Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on May 16, 2002, 07:40:21 AM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/16/politics/16INQU.html?ex=1022126400&en=39284647d5a85528&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
Granted, it was "The threat of knowing Bin Laden wanted to hijack in the traditional sense, not knowing that suicide extremists would take part in the sneak attack..."
Do you think he's to blame or partially to blame for 9/11?
-
I'm probably biased due to my Intel insterest and Experience, but I'd say no.
-Sikboy
-
heh I was watching CNN this morning and just luaghed at Paula Zahn. She was typical of the left. She was interviewing Sen. Shelby and talking about intelligence matters when she says "to be fair to the administration, they were not told that the planes would be used as missles, but does that make this any less inditing?"
Gotta love that soft spin.... :rolleyes: I can't wait to hear what Dashle has to say :rolleyes:
-
He's no more to blame than Roosevelt was for Pearl Harbor.
-
Originally posted by hblair
He's no more to blame than Roosevelt was for Pearl Harbor.
....as the can of worms is not only opened, but droped on the floor
-
I don't think they are to blame. But I do think we should have a thorough and honest critical analysis of what went on preceding 9/11 to figure out if we could better protect ourselves in the future. Glad to hear it sounds like we are doing that.
As mentioned in that article, you had the FBI and CIA both seperately developing intelligence that taken together might have raised more of a red flag in terms of a likely attack. Neither knew what the other was doing, and so the information was never collated and presented as a whole to the President. It would seem like right there we have room for improvement.
-
Originally posted by Lance
As mentioned in that article, you had the FBI and CIA both seperately developing intelligence that taken together might have raised more of a red flag in terms of a likely attack. Neither knew what the other was doing, and so the information was never collated and presented as a whole to the President. It would seem like right there we have room for improvement.
Agree 100%
-
If you think about it, he knew about as much as we knew.......... some dumb bellybutton terrorist is gonna hijack a plane....... that's little more than common sense. I know it's gonna happen, but I don't know when or where or what plane, or what they will do with it....... That's just the crazy world we live in.
-
OBL says to one of his friends "we are going to hijack an american plane".
CIA learns about that - no time, no specific target, no idea how credible it is. What can Bush do? Ground all american planes until further notice? That would immediately cost us an intelligence source for no apparent gain - as OBL will see that an info he told one "friend" is immediately available to us. Bush cannot even defend himself by revealing exactly what and how he knew because while that info might not have been helpfull in preventing the attack, it would definitely blow our intelligence networks that provided it.
Even if such an action really prevented a hijacking (99.99% of threat warnings are not valid), the public would not know that and would not tolerate such shutdown.
How about bombing OBL and Afghanistan on such warning? Millions of americans and most people abroad opposed such actions even after 9/11. What would have been a chance of getting the measure approved (including by US Congress) before 9/11?
Let's be consistent guys. We know that there are massive terrorist organisations out there planning our downfall. We may not be able to deflect all their attacks. Why not ground all our planes preventively right now until we deal with them?
How about just using less oil? Any takers?
miko
-
Originally posted by Lance
...in that article, you had the FBI and CIA both seperately developing intelligence that taken together might have raised more of a red flag in terms of a likely attack. Neither knew what the other was doing, and so the information was never collated and presented as a whole to the President. It would seem like right there we have room for improvement.
There is a good reason for not collating work of two intelligence agencies or departments of the egencies. Once you do that they become one and a single point of failure develops. Penetrate the collating center and both are compromised without any way to fix it.
The whole point of duplication and loss of efficiency is to allow different entities control each other.
miko
-
What year did OBL declare "war" on america? We've known since then. We had our collective eyes closed to that until the 9/11 wake up call.
-
If this would've happened when Clinton was President, you guys would've been all besides yourself with rightous indignation about how he was asleep at the wheel, and that it was another example of the Liberals taking the country down the tubes.
Yet, when this happens with Bush in the White House, you just wave it away with an "oh well, what can you do?"
As C3PO says, "How typical".
-
Originally posted by banana
If this would've happened when Clinton was President, you guys would've been all besides yourself with rightous indignation about how he was asleep at the wheel, and that it was another example of the Liberals taking the country down the tubes.
Yet, when this happens with Bush in the White House, you just wave it away with an "oh well, what can you do?"
As C3PO says, "How typical".
No, we'd be saying "how he was asleep at the wheel getting blowjobs in the Whitehouse"...big difference between doing your job, and getting blowjobs in the Oral office.
-
Originally posted by banana
If this would've happened when Clinton was President, you guys would've been all besides yourself with rightous indignation about how he was asleep at the wheel, and that it was another example of the Liberals taking the country down the tubes.
Yet, when this happens with Bush in the White House, you just wave it away with an "oh well, what can you do?"
As C3PO says, "How typical".
You sure are painting with a wide brush there banana.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
No, we'd be saying "how he was asleep at the wheel getting blowjobs in the Whitehouse"...big difference between doing your job, and getting blowjobs in the Oral office.
If GW had gotten a hummer in the "Oral Office" maybe it would have cleared his mind a little. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Udie
What year did OBL declare "war" on america
Roughly 1992, when our troops were not removed from SA after the Gulf War...seems the Clinton admin. was asleep at the wheel (sorry banana! :p )
-
That's a very tired and worn out Republiclown response, Rip. Let me re-phrase my statement then. If it were Gore in the white house on Sept. 11, and you found out this morning that he was given ample warning of some sort of attack, what do you think the response would be on this board by all the local yokels?
Clinton is a non-issue, since he had already completed his 2nd term in office.
-
You sure are painting with a wide brush there banana.
Perhaps, but if the shoes fits....I can't remember the last time any of you conservatives ever admitting that Bush was not less than perfect. While on the contrary, many of us moderates were openly criticizing Clinton for his sexual hi-jinks while in the white house.
When are you guys going to take the blinders off and realize that Bush is human, and could have possibly missed a key warning from the FBI?
-
Originally posted by banana
Perhaps, but if the shoes fits....I can't remember the last time any of you conservatives ever admitting that Bush was not less than perfect.
I've stated many times that I held my nose going to the polls, but I must admit, his performance thus far is almost flawless...almost..I didn't expect this performance from him and what he has done so far...Now, I am far from a Party supporter for Bush, I supported Reagan more than I do Bush. But I'm sort of weird...I voted for a Democratic senator from this state (though I'm already regretting that decision now.)
-
Originally posted by banana
If this would've happened when Clinton was President, you guys would've been all besides yourself with rightous indignation about how he was asleep at the wheel, and that it was another example of the Liberals taking the country down the tubes.
Yet, when this happens with Bush in the White House, you just wave it away with an "oh well, what can you do?"
As C3PO says, "How typical".
Good point, and you're probably right. I am conservative but I try not to have double standards. The game of national politics is so gay it makes me sick. Elected officials conduct investigations with the sole intention of ruining the other party.
-
Originally posted by banana
Perhaps, but if the shoes fits.I can't remember the last time any of you conservatives ever admitting that Bush was not less than perfect. While on the contrary, many of us moderates were openly criticizing Clinton for his sexual hi-jinks while in the white house.
When are you guys going to take the blinders off and realize that Bush is human, and could have possibly missed a key warning from the FBI?
Lol, that's my point. The shoe doesn't fit, because it's not only "You conservatives" that posted in this thread. You want to have a fence humping contest? I bet I get more splinters.
You seem to hate partisan politics, but no-one mentioned any partisanism until you came in. As I implied in my first post, my opinion was formed by interest and experience in Intel. Not someone's idea of what makes a good president.
-Sikboy
-
Let's see, when was the first bombing of the WTC? 1993? Didn't Clinton send a few missiles in the direction of OBL and just miss? I wonder why Clinton stopped chasing OBL during this time period? Was it due to lack of inteligence, or lack of leadership? Maybe someone we know was just practicing politicing and not governing?
-
banana,
You are quite wrong. Threre are plenty of republicans willing to evaluate president objectively or at least not on thebasis of his party. The fact that consierable proportion of population changes their mind - so that a different party get presidency or congress/senate magority may differ from presidency proves that.
New York City is one of the most democratic areas in the country and we have a second republican mayor.
NY State always votes democrat for presindency but our Governor is republican.
Plenty of republicans on this board supported Clinton and even suggested that Gore would probably have done as good job if elected. Many admit that Clinton was a very capable politician and think nothing of his sexual escapades - most capable people in histoty were sexually overactive.
His lying under oath was a crime and it bothered many democrats as well as republicans.
I am not even talking about people who support republicans for their economic policies while abhorring their religion-linked social policies.
You with your groundless accusation that party affiliation determines personlaity proves only one thing to me - that you do not believe in obgectivity of others because you cannot be objective yourself.
miko
-
Hummmm... how much did Bill slash the intel community?
xBAT
-
But I'm sort of weird...I voted for a Democratic senator from this state (though I'm already regretting that decision now.)
