| 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 |
| ||||||
|
Here's a link to the infamous August 6, 2001 PDB.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/index.html There she be. Read it. Done? Good. Because now we are going to do an exercise called "Spot the Actionable Information!" Instructions: 1) Carefully read the memo. 2) Take a few minutes (hours, days, weeks -- whatever you're comfortable with) to analyze it. 3) Cite the actionable intelligence - meaning "something specific that action could have been taken on" to prevent 9/11. pinky
| |||||||
|
Registered: 02/04/03 Posts: 15,800 |
| ||||||
Quote: I think this will make it a bit hard to do that.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
And there's the rub. The Bush haters will automatically assume that the redacted parts held actionable intelligence. Even if the original document had been released in its entirety with no security deletions whatsoever, the "Bush Knew" crowd would say (correctly) there is no way to prove it was complete.
Therefore, releasing the document was a lose-lose proposition for the White House. It proves exactly nothing -- either way. So what the fuck was the fuss all about? Why the pressure to release it if it is meaningless? pinky
| |||||||
|
Chill the FuckOu Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
|
Well, from the famous PNAC document from '96, we have proof that the administration understood that it would be in their best interest not to prevent such an attack, so while this still doesn't prove that Bush knew, the pieces are starting to add up for me.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
So what was the point of having the hearings in the first place? In these days of computerized filing, how can you trust any document? And after such stirling examples of political honesty as Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, how can you trust any testimony coming from a politician -- sworn or not?
If one's take on things going into it is to disregard documentary evidence and reject sworn testimony, what's left? Answer -- nothing. 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 move on with the task of changing the way threats are appraised and responded to so that 9/11 ends up being a one-time event. pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
silversoul7 writes:
Well, from the famous PNAC document from '96... PNAC is not the administration. pinky
| |||||||
|
Registered: 02/04/03 Posts: 15,800 |
| ||||||
|
I wasn't assuming anything, I'm just saying that if the document is incomplete it is pointless to analyze it for content.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Not so. Depends what has been deleted. For example, if the only stuff that was deleted was the names of the agent or agency supplying the information, then an analysis of whether the info supplied by that agent is "actionable" is possible.
pinky
| |||||||
|
Registered: 02/04/03 Posts: 15,800 |
| ||||||
|
They didn't say specifically what was deleted in this case unfortunately.
| |||||||
|
Chill the FuckOu Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
Quote: Their members overlap quite a bit.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
That's my point.
I repeat, even if they had released the entire thing -- no edits whatsoever -- the partisans would claim Bush had removed stuff without admitting it. This makes the release of the document an exercise in futility. pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
silversoul7 writes:
Their members overlap quite a bit. So does the membership of Skull and Bones and the Masons and probably for that matter the Catholic Church. What's your point? pinky
| |||||||
|
Registered: 02/04/03 Posts: 15,800 |
| ||||||
|
Good point!
I apologize if I misunderstood, it seemed more like you were fishing for liberals than making a point at first.
Edited by adrug (04/11/04 02:24 AM)
| |||||||
|
gone ![]() Registered: 01/14/03 Posts: 1,270 Loc: outta here |
| ||||||
Quote: You seem to be implying that your view of 'reality' is somehow more correct than others. If Bush did know the attacks were going to happen, and he did nothing, then he should share some of the blame. It seems a bit presumptuous to declare anyone blame free until the report comes out at the very least. Quote: So basically you think the document is 'meaningless' because some people will claim it's been doctored? Should we junk data from the Mars probes as 'meaningless' because some conspiracy theorists may think it's been faked? Quote: I don't recall the Masons, Catholics or Skull & Bones organisations publically releasing documents in the last few years that openly advocate global military domination as actual US policy (although I'm open to correction). To get back to the document though. I think these paragraphs point to information that could have been acted on, or at least as an indication of how high the threat level appeared to be. We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists. Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives. Connect the dots and it seems pretty obvious that some sort of attack was being planned. What did the President do after he received this document on Aug 6th? He went on a month-long holiday. I can't claim to know what action could have been taken, but going on holiday isn't exactly what I'd picture. -------------------- The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame". In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience. And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him. "Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.
| |||||||
|
Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
And there's the rub. The Bush haters will automatically assume that the redacted parts held actionable intelligence
More telling is how someone asking a logical question is automatically labelled by you as a Bush-hater. The poster gave no opinion. According to you, we are supposed to be thorough before replying, but it appears you find thoroughness objectionable.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
And where did I say Adrug was a Bush-hater?
