6 August 2001

[cwsox]

And you still have not answered the question about Bush acting on intelligence for Iraq and being blasted for NOT acting for 9/11. (I know what my answer would be to this, but I want to see yours).

 

I did not mean to ignore your question.

 

I would love to hear you answer.

 

As I said, the intelligence is/was from different sources entirely. Not all intelligence is equal.

 

That Bush was fixated on Iraq has not been challenged as I see it. Sandy Berger spoke to that obsesson prior to September 11th, Paul O'Neill wrote of it, now we have it from another source, we have had it from a lot of sources, it was the context of much of what Bush's people were writing in the 1990s during Clinton's regime, and totally undenied is Richard Clarke's statement that Rumsfield on September 12th was advocating attacking Iraq on the grounds that Afghanistan had no good targets but Iraq had a lot of good targets.

 

So the use of pretext - hell, Bush knew that his claim in the 2003 State of the Union address was wrong about the nuclear fuel rods because it had already been cautioned on and he used it any way. And when that was brought to the public, the white house broke the cover of a CIA agent who happened to be the spouse of the person who had warned Bish off the nuclear story and said so.

 

Bush was fixated on Iraq. Clarke's book - the "go back and find a conenction" - intelligence that did not say what they wanted it to say was spun.

 

Intelligence on an imminent threat - bin laden intends to attack the US and saying everything it did so it was not "historical" but was indeed about an on-going investigation amidst a source of other evidence that was popping up in those circles and the refusal to act because ideoogy called for a Star Wars shield rather than concern for terrorism - is it asking too much to say, "hey, get me more info, follow up on that, get back to me." It is obviously too much to ask of Bush.

 

And as winodj has pointed out, the Rudman/Hart pleas for homeland security for terrorism were not excactly unknown - just ignored.

 

If the difference between going to war and having an alert is something that people fail to see, then there is nothing more that I can say.

 

But in its simplest terms, if I hear a rumor that my neighbor has a gun and is going to shoot my dog, I do not have a right to bomb his house without getting a lot more information. But to let the dog roam, not watch, and not take any safety precautions for the dog, ok?

 

Again, if the difference between going to war and having an alert is something that people fail to see, then there is nothing more that I can say.

[cwsox]

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

 

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

 

These last sentences of the August 6 2001 PDB - everytime Bush calls this "historical" and not "actionable" I wonder what level of denial he is in.

 

I am surprised so many are letting Bush off the hook on this.

 

This cried out for a presidential followup and a possible alert to the airlines about preparations for hijackings.

[YASNY]

I have got to stop reading this garbage.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I believe very firmly that an involved president would have followed up.  Gore, if he were in, would have been all curious and wanted a follow up.  Clinton certainly.

An involved president?? Are you implying that Bush is not "involved"? Ever since the towers got knocked down it is you and those who think like you who think Bush is too "INVOLVED" in dealing with terrorism.

 

To say that Gore and Clinton would have done something about this is ludicrous. These are the same people who gutted the CIA, FBI, NSA and the Military during their time in office.

 

These guys got really "INVOLVED" when the Trade towers got hit the 1st time....

They got really "INVOLVED" when the Kobhar Towers bombing took place.....

They got really "INVOLVED" when the USS Cole was attacked.....

They got really "INVOLVED" when the embassies got hit back in 1998.....

They got really "INVOLVED" when N. Korea renigged on their non-proliferation deal resulting in them being allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.........the list goes on and on and on.

 

The ever vigilant Clinton/Gore team pointedly refused to back a simple initiative proffered by Dick Morris which would have made the drivers licences of guests on visas expire the same day as their visas did and that INS records and those of the state's DMV be tied together for these people.

 

Had they not been worried about offending their Hispanic base and being accused of racial profiling THREE of the 19 hijackers would have been arrested and deported.

 

In the months just prior to the attacks the following people were stopped by the police:

 

Mohammed Atta: Ticketed for driving without a licence. He doesn't show up for a court date, bench warrant issued, no further action, till 9-11 that is.

