Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Udie on June 06, 2002, 10:54:00 PM
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8599-2002Jun6.html
Reaction was generally positive in Congress, though Democrats said Bush's action was overdue and likely to be overhauled on Capitol Hill.
Have to agree with the Dems there, though to them (in washington) it's just a good political club to hit GW with.
"I think they saw they were getting behind the wave," said Senate Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.
Anybody else tired of listening to this old hipocrite?
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said he wasn't sure a reorganization was needed. "The question is whether shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic is the way to go," he said.
So Sen. Kennedy are you compairing the USA to the Titanic? Are you saying the war is already lost? WTF kind of leadership is that? Stupid, old, alcoholic, falandering, pompus, murdering hipocrite!
White House officials privately acknowledged the proposal could be drastically watered down in turf wars as the affected agencies – and the 88 congressional committees and subcommittees that oversee them – fight to retain power.
maybe we have already lost the war.....
Is there any real leadership out there anymore? I still support the President, but my confidence in his ability to lead us through this is wearing thin.
-
would you rather have Al Gore?
I hope not
-
Udie,
I don't now what your problem is with this situation. Did you actually expect that ANYONE would be able to set up an entire intel and security operation to safeguard an open Democracy?? On the first effort in less than a year?!?!?!
Securing this country is like trying to plug a large leaky pool with bandaids. Small considerations like the Constitutional guarantees for both citizen and non citizens, ACLU, PC worries that we might be "profilling",(sarcasm intended) one of the largest non fortified borders in the globe, all to combat a guerrilla force who targets noncombatants with non military style tactics and weapons. This is a task that is beyond an instant solution.
Look at the "support" listed in the article. It has long since been "politics as usual". The "unity" expressed by the likes of kennedy has disolved into petty bickering and posturing. According to the article there are 88 Congressional oversight committees for the FBI, CIA and all other related activities. Do you think any of these congressional "experts" will be willing to give up their power to make an effective organization??? They are all going to want the biggest piece of the pie to increase their own political agendas. That is the majority of the "so called leadership problem" you are referring to.
There comes a time to sit back a bit and look to see what is the major goal. Right now it isn't making "sound bites" about the titanic or backstabbing the home team. It's what are we going to do to secure our country without turning it into a police state and destroying the democratic principles it stands for. This isn't a fast win event. It's going to take a lot of time and effort. The old history lesson about sunshine patriots is very appropriate for this situation.
Until we start acting lke a unified country instead of playing democrats vs republicans we cannot hope to convince the enemy that we are serious in our homeland. We appear to be a divided foe to them and that just spurs them on. We cannot give up freedonm hoping to find security. The Germans in WW2 tried that in occupied Europe and they never did stop all the guerrilla actions by partizans. It won't work here either. There must be another way to fight these "people" without making ourselves like them.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Until we start acting lke a unified country instead of playing democrats vs republicans we cannot hope to convince the enemy that we are serious in our homeland.
Quite often, this simply means "quit playing democrat" and come on board with the team.
-
In the battle between armor and warhead, the warhead inevitably wins.
Chimpy dropped the ball, now he's scrambling to pick up the fumble.
Our leadership needs to solve the problem of why they attack, only this will ensure future safety.
I don't expect to see any real progress until chimpys out of the White House, he's profiting too much from the current state of affairs to want it to change.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Quite often, this simply means "quit playing democrat" and come on board with the team.
I'm just trying to figure out if the team is the DNC or the RNC :rolleyes:
Seems this admin under the "NEW TONE IN WASHINGTON" is bending over backwards for the dems agenda more than its own party. Weaz, I don't see your issue with this pres. He seems to make the dems as happy if not happier than the Reps...
As for the "new" branch of gov. Dunno, Don't know how more chiefs are gonna fix the problem. Seems they should get the chiefs they have today to work more effeciently and communicate better between themselves, lose the egos for the better good of the country. I think they have enough manpower now. Better equipment, policies and powers of existing resources. Not to create another. Thought we were for a smaller gov :(
Funny how the dems asked for it and when they get it, their best drunk, ole Teddy shows his arse.... :)
-
Weaz, I don't see your issue with this pres. He seems to make the dems as happy if not happier than the Reps...
It has nothing to do with partisan politics.
It has to do with quality of his character, chimpy has shown his lack of throughout his life, his actions since assuming the office only reinforce my opinion of his shortcomings as a man.....much less as president.
-
Honestly, Weazel, what could Bush do differently? Abdicate?
You're really going to wind up as some wild, toothless man shouting at traffic from your porch if you're not careful... ;)
-
Honestly, Weazel, what could Bush do differently?
You said it, how about honesty?
You're really going to wind up as some wild, toothless man shouting at traffic from your porch if you're not careful...
I wondered how long it would take for a republican to sound off with the equivelant of shouting "Jerrry, Jerry" on the Springer show.
-
I swear, if we could find a way to desalinate the piss Weazel and Eagler expend at each other, we could eliminate 90% of the droughts in the world. :D
-
I dunno, seems like all you're doing is spouting rhetoric, attacking character without any form of proof, and you say I am yelling like someone on trash tv?
-
"Recent revelations have surfaced that the Bush administration had been specifically warned of 9/11-style attacks by a host of foreign intelligence services, and failed to properly address them. In order to get out from under any censure for failing to deal with these warnings, politics transmogrified into the use of fear to cow the populace.
On May 30th, politics came into the 9/11 issue from a totally unexpected direction.
Enter Larry Klayman, General Counsel for the conservative activist group Judicial Watch. Klayman has been on the scene for years, coming into prominence as one of the foremost anti-Clinton bombardiers on the Right. Best known for his preponderance of the theory that Clinton Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was assassinated, and that the plane crash that actually killed him was merely a coverup, Klayman spent a great deal of time spreading the story of the 'Clinton Body Count' - those unfortunate souls whacked by Bill because they got too close to his drug-running out of Arkansas airports, or because they asked too many questions about his sex life, etc. Klayman managed to sue the Clinton White House some 18 times before 1999.
On May 30th, Klayman emerged from the mists of anti-Clintonism and fired a stupendous broadside across the bow of the Bush administration and the FBI. Appearing before members of the press in a conference broadcast by C-SPAN, Klayman introduced an 11-year veteran FBI agent named Robert Wright. Judicial Watch has claimed Wright as a client, and intends to defend him against what Klayman describes as a serious campaign by the FBI and the Department of Justice to intimidate and destroy him.
Why?
According to Klayman, Wright has been sounding an alarm within the FBI for years about terrorist activities within the United States. Rather than heed Wright's warnings, the FBI has deflected and obstructed his efforts to curtail dangerous movements by agents of Hamas and Hezbollah. Wright's activities within the FBI were geared towards thwarting money-laundering activities by these agents, and he is claiming that his efforts were stymied because important government officials like Colin Powell have been coddling these pro-Palestinian groups to protect the reputation of Yasser Arafat. One can only assume the higher purpose of this coddling was to preserve tattered hopes for a negotiated settlement in the Mideast.
Klayman leaned across the podium at the press on Thursday and claimed that the FBI "did not do its job" regarding 9/11, that Wright had been trying since 1999 to get the FBI to clean house before disaster struck, and that his reward for doing so was threats of civil suits, loss of employment and criminal charges. Klayman juxtaposed this against the recent praise heaped upon Colleen Rowley, the Minnesota FBI agent whose whistleblowing memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller outlining all of the agency's failures to see 9/11 coming was lionized by the Director as he announced the dawn of a new improved FBI. Wright was threatened while Rowley is praised, said Klayman. The comparison was devastating.
The FBI bore the brunt of Klayman's lashing, but it was definitely not alone. The Bush administration was blasted as, "...an administration which, despite being elected on the basis of restoring national security, slept for nine months, and did virtually nothing to shore up the inadequacies of the FBI."