She did what I asked -- she read the link, thought about it, and instantly put her finger right on the very most relevant issue. Although there is no actionable intelligence there, there is no way to prove there wasn't at some point before its release. pinky
| |||||||
|
Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
It is called juxtaposition. Now I see that you were just spouting unfounded hyperbole rather than responding to the poster.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Edame writes:
You seem to be implying that your view of 'reality' is somehow more correct than others. It is. Was it Chamberlain's fault that Hitler invaded Poland? If Bush did know the attacks were going to happen, and he did nothing, then he should share some of the blame. Operative word here being "if". There is no credible evidence he did. It seems a bit presumptuous to declare anyone blame free until the report comes out at the very least. Anyone who has been following the committee's work knows already what the conclusion will be. The testimony for the most part has been public (with the notable exception of Clinton and Gore), and leaks are the norm. There will be no "smoking gun" here. I think these paragraphs point to information that could have been acted on... Uh huh. Let's look at your discoveries: 1) An uncorroborated three year old report that bin Laden wanted to hijack an aircraft. 2) FBI reports of suspicious activity consistent with hijack preparations. 3) A single, non second-sourced phone call to a US embassy in an Arab country claiming bin Laden's group was planning an attack on the US with explosives someday. What this boils down to is the possibility that someday someone may hijack an airliner somewhere in the US and fly it somewhere else. Or that someday someone may plant a bomb somewhere in the US. This is actionable intelligence? If you honestly think so, then you must be one of the posters here who believe the Iraqi chem and bio weapons are still out there somewhere. There are orders of magnitude more evidence for their (the weapons) existence than the "evidence" in that August 6 PDB that specific members of Al Qaeda would on a specific day at specific times seize specific airplanes from specific locations and use them not to bargain for the release of any "political prisoners" (as the 1998 report suggests), but instead fly them into buildings. pinky
| |||||||
|
gone ![]() Registered: 01/14/03 Posts: 1,270 Loc: outta here |
| ||||||
Quote: I can see things sliding downhill from here. I can't argue with someone who knows that their view of reality is the right one (an almost partisan viewpoint I think). I'll finish my reply, but I don't see much point taking it further. Quote: Are we talking about Chamberlain or WWII? Quote: That's why I used it. 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's the continual foot-dragging and lack of co-operation with this report, the rushed through PATRIOT act, the war on terror that became a war on Iraq. There's enough to make me think that there's something rotten about the whole thing. Quote: I can't really argue with that either. In my version of 'reality' I can try to predict what the conclusion may be, but I can't know it before it's finished. Quote: You forgot the 70 FBI full-field investigations. Quote: Strange to see you arguing the same kind of logic as Rice: "This was not a 'threat report,' " she said. It "did not warn of any coming attack inside the United States." Later in the hearing, she restated the point: "The PDB does not say the United States is going to be attacked. It says Bin Laden would like to attack the United States." I guess maybe it depends on what your definition of "threat report" is. As long as it wasn't there in big neon lights they couldn't possibly have done a thing. Factor in the intelligence "chatter" she mentions: "Unbelievable news in coming weeks" "Big event ... there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar" "There will be attacks in the near future" Add some foreign intelligence into the mix: Quote: That kind of lends things another perspective for me. Finally let's not forget the title of this important classified President's briefing: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.". And the Pres went on holiday. Edit: "In his first comments since Saturday's release of the presidential daily brief, Bush said the document contained "nothing about an attack on America." Edited by Edame (04/11/04 02:21 PM)
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Swami writes:
It is called juxtaposition. What is? Now I see that you were just spouting unfounded hyperbole rather than responding to the poster. Incorrect. 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
| |||||||
|
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.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
pinky: Let's talk about some scenarios suggested by the August 6 PDB, shall we?
