I really despise this line of thought. We should never ever give up our freedoms. Proposing that we must give something up to be safe is intellectually low balling the capabilities of what we are and what we are capable of. It's about an unimaginative course of action and argument I can think of....<hr></blockquote>
Who said anything about giving up freedoms? Not I. My point is that people are unwilling to deal with the general inconvenience of a truly secure nation. They don't want to wait the extra 35 minutes every time they go to the airport, they feel offended when people search their handbags at a ball game, they don't make an effort to report unusual things they may see during their daily routine (because they're lazy, not afraid or unsure that what they're seeing is unusual), etc. etc.
I don't at all think we should allow the government to have carte blanche on wire-tapping or things of that nature - not at all. I'm talking about people being hypocrits at a much more basic level. People wanting the 5 Star security, but bitching and moaning every time they have to do their part by being patient, vigilant or otherwise understanding of a difficult situation. I don't care how many high-tech task forces we build or how much money we spend ... if people don't do their part in this every day, it's all for naught. All of it. We might as well just sit back and take the next one on the chin....
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> I'm not getting the reference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So far you've been thinking about the geography of the situation. It is of course feasible. If you add to that some marketing, you should come to the conclusion that west, east, and north there are no real markets for the Caspian Sea oil. The real market is south then heading east. There are many energy hungry countries in the south east than anywhere else. Also include the refineries, you should get the whole picture by then.
Both geography and the market are key criteria for such a plan.
Of course all this is smart guessing and reasoning the only prove would be ... well, you should be able to guess this; if you do, then everything else will fall into the proper place.
So far you've been thinking about the geography of the situation. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No I haven't. I've shown that alternate routes already have a good deal of momentum behind them. That's about investments that have already been made.
[quote]<strong>It is of course feasible. If you add to that some marketing, you should come to the conclusion that west, east, and north there are no real markets for the Caspian Sea oil. The real market is south then heading east. There are many energy hungry countries in the south east than anywhere else. Also include the refineries, you should get the whole picture by then.
Both geography and the market are key criteria for such a plan.
Of course all this is smart guessing and reasoning the only prove would be ... well, you should be able to guess this; if you do, then everything else will fall into the proper place.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The market? The market for any oil is frequently thousands of miles - even half a world away - from where it was drilled. Oil is a fungible commodity. If it is exported north through the Baltic pipeline, it will displace some of the oil that is currently marketed in Europe (presumably North Sea oil) which will in turn be marketed elsewhere. If it goes south through a Baku or a trans-Afghan pipeline, same deal with different players affected. Central Asian oil and gas doesn't have to come out at a specific place to reach the world market. And if you want to do some smart guessing, look where the chips are already lined up. I wouldn't bet on a trans-Afghan pipeline getting off the ground very soon.
btw: you quoted my response to little cuss' post script. That didn't have anything to do with this particular discussion.
The market? The market for any oil is frequently thousands of miles - even half a world away - from where it was drilled. Oil is a fungible commodity. If it is exported north through the Baltic pipeline, it will displace some of the oil that is currently marketed in Europe (presumably North Sea oil) which will in turn be marketed elsewhere. If it goes south through a Baku or a trans-Afghan pipeline, same deal with different players affected. Central Asian oil and gas doesn't have to come out at a specific place to reach the world market. And if you want to do some smart guessing, look where the chips are already lined up. I wouldn't bet on a trans-Afghan pipeline getting off the ground very soon.
btw: you quoted my response to little cuss' post script. That didn't have anything to do with this particular discussion.
Regarding the market, maybe I should go further in detail regarding this.
Russia already has enough oil for their market, they are exporting actually what is beyond their need. Europe already has oil from the North Sea and gets more from the Middle East fields (Iraqi oil goes to US due to its high quality through Syria pipelines), and USA gets it mainly from the South American fields. Eastern europe market, well it is not that demanding, not even in the near future. Oil out of the Caspian would best be routed closer to the markets that have lots of demand. While there are quiet few oil fields in South East Asia, the oil quality is not the kind that is easily produced (mostly heavy crude with lots of sulphur). Imagine if you want to route that pipeline, given all the above information, would you rather route it closer to markets which have increasing demand, or those who are already sufficient and will always be sufficient way beyond the erection of your pipeline structure?
