This just seems like really sad partisan drivel. How do you equate 'no bad things' happening with stopping the attacks from 9/11?
It's amazing how you and Shawn seem to have this intentional ability to question what people write with regard to feigning misunderstandind of it.
It's quite clear that efforts can be made in an area and still have less than 100% effectiveness. There is still crime everyday. Murder, rape, robbery, etc. It would likely still be true even if we added say another half a million cops. We cannot always preemptively know and handle all the bad things that are going to happen.
Likewise it is profoundly interesting that Bush should be able to act preemptively on 9/11 but no where else. It isn't partisan drivel. I said quite clearly that Clinton wasn't at fault for the U.S.S. Cole, The 1993 WTC van bombing, or Oklahoma City. I just said it would be stupid to suggest he could have stopped all of them or worse yet, that he, in seriously evil fashion, knew but did nothing about them.
How consistant is it that Bush who premptively went into Iraq would do absolutely nothing premptively for 9/11. If you are going to charge someone with wrong actions, at least make sure you claim they are consistant with their evilness. It is sort of like how Bush fools the entire American media, and the majority of the American people, yet is stupid man who only got "C's" etc. The two don't match up. Maybe you can jump the logic canyon there, but I can't.
It's so refreshing to hear giant's utterly objective, non-biased point of view. I'm going to gather my children around the screen as soon as I finish typing this, and truly educate them.
Some of those "articles" giant quotes makes me think of some of the stories that came out on 9/11. Anyone remember the survivor who surfed debris down 80 floors and lived? Well surprise, surprise, despite the fact that it was widely reported, it was bullshit.
how surprising--children pointed at a tall building and said cryptic things. they must have had prior knowledge of a terrorist attack.
this is simply hindsight, accentuated by natural trauma at a huge event. i remember everyone in my town talking about kids who had said freaky things before the challenger exploded in '86.
maybe we could talk about whether the chairman's comments mean anything in the context of responsibility--will they actually finger specific intelligence agencies for negligence?
Some of those "articles" giant quotes makes me think of some of the stories that came out on 9/11. Anyone remember the survivor who surfed debris down 80 floors and lived? Well surprise, surprise, despite the fact that it was widely reported, it was bullshit.
Apparently you can't read. The MSNBC story was from a reporter who set out to prove it was BS and found out it wasn't.
You know, it's not like there was a whole lot of text there that would have made you miss it.
how surprising--children pointed at a tall building and said cryptic things. they must have had prior knowledge of a terrorist attack.
this is simply hindsight, accentuated by natural trauma at a huge event. i remember everyone in my town talking about kids who had said freaky things before the challenger exploded in '86.
Except not. How about you actually look into it and notice that these reports are just a very small part of a huge mosaic?
But, hey, keep trying to rationalize your beliefs away from the facts.
Oh, it was from MSNBC.... my mistake. It has to be true then.
My apologies for questioning it's a validity. I set out to prove the article was BS, but have also been proven otherwise. I am now eternally humbled. Thank you.
The FBI doesn't agree that they knew planes were ultimately going to be used as flying bombs in an attack and the World Trade Center towers. They would, however, agree that it was possible for planes to be hijacked and used as weapons. So how exactly is this Earth shattering signs of corruption?
As someone with family ties to the FBI, I can assure you that so much more is prevented in terms of terrorism than is actually successful, that it'd make your head spin. But administrations, no matter what party they are affiliated with, never get the credit for that. However, when a political party is in power when a catastrophe occurs, they are blamed. It's inevitable. For instance: Clinton took a lot of heat about the USS Cole, and in my mind unjustifiably so. But soon after that attack people were fleecing Clinton because he knew Al-Qaeda was a threat and didn't treat said threat with as much priority as his accusers claim they would have. Big deal. It's grand standing. This quote from the article you linked to in your original post sums it all up
"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but if Bush knew ahead of time that someone was going to fail, I'm guessing he'd not have put them in that position either. But Bush doesn't have the luxury of foresight.
