posted on May 18, 2002 08:00:04 AM new
Bor...I am neither. As I have said befire, I deal with Space. I work in a multi-matrixed vault that includes, among others, intel folks. They are the source of the daily updates.
posted on May 18, 2002 09:25:37 AM new
What gets me is that about a month before 9/11, Bush was on a 4 week long vacation in Crawford, after a short time in office.
Also, if they had a team of experts brainstorming they could have come up with a hand full of scenerios and gone from there. I am sure that using an airplane as a bomb would have been on the list of possibilities and they could have gone from there. Silly me, that would have been too much trouble for the airlines.
posted on May 18, 2002 10:46:22 AM new
Well yeah if they had put the flying public through what they are doing now BEFORE a terrorist attack with a plane the people would be frantic in contacting their congress people to stop it. Just human nature.
George W Bush is being criticised for taking a month-long holiday at his
ranch.The US president is spending August in Texas as the Washington
Post newspaper accused him of spending 42% of his time on holiday since
his inauguration.
The newspaper said he has spent 54 days at his ranch, four days at his
parents' holiday home in Kennebunkport and 38 days at the presidential
retreat, Camp David.White House officials billed Mr Bush's Texas trip as
a "working vacation" to allow him to work on matters of state and to
meet "real Americans" around the country, reports The Independent.
According to an opinion poll, 55% of Americans think his 31-day break is
too long. The paper says the President told reporters before an
early-morning round of golf: "Washington DC is a fine place and I'm
honoured to be working in the Oval Office and staying in the compound
there. But I'm the kind of person that needs to get outdoors. It keeps
my mind whole, keeps my spirits up."
posted on May 18, 2002 12:28:56 PM new
Of course President Clinton could have had Osama's head on a platter, and the events of 9/11 would probably been avoided, as well as the African embassy bombings. Perhaps Congress needs to look into what Clinton knew and when he knew it. As long as we're playing the hindsight game and looking for scapegoats.
posted on May 18, 2002 12:29:00 PM new
Again, how do you sift through so much intelligence? There have been warnings after warnings with no activity as a result. You could interpret that many ways; it could be poor intelligence, or it could mean that it was thwarted. You say poor judgment, I say otherwise.
Last summer, President Bush received briefings that contained general information about possible threats. The information was not specific. It did not mention time, place or method. These general threats were also uncorroborated. Any briefings containing specific information were uncorroborated and not credible.
The same information was shared with members of the House and Senate. Senator Diane Feinstein told CNN in July of 2001 “intelligence staff have told me that there is a major probability of a terrorist incident within the next three months.” Yesterday, Senate Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Richard Shelby acknowledged to CNN the briefings on potential threats.
The Counter-terrorism Security group (CSG) - which brings together White House officials with officials from all relevant federal agencies - began to meet several times per week, with telephone contact between key officials several times per day.
The FBI was conducting active investigations inside the US, and issuing appropriate warnings:
July 2 -- FBI released a warning message about a possible threat overseas. The warning specifically stated that while officials could not foresee a domestic attack, one could not be ruled out.
July 18 - FBI issues message on Millennium plot conviction, reiterates 2 July message.
Aug 1 - FBI issues alert on upcoming 3rd East Africa bombing Anniversary, reiterating July 2 message.
The State Department issued a worldwide caution (June 22).
Counter-terrorism Security Group suspends non-essential travel of US counter-terrorism staff (July 6).
Five key FAA Information Circulars (IC) were issued alerting private carries to potential threats against airlines:
June 22 - alerted carriers to a possible hijacking to free terrorist operatives
July 2 - based on the testimony of a terrorist involved in the Millennium bombing plots, who told of a possible attempt place a bomb in an air terminal
July 18 - though based on no specific threat information, urges all carries maintain a high degree of alertness.
July 31 - reports that some active terrorist groups are known to train for hijacking operations.
August 16 - warns carriers to be on alert for disguised weapons.
The August 6th briefing to the President that mentioned hijacking was not a threat report.
It was an analysis of Al Qadea and UBL that their desire to attack the US, and their preferred methods of operation. The analysis was prepared at the President’s request, in response to his questions about Al Qaeda’s capabilities and intentions to harm US interests. The analysis mentioned hijacking as a possible operation Al Qaeda might attempt.