Regarding the market, maybe I should go further in detail regarding this...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know what you are saying but you are addressing this issue from one direction only. As I wrote earlier, all things being equal a trans-Afghan pipeline would be a good option. But all things aren't equal. Furthermore, it isn't just Southeast Asia that is ramping up it's demand for oil. China is too. Your argument can just as easily be used to stump for the Kazakhstan to China route that cuss wrote about earlier.
[quote]<strong>Russia already has enough oil for their market, they are exporting actually what is beyond their need. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, so? I didn't say anything different. The same can be said of Saudi Arabia.
[quote]<strong>Europe already has oil from the North Sea and gets more from the Middle East fields.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where is it written in stone that they need to use Middle Eastern oil and not Central Asian oil?
Who said anything about giving up freedoms? Not I. My point is that people are unwilling to deal with the general inconvenience of a truly secure nation. They don't want to wait the extra 35 minutes every time they go to the airport, they feel offended when people search their handbags at a ball game, they don't make an effort to report unusual things they may see during their daily routine (because they're lazy, not afraid or unsure that what they're seeing is unusual), etc. etc.</strong>
Hmm... James Woods did in fact report his observations. And guess what, the FBI ignored it. If it wasn't for the work of the airline trainer in Eagan MN, Mousaoui wouldn't have been caught. It was an airline trainer in Phoenix that saw something strange was going on when prospective pilots pay for their training with large sums of cash and have poor understanding of basic airline procedures that got the local FBI office to investigate.
The problem with the current airline security procedures is that they are brainless devoid of common sense. We know that it isn't making us more secure, and I think that makes people frustrated. If it works, I think people would be very patient with it.
I am not saying that change can not take place. There are many routes. I am only pointing out what is more convenient. A port on the sea is definitely the choice that all oil producing countries would rather have.
The topic is not an easy one to discuss by the way. There are many other things to take into consideration before a better route can be determined. You can think of it as a feasibility study.
We should note some quiet movement in the next few months as for where would that pipeline be routed.
... A port on the sea is definitely the choice that all oil producing countries would rather have.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I haven't said otherwise. The issue is where that port will be.
[quote]<strong>The topic is not an easy one to discuss by the way. There are many other things to take into consideration before a better route can be determined. You can think of it as a feasibility study.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. Which is why it isn't wise to suggest that we are in Afghanistan because of big oil. There are simply too many variables for that to be true. Add to the mix Iran. It's my understanding routing the pipeline through Iran would be an even better option.
Ok guys, even if it wasn't big oil this would work for Bush from almost any angle ( unless they found out of course ). What would have been the big story on the news in Sept. if this hadn't happened? The failing economy. Back in Sept. the economic sitituation was not good. But, it didn't get nearly the attention it would have if this hadn't happened.
What better way to bolster support for the military and more patriotic flag waiving and breast beating than we've seen in 50 years.
Did he turn his head and look the other way? We will probably never know ( I mean he's not going to remember ).
Is an american president capable of doing such an awful deed? Sure, given the proper motivation just like any of us could. There are bad apples in every barrel. If this was someone else ( like you and me ) this would already be in a court of law for gross negligence if nothing else.
The bottom line is the thought I had that morning while watching the TV : " how the hell did they get this far "? Why weren't there planes and all sorts of military activity all around the area ? If not NY the Pentigon. They did have several minutes warning that something was up and did nothing.
So if this wasn't an act of deliberate turning your head the other way, the other side is just as bad............pure unadulterated incompetence.
It appears those people on one of the planes knew what they had to do to stop the hijackers.
The irony if this does prove to be something other than the way it's been portrayed is that this came from a man who was not elected by the popular vote ( the people ) but by a contrivance ( the electoral college ).
Did he turn his head and look the other way?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No he didn't. If he did, then he would be guilty of the worst treason imaginable and I for one would be calling for his head.
It's incredible to me that people can believe otherwise. Look, Israel has what is arguably the best intelligence capabilities of any country in the world but suicide bombers keep getting through. I'm not letting the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. off the hook but they have to be perfect in order to prevent this stuff from happening. The terrorists only need to be lucky once. Furthermore, it has been reported that some of the hijackers themselves didn't even know they were on a suicide mission. How can you be so credulous as to think that Bush might have known what some of the hijackers didn't even know?
B. In a report ( prepared for US Intellegence in reference to Osama bin Laden ) way back in 1999, it states that terrorists may start using planes as missles.