Now, about this reporter who dug up some quotes from kids: I'll bet you I can go talk to thousands of Middle eastern children who will tell you flat out that they didn't have any idea there were going to be attacks. So that must mean there weren't any attacks? Of course not, that's preposterous. But the fact that a few children (we all know how utterly truthful every child in the world is) were quoted as saying they knew, means there was mountains of evidence ahead of time? Suppose the parents of these children were anti-US (I'm not making any claims they were, this is just one line of thought, so don't call me out on stereotyping) and were cognisant of an anti-US feeling amongst a particular segment of their culture. Boom, the planes hit the towers. Dad sees this on TV and screams "I knew it!" because he felt there was going to be some kind of reaction by his community. Kid hears this, and assumes dad knew about this specific attack, when in reality all dad knew was there was going to be some kind of inevitable reaction.... sure, it's a long short of a story, but it's certainly plausible, hell even likely in a case or two. It's just as likely as a kid actually knowing about the attacks themselves.
It's also much much easier to go out and find people who will tell you they knew about something after it occurred, as opposed to having people tell you something is going to happen before the fact. This is common knowledge. So the fact that people now claim they knew about it is nothing of any credibility. It's like when a terrorist organizations bombs something, and 5 step up and claim responsibility. They didn't all have a hand in it, but they'll tell you after the fact that they did.
Anyway... I'm ranting and you don't care anyway because you've made up your mind. You know the truth and I don't, therefor I've wasted far too much of my time and yours proving that you are right and I am wrong. So I need to pack my things for my trip home, so I'll wish you and everyone else a lovely rest of the day and hope it's not as cold where you are as it is here.
The FBI doesn't agree that they knew planes were ultimately going to be used as flying bombs in an attack and the World Trade Center towers. They would, however, agree that it was possible for planes to be hijacked and used as weapons. So how exactly is this Earth shattering signs of corruption?
The agree was in reference to the msnbc story.
Quote:
As someone with family ties to the FBI, I can assure you that so much more is prevented in terms of terrorism than is actually successful, that it'd make your head spin.
Don't assume you are in some sort of exclusive position to recieve information because of family.
As for Mueller, he's a liar and it's easily demonstrated.
Quote:
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but if Bush knew ahead of time that someone was going to fail, I'm guessing he'd not have put them in that position either. But Bush doesn't have the luxury of foresight.
For the love of God, why is it so insanely difficule for you to actually research what lead up to 9.11 before coming to a conclusion of this kind?
Quote:
Now, about this reporter who dug up some quotes from kids
Why focus on the kids (which, BTW, we have just 3 completely seperate incidents right here, contradicting your 'this reporter' statement)? There is a whole MOUNTAIN of info leading up to 9.11.
Quote:
It's also much much easier to go out and find people who will tell you they knew about something after it occurred, as opposed to having people tell you something is going to happen before the fact.
Except that there were many reports that made their way up before the fact. However, you haven't bothered to actually look! That's not a bad thing in itself, as different people have different intrests. But coming to a conclusion when only possessing little info is a little silly.
Quote:
You know the truth and I don't
No. I just actually bothered to spend 2 years researching it. If you say things that directly contradict the evidence, then what you are saying contradicts the evidence. If you haven't bothered to inform yourself about what that evidence is, then what more can we expect?
This isn't even about 3 reports from little kids. That's just an example of how widepread the knowledge was. There are collections of reports out there 100's of pages long that detail the forewarning of 9.11.
Quote:
So I need to pack my things for my trip home, so I'll wish you and everyone else a lovely rest of the day and hope it's not as cold where you are as it is here.
Have a good trip, and yes it's damn cold here, too.
Don't assume you are in some sort of exclusive position to recieve information because of family.
As for Mueller, he's a liar and it's easily demonstrated.
You shouldn't assume I assumed that. As for Mueller, I'm not sure what relevance that has to what we're talking about, but for what it's worth, I couldn't agree more.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
For the love of God, why is it so insanely difficule for you to actually research what lead up to 9.11 before coming to a conclusion of this kind?
So by my disagreeing with anything you say, am I to assume I will simply be cast off as uneducated and misinformed? If so, then I'm sorry you feel this way.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Why focus on the kids (which, BTW, we have just 3 completely seperate incidents right here, contradicting your 'this reporter' statement)? There is a whole MOUNTAIN of info leading up to 9.11.
Except that there were many reports that made their way up before the fact. However, you haven't bothered to actually look! That's not a bad thing in itself, as different people have different intrests. But coming to a conclusion when only possessing little info is a little silly.
