I like Artmans questions better. Were they just not telling us there were fighters in the air awaiting orders to shoot the airliners down? That'd be a hell of a decision. Shooting down a jet full of people to prevent an even bigger catastrophe. Now I could see the gov't deciding to cover THAT up.
I didn't want to set myself up as a tin hat there. Just a theory and question.
My timeline for the WOT is a little off I guess...mine starts around 1979 with the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran by Iranian students. What we have today is just a succession of attacks and retaliations & over & over & over again.
But back to "shooting down a jet full of people"...you know? Seems we have done this once before...though not on American soil...in the Persian Gulf, 1988 and on the 4th of July no less...
"A U.S. warship fighting gunboats in the Persian Gulf yesterday mistook an Iranian civilian jetliner for an attacking Iranian F14 fighter plane and blew it out of the hazy sky with a heat-seeking missile, the Pentagon announced. Iran said 290 persons were aboard the European-made A300 Airbus and that all had perished."
This "accident" of course led to the December 1988 bombing aboard Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland...
And before that was Russia's downing of the Korean Airlines Flight 007 during the early morning of September 1, 1983...which Reagan had used effectively to push agenda of crushing the "Evil Empire" of the USSR...
Still feel pretty strongly that we did have enough of a deterent in the US on 9|11 to intercept these planes...and haven't really seen anything to refute this.
But to me...none of this is news to me. It's been going on for years...just gimme some truth.
And I still don't really see Plfamm's point if there was one.
The point of the list of prior knowledge was that it is generally known that Bush recently said that had he had knowledge that terrorists were planning to hijack planes then he would have etc etc . . .
but it is ON RECORD (hence the list) that he was in fact informed about the very real possibility of the use of airplanes, and the apparent intention of Al Quida to do so, in a terrorist situation.
The 'FACTS' contradict what Bush says about his lack of actions taken
. . . I remember that Iran jetliner incedent well . . . such a horrible mistake
The point of the list of prior knowledge was that it is generally known that Bush recently said that had he had knowledge that terrorists were planning to hijack planes then he would have etc etc . . .
but it is ON RECORD (hence the list) that he was in fact informed about the very real possibility of the use of airplanes, and the apparent intention of Al Quida to do so, in a terrorist situation.
The 'FACTS' contradict what Bush says about his lack of actions taken
So the entire point of this thread is to say that Bush actually knew that terrorists hijack airplanes to perform terrorist acts! And armed with this vast knowledge we could have done "more" to stop them! Wow! BRILLIANT!!
That is just about the weakest argument I've heard out of you in a while. I'm sure Clinton administration knew terrorists bomb embassies too yet I don't see you gettin' all huffy about Kenya and Tanzania. It's just another attack on Bush, justified or not, funny you can't admit it.
No one is saying Clinton couldn't have done more, the problem is that the Bush admin did less.
Bush has done more for the war in terrorism in his few years than Clinton did in 8 years. But I guess things like Homeland Security, Patriot Act, overthrowing the Taliban, and overthrowing Saddam, garnering support for worldwide intolerance to terrorism by freezing terrorist assests and arresting terrorist cells here and abroad don't count in your book?
Maybe he just needed to have more meetings like Clinton and let al Queda attack another US Warship without any disceranable response. Now theres a plan!
So the entire point of this thread is to say that Bush actually knew that terrorists hijack airplanes to perform terrorist acts! And armed with this vast knowledge we could have done "more" to stop them! Wow! BRILLIANT!!
That is just about the weakest argument I've heard out of you in a while. I'm sure Clinton administration knew terrorists bomb embassies too yet I don't see you gettin' all huffy about Kenya and Tanzania. It's just another attack on Bush, justified or not, funny you can't admit it.
Sure its an attack on Bush . . so what
But still you mischaracterise the point of the second post in the thread:
Bush said that had he known
Then,
There is a list of specific instances when it was documented that he recieved specific information about specific terrorist activities and intentions
Get it!?!