Well at least you don't have a wrestler as a Governor! ;)
-
Originally posted by banana
Well at least you don't have a wrestler as a Governor! ;)
So, did Jesse get voted in for another term or is he still doing his first? Didn't you guys get a State tax rebate while he was in office?
-
Flashback: July 26th ,2001
(CBS)July 26th ,2001
Fishing rod in hand, Attorney
General John Ashcroft left on a weekend
trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard
a chartered government jet, reports CBS
News Correspondent Jim Stewart.
In response to inquiries from CBS News
over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively
by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial
airlines, the Justice Department cited what
it called a ?threat assessment? by the FBI,
and said Ashcroft has been advised to
travel only by private jet for the remainder of
his term.
?There was a threat assessment and there
are guidelines. He is acting under the
guidelines,? an FBI spokesman said.
Neither the FBI nor the Justice
Department, however, would identify what
the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.
A senior official at the CIA said he was unaware of specific threats against
any Cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself, in a speech in California,
seemed unsure of the nature of the threat.
?I don't do threat assessments myself and I rely on those whose
responsibility it is in the law enforcement community, particularly the FBI.
And I try to stay within the guidelines that they've suggested I should stay
within for those purposes,? Ashcroft said.
Asked if he knew anything about the threat or who might have made it, the
attorney general replied, ?Frankly, I don't. That's the answer.?
Earlier this week, the Justice Department leased a NASA-owned G-3
Gulfstream for a 6-day trip to Western states. Such aircraft cost the
government more than $1,600 an hour to fly. When asked whether Ashcroft
was paying for any portion of the trips devoted to personal business, a
Justice Department spokeswoman declined to respond.
All other Bush Cabinet appointees, with the exception of Interior and Energy
with remote sites to oversee, fly commercial airliners. Janet Reno, Ashcroft's
predecessor as attorney general, also routinely flew commercial. The
secretaries of State and Defense traditionally travel with extra security on
military planes.
The Justice Department insists that it wasn't Ashcroft who wanted to fly
leased aircraft. That idea, they said, came strictly from Ashcroft's FBI security
detail. The FBI had no further comment.
-
You are quite wrong. Threre are plenty of republicans willing to evaluate president objectively or at least not on thebasis of his party. The fact that consierable proportion of population changes their mind - so that a different party get presidency or congress/senate magority may differ from presidency proves that.
Miko, I think I'm quite right, insofar as the majority of posters on the OT forum. With a few exceptions(You, Sikboy, even Ripsnort on occasion), most of the posters on this OT forum are so rock-ribbed in their Republiclownism that they can't even begin to be objective. Part of the reason I don't even try to debate in here anymore is that nobody will debate the issues. Instead, they just bring out the "Monica" card and use that over and over.
I was not reffering to the people of NY state, I was referring to the people on this OT forum. My own state of Minnesota, while mostly Liberally minded, is indeed politically flexible that we often have a mix of Senators and Governors from both parties. Hell, we even voted in Ventura(much to our chagrin now)!
-
Gore can grow his beard as long as Dan hagerty's. Bottom line, he wasn't in the Oval office and he couldn't win his own state. Gun Issue I believe (surprise).
Bottom Line: The CIA and FBI worked against each other prior to the events that lead up to the attack on the WTC. I'm sure they still do. It wouldn't have mattered who in the hell was in office, there was no way of preventing this attack at all. Say what you want, we've pissed off too many nations.
I love this country with all of my heart but that last statement is true. I'm pissed that innocent people took the blame for our government.
RIP
Masher
-
Didn't you guys get a State tax rebate while he was in office?
Yep, we got two of them in the last two years. And now, with a 2.4(or something ongodly high) Billion dollar deficit this year, the legislature had to wipe out the state's cash reserve and the tobacco settlement money to keep the ink in the black.
But Governor Ventura still claims that the tax rebate had nothing to do with the huge deficit. Yeah, right.
Oh well, at least I got enough money back to buy myself a new lawn mower and a snow blower out of the deal. But was it worth it to put the state into dire financial straights? I don't think so.
As far as Jesse getting a second term...he hasn't declared whether or not he is running for re-election.
Right now, Minnesota has a Republiclown controlled house, a Democratic controlled Senate, and a Reform party controlled Executive branch.
Can you say gridlock? I knew you could! :D
-
LOL, thks for the Minn. update banana.
-
A Navy SEAL being a governor is great thing.
Masher
-
Soooooo,
Where are all the Republiclowns who were all over this board screaming about the demise of our intelligence gathering ability due to Clinton, the fact that Clinton could have "gotten the bastard" X amount of times, how Clinton was the real cause of our lack of warning for the WTC?
Who knows how many warnings or indications there were before the attacks. GWB probably did what anyone would do with the information given to him. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the partisan politics played out on the BBS.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Soooooo,
Where are all the Republiclowns who were all over this board screaming about the demise of our intelligence gathering ability due to Clinton, the fact that Clinton could have "gotten the bastard" X amount of times, how Clinton was the real cause of our lack of warning for the WTC?
Who knows how many warnings or indications there were before the attacks. GWB probably did what anyone would do with the information given to him. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the partisan politics played out on the BBS.
If I remember correctly, someone posted a link to the budget slashes that the CIA encountered from 92-98...facts and data do not dillute into hipocrascy. ;)
-
And budget cuts do not equate to ineffectiveness.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And budget cuts do not equate to ineffectiveness.
Heh, cut my budget and watch my effectiveness drop Of course it can't get much lower than it is!
I think you're both onto something with regard to the Intel situation. We NEEDED (and still need IMHO) to reinvent our Intel practices to deal with new threats in the post Soviet world. Part of our perception was that we could do more with less. I think this was especially true with the CIA, who were trying to figure out what to do with all of its Cold-war spooks. (although the NSA is right behind them. Millions in Electronic SIGINT equiptment, and these guys are using smoke signals lol) God knows I was a huge waste of money working as a Russian Linguist in the Navy. We were pleanty ready, but no-body had the dough to come out and play.
Anyhow, I'm getting away from the point. The idea of earlier Intel drawdowns was pretty much the same as what the Bush Administration is trying to do with the Military. Restructure to fit a post cold war environment. Leaner, faster, better. The cuts themselves weren't necessarily what caused a failure. It's a post hoc ergo proctor hoc argument.
-Sikboy
-
OK, I have a 'Bill Clinton' defense for G W B
Week One - "I didn't know anything......"
Week Two - "Ok, I knew a little bit......."
Week Three - "OK, I knew a lot, but it's old news........"
-
Originally posted by banana
Miko, I think I'm quite right, insofar as the majority of posters on the OT forum. With a few exceptions(You, Sikboy, even Ripsnort on occasion), most of the posters on this OT forum are so rock-ribbed in their Republiclownism that they can't even begin to be objective.
That is always a problem with a gathering where membership is open and not filtered in any way.
If you think that many people here are narrow-minded prejudiced ignorants, the smartest thing you can do is not get involved in arguments with them or at least not to stoop to the same level of arguments - unsubstantiated personal statements. If you care so much, produce facts for their education but do not hold your breath.
What you are doing is alienating a few people that you consider rational by your blank statements - which makes them think you are one of the ignorant guys.
Just wait a few minutes after you've typed your post but before you hit that "Submit" button. In many cases you will decide to delete or modify it as the discussion may appear not worth getting involved in.
miko
-
I currently have information that muslim terrorists are planning to hijack something.
LOL that is true every day for the last 50 years.
-
I honestly don't remember anyone vilifying Clinton for not foreseeing the first WTC attack or the attack on the embassies or the Cole. In retrospect, however, there were all kinds of posible warning signs. But how could he (or his administration) have stopped those attacks? How could Bush have stopped the 9/11 attacks with the information available? For those who are saying he could have done something, exactly what is that?
What was known:
CIA suggested that Al Qaeda may be looking to hijack a plane (or planes), most likely abroad.
FBI? posted a report that Middle-Easterners may be learning to fly commercial jets in the U.S. with bad intentions.
OBL warned of upcoming attacks by video tape (which he had been doing for a while and wich came true twice...embassies and Cole)
What the administration did:
Notified FAA and SecTrans who in turn notified the airlines of possible hijack theat.
Increased security at military bases and embassies abroad.
(this was all brought up at todays White House press briefing and not in dispute)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/16/politics/16INQU.html?ex=1022126400&en=39284647d5a85528&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
Granted, it was "The threat of knowing Bin Laden wanted to hijack in the traditional sense, not knowing that suicide extremists would take part in the sneak attack..."
Do you think he's to blame or partially to blame for 9/11?
So tell me Rip, exactly what type of spoon do you use to stir this pot anyhow?
;)
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by majic
I honestly don't remember anyone vilifying Clinton for not foreseeing the first WTC attack or the attack on the embassies or the Cole. In retrospect, however, there were all kinds of posible warning signs. But how could he (or his administration) have stopped those attacks?
