Author Topic: i don't know  (Read 872 times)

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
i don't know
« Reply #15 on: June 07, 2002, 11:06:06 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Udie




 Alright!!!! Tahgut is a Republican now!!!! :eek: :eek:  :D


Not if he's agreeing with me he's not lol.

-Sikboy
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
i don't know
« Reply #16 on: June 07, 2002, 11:13:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Udie




 Alright!!!! Tahgut is a Republican now!!!! :eek: :eek:  :D


Bite your redneck, right wing, gun toting, reactionary tongue!!!!!!!!
:p

Offline weazel

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1471
You right, I shouldn't insult chimpanzees...
« Reply #17 on: June 07, 2002, 11:47:26 AM »
By comparing them with scum like Bush.

George Bush received specific warnings from the CIA, Egyptian, Jordanian, and French intelligence services in the weeks before 11 September that an attack inside the United States was being planned by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network.

In a top-secret intelligence memo headlined 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the US', the President was told on 6 August that the Saudi-born terrorist hoped to 'bring the fight to America' in retaliation for missile strikes on al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998.

Bush and his aides, failed to act on a series of warnings, and stated "intelligence experts had not advised them domestic targets were considered at risk". However, they have admitted they were specifically told that hijacks were being planned.

The administration simply was not focused on terrorism until it was too late. There was a blizzard of warnings leading up to Sept. 11 that were ignored. It's a poor excuse for Rice to complain that the CIA warning was "thin." Real-time coordination of intelligence information on such a high-level problem is the responsibility of the national security advisor.

If Rice felt the dire CIA warning in August was incomplete, she should have demanded that the FBI and other intelligence agencies immediately brief her and the president on their full knowledge of the situation. Nor did the administration inform the country of this lapse in security until it leaked to the media eight months later.

Administration spokesmen have continuously misled the public from the first days after the Sept. 11 tragedy with the claim that the president had no advance warning.

We do not yet know the full extent of those warnings, and Vice President Dick Cheney is once again circling the wagons of executive privilege around the essential data.

The vice president insists that it would jeopardize national security for Congress to have access to the August CIA briefing.

This follows the dangerous pattern this administration has consistently pursued of denying the public and its elected representatives potentially embarrassing information, such as notes from meetings with Enron officials before that company's spectacular implosion.

We already know enough about the intelligence failures before that grim September morning to raise strong suspicions that executive privilege is now being invoked to conceal enormous incompetence on the part of the executive branch.

It is painful, in light of the thousands of people slain in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, as well as later in Afghanistan in retaliation, to look back at how our security was so threatened.

But as horrifying as the facts may turn out to be, we as a nation have long believed that it is the truth — full, complex and unsanitized — that shall make us free. We should continue to act accordingly.

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, May 15

The White House said tonight that President Bush had been warned by American intelligence agencies in early August that Osama bin Laden was seeking to hijack aircraft but that the warnings did not contemplate the possibility that the hijackers would turn the planes into guided missiles for a terrorist attack.

"It is widely known that we had information that bin Laden wanted to attack the United States or United States interests abroad," Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, said this evening. "The president was also provided information about bin Laden wanting to engage in hijacking in the traditional pre-9/11 sense, not for the use of suicide bombing, not for the use of an airplane as a missile."

Nonetheless the revelation by the White House, made in response to a report about the intelligence warning this evening on CBS News, is bound to fuel Congressional demands for a deeper investigation into why American intelligence agencies and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had failed to put together individual pieces of evidence that, in retrospect, now seem to suggest what was coming.

In the past few days, government officials have acknowledged for the first time that an F.B.I. agent in Phoenix had urged the F.B.I. headquarters to investigate Middle Eastern men enrolled in American flight schools. That memorandum also cited Mr. bin Laden by name and suggested that his followers could use the schools to train for terror operations, officials who have seen the memorandum said.

Administration officials reached this evening said the warning given to Mr. Bush did not come from the F.B.I. or from the information developed by the Phoenix agent. Instead, it was provided as part of the C.I.A. briefing he is given each morning, suggesting that it was probably based on evidence gathered abroad.

The C.I.A. had been listening intently over the July 4 holiday last year, after what one investigator called "a lot of static in the system suggesting something was coming." But then the evidence disappeared as quickly as it had arisen, and by August, officials have said, little was heard from Al Qaeda.

The warning of the hijacking was given to the president at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., where he was on vacation.