infidelGOD: let's not. Right. That would demonstrate clearly your lack of understanding of the situation, wouldn't it? It's easier to just say that pinky is wrong. Why? Because he is pinky. Please give us the benefit of your superior wisdom, infidelGOD. Please tell the readers of this thread why the possibilities I mentioned -- all of them entirely consistent with the vague warnings included in the August 6 PDB which is after all the topic of this thread -- are more farfetched than the actuality of what occurred? Don't be shy. Give it your best shot. You then use the standard tactic of someone incapable of discussing the issue by responding not to my statement, but to a subclause of my statement. Here is my statement: "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 move on with the task of changing the way threats are appraised and responded to so that 9/11 ends up being a one-time event." Why are you pissed off with my urging the commission to get on with the task it was created for in the first place? if there is a failure in security... The very fact that the attack occurred indicates there was less than perfect security, duh! That's not the point I was making. The points I am making, the ones you are doing your best to ignore, are: 1) Neither Clinton nor Bush is to blame for the attack -- bin Laden is to blame. 2) The stated purpose of the commission is not to assign blame, it is to determine the drawbacks of the pre 9/11 national security apparatus so that the holes may be plugged. pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
infidelGOD writes:
you seemed to have really convinced yourself that there was no way to prevent 9/11 absent "massive and prolonged violations of liberty"... Close. Very close. As I said in one of my recent threads, it was actually possible to have prevented 9/11. Clinton could have accepted the Sudanese government's offer to turn bin Laden over to the US. But once that opportunity passed and the plot was well underway, the attack could not have been stopped absent massive and prolonged violations of liberty. here are a few things that could have prevented 9/11: a president with his priorities in order Vague to the point of meaningless. a competent national security advisor Also vague to the point of meaningless. No matter how competent the director, if the intel isn't there, the intel isn't there. For an operation of the duration and audacity of the 9/11 attack, there were amazingly few leaks. I gotta give Al Qaeda that much. heeding the warnings of counterterrorism experts You mean like the vague to the point of uselessness warnings we've seen so far? What makes you think their warnings weren't "heeded"? The problem isn't that the warnings weren't listened to, it was that the warnings gave no actionable intel. following up on warnings by foreign intelligence services Vague again. Followed up how? By invading Afghanistan in the hopes of capturing bin Laden? Even if this had been done, it was by then too late -- all the principals were in place in the US and the plot was well on its way. For all we know those in the US were operating completely independently of bin Laden by that time. After all, much has been made made of Al Qaeda's vaunted "cell" structure. Followed up how? By detaining all Arabic-looking gentlemen in the US who weren't American citizens? Followed up how? By expelling all immigrants not in the country legally? reinforced cockpit doors, air marshals, armed pilots Do you just read my posts which respond directly to your own and ignore the rest in the thread? As I said to Edame, even today the cockpit doors aren't reinforced, there are not air marshalls on every domestic flight (and none at all on flights originating in other countries) and pilots aren't armed. If these things are still not in place after 9/11, how realistic are you in claiming they would have been put in place pre-9/11? Think, infidelGOD, think! regular air patrols over major cities To do what? Regular air patrols cost money. Lot's of money. That's why even today they aren't doing them. And if you think that shooting down off course commercial airliners would have been an acceptable option to the American public pre 9/11, you are seriously deluded. any one of these things could have potentially prevented 9/11. Incorrect. Your padded list (the first four are so vague as to be meaningless) only illustrates your inability to grasp the meaning of "action". The final two points which actually have some substance to them are impractical, given the political climate which existed in America pre 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. Apart from 70 ongoing FBI investigations of the organization responsible for the attack, of course. pinky
| |||||||
|
gone ![]() Registered: 01/14/03 Posts: 1,270 Loc: outta here |
| ||||||
Quote: I'd call it a terrorist attack. Quote: And your evidence is where exactly? Quote: As my edit illustrated, it's now not even known whether Bush did actually request this info or not. I still disagree with you anyway, stopping one action from happening in that chain of events may have been enough. You keep leading all of your comments and questions back to an eventual "we couldn't have stopped this unless we knew exactly what was going to happen, and when" line of thinking. If one hijacker had been arrested earlier, it may have scared the rest into aborting the plot. If the FAA had been told about the threat, if civilians were given the same info as government employees who were advised not to fly, then maybe certain flights would have been cancelled or had security tightened. These are all possibilities, they could have been weak links in the chain. I disagree when you state nothing could have been actioned. Quote: I guess the CIA must be in the habit of including "irrelevant" information into a document that warns of Bin Laden's determination to attack the US. They must just add this stuff in to fill it out so they can make it look like they're working. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the title of the brief, it couldn't possibly serve as a warning that there was a looming threat. Quote: He was still on holiday, they can be cancelled, especially if you're in charge of an entire country, and are being warned of imminent attacks on it. The day before, the president had received an intelligence briefing -- the contents of which were declassified by the White House Saturday night -- warning "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." But Bush seemed carefree as he spoke about the books he was reading, the work he was doing on his nearby ranch, his love of hot-weather jogging, his golf game and his 55th birthday. ... National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, in her testimony Thursday to the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, spoke of a government on high alert for terrorism in the summer of 2001. "The president of the United States had us at battle stations during this period of time," she testified. ... But if top officials were at battle stations, there was no sign of it on the surface. Bush spent most of August 2001 on his ranch here. His staff said at the time that by far the biggest issue on his agenda was his decision on federal funding of stem cell research, followed by education, immigration and the Social Security "lockbox." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2676-2004Apr10?language=printer Quote: No more unreasonable than, say, speculation here on whether more could have been done by Bush administration to prevent the attacks. Quote: I didn't say anything about changing laws. I would want to make sure that they weren't hindered in getting their information to the people who needed to see it, like the POTUS and his advisors. I would want to make sure that investigations weren't hindered by departmenal bickering and uncooperativeness. Quote: I didn't mean those (Edit; that - HomeSec) departments either, just that I would like two departments working for the same country to share info and communicate. I don't think you need new legislation or a new federal agency to act as a go-between, they're on the same side. Quote: So when people in the administration say that there was no way to know that planes would be used as weapons, were they listening to allies like the Germans who warned that terrorists were 'planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture.' ? How about the Russian warning about 25 pilots trained for suicide missions? How about the fact that just about every Olympic games since the 70's has planned for this kind of attack, even when they were held in Atlanta? Quote: Of course, but I'm referring to these particular warnings about Bin Laden being determined to attack the US, and that hijackings were highly likely. Did the FAA know about those warnings? "Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration, said staff inquiries determined that Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and the administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration had no idea of the increased threat..." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001900804_terror11.html Quote: I didn't say photographs, but if they had people under surveilance then it may have been possible. A bulletin can take many forms. Federal immigration and aviation officials testified yesterday that they might have been able to locate two of the Sept. 11 hijackers before the attacks in New York and at the Pentagon if they had been given more information about a CIA alert in late August 2001. The Immigration and Naturalization Service did not use its master database to aggressively search for Sept. 11 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar in the three weeks before the attacks because the agency was not told the case was urgent, Joseph Greene, the agency's assistant commissioner for investigations, told the House and Senate intelligence committees yesterday. Both terror suspects were already in the United States. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A30043-2002Oct1¬Found=true Quote: Apparently the time to scramble a fighter can be from about 5 to 15 minutes, I don't know whether this would have been quick enough or not, it depends when it became apparent that each plane was being hijacked and where. My question was also about coverage, as in "do we have enough planes located at enough air bases, available with a widespread coverage?". Quote: It's a question, a possible plan of action, to give the idea that me, the theoretical POTUS, is running through all available options. Quote: If you look in a thesaurus you'll find stop and prevent listed with each other, they can be used to mean the same thing. Funnily enough you're quite happy to pile the blame on Clinton, but apparently it's just impossible to fault Bush or his administration. Maybe they would have had to have caught all of the hijackers, maybe one or two a few days before would have been enough to force them to abort, who knows. To recap with something shamelessly stolen from another site, if we look at the document we can get this impression: Who: Bin Laden and Al Qaeda What: Explosive attacks within U.S. How: Hijacking airliners Where: Probably New York and/or D.C. When:??? Couple that with the foreign warnings and intelligence 'chatter' that something big was going to happen soon, and to me it starts to look like a series of credible warnings. I'll end with a Learyfan-esque image, showing the cover of a FEMA handbook from 1999/2000 called "Managing Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents: An Executive Level Program for Sheriffs."