Please allow me to refresh some memories...no names just quotes:
Unfortunately, the bill for buying peace by hosing a few cruise missiles off into empty camps in Afghanistan has now come due.... the "interest cost" was two buildings in NYC.
And if the FBI has it right 9-11 was planned during Clinton presidency
clinton changed bush's orders, then didn't give the military the resourses they needed, then pulled out when we got our noses bloodied, leaving the terrorist of the world to believe that we are a bunch of collective rutabagas.
Clinton letting him (Saddam) get by with kicking out the UN weapons inspectors about 2 or 3 yrs ago.
We trusted him to do his job and to defend this nation which he swore to do...what we got were 8 years of embarrassment and 4000+ innocent people killed.
Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 5,000 people in New York
and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be Alive today.
Just for fun:
why is it that the Clinton Administration
spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past eight years than
Osama bin Laden?
-
Originally posted by hblair
He's no more to blame than Roosevelt was for Pearl Harbor.
Is it generaly accepted yet that Roosevelt knew there was going to be an attack at pearl? It is certainly fairly widley held..
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Is it generaly accepted yet that Roosevelt knew there was going to be an attack at pearl? It is certainly fairly widley held..
It's not generally accepted, primarily because the evidence doesn't support such conspiracy theories. There are a few books out on this theory (generally pushed by people with an agenda other than objectivity) that have been debunked. With 20/20 hindsight, it would appear that there might be something to it, but pre-war American intel ops focusing on Japan could be described as a vacuum cleaner without a bag - they were gathering info, but the prioritization, processing and dissemination capabilities just weren't there.
-
What should the administration have done differently? Racial profiling at airports? Hell, even after 9-11 and 3000 dead we still don't do that. Ironic that those who are the most critical would probably scream the loudest if practical measures likely to identify and contain the threat were implemented. :rolleyes:
-
Just shows how desperate the Dems are in trying to drum up SOMETHING to attack this administration with as Enron didn't stick :rolleyes:
nothing but cut throat politics - at their worse ... to bad the average dumacrat is too ignorant to see through the smoke and mirrors.
Hey Rip, the header for this post reads like something from MSNBC or our great CNN.
Keep stirring :)
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
So tell me Rip, exactly what type of spoon do you use to stir this pot anyhow?
;)
-Sikboy
Not a spoon and the pot is the Democratic party. I wanted opinions from the left, to see if they actually can cut thru the rhetoric bullship and see what their party is trying to do...basically "are you thick enough that you actually believe these people have a valid concern?"
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Is it generaly accepted yet that Roosevelt knew there was going to be an attack at pearl? It is certainly fairly widley held..
I believe it is generally accepted that Roosevelt knew the Japanese were going to attack the US, but where, what time was unknown, similiar to this event. ;)
-
Where is the press asking why Clinton did not prevent this?
MON DEC 14, 1998 04:09:22 UTC
TERROR THREATS HIT AMERICA
Osama bin Laden may be planning a strike on Washington or New York, TIME
magazine is reporting in fresh editions. Just as, U.S. embassies in four
Persian Gulf countries were warning Sunday night of a "strong possibility"
that terrorists might attempt an attack against one or more U.S. targets in
the region in the coming weeks.
According to reports, the U.S. government has obtained information
indicating "a strong possibility that terrorist elements are planning an
attack against U.S. targets in the gulf, possibly in the next 30 days."
The U.S. issued the warning on Sunday to Americans in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia,
Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. The warning was "unusually precise,"
reports the NEW YORK TIMES on Monday. "And it was backed up by a show of
particular concern." In Bahrain, headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet,
nearly 1,000 U.S. military personnel have been put under curfew and told not
to gather in public places.
But the Laden scare also is being felt domestically, intelligence sources
tell TIME they have evidence that bin Laden may be planning his boldest move
yet--a strike on Washington or possibly New York City in an eye-for-an-eye
retaliation. "We've hit his headquarters, now he hits ours," a State tells
TIME.
No one has yet used the new "threats" in any argument against the pending
impeachment.
-
I'd like to make several points about all this if I may:
1. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing!
2. The world is a big place, filled with nations and groups that hate us and are potential threats to our security.
3. The United States has business concerns operating in every country on the globe, even in those nations that do not have our best interests at heart.
4. Our security and intelligence agencies have been spread increasingly thin over the last decade to protect those interests.
5. While our military and intelligence agencies have had their missions expanded greatly during the last ten years, budgets to support their activities have not grown to keep pace with that expansion. Indeed, their budgets have been slashed by the previous administration.
6. U.S. intelligence agencies have their hands full keeping track of all the threats to our nation's securities. Before September 11, Osama Ben Laden was just one of many potential threats.
7. The number of intelligence reports that have to be analyzed to develop strategies to counter these threats must be staggering. The analysis of this information to determine which of these threats is the most significant poses problems that are often insuperable.
8. The report about the WTC attack currently under discussion pointed out a potential threat, but was not specific about the form that the threat might take. It only mentions that Arab immigrants of questionable character were taking flying lessons under suspicious circumstances. Nothing really new about this, after all, for Arab terrorists have been hi-jacking airliners for more than 30 years.
9. The President, when notified of the potential threat, and without any specifics to determine the actual nature of the threat, notified the appropriate security agencies and put them on alert.
10. When similar threats have arisen in the past, previous administrations have acted in exactly the same manner.
Now for the critics making snide remarks about the President's actions under these circumstances I would like to pose a question.
Had you been in the White House under similar circumstances, and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight since 9/11, what would you have done differently to counter the threat? Remember now, you must forget everything you have learned about the terrorists and their activities since the WTC was attacked.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Shuckins, when you post an arguement rebuttal that well thought out, there's not a liberal on this board that will, or can respond. Silence is all you'll get.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Shuckins, when you post an arguement rebuttal that well thought out, there's not a liberal on this board that will, or can respond. Silence is all you'll get.
LOL... Saying no one will respond is the stinkiest of all troll baits.
Just felt the uncontrollable need to say that....... Be kind as you reel me in please. :D :p
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
LOL... Saying no one will respond is the stinkiest of all troll baits.
Just felt the uncontrollable need to say that....... Be kind as you reel me in please. :D :p
Your post is the equivelent of silence in my eyes.
-
Here is what I have been seeing reported:
Democrats: "We need to investigate these reports and see what we could have missed / what we could have done differently / why we waited 8 months to share this info.
Republiclowns: How dare they act this way in time of war! How dare they question our poor President! How dare they attempt to make political capital out of this tragedy!
:cool:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Here is what I have been seeing reported:
Democrats: "We need to investigate these reports and see what we could have missed / what we could have done differently / why we waited 8 months to share this info.
Republiclowns: How dare they act this way in time of war! How dare they question our poor President! How dare they attempt to make political capital out of this tragedy!
:cool:
Why weren't the questions brought up in 1998? Seems its politically motivated to bring it up now. :) And Lemmings like yourself give them the nod...thats pretty sad...says alot for you and your party.;)
-
What I see:
Democrats: "We're desperate, we live off "fear factor" to get votes, there are gullible people like Midnight out there, let's first organize with the press, then whine about a picture that no one would have even known it was taken on 9/11 if we didn't tell them, and then try to blame 9/11 on the White house's failure to warn the public, even though box cutters were still legal to bring thru the terminals when the first warnings came out during the Clinton Administration. We're deperate, do you blame us?
Republicans: "Clowns as usual"
-
Now Dubya is stating that they had plans to strike Al Queda before September 11.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20020517/ts_nm/attack_bush_dc_30
Right... Uh-huh... Okay... :rolleyes:
-
c'mon Sandman, you don't think the CIA would have proposed a plan for taking out Al Qaeda? They were a problem before 9-11.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Here is what I have been seeing reported:
Democrats: "We need to investigate these reports and see what we could have missed / what we could have done differently / why we waited 8 months to share this info.
Republiclowns: How dare they act this way in time of war! How dare they question our poor President! How dare they attempt to make political capital out of this tragedy!
:cool:
MT my man, the democrat leadership is full of it on this. I personaly saw tom damazinhunk, dick gephardt and barbara boxer ask why this information was not given to the Senate. Later in the day it comes out that they had the exact same briefing ast he president!!!!!!! These people are playing political games when we are at war. They are attacking the president at any hint of an opportunity. They have been for the past 6 months. It's treasonish and highly irresponsible of them to do this while we are at war, IMO ofcourse.
Tell me what good it does our nation to chip away at the President in a time of war? They so effing shallow they make me want to puke :mad: :mad:
-
Even you two (Sandman, TahGut) have to admit that the tone coming out of Washington has not been "Gee wally we should make sure nothing went wrong" There has been quite a bit of Venom coming out, and more than you would expect for something so simple. Perhaps the Demoscats are pissed off that they were kept out of the loop. Maybe the Republiclowns are being extra-jumpy trying to wring more political capitol out of Sept. 11th? Whatever the cause, I think these allegations of the DEMs (the allegation that the Bush Admin should have done something more than they did for those not keeping up) and the refutation of the GOPs are much more politicised than they need to be.
