August 6th, 2001 - PDB document

ToshiroOC · Apr 11, 2004, 06:47 AM

I have every reason to believe these to be authentic.

Discuss.

ToshiroOC · Apr 11, 2004, 06:51 AM

My take on the PDB is that it is no smoking gun piece of evidence that shows Bush to be blatantly negligent in his handling of the pre-9/11 anti-terrorism effort. I believe, however, that given the obvious evidence that bin Laden wanted to attack domestically, and other indicators of increased terrorist activity, the 9/11 attacks would have been preventable had Bush, Mueller, and Tenet done their job properly and kept their respective organizations working and communicating.

Falstaff · Apr 11, 2004, 07:36 AM

I agree, years before, Pres. Clinton had ample oppurtunity to strike at Bin Laden and failed with the same faulty intelligence that plagued Bush. Intel was bad in 1991 but everyone wanted IRAQ out of Kuwait, Intel was bad in the latest effort, but people wanted Saddam to pay, at least for attempting to send a hit squad after Bush. I saw Rice attempt to come to terms with the political anxiety in Congress, and I am sure the faces of those who support her two years ago now shift their focus to what can shift the focus away from their hyporcracy, but then that is politics. I wont rationalize it, all the presidents and their staff have their skeletons to hide for sure. But Bush is a Texan, a republican, and a leader. Those that have gone to war before him suffered criticism in their time. Imagine what Roosevelt would have done if confronted with the truth of Pearl Harbor...food for thought.

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 11, 2004, 08:53 AM

No but this is evidence that the lizards lied when they gave the Us public the impression they knew nothing about any warnings.

That is serious enough.

It is obvious that there was a gap between the Clinton admin and the Bush admin and this gap is easiest described by the fact that Bush had to rewrite....everything from the Clinton period...not by necessity but because it was of Clinton origin.

This was the case with these things to..so they ignored the info they got from Clintons admins and dug out their own strategy...which took time.During that time the action was at full throttle.

That is what this is about.

Finally....After the events...they claimed ..they knew nothing.

Which of course is a lie.

Finally..there was according to what i read now an order within the Us admin under Clinton to kill Ladin.

So leave the ..Bill didnt this or Bill didnt that...out of it.

Finally one of the main points in Clarkes book as i understand it is that the Bush governments strategy in Iraq has created more terrorism than it has gotten rid of.Instead of finishing Afghanistan first they went ahead i top something they could not control they way they do it.(it is obvious they cant isnt it?)

Currently nobody can deny that.

What the future will be like when it comes to this is currently a black hole.

Bluelight

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 11, 2004, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
I agree, years before, Pres. Clinton had ample oppurtunity to strike at Bin Laden and failed with the same faulty intelligence that plagued Bush. Intel was bad in 1991 but everyone wanted IRAQ out of Kuwait, Intel was bad in the latest effort, but people wanted Saddam to pay, at least for attempting to send a hit squad after Bush. I saw Rice attempt to come to terms with the political anxiety in Congress, and I am sure the faces of those who support her two years ago now shift their focus to what can shift the focus away from their hyporcracy, but then that is politics. I wont rationalize it, all the presidents and their staff have their skeletons to hide for sure. But Bush is a Texan, a republican, and a leader. Those that have gone to war before him suffered criticism in their time. Imagine what Roosevelt would have done if confronted with the truth of Pearl Harbor...food for thought.

I dont know but he actually BOMBED another nation WITHOUT approval of anyone else in order to fight Bin Ladin.
He also invaded a nation in Africa for the same reason.

How that can become..nothing is out of my grasp.

Bluelight

raid517 · Apr 11, 2004, 11:58 AM

Interesting how Jeff's perception (and possibly others?) of this whole event in changing. First it was about WMDs, then it was about removing terrorism (again no link established) then it was about 'liberating the Iraqis' (which is unfortunate since the Iraqis don't seem keen on the idea of being liberated by the US) then it was because Saddam was 'bad for business', then it was because, Saddam plotted against George W.'s dad.

So it's OK and morally acceptable now for presidents to indulge in profiteering and to use the American army in order to settle personal scores? That you believe is a correct and decent way for a president to behave?

That is an interesting way to look at things Jeff. Now it's OK for presidents to act as emperors and use the American army to help them get rich (or in this case his friends - who in return are massively boosting his election fund) and to allow young American service men to die in his name, just so he can settle a score? What I wonder kind of democracy do you think that is?

