The CIA and FBI knew that terrorists attacks were planned!?!? Holy shit, that NEVER HAPPENS!!
FEAR! FIRE! FOES!
It's not like bin Laden hadn't killed dozens of our soldiers and dozens of citizens with his terrorist regime in the past. So shocking!
And Bush really wasn't doing his job as president by not magically knowing every piece of evidence prior to a future event. He really isn't the literal visionary (Nostradamus in '04!) we need heading the executive branch.
So basically the big news here is that, in hindsight, we can find a few clues?
Plus, as far as I know, Clinton's mistakes didn't kill anyone.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fran441,
Time for you to increase your knowledge.
Remember when Clinton was in hot water for lying to a grand jury about his relationship with Monica? To deflect attention away from that, he sent off a few cruise missiles at some terrorist places. One of the places we hit was an aspirin factory that had nothing to do with terrorists. Innocent people were killed because of Clinton trying to deflect attention away from his F'ups.
Interesting that the media pooh-poohed the leveling of the aspirin factory and workers killed with only a few blips of mention about it. Of course, if a Republican was the one doing all of this, the media would be foaming at the mouth to impeach him for lying to a grand jury and killing innocent aspirin factory workers.
You should also observe how the media runs with this and compare with what's been found out recently about FDR and his knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack. Some of the PBS stations I watch here in Southern California have had people on with evidence that indicates FDR knew in advance of the attack at Pearl Harbor and let it happen so that we would have a reason to get into the war with Japan. What you see about the Pearl Harbor story is nothing from the media. But this Bush thing will have legs and will be milked for all its worth for the main reason of getting more democrats elected to office.
Must be nice having media protection for your political party...
Not to defend the FBI or CIA, but do realize that they get thousands of threats like this on a daily basis. It's easy for us now to go back in hindsight and pick out the few documents that could have led us to what was going to happen. But, for them to put it togethor back then, as lapse as our agencies had become.</strong>
Yes, I agree. There will be terrorist acts in the future that cause thousands of deaths. The problem is preventing as many as possible and the solution the USA has committed to is fumbling at best. Very little common sense going on out there.
Pet theory of mine. Bureaucracies age. They grow old and acquire habits they can't break. The warning signs have been there for a long time, and were not recognized. There was the first WTC bombing, the Embassy bombings, the Riyadh bombing, and the USS Cole bombing. Extremist Arab militism seems to be grwoing. Those are gigantic hints. If the current bureaucracies can see them, I don't think they'll see them with more money.
Just look at the inane security stuff going around. It's insane!
True. However the U.S. is an easy target, and no matter how well we defend ourselves, we can't defend against everything. Sadly...
I mean, our "new" security measures at the airports are still subpar, better, but not enough. Yet the general public complains that they have to wait too long in lines; or complains when an airport shuts down for a few hours for a possible security breach; or complains about ticket prices going up.
Plain and simple. The public is not ready for the commitment it would take for the U.S. to properly protect itself. Until that happens, we will continue to be an easy target. Yet when we do get attacked again, the public will complain that we didn't do enough to stop it. So hypocritical... Meanwhile the general public is more concerned with how well Star Wars V does at the Box office.
<strong>Remember when Clinton was in hot water for lying to a grand jury about his relationship with Monica? To deflect attention away from that, he sent off a few cruise missiles at some terrorist places. One of the places we hit was an aspirin factory that had nothing to do with terrorists. Innocent people were killed because of Clinton trying to deflect attention away from his F'ups.</strong><hr></blockquote>You could make the same argument about Bush, though.
"Trying to deflect attention away from his first six months' bumbling, unpopular, election-stealing image, Bush starts a war to wag the dog and turn his presidency around. He kills untold innocent Afghanis for his own cheap political gain, but doesn't succeed in getting bin Laden."
It's EXACTLY the same as your accusation against Clinton.
The only difference is that Congressional Democrats HAVEN'T made this argument, whereas Republicans (and you) do make it against Clinton.
Jee-zus. Don't give me that Media shit. The media gives us what we want/deserve, pablum. Where does the media get it's money? From truth seeking consumers? Or huge corporations who own/advertise the media?
Come on, Clinton, Bush, the other Bush, etc. are all PRESIDENTS. They are ALL thieves, liars and murderers.
This whole Clinton vs. Bush or Gore vs. Bush or Democrat vs. Republican is a little short-sighted. It's money vs. money, POWER vs. POWER.