But it did not say anything using aircraft as missiles. Rather, it mentioned the possibility that Al Qaeda might attempt to hijack a plane and hold passengers hostage to force the release of terrorist operatives, including the Blind Sheikh.
And Helen, since you seem to think the current president failed, care to comment on these:
posted on May 18, 2002 12:47:15 PM new
So, what are we supposed to do with these alerts. Just look the other way and say Holy #*!@, we don't want to disrupt the airline industry. There were two separate FBI reports plus a CIA warning, none of which were co-ordinated. If all three warnings were connected do you believe that anything could have been done? Do you believe that we can learn from history?
It boggles my mind to think that it has been eight months and only now is there a mention of an investigation. Maybe we can learn from our mistakes. Would you consider agreeing with that, Deuce?
posted on May 18, 2002 01:03:46 PM newHelen, of course we can learn from our mistakes. We may differ politically, but I think we both have some semblance of common sense.
That said, your response still assumes (at least in my interpretation) the govt did absolutely nothing. I think they did handle things appropriately, based on the world events at the time. Things have changed of course. Simply because the media didn't announce the warnings doesn't mean they weren't out there. The FAA, State Dept, etc.'s web sites spells out these warnings.
Unless you mean that we, the people, are the ones looking the other way; then I would agree with you. I fly a lot, and it still is bizarre how upset people get at being screened by security. But that's another story....
posted on May 18, 2002 01:22:02 PM new
Deuce, we, the public are just becoming aware that there were warnings. If you think that the govt handled the situation appropriately by saying nothing to the public then I don't agree. The situation was not handled appropriately. If the public had been warned, Maybe the people on the planes headed for the Pentagon and the WTC may have had a clue about the motive of the terrorists and they might just possibly have had time to take some kind of action.
Presidents since Carter have been at war with terrorists. I believe that given this information, knowing that a potentially serious threat had been reported by both the FBI and the CIA, that not a single one of them, including Democrats and Republicans would have gone to Florida to read a tale about a goat to a kindergarden class.
posted on May 18, 2002 02:09:12 PM new
But they DIDN'T "say nothing".
Don't assume that since you didn't know first hand, the information didn't exist. Warnings were put out, you may not have seen them; media outlets may not have reacted, as SO MANY WARNINGS are put out daily! Which ones should they choose to announce? They announced many general warnings/cautions post-9/11, but this has subsided also.
Pre-9/11, we were, oh, so comfortable in our lives, the warnings meant nothing. Now, they do, and people still react adversely to them (i.e. Gov Davis and the Golden Gate fiasco).
Hypothetically, pre-9/11, a warning of using a plane as a missile, of running a train full speed into Union Station, or simultaneously taking 100 Cessnas and plunging into college fottball stadiums while games are occurring would have seemed like an excerpt from a novel. Today they are reality.
However, Democrats leaders such as Senator Tom Daschle, Rep. Dick Gephardt and Senator John Edwards have tried to play politics with this threat information by making irresponsible statements about President Bush allowing their presidential ambitions get the best of their judgment.
New York Times cautions:
As Congressional Democrats and other Bush opponents rev up the recriminations following this week's disclosures, they should remember that the House and Senate Intelligence Committees received some of the same intelligence reports as the White House. These included public and private warnings from George Tenet, the director central intelligence, that Al Qaeda could strike at any time.
The Washington Post states:
The tempest seems overblown based on what the White House has revealed thus far, the information Mr. Bush received was very general, and the possibility of a domestic hijacking was far less salient in the briefing he received from the CIA than the possibility of an overseas attack. The administration warned airlines to take precautions. It's easy after September 11 to insist that more should have been done.
Finally your comment: "knowing that a potentially serious threat had been reported by both the FBI and the CIA, that not a single one of them, including Democrats and Republicans would have gone to Florida to read a tale about a goat to a kindergarden class. Using this logic, a President would never leave his underground bunker.
posted on May 18, 2002 04:15:47 PM new
So, Deuce, where do you think the 4th of July "Dirty Bomb" will happen? Or do you think a different date? Do you think terrorist love to hate NYC more than anywhere in the U.S. Just asking in case I have to ask y'all if someone will put us up that weekend.
posted on May 18, 2002 04:16:25 PM new"Perhaps Congress needs to look into what Clinton knew and when he knew it."
Well, according to that article, he did do a lot about it. He made it impossible for Osama to work up Al-Queda in the Sudan. He was a terrorist then, but not like he is now. Clinton did exactly what he should have at the time.
Also, after the U.S.S. Cole was attacked, Clinton sent the FBI and other intelligence agencies out after Osama and Al-Queda and also other International policing agencies were included as well.
Compare that to Bush, who blocked the investigation, then had it canceled. Back then, Bush was cozy and buddy-buddy with Osama bin-Laden and Al-Queda (Treason??) last spring in Afghanistan. And once he went to the ex-King of Afghanistan in July and told the ex-King that he was planning on attacking Al-Queda and the Taliban in October, what a SURPRIZE it was for Bush when 9-11 happened! Hell, the bloody bastard might well have been the precipitator of it!
posted on May 18, 2002 04:52:57 PM new
The administration today says the Dems are placing themselves with "The lunatic fringe"
by questioning what the president knew.
Sounds scared to me.
posted on May 18, 2002 05:57:05 PM newHe made it impossible for Osama to work up Al-Queda in the Sudan. He was a terrorist then, but not like he is now.
Huh? Did we read the same article? Sudan basically offered to babysit bin Laden then bundle him off to Saudi Arabia (where he probably would have been beheaded before we could get our mitts on him) AND turn over names and SPECIFIC information about terrorist plots and activites, and YET THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION THUMBED THEIR NOSE! Yeah, I think "hindsight" works both ways for BOTH administrations.
To answer two of your questions...my personal opinion is the next target will be European, likely Britain. Surprisingly, very few European airliners have adapted their cockpit doors as US carriers have. FAA mandated only those aircraft which fly into the US have their doors reinforced. Only a select few airlines in Europe, notably British Air & Virgin Atlantic, have done it system-wide. There have been several reports of intra-European flights flown with open cockpits for the duration of the flight. I don't think they (dis)like NY any better or worse than another place, but it has the landmarks to make an impact, both physically and emotionally for the country. 'Tis nice here in Colorado though; we're always looking for new guests if you feel the need to escape.
posted on May 18, 2002 07:53:41 PM new
I remember that as we as a nation were recovering from the initial shock of the attacks, almost everyone was asking basically the same questions about our internal security failures, especially the intelligence networks. The assumption was that certainly there would be investigations. But the administration was adamantly and forcefully opposed to any investigation, though eventually a congressional committee without much clear purpose or focus that I could see was established. Even during that time there were reports of FBI warnings prior to 9/11 having been disregarded but they also were brushed aside. Of course that was still during the time when no one was supposed to think, much less openly question any aspect of government. These responses made no sense to me at the time and they still don't. So I'm pleased that questions about these circumstances surrounding 9/11 have resurfaced....along with others.
The resolution of these issues seems fairly simple to me. A thorough independent study whose findings would put the issues to rest as soon as possible.
posted on May 19, 2002 08:01:42 AM new
Clinton did nothing. In fact, he didn't even forward that information to the new administration. Wow how some democrates have clouded judgement.
That pretty much sums up my opinion too. So far I have not seen any evidence that the happenings of 9/11 could reasonably have been expected to have been avoided...but I do think that an inquirary is in order to determine what was known and where communication broke down and how we can improve.
And an inquirary would cover back into the Clinton, Bush Sr and Reagan administrations...so not sure why we are getting all the chatter about that. Just out of habit I suppose.
Personally I think it is more important we understand what happened here and learn from our mistakes in this event than in knowing who gave the President a blow job. But then, that is just my take...I never get all excited about hearing about someone elses sex life.