Klayman went on to describe the Bush administration as, "...an administration which comes forward yesterday to cover their backside after it becomes apparent that they hid information from the American people for nine months - material information as to how, in the new admission of FBI Director Robert Mueller, the 9/11 attacks could have possibly been prevented."
Klayman addressed Vice President Dick Cheney specifically, lambasting his recent claim that America is defenseless against future terrorism. According to Klayman and Wright, our defenselessness is based on nothing more or less than rank incompetence on the part of the FBI. That incompetence reaches into the highest offices of government and into the responsibility of men like Cheney and Bush, who should be doing more to change the inadequate capabilities of intelligence branches like the FBI.
"What have you, the Bush administration, been doing for the last nine months," railed Klayman, "that just now you're advising the American people that we don't have the defenses even after having lost 3,000 lives?"
The Politics of Treason (http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/06.01A.wrp.treason.htm)
Yeah.....chimpys honest, are you forgetting HE said his administration had NO WARNING? :rolleyes:
You have repeatedly stated you could not support him if shown to be untruthful to the American people, time to put up or shut up, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
-
Originally posted by weazel
Chimpy dropped the ball, now he's scrambling to pick up the fumble.
It's so funny to me. I'm not Bush's biggest fan. There are things he's done in office that have pissed me off. There are a lot more that I don't agree with. But whenever I hear Weazel call him "Chimpy" I like Bush a little more. Sorta like how that "Slick Willy" nonsense got me sympathetic to the Clinton cause. It's fun to polorize people :)
-Sikboy
-
Think I'll just follow Sikboy around and agree with him. :)
Hardly a gold medal peice of evidence there Weazel. And I would love to see Dubya sent packing in a couple of years.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Think I'll just follow Sikboy around and agree with him. :)
Hardly a gold medal peice of evidence there Weazel. And I would love to see Dubya sent packing in a couple of years.
Alright!!!! Tahgut is a Republican now!!!! :eek: :eek: :D
-
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
-
Originally posted by Udie
Alright!!!! Tahgut is a Republican now!!!! :eek: :eek: :D
Bite your redneck, right wing, gun toting, reactionary tongue!!!!!!!!
:p
-
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"
-
Originally posted by weazel
Trumans policy was "The buck stops here".
Bushs policy is ":The buck passes through here"
Weazel, your country needs you (http://www.nsa.gov/programs/employ/index.html) and your keen analytical mind.
-Sikboy
-
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 :)
-
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? :(
-
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.
-
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:
-
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?
-
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.
-
Originally posted by weazel
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.
whew......
-
now can we go back to posting funny pictures :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I don't care which parties candidate holds the presidency, in situations like this whichever candidate it may be deserves to...and must be held accountable for their incompetence in regards to allowing an atrocity like 9/11 to occur.
Anything else is roadkill, and I'll bet we can all agree on that.
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.
now can we go back to posting funny pictures :)
Sorry bud, I can't find any humor in this topic.
-
me neither, but it ain't worth raising my blood pressure over as in the end we are a bunch of hens clucking and pecking at the ground at it is all for naught ...
Easier to throw in a :) and a and keep it civil than to give up salt
:) :)
-
Clinton would be guilty ...except he was invented by Kurt Tank.
:p
-
Can anyone actually argue weazels points?
-
Legal group wonders why White House took Cipro before attacks
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
Legal watchdog group Judicial Watch (http://www.judicialwatch.org/) has filed lawsuits against several Bush administration agencies for failure to produce documents concerning the terrorist anthrax attacks of last October, the organization announced today.
The agencies named include: the FBI, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases and the U.S. Postal Service. The documents were requested under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA.
Additional suits involving other anthrax-related FOIA requests with other agencies are likely to be filed in the next two weeks, says Washington, D.C.-based Judicial Watch.
