Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on July 24, 2003, 04:26:38 PM
-
and the loser is.....
THE CIA FAILED to act on intelligence it had about hijackers, the FBI was unable to track al-Qaida in the United States and key communications intercepted by the National Security Agency were never circulated,
us.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/943459.asp?0cv=NB10
-
"But no evidence surfaced in the probe to show that the government could have prevented the attacks, the report says, even had those and many other failures not occurred."
Need to read the whole thing next time.
-
Yep, you cut the CIA by 50% (thks Clinton) and your intel goes down the ****ter...you just can't recover good intelligence overnight when you're rebuilding.
-
Well ... it was already known it was a failure of some agency.
The real question is : can it happen again ?
-
but ,but , MT, we must protect the constutional rights of illegal aliens, so the CIA,FBI,et all could not do anything until they had PROOF.....oh brother
-
Originally posted by straffo
Well ... it was already known it was a failure of some agency.
The real question is : can it happen again ?
In a free country like ours, you bet it can. That's the problem with freedom, it leaves too many security leaks...but I'd rather have the leaks than a totalitarian Gov't.
-
IIRC, the hijackers were in this country legally.
-
An entire section on whether there was Saudi support for the hijackers was deleted, as were 26 pages on their foreign financing.
I wonder why?
-
Originally posted by Lance
I wonder why?
You don't take a dump in the dish you eat out of , now, do you?
This again expresses the need for alternative fuels or fuel sources (Like our Arctic region)
-
That is what I was afraid of, Rip.
-
Originally posted by Lance
That is what I was afraid of, Rip.
Well, its no secret, 70% of all consumer goods require a key element, its called Oil. Without it, we're powerless.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yep, you cut the CIA by 50% (thks Clinton) and your intel goes down the ****ter...you just can't recover good intelligence overnight when you're rebuilding.
CIA already failed under Bush administration :D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You don't take a dump in the dish you eat out of , now, do you?
This again expresses the need for alternative fuels or fuel sources (Like our Arctic region)
Many people in power believe it is smarter to deplete external sources of oil before using the American resource. A long term strategic policy.
-
Well, hell, Rip... If you could cut your personal lubricant usage in half, we could probably cut that percentage down to 40% or so.
Seriously, you don't have a problem with all data regarding Saudi Arabia's ties to 9/11 being removed from the report? I know the oil is important and all, but isn't knowing who did or didn't have a hand in the deaths of 3000ish Americans also slightly important?
-
Lance, when it can reveal and endanger agents in the field, as they claim it could, I don't have a problem with them leaving that info off the report. Naturally, the left is going to say "Business ties!".
Later in the year there will be an independant review done, a prudent person would wait to make judgement after that report, not before.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
CIA already failed under Bush administration :D
"you just can't recover good intelligence overnight when you're rebuilding. "
-
Lance,
It's easy to point the finger afterwards, you will always find a failure in the intelligence or some other agency if you look hard enough.
but is this kind of finger pointing smart? no.
Reminds me of the soviet union way to deal with problem - find a good black sheep candidate, point it out to the people and deal with it.
Even if the black sheep didn't have anything to do with the problem, but the people thinks otherwise (as if they're given a choice to believe otherwise?)
Same goes on in the Bush administration, now that the WMD hasn't been found as so far.. suddenly it is the other people whos guilty, but Bush himself only acted accordingly to the intelligence given to him (poor mislead president.. yeah right... :rolleyes: )
It's hilarious they made up a false story for jessica lynch, almost like they would have seen 'wag the dog' and done alike :D
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Lance,
It's easy to point the finger afterwards, you will always find a failure in the intelligence or some other agency if you look hard enough.
but is this kind of finger pointing smart? no.
Reminds me of the soviet union way to deal with problem - find a good black sheep candidate, point it out to the people and deal with it.
Even if the black sheep didn't have anything to do with the problem, but the people thinks otherwise (as if they're given a choice to believe otherwise?)
Same goes on in the Bush administration, now that the WMD hasn't been found as so far.. suddenly it is the other people whos guilty, but Bush himself only acted accordingly to the intelligence given to him (poor mislead president.. yeah right... :rolleyes: )
It's hilarious they made up a false story for jessica lynch, almost like they would have seen 'wag the dog' and done alike :D
Lance, here is an example of "not prudent, but young and dumb"
Friends don't let friends become dumb. Lance, I know you're an educated person, don't fall into the trap that the above poster has.
-
Rip: I dunno, I don't see how a statement of "It has been determined that neither the Saudi Arabian government or royal family provided any aid to Al Qaeda prior to the 9/11 attacks" would endanger whatever intelligence sources we have over there or harm our arabian oil flow. Since this is not in the report, and in fact the section concerned with Saudi Arabia's ties to Al Qaeda (if any) was completely removed from the report, I have to wonder what was in this ommited section that is so potentially dangerous.
Fishu: Blah?
-
Lance, give me an example why it would be in SA best interest to allow such a thing, if they knew in advance, to happen. So they could be found out later on? Do you think they would really risk that? And why would they risk that? What do they have to gain from 9/11?
-
Woohoo... only 3 posts to a Clinton reference!!!
I guess I'll go read the article now.
-
Rip, if the idea of some member(s) of the Saudi Aradia government and/or royal family helping support al qaeda prior to 9/11 is so preposterous, why was there even an investigation into it? What do we have to gain by investigating what you make out to be unthinkable and impossible? If the result of that investigation cleared S.A. from any level of involvement/support of al quaeda prior to 9/11, what do we have to gain by suppressing the results?
I don't think that the S.A. government as a whole knew of 9/11 before it happened. What I do think is possible, however, is that an individual or small group within the government/royal family sympathized with al qaeda's cause and provided tangible support for them prior to 9/11 -- most likely monetarily.
If the money or influence of members of the Saudi government and/or royal family helped crash those air liners into the World Trade Centers, then they need to answer for it. **** their oil.
-
hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20
if the dems think they can turn this into 2004 winning issue, they are more hard up than I thought
see our "great" bob graham on the tele already saying how the entire 9/11 murderous act could have been avoided only if ....
can't most/all crimes/murders be prevented if once after the fact you have all the facts and could travel back in time and act on them??
and once they take the committees suggestions, how long until some "right" will said to be trampled by the same group who proposed the action?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I guess I'll go read the article now.
Shoulda done that before you started this rediculous thread. BTW, if you can't stand the heat (read-Clitorus reference) go back to the oral office.
-
Shoulda done that before you started this rediculous thread. BTW, if you can't stand the heat (read-Clitorus reference) go back to the oral office.
I can't find the clitorus... it's just plain rediculous!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
In a free country like ours, you bet it can. That's the problem with freedom, it leaves too many security leaks...but I'd rather have the leaks than a totalitarian Gov't.
well ... I expressed my though badly, I was not questioning the security but more the failure of the agency.
I remember the Paris attentat were all French agency were hunting the terrorists and failed capturing them before some attentats.