He said one thing when in actuality he would have been better to admit to the truth.
The other point of this thread, in the first post, is that there is yet ANOTHER person who has inside information who is stepping forward . . . saying that the Bush administration had stronger evidence of what was impending than they are letting on:
Quote:
" Edmonds is offended by the Bush White House claim that it lacked foreknowledge of the kind of attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11. "Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That's an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it's a lie."
:
My point is not so much that they didn't do some kind of emergency security ramp-up (which would have been a good idea - especially since teh FBI knew several of teh specific operatives that were in teh country) but that, once again, the administration is not telling the truth . . . and is once again PASSING THE BUCK . . .
So the entire point of this thread is to say that Bush actually knew that terrorists hijack airplanes to perform terrorist acts! And armed with this vast knowledge we could have done "more" to stop them!
There is a list of specific instances when it was documented that he recieved specific information about specific terrorist activities and intentions
You have quoted no specific instances in this thread that could have possibly been acted up on. How is knowing that a known terrorist group (al Queda) plans to hijack planes (standard terrorist tactic) considered something groundbreaking?
Quote:
My point is not so much that they didn't do some kind of emergency security ramp-up (which would have been a good idea - especially since teh FBI knew several of teh specific operatives that were in teh country) but that, once again, the administration is not telling the truth . . . and is once again PASSING THE BUCK . . .
Hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure any leads were pursued in a business as usual manner, the way you insinuate some kind of big "ramp up" assumes they knew exactly what was coming. Thats just simply not possible or plausible unless someone undercovers a REAL ****up like a report that says "we know al Queda operatives are living in xxxx, planning to hijack xxxx on xxxx and fly into xxx". Until theres something that nature I don't see that much more could have done in the pre-9/11 climate.
If you want to talk about 9/11 prevention why didnt the Clinton admin pass something like Homeland Security or Patriot act in his last 3 years when terrorism became this apparent "top agenda" for them? Or Bush in his first 8 months after that? Something like that could have helped prevent it more than these generalized reports you've been parading around. These quesions would be more topical than the self-confessed Bush attack you've begun here.
I think the lesson learned here is that it TAKES something like 9/11 unfortunately to spur the government into action and enable the populace to tolerate tighter security considerations.
On the Iraq issue, I'm not sure of your point. The majority of attacks aren't even coming from Iraqis. The country is not going to be under US control forever.
That is apparently new information then. This was not the case only recently...or so we were told. Your quote is also out of context, because the article primarily deals with foreign influences.
Maybe "enable" is the wrong word, but what I mean is that prior to 9/11 people would not have put up with all the heightened airport security for instance. After the attack, annoying precautions are more understood and tolerated.
But still you mischaracterise the point of the second post in the thread:
Bush said that had he known
Then,
There is a list of specific instances when it was documented that he recieved specific information about specific terrorist activities and intentions
Get it!?!
He said one thing when in actuality he would have been better to admit to the truth.
The other point of this thread, in the first post, is that there is yet ANOTHER person who has inside information who is stepping forward . . . saying that the Bush administration had stronger evidence of what was impending than they are letting on:
My point is not so much that they didn't do some kind of emergency security ramp-up (which would have been a good idea - especially since teh FBI knew several of teh specific operatives that were in teh country) but that, once again, the administration is not telling the truth . . . and is once again PASSING THE BUCK . . .
OK, giant, what should have been done then? I'd really like to know. Bush was presented with a lot of different information. Some was on hijackings, and perhaps some of it contained phrases like "fly planes into buildings". I don't think anyone imagined the scale of what happened before it actually occured. You can't honestly be saying that Bush should have known. You're taking bits and pieces of information, some of which Bush may not have even seen, and then adding them up after the fact and sceaming "Bush should have known! It's so obvious!".
Blaming Bush for 9/11 is absolutely outrageous. EVERYONE'S view of terrorism changed on that day. This surely includes the previous administration as well.
Whatever. Basically the real question is this: is a terrorist attack on the US more or less likely as a result of Bush's responses to 911 ?
The answer should be 'less' if he's got it right but I think we all know it's 'more'.
See, now this is good discussion.
On one hand you could say "more" if you go along the lines that the more we take action the more US hatred it creates. Also in here is the terrorists need to show that US retaliation didn't affect them. I'm sure this is happening but is hard to quantify.
On the other hand you could say "less" because in retaliation we've disrupted terrorist organizations and overthrown regimes that helped terrorists. We now have the Homeland Security dept, tighter airport security and the Patriot Act to help with sharing of intel. Iraq is also currently proving to be an extremist magnet, taking the focus off American soil, and on the more readily available targets of our troops.
Then on the third hand you wonder what would the outcome have been to no action... no afghanistan or iraq. Obviously the terrorists wouldn't have just gone away. Would they have backed off like an ignored bully? Would they have increased operations like an ignored child looking for attention? In any event I highly doubt they'd have simply gone away.
Perhaps the question we should be asking isn't "if an attack is more or less likely" so much as "are we more prepared to thwart such an attack". The answer to that question is yes.
Out of context? The quote states a simple fact that refutes your belief, and the rest of the article is irrelevant.
This part is relevant...
Quote:
However, Abizaid said he remains optimistic that terrorists in Iraq will be defeated, noting, "There are many more people inside Iraq trying to hold it together than tear it apart."
You guys are painting it like the entire country is against us when thats not the case.
SDW made a false statement. The majority of attacks are coming from Iraqis. End of story. Anything else is irrelevant to the fact that SDW made a false statement (again).
That is apparently new information then. This was not the case only recently...or so we were told.
I got another one for you:
Quote:
GEN. KIMMITT: We've seen a number of intelligence reports that vary widely. But I would tell you that sort of the mean figure, that is we typically talk somewhere on the order of 3,000 to 5,000 active anti-coalition forces out there; roughly -- perhaps 5 to 10 percent of them from abroad. The vast majority of them we still believe are homegrown anti-coalition elements, possibly former regime elements, possibly disenfranchised youth. But those are normally the numbers that we throw around.
You have quoted no specific instances in this thread that could have possibly been acted up on. How is knowing that a known terrorist group (al Queda) plans to hijack planes (standard terrorist tactic) considered something groundbreaking?[/QOUTE Those were specific instances where information was given to the President about what the buss indicated AQ was leaning towards: teh use of airplanes.
Quote:
Originally posted by dviant
Hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure any leads were pursued in a business as usual manner, the way you insinuate some kind of big "ramp up" assumes they knew exactly what was coming. Thats just simply not possible or plausible unless someone undercovers a REAL ****up like a report that says "we know al Queda operatives are living in xxxx, planning to hijack xxxx on xxxx and fly into xxx". Until theres something that nature I don't see that much more could have done in the pre-9/11 climate.
If you want to talk about 9/11 prevention why didnt the Clinton admin pass something like Homeland Security or Patriot act in his last 3 years when terrorism became this apparent "top agenda" for them? Or Bush in his first 8 months after that? Something like that could have helped prevent it more than these generalized reports you've been parading around. These quesions would be more topical than the self-confessed Bush attack you've begun here.
I think the lesson learned here is that it TAKES something like 9/11 unfortunately to spur the government into action and enable the populace to tolerate tighter security considerations.
[tinhat] . . .if you believe that then it sounds suspiciously convienient[/tinhat]
If that is your definition of what constitutes specific then yes they did not have specific information . . . however, as shown above, they had very definite hieghtened probablity and real information . . .
That was enough to put Clinton into action and raise security enough to tighten airports and borders . .. enough to catch the Seattle bomb attempt . . . that much was NOT DONE with even more info
and if you take the information about the two AQ agents actually being in the country into consideration then it starts to sound even more "specific"
Actually, I have to agree - blaming Bush for 911 is ridiculous. Unless one is prepared to argue a far greater involvement than merely foreknowledge (which I am not) but I do get the impression that it is sometimes hinted at by posters but 'dare not speak its name'.
Whatever. Basically the real question is this: is a terrorist attack on the US more or less likely as a result of Bush's responses to 911 ?
The answer should be 'less' if he's got it right but I think we all know it's 'more'.
I disagree with that. What do you want to do, "win hearts and minds"? I think we're MUCH safer now.
[tinhat] . . .if you believe that then it sounds suspiciously convienient[/tinhat]
If that is your definition of what constitutes specific then yes they did not have specific information . . . however, as shown above, they had very definite hieghtened probablity and real information . . .
That was enough to put Clinton into action and raise security enough to tighten airports and borders . .. enough to catch the Seattle bomb attempt . . . that much was NOT DONE with even more info
and if you take the information about the two AQ agents actually being in the country into consideration then it starts to sound even more "specific"
Unbelievable. Did Clinton protect the USS cole? Did he even retaliate? Did he go after bin Laden after the embassy bombings? Whatever action Clinton took it was ineffective for the most part.
Your quest to prove Bush knew is getting ridiculous. You're starting to sound a little sammi jo-esque.
Comments
Originally posted by dviant
I like Artmans questions better. Were they just not telling us there were fighters in the air awaiting orders to shoot the airliners down? That'd be a hell of a decision. Shooting down a jet full of people to prevent an even bigger catastrophe. Now I could see the gov't deciding to cover THAT up.
I didn't want to set myself up as a tin hat there. Just a theory and question.
My timeline for the WOT is a little off I guess...mine starts around 1979 with the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran by Iranian students. What we have today is just a succession of attacks and retaliations & over & over & over again.
But back to "shooting down a jet full of people"...you know? Seems we have done this once before...though not on American soil...in the Persian Gulf, 1988 and on the 4th of July no less...
"A U.S. warship fighting gunboats in the Persian Gulf yesterday mistook an Iranian civilian jetliner for an attacking Iranian F14 fighter plane and blew it out of the hazy sky with a heat-seeking missile, the Pentagon announced. Iran said 290 persons were aboard the European-made A300 Airbus and that all had perished."
Lick to reprint of Washington Post article.
This "accident" of course led to the December 1988 bombing aboard Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland...
And before that was Russia's downing of the Korean Airlines Flight 007 during the early morning of September 1, 1983...which Reagan had used effectively to push agenda of crushing the "Evil Empire" of the USSR...
Still feel pretty strongly that we did have enough of a deterent in the US on 9|11 to intercept these planes...and haven't really seen anything to refute this.
But to me...none of this is news to me. It's been going on for years...just gimme some truth.
Originally posted by dviant
And I still don't really see Plfamm's point if there was one.
The point of the list of prior knowledge was that it is generally known that Bush recently said that had he had knowledge that terrorists were planning to hijack planes then he would have etc etc . . .
but it is ON RECORD (hence the list) that he was in fact informed about the very real possibility of the use of airplanes, and the apparent intention of Al Quida to do so, in a terrorist situation.
The 'FACTS' contradict what Bush says about his lack of actions taken
. . . I remember that Iran jetliner incedent well . . . such a horrible mistake
Originally posted by pfflam
The point of the list of prior knowledge was that it is generally known that Bush recently said that had he had knowledge that terrorists were planning to hijack planes then he would have etc etc . . .
but it is ON RECORD (hence the list) that he was in fact informed about the very real possibility of the use of airplanes, and the apparent intention of Al Quida to do so, in a terrorist situation.
The 'FACTS' contradict what Bush says about his lack of actions taken
So the entire point of this thread is to say that Bush actually knew that terrorists hijack airplanes to perform terrorist acts! And armed with this vast knowledge we could have done "more" to stop them! Wow! BRILLIANT!!
That is just about the weakest argument I've heard out of you in a while. I'm sure Clinton administration knew terrorists bomb embassies too yet I don't see you gettin' all huffy about Kenya and Tanzania. It's just another attack on Bush, justified or not, funny you can't admit it.
Originally posted by giant
No one is saying Clinton couldn't have done more, the problem is that the Bush admin did less.
Bush has done more for the war in terrorism in his few years than Clinton did in 8 years. But I guess things like Homeland Security, Patriot Act, overthrowing the Taliban, and overthrowing Saddam, garnering support for worldwide intolerance to terrorism by freezing terrorist assests and arresting terrorist cells here and abroad don't count in your book?
Maybe he just needed to have more meetings like Clinton and let al Queda attack another US Warship without any disceranable response. Now theres a plan!
Originally posted by dviant
So the entire point of this thread is to say that Bush actually knew that terrorists hijack airplanes to perform terrorist acts! And armed with this vast knowledge we could have done "more" to stop them! Wow! BRILLIANT!!
That is just about the weakest argument I've heard out of you in a while. I'm sure Clinton administration knew terrorists bomb embassies too yet I don't see you gettin' all huffy about Kenya and Tanzania. It's just another attack on Bush, justified or not, funny you can't admit it.
Sure its an attack on Bush . . so what
But still you mischaracterise the point of the second post in the thread:
Bush said that had he known
Then,
There is a list of specific instances when it was documented that he recieved specific information about specific terrorist activities and intentions
Get it!?!
He said one thing when in actuality he would have been better to admit to the truth.
The other point of this thread, in the first post, is that there is yet ANOTHER person who has inside information who is stepping forward . . . saying that the Bush administration had stronger evidence of what was impending than they are letting on:
" Edmonds is offended by the Bush White House claim that it lacked foreknowledge of the kind of attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11. "Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That's an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it's a lie."
:
My point is not so much that they didn't do some kind of emergency security ramp-up (which would have been a good idea - especially since teh FBI knew several of teh specific operatives that were in teh country) but that, once again, the administration is not telling the truth . . . and is once again PASSING THE BUCK . . .
Originally posted by dviant
So the entire point of this thread is to say that Bush actually knew that terrorists hijack airplanes to perform terrorist acts! And armed with this vast knowledge we could have done "more" to stop them!
No. There are a whole lot more points than that.
There is a list of specific instances when it was documented that he recieved specific information about specific terrorist activities and intentions
You have quoted no specific instances in this thread that could have possibly been acted up on. How is knowing that a known terrorist group (al Queda) plans to hijack planes (standard terrorist tactic) considered something groundbreaking?
My point is not so much that they didn't do some kind of emergency security ramp-up (which would have been a good idea - especially since teh FBI knew several of teh specific operatives that were in teh country) but that, once again, the administration is not telling the truth . . . and is once again PASSING THE BUCK . . .
Hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure any leads were pursued in a business as usual manner, the way you insinuate some kind of big "ramp up" assumes they knew exactly what was coming. Thats just simply not possible or plausible unless someone undercovers a REAL ****up like a report that says "we know al Queda operatives are living in xxxx, planning to hijack xxxx on xxxx and fly into xxx". Until theres something that nature I don't see that much more could have done in the pre-9/11 climate.
If you want to talk about 9/11 prevention why didnt the Clinton admin pass something like Homeland Security or Patriot act in his last 3 years when terrorism became this apparent "top agenda" for them? Or Bush in his first 8 months after that? Something like that could have helped prevent it more than these generalized reports you've been parading around. These quesions would be more topical than the self-confessed Bush attack you've begun here.
I think the lesson learned here is that it TAKES something like 9/11 unfortunately to spur the government into action and enable the populace to tolerate tighter security considerations.
Originally posted by SDW2001
On the Iraq issue, I'm not sure of your point. The majority of attacks aren't even coming from Iraqis. The country is not going to be under US control forever.
You are misinformed.
http://www.iwpr.net/iraq_index1.html
Originally posted by giant
Yet another correction for you SDW:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2...200403043.html
That is apparently new information then. This was not the case only recently...or so we were told. Your quote is also out of context, because the article primarily deals with foreign influences.
Originally posted by segovius
enable ?
Maybe "enable" is the wrong word, but what I mean is that prior to 9/11 people would not have put up with all the heightened airport security for instance. After the attack, annoying precautions are more understood and tolerated.
Originally posted by pfflam
Sure its an attack on Bush . . so what
But still you mischaracterise the point of the second post in the thread:
Bush said that had he known
Then,
There is a list of specific instances when it was documented that he recieved specific information about specific terrorist activities and intentions
Get it!?!
He said one thing when in actuality he would have been better to admit to the truth.
The other point of this thread, in the first post, is that there is yet ANOTHER person who has inside information who is stepping forward . . . saying that the Bush administration had stronger evidence of what was impending than they are letting on:
My point is not so much that they didn't do some kind of emergency security ramp-up (which would have been a good idea - especially since teh FBI knew several of teh specific operatives that were in teh country) but that, once again, the administration is not telling the truth . . . and is once again PASSING THE BUCK . . .
OK, giant, what should have been done then? I'd really like to know. Bush was presented with a lot of different information. Some was on hijackings, and perhaps some of it contained phrases like "fly planes into buildings". I don't think anyone imagined the scale of what happened before it actually occured. You can't honestly be saying that Bush should have known. You're taking bits and pieces of information, some of which Bush may not have even seen, and then adding them up after the fact and sceaming "Bush should have known! It's so obvious!".
Blaming Bush for 9/11 is absolutely outrageous. EVERYONE'S view of terrorism changed on that day. This surely includes the previous administration as well.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Your quote is also out of context, because the article primarily deals with foreign influences.
Out of context? The quote states a simple fact that refutes your belief, and the rest of the article is irrelevant.
Still, most of the insurgent activity in the country, [Abizaid] remarked, "is primarily Iraqi."
It couldn't possibly be more direct than that.
Originally posted by segovius
Whatever. Basically the real question is this: is a terrorist attack on the US more or less likely as a result of Bush's responses to 911 ?
The answer should be 'less' if he's got it right but I think we all know it's 'more'.
See, now this is good discussion.
On one hand you could say "more" if you go along the lines that the more we take action the more US hatred it creates. Also in here is the terrorists need to show that US retaliation didn't affect them. I'm sure this is happening but is hard to quantify.
On the other hand you could say "less" because in retaliation we've disrupted terrorist organizations and overthrown regimes that helped terrorists. We now have the Homeland Security dept, tighter airport security and the Patriot Act to help with sharing of intel. Iraq is also currently proving to be an extremist magnet, taking the focus off American soil, and on the more readily available targets of our troops.
Then on the third hand you wonder what would the outcome have been to no action... no afghanistan or iraq. Obviously the terrorists wouldn't have just gone away. Would they have backed off like an ignored bully? Would they have increased operations like an ignored child looking for attention? In any event I highly doubt they'd have simply gone away.
Perhaps the question we should be asking isn't "if an attack is more or less likely" so much as "are we more prepared to thwart such an attack". The answer to that question is yes.
Originally posted by giant
Out of context? The quote states a simple fact that refutes your belief, and the rest of the article is irrelevant.
This part is relevant...
However, Abizaid said he remains optimistic that terrorists in Iraq will be defeated, noting, "There are many more people inside Iraq trying to hold it together than tear it apart."
You guys are painting it like the entire country is against us when thats not the case.
Origianlly posted by giant
Originally posted by SDW2001
The majority of attacks aren't even coming from Iraqis.
Yet another correction for you SDW:
Still, most of the insurgent activity in the country, [Abizaid] remarked, "is primarily Iraqi."
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2...200403043.html
SDW made a false statement. The majority of attacks are coming from Iraqis. End of story. Anything else is irrelevant to the fact that SDW made a false statement (again).
Originally posted by SDW2001
That is apparently new information then. This was not the case only recently...or so we were told.
I got another one for you:
GEN. KIMMITT: We've seen a number of intelligence reports that vary widely. But I would tell you that sort of the mean figure, that is we typically talk somewhere on the order of 3,000 to 5,000 active anti-coalition forces out there; roughly -- perhaps 5 to 10 percent of them from abroad. The vast majority of them we still believe are homegrown anti-coalition elements, possibly former regime elements, possibly disenfranchised youth. But those are normally the numbers that we throw around.
From January
http://www.cjtf7.army.mil/media-info...eft040127a.htm
Like shooting fish in a barrel
You have quoted no specific instances in this thread that could have possibly been acted up on. How is knowing that a known terrorist group (al Queda) plans to hijack planes (standard terrorist tactic) considered something groundbreaking?[/QOUTE Those were specific instances where information was given to the President about what the buss indicated AQ was leaning towards: teh use of airplanes.
Originally posted by dviant
Hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure any leads were pursued in a business as usual manner, the way you insinuate some kind of big "ramp up" assumes they knew exactly what was coming. Thats just simply not possible or plausible unless someone undercovers a REAL ****up like a report that says "we know al Queda operatives are living in xxxx, planning to hijack xxxx on xxxx and fly into xxx". Until theres something that nature I don't see that much more could have done in the pre-9/11 climate.
If you want to talk about 9/11 prevention why didnt the Clinton admin pass something like Homeland Security or Patriot act in his last 3 years when terrorism became this apparent "top agenda" for them? Or Bush in his first 8 months after that? Something like that could have helped prevent it more than these generalized reports you've been parading around. These quesions would be more topical than the self-confessed Bush attack you've begun here.
I think the lesson learned here is that it TAKES something like 9/11 unfortunately to spur the government into action and enable the populace to tolerate tighter security considerations.
[tinhat] . . .if you believe that then it sounds suspiciously convienient[/tinhat]
If that is your definition of what constitutes specific then yes they did not have specific information . . . however, as shown above, they had very definite hieghtened probablity and real information . . .
That was enough to put Clinton into action and raise security enough to tighten airports and borders . .. enough to catch the Seattle bomb attempt . . . that much was NOT DONE with even more info
and if you take the information about the two AQ agents actually being in the country into consideration then it starts to sound even more "specific"
Originally posted by segovius
Actually, I have to agree - blaming Bush for 911 is ridiculous. Unless one is prepared to argue a far greater involvement than merely foreknowledge (which I am not) but I do get the impression that it is sometimes hinted at by posters but 'dare not speak its name'.
Whatever. Basically the real question is this: is a terrorist attack on the US more or less likely as a result of Bush's responses to 911 ?
The answer should be 'less' if he's got it right but I think we all know it's 'more'.
I disagree with that. What do you want to do, "win hearts and minds"?
Originally posted by giant
Out of context? The quote states a simple fact that refutes your belief, and the rest of the article is irrelevant.
It couldn't possibly be more direct than that.
I have admitted that you're correct. I can easily admit when I'm wrong. I had heard diferently on several occasions. What else do you want?
Originally posted by pfflam
[tinhat] . . .if you believe that then it sounds suspiciously convienient[/tinhat]
If that is your definition of what constitutes specific then yes they did not have specific information . . . however, as shown above, they had very definite hieghtened probablity and real information . . .
That was enough to put Clinton into action and raise security enough to tighten airports and borders . .. enough to catch the Seattle bomb attempt . . . that much was NOT DONE with even more info
and if you take the information about the two AQ agents actually being in the country into consideration then it starts to sound even more "specific"
Unbelievable. Did Clinton protect the USS cole? Did he even retaliate? Did he go after bin Laden after the embassy bombings? Whatever action Clinton took it was ineffective for the most part.
Your quest to prove Bush knew is getting ridiculous. You're starting to sound a little sammi jo-esque.