August 6th, 2001 - PDB document

kp59583 · Apr 15, 2004, 03:52 PM

Well the Cole happen on Clintons watch as well as the embassis bombings and the first world trade center bombing. Was it his fault? I don't think it was but the ball should have started rolling to go after the terrorist then. In fact it we probably should have started after them during the 80's. During the Iran/ Contra hearings they ask Ole North why he had a very expensive security system install at his house. He said because of Ben Laden. Now if he new what this man was about why didn't anybody else. Bush may have dropped ball the but every adminitration since the 80's has as well. Its called being to complacent.

bird chest · Apr 15, 2004, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
No he probably does not mean that but more like...If Kerry would after such an attack trumpet out that he had no information att all about such an attack although he had been informed by his intelligence that it was a possibility, then that would mean that Kerrys credibility would fall below ZERO...which is exactly what this is about when it comes to the Bush ...establishment....right now.

Bluelight

He got no info on it. All they said was that it was a possibility not how, when, or who.

bird chest · Apr 15, 2004, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Well the way I see it it's like a captain of a ship. If the ship hits an iceberg on his watch, who do you blame? Do you blame the crew, the ship's designers, the previous captain? Or do you recognise the obvious that the guy in charge, the guy at the top who was responsible for making decisions and for ensuring everyone's safety, was in the largest part responsible for what happed? After all, it was his job to ensure that things like this didn't happen - he had access to all the information and to all the technology designed to prevent things like this - he was in the best position to make the call at that time. It is literally crazy to say that Bush shouldn't at least take his share of the blame.

If a soldier had let some terrorists attack and destroy his base and several hundred of his comrades, simply because he neglected his duty - if proper precautions hadn't been taken, then once again who is to blame? The soldier? Yes! But clearly he shares the blame with his superiors and those responsible for ensuring the security of the base. The guy on watch should get the chop, he should be tried for treason and dereliction of duty as should the commander of the base and I see no reason why Bush should be exempted from his.

As TC said you can't change the reality, you can't change that this happened on Bush's watch. It makes no sense to say that he shouldn't share a very large part of the blame - regardless of whether your own personal ideology and blind devotion seems to tell you otherwise.

GJ

But what if somone snuck in while the soldier was on duty and the soldier was doing his duty and he missed him? Is he at fault or is it the commanding officers fault for not putting two people on duty. And I do not really see the connection with the ship metaphor so I will not even comment.

zerodamage · Apr 15, 2004, 06:55 PM

Threats of hijacking airlines happens quite often. You can not tell me there was any way of knowing that on 9-11, terrorists were going to hijack particular planes with box cutters and fly the planes into the World Trade Center. There was NO WAY of knowing this. Why was there no way of knowing this? Clinton cut the budget to the intelligence agencies again and again. Laws were written to prevent the paying of informants within those organizations. Laws were written to prevent communication between the CIA and FBI during Clinton's 8 years. These things are IMPOSSIBLE to blame on Bush. He was in office 9 months. To say that Bush knew that the attacks were going to happen and did nothing is beyond ignorance IMO.

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 15, 2004, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bird chest
He got no info on it. All they said was that it was a possibility not how, when, or who.

Yeah but they said immmidietly after 9/11 that they knew NOTHING AT ALL....
Well they did.

Once again.

This is what the hearings are about.

If they hadn`t been so utterly stupid to claim to the public that theyknew NOTHING at all then there would have been no hearings at all.

They knew there was a threat and they more or less ignored it for several months.

Bluelight

ToshiroOC · Apr 17, 2004, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kp59583
So by your thinking if Kerry wins the election and an attack happens in SEPTEMBER 2005 its his fault.

If Kerry wins and an attack happens in September 2005, he is just as guilty as Bush, Clinton, Mueller, and Tenet.

ToshiroOC · Apr 17, 2004, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zerodamage
Laws were written to prevent communication between the CIA and FBI during Clinton's 8 years. These things are IMPOSSIBLE to blame on Bush. He was in office 9 months. To say that Bush knew that the attacks were going to happen and did nothing is beyond ignorance IMO.

