Told the FBI to back off Bin Laden... FBI agents in the United States probing relatives of Saudi-born terror suspect Osama Bin Laden before September 11 were told to back off soon after George W Bush became president, the BBC has reported. The BBC's Newsnight current affairs programme on Tuesday said that Bush at one point had a number of connections with Saudi Arabia's prominent Bin Laden family. It added there was a suspicion that the US strategic interest in Saudi Arabia, which has the world's biggest oil reserve, blunted its inquiries into individuals with suspected terrorist connections -- so long as the US was safe. Newsnight reported it had seen secret documents from an FBI probe into the September 11 terror attacks that showed that at least two other US-based members of the Bin Laden family are suspected to have links with a possible terrorist organisation. The programme said it had obtained evidence that the FBI was on the trail of Bin Laden family members living in United States before, as well as after, the terrorist attacks. Newsnight said Bush made his first million 20 years ago with an oil company partly funded by the chief US representative of Salem Bin Laden, Osama's brother. Bush also received fees as director of a subsidiary of Carlyle Corporation, a little-known private company which in just a few years since its founding has become one of America's biggest defence contractors, and his father, George Bush Sr, is also a paid advisor, the programme said. The connection became embarrassing when it was revealed that the Bin Ladens held a stake in Carlyle, sold just after September 11, it added. link to this and other articles
So, he increased funding for anti-terrorism even more than Clinton did? I want specifics. If you're going to throw out stuff like Bush's courage of his convictions, I want to see proof that a) Bush was actively pursuing terrorists such as bin Laden pre-9/11 and b) any evidence that Gore or Clinton wouldn't have responded the same after 3,000 people died on our soil.
I did not say that, but there was a lot of data available to GWB when Clinton left office and Clinton's staff tried to warn the Bush administration that terrorists were planning something big, but these warnings were ignored. Once Clinton left, Bush slashed the anti-terror budget in favor of SDI and continued to ignore the intelligence regarding terrorists and flight schools. There is even speculation now that GWB may have received a briefing warning of terrorists flying planes into buildings in August of 2001. I do not believe that you can assign blame solely to one person, much less one agency of the government for 9/11, but again, the facts remain. Arresting the members we could find and bombing those in other countries was ineffectual? How many attacks did we have on American soil on Clinton's watch? Besides, every time Clinton even lobbed a cruise missile, the GOP screamed "Wag the Dog" and accused him of trying to deflect the Lewinsky probe (which was SOOO much more important than having Clinton focus on terrorism instead). I never said it was the most EFFECTIVE in history, I said that Clinton did more than any other US President regarding terrorism and that this included Bush pre-9/11. If 9/11 HAD occured on Clinton or Gore's watch, I suspect we would still have invaded Afghanistan, which I supported, as well as improving security in many ways. Say what you want about Clinton and Gore, but they made cases for war (or peacekeeping actions) using the facts and not by hyping and exaggerating. Clinton had to drag the GOP kicking and screaming into Kosovo, a humanitarian mission that was not portrayed as anything else. Clinton (or Gore) would have acted to combat terrorism post 9/11 just as Bush has. They just wouldn't have exaggerated to make the case for war.