Taken together, the news of the C.I.A. warning and the information developed separately by the F.B.I. explains Mr. Bush's anger after Sept. 11 that intelligence gathered on American soil and abroad was not being centrally analyzed and that the agencies were not working well together.

Several times he has told audiences that he is working on solving that problem, and these days he is briefed jointly by the F.B.I and the C.I.A., ensuring that each hears information from the other agency.

It was not clear this evening why the White House waited eight months after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington to reveal what Mr. Bush had been told.

But Mr. Fleischer noted that in the daily flow of intelligence information the president receives, the warning of what appeared to be the threat of a conventional hijacking was not as serious as it appears in retrospect. "We were a peacetime society, and the F.B.I. had a different mission," he said.

Mr. Fleischer said the information given to the president in Texas had prompted the administration to put law enforcement agencies on alert. But there was no public announcement.

Nonetheless, a senior administration official said tonight that there was speculation within the government that heightened security — if it truly existed in August and September — might have prompted the hijackers to use box cutters and plastic knives to avoid detection.

The C.I.A. warning might also explain why Mr. Bush's aides were so certain that Mr. bin Laden was behind the attacks almost as soon as they happened. "We never had any real doubt," one senior official involved in the crucial decisions at the White House on Sept. 11 said several months ago.

Until recently, Mr. Bush has deflected demands for a lengthy and detailed investigation into the intelligence failures surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks. White House officials were concerned that the investigation would feed into demands by Senator Richard C. Shelby, the Alabama Republican who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, for the replacement of George J. Tenet as director of central intelligence.

But the news that the hijacking warning was in the president's brief, which Mr. Tenet sees and approves, and that it was linked to Mr. bin Laden is almost certain to widen the scope of the investigation.

Already, several lawmakers who have read the Phoenix memorandum written by the F.B.I. agent have described it as the most significant document to emerge in Congressional inquiries into whether the government might have been warned about possible hijackings.

Now those investigators are almost certain to demand the details of the president's August briefing by the C.I.A. and may ask to hear about how that evidence was developed.

Trumans policy was "The buck stops here".

 Bushs policy is ":The buck passes through here"

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
Re: You right, I shouldn't insult chimpanzees...
« Reply #18 on: June 07, 2002, 11:52:40 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by weazel

Trumans policy was "The buck stops here".

 Bushs policy is ":The buck passes through here"


Weazel, your country needs you and your keen analytical mind.

-Sikboy
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18803
i don't know
« Reply #19 on: June 07, 2002, 12:34:45 PM »
ahhhh yeah,


the ONLY intelligence reports for the first 8 months of Bushs admin dealt solely with 9/11

How in the hell could he have screwed it up !!!

I guess he wanted his buddies to benefit financially by the deaths in the Pentagon and WTC


:rolleyes:

maybe weaz is just a fisherman trying to hook a few RNC bass, he'd make more sense then  :)
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline Udie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3395
i don't know
« Reply #20 on: June 07, 2002, 01:15:52 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Eagler
maybe weaz is just a fisherman trying to hook a few RNC bass, he'd make more sense then  :)




 Well he has reminded me of the type of mentality Bush faces daily.  Bush has to have some responsibility for 9/11 he's in charge.  But he was left with a nutered (sp?)  CIA and as much as some would have us believe there was no way that Bush or anybody could fix what Clinton did to our intelligence gathering capabilities over 8 long years.  I fully expect the democrats to eventually try and pin this CIA/FBI failure on Bush.  When they the congress, have oversight on ALL OF IT.  That blame goes more to the Republicans I'm sad to say than it does the democrats.  Reps were in power for 6 of that 8 years.  Then again, there's plenty of blame to go around to every one but that doesn't even begin to solve our problem.

 I bet they get warnings of this nature everyday.  Had they arrested Atta or one or two of the others does anybody think that would have stopped it from happening?  We saw OBL himself laughing at the fact that most of the hijackers didn't know what they were going to do until that morning just before they boarded the planes.  How could anybody have stopped it short of killing the airline industry?

 Meanwhile our enemy thinks with one mind and knows it's simple objective, to kill us.  While we sit hear eating ourselves inside out............


