Could Bush have prevented the 9-11 attacks?

[EMINEM]

Surely you've read the articles and seen the news regarding what the White House knew or did not know about the threats of terrorist hi-jackings. But even in light of all the warnings, do you think the Presient and all his men could have done something to prevent 9-11 from happening? Is he responsible? Should he be held accountable for failing to connect the dots?

[McBane]

Without knowing the contents of the information he received, it is hard to speculate whether he could have prevented anything. What is irresponsible is his administration's response yesterday. (I'll paraphrase.. We did receive some reports that suggested a hijacking could occur. We did no know that these planes would be used as missiles.)

So, a "regular" hijacking is nothing to be concerned about? I would be the first in line to see Bush voted out of office, but I think we need to see some relevant information before sharpening the axe. If his administration follows their standard procedure of not releasing any information, he will have a political problem on his hands. I eagerly anticipate the next round of White House press conferences!

[Rob-hin]

From what I've heard, they get tonnes of warnings and all. They don't know what to take seriously and what not.
Can't know everything... not even FBI and all those secret guys.

[Craig]

I doubt it, I have just seen it on the news. Bush had one, vague piece of imformation, only noting White house, pentagon, and one other I forgot. It didn't say anything about the Twin towers, and as far as I know, the attack was out of the blue, no warning.


P.S Bushes got to be far more careful, he said "Anything in my power to protect america" Which newspapers going to eat that up first?

[island007]

Hi,

This is a waste of time.

The information given to the President was also given to the Senate and the House 2 days later. Neither the Senate nor the House thought it relevant, specific, and/or vital. The same Sen. Daschale who wants the inquiry was given that information back in August. Now he may not have read it, but it was provided to the Senate.

The DNC is hard put to find anything against this President. His popularity is the hieghest in history. At least since they started to track that stuff.

You can already start to read about the retractions and corrections alot of news agencies are making in regards to this.

Thanks

[fable]

Originally posted by island007
You can already start to read about the retractions and corrections alot of news agencies are making in regards to this.

I'm following this issue with curiosity and no real certainty about the implied values on either side. What retractions and corrections from new agencies specifically are you referring to, though? I've heard and read none. Thanks.

[Weasel]

Originally posted by fable


I'm following this issue with curiosity and no real certainty about the implied values on either side.

I would say the same for me.

I just wonder who let it be known to CBS.

I will say this though, from the "TV" reports this will most likely involve a lot of people (FBI, again, CIA and on down the list) getting fired.


One <SMACK>

One group is pumping the masses and might get burned in the fallout as well.

I couldn't help myself.

[fable]

@Island, if you have news agency retractions appropriate to this subject, I'd still like to hear them. I've done a couple of web meta-searches, and spoken with the Philly Library's Info Desk. Nada.

EDIT: I've just heard some information presented on C-SPAN which contradicts the content of the allegations you state. It seems Congress is not accusing Bush of having reports 2 days in advance of the hijackings, but a full month in advance. It also appears that a number of high profile Republican members of Congress have joined in this attack.

I can only suspect at this point, without further information indicating where the truth lies, that we're seeing a continuation of the broadly bipartisan Congressl vs Bush White House which has been a feature of this administration over the last year-and-a-half. This has already been discussed before in SYM; does anyone else think this latest incident is about the sharing of information and division of power, and more than simply Congressional politics, or Presidential bungling?

[HighLordDave]

I do not believe that anyone in Dubya's administration had information specific enough to stop the 11 September attacks. That said, we've been after Osama bin Laden for several years, including attacking one of his camps in Afghanistan with cruise missiles in an assassination attempt. Did anyone think that he would just lie down after that or not take some sort of retributive action?

I think that the current administration has handled this crisis very badly. It seems that no one is willing to learn from the Clinton admistration (who did everything wrong) or the Reagan administration (who did everything right).

If Dubya and his cronies had any information about the 11 September attacks, what they did or did not know should have been released by them, not by CBS or any of the other news outlets. With the media breaking the story, it appears that the NSA, CIA, FBI, et al are covering thing up, when in fact they have the hardest job in the world: sifting through massive amounts of data, following hundreds of leads and deciding which ones are worth pursuing and which ones are worthless. Sometimes, as in the case of the 11 September attacks, they are going to miss one. That can't be helped and shouldn't be surprising. The problem is that over 3,000 people are dead and the public wants someone to hang for it.

I think that the piling on in Congress certainly has partisan overtones, but with Republicans joining the fray on the anti-administration side, it looks to be as our friend fable says and that many of the Republicans who have been railroaded by Dubya's unilateral approach to government are flexing their muscle as well. If Dubya cannot unify his own party, things do not bode well for the GOP in the mid-term elections.