Anyway, the evidence is certainly stacking up against Bush and he is becoming more and more isolated every day. Hopefully it won't be too much longer before this unfortunate episode in American history is over - and America can regain the respect and trust in the world that it deserves.

Best regards,

GJ

kp59583 · Apr 13, 2004, 05:02 PM

Israel has the best anti-terrorist people in the world and they can't stop the suicide bombers. I don't care what type of plans you have in place theres always going to a hole somewhere that terrorist can exploit. We get hints all the time about potential terrorist attacks that don't happen. They probably had intel saying something was going to happen but how were they going to prevent it from happening without actual times/dates or even the personel involved. What happen in 9/11 was unpresidented in the Western world and nobody new it would happen. Anyone that reads that memo and gets that there will be an immidiate attack needs to join the psychic hotline.

raid517 · Apr 13, 2004, 05:13 PM

Well that's not what was being said. What's being said is that there were lot's of signs something was happening and that the Bush administration took their eye off the ball (and resources away from the investigation) to fight a what was essentially a prospecting war in Iraq.

Is this true? I don't know. I think there might be some truth in it. But I doubt anybody is saying they deliberately ignored the risks - only that they underestimated them. And that - given the events that subsequently transpired - has already been proved. After all, its kind of a given that those buildings didn't fall down by accident.

GJ

bird chest · Apr 13, 2004, 06:23 PM

so by your logic anywhere there are terrorist attacks against the US on a small scale there should be a big one? I do not see the logic. On top of that they had no idea where when how. Bush was in office for 9 months if even that when this attack occured and he gets the blame. All those other things happened during Clintons rain the guy who stop funding MI. To blame it on Bush is rediculous. All of you who think Bush knew about it or just flat out was irresponsible and did not prepare for it please provide me with solutions to how he could have stopped it or any other way to prevent it.

raid517 · Apr 13, 2004, 06:54 PM

It isn't my logic. That is what the debate's about. And anyway that's not what I said. I don't know what this crap about little terrorist and big terrorist attacks is - all I do know is that there is possibly a valid accusation that people weren't paying sufficient enough attention to what was going on. Who that was and who was responsible I don't know - and what's more despite your somewhat tedious protests, neither do you. Maybe there was collective blame, maybe Clinton, even though he was no longer around was to blame (although it might seem like a bit of a neat trick) but that still doesn't excuse Bush passing the buck off to someone else for the time when he was in office and when he should have been doing something.

Let's just see, that's all I'm saying. The present investigations might give a clearer picture. It is too early to make assumptions. How you guys can declare him innocent before any real conclusions have been reached really is a matter of psychic insight.

Maybe he will be found guilty, maybe he will be found innocent. But really if and when the committee does begin to apportion blame, it is only reasonable if Bush steps up and takes his share.

The only benefit to me out of it one way or another is that I won't have to listen to you guys shouting and jerking off over how much you love George W. Bush anymore.

We have politicians in this country - just as there are politicians in the rest of the world - and on the whole we treat them with the all of the mistrust and suspicion that they richly deserve. It doesn't matter what end of the political spectrum they come from, politicians are all genuine lowlife. I don't think there is many other places where people are quite so fanatical about their leaders, as you guys in America appear to be about yours.

The day you begin believing every word a politician says is the day that freedom dies.

GJ

kp59583 · Apr 13, 2004, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Well that's not what was being said. What's being said is that there were lot's of signs something was happening and that the Bush administration took their eye off the ball (and resources away from the investigation) to fight a what was essentially a prospecting war in Iraq.

Is this true? I don't know. I think there might be some truth in it. But I doubt anybody is saying they deliberately ignored the risks - only that they underestimated them. And that - given the events that subsequently transpired - has already been proved. After all, its kind of a given that those buildings didn't fall down by accident.

GJ

In a given day theres probably hundreds of signs that a terrorist attack is going to happen but they don't. Sure if we had been on a war footing like we are now we could have stopped the attack but if the attack hadn't taken place the same people that are complaining now would say the government was hipping a suspected terrorist plot to justify the war footing.

raid517 · Apr 13, 2004, 08:12 PM

Oh well. It must be nice to be so all knowing.

All the same the latest I'm hearing is that the FBI appealed for extra personnel (something like 1800) to use in counter terrorism operations in the May preceding September 11th. They got 76.

