by 
For all of the hype that has surrounded last week’s presentation of the leadup to 9/11, it’s amazing what was being said, done, and edited before this mini-series was shown. Certianly there was a lot at stake– part of the whole point of terror attacks is that the targets need to be in the dark that they are going to happen for maximum impact. Any reasonable person could assume that to some extent (regardless of all the talks of memos that we understood after the event, those taking pilot lessons, etc.) the government was taken by surprise because they had not experienced something like that before and that they weren’t looking for an attack on our soil.
So, then, why was it so important that Sandy Berger shove documents from the National Archives down his pants and then snip them up with scissors at his house? Maggie Gallagher wants to know, and I do too, what was the content of those documents that someone of Berger’s stature would do such a thing. It happened during the 9/11 committee’s investigation, so there was no doubt that they were related. Was there more going on there than just acceptable surprise by the terrorist?
I’m no conspiracy theorist by any means, but with all that’s floating around about Bush planning 9/11 one wonders why they aren’t going back further to the Clinton Administration with their theories. After all, Bush had only been president for 9 months, and the plans for this attack went much further. Certainly, if you’re one that likes tales, I’m sure Mr. Burger could tell you one. The question is, what would that story sound like and when it comes out, what will it do to the Clinton (or Bush) administrations?
I believe that Clinton played a major part in what happened at 9/11. He supplied Iraq with weapons and I believe also money.
I believe he was quite aware of the volatile situation.
What arms did Clinton supply Iraq with? Donald Rumdfeld and George Bush snr supplied plenty, but I did not know Clinton did.
Also, Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with the September 11th attack. The major precipitating factor for that was deployment of thousands of US troops on the Arabian peninsular – which George Bush snr. chose to do after the first Iraq war.
Clinton’s culpability lies in not taking al Qa’ida seriously enough, and in not returning to the practice of off-shore balancing in the middle east. Sins of omission rather than comission.
Incidentally, MIN: I don’t buy conspiracy theories one way or the other.
Stephen
I don’t know that you can say that there was no attachement Iraq and 9/11– that would require more knowledge than you and I can possess. Probably the only one who might know this would be Sadaam himself, and I’m not sure that I would trust what he has to say.
I don’t know that you can say that Clinton’s only responsibility lies in not returning to previous deployements. I would think the whole response to every terrorist attack (1993 on the WTC, U.S.S. Cole, etc) where he didn’t do anything more to protect security and he didn’t go after the causes of the problem contributed more to the problem than anything. There is more responsibility there than what you say. 🙂
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060909/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report
It is only in America that there has ever been any suspicion of a link between Iraq and Al Qa’ida. The rest of the world cannot understand why this link is being drawn time and time again. It is clearly spurious.
Iraq was Wolferwitz’s obsession long before the war on terror provided a convenient mask behind which the war might be sold to the public and prosecuted.
There is simply no evidence that Saddam had al Qa’ida links. Can we prove he did not? No. But we have no more reason to suspect Saddam’s links than to suspect the Saudi Royal Family (the 9/11 attackers being largely well connected Saudi’s) or Donald Rumsfeld or -for that matter – the king of Tonga!
As to Clinton’s responsibility: I agree that he did not take the al Qa’ida threat sufficiently seriously in hindsight. I would say exactly the same thing about George W Bush, of course – and in both cases I would recognise that we all have 20/20 hindsight, but perhaps not so much foresight.
We do not need to judge these men so harshly that we suppose that either of them actually planned the al Qa’ida attack. I suspect we only look for conspiracy theories when we imbue people in our world with some superhuman quality that means they cannot possibly be shot by a madman, killed in a car crash, or fail to spot a threat coming their way.
But we are fallible, fallen humans. Just sinners – some of us saved by grace.
Regards,
Stephen
Contrary to the media, the 9/11 commission report itself states that there were links between Iraq and al Queda, albeit they were weak:
This states that there was a connection, not necessarily for 9/11 directly.
What we do know about Sadaam and terrorism is that he had funded homicide bombings in Israel, he supported every effort to attack Israel and the U.S. (as well as U.S. interests), and that he didn’t mind testing his weapons on his own people.