In my perfect Intro To American Government world:
Demoscats:We need to investigate what went wrong
Republowclowns:That's a good idea. We have nothing to hide
I know, I know, fantasy land. If nothing else, that's how I'm handling the situation lol.
-Sikboy
-
Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said in a speech in New York on Thursday that suggestions by some Democrats that the attacks could have been prevented were "thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy" of national leaders in a time of war.
But Gephardt denied any inquiry was politically driven.
"This is not about blame-placing. This is not about trying to assign motives to people," the Missouri Democrat said. "This is about trying to do better in the future."
So, Rip. We shouldn't question the intelligence community or the President or our ability to react to things like this in the future? Makes me wonder who is the gullible lemming here. ;)
Read the above quote and tell me which Politician is trying to spin this little issue into a negative bashing of the other.
-
I can't disagree SB. It's all political roadkill. Both parties are guilty of leveraging off the attacks for political gain.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I can't disagree SB. It's all political roadkill. Both parties are guilty of leveraging off the attacks for political gain.
Actually, now that SB has posted his, I have to say "Good Post"..both sides need a whooping! Wheres my wooden whooping spoon! Who's gonna be first!?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Actually, now that SB has posted his, I have to say "Good Post"..both sides need a whooping! Wheres my wooden whooping spoon! Who's gonna be first!?
thanks... And is your whooping spoon different than your pot-stirring spoon? ;)
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Actually, now that SB has posted his, I have to say "Good Post"..both sides need a whooping! Wheres my wooden whooping spoon! Who's gonna be first!?
A spanking, a spanking, there's going to be a spanking tonight!!!!!
...and after the spanking.... the Oral Sex!!
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
thanks... And is your whooping spoon different than your pot-stirring spoon? ;)
-Sikboy
The "Pot stirring" spoon is a nicely forged, flat rolled stainless steel one. ;)
-
No argument, politics is being played here.
All I am saying is that I have yet to see any accusatory remarks from anyone on the Democratic side equivilent to those I've seen from the GOP. Like this one:
Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said, “There was a lot of information. I believe and others believe, if it had been acted on properly we may have had a different situation on Sept. 11.”
While the Dems worst quote I could find is:
“Why did it take eight months for us to receive this information? And what specific actions were taken by the White House in response?” Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said. “I’m not going to jump to any conclusions, but it’s hard to understand why the information was not released.”
Which hardly adds up to justification for this:
Vice President Dick Cheney warned Democrats to tread lightly.
“They need to be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions that were made by some today that the White House had advance information that would have prevented the tragic attacks of 9/11,” Cheney said.
-
Originally posted by hblair
He's no more to blame than Roosevelt was for Pearl Harbor.
I'd like to see what would have happened to any politician in August 1942, 8 months after Pearl Harbor, had they suggested the President of the United States knew about and allowed the attack to occur.
I think he'd been hung from the nearest tree, just as Dashole and his buddies (media included) should be today. Their vague accusations border on treason.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I think he'd been hung from the nearest tree, just as Dashole and his buddies (media included) should be today. Their vague accusations border on treason.
And I think that they would have had impeachment hearings.
-
*Yawn*
The handsomehunkcrats know if they don't tarnish Bush's reputation there is no way in hell they can win in the next election.
Trying to blame 911 on him is pretty low even for them.
-
Quoted from Tahgut
While the Dems worst quote I could find is:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Why did it take eight months for us to receive this information? And what specific actions were taken by the White House in response?” Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said. “I’m not going to jump to any conclusions, but it’s hard to understand why the information was not released.”
DUDE!!!!! this is an our right LIE pure and simple. They had the same briefing as the president. They knew what he knew and now they try and act like they didn't to gain politicly. I don't expect more from him I mean after all he is the same guy that said Republicans want to kill old people and starve children. He should NOT be the senate majority leader, hopefuly that will be fixed in Nov.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
Maybe them dems are digging their own grave:
"Bin Laden-gate Witness Dares Dems: Depose Me on Clinton 9-11 Cover-up
The man who negotiated a deal for Osama bin Laden's extradition to the United States six years ago is daring Senate Democrats to call him as a witness in the upcoming probe into the government's 9-11 intelligence failures, saying he can blow the lid off the Clinton administration's cover-up of the episode.
Mansoor Ijaz, a major Clinton financial supporter who hammered out the 1996 bin Laden agreement with government of Sudan only to have the White House turn the offer down, issued the challenge Thursday during an interview with nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity.
"I'm saying this point blank," Ijaz announced in impassioned tones. "Clinton, Berger, Albright, Susan Rice - any of them that want to come and take us on. I've got the paperwork to back up what I've said and they know it. And they know they can't run and hide."
Ijaz complained that since Sept. 11, he has yet to be called by either the House or Senate intelligence committees to give sworn testimony.
"(Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman) Bob Graham is a friend of mine and he knows what I've got in my files. And they know where to find me if they really want to find out the truth about what was possible at that time."
Ijaz charged that Senate Democrats don't want to call him in order to protect the previous administration.
"I'm absolutely convinced," he told Hannity, "that the Democrats are desperately trying to find a way to deflect the attention from the complicity of the Clinton administration in letting this terrorism problem get so far out of hand."
The former Clinton negotiator described the missed opportunity to get bin Laden and fingered former national security advisor Sandy Berger and former attorney general Janet Reno as having key roles in the deadly foul-up.
"By May of 1996 the Sudanese had decided to get rid of bin Laden because he was becoming a problem there as well. They called the Clinton administration one last time and said, 'If you don't want him to go to Saudi Arabia, we're prepared to hand him over to you guys directly.'"
"And the Clinton administration's response to that was, 'We don't have enough legal evidence against him," Ijaz explained.
Besides Berger and Reno, "Clearly the president had to have had a hand in making that decision," he added. "There's no question in my mind that he was involved in those decisions as well. There's no question about that at all."
The former Clinton negotiator suggested that Congress depose other witnesses who could corroborate and expand upon his account.
"The American people should know that I have even persuaded a senior Sudanese intelligence official, who was later the intelligence chief, that if it became necessary he would come to the United States and testify in closed hearings about precisely what they were prepared to do," he said. "And he would bring the data with him."
Another witness suggested by Ijaz: former Clinton administration ambassador to the Sudan Tim Carney.
"Frankly (Carney) can take the American people a couple of steps further in terms of taking them inside the deliberations that went on and telling people precisely how the politicizing of the intelligence took place at that time."
Ijaz also charged that Clinton officials deliberately went out of their way to stifle FBI antiterrorism probes.
"The FBI, in 1996 and 1997, had their efforts to look at terrorism data and deal with the bin Laden issue overruled every single time by the State Department, by Susan Rice and her cronies, who were hell-bent on destroying the Sudan," he said.
The Bush administration takes a different approach entirely, according to Ijaz.
"I can tell you personally that I have dealt with the Bush administration's national security team." he told Hannity. "These are people who immediately react to information that is brought to their attention that is necessary and important for people to know.... There is no comparison to the Clinton administration.""
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I'd like to see what would have happened to any politician in August 1942, 8 months after Pearl Harbor, had they suggested the President of the United States knew about and allowed the attack to occur.
I think he'd been hung from the nearest tree, just as Dashole and his buddies (media included) should be today. Their vague accusations border on treason.
Found This:
As a result of research by his staff, and possibly some "leaks" from Intelligence officers of 1941, Thomas E. Dewey, the Republican candidate for the presidency, had learned during the campaign of 1944 that President Roosevelt had been reading the intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages in the Purple and other codes and was aware of the threat of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor at any time after November 26, 1941, but had failed to warn the commanders there, General Walter C. Short and Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, in time to avert the attack or to meet it effectively. Dewey considered presenting these vital facts in a major campaign speech.
Roosevelt learned of this through the Democratic grapevine planted at Republican headquarters and, in understandable alarm, pressured Mr. Dewey through General George C. Marshall to abandon his plan, on the ground that it would endanger the war effort by revealing that we had broken Japanese codes. Marshall twice sent Colonel Carter W. Clarke to urge Dewey not to refer to Pearl Harbor during the campaign. To cover up for Roosevelt, Marshall has contended that he operated on his own initiative in sending Clarke to importune Dewey. As Clarke knew by this time, the basis of his plea was spurious, namely, that such a speech by Dewey would first reveal to the Japanese that we had broken their Purple diplomatic code. Actually, the Japanese had learned of this from the Germans by the end of April, 1941, over three years before the 1944 campaign. Dewey did not know this at the time and, as a supposedly patriotic duty, he suppressed the speech and the publicity which might have won the election for him.
-
good find MT
that was 3 years after the attack and still the politician had the common sense to keep his mouth shut for the good of the country...
not that way today is it ....
