| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Edame writes:
Are we talking about Chamberlain or WWII? If it was Bush's fault that Osama bin Laden attacked the US, is it not also Chamberlain's fault that Hitler attacked Poland? There may not be a 'smoking gun' (yet) that says "Bush Knew", but there are plenty of warnings like these, from both home and abroad. There are literally thousands of such reports received each and every month. Looking back, it is easy to pick out the ones that tied bin Laden to 9/11. That's almost certainly the reason bin Laden was identified as the man behind the attacks so quickly. Hindsight is always 20/20. But it is quite literally impossible to take action on each of the thousands of tips. You forgot the 70 FBI full-field investigations. No, they are quite simply irrelevant. The fact that the FBI is conducting 70 investigations that it considers to be bin Laden related doesn't mean that any of these investigations had produced fruit, it just means that there are 70 investigations going on. As long as it wasn't there in big neon lights they couldn't possibly have done a thing. Even Richard Clarke said that if all the pre-Bush administration "plans" had been implemented, it wouldn't have prevented 9/11. You are the president. You read the August 6 PDB. You decide action must be taken. What actions do you take? You are unaware when a plane (or which plane) will be hijacked, from where, by whom. On top of that, there is the additional report that an attack involving explosives is contemplated. Does this mean a truck bomb against a New York federal building? Which building? When? How do you determine which suspicious-looking characters -- in New York, yet -- to detain for search and questioning? Have you ever been to New York? The whole city is freaking crawling with suspicious-looking (and acting) characters. Despite the scoffing various posters here have heaped upon the tree alternate histories I have provided in another recent thread, they are not exaggerated. Given the information on hand, there was no way to prevent the attacks from occurring absent massive and prolonged violations of liberty -- something that America pre 9/11 (and even post 9/11 for that matter) would not have countenanced from a president still widely perceived as illegitimate after the closeness of the election results. Come on, Edame -- what specific actions would you have taken? pinky
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
he was referring to your "bush-hater" comment.
way to miss the point
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
I have to congratulate you on your spin on the content of this memo. it's worthy of Bill O'Reilly.
there was no way to prevent the attacks from occurring absent massive and prolonged violations of liberty first, this is complete BS. you need to stop reading "alternative histories" 3) Cite the actionable intelligence - meaning "something specific that action could have been taken on" to prevent 9/11. a classic red herring; and you completely miss the point to boot. no, that memo does not contain any actionable intelligence. but the argument is that if the Bush administration had recognized the threat of terrorism early, they would have had actionable intelligence by september or sooner. keep in mind that Richard Clarke had been warning the Bush administration about the threat of al qaida since the first week of the administration in January. if all they could come up with was a page and a quarter memo containing some vague warnings seven full months after they were warned, they clearly did not take the threat seriously. you seem to have taken the paucity of actionable intelligence in this memo as "evidence" that 9/11 could not have been prevented but, as I said, that is completely missing the point. the memo was made by the Bush administration. they aren't just handed these memos to act on ya know? they decide where to allocate resources including resources for gathering intelligence. these decisions are based on the priorities of the administration. it's a fuckin' insult to to the victims of the attack to say "we won't apologize. we didn't have any actionable intelligence, so we couldn't prevent it." the truth is that they didn't have any actionable intelligence because they didn't make it a priority early on. they certainly had plenty of time to do so, and plenty of warnings.
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
So let's just shitcan the whole circle jerk, recognize reality -- it was neither Bush's fault nor Clinton's fault; it was the Jihadist's fault
well isn't that convenient. I agree that the jihadists are primarily at fault, but to absolve Bush (or Clinton) of any culpability in the matter is just plain ridiculous. and besides that, you seem to suggest that some people are blaming Bush in lieu of blaming bin Laden, which is simplistic and incorrect. there is plenty of blame to go around and there are different kinds of blame. consider this scenario: if a suicide bomber slips through airport security and blows up an airplane, of course you blame the bomber and put anyone else responsible on trial. that goes without saying. but you don't completely excuse the security people at the airport. and you certainly don't excuse the head of security there. these people have specific responsiblities and if they fail, questions have to be asked to find out what went wrong and how to fix it. what if the head of security dragged his feet in the investigation or made excuses for himself? what would you think of him?
