Xfm News Center | Latest News from Ghana and the World.

The memo was sent to to Michael Scheuer, then head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden "station," and is one of more than 100 documents declassified and published by the National Security Archive this week. Although some have been previously cited or quoted in the Report of the 9/11 Commission, the raw documents themselves illustrate the frustrations and missteps in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and alarm among some at the CIA about al Qaeda's growing sophistication and its plans for attacking U.S. interests.

Scheuer replies to Schoen the following day. "This is the third time you and your officers have put UBL in this government's sights and they have balked each time at doing the job. ... They spent a good deal of time yesterday worrying that some stray shapnel might hit the Habash mosque and 'offend' Muslims."

The documents have been heavily redacted before publication. But they give a sense of the aggravation, the guesswork and a never-ending sense of crisis in the intelligence community's pursuit of the al Qaeda leader before his eventual discovery and killing in May 2011. They also show that co-operation between different agencies was improving before 9/11 but that gaps and different priorities hampered counter-terrorism efforts.

More: Bin Laden's death

Another memo from Scheuer, in May 1999, complained: "For the past forty months the CIA, and especially the do (Directorate of Operations) has been in this endeavor virtually alone. ... until the african bombings [of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998] the u.s. military did not believe that ubl was a problem."

"Having a chance to get ubl three times in 36 hours and foregoing the chance each time has made me a bit angry," he writes.

By 1999, the Counterterrorism Center at the CIA had built up an impressive database on al Qaeda, and developed a healthy respect for its growing capabilities and meticulous planning. An internal study produced after the embassy attacks showed that al Qaeda had begun preparations to bomb the Nairobi mission fully five years before the actual attack. And a report in January 1999 — widely circulated within the Clinton administration — described al Qaeda as similar to a "global criminal syndicate" with a complex organizational structure and a presence in some 60 countries.

The search for bin Laden wasn't immune from the cycle of politics and budgets, either. In May 2000, the head of the bin Laden unit warned: "Need forward movement on supplemental soonest due to expected early [Congressional] recess due to conventions, campaigning and elections. Due to budgetary constraints ... CTC/UBL [Counterterrorism Center/Osama bin Laden Unit] will move from offensive to defensive posture."

From the archives: The 9/11 attacks

There are also exchanges in the documents about the search for al Qaeda operatives in 2001, with scant information about their identities and confusion about their names. A secret memo from May 2001 details the fruitless search for a man named Khallad who had been in Bangkok the previous year. "Then he, what, went to Bangkok and disappeared? Anyway after the Cole bombing [the attack in Aden, Yemen, on the USS Cole in October 2000) we had another look at the pics, thinking Khalid might have been Khallad. He wasn't."

The exchange among unnamed officials continued with one observing: "I'm either missing something or someone saw something that wasn't there."

It appears that "Khallad" — spelled a multitude of different ways — was likely Khalid al-Mihdhar, who would become one of the 9/11 hijackers. He had left Bangkok in January 2000 and flown to Los Angeles.

The memos illustrate the growing sense of unease in the CIA about al Qaeda plans to attack American interests. By June 2001 a top secret memo notes that an Arabic TV news channel had reported bin Laden had gone into hiding and said: "Multiple reports indicate that extremists [redacted] expect Bin Ladin (sic) to launch attacks over the coming days, possibly against Israeli or US interests."

But there is little sense — at least in the heavily redacted memos that have been published — that the attack would be inside the United States, with another memo suggesting "the Arabian peninsula as a likely venue for an anti-US attack." An update from July 3, 2001, says that "within the Gulf, Saudia Arabia is the most likely venue." But there is plenty of uncertainty, with another July 2001 memo suggesting that an al Qaeda attack had been delayed a few months.

A year after bin Laden's death

Also among the declassified documents is a secret report by the CIA Inspector General on the CIA's Counterterrorist Center (CTC) — dated just two weeks before the 9/11 attacks. The report concluded that the CTC was a "well-managed component that successfully carries out the Agency's counterterrorist responsibilities to collect and analyze intelligence." But it also spoke of information overload, noting that "some consumers worry that Center analysts do not have the time to spot trends or knit together the threads." And it noted "employee burnout," adding the Center had "difficulty in attracting a sufficient cadre of trained, experienced officers."

Even so, the CTC's "Usama bin Laden Station was frequently singled out for its exceptional support, with its work desccibed as "excellent" and "timely." The station had been established in 1996, when bin Laden was still living in Sudan.

Notably, the Inspector General's report included a warning that the long-term discipline needed in analyzing terror groups "can be difficult to maintain in the current atmosphere, which rewards instant results." Some analysts had complained about a "constant state of crisis" that limited their ability to develop in-depth expertise. One analyst "worried that he only had time to answer the mail, and as a result he might miss warning signs of a threat."

In 2004, a top secret report from the Director of Central Intelligence, now declassified but heavily redacted, offered a ferocious defense of the work of the CIA in warning policy-makers about the threat of al Qaeda in the years before 9/11. But it, too, acknowledged that analysts had been "consumed by tactical work. ... CIA therefore created a Strategic Analytic Unit" to fix the problem. But that was only in July 2001, weeks before the September attacks.

The report also details the use of Predator drones to search for bin Laden, with the first mission on September 7, 2000. But there were concerns that the drones were vulnerable to detection and the U.S. Air Force "notified the CIA it would have to pay for lost aircraft." Twice in the fall of 2000, a Predator "observed an individual most likely to bin Ladin; however we had no way at the time to react to this information."

Though they could not know it, time was running out. In December 2000, the CIA submitted a new plan in its targeting of al Qaeda "that would have significantly expanded our activities. ... It was too late for the departing Clinton administration to take action on this strategic proposal."

The same report speaks of excellent collaboration between the CIA and FBI on numerous terror cases, but then adds: "A major, ongoing concern is FBI's own internal dissemination system. CIA officers still often find it necessary to hand-deliver messages to the intended recipient within the FBI." And it laments "the loss of potential intelligence opportunities because of deference to law enforcement goals." In other words: at what point do you make an arrest or close down a terror conspiracy?

And in a passage with echoes today, there is a complaint about leaks compromising the Agency's ability to implement what became known as "the Plan" to get bin Laden. "Persistent publicity and leaks of information about our methods in the United States and abroad caused the terrorists to [redacted] emphasize their compartmentation."

Full coverage: 9/11, 10 years later
Share this:

Twitter49
Facebook213
Reddit

Post by: CNN's Tim Lister
Filed under: Al Qaeda • Central Intelligence Agency • Homeland Security • Intelligence • NSA • Osama bin Laden • Terrorism
We recommend

Computer model shows perfect storm for Obama
Insurgents breach U.S. military outpost in southern Afghanistan, U.S. officials say
Conflicting stories on Russian ships persist
British housewife caught with $2.6M in cocaine could face death
Aesha, her face disfigured by the Taliban, begins reconstructive surgery
U.S. military completes initial planning for Syria

From around the web

Would You Fire Someone for Working Through Lunch? OPEN Forum
Taliban in India “Warning” The Diplomat
Pakistani Villagers Set World Record For Tree-Hugging TreeHugger
Using U.S. power: What Obama isn’t telling us — and who leaked it The Mesh Report
An overview of Syria’s military capabilities gbtimes
We’re about to push the Earth over the brink, new study finds Grist Magazine

[what's this]
soundoff (426 Responses)

Bangash

Much before this a responsible official in Sudan had offered Osama's arrest in Sudan but Americans ignored. Even Mullah Umar was ready to hand over Osama through a neutral country to avoid US occupation of Afghanistan but none listened as in absence of Osama they would have lost justification for occupation of Afghanistan. This proved that Osama and Obama are two faces of same coin nothing else.
June 22, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Reply
cs

Wait. Obama was president when we invaded Afghanistan.?
June 22, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Reply
Bryan

For all the Lib-tards out there..... History will NOT be kind to the Clinton administration for dropping the ball..... It is a FACT!!!!
June 22, 2012 at 3:49 pm | Reply
stateschool

I remember when Clinton ordered the cruise missile attacks on al Queda in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998? I also recall that the GOP accused him of "wagging the dog" and threatened (again) to impeach him for exceeding his executive authority and committing a war crime.
June 22, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Reply
stateschool

Sorry about the typo. No "edit" button.
June 22, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Reply
joe bob

Exactly. Everyone conveniently forgets about Wag The Dog, lest they not feel so good the next time they look in the mirror.
June 22, 2012 at 2:00 pm | Reply
MrComments

Heard a great line from a comedian (might have been Maher's writers) that would be a great question for a Republican. "If you could go back in time and have bin Laden's mother get an abortion, would you do it?". If they say yes, they lose the evangelical vote, if they so no we can call them soft on terror...
June 22, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
PJ

No better indication that the CIA/NSA/DOD/DOJ/TSA psuedo-intel-military complex needs LESS money, not more. Raging incompetence is not cured by big budgets and typically worsened. Get out the idiots, parasites and slackers- MANY at the top of the COC- out of there and get personnel dedicated to the mission. You could do what you do ten times better with a THIRD of the budget.
June 22, 2012 at 8:24 am | Reply
helicohunter

You aren't making any sense. They were begging for permission to go forward with the hunt for Bin Laden, but Congress and/or the President denied them both permission and the funds necessary to pursue the search. It wasn't the fault of the intelligence community, it was the fault of those above them.
June 22, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Reply
Ken

Thanks to liberal democrats, there was 9/11. It is true, and if you don't believe it, stick your fat, communist head back down in your hole. Obama will do NOTHING to stop the iranian regime from building some kind of nuclear device, and most likey we will be having the same "discussion" in another 10 years, G_d forbid. So go ahead you ignorant, naive american liberals, elect obama once again just because he's a black man! Hopefully the bombs we will be discussing in a decade only destroy you jerks!
June 22, 2012 at 7:52 am | Reply
Liberal Democrat

OK, genius, tell us how Iran, even with a nuclear warhead, threatens your mom here in North America....
June 22, 2012 at 8:41 am | Reply
lindaluttrell

If mom lives on the east coast, it could have a lot to do with the RANGE and payload on that thing!
June 22, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
MrComments

Are you for real? You really think Iran would try to launch a nuke across the ocean at us? First of all, that is nuts. Second, the logistics are not even possible. Also, even the Israel thing is nuts. If Iran nuked Israel, millions of Muslims would be killed and the entire Middle East would attack Iran. Also, fallout from any nuke would easily be in Iran.

Do you understand political science? Leverage? Negotiation? Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, the most vital waterway in the world. The entire world needs that waterway, including not only superpowers, but also third world countries. Iran would be cutting their own throats if they closed down the Strait, or did a nuke. Obama is doing it right. HUGE Navy presence in the area, ready to strike big time if required. All military experts agree with this strategy and sanctions. And it is working. The people of Iran are fed up with their leaders. THAT is how you change the Middle East, not a trillion dollar catastrophe like Bush did. Iran at this time has a lot of oil, yet they can't even get it to their people because they are so behind the times. The threat to the US by Iran is ZERO from a war standpoint. The only threat to National Security is the Strait of Hormuz, and Obama is handling that perfectly, primarily because on those issues the Republicans can't obstruct him.
June 22, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
StL Bill

So, you probably still think starting a war with Iraq was a good idea. Iran was always a bigger threat than Saddam Hussein. But try telling that to Bush & Cheney and you practically are sticking your head down a hole.
June 22, 2012 at 8:56 am | Reply
notatall

Of course, we can't blame the DO NOTHING Congress because it is dominated by lazy GOPers who refuse to do their jobs. Wasted taxpayer dollars.
June 22, 2012 at 9:39 am | Reply
stateschool

You just blamed half of America for 9/11 and said that you hope terrorists kill them. I'm trying to figure out how you aren't a traitor, but I just can't manage it.
June 22, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Reply
Peter

Ken – You do realize that it was conservative Republicans that sold WMDs to Sadam Hussein, and trained Osama Bin Laden. Reagan signed a non-proliferation treaty with the Russians, and we had to unload a few weapons that we weren't supposed to have. Iraq was the highest bidder, and we were fighting a proxy war at the time. That same proxy war required some third party actors, and this really nice Saudi was more than happy to help. The only problem with that was that we did not follow through with our end of the bargin.
June 22, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Reply
cs

Moran. At least that.'s how teapartiers spell it. Not much point in responding to this moronic diatrab. Thepre is no intellectual content in your statement.
June 22, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Reply
Hannibal7