The organization represents hundreds of postal workers from the Brentwood Postal Facility in Washington. Until the facility was finally condemned, postal workers there handled all of the mail for the city, including the mail that contained the anthrax-laden envelopes addressed to Sens. Daschle and Leahy. While Capitol Hill workers received prompt medical care, says Judicial Watch, Brentwood postal workers were ordered by USPS officials to continue working in the contaminated facility. Two Brentwood workers died from inhalation anthrax, and dozens more are suffering from a variety of ailments related to the anthrax attacks.
In October, press reports revealed that White House staff had been on a regimen of the powerful antibiotic Cipro since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Judicial Watch wants to know why White House workers, including President Bush, began taking the drug nearly a month before anthrax was detected on Capitol Hill.
"The American people deserve a full accounting from the Bush administration, the FBI and other agencies concerning the anthrax attacks," Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman said in a statement. "The FBI's investigation seems to have dead-ended, and frankly, that is not very reassuring given their performance with the Sept. 11 hijackers. One doesn't simply start taking a powerful antibiotic for no good reason. The American people are entitled to know what the White House staffers knew nine months ago."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should Americans have to sue the government for information, doesn't this strike anyone else as absurd?
Oh........let me guess, if asked the Bush administration will respond "providing those documents could jeopardize national security". :rolleyes:
It just keeps getting deeper doesn't it? :(
Weazel, your country needs you and your keen analytical mind.
-Sikboy
Sarcasm obviously, I'm not smart enough to hold a posistion with the NSA.
Weazel, rock on. Keep voiceing your opinion. Personally, I think you're full of toejam but I'll defend your right to say it.
__________________
Apache
OK, do you mind pointing out exactly where I'm full of toejam? :D
Can anyone actually argue weazels points?
Odd isn't it thrawn?
-
y00 @rr a d00mb f@kk wez, | 0wN@g33 y00!
y00 suxx0r$.
There, I have now argued against weazel's points as well as any good loyal republican/libertarian/national socialist/democrat can.
Ownage.
-
Originally posted by weazel
Sarcasm obviously, I'm not smart enough to hold a posistion with the NSA.
You obviously have not met some of the people that work for the NSA. :D
Keep the posts comin' Weaz.
-
weazel,
You want to quote my post, fine. Do not add to it to make it look like I said something I didn't.
Like Apache said, you're full of fecal matter. All you have are baseless accusations fueled by a pathological hatred and a conspiracy paranoia.
BTW some of the "Government employees" were taking anthrax injocculations as far back as 3 years or more. I guess that was a Bush conspiracy too. :rolleyes: The military ordered it's troops to take it even though they were not due to be rotated overseas.
-
If not we really are in deep toejam. :D
Originally posted by Maverick
weazel,
You want to quote my post, fine. Do not add to it to make it look like I said something I didn't.
Like Apache said, you're full of fecal matter. All you have are baseless accusations fueled by a pathological hatred and a conspiracy paranoia.
BTW some of the "Government employees" were taking anthrax injocculations as far back as 3 years or more. I guess that was a Bush conspiracy too. :rolleyes: The military ordered it's troops to take it even though they were not due to be rotated overseas.
When I quoted you it was to the republican mantra you keep expounding on:
"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."
My response was:
"I don't care which parties candidate holds the presidency, in situations like this whichever candidate it may be deserves to...and must be held accountable for their incompetence in regards to allowing an atrocity like 9/11 to occur.
Anything else is roadkill, and I'll bet we can all agree on that."
Buh Bye to your strawman, he's now ashes.
I suppose I should have put it before my response and didn't intend to make it appear you were saying something else, now about the republican mantra I referred to:
" Until we start acting lke a unified country instead of playing democrats vs republicans we cannot hope to convince the enemy that we are serious in our homeland."
Your statement is just laughable.
You have bought into the "circle the wagons" crap that Bush and his thugs are using to TRY and cow the American people.... that we are *powerless to stop terrorist attacks* in our country and that questioning his administration is equivelant to supporting terror.
So many Americans seem to be willing to allow themselves to be controlled by FEAR, Bush and Co know it...and are using it to the best of their ability, shame on you for perpetuating their ruse.
I call roadkill!
Let me say it again...roadkill.
One of our systems biggest assets is the right.....and the duty of all Americans to exercise, without this it could easily result in a government more akin to a dictatorship than a democracy.
Point out the "fecal matter" in my responses, just because you say it's so doesn't nullify the truth in my statements.
Finally:
Oh...and taking anthrax inocculations while in the military, it's a matter of common sense to have troops *prepared* to deploy without rushing them through a vaccine program prior to it.
WHOOSH! There went your other strawman.
You really must try harder next time. :rolleyes:
How am I doing so far Santa? :D
-
weaz
at what age did you become so paraniod?
:)
-
weazel,
Get this straight. This so called republican mantra you refer to is in your mind. Do not infer what I have not implied.
You really should seek professional help. You are not worth any further expenditure of my time.
-
Attacking me is the last refuge of a weak mind.
Shall I post links to quotes from the Bush administration as proof or do you concede the argument?
My analysis of your remarks isn't out of context...and are accurate, apparently to close for your comfort it appears.
Eagler...where theres smoke theres usually a fire. :)
Originally posted by Maverick
weazel,
Get this straight. This so called republican mantra you refer to is in your mind. Do not infer what I have not implied.
You really should seek professional help. You are not worth any further expenditure of my time.
-
Originally posted by weazel
"Recent revelations have surfaced that the Bush administration had been specifically warned of 9/11-style attacks by a host of foreign intelligence services, and failed to properly address them. In order to get out from under any censure for failing to deal with
I live work and breath IN the Intel community... trust me, all this B.S. about specific warnings is just that. If there was any warning at all (which I don't really doubt due to the nature of the system) it most likely got tied up in bureaucracy long before it ever got to the White House (due to the nature of the system). Further, it was probably VERY vague until some finger pointer got ahold of it AFTER the fact.
-
"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."
Congress is who needs to be investigated, and they know it. It's thier ridiculous laws that lead to any Intel failings.. thiers alone.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
weaz
at what age did you become so paraniod?
:)
We have nothing to worry about. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/eveningnews/main509140.shtml)
I wonder when the FBI will come investigate me? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/16/eveningnews/main509308.shtml)
What the FBI does, should make Americans afraid. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/14/eveningnews/main508953.shtml)
-
sorry, stll don't see what your afraid of
we have enough left leaning in this country that forget right side, I'd be happy if we just got somewhere close to center...
-
No kidding... If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Eagler
sorry, stll don't see what your afraid of
we have enough left leaning in this country that forget right side, I'd be happy if we just got somewhere close to center...
It's just that I value the core principles that make our nation what it is..... the most successful and longest lived democracy in history.
Tampering with the laws and principles that made it such is just asking for trouble IMO.
BTW, thanks for your responses.
Even though I don't agree with the philosophy you subscribe to, it's nice to see you aren't a fair weather republican.... and you stand firm in the eye of the storm.
Right or wrong, (your wrong :p ) it's that kind of commitment the country must have to continue...and that is something I respect. (you too Udie)
Further, it was probably VERY vague until some finger pointer got ahold of it AFTER the fact.
Tumor, I've stated in another thread I don't believe Bush knew that the planes would be used in the fashion they were or he would have stopped them if possible.
However he did admit to warnings of less than that *specific* nature, I think he envisioned common terrorism (hijacking in the traditional sense, etc) saw the political capital he would recieve and didn't do his job due to this.
If he had known the end result I have no doubt he would have done the right thing, trying to cover up the extent of their knowledge after the attacks was wrong....and doesn't inspire confidence that he will do the right thing in the future.
-
Weazel
In reference to the news (cbs) stories you posted. What did the so called "offenders" actually say? Verbatim? Not once was the offending statement (verbal or written) printed (or did I miss something). You know as well as I do that Freedom of Speech in the United States is not free.
If you make certain types of statements... you risk prosecution.
ie: "If you do that again, I'm going to shoot you" <
"I'm going to shoot you" << Terroristic threat (a real live offense in most states)
An open threat to the President of the United states, has always brought the scrutiny of the Secret Service, and if warranted the FBI, thats nothing new. I don't know but I would imagine the laws take it further than just the president, however when a concerned citizen (be they justified or just stupid) bring something to the attention of the authorities, why shouldn't those authorities take a look? It's not like the jump on every single accusation made, in all actuallity most are probably ignored. The investigating agencies are not mindless robots as there really is a process. Besides that, I don't recall any of these news stories getting into the arrest and prosecution of any of these people. I'll wager there is much more to the stories you posted than reported.
As far as privacy on the Internet, I'm allot more worried about criminals than the FBI, as I have nothing to hide. However, if you elect to use the internet, you elect to be watched. By who is anyones guess at any given time BUT, why should the FBI (law enforcement agencies) not develope methods at least as good if not better than the hacker (criminal)? What would your opinion be if your credit card number was one of those the "Russians" had obtained?
LASTLY (whew), in reference to the warnings. Man.. there is just no way any single agency, organization or office could have done anything more about 9/11 than what was done. The circumstances "at the time" just couldn't support it. But do this, dig deep and trust me on this... the work is being done to "try" to prevent anything like 9/11 happening again. However, in my proffesional opinion.. we have yet to see the worst. I hope I'm wrong.
..oh ya, and I don't think there's been any coverup of the extent of information the White House had. I do however believe 30 years of SOP bit us in the ass. Besides, it's not actually the resposibility of the White House to do anything if you think about it. Personally, I blame the INS first and the FBI second. The INS for not doing thier job, and the FBI for not taking action of thier own. I "believe" I read that the some FBI warning message was sent (vague), however THEY are the guys who are employed to do something about it.
-
Don't get me wrong...I'm happy they busted those amazinhunks. ;)
I just used that as an example to show their capabilities, and the possibility that it could be used against you, I, or anybody else in America.
I have nothing to hide from the government, but the thought of them monitoring my keystrokes or reading my email is upsetting and a violation of my civil rights, I feel this shouldn't be allowed without probable cause or suspicion of criminal or terrorist activity.
"The right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.
To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment."
Justice Louis Brandeis in Olmstead v. U.S. (1928).
Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means...would bring terrible retribution...[and] against that pernicious doctrine, this court should resolutely set its face. -- Olmstead v U.S., 277 U.S. 348 (1928), Justice Louis D. Brandeis,
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Olmstead v U.S., 277 U.S. 348 (1928), Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Our interests would be much better served by focusing on the real threat to our country, I don't believe the citizens of the U.S. are that threat.
Edit:
I should have mentioned you and Kieran also, thanks for your input. (even though your wrong too :p )
At one time Kieran said I was one of the people in Aces High he would most like to meet.
I doubt that's the case anymore due to our O-Club disagreements and that bothers me, but right or wrong I feel compelled to voice my concerns about the current administration, to do any less would be un-American in my opinion.
I still hope to sit down and have a beer with him someday, and you other tightie righties as well. :D
-
Originally posted by weazel
......... I don't believe the citizens of the U.S. are that threat.
Not yet.
Anyway, if you rob the agencies of thier ability to eavesdrop, they can't do thier job. Ever heard of Intelligence Oversight? It's alive and well and we in the community are reminded of it daily. And.. it's not just U.S. citizens that it covers, it's U.S. PERSON or PERSONS.. the definition of that is huge.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/EO12334.htm
Collecting on U.S. persons involves strict rules, its not a haphazard sequence of random events. You can't have freedom without the ability to defend it, so how can you tell the FBI or any other agency they can't have the ability to do so?
At the end of the day, all we can do is hope those who are given the powers to conduct collection activities do so in legal fashion, and those who have the responsibility to monitor these activities do thier job. Once the agencies have done something really damaging.. I'll be all for shutting them down (like the IRS). Until then, I'm not going to worry about it.. in the interest of attempting to prevent another terrorist attack.