Anyway here is a report I saw on the BBC today. I'm not drawing any conclusions, but you can make up your own mind.

Quote:

'Counter Terrorism Chief Expresses Shock at Bush's Omission.'

The State Department was heavily criticised today in the preliminary report of the commission investigating the 11 September 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

The report says that on 9 May 2001, Mr Ashcroft told a federal hearing that the Department of Justice's highest priority was to "protect citizens from terrorist attacks".

Attorney General John Ashcroft is due to give evidence. It continues: "On May 10, 2001, the department issued guidance for developing the fiscal year 2003 budget that made reducing the incidence of gun violence and reducing the trafficking of illegal drugs priority objectives."

The report says Dale Watson, the first head of the FBI counter-terrorism division, "told us that he almost fell out of his chair when he saw the memo, because it made no mention of counter-terrorism".

"Despite the persistent warnings we gave to the State Department, terrorism wasn't even on the radar", he said.

The FBI had requested increased finance for improved technology for its anti-terrorist investigations, according to the report.

"Acting FBI director Thomas Pickard told us he made an appeal to Attorney General Ashcroft for further counter-terrorism enhancements not included in this budget proposal. On September 10 (2001), the attorney general rejected that appeal."

The attacks killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

So blame who you will.

GJ

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 13, 2004, 10:47 PM

Hmmm...Looks like the FBI are paid by Kerry doesnt it?

Bluelight

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 13, 2004, 11:15 PM

I also read now that Pickard claims that Ashcroft after having been informed about the terror threats told Pickard not to mention the issue again.

Im sure Pickard is on the Heinz payroll.

French fries anyone?

Bluelight

raid517 · Apr 13, 2004, 11:39 PM

Where did you hear that bluey?

GJ

kp59583 · Apr 14, 2004, 11:48 AM

This is what Reno said about the FBI.

"Quickly, when I came into office, I learned that the FBI didn't know what it had," Reno said. "We found stuff in files here that the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing."

She told how she urged FBI Director Louis Freeh, who preceded her before the commission Tuesday, to shift more agents into counterterrorism and not wait for more funding. She made sure Ashcroft got some of the memos on that subject.

When commission member Tim Roemer pressed her about FBI failures, Reno responded: "What I lacked confidence in was it the FBI knowing what it had, and when it did, sharing what it had."

Reno admitted that she did not brief Ashcroft about the specific threat of al-Qaida terrorists, and that she rarely met with President Bill Clinton and did not share her concerns with him about the FBI.

Q. Do you recall — and excuse me for pushing you on this — but do you recall mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, domestic cells of terrorists in the United States to the new attorney general?

A. No, I don't.

Q. You don't recall that. Do you recall being briefed on that type of domestic threat by F.B.I. personnel sometime in the 1990's?

A. Cells? What I was briefed on was what the bureau had under way. I don't recall a briefing on cells in the United States.

Q. So all throughout the 1990's, when you had people like Dale Watson or Director Freeh, your contacts with the National Security Council, they never briefed you on Al Qaeda cells or a presence of Al Qaeda in the United States — '98, '99, 2000, sometime in that period?

A. They briefed me on the presence of Al Qaeda in the United States. But in terms of cells and where they were, I don't recall such a briefing.

Q. And therefore, you had no specifics at that point, so you did not brief the new attorney general on something like that?

A. What I thought was important with respect to all terrorism issues, I told him that it was, to me, one of the most important issues. And one of the things that is critically important, I never focused just on Al Qaeda because I stood there and watched the Murrah building in rubble, just as we saw the beginnings of the Oklahoma City bombing on CNN and tended to jump to conclusions. You can't jump to conclusions. You can't say that one thing is going to be our overriding issue.

I also read somewhere that she tried to get the FBI out of the just catching crooks mentallity because at the time only 6 percent of the agents where working on terrorist.

raid517 · Apr 14, 2004, 12:45 PM

Well that's a nice bit of taking things out of context. There are clearly members of the FBI who disagree with her, who claim they asked for extra resources because they were overstretched, but they were refused. Somehow when I hear members of a government denying that they knew anything when they are accused negligence - I get kind of skeptical, you know? I mean might it be possible I wonder (sarcasm) that she might be trying to save her own skin?

