What Jeb should have said about 9/11 and his brother
Most readers here know I pretty much can’t stand Jeb Bush. I don’t mean personally; no doubt he’s a nice man who loves his wife and all that. I can’t stand him as a candidate and know no one who can, and I have long said that despite the money he gets he will not be the nominee.
Jeb Bush’s recent response to Trump’s assertions about his brother shows just how tepid and flatfooted Jeb is.
How should he have responded instead? It was a golden opportunity to slam the Democrats, and one he missed; he should have pointed out that all the planning and many of the activities connected with 9/11 (such as the terrorists’ pilot training in the US) happened under Bill Clinton’s watch, which makes Clinton largely responsible if anyone. So far as I can tell in quite a bit of Googling, Jeb hasn’t said that in response to Trump (and if he has, I’d appreciate a link).
Jeb should have pointed out that generalized warnings that al Qaeda would attack were and are meaningless without the details of who, what, and where, and that a big part of the reason intelligence could not put these details together in a coherent manner was due to Democratic policies (FISA and the firewall) that were put in place quite some time ago. An excellent article explaining how it happened and what it meant for the sharing of intelligence about the 9/11 attackers was written by Andrew McCarthy, and appeared in Commentary in 2004. Here’s a relevant excerpt:
…[P]rosecutors developed] grave apprehension about “the appearance of impropriety”””a hidebound concept governing lawyer ethics that is perfectly nonsensical in the life-and-death context of national security. Even as militant Islam began its terrorist war against the United States with the 1993 WTC bombing and the 1994-95 “Bojenka” plot to blow a dozen American airliners out of the sky over the Pacific, the Justice Department was worrying that agents and prosecutors might be perceived to be using intelligence-gathering authority to build criminal prosecutions. Often, the result was weeks or more of delay, during which identified terrorists who happened also to be committing quotidian crimes went unmonitored while the government dithered over whether to employ FISA or the criminal wiretap law. The insanity reached its apex in 1995 with the “primary purpose” guidelines drafted by the Clinton administration: henceforth, a firewall would be placed between criminal and national-security agents, generally barring them even from communicating with one another.
The damage from the firewall and the impediments to FISA has been incalculable. It took ten years to make the racketeering case against Sami al-Arian, the professor accused of helping run the murderous Palestinian Islamic Jihad from the campus of South Florida University, because the wealth of information collected by intelligence agents was withheld from their criminal counterparts. And that was a pittance compared with what happened in the waning weeks before the September 11 attacks. Zacarias Moussaoui, who had paid cash for pilot training (and was reported to authorities when his bizarre behavior””including intense interest in how cabin and cockpit doors worked””could no longer be ignored), was detained by the immigration service. Worried FBI intelligence agents were desperate to search his computer, but were turned down by supervisors who decided there was insufficient evidence to go to the FISA court. His al-Qaeda membership and numerous connections to the hijackers were not uncovered until after the attacks.
And the Moussaoui travesty itself pales in comparison to the story of Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, excruciatingly recounted in Slate by Stewart Baker, general counsel of the National Security Agency during the early Clinton administration. The pair, who had trained to pilot planes, lived in California. In August 2001, an astute FBI intelligence agent was trying to find them, and asked the criminal division for help. But FBI headquarters stepped in and insisted that the firewall not be breached: criminal agents were to stay out of the intelligence effort. A few weeks later, al-Midhar and al-Hazmi plunged Flight 77 into the Pentagon, their manifold ties to Mohammed Atta and the other hijackers kept safely under wraps.
All of this was the result of Democratic sponsored and Democratic orchestrated policies.
I don’t expect Trump to know a thing about it; he’d rather blame President Bush, whom he’s hated and considered “evil” for a long time. And he knows accusing GW will get brother Jeb Bush all riled up, and that Jeb will be ineffectual in his response.
And you know what? I doubt Jeb has a clue about any of this, either.
We’re in the very best of hands.
The higher up the chain of command you go, the less you know. That’s true of a newly founded feudal system full of virtuous warlords and knights. It is true of a decadent, ancient, system as well, more so than any other perhaps.
Clinton crony Jamie Goerlick built the firewall between the FBI and CIA. She then moved to either Fannie or Freddie (I can’t recall which one) and was paid millions.
More of the same if Hillary wins.
This latest Trump statement makes clear he should not be President.
You beat me to it, CH, about Gorelick, but you forgot to mention that she and other Clinton cronies illegally manipulated the timing of revenues at Fannie Mae to maximize “profits” and their own bonuses. Franklin Raines made 90 million in bonuses in just a few years, but when an audit caught it, he was severely punished by having to give back 15 million of it.
Democrats/Marxists reward loyalty and take care of their own, unlike their infighting, backstabbing faux-opposition.