-------------------- The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame". In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience. And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him. "Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens. Edited by Edame (04/13/04 03:30 PM)
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Edame writes:
I'd call it a terrorist attack. So to you, it was not an act of war? Why not? And your evidence is where exactly? Any number of books written by ex-CIA and ex-FBI operatives, as well as reports in the media and the testimony of those appearing before the 9/11 committee. I realize the hearings are not receiving as much televised airplay in England as they are in the US, but today's testimony confirmed what I have said about the volume of tips. There are transcripts of a lot of today's testimony on the various net news services. Check it out. You keep leading all of your comments and questions back to an eventual "we couldn't have stopped this unless we knew exactly what was going to happen, and when" line of thinking. If I have given that impression, I apologize. No, it was not necessary to know everything about the plot in order to foil it absent a massive suspension of civil liberites. But it was necessary to know substantially more than merely that Al Qaeda was planning an attack someday "soon" inside the United States possibly involving hijacking or possibly involving explosives. If one hijacker had been arrested earlier, it may have scared the rest into aborting the plot. Perhaps. Or perhaps the remaining ones would have gone into deeper cover, delayed the operation, or chosen a differnt day or different airports from which to hijack the planes -- possibly even airports such as Ottawa and Montreal and Toronto -- all of which have multiple daily flights to New York and Washington. And I should remind you that one of the original group was already missing -- Moussaoui. The attack went ahead anyway. As for arresting one of the hijackers -- arrested him for what? Since when it is a crime to attend flight school? If the FAA had been told about the threat, if civilians were given the same info as government employees who were advised not to fly... Uh huh. I can see that going over well. "Attention passengers. Please be prepared to subdue by force any Middle-Eastern males sitting next to you if they act suspicious. They may be terrorists." ...then maybe certain flights would have been cancelled or had security tightened. Cancelled for how long? Until the unknown number of potential conspirators are all in custody? Do you not think Atta and the boys might have had backup plans for such an eventuality? "Hmm... looks like the flights we wanted to go with have been cancelled. Let's wait two weeks and try again." I disagree when you state nothing could have been actioned. Then there is nothing to do but agree to disagree on this point. I guess the CIA must be in the habit of including "irrelevant" information into a document that warns of Bin Laden's determination to attack the US. They must just add this stuff in to fill it out so they can make it look like they're working. Sigh. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Why must I keep repeating myself? The number of active investigations is relevant in the sense that the FBI recognizes Al Qaeda is up to something. But until such investigations produce something of value, they are irrelevant from the point of view of foiling a plot. I honestly don't know how to rephrase this point any more clearly. If you still don't grasp it, I will have to just drop it. Note that despite 70 investigations, neither of the only two scenarios tentatively put forward as possibilities actually occurred -- Al Qaeda didn't attack with explosives. Al Qaeda didn't hijack a plane in order to release prisoners. Not only wasn't there enough intel to foil the plot, there wasn't enough intel to even accurately describe the plot. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the title of the brief, it couldn't possibly serve as a warning that there was a looming threat. And warnings (as I keep repeating) are 100% useless in stopping the threat. I doubt very much anyone in the intel community was unaware that Al Qaeda wanted to continue attacking the US. The major newspapers even reported bin Laden's pronouncements, for cryin' out loud! This wasn't news. He was still on holiday, they can be cancelled, especially if you're in charge of an entire country, and are being warned of imminent attacks on it. I am curious, Edame. What do you do for a living? Have you ever held a management position? The president can't do everything. He delegates. That's why there are such things as cabinet ministers and department heads. What could Bush do in Washington that he couldn't do from his ranch? Would he sit at a desk in FBI headquarters and review reports from field agents? Would he fly to the FBI New York field office and do a "grip and grin" with the office staff to motivate them? What -- specifically could the president of the United States have done from the Oval Office that he couldn't have done from the ranch? But Bush seemed carefree as he spoke about the books he was reading, the work he was doing on his nearby ranch, his love of hot-weather jogging, his golf game and his 55th birthday. Oh please. I ask again -- what do you do for a living? Are you familiar with the term "compartmentalize"? What is he supposed to do -- walk around 24-7 with a worried look on his face? And is he supposed to answer all innocuous questions about his activities with "Well, you know, I wish I could read a few more books and enjoy the weather, but I'm just so darned obssessed with these Ay-rab fellers I can't seem to focus" ? Give me a break. No more unreasonable than, say, speculation here on whether more could have been done by Bush administration to prevent the attacks. Again, there's no point doing more on this point than agreeing to disagree. I didn't say anything about changing laws. I would want to make sure that they weren't