-
Ok, maybe this was said already and I just didnt see it ... ok, so I didnt read ALL the posts. But ... the awareness of planes being hijacked PLUS the awareness of Bin Laden/Al-Queda linked persons in flight training schools IN the USA ... to me its not that hard to figure out.
I think someone dropped the ball, and well ... as Commander in Chief I assume the PResident must assume some responsibility for this.
Nim
-
Yes all the blind speculation is true! Bush let Sept. 11 happend because he needed an excuse for war, just like Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor.
Why do people countinue doing this after sneak attacks? :(
-
"I think someone dropped the ball, and well ... as Commander in Chief I assume the President must assume some responsibility for this"
Absolutely.
Wasn't it President Truman who coined the phrase "The Buck Stops Here"?
When Chimpy took the oath he accepted alll the baggage that comes with the office of president......good or bad.
I don't believe that Chimpy *knowingly* allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur, but as president the responsibility rests squarely on his pointy l'il head and shoulders.
"Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said in a speech in New York on Thursday that suggestions by some Democrats that the attacks could have been prevented were "thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy" of national leaders in a time of war"
The attacks *could* have been prevented...but only if national security assets either intercepted information or penetrated the organization who perpetrated the acts. The failure to uncover the plans ensured the terrorists would succeed.
Its disturbing to me that *both* parties are using a national tragedy for political gain.....
IMO Cheneys response is also indicative of the quality of his character.
His statement reveals a character flaw that has become common in the US....avoid accountability for ones actions, inactions, or responsibility...
"Yet, when this happens with Bush in the White House, you just wave it away with an "oh well, what can you do?"
As C3PO says, "How typical""
ROTFL!
You pounded that nail!
I find it hilarious that Clinton is lambasted by repugs for any percieved shortcoming, but when it comes to chimpy theres not a peep to be heard. :rolleyes:
I'll use as an example the economies strength during Clintons 8 year DC hootnanny, I realize he didn't create the economic boom...but he didn't f*#k it up by pretending to be an economist and mucking with it either. ;)
Oh...and speaking of double standards, look what the cat dragged in. :rolleyes:
Why weren't the questions brought up in 1998? Seems its politically motivated to bring it up now. And Lemmings like yourself give them the nod...thats pretty sad...says alot for you and your party.
-
Originally posted by aknimitz
Ok, maybe this was said already and I just didnt see it ... ok, so I didnt read ALL the posts. But ... the awareness of planes being hijacked PLUS the awareness of Bin Laden/Al-Queda linked persons in flight training schools IN the USA ... to me its not that hard to figure out.
Nimitz,
The problem, as I understand it, is twofold. 1st, No one person had both pieces of information (I could be wrong on this one, but as I understand a single FBI agent had issued a report or warning on the Arabs in Flightschool, was this ever brought to the attention of the President though?) and 2nd, Post-Hoc analysis is a lot easier when the evidence is laid neatly side by side. During real time analysis however, we do not get that luxury. The importance of each piece of information is not known until after the event. Also, there is so much information that come across that turns out to be false. In intel they call this mass of information "noise." In a perfect world, you can cut through the noise and get to the right data and form a flawless analysis. But it hardly works out that way. And the best part of it all, is that when it does work out that way, we never here about it because tragidy is averted.
-Sikboy
-
Perhaps, but if the shoes fits....I can't remember the last time any of you conservatives ever admitting that Bush was not less than perfect.
I can't remember the last time any of us conservatives said he was perfect. Go figure... those words keep getting jammed into my mouth, though I personally have said time and again I wouldn't back him if he is proven to break the law. I have also said I am generally happy with the job he has done so far. So, what do I have to do to prove I don't have mindless allegience?
Sorry banana, tossing out words like "Republiclown" fails to give your viewpoint the hard-hitting effect of thorough, logical debate you say you so often fail to find here. What is interesting here is how a few of you are trying to evoke a reaction.
Here's what I like about Bush more than Clinton- WTC gets bombed, Clinton sends some cruise missles in. Silence. Cole gets bombed, a few more missiles. Silence. Change presidents. WTC get hit, send in troops.... and they're still there. Maybe it won't stop terrorism, but it sure sends a different message- you bomb us and we're coming for you.
Of course you may argue we are wasting our time with troops in Afghanistan, but I disagree. You may say we are foolish to chase them through the hills, but I say it is far better to do that than to appear like a whiney bunch of hand-wringing cowards, waiting for the next event to grab our attention.
-
A little sleight of hand Target?
I think this one is mine:
"Unfortunately, the bill for buying peace by hosing a few cruise missiles off into empty camps in Afghanistan has now come due.... the "interest cost" was two buildings in NYC."
Now, please explain to me where this qualfies under "vilifying Clinton for not foreseeing the first WTC attack, etc. etc.", the part of Majic's post you answered with:
Midnight Target: "Please allow me to refresh some memories...no names just quotes:" ?
I think an objective reading of what I posted will find it is a criticism of Clinton's reprisal policy. It says nothing of the ability of the US/Clinton Administration/Intelligence Community to foresee and stop terrorist attacks.
So you're not really providing proof for your argument at all are you?
But I think you knew that. :D
-
As far as the lack of "reasonable" discussion here I'll throw this in.
The amount and frequency of "ad hominem" arguments certainly doesn't contribute anything to "reasonable" discussion.
If we're not going to argue the point, why debate at all?
For the curious and uncertain amongst us:
Fallacy: Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).
Further, the incidence of "name calling" here doesn't contribute much to the debate either.
As Kieran pointed out, the "name calling" is the antithesis of thorough logical debate. Rather than enhancing one's position, it seriously detracts from it. In fact, I suspect that the tactic makes most folks simply skip over the message and go on to the next one.
I know it has that effect on me, anyway. When I see this pointless, childish, "playground technique" I guess I automatically assume the poster has either no capability to rationally present an argument or is simply too immature to debate on fact. So, I just pass the message and go on to one that looks as if it were composed with at least a little maturity.
-
the truth will come out showing the previous admin raped our countries intel community for 8 years, thus tying their hands & blinding them.
What intel did Bush miss?
That an African American converted Raghead that was so stupid he said he didn't care to land and takeoff only fly the plane? Or the group of ragheads in the midwest taking flying lessons of which none were of the 19 nutbags who crashed into the WTC
Oh yeah, of the 19 sand ppl who did crash into the WTC and Pentagon - only 3 were trained in the US to fly :rolleyes:
Yeah, let's blame Bush for something that occurred in the first 9 months of his admin - not the loser that had the job for the previous 8 years which allowed & caused the enviroment for this murderous act to first germinate then blossom into 9/11. :rolleyes:
Problem is Bush and his freakin "new tone" in DC is making him soft. He needs to come out and point the finger and show exactly how the corruption and lack of leadership in the Clinton admin set the stage for this debacle
Some of you guys are freakin amazing!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/16/politics/16INQU.html?ex=1022126400&en=39284647d5a85528&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
Granted, it was "The threat of knowing Bin Laden wanted to hijack in the traditional sense, not knowing that suicide extremists would take part in the sneak attack..."
Do you think he's to blame or partially to blame for 9/11?
I probably would be classified as coming from the 'liberal' camp. However President Bush and members of his cabinet (given the nature of the warnings and conditions of the time) are not even partially to blame. The warnings were too vague and general to act upon more than they had been given the pre-9/11 attacks.
Curious to those that say otherwise, how would F.D.R's, Truman's, Kennedy's, Johnson's, Nixon's, Ford's, Carter's, Reagan's, Bush's, and Clinton's actions be any different given the same circumstances?
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
I'd like to make several points about all this if I may:
1. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing!
2. The world is a big place, filled with nations and groups that hate us and are potential threats to our security.
3. The United States has business concerns operating in every country on the globe, even in those nations that do not have our best interests at heart.
4. Our security and intelligence agencies have been spread increasingly thin over the last decade to protect those interests.
5. While our military and intelligence agencies have had their missions expanded greatly during the last ten years, budgets to support their activities have not grown to keep pace with that expansion. Indeed, their budgets have been slashed by the previous administration.
6. U.S. intelligence agencies have their hands full keeping track of all the threats to our nation's securities. Before September 11, Osama Ben Laden was just one of many potential threats.
7. The number of intelligence reports that have to be analyzed to develop strategies to counter these threats must be staggering. The analysis of this information to determine which of these threats is the most significant poses problems that are often insuperable.
8. The report about the WTC attack currently under discussion pointed out a potential threat, but was not specific about the form that the threat might take. It only mentions that Arab immigrants of questionable character were taking flying lessons under suspicious circumstances. Nothing really new about this, after all, for Arab terrorists have been hi-jacking airliners for more than 30 years.
9. The President, when notified of the potential threat, and without any specifics to determine the actual nature of the threat, notified the appropriate security agencies and put them on alert.
10. When similar threats have arisen in the past, previous administrations have acted in exactly the same manner.
Now for the critics making snide remarks about the President's actions under these circumstances I would like to pose a question.
Had you been in the White House under similar circumstances, and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight since 9/11, what would you have done differently to counter the threat? Remember now, you must forget everything you have learned about the terrorists and their activities since the WTC was attacked.
Regards, Shuckins
Agreed.
Another note. Perhaps point #2 is the direct result of points #3 and #4.
-
Sikboy ... whose resopnsibility is it to make sure that the FBI and CIA work together to provide accurate and timely information? And function as they are supposed to function? Everyone has a boss, someone to whom they must account to. I couldnt agree more with Weazel's "The Buck Stops Here" ...
Nim
-
Originally posted by Toad
As far as the lack of "reasonable" discussion here I'll throw this in.
The amount and frequency of "ad hominem" arguments certainly doesn't contribute anything to "reasonable" discussion.
If we're not going to argue the point, why debate at all?
For the curious and uncertain amongst us:
Fallacy: Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).
Further, the incidence of "name calling" here doesn't contribute much to the debate either.
As Kieran pointed out, the "name calling" is the antithesis of thorough logical debate. Rather than enhancing one's position, it seriously detracts from it. In fact, I suspect that the tactic makes most folks simply skip over the message and go on to the next one.
I know it has that effect on me, anyway. When I see this pointless, childish, "playground technique" I guess I automatically assume the poster has either no capability to rationally present an argument or is simply too immature to debate on fact. So, I just pass the message and go on to one that looks as if it were composed with at least a little maturity.
I agree 100% with you TOAD. Great observation. SALUTE
-
I think the main problem with our intel community, particullarly the CIA is the low amount of funds actually used for intell gathering and analysis. It seems they use most funds and personnel for covert ops and destabilization of those governments/individuals that don't happen to have OUR best business interests at heart.
-
While I have Republican leanings I do not belong to the party. I have voted for conservative candidates from both major parties, mainly because I am against government waste in spending and excessive taxation ( A major concern since my take-home pay is around 27,000 a year!).
As far as any criticism of Bill Clinton is concerned, let me simply say that he brought much of it on himself. I can feel some of you bristling already, so before I go any further let me state that I am from Arkansas, I have been keeping track of the man for far longer than most of his supporters who live outside of the state, he and I have a few mutual friends, and that the explanation for many of his scandalous actions requires a knowledge of the Arkansas political scene.
Why would a man of Clinton's obvious talents allow himself to be sucked into a scandal that would threaten his presidency? The answer is really quite simple; he is a product of the "good-ole-boy" political system of Arkansas politics. Many of you are unaware that the Democratic party has controlled Arkansas' State Legislature without interruption since the end of the Reconstruction Period. Even in the years when public opinion turned from the Democrats to other parties they managed to retain control of the state government. You are not able to do this by playing fair. You do it by making ballot boxes from opposition districts disappear. Or digging up dirt on your opponents. Or employing financial muscle to to turn the tide of the election. You do it by covering up scandals and standing up for fellow party members of questionable character (He may be the scum of the universe, but he's OUR scum!)
In recent decades the situation has begun to change...but old habits die hard.
In 1990, in his last election for the office of governor, in a race he had to win if he wished to run for president in 1992 without having egg on his face, Clinton was rapidly losing ground in the polls to his Republican opponent, Sheffield Nelson. Some years before this, Nelson had been embroiled in a scandal involving his chairmanship of a public utility commission. The company which the commission regulated had moved its headquarters out of Little Rock to Texas. The State Legislature appointed a committee to investigate the commission's actions and reached the conclusion that Nelson had had no direct connection with the company's decision to relocate outside the state and was innocent of any wrongdoing. Case closed.
Or it should have been. With two weeks to go in the election of 1990, and with the race rapidly becoming a dead heat, Clinton had the Attorney General's office reopen the case against Nelson. John Robert Starr, editor of the state's largest daily newspaper, and a supporter of Clinton, was flabbergasted that he would attempt something this brazen. In a telephone conversation with Clinton, Starr asked him if he understood the meaning of the phrase "abuse of power." Clinton merely laughed.
Starr withdrew his support of Clinton. Immediately after the election, which Clinton won, the investigation of Nelson was ended.
Clinton's foibles with the ladies while governor were also well known. Campaign workers had to cover for him when Hillary made surprise visits to his campaign headquarters while Bill was there with the local "talent." Such events may be amusing when they involve a mere governor, but such actions by a President are reckless, foolish, and potentially dangerous. If memory serves, JFK was involved at one point during his administration with a blond bombshell who later turned out to be an agent of an East German intelligence agent. Monica wasn't a foreign agent, but she might have been.
For those who have trouble believing Paula Jones' accusations because she fits the "trailer trash" image I would like to point out the following;
1. Clinton prefers oral sex.
2. For that purpose, a mouth is a mouth.
3. If caught, he uses the argument..."Who are you going to believe...me or Her? How can you possibly believe that I would become involved in any situation with her?" His defenders have used the same argument. "Just look at her. Why would he become involved with someone so unattractive?"
Leaving his political actions out of the discussion for the moment I would like to argue that these are major character flaws, unworthy of the President of the United States. Sure, he had some successes as President. All Presidents do. But should the man be defended no matter what? Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead?! Forget about the FBI dossiers of Republicans in Congress that were turned over to the Clinton administration for no legitimate purpose? Allow him to continue the same dirty tricks he engaged in as governor of Arkansas?
One of my dearest friends is an elderly lady who was one of Clinton's secretaries while he was governor of Arkansas. He and her son were friends during their college years. Clinton sometimes came home with him to visit on the weekends. She has always been one of his staunch supporters. But she told me that she couldn't defend some of the things he was doing as President.
Leaving all of that aside, let me now say that the one action by Clinton I consider to be the most indefensible was his slashing of the budgets for the military and our intelligence services. This indicated to me that he didn't understand that the main duty of the Federal Government is to maintain the security of the nation and its people. At times his foreign policy seemed to consist of good feelings, gossamer wings, and fairy dust. The terrorist threat had existed for some time before he became President, but the threat grew to maturity during his watch and reached its fullest potential in the ninth month of a new President's first year in office.
Why should Bush be held accountable for 9/11? Nine months is barely enough time to begin to gather the reins of power into one's hands, much less gain insight into all the potential threats to the nation's security.
I reiterate what I said in my earlier post...given the information available to him in the month before the 9/11 attack, Bush reacted in the only way open to him... he alerted the appropriate agencies and then trusted them to do their job.
To have been able to do more he would have had to be clairvoyant.
For the critics I repeat what I said before...
20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing!
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by aknimitz
Sikboy ... whose resopnsibility is it to make sure that the FBI and CIA work together to provide accurate and timely information? And function as they are supposed to function? Everyone has a boss, someone to whom they must account to. I couldnt agree more with Weazel's "The Buck Stops Here" ...
Nim
Nimitz,
The FBI and CIA do not, as a rule coordinate. The FBI is mandated to operate domestically (although withe globalization, they have been sticking their toes in the deep end more and more) while the CIA is prohibited from working domestically. The fear of an all knowing all seeing Big brother (amung other reasons) convinced the US to divide out the Intel services into several different organizations (here is the most recend executive order on that I believe (http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/eo12333.html)
Again, I don't think you can "blame" anyone for these peices of information not being connected, given the amount of infromation (credible and not) coming through the pipes. However, Congress is charged with oversight of these organizations (as per EO 12333 cited above), so you might consider looking in that direction.
To summorize: The Intel Community was functioning as it was supposed to, but the Information was too vague to be used to make a solid case. Only with the benefit of hindsight do the peices easily fall together.
Don't get me wrong, Bush has pissed me off pleanty in these past 16 months. Pulling out of Kyoto and the ABM treaty didn't make me happy (and if some of you liked those moves, good for you, start another topic). But this just doesn't seem like a big deal at this point, Although further investigation is warrented.
-Sikboy
-
What baffles me is how conservatives cannot see the parallels between what is happening now and the attacks made on Clinton during his presidency.
From the day Clinton set foot in the Whitehouse, every turd that floated down the D.C. sewer was picked up and hurled at him by some conservative to see if it would stick. From allegations of financial fraud to murder. One finally did, and somehow that justifies all of the other attempts that were made to politically assasinate a President of the U.S.? I guess it makes sense if you believe that you are somehow justified in imposing your preferred political ideology on the country irregardless of the one chosen by the will of the people, heh.
Well, you reap what you sow. The Republican party set a new low-standard for acceptable political tactics during Clinton's terms and now the Democrats are simply using some of them themselves. I'm not happy about it, but that is what is going on here. Conservatives can't very well squeak now when it was perfectly justifiable for them to do the same things when the last President was in office.
Doing something for the national best interest? What a joke. That has been absent from the thought process of both parties for a long time now. It has been replaced with "win if you can, but if you can't, then take the other guy's bellybutton OUT." Who gives a damn about the wishes of the people as expressed at the voting booth?
Not that the political hacks know it. They are convinced that they are doing the country a great service with all of this. WE KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR AMERICA! All they have really accomplished is an erosion of our faith in our government and the people that run it.
Politicians are all sick, twisted diddlys.
-
after war is everybody general
-
Midnight where did you hear that? What source?
Here is what I have been seeing reported:
Democrats: "We need to investigate these reports and see what we could have missed / what we could have done differently / why we waited 8 months to share this info.
From what I've read in the WSJ and washington post
Nonetheless, some Democrats suggested that President Bush was somehow complicit in Sept. 11: "I think what we have to do now is to find out what the president, what the White House knew about the events leading up to 9/11, when they knew it and, most importantly, what was done about it at that time," said Rep. Dick Gephardt, the House minority leader.
Cheney was the one who told'em to back off with the political smear campaign and agreed an investigation is in order to see what if anything went wrong.
http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110001725
-
"Bush knew of Hijack threat before it happened."
That depends on what the definition of "knew" is. :D
-
Sunday, May 19, 2002 10:21 p.m. EDT
Giuliani: 9-11 Probe Should Include Clinton Administration
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Sunday that any investigation into what the Bush administration knew in advance of the 9-11 attacks should also probe the Clinton administration.
After an address to Georgetown University Law School graduates, Giuliani was asked about New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's call for a probe into the possible mishandling of 9-11 warnings by the Bush White House.
"The information that we're talking about, a lot of it goes back to 1998 and 1999 when Mrs. Clinton's husband was president," Giuliani told the Associated Press.
The man who earned the title "America's Mayor" for his leadership in the wake of the World Trade Center attacks said that any 9-11 probe should look at both the Clinton and Bush administrations.
"Remember, the Bush administration, when this attack took place, was a very new administration and they had just inherited the intelligence apparatus put in place by the Clinton administration. So when you look at this, you're going to have look at both," he told the AP.
"We're looking at a continuous course of conduct here," Giuliani added. "I don't know that people should be playing that kind of game."
The ex-New York City mayor said he didn't think either the Bush or Clinton administrations had enough information to have prevented the 9-11 attacks.
Giuliani's call for a probe into Clinton's handling of pre-9-11 intelligence information on al Qaeda follows comments earlier in the day by New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli, who recommended a probe into what he called a "misallocation" of counterterrorism resources during the Clinton years.
-
But it was such a good quote Toad!
You are correct about the personal attacks. My point is this:
1. It is the job of the opposition party to question those actions that they feel are not in the best interest of the Country.
2. The Dems have called for an investigation. Of course there is political intent, but no accusatory retoric.
3. The GOP has basically twisted the calls for an investigation into an attack on the President.
-
I'll give a foreigner point of view... (so I may be messing in rough waters here, hehe :))
Originally posted by Lance
From the day Clinton set foot in the Whitehouse, every turd that floated down the D.C. sewer was picked up and hurled at him by some conservative to see if it would stick. From allegations of financial fraud to murder. One finally did, and somehow that justifies all of the other attempts that were made to politically assasinate a President of the U.S.? I guess it makes sense if you believe that you are somehow justified in imposing your preferred political ideology on the country irregardless of the one chosen by the will of the people, heh.
Well, you reap what you sow. The Republican party set a new low-standard for acceptable political tactics during Clinton's terms and now the Democrats are simply using some of them themselves. I'm not happy about it, but that is what is going on here. Conservatives can't very well squeak now when it was perfectly justifiable for them to do the same things when the last President was in office.
Doing something for the national best interest? What a joke. That has been absent from the thought process of both parties for a long time now. It has been replaced with "win if you can, but if you can't, then take the other guy's bellybutton OUT." Who gives a damn about the wishes of the people as expressed at the voting booth? .
Aye, Lance...but main problem is that, back when Clinton was in office you weren't in the middle of a war. It was peace time and internal politics where what mattered.
Now, in a war, and with your national security under continuous compromise (like it or not, it has been this way since 11/9), internal politics are second to national security. And releasing this kind of toejam (true or not) at this moment is to act like a scumbag. No more no less.
Here in spain is the same old story, when a party is in the government, the other one tries to bring it down with whatever piece of toejam (true or untrue) ,related with the other party, can be used against them. When the roles are changed, so does the accusations. Low standards are common in politics ,but they are so in peace times. Not at war.
And yes, Is true, politics are usually full of scumbags with no honor, but ,damnit, you're still at war, it's supposed that this kind of information MUST be held back until it's over, and that even jerks with no sense of honor will have some kind of NATIONAL pride!.
To release this information (?) is damaging to your country as a whole, and so, it borders treason (someone said it above and I agree with him). And...this is proof that low morale standards in politics have gone UNDER national loyalty and patriotism. And that is VERY disturbing. It would be for me, a stupid spaniard, if it happened in my own nation, go figure for you, guys, who are the ones fighting a war.
Low morale standards are admisible (barely, but we are used to them) when everything goes fine. now are not. IMO, of course.
P.S. I don't like Bush a single bit; but I'm sure he didn't knew THIS was going to happen.
-
You are correct about the personal attacks. My point is this:
1. It is the job of the opposition party to question those actions that they feel are not in the best interest of the Country.
2. The Dems have called for an investigation. Of course there is political intent, but no accusatory retoric.
3. The GOP has basically twisted the calls for an investigation into an attack on the President.
Agree with #1, disagree with #'s 2 & 3. You're kidding yourself if you believe Democratic calls for investigations aren't finger-pointing. Notice the very narrow focus of their attention, not broadening the scope to include the Clinton administration (who btw had far more history with bin Laden).
The Republicans twisted Democratic accusations into attacks? Now that is one sweet spin...:o
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Agree with #1, disagree with #'s 2 & 3. You're kidding yourself if you believe Democratic calls for investigations aren't finger-pointing. Notice the very narrow focus of their attention, not broadening the scope to include the Clinton administration (who btw had far more history with bin Laden).
The Republicans twisted Democratic accusations into attacks? Now that is one sweet spin...:o
You may be right Kieran, but I still have not seen an instance of the Democratic leadership "Accusing" the President of anything. If they are I will happily call them horrible names. ;)
Of course finding out "what we knew and when we knew it" should extend to whenever, including the Clinton administration.
-
I guess no one should have questioned what Regan was doing during the war on plaque.
What about Bush Sr. during the war on drugs?
There is no foreseeable end to the war on terroism, does that mean from now on you should never question your President? Makes a sweet dictatorship if that's the case.
Interesting how Bush Jr. had all the power of the President of the United States for 9 months, but some people believe he didn't have any of the responsiblity. What if the the attack had come 12 months after his inaugeration...24?
-
Thrawn-
It isn't that questions shouldn't be asked, or that there isn't some culpability somewhere- who knows? The point is the reason the calls are coming, and are pointed as they are, is purely political. This isn't fact-finding, this is smear.
Sure, explore Iran-Contra- wait, it was.
Sure, explore Bush Sr. and the war on drugs- wait, he was.
Did anyone blame WJC for the WTC bombing? Not in my memory, at least not anyone credible. He may have been criticized for his actions afterward, but that is not completely unjustified, either.
The suggestion being forwarded by this furor is that not only did Bush have foreknowledge of the attack, but he did nothing to prevent it. Pretty unfair accusation to make. bin Laden says, "we're gonna get that WTC someday soon"- wow! This was pretty much public knowledge. So, what now?
-
We’ve known for almost a decade now that there are Muslim extremists intent on destroying western civilization and the U.S. in particular. The question as to whether we could have prevented the 9-11 attack is moot. The question we now face is can and will we prevent another perhaps dramatically worse attack on the U.S.. No one in the U.S. wants a police state but what measures are we willing to endure to prevent such an attack?
The government walks a tight rope here, ensuring civil liberties while also ensuring the safety of it’s citizens. Can we have both, and at what point does safety outweigh freedom?
-
Many people on this board have said that Clinton didn't act on the infromation he recieved on Bin Laden, while he in office. It now appears that Bush Jr. had the same information Clinton had.
Now, some of these same people say that Bush isn't responsible for his inaction. I find the hippocracy interesting, but in no way surprising.
-
I take nothing from Clinton for not acting on information he had per se, as I don't know about the quality of said information. What I can criticize him for is his actions on both occasions when it was obvious bin Laden was the mastermind behind the 90's attacks (WTC and USS Cole). Both could be construed as acts of war, particularly the Cole. Sending a few missiles over has proven to be seen a weakness. This is hindsight of course. And, to be totally fair, at least minimum Muslim support must be had by any power thinking of attacking any Muslim faction or nation. This is an unpalatable reality to many Americans, but it is nonetheless true.
-
A couple of points to ponder;
1. The terrorist threat grew significantly during Clinton's watch. What measures did he take to counter it? How well did they prepare the American people for the possibility of a terrorist attack?
2. Had you been President in the month prior to 9/11, what actions would you have taken given the amount of information available to President Bush? Remember, all you have to go on is a single, vague memorandum lost among a vast pile of similar documents about threats all over the world.
Not so easy, is it?
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by AKIron
We’ve known for almost a decade now that there are Muslim extremists intent on destroying western civilization and the U.S. in particular. The question as to whether we could have prevented the 9-11 attack is moot. The question we now face is can and will we prevent another perhaps dramatically worse attack on the U.S.. No one in the U.S. wants a police state but what measures are we willing to endure to prevent such an attack?
The government walks a tight rope here, ensuring civil liberties while also ensuring the safety of it’s citizens. Can we have both, and at what point does safety outweigh freedom?
LOL it is sad how we ignore what effects US foriegn policy has on other people's right to self determination and democracy. Multinational corporations have been controlling other 2nd and 3rd world nations' economies and their political leaderships for decades now.
-
What seemed odd to me was the fact slick willie only lobbed a few missiles at whatever (supposedly OBL) when his arse was in boiling water here at home. Seemed to be a distraction, which the media happily adverted to. Can anyone tell me what Bush may have been trying to advert attention from here at home by supposedly allowing the 9/11 attack and the following War on Terrorism?
Oh yeah, he and his military industry buddies are getting rich off the never-ending war - I forgot :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
A couple of points to ponder;
1. The terrorist threat grew significantly during Clinton's watch. What measures did he take to counter it? How well did they prepare the American people for the possibility of a terrorist attack?
2. Had you been President in the month prior to 9/11, what actions would you have taken given the amount of information available to President Bush? Remember, all you have to go on is a single, vague memorandum lost among a vast pile of similar documents about threats all over the world.
Not so easy, is it?
Regards, Shuckins
1. What measures did Bush take to couter it. How well did Bush prepare the American people for a terrorist attack.
2. It's extrodinarily easy. Wait to see if an actual attack happens. If it happens, declare a war on "Terrorism" (but only types of terrorism that are unpopular at home). And ride that puppy for all it's worth.
If my popluarity starts to slip or anyone questions my leadership. Call them unamerican and announce that there's going to be another attack...like real soon...really, so ya better support me because we are at...ya know...war, war against terrorism.
Watch as every other country, with conflicts internal or external, declare their battles, opressions, etc. to be Wars Against Terrorism (tm).
-
Originally posted by wsnpr
LOL it is sad how we ignore what effects US foriegn policy has on other people's right to self determination and democracy. Multinational corporations have been controlling other 2nd and 3rd world nations' economies and their political leaderships for decades now.
I don't know what you find humorous. Who is ignoring the effects of US foreign policy?
Are you implying that the U.S. is repressing the economies or democracy in other nations? Can you be more specific?
-
Thrawn-
You now have the information Bush had. Assume 9/11 has not yet happened- tell me, how are you going to stop it? Be detailed, but remember:
1. If you impose on the public without undeniable proof they will rebel, and the opposite party will exploit the unpopularity of your decision.
2. The types of decisions you have to make will endanger an already shaky economy.
3. Assuming you act upon the information, you are going to be paying special attention to Muslims and Arabic-looking people. Racial profiling? Hmm, we just love that practice in America...
This of course assumes you can look at the evidence and pinpoint the day, the hour, the flights, and the targets. Assuming you don't you are left with striking at bin Laden before the attack, but this can be construed as provocation and justification for the ensuing 9/11 attack.
So, what should a president do?
Now, what should a president do afterwards? You think sending missiles over has stopped anything in the past? I don't. You think Clinton ever showed resolve to pursue terrorists? I don't. Now I don't agree with the mixed messages we are sending the world with regard to Israel and its current situation with the PLO, but it doesn't for a second suggest to me it is time to give up on bin Laden. It isn't about fairness, it's about that terrorist being dead and the message it sends.
And don't lay any of that "yeah, and more terrorists will rise up and take their places" crap, either. That's defeatist and leaves us wringing our hands in silence, hoping some guerilla oranization doesn't decide to topple our industrial giant of a country. They're gonna keep coming, so I say we keep kicking their butts 'til the bitter end. The free ride is over. Sorry that happens to help Bush, but it also happens to be the right thing to do.
-
Let's go even further: assume that the FBI had information on the exact date, time, flight number, and descriptions of suspects. So they raid all the planes, and arrest the 19 dirtbags.
...And then what? Not much, I imagine. Oh, CAIR and it's ilk would be having a fit, of course, complaining to everyone including George W. about profiling and unfair targeting of Arab-Americans. After all, just what did the FBI find? Some box cutters? Those aren't illegal on airplanes. Flight manuals? These men were all attending accredited flight schools, trying to achieve the American dream, etc. etc. So they had one-way tickets: is that a crime? Funeral shrouds? Are you honestly arresting these men for bringing white sheets onto a plane? Korans? So because these men are pious Muslims, you dare to assume...! And really, folks, come on: flying a Boeing into a skyscraper? You've been watching too many movies! Who would come up with something this complicated, when a truck bomb in a garage would do just as well?
And so on and so on. I'm sure at least half these men would have been released within a couple of days. Profiling would be discussed at length on CNN and PBS. Several specials would be made, with weeping, hijab-wearing photogenic young women, describing in perfect Midwestern English the ordeal of being singled out by airport security. American Airlines would issue an apology, and make a contribution to the Arab-American Anti-Defamation Society, with a promise of more "outreach efforts." Norman Mineta would be outraged! and put in all sorts of new restrictions designed specifically to avoid giving extra scrutiny to "people of Middle Eastern appearance." (hey! wait a second!) George W. would go on the record saying that "pro-filling" is "discriminatational" and against everything he holds dear. Clinton would tell a story of his Lebanese-American great-uncle who was once denied entry into the White House. Al Gore would talk about his years of service under Lawrence of Arabia. Pretty soon, the whole thing would be forgotten as another embarrasing example of the Latent Racism in American Society.
Until one day, another group of men board an airliner...
Little Green Footballs (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=3079)
-
Kieran, I don't think that Clinton necessarily acted correctly. I do want to see Clinton and Bush painted with the same brush though.
Intrepid, quite the imagination you have. No need to get all workd up over a piece of fiction though.
-
Hard to paint Clinton and Bush with the same brush to be honest.
GWB had all of 8 months in office when the World Trade Center's came crashing down. Bill Clinton had 8 years-that's a significant difference. Bill Clinton had how many attacks during his watch-The USS Cole, the WTC #1, the attack on the air force tower in Saudi Arabia, the attacks on US Embassies. In all of these attacks he-and his administation-either failed to find or destroy the organization responsible for this carnage. The pilots that took down the WTC came to the US during Clinton's Presidency, not George W. Bush's.
Lets face it, Bill Clinton wouldn't have gone after Osama seriously short of an attack on the World Trade Center. I don't think that GWB would have let it get that far if he had been president. There was plenty of warning, over 7 years ago but another president didn't listen to it. Lets put the blame where it belongs.
-
I'm just glad we didn't end up with Al Gore. We probably would have ended up simply sending a few more cruise missled into afganistan.
-
Originally posted by Innominate
I'm just glad we didn't end up with Al Gore. We probably would have ended up simply sending a few more cruise missled into afganistan.
Bingo!
Either that or the DNC would have asked for campaign contributions from them and called the al Qaeda and Taliban forces our allies.
-
......and called the al Qaeda and Taliban forces our allies
Errm, actually until the early '90s they were your allies, US foreign policy was directly responsible for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism which was funded to the tune of billions of dollars dollars, mainly with the aim of pissing off the USSR. It's only now that we're seeing the unpleasant effects of this misguided policy :(
-
Originally posted by CH3
......and called the al Qaeda and Taliban forces our allies
Errm, actually until the early '90s they were your allies, US foreign policy was directly responsible for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism which was funded to the tune of billions of dollars dollars, mainly with the aim of pissing off the USSR. It's only now that we're seeing the unpleasant effects of this misguided policy :(
I was suggesting after 9/11 ...
At the time (while we were aiding them -way pre 9/11) they were the lesser of two evils when compared to the USSR. Friends today are tomorrows enemies and vise versa. Just have to know when to hold em and when to fold em...
-
Al Queda threw gasoline on a fire that should have been ignored. You diddlyed up Al Queda.
Masher
-
Originally posted by CH3
......and called the al Qaeda and Taliban forces our allies
US foreign policy was directly responsible for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism
While the U.S. did support Afghanistan in throwing off an invading oppressor, I call roadkill on your statement regarding the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.
While the Afghans may have succumbed to forced communism without U.S. help it is a fundamental belief among Americans that all peoples should be free to choose their own beliefs, lifestyles, and religions. If it means helping a people to be free today even though they may hate us tomorrow so be it. A bit melodramatic, but nonetheless true.