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I do not believe that anyone in Dubya's administration had information specific enough to stop the 11 September attacks. That said, we've been after Osama bin Laden for several years, including attacking one of his camps in Afghanistan with cruise missiles in an assassination attempt. Did anyone think that he would just lie down after that or not take some sort of retributive action?

I think that the current administration has handled this crisis very badly. It seems that no one is willing to learn from the Clinton admistration (who did everything wrong) or the Reagan administration (who did everything right).

If Dubya and his cronies had any information about the 11 September attacks, what they did or did not know should have been released by them, not by CBS or any of the other news outlets. With the media breaking the story, it appears that the NSA, CIA, FBI, et al are covering thing up, when in fact they have the hardest job in the world: sifting through massive amounts of data, following hundreds of leads and deciding which ones are worth pursuing and which ones are worthless. Sometimes, as in the case of the 11 September attacks, they are going to miss one. That can't be helped and shouldn't be surprising. The problem is that over 3,000 people are dead and the public wants someone to hang for it.

I think that the piling on in Congress certainly has partisan overtones, but with Republicans joining the fray on the anti-administration side, it looks to be as our friend fable says and that many of the Republicans who have been railroaded by Dubya's unilateral approach to government are flexing their muscle as well. If Dubya cannot unify his own party, things do not bode well for the GOP in the mid-term elections.

If his historically unprecedented approval ratings are any indication, I think Bush has handled the crisis very well (the Taliban is destroyed, in case you've forgotten), and that there was no way Mueller, Rumsfeld, Rice and company could have anticipated that planes would be used as suicide bombs. Threats of hi-jacking are/were perennial, and occupied the 15th place on the list of national security hazards before September 11. And the American public already knows who should hang for the 3000 dead in New York and Washington - the terrorist organizations who planned and executed it.

I think the media should first stop hyperventilating before attempting to reports the facts. As one journalist put it, this entire brouhaha "is a classic case of incestuous media amplification bolstered with hasty conclusions."

[fable]

If his historically unprecedented approval ratings are any indication, I think Bush has handled the crisis very well...

"If" is a very good word in this case, because approval ratings during a crisis are never a judge of the quality of the crisis management. All information on the war in Afghanistan comes from one source, ultimately: The US Defense Department. How soon Dubyah had his information, how much, what his options were--these are matters for historians to consider "if" they are ever given access to the papers by the US government.

In the meantime, trying to crush the weight of individual opinions by the approval ratings is a little like trying to judge whether 10 blind people are more or less correct over the shape and color of the sun than 1000 blind people.

[island007]

Hi Fable,

I wrote President Bush had those reports two days in advance of congress not the actual attack. Pres. Bush got the reports 0n 8/6/01 and the senate and house on 8/8/01. Hence, congress who read the same report two days later on 8/8/01, did the same thing President Bush did. This report was very similar to the 1999 report former President Clinton had. Former President Clinton responded on those reports as being to general in nature.


As for news agencies try CNN, CBS, FOX ect.

Thanks

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by fable
"If" is a very good word in this case, because approval ratings during a crisis are never a judge of the quality of the crisis management.

I agree with Fable here, approval ratings during a crisis does not necessarily reflect the quality of management since most populations support their regime in national crisis regardless of how the regime acts. This is not strange at all - it's basic human functioning and most leaders in the world are aware of this, so they aren't late to play on those mechanisms in propaganda either. Just listen to the wording people like Bush or Blair use: "The axis of evil", "Enemies of the free world" blah blah. Highly suggestive wording underscoring a "we and them" and "good and evil" polarisation.

EDIT: sorry, I forgot to reply to MM:s question. No, I don't the Bush administration had enough specific information to prevent the attack. Similar threats have been numerous for a long time.

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by C Elegans

I agree with Fable here, approval ratings during a crisis does not necessarily reflect the quality of management since most populations support their regime in national crisis regardless of how the regime acts. This is not strange at all - it's basic human functioning and most leaders in the world are aware of this, so they aren't late to play on those mechanisms in propaganda either. Just listen to the wording people like Bush or Blair use: "The axis of evil", "Enemies of the free world" blah blah. Highly suggestive wording underscoring a "we and them" and "good and evil" polarisation.

I think Bush's approval ratings are deserved. He has made all the right moves in a very difficult situation, and the American public recognizes this. His approval ratings have held steady since last autumn when it reached an astronomical 90%. Even now, it's still up in the 70's, and is likely to remain that way until the Congressional elections in November. Had he handled the crisis badly and followed the advice of pacificists in Congress and anti-American politicians in Europe, hunkered down in some undisclosed location, played the victim ("What did we do to cause this to happen?") and pursued "multilateral diplomatic alternatives," blah blah blah, the Taliban and Al quaeda would still be in power instead of on the run with tails between their legs from American special forces in Afghanistan, and Bush' approval ratings would probably be in the 20s, reflecting his administration's ineffectualness and indecision.

