Could a September 11 type attack have happened on Clinton's watch?

[undeterred]

Poll question: Could a September 11 type attack have happened on Clinton's watch?

No September 11 type attack did happen during an eight year Clinton presidency. But let's just suppose that Bill Clinton had been elected president after 2 terms of Bush the Elder in 1996 and re-elected in 2000. Would a major terrorist attack have happened while he was president?

[KingFlorez]

1. No, he would have paid more attention

Bush ignored the memo, something Clinton wouldn't have let happen.

[Monkeyman]

2. Look who stopped the millenium attack

1993 woke up Bill he was on the watch. They keep bring up the Cole but the Navy gave orders not to fire non-enemy were to close

[Patchuli]

60. * was the "millenium attack!"

He was the disaster of Y2K!!!!! Not the 'puters...

[Cha]

3. It wouldn't have happened on Gore's

watch, either!

[baldguy]

4. They waited until Clinton left office.

It was so much easier then

[gratuitous]

48. Yep, because the first time they tried it . . .

Clinton tracked their asses down, tried them, convicted them, and they're still rotting in jail. Bush? After a few months of observing the spoiled frat boy, terrorists knew a strike could succeed. And where is the mastermind of those attacks five years later? Still free, and winning a PR war with the Bush administration from a fucking cave.

[Wapsie B]

5. Clinton was much more vigilant with regards to intelligence.

That's been documented by Richard Clark. Plus neither Clinton or Gore's family has been in bed with the bin Laden family for eons.

[sandnsea]

6. Clinton was more aware

He had had terrorist attacks on his watch, 5 of them to be exact, 6 if you include Somalia, 7 if you include the threat to Poppy's life I guess. He was keenly aware of the threat of al qaeda, which the Bushies ignored and blamed on Saddam. They arrogantly thought their mere presence in the White House would be enough of a threat to intimidate Saddam, and consequently didn't take the al qaeda threat seriously.

[haydukelives]

7. I picked number two

A no brainer

[JI7]

8. they stopped the plan to blow up the LAX

i think they would have done something about this also.

the Republicans greatly limited what Clinton could do during his administration also. anytime he tried to go after Bin Laden they got angry because it took attention away from his sex life which they were obsessed with. they went so far as to say he was making up Al Qaeda in order to cover up his sex life.

but Clinton still tried . when Bush got into office he completely ignored everything Clinton did regarding terrorism and never did anything about that terrorism report.

[iamjoy]

19. Limitations - Why I Said Other

JI7, you posted:
"the Republicans greatly limited what Clinton could do during his administration"

I think Clinton would have tried harder to stop the threat. I wish I could find the article where I read that before 9-11 Gore had signed off on a recommendation that the FBI share terror watch lists with the airlines, but the largely Republican held Congress and Senate said "NO."

So, if Clinton had a Democratic majority in Congress, or at least Republicans who weren't foaming at the mouth to get back at Democrats for Watergate and Nixon, he probably would have been able to prevent the attacks of 9-11.

[C_U_L8R]

9. It didn't - nuff said

[BOSSHOG]

10. Unlike bush, President Clinton did not need nor want an attack

[never_get_over_it]

11. Actually I think you need another option

Might have happened under Clinton or Gore but at least they would have been trying to stop it....can anyone imagine either Cliton or Gore going fishing after the Aug 6 PDB had been personally delivered to either one of them....

[Taxloss]

12. Yes. It almost did - the first WTC bombing, 1993. n/t

[11 Bravo]

13. And where are THOSE perps?

In fucking jail! Apprehended, just like the Oklahoma City bombers, and the USS Cole attackers, at least those who we were allowed to extradite, (and at least we know where they are). The terrorists who tried to hit us on the Big Dog's watch have been run to ground. Osama says , "Hi".

[wakeme2008]

17. But 11B it Could happened on Clinton's Watch

Especially with the FBI spending all it's time in Ark asking every female if Bill screwed her. :grr:

[11 Bravo]

33. Good point!

[undeterred]

46. Yeah, because that really put the nation at risk

and it only happens in Arkansas...

[treestar]

56. Hey if Bill had a good sex life

Maybe that made him healthier and more effective, lol. Which goes a long way to explaining Chimpy's incompetence.