C. As for the FBI and The CIA, what makes it their fault? The president would have been shown these reports. Lastly when you are president there's no passing of the buck.
I'm not saying I know for sure ether but, it's very strange that they could have reached the Pentigon or the center of NYC. They knew something was up with the plane for several minutes. Why didn't they do something?
As for a president doing something wrong.....WaterGate ( and the plea from George McGovern on television the night of the break in ) is still fresh in my mind.
<strong>A. How do you know for sure?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Listen. You can indulge yourself and wander around in the fever swamps of Bush hatred where in your mind he?s capable of such a monstrous evil. But frankly, people who think that way aren?t. I have an awfully low opinion of Clinton but I don't think even for a moment he would have been capable of such a thing.
[quote]<strong>B. In a report ( prepared for US Intellegence in reference to Osama bin Laden ) way back in 1999, it states that terrorists may start using planes as missles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. And in the meantime there were hundreds of other reports warning about everything from suitcase nukes to bio weapons. And 1999 to 2001 is a long time to be on alert. After a while it stops being an alert.
[quote]<strong>C. As for the FBI and The CIA, what makes it their fault? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Intel is their job.
[quote]<strong>The president would have been shown these reports. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not necessarily. Some of these reports were prepared by field agents. Those don't always make it into the President's daily briefing.
[quote]<strong>As for a president doing something wrong..... WaterGate ( and the plea from George McGovern on television the night of the break in ) is still fresh in my mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Watergate pales in comparison to what you are suggesting. The two are in no way comparable - and Watergate was pretty bad.
You know, people raised Pearl harbor here, and I think there are some parallels.
We were probably complacent, and ignored signs that shouldn't have been ignored.
Also, there are wackos who believe FDR wanted Pearl harbor to happen to have an excuse to go to war, and apparently there will always be wackos who believe Bush wanted this to happen to help Cheney's former company build an oil pipeline.
The one big difference I see is that we investigated the intelligence failures of Pearl Harbor, at the request of FDR, whereas Bush is withholding information and attacking those who want a similar investigation. Although Bush is accusing others of playing politics, it's actually his people who are politicizing it.
Republicans blamed Clinton for this, and now they're indignant that others are accusing Bush of being asleep at the wheel. They used 9/11 to sell their tax cut, and they're now using it to raise campaign money. Fine. Everyone knows that 9/11, unfortunately, was the best thing that could happen to Bush politically. It's not like it's a secret.
But now they're going too far. Accusing others of "playing politics" when they want an investigation that could improve and maybe even prevent something like this from happening again is too much. Especially when, from what I can tell, the calls for investigation have been pretty bi-partisan.
If any of what's suspected is true then I wonder if Bush is capable at all.
I don't believe he wouldn't have seen this report. Osama has been a focus long before 9/11.
The Intel knew something was possible to go down on 9/11. This means Bush would have known it. It's his job.
And once again they had ample ( in military terms ) time to do something. Why didn't they respond. A jet travels at a lot slower speed than a missle. I mean they attacked the Pentigon for christ's sake. Unbelievable.
If it's just a goof up on the governments part, maybe we need a more capable leader.
<strong>If any of what's suspected is true then I wonder if Bush is capable at all.
I don't believe he wouldn't have seen this report. Osama has been a focus long before 9/11.
The Intel knew something was possible to go down on 9/11. This means Bush would have known it. It's his job...
I'm just asking questions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, you're not. You just made a bunch of flat statements.
As for whether or not there should be an investigation, Cheney himself has said there should be one. His only caveat is that it should be done by the House and Senate Intelligence committees. What's the bitch?
I wish I lived in your world where leaders aren't capable of doing wrong or investigations are really revealing or fair. Unfortunately we already know through history that's not the way things are.
Let's hope this investigation is different.
When you ask questions about something this complex you have to make flat statements to explain your perspective.
[quote] they want an investigation that could improve and maybe even prevent something like this from happening again<hr></blockquote>
I think that sums up why we need an investigation . . . in any business if there is a massive failure of some system or another then we follow up with an investigation in order to understand what went wrong and why and how to prevent it . .
this idiocy of calling people fools because they want to know (government for the people and by the people) . . . is missguided politicking and maybe even a little fear of what might be found
Have you had a chance to watch the movie ?Three Days of the Condor?, staring Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway? It pretty much echoes everything you?ve been saying.