| |||||||
|
gone ![]() Registered: 01/14/03 Posts: 1,270 Loc: outta here |
| ||||||
Quote: Firstly I didn't claim 9/11 was Bush's fault (despite your claim that he is in fact blame-free), I said there was a possibility that he should share some of the blame if he knew the attacks were going to happen and did nothing to prevent them. Secondly I don't see what a WWII reference has to do with a terrorist attack. You are comparing a country's armed forces invading another, with a terrorist attack by a tiny group of fanaticals. Apples and oranges. Quote: Can you perhaps point to some evidence that the President receives "literally thousands" of such reports each month? This was a classified briefing made in direct response to Bush's request for information on possible attacks by Bin Laden in the US. Edit: Could be that Bush even lied about the nature of the brief though. Quote: Quote: I'm glad we have your expert knowledge to tell us that the FBI investigations mentioned in a document titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S" are in fact "irrelevant". 70 ongoing investigations related to Bin Laden, that alone should merit further investigation, never mind all of the other warnings from foreign intelligence. Quote: Wait wait, I know this one. I go on holiday for a month right? Quote: No, they're outright fictitious. Quote: Not being the POTUS, or knowing exactly what he can and can't do makes it a bit difficult, but I'll give it a whirl (obviously with the benefit of hindsight). "The FBI are investigating 70 Bin Laden related cases? That's a possible terrorist cell in each state and then some. I'd like to make sure that the FBI are not being hindered in these investigations, and would like to be kept updated on them. I also want to make sure the the FBI and CIA are speaking to each other on this, a threat level this high needs proper communication and not departmental red-tape and bickering. Let's also make sure we're listening to our foreign allies, they seem to be picking up a lot of info too, lets make sure that the FBI and CIA are following these leads with them too. Now about those hijacking warnings. Is it possible to make the FAA aware of the 70 ongoing investigations? Hell, do they know anything about these threats at all? Maybe have bulletins out on some of the suspects being watched, keep an eye out for them at airports. Also, what can we do about a possible hijacking? Do we have the coverage for fighters to intercept any flight in the US? If not why not? Are Air Marshalls an idea? Could we do it for a few months while we figure out what the nature of the threat is? Oh, and cancel my holiday at the ranch, this is too important for me to be bothering with that right now, lets just see how this threat rides out. If Bin Laden is determined to attack as this document indicates, then we need to be more determined to prevent that." Edited by Edame (04/12/04 06:35 AM)
| |||||||
|
synchronicitycir Registered: 07/15/03 Posts: 1,241 Loc: the brainforest |
| ||||||
Quote: Now, does that include the Bush administration whom you constantly apologizing for? pinksharkmark, you are quickly losing any credibility in this forum. It is quite sad. -------------------- As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know. -Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Now, does that include the Bush administration whom you constantly apologizing for?
No, Bush is working for freedom for all mankind. Don't you know that?
| |||||||
|
Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
...the partisans would claim...
Projecting the unknown future answers of others is logic and not hyperbole? (Will have to contact Webster for a rewrite.) Whether I agree with you or not, usually you think things through. This statement however, merely highlights your bias (while decrying the bias of others) rather than any logical process and precludes any possible discussion rather than encouraging it.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
pinky: "there was no way to prevent the attacks from occurring absent massive and prolonged violations of liberty"
infidelGOD writes: first, this is complete BS. you need to stop reading "alternative histories" How are you going to identify and capture those involved in the planning of the attack -- before the attack occurs -- absent something like the Patriot Act? How are you going to ensure you got all of them, absent something like the Patriot Act and even more widespread violations, such as "vigorous" interrogations conducted without the presence of the defendants' lawyers? Say the FBI arrests the entire first-string team slated for one of the flights. How do you know there isn't a backup team for that flight? How do you find that team? Are there other teams assigned to other flights? How do you find them? By torturing the prisoners you have in custody? While you are interrogating those who have been captured, what can you do to protect every domestic flight from being hijacked? You will note that even three years after 9/11, cockpit doors haven't been hardened, pilots are not armed, air marshalls are not on every flight, and every time a flight is cancelled due to an orange alert there is sneering and derision at "fear-mongering for political purposes". no, that memo does not contain any actionable intelligence. Finally. Someone who can read. Thank you. but the argument is that if the Bush administration had recognized the threat of terrorism early, they would have had actionable intelligence by september or sooner. How -- absent a massive change in the legal and bureaucratic roadblocks to information sharing which were partially removed by the Patriot Act and the creation of the Homeland Security Office -- is this information to be acquired? keep in mind that Richard Clarke had been warning the Bush administration about the threat of al qaida since the first week of the administration in January. Yes he had been. And he'd been warning Clinton for many long years before that, as well. Just as various others had been