Killing OBL before 9/11 and killing OBL after 9/11 are two separate subjects. As to the hindsight of prior to 9/11... Clearly Clinton lacked the spine to hit him. He was distracted at the time – do you recall who has the blue dress? If you recall, President Clinton also choked in Mogadishu despite requests from military commanders to bring in heavy armor {M1 Tanks}. Clinton would walk 100 miles in bare feet not to offend the Muslim world. The operative’s notes show they had OBL 3 times and Clinton choked 3 times at ordering the hit. As to President Bush, I don't think anyone can call him gun shy. Ask yourself, would President Bush have ordered the killing of OBL prior to 9/11? You have to wonder as he was new in the job. In either case whacking OBL before 9/11 is a far different order than post 9/11. We all say now with such certainty he should have been killed prior to 9/11 but can you imagine the howling of the left had President Bush ordered OBL killed prior to 9/11 without a "fair trial"?
June 22, 2012 at 7:05 am | Reply
Liberal Democrat

And Bush did soooo much better. He outsourced the hunt for UBL to Afghani tribes and pulled US troops from Afghanistan to attack a country that HAD NOTHING to do with 9/11!
June 22, 2012 at 8:44 am | Reply
StL Bill

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority". – Pres. Bush 3/13/02

"It's not worth the effort and expense to go after Bin Laden." – Mitt Romney 2008

"It is a top national security priority of my administration to bring Bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda commanders to justice." – Pres. Obama 2009

1) Obama made it a priority and committed the resources to getting it done.

2) Obama was involved in decision making at every step of the operation.

3) Obama made the final call to take Bin Laden out, risking his Presidency in doing so.

Thank you Mr. President!
June 22, 2012 at 8:58 am | Reply
james

"You know, I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over. I don't believe he went in there for oil. We didn't go in there for imperialist or financial reasons. " Bill Clinton June 2004
June 22, 2012 at 11:22 am |
james

"No, because I didn't get him (UBL). But at least I tried. That's the difference [between] me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried." Bill Clinton 2006
June 22, 2012 at 11:24 am |
james

"But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it. But I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. " Bill Clinton 2006
June 22, 2012 at 11:27 am |
james

The Clinton Admin missed its chance... but the blame for 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan lie with Tenet. He convinced Bill clinton that SAddam had WMD's and drafted the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act to invade Iraq (but Bill was shouted down and accused of wagging the dog). Then he ignored the FBI investgations Agent O'Neill pursued after they FBI tracked UBL to Yemen, let him get away – after KSM was confirmed as the planner of the original WTC 93 bombing and planning a new WTC attack – hmmm. He helped to inflate the Curveball lie, convinced G Bush that Saddam was again hiding WMD's and planning to help al qaida use them, and then after we were in 2 wars and after 9/11, he retires and writes books about how awesome he was...
June 22, 2012 at 11:17 am | Reply
David Crosby

Everyone has this backwards..The reason that The CIA and every other government agency is so ineffective and spineless is because they are all staffed by an assortment of pith wristed Ivy leaguers that I wouldn't take to a high school cheerleader fight....
June 22, 2012 at 1:22 am | Reply
Bill

Peter Bergen and Peter Arnett seemed to find him just fine in the 90's
June 22, 2012 at 12:51 am | Reply
Anita Bongtoke

Yes and that is simply amazing... but our trillion dollar high tech intel dragnet couldnt...

perhaps we never wanted too... you know to keep the boogy man myth alive and everyone scared..
June 22, 2012 at 10:45 am | Reply
MrComments

Ummm, bin Laden came to them for interviews, they did not "find him".

He was easily found after 9/11, but Bush did not want him. Sounds like he had a deal with Pakistan's ISI and bin Laden, all to protect "business". But once Obama decided to look for him again, it was not some piece of cake. No one was sure he was in that compound, and it took a lot of guts to make that call. If that goes bad, Obama is done. Even Gates wanted a drone strike, but Obama wanted to be sure. VERY gutsy call.
June 22, 2012 at 1:15 pm |
Patrick Portland

The initial mistake was commited by Clinton & team. The concern about shrapnel hitting a building & possibly offensive to Muslims has Democratic pc BS written all over it. After Bin Laden took down 2 US embassies in Africa, the bombs should have been dropping & the guns blazing. Who cares about the collateral damage?
June 21, 2012 at 6:55 pm | Reply
666667

This isn't news, America had been trying to kill him all along and messed up...9/11 was payback. Just like America tried to kill Castro waaaaaaaaaay before any nukes were in his country. In fact the Nukes were protection from the rogue U.S. government trying to kill him. America cries too much, its OK for them to kill and drop bombs on people but if the same thing happens...oh noo, that is not fair. Hypocrisy at its finest.
June 21, 2012 at 7:30 pm | Reply
islam is vile

America cries too much

i guess you dont know to many muslims , always on their knees crying how much israel controls 1.5 billion muslims from Newyork..
June 22, 2012 at 6:11 am |
borisjimbo

Nice 220/20 hindsight there, Patrick.
June 22, 2012 at 12:06 am | Reply
Steve-O

The real power behind the federal government didn't want Bin Laden dead until he finished his task.
June 21, 2012 at 6:42 pm | Reply
Bogus boggs

"The real power behind the federal government didn't want Bin Laden dead until he finished his task...."

SUUURE, dude......

Nice to see you and every other conspiracy theory nut job can be counted on to chime in...

I forget, who WAS responsible for 9/11 again?

The Neo-Cons looking for an excuse to launch a full scale invasion of the Middle East?
Those twisted, evil dirty Jews?
Bush Jr.?
Cheney?
The international Zionist cabal that secretly pulls the strings of the U.S., the IMF, the World Bank (and anybody else who matters)?
The C.I.A.?
I suppose you think Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and every other terrorist on the world scene the past 40 years are really just C.I.A. plants, huh?
What color is the sky in your world, anyway?
June 21, 2012 at 10:12 pm | Reply
StanCalif

Bush (Jr.) and his sidekick Dick Cheney never had any intentions of eliminating OBL. Why? War is profitable, ending a war is NOT profitable. George and Dick were blind sided with dollar signs as they both salivated over Iraq's oil! George was (and is) just plain stupid. Nothing to compare to his father. Just another spoiled brat taught to worship oil. Cheney, was the really "evil one"! He controlled stupid George W. from day one. Cheney wanted the oil, nothing mattered how to get it! Surprise! We got no oil! But Cheney's friends made fortunes as "independent contractors" in Iraq. Did Cheney care at all that his buddies were actually killing our own troops? No! When our troops went to take a shower and got electrocuted by Cheney's friend's wonderful work, who was ever called to account? No one! Friends take care of friends! Unfortunately, our troops were NOT friends of Cheney!
June 21, 2012 at 10:26 pm | Reply
Michael

then gee stupid child? why did we NOT get any oil? 9/11 twoofer idiots, poster children for abortion
June 22, 2012 at 12:00 am |
james