Why didn't Bush focus on getting those laws removed, then? I firmly believe that all terrorist attacks can be prevented (indeed, it is a rather fatalistic viewpoint if we think they can't) one way or another, and the fact that 9/11 happened at all means that Bush, along with others, dropped the ball. I doubt he knew the attacks were going to happen, but the fact remains that he didn't do a lot (and obviously not enough to stop the attacks) to stop terrorist action in general until after 9/11. If he and the CIA/FBI had done a good job, 9/11 would not have happened, and the fact that it happened means that someone failed in their job, and the ultimate responsiblility for making sure all of this works rests with Congress and the Executive.

bird chest · Apr 17, 2004, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ToshiroOC
Why didn't Bush focus on getting those laws removed, then? I firmly believe that all terrorist attacks can be prevented (indeed, it is a rather fatalistic viewpoint if we think they can't) one way or another, and the fact that 9/11 happened at all means that Bush, along with others, dropped the ball. I doubt he knew the attacks were going to happen, but the fact remains that he didn't do a lot (and obviously not enough to stop the attacks) to stop terrorist action in general until after 9/11. If he and the CIA/FBI had done a good job, 9/11 would not have happened, and the fact that it happened means that someone failed in their job, and the ultimate responsiblility for making sure all of this works rests with Congress and the Executive.

You think it is possible to catch every terrorist? How? So if terrorists connect somone had to drop the ball? Is it not possible that we just got hit and now we need to learn from our failure. I don't think anyone is to blame really. I happened now we learn from it.

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 17, 2004, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ToshiroOC
If Kerry wins and an attack happens in September 2005, he is just as guilty as Bush, Clinton, Mueller, and Tenet.

No not unless he has been given relevant information about the possibility and then claims he has not had such information publicly.

Like the Bush government has done.

Bluelight

zerodamage · Apr 17, 2004, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ToshiroOC
Why didn't Bush focus on getting those laws removed, then? I firmly believe that all terrorist attacks can be prevented (indeed, it is a rather fatalistic viewpoint if we think they can't) one way or another, and the fact that 9/11 happened at all means that Bush, along with others, dropped the ball. I doubt he knew the attacks were going to happen, but the fact remains that he didn't do a lot (and obviously not enough to stop the attacks) to stop terrorist action in general until after 9/11. If he and the CIA/FBI had done a good job, 9/11 would not have happened, and the fact that it happened means that someone failed in their job, and the ultimate responsiblility for making sure all of this works rests with Congress and the Executive.

To be honest, this should have been addressed by Bush or we should have been informed he was working on it. The problem is that congress creates these bills and what not and the president signs them. It takes congress to remove these bills and remember soon after Bush took office, Jeffers changed parties and basically gave the Democrats majority in the Senate. For the 9 months Bush had before 9-11, he was trying to fix the economy among other things. 9 months can go by quite quickly if you are cleaning up the previous administrations messes. Even if Bush did know the attacks were going to happen, what could he have done? The FBI was crippled badly. Should he have created a panic and put the military on every American flight? How do you think that would have been perceived by the public. Even after 9-11 Bush is seen as a dictator due to the Patriot act, which Kerry signed by the way. Could you imagine doing something like putting military on planes because of a perceived threat? The Democrats and the press would have had a field day with Bush. Double edged sword here. Damned if you do, Damned if you do not.

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 17, 2004, 08:35 PM

No you are right..after all he was pretty busy seeting up a take over in Venezuela.

They started on that one immidietly.

Bluelight

bird chest · Apr 18, 2004, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zerodamage
To be honest, this should have been addressed by Bush or we should have been informed he was working on it. The problem is that congress creates these bills and what not and the president signs them. It takes congress to remove these bills and remember soon after Bush took office, Jeffers changed parties and basically gave the Democrats majority in the Senate. For the 9 months Bush had before 9-11, he was trying to fix the economy among other things. 9 months can go by quite quickly if you are cleaning up the previous administrations messes. Even if Bush did know the attacks were going to happen, what could he have done? The FBI was crippled badly. Should he have created a panic and put the military on every American flight? How do you think that would have been perceived by the public. Even after 9-11 Bush is seen as a dictator due to the Patriot act, which Kerry signed by the way. Could you imagine doing something like putting military on planes because of a perceived threat? The Democrats and the press would have had a field day with Bush. Double edged sword here. Damned if you do, Damned if you do not.

What info came saying a plane would be flown into the twin towers? What info said they would be using planes?