An additional irony is that Gorelick was made a member of the 9/11 Commission that investigated the attack, after having been the creator of the firewall between the intelligence agencies that was a big part of why it didn’t get caught beforehand. Some people have no sense of shame or honor.
Sociopaths, I think they’re called.
“So far as I can tell in quite a bit of Googling, Jeb hasn’t said that in response to Trump (and if he has, I’d appreciate a link).”
He and his creatures just aren’t that smart. Smart people tend to operate under the assumption that there are lots of other smart people. But there are much fewer than one things just as dumb is deeper than the deep blue sea.
Entirely unmentioned in the comments so far (you can thank me later) is the fact that the Somalis, who had Bin Laden in custody, begged, belabored, bothered, beseeched, and repeatedly pleaded with the Clinton white house to take that hot potato off their hands.
Nay, nay quoth the Clinton Justice Department, including Janet Reno, who had no compunction about incinerating American religious nuts but couldn’t determine what the meaning of threat was when applied to a religious nut who was all set to incinerate a few thousand Americans.
Bill Clinton had a dozen opportunities to kill Bin Laden. Sure on some of them a small number of collateral would have been sent to Allah, but who cares. This is war.
Killing Bin Laden was worth at least the 3000 collateral’s given what he did with the Towers.
Let us not forget Jamie Gorelick.
What became of her?
Why, she’s a partner in a big-time law firm and is on the Board of Amazon.
She sleeps well at night.
The linked article by McCarthy goes into Gorelick’s role in setting up the firewall. She was instrumental, but just part of a long trend that started much earlier. That’s the history McCarthy describes, and he places her in fuller context. Please read it to get the larger picture.
I would also assert that Trump is a dolt. He just asserts that one of his opponent’s brother was somehow responsible for 9-11.
The smart thing to do would be to pin 9-11 on the wife of the President who didn’t kill OBL when he had the chance. The really smart thing to do is to attack every single idiotic Dem policy that makes us weaker in the war with the Islamists. The really, really smart thing to do would make us the fracking oil and gas export kings of the world so we could minimize our trading with those religious nuts. Eliminate the tax credits to the Greens and build KXL. Hillary’s policies only bleed the Treasury and continue to make the Sauds rich.
One of the main reasons I like Carly is she is focused on beating Hillary and attacks her at every chance.
It’s a fool’s errand to relitigate 9-11 or the Iraq war. Politics is about the future; not the past.
The Clintons have this corrupt gang and Jamie is part of the crew. Probably 100 others. And it will be more of the same if she wins. We know about Humma and Cheryl Mills but exactly what is Bruce Lindsey doing these days? Last I knew he was at the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
And that whole Libya mess had something to do with Sid Bluemethal making money.
She had the private email server in order to run her money making operation with Bill, the Foundation and the rest of her gang. Just like Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos.
I can’t stand Trump; and this illustrates part of the justification.
Someone should very publicly set the record straight. I know GWB probably won’t. It is an opening for Jeb as there is a lot of ammunition to use against the Trumpet. His handlers probably counsel against it.
This whole “GWB caused 9-11” just detracts from the real issues. The Dems love it. The Atlantic mag agrees. The 8-6-01 PDB is back in the mix.
There is a huge lost opportunity cost wasting time on this dead letter.
The democrats and Clinton certainly are due the lion’s share of the blame but very few people prior to 9/11 were prepared to state that Islam itself was the source of ‘radical Islamism’. Nor were the majority of Americans agreeable to the draconian measures needed to prevent that threat from manifesting.
Even now we are far from a majority of Americans viewing Islam itself as a totalitarian ideology that presents to the West a mortal existential threat, a clear and present danger.
George Bush’s “religion of peace” characterization of Islam is due its fair share of blame in keeping the public unaware. Throw in the media’s eagerness to publicize and characterize any criticism of Islam as “Islamophobia” and our vulnerability to a 9/11 was entirely predictable.
As is our now increased vulnerability, proven by America’s inability to stop Obama’s suicidal agreement with Iran, by far the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
Tragically, the harshest lessons are apparently only learned through bitter experience.
Without Vietnam, there would have been no sabotaged Iraq and Afghanistan. Without a sabotaged Iraq and Afghanistan, the Left would have a different situation to deal with.
In wars, previous battles are very critical in changing current and future war results.
You know, G.W. Bush never went after Bill Clinton’s failures either. In fact, if I remember correctly, he always emphasized going forward.