warning Bush about Iran's push to obtain nuclear weapons, North Korea's push to do the same, Iraq's stockpile of WMD's, and more. Lest you think I am bashing Clinton on this, I am not. Those who came before President Bush can only be faulted if they had had the political means and the will of the nation to declare a war back then, but failed to do so. But the fact of the matter is that Clinton had no such means either, and the nation was unwilling to go along with such a radical move. It is a little puzzling he chose not to accept the Sudanese offer to hand over bin Laden with no strings attached, seeing the enormous importance Clinton allegedly attached to the threat bin Laden posed, but let's leave that aside for the moment. The fact that terrorism and the war being waged by al Qaeda was not even an issue in the 2000 presidential campaign strongly suggests that the political will to declare and fight this war didn't exist before Sept. 11. if all they could come up with was a page and a quarter memo containing some vague warnings seven full months after they were warned, they clearly did not take the threat seriously. Clinton's 45,000 word outgoing report on dangers to US security contained not a single mention of Al Qaeda, and mentioned bin Laden just four times. the memo was made by the Bush administration. they aren't just handed these memos to act on ya know? they decide where to allocate resources including resources for gathering intelligence. Indeed they do. And there were only so many resources to go around, particularly after the massive gutting of the intelligence-gathering community once the Soviet Union collapsed. You make much about Clarke's push to allocate more resources on Al Qaeda. Why do you think there weren't other specialists in the intelligence community pushing for more resources to address their own pet projects -- Iran's push to obtain nuclear weapons, North Korea's push to do the same, Iraq's stockpile of WMD's, and more? And, as has become apparent in the aftermath of 9/11, the way the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence organs interacted turned out to be a hindrance to intelligence gathering when the threat was neither a rogue state nor a domestic criminal but a combination of both. It took an act of Congress to change that -- the US Patriot Act. Prior to that, these organizations were forbidden by law to do things that in retrospect may have provided more specific information. This is why I can't honestly blame even Clinton. Americans simply would not have stood for the changes required absent the impact of a 9/11. The bombings in some embassies far away, the deaths of seventeen sailors on a warship, or even the first attack on the WTC in 1993 were insufficiently horrible to shake up their complacency. Hell, even after 9/11, there is a tremendous amount of opposition to the Patriot Act. these decisions are based on the priorities of the administration. Yes, they are. And in a perfect world, where a government is run by omniscient beings, there are never mistaken priorities, and nothing is ever missed, and the government has unlimited resources and unlimited backing of the electorate. In a perfect world, Clinton would have taken advantage of the opportunities available to capture bin Laden long before the WTC plan had even started. But in the real world, Clinton had other priorities. the truth is that they didn't have any actionable intelligence because they didn't make it a priority early on. they certainly had plenty of time to do so, and plenty of warnings. As did Clinton. The point is that they (Bush and Clinton) had other priorities and limited resources and legal options. All of this finger-pointing after the fact points out the wisdom of "the best defense is a good offense". pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
infidelGOD writes:
but you don't completely excuse the security people at the airport. and you certainly don't excuse the head of security there. these people have specific responsiblities and if they fail, questions have to be asked to find out what went wrong and how to fix it. The analogy is weak in that we are not talking about an airport. We are talking about the third largest nation in the world, with the longest undefended border in the world and thousands of miles of coastline. Let's talk about some scenarios suggested by the August 6 PDB, shall we? It says bin Laden was interested in planning an attack using explosives, and possibly had some interest in federal buildings in New York. What if the real plan had been to lease a tanker filled with LNG (liquid natural gas) and detonate it in New York harbor? Or a container ship packed with plastic exposives? How could this have been prevented? Or what if he decided to stick with the airliner scenario, but rather than divert airliners from their intended flight plans, had instead hijacked one from Montreal and one from Toronto, both of which had New York as their destination? And maybe one from Paris to Washington and one from Ottawa to Washington? How could this have been prevented? What if the target for explosives wasn't in fact a federal building in New York, but a football stadium in Wisconsin? Or a nuclear plant in Ohio? What if the method wasn't in fact explosives, but the release of a nerve gas, or smallpox? The fact of the matter is that unless one has pretty specific information on who, what, where, when, and how, the only way to prevent bad stuff from happening is to pretty much lock down an entire nation forever. Completely search every container coming into the country by ship. Search every person entering a public place. Stop every truck large enough to carry a ton of ammonium nitrate. Search every single suitcase loaded onto every single flight. And more. Not just a single airport, or even all airports, but an entire country. Forever. pinky
| |||||||
|
It's the psychedelic movement! Registered: 04/20/01 Posts: 34,267 Loc: High pride! Last seen: 6 hours, 45 minutes |
| ||||||
|
What are you trying to say, Bush didn't know?