And zero if he did no your whole damned if you do and damned if you don't is true but sick. That would mean he held 3000 lives over a little bad media.

zerodamage · Apr 18, 2004, 01:11 AM

I never said he did know. I know he did not know or he would have done something. I am pointing out the hypocrites on the left who say we should have done this and then say we should have done what we are doing back then.

ToshiroOC · Apr 18, 2004, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bird chest
You think it is possible to catch every terrorist? How? So if terrorists connect somone had to drop the ball? Is it not possible that we just got hit and now we need to learn from our failure. I don't think anyone is to blame really. I happened now we learn from it.

I think that any terrorist that plans and tries to execute a domestic plan of attack that is not caught was not caught because of a mistake on the part of the domestic security and intelligence agencies - I believe they have the funding and the capability to get every single one, and each specific incident is going to be the result of an accumulation of errors on their part. I don't realistically expect them to be perfect nor actually catch every single one, but I think that they have a chance in each case to stop each potential attack.

ToshiroOC · Apr 18, 2004, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zerodamage
To be honest, this should have been addressed by Bush or we should have been informed he was working on it. The problem is that congress creates these bills and what not and the president signs them. It takes congress to remove these bills and remember soon after Bush took office, Jeffers changed parties and basically gave the Democrats majority in the Senate. For the 9 months Bush had before 9-11, he was trying to fix the economy among other things. 9 months can go by quite quickly if you are cleaning up the previous administrations messes. Even if Bush did know the attacks were going to happen, what could he have done? The FBI was crippled badly. Should he have created a panic and put the military on every American flight? How do you think that would have been perceived by the public. Even after 9-11 Bush is seen as a dictator due to the Patriot act, which Kerry signed by the way. Could you imagine doing something like putting military on planes because of a perceived threat? The Democrats and the press would have had a field day with Bush. Double edged sword here. Damned if you do, Damned if you do not.

'

Indeed, that's the nature of politics - there's no easy way out. Some of this accused 'flip flopping' on Kerry's part is due to this back-and-forth in Congress - He proposes a bill and supports it, someone adds an article to the bill that he finds totally unacceptable, and goes on the record as having voted against the bill (and ostensibly against helping fix the issue the bill was meant to repair). However, it was within Bush's power to go before Congress and demand increased intelligence funding and capability, and then if Congress refused and 9/11 happened anyway, Bush would been seen as a prophet of sorts, having predicted the problem and trying to do something about it. He didn't make any overt and public efforts to fix these intelligence crippling issues, though, and I think that the responsibility for that falls on his head and his advisors heads (because it would have been the province of those like Ashcroft, Powell, and Rice to ensure that the president gets good information).

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 18, 2004, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zerodamage
I never said he did know. I know he did not know or he would have done something. I am pointing out the hypocrites on the left who say we should have done this and then say we should have done what we are doing back then.

I merely saying Nero shuldn´t have lied about what he knew.

Which is clearly what he did.

But then ...to the large majority of this world who look upon his politics with despise it is of course a good thing that he did since it reveals him to his voters who will undoubtedly give a majority of their votes to Kerry.

Bluelight

bird chest · Apr 18, 2004, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ToshiroOC
'

Indeed, that's the nature of politics - there's no easy way out. Some of this accused 'flip flopping' on Kerry's part is due to this back-and-forth in Congress - He proposes a bill and supports it, someone adds an article to the bill that he finds totally unacceptable, and goes on the record as having voted against the bill (and ostensibly against helping fix the issue the bill was meant to repair). However, it was within Bush's power to go before Congress and demand increased intelligence funding and capability, and then if Congress refused and 9/11 happened anyway, Bush would been seen as a prophet of sorts, having predicted the problem and trying to do something about it. He didn't make any overt and public efforts to fix these intelligence crippling issues, though, and I think that the responsibility for that falls on his head and his advisors heads (because it would have been the province of those like Ashcroft, Powell, and Rice to ensure that the president gets good information).

Of course any terrorist attack could be caught could be if this and if that. But the truth is is that it is impossible end of story.

ToshiroOC · Apr 18, 2004, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bird chest
Of course any terrorist attack could be caught could be if this and if that. But the truth is is that it is impossible end of story.

