I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center
September 14, 2005 9:20 AM   Subscribe

In 1998 the FAA was warned that Al Qaeda could "seek to hijack a commercial jet and slam it into a U.S. landmark," according to a recently-released update [PDF] to the 9/11 Commission's Staff Monograph on the Four Flights and Civil Aviation Security. (An earlier version with more material redacted was released on January 28, 2005.)
posted by kirkaracha (42 comments total)
 
1998 = Clinton's fault.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:21 AM on September 14, 2005


You're being sarcastic, right?

Exactly how is it Clinton's fault?
posted by twiggy at 9:25 AM on September 14, 2005


Heck of a job you're doing Georgie.
posted by caddis at 9:28 AM on September 14, 2005


if you didn't think that after the February 26 , 1993 that there would be more , then you failed .

to continue that failure is naive , negligent and/or criminal .

it's everyones fault .
posted by mishaco at 9:31 AM on September 14, 2005


1998 = Clinton's fault.

So without Clinton we would have gone from 1997 directly to 1999?
posted by sveskemus at 9:31 AM on September 14, 2005


I heard the stock market crash of 1929 was Clinton's fault. Confirm/deny?
posted by keswick at 9:35 AM on September 14, 2005


Confirmed. As was Gigli.
posted by The White Hat at 9:38 AM on September 14, 2005


Nothing's surprising anymore.

Memo: Bin Laden Determined to Have Mohamed Atta and 18 Others Slam Jumbo Jets into WTC and Pentagon on a Tuesday in Early September 2001

Bush administration: But they didn't say which Tuesday!!!
posted by soyjoy at 9:39 AM on September 14, 2005


You're being sarcastic, right?

Yep!
posted by kirkaracha at 9:43 AM on September 14, 2005


A bit off topic but wouldn't access to all blacked-out government documents be so damn cool?

Oh wait, no, it'd be terrifying and earth-shattering. Jeez, for half the stuff we know Bush does and tries to hide, what about the other half we have no idea about?
:shivers:

Release the whole thing! Maybe then the FAA and other responsible agencies could actually learn something from the 911 commission...
posted by blastrid at 9:44 AM on September 14, 2005


Now is not the time to be playing the blame game.

There'll be plenty of time for that later.
posted by nofundy at 9:47 AM on September 14, 2005


Clinton was wagging the dog, remember?
posted by nofundy at 9:48 AM on September 14, 2005


He was wagging something, that's for sure...
posted by almostcool at 9:51 AM on September 14, 2005


Let's not forget who was really at fault for September 11: Saddam Hussein.
posted by NationalKato at 9:51 AM on September 14, 2005


Short list of the things Clinton is clearly to blame for:

  • 9/11
  • current budget deficits
  • unemployment rates
  • the stock market crash of 2001
  • killing Bambi's mother
  • hangnails
  • cookies that get soft and mushy in humid weather
  • enjoying oral sex
  • kenny g
  • huriricainies
  • the berlin wall
  • gas prices
  • ace of base
  • clay aiken losing on american idol (he cast the deciding vote)
  • t-mobile's poor coverage
  • flat tires
  • poorly-mixed black-and-tans
  • stale peeps

  • posted by wakko at 9:58 AM on September 14, 2005


    You forgot, wakko, that Clinton trailblazed new territory in the cigar market. Which propped up the economy of Cuba. Thus Clinton loved Fidel Castro, and is a traitor.
    posted by teece at 10:02 AM on September 14, 2005




    if all these reports just posted on MeFi, then we'd be still staring at the two towers and out of Iraq. At least, MeFi gets more coverage than these "intelligence" reports...
    posted by cleverusername at 10:04 AM on September 14, 2005


    1998 = Clinton's fault.
    posted by kirkaracha at 12:21 PM EST on September 14 [!]


    9/11/2001 = Bush's fault.
    posted by Rothko at 10:07 AM on September 14, 2005


    Clinton's behind my aunt's gout!!!
    Let's go. We've lost the momentum.
    posted by Wolfdog at 10:10 AM on September 14, 2005


    It's both their faults.

    And it's the fault of those in their respective cabinets who didn't work hard enough to create awareness & beef up national security, though no doubt a beefed up national security would have caused many—you know who you are—to cry 'fascism' and 'police state'. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
    posted by dhoyt at 10:12 AM on September 14, 2005


    Oh, and Clinton ate the Blair Witch's balls.
    posted by dhoyt at 10:13 AM on September 14, 2005


    CLIIIINTOOOOOOON!!!!!
    posted by zerokey at 10:17 AM on September 14, 2005


    And it's the fault of those in their respective cabinets who didn't work hard enough to create awareness & beef up national security, though no doubt a beefed up national security would have caused many—you know who you are—to cry 'fascism' and 'police state'. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
    posted by dhoyt at 1:12 PM EST on September 14 [!]