-------------------- -------------------------------- Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Of course he didn't.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Edame writes:
Secondly I don't see what a WWII reference has to do with a terrorist attack. You are comparing a country's armed forces invading another, with a terrorist attack by a tiny group of fanaticals. Apples and oranges. Are you saying the attack on September 11, 2001 was not an act of war? Can you perhaps point to some evidence that the President receives "literally thousands" of such reports each month? The president? Of course not. The people responsible for reporting to the president? Of course. This was a classified briefing made in direct response to Bush's request for information on possible attacks by Bin Laden in the US. Yes it was. And that's the point. The best info the intelligence community had at that time was vague to the point of uselessness from the point of view of stopping four airliners from being flown into targets within the US at some unspecified future date. I'm glad we have your expert knowledge to tell us that the FBI investigations mentioned in a document titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S" are in fact "irrelevant". 70 ongoing investigations related to Bin Laden, that alone should merit further investigation, never mind all of the other warnings from foreign intelligence. Reading comprehension, Edame, reading comprehension. The fact that the FBI saw fit to have so many investigations into bin Laden's activities is irrelevant from the point of view of altering US policy until those investigations provide actionable intelligence. Wait wait, I know this one. I go on holiday for a month right? Way to dodge the question. I don't know how things are done in England, but POTUS, even at his ranch, is in constant touch. He receives daily briefings. As a matter of fact, the August 6 briefing took place at the ranch. It's not as if he takes the phone off the hook for a month. As one of the articles you linked explained, it was a working holiday. No, they're outright fictitious. Of course they are fictitious. The question is, are they unreasonable? Nope. I'd like to make sure that the FBI are not being hindered in these investigations, and would like to be kept updated on them. Hindered by what? By the laws in place at the time? How can one persuade Congress to change those laws immediately? You may want to read this article and see what the director of the FBI has to say about the FBI's efforts and how they related to US policy pre-9/11: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004943 I also want to make sure the the FBI and CIA are speaking to each other on this, a threat level this high needs proper communication and not departmental red-tape and bickering. Remember, this is occurring before the Patriot Act was passed, and before the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Let's also make sure we're listening to our foreign allies, they seem to be picking up a lot of info too, lets make sure that the FBI and CIA are following these leads with them too. As was done. Hell, do they know anything about these threats at all? I think it's safe to assume the FAA knows the possibility of hijackings is a real one. It's not as if these were the first ever hijackings. Maybe have bulletins out on some of the suspects being watched, keep an eye out for them at airports. There were photographs and descriptions of the suspects? I'm presuming you are referring to the gentlemen of Arabic descent who had been attending flight schools? I'm not being facetious, by the way. I really don't know how many of the nineteen had been identified and photographed by the FBI prior to 9/11. Do you? Also, what can we do about a possible hijacking? Do we have the coverage for fighters to intercept any flight in the US? If not why not? See my reply to infidelGOD. How quickly can you scramble fighters to shoot down a regularly scheduled airliner following its normal flight path into New York which veers off in the last few minutes and diverts into the WTC? Are Air Marshalls an idea? Even now there aren't air marshalls on all US domestic flights, much less international ones. There is a confusion here between "preventing" and "stopping". The 9/11 attacks could have been prevented by capturing bin Laden before the plan ever got underway -- before Bush took office. But stopping them is a different story. pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Swami writes:
Projecting the unknown future answers of others is logic and not hyperbole? There is no projection of unknown future answers taking place here, Swami. The partisans are doing exactly that. And no, extrapolating the responses of others by comparing them to exactly identical situations happening today is not hyperbole. Whether I agree with you or not, usually you think things through. As do you, which is why I am disappointed by your recent efforts here. Rather than address the two premises I laid out for you, you are attempting to dodge the issue. I ask you once again, where are the logical errors in my statements -- or Adrug's? You seem to have no problem addressing points raised in posts in S&P. Why is it so difficult for you to stay on topic here? This statement however, merely highlights your bias (while decrying the bias of others) rather than any logical process and precludes any possible discussion rather than encouraging it. Again, I invite you to address the content of my posts. Let me save you the trouble of scrolling back. Here it is again: There are two possibilities here: 1) The copy of the report handed to the committee has excluded only legitimate security-related details (i.e. the names of the agents or perhaps the methods by which their report was gathered) but is otherwise identical to the original document Bush received on August 6, 2001. 2) The copy of the report has excluded more than legitimate security-related info (i.e. specific and actionable information). If one buys premise 1), then it is apparent there was no actionable information -- that particular PDB was in fact exactly as described. If one buys premise 2), then the report -- and all other reports turned over by the Bush administration -- are literally worthless to any investigative body, since there is no way of verifying any of them are tamper-free. Please explain to the readers here how this constitutes unfounded hyperbole. Adrug chose to go with premise 2), and correctly pointed out that if one believes premise 2), looking for actionable intelligence is a waste of time. I see no errors in logic in either her statements or in mine. pinky
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
actually the two possibilities here are:
1) the Bush administration had actionable intelligence and did not act on it or 2) they did NOT have ANY actionable intelligence even after months of dire warnings either way, they failed us.