That doesn't mean that those who failed to prevent the attack have no responsibility for their failure.

bird chest · Apr 19, 2004, 01:16 AM

Why do they have to fail. Take the soldier example from ealier. The soldier is gaurding a perimeter and is walking it. Well the bad guy comes over while he is on the other side. Well it could have been stoped if he had been on the other side. But was it his fault?

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 19, 2004, 08:23 AM

No but it gets kinda trycky to have a 100 perecent confidence in the soldier if the soldier claims he didnt see anything at all.

bird chest · Apr 20, 2004, 07:55 AM

True but so you double up your guard and move on.

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 20, 2004, 09:44 AM

Are you republican?

If so:

Would you have done so if the president had been Kerry?

The hearings are part of your system.

They are held for a reason.

Of course you can dump them and leave more power to the president which is logically what you do in that case but......

What is the point in choosing leaders if yu are not allowed to question them?

Bluelight

bird chest · Apr 20, 2004, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
Are you republican?

If so:

Would you have done so if the president had been Kerry?

The hearings are part of your system.

They are held for a reason.

Of course you can dump them and leave more power to the president which is logically what you do in that case but......

What is the point in choosing leaders if yu are not allowed to question them?

Bluelight

No I actually don't have that big of a problem with the hearings. I just don't like how they have become so political. The hearing are there to see what went wrong and fix it. If it were Kerry I would feel the same way about people claiming it was his fault cause it obviously is not.

But yes I am a republican

Apr 15, 2004, 03:52 PM	#31
kp59583 DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 121 Rep Power: 0	Well the Cole happen on Clintons watch as well as the embassis bombings and the first world trade center bombing. Was it his fault? I don't think it was but the ball should have started rolling to go after the terrorist then. In fact it we probably should have started after them during the 80's. During the Iran/ Contra hearings they ask Ole North why he had a very expensive security system install at his house. He said because of Ben Laden. Now if he new what this man was about why didn't anybody else. Bush may have dropped ball the but every adminitration since the 80's has as well. Its called being to complacent. __________________ ATHLON XP 2600+ K7N2G-LISR 512 SAMSUNG PC2700 ACER DVD DRIVE memorex DVD recorder WD 80GIG 7200 HARDDRIVE AUDIGY2 SOUND CARD 4 FANS, ANTEC 350W PWR SUPPLY ATI 9700 PRO

Apr 15, 2004, 06:55 PM	#34
zerodamage HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 3,478 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	Threats of hijacking airlines happens quite often. You can not tell me there was any way of knowing that on 9-11, terrorists were going to hijack particular planes with box cutters and fly the planes into the World Trade Center. There was NO WAY of knowing this. Why was there no way of knowing this? Clinton cut the budget to the intelligence agencies again and again. Laws were written to prevent the paying of informants within those organizations. Laws were written to prevent communication between the CIA and FBI during Clinton's 8 years. These things are IMPOSSIBLE to blame on Bush. He was in office 9 months. To say that Bush knew that the attacks were going to happen and did nothing is beyond ignorance IMO.

Apr 17, 2004, 08:35 PM	#41
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	No you are right..after all he was pretty busy seeting up a take over in Venezuela. They started on that one immidietly. Bluelight

Apr 18, 2004, 01:11 AM	#43
zerodamage HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 3,478 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	I never said he did know. I know he did not know or he would have done something. I am pointing out the hypocrites on the left who say we should have done this and then say we should have done what we are doing back then.

Apr 19, 2004, 01:16 AM	#49
bird chest DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 454 Rep Power: 0	Why do they have to fail. Take the soldier example from ealier. The soldier is gaurding a perimeter and is walking it. Well the bad guy comes over while he is on the other side. Well it could have been stoped if he had been on the other side. But was it his fault?

Apr 19, 2004, 08:23 AM	#50
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	No but it gets kinda trycky to have a 100 perecent confidence in the soldier if the soldier claims he didnt see anything at all.

Apr 20, 2004, 07:55 AM	#51
bird chest DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 454 Rep Power: 0	True but so you double up your guard and move on.

Apr 20, 2004, 09:44 AM	#52
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	Are you republican? If so: Would you have done so if the president had been Kerry? The hearings are part of your system. They are held for a reason. Of course you can dump them and leave more power to the president which is logically what you do in that case but...... What is the point in choosing leaders if yu are not allowed to question them? Bluelight