I possess little info? I went back to reference the post I made with all the info I have ever studied regarding this subject, but it was strangely absent. I'm left wondering how you came to the conclusion I possess little info when all I've tried to do is not get into a "My links are smarter than your links" war. The answer, obviously, is that you are flaming me for disagreeing with some points you make.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
No. I just actually bothered to spend 2 years researching it. If you say things that directly contradict the evidence, then what you are saying contradicts the evidence. If you haven't bothered to inform yourself about what that evidence is, then what more can we expect?
This isn't even about 3 reports from little kids. That's just an example of how widepread the knowledge was. There are collections of reports out there 100's of pages long that detail the forewarning of 9.11.
I'm not going to address this first paragraph, because it's more flaming. So, moving on...
Let's assume for a moment all the information you have studied for the 2 years, 3 months and 8 days since the terrorist attacks points to the fact that there was enough information available at the time of the attacks to stop them (note: I don't actually disagree with this, rather I disagree with what some think this implies). I wonder how it is that you expect an incoming administration to come to the identical conclusion you have, in only 8 months? Keep in mind you were specifically looking for all the information available about this specific type of attack on American soil, but before the time of the attacks American intelligence had this and many other plausible doomsday scenarios to not only sort by probability of attack, but to investigate all aspects of every case as well as prepare plans and coordinate investigators for the prevention, or in the worst case, execution of these attacks, both domestic and foreign.
If you can enlighten me as to how all this could have realistically be done in 8 months I'll be astonished.
Ultimately what I believe is that this was a very large intelligence failure, which is what you seem to feel. But the intelligence community was not established the day Bush took office. It is there through every presidential term, regardless of political party. To blame a party for intelligence failures that should have been under investigation for far longer than a measly 8 months is nothing more than laying blame at the feet of those we wish to be blamed. It is intellectually dishonest.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Have a good trip, and yes it's damn cold here, too.
Thanks The trip was terrible. Very dangerous roads out there in Pennsylvania/West Virginia/Ohio tonight. But I've made it home safe and sound. Hope everyone is resting cozily in their warm homes tonight. Especially you giant. Bickering aside, thanks for exercising my mind quite a bit today. It's been fun!
I remember walking down the street, going to the store, church, etc. after the 9/11 attacks. You could look in people's faces and read the shock. Period. There was total disbelief on everyone's part---for heaven's sake, they flew a plane into the Pentagon!
I remember the constant airport warnings that summer, and wondered what was up with that; maybe everyone did. The problem is that we all gave a group of psychos more (less?) credit than they deserved. No one thought they would go as far they did.
History is full of bold moves catching an opponent unawares. Go rent Ken Burns' Civil War series.
I just want to know... is there a single person here who has the balls to say they don't believe what Thomas Kean has said?
I'll balls up there. It isn't that he doesn't believe it, it is whether it is a valid belief system. There are people who simply believe all bad things can be prevented. I don't happen to be one of them.
It is the take of pretty much every type of news reporting nowadays. What were the warning signs, how could this have been prevented and what will stop it in the future.
It is based off a worldview that is pure nurture and if we can change the laws, agencies, etc all around us, nothing would ever go wrong. I call bull on it. I do so when it is censorship by the right or left (If Johnny listens to that song or plays that game, he'll have sex then kill the neighbor kids) I call bull when it is writing an ever larger contracts, laws, and fund ever larger agencies in hopes that nothing will ever go wrong eventually.
If you can enlighten me as to how all this could have realistically be done in 8 months I'll be astonished.
That's an unfair request. The previous administration passed along plenty of intelligence and people from the intelligence departments Limiting this to 8 months is short sighted.
Also, giant probably came to his conclusion in less than 2 years, 3 months and 8 days.
I'll balls up there. It isn't that he doesn't believe it, it is whether it is a valid belief system. There are people who simply believe all bad things can be prevented. I don't happen to be one of them.
It is the take of pretty much every type of news reporting nowadays. What were the warning signs, how could this have been prevented and what will stop it in the future.
It is based off a worldview that is pure nurture and if we can change the laws, agencies, etc all around us, nothing would ever go wrong. I call bull on it. I do so when it is censorship by the right or left (If Johnny listens to that song or plays that game, he'll have sex then kill the neighbor kids) I call bull when it is writing an ever larger contracts, laws, and fund ever larger agencies in hopes that nothing will ever go wrong eventually.
Nick, king of the strawmen.
Before you can rely on this argument Nick, you need to prove that people really do believe that nothing will go wrong if we jump through enough hoops. No one is saying that. You're arguing that to deflect the discussion. Cut it out.