[Yupster]

45. And the WTC hijackers are dead

Lot of good that does us.

[chat_noir]

21. responses to FReepers and their ilk

If Clinton bears responsibility for events that happened on the Sept 11 WTC attack eight months into Dubya's presidency, shouldn't Bush 41 bear responsibility for the WTC attack just six weeks into Clinton's presidency. The attack was planned on Poppy Bush’s watch.

When the first attack on the World Trade Center occurred on February 26, 1993, the Clinton presidency was six weeks old. Reliable sources say that Ramzi Youssef and his confederates had been planning the deed for three years. Where was Bush 41? Remember that many of the folks behind the first WTC attack are now serving long prison sentences. I guess that is another Clinton failing-- that he actually put some bad guys in jail on his watch.

[Taxloss]

23. Exactly. Even if the attack had been as bad as was intended,

it could hardly have been blamed on Clinton, who had been in the Oval Office for only a couple of weeks!

[treestar]

54. Exactly. Plus the fact that 911 started really gearing up in Jan. 2001

that is the month the two hijackers entered the US, IIRC, the two that were on the watch list.

You even have a case there for the fact that the perpetrators thought now that Bush was in power, it was a better time.

[AZBlue]

59. Exactly.

The goal was the same - to bring down the towers. They simply miscalculated that time.

Although...one does have to wonder if a second attempt would have been thwarted since 1993 taught Clinton a lesson and he did actually pay attention to intelligence matters.

[Mabus]

14. Other

Your question assumes that everything else in the world would have turned out the exact same way except for who was president. If Bush had won in 1992, the GOP probably wouldn't have taken over Congress they way they did in the 90's. So, if Poppy had two terms who knows what kind of world we would have had in 2000. Remember that the first attack on the WTC occurred in Feb. 1993, a little over a month after Clinton took office. In other words, the plan was already in place before Clinton became president. It was planned under Poppy's watch. So how safe did Poppy's presidency make America? How much time was he spending on terrorism during his presidency?

And after that attack Clinton didn't try to clampdown on our civil rights, he didn't misuse/bypass the FISA courts, he didn't use the event to create worldwide fear. In fact, the next terrorist attack in the United States was homegrown. The OKC bombing was planned and committed by Americans. What kind of sanctions would Poppy have put into place if it had happened under his watch?

Hell, if anything, 9/11 may have happened a lot sooner than it happened if Poppy had been elected to two terms.

[TahitiNut]

15. Who would want Clinton to be a "courageous wartime President"???

How could Bill Clinton's polls have risen as much as Junior's? Could Bill Clinton have spoken more "thrillingly" than Junior - with megaphone, pile of rubble, and fireman alongside?

That's the answer. Cui bono??

[Nobody]

16. Already happened in 1993

Ans another poster points out that the perps are in jail.

A devastating attack would not have been the best thing ever to happen to Clinton as it was for Bush. Now our little dictator gets to make photo ops, invade Iraq, spy on Americans without warrants, torture people, and do whatever his little heart desires. It was the best moment of his life when the towers came tumbling down.

Clinton would never have sat idle for seven minutes. He would not have looked like an actor who forgot his lines. Unlike Bush, Clinton was a real president and could improvise when he needed to.

[physioex]

18. Yea....

Chimp was reading "My Pet Goat" and eating cake both times this country was in crisis. Nuf said.

[chat_noir]

20. counting down the minutes

At 9:03 AM on 11 September 2001, the second airplane hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center. President Bush was in Florida, at the Emma T. Booker Elementary School, listening to children read. Chief of Staff Andrew Card came over and whispered in Bush's ear, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."

What did the Commander in Chief do? Nothing. He sat there. He sat for well over 5 minutes, doing nothing while 3,000 people were dying and the attacks were still in progress.