Bush Junior? Lotta big oil money in his pockets, and blood on his hands from Afghanistan (precision bombing my ass), and soon to be Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, the Phillipines, and anywhere else that "Extremist Muslim Terrorists" can be used to an advantage. Or "narco-terrorists", like in Columbia. Right wing death squads are back (though they never really went away)! And oh yeah, watch yer civil liberties carefully.
Clinton? Nafta? His baby. Of course the various cruise missile attacks, and the civil liberties mentioned earlier? Look up his post OKC legislation.
Bush Sr.? Iraq, Panama, the Kurds, yaddity yaddity.
Reagan? Where to start? Why not where he did, with arms for hostages?
Carter? Familiar with East Timor? He was. He sold Indonesia the arms used in that lil genocide.
So don't give me that Clinton Was Great pep talk, or the uber-patriotic Bushisms either.
True. However the U.S. is an easy target, and no matter how well we defend ourselves, we can't defend against everything. Sadly...</strong>
Accepting the reality of a situation does not absolve the responsibility of an authoritarian body from learning from their mistakes and improving their abilities. The CIA, FBI and NSA need to do a better job; reform, transform, change tactics, whatever, but they are fumbling around, and they better get on the ball.
All the information in the above link has been gathered from the regular news gathering agencies and networks.
If anyone knew of the impending attacks, then the US Intelligence services network, which have by far the world's greatest resources for gathering information, would have known. And if so, which looks more than likely, (despite the "compartmentalization policy" that exists within the Intelligence Services), then it also seems more than likely that the President would have been briefed accordingly.
Again, true. There's PLENTY of room for improvement. Agreed.
What I'm saying is that, maybe not you, maybe not me, but the general public is not ready to make the commitment to change our way of life in order to "properly" protect ourselves from the "bad guys".
We're talking about guys who will give up their own lives in order to kill innocent people. How do you defend against that?
And Samantha~
You're telling me that you honestly believe that our own government knew all about the worst terrorist attack in our history and just let it happen? Just let thousands of innocent people die? You can't really believe that?
OK, I need to get out of this serious topic and find me something nice and thoughtless...
What I'm saying is that, maybe not you, maybe not me, but the general public is not ready to make the commitment to change our way of life in order to "properly" protect ourselves from the "bad guys".</strong>
What sort of commitment are you talking about?
<strong>We're talking about guys who will give up their own lives in order to kill innocent people. How do you defend against that?</strong>
Of the magnitude that kills thousands of people, especially when its a foreign terrorist, who has previously declared war on us, who has previously commited acts of terror against us? They can't stop a lone deranged nutbag with a gun or homemade bomb, but when there is an organized activity of well funded people, yes, I think the bar should be set that high.
[quote]And Samantha... You're telling me that you honestly believe that our own government knew all about the worst terrorist attack in our history
and just let it happen? Just let thousands of innocent people die? You can't really believe that?<hr></blockquote>
What is so whacked out about that? In the minds of military planners, collateral damage of 3000 killed is a relatively small price to pay for....[fill in the blank]
None the stories quoted in that link have been disproven or refuted, as far as I am aware. Just because the U.S. Government is implicated in having advance knowledge of the attacks, do you therefore automatically relegate such material to the land of "conspiracy theory", thereby conveniently trashing it by association, just like anything else that doesn't fit official propaganda and line?
To paraphrase that well-worn maxim and apply it to the U.S. Government...."if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...then it must be a parrot"
Out of 9-11 also came one of the most anti-American piece of scumbag legislation this side of Kandahar, aka the "Patriot Act" (!!!???!!!). Sometimes, one has to wonder just whose side the U.S. Government is really on. Al Qaeda must be laughing like drains...they're winning the war.
I agree with you. Our Gov is getting good at either trumpeting fake Wars like the Wars on Drugs and Crime(followed by the gullible public following lockstep to their idiotic legislative efforts). Or they're "protecting" us by snatching back some freedoms that we enjoy. We certainly aren't winners in this War...we have less liberty now than prior to 09-11-01
I don't have time right now to argue that point. (stupid work)
I'll simplify everything I said before into this last point:
Was our gov. sitting around mulling over a few leads on what was going to happen, trying to fit the pieces of the incomplete puzzle togethor. Half of them saying, "Quick close down all of the airports in the US, evacuate all of NY city!" and the other half was like, "Let's wait and get more info." or, "We get info like this all of the time, I don't think it's real." Then it happened, and all they could do was pick up the pieces and figure out what to do next. Yes, I think that's entirely possible.
If, however you think that they were sitting around with the whole plan layed out before them in nice lamented folders, eating popcorn and watching CNN waiting for it to happen, going, "Damn. Look at that! Maybe we should have done something?" Then I think that's insane!
I'd like to thing that if they could have stopped it, that they would have. The end.
Was our gov. sitting around mulling over a few leads on what was going to happen, trying to fit the pieces of the incomplete puzzle togethor.</strong>
My point of contention is that they should be able to put the puzzle together, and the primary reason stopping that is an aging bureaucracy too set in its machinations.
[quote]Do you really think information that simple is good enough to go on?<hr></blockquote>
It was enough to get Moussaui, wasn't it? Plus, don't you think that the government had the OBLIGATION to tell the people who ran the WTC about the possible threat? Not even that was done.
The real truth is closer to what is in the article that Samantha posted,that it was in the best interest of members of the government to ignore the terrorist threat because it would disrupt their business dealings,and that many "patriotic" people in the Bush administration walk both sides of the street when it is in their financial interest to do so.Gore Vidal's latest book is on the same topic.The saddest thing is that most Americans don't even care to hear the truth.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>What is so whacked out about that? In the minds of military planners, collateral damage of 3000 killed is a relatively small price to pay for....[fill in the blank]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolute, complete, total, utter, undeniable bullshit. People who say this have no desire, of ever getting to know who runs this country or making a real difference. I don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Green or Whig. It's just oh-so easy to assume that this is some kind of conspiracy because you're not bright or talented enough to do anything for others. But it's so easy to point fingers, implicate, pontificate and generally criticize others for a responsibility you have no real ability to actually handle. It's so easy from behind your little desk.
Try to get to know these apparently horrible killing machines sometime. Have you ever really known anyone of any rank in the military? You might be surprised who ends up on top. Do you even know any politicians? Have you ever had lunch with these government agency workers? Have you ever witnessed any of these agencies at work? Even the worst ones you could pull out wouldn't be OK with this massacre of Americans. Time to learn a little bit about these people. They're a lot more like you than you might think.
Can they be greedy? Yes. Crooked? Yes. Selfish? Yes. Pompous? Yes. Jingoist? Yes. Cannibals? No. Really. I've met some of our nation's worst in Washington and none of them, politicians or military would even consider that kind of shit. Never. Honest. Stop fabricating this "us" vs. "them" dichotomy between the government and you. It's a sign of your own weakness to blame people who make an earnest attempt to do what's right, especially in these extreme situations. If you think it's so wrong, go to Washington and do something about it. It's just so safe from where you are, just ask Noam Chomsky.
It sounds like these people seriously ****ed up. But to assume it was meant to fall through the cracks shows a fundamental ignorance of our government's biggest weakness. It's not the people who are the problem, it's the interaction among them that's at fault. Face it, sometimes there's no vast conspiracy, just incompetence. Shit happens. Really bad shit.
So determined were they to prevent the emergence of such embarrassing facts that when the Democrats took control of the Senate, Vice President Dick Cheney tried to intimidate Majority Leader Tom Daschle from undertaking a serious investigation of the Sept. 11 catastrophe. Both Newsweek and the Washington Post reported last January that Cheney called Daschle to warn against the investigation.
<hr></blockquote>
Ok this kind of stuff really pisses me off,it's time to throw these liars and crooks out of office.Stop the Bush occupation! Overthrow the corrupt government!
Comments
The CIA and FBI knew that terrorists attacks were planned!?!? Holy shit, that NEVER HAPPENS!!
FEAR! FIRE! FOES!
It's not like bin Laden hadn't killed dozens of our soldiers and dozens of citizens with his terrorist regime in the past. So shocking!
And Bush really wasn't doing his job as president by not magically knowing every piece of evidence prior to a future event. He really isn't the literal visionary (Nostradamus in '04!) we need heading the executive branch.
So basically the big news here is that, in hindsight, we can find a few clues?
Whoop-de-freakin'-do!
---
MarcUK:
You're a moron.
<strong>
Plus, as far as I know, Clinton's mistakes didn't kill anyone.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fran441,
Time for you to increase your knowledge.
Remember when Clinton was in hot water for lying to a grand jury about his relationship with Monica? To deflect attention away from that, he sent off a few cruise missiles at some terrorist places. One of the places we hit was an aspirin factory that had nothing to do with terrorists. Innocent people were killed because of Clinton trying to deflect attention away from his F'ups.
