posted on May 16, 2002 04:30:19 AM new
Bush knew of and probably ignored or belittled intelligence warning that 9/11 was coming. and now Ari Fliescher is doing a fast soft shoe to minimize, cover up, and protect with a meager attempt at plausible denial. Next he'll blame someone else, maybe even Clinton. He says Bush ordered agencies onto alert, but there was no alert documented.
Look at the ludicrous claim that because Bush did put out an alert the hijackers were forced to use boxcutters to bypass security.
What bull.
The FBI and CIA don't report each and every vaque suspicion to the president. They report the serious and real threats to that office.
So this is why Bush has squished investigation into how the attack could happen.
posted on May 16, 2002 07:31:29 AM new
It amazes me that no investigation into the events of this awful event have even been considered. Why hasn't the White house ordered an investigation of the colossal incompetence that let this happen? Could the CIA, the Pentagon and the White House really be caught completely off guard? One evil man and his network engineered this horror and the CIA and the Pentagon and the White House had no clue. Nah...I don't believe that.
Why hasn't the media questioned the fact that nobody had a clue? I guess the fact that weapon conglomerates who own media corporations may have something to do with that. And now World War 111 is not out of the question.
posted on May 16, 2002 07:42:04 AM new
Oh, they already have pointed to Clinton's "involvement" before! Yes, I recall they were discussing his foreign policy failures along with his disasterous economic policies.
It's not unusal for Republicans to try to rewrite their own shady history -- it's what keeps the Repub voters voting for them.
posted on May 16, 2002 08:35:16 AM new
The Republican Congress investigated Pearl Harbor and Roosevelt 60 years ago. Roosevelt was warned too.
The problem is knowing which threat will materialize. I would estimate that there are at least a dozen probable threats analysed every day by the US government, but no one has figured out how to determine which ones are authentic regardless of who is the President.
posted on May 16, 2002 09:17:54 AM new
The way the hijackingss were done was new and rather novel. I hate to admit it - but we can't say that Bush is a dimwit and then say he should have anticipated such a new sort of attack. Government types do tend to plod along and look at what is usually done instead of thinking ahead of the curve. The advantage of surprise is entirely with the terrorists.
I do assume they will strike again -, and in a new way that will leave the agencies all whining that they had never done that before - like - not fair!! They can spend money like water and never cover every risk in the world without locking down the whole country like a prison, and they may be willing to do just that.
posted on May 16, 2002 09:20:43 AM new
There have been several critisisms of the agencies for not having been aware of or warn of the danger, but it now appears that at least one of them DID issue warning information by reporting it to bush.
So then, did bush ignore the warning? Did he place any preventive measure into effect?
The administration now claims that he did order an alert status, which makes any statement of the difficulty in knowing which threat is real irrelevant.
The agencies involved have issued statements that they did their part in attempting to bring the threat to the attention of the president. If so, aren't they absolved? The administration is acknowledging that the warning came in and says that bush acted upon that warning. But did he?
It's pretty clear now that Roosevelt knew of the imminent attack by the Japanese, some theories posit that he acted to stimulate that attack, in any case he apparently allowed the attack to take place so as to hasten entry of the United States in the war.
posted on May 16, 2002 09:48:16 AM new
The US has had preventitive measures in effect for 30 years for the hi-jacking of aircraft.
Clinton had warnings of the USS Cole attack as well as emabssy attacks. The Cole had armed guards on deck due to the warning, but they thought the bomber's craft was a garbage pick up and didn't shoot. I am confident they will shoot the next time.
It was just announced that the Congress Intellegence Committe was briefed with the same information that Bush got.
We presently have a warning for an attack on nuclear power plants supposed to occur on July 4th.
There is no way to prevent all terrorist attacks, and terrorists need only succeed once to be effective. There is no way to handle the information overload.
The only way to prevent terrorists is to destroy them and their support system.
posted on May 16, 2002 11:38:01 AM new
"Did he place any preventive measure into effect?"
I responded to your question with the observation that preventitive measures were in effect and that ultimately all terrorist attacks can not be prevented by any means other than destroying the terrorists and their support system pre-emptively.
I don't think we presently have a war. It is more like a military police action. Our objectives seem to be aimed at individuals rather than nations. Which may be a mistake.
posted on May 16, 2002 12:43:03 PM new
You might want to see the news today.
Did he take preventive action? At the time he said that there had been no warning 'of any kind'. Why would he take action?
Duh. There were generalized preventive measures and there almost always have been.
But now it seems that there was specific information that Osama Bin Laden (by name) was going to hijack american aircraft for purposes which may not have been defined, or may have been defined - they haven't come that far yet. Was prevenntive action taken? Today the administration says that there was, even though yesterday they said that there had not been warning. What action do they claim? Well, bush put all the airlines on alert and that's why these guys had to use boxknives. Oh, good. I'm sure glad to hear that he handled it,, aren't you?
You may not think we have a war, as if it matters, but he thinks we have one and the industries that supply war materiel certainly aren't dissuading him.
posted on May 16, 2002 12:43:11 PM new
There are some very interesting transcripts here..from part 1 to 6 with a final Six month anniversary transcript by Barrie Zwicker, who has attempted to investigate and raise questions about the 9/11 events. He calls it the "Great Deception".
Allowing the attack to take place in order to have an excuse to go to war is a possibility.
posted on May 16, 2002 04:11:30 PM new
Well let's see... we had general warnings of hi-jackings and/or wrecking planes into buildings, perhaps even tied to OBL. What do we do, shut down all air traffic, and for how long? Lock up every muslim alien in the country ? Now if we look as krs's posts a short while back he was crying about Bush locking up all the illegal aliens.
We also have warnings that some of these terrorists have CDL and hazardous waste permits. So what do we do? Shut down all trucking traffic?
We have warning of nuclear/bio/chemical weapons and terrorists coming in shipping containers. What do we do? Shut down all imports?
So what is a President to do- he is a heartless unconstitutional bum if he locks up illegal aliens after 9-11 and he is a ner'do well if he doesn't lock them up before 9-11.
If there was something anyone could have done to prevent the 9-11 attacks with the information we had they must be super human. Clinton couldn't do it, Regan couldn't do it, Sharon can't do it, no one can do it, except to go to where the terrorists are based and destroy them and their support system.
Even if the US went on some extraordinary alert status triggered from the vague information it wouldn't have worked. The terrorists would have just waited until the alert waned.
Even if we would have captured all the terrorists prior to 9-11, there is still the threat of another wave coming with different tactics and objectives, which is the threat situation we are in now.
Bush could be criticized for so much, why go after him for stuff that is meritless ? Even if it is showed he lied or was mixed up with the information it still leads no where.
Bush shouldn't be re-elected just on the basis of the a**hole he appointed to Attorney General.
I think the economy is worse than many report and is going to get even worse. That will seal Bush's re-election fate.
I can't believe all these people that have lost their jobs in the last year are going to be voting republican in the congressional races, but they need to get out and vote and the Dems need to bring issues forward that will get them out to vote. The economy works every time.
posted on May 16, 2002 05:15:00 PM new
Execpt from the link provided by Helen:
"The multiple hijackings are unprecedented. The first occurs at 7:45 in the morning. It’s a full hour before the first plane hits the World Trade Center. But it’s an hour and 20 minutes -- and after the second plane hits – that the President allegedly becomes informed. Think about that. Then, he gives no orders. Why? He continues to listen to a student talk about her pet goat. Why?"
I have my own explantion and I have hidden it in the answer(s) below. See if you can guess which one it is?
Multiple Choice:
a) Bush is a Moron and was being kept out of the loop.
b) Bush is a Moron and was being kept out of the loop.
c) Bush is a Moron and was being kept out of the loop.
posted on May 16, 2002 06:41:27 PM new
Once the regent was informed and wisked to safety there was no hurry.
I am just surprised that Bush seemed to catch on to the fact that if they had wisked his Vice Pres. away for safety why were they rushing him back too the bullseye? Then he diverted off somewhere out west - forget exactly where. He sure looked mighty expendable from that action of heading back to the white house.
posted on May 16, 2002 11:26:02 PM new
Reamond can't keep anything straight. It was the LEGAL immigrants who have protections, dope.
As if a few hundred thousand votes would sway an election anymore. How many more votes did Gore obtain? A Half million.
Make a media hero, all you need is credibility and bucks, and you'll have doctored polls with a dozen happy singers constructing a reelection from thin air, but without the credibility it's a bit more difficult. Did bush know an attack of any kind was imminent? If so, what did he do to prevent one? Whether it could in fact have been prevented doesn't matter but not to try does. And to say he knew nothing while it becomes clear that he did means that there is a lie perpetrated upon the people by the president. Did repugs elect a liar? (Well, of course), or wasn't it lying that was the problem they decried so loudly during the campaign?
Now the white house is staying up all night to try to find a way to minimize the damage. They're making the usual noises about the unAmerican questioning of the hero. But for people who voted for truth a liar cannot be their hero. They're saying that warnings WERE issued, but the airlines deny having received any. A lie to cover a lie. It'll get worse, I hope.
posted on May 17, 2002 09:56:23 AM new
Better go back and read your thread krs- you were weeping for the illegal aliens locked up without constitutional protections and claiming that illegal aliens have the same constitutional protections as US citizen- which you were wrong about.
Even "legal" immigrants that are not US citizens do not enjoy constitutional protections. They can be arrested and deported by the executive branch at will.
krs, you'll just have to conclude that Bush is a dolt, but he seems to have more on the ball than you.
This "warning" thing is a non-issue. Attacking the president based on war issues back fires every time. It is a fools errand.
posted on May 17, 2002 12:15:10 PM new
Even if it was an "old-fashion" hijacking, the 150 passengers of the one or multiple planes (maybe 10 planes?) wasn't worth the effort to "try" to stop it?
Haven't heard anymore about Bush's $150 photo, has anyone else? IMO there is blood and tears on that photo.
There was a suggestion by a FBI agent before 9/11 that a plane would be hijacked and flown into the WTC.
[ edited by clarksville on May 17, 2002 12:34 PM ]
posted on May 17, 2002 01:54:58 PM new
Reamond, you get dumber every time you post. Prove what you say.
clarksville, you're right, there was a detailed report predicting such an attack, it turns out, in 1999, which said in part:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal report warned the executive branch that Osama bin Laden
(news - web sites)'s terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon (news - web sites) or other government building.
"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's
Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and
semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) (CIA (news - web sites)), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.
The report, entitled the "Sociology and
Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a
Terrorist and Why?," described the suicide
hijacking as one of several possible retribution attacks al-Qaida might seek for the 1998 U.S. airstrike against bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan (news - web sites).
posted on May 17, 2002 03:51:59 PM new
Sept '99...hmm...where's the uproar that the previous Democratic administration didn't do anything in response to this advisory?
In all seriousness, I receive, on average, at least a dozen warnings/threat notifications daily. These are for the compartmentalized bits that I am privy to. No telling how many more exist each and every day.
If the intelligence community were to add the number of personnel required to look into each and every one of these, I'd be reading complaints about the increase in taxes that would be needed to fund the additional hires.
After all, I do remember reading here in the RT negative comments regarding warnings given to the public about terrorist threats in the months following 9/11, which fortunately, never came to fruition.
posted on May 17, 2002 06:16:40 PM new
I read shortly afterwards that there has been little investment in *human intelligence* for years. I think, given the facts, this board could've figured out what might be coming in like three hours.
Caught with their pants down, these guys went to HOLLYWOOD to see if THEY could think of anything else that might be coming.
posted on May 17, 2002 06:22:45 PM new I think, given the facts, this board could've figured out what might be coming in like three hours.
Easy to assume, but you'd also have figured out 100's of other things based on other facts (human intelligence, signals intelligence, counter-intelligence, etc.) that would never pan out.
posted on May 17, 2002 06:46:50 PM new
A plethora of Muslims taking flight lessons, around the same time, paying cash, with no interest in learning take-off and landing, squicking even the avaition trainers who made reports to the FBI... Yeah, we'd lose that in the noise. We're as stupid as our gov't. Gimmee a GD break.
I wonder what that retired Bin Laden hating FBI guy who happened to be killed on his first day on the job as head of security at the WTC would have to say about all this.
posted on May 17, 2002 06:58:44 PM new
Today on TV they were talking about the various agencies not sharing reports with each other and my wife - who has no interest in politics - was laughing her head off because it was obvious to her that they are just like the various departments where she works - each looks out for their own budget and interests and would not tell the enemy - the other departments - the time of day.
They NEED the outside enemy to justify their own existance but the internal competition for money and stature - that is a real foe!
posted on May 17, 2002 07:45:28 PM new
>>Today on TV they were talking about the various agencies not sharing reports with each other<<
I understand that's part of what's-his-names problem. It is the way it is. I don't play that. Back on the job, what 2-3 weeks now, I've already gotten into my, oh third, er, whatever, because I just won't kiss up to preserve the status quo. About half of the people see me as a hero and the other (ignorant, moronic, insipid, never mind extremely dull and physically unattractive half ) see me as a moron who is just asking to be fired.
I don't mind being fired, as long as I'm fired being 'right', which is the only reason they'd fire me anyway.
posted on May 18, 2002 06:36:02 AM new
Bin Laden, The Man Who Declared War on America, by Yossef Bodansky, published in 1999, discusses use of airplanes and "spectacular terrorist operations" to attack government buildings. Page 114.
) see me as a moron who is just asking to be fired.