 

Nawaf Alhamzi: Ticketed for speeding in OKLAHOMA CITY of all places.

 

Zaid Samir Jarrah: Ticketed for speeding in Pennsylvania on I-95 2 DAYS BEFORE THE ATTACKS!!

 

Go get yourself a copy of Dick Morris's book "Off With Their Heads: Traitors, Crooks, Obstructionists in American Politics, Media and Business". Biased to the right? I think not. Not only did he work for Clinton as his pollster but he totally savages corporate America in his book. An excellent read.

[cwsox]

An involved president??  Are you implying that Bush is not "involved"?  Ever since the towers got knocked down it is you and those who think like you who think Bush is too "INVOLVED" in dealing with terrorism.

nuke, I respectfully submit you misunderstand.

 

I wish Bush had been involved in fighting terrorism. Osama bin laden is still at large. We are bogged down in the situation in Iraq, a nation that had no ties to bin Laden nor to al qeada. The threat of terrorism has increased because if nothing else our actions in Iraq have recruited many more to hate us.

 

Everything involved with Iraq has taken us away from the fight with terrorism and in fact exacerbated it, at a tremendous cost of lives, time, resources, and results which will work against us.

 

As for the rest of your post I don't buy it, it is rhetoric you are giving and that is cool, I am not in the mood for a rhetorical exchange today.

 

There are days that you post that I am just glad to see you are posting because it means you are ok. Be careful out there.

[kapkomet]

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

 

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

 

These last sentences of the August 6 2001 PDB - everytime Bush calls this "historical" and not "actionable" I wonder what level of denial he is in.

 

I am surprised so many are letting Bush off the hook on this.

 

This cried out for a presidential followup and a possible alert to the airlines about preparations for hijackings.

I know this because I worked in the airline industry. You have no clue how many threats our government receives all the time that we, the general public, don't know. This is BEFORE 9/11 and after.

 

It's pure baloney to sit there in the comfort of our living room and play monday morning quarterback on everything that happens and sit there and say "OH, he should have ASKED." Repeat: there are literally THOUSANDS of threats every single day. So, let me get this straight. Every one of these should hit the president's (leave political party out of this) desk? NO! You have to rely on agencies and people to do their job. And that's all we can ask. The "millenium" catch that the Democrats were so proud of, Janet Reno cracked me up in her testimony. The Dems were up there talking about what a "wonderful job" Clinton's team did, and she (paraphrashing) basically said that they got lucky and one customs agent stopped it because he was suspicious of the guy.

 

The point is, you cannot react to every document, threat, issue, whatever, that hits your desk. We can't know which threat was going to be "THE ONE" and it sure as hell is pretty convenient to sit there after the fact and say "he should have known".

 

Ask yourself this. If the Clinton administration was telling the Bush team about Al Queda and was pressing so hard about it when Bush's team took office, then they MUST HAVE KNOWN MORE THEN THEY ARE TELLING US! So why didn't THEY act on this information if it was so damn important then? But no one wants to talk about that.

[cwsox]

I am not in a mood to do rhetoric with you either, it gets no one no where anyway but I have a lot of other things from work on my mind.

 

The use of overstatement in making sweeping generalizations is just not something I think is an argument. No one has advocated that every warning should reach the level of a PDB, no one has argued that, and if you want to argue that, you've made up your own straw argument.

 

I expect that what reaches the president's desk, the president will act upon, especially material labelled about an attack on the US. This president did not even ask for follow up on August 6. I hope you are more involved in your job than Bush is in his. I expect action from the president. You accept inaction. Basic difference between us. So be it and life goes on.

 

No one has ever claimed that the Milennium event was other than within the scope of the local people so what excited you about Reno's testimony is your own thing.

 

Clinton's administration did much. Ideology was one reason the Bush administration did little. Bush himself told Woodward he had "no sense of urgency." Obviously.