A worldview that is pure nurture? Where do you make up this crap? You need to show a connection between this 'pure nurture' BS you're spouting and preventing the attacks. It doesn't exist though.
That's an unfair request. The previous administration passed along plenty of intelligence and people from the intelligence departments Limiting this to 8 months is short sighted.
This is my point exactly. Limiting it to 8 months is ludicrous, which means pinning it on the current administration is also ludicrous. Things should have been set in motion long before the current administration took office. I am not blaming the former administration either, mind you. This was a failure of the Intelligence Community in the end, if one must lay blame somewhere.
Giant you exaggerate things so much it is ridiculous. Normally I don't enter these frays where you and Sammi Jo try to demonstrate how something "must have been" for this very reason... but...
If ALL those foreign governments, and all those companies and all those teachers and EVERYONE seemed to know it was going to happen,
HOW COME EVERYONE WAS SO GOD-DAMNED SHOCKED WHEN IT DID HAPPEN?????
How come none of the international papers or news channels here or abroad were running warnings or concerned editorials? How come every single commentator afterwords said they were in complete shock, that they couldn't even envision such a thing happening?
Maybe some people in the CIA and FBI had some good information and maybe they didn't. But even if they did, that is a far cry from "Everyone else knew it was going to happen and Bush ignored it."
I'll wait for an official report rather than yours, thanks. I think your two years of intensive study have been wasted if these are all the more logical your conlusions are.
This is my point exactly. Limiting it to 8 months is ludicrous, which means pinning it on the current administration is also ludicrous. Things should have been set in motion long before the current administration took office. I am not blaming the former administration either, mind you. This was a failure of the Intelligence Community in the end, if one must lay blame somewhere.
My point is saying that this administration had only 8 months of time to figure it out isn't true. They were working off many years of intelligence that was gathered prior to the 2000 elections. They weren't starting from scratch.
To say this is Bubba's fault isn't true. To say this is Coke-Boy's fault isn't true. To say that neither can be held responsible is just wrong. Either one could still legitimately be held responsible and the facts will bear this out. To pretend that Bush is somehow safe because he had only been in office for 8 months is silly. He could have been in office for 8 days and it would be possible for him to be responsible. The facts would have to prove that though.
People like Trumptman, and apparently you to some degree, want to brush this aside. There may never be any blame to lay, or it may fall squarely on the shoulders of one person. There is no telling at this point, and saying Bush couldn't know is just flat out wrong. If we took your line of thinking rageous, we wouldn't even bother investigating the Bush administration because we would all just say "8 months wasn't enough time so they can't be held responsible." If we look at it that way I hope you can see how ludicrous it sounds.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
This just seems like really sad partisan drivel. How do you equate 'no bad things' happening with stopping the attacks from 9/11?
It's amazing how you and Shawn seem to have this intentional ability to question what people write with regard to feigning misunderstandind of it.
It's quite clear that efforts can be made in an area and still have less than 100% effectiveness. There is still crime everyday. Murder, rape, robbery, etc. It would likely still be true even if we added say another half a million cops. We cannot always preemptively know and handle all the bad things that are going to happen.
Likewise it is profoundly interesting that Bush should be able to act preemptively on 9/11 but no where else. It isn't partisan drivel. I said quite clearly that Clinton wasn't at fault for the U.S.S. Cole, The 1993 WTC van bombing, or Oklahoma City. I just said it would be stupid to suggest he could have stopped all of them or worse yet, that he, in seriously evil fashion, knew but did nothing about them.
How consistant is it that Bush who premptively went into Iraq would do absolutely nothing premptively for 9/11. If you are going to charge someone with wrong actions, at least make sure you claim they are consistant with their evilness. It is sort of like how Bush fools the entire American media, and the majority of the American people, yet is stupid man who only got "C's" etc. The two don't match up. Maybe you can jump the logic canyon there, but I can't.
Nick
this is simply hindsight, accentuated by natural trauma at a huge event. i remember everyone in my town talking about kids who had said freaky things before the challenger exploded in '86.
maybe we could talk about whether the chairman's comments mean anything in the context of responsibility--will they actually finger specific intelligence agencies for negligence?
Originally posted by rageous
Some of those "articles" giant quotes makes me think of some of the stories that came out on 9/11. Anyone remember the survivor who surfed debris down 80 floors and lived? Well surprise, surprise, despite the fact that it was widely reported, it was bullshit.