[Quark]

Originally posted by EMINEM


and that there was no way Mueller, Rumsfeld, Rice and company could have anticipated that planes would be used as suicide bombs.

I don't agree. You ever read a Tom Clancy novel?

*Spoiler*




The Sum of All Fears has a terroristic nuclear incident. Debt of Honor ends with a single terrorist crashing a 747 into a joint congressional session. Executive Orders follows with a biological attack, only this one was state-sponsered.




*End Spoiler*

What happens in those books (mainly the Jack Ryan series) is insane, but it's all there for a reason. Everything Clancy puts in his books is possible, and it's only the unwillingness of people to accept the frailty of their 'safety' that hides it from the public. The only reason the books themselves seem absurd is the fact that it all happens. But I gaurantee you, every crisis faced in the Clancy novels is plausible.

As for the original question: They call hindsight 20/20 for a reason. People accuse FDR of directly knowing of the emminent attack on Pearl Harbor. What is accepted belief is that he learned late of a possible threat, and ordered a warning (that came too late). Right now people are just looking for any possible chink in Bush's armor. Politics as usual, nothing more.

[HighLordDave]

@EMINEM:
I think you're placing a little bit too much stock in Dubya's popularity numbers. Having a high job approval rating does not mean that he is doing a good job, it means that people think that he's doing a good job at whatever it is he happens to be doing. Presidential job approval has traditionally been high during wartime--there are two notable exceptions: Abe Lincoln after he issued the Emancipation Proclaimation in 1863 and changed the focus of the Civil War from saving the Union to ending slavery, and Lyndon Johnson for his "guns and butter" policies. And don't forget that in the 1930s, there was a guy in Germany named Hitler whose job approval rating was pretty high, too . . .

Let me ask you this: Why was it important (or even necessary) to take the Taliban down? The Taliban was a despotic regime in some third world country who pose no threat to us. The military targets we struck against the Taliban could not have been used against the United States in any way. We're talking about a handful of SCUD missiles, some HIND-series attack helicopters and vintage Soviet tanks. This is military equipment, not terrorist equipment.

What has Dubya or his "war" on terrorism done that removes the root cause of the 11 September attacks? Nothing. In fact, going after Al-Qaeda with the US military has only strengthened the resolve of hardline Islamic militants and reinforced anti-American sentiment in much of the Third World. Do people hate America any less? No. Do people fear America more? Yes.

If the "war" on terrorism has done anything it is send the very powerful message that governments who harbour terrorists aren't safe from the United States. However, by allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power in Iraq, we are undermining that message ourselves. Flushing Al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan was a band aid, not a solution. They've gone into hiding, but they will resurface somewhere.

There are two basic things we can do to deter and intercept future attacks (both military and terrorist). The first is to stop funding ridiculous programs like a ballistic missile shield which we don't need and funnel that money into putting human intelligence-gathering resources in place. The CIA and NSA have pumped massive amounts of money into spy satellites and complicated cell phone evesdropping machines, but what we really need is people in hostile countries (and a few in friendly countries) with their ears on the ground, putting together lists of potential assailants and on watch for imminent threats.

The second thing we can do is figure out why people hate us so much, and then do something about it. Is it jealousy? Is it fear? Is it our policies? Americans are arrogant to think that everyone in the world wants to be like us or that they all want our stuff. Many people do. But some people don't want to drive Ford cars, eat McDonald's hamburgers or wear Gap jeans. And that's fine. However, we have to recognise that the US has a tendency to lean on people in a way that causes resentment and ill will (and Dubya's penchance for unilateralism doesn't help).

When it comes down to it, there are going to be some people out in the world who are going to find something to hate the United States for. Fine. We'll send SEAL or CIA operators after them. But it's not just a few people who hate the US, it's a bunch. And as long as they hate us, some of them will find a way to act it out.

[Quark]

Yeah, HLD, I agree that we need more sources, more people listening to the world. The reason the CIA is investing so much into electronics is that the government doesn't want the CIA to have more people. One of the reasons seems to be the belief of how sacred human life is (agents are in too much danger, so we can't have too many agents). Nevermind the fact that agents are willing to take the risk and their actions can save lives (logic doesn't work well in the government).

Just thought of something, though: for all these intelligence failures that we hear about, there's plenty we don't hear about. The government considers the knowledge of a failed attack to be bad for national security, so when they do succeed in stopping one they don't talk about it. You may hear a few hints here or there, but the ones released for public knowledge are mainly publicity stunts to help fuel the public opinion of safety. Government officials may whine about Bush's unwillingness to act on the information he got, but they can't laud his successes as it would literally be a crime.