    False dichotomy much? Our airport "security" procedures are nothing to protect planes, and our PATRIOT Act does nothing more than give the FBI the tools to chase potheads and interrogate college professors who speak out of turn — our police-state-like practices are not doing much to improve national security. Damned if you do, certainly, with the management we have now.
    posted by Rothko at 10:32 AM on September 14, 2005


    Complete list of the things Bush is clearly to blame for:
    • Federal-government response to Katrina (pending)
    posted by PlusDistance at 10:46 AM on September 14, 2005


    A bit off topic but wouldn't access to all blacked-out government documents be so damn cool?

    Oh wait, no, it'd be terrifying and earth-shattering.


    Or both! I stopped believing in a God that knew where my lost keys were (though that's still an amazing concept to ponder) long ago, but I still believe in an anonymous government employee somewhere who has access to all confidential information across all government agencies and is just waiting for the right time to LEAK IT ALL!
    posted by mrgrimm at 10:49 AM on September 14, 2005


    It's funny to be prompted for a login/pwd for an article about confidential documents.
    posted by mrgrimm at 10:51 AM on September 14, 2005


    a beefed up national security would have caused many—you know who you are—to cry 'fascism' and 'police state'.

    Don't worry. It's easy to confuse measure that have been justified in the name of security but provide no actual security with measures that would indeed protect against modern threats.

    You'll learn to distinguish them when they start affecting YOU. Until then, keep conflating them.
    posted by sonofsamiam at 10:53 AM on September 14, 2005


    Clinton trailblazed new territory in the cigar market.

    ...and gave Monica tobacco virus in the process.
    posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:55 AM on September 14, 2005


    The difference between the 1993 bombing and 9/11 was that we caught the guys responsible for the former and the president seems to have no interest in catching the guy that's responsible for the latter.
    posted by bshort at 11:03 AM on September 14, 2005


    It's both their faults.
    posted by dhoyt at 10:12 AM PST on September 14


    I'm sorry; was Clinton supposed to call President Bush and remind him to do his homework every Thursday or something?

    Oh, wait: he did:

    Clinton Aides Plan to Tell Panel of Warning Bush Team on Qaeda
    By PHILIP SHENON

    Published: March 20, 2004

    ASHINGTON, March 19 — Senior Clinton administration officials called to testify next week before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks say they are prepared to detail how they repeatedly warned their Bush administration counterparts in late 2000 that Al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation — and how the new administration was slow to act.

    They said the warnings were delivered in urgent post-election intelligence briefings in December 2000 and January 2001 for Condoleezza Rice, who became Mr. Bush's national security adviser; Stephen Hadley, now Ms. Rice's deputy; and Philip D. Zelikow, a member of the Bush transition team, among others.

    One official scheduled to testify, Richard A. Clarke, who was President Bill Clinton's counterterrorism coordinator, said in an interview that the warning about the Qaeda threat could not have been made more bluntly to the incoming Bush officials in intelligence briefings that he led.

    At the time of the briefings, there was extensive evidence tying Al Qaeda to the bombing in Yemen two months earlier of an American warship, the Cole, in which 17 sailors were killed.

    "It was very explicit," Mr. Clarke said of the warning given to the Bush administration officials. "Rice was briefed, and Hadley was briefed, and Zelikow sat in." Mr. Clarke served as Mr. Bush's counterterrorism chief in the early months of the administration, but after Sept. 11 was given a more limited portfolio as the president's cyberterrorism adviser.

    posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:15 AM on September 14, 2005


    I'm sorry; was Clinton supposed to call President Bush and remind him to do his homework every Thursday or something?

    Clinton was in office a full two years after the FAA warning. Bush was only in office nine months before 9/11. So yeah, Clinton had plenty he could've done to prevent it from ever happening on his watch, and so did Bush. Sorry I'm not going to pick which 'team' is responsible for partisan reasons. They're both responsible, and it's tragic.
    posted by dhoyt at 11:36 AM on September 14, 2005


    Clinton was in office a full two years after the FAA warning. Bush was only in office nine months before 9/11. So yeah, Clinton had plenty he could've done to prevent it from ever happening on his watch, and so did Bush. Sorry I'm not going to pick which 'team' is responsible for partisan reasons. They're both responsible, and it's tragic.
    posted by dhoyt at 2:36 PM EST on September 14 [!]