 

I heard some stories the other day about what a great person you are - your friends speak very well of you. That is always a tribute. I didn't think to do this on Tuesday with your buddy who speaks so highly of you (as I drank his beer...), we should have had a toast to you, so here goes:

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

These last sentences of the August 6 2001 PDB - everytime Bush calls this "historical" and not "actionable" I wonder what level of denial he is in.

 

I am surprised so many are letting Bush off the hook on this.

 

This cried out for a presidential followup and a possible alert to the airlines about preparations for hijackings.

Do you know what "Actionable" intelligence is?? "Actionable" intelligence is when you get a tip from somewhere stating that a certain person or group is going to do a certain something at a certain time.

 

Does it say anywhere in those briefings that that attack was going to happen when it did?

 

Does it mention any names aside from Bin Laden who by that time was underground?

 

 

 

Could they have put out alerts to the airlines about this? Absolutely.

 

Would those alerts have forced a postponement or scrubbing of the attacks? That's debateable.

 

It's funny to me that your side is so eager to create a smoking gun, a single defining moment ( on Bush's watch of course ) that could have either allowed the attacks to go forward or be prevented. It's not that simple at all. The fact is that the seeds of this attack were sewn during the decade of the 1990's. A decade of complete inaction to respond to the growing threat of terrorism.

 

Thank god we have a president who is "INVOLVED" enough to take measures to correct the problem now that it happened.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

nuke, I respectfully submit you misunderstand.

 

I wish Bush had been involved in fighting terrorism.  Osama bin laden is still at large.  We are bogged down in the situation in Iraq, a nation that had no ties to bin Laden nor to al qeada.  The threat of terrorism has increased because if nothing else our actions in Iraq have recruited many more to hate us. 

 

Everything involved with Iraq has taken us away from the fight with terrorism and in fact exacerbated it, at a tremendous cost of lives, time, resources, and results which will work against us.

 

As for the rest of your post I don't buy it, it is rhetoric you are giving and that is cool, I am not in the mood for a rhetorical exchange today.

 

There are days that you post that I am just glad to see you are posting because it means you are ok.  Be careful out there.

I'm so glad you are open to dissent.

 

I'm also glad that you take factual evidence of Clinton/Gore being alseep at the switch as "rhetoric" So asleep at the switch were they that the chairman of the 9-11 commission Thomas Kean said "It scares me that we dismantled the CIA so much that it takes 5 years to rebuild it". Who did the dismantling? Thought so.

 

I didn't expect to change any minds here, just point out facts and point readers in the direction of a very good book.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I expect action from the president.  You accept inaction.  Basic difference between us.  So be it and life goes on. 

I cant believe how hypocritical you are. You expect action from the President but you have done nothing but b**** and cry about all the action we've had since then.

 

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq nonwithstanding, you whine about the Patriot Act as being hard on civil rights yet it was lauded by both sides during the 9-11 hearings as being an important and necessary tool for coordinating the fragmented intelligence gathering activities of our country.

 

You cant yell at Bush for doing nothing about terrorism in one post then yell at him in another for overdoing the response.

[cwsox]

I'm so glad you are open to dissent.

nuke, perhaps I was not clear, or I misunderstand. I hope by now you are well aware that I enjoy the sharing of opinions and insights, I have learned much thereby and I had frankly forgotten the Morris book and will put that on my list thanks to you

 

I have a long day at work ahead, a very long day, My point that I poorly made was that I am not up for a back and forth with friends today in areas where we disagree, not because I am not open to differing opinions but this day will have enough conflict at the job that I don't want to have any with people like you who I value. We can debate another day, Today, it is just not where I am at.

 

I disagree about the Clinton/Gore analysis that you make. You disagree with me. So that is life. If we all agreed, how boring. Disagreement means we are at least all involved and that is good. But today has enough troubles of its own at my job. My concern right now is to get through that, my job this day, not to verbally spar today with a good Sox fan, a good poster, a friend, that is all I meant. If I misunderstood you, I apologise. We will have other days between now and November when we can go a few rounds in friendly differences. You take care, my friend.