Interesting that the media pooh-poohed the leveling of the aspirin factory and workers killed with only a few blips of mention about it. Of course, if a Republican was the one doing all of this, the media would be foaming at the mouth to impeach him for lying to a grand jury and killing innocent aspirin factory workers.
You should also observe how the media runs with this and compare with what's been found out recently about FDR and his knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack. Some of the PBS stations I watch here in Southern California have had people on with evidence that indicates FDR knew in advance of the attack at Pearl Harbor and let it happen so that we would have a reason to get into the war with Japan. What you see about the Pearl Harbor story is nothing from the media. But this Bush thing will have legs and will be milked for all its worth for the main reason of getting more democrats elected to office.
Must be nice having media protection for your political party...
Not to defend the FBI or CIA, but do realize that they get thousands of threats like this on a daily basis. It's easy for us now to go back in hindsight and pick out the few documents that could have led us to what was going to happen. But, for them to put it togethor back then, as lapse as our agencies had become.</strong>
Yes, I agree. There will be terrorist acts in the future that cause thousands of deaths. The problem is preventing as many as possible and the solution the USA has committed to is fumbling at best. Very little common sense going on out there.
Pet theory of mine. Bureaucracies age. They grow old and acquire habits they can't break. The warning signs have been there for a long time, and were not recognized. There was the first WTC bombing, the Embassy bombings, the Riyadh bombing, and the USS Cole bombing. Extremist Arab militism seems to be grwoing. Those are gigantic hints. If the current bureaucracies can see them, I don't think they'll see them with more money.
Just look at the inane security stuff going around. It's insane!
True. However the U.S. is an easy target, and no matter how well we defend ourselves, we can't defend against everything. Sadly...
I mean, our "new" security measures at the airports are still subpar, better, but not enough. Yet the general public complains that they have to wait too long in lines; or complains when an airport shuts down for a few hours for a possible security breach; or complains about ticket prices going up.
Plain and simple. The public is not ready for the commitment it would take for the U.S. to properly protect itself. Until that happens, we will continue to be an easy target. Yet when we do get attacked again, the public will complain that we didn't do enough to stop it. So hypocritical... Meanwhile the general public is more concerned with how well Star Wars V does at the Box office.
<strong>Remember when Clinton was in hot water for lying to a grand jury about his relationship with Monica? To deflect attention away from that, he sent off a few cruise missiles at some terrorist places. One of the places we hit was an aspirin factory that had nothing to do with terrorists. Innocent people were killed because of Clinton trying to deflect attention away from his F'ups.</strong><hr></blockquote>You could make the same argument about Bush, though.
"Trying to deflect attention away from his first six months' bumbling, unpopular, election-stealing image, Bush starts a war to wag the dog and turn his presidency around. He kills untold innocent Afghanis for his own cheap political gain, but doesn't succeed in getting bin Laden."
It's EXACTLY the same as your accusation against Clinton.
The only difference is that Congressional Democrats HAVEN'T made this argument, whereas Republicans (and you) do make it against Clinton.
Jee-zus. Don't give me that Media shit. The media gives us what we want/deserve, pablum. Where does the media get it's money? From truth seeking consumers? Or huge corporations who own/advertise the media?
Come on, Clinton, Bush, the other Bush, etc. are all PRESIDENTS. They are ALL thieves, liars and murderers.
This whole Clinton vs. Bush or Gore vs. Bush or Democrat vs. Republican is a little short-sighted. It's money vs. money, POWER vs. POWER.
Bush Junior? Lotta big oil money in his pockets, and blood on his hands from Afghanistan (precision bombing my ass), and soon to be Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, the Phillipines, and anywhere else that "Extremist Muslim Terrorists" can be used to an advantage. Or "narco-terrorists", like in Columbia. Right wing death squads are back (though they never really went away)! And oh yeah, watch yer civil liberties carefully.
Clinton? Nafta? His baby. Of course the various cruise missile attacks, and the civil liberties mentioned earlier? Look up his post OKC legislation.
Bush Sr.? Iraq, Panama, the Kurds, yaddity yaddity.
Reagan? Where to start? Why not where he did, with arms for hostages?
Carter? Familiar with East Timor? He was. He sold Indonesia the arms used in that lil genocide.