And this, from an interview he gave in 2014, is priceless:
Ann Says:
October 19th, 2015 at 5:19 pm
You know, G.W. Bush never went after Bill Clinton’s failures either. In fact, if I remember correctly, he always emphasized going forward.
aaand, he never cleaned house. He let many Democ.rat plants in office …
You gotta wonder …
As you say, Trump doesn’t actually blame GW for the attack, he’s amusing himself getting under Prince Jeb ‘s thin skin. And Bush is too much of a dunce to recognize he’s being trolled. Exactly the kind of guy that Karl Rove and his donors can count on to do what he’s told.
The Trump quotes I’ve heard are very well crafted so that they are technically true. 911 did happen on Bush’s watch and Bush didn’t keep us safe. Trump then goes on to say that he does not blame anyone including Bush so his statement is compatible with the discussion about Jamie Gorelick’s role is weakening our defense.
As Neo pointed out, Trump should be attacking the Democrats rather than other Republicans. He isn’t the first Republican to attack other Republicans. Last election cycle Romney was quite vicious in his attack adds against other Republicans and then acted like a mouse in the general election. I doubt Trump will let Hillary or Saunders off the hook so easily.
I am so tired of the donald, how other people who call themselves conservative can support him is beyond my meager intellect to comprehend.
Ann: “You know, G.W. Bush never went after Bill Clinton’s failures either. In fact, if I remember correctly, he always emphasized going forward.”
Unless you have read George H.W. Bush’s book, “All the Best: My Life in Letters and Other Writings,” you will not understand the Bush family. Papa Bush is the most decent, kind-hearted, humble man you could hope to meet. His sons reflect their father. They are all gentleman, try to do the right thing, and speak no (or almost no) ill of other people. They are also the kind of men who genuinely want to work with the democrats in the spirit of bilateral cooperation. When I read his book, I recognized why George H. W. Bush, one of the most experienced men to ever serve as President, (Navy veteran, businessman, Congressman, ambassador to China, ambassador to the UN, chairman of the Republican Party, director of the CIA, and Vice President) was a mediocre President (with the exception of Desert Storm). He does not have the hard-hearted realism that a successful President requires. He is just too nice. Being President requires a person who can be an SOB when he needs to be. The Bush family don’t have that trait – the cold-heartedness it takes to deal with unscrupulous political and foreign opponents. We would all love to have any of the Bushes as neighbors, friends, school teachers, or bosses. But for President we need hard-nosed people who know how to stand up to our enemies, both foreign and domestic. Some examples would be Truman, Ike, and Reagan.
That is the primary reason why I am not at all in favor of Jeb. He’s just too doggone nice. Just like his father. It’s a shame that this is true. We would like to believe that nice guys should always win. In real life it’s more like Leo Durocher wrote, “Nice Guys Finish Last!”
The 9/11 Commission studied and reported on the errors made that lead up to the attack. The idea was that we would learn from the report and avoid those errors in the future. Trump ought to be well acquainted with the conclusions. That that doesn’t seem to be is appalling in a man who would be President.
starlord Says:
October 19th, 2015 at 6:29 pm
As you say, Trump doesn’t actually blame GW for the attack, he’s amusing himself getting under Prince Jeb ‘s thin skin. And Bush is too much of a dunce to recognize he’s being trolled. Exactly the kind of guy that Karl Rove and his donors can count
Exactly!
Trump’s been paying attention longer than you’d think:
Over A Year Before 9/11, Trump Wrote Of Terror Threat With Remarkable Clarity
“I really am convinced we’re in danger of the sort of terrorist attacks that will make the bombing of the Trade Center look like kids playing with firecrackers.”
Is Trump actually a Democratic plant?
neo…
You nailed it.
In every way.
Cornhead… You are dead right. Jamie Gorelick was the actual pen that drafted the magic firewall. She’s an apparat, pure and simple.
She was the critical player in Blackhawk Down — working as the control agent over Secretary Cohen — she vetoed Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C… so it devolved to Plan D. (Blackhawk Down)
Janet Reno, Gorelick and President Clinton staged a photo-op during the signing of her CRA Policy ‘artwork.’
Gorelick was IMMEDIATELY there after dispatched to Freddie Mac — to collect $35,000,000 over a handful of years.
Cornhead Says:
October 19th, 2015 at 4:39 pm
I would also assert that Trump is a dolt. He just asserts that one of his opponent’s brother was somehow responsible for 9-11.
&&&
You’ve missed Donald’s craft and art.
The entire purpose of Trump’s assertion was to get Jeb to sputter.
Slamming Bush 43 is to beat a dead horse — and actually improve his standing with cross over Democrat blue collar voters… who’ve come to accept the lie as truth.
Donald is seeking the NOMINATION — not the TRUTH.
Get it ?
I have found that one is roundly hated for sticking with the facts, the truth, and real history.
The average Joe would rather believe the legend, the myth, the narrative.
If you really want his vote, pander to him.
Anyone who has shifted the guilt from Clinton to Bush can’t really be all that bright… or is simply too young to remember, generally.