 I bet we lose a major city someday.   NY?  LA? Houston? Chicago?  More than one at one time? :(

Offline weazel

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1471
You can't blame Clinton for this Udie.....sorry.
« Reply #21 on: June 07, 2002, 01:32:16 PM »
Colin Powell may be Secretary of State, but at least a half dozen top CIA operatives from the Reagan-Bush and Bush I administrations hold key State Department posts for Central Asia in the current Bush administration.

Bush's team in the State Department are the very same individuals who indoctrinated Osama bin Laden under the administration of his father.

The Line-up at the State Department

Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State and point man on South Asia.

Armitage had a long CIA career: He had four tours of duty in covert operations in Vietnam. He was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security in the Reagan-Bush administration. As an advisor on the Afghan war, he organized the covert flow of weapons to the Afghan guerrillas—the mujaheddin—and the militant Islamic base during the 1980s.

Then, with Oliver North, he was involved in Iran-Contra arms smuggling. His nomination for a position in the Bush 1 administration was withdrawn before the hearings because of his role in Iran-Contra.

Osama bin Laden was an Armitage protégé.

Christina Rocco, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia.

As such, she handles U.S. foreign policy with Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

A CIA career officer since 1982, Rocco is a former CIA Directorate of Operations official. The directorate deals with clandestine operations including assassinations. After the Afghan-Soviet war, Rocco was responsible for buying back U.S. supplied anti-aircraft Stinger missiles that were given to the Afghan Mujaheddin through the Pakistani ISI.

Wendy Chamberlain, Ambassador to Pakistan.

A former CIA operative, Chamberlain was Ambassador to Laos. Critics have condemned her human rights record there.

Robert D. Blackwell, ambassador to New Delhi, India.

An intelligence veteran, he was an assistant in the National Security Agency from 1989–90 in the Bush I administration.

Bush's current State Department officials were CIA experts who funded and trained bin Laden under the Reagan-and Bush administrations.

The CIA has determined the power structure in Afghanistan since 1979 by funding and supporting the chosen regime via the ISI. Saudi Arabia has been the U.S. companion in this operation. The Reagan and Bush administrations funneled more than $3 billion to the Mujaheddin to fight the Soviets. Bin Laden emerged from these factions along the mountainous camps in Afghanistan. In 1994, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia buoyed by the U.S. supported the Taliban because they would protect the U.S.-led pipeline slated to go through Afghanistan to Pakistan.

I suggest you do some research on daddy Bush and the CIA for the complete picture.

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18803
i don't know
« Reply #22 on: June 07, 2002, 01:44:21 PM »
weaz
I can and do blame clinton for this as I blame him for the economic slump this nation is in today. He raped intel and the military while allowing the markets to pump hot air up everyone's arse. Zero control and leadership in both instances.

Are you going hold an admin who had been in power 8 months when the bottom dropped out or the admin who had 8 years to set in place the events which caused the bottom to drop out?

Following your line of thinking, if Clinton was in power on 9/11 - it wouldn't of happened??? How bout mini clinton, gore?? 9/11 would never have happened and the DJ would be 15000+

 :rolleyes:
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline Udie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3395
Re: You can't blame Clinton for this Udie.....sorry.
« Reply #23 on: June 07, 2002, 02:47:58 PM »
BS we can't blame Clinton.  Just who was in office in '93 the first time the WTC was bombed?  Who was in office when OBL declared war on the USA 5 or 6 years ago?   Why was OBL still alive and free on 9/11?  Why didn't Clinton take him when offered on a silver platter?

Offline weazel

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1471
<Strikes match....lights Eaglers straw man>
« Reply #24 on: June 07, 2002, 03:02:09 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Eagler
weaz
I can and do blame clinton for this as I blame him for the economic slump this nation is in today. He raped intel and the military while allowing the markets to pump hot air up everyone's arse. Zero control and leadership in both instances.

Are you going hold an admin who had been in power 8 months when the bottom dropped out or the admin who had 8 years to set in place the events which caused the bottom to drop out?

Following your line of thinking, if Clinton was in power on 9/11 - it wouldn't of happened??? How bout mini clinton, gore?? 9/11 would never have happened and the DJ would be 15000+

 :rolleyes:


Take off your rose colored glasses.....

We all know who was president on 9/11, and my post above CLEARLY shows that his cabinet is filled with seasoned CIA personnel, and the republican administrations they served under.

9/11 may...or may not have happened if bubba was still in office, but GWB's ham handed *diplomacy* in regards to the Taliban sure didn't help the situation did it?