Not only did the leader of the free world sit as his country was attacked, the Secret Service also did nothing. Bush was appearing in public at a previously announced photo-op. He was a sitting duck. The attacks were ongoing at that point (planes had yet to hit the Pentagon or the field in Pennsylvania), and nobody knew how much more destruction was going to happen. Were there two, three, four, eight more planes hijacked and on their way to crash into prominent buildings? Was one headed for the school, where anyone who checked the President's public itinerary would know he was located? Were other terrorists planning to detonate dirty nukes? Were they going to release anthrax or smallpox or sarin? Was an assassination squad going to burst into the school and get Bush? Was a suicide bomber going to ram a truck full of explosives into that classroom?

During the midst of the attacks, any of these things could've happened. Yet there sits Bush, seemingly unconcerned. His Chief of Staff likewise doesn't think that America in flames warrants the President's immediate attention. And the Secret Service utterly fails to do its job by grabbing the President of the United States and getting him to safety. It's truly inexplicable.


**********

This footage, obtained and presented exclusively by The Memory Hole, shows President Bush sitting in a Florida classroom for 5 minutes after he was told that the second Twin Tower has been hit and that America was being attacked. A truncated version of this footage that has been available online since June 2002 shows Bush for only 2 minutes, 10 seconds after being told. This new footage more than doubles this length of time.

Immediately below, you'll find still-frames from the video, one every 5 seconds starting when Chief of Staff Andrew Card gives Bush the news and ending when the scene abruptly ends.


http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm

[mp3hound]

36. I agree with that. It still would have happened but

the fallout would have been different.

[Warpy]

22. He'd have paid more attention to the warnings

and he'd have kept the pressure up to find bin Laden and wreck his organization, unlike this bunch. They were so fixated on Iraq that they completely discounted the real threat.

Of course, he would still have had to deal with the obstructionist GOP in Congress, desperate to protect Enron and corporate tax cheats and preventing his closing of the offshore cash pipelines that funded the pilots on 9/11, so who knows?

I think the chance was about 50-50.

[The Straight Story]

24. I voted Yes (Oklahoma City Bombing)

The president can set the tone for things but that does not mean all the people in government pay attention.

Okie city bombing? That went down.

Was it clinton that stopped the millineum plot, or an alert agent?

Shit happens. And then look at Ptech and BMI - bother were prevelant during the clinton years. Does not mean clinton was to blame, but things happen.

[U4ikLefty]

27. I don't recall the "McVeigh Determined to Attack the United States"

intelligence breifing.

[The Straight Story]

28. Maybe cause the intelligence sucked?

And maybe because it has not been delved into very much?

Hell - I knew terrorists wanted to attacked the US, any idiot with a brain knew that. No one needed the cia to tell them that.

With McVeigh one could argue there were classic signs of terror, why wasn't it picked up on (and that is not to mention the conspiracy angle of it all). Was that clinton's fault? Not in my book.

In a world of billions there is no way one person can know all and protect from all. Shit was let slide under clinton and bush, to me it was a wake up call that our intelligence services needed some ass kicked. bush failed to stop an attack, clinton failed to stop some attacks, but the common denominator was who was giving them info and advice. THOSE are the people that worry me the most.

[U4ikLefty]

29. But you voted yes, yet Bush was warned 50+ times by intelligence

agencies. If Clinton was president I assert that he would've paid attention to these warning by our intelligence services.

If you are arguing that intelligence should've done more, please tell me where & be specific.

[The Straight Story]

34. No further then to look then at cooperative research and 9/11 timeline

A lot went on in the 90's allowing terrorists to get more involved in things (ptech and bmi as one example).

The roots of 9/11 were in the 90's. They were just not followed up on.

Does it make it one person's fault (ala clinton)? Nope.

Our intelligence services failed us as a whole. If you a need a link to that research let me know, got it handy here somewhere (will update when I grab it).


edited to add a good starting place:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=ptech&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

[Ignacio Upton]

25. It's hard to say

If Clinton's tenure in office was 1997-2005 instead of 1993-2001, the first WTC still would have happened, and Al Qaida would have formed anyway (in reaction to Poppy stationing troops in Saudi Arabia.) I think that the factors in place that led to 9/11 still would have happened, just in the form of different attacks in different years.
Likewise, if Gore had managed to win outright and not have the election stolen from him, I don't rule out the possibility that 9/11 would have happened (although I think we would have had a better chance in stopping it because Gore would not have ignored Al Qaida.!) And if 9/11 were thwarted by Gore, then another spectacular attack by Al Qaida would also have been a problem. 9/11/01 would have become "9/12/02" or some other random date instead.