G6loq,
Suppose Trump had been sworn in in 2001, he would have had 9 months to change immigration rules, review all previous visas to deterrmine which people were dangerous, and round up the bad guys and get them out of the country ASAP. At the same time, he would have had to get rid of the wall of separation and put in place mechanisms so that CIA and FBI could communicate effectively. He would have had to identify the most likely means of attack and establish preventive measures (the piece you linked to talked of WMD, not airplanes). And of course all of this would have had to be accomplished despite lawsuits from the ACLU and rabid objections from Dems.
Trump may have noticed something 2000, but that says nothing about his effectiveness in preventing an attack.
G6loq Says:
October 19th, 2015 at 5:55 pm
Ann Says:
October 19th, 2015 at 5:19 pm
You know, G.W. Bush never went after Bill Clinton’s failures either. In fact, if I remember correctly, he always emphasized going forward.
aaand, he never cleaned house. He let many Democ.rat plants in office …
You gotta wonder …
Preach it, brother.
At the TOP of the list: Richard Clarke
If there is ANY man who shoulder’s the guilt, it is Richard Clarke, the Clinton appointee that was the point man for counter-terror policy and action.
This is the same fellow who, on his own authority, jetted the extended bin Laden clan out of the US — while all regular air travel was shut down. He never cleared this act with ANYBODY.
So, now really, who is in bed with the bin Laden family ?
I’d say it was Clinton-Clarke.
It’s now coming out that our government has plenty of dirt (financial support and telephonic connections) to link bin Laden’s half-brothers to him and his crime.
This reality is STILL being suppressed by this administration… same as Bush 43.
It must be dynamite.
starlord Says:
October 19th, 2015 at 6:29 pm
As you say, Trump doesn’t actually blame GW for the attack, he’s amusing himself getting under Prince Jeb ‘s thin skin. And Bush is too much of a dunce to recognize he’s being trolled. Exactly the kind of guy that Karl Rove and his donors can count on to do what he’s told.
&&&
That’s it in a nutshell.
Preach it.
J.J., 6:49 pm — “Leo Durocher wrote, ‘Nice Guys Finish Last!'”
The point is well-taken, and very relevant. The actual quote is a little different, and to me, the additional words actually serve to underscore J.J.’s (and Durocher’s) point. Reference:
http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2010/07/leo-durocher-nice-guys-finish-last.html
BEGIN PASTE
That day, he was dissing the New York Giants and their manager Mel Ott to some reporters, during batting practice at the old “Polo Grounds” stadium. One of the reporters was sportscaster Red Barber. Another was Frank Graham, sportswriter for The New York Journal-American.
Graham reported that Red Barber had asked Durocher “Why don’t you be a nice guy for a change?”
According to Graham, Durocher replied:
“Nice guys! Look over there. Do you know a nicer guy than Mel Ott? Or any of the other Giants? Why, they’re the nicest guys in the world! And where are they? In seventh place! Nice guys! I’m not a nice guy — and I’m in first place.” After pacing up and down the visitors’ dugout, the Dodger manager waved a hand toward the Giants’ dugout and repeated, “The nice guys are all over there, in seventh place.”
END PASTE
You know that something stinks when Democrat polls show Jeb Bush defeating Hillary Rodham Clinton.
That tyro couldn’t defeat a baby rattle.
The Left WANTS Jeb to be taken seriously.
He’s sure to be the laughing stock if nominated.
If he is the nominee, then the Convention was high on cocaine.
expat Says:
October 19th, 2015 at 8:04 pm
Trump may have noticed something 2000, but that says nothing about his effectiveness in preventing an attack.
Everything you say is correct. BUT, you are being too literal.
My point is: Trump is an operator. Something was amiss, he sensed it.
Like my former boss He’d likely would have stopped by my desk and asked why that, what’s that? Nothing apparent but I’d scrambe to make sure… By then I knew better than second guessing his intuition…. Not a pretty looking man b-t-w. But there were big bonuses at year end, helicopters rides and shiny cars ….
(the piece you linked to talked of WMD, not airplanes) … ¿yeah? Whé¸t?
A distinction without a difference…. that will get you killed.
Cruz knows. Cruz also is an operator.
Carson also is an operator, but playing another man’s game -at the moment – we shall see.
Fiorina fancies herself an operator…
If he is the nominee, then the Convention was high on cocaine.
Then, revolution?
Via Hot Air — 2016 is looking more and more like a disaster in the making for Republicans: Not good: Jim Webb considering independent run for president
Stu 7:41 pm,
I thought the donald a dem saboteur back in June, my opinion has not changed.
“Something was amiss, he sensed it.”
