While Republicans have taken president Obama to task for his 3 day delay in providing a response to the attempted terrorist attack on Northwest Flight #253 from Amsterdam to Detroit, we hear MSNBC Republican hater Rachel Maddow pointing out that president George W. Bush waited six days before responding to shoe bomber Richard Reid’s December 22, 2001, botched terrorist attack on American Airlines Flight #63 from Paris to Miami. That’s a cop out. You need to do some fact finding before engaging in ready, fire, aim.
At the time of the botched effort by Richard Reid to ignite a bomb in his shoe on that American Airlines plane, president Bush was vacationing at Camp David. The president’s eventual response to the December 22nd terrorist attack came from his ranch in Crawford, Texas on December 28th.
Senator Joe Biden, Democratic chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, appeared on Face the Nation with the opportunity to score cheap political points against an administration caught off guard by a terror attack for the third time in the space of 4 months. He made these comments:
“The ability for al Qaeda to coordinate and plan and focus on and carry out long-term devastating attacks in the United States has been badly crippled — not ended, but badly crippled. So we’re a lot better off than we were four months ago, although we’re still going to have this possibility.”
The following transcript is from the Face The Nation program of December, 23, 2001. It contains commentary from our current Vice President Joe Biden.
SCHIEFFER: And with us now from Wilmington, Delaware, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden; down in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, we have already heard from Senator Shelby, ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee.
Well, Senator Biden, you heard what–Senator Shelby got a briefing on this a little earlier this morning. You heard what he said. Fairly sobering incident there, where you had this man on this plane in Boston, apparently had some sort of explosives in his shoes. And luckily, the passengers and the flight crew were able to subdue him.
But this does not bode well, does it?
SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN, D-Delaware: No, it doesn’t bode well. As Senator Shelby indicated, I’m–we’ve not seen the end of attempts, isolated attempts and maybe even coordinated attempts at terrorism against the United States.
But one big thing has changed, Bob: The ability for Al Qaeda to coordinate and plan and focus on and carry out long-term devastating attacks in the United States has been badly crippled–not ended, but badly crippled. So, we’re a lot better off than we were four months ago, although we’re still going to have this possibility.
As I said on your show a couple–about a month ago, nothing’s going to stop the guy who walks into a restaurant with C-2 strapped to his chest like a vest and blowing himself up. I mean, we’re going to have trouble dealing with that. Thank God we haven’t had that, but the individual willing to give his life is a very difficult thing to stop.
SCHIEFFER: Well, Senator Shelby, I was just thinking as I was listening to you a while ago, how do you say to people now, it’s safe to get on an airplane when in fact this person apparently got through the metal detectors?
Got through the metal detectors because as we’re now coming to understand, plastique, this plastic explosive, if that’s what this turns out to be, you can get through a metal detector undetected with that.
Well, I think we may have lost Senator Shelby’s ability to hear us there.
SHELBY: I can hear you.
SCHIEFFER: Senator Biden, maybe you can answer that.
BIDEN: We have the–we are focusing on the ability to be able to detect plastiques. What we have now at those…
SHELBY: I’ve been hearing all along.
BIDEN: Oh, I’m sorry. I’ll let Dick answer the question.
SCHIEFFER: Go ahead, Senator. How do we encourage people now or tell people it’s safe to fly on an aircraft when we have now learned that you can get through a metal detector apparently with plastic explosives in your shoes?
SHELBY: Bob, that’s a very good question. And it’s one that we don’t have the big answer for yet. We’ve come a long way since September 11 as far as safety, but everything is not perfect. That’s why I’ve told people all along to be on alert. I continue to fly, but I’m on alert.
BORGER: Senator Biden, I just want to switch for a moment to Afghanistan. Over the weekend President Musharraf of Pakistan was interviewed in China, and he said that he thought Osama bin Laden was probably dead somewhere in a cave. What do you make of his remarks?
BIDEN: Well, the truth is we don’t know whether he is or not. That’s why there’s Americans, at the direction of General Franks, trained for mountain training like this. They’re going cave to cave.