Also, people espousing the notion that the CIA is run by bunch of incompetent bunglers, are just completely naive. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this event has been manipulated to some degree by higher powers for their own perceived gain.
Comments
I really despise this line of thought. We should never ever give up our freedoms. Proposing that we must give something up to be safe is intellectually low balling the capabilities of what we are and what we are capable of. It's about an unimaginative course of action and argument I can think of....<hr></blockquote>
Who said anything about giving up freedoms? Not I. My point is that people are unwilling to deal with the general inconvenience of a truly secure nation. They don't want to wait the extra 35 minutes every time they go to the airport, they feel offended when people search their handbags at a ball game, they don't make an effort to report unusual things they may see during their daily routine (because they're lazy, not afraid or unsure that what they're seeing is unusual), etc. etc.
I don't at all think we should allow the government to have carte blanche on wire-tapping or things of that nature - not at all. I'm talking about people being hypocrits at a much more basic level. People wanting the 5 Star security, but bitching and moaning every time they have to do their part by being patient, vigilant or otherwise understanding of a difficult situation. I don't care how many high-tech task forces we build or how much money we spend ... if people don't do their part in this every day, it's all for naught. All of it. We might as well just sit back and take the next one on the chin....
[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> I'm not getting the reference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So far you've been thinking about the geography of the situation. It is of course feasible. If you add to that some marketing, you should come to the conclusion that west, east, and north there are no real markets for the Caspian Sea oil. The real market is south then heading east. There are many energy hungry countries in the south east than anywhere else. Also include the refineries, you should get the whole picture by then.
Both geography and the market are key criteria for such a plan.
Of course all this is smart guessing and reasoning the only prove would be ... well, you should be able to guess this; if you do, then everything else will fall into the proper place.
<strong>
So far you've been thinking about the geography of the situation. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No I haven't. I've shown that alternate routes already have a good deal of momentum behind them. That's about investments that have already been made.
[quote]<strong>It is of course feasible. If you add to that some marketing, you should come to the conclusion that west, east, and north there are no real markets for the Caspian Sea oil. The real market is south then heading east. There are many energy hungry countries in the south east than anywhere else. Also include the refineries, you should get the whole picture by then.
Both geography and the market are key criteria for such a plan.
Of course all this is smart guessing and reasoning the only prove would be ... well, you should be able to guess this; if you do, then everything else will fall into the proper place.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The market? The market for any oil is frequently thousands of miles - even half a world away - from where it was drilled. Oil is a fungible commodity. If it is exported north through the Baltic pipeline, it will displace some of the oil that is currently marketed in Europe (presumably North Sea oil) which will in turn be marketed elsewhere. If it goes south through a Baku or a trans-Afghan pipeline, same deal with different players affected. Central Asian oil and gas doesn't have to come out at a specific place to reach the world market. And if you want to do some smart guessing, look where the chips are already lined up. I wouldn't bet on a trans-Afghan pipeline getting off the ground very soon.
btw: you quoted my response to little cuss' post script. That didn't have anything to do with this particular discussion.
[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>
The market? The market for any oil is frequently thousands of miles - even half a world away - from where it was drilled. Oil is a fungible commodity. If it is exported north through the Baltic pipeline, it will displace some of the oil that is currently marketed in Europe (presumably North Sea oil) which will in turn be marketed elsewhere. If it goes south through a Baku or a trans-Afghan pipeline, same deal with different players affected. Central Asian oil and gas doesn't have to come out at a specific place to reach the world market. And if you want to do some smart guessing, look where the chips are already lined up. I wouldn't bet on a trans-Afghan pipeline getting off the ground very soon.
btw: you quoted my response to little cuss' post script. That didn't have anything to do with this particular discussion.
[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry about the quote. It just did not work.
Regarding the market, maybe I should go further in detail regarding this.
Russia already has enough oil for their market, they are exporting actually what is beyond their need. Europe already has oil from the North Sea and gets more from the Middle East fields (Iraqi oil goes to US due to its high quality through Syria pipelines), and USA gets it mainly from the South American fields. Eastern europe market, well it is not that demanding, not even in the near future. Oil out of the Caspian would best be routed closer to the markets that have lots of demand. While there are quiet few oil fields in South East Asia, the oil quality is not the kind that is easily produced (mostly heavy crude with lots of sulphur). Imagine if you want to route that pipeline, given all the above information, would you rather route it closer to markets which have increasing demand, or those who are already sufficient and will always be sufficient way beyond the erection of your pipeline structure?