Oh, please. the donald’s finely tuned geopolitical antennae felt the atmospheric vibrations of 9/11/01 in (any month of your choice) in 2000? Is it grape, cherry, or strawberry kool-aid? Just curious.
Is it grape, cherry, or strawberry kool-aid? Just curious.
finely tuned geopolitical … there was nothing subtle about it all at the times.
As of now, yakkers and takers obstructing the makers …
Time for you to get off the Public Library computer. People are waiting for their turn …
Blert, you just made one of the funniest jokes I have heard in a long time–“you just missed Trump’s craft and art”.
Can’t stop laughing.
I could just as well say that a jackass braying is demonstrating his craft and art.
Yet another reason Jeb shouldn’t be elected. You would think he would know the details surrounding his brother’s presidency intimately, but you’d be wrong.
If he can’t be bothered to keep up on national security and mount a halfway competent defense, then I can’t be bothered to vote for him.
P.S. Trump is still a shit for taking the truther line. What a clown.
Dennis Prager likes to quote the famous Talmudic dictum: those who are kind to the cruel will be cruel to the kind. That dictum applies with full force to the Bush family who have done incredible damage to millions of conservative Americans by not standing up for them against their enemies on the left. Bush’s statement after 911 that Islam is “a religion of peace” and his subsequent actions to separate Islam from the jihadists who brought down the World Trade Center will probably go down in history as one of the greatest blunders in history.
stu Says:
October 19th, 2015 at 7:41 pm
Is Trump actually a Democratic plant?
&&&
A bigger question … Is Jeb a Democratic// Wall Street plant ?
For there is absolutely no doubt that Hillary wants to run against Jeb — not Donald — not Carly — not Ted — not Ben.
Well, folks, George W has FINALLY been heard from! Whom did he attack/criticize?
Was it Hillary?
Was it Bernie Sanders?
Was it Billy Jeff Clinton?
Was it King Hussein O.?
Why, no, dearies: he’s had nothing but good things to say about our Leftist traitors. … He went after TED CRUZ.
What does that tell you? Don’t tell ME this guy is a gentleman. He lets Obama skate for seven disastrous years, after letting the Leftists trash America around the clock and praise the jihad boys for the entire length of his own term, then turns and attacks — the Republican Senator from Texas!
Now it’s apparent why he had the oleaginous Karl Rove as his advisor. Yes, I voted for Bush in ’04, and he was greatly preferable to the treasonous scum Kerry, but HEY. What the hell?
Where did I hear this? on Mark Levin today. In his usual dyspeptic style.
Much earlier, I read what Trump said after the 1993 WTC attack. Now I’m trying to find it using my good friend Google, and I’m failing. The gist is that this was just a fire-cracker; and worse was yet to come. As a Manhattan real estate mogul, he had to be paying attention, and he was.
Then came 9/11. Which was really bad news for Manhattan real estate moguls, let alone the rest of us.
Do not make the mistake of thinking Trump is ill-informed. We’ve caught allusions in his speeches that show he is extremely well-informed. But they are wasted on typical voters, so he doesn’t pursue them, and he doesn’t need to pursue them.
Attacking GWB on 9/11 is cruel politics. Trump can, and will, make the case that GWB’s weak immigration policies let the 9/11 terrorists over-stay their visas, especially after the first attack on the WTC. Jeb can splutter but he is caught. Let’s replay “Act of love” again. The Bush family ties to the Saudi’s don’t help matters.
Trump is also attacking GWB for invading Iraq. Apparently, Trump was against it before GWB did it, so he is consistent. And he makes a good point – Iraq under Hussein vs Iran under the Mullahs was a stalemate. Why destroy it?
I think what we are missing is how Trump is pitching his message. He has already gotten us Tea-Party folks on board. He is collecting regular GOP people who feel betrayed by their party on illegal immigration, Obamacare, welfare, debt, and a Washington that is out of control. He is also pitching to the Democrat’s former base, the private sector unions. Do you think they don’t hear when he says he wouldn’t let Ford build a $12 billion plant in Mexico?
Donald is not going quietly into the night. He is fighting for what America used to be, a great country. God knows, he didn’t have to to embark on this fool’s mission to become the GOP candidate for President.
So far, I’m enjoying the ride. Heck, if he wins, I might reconsider my plan to be an Obama refugee to some law-abiding place that takes refugees from the US of A.
Given Trump’s habit of talking up a big project and then bailing out or bankrupting investors, what makes you think he wouldn’t bail out on America? He will be as bad as Obama on not taking responsibilty.
Here’s Trump’s current line of attack on the Bushies:
That is not the response of a know nothing person.