[kapkomet]

nuke, perhaps I was not clear, or I misunderstand.  I hope by now you are well aware that I enjoy the sharing of opinions and insights, I have learned much thereby and I had frankly forgotten the Morrisd book and will put that on my list thanks to you

 

I have a long day at work ahead, a very long day,  My point that I poorly made was that I am not up for a back and forth with friends today in areas where we disagree, not because I am not open to differing opinions but this day will have enough conflict at the job that I don't want to have any with people like you who I value.  We can debate another day,  Today, it is just not where I am at.

 

I disagree about the Clinton/Gore analysis that you make.  You disagree with me.  So that is life.  If we all agreed, how boring.  Disagreement means we are at least all involved and that is good.  But today has enough troubles of its own at my job.  My concern right now is to get through that, my job this day, not to verbally spar today with a good Sox fan, a good poster, a friend, that is all I meant.  If I misunderstood you, I apologise.  We will have other days between now and November when we can go a few rounds in friendly differences.  You take care, my friend.   

Work sucks, doesn't it?!?

 

 

We do disagree on some things but agree on others. I can articulate this better later - one thing I do agree with - and you say that I accept inaction. Not really. But I do like to make arguments from the other side, so to speak.

 

So, back to work *grumble, grumble, grumble*

[Texsox]

You cant yell at Bush for doing nothing about terrorism in one post then yell at him in another for overdoing the response.

I think you can. It isn't an all or nothing situation. An easy to understand example would be this; since the terrorists all entered through Canada, we should shut down the Candian border and toss a few bombs their way.

 

That would be over doing the response and I think most Americans would protest.

 

Using your logic, if Bush decided to nuke the world, since we can't seem to find those WMD or Bin Laden, we shouldn't complain because we wanted a response.

 

I use those extreme examples (at least extreme in my book) to show it is a matter of degrees of what each person decides is correct. Some Americans believe sending soldiers to die in Iraq was too much. Others may believe bombing mosques is too much, still others may believe nuclear (no matter how it is pronounced) is too much, still others believe any response is ok. Each American wanted an appropriate response.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Yeah, the holiday/weekend release of unsavory legislation or news damaging to the Administration is a baby Bush forte.  The guy is some piece of work.

 

Oh, if only someone would have given them that ol' magic bullet AND flight information AND a complete list of targets AND told Bush that a briefing titled 'Bin Laden determined to strike in US' may have SOMETHING to do with bin Laden attacking the US AND.... AND... AND...

 

Bush Backers are right about one thing - 9-11 is the defining moment of this Non-President's Non-Presidency.  And not in a good way.

and I can't wait for John F. Kerry to be as ineffective and useless as the past 5+ presidents....

 

whoopie! yeah for democracy! :puke

[cwsox]

and I can't wait for John F. Kerry to be as ineffective and useless as the past 5+ presidents....

 

whoopie! yeah for democracy! :puke

no one

 

no one

 

no one

 

no one could be as inept as Bush

 

bin laden wants to attack America and Bush doesn't want to follow up

 

Kerry will be a damn sight better

 

by a wide margin

[FlaSoxxJim]

...we should shut down the Candian border and toss a few bombs their way.

f*** Yeah, now you're talking!!!

[cwsox]

Jim,

 

you remember how Truman said the buck stops here?

 

Notice how for the Bushies it is always blame someone else and never take responsibility?

 

I think the whole f***ing lot of them should be tried for treason for failing to protect our country.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

bin laden wants to attack America and Bush doesn't want to follow up

what the HELL are you talking about? have you been under a rock the past 3 years?

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Jim,

 

you remember how Truman said the buck stops here?

 

Notice how for the Bushies it is always blame someone else and never take responsibility?