"You know, I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over. I don't believe he went in there for oil. We didn't go in there for imperialist or financial reasons. " Bill Clinton June 2004
June 22, 2012 at 11:29 am |
james

You need to wash ALL your meds down with booze....

speaking of meds... did you know it is MORE profitable to save lives then to make war? You don't know that because you are a conspiracy nut... corporations don't profit from war, they profit from continued customer bases – war eliminates the customer base. Cheney wasn't in haliburton when he was VP, George Bush did not plot 9/11 in 1996, Pick up a book and learn instead of opening links to MSNBC blogs and blindly repeating retarded rhetoric....
June 22, 2012 at 11:32 am |
notatall

Another Corporate plot?
June 22, 2012 at 9:41 am | Reply
Luke

Clinton has Bin Laden in a hospital bed and did nothing.
June 21, 2012 at 5:25 pm | Reply
David

–wasn't Clinton's executive decision. Read the article instead of letting your partisanship blind you.
June 21, 2012 at 5:37 pm | Reply
Mark Taylor

Bush has Bin Laden pinned down inside a mile perimeter in 2002 after killing over 3,000 Americans and Bush did nothing.
June 21, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Reply
Mark Taylor

Just read the CIA accounts of Tora Bora. Iraq and its fictional weapons of mass destruction were made priority.
June 21, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
MrBo

Obama has Bin Laden pinned down in his desert front villa.
Gives the go ahead to nail the SOB.
BOOM goes the dynamite.
Republicans whine that it was all a political publicity stunt.
June 21, 2012 at 6:28 pm | Reply
StanCalif

George W (and his overseer, Dick) had ample opportunity to eliminate OBL but chose to let him go. Why? Dick and his friends were making money! Funny how Dick went on the talk show circuit after being kicked out of office. He tried in vein to account for his time in office. All his interviews fell on deaf ears, we all knew he was trying to protect all his friends who profited! What did George W. do? He went into seclusion, refusing to say anything. George W. was simply a stooge obeying all instructions from Dick! Dick's campaign proved useless, so he left his "legacy" for his daughter to defend! What is his daughter going to say? CNN would be wise to eliminate her from any coverage. She only knows what her father allowed her to know. Much, much more was going on that she is not even aware of!
June 21, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
easyrhino

As Dr. Paul Craig Roberts opined:

Think about it. What are the chances that a person allegedly suffering from kidney disease and requiring dialysis and, in addition, afflicted with diabetes and low blood pressure, survived in mountain hideaways for a decade? If bin Laden was able to acquire dialysis equipment and medical care that his condition required, would not the shipment of dialysis equipment point to his location? Why did it take ten years to find him?

Consider also the claims, repeated by a triumphalist US media celebrating bin Laden’s death, that "bin Laden used his millions to bankroll terrorist training camps in Sudan, the Philippines, and Afghanistan, sending ‘holy warriors’ to foment revolution and fight with fundamentalist Muslim forces across North Africa, in Chechnya, Tajikistan and Bosnia." That’s a lot of activity for mere millions to bankroll (perhaps the US should have put him in charge of the Pentagon), but the main question is: how was bin Laden able to move his money about? What banking system was helping him? The US government succeeds in seizing the assets of people and of entire countries, Libya being the most recent. Why not bin Laden’s? Was he carrying around with him $100 million dollars in gold coins and sending emissaries to distribute payments to his far-flung operations?
June 21, 2012 at 5:25 pm | Reply
JX

You make it sound like the Terrorist are stupid.

Do you know how common dialysis equipment is all over the world? They could easily get it from an actual hospital (whether by theft or otherwise), rob a delivery truck anywhere in the world, then ship it through several channels and carry it by mule to where ever it is going.

Trying to track him via small dialysis equipment purchase is like tracking someone down base on they purchase tennis shoes.
June 21, 2012 at 6:55 pm | Reply
Bogus boggs

Sticking "Dr." in front of Paul Craig Roberts name doesn't give that whack job anymore credibility than your average conspiracy nut. To say Paul Craig Roberts is out where the buses don't run would be an understatement of MASSIVE proportions....But hey! It's a free country; read and believe what you choose, dude.....
June 22, 2012 at 12:53 am | Reply
RealityMike

Anything to change the subject! You idiots fall for all of CNN's BS. They got you talking about this instead of Obama's lousy economy. Good work CNN!
June 21, 2012 at 5:15 pm | Reply
Ih8hypocrites

Yes this a news site theres other news besides politics and the economy Fox does the same thing stop being so ignorant cause you head is so far up your a ss.
June 21, 2012 at 5:51 pm | Reply
Mark Taylor

So we're 7.5 trillion dollars in the red as opposed to a surplus, the housing market has crashed and 8% of Americans are out of work when GW Bush leaves office and somehow this is "Obama's lousy economy". What a lemming.
June 21, 2012 at 5:52 pm | Reply
RealityMike

See what I mean?
June 21, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
Northernstar

So let me get this straight; Clinton knew all about OBL and didn't bother to mention it to Bush; and thought Bush would just pick it up on his own....come on guys aren't we all on the same team ? Clinton really didn't think to mention it to Bush that OBL should be his top target ? What kind of transition was there between Clinton & Bush; just changing the bedsheets ?
June 21, 2012 at 5:13 pm | Reply
Uri

He did. Please read Clarke 'Against all enemies'.
Clarke was both Clinton and Bush's counter-terrorism 'tsar'.
He describes how Clinton warned Bush that 'Al-Qaeda is going to be your top priority'
but Bush refused to even listen until August of 2001.
Read it, it is all available to you if you just want to know.
June 21, 2012 at 5:29 pm | Reply
Alfa Tango

Of course Clinton's people told Bush's, but Condi Rice chose to ignore Clinton's top counter terrorism experts and put her own people in place.
June 21, 2012 at 5:35 pm | Reply
Historian

Incorrect. Bush and his administration were well aware of UBL and the attempts to capture him made by Clinton.
June 21, 2012 at 5:38 pm | Reply
11

Correct me if I'm wrong (don't crucify me). The Russians invade Afghanistan, then, the Afghans get angry. Afterthat, the United States decides to intervene, we send in our CIA, who inturn, give weapons and training the the locals to help defeat the Russians. [We gave specifically RPG's (rocket propelled grenades) for the simple reason that the Russians had helicopters, of which gave them the adavantage] So, the weapons are set, the training is finished, now the group, which is named the Taliban just needs a leader. Didn't we appoint Osama Bin Laden as the leader?
Then, after the Russians had been erradicated from Afghanistan, (some time later) we bomb OBL's kids, or whatever we destroyed (I think it was a mosque), but he then turns against us.
June 21, 2012 at 5:09 pm | Reply
FoolKiller