Politicians and crooks are very alike - and the one rule they all stick by more than any other, is learn how to get your story straight. It is no surprise that all the members of this government appear to be singing from the same songbook. It's the best chance they have of staying afloat. Often, just like criminals though, one member of the gang will unexpectedly break ranks, so who knows, there could still be some interesting revelations yet. Already several members close to the administration have broken ranks, so it will be interesting to say the least to watch as the situation develops.

GJ

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 14, 2004, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Where did you hear that bluey?

GJ

From the same hearings that you talk about but from an article in a Swedish liberal (meaning rightwing)newspaper named "Dagens nyheter" (most likely nicked from a US paper or maybe also direct from the hearings).

Bluelight

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 14, 2004, 05:12 PM

If one is not supposed to believe the FBI ...what then says i should believe Condoleeza Rice?

Nothing as far as i can see.

The republican government hasnt succeded in what they said they would do ...not even in a republican ideology perspective.

Terrorism as such has become 50 times more frequent during their rule.

Some would say that this is so due to the methods used by the Bush goverment and due to the obvious goals thatincludes total comntrol of the mideast on Us terms.

Now one might like these goals or not (foreign control of Iraq is a necessity as far as im concerned) but it is obviously not working the way Bush does it...so let someone else do it.

Multilaterally.

Bluelight

zerodamage · Apr 14, 2004, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ToshiroOC
My take on the PDB is that it is no smoking gun piece of evidence that shows Bush to be blatantly negligent in his handling of the pre-9/11 anti-terrorism effort. I believe, however, that given the obvious evidence that bin Laden wanted to attack domestically, and other indicators of increased terrorist activity, the 9/11 attacks would have been preventable had Bush, Mueller, and Tenet done their job properly and kept their respective organizations working and communicating.

Come on now. Bush had been in office how long? 9 months. You can NOT fix 8 years of intelligence crippling in 9 months time. How many times did Clinton ignore the attacks on U.S. interests and US Soil? There is NOTHING in that document that says "Air liners will be used to attack the Twin towers." How can you do anything about something that you know nothing about? There are threats against the U.S. every single day by terrorists.

kp59583 · Apr 14, 2004, 05:23 PM

Before 9/11 If the FBI had went after the terrorist like they did for organized crime then I believe that we probably could have stopped it before it happen. But I think the ultimate problem is that the FBI or CIA don't have enough personnel of ARAB desent to help combat terrorist.

raid517 · Apr 14, 2004, 06:09 PM

So let me get this straight, in the eyes of you guys, the Bush administration is exonerated of all blame? The FBI, the CIA, Clinton - and just about everyone else you can name were completely responsible and if it hadn't been for their utter incompetence Bush would have stopped the whole thing single handedly?

What the hell do you think this guy is? A saint? How do you know this even before the investigating committee has reached any firm conclusions?

Might I suggest that it is possible that the blame could at the very least be shared equally among everyone, that perhaps it is possible everyone was a little to blame? Indeed it appears clear your irrational keenness to put Bush above all possible reproach is more of an exercise in your own personal fanaticism and love of George W. than it has to do with any kind of reality.

You forget Clinton wasn't in power when this happened - and 9 months is at least long enough to decide where your priorities lie. There were lots of screw ups from lots of departments and so far this inquiry is showing that Bush made a few screw ups of his own.

I say lets see, lets wait for the final report and see.

I am not so crazy to go saying Bush was all to blame, or Clinton was or whoever - unlike you guys who seem to have an inside track on what happened and a crystal ball on what will happen in the future.

If I were you guys I would watch my words too, because you will all look incredibly silly if the verdict does go against him.

GJ

Guidoo · Apr 14, 2004, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zerodamage
Come on now. Bush had been in office how long? 9 months. You can NOT fix 8 years of intelligence crippling in 9 months time. How many times did Clinton ignore the attacks on U.S. interests and US Soil? There is NOTHING in that document that says "Air liners will be used to attack the Twin towers." How can you do anything about something that you know nothing about? There are threats against the U.S. every single day by terrorists.

Zero....it's more than 8 years of intelligence crippling....more like 30 years. The CIA took a massive prestige and financial hit at the the end of the Vietnam era. It took another major hit during the Reagan administration due to the Iran-Contra issue. I also don't think Clinton (or any other US president) "ignored " attacks on US soil or it's interests. You may question what they did in responce, although I feel we will never know the full story due to how much of the information is classified**. The PDB did make it clear that passenger airplanes were a target for hijacking by terrorists. Would it not have been wise to at least issue orders to step up security at airports ?

** Janet Reno (former US Attorney General) was asked under oath during public testimony whether or not then President Clinton had issued orders for the assasination of Osama Bin Laden. Her answer was such that it led me to believe she wanted to answer the question but felt she couldn't due to the information being classified. It was then agreed by the commision and Reno that it could be part of her testimony in private session. You can draw your own conclusions.

Guido

bird chest · Apr 14, 2004, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Guidoo
Zero....it's more than 8 years of intelligence crippling....more like 30 years. The CIA took a massive prestige and financial hit at the the end of the Vietnam era. It took another major hit during the Reagan administration due to the Iran-Contra issue. I also don't think Clinton (or any other US president) "ignored " attacks on US soil or it's interests. You may question what they did in responce, although I feel we will never know the full story due to how much of the information is classified**. The PDB did make it clear that passenger airplanes were a target for hijacking by terrorists. Would it not have been wise to at least issue orders to step up security at airports ?

** Janet Reno (former US Attorney General) was asked under oath during public testimony whether or not then President Clinton had issued orders for the assasination of Osama Bin Laden. Her answer was such that it led me to believe she wanted to answer the question but felt she couldn't due to the information being classified. It was then agreed by the commision and Reno that it could be part of her testimony in private session. You can draw your own conclusions.

Guido

I think that is where the blame mostly lies, the airports. My friend got a 3 inch knife on a plane before sept. 11th. But could you imagine if the airports had as much security as it does now before sept. 11th? It would not be pretty.

Guidoo · Apr 14, 2004, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bird chest
I think that is where the blame mostly lies, the airports. My friend got a 3 inch knife on a plane before sept. 11th. But could you imagine if the airports had as much security as it does now before sept. 11th? It would not be pretty.

I recall flying overseas 15-20 years ago and being shocked by what I saw. There were machinegun armed guards on duty. People's luggage being searched. I feel that our country as a whole felt we were immune.
Perhaps if some of the measures practiced by other countries had been adopted here earlier the events of 9/11 could have been avoided. I realize that this would have meant longer waits at airports...but is an extra hour spent in line worth a human life...3000 human lives. Each can answer that for themselves.

Guido

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 14, 2004, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zerodamage
Come on now. Bush had been in office how long? 9 months. You can NOT fix 8 years of intelligence crippling in 9 months time. How many times did Clinton ignore the attacks on U.S. interests and US Soil? There is NOTHING in that document that says "Air liners will be used to attack the Twin towers." How can you do anything about something that you know nothing about? There are threats against the U.S. every single day by terrorists.

No but you could expect them not to lie to the public and claimnthey were not informed in any way which is what they have done.

This is what the hearings are about.Nothing else.

Paired with the rest of the lies they have been dealing in this will of course take them out of office.

Bluelight

ToshiroOC · Apr 15, 2004, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zerodamage
Come on now. Bush had been in office how long? 9 months. You can NOT fix 8 years of intelligence crippling in 9 months time. How many times did Clinton ignore the attacks on U.S. interests and US Soil? There is NOTHING in that document that says "Air liners will be used to attack the Twin towers." How can you do anything about something that you know nothing about? There are threats against the U.S. every single day by terrorists.

I named Mueller and Tenet most specifically, because their job extends back into previous years, and by implication their predecessors should have handled the same job back into previous years. Clinton may have culpability for our insufficient intelligence capabilities, as would previous presidents, but that doesn't change the fact that the timeframe in which this particular attack could have been stopped was in Bush's domain, and thus I feel he is responsible in a direct way for not stopping them, though he does share the guilt. I don't give Clinton any breaks over letting our embassies be bombed, but Bush had a pretty minimal response to issues like the Cole, and if he had done an ideal job, he and his advisors would have realized the problems with their intelligence and tried to fix them prior to 9/11, versus letting them slide.

kp59583 · Apr 15, 2004, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ToshiroOC
I named Mueller and Tenet most specifically, because their job extends back into previous years, and by implication their predecessors should have handled the same job back into previous years. Clinton may have culpability for our insufficient intelligence capabilities, as would previous presidents, but that doesn't change the fact that the timeframe in which this particular attack could have been stopped was in Bush's domain, and thus I feel he is responsible in a direct way for not stopping them, though he does share the guilt. I don't give Clinton any breaks over letting our embassies be bombed, but Bush had a pretty minimal response to issues like the Cole, and if he had done an ideal job, he and his advisors would have realized the problems with their intelligence and tried to fix them prior to 9/11, versus letting them slide.