<strong>
Regarding the market, maybe I should go further in detail regarding this...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know what you are saying but you are addressing this issue from one direction only. As I wrote earlier, all things being equal a trans-Afghan pipeline would be a good option. But all things aren't equal. Furthermore, it isn't just Southeast Asia that is ramping up it's demand for oil. China is too. Your argument can just as easily be used to stump for the Kazakhstan to China route that cuss wrote about earlier.
[quote]<strong>Russia already has enough oil for their market, they are exporting actually what is beyond their need. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, so? I didn't say anything different. The same can be said of Saudi Arabia.
[quote]<strong>Europe already has oil from the North Sea and gets more from the Middle East fields.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where is it written in stone that they need to use Middle Eastern oil and not Central Asian oil?
[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
Who said anything about giving up freedoms? Not I. My point is that people are unwilling to deal with the general inconvenience of a truly secure nation. They don't want to wait the extra 35 minutes every time they go to the airport, they feel offended when people search their handbags at a ball game, they don't make an effort to report unusual things they may see during their daily routine (because they're lazy, not afraid or unsure that what they're seeing is unusual), etc. etc.</strong>
Hmm... James Woods did in fact report his observations. And guess what, the FBI ignored it. If it wasn't for the work of the airline trainer in Eagan MN, Mousaoui wouldn't have been caught. It was an airline trainer in Phoenix that saw something strange was going on when prospective pilots pay for their training with large sums of cash and have poor understanding of basic airline procedures that got the local FBI office to investigate.
The problem with the current airline security procedures is that they are brainless devoid of common sense. We know that it isn't making us more secure, and I think that makes people frustrated. If it works, I think people would be very patient with it.
<strong>
Where is it written in stone that they need to use Middle Eastern oil and not Central Asian oil?
[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
The quote is not working again.
I am not saying that change can not take place. There are many routes. I am only pointing out what is more convenient. A port on the sea is definitely the choice that all oil producing countries would rather have.
The topic is not an easy one to discuss by the way. There are many other things to take into consideration before a better route can be determined. You can think of it as a feasibility study.
We should note some quiet movement in the next few months as for where would that pipeline be routed.
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/18/alqaeda.chatter/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/18/alqaeda.chatter/index.html</a>;
Hopefully the FBI/CIA will do their job this time.
<strong>
... A port on the sea is definitely the choice that all oil producing countries would rather have.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I haven't said otherwise. The issue is where that port will be.
[quote]<strong>The topic is not an easy one to discuss by the way. There are many other things to take into consideration before a better route can be determined. You can think of it as a feasibility study.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. Which is why it isn't wise to suggest that we are in Afghanistan because of big oil. There are simply too many variables for that to be true. Add to the mix Iran. It's my understanding routing the pipeline through Iran would be an even better option.
What better way to bolster support for the military and more patriotic flag waiving and breast beating than we've seen in 50 years.
Did he turn his head and look the other way? We will probably never know ( I mean he's not going to remember ).
Is an american president capable of doing such an awful deed? Sure, given the proper motivation just like any of us could. There are bad apples in every barrel. If this was someone else ( like you and me ) this would already be in a court of law for gross negligence if nothing else.
The bottom line is the thought I had that morning while watching the TV : " how the hell did they get this far "? Why weren't there planes and all sorts of military activity all around the area ? If not NY the Pentigon. They did have several minutes warning that something was up and did nothing.
So if this wasn't an act of deliberate turning your head the other way, the other side is just as bad............pure unadulterated incompetence.
It appears those people on one of the planes knew what they had to do to stop the hijackers.
The irony if this does prove to be something other than the way it's been portrayed is that this came from a man who was not elected by the popular vote ( the people ) but by a contrivance ( the electoral college ).
[ 05-19-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
Did he turn his head and look the other way?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No he didn't. If he did, then he would be guilty of the worst treason imaginable and I for one would be calling for his head.
It's incredible to me that people can believe otherwise. Look, Israel has what is arguably the best intelligence capabilities of any country in the world but suicide bombers keep getting through. I'm not letting the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. off the hook but they have to be perfect in order to prevent this stuff from happening. The terrorists only need to be lucky once. Furthermore, it has been reported that some of the hijackers themselves didn't even know they were on a suicide mission. How can you be so credulous as to think that Bush might have known what some of the hijackers didn't even know?