Pretty close, but giving him a reason was not a factor. He made a career of tilting at whatever windmill was in power. We made a handy target. We're the Great Evil, didn't you know?
June 21, 2012 at 5:22 pm | Reply
Jeromes Horowitz

My understanding was that OBL resented the establishment of US bases on Arab soil after Gulf War I
June 21, 2012 at 5:48 pm | Reply
Bogus boggs

After the Soviet invasion in '79, we (the U.S. through the CIA) began to supply money and arms to different groups of fighters in Afghanistan, the Mujahideen. They were NOT one group of fighters, they were many different groups, of which one Bin Laden belonged too. They were tribal, and they all didn't like each other, but the common goal they shared was the hatred of the Red Army and the communist puppet government the Soviets were there to prop up. This was during the apex of the Cold War, and the United States saw an opportunity to pay back the Soviets for their support of North Vietnam. The North Vietnamese were able to outlast our will to continue fighting them due to the material support they received from the Soviet Union, Communist China and assorted nations in the Eastern Bloc. When the Soviets rolled into Kabul in order to establish a pro-Soviet communist government (to secure their southern border and prevent the United States from extending its influence into Afghanistan), we saw an opportunity for payback, and we took it. Again, there were multiple groups of "freedom fighters" that we supplied money and weapons to, including the Stinger missile. Today, what we consider Al Qaeda and the Taliban did not exist yet. We did supply money and weapons to the Haqqani group, which currently is residing in North Waziristan and suffering losses from our Predator drone strikes. Again, one of many groups who did not necessarily like each other, but were united in their opposition to the Soviets. Bin laden was a rich kid from Saudi Arabia who got religion and went to Afghanistan to fight the infidels, those godless communists. The group of fighters he led were NOT known as Al Qaeda; that name would not come into play till the summer of 1988. The fighting Bin Laden did in Afghanistan ( and Bin Laden DID fight; he was no coward when it came to throwing down with the Soviets) had nothing to do with the terrorist group he would found towards the end of the war in 1988. Guys like Bin Laden were convinced that Allah had been on their side, and that Allah had helped them drive out the Soviets in 1989. This is true, except that in this case Allah was the United States of America. Without the material support of Uncle Sam (and countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Israel), the Muhajadeen would have had a MUCH longer struggle against the Soviets, and they certainly would have needed A LOT longer than 10 years to drive them out without help. The war against the Soviets radicalized Bin Laden and many of his followers, who deeply believed it was their Islamic faith and devotion to Allah that led to victory against the communists. By 1988, Bin Laden saw the Soviet Union in decline and assumed through the will of Allah that the West (starting with the United States) would be soon to follow. Bin Laden's hatred of the West (the U.S. in particular) crystallized in August 1990 after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The reason for this was simple; after the Iraqi conquest of Kuwait, it appeared that Saddam would keep on going and cross the border to seize the Saudi oil fields, thereby achieving a strategic stranglehold on the world's largest producer of oil, and becoming the dominant power in the Middle East. Saddam invaded Kuwait because the eight year war he waged against the Ayatollahs in Iran (from 1980-1988) had decimated Iraq physically and financially. The Saudi royal family saw Saddam as a threat, and were presented with two options; invite the United States to deploy ground troops into the Kingdom, or take up the offer from one of the sons of the richest (next to the royal family) families in the country. Bin Laden offered the services of himself and his group (Al Qaeda in its infancy) to the royal family, stating that he and his fighters would fight the Iraqis the same way they had fought the Soviets. The royal family declined his offer, preferring to stake the future of the Kingdom on the backs of the Americans and the coalition of nations that Uncle Sam would assemble. Within days of the invasion of Kuwait, President Bush (Senior) deployed the 82nd Airborne to Saudi Arabia. This was the first step in the largest deployment of American military forces abroad since the end of the Vietnam War. As hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and marines deployed to the Kingdom, Bin Laden and his followers seethed. All they saw were foreign infidels (including thousands of women) trampling the sands of the holy land, the birthplace of their faith. Bin Laden was offended that the royal family would allow foreign troops to be in the land of Mecca and Medina. It was from this point forward that Bin Laden would swear vengeance against the United States and the Saudi royal family. After the war ended and Kuwait had been liberated, the majority of American forces had been withdrawn, but the relationship between the Saudi royal family and the United States was stronger than ever, and this was something that Bin Laden and his followers could NOT abide. The United States of America, the leader of the West and the last remaining Superpower in the world was more entrenched than ever before in the Middle East, and Bin Laden was determined to do something about it. Thus, Al Qaeda would be his platform for striking at the Americans and American interests around the world. Al Qaeda was in Somalia in 1993 (Blackhawk Down), and they bombed the World Trade Center for the first time that same year. Bin Laden assumed that America was a decadent country, "a paper tiger" that he and his group would bring down, just as they had done to the Soviet Union in the previous decade. Al Qaeda bombed two of our embassies in Africa in August 1998, and attacked the USS Cole in October 2000. Their single greatest victory against the United States was carried out on September 11th, 2001. Two days before the 9/11 attacks, two Al Qaeda assassins (disguised as journalists) murdered Ahmad Shah Massoud, "The Lion of Panjshir" in northern Afghanistan. Massoud was the leader of the Northern Alliance, a group of Afghans who, like Bin Laden, had received material aid from the United States during the war against the Soviets. After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the country would descend into civil war, fought between the Northern Alliance and religious "students" in the south of the country known as the Taliban. It is assumed that Bin Laden had Massoud killed as a gesture towards the Taliban, because Massoud was their greatest enemy, and Bin Laden would need the protection of the Taliban in the coming days because of the impending 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11th, 2001. The Americans demanded that Bin Laden be turned over to them, and with the refusal by the Taliban to comply with this demand, the United States invaded Afghanistan in October. They knocked the Taliban out of power, decimated Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, chased Bin Laden into the mountains of Tora Bora, and lost him there as the focus of American military power was beginning to shift from the Afghan battlefields to Iraq. The move into Iraq was a tremendous mistake, a war of choice that did NOT need to be fought at that time, and because of this, Bin Laden would continue to survive, claiming credit for the 9/11 attacks along with the Madrid and London bombings in the following years until his death at the hands of U.S. Navy Seals in May 2011.
THIS is roughly how it happened, but there will always be those who refuse to believe ANY of this. In their minds, Bin Laden was either an agent of the CIA, a dupe of the CIA, or a creation of the CIA or a "shadow government" who was used to advance the business interests of a select few. Quite a few posters to CNN are quite comfortable with the idea of a "Zionist conspiracy" behind the events of the past thirty years. There is no doubt that we went into a proxy war with the Soviets in Afghanistan in the '80's, and walked away in 1989, never conceiving of the consequences of that decision. We chose to ignore how deeply some Muslims felt about their faith and how they viewed us in their part of the world, and in doing so, we failed to see that some of them (Bin Laden and Al Qaeda) would be coming for us. In a world dominated by the use of fossil fuels, we would ALWAYS be involved in the Middle East, and we always WILL be, at least until the oil runs out. Those of you who would rather believe most of us are sheep, than by all means, stick to your conspiracy theories. At the end of the day, you'll end up cursing the darkness, because Alex Jones and your conspiracies will be ALL that you have.......
June 22, 2012 at 12:22 am | Reply
neas