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

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 15, 2004, 12:20 PM

Quote:

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

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

raid517 · Apr 15, 2004, 01:14 PM

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

Apr 11, 2004, 06:47 AM	#1
ToshiroOC Unbiased. Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,812 Rep Power: 0	August 6th, 2001 - PDB document I have every reason to believe these to be authentic. Discuss. __________________ [img][/img] [color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color] Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Apr 11, 2004, 06:51 AM	Thread Starter #2
ToshiroOC Unbiased. Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,812 Rep Power: 0	My take on the PDB is that it is no smoking gun piece of evidence that shows Bush to be blatantly negligent in his handling of the pre-9/11 anti-terrorism effort. I believe, however, that given the obvious evidence that bin Laden wanted to attack domestically, and other indicators of increased terrorist activity, the 9/11 attacks would have been preventable had Bush, Mueller, and Tenet done their job properly and kept their respective organizations working and communicating. __________________ [img][/img] [color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color] Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Apr 11, 2004, 07:36 AM	#3
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	I agree, years before, Pres. Clinton had ample oppurtunity to strike at Bin Laden and failed with the same faulty intelligence that plagued Bush. Intel was bad in 1991 but everyone wanted IRAQ out of Kuwait, Intel was bad in the latest effort, but people wanted Saddam to pay, at least for attempting to send a hit squad after Bush. I saw Rice attempt to come to terms with the political anxiety in Congress, and I am sure the faces of those who support her two years ago now shift their focus to what can shift the focus away from their hyporcracy, but then that is politics. I wont rationalize it, all the presidents and their staff have their skeletons to hide for sure. But Bush is a Texan, a republican, and a leader. Those that have gone to war before him suffered criticism in their time. Imagine what Roosevelt would have done if confronted with the truth of Pearl Harbor...food for thought. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Apr 11, 2004, 08:53 AM	#4
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	No but this is evidence that the lizards lied when they gave the Us public the impression they knew nothing about any warnings. That is serious enough. It is obvious that there was a gap between the Clinton admin and the Bush admin and this gap is easiest described by the fact that Bush had to rewrite....everything from the Clinton period...not by necessity but because it was of Clinton origin. This was the case with these things to..so they ignored the info they got from Clintons admins and dug out their own strategy...which took time.During that time the action was at full throttle. That is what this is about. Finally....After the events...they claimed ..they knew nothing. Which of course is a lie. Finally..there was according to what i read now an order within the Us admin under Clinton to kill Ladin. So leave the ..Bill didnt this or Bill didnt that...out of it. Finally one of the main points in Clarkes book as i understand it is that the Bush governments strategy in Iraq has created more terrorism than it has gotten rid of.Instead of finishing Afghanistan first they went ahead i top something they could not control they way they do it.(it is obvious they cant isnt it?) Currently nobody can deny that. What the future will be like when it comes to this is currently a black hole. Bluelight Last edited by bluelight; Apr 11, 2004 at 08:58 AM.

Apr 13, 2004, 05:02 PM	#7
kp59583 DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 121 Rep Power: 0	Israel has the best anti-terrorist people in the world and they can't stop the suicide bombers. I don't care what type of plans you have in place theres always going to a hole somewhere that terrorist can exploit. We get hints all the time about potential terrorist attacks that don't happen. They probably had intel saying something was going to happen but how were they going to prevent it from happening without actual times/dates or even the personel involved. What happen in 9/11 was unpresidented in the Western world and nobody new it would happen. Anyone that reads that memo and gets that there will be an immidiate attack needs to join the psychic hotline. __________________ 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 11, 2004, 11:58 AM	#6
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Interesting how Jeff's perception (and possibly others?) of this whole event in changing. First it was about WMDs, then it was about removing terrorism (again no link established) then it was about 'liberating the Iraqis' (which is unfortunate since the Iraqis don't seem keen on the idea of being liberated by the US) then it was because Saddam was 'bad for business', then it was because, Saddam plotted against George W.'s dad. So it's OK and morally acceptable now for presidents to indulge in profiteering and to use the American army in order to settle personal scores? That you believe is a correct and decent way for a president to behave? That is an interesting way to look at things Jeff. Now it's OK for presidents to act as emperors and use the American army to help them get rich (or in this case his friends - who in return are massively boosting his election fund) and to allow young American service men to die in his name, just so he can settle a score? What I wonder kind of democracy do you think that is? Anyway, the evidence is certainly stacking up against Bush and he is becoming more and more isolated every day. Hopefully it won't be too much longer before this unfortunate episode in American history is over - and America can regain the respect and trust in the world that it deserves. Best regards, GJ