PatD:
There was nothing special about Trump thinking a major terrorist attack was coming, prior to 9/11. It was quite common to think that back then. In what he wrote that I think you’re referring to (you can find it here), he referenced the fact that a lot of people were predicting it, too. There already had been many thwarted terrorist attempts that were on a big scale, and it was fairly clear that it was just a matter of time before one would succeed. It was also very well known that Bin Laden was planning an attack, and it was known that his organization al Qaeda would probably be involved. The problem was not predicting those general things; many people did. It was predicting specifics, such as where and when and how an attack would occur.
In addition, some of Trump’s words about George W. Bush have been vile. I’m not talking about his recent 9/11 comments about Bush, nor about the fact that he has long disagreed with Bush about the Iraq war.
The words I’m talking about are some of the ones listed in this post, in particular when he called George Bush “evil,” said Bush lied about WMDs, said Bush went into Iraq just because he wanted to and for no other reason, and said Bush’s impeachment would be “wonderful.” This was all said long before Trump was running for president or Jeb was running for president (he said those things in 2007 and 2008). So he was not being strategic or trying to attract votes. He was merely defaming Bush by taking a few leafs right out of the leftist playbook.
In particular the “evil” statement is itself an evil thing to say. And the “Bush lied” statement is both both vile AND misinformed. Trump has never made a single statement—not a single one—that shows that he understands the first thing about Bush’s reasons for going into Iraq.
The comments you cite of Trump’s that you think are so well-informed don’t seem well-informed to me. How would Bush somehow adopting Trump’s immigration policies have stopped 9/11? The hijackers were all in this country before Bush ever took office. Was Trump’s plan to deport every person of Arab extraction who was here on a student visa (such as Mohammed Atta?). Of course not. And Bush didn’t make the immigration laws, either. Congress did (unless, of course, you think he should have just done it all by executive action back then, even before there had been any major terrorist event. He probably would have been impeached had he done so.)
Trump also seems ignorant of the fact that he can’t just change the rules about the FBI and the CIA and what they are allowed to say to each other. Read that McCarthy article I linked.
Before 9/11, who was thinking of changing those rules (certainly not Trump)? It was only after 9/11 that it became apparent they needed changing, and this was done by passing the Patriot Act, which never would have passed but for 9/11. It was a law, FISA, that had established a firewall between law enforcement and the CIA, and Trump could not have changed that nor could Bush, without 9/11 happening and a new law (the Patriot Act) being passed. Here’s what the Patriot Act did:
More, much more, was done to end the communication problem that had existed prior to 9/11, and it was accomplished fairly soon after 9/11, by the Bush administration, the agencies involved, and of course Congress. Do you really for a single moment believe that prior to 9/11, Trump was sitting around thinking “Oh, we need to get Congress to pass an act to demolish the firewall?” No.
In fact, what Trump’s remarks do show are his narcissism and magical thinking about his own powers.
Ann siad:
“You know, G.W. Bush never went after Bill Clinton’s failures either. In fact, if I remember correctly, he always emphasized going forward.”
Two dozen members of Osama bin Laden’s family were urgently evacuated from the United States in the first days following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, according to the Saudi ambassador to Washington.
One of bin Laden’s brothers frantically called the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington looking for protection, Prince Bandar bin Sultan told The New York Times. The brother was sent to a room in the Watergate Hotel and was told not to open the door.
Most of bin Laden’s relatives were attending high school and college. The young members of the bin Laden family were driven or flown under FBI supervision to a secret place in Texas and then to Washington, The Times reported Sunday.
Many were terrified, fearing they would be lynched after hearing reports of violence against Muslims and Arab-Americans.
They left the country on a private charter plane when airports reopened three days after the attacks.
CBSNews.com staff CBSNews.com staff/ CBS/ September 30, 2001
Osama bin Laden’s family missing since 9/11 attacks found living in secret compound in Iran
By Scott Warren
Updated: 01:59 GMT, 24 December 2009
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1237913/Osama-bin-Ladens-family-living-safe-Iran-9-11-attacks.html#ixzz3nLx7OEsB
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
But Mr Hussian “Obama” did the delai with Iran kowingly this:
Here’s an important instance. We have been told by six current or former intelligence officials that the collection of documents captured in the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound includes explosive information on Iran’s relationship with al Qaeda over the past two decades, including details of Iran’s support for al Qaeda’s attacks on Americans. Some of these officials believe this information alone could derail the deal. We haven’t seen it. But the American people should see it all before Congress votes on the deal in September
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/demand-documents_1001576.html
Perhaps I’m dense but I fail to see sam’s point. What does this the Mossad have to do with Muslim terrorism? Perhaps sam will be so kind as to clarify this for me?
Trump criticizes W and who is it that W can’t stand?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/jeb-bush-george-bush-donors-ted-cruz-214933
The one guy in the whole Republican field that probably will be the most faithful to the Constitution if elected. Just damn.