wel said .........hope the nuts on both sides see the truth.....violence and hate begates violence and hate.......
June 22, 2012 at 9:18 am |
patw2100

Good to see that at one time America had a President that didn't believe in murder. President Bush is the greatest President in American history.
June 21, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Reply
Mark Taylor

OMG I hope this post was in jest.
June 21, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Reply
Joe Six Pack

I'll bet you huff paint.
June 21, 2012 at 6:02 pm | Reply
Chuck D

This is a lie. CIA station head in Dubai met with Bin Laden at a hospital and paid for his kidney dialysis only months before 9/11.
June 21, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Reply
Steve B.

WHAT?!!
June 21, 2012 at 6:03 pm | Reply
MrJTP

In December of 1998 we only had a handful of 'offices' in Afghanistan. Only the CIA was serious about "UBL". We had no armed drones in the area, we had no military facilities in the area. They (those with eyes on UBL) were told it would take up to 6 hours to have resources over the site. UBL was not in the habit of staying anywhere in public that long. CIA was after UBL because of the bombings in Africa and he knew it. Even after the 9/11 attack the White House and the DOD had no interest in Afghanistan since they 'knew' it was Iraq that supported those involved. Uh..FAIL!
June 21, 2012 at 4:35 pm | Reply
indep100

The target of the embassy bombings in Africa was a team of 3 CIA agents who had been sent there to get OBL. The agents were killed in the bombing. OBL had been a target for some time. There was a cruise missile attack on a camp in Afghanistan in the 1998 time frame . The attack took out the camp but OBL was not present when the missiles struck.
June 21, 2012 at 9:15 pm | Reply
USMCRETAILER

Bush was so d*mn dumb it took him like 6+ mos to realize the country was in a reccession when he was first asked by the media. He denied it at first or he was lying. Either or.
June 21, 2012 at 4:23 pm | Reply
johnh77

Oh and Odumbo is being honest with us. Go smoke something and leave the thinking to those that are smart enough.
June 21, 2012 at 4:37 pm | Reply
booskoo

This proves 911 was Cinton's lapse.

The economy did GREAT under Bush until dems took House of Reps, and sent it off the road - followed by BozoBarry's sending it off the cliff
June 21, 2012 at 4:40 pm | Reply
Joshua Ludd

So, care to tell us HOW the Democrats just made the economy suddenly implode? Did THEY force banks to give out sub prime mortgages and sell and re-sell their bad loans or perhaps go back in a time machine to screw everything up for the 6 years before that?
June 21, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
armytrooper

bin laden did not plan the attack- it was people from our Allies..
June 21, 2012 at 4:15 pm | Reply
Dennis

Your tin foil hat is on too tight.
June 21, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Reply
Patrick Portland

Moronic & conspiratorial...get some air...
June 21, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Reply
joe smoe

You are all a bunch of blind mice. If the U.S. goverment does anything unethical and people become aware its a conspiracy but if a middle eastern country does its terrorism. U.S.A, is run by greedy corps. that will kill for profit. Wake up idiots.
June 22, 2012 at 1:11 am | Reply
jim

It amazing we have any problems here in the US with so many experts on this board. I guess many of you should be working for the CIA.
June 21, 2012 at 4:06 pm | Reply
Jeromes Horowitz

Is that Catholic, Irish and Alcoholic?
June 21, 2012 at 5:50 pm | Reply
2011cnn2011

bin laden is dead, and soon al zawahiri and the traitor adam gadahn will be killed
June 21, 2012 at 4:02 pm | Reply
Josh Mackey

adam gadahn?

Why would Mossad kill one of their own assets. He wasn't a convert – he was outed as a Jew pretending to be an Arab terrorist.

Poor revisionism on the part of the Z.O.M. really
June 21, 2012 at 4:12 pm | Reply
Reckless

Cheers to that!
June 21, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
Dave Anders

To try to eliminate a political rival of Karzai, President Bill Clinton ordered bin Laden's house in Afghanistan bombed pre-911. That bombing killed bin Laden's wife and children AND turned bin Laden against the United States.No attempt to kill bin Laden by Bill Clinton means no 9/11.
June 21, 2012 at 3:50 pm | Reply
Scott Pearson

What wife are you talking about? I can't find any reference to a wife of bin Laden's being killed by the U.S. . . . not even in interviews with bin Laden explaining his hatred for the U.S.
June 21, 2012 at 4:43 pm | Reply
Dan

Bin Laden started to turn against the US after the first Gulf War as well as the Saudi princes for allowing the infidels (US and allies) on the holy soil of the Arabian Peninsula (build up following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait). He in particular wanted to destroy the capitalist nature of the US which is why he went after the World Trade Center. To him it was a symbol of American imperialism and economic might.
June 21, 2012 at 5:09 pm |
MrJTP

UBL was responsible for the US Embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam in 1998. Two years before the first gulf war. He had already expressed hatred for the US.
June 21, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
Easyrhino

Gotta say, if fundamentalist Islamic extremists were the sole perpetrators of 9/11 if was very generous of them to offer an advanced warning to Israeli based employees of the Odigo instant messaging company:

Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.
June 21, 2012 at 3:46 pm | Reply
MrComments

Get some therapy. Let me guess, you read it on Alex Jones's website?
June 21, 2012 at 5:11 pm | Reply
Jeromes Horowitz