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
The analogy is weak in that we are not talking about an airport.
no shit. and here I thought we were talking about an airport getting attacked! that wasn't really a strict analogy. Let's talk about some scenarios suggested by the August 6 PDB, shall we? let's not. let's talk about context. you said: So let's just shitcan the whole circle jerk, recognize reality -- it was neither Bush's fault nor Clinton's fault; it was the Jihadist's fault and I responded with my airport "analogy", only to point out that your view expressed above is misguided. it's correct to blame the jihadists, but it's ridiculous to completely excuse those who are tasked with protecting us from them (ie. airport security, national security advisor, FBI, CIA, etc). if there is a failure in security, it's not an either/or choice between blaming the attackers and blaming those who failed in their task to protect us, as you suggest in that quote above. it's entirely possible (and responsible) to do both.
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
Quote: you seemed to have really convinced yourself that there was no way to prevent 9/11 absent "massive and prolonged violations of liberty"... maybe reading all those "alternative histories" has affected your thinking. here is some news that might be very uncomfortable for you and other Bush apologists: 9/11 could have been prevented. and it need not have taken massive violations of liberty or full scale invasions of foreign countries. I'm afraid that is just a fantasy of yours. here are a few things that could have prevented 9/11: a president with his priorities in order a competent national security advisor heeding the warnings of counterterrorism experts following up on warnings by foreign intelligence services reinforced cockpit doors, air marshals, armed pilots regular air patrols over major cities any one of these things could have potentially prevented 9/11. and it doesn't matter how "actionable" the available intelligence was. given that there was a huge amount of intelligence "chatter" indicating an imminent attack, it's inconceivable to me that NO measures were taken to protect Americans from attack. those tasked to protect us were negligent in their duties. quit making excuses for a change and try to understand that.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Lets face it, the neocons eyes were on Iraq from the day Bush came to power. Everything else was secondary. That's why the 9/11 attacks were so easy to pull off.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
infidelGOD writes:
actually the two possibilities here are: 1) the Bush administration had actionable intelligence and did not act on it or 2) they did NOT have ANY actionable intelligence even after months of dire warnings Dire warnings are not actionable intelligence. And it wasn't months of dire warnings, it was years of dire warnings. I would presume it was the years of dire warnings that led to the 70 ongoing FBI investigations into Al Qaeda activities -- investigations which had as yet produced no actionable intelligence. pinky
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
And it wasn't months of dire warnings, it was years of dire warnings.
Strange how "dire warnings" about WMD were enough for Bush to launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq tho.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
British "Intelligence" | 574 | 2 | 02/07/03 07:18 PM by Xlea321 | ||
![]() |
Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war ( |
11,212 | 93 | 11/02/13 08:08 PM by Yogi1 | ||
![]() |
bush withholding key 9/11 intelligence? | 399 | 0 | 10/26/03 11:35 AM by JonnyOnTheSpot | ||
![]() |
Just some info to brighten up your DAY!!! | 723 | 6 | 06/14/03 10:15 AM by Phred | ||
![]() |
Faked documents, embarassed Americans. ( |
2,975 | 44 | 04/01/03 05:53 PM by luvdemshrooms | ||
![]() |
If you spot a terrorist... | 809 | 19 | 03/04/03 08:00 PM by hongomon | ||
![]() |
The best intelligence they have ( |
2,118 | 39 | 06/06/03 08:05 PM by silversoul7 | ||
![]() |
Open Warfare: Bush vs the Intelligence Community | 742 | 3 | 09/30/03 06:43 PM by Anonymous |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 4,035 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||