And secondly, as you have recently read, we have developed a bomb that is particularly devastating in tunnels, that’s a high-fuel bomb combined with air that does incredible damage. And there’s discussion now of us going back into caves already destroyed and going at them again with this new weapon that penetrates, is delayed explosion and just absolutely is devastating. In a very small area, it has the capacity not unlike a nuclear bomb without any radiation.
So I think what we’re going to find out is we’re going to go in there, it’s high risk. That’s what Franks wants, General Franks wants us doing. We’re going to find out, and then we’re going to take the cave system out so no one can use it again.
But the honest to God truth is, Gloria, nobody knows.
BORGER: Well, Senator Shelby, do you think that’s a good idea to, you know, continue to go back into these caves?
SHELBY: Well, I think that we’ve got to rout them out. We’ve got to know that Osama bin aden and his core group are not still hiding in those caves. It is dangerous, Gloria.
BORGER: What if we don’t find him, Senator?
BIDEN: We’ll find him.
SHELBY: If he’s dead–which I doubt, but he could be–if he’s been bombed or blown up, sooner or later we will know. But I believe that we will pick his trail up if he’s alive. If he’s in Pakistan or if he’s hiding somewhere, we’ll pick his trail up. And I believe we’re going to get him one way or the other.
SCHIEFFER: Well, could these statements that perhaps he’s already dead, would that be–should we say in any way that that may be because somebody doesn’t want us routing around in Pakistan to look for him?
BIDEN: Well, that’s a good point.
SHELBY: Well, Bob, you’ve got to always be weary of anything like this. I would believe that he’s dead when I see his body or see the DNA test from what’s left.
BORGER: But, Senator Biden, you want, you want to speak to that point, about perhaps President Musharraf not wanting us to go into Pakistan?
BIDEN: I think Musharraf’s (inaudible) have been pretty well proven. This is a guy who’s really gone out on the limb–necessarily, he had no choice. And the Pakistanis have really, really followed through here.
I am convinced that it’s very, very, very much in their interest. Their worst nightmare is all of a sudden three months later, Osama bin Laden being spotted in western Pakistan. That is their worst nightmare politically, internationally, with regard to us, with regard to them.
So, therefore, I think the interest, Gloria, is for them to help us get him. I mean, I don’t see any win for them in him popping up somewhere after, especially in Pakistan.
SCHIEFFER: Let me ask both of you this. There’s a report in Newsweek Magazine this morning that the Pentagon is studying a plan that would basically put 50,000 troops on one side of Iraq and 50,000 American troops on the side of Iraq, and then just have them move toward the center and once and for all do away with Saddam Hussein.
Senator Shelby, do you think that’s a good idea?
SHELBY: Well, I’m going to leave that up to the policy-makers at the end of the day.
But I can say this, we have a lot of unfinished business in the world, and Iraq is where the biggest piece of it is. The fact that he’s still there 10 years later after the Gulf War has got to be more than just irksome to most of the people in the world.
As long as he’s in power, Bob, there’s going to be the threat of terrorism, there’s going to be the threat of nuclear weapons used against us by rogue states, and bioterrorism, make no mistake about that. He ought to go.
SCHIEFFER: So, you’ve got an open mind about that.
SHELBY: Absolutely.
SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, Senator Biden, what do you think about it?
BIDEN: Bob, if we’re going to do it, that’s the way to do it. The way not o do it is counting on Mr. Shallabi, who’s a fine guy with his group of people who are the opposition, that neither administration is funded, to somehow topple him and decapitate him–you know, the stuff you’ve hearing up to now.
I think there’s three things we have to do with regard to him. One is, we’ve got to make clear to the world that he has these weapons. We got to make the case.
Number two, we got to lay out a plan for the world as to what would happen after he left. The worst nightmare of Turkey and a lot of other countries in the region is you have Iran disintegrate. If we were to make it clear, along with the rest of the West, that we would keep that nation together, that there could be put together a government that was representative, and then he didn’t move, and then we moved by using a Gulf-kind of operation, Gulf-War operation instead of this idea, you know, paratrooping people in and decapitating him, that’s the way to go about it.