[ 05-19-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
B. In a report ( prepared for US Intellegence in reference to Osama bin Laden ) way back in 1999, it states that terrorists may start using planes as missles.
C. As for the FBI and The CIA, what makes it their fault? The president would have been shown these reports. Lastly when you are president there's no passing of the buck.
I'm not saying I know for sure ether but, it's very strange that they could have reached the Pentigon or the center of NYC. They knew something was up with the plane for several minutes. Why didn't they do something?
As for a president doing something wrong.....WaterGate ( and the plea from George McGovern on television the night of the break in ) is still fresh in my mind.
[ 05-19-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>A. How do you know for sure?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Listen. You can indulge yourself and wander around in the fever swamps of Bush hatred where in your mind he?s capable of such a monstrous evil. But frankly, people who think that way aren?t. I have an awfully low opinion of Clinton but I don't think even for a moment he would have been capable of such a thing.
[quote]<strong>B. In a report ( prepared for US Intellegence in reference to Osama bin Laden ) way back in 1999, it states that terrorists may start using planes as missles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. And in the meantime there were hundreds of other reports warning about everything from suitcase nukes to bio weapons. And 1999 to 2001 is a long time to be on alert. After a while it stops being an alert.
[quote]<strong>C. As for the FBI and The CIA, what makes it their fault? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Intel is their job.
[quote]<strong>The president would have been shown these reports. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not necessarily. Some of these reports were prepared by field agents. Those don't always make it into the President's daily briefing.
[quote]<strong>As for a president doing something wrong..... WaterGate ( and the plea from George McGovern on television the night of the break in ) is still fresh in my mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Watergate pales in comparison to what you are suggesting. The two are in no way comparable - and Watergate was pretty bad.
We were probably complacent, and ignored signs that shouldn't have been ignored.
Also, there are wackos who believe FDR wanted Pearl harbor to happen to have an excuse to go to war, and apparently there will always be wackos who believe Bush wanted this to happen to help Cheney's former company build an oil pipeline.
The one big difference I see is that we investigated the intelligence failures of Pearl Harbor, at the request of FDR, whereas Bush is withholding information and attacking those who want a similar investigation. Although Bush is accusing others of playing politics, it's actually his people who are politicizing it.
Republicans blamed Clinton for this, and now they're indignant that others are accusing Bush of being asleep at the wheel. They used 9/11 to sell their tax cut, and they're now using it to raise campaign money. Fine. Everyone knows that 9/11, unfortunately, was the best thing that could happen to Bush politically. It's not like it's a secret.
But now they're going too far. Accusing others of "playing politics" when they want an investigation that could improve and maybe even prevent something like this from happening again is too much. Especially when, from what I can tell, the calls for investigation have been pretty bi-partisan.
I don't believe he wouldn't have seen this report. Osama has been a focus long before 9/11.
The Intel knew something was possible to go down on 9/11. This means Bush would have known it. It's his job.
And once again they had ample ( in military terms ) time to do something. Why didn't they respond. A jet travels at a lot slower speed than a missle. I mean they attacked the Pentigon for christ's sake. Unbelievable.
If it's just a goof up on the governments part, maybe we need a more capable leader.
I'm just asking questions.
[ 05-19-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>If any of what's suspected is true then I wonder if Bush is capable at all.
I don't believe he wouldn't have seen this report. Osama has been a focus long before 9/11.
The Intel knew something was possible to go down on 9/11. This means Bush would have known it. It's his job...
I'm just asking questions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, you're not. You just made a bunch of flat statements.
As for whether or not there should be an investigation, Cheney himself has said there should be one. His only caveat is that it should be done by the House and Senate Intelligence committees. What's the bitch?
Let's hope this investigation is different.
When you ask questions about something this complex you have to make flat statements to explain your perspective.
I think that sums up why we need an investigation . . . in any business if there is a massive failure of some system or another then we follow up with an investigation in order to understand what went wrong and why and how to prevent it . .
this idiocy of calling people fools because they want to know (government for the people and by the people) . . . is missguided politicking and maybe even a little fear of what might be found
Have you had a chance to watch the movie ?Three Days of the Condor?, staring Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway? It pretty much echoes everything you?ve been saying.
Also, people espousing the notion that the CIA is run by bunch of incompetent bunglers, are just completely naive. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this event has been manipulated to some degree by higher powers for their own perceived gain.
mika.