[laylah]

26. I voted other because

ANYTHING is possible; however, Big Dog, unlike *dumbass, worked diligently to make sure it didn't happen. Had it happened on his watch, though, he certainly would not have continued reading a FREAKING CHILDREN'S BOOK nor would he have run and hidden, he would have been back at the WH STAT! And, if we all remember, it was President Clinton who showed up in NY days before the dickless wonder.

Jenn

[hogwyld]

30. We all know * orchestrated 9/11

he needed an excuse to go after the Arab world to get control of the oil supplies. He leveraged that into an excuse to go to war with Iraq to go after saddam to protect his daddy.

[SammyWinstonJack]

35. !

:thumbsup:

[Bucky]

42. Some of us "all" aren't quite so impressed w/Bush's organizational skills.

Bush can't even orchstrate buttoning up his own shirt when he goes on TV. But you seriously think he could orchestrate 9/11 ?

The conspiracy community can do a LOT better than that.

[undeterred]

44. He assigned it to his VP

and his organizational skills are pretty impressive.

[Bucky]

55. The same VP who organized the Iraq & WMD plans?

This is laughable. If you think about all the sundry contingencies a 9/11 hoax would have to think of and coordinate--and then compare that scenario with how many contingencies the Bushlings planned for in the much bigger Iraq occupation--it's clear these are men who are gifted at manipulating public communication and useless at just about everything else.

I have yet to hear a plausible response to the three major holes in the Mihop scenario. First, if they did 9/11 to go after Iraq, why didn't they make it look like Iraq was somehow tied to 9/11--or even directly responsible for that matter? If you can frame al-Qaeda or play them for patsies so easily, then ginning up a clear connection to Iraq would be job one--and a relatively easy job at that.

Second, if part of the plan was to present Bush as a hero and win votes, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to prevent either 9/11 or prevent subsequent orchestrated "plots" by terrorists. It was taken at face value in the months after 9/11 that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of al-Qaeda sleeper cells in the US planning future mayhem. Why not have a spectacular success after 9/11? The country was in no mood to scrutinize any such successes. Planning out a "prevented" attack would be far far easier an open up the Mihopers to far less risk or exposure or snafu. And yet not a single plot has yet to emerge from this supposedly wise and omnipotent black ops program that put 9/11 together.

Finally, if they could concoct the whole bogus WMD cover story (a cover story only needed because there were no 9/11 ties to Iraq), why did they not think to actually plant WMDs in Iraq? This omission alone has been the single biggest reason Bush's vanity war has been discredited. Even a moron could see that--and yet the moron didn't, leading to the clear implication that the moron and his minions didn't plan it out.

As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, sometimes you got to ask about the dogs that don't bark. In this case, it's because there's no trespassers in the backyard.

[hogwyld]

49. Not by himself

Trust me when I say that his henchmen, in their warped genius, were quite capable of orchestrating 9/11. Rove and Cheney, however much we despise them, are politically astute manipulators. Throw in the PNAC/neocon brownshirts, and it's too obvious.

[Bucky]

51. Is this the same "warped genius" that planned Iraq, Katrina relief...

and the policies for containing the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs? Is this the same crew that could gin up fake evidence about WMDs but couldn't manage to plant the evidence in Iraq? Are you really calling it "warped genius" when they couldn't figure out--along with half of official Washington--that Ahmed Chalabi was an Iranian agent of influence?

Sorry, no sale. They can spin good; they can talk scary; they pander to their narrowing base. But they can't organize for shit.

[hogwyld]

58. You just don't get it

All of the above examples are points to my argument. In order for the fascist takeover, things have to get bad b4 the people say "enough, do anything to stop this" So once NK launches a nuke, or Iran nukes Israel, or something really horrific happens, the only answer for the coming anarchy will be a police state, and one world government. THAT is their end gaem, and they are patient.

[pitohui]

31. we already know the answer -- nope, didn't happen on his watch

clinton was actually president for 8 yrs -- it didn't happen on his watch, check any history book

bojinka, millenniall attack etc. were stopped

it's a little odd that people have already forgotten this...