[HighLordDave]

The CIA and NSA also have some executive order which prohibits them from using certain "undesirable" sources as agents or informants (ie-people who are known criminals, etc.). This is hogwash and impedes intelligence gathering. Good intelligence work means consorting with nasty people, paying bribes and assassinating people we don't like before they come after us. It doesn't look good on the news and it forces us to surrender the moral high ground. Is it worth it? In my opinion, yes.

I heard someone on the news the other night, it may have been the Veep, saying that we can stop 99 attacks on the United States, but if one gets through, people are going to die. There is so much truth to that. From a security standpoint, there is no such thing as invulnerability. If someone wants to achieve an objective bad enough, and is willing to throw enough time, money and energy at that objective, there is no stopping them.

For instance, do you think that airports are any safer today than they were on 10 September? Of course not. Has it become harder to smuggle a nuclear bomb into the United States and detonate it in a major city since 11 September? No. All of the heightened security around the country is a chimera intended to make the public feel safer, but no measures have been taken which reduce the chances of further attacks.

It becomes up to us to either make the bad guys's objective so hard to achieve (which, in turn, is difficult to do in a free society), or figure out why the nogoodniks hate us so much and try to diffuse that hate.

[fable]

Presidential job approval has traditionally been high during wartime--there are two notable exceptions: Abe Lincoln after he issued the Emancipation Proclaimation in 1863...

Lincoln's approval rating (in so far as it could be measured at the time) was actually pretty high at that time--not because of the EP, but because it was held for release until directly after a significant victory. After Antietam, Lincoln felt the time was right to strike. It was a brilliant tactical bit of political maneuvering, because it brought the abolitionists firmly into his camp, and caused the British government to waver in its intention to recognize the Confederate States as a separate nation.

In the larger question, however, you are correct. Lincoln, prior to Antietam, was an exceptionally unpopular president, probably because Americans (including the president) had gone into the war expecting an easy victory. Actually, both sides did. And there were many sections of the South that felt a hatred towards Jefferson Davis during the war that was only slightly less than their loathing for Lincoln. (The same held true in reverse for the North.)

[HighLordDave]

I would hardly call Antietam a significant victory (the Confederates carried the field, but stopped their invasion of Maryland); a preliminary draft of the Emanicpation Proclaimation was read to a few select parties in July 1862 but was not distributed to the press or the public. Right after the Battle of Antietam on 22 September 1862, Lincoln released this preliminary draft and announced his intentions to free the slaves is the Confederacy did not cease their rebellion and return to the Union; of course, they refused. The formal Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1 January 1863 after the Union debacle at Fredericksburg and, in my opinion, was a maneuver of desperation to keep the British from coming to the aid of the Confederacy. By elevating the war from a civil war to a moral imperative to eliminate slavery, Lincoln knew the British (who completed a gradual and compensated program of abolition in 1825) would not openly support the Rebellion with military aid.

Don't forget that in 1864, Lincoln faced a serious challenge from former Major-General George B. McClellan, who ran as a Democrat on a pro-peace platform, and the vote was dangerously close. Faced with draft riots in New York and food shortages across the country because of the war, Lincoln was in a precarious position. His position was made even worse by people who felt betrayed by the Emancipation Proclamation; the were in it to save the Union, not free slaves. Without the staunch grass-roots support of the abolitionist movement (secured through the Emanicpation Proclamation), he would have been ousted from office in the middle of the war.

The American public is a fickle constituency. Look at President Bush's approval after the Gulf War; it was so high that there is a classic SNL skit with Keifer Sutherland where a bunch of Democratic leaders are sitting around debating over who is going to run for president against Bush because none of them want to lose and each is giving the reason why they should not be the one to do it. Then, only two years later, the economy is bottoming out and Bush is retired.

Dubya is in a similar position. Americans love a war, especially one their winning. However, once they think they've won it (as we do now), we go back to our usual "me-first" attitude. There was a poll on NPR a couple of weeks ago saying that the "war" on terrorism is not American's highest priority going into the mid-term elections (which are six months away), but rather typical domestic issues: education, social security, prescription drugs for seniors, etc.

Dubya has shown that he is weak on domestic issues and has expended a lot of political capital on his tax "refund", withdrawing from the ABM treaty and building that ridiculous ballistic missile shield (read: sinecure for his defense-industry buddies). If the economy doesn't turn around, he'll be in trouble come November. I think that this latest round of announcements by government officials about a imminent (but unforseen) terrorist attack is a two fold strategy: first, to warn us that someone, someday, somewhere will kill more Americans on US soil, and second, to keep the "war" on terrorism on the front burner and not have to talk about issues on which the president is weak. Dubya's strength right now is the"war" on terrorism, but on everything else he is at best mediocre and at worst a liability for the Republicans.