Posted on 09/11/2006 4:26:06 AM PDT by Blackrain4xmas
911 Happened on Bush’s Watch
As we approach the fifth anniversary of the 911 attacks, it’s time to face some facts. 911 DID happen on President Bush’s watch. He was in charge. The fault for letting the attacks happen rests with the top of the pyramid.
The man deserved to be held accountable. Some would have preferred impeachment since it would have offered a partisan chance to avenge the impeachment of President Clinton 8years ago (still perceived by many as having been unwarranted). Lacking impeachment, there should have at least been a national referendum on the Presidency of George W Bush. Oh wait…I’m sorry, there was one. It was the 2004 election.
Rather than voting to remove the man who was in charge on Sept 11, 2001, the American people voted to keep him in office. They saw that the attack was well underway when he took office, and it was too far in motion to stop at the last minute. Regardless of the outcome, his trial by national vote has forced President Bush to account for his actions and his inactions in his first term. The American people chose to re-elect him.
With the blame for HOW the attacks succeeded resolved, people have to ask an even more important question about the 911 attacks. It’s the question that the 911 Commission mentioned, hid in plain sight, and then buried with supplemental data. WHY? We know why the attacks succeeded (or at least 75% of them did), but why were they launched? The answer is as simple as asking, “Why was Al Queda even revived after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan?” Finding the answers requires going back in history, examining the actions of previous Presidents, examining their impact on history, and facing their consequences.
The 911 Commission tells us vaguely why Osama Bin laden revived Al Queda after the Soviets left Afghanistan. They tell us why he started attacking the United States in December 1992.
“He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites.” … “He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, “ … “and he protested U.S. support of Israel.” -911 Commission Final Report; pg 49
Throughout the late 1990’s-particularly around the time Osama authorized the 911 plot to be set in motion, Al Queda focused increasingly on Iraq. Even Bin Laden experts like Peter Bergen point out that the rhetoric from Osama was becoming increasingly violent from 1996 forward. Of course, Bergen and others can’t fathom why the rhetoric was focusing more on Iraq, becoming more violent, or why each of the Bin Laden’s 1996+ declarations of war came within days of confirmed meetings between Al Queda’s strategic planner, second in command, Dr Ayman al Zawahiri and Iraqi officials (often these meetings took place in Baghdad).
Whenever there was a crisis over UN/Iraq sanctions and/or WMD inspections…Iraq would have a meeting with Al Queda’s #2 man, Bin Laden would declare war again, and/or an attack on the US was set in motion. This happened in 1996, in Feb 1998, in May 1998 (when the African Embassy Bombings were set in motion), and finally in December 1998 (when the 911 plot was finally authorized by Bin Laden).
History-like hindsight- is 20:20. The simple fact is that Al Queda never would have been reborn if President Bush Sr. had invaded Iraq. Al Queda never would have been reborn if Clinton would have invaded Iraq. Bin Laden wouldn’t have been able to declare war based on: the presence of US forces in Saudi (waging air war on Iraq) or the US-lead blockade/sanctions on Iraq (as cited by the 911 Commission). Most importantly, the 911 attacks didn't happen because of an invasion of Iraq-it happened because of a lack of invasion.
Partisan opponents of the President so often want to declare "911 happened on Bush's watch.” It did, but in making that claim, they're ignoring that Al Queda was reborn after Clinton was elected, came to power on Clinton's watch, went completely unchecked on Clinton's watch, and the plot was set in motion during Clinton's watch in response to events that happened on Clinton's watch; things that President Clinton did, and things he failed to do.
When opponents of Operation Iraqi Freedom look at Iraq, they somehow seem to think that it's just completely removed from 911 and Al Queda. “Iraq didn’t attack us on 911.” People who make that claim are ignoring that Al Queda was reborn because of the pre-George W Bush war on Iraq; President Clinton’s war on Iraq. Opponents of Operation Iraqi Freedom choose to ignore that the 911 plot was set in motion for a reason: as retaliation for President Clinton’s Wag-the-Dog Operation Desert Fox. The 911 attacks weren’t authorized because of President Bush’s invasion of Iraq, but because of Clinton's lack of invasion. The 911 attacks were at the very least indirectly related to Iraq, and possibly authorized at the request of Iraq’s intelligence services.
In the 2004 election, President Bush was held accountable for his errors in relation to the attacks, but President Clinton’s role continues to be evaded, ignored, and spun. We know what happened on President Bush’s watch. The attacks took 34 months to go from authorization to calamity. Only 7/34 months were on President Bush’s watch. After five years, isn’t it time we face up to what happened on President Clinton’s watch? Isn’t it time we examined, accepted, and talked about those two years of the plot that happened before President Bush took office? Isn’t it time we asked what happened to revive Al Queda and set the 911 plot in motion?
Wait a minute. I thought the dems said that Al Queda had nothing to do with Iraq???
I wasn't calling for a ban of the poster - I was posting before I expected the thread to be deleted. Why should I be banned for something everyone does?
Thank you for putting this in perspective. I totally agree.
Actually, I *am* not an "IBTZ comment." I *am* a human being.
You were talking about a comment, using a possessive pronoun as an adjective, "your," but you spelled it "you're." Apparently, *you're* the one who doesn't like being corrected.
1993 happened on Clinton's watch. It was even the same target for cripes sakes. Security upped in NY???
Oh - you're right. I thought I'd typed something else.
Why?
God Bless the Dress!
Ahem. Not to correct you or anything, as you clearly don't like that, but my "you're" was grammatically correct.
####
I know today is a difficult day for us all, but when I read that someone was correcting your grammar, my brain had trouble figuring out what he was saying.
That someone actually defends "your" in place of "you're", gave me a little smile on this terribly sad day.
You are very welcome- I'm glad this did not get pulled-- that final paragraph is a kicker.
Sounds like you didn't read the article
still don't understand why BROWN?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.