hindered in getting their information to the people who needed to see it, like the POTUS and his advisors. And what makes you think their info wasn't getting there? I didn't mean those (Edit; that - HomeSec) departments either, just that I would like two departments working for the same country to share info and communicate. I don't think you need new legislation or a new federal agency to act as a go-between, they're on the same side. I wouldn't have thought such a thing was necessary either. But as it turns out, it was. The FBI is charged with investigating domestic crimes. The CIA is charged with gathering intel from foreign sources. The department of immigration is charged with preventing illegal immigrants from entering, and with identifying and expelling those who make it through. The IRS (tax department) is forbidden (except in extraordinary circumstances) to turn over their files to other agencies, etc. etc. etc. All of these checks and balances give a measure of protection to the privacy of US citizens, and the terrorists were canny enough to exploit these protections. The Patriot Act lessened these checks and balances. So when people in the administration say that there was no way to know that planes would be used as weapons, were they listening to allies like the Germans who warned that terrorists were 'planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture.' ? How about the Russian warning about 25 pilots trained for suicide missions? How about the fact that just about every Olympic games since the 70's has planned for this kind of attack, even when they were held in Atlanta? Yes, and Tom Clancy had proposed the exact same scenario in one of his best-selling novels years before 9/11. And Tom Clancy is very widely-read in the intel community. It seems we are doomed to go over the same ground here -- over and over again. Let's not forget that none of these "fantasy fiction-based scare scenarios" had ever occurred at the time. 9/11 was the first. Suppose for just a minute that the four planes had been shot down by US interceptors. Do you honestly believe that Bush could ever have convinced anyone that those planes had buildings as their targets? Hell, Edame, there are people still posting in this very forum that: 1) A plane never hit the Pentagon 2) There were no Arab hijackers, and no proof Al Qaeda or bin Laden had anything to do with it 3) The towers were brought down by explosive charges after the planes hit 4) The entire scenario was engineered by Bush to scare people into approving the invasion of Afghanistan so a pipeline could be built 5) Other even more bizarre and fringe scenarios As for the reference to protecting a specific small Olympic site from air attacks for a known period of time, that is nowhere near the same thing as protecting an entire country from air attacks forever. Now, you may say the attacks should have been stopped before the guys ever got on the planes, by somehow (how, exactly?) capturing the perpetrators before it came to that. But you have still failed to tell us how this was to be done absent massive violation of civil liberties. Give us a clue, here. Arrest all those of Middle-Eastern heritage who attended flight school in any country anywhere in the world? Of course, but I'm referring to these particular warnings about Bin Laden being determined to attack the US, and that hijackings were highly likely. Did the FAA know about those warnings? So what are you suggesting? That each and every morning, the supervisor of the baggage checkers is supposed to remind his staff to be especially careful checking baggage today? And to do a full body search on every Arab male? Forever? I didn't say photographs, but if they had people under surveilance then it may have been possible. A bulletin can take many forms. Federal immigration and aviation officials testified yesterday that they might have been able to locate two of the Sept. 11 hijackers before the attacks in New York and at the Pentagon if they had been given more information about a CIA alert in late August 2001. The Immigration and Naturalization Service did not use its master database to aggressively search for Sept. 11 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar in the three weeks before the attacks because the agency was not told the case was urgent, Joseph Greene, the agency's assistant commissioner for investigations, told the House and Senate intelligence committees yesterday. Both terror suspects were already in the United States. Where in the United States? Had the two been photographed? Was it known how tall they were, what they weighed, how old they were, where they were last seen and how long ago? Just to clue you in, police departments routinely fail to find fugitives (murderers etc.) on which they have a lot more information than that for years and even decades, even with nationwide manhunts including "ten most wanted" pictures in every post office and often even television broadcasts appealing to the public to pitch in and help. I am not saying it was impossible to find those two in the stretch of three weeks -- anything is possible -- but it sounds to me like the statement you quoted is a pro forma version of bureaucratic "pass the buck". Even if the capture of those two had been the top priority of every single LEO in the US, that doesn't mean they would be captured in time, and even if they were, it doesn't mean they'd crack under interrogation and betray the other seventeen. And even if they did betray the other seventeen, it's unlikely that any one group even knew the location of the other three groups. Compartmentalization and standard guerilla cell structure. My question was also about coverage, as in "do we have enough planes located at enough air bases, available with a widespread coverage?". If you are talking about a fifteen minute response time, from the time the airliner is reported to be off course till the time the interceptor is beside it, then no, there is not even a tiny fraction of the amount of planes required to cover that many airports 24-7. To buy that