[Hippo_Tron]

32. It's hard to say, but the Katrina fiasco certainly wouldn't have happened

Bush said "okay do something about it" and went off to take guitar playing photo ops. Clinton would've told them to update him every 20 minutes and probably wouldn't have slept until everyone had been evacuated to safety.

Although, here's something I would consider. Bush was told that they were planning to use planes. Why was the public not alerted of a possible terrorist attack and airport security heightened? I would imagine that Clinton would've done those things.

[JAbuchan08]

37. No, because Al Queda needed Bush in power to achieve his

political objectives. That's not to say that it *couldn't* have happened under Clinton, but it would have been less likely, and, as I have said, I don't think that Bin Laden would have attempted the attack if there was not someone like Bush in office to facilitate the attack either through incompetence or complicity.

[undeterred]

40. Exactly.

[wildbilln864]

38. 911 happened ...

in order to advance the PNAC agenda to invade the ME including Iraq! It's obvious really! Their "New Pearl Harbor" That's why Bush wasn't surprised when he was told and why the SS didn't worry for his safety. It was Cheney and the PNAC's puppy!

[mvd]

39. Probably not

If the MIHOPers are right, then the rogue part of our government waited until after Clinton. If LIHOP or incompetence, Clinton was keeping a closer eye on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda - so also likely not in this case.

[Bucky]

41. Border patrol stopped the Millenium plot cause Bill read his PDBs

The reason the al-Qaeda attack on the LA airport was stopped in its early stages was because Clinton reacted when intelligence services said we needed to be on the look out for terrorist plots. He ordered his subordinates to pass warnings and to assume heightened levels of alert in the days before the terrorist attempted to cross the border from Canada.

There was a horrible terror attack on US soil while Clinton was president--Oklahoma City. But the fact is that Clinton's approach to leading and guarding the nation's security reduced the risks of terrorists having success, while Bush's policies multiply the risks and increase our exposure.

[MiniMe]

43. Possibly could have happened, but he definitely would have paid...

more attention to the Aug 6 PDB and actually investigated it.

[Joe Bacon]

47. Clinton would have stopped it

and those damnable Republicans would hound him about not paying attention to something else...

[CJCRANE]

50. Other: The PNAC crew

were so determined to get into power and get their "new Pearl Harbor" I don't think anything could've stopped them (very few knew how ruthless they were back then or how big their plans were).

[Marr]

52. I don't believe for a second that GW Bush orchestrated 9-11.

But I don't think Ronald McDonald cooks hamburgers, either. He's just the mascot.

The fact is that the neocons had been pushing for an invasion of Iraq for years, they'd publicly noted that their plans could not be put into action without a "new Pearl Harbor", and they have extensive and direct connections into not just the Middle Eastern power structure in general, but the bin Laden family in particular.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least to discover that they'd initiated a dialogue with Middle Eastern groups and let them know the front door would be left open. Not in the least.

Anyway, I know I'm mostly off-topic. To answer your question: no, I personally don't think the specific attacks we saw on 9-11 would've ocurred on Clinton's watch. His administration paid much closer attention to the security briefings. They also wouldn't have had any reason to initiate such attacks, or to allow them to happen. The Bush Administration had lots of reasons.

Obviously, terror attacks could (and did) occur on Clinton's watch. Oklahoma City, for instance. But something as extensive as the 9-11 attacks, with that many people involved in that many ways...? No, I think they would've been found out.

[treestar]

53. I think his Administration would have paid more attention to the

intelligence and made better practical use of it. It would not have happened because the underlings would have been more focused on doing their jobs than on ideology and making the world turn out a certain way in accordance with the ideology.

[dansolo]

57. With Louis Freeh as the head of the FBI, yes.

I firmly believe that Louis Freeh was a mole in the Clinton administration, and if the opportunity presented itself, he would have obstructed efforts to tracking down terrorists prior to an attack.

[Rainscents]

61. No, definitely NOT!

Clinton like to read Daily briefing notes and take action.

[pinto]

62. To be honest, does it matter now? 5 years later? The pressing

question is What now? imho