[Polpolion]

With what everyone's been saying about us, I can see that. You'd think we would be monkeys or something.

[Nuclear1]

Sure, full-on invasions of other countries aren't even what I'm calling for though.  All I'm asking is why Clinton didn't attempt to disrupt the terror networks after the first or second attack.

What makes you so sure that he didn't?

Because four commercial airlines were hijacked in 2001, resulting in nearly 3000 deaths. 

Please list all the CIA and other covert government and military agencies anti-terrorism actions up to 2001.  Thanks.

What possible purpose could this serve?  Fact is, 9/11 still happened, meaning something went wrong somewhere.  Could be that Bush Sr. didn't disarm the Taliban, or that Clinton didn't capitalize enough during his eight years to stop the terror networks that had repeatedly attacked American targets. 

The number doesn't matter.  The fact is they obviously did nothing, as al-Qaeda still managed to organize one of the attack.  Make of that what you will, but I still hold Clinton majorly responsible for not doing enough to prevent it.

[Blue Lion]

What exactly did anyone do to "do enough to prevent it"?

[aldo_14]

Please list all the CIA and other covert government and military agencies anti-terrorism actions up to 2001.  Thanks.

What possible purpose could this serve?  Fact is, 9/11 still happened, meaning something went wrong somewhere.  Could be that Bush Sr. didn't disarm the Taliban, or that Clinton didn't capitalize enough during his eight years to stop the terror networks that had repeatedly attacked American targets. 

The number doesn't matter.  The fact is they obviously did nothing, as al-Qaeda still managed to organize one of the attack.  Make of that what you will, but I still hold Clinton majorly responsible for not doing enough to prevent it.

See, you're spouting off that with no justification whatsoever; you have no basis to cite how much was and was not done, cite no 'mistake' to highlight, only use the same of logic as I use to sell my Magic Tiger Deterrent Rock.  It's naive to think there's a magic bullet that means no terrorist attack - especially sucide attack - can ever happen, and if you're going to state - accuse, even - that something was done wrong, that some opportunity was missed, you should at least have the common decency to justify that statement with some sort of indication you actually know what was happening the background in order to judge it. 

Because I'd wager you're viewing highly visible and equally useless heavy handed military intervention as 'action' whilst not considering that maybe some actions are covert because... well, just look how succesful the overt form of action has been in stimulating Islamic fundmentalism.

[Kosh]

Fact is, 9/11 still happened, meaning something went wrong somewhere

Clinton warned Bush Jr. about Al-Qaeda and what did the administration do about it? Nothing. He completely ignored it, and that is why 9/11 happened.

[Ford Prefect]

I'm still not convinced that the Bush administration didn't turn a blind eye to those warnings because they wanted an excuse to go into Iraq.

[vyper]

Fact is, 9/11 still happened, meaning something went wrong somewhere

Clinton warned Bush Jr. about Al-Qaeda and what did the administration do about it? Nothing. He completely ignored it, and that is why 9/11 happened.

I think this is the big problem with all sides of the 9/11 debate. Everyone demands there be one singular reason for the failure of US intel. There isn't. It's a combination of factors, both from the Clinton administration and the Bush administration.

[aldo_14]

I'm still not convinced that the Bush administration didn't turn a blind eye to those warnings because they wanted an excuse to go into Iraq.

Since when did the US gov need to have a real reason for going to war?  They have Fox News, after all!

[Nuclear1]

Fact is, 9/11 still happened, meaning something went wrong somewhere

Clinton warned Bush Jr. about Al-Qaeda and what did the administration do about it? Nothing. He completely ignored it, and that is why 9/11 happened.

For a plot that started back in '92-'93, Clinton should have been able to nip this thing in the bud before Bush Jr. would have ever had to deal with it.  There 7 years of Clinton Administration after the '93 bombings--why didn't he just push further and uncover a plot to destroy nine US landmarks with US commercial airliners?  I'm not contesting that there's no "stop terror" button or anything, but missing (or, if you want to continue with the "he gave warnings" argument, not fully disarming) a plot of that scale over seven years?  That's just embarrassing.

[Ford Prefect]

During Clinton's administration, the Neoconservatives criticized him for being obsessed with Bin Laden. Then when they took power, they took a **** on Richard Clarke, who was a better authority on the threat of Al Qaeda than just about anyone else, and who was the only one making noise about the threat of a major terrorist attack. Then, to top it all off, after 9/11, they decided that the appropriate method of reprisal was to devote vast quantities of military resources to the invasion and occupation of an unrelated country, while Bin Laden slowly wastes away on kidney dialysis. The Clinton administration failed to preempt 9/11, but the Bush administration didn't even try. Hell, they didn't even want to hear about it. Since 9/11, they have demonstrated that it was not a priority for them in the first place. I don't particularly like involving myself in these kinds of political discussions, but the kind of doublethink that this administration has managed to instill really just boggles my mind.