Some things you can blame on Clinton, this isn't one of them, while your loyalty towards Bush is admirable you shouldn't allow it to color the truth....that GWB is not only a liar, he is not concerned with the best interests of US citizens or the country, and considering his posistion thats a damned shame, a disgrace to our country.....and the office he holds.


Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18803
your opinion weazel <S>
« Reply #26 on: June 07, 2002, 03:18:47 PM »
now can we go back to posting funny pictures :)
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
i don't know
« Reply #27 on: June 07, 2002, 03:27:45 PM »
The majority of the posts in this thread just go to prove my point ,that there is no unity as there is way too much playing democrats vs republicans going on.

I saw the info being regarded as a "warning" or a "sign" that there could / would be a terrorist attack "sometime, somewhere by some terrorists assumed to be from the MidEast". Now exactly what should have been done about it??? If you shut down all the airports in hopes of denying the enemy a chance to strike, you just gave them the victory. They would have been able to impact the country and make a damaging attack without even having to fire a shot. The closure of the airsystem for the brief time it was shut down indicated the severity of that type of response. The real kicker is, once the air traffic starts to flow again, all they have to do is reschedule the attack and carry it out. Sum result of this action? A delay in the attack, not prevention AND a major disruption of the country to boot beforehand. This just gives a greater  incentive to continue. After all, a mere threat is as good as an actual attack.

Closing the borders is a real hoot. With what has already gone on there are unending attacks regarding "profiling" and eroding the rights of immigrants, legal or otherwise. How are you going to do this? After all you can't expect to accomplish anything by stopping Anglos on the border with Mexico, look for Hispanics on the border with Canada, watch for Arabic folks on the California coast or North Koreans on the Atlantic Coasts. There is no realationship or probablility of stopping a terrorist by looking for something other than the majority of the background they come from. Last I heard there wasn't a single Hispanic, Chinese, North Korean, Japanese, Canadian, French, or Spanish terrorist involved in the 9/11 hijackings. They were all MidEastern "men" and let into the country legally.

Lastly in regards to the attacks. None of you "expert monday morning quarterbacks" had any inkling that the planes were going to be used as the weapon itself. Had any "warning" gone out the attack would still have succeeded. It may have even bee delayed, but it still would have happened. It wasn't until AFTER the first planes went into the buildings that ANYONE decided to fight the terrorists on board. Why?? Becuase the policy of the airlines, pilots and security experts in the field knew that the best way to allow the hostages to survive a hijacking was to COOPERATE with the hijackers. Now that the terrorists have changed the way in which they play their cowardly games that door might have finally been closed. No one boarding a plane has to expect to merely cooperate with these slimey animals any more.

« Last Edit: June 07, 2002, 03:33:33 PM by Maverick »
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline weazel

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Re: You can't blame Clinton for this Udie.....sorry.
« Reply #28 on: June 07, 2002, 03:28:46 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Udie
BS we can't blame Clinton.  Just who was in office in '93 the first time the WTC was bombed?  Who was in office when OBL declared war on the USA 5 or 6 years ago?   Why was OBL still alive and free on 9/11?  Why didn't Clinton take him when offered on a silver platter?


So..... by your reasoning Clinton was supposed to break out his international "pooper scooper" and clean up the *accident* Reagan and Bush Sr made with Afghanistan and OBL?

Without a 9/11 style atrocity would America have supported commiting combat troops to Afghanistan...or any other country to hunt bin Laden down?  

 I think *not*.

After 9 months of the most intensive manhunt in US history calling on EVERY asset our country has...we STILL haven't caught OBL, do you really think bubba had a real chance to get him with the limited power he could marshall for the "hunt for OBL"?

Clintons National Security Advisor was *obsessed* with getting OBL...and breifed Condoleza Rice about OBL....to bad the current administration didn't heed his warnings ehh?

I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the last THREE republican presidents with the current one being the most culpable, he had warning and didn't take action...of any kind.

Due to his incompetence, the burden and responsibility for the deaths of 3000 Americans lies at his feet, and will be the historical legacy his administration is remembered for.

Offline Apache

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1419
i don't know
« Reply #29 on: June 07, 2002, 03:37:39 PM »
Bin laden himself said that some of the hijackers didn't know what the mission was until they boarded the plane, yet Bush was supposed to know it and stop it. Yeah right.

Weazel, rock on. Keep voiceing your opinion. Personally, I think you're full of toejam but I'll defend your right to say it.