No doubt he’s a nice man who loves his wife and all that.
and there are lovely films of hitler with his dog and girlfriend too…
GWB goes after Cruz!
Spoof?
That is not the response of a know nothing person.
It’s the response of a person saying what he was told to say, not quite the “street warrior” image people ascribe to Trump’s fighting stance.
And he makes a good point — Iraq under Hussein vs Iran under the Mullahs was a stalemate. Why destroy it?
That’s the kind of question people who don’t understand how Islamic caliphates work, would ask. Since a WMD weaponized Iran and Iraq would fund and arm both sides of Islam, and Islam would then divert their attacks against Europe and the West, rather than each other.
The Shia and the Sunnis have been going at each other for quite some time now. None of it saved the Byzantines, Armenians, North Africans.
It’s what people think they know, that gets them into trouble when it turns out untrue.
G6loq ,
You’ve been talking some about your bosses. Do you want Trump to be your next boss, is that where this line goes?
As for Bush II saying he didn’t like Cruz, that’s about the same tone Bush II had for John McCain. People should have been more worried if an establishment Republican like Bush II, was out campaigning for Ted Cruz.
“He’s a young, first-term senator; I’m not sure if that qualifies you to be president,” Bush reportedly said, according to two people in the room. “Of course, if he wins [the nomination], I’ll be back here next year telling you that doesn’t matter.”
To people in the GOP, this process is very standard. Compared to Bush II’s off the cuff comments to his cabinet about various personages, while he was in office, this is pretty mild.
The reason why people consider it very important now, is because to them, their pov has changed, while Bush II’s pov has not changed.
Ymarsakar Says:
October 20th, 2015 at 10:36 am
G6loq ,
You’ve been talking some about your bosses. Do you want Trump to be your next boss, is that where this line goes?
Whé¸t? Are you being literal?
I am talking about people I personally, and often uncomfortably, interfaced with. From
arrays of incomplete data/facts they would most often reach a realistic and beneficial conclusion.
If it didn’t work out they would immediately absorb their losses and move on.
Prosperity ensued.
Makers, not yakkers and takers.
Also, you are onto something about the Boss thingy.
The sheeple loves a boss.
The sheeple loves to swoon.
These guys were not into the Guru gig.
Unsentimental in the business context, you had what it took or you were out.
There was ‘charity’ work but under the radar.
Cornhead:
“It’s a fool’s errand to relitigate 9-11 or the Iraq war. Politics is about the future; not the past.”
That view is obviously incorrect.
Past is prologue. Republicans and the Right neglecting “to relitigate 9-11 or the Iraq war” to counter leftist narratives has harmed them, the nation, and the world.
Leftist narratives infecting the zeitgeist, especially regarding the Iraq intervention, have been course-setting and continue to cause metastatic harm. Purposely looking past the past, as you counsel, is a fool’s conceit.
This goes to the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game, and the activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is.
The contest is bigger than the game you want to play.
Neo said
said Bush went into Iraq just because he wanted to and for no other reason,
What 9/11 done to GW Bush, made him an Ox who don’t know what to do to relief his anger he turned to invade Iraq…… Just like wild forest creature.
M
Interview L. Paul Bremer
Ymarsakar:
I would like to know who these people were who reported on what Bush II said about Cruz before I drew any conclusions about Bush II.
First of all, it is people reporting what Bush said behind closed doors. There’s no tape. In this day and age, I find the lack of a recording somewhat odd, since any cellphone can be used to record things. So I wonder what he really said.
Secondly, don’t you find it a bit odd that this anti-Bush story (because that’s what it is, IMHO) comes out right around the time Trump is going on and on with his quasi-leftist antiBushII narrative?
It seems that all of a sudden it’s time to cast a bad light on Bush II from the GOP end of things. Could be for a number of reasons; not sure why.
Neo comment:
“More, much more, was done to end the communication problem that had existed prior to 9/11, and it was accomplished fairly soon after 9/11, by the Bush administration, the agencies involved, and of course Congress.”
The reason why “it was accomplished fairly soon after 9/11” goes to why I disagree with what you say in your post:
My understanding of the issue makes me believe that your suggestion, if attempted by a mainstream GOP presidential candidate (not Trump), would backfire on Republicans. It would make Democrats, most of all President Clinton, look better in comparison.
Why was the USA Patriot Act of 2001 “accomplished fairly soon after 9/11”?
Because it wasn’t novel legislation.
The content of PL 107-56 was recycled from counter-terrorism reforms that President Clinton requested from Congress in 1995 in reaction to the rising al Qaeda threat and domestic terrorism like the Oklahoma City event.
The USA Patriot Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56) was largely recycled from the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, 10FEB95, and Antiterrorism Amendments Act of 1995, 15MAY95, requested by President Clinton.