Apparently you can't read. The MSNBC story was from a reporter who set out to prove it was BS and found out it wasn't.
You know, it's not like there was a whole lot of text there that would have made you miss it.
Originally posted by mrmister
how surprising--children pointed at a tall building and said cryptic things. they must have had prior knowledge of a terrorist attack.
this is simply hindsight, accentuated by natural trauma at a huge event. i remember everyone in my town talking about kids who had said freaky things before the challenger exploded in '86.
Except not. How about you actually look into it and notice that these reports are just a very small part of a huge mosaic?
But, hey, keep trying to rationalize your beliefs away from the facts.
My apologies for questioning it's a validity. I set out to prove the article was BS, but have also been proven otherwise. I am now eternally humbled. Thank you.
Originally posted by rageous
Oh, it was from MSNBC.... my mistake. It has to be true then.
Well, the FBI agrees.
As someone with family ties to the FBI, I can assure you that so much more is prevented in terms of terrorism than is actually successful, that it'd make your head spin. But administrations, no matter what party they are affiliated with, never get the credit for that. However, when a political party is in power when a catastrophe occurs, they are blamed. It's inevitable. For instance: Clinton took a lot of heat about the USS Cole, and in my mind unjustifiably so. But soon after that attack people were fleecing Clinton because he knew Al-Qaeda was a threat and didn't treat said threat with as much priority as his accusers claim they would have. Big deal. It's grand standing. This quote from the article you linked to in your original post sums it all up
"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but if Bush knew ahead of time that someone was going to fail, I'm guessing he'd not have put them in that position either. But Bush doesn't have the luxury of foresight.
Now, about this reporter who dug up some quotes from kids: I'll bet you I can go talk to thousands of Middle eastern children who will tell you flat out that they didn't have any idea there were going to be attacks. So that must mean there weren't any attacks? Of course not, that's preposterous. But the fact that a few children (we all know how utterly truthful every child in the world is) were quoted as saying they knew, means there was mountains of evidence ahead of time? Suppose the parents of these children were anti-US (I'm not making any claims they were, this is just one line of thought, so don't call me out on stereotyping) and were cognisant of an anti-US feeling amongst a particular segment of their culture. Boom, the planes hit the towers. Dad sees this on TV and screams "I knew it!" because he felt there was going to be some kind of reaction by his community. Kid hears this, and assumes dad knew about this specific attack, when in reality all dad knew was there was going to be some kind of inevitable reaction.... sure, it's a long short of a story, but it's certainly plausible, hell even likely in a case or two. It's just as likely as a kid actually knowing about the attacks themselves.
It's also much much easier to go out and find people who will tell you they knew about something after it occurred, as opposed to having people tell you something is going to happen before the fact. This is common knowledge. So the fact that people now claim they knew about it is nothing of any credibility. It's like when a terrorist organizations bombs something, and 5 step up and claim responsibility. They didn't all have a hand in it, but they'll tell you after the fact that they did.
Anyway... I'm ranting and you don't care anyway because you've made up your mind. You know the truth and I don't, therefor I've wasted far too much of my time and yours proving that you are right and I am wrong. So I need to pack my things for my trip home, so I'll wish you and everyone else a lovely rest of the day and hope it's not as cold where you are as it is here.
Originally posted by rageous
The FBI doesn't agree that they knew planes were ultimately going to be used as flying bombs in an attack and the World Trade Center towers. They would, however, agree that it was possible for planes to be hijacked and used as weapons. So how exactly is this Earth shattering signs of corruption?
The agree was in reference to the msnbc story.
As someone with family ties to the FBI, I can assure you that so much more is prevented in terms of terrorism than is actually successful, that it'd make your head spin.
Don't assume you are in some sort of exclusive position to recieve information because of family.
As for Mueller, he's a liar and it's easily demonstrated.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but if Bush knew ahead of time that someone was going to fail, I'm guessing he'd not have put them in that position either. But Bush doesn't have the luxury of foresight.
For the love of God, why is it so insanely difficule for you to actually research what lead up to 9.11 before coming to a conclusion of this kind?
Now, about this reporter who dug up some quotes from kids
Why focus on the kids (which, BTW, we have just 3 completely seperate incidents right here, contradicting your 'this reporter' statement)? There is a whole MOUNTAIN of info leading up to 9.11.