 

I think the whole f***ing lot of them should be tried for treason for failing to protect our country.

Stop being such a hypocrite. That is ALL the 'Dems' do is blame blame blame. They never take responsibility for anything. Look at them now. Blame blame blame. They accuse, criticize, blame, but offer no alternative or say what they would have done differently. This country is going to be in one hell of a bad situation if Kerry becomes president. I pray that he doesnt even make it close.

[kapkomet]

Jim,

 

you remember how Truman said the buck stops here?

 

Notice how for the Bushies it is always blame someone else and never take responsibility?

 

I think the whole f***ing lot of them should be tried for treason for failing to protect our country.

:headshake

 

Unreal. Do you really beleive that or is that for conjecture on a board? I could list a whole bunch of things that's wrong with previous administrations but point blank it doesn't matter.

 

The Bush's knew that there was a threat. They didn't respond in kind because nothing like that had ever happened HERE. My points about there are all sorts of threats that we see every day is only to suggest that ALL administrations have had to deal with this. And just because it happened when Bush was in the White House, he's committing TREASON? Please think about that before you go too far with it. I think Bush has done a lot of BS things. I HATE the fact that we are paying some of the highest prices on most day-to-day things and a large part of it is the pricing mechanisms he's come up with as president. It sucks. I don't like the Iraq situation, but what's done is done. Now we need to finish it up RIGHT. I'm not condoning him, hell, I'm not even committed to voting for him yet because I truly believe that all issues for what these guys stand for needs to be presented. But to suggest "treason" is a liitle overboard and shows a lot of narrowmindedness with all due respect.

[kapkomet]

The whole lot of them should be tried for TREASON because they didn't do anything to protect our country.

 

No- I really don't believe that but if you say that about Bush, then you need to say the same thing about Clinton's administration. That's why it's so dangerous to paint yourself in a corner by saying something like that - we could dig up stuff all day long to go back and forth on, and my point the entire thread is THEY ALL F'ed UP.

 

 

-------------------------

 

WASHINGTON - The CIA (news - web sites) warned as early as 1995 that Islamic extremists were likely to attack U.S. aviation, Washington landmarks or Wall Street and by 1997 had identified Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) as an emerging threat on U.S. soil, a senior intelligence official said Thursday.

 

The official took the rare step of disclosing information in the closely held National Intelligence Estimate for those two years to counter criticisms in a staff report released Wednesday by the independent commission examining pre-Sept. 11 intelligence failures.

 

That staff report accused the CIA of failing to recognize al-Qaida as a formal terrorist organization until 1999 and mostly regarding bin Laden as a financier instead of a terrorist leader during much of the 1990s.

 

But the U.S. intelligence official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the 1997 National Intelligence Estimate produced by the CIA mentioned bin Laden by name as an emerging terrorist threat on its first page. The National Intelligence Estimate is distributed to the president and senior executive branch and congressional intelligence officials.

 

The 1997 assessment, which remains classified, "identified bin Laden and his followers and threats they were making and said it might portend attacks inside the United States," the official said.

 

Philip Zelikow, executive director of the Sept. 11 commission, confirmed the 1997 warning about bin Laden but said it was only two sentences long and lacked any strategic analysis on how to address the threat. "We were well aware of the information and the staff stands by exactly what it says," he said.

 

The intelligence official also said that while the 1995 intelligence assessment did not mention bin Laden or al-Qaida by name, it clearly warned that Islamic terrorists were intent on striking specific targets inside the United States like those hit on Sept. 11, 2001.

 

The report specifically warned that civil aviation, Washington landmarks such as the White House and Capitol and buildings on Wall Street were at the greatest risk of a domestic terror attack by Muslim extremists, the official said.

 

Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin testified Wednesday that by early 1996 his agency had developed enough concern about bin Laden to create a special unit to focus on his threat. "We were very focused on this issue," McLaughlin told the commission.

