Decius wrote:

] ?! Whats your source for "Pakistan had been told earlier that
] summer." Thats a pretty wild accusation. If you're going to
] throw it, have a verifiable reference.

Not an accusation, just stuff I've found through my research.

BBC:

"A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

Guardian:

The warning to the Taliban originated at a four-day meeting of senior Americans, Russians, Iranians and Pakistanis at a hotel in Berlin in mid-July. The conference, the third in a series dubbed "brainstorming on Afghanistan", was part of a classic diplomatic device known as "track two".

...

The three Americans at the Berlin meeting were Tom Simons, a former US ambassador to Pakistan, Karl "Rick" Inderfurth, a former assistant secretary of state for south Asian affairs, and Lee Coldren, who headed the office of Pakistan, Afghan and Bangladesh affairs in the state department until 1997.

According to Mr Naik, the Americans raised the issue of an attack on Afghanistan at one of the full sessions of the conference, convened by Francesc Vendrell, a Spanish diplomat who serves as the UN secretary general's special representative on Afghanistan. In the break afterwards, Mr Naik told the Guardian yesterday, he asked Mr Simons why the attack should be more successful than Bill Clinton's missile strikes on Afghanistan in 1998, which caused 20 deaths but missed Bin Laden.

"He said this time they were very sure. They had all the intelligence and would not miss him this time. It would be aerial action, maybe helicopter gunships, and not only overt, but from very close proximity to Afghanistan. The Russians were listening to the conversation but not participating."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,556279,00.html

There are more examples I could cite. So far, I've not heard or seen any retractions or rebuttals from the officals named.

] Of course we
] had war plans. These people blew up two of our embassys. We
] have all kinds of war plans and logistics worked out for sorts
] of scenarios. You don't want to be the victim of an attack and
] then stand there for 6 months scratching your head while you
] start looking into how to deal with it. If you have an enemy
] out there you have a plan for how to deal with him if you have
] to.

Agreed. However, my point was that most people perceive the invasion of Afghanistan as a response to 9/11. It was actually planned ahead of time.

Did Bush lie? Here's a quote from his Oct. 7th address:

"We did not ask for this mission, but we will fulfill it. The name of today's military operation is Enduring Freedom."

Operation Enduring Freedom was pitched as a response to the 9/11 attacks. You decide.

RE: Furor over Bush's 9/11 ad