world

Bush administration considered sending troops into Buffalo in 2002: New York Times

46 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

46 Comments
Login to comment

If true, it simply highlights once again the true depths of scare-mongering that Bush Co reached at that period in time.

Duct-taped windows and chemical suits anyone?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

God forbid they be concerned that the suspects had equipment or weapons beyond the capabilities of local / federal law enforcement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, perhaps they had WMD. Never thought of that!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"On September 14, 2002, the FBI held a press conference in Buffalo to announce the arrests of five of the local al-Qaeda suspects. The FBI Special Agent in charge of the investigation, Peter Ahearn (At the time head of the FBI's Buffalo Field Office), stated that there was no specific event triggering the arrests, which followed four to eight months of investigations.[2]. Later, FBI counterterrorism chief Dale Watson told The New York Times that the bureau's response was that "we are probably 99 percent sure that we can make sure these guys don't do something - if they are planning to do something."

Heh, investigators did find a rifle, a telescopic sight, and a cassette tape in Al-Bakri's house mind.

I'm still left thinking sending in the troops would have been outrageous scare-mongering at a time of panic and insecurity in the US less than a year after 9/11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I dont see what the big deal is. They considered it...but decided against it.

Isnt it thier job to consider all options?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Isnt it thier job to consider all options?"

Of course. But when you consider the FBI owned them, and had for over 8 months, sending the troops in was just a pre-invasion publicity shriek from Bush's war machine.

"Smoking guns" and "mushrooms clouds over NYC". Those of us who lived through that crazy period should never allow wanabee history revisionists the space for Denial in regards to Bush's war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Scott L Silliman, a Duke University law professor specializing in national security law, told the Times that a U.S. president had not deployed the active-duty military on domestic soil in a law enforcement capacity, without specific statutory authority, since the Civil War.

I believed this was called the "posse comatitus" act which does not allow the use of military for domestic police duties unless there was a time of war. I am glad that they considered this and did not do it. It at least shows that contrary to current beliefs, "W's" Administration did stop and think some things through, instead of rushing headfirst into somethings and only finding out later that they are creating more hazards (i.e. passing the increases in the unemployment money paid out, but by doing so this makes some who receive it not eligible to receive food stamps. So they got a few dollars increas, but lost out on hunderds of dollars of food assistance. Thank you Obama Administration).

Before the usual bunch of BDS posters start attacking, I do wish that they would have done a little more considering before they went into Iraq, so I am not just drinking the "right wing kool aide" as I am sure other will post.

By the way, I don't see anyone upset that "W" sent troops into New Orleans after Katrina to help do law enforcement down there. All I seem to remember is that they were saying that the Administration was too slow to send help. FYI, the governor of LA could have called the National Guard out immediately but due to "infighting amongst the LA leadership" did not do so in a timely manner.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But when you consider the FBI owned them, and had for over 8 months, sending the troops in was just a pre-invasion publicity shriek from Bush's war machine.

If you read the artilce again, it was actually Bush that decided against sending in troops. It was his decision to not send them in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"It was his decision to not send them in."

My point from the begining is that the mere thought of sending the troops in, something un-heard of since the American Civil War, over something that was clearly under the control of the FBI illustrates to me the measures Bush Co were taking to instill fear into ordianry Americans to pursue their own agenda.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Time to trot out another Bush / Cheney story. Have to feed the rabid bunch a bone a week I guess. A story from 2002 is so relevant now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

shock and awe!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My point from the begining is that the mere thought of sending the troops in, something un-heard of since the American Civil War, over something that was clearly under the control of the FBI illustrates to me the measures Bush Co were taking to instill fear into ordianry Americans to pursue their own agenda.

Ahhh....if that was his agenda why didnt Bush decid to do it then?

Im not a big fan of Bush but I have to agree with sailwind. I think this is a bit overblown.

Bush made the decision to NOT send in the troops. In hindsight, it seems like he made the right decision. Whats all the fuss about?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"A story from 2002 is so relevant now."

The New York Times clearly thought so....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cheney and his neo-con mates posed as great a threat to world security as did any terrorist organization.

The criminal pre-emptive attack on Iraq (and it's resulting death of 1,000's of innocent civilians) reflects the true nature of the neo-cons and it is surprising that troops were never deployed domestically "to secure the homeland."