After a prolonged debate in Congress, a watered-down version of the counter-terrorism reforms requested by Clinton was passed with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132).
In fact, while Clinton welcomed that some counter-terrorism reforms were passed, he was pointedly critical of the limitations that remained. See President Clinton’s statement on signing the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
My understanding of the Congressional debate over the 1995 acts – and I welcome Congressional historians to correct me if I’m wrong – is that the main resistance to the counter-terrorism reforms requested by Clinton were Republican congressmen citing limited-government principles.
That’s certainly a valid position worth the care they exercised in the liberty-v-security debate on the issue. But at the same time, it handicapped the nation in the real contest versus the terrorists.
Trump’s implied blame that Bush should have implemented the post-9/11 counter-terrorism reforms before 9/11 ignores the legislative process. It also ignores that Clinton already fought that fight from the White House in 1995-1996 with the AEDPA of 1996 as the result.
Congress’ liberty-v-security debate over counter-terrorism reforms in the 1990s, with the rising tide of terrorism as the backdrop, was a sensitive balancing of fundamental American values. The 9/11 attacks merely tipped over what was already a close, long, and careful debate for Congress.
President Bush deserves credit for the USA Patriot Act of 2001 after 9/11, but it was carried forward from the efforts of his Democratic predecessor.
Trump doesn’t help clarify the issue. Neither would your suggestion.
“sam” is an anti-Israel troll who is repeating stories (verbatim) that have been circulating online for years.
sam:
“What 9/11 done to GW Bush, made him an Ox who don’t know what to do to relief his anger he turned to invade Iraq…… Just like wild forest creature.”
That’s incorrect.
To set the record straight, explanation of the law and policy, fact basis of the decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Eric:
I’ve found that bringing up the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which committed the US to overthrowing Saddam Hussein, passed almost unanimously by Congress (with the votes of Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Gore, and Ted Kennedy, among others) and signed by President Bill Clinton, frequently shuts up people like Sam.
Would that someone (Carly, are you listening?) would do that to the Donald!
BTW, Sam, everybody already knows that Paul Bremer is an idiot. No surprise there.
Richard Saunders,
Yep. PL 105-338 is featured in the answer to “The reasons for OIF seemed to change. Was it about WMD or democracy?“.
Moreover, Clinton law and policy on Iraq is featured throughout the explanation:
Based on the syntax and contents of sam’s posts, I put the odds that sam is a Muslim apologist at well over 50%. Some lefties have also adopted the narrative that the Mossad brought down the trade center but when sam calls Bush an ox he is using imagry which is highly unusual for an American since oxen are rarely seen here but are still common in some other countries like Pakistan. If sam is a Muslim this discussion could become quite interesting.
Trump Releases “Endorsement” Video Starring BJ Clinton
That’s GWB’s brother by another mother ….
Not a spoof!
Dennis …
More towards India and Bangladesh — both with staggering Muslim populations.
His command of English … the odds favor an elitist Muslim well schooled in the Anglo arts.
Oxen would be weird for a ‘South Asian’ male operating from England.
Neo: “It seems that all of a sudden it’s time to cast a bad light on Bush II from the GOP end of things. Could be for a number of reasons; not sure why.”
Looks to me like an attack on the GOP or at least on GOPe.
I would like to know who these people were who reported on what Bush II said about Cruz before I drew any conclusions about Bush II.
But that’s why people read headlines. It implants an emotion into them and then when they read the details, or what little there is, the details are combined with the emotion to form a very strong belief.
It’s why headline propaganda works the way it has so far, even though in the actual story the opposite may be true. That’s because once emotions are triggered, it doesn’t matter what people read later on.
Quite a few news organizations have picked up the story about Bush criticizing Cruze and have reported it as fact; not just in the headlines but in the story line as well. I’m sure everyone here has already read the story, but I will include a link just the same.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-reportedly-ted-cruz-dont-guy/story?id=34604244
blert Says: at 9:22 pm
“Dennis …
More towards India and Bangladesh – both with staggering Muslim populations.”
I agree. I’m fairly confident that sam is from somewhere in that region. If sam is a Muslim from that area there is no way that he can be ignorant of Muslim aggression towards unbelievers and even towards other Muslims because it happens almost every day in his country. Benazir Bhutto was one of the few Muslim leaders I actually admired and she was murdered by jihadists. Sam knows full well that the twin towers were brought down by Muslims because he fully understands the black heart of Islam. Sam is just playing with the kaffirs’ minds by denying what the kaffirs see with their own eyes.
As the MSM did with Iraq daily casualties, they pick up on it because of the AP network they all are part of.
But the headline was the one in the politico, not the copycat clones that came after.