 

The commission's report did credit the CIA after 1997 with collecting vast amounts of intelligence on bin Laden and al-Qaida, which resulted in thousands of individual reports circulated at the highest levels of government. These carried titles such as "Bin Laden Threatening to Attack U.S. Aircraft" in June 1998 and "Bin Laden's Interest in Biological and Radiological Weapons" in February 2001.

[cwsox]

:headshake

 

Unreal.  Do you really beleive that or is that for conjecture on a board?  I could list a whole bunch of things that's wrong with previous administrations but point blank it doesn't matter.

 

The Bush's knew that there was a threat.  They didn't respond in kind because nothing like that had ever happened HERE.  My points about there are all sorts of threats that we see every day is only to suggest that ALL administrations have had to deal with this.  And just because it happened when Bush was in the White House, he's committing TREASON?  Please think about that before you go too far with it.  I think Bush has done a lot of BS things.  I HATE the fact that we are paying some of the highest prices on most day-to-day things and a large part of it is the pricing mechanisms he's come up with as president.  It sucks.  I don't like the Iraq situation, but what's done is done.  Now we need to finish it up RIGHT.  I'm not condoning him, hell, I'm not even committed to voting for him yet because I truly believe that all issues for what these guys stand for needs to be presented.  But to suggest "treason" is a liitle overboard and shows a lot of narrowmindedness with all due respect.

true, the word "treason" is clearly over hype but it is been lobbed my way, our way, and no one has objected other than apu. So I feel like lobbing it back. You weren't here the day that I was accused of wanting our service people to die in Iraq to prove my side - not only was that a heinous accusation but I have a son there - and the silence was deafening in objecting to the charges. I have seen all types of charges lobbed against us. They have been posted and in this board those of us who oppose Bush have been accused of treason, as has Kerry on this boad. So every once in while I will throw the charge back just to make the point that no one objects when it is tossed the other way.

 

The last two sentences of the PDB pointed to a present and clear danger.

 

No one will ever know if September 11th could have been prevented. But the attempts to protect America were weakend by inaction in the Executive Branch.

 

I appreciate your intelligence and your goodness.

 

As you said, sometimes I do like to make arguments from the other side, so to speak.

 

I suspect very truly that were I or Kerry accused of treason, as we have been, no objections would have been raised, as they never have been.

[cwsox]

Under Clinton those who attacked the WTC were convicted and are in jail now.

 

Osama bin laden is still running loose.

 

When Clinton moved against bin laden he was accused of wagging the dog.

 

Bush told Woodward he had no sense of urgency.

 

Berger tried to warn the incoming administration.

 

No one listened because the Bushies dismissed the Clinton people out of hand for the sake of ideology.

 

1

2

3 strikes you're out.

 

That game is over.

[FlaSoxxJim]

true, the word "treason" is clearly over hype but it is been lobbed my way, our way, and no one has objected other than apu.

Guilty as charged in not getting all fired up to defend against the allegations of treason and the like from the righties on the board. No energy for it, frankly.

 

Thankfully, I don't remember Truman first hand...

[kapkomet]

So every once in while I will throw the charge back just to make the point that no one objects when it is tossed the other way.

 

 

As you said, sometimes I do like to make arguments from the other side, so to speak.

I would NEVER do that!

 

It's all good. Every once in a while, when I'm bored, I read the op ed pieces on yahoo. Ann Coulter's stuff is there (she's pretty far out there most of the time) and on the opposite extreme, Ted Rall publishes his stuff. I like to read both of them every once in a while to get the extreme points of view.

 

This week's Rall piece, I was shocked. "Bill Clinton Caused 9/11". Of course, Rall is satire at it's best sometimes so I thought it was a play. Thing is, he's serious. Here's the op ed piece. Remember, this coming from a "leftist." And one more point. In this, I will agree that Bush presents a pretty big "warning" in that he's REALLY doing something to stir these people up, which I think will lead to even more terrorist attacks in the long run. His last line, probably sums it up best.

