How 9-11 happened

[fintstone]

Interesting article which ties into some recent arguments posted here"

How 9-11 Happened

We don't need a "commission" to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline:

PRESIDENT CARTER, DEMOCRAT

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage.

Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert.

PRESIDENT REAGAN, REPUBLICAN

The day of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released.

In 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Muslim extremists.

President Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Beirut.

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by Muslim extremists.

Reagan said the U.S. would not surrender, but Democrats threw a hissy fit, introducing a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. Reagan caved in to Democrat caterwauling in an election year and withdrew our troops – bombing Syrian-controlled areas on the way out. Democrats complained about that, too.

In 1985, an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was seized and a 69-year-old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists.

Reagan ordered a heart-stopping mission to capture the hijackers after "the allies" promised them safe passage. In a daring operation, American fighter pilots captured the hijackers and turned them over to the Italians – who then released them to safe harbor in Iraq.

On April 5, 1986, a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen was bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, killing an American.

Ten days later, Reagan bombed Libya, despite our dear ally France refusing the use of their airspace. Americans bombed Gadhafi's residence, killing his daughter, and dropped a bomb on the French Embassy "by mistake."

Reagan also stoked a long, bloody war between heinous regimes in Iran and Iraq. All this was while winning a final victory over Soviet totalitarianism.

PRESIDENT BUSH I, MODERATE REPUBLICAN

In December 1988, a passenger jet, Pan Am Flight 103, was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Muslim extremists.

President-elect George Bush claimed he would continue Reagan's policy of retaliating against terrorism, but did not. Without Reagan to gin her up, even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went wobbly, saying there would be no revenge for the bombing.

In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

In early 1991, Bush went to war with Iraq. A majority of Democrats opposed the war, and later complained that Bush didn't "finish off the job" with Saddam.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, DEMOCRAT

In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.

Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.

In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.

On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.

Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.

On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.

Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."

The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 – when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.

In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, REPUBLICAN

Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was "tired of swatting flies" – he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.

On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.

Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all – except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.

What a surprise.

Article by our beloved Ann Coulter

[Moneyguy1]

Revisionist history..Gotta love it.....

Up until I saw the author, I was ready to do some research. Now it is not necessary, seeing as it was written by one of the most intelligent and introspective minds of our time.

[fintstone]

Figured as much.....can you rebut anything she wrote or will you dismiss it because you know she is a conservative? I dare you to prove a single event listed is incorrect. Looks like history as I remember it.

[Moneyguy1]

The problem I have with statements like hers is simple. She guesses as to what a person did or thought. Did Mr. Clarke say to do nothing on a specific occasion, or did the president du jour ignore the advice? That is my problem with her brand of reporting (that should be in quotes). I think you can see where I am going with this.

As a guest on one of the FOX shows recently, she dug into Clarke (rightly or wrongly), with a statement that he was upset and disgruntled because the job he wanted went "to a woman, and a BLACK woman at that". Once again, a statement that is meant to imply that she knows for certain what the thought process is that goes on within another person's head.

I am neither Dem or GOP. But, I take umbrage at commentators who, because of their own personal agenda, spew opinion as if it were fact. I extend that to ANY commentator, conservative or liberal.

With respect for you service and experience, I would have to say that I would bet we are in agreement that, if we were not there to hear a specific conversation, and speak with those involved directly, we would be in a poor position to say with certainty what transpired.

[fintstone]

Bob
I accept the points you make regarding the Fox interview you cite as reasonable. I do not see how that applies to this article, other than it is by the same author. It seems to me, that although she only posted facts that helped her argument, they are nonetheless, already well reported facts. She only lists them together.

[on-ramp]

Moneyguy1

in regards to your thoughts, which i am with agreement, it all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is?

[djmcmath]

Alright, alright -- you can argue about whether or not Dick Clarke actually said "Do nothing." The point is that Dick Clarke was in a position to advise, and Clinton did nothing. Blame who you like, the person ultimately responsble for Clinton's actions is Clinton. Did Clarke advise no action? Makes no difference...

(On-ramp -- that's funny. *laughing quietly, because I'm at work*)


Dan

[yellow911turbo]

Some may say that it's all about how you group the facts and I will agree with them. Yet in some cases it doesn't matter the order that the facts are grouped because it would still state the same thing. Is this one of those cases?

[RickC]

Blaming Bush II? He just came into office! Not his fault!

Blaming Clinton? He anticipated a period of peace and knew that after a long battle with the USSR, America was in no mood to attack anyone! Couldn't have started a war if he'd wanted to!

Blaming Bush I? He didn't finish the war with Saddam because of some concerns over Arab sentiment, and maybe an old-school type of decency that wouldn't allow him to kick an army when it was down (or go beyond the mandate of the UN). Made sense then.

Blaming Regan for arming Osama and Hussein? He was locked in a struggle with the Soviets! Who could know that 20 years later those little rebels would threaten us!

Blaming Carter for starting it all? Well, he was a born again Christian and so knew about human history back to Cain and Abel! This leads to:

WHO is to blame then? God, of course. He began the world and made the human race.

***

This is the big, bad world: things are complicated, things are unclear, and it is impossible to legislate too far into the future.

Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II - they're not fortune tellers. They can only legislate and lead for their times. Some were better than others. But there is no Lincoln or Churchill among them.

In that sense, they all did OK, even though one portion of the population or another hates them now. After all, none sent 10,000 nuclear warheads raining down on Russia, and none caused the Russians to do something similar to us. In this day and age - and knowing what we know of human nature - that is something.

