9-11 Commission reported, "We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States." Why? Didn't he think this was important enough to interrupt his vacation? The longest vacation taken by a President since Nixon? A vacation he felt he needed after less than eight months in office?

So. On August 6th the President was warned that bin Laden was preparing an attack on the United States. This concerned the President so much that he had NO FURTHER DISCUSSIONS with has staff on the subject and was so visibly moved by the attacks that he continued reading "The Pet Goat" for over seven minutes after being informed of the situation.

And this is all Bill Clinton's fault.

Give me a freakin' break.

* The Houston Chronicle reported last year, "The presidential vacation-time record holder is the late Ronald Reagan, who tallied 436 days in his two terms. At 418 days, and with 17 months to go in his presidency, Bush is going to beat that easily." That's about two months per year on vacation. It's nice to know the President is working so tirelessly on our behalf.
By JohnF

7/6/08 at 5:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Also, Mr. Nance, get your facts straight.

The WTC bombing of 1993 was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed. Osama bin Laden was not involved.

It was the embassy bombings of August, 1998 that resulted in bin Laden's being placed on the FBI's ten most wanted list in June of 1999.

Bin Laden was known to US authorities prior to that time as being one of the people behind the assassination attempt on Hosni Mubarak, but was not wanted at the time for any crimes perpetrated against US citizens. It was the embassy bombings, not the first attack on the WTC, that changed that.

So let's use your logic here. Osama was placed on the most wanted list 18 months before the end of the Clinton Presidency. Since you seem to believe that no President can be held accountable for things that happen within eight months of his finding out about them, and since Clinton, again by your logic, was still responsible on September 11, 2001, then the President is responsible for things that happen eight months after he finds out about them until 28 months afterwards. So no President is responsible for anything on his watch until over two and a half years into his term. Further, if the attacks had taken place any time during the latter half of 1999 Clinton would not have been responsible. Impeccable logic.
By jfnance32

7/6/08 at 8:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Below is some information on the 1993 WTC bombing and its connections with Bin Laden. I let the readers decide to what degree Bin Laden and his friends were involved with 1993 WTC attack.

At the minimum, in 1993 Clinton should have been aware of the rising wave of Muslim extremist trying to destroy the USA. Probably before 1993, Clinton should have already been tracking Bin Laden.

Many of the bombers were trained in Bin Laden’s training camps. Bin Laden also give money many of the bombers.

It also seems that Iraq had a minor role in giving passports to the bombers and protecting some of the operators after the bombing.

This PBS site has an excellent timeline on all the Bin Laden activities. In 1990, Bin Laden names pops up on the radar screen. In 1992, Bin Laden is indicted.

“Osama bin Laden's name surfaces during the 1993 WTC investigation as a financier of the Office of Services. His name is also found on a list of individuals who was called from a safe house used by the conspirators. During the WTC bombing trial, bin Laden's name appears on a list of potential unindicted co-conspirators, but Al Qaeda is never mentioned. “

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...

"The 1995 capture of Yousef in Pakistan signaled the emergence of a wealthy benefactor: Osama bin Laden."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/1...

"The fact that Yousef is the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a top figure in al-Qaeda, suggests a strong connection between the 1993 conspirators and the group who ultimately brought down the towers eight years later."

http://www.answers.com/topic/world-trade...

" During a break from school in 1988, he [a 1993 bomber] went to one of bin Laden’s training camps in Afghanistan and spent several months honing his bomb-making skills"

"He is believed to have befriended bin Laden while in Afghanistan, and bin Laden secretly pays Abdul-Rahman’s US living expenses."

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timel...

"In October 1995 Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, a blind cleric who preached at mosques in Brooklyn and Jersey City, was sentenced to life for masterminding the bombing. Rahman's organisation, the Islamic Group, is believed to have links to Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, accused of carrying out the 11 September attacks."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates...

"Muhammad Jamal Khalifa, a brother-in-law and onetime best friend of Osama bin Laden who has been accused of funneling money to a web of Islamic militants, including the Philippine group Abu Sayyaf and several of the 1993 World Trade Center plotters...."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...
By jfnance32

7/6/08 at 8:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

In 1998, Clinton’s CIA director, George Tenet, declares war on terrorism.

LOL…..what war?

Clinton had at least 8 times to kill Bin Laden.