many and train the necessary staff to fly and maintain them would bankrupt the country. Funnily enough you're quite happy to pile the blame on Clinton, but apparently it's just impossible to fault Bush or his administration. Then you haven't been following what I have been saying. I don't fault Clinton for 9/11. I have said already that given the political climate in America pre-9/11, the necessary steps to stop a well-plotted attack such as 9/11 couldn't have been implemented without basically a giant lockdown of the entire country. The Americans didn't realize they were involved in a war declared already by Al Qaeda. You apparently still don't see 9/11 as an act of war, let alone Al Qaeda's previous attacks on US embassies, the 1993 WTC bombing, or the attack on the USS Cole. Neither do many Americans. I do point out that Clinton was remiss in not taking advantage of any of the oppportunities he had to capture bin Laden -- not because bin Laden might have made future attacks, but because of his previous attacks. Clinton's failure there was a real one, and there is no denying it. But absent capturing bin Laden before the 9/11 planners were in place, was there anything else Clinton could have realistically done to stop 9/11 before leaving office? I have to say that given the information we have available to us today, the honest answer is "no". The American public would simply not have stood for it, and despite his many other faults Clinton is a canny enough politician to understand that fact. To recap with something shamelessly stolen from another site, if we look at the document we can get this impression: Again, vague to the point of uselessness. Who: Bin Laden and Al Qaeda -- Incorrect. An unknown group of twenty men. What: Explosive attacks within U.S. -- Incorrect. No explosives. How: Hijacking airliners -- To do what? Hold as hostage for release of bin Laden buddies? Where: Probably New York and/or D.C. -- Finally, something accurate. When:??? -- Exactly. And without a "when", what is your recourse? Ground all air traffic for a day? A month? A year? Couple that with the foreign warnings and intelligence 'chatter' that something big was going to happen soon, and to me it starts to look like a series of credible warnings. I have never said the warnings were not credible. Just that they were vague to the point of uselessness from the point of view of crafting a practical plan of action which didn't involve the massive suspension of civil liberties. pinky
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
Dire warnings are not actionable intelligence
I didn't say they were. 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. I guess that depends on your definition of "actionable intelligence". and that of couse, depends on what you are willing to act on. it's funny that Bush is complaining about the lack of actionable intelligence when he relied on completely fictitious intelligence to launch an unprovoked, full scale invasion.
| |||||||
|
Resident Cynic Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
Quote: -------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
Right. That would demonstrate clearly your lack of understanding of the situation, wouldn't it? It's easier to just say that pinky is wrong. Why? Because he is pinky.
Please give us the benefit of your superior wisdom, infidelGOD. Please tell the readers of this thread why the possibilities I mentioned -- all of them entirely consistent with the vague warnings included in the August 6 PDB which is after all the topic of this thread -- are more farfetched than the actuality of what occurred? Don't be shy. Give it your best shot. umm ok. here are some of your scenarios: "What if the real plan had been to lease a tanker filled with LNG (liquid natural gas) and detonate it in New York harbor?" "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..." "What if the target for explosives wasn't in fact a federal building in New York, but a football stadium in Wisconsin?" "What if the method wasn't in fact explosives, but the release of a nerve gas, or smallpox?" any more "what if" scenarios? what's there to discuss? none of these things actually happened. let's try and deal with reality here. You then use the standard tactic of someone incapable of discussing the issue by responding not to my statement, but to a subclause of my statement. Here is my statement: "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 move on with the task of changing the way threats are appraised and responded to so that 9/11 ends up being a one-time event." here is the part of your statement that I quoted: "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". you accuse me of using a "standard tactic of someone incapable of discussing the issue by responding not to my statement, but to a subclause of my statement" but later you say: The points I am making, the ones you are doing your best to ignore, are: 1) Neither Clinton nor Bush is to blame for the attack -- bin Laden is to blame. wtf? so which is it? the "subclause" of your statement is now the #1 point you're making? make up your mind pinky. you're all over the map... and you say I'm trying to ignore your points?! ARE YOU SERIOUS?! you must be ignoring the part where I addressed your point... here it is again: "it's not an either/or choice between blaming the attackers and blaming those who failed in their task to protect us" your second point: 2) The stated purpose of the commission is not to assign blame, it is to determine the drawbacks of the pre 9/11 national security apparatus so that the holes may be plugged. has also been addressed already: "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."
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
it's funny that Bush is complaining about the lack of actionable intelligence when he relied on completely fictitious intelligence to launch an unprovoked, full scale invasion.
Wonder which is the most tricky. Launching a full scale invasion of a country halfway around the world or putting tails on a couple of dozen al-qaeda guys.