From Wikipedia –

Odigo reported that, two hours before the September 11, 2001 attacks, two of their employees who were working in an Odigo office in Herzliya Pituah, a city near Tel Aviv,[1] received a hostile English electronic instant message non-specifically threatening them that a terrorist attack would happen.[2] They did not mention this to their employer until after they heard reports of a terrorist attack in the United States on the news, after which they informed the company's management. One of Odigo's New York offices was then situated under a kilometer away from the World Trade Center complex.[3] However, the threatening message did not mention the location of an attack.[4] The company took the initiative in tracking down the originating IP address of the message, giving the information to the FBI, so that the FBI could track down the Internet Service Provider, and the actual sender of the original message.[5] Using the "people-search" function, Odigo users can send anonymous messages anywhere in the world to other users, who they can find based on demographics or location. According to the Washington Post, the message declared “that some sort of attack was about to take place. The notes ended with an anti-Semitic slur. The messages said 'something big was going to happen in a certain amount of time'".[
June 21, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Reply
Bill

Cindy, I suggest you count the democratic senators in 2008. There were 60.
June 21, 2012 at 3:35 pm | Reply
Realdirect

YAWN.....x 3 = George Bush....CIA...+ Chaney...divided by more + 9/11...+ Iraqi oil...= Billions....
June 21, 2012 at 3:34 pm | Reply
John

Remember Bush was not in office in 1998...Clinton was.
June 21, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Reply
stinger21

yes, thank you. bush gets blamed for everything since the attack happened while he was in office. conveniently, all you dems overlook the fact that much of this information came to light and was not acted upon by Clinton. He was too busy smoking cigars.
June 21, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
Joshua Ludd

Remember, the Bush administration was in the process of shutting down the office dedicated to hunting Bin Laden which they continued with after 9-11 and had memos that said Bin Laden was looking to attack the US very soon using airplanes.
June 21, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
alfranken

So according to this story, The Clinton administration compiled a huge amount of data, then G.W. did nothing, then Obama used what data Clinton's people provided to be engaged to find and kill him.

Thanks for confirming what most of us already knew.
June 21, 2012 at 3:27 pm | Reply
Schmedley

If you actually read the dates in the article, this happened during the first Bush administration. Clinton did nothing and AQ grew and hit us in 2001. I'm not saying that GW was a great president by any means, but let's stay at least somewhere in the ballpark of reality, shall we?

The other point is that if we DID hit OBL in 1988 and demolished a Mosque in the process, I can totally see a HUGE muslim Jihad build up after that. The hindsight in this article is not 20/20 because I think the political concern was very real because at the time we didn't have the justification to hit them.

The unfortunate property of a democracy is that something bad has to happen first before anyone acts. If nothing bad has happened, no one will agree to do anything about what might happen.
June 21, 2012 at 3:37 pm | Reply
DJ Simmerdown

It's you who should read the article again, numnuts. This happened during the Clinton administration.
June 21, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
Dave Anders

President Bill Clinton ordered bin Laden's house bombed- that killed bin Laden's wife and children which turned bin Laden against the United States- no Clinton bombing means no 9/11. On tv Bush announced that he had formed a SEALS team and gave that SEALS team orders to kill bin Laden. Obama is too egotistical(smart-a**ed) to think that he can learn anything so he got caught lying that he had anything to do with bin Laden's death.
June 21, 2012 at 3:57 pm | Reply
Greg

What? Bush didn't form anything. Seal Six has been around since the mid 80's as a result of the failure to rescue the Iran hostages at Desert One during the Carter administration. Bush had plenty of time to use them, but didn't. He was focused on Iraq.
June 22, 2012 at 9:23 am |
dutspup

pa pa pa pa pa propagandaaaaaaaaaaaa
June 21, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Reply
djanes

It was a failure of our intllegence and policies.

We didn't act because we didn't believe they were as big of a threat as they were.

9/11 made us believe.

And now that we are being proactive about 'removing threats' there seems to be a growing voice that maybe we are going too far.

I say keep the predators in the air. They're doing a fine job.
June 21, 2012 at 3:08 pm | Reply
jon

They were worried that "stray shrapnel might hit a mosque"????? Really – what a bunch of dumbheads we are.
June 21, 2012 at 3:42 pm | Reply
dbld

come on now you supposedly Vets. everybody knows(vets and high ups">>),- That you can delegate authority not responsibility!!
June 21, 2012 at 3:53 pm | Reply
nik green

This is beyond bogus. "Declassified" material has been thoroughly vetted and scrubbed so as to remove any evidence of incompetence, complicity, or outright criminality on the part of the authorities. And, as we all know, or SHOULD DO by now, the term "national security" has become *the* blanket excuse – with its manipulative overtones – used to protect criminal elements within government agencies and the military.

As the old saying goes: What happens when the Mafia is charged with "investigating" the Gambino Family?
June 21, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Reply
easyrhino

Wish this information from a Fox news report was also declassified:

Investigators suspect that they Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are "tie-ins." But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, "evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."
June 21, 2012 at 2:55 pm | Reply
dave

So it sounds like the conversation went something akin to this old trap "So tell me, when did you stop beating your wife?" only it's more like "Let me just say this. If Israel knew about the plan I certainly couldn't talk about it. Not that I'm saying they did, but if they did I wouldn't be allowed to say." Another smear and run.
June 21, 2012 at 3:12 pm | Reply
MrComments

The Mossad were actually one of many Intel agencies warning the Bush Admin. Wake up. Even our our CIA was, tenet was running around like a madman screaming about attacks. The Bush Admin ignored all of it.
June 21, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
Easyrhino

Your analogy doesn't work and nor is this an attempt to smear. This is about evidence linking foreign nationals of another country to a terrorist act in the US.

I think the public has a right to know what the evidence is.
June 21, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
frank

actually the Israelis warned us and we ignored the warnings so as not to offend "easyrhino" and his buddies like "dave" with collateral damage to a mosque, implying the opposite is just the same crap propaganda that this group of whiners has been engaging in for past 60 years hoping that by repeating their lies they will eventually be believed. wont happen "rhino"!
June 21, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Reply
Ivanhoe

For more insight into political events in the Middle East including leading up to and the death of Osama bin Laden - read the novels - king of Bat'ha - and the sequel - Tales from the East:Return of Ivanhoe by Ivanhoe.
June 21, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Reply
IdislikeLebron

I would identify myself more teaparty then republican. Why is it that everytime someone does not agree with you they are a racist. Its this kind of thinking that hurts everyone. With that being said President Obama does deserve alot of credit for the killing of Bin Laden. He did give the kill order. It is also true that republicans lost sight on killing Bin Laden. They did say his death wasnt a priority. We also had zero right to be in Iraq. Democrats and republicans both voted for that war with a high majority. With all this being said our country is in massive debt do to both Bush and Obama. President Obama said he would cut the debt in half in four years he has failed there. Job creation is not good. Im voting for Herman Cain
June 21, 2012 at 2:50 pm | Reply
Cindy