Apr 13, 2004, 05:13 PM	#8
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Well that's not what was being said. What's being said is that there were lot's of signs something was happening and that the Bush administration took their eye off the ball (and resources away from the investigation) to fight a what was essentially a prospecting war in Iraq. Is this true? I don't know. I think there might be some truth in it. But I doubt anybody is saying they deliberately ignored the risks - only that they underestimated them. And that - given the events that subsequently transpired - has already been proved. After all, its kind of a given that those buildings didn't fall down by accident. GJ

Apr 13, 2004, 06:23 PM	#9
bird chest DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 454 Rep Power: 0	so by your logic anywhere there are terrorist attacks against the US on a small scale there should be a big one? I do not see the logic. On top of that they had no idea where when how. Bush was in office for 9 months if even that when this attack occured and he gets the blame. All those other things happened during Clintons rain the guy who stop funding MI. To blame it on Bush is rediculous. All of you who think Bush knew about it or just flat out was irresponsible and did not prepare for it please provide me with solutions to how he could have stopped it or any other way to prevent it.

Apr 13, 2004, 06:54 PM	#10
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	It isn't my logic. That is what the debate's about. And anyway that's not what I said. I don't know what this crap about little terrorist and big terrorist attacks is - all I do know is that there is possibly a valid accusation that people weren't paying sufficient enough attention to what was going on. Who that was and who was responsible I don't know - and what's more despite your somewhat tedious protests, neither do you. Maybe there was collective blame, maybe Clinton, even though he was no longer around was to blame (although it might seem like a bit of a neat trick) but that still doesn't excuse Bush passing the buck off to someone else for the time when he was in office and when he should have been doing something. Let's just see, that's all I'm saying. The present investigations might give a clearer picture. It is too early to make assumptions. How you guys can declare him innocent before any real conclusions have been reached really is a matter of psychic insight. Maybe he will be found guilty, maybe he will be found innocent. But really if and when the committee does begin to apportion blame, it is only reasonable if Bush steps up and takes his share. The only benefit to me out of it one way or another is that I won't have to listen to you guys shouting and jerking off over how much you love George W. Bush anymore. We have politicians in this country - just as there are politicians in the rest of the world - and on the whole we treat them with the all of the mistrust and suspicion that they richly deserve. It doesn't matter what end of the political spectrum they come from, politicians are all genuine lowlife. I don't think there is many other places where people are quite so fanatical about their leaders, as you guys in America appear to be about yours. The day you begin believing every word a politician says is the day that freedom dies. GJ Last edited by raid517; Apr 13, 2004 at 07:02 PM.

Apr 13, 2004, 10:47 PM	#13
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	Hmmm...Looks like the FBI are paid by Kerry doesnt it? Bluelight

Apr 13, 2004, 11:15 PM	#14
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	I also read now that Pickard claims that Ashcroft after having been informed about the terror threats told Pickard not to mention the issue again. Im sure Pickard is on the Heinz payroll. French fries anyone? Bluelight

Apr 13, 2004, 11:39 PM	#15
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Where did you hear that bluey? GJ