In the largest sense - the sense that a President must take - a few deaths on the edge of the political world 20 years ago were of no concern with the Soviet Army and nuclear aresenal both at full capacity. And seeds of future problems are always hard to detect. Even if it was later considered a mistake for the U.S. to arm Osama in Afghanistan, a mistake for the U.S. to arm Hussain in Iraq, it still looked to many that it needed to be done AT THE TIME.

And all this crazy posturing in Washington. OK, let's be honest, Bush I seems smarter than Bush II. This isn't politics, it's common sense. We can see it with our own eyes. Still, there's no way that he "let" 9/11 happen. Nevertheless, some crazy Liberals will say this is so. But these crazy people - people you would point at and laugh at if you saw them on the street - are closely related in temperament to the Conservatives who still think that FDR "let" Pearl Harbor happen so that we could get into WWII (as if defeating Hitler was a bad thing!).

The truth is, bigots will never need a pretence. They hate because it's what they do. We're in Afghanistan, we're in Iraq. We need people with larger portions of both brains and the finer traits of humanity to help us figure out how we can do things better from here.

A good understanding of history could have warned us that some of our actions in the past 30 years were leading us to dangerous waters (sands). But very few things could have been done differently in a country with a popularly elected government.

The modern "pundits" of the right and left remind me of the later days of Rome. Not a good thing. A little more thought and a little less certainty would be a good thing, as would a little more working together and a little less working against our fellow citizens.

[fintstone]

The point is not to place blame, but to realize..actions have consequences......so does inaction.

[fintstone]

The point is not to place blame, but to realize..actions have consequences......so does inaction.

[CamB]

I have a different problem with Coulter's statement. Its the last bit:

Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel.

This is still work in progress. It hasn't been completed and it has been costly (money, lives and international relations). Al Qaeda is now actually stronger in certain places than it was before (Iraq). Furthermore, I'm not sure that I think that democracy in Iraq is close, and I'm also not sure that I think Israel represents a poster boy for democracy.

[fintstone]

Cam
I would buy that as a fair, however misguided, opinion....if you concede the same is true for Clinton and Kosovo.

[concentric]

Originally posted by RickC
Blaming Bush II? He just came into office! Not his fault!
etc, etc, etc...

Great post, Rick.

Ann Coulter is an ass, just like 99.9% of our elected officials and media personalities. I like the fact that she starts her timeline at Carter, as if the conflict between religions that has been brewing for thousands of years now has nothing to do with it.

The issues are not going to be solved, ever. "terrorism" is just an institutionalized form of murder and greed, both of which have existed since the beginning of recorded human history. No changes here, and personally, I think 9-11 won't even register as an important blip in history 100 years from now. By then, the human race in it's infinite wisdom will have given weapons far more powerful to people even less concerned with life, and someone will probably have used them.

Let it be known here that I believe we are living on borrowed time. I just hope we develop the wisdom to preclude doing anything stupid.

JCM

[CamB]

I don't know enough about it. Let's say Clinton screwed it up. It isn't the point.

I could reword Coulters statement like this:

"Bush has failed miserably - despite overwhelming firepower and plenty of time (1 year for Iraq and 2 years for Afghanistan) he hasn't completed either job. The Muslim fanatics' hatred of the west has intensified, and although Saddam has been captured the greater evil against the US - Osama bin Laden - has not. Hopes for a democracy in Iraq are still looking very shaky, and it may be many many years before the country is able to stand on its own feet."

I'm working off exactly the same facts as Coulter, and while I don't believe everything I just wrote (too extreme), I don't believe what she wrote either.

[Superman]

Yep, plenty of conjecture and downright holes in that story. Anyone who thinks that this account is unassailable ("I dare your to prove a single event listed is incorrect") is reading it with a great deal of subjectivity. I say this respectfully.

Like I said in the thread about the vicious murders a few days ago, if Bush and the hawks are doing the right thing, then I'd guess we just have not yet dropped enough bombs on Iraq. More bombs, and there will be world peace. right? Brotherhood, right? And terrorists will be frightened into submission. right? I know that's my reaction when someone shoots at me or my countrymen. IN fact, why don't we just station a few thousand soldiers in each country we consider unfriendly, and when we think they deserve it, have them open fire for a few hours. This way, we can spread democracy and our superior way of life.

[Moneyguy1]

Well, I feel a LITTLE better now........

[nostatic]

totally inflamatory prose. I especially (dis)like the characterization of the failed raid under Carter as "disasterous and humiliating" and the rescue under Reagan as "daring". Sometimes things work out, other times they don't. If the Iranian rescue had worked I'm sure revisionist history would find a way to denigrate it.

And no mention of Ollie North and guns/money for hostages? A lapse, or conveniently overlooked.

No administration is perfect, either good or bad. Really...I swear...the world isn't black and white. Unless you've got a particularly interesting prescription...

[fintstone]

As I suspected...you cannot really dispute any of the facts in the timeline. Of course, I know some of you claim that we did not really win the war in Iraq or Afghanistan...but you are grasping for straws. Clearly, neither were the "Vietnam" liberals predicted. In fact, the only reason you can even try to make that claim is due to our generosity in staying on there to help them rebuild...not because we did not soundly defeat them, destroy their armies and either kill or put their leaders in prison. Instead of setting up a democracy we could have just killed them all and taken their oil as so many predicted....or just left them to continue filling the mass graves and rape rooms with the innocent.

[beepbeep]

Originally posted by fintstone
Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel.

No s**t?

I bet god created universe in six days as well?