Also, Sudan at one time offered to just hand him over to the USA.

“But what troubles me most is Tenet's handling of the opportunities that CIA officers gave the Clinton administration to capture or kill bin Laden between May 1998 and May 1999”

That quote is from a leftist newspaper, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Here is an excellent on article on Clinton’s inept war on terror.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

“Scheuer said there were eight different chances for the U.S. military to kill bin Laden between May 1998 and May 1999.”

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/30/t...
By PhilVentura

7/6/08 at 8:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Again, I would point out that the 9/11 attacks might not have occurred if the president had not ignored the warnings of the CIA, his chief counterterrorism adviser and other U.S. security agencies that were emphatically trying to convince him that a terrorist attack was imminent. Cronyism and stubbornness doomed the Bush presidency's and no amount of "spin" can diminish the facts of where our country stands now.
Blaming Clinton for the carnage George Bush has done to America doesn't hold water. It took Bush 7 years to put our economy in the dumps but he has accomplished that also. More poverty, more people without health care, a disheveled military, etc., etc.
By JohnF

7/6/08 at 9:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

I went and checked out that PBS web site. It's very nice. The site specifically does not say that bin Laden was involved in the planning of the 1993 attack. What it does say is the people carrying out the attacks are connected to Omar Abdel Rahman, the leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

"It also seems that Iraq had a minor role..."

Neil Herman, who headed the FBI investigation, noted that despite Yasin's presence in Baghdad, there was no evidence of Iraqi support for the attack. "We looked at that rather extensively. There were no ties to the Iraqi government." CNN terrorism analyst Peter L. Bergen writes, "In sum, by the mid-'90s, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York, the F.B.I., the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, the C.I.A., the N.S.C., and the State Department had all found no evidence implicating the Iraqi government in the first Trade Center attack.

You also state that bin Laden was indicted in 1992. For what? By whom?

All of the quotes you cherry pick from various web sites all say essentially the same thing: this group or person is believed to have links to that group which is part of a network that includes bin Laden. Not one of them says that bin Laden had anything to do with planning the 1993 attack, and not one of them contradicts anything I said in the 5:23 p.m. post.

What do you do when you can't win an argument? You change the subject to a different argument.

All of this stuff about 1993 is beside the point. On August 6, 2001, the President was given a briefing in which he was told that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike within the US. Further, he was told specifically "FBI information... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

And how did he react? Did he cut short his vacation and return to Washington? Did he call together his top national security staff? Did he ask the CIA, NSA, or FBI for daily updates on bin Laden's activities? Did he do anything at all?

No, no, no, and no.

He didn't talk about it with his top staff EVEN ONCE between August 6 and September 11. Not once. How is this indifference to our safety on the part of George W. Bush Bill Clinton's fault? Was it Bill Clinton's responsibility to tell George W. Bush to get off his rear and get to work?
By jfnance32

7/6/08 at 9:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

You are truly an idiot.

Clinton knew that Bin Laden desired to attack the USA...when...when....1992 in the year that Bin Laden gets indicted. That was before the WTC 1993 attack.

"According to the U.S. indictment of bin Laden, between 1992 and 1996 Al Qaeda makes overtures to Iran and Hezbollah to take part in a global war against the U.S. The indictment alleges that Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, an Al Qaeda leader, met with Iranian officials and that Al Qaeda sent members to Lebanon to receive training from members of Hezbollah. American officials also claim that around this time bin Laden's group begins an effort to secure components for chemical and nuclear weapons. "

The key words in case you skipped over it are: "indictment of bin Laden" and "a global war against the U.S."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/... (which was already listed above)

Here is the actual indictment which I doubt you have the skill to read. http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/...

For at least 6 years, Clinton knew about this war and did very little about it.

He had 8 chances to kill Bin Laden.

Sudan offer Bin Laden to the US on a silver plate and Clinton refused.

I have already said that Bush failed, but you are a true moron if you think that Clinton's failure is small compared to Bush’s.

8 years of warnings and effort compared to 8 months. Not even close.....
By JohnF

7/6/08 at 10:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

You know, Nance, up until now I have never called you a name, but this is too much.