I bet Cheney was spewing when Bush chomped the idea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The New York Times clearly thought so....

Pravda on the Hudson you mean? Nuff, said on that one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind, unless you wish to argue against the fear-mongering by the Bush administations, or attempt to revise history, then I think we've nothing further to discuss....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Ahhh....if that was his agenda why didnt Bush decid to do it then?"

I guess there could ba numerous explainations. Number one being that as the FBI owned them - how stupid would they have looked with calling in the troops for the first time since the Civil War to turn up a lone rifle and 5 bearded nuts?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts....is it really that big of a deal? I'm assuming it would have been special forces or some other unit that specializes in extraction, which would have been more or less a better trained SWAT unit. The whole "sending the troops in" bring up images of tanks and APCs which is what makes the situation sound more absurd than it probably would have been. Bush was against it so it never happened....end of story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Bush was against it so it never happened....end of story."

Hey buddy :)

No, it's not such a big deal. The reason I was piqued is that there are so many people now wishing to act as if the whole screech-filled year of 2002 from the Bush administrations didn't actually happen. We were both here back then and you remember how hysterical not only Bush and co were, but also many Americans.

I still find the extent that Americans were petrified actively by their own bloody government truly amazing.

Other than that, you're right - sending in the army was a ridiculous idea as I've been saying all along. The FBI were on the ball.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Vice President Dick Cheney and several other Bush advisors strongly advised that the military be used"

"Opposing the idea were Condoleezza Rice..."

So much for the liberal theory that Cheney was running the Bush adninistration.

"Dispatching troops into the streets is virtually unheard of in the U.S."

Yeah, we only dispatch our troops in the streets of other countries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A good police force with FBI assistance has all the tools it would need to apprehend these folks. A military force doesn't know the area like the local police do. Then you have the NYC Police which has anything you could possibly need and is damn near a military. But Buffalo and NYC are ~300 miles away (other sides of a wide state).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind at 04:33 PM JST - 25th July Time to trot out another Bush / Cheney story. Have to feed the rabid bunch a bone a week I guess. A story from 2002 is so relevant now.

I am glad it was and not Cheney who had the last word.

Cheney and his ilk would destroy the Constitution with no second thought. He needs to be kept away from any, and I do mean any public office the rest of his life.

If he were dog catcher he may try to train the dogs to hunt down citizens he thought were not American enough for him......

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Believe it or not, I actually don't think this is anything all that crazy, and almost agree with some that it's being blown out of control given the stuff that's been coming out recently about the former admin.

I DO agree with some of the points Madverts makes; "No, it's not such a big deal. The reason I was piqued is that there are so many people now wishing to act as if the whole screech-filled year of 2002 from the Bush administrations didn't actually happen. We were both here back then and you remember how hysterical not only Bush and co were, but also many Americans."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"If Cheney were dog catcher" blah blah blah

He's not. If he was a dog trainer, he'd train the dogs to attack those who would torture and kill JoeBigs without hesitation or remorse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush isnt president anymore and blasting him with these news stories is just a ploy to keep people from thinking or asking questions about obama socializing and taxing the crap out of America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "If he was a dog trainer, he'd train the dogs to attack those who would torture and kill JoeBigs without hesitation or remorse."

The correct English is, "If he WERE", not "was". And anyway, if Cheney were ever a dog trainer he would be finished off by the dogs before he got started.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

obama socializing

Obama is criticized for socializing now? I don't like him much myself but that seems a little extreme.

I'm glad the loons in the White House didn't actually call the troops into Buffalo. That would have been a ludicrous and unnecessary overstepping of boundaries. FBI can handle these things just fine; it's why they exist.

Reminds me of Tom Ridge advising Americans to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting "just in case". Those were the days!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Those were the days!"

It's amazing people actually think we're going to forget the paranoia storm caused buy Bush's so-called war on terror. Even contemplating sending the army to capture barely armed, sponge-brained nut-cases such as these is nothing but ridiculous. The local police could have handled the job.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: It is indeed amazing. But then, you can never forget whom you are talking to. Most people would never forget the things you say, but those are probably the same people that are not in Japan or posting on a Japanese site about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't really think it's all that amazing. Just think if it happens again, but with a group of people even more dangerous and they have weapons. Who really is best suited to handle the job? Special forces? SWAT? FBI? Local law enforcement? I guess it would depend on the level of the threat or the type of threat. If you're dealing with people known to have military style training and weapons then why not use special forces?