It's also much much easier to go out and find people who will tell you they knew about something after it occurred, as opposed to having people tell you something is going to happen before the fact.
Except that there were many reports that made their way up before the fact. However, you haven't bothered to actually look! That's not a bad thing in itself, as different people have different intrests. But coming to a conclusion when only possessing little info is a little silly.
You know the truth and I don't
No. I just actually bothered to spend 2 years researching it. If you say things that directly contradict the evidence, then what you are saying contradicts the evidence. If you haven't bothered to inform yourself about what that evidence is, then what more can we expect?
This isn't even about 3 reports from little kids. That's just an example of how widepread the knowledge was. There are collections of reports out there 100's of pages long that detail the forewarning of 9.11.
So I need to pack my things for my trip home, so I'll wish you and everyone else a lovely rest of the day and hope it's not as cold where you are as it is here.
Have a good trip, and yes it's damn cold here, too.
Originally posted by giant
The agree was in reference to the msnbc story.
I'm aware of that.
Originally posted by giant
Don't assume you are in some sort of exclusive position to recieve information because of family.
As for Mueller, he's a liar and it's easily demonstrated.
You shouldn't assume I assumed that. As for Mueller, I'm not sure what relevance that has to what we're talking about, but for what it's worth, I couldn't agree more.
Originally posted by giant
For the love of God, why is it so insanely difficule for you to actually research what lead up to 9.11 before coming to a conclusion of this kind?
So by my disagreeing with anything you say, am I to assume I will simply be cast off as uneducated and misinformed? If so, then I'm sorry you feel this way.
Originally posted by giant
Why focus on the kids (which, BTW, we have just 3 completely seperate incidents right here, contradicting your 'this reporter' statement)? There is a whole MOUNTAIN of info leading up to 9.11.
Except that there were many reports that made their way up before the fact. However, you haven't bothered to actually look! That's not a bad thing in itself, as different people have different intrests. But coming to a conclusion when only possessing little info is a little silly.
I possess little info? I went back to reference the post I made with all the info I have ever studied regarding this subject, but it was strangely absent. I'm left wondering how you came to the conclusion I possess little info when all I've tried to do is not get into a "My links are smarter than your links" war. The answer, obviously, is that you are flaming me for disagreeing with some points you make.
Originally posted by giant
No. I just actually bothered to spend 2 years researching it. If you say things that directly contradict the evidence, then what you are saying contradicts the evidence. If you haven't bothered to inform yourself about what that evidence is, then what more can we expect?
This isn't even about 3 reports from little kids. That's just an example of how widepread the knowledge was. There are collections of reports out there 100's of pages long that detail the forewarning of 9.11.
I'm not going to address this first paragraph, because it's more flaming. So, moving on...
Let's assume for a moment all the information you have studied for the 2 years, 3 months and 8 days since the terrorist attacks points to the fact that there was enough information available at the time of the attacks to stop them (note: I don't actually disagree with this, rather I disagree with what some think this implies). I wonder how it is that you expect an incoming administration to come to the identical conclusion you have, in only 8 months? Keep in mind you were specifically looking for all the information available about this specific type of attack on American soil, but before the time of the attacks American intelligence had this and many other plausible doomsday scenarios to not only sort by probability of attack, but to investigate all aspects of every case as well as prepare plans and coordinate investigators for the prevention, or in the worst case, execution of these attacks, both domestic and foreign.
If you can enlighten me as to how all this could have realistically be done in 8 months I'll be astonished.
Ultimately what I believe is that this was a very large intelligence failure, which is what you seem to feel. But the intelligence community was not established the day Bush took office. It is there through every presidential term, regardless of political party. To blame a party for intelligence failures that should have been under investigation for far longer than a measly 8 months is nothing more than laying blame at the feet of those we wish to be blamed. It is intellectually dishonest.
Originally posted by giant
Have a good trip, and yes it's damn cold here, too.
Thanks
I remember the constant airport warnings that summer, and wondered what was up with that; maybe everyone did. The problem is that we all gave a group of psychos more (less?) credit than they deserved. No one thought they would go as far they did.
History is full of bold moves catching an opponent unawares. Go rent Ken Burns' Civil War series.
Originally posted by Ringo
I just want to know... is there a single person here who has the balls to say they don't believe what Thomas Kean has said?