 

-------------------------------------

 

Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), the CIA (news - web sites) told George W. Bush in its August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing, wanted to "bring the fighting to America." The memo continues: "After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan (news - web sites) in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington."

 

This reference may trigger the memories of long-time readers and listeners to my talk radio show on KFI radio about my September 1999 encounter with Taliban fighters in the Pakistani sector of Kashmir (news - web sites). A travel feature assignment about the high-altitude Karakoram Highway connecting western China and Pakistan turned into high-stakes military and political intrigue when I happened to cross the Khunjerab Pass into Kashmir during the same week that General Pervez Musharraf seized power via a military coup. Unbeknownst to me and most of the world, Musharraf's first act was to invite Taliban and Al Qaeda militias from neighboring Afghanistan into Pakistani Kashmir as surrogates to launch an offensive in his country's ongoing conflict against India.

 

Three Talibs, one of whom spoke fluent English ("NYU! Class of '83!" he beamed), pulled me off the bus at an improvised checkpoint outside a town where a minor battle was winding down. Taliban leader Mullah Omar had recently issued an edict directing that Americans, including diplomatic passport holders, were to be put to death if apprehended on Taliban territory. "We are sorry," the Talib said blandly, "but you are American. Therefore, we must execute you."

 

I pointed out that, when I had boarded the bus four days earlier in Kashgar, the place where we were standing had been more than a hundred miles from Afghanistan. I pointed to my map to reiterate. "Yes," my Anglophonic Talib agreed, "but sometimes Afghanistan comes to you!" We had a good laugh over that. Then, after assuring me that he wouldn't shoot me after all, he invited me to join him for a cup of milky chai. I considered the high-powered weaponry draped over his shoulders, and accepted his generous offer.

 

As is often the case when Americans travel in the Muslim world, the conversation turned to politics. "The worst thing about you Americans," I remember the Talib saying, "is that you never admit when you make mistakes. Last year, your President Clinton (news - web sites) sent his cruise missile against a drug plant in Khartoum, Sudan. He killed many innocent people. Does he say he is sorry? No. The same day he sent cruise missiles against my country. Again: only innocent people were killed."

 

Actually, the Afghan strike had missed bin Laden--who had claimed responsibility for the bombings of the American embassies in East Africa--by hours. He was probably tipped off by intelligence officers of the Pakistani ISI. I didn't bring up these unpleasant facts.

 

"America causes misery everywhere--Iraq (news - web sites), Palestine, Afghanistan--but not in America." His face brightened. "But no more. We are going to bring the war to you, so your country learns what it is like."

 

Bring the war to America: The same phrase bin Laden had used in interviews.

 

My would-be executioner didn't know what was coming; he was too low ranked to have known anything about the 9/11 plot. But a powerful message had gone out to Islamists: the days of beleaguered Muslims hunkering down as cruise missiles rained down upon nations decimated by years of brutal economic sanctions were about to come to an end. The jihadis were going on the offensive.

 

As the 9/11 commission winds down, Republicans are arguing that Bill Clinton (news - web sites), whose presidency spanned eight years from the first World Trade Center bombing to the U.S.S. Cole, deserves far more blame for the attacks than Bush, who had only been in office eight months. But they've got it wrong when they criticize Clinton for not being aggressive enough in the fight against Muslim extremism. If we're to believe the August 2001 intelligence assessment and the word of the jihadis themselves, we know why 9/11 really took place.

 

It wasn't, as Bush says, because radical Islamists are evil or because they hate our freedom. It was vengeance for 1998, for cruise missile attacks that scarcely raised an eyebrow in the United States even as they convulsions of rage surged through millions of Muslims. It's perfectly reasonable, therefore, to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11, but not because he didn't do enough. What led to 9/11 was a clumsy application of excessive military power and arrogance.

 

It's a lesson that the United States, so accustomed to swinging a sledgehammer to kill a fly, should take to heart in its dealings with the rest of humanity.