When 15 Republican congressmen conspired to derail Obama's economic plan before he spent 1 day in office, you can hardly blame him for not getting his plan enacted.
Huffington Post/ April 2012 for the names of the 15 Republicans.
June 21, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Reply
Andy

Democrats controlled both the house and senate during Obama's first two years in office. Its unlikely 15 republicans could have accomplished that at that time.
June 21, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
Cindy

Oh yes, because of Republican rules they needed more than a majority to pass any legislation. (60 votes.)
Read 'Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the US |House of Representatives." Robert Draper
He will tell you about the conspiracy to sabotage his presidency. He must have good sources, because he names them by name.
June 21, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
Andy

Considering Herman Cain isn't running and you aren't voting for Obama's opponent you are still essentially voting for Obama.
June 21, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Reply
Brian

Obama never said he'd cut the debt in half within four years.
June 21, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Reply
bhartman36

He promised to cut the deficit in half in 4 years. Check Politifact.
June 21, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
orangecounty

Look at how the debt was created. An unfunded war, and tax cuts during 2nd Bush is the problem. When have we ever had an unfunded war, Congress was drinking the Kool-Aid on that. No tax cuts we would have had the debt paid off, or down to a reasonable amount in 2005! Then we can talk tax cuts.

Remember corporations, if the only way to make a profit is to not pay taxes means you are a failing corporation.
June 21, 2012 at 4:11 pm | Reply
Fred Dameron

Old news. Read Shadow Warriors published in 04? Clinton had two chances but would not give the go over fear of collateral damage. End of story. Call it what it is a missed opportunity to get a Terr. Using those two events to lay blame is BS. We live with the results and try to do better next time. And before you Pillory me I retired from the AF in 05 after multiple tours in country.
June 21, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Reply
Bitterjack

Yep, this is exactly what the liberal planned. This article is all about how frustrated the CIA was because Clinton refused to act against OBL. The comments turned into Obama vs Bush, as usual. It sure does help Obama look better by constantly ignoring the good things Bush did. Bush will never be President again. Get over it.
If Clinton has done his job, 9/11 would never have happened.
June 21, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Reply
citizenmn

If Bush had done his job, 9-11 would never had happened since it happened on his watch. Numerous reports came out at the time that your hero W ignored warnings about Bin Laden. Furthermore, Bush should never have been president except he stole the election.
June 21, 2012 at 2:49 pm | Reply
Lance

Be careful with the "on his watch" argument. Too easily turned against you.
June 21, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
Cindy

It is true that the Saudi Ambassador was on many TV shows saying they gave the US a warning of an attack at least 2 weeks before 9/11. George Bush decided to close the government and go on vacation to the ranch. He even took the National Security Advisor with him.
June 21, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
Sheri Lee

If Bill Clinton is to blame for 9/11. Who do we blame for the first attack on the WTC?? Bush Sr or Bill Clinton?? Bill Clinton had been in office for 90 days when the first attack happend. GWB had been in over 200 days, the Bush administration had their warnings but could not connect the dots. Also after 9/11 they had OBL in sights at Tora Bora but choosed to focus on Iraq. Do we blame Bill Clinton for as well. Bush had 7 years after the fact to get this guy and failed. Is that Bill Clinton's fault as well???
June 21, 2012 at 2:27 pm | Reply
knucklecheese

It's hard to decipher your nonsensical ramblings, but yes, Clinton has a lot of responsibility for 9/11, and yes, Bush Sr. has a lot of responsibility for the first attack. Those are the facts. Political leanings are irrelevant to fact. Conservatives have to accept that Bush Sr. dropped the ball. Liberals must come to terms with the fact that Clinton dropped the ball. It's not complicated.
June 21, 2012 at 2:42 pm | Reply
Don Jones

Bin Laden no more responsible for 9/11 than I was for JFK's assassination. 9/11 was an inside job. Period. Google "In Pane Sight". Google "Loose Change". Then read Popular Mechanic's debunking of the conspiracy theories. Keep an open mind and compare THE PROVABLE FACTS, as opposed to speculation. Look at the film of "Osama Bin Laden" admitting the 9/11 attacks that the CIA "certified". Then look-up the facts on Osama bin Laden. The NSA and CIA both clearly state that ObL is left handed, where the man they claim is ObL is clearly right-handed and does not even look like him. I could go on and on. The truth is out there. The truth that our democratic republic was usurped.
June 21, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Reply
WhackyWaco

Lay off the kool aid.
June 21, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Reply
Bitterjack

Really genius? How about the WTC attacks in February of 1993?
Here's a good theory for you to digest: Canada did it!! Why? to make the Tar Sands profitable. See, the Canadian government new about the Tar Sands since the 1960s. However neither the technology nor the return on investiment was there. The technology was well proven in the late 90s. Now the problem becomes how to make it profitable. You'd need to start a war in the Middle East. However, since the ME countries have been at war with each other since antiquity, you would have had to involve a foriegn power strong enough to project military power that far and win. Russia and China just would have gone in there killed everyone. It would have been over in a year. However, if you attacked the US and framed some ME country, typical US liberal political correctness would have dragged it out for years. Good job Canada, things went better than planned.
See how easy it is to make things up?
June 21, 2012 at 2:42 pm | Reply
MrComments

Amazing. It's been 10 years and these Truther nuts are still rambling about magical thermite, etc. Clueless.
June 21, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
Chris I

Unfortunately, a large chunk of people (into the millions and growing) are onto the game of global politics, corporate fascism, and how "staged events" like 9/11, Madrid, London, and Uganda encourage global citizens to support "national security" measures and "wars on terrorism." Follow the money, sir. Do you have ANY idea how much money is involved in war, global politics, and intelligence? ANY idea? Whether or not 9/11 was entirely "inside" I do not know, but I do know one thing: a jet airliner certainly never hit the Pentagon. That's the only thing I have firsthand knowledge of, if you get my drift. We're talking about the Pentagon here, the most heavily guarded, secretive, and fortified structure on the planet, and there's one choppy inconclusive security camera that caught the event??? Give me a break. It's the folks that believe 9/11 WASN'T orchestrated that keep the kool-aid flowing, IMO.
June 21, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
Chris I

Also – do some research into how al Qaeda originated and what their ultimate goals are. Scheuer has some great insight into the group, go watch his Youtube interviews. They only exist because we created them, armed them, trained them, gave them finances, etc., and now we're surprised they