But we have a lot of unfinished business in Afghanistan, Bob–a whole lot of unfinished business in Afghanistan in terms of getting forces, not our forces, getting multinational forces in there to not only secure Kabul but be able to have commerce and intercourse function in that country, and so on. So it’s a way down the road.
SCHIEFFER: All right, I think we’ll leave it right there. Thank you very, very much both of you. Very helpful this morning.
SHELBY: Thank you.
BIDEN: Thanks an awful lot. Merry Christmas.
SCHIEFFER: I’ll be back with a final word in just a minute.
Gilbert commentary. Not to give anyone a pass for delaying a response to terrorism against Americans but you cannot simply compare three days versus six. You need to look in your rear view mirror to acknowledge that the shoe bomber incident happened only 102 days after the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Until that date and time we were not as cautious when it related to airport security.
“After September 11th, the President acted quickly and decisively to protect the nation. He immediately secured $40 billion in emergency funding and created the Office of Homeland Security, led by former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, to coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks. As the President’s national strategy developed, it became clear that a more profound change was needed to meet the challenge of protecting against the possible terrorist threats of tomorrow. Maintaining the status quo structure, even with enhanced inter-agency cooperation, was an unacceptable risk that the nation could ill afford. Consequently, on June 6, 2002, the President proposed creating a new cabinet-level department with the primary mission of protecting the American people and our homeland. The Congress responded, and on November 25, 2002, the President signed into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002 creating the new department.”
As confirmed by the above text, Congress did not get our act together until after the December 22, 2001 botched attack which led to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
As such the DHS has been in operation for a full seven years when this latest attack took place. While we are still not sure where a communications lapse occurred, president Obama has been at the helm for 11 months.
For headhunter Rachel Maddow to justify the Obama delay by mentioning a six day delay by president Bush is a very weak argument indeed.
9-11 and the fact that it took 6 days for GW to respond are just two of the reasons that Republicans are in no position to make political hay out of this latest event. National security affects us all, and it is unconscionable that anyone would try politicizing this issue.
Anne.
Are you saying that president Bush 43 was responsible for 9-11?
The response from Mrs. Maddow is what triggered this post. We were still in shock after 9-11 and did not have adequate systems in place to deal with terrorism on our shores.
I would say that President Bush should have made a statement from Camp David before travelling to his Crawford ranch.
Dubya had been given a memo that an attack was imminent, but he didn’t respond to it. As for Obama, he didn’t make a speech immediately after the incident, but that doesn’t mean that he wasn’t working behind the scenes with his staff to figure out how the breach occurred.
Republicans, especially Dick Cheney, are in no position to talk. Not only are they incompetent, but they want us all to be in a constant state of fear and panic. Scared people don’t think straight and are more easily manipulated into giving up their rights and their money. For instance, they scared us into going along with TARP and now Wall St is taking billions from the taxpayers with no end in sight.
I am not that happy with some of Obama’s policies, but I do like his calm demeanor.
Sunny.
Sunny. Can you provide us a copy of the memo given to president Bush which you reference above?
Thank you!
Let me join Vern in thanking you for your comments on the Juice.
Happy New Year
Really Larry.
The title of the memo was ” Bin Laden determined to strike in the US” August ,6, 2001, during Bush’s MONTH LONG vacation in Crawford, HOW CONVENIANT that YOU WOULD forget that.
As to Biden’s taking the opportunity to score “cheap political points” against Bush, what in his statement isn’t true and what exactly is CRITICISM?
“The ability for al Qaeda to coordinate and plan and focus on and carry out long-term devastating attacks in the United States has been badly crippled — not ended, but badly crippled. So we’re a lot better off than we were four months ago, although we’re still going to have this possibility.”
THAT’S CRITICISM?
Face it Larry, you are a PETTY PARTISAN HACK. and that’s ALL you’ll ever be.
Anonster.
Happy New Year!
Folks. My error. I failed to include quotation marks on the text which was not written by me that reads “cheap political points” which came from the source document not my own commentary.
Now that you have provided the date I have just cut and pasted some of the text which I shall add below.
One fact to consider is that this memo predates 9-11. As such there may be hundreds of threats against US interests around the globe which hopefully are looked into. Threats AFTER an attack on US soil might be treated with more urgency and credibility but that is pure speculation on my part. The following is from the Internet:
“Portions of the intelligence report dealing with Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network and dated August 6, 2001, have been redacted for national security reasons, the White House said.
“The memo, titled ‘Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States,’ had been described by the White House as a largely historical document with scant information about domestic al Qaeda threats.
“The memo includes intelligence on al Qaeda threats as recent as three months before the attacks.
“Much of the intelligence was uncorroborated, and nothing in the memo points directly to the September 11 attacks.
“Highlights of the report include:
An intelligence report received in May 2001 indicating that al Qaeda was trying to send operatives to the United States through Canada to carry out an attack using explosives. That information had been passed on to intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
An allegation that al Qaeda had been considering ways to hijack American planes to win the release of operatives who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999.
An allegation that bin Laden was set on striking the United States as early as 1997 and through early 2001.
Intelligence suggesting that suspected al Qaeda operatives were traveling to and from the United States, were U.S. citizens, and may have had a support network in the country.
A report that at least 70 FBI investigations were under way in 2001 regarding possible al Qaeda cells/terrorist-related operations in the United States.
As to the memo given to president Bush. While I may recall facts and figures don’t assume I am aware of every statement or headline. I do not recall it, period!
My fall back. Rotary Intl question #1. Is it the truth.” Let me repeat that I have no recollection of said memo.
“Petty Partisan Hack.” I don’t think so. You might ask Art for his opinion after reading all of my Juice posts
Larry,
I don’t need to ask Art, I’ve read enough of your posts to judge for myself and I stand by “petty partisan hack”!
Larry,
How can you post a commentary and not be clear as to where your words end and others begin?
“Folks. My error. I failed to include quotation marks on the text which was not written by me that reads “cheap political points” which came from the source document not my own commentary.”
Furthermore, once you disavowed those words you proceed NOT to clarify who’s words they were, I am left wondering wether you are just an incredibly poor writer or a bald-face liar.
Anonster. You are really a pain in the butt.
Anonster. Instead of taking a few minutes away from this keyboard, to watch some holiday football, you force me to devote time answering your vital question.
From the Daily Kos, not exactly my favorite site, I found and posted the following comments:
Story Updated. Remember Bush’s response to 2001 Shoe Bomber Attack?
by jethropalerobber
Share this on Twitter – Remember Bush’s response to 2001 Shoe Bomber Attack? Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:30:12 PM PST
No? Well there’s a good reason for that. There wasn’t any.
Or rather his response was to continue his Christmas vacation for another 2 weeks before returning to Washington DC and, as far as I can tell, never publicly addressing the matter in any form whatsoever (CORRECTION: see UPDATES 2 and 4).
Far be it from me to criticize Bush’s response, but in light of recent events and statements by prominent GOP politicians I think it’s worth revisiting that episode.
continued…
jethropalerobber’s diary :: ::
When Richard Reid attempted to bring down American Airlines Flight 63 on December 22, 2001, Bush was on Christmas holiday.
KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT:
….
Some additional information to bring to you at this time. We do know that President Bush was notified about this situation earlier today and that he has already had a briefing on the situation. The president, as we have noted, is spending the holiday weekend at the presidential retreat at Camp David.
CNN 12/22/2001
… and the terrorist attack was handled as a law enforcement matter.
The word from the White House, Catherine, is that the administration has been monitoring the situation since it became aware of it late morning according to one administration official. We also know the FBI, (is) the lead investigative agency, at this time.
On December 23, Bush remained on vacation and silent…
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said that President Bush continued to monitor the situation and receive updates at Camp David. Bush has not issued any statements about the incident.
Boston Globe 12/24/2001
…and Senator Joe Biden, Democratic chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, appeared on Face the Nation with the opportunity to score cheap political points against an administration caught off guard by a terror attack for the third time in the space of 4 months. He made these comments:
“The ability for al Qaeda to coordinate and plan and focus on and carry out long-term devastating attacks in the United States has been badly crippled — not ended, but badly crippled. So we’re a lot better off than we were four months ago, although we’re still going to have this possibility.”
Are you happy now?
Larry,
Don’t blame me for your incredibly sloppy post. Your “quote” that you now attribute to the Boston Globe reads like your own words, the fact that you never referenced the Globe, is proof.
FYI, in some circles that lack of “reference”, is also known as plagiarism.
Your credibility aside, you never answered the question; does that Biden quote really sound like criticism of Bush? Actually all the above sources you cite above seem to make Rachel Maddow’s point; that at a time of extreme nervousness about terrorism in the country (just 4 months after 9-11) Bush was very blase’ about the “shoe bomber”, yet he wasn’t criticized and the incident was NOT politicized.
Anonster.
If I am not mistaken, the Orange Juice blog is only six years old. As such we would not have covered the shoe bomber story.
Blame Art for his delay in providing you this media outlet where you can fire at will against all of us without divulging your true identity.
You are a terrorist when it relates to some of our posts
Poor Larry,
In your haste to attack and slime Obama for anything and everything, you posted not only a very poorly written and sourced article, but one that didn’t even make your point.
You stepped in this steaming pile of crap and instead of admitting it or defending it, you have chosen to attack me.
Petty; taking a small incident and attempting to give it more significance than it deserves.
Partisan; attacking the opposing political party over something you gave your own party a pass on.
Hack; the inability to defend your own positions with logical arguments.
I rest my case.
anonser,
I have restored your comment.
I encourage our readers to say what is on their minds. Disagreeing with us is par for the course.
The only favor I would ask of you is to try to stick to the facts and not get so personal with Larry or my other writers. I understand, you disagree with Larry. But does calling him a petty partisan hack really make your point? Or is it just meant to offend?
As far as Republicans go, Larry is pretty open-minded. Very few OC Republicans will blog for me. Larry has been with me from the start. The hacks in their party aren’t here – they are over at Red County.
Art and Larry,
I think part of the problem here is that I actually READ ALL of Larry’s post and took his words at face value.
The premise of Larry’s post is that Rachel Maddow has wrongly and unfairly pointed out the hypocrisy of many Republicans criticism over Obama’s 3 day delay in addressing the Christmas day bombing attempt;
“While Republicans have taken president Obama to task for his 3 day delay in providing a response to the attempted terrorist attack on Northwest Flight #253 from Amsterdam to Detroit, we hear MSNBC Republican hater Rachel Maddow pointing out that president George W. Bush waited six days before responding to shoe bomber Richard Reid’s December 22, 2001, botched terrorist attack on American Airlines Flight #63 from Paris to Miami. That’s a cop out. You need to do some fact finding before engaging in ready, fire, aim.”
I assumed that the next part of his post was his attempt to point out that Joe Biden did in-fact criticize Bush’s response time;
Senator Joe Biden, Democratic chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, appeared on Face the Nation with the opportunity to score cheap political points against an administration caught off guard by a terror attack for the third time in the space of 4 months. He made these comments:
“The ability for al Qaeda to coordinate and plan and focus on and carry out long-term devastating attacks in the United States has been badly crippled — not ended, but badly crippled. So we’re a lot better off than we were four months ago, although we’re still going to have this possibility.”
Prompting my response to this part of his post:
“As to Biden’s taking the opportunity to score “cheap political points” against Bush, what in his statement isn’t true and what exactly is CRITICISM?
“The ability for al Qaeda to coordinate and plan and focus on and carry out long-term devastating attacks in the United States has been badly crippled — not ended, but badly crippled. So we’re a lot better off than we were four months ago, although we’re still going to have this possibility.”
THAT’S CRITICISM?
Face it Larry, you are a PETTY PARTISAN HACK. and that’s ALL you’ll ever be.”
Now, I will admit and apologize for petty partisan hack as being over-the-top and too personal, but at the time I believed that the words ” score cheap political points” in reference to Joe Biden, were Larry’s. Nowhere in Larry’s post does he make the case for his point that “republican hater” and “headhunter” Rachel Maddow is wrong in the Republican criticism over Obama’s response time, Larry instead makes a point about Homeland Security and the timeline of its implementation, but that is a separate issue and has nothing to do with Rachel Maddow’s point, which again, was strictly about the response time and the criticism thereof. Larry never answered my on-topic question of wether or not Biden’s remarks amounted to criticism of Bush, but rather, responded with a denial of the quotation as being his and the second time by calling me a “terrorist” ( I refer specifically to posts #11 and 12).
In my opinion, Larry impugns Rachel Maddow’s and Joe Biden’s character based on nothing and for purely partisan reasons. I believe that Larry has the right to attack and smear the President or anyone else, but if he is doing so on this blog (or any open forum), he should expect to defend his words, regardless of wether his verbal opponent is anonymous or not.
I would like to remind Larry that he is not the only one on the receiving end of “personal attacks”, just today I was called a “terrorist”, but generally I’m hit with the usual; leave the country you; America-hater, Berkley loving, flag burner, never-held-a-job, veteran hater, communist, socialist etc.,etc.
Politics and strongly held opinions generate heat, part of this blog’s success is due to that heat.
Lastly, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I do admire you, Larry and Art (and Vern and even Terry) for putting your opinions out there under your own names and we all need to remember that that distinction makes the slings-and-arrows that you suffer more personal. My purpose is not to offend,( well yeah, sometimes it is) but to debate, I’ll try to keep to that.
anonster. You may be misreading my inclusion of Joe Biden. This nation came together on the Capital steps right after 9-11. The terrorist threat is for real. And while I am not happy with the new rules that trump our personal freedoms I recognize that we all must adjust to the worldwide terrorist threat.
As to Ms. Maddow. While I do not listen to her on a regular basis, every time I happen to tune in she is always bashing Republicans. The only one to surpass her in that list is Keith O.
Thank you for offering to keep the debate lively without personal attacks
Larry,
Then what was your reasoning in dedicating 85% of your post to Joe Biden? Do you agree with the writer in the Boston Globe, that Biden was scoring “cheap political points”?
This morning there is an excellent post at the Daily Kos, I know it is not a favorite of yours, but it is pertinent to a point that was made up above, as to how much warning did the Bush administration have that an attack was imminent, I think if you take the time to read it you will find it eye opening.
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2001/1/4/821835/-The-President-Was-Warned-Of-Impending-Terror-Attack
anonster.
Thank you for providing a very informative link. As stated before, the Orange Juice blog did not exist when we were attacked on 9-11.
The multiple quotes from high level players raises questions on who dropped the ball in the Bush or Clinton Administrations.
In our Cutting Edge a talk show interview with the CIA’s (former) key field commander for Afghanistan Gary Berntsen he confirmed having Obama in their sights but some bureacraut in DC would not give them the green light. He was there beginning in March of 2000 which was the final year of the Clinton Administration. Although this predates the 2001 attacks on our soil they were going after Bin Laden due to the attacks against our embassies in Africa , the Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia, and lastly the attack against the navy destroyer USS Cole in Yemen on Oct 12, 2000 all of which occured on the Clinton watch.
Our inablility to squash al-Qaeda like a bug gave them renewed confidence in our being soft on terror. That fact cannot be refuted. Let me suggest your getting a copy of Gary’s book JAWBREAKER which was the code name for his team.
Larry,
I never made any reference to the OJ Blog and neither did Rachel Maddow, the point was about Republican hypocrisy in their “outrage” over Obama’s 3 day delay in addressing the Christmas day bombing attempt vs. the response by both political parties that Bush’s 6 day delay on the shoe bomber prompted. Bush was NOT criticized and Obama was. You are the one who posted the commentary supposedly refuting Rachel Maddow’s point, I don’t believe that you succeeded.