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
No matter how competent the director, if the intel isn't there, the intel isn't there.
oh well THAT settles it! of course! the intel wasn't there! we couldn't prevent 9/11 because the terrorists didn't TELL us the flight numbers! heeding the warnings of counterterrorism experts You mean like the vague to the point of uselessness warnings we've seen so far? What makes you think their warnings weren't "heeded"? The problem isn't that the warnings weren't listened to, it was that the warnings gave no actionable intel. you're missing the point again, complaining about the lack of actionable intelligence. I already covered this: the president doesn't sit around just waiting to be handed memos with actionable intelligence so he could act - he decides what the priorities are. the counterterrorism experts felt that resources were not being allocated to the threat of terrorism (some still feel this way), they wanted more resources to do their jobs, which includes the gathering of intelligence. reinforced cockpit doors, air marshals, armed pilots Do you just read my posts which respond directly to your own and ignore the rest in the thread? As I said to Edame, even today the cockpit doors aren't reinforced, there are not air marshalls on every domestic flight (and none at all on flights originating in other countries) and pilots aren't armed. do YOU read anything I write? very carefully now (I hate repeating myself): "these things could have potentially prevented 9/11" I'm not saying that doing these things would have prevented 9/11, I'm saying that the government did next to nothing to make it more difficult for the terrorists to carry out their plans. even without specific warnings, there was a lot that could have been done (not involving massive violations of liberty).
| |||||||
|
gone ![]() Registered: 01/14/03 Posts: 1,270 Loc: outta here |
| ||||||
Quote: I didn't say that, but since you ask, I don't think it was an act of war because I think Bin Laden declared war (and carried out attacks) on Americans in '98. Quote: The burden of proof lies with you, can you show that the President or his advisors receive "literally thousands" of bulletins like the PDB each month? Quote: If the government thought it important enough to warn government staff not to fly, then they should have at least had the decency to inform their citizens and let them make their own choices. I don't think thousands dead buried beneath two skyscrapers went over particularly well either did it? Quote: I wouldn't call it obtuse, I'm just not playing ball with your attempts to railroad the discussion towards proving your point. Apparently you argue that hijack warnings were useless because they didn't specify the exact aims of the hijackers. They hijacked a plane (Edit: 4 planes), the warnings were about hijackings, but you narrow your arguement to ignore this because they didn't didn't demand the release of prisoners. The PDB warns of attacks with explosives, but your narrow definition refuses to see a plane loaded with fuel as an explosive weapon. Quote: Did Tom Clancy send warnings to the US that Bin Laden was planning to use planes as weapons? Are you suggesting that Tom Clancy has more credibility than said foreign agencies? Quote: Do you want me to repeat the warnings again that said Bin Laden was planning to crash planes into American landmarks, or the fact the the Olympic organisers in Atlanta and Sydney were aware of the same scenario and planned for it years ago? Quote: My point was that the scenario of terrorists flying planes into populated buildings and events was well known, and not as unimaginable as people like Bush insist. Quote: I'm suggesting that the FAA could have been warned about the increased threat. Notifying them would have been a start, are you suggesting that the FAA shouldn't be notified when there is an increased terrorist threat? Quote: Again, you narrow the topic to specific details of the attack in order to prove that because they didn't know the specifics details they were unable to do a thing. I've given examples of what I think is 'actionable' (warning the FAA etc...), you obviously disagree and I'm happy to leave it at that. Neither of us appears to be getting through to the other. -------------------- The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame". In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience. And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him. "Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens. Edited by Edame (04/14/04 01:01 PM)
| |||||||
|
gone ![]() Registered: 01/14/03 Posts: 1,270 Loc: outta here |
| ||||||
|
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."
Bush, State of the Union Jan. 28, 2003 "There was nothing in there that said, you know, there's an imminent attack. There was nothing in this report to me that said, 'oh, by the way, we've got intelligence that says something is about to happen in America,'" Bush, responding to questions about the Aug. 6, 2001 PDB Apr. 13, 2004 -------------------- The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame". In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience. And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him. "Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
for some, delusional threats take precedence over actual threats.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Bumped because sections of this thread are relevant to the current discussion going on in post http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/5769725/page/0/fpart/1/vc/1 and I don't feel like typing it all over again for those too stubborn to click on the link to this thread I provided.
Phred
| |||||||
|
J♠ Registered: 04/17/01 Posts: 20,815 Loc: Ontario, Canada |
| ||||||
Quote: Neither the Skull and Bones, Masons, or the Catholic Church have published a document that outlines their proposal for continued US dominance. Certainly none of those groups published anything saying that "a new pearl harbor" would catalyze their plans for US supremacy. PNAC did, and at least a few of the current administration signed their names at the bottom of the document. The next step is simple inference. -------------------- But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| 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 ] | ||




I apologize if I misunderstood, it seemed more like you were fishing for liberals than making a point at first.