Madverts: It's amazing people actually think we're going to forget the paranoia storm caused buy Bush's so-called war on terror.

I'm sorry buddy but it's just strange to me. This is an example of Bush not creating paranoia.....but you're using it to remind us about the paranoia that he created....? It kinda proves the opposite of the point you're trying to make, but you're using it as if it's evidence supporting it...?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seems like the NY Times people have forgotten, or never knew, their American history.

"MacArthur evoked much criticism by using military force in 1932 to disperse encampments in Washington, D.C., of unemployed veterans, “Bonus Marchers,” seeking their pensions."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: It's amazing people actually think we're going to forget the paranoia storm caused buy Bush's so-called war on terror.

So you're saying Islamic terrorism isn't really a threat? That 911 wasn't about Islamic terrorism? Huh. I can't understand how there can be headlines of Islamic terrorism on a daily basis and yet, according the left, it's really just an illusion and "paranoia". Either the left is totally disconnected from reality or they want the US attacked. My best guess is the latter, though they'd never admit it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The fuss is that Obama's polls are down so they have to demonize Bush instead of dealing with that is happening now. Bush was rediculed for his lack of response to katrena though. Now Bush is a bad president because he thought about doing something? Give me a freaking break.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush showed some sense by not going with this plan. Good for him. Bad for Cheney. We have perfectly well-trained people for the job, and these were the ones that were chosen. Whether one likes Bush or not (I didn't), the decision that was taken was the correct one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"So you're saying Islamic terrorism isn't really a threat?"

Helter Skelter clearly still buys into the paranoia Madverts was speaking of. Hell, if he had his way and all Muslims were dead he would just start searching for the next group to be paranoid about and obsessed with. Sad sad sad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Smith,

I used to live in your socialist fantasy world. Oblivious to reality. It was nice actually.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skelter,

"So you're saying Islamic terrorism isn't really a threat? That 911 wasn't about Islamic terrorism?"

That's exactly what I said, thanks for paying attention.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well I think the biggest impact to the paranoia created by terrorism was probably the images of planes slamming into buildings and the daily suicide bomb reports in the news. My guess is that that did more to create paranoia than anything Bush did.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Super,

"This is an example of Bush not creating paranoia.....but you're using it to remind us about the paranoia that he created....?"

Yes, I've already explained this. The fact that sending the troops in was actually considered shows what lengths Bush Co were attempting to instill insecurity into Americans in the efforts to make the case to invade Iraq.

I'm frankly not surprised they chose not to do proceed. Netting nothing but a rifle and five bearded retards would have looked almost as utterly stupid as there being not one WMD in Iraq, no?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: That's exactly what I said, thanks for paying attention.

So who do you think was actually behind 911? The Mossad? The CIA? Enlighten us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: shows what lengths Bush Co were attempting to instill insecurity into Americans

But why you would think that this was their motive?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is having the government take over American industry after industry. Government ownership of the national economy is socialism. Redistribution of national wealth, aka taxing the rich to about 50 percent is also socialism. The cap trade system they are trying to make is also a form of wealth redistribution.

Obama is also overturning state supreme court rulings and breaking the laws by making investors take all the loss in companies going bankrupt.

How can you people sit here and criticize Bush for something he decided not to do when you agree with his decision. You people have mental problems.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How can you people sit here and criticize Bush for something he decided not to do when you agree with his decision. You people have mental problems.

The article is question is about Bush, not Obama. Some of us have multi-track minds.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cheney sent troops into Iraq based on lies. Invading the US would have been an easy step.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skelter,

I didn't say any of the above and my earlier retort was meant to ridicule you as you clearly haven't read a single word I wrote. I'm not sure how I can be of further assistance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"But why you would think that this was their motive?"

C'mon buddy, stop being obtuse - it's bad enough with the other poster attacking me for things I haven't wrote.

The motive, if you're playing hard to get, was to continue to freak the American public out by making the alusion that another 9/11 style attack - or worse - was around the corner from Islamic terrorists. And this my friend at a time Bush Co were pushing an agenda to pre-emptively invade another soveriegn nation on the grounds they were an immediate terror threat.

You know it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites