-------------On August 6, 2001, President Bush personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane."
-- Dateline NBC, 9/10/02--------------------
how about getting every agency together to try to figure out WHO the potential hijackers could be to begin with? Anyone with al qaeda "ties" that we know of? CIA, FBI? who could pull this off?
And as everyone, even Clarke, has said, it would not have stopped what happened from happening.
Quote:
No offense, but the real world doesn't work like that. Simple logic tells me that when you don't know much about something, you start with what you know and build from there. Nothing happens "instantly" like you're seem to be suggesting.
hmmm... I'm not quite sure I made any such suggestion. In fact I think my point was there's no way to work that fast, which is why 9/11 was basically unavoidable by the time Bush was briefed on the intelligence.
oh yeah . . . and BTW, we're not talking about Clinton . . . who cares about Clinton . . . Clinton is not in office now . . . nor is he trying to get into office for another four years
Clinton dealt with terrorism for eight years....and completely ineffectively at that. An argument could easily be made that he helped create the conditions that allowed Al-Qaeda to thrive. He stirred the hornets' nest by launching missles into asprin factories. His policies were totally ineffective. Bush indicated he was tired of "swatting flies" as it's been called, and wanted a real plan in place to root out Al-Qaeda. How can Bush have been doing a bad job? 9/11 was in the works long before Bush even ran for President.
All this being said, we can't blame Clinton either. The point is 9/11 altered a lot of views about the terror threat and how to deal with it. The 9/11 comission is nothing but a sham. It shouldn't even exist. We have to move forward.
And as everyone, even Clarke, has said, it would not have stopped what happened from happening.
Who is "everyone"? And you're now using Clarke's opinion? After you've been bashing him and trying to discredit him non-stop? lol Oook.
Quote:
hmmm... I'm not quite sure I made any such suggestion. In fact I think my point was there's no way to work that fast, which is why 9/11 was basically unavoidable by the time Bush was briefed on the intelligence.
By the time Bush was briefed, it may have been too late. Maybe he should've been briefed earlier? Now there's an idea. Coonnndi??? Besides, WHAT did he do WHEN he was briefed?
The point is, people like Bush and Rice are throwing their hands up saying things like "we had no clue they might plan to use an airliner to attack us", and THAT is a crock of shit. They'd didn't know the terrorist WOULD, on day x, using plane y, attack target z... but they DID know that type of an attack, ona prime target, WAS a distinct possibility.
And they didn't do shit at the airports or anywhere else to at least try and make it harder for potential terrorists to do that. Is that enough to justify the criticism of Bush and Rice, or should we just wait from them to admit to it? GMAFB.
It's not that I blame Bush for the actual event (there is never only one person to blame in a situaiton like this), but I DO blame him and Rice for playing dumb all of a sudden. It's disingenuous and it's pathetic.
Clinton dealt with terrorism for eight years....and completely ineffectively at that.
Are you sure nothing was done during his years? No attacks were thwarted?
Quote:
An argument could easily be made that he helped create the conditions that allowed Al-Qaeda to thrive. He stirred the hornets' nest by launching missles into asprin factories.
You mean stirring a hornet's nest like invading Iraq? Now that's stirring a hornet's nest . With what you said, then you must agree with what Rumsfeld said in the memo that leaked from the Pentagon, I'm afraid that they're generating more ideological radicals against us than we are arresting them and killing them. They're producing more faster than we are. ??? Or how about the warning the Egyptian president gave us? "If you invade Iraq, you will create a hundred bin Ladens."
Quote:
All this being said, we can't blame Clinton either. The point is 9/11 altered a lot of views about the terror threat and how to deal with it. The 9/11 comission is nothing but a sham. It shouldn't even exist. We have to move forward.
Uhh, sounds to me that almost all of your post is about blaming Clinton. Make up your mind.
And for you to claim you want to move forward is ridiculous because we can't "move forward" without learning from our mistakes...which should be why we have a commission to investigate one of the most transcendental events in our country's history. Even if it's a handpicked commission like this one. Oops.
Who is "everyone"? And you're now using Clarke's opinion? After you've been bashing him and trying to discredit him non-stop? lol Oook.
I'll tell you what: You show me a post of mine where I "bash" Clarke, or try to discredit him, and I'll apologize to everyone and admit to being a hypocrite. Deal?
Quote:
By the time Bush was briefed, it may have been too late. Maybe he should've been briefed earlier? Now there's an idea. Coonnndi??? Besides, WHAT did he do WHEN he was briefed?
So would you then be willing to say it's Bush's fault Rice did not brief him "soon enough"? What he did when he was briefed was in my opinion not aggressive. But ultimately it would not have stopped 9/11. So all of the actions taken post 9/11 i can reasonably assume are actions he would have taken prior to it had he taken the threats seriously. In other words we'd have been having this identical discussion a few months ago, but everything would be the same.
I don't think Dateline is accurate here. We'd have to see this briefing.
Quote:
August 6, 2001:_President Bush receives classified intelligence briefings at his Crawford, Texas ranch indicating that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners._The memo read to him is titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US", and the entire memo focuses on the possibility of terrorist attacks inside the US. National Security Advisor Rice later claims the memo was "fuzzy and thin" and only 1 and a half pages long (his normal daily security briefings run two or three pages) but other accounts state it was 11 pages long. [Newsweek, 5/27/02, New York Times, 5/15/02, Die Zeit, 10/1/02] The contents have never been made public. However, a Congressional report later describes what is likely this memo (they call it "a closely held intelligence report for senior government officials" presented in early August 2001): it mentions "that members of al-Qaeda, including some US citizens, had resided in or traveled to the US for years and that the group apparently maintained a support structure here. The report cited uncorroborated information obtained in 1998 that Osama bin Laden wanted to hijack airplanes to gain the release of US-held extremists; FBI judgments about patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks and the number of bin Laden-related investigations underway; as well as information acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the US with explosives." [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02]
And from the Senate Intel Committee doc:
Quote:
· In August 2001, based on information it had in its possession at the time, the CIA sent a message to the FAA asking the FAA to advise corporate security directors of U.S. air carriers of the following information: ?A group of six Pakistanis currently based in La Paz, Bolivia may be planning to conduct a hijacking, or possibly a bombing or an act of sabotage against a commercial airliner. While we have no details of the carrier, the date, or the location of this or these possibly planned action(s), we have learned the group has had discussions in which Canada, England, Malaysia, Cuba, South. Africa, Mexico, Atlanta, New York, Madrid, Moscow, and Dubai have come up, and India and Islamabad have been described as possible travel destinations.? While this information was not related to an attack planned by al.-Qa?ida, it did alert the aviation community to the possibility that a hijacking plot might occur in the U.S. shortly before the September 11 attacks occurred.
Both can be found at CCR
And from the washinton post:
Quote:
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people . . . would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," Rice said Thursday.
But a 1999 report prepared for the National Intelligence Council, an affiliate of the CIA, warned that terrorists associated with bin Laden might hijack an airplane and crash it into the Pentagon, White House or CIA headquarters.
The report recounts well-known case studies of similar plots, including a 1995 plan by al Qaeda operatives to hijack and crash a dozen U.S. airliners in the South Pacific and pilot a light aircraft into Langley.
"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.
lets see...how about a simple lock on the door to the cockpit and no contact with the pilots...pilots load first, get locked in, then people load...sure passangers can still be killed, sure planes can still be brought down...but they couldn't be used and flown as a weapon into certain buildings, sporting events, nuclear power plants etc....
could have easily done that pre 9-11 with only a "threat" of planes being used as a weapon...
lets see...how about a simple lock on the door to the cockpit and no contact with the pilots...pilots load first, get locked in, then people load...sure passangers can still be killed, sure planes can still be brought down...but they couldn't be used and flown as a weapon into certain buildings, sporting events, nuclear power plants etc....
could have easily done that pre 9-11 with only a "threat" of planes being used as a weapon...
g
The airline industry was and still is vehemently opposed to just such actions, do to the increased costs associated with them. And the airline industry pays lots of politicians on both sides to ensure their interests are considered heavily.
I'll tell you what: You show me a post of mine where I "bash" Clarke, or try to discredit him, and I'll apologize to everyone and admit to being a hypocrite. Deal?
I was just grouping you with all the other apologists who have done nothing but character assassination. If you haven't, then I'm clarifying I wasn't referring to you per se.
Quote:
So would you then be willing to say it's Bush's fault Rice did not brief him "soon enough"?
Condi belongs to HIS administration doesn't she? Didn't he pick her?
Quote:
What he did when he was briefed was in my opinion not aggressive.
You can say that again.
Quote:
But ultimately it would not have stopped 9/11.
We'll never know for sure will we??
Quote:
So all of the actions taken post 9/11 i can reasonably assume are actions he would have taken prior to it had he taken the threats seriously.In other words we'd have been having this identical discussion a few months ago, but everything would be the same.
What post 9/11 actions are you referring to? Invading Iraq? Bombing Afghanistan? Here's the action that was not taken: getting all the agencies to work together in trying to figure out WHO could potentially conduct an attack of spectacular levels
using hijacked american planes....and then go from there.
except the pilots union would have had a fit about being locked away for the entire flight.
do they have fits now?? isn't that the policy now, and hasn't it been the policy with the Israel airlines for many years??
tell pilots that they couldl have their throats cut with box cutters and have their planes and passengers flown into buildings and i bet they would have been fine with locked doors...
The airline industry was and still is vehemently opposed to just such actions, do to the increased costs associated with them. And the airline industry pays lots of politicians on both sides to ensure their interests are considered heavily.
Don't you think , telling the public:
1)security at airports would be tightened as a preventative measure......
2)cockpit security would be enhanced....,
alone, could've disrupted the 9/11 plans considerably or somewhat?
Would "letting them know"(meaning the hijackers)we were taking measures to avoid a hijacking scenario as the one they were planning have stopped them? Disrupted their plans?
1)security at airports would be tightened as a preventative measure......
2)cockpit security would be enhanced....,
alone, could've disrupted the 9/11 plans considerably or somewhat?
Would "letting them know"(meaning the hijackers)we were taking measures to avoid a hijacking scenario as the one they were planning have stopped them? Disrupted their plans?
Force them to a less deadly plan B?
Hmmmmm. At least we could've tried.
Yep, I agree. We could've tried. But my opinion carries far less weight than that of the airline lobbyists, and their opinion was the exact opposite of mine.
I was just grouping you with all the other apologists who have done nothing but character assassination. If you haven't, then I'm clarifying I wasn't referring to you per se.
Wonderful, but you're now characterizing me as an apologist, which is yet another mischaracterization on your part. In the future please refrain from quoting me, then making blanket statements about particular groups that do not relate to me.
Yep, I agree. We could've tried. But my opinion carries far less weight than that of the airline lobbyists, and their opinion was the exact opposite of mine.
In other words, what you're saying is that the Bush administration decided to put the airlines before national security??
Wonderful, but you're now characterizing me as an apologist, which is yet another mischaracterization on your part. In the future please refrain from quoting me, then making blanket statements about particular groups that do not relate to me.
Well, it is my opinion, from reading some of your posts in this thread....
Quote:
Originally posted by rageousI don't deny that. I guess it's just not as big of a deal to me that Bush didn't say "yeah, we had some idea, but you know, what could we do?" It would've been nice to hear the truth, but I've got larger concerns.
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous Well without specific information about where/when/what type of planes/etc., what exactly is bush to do? Place an armed guard on every private and commercial flight?
Are you sure nothing was done during his years? No attacks were thwarted? You mean stirring a hornet's nest like invading Iraq? Now that's stirring a hornet's nest . With what you said, then you must agree with what Rumsfeld said in the memo that leaked from the Pentagon, I'm afraid that they're generating more ideological radicals against us than we are arresting them and killing them. They're producing more faster than we are. ??? Or how about the warning the Egyptian president gave us? "If you invade Iraq, you will create a hundred bin Ladens."
Uhh, sounds to me that almost all of your post is about blaming Clinton. Make up your mind.
And for you to claim you want to move forward is ridiculous because we can't "move forward" without learning from our mistakes...which should be why we have a commission to investigate one of the most transcendental events in our country's history. Even if it's a handpicked commission like this one. Oops.
I didn't say "nothing was done". I said he was ineffective. Clinton was a nightmare for national security. I don't blame him for 9/11, but blaming Bush or saying he knew about it is is equally nuts.
As for invading Iraq, I don't agree that it will create more bin Ladens. I simply don't. You can believe what you like.
Comments
Originally posted by Gilsch
Let's see...
-------------On August 6, 2001, President Bush personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane."
-- Dateline NBC, 9/10/02--------------------
how about getting every agency together to try to figure out WHO the potential hijackers could be to begin with? Anyone with al qaeda "ties" that we know of? CIA, FBI? who could pull this off?
And as everyone, even Clarke, has said, it would not have stopped what happened from happening.
Quote:
No offense, but the real world doesn't work like that. Simple logic tells me that when you don't know much about something, you start with what you know and build from there. Nothing happens "instantly" like you're seem to be suggesting.
hmmm... I'm not quite sure I made any such suggestion. In fact I think my point was there's no way to work that fast, which is why 9/11 was basically unavoidable by the time Bush was briefed on the intelligence.
Originally posted by pfflam
oh yeah . . . and BTW, we're not talking about Clinton . . . who cares about Clinton . . . Clinton is not in office now . . . nor is he trying to get into office for another four years
Clinton dealt with terrorism for eight years....and completely ineffectively at that. An argument could easily be made that he helped create the conditions that allowed Al-Qaeda to thrive. He stirred the hornets' nest by launching missles into asprin factories. His policies were totally ineffective. Bush indicated he was tired of "swatting flies" as it's been called, and wanted a real plan in place to root out Al-Qaeda. How can Bush have been doing a bad job? 9/11 was in the works long before Bush even ran for President.
All this being said, we can't blame Clinton either. The point is 9/11 altered a lot of views about the terror threat and how to deal with it. The 9/11 comission is nothing but a sham. It shouldn't even exist. We have to move forward.
Originally posted by rageous
And as everyone, even Clarke, has said, it would not have stopped what happened from happening.
Who is "everyone"? And you're now using Clarke's opinion? After you've been bashing him and trying to discredit him non-stop? lol Oook.
hmmm... I'm not quite sure I made any such suggestion. In fact I think my point was there's no way to work that fast, which is why 9/11 was basically unavoidable by the time Bush was briefed on the intelligence.
By the time Bush was briefed, it may have been too late. Maybe he should've been briefed earlier? Now there's an idea. Coonnndi??? Besides, WHAT did he do WHEN he was briefed?
And they didn't do shit at the airports or anywhere else to at least try and make it harder for potential terrorists to do that. Is that enough to justify the criticism of Bush and Rice, or should we just wait from them to admit to it? GMAFB.
It's not that I blame Bush for the actual event (there is never only one person to blame in a situaiton like this), but I DO blame him and Rice for playing dumb all of a sudden. It's disingenuous and it's pathetic.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Clinton dealt with terrorism for eight years....and completely ineffectively at that.
Are you sure nothing was done during his years? No attacks were thwarted?
An argument could easily be made that he helped create the conditions that allowed Al-Qaeda to thrive. He stirred the hornets' nest by launching missles into asprin factories.
You mean stirring a hornet's nest like invading Iraq? Now that's stirring a hornet's nest . With what you said, then you must agree with what Rumsfeld said in the memo that leaked from the Pentagon, I'm afraid that they're generating more ideological radicals against us than we are arresting them and killing them. They're producing more faster than we are. ??? Or how about the warning the Egyptian president gave us? "If you invade Iraq, you will create a hundred bin Ladens."
All this being said, we can't blame Clinton either. The point is 9/11 altered a lot of views about the terror threat and how to deal with it. The 9/11 comission is nothing but a sham. It shouldn't even exist. We have to move forward.
Uhh, sounds to me that almost all of your post is about blaming Clinton. Make up your mind.
And for you to claim you want to move forward is ridiculous because we can't "move forward" without learning from our mistakes...which should be why we have a commission to investigate one of the most transcendental events in our country's history. Even if it's a handpicked commission like this one. Oops.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Who is "everyone"? And you're now using Clarke's opinion? After you've been bashing him and trying to discredit him non-stop? lol Oook.
I'll tell you what: You show me a post of mine where I "bash" Clarke, or try to discredit him, and I'll apologize to everyone and admit to being a hypocrite. Deal?
Quote:
By the time Bush was briefed, it may have been too late. Maybe he should've been briefed earlier? Now there's an idea. Coonnndi??? Besides, WHAT did he do WHEN he was briefed?
So would you then be willing to say it's Bush's fault Rice did not brief him "soon enough"? What he did when he was briefed was in my opinion not aggressive. But ultimately it would not have stopped 9/11. So all of the actions taken post 9/11 i can reasonably assume are actions he would have taken prior to it had he taken the threats seriously. In other words we'd have been having this identical discussion a few months ago, but everything would be the same.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't think Dateline is accurate here. We'd have to see this briefing.
August 6, 2001:_President Bush receives classified intelligence briefings at his Crawford, Texas ranch indicating that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners._The memo read to him is titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US", and the entire memo focuses on the possibility of terrorist attacks inside the US. National Security Advisor Rice later claims the memo was "fuzzy and thin" and only 1 and a half pages long (his normal daily security briefings run two or three pages) but other accounts state it was 11 pages long. [Newsweek, 5/27/02, New York Times, 5/15/02, Die Zeit, 10/1/02] The contents have never been made public. However, a Congressional report later describes what is likely this memo (they call it "a closely held intelligence report for senior government officials" presented in early August 2001): it mentions "that members of al-Qaeda, including some US citizens, had resided in or traveled to the US for years and that the group apparently maintained a support structure here. The report cited uncorroborated information obtained in 1998 that Osama bin Laden wanted to hijack airplanes to gain the release of US-held extremists; FBI judgments about patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks and the number of bin Laden-related investigations underway; as well as information acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the US with explosives." [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02]
And from the Senate Intel Committee doc:
· In August 2001, based on information it had in its possession at the time, the CIA sent a message to the FAA asking the FAA to advise corporate security directors of U.S. air carriers of the following information: ?A group of six Pakistanis currently based in La Paz, Bolivia may be planning to conduct a hijacking, or possibly a bombing or an act of sabotage against a commercial airliner. While we have no details of the carrier, the date, or the location of this or these possibly planned action(s), we have learned the group has had discussions in which Canada, England, Malaysia, Cuba, South. Africa, Mexico, Atlanta, New York, Madrid, Moscow, and Dubai have come up, and India and Islamabad have been described as possible travel destinations.? While this information was not related to an attack planned by al.-Qa?ida, it did alert the aviation community to the possibility that a hijacking plot might occur in the U.S. shortly before the September 11 attacks occurred.
Both can be found at CCR
And from the washinton post:
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people . . . would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," Rice said Thursday.
But a 1999 report prepared for the National Intelligence Council, an affiliate of the CIA, warned that terrorists associated with bin Laden might hijack an airplane and crash it into the Pentagon, White House or CIA headquarters.
The report recounts well-known case studies of similar plots, including a 1995 plan by al Qaeda operatives to hijack and crash a dozen U.S. airliners in the South Pacific and pilot a light aircraft into Langley.
"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.
Look at that. Rice again.
could have easily done that pre 9-11 with only a "threat" of planes being used as a weapon...
g
Originally posted by thegelding
lets see...how about a simple lock on the door to the cockpit and no contact with the pilots...pilots load first, get locked in, then people load...sure passangers can still be killed, sure planes can still be brought down...but they couldn't be used and flown as a weapon into certain buildings, sporting events, nuclear power plants etc....
could have easily done that pre 9-11 with only a "threat" of planes being used as a weapon...
g
The airline industry was and still is vehemently opposed to just such actions, do to the increased costs associated with them. And the airline industry pays lots of politicians on both sides to ensure their interests are considered heavily.
Originally posted by rageous
I'll tell you what: You show me a post of mine where I "bash" Clarke, or try to discredit him, and I'll apologize to everyone and admit to being a hypocrite. Deal?
I was just grouping you with all the other apologists who have done nothing but character assassination. If you haven't, then I'm clarifying I wasn't referring to you per se.
So would you then be willing to say it's Bush's fault Rice did not brief him "soon enough"?
Condi belongs to HIS administration doesn't she? Didn't he pick her?
What he did when he was briefed was in my opinion not aggressive.
You can say that again.
But ultimately it would not have stopped 9/11.
We'll never know for sure will we??
So all of the actions taken post 9/11 i can reasonably assume are actions he would have taken prior to it had he taken the threats seriously.In other words we'd have been having this identical discussion a few months ago, but everything would be the same.
What post 9/11 actions are you referring to? Invading Iraq? Bombing Afghanistan? Here's the action that was not taken: getting all the agencies to work together in trying to figure out WHO could potentially conduct an attack of spectacular levels
using hijacked american planes....and then go from there.
Originally posted by alcimedes
except the pilots union would have had a fit about being locked away for the entire flight.
do they have fits now?? isn't that the policy now, and hasn't it been the policy with the Israel airlines for many years??
tell pilots that they couldl have their throats cut with box cutters and have their planes and passengers flown into buildings and i bet they would have been fine with locked doors...
g
g
Originally posted by rageous
The airline industry was and still is vehemently opposed to just such actions, do to the increased costs associated with them. And the airline industry pays lots of politicians on both sides to ensure their interests are considered heavily.
Don't you think , telling the public:
1)security at airports would be tightened as a preventative measure......
2)cockpit security would be enhanced....,
alone, could've disrupted the 9/11 plans considerably or somewhat?
Would "letting them know"(meaning the hijackers)we were taking measures to avoid a hijacking scenario as the one they were planning have stopped them? Disrupted their plans?
Force them to a less deadly plan B?
Hmmmmm. At least we could've tried.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Don't you think , telling the public:
1)security at airports would be tightened as a preventative measure......
2)cockpit security would be enhanced....,
alone, could've disrupted the 9/11 plans considerably or somewhat?
Would "letting them know"(meaning the hijackers)we were taking measures to avoid a hijacking scenario as the one they were planning have stopped them? Disrupted their plans?
Force them to a less deadly plan B?
Hmmmmm. At least we could've tried.
Yep, I agree. We could've tried. But my opinion carries far less weight than that of the airline lobbyists, and their opinion was the exact opposite of mine.
Originally posted by Gilsch
I was just grouping you with all the other apologists who have done nothing but character assassination. If you haven't, then I'm clarifying I wasn't referring to you per se.
Wonderful, but you're now characterizing me as an apologist, which is yet another mischaracterization on your part. In the future please refrain from quoting me, then making blanket statements about particular groups that do not relate to me.
Originally posted by rageous
Yep, I agree. We could've tried. But my opinion carries far less weight than that of the airline lobbyists, and their opinion was the exact opposite of mine.
In other words, what you're saying is that the Bush administration decided to put the airlines before national security??
Originally posted by rageous
Wonderful, but you're now characterizing me as an apologist, which is yet another mischaracterization on your part. In the future please refrain from quoting me, then making blanket statements about particular groups that do not relate to me.
Well, it is my opinion, from reading some of your posts in this thread....
Originally posted by rageousI don't deny that. I guess it's just not as big of a deal to me that Bush didn't say "yeah, we had some idea, but you know, what could we do?" It would've been nice to hear the truth, but I've got larger concerns.
Originally posted by rageous Well without specific information about where/when/what type of planes/etc., what exactly is bush to do? Place an armed guard on every private and commercial flight?
I don't know man....
Originally posted by Gilsch
Are you sure nothing was done during his years? No attacks were thwarted? You mean stirring a hornet's nest like invading Iraq? Now that's stirring a hornet's nest . With what you said, then you must agree with what Rumsfeld said in the memo that leaked from the Pentagon, I'm afraid that they're generating more ideological radicals against us than we are arresting them and killing them. They're producing more faster than we are. ??? Or how about the warning the Egyptian president gave us? "If you invade Iraq, you will create a hundred bin Ladens."
Uhh, sounds to me that almost all of your post is about blaming Clinton. Make up your mind.
And for you to claim you want to move forward is ridiculous because we can't "move forward" without learning from our mistakes...which should be why we have a commission to investigate one of the most transcendental events in our country's history. Even if it's a handpicked commission like this one. Oops.
I didn't say "nothing was done". I said he was ineffective. Clinton was a nightmare for national security. I don't blame him for 9/11, but blaming Bush or saying he knew about it is is equally nuts.
As for invading Iraq, I don't agree that it will create more bin Ladens. I simply don't. You can believe what you like.