Tomservo

Well, it's nice to see it's all coming out. 'Bout damn time. Strip all the nonsense away, and maybe we can get to the bottom of this. What I read from what he says is this:

1. We couldn't have taken out bin Laden prior to 9/11 because the Intelligence was too shaky. (Still is)
2. Even if we HAD taken him out, they probably would've still hit the towers on 9/11.

Regardless of the honesty or dishonesty behind all the speechifying, this brings us to the official "brass tacks". Clinton wanted to kill Osama, but couldn't, and even if he did, it wouldn't have mattered. (Substitute Bush's name in there if you prefer) Enough finger-pointing! Hindsight IS 20/20!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ion/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday that he had no indication in the months before September 11, 2001, that the al Qaeda terrorist network was planning attacks with hijacked jetliners.

In testimony before the independent commission investigating the attacks, Rumsfeld also said even killing al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden would have been unlikely to prevent the attacks because the men who carried them out were already inside the United States.

Rumsfeld said the National Security Council was working on a new strategy to deal with al Qaeda in the spring and summer of 2001.

But "I knew of no intelligence during the six-plus months leading up to September 11 to indicate terrorists would hijack commercial airliners, use them as missiles to fly into the Pentagon or the World Trade Center towers," he said.

In any event, any large-scale effort to attack al Qaeda inside its sanctuary in Afghanistan was unlikely to draw public or congressional support before the attacks, which killed 3,000 people, he said.

Rumsfeld's predecessor, William Cohen, told the commission that the Clinton administration debated whether to launch airstrikes to kill bin Laden on three occasions in 1998 and 1999, but decided against them because of doubts about the intelligence and concerns about killing civilians.

"There were three occasions. Each time, the munitions and people were spun up," Cohen told the commission. "They were called off because the word came back, 'We're not sure.' "

**More in the article, click the link if you so desire!**

P.S. I still don't believe a word Rumsfeld says, on general principle, but this was interesting.

filtherton

I think it is odd that they were so cautious with intelligence about bin laden, yet so fancy-free when i came to saddam hussein and wmd's.
I must admit that i am biased though. I would doubt the color of the sky if rumsfeld told me it was blue.

shakran

I'm in that camp myself. Frankly, Rumsfeld is much scarier than Bush, IMHO.

HarmlessRabbit

How is it hindsight when a person whose skin is *definitely* is in the game is making predictions about what would have happened had history been different?

I mean, what you said boils down to "the guy who would be in trouble if he said otherwise said that the 9/11 attacks were not preventable."

Coming from a non-political standpoint, Rumsfeld handled himself well today. Usually, he comes off in press conferences an an arrogant jerk. Today, he seemed a bit more relaxed. Well-coached or not, he handled what could have been a bad situation well.

That said, I don't think his testimony really amounted to anything. The guy before him talking about the role of special ops was much more interesting and meaty.

kutulu

Bush is a scary person, but the people around him and the people that put him in power scare me even more.

I don't blame Bush and his people for 9/11. I don't think people should. I blame them for what they did after 9/11.

james t kirk

He is scary, but at the same time I have to admit, he is intelligent and does have a charisma about him.

Bush on the other hand lacks both.