Please call me Charlotte so I don't have ta change my ID.
posted on May 19, 2002 10:45:36 AM new
Compared to Bush blocking, then canceling of the much-publicized FBI investigations? Was it Clinton who was sleeping with Osama and Al-Queda last spring? No! It was Bush! Clinton made his mistakes, but not like the whoppers committed in such a short time by the REPUBLICANS. How can you possibly equate Clinton's actions or lack of them without researching the conditions at the time? That Clinton may have had very good reason for not wanting Osama exported back to Saudi Arabia for decapitation (notably as a favor to the Saudis, whose Royal family both loves and supports Osama). It's very easy to criticize from hindsight, but you can't be correct without examining the full context.
Compare that to Bush, who, after the U.S.S. Cole was torn up and 16 sailors killed and an active investigation under way, actually cozied-up to Osama and Al-Queda! Best Buddies, for a while. No wonder Bush canceled the FBI investigation into the bombings and MURDERS of U.S. Citizens abroad and at home! That's a big damned difference, IMO! Had Bush instead put national interests over his personal Oil interests and supported the FBI investigation, likely as not that 9-11 would not have happened.
As far as it being "years in the planning", I say, get educated! Al-Queda as a terrorist network, highly funded by our Best Friends, the Saudis. No doubt, they have been working out many a ghastly plan to destroy the West over the years, especially the USA! Surprise, surprise! That when the ex-King of Afghanistan notified Osama and Al-Queda that Bush had told him of his plans to attack Afghanistan in October, the Plan for that action was selected and then put into place and we got the 9-11 attacks. And, being well planned and financed, it worked better than anticipated. And that's not all! I'll bet you dimes to dollars that Al-Queda has other devious, well-planned, well-financed attacks planned out YEARS AGO in their bag of dirty tricks as well! In fact, we've heard of any number of them being foiled and that was the purpose of disrupting the network -- so that these other terrorist plots made YEARS IN ADVANCE wouldn't be successful.
No, questions need to be asked. Questions going back to the fall of the Berlin Wall -- during Bush, Sr.'s Reign of Terror on America (New World Order?)
sp.
[ edited by Borillar on May 19, 2002 10:50 AM ]
posted on May 19, 2002 01:15:45 PM new
I think the point here is that is easy to point fingers in hindsight, both at Clinton and Bush.
I think it is fair to give some criticism to the current administration for the delay in investigating possible disconnects within intelligence agencies, and if the events of 9/11 could have been discerned a bit clearer.
Vice Pres Cheney, just 8 days after 9/11 spoke of the threat, with NBC's Tim Russert, that the White House knew about previous to 9/11. Again it was not a specific threat.
I think this sums it up nicely, by NY Post's John Podhoretz's Op-Ed piece:
[i]Intelligence failures result from inattention and a lack of focus. We know that in the weeks leading up to Dec. 7, 1941, government workers in far-flung places were finding individual pieces of a confusing puzzle about the movements of the Japanese Navy, which had basically gone missing in the Pacific Ocean. . . .
These chunks of information and others, properly brought together and analyzed, could have provided some measure of advance warning of Pearl Harbor--or at least would have forced Washington to commit new resources to finding out what was really going on.
The same is true of the new revelations regarding 9/11. . . . But it's clear that there was no way for these disparate pieces of the 9/11 puzzle to be assembled. The president's intelligence briefing was, until Sept. 11, purely a foreign-policy matter. And since the CIA is legally prohibited from any role in domestic intelligence-gathering, its agents would not have been welcome at any domestic briefings.
It was business as usual in Washington in the summer of 2001, and we know in retrospect that business as usual proved to be disastrous business indeed. Still, what we saw on Sept. 11 was something entirely new--and therefore nearly impossible to anticipate.[/i]
and perhaps Borillar, using your logic from the your above post, if Clinton, as you said in regards to the Sudanese offer to give up UBL, may have had very good reason for not wanting Osama exported back to Saudi Arabia for decapitation (notably as a favor to the Saudis, whose Royal family both loves and supports Osama) then one could conclude, as you said, likely as not that 9-11 would not have happened if Clinton would have had US interests first, and not Saudi.
But alas, thinkin like that would be bad...now I am acting like the Democrats!