Apr 14, 2004, 11:48 AM	#16
kp59583 DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 121 Rep Power: 0	This is what Reno said about the FBI. "Quickly, when I came into office, I learned that the FBI didn't know what it had," Reno said. "We found stuff in files here that the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing." She told how she urged FBI Director Louis Freeh, who preceded her before the commission Tuesday, to shift more agents into counterterrorism and not wait for more funding. She made sure Ashcroft got some of the memos on that subject. When commission member Tim Roemer pressed her about FBI failures, Reno responded: "What I lacked confidence in was it the FBI knowing what it had, and when it did, sharing what it had." Reno admitted that she did not brief Ashcroft about the specific threat of al-Qaida terrorists, and that she rarely met with President Bill Clinton and did not share her concerns with him about the FBI. Q. Do you recall — and excuse me for pushing you on this — but do you recall mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, domestic cells of terrorists in the United States to the new attorney general? A. No, I don't. Q. You don't recall that. Do you recall being briefed on that type of domestic threat by F.B.I. personnel sometime in the 1990's? A. Cells? What I was briefed on was what the bureau had under way. I don't recall a briefing on cells in the United States. Q. So all throughout the 1990's, when you had people like Dale Watson or Director Freeh, your contacts with the National Security Council, they never briefed you on Al Qaeda cells or a presence of Al Qaeda in the United States — '98, '99, 2000, sometime in that period? A. They briefed me on the presence of Al Qaeda in the United States. But in terms of cells and where they were, I don't recall such a briefing. Q. And therefore, you had no specifics at that point, so you did not brief the new attorney general on something like that? A. What I thought was important with respect to all terrorism issues, I told him that it was, to me, one of the most important issues. And one of the things that is critically important, I never focused just on Al Qaeda because I stood there and watched the Murrah building in rubble, just as we saw the beginnings of the Oklahoma City bombing on CNN and tended to jump to conclusions. You can't jump to conclusions. You can't say that one thing is going to be our overriding issue. I also read somewhere that she tried to get the FBI out of the just catching crooks mentallity because at the time only 6 percent of the agents where working on terrorist. __________________ 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 14, 2004, 12:45 PM	#17
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Well that's a nice bit of taking things out of context. There are clearly members of the FBI who disagree with her, who claim they asked for extra resources because they were overstretched, but they were refused. Somehow when I hear members of a government denying that they knew anything when they are accused negligence - I get kind of skeptical, you know? I mean might it be possible I wonder (sarcasm) that she might be trying to save her own skin? Politicians and crooks are very alike - and the one rule they all stick by more than any other, is learn how to get your story straight. It is no surprise that all the members of this government appear to be singing from the same songbook. It's the best chance they have of staying afloat. Often, just like criminals though, one member of the gang will unexpectedly break ranks, so who knows, there could still be some interesting revelations yet. Already several members close to the administration have broken ranks, so it will be interesting to say the least to watch as the situation develops. GJ

Apr 14, 2004, 05:12 PM	#19
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	If one is not supposed to believe the FBI ...what then says i should believe Condoleeza Rice? Nothing as far as i can see. The republican government hasnt succeded in what they said they would do ...not even in a republican ideology perspective. Terrorism as such has become 50 times more frequent during their rule. Some would say that this is so due to the methods used by the Bush goverment and due to the obvious goals thatincludes total comntrol of the mideast on Us terms. Now one might like these goals or not (foreign control of Iraq is a necessity as far as im concerned) but it is obviously not working the way Bush does it...so let someone else do it. Multilaterally. Bluelight

Apr 14, 2004, 05:23 PM	#21
kp59583 DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 121 Rep Power: 0	Before 9/11 If the FBI had went after the terrorist like they did for organized crime then I believe that we probably could have stopped it before it happen. But I think the ultimate problem is that the FBI or CIA don't have enough personnel of ARAB desent to help combat terrorist. __________________ 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 14, 2004, 06:09 PM	#22
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	So let me get this straight, in the eyes of you guys, the Bush administration is exonerated of all blame? The FBI, the CIA, Clinton - and just about everyone else you can name were completely responsible and if it hadn't been for their utter incompetence Bush would have stopped the whole thing single handedly? What the hell do you think this guy is? A saint? How do you know this even before the investigating committee has reached any firm conclusions? Might I suggest that it is possible that the blame could at the very least be shared equally among everyone, that perhaps it is possible everyone was a little to blame? Indeed it appears clear your irrational keenness to put Bush above all possible reproach is more of an exercise in your own personal fanaticism and love of George W. than it has to do with any kind of reality. You forget Clinton wasn't in power when this happened - and 9 months is at least long enough to decide where your priorities lie. There were lots of screw ups from lots of departments and so far this inquiry is showing that Bush made a few screw ups of his own. I say lets see, lets wait for the final report and see. I am not so crazy to go saying Bush was all to blame, or Clinton was or whoever - unlike you guys who seem to have an inside track on what happened and a crystal ball on what will happen in the future. If I were you guys I would watch my words too, because you will all look incredibly silly if the verdict does go against him. GJ Last edited by raid517; Apr 14, 2004 at 07:38 PM.

Apr 15, 2004, 01:14 PM	#30
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	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