I'll balls up there. It isn't that he doesn't believe it, it is whether it is a valid belief system. There are people who simply believe all bad things can be prevented. I don't happen to be one of them.
It is the take of pretty much every type of news reporting nowadays. What were the warning signs, how could this have been prevented and what will stop it in the future.
It is based off a worldview that is pure nurture and if we can change the laws, agencies, etc all around us, nothing would ever go wrong. I call bull on it. I do so when it is censorship by the right or left (If Johnny listens to that song or plays that game, he'll have sex then kill the neighbor kids) I call bull when it is writing an ever larger contracts, laws, and fund ever larger agencies in hopes that nothing will ever go wrong eventually.
Nick
Originally posted by rageous
If you can enlighten me as to how all this could have realistically be done in 8 months I'll be astonished.
That's an unfair request. The previous administration passed along plenty of intelligence and people from the intelligence departments Limiting this to 8 months is short sighted.
Also, giant probably came to his conclusion in less than 2 years, 3 months and 8 days.
Originally posted by trumptman
I'll balls up there. It isn't that he doesn't believe it, it is whether it is a valid belief system. There are people who simply believe all bad things can be prevented. I don't happen to be one of them.
It is the take of pretty much every type of news reporting nowadays. What were the warning signs, how could this have been prevented and what will stop it in the future.
It is based off a worldview that is pure nurture and if we can change the laws, agencies, etc all around us, nothing would ever go wrong. I call bull on it. I do so when it is censorship by the right or left (If Johnny listens to that song or plays that game, he'll have sex then kill the neighbor kids) I call bull when it is writing an ever larger contracts, laws, and fund ever larger agencies in hopes that nothing will ever go wrong eventually.
Nick, king of the strawmen.
Before you can rely on this argument Nick, you need to prove that people really do believe that nothing will go wrong if we jump through enough hoops. No one is saying that. You're arguing that to deflect the discussion. Cut it out.
A worldview that is pure nurture? Where do you make up this crap? You need to show a connection between this 'pure nurture' BS you're spouting and preventing the attacks. It doesn't exist though.
Originally posted by bunge
That's an unfair request. The previous administration passed along plenty of intelligence and people from the intelligence departments Limiting this to 8 months is short sighted.
This is my point exactly. Limiting it to 8 months is ludicrous, which means pinning it on the current administration is also ludicrous. Things should have been set in motion long before the current administration took office. I am not blaming the former administration either, mind you. This was a failure of the Intelligence Community in the end, if one must lay blame somewhere.
If ALL those foreign governments, and all those companies and all those teachers and EVERYONE seemed to know it was going to happen,
HOW COME EVERYONE WAS SO GOD-DAMNED SHOCKED WHEN IT DID HAPPEN?????
How come none of the international papers or news channels here or abroad were running warnings or concerned editorials? How come every single commentator afterwords said they were in complete shock, that they couldn't even envision such a thing happening?
Maybe some people in the CIA and FBI had some good information and maybe they didn't. But even if they did, that is a far cry from "Everyone else knew it was going to happen and Bush ignored it."
I'll wait for an official report rather than yours, thanks. I think your two years of intensive study have been wasted if these are all the more logical your conlusions are.
Originally posted by rageous
This is my point exactly. Limiting it to 8 months is ludicrous, which means pinning it on the current administration is also ludicrous. Things should have been set in motion long before the current administration took office. I am not blaming the former administration either, mind you. This was a failure of the Intelligence Community in the end, if one must lay blame somewhere.
My point is saying that this administration had only 8 months of time to figure it out isn't true. They were working off many years of intelligence that was gathered prior to the 2000 elections. They weren't starting from scratch.
To say this is Bubba's fault isn't true. To say this is Coke-Boy's fault isn't true. To say that neither can be held responsible is just wrong. Either one could still legitimately be held responsible and the facts will bear this out. To pretend that Bush is somehow safe because he had only been in office for 8 months is silly. He could have been in office for 8 days and it would be possible for him to be responsible. The facts would have to prove that though.
People like Trumptman, and apparently you to some degree, want to brush this aside. There may never be any blame to lay, or it may fall squarely on the shoulders of one person. There is no telling at this point, and saying Bush couldn't know is just flat out wrong. If we took your line of thinking rageous, we wouldn't even bother investigating the Bush administration because we would all just say "8 months wasn't enough time so they can't be held responsible." If we look at it that way I hope you can see how ludicrous it sounds.