[ edited by deuce on May 19, 2002 01:17 PM ]
[ edited by deuce on May 19, 2002 01:20 PM ]
Isn't it fair to say that if the cumulative gatherings of various investigative/intelligence activities are deemed not to be dangerous or are too ambiguous to draw conclusion from a decision would be made at a subordinate level not to submit the information to the president? The agencies sift, and only a case of utmost concern needs the attention of that office.
Apparently intel was placed upon his desk two or four days prior.
How is it forgotten that Osama Bin Laden was in effect an agent of the United States only a short while before the 1993 episode? He was trained by us, funded by us, and supported in untold other ways in his guerilla efforts against the Soviet Union in Afganistan.
posted on May 19, 2002 04:18:41 PM new
Deuce, Clinton was hardly kissing up to known international terrorist murders and blocking criminal investiagtions in their behalf. If Clinton had personally gone and arrested every single terrorist of every caliber and threat in the world, republicans would still be bitchiung at him while turning a blind eye towards the hideous conduct of their own. That you have made the connection between Bush and Voters is clear enough, Deuce - that if Bush and his falling out with Osama and his issuing a subsequent threat that Osama got wind of, that may likely have caused Osama to put into motion their nafarious attack of 9-11. That being the case, WHO was it that stupidly put into the Most Powerful Office in the World a Moron, with no foreign diplomatic experience, so uneducated that he still can't pronounce the names of those countries right, AND had total and direct ties to Big Oil & Gas?? Who did that? The Voters who cast their ballot for Bush! That means, that it is the fault of THE REPUBLICAN VOTERS FOR 9-11!
Good to see you also. RUMINT around here that you were suspended. Glad to see it was only rumors.
I agree with your summary of how data would be forwarded up. Realize this is my understanding how FBI & CIA does it based upon news sources and not my experiences, although, in my work center, it works the same way. There are many filters before anything is briefed to someone with a star on their shoulder. It is an easy "out", if you will, to use the popular saying of the week that our intel sources had bits & pieces here & there, but could not "connect the dots". While not anywhere near that scale, I have experienced this in my work, so I know it does happen. But I do think a wise man would be fooling himself to say we don't need to tighten up our intelligence, and somehow find a better way to infiltrate these terrorist cells. I certainly don't have a solution for that.
Also concur with your point regarding our "alliance" with UBL in the past. I dunno why this is omitted. My assumption is that nobody, regardless of affiliation, wants that stink on them, and I also assume that no one could have foreseen the consequences that would come. I guess you could say the same thing back in the early 1990's with regards to Hussein and Iraq, and how we armed him/the country. My observations about us Americans is that we really only care on what affects us directly in the present.
How you came to the conclusion that I somehow made a connection with Bush & voters is unknown to me.
I am not confident that I know specifically what you mean in regards to Bush cozying up with UBL. You mention Bush and his falling out with UBL. This sounds like a hypothesis, rather than fact, but let's assume it is fact. Then good on Bush. He finds out this is a troublemaker and distances himself and makes plans to rid the US of the problem. Isn't that what you've been saying he should have done with the earlier warnings (no matter how vague they were?) I could be missing your point, but this is how I read it.
With regards to Clinton, I reinterate what I said, based upon what you said. He could have had him, but didn't, perhaps to appease the Saudis. Seems importance of oil isn't just a Republican thing. If Clinton would have taken up the Sudanese offer, perhaps there would have been no 9/11.
The difference in what I am saying & what I interpret you as saying is this: I do not blame Clinton. He could not have forseen what would be coming. Hindsight is but oh so clear.
[ edited by deuce on May 19, 2002 04:30 PM ]
posted on May 19, 2002 05:17:17 PM new
I agree, hindsight is 20-20.
"How you came to the conclusion that I somehow made a connection with Bush & voters is unknown to me."
Please take a moment to read the links below to find out.
What I am referring to is contained in this thread: Hell To Pay and referenced to the book by the name of "Bin Laden: The Hidden Truth" by John O'Neill with a link to a review here US efforts to make peace summed up by 'oil'.
Since it was the Republican Voters who helped to put Bush into office, and voters KNEW about his ineptness and oil connections, therefoe they must harbor blame for the deaths of over 3,000 vitcims.