    You wouldn't have said any of this, if Clinton was a Republican and Bush was a Democrat.
    posted by Rothko at 11:46 AM on September 14, 2005


    I voted for Clinton, and did not vote for Bush either time. What the hell - do you consider yourself a mindreader these days, alex? I think since I said they're both to blame it should make it clear that their party affilation makes no difference.
    posted by dhoyt at 11:51 AM on September 14, 2005


    "Clinton was in office a full two years after the FAA warning. Bush was only in office nine months before 9/11."

    That sounds like partisan apologia to me, but I'm no mindreader.
    posted by Rothko at 11:55 AM on September 14, 2005


    If Clinton attacked Al Qaeda after this memo, wouldn't be accused of trying to divert attention from MonicaGate? Oh wait, he did and he was. Or am I missing something?
    posted by keswick at 11:57 AM on September 14, 2005


    How can it be partisan when I didn't vote for the man or his party, alex? Do you have a point, or are you picking fights? Neither president took the threats seriously enough, nor were they visionary enough to know what steps they could have taken to increase security without giving a 'police state' vibe, and a tragedy happened. But I feel a whole lot more anger for the murdering douchebags who committed the acts than for the statesmen who weren't prepared for it, and who, all things considered, may not have been able to prevent it anyway.
    posted by dhoyt at 12:03 PM on September 14, 2005


    Neither president took the threats seriously enough, nor were they visionary enough to know what steps they could have taken to increase security without giving a 'police state' vibe, and a tragedy happened.

    But Clinton attempted to kill Bin Laden, and attempts were made by Clinton's staff to get Bush to take terrorism more seriously, in lieu of Bush's obsession with a missile shield program.

    When you write that stuff above, do you acknowledge any of these facts or not? Because it seems like you're ignoring facts to fit in with your need to blame Clinton above Bush; again:

    "Clinton was in office a full two years after the FAA warning. Bush was only in office nine months before 9/11."
    posted by Rothko at 12:13 PM on September 14, 2005


    Dhoyt,
    Pleaser refrain from being deliberately obtuse and misleading. Thank you.

    Clinton and his administration treated terrorism seriously, as evidenced by daily upper level meetings coordinating efforts to combat it. All the while Repugs harrassed them about efforts to actually, you know, KILL Osama. Too bad Dubya ain't concerned about old Mr. Dead Or Alive Bin Laden anymore.

    On the Dubya watch, nada, just Cheney promising to look into the dire warnings passed to them regarding terror threats at some unspecified time in the future, after he and his oil buddies finished divvying up Iraq. They fiddled and lied 'cause terror was NOT a priority.

    Where's the equivalence?
    posted by nofundy at 12:48 PM on September 14, 2005


    Curse you Richards Clinton!
    posted by kosher_jenny at 3:35 PM on September 14, 2005


    "Where's the equivalence?"

    I would have to go with dhoyt on this one. Both are to blame.

    ...Of course I'd weigh the blame a bit unequally...

    I’d fault Clinton for failing to nail OBL (’trying’ isn’t enough for the CiC), but I’d give it to Bush, since 9/11 happened on his watch (again, ‘trying’...). Clearly one failure had larger repercussions.

    I'd say the respective intel folks should have stepped up. But of course they did. And there's all sortsa bizzare stuff that happened. (John O'Neill leaps to the front of my mind here - lemme just say that again: ahem: JOHN P. O'NEILL).

    Similarly I blame Carter for what happened to the Delta team who went in to rescue the hostages in the 80s. Having a limp dick is no excuse, despite all those end run sorta things with the Arms for hostages schtick and Regan/Bush.

    Hmm... republican president to be folks make deal with arabs before outgoing president is gone. Huh. Odd how those folks have those ties.

    And of course Regan practically created OBL....move along nothing to see here.. tinfoil hat! tinfoil hat! Guffaw!

    That's all insinuation & speculation. But going on the facts we have, the results are the same.

    -------
    /'Yo, my peeps ain't stale wakko!
    posted by Smedleyman at 4:06 PM on September 14, 2005


    You wouldn't have said any of this, if Clinton was a Republican and Bush was a Democrat.
    posted by Rothko


    You could say that about almost any political comment on metafilter. Are you really that unaware?
    posted by justgary at 5:10 PM on September 14, 2005


    « Older Feel the need for speed?   |   Guarding The Tomb Of The Unknowns Newer »


    This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments