Event and Bush Admistriation Policy - Research Paper Example

September 11, 2001 Event and Bush Administration Policy Name Institution Instructor Course Date September 11, 2001 Event and Bush Administration Policy Introduction There have been a lot of concerns on why the Bush administration was not able to prevent the September 11 terrorist attacks. Numerous reports are produced indicating the causes of this attack although most of them cannot be substantiated. For instance, a Congressional report that was released on July 2003 by House Intelligence Committees indicated that the attacks occurred due to CIA and FBI lapses1. All these reports indicate that President Bush Administration did not do much to prevent the attacks and so his policies were not really helpful in the provision of security to the American people. Investigations into the September 11 attacks are never conclusive and the public is left unaware of the incidents that led to the attack. So, far there is nobody in the Bush administration who has been held responsible for the attacks2. There is a Commission on Terrorists Attacks upon the United States which was founded due to the complaints of some of the victims of ten attacks. It is said that the media and other stakeholders including the human rights; groups did not put enough pressure on the Bush administration on why it failed the people of United States and the rest of the world by allowing such an attack to happen on the American soil. After the September 11 attacks, the bush administration denied having any prior information about the Al Qaeda plans to stage the attacks. Condoleezza Rice who was the National Security Advisor said that nobody could have predicted the terrorists could use a hijacked plane as a missile. President Bush also denied in 2002 saying that if he had known the terrorists would use a plane to attack America, he would have done all he could to avoid the attacks. These denials contradicted the records on the ground. In 1999, there was a report that was prepared by the library of Congress for the National Intelligence Council. This report gave warnings that Osama Bin Laden’s terrorists were planning to hijack a plane and run it to some government building like Pentagon. The report said in details that some suicide bombers belonging to Al Qaida Martyrdom Battalion would hijack a US bound plane and crash it into Pentagon, the headquarters for CIA or the White House. The response to this warning actually led to an increase of the counter terrorism budget of the Justice Department for the 1999 fiscal year3. The Clinton Administration had taken some measures to protect such an occurrence in USA. Before the 2001 attacks, there was a reporter from the Middle East who had visited Bin Laden’s camp at Afghanistan and found out that his supporters were planning an attack on American interests. The efforts and the policies that the Clinton administration had enacted to counter money laundering were disapproved by the new Bush Treasury Department. The measures been taken by the Clinton administration so as to terminate the money flow to Bin Laden for the financing of terrorism activities4. The Bush Administration categorically opposed the Clinton’s efforts that had been backed by G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that focused on the countries that had questionable banking regulations that were being misused by the terrorist financiers. The Bush Administration cut the funding to the New Terrorist Asset Tracking Center. When the Bush Administration released the government’s annual report on terrorism in April 2001, it failed to mention Osama Bin Laden unlike the previous administration5. A senior officer from the State told a CNN reporter that US had made a mistake in focusing too much attention on Bin Laden. It was also reported that the National Security Committee under the Bush Administration had met for more than hundred times in some months before the September 11 attacks, but had discussed terrorism only on two occasions. In July 2001 the LA Times had reported that the U.S and some Italian officials had been warned in July 2001 that some terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other leaders from US by directing an airliner into the Genoa summit6. There was a threat assessment that was conducted in July 2001 where Attorney General John Ashcroft ceased to fly commercial planes and instead using private jets. The threat assessment was however never made public. ABC News reported in August 2001 that some officials from the Bush Administration had acknowledged that Bush had been informed by the US intelligence some weeks before the September 11 attacks that Osama’s terrorist network could try to hijack American Airplane. It was also reported that Bush had received a one page and half briefing that informed him that Osama was capable of striking US using a hijacked American airplane. According to some reports from Newsweek, a group of Pentagon officials cancelled some travel plans that had been arranged for the morning of September 11th 20017. The reason for their cancellation was due to security concerns. There were more than ten warnings that were issued to the Bush Administration with most of them stating the possibility of the attacks. On September 11, 2001 Rice was scheduled to give a speech on the US security goals but she was never to focus on the new challenges on terrorism.8 She was instead planned to talk about the Cold War type of challenges where she was promoting the use of missiles as defense measure. She did not mention about the Al Qaeda or bin Laden during her speech. By the time President Bush was taking over office, the federal government was highly pursuing the issue of counterterrorism under the leadership of Attorney General Janet Reno. The National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was said to be quite committed with prospects of domestic terror attacks in America9. Ne even told his replacement that a lot of effort needed to be put towards that issue but the attention was withdrawn when the Bush Administration took office. In the lead up to the 9/11 attacks, Attorney General John Ashcroft had stated that fighting terrorism was the priority of his agency but when he got into the office he started following other objectives and shifted the focus of counterterrorism just before the attacks. When the strategic plan was presented to the Justice Department there were new goals that were highlighted from the list that Clinton Administration had created. The item that mentioned the involvement of intelligence in investigating terrorist was not highlighted and that raised a lot of concern on the commitment of the Bush Administration in fighting terrorism. According top a former senior law enforcement official, Attorney general Ashcroft had openly overruled any efforts to counter terrorism in the spring of 2001. This was demonstrated when he confronted the then FBI Director Louis Freeh at some annual meeting that involved special agents10. Ashcroft had told Freeh that his priorities were more on drugs and violent crimes. When Freeh mentioned that his priorities were on terror and counterterrorism, Ashcroft did not want to listen to that. In some months before the 9/11 attack, a program that was called ‘Catcher’s Mitt’ that was meant to track the Al Qaeda suspects in the United States was terminated by the Justice Department. Minimum concern was shown towards counterterrorism that even the White House Task force never met to discuss this issue. In January 2001, the US Commission on National Security issued a report to White House that warned of an attack on the American soil and recommended to the Bush Administration some was of dealing with the domestic terrorism11. The Bush Administration rejected the report and never followed the recommendations. Ironically, the administration appointed Vice President Cheney in May 2001.to lead a task force that was supposed to combat the acts of terrorism in U.S. The review of the report never took place. There also an instance where Senators forwarded some counterterrorism legislation to Cheney, but his assistant told the senators that Cheney might review the contents in six months time. The Bush Administration ordered for the termination of predator flights there were tracking Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The predator flights were reported to have spotted Osama Bin Laden numerous times in the late 200012. In the first eight months of Bush Administration the unmanned planes were never flown in Afghanistan. In addition, the military had tested an armed predator in 2001 but there was debate that was never resolved by White House on whether the armed predators should be operated by the CIA or the Pentagon. As a result no armed predator was ever tested practically before the 9/11 attack. The Bush Administration gave some $43 million in what it called drought aid to Afghanistan after the Taliban had began a campaign against poppy growers. This was the same period that White House was cutting counterterrorism funding13. In addition, the Bush Administration was in support of the sanctions that UN had issued against Afghanistan for refusing to hand over Osama Bin Laden. It was therefore unimaginable that Bush Administration would advance funding to the Afghanistan government. Despite some reports that indicated Saudi Arabia as one of the financiers to terrorism activities, the Bush Administration continued to maintain close ties with the Saudi government. First Bush’s father was an adviser to Carlyle Group which is an investment Bank that is associated with the Saudi royal family. He actually received a donation of $1 million fro the royal family for his Presidential library14. President Bush himself was also linked to the Carlyle group as he was once a director of the group’s subsidiary known as Caterair. Condoleezza Rice who was the national Security adviser in the Bush Administration was a board member of the Chevron Company which was doing business in Saudi dessert15. Vice President Cheney was also one a CEO of an oil company that was highly connected to the Saudis. Conclusion To sum up, the Bush Administration policy ignored all the security advice that it had received from security advisors. It is also clear that this administration was quite aware of the possibilities of an attack before September 9/11 but decided to take those warnings for granted. The close association with the Saudi government was also an indicator of the lack of commitment by the Bush Administration towards the counterterrorism. Had the Bush administration taken the advice and the warnings that it had received from the security intelligence officers, the 9/11 attacks would have been prevented and so much loss avoided. Bibliography Bugliosi, V. (2008). The prosecution of George W. Bush for murder. Florida: Vanguard. Dudley, W. (2002). The attack on America, September 11, 2001. Boston: Time Books. Faust, S. (2002).Trauma Practice in the Wake of September11, 2001. New York: Routledge. Gareau, F. (2004). State terrorism and the United States: from counterinsurgency to the war on terrorism. Boston: Zed Books. Hampton, W. (2007). September 11, 2001 : Attack on New York City. London: Cambridge. Helms, H. (2008). 40 Lingering Questions About the 9/11 attacks. New York: Routledge. Katzman, K. (2010). Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy. London: Oxford. Kellner, D. (2003). From 9/11 to terror war: the dangers of the Bush legacy. Boston. Time Books. Stewart, G. (2002). America under Attack: September 11, 2001. New York: Andrews McMeel Weinrich, M. (2010). An analysis of Post 9/11 Presidential Rhetoric. New York: Routledge. Read More