You are the idiot here. The PBS web site says, in its 1992 portion that "According to the U.S. indictment of bin Laden..." If you click on the link provided, it takes you to the findlaw.com page you also cite. THAT PAGE SHOWS A COPY OF THE 1998 INDICTMENT. In other words, PBS used the 1998 indictment to reference bin Laden's activities in 1992. Bin Laden was not indicted in 1992. Someone with more than an idiot's intelligence might have figured that out.

"Mr. Bush ---- Thank you for protecting the homeland and for killing ten of thousands of 9/11 wanna be's."

Those are your words. How does Bush's conduct in the five weeks between August 6 and September 11, 2001 constitute "protecting the homeland"?

I can't figure out how it does. Only a true moron would think that it did.
By jfnance32

7/7/08 at 12:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sorry that I called you a name.

You are right that the indictment did not occur until 1998 but it listed Bin Laden’s activity all the back to 1992.

According to the PSB website in 1996, “The U.S. State Department issues a dossier on bin Laden that claims he is a financier of radical Islamic causes and connects him to the 1992 hotel bombing in Aden, Yemen and the training of the Somalis who attacked U.S. troops in Mogadishu. At the same time, a grand jury investigation of Osama bin Laden is initiated in New York.”

Ok Clinton’s administration was clueless about Bin Laden up to 1996 even though there was plenty of evidence to see. So for six years, Clinton had the responsibility to take out Bin Laden.

Bush protected the homeland from 2002 forward.

I already said that Bush failed to prevent 9/11.

I just think Clinton is more responsible for two reasons.

1) He had six years of warnings and effort to take out Bin Laden. He had at least 8 golden opportunities to kill him. Sudan offered Bin Laden on a silver plate. Bush only had 8 months of which at least the first four months was consumed with transitioning from Clinton’s government to Bush’s government.

2) The 9/11 terrorists entered into USA on Clinton’s watch and also they took pilot lessons too
By darthbry

7/8/08 at 7:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

The solution, take the gloves off of Israel and let them regulate, the entire world will be thankful once that crappy area known as the middle east is a glowing hole in the ground. Even Libs will be happy cause it will further there cause in having to develop alternative fuels due to the oil being hard to get to with the increased levels of radiation, but you have to take some good with the bad. (Good = middle east no longer a problem....bad = oil supply will be down for a while.) There will be few if any terrorist training grounds left. We can then pull our troops from the area, and redeploy them on our borders to keep out our biggest problem, illegal aliens.
By PhilVentura

7/8/08 at 8:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Your "Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton" theory is a figment of Sean Hannity's imagination and has been debunked by everyone who could know about any such offer, including the 9/11 Commission!
Super patriot Hannity should not be counted on for facts, just divisive talk that only hurts our country.
And remember he never served.
By jfnance32

7/8/08 at 8:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn...

In this left leaning Democratic friendly newspaper, it states, "The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture."
By thebs

7/8/08 at 9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

"As Media Matters reports, Sudan offered to extradite Bin Laden to Saudi Arabia, an offer which was turned down by the Saudis because he was a political hot potato.

Any misconceptions of Hannity’s were corrected by Lanny Davis during a 6/22/04 broadcast of Hannity & Colmes. Davis told Hannity, “That’s a lie… (Clinton) never refused, never refused to take Osama bin Laden.” Also ignored by Hannity was Clinton’s 6/20/04 statement on 60 Minutes, “There was a story which is factually inaccurate that the Sudanese offered bin Laden to us. ... As far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence of that."

And if by some chance Hannity “forgot,” he was reminded again by Albright. “(Clinton) was not (offered Bin Laden by Sudan). And I think going over that record, if you look at the people that were saying that, they were many people that were lobbying for Sudan.”

Hannity cited as proof interviews he conducted with Monsoor Ijaz, who was negotiating with the United States on behalf of the Sudanese. But Hannity neglected to mention that the 9/11 Commission reported (page 3), “We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.” As Media Matters notes, “Hannity, therefore, endorsed the claims of former officials of Sudan -- a country that the U.S. Department of State has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993 -- rather than the testimony of Clinton administration officials and the findings of the 9-11 Commission.”

Albright said “Believe me, if we had been offered Osama bin Laden, then that offer would have been taken up. And I think what’s been very hard is kind of a misstatement of a lot of facts on that.”

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/05/03/hann...

Nance lies. What a surprise.