So don't give me that Clinton Was Great pep talk, or the uber-patriotic Bushisms either.
splode
True. However the U.S. is an easy target, and no matter how well we defend ourselves, we can't defend against everything. Sadly...</strong>
Accepting the reality of a situation does not absolve the responsibility of an authoritarian body from learning from their mistakes and improving their abilities. The CIA, FBI and NSA need to do a better job; reform, transform, change tactics, whatever, but they are fumbling around, and they better get on the ball.
All the information in the above link has been gathered from the regular news gathering agencies and networks.
If anyone knew of the impending attacks, then the US Intelligence services network, which have by far the world's greatest resources for gathering information, would have known. And if so, which looks more than likely, (despite the "compartmentalization policy" that exists within the Intelligence Services), then it also seems more than likely that the President would have been briefed accordingly.
Again, true. There's PLENTY of room for improvement. Agreed.
What I'm saying is that, maybe not you, maybe not me, but the general public is not ready to make the commitment to change our way of life in order to "properly" protect ourselves from the "bad guys".
We're talking about guys who will give up their own lives in order to kill innocent people. How do you defend against that?
And Samantha~
You're telling me that you honestly believe that our own government knew all about the worst terrorist attack in our history and just let it happen? Just let thousands of innocent people die? You can't really believe that?
OK, I need to get out of this serious topic and find me something nice and thoughtless...
What I'm saying is that, maybe not you, maybe not me, but the general public is not ready to make the commitment to change our way of life in order to "properly" protect ourselves from the "bad guys".</strong>
What sort of commitment are you talking about?
<strong>We're talking about guys who will give up their own lives in order to kill innocent people. How do you defend against that?</strong>
Of the magnitude that kills thousands of people, especially when its a foreign terrorist, who has previously declared war on us, who has previously commited acts of terror against us? They can't stop a lone deranged nutbag with a gun or homemade bomb, but when there is an organized activity of well funded people, yes, I think the bar should be set that high.
and just let it happen? Just let thousands of innocent people die? You can't really believe that?<hr></blockquote>
What is so whacked out about that? In the minds of military planners, collateral damage of 3000 killed is a relatively small price to pay for....[fill in the blank]
None the stories quoted in that link have been disproven or refuted, as far as I am aware. Just because the U.S. Government is implicated in having advance knowledge of the attacks, do you therefore automatically relegate such material to the land of "conspiracy theory", thereby conveniently trashing it by association, just like anything else that doesn't fit official propaganda and line?
To paraphrase that well-worn maxim and apply it to the U.S. Government...."if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...then it must be a parrot"
Out of 9-11 also came one of the most anti-American piece of scumbag legislation this side of Kandahar, aka the "Patriot Act" (!!!???!!!). Sometimes, one has to wonder just whose side the U.S. Government is really on. Al Qaeda must be laughing like drains...they're winning the war.
<a href="http://www.bcentral.com/articles/msnfeature/114.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.bcentral.com/articles/msnfeature/114.asp</a>;
[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
I agree with you. Our Gov is getting good at either trumpeting fake Wars like the Wars on Drugs and Crime(followed by the gullible public following lockstep to their idiotic legislative efforts). Or they're "protecting" us by snatching back some freedoms that we enjoy. We certainly aren't winners in this War...we have less liberty now than prior to 09-11-01
What sort of commitment are you talking about?
I don't have time right now to argue that point. (stupid work)
I'll simplify everything I said before into this last point:
Was our gov. sitting around mulling over a few leads on what was going to happen, trying to fit the pieces of the incomplete puzzle togethor. Half of them saying, "Quick close down all of the airports in the US, evacuate all of NY city!" and the other half was like, "Let's wait and get more info." or, "We get info like this all of the time, I don't think it's real." Then it happened, and all they could do was pick up the pieces and figure out what to do next. Yes, I think that's entirely possible.
If, however you think that they were sitting around with the whole plan layed out before them in nice lamented folders, eating popcorn and watching CNN waiting for it to happen, going, "Damn. Look at that! Maybe we should have done something?" Then I think that's insane!
I'd like to thing that if they could have stopped it, that they would have. The end.
BTW, Samantha, good article. I agree with that.
[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: patmcfar8 ]</p>
Was our gov. sitting around mulling over a few leads on what was going to happen, trying to fit the pieces of the incomplete puzzle togethor.</strong>
My point of contention is that they should be able to put the puzzle together, and the primary reason stopping that is an aging bureaucracy too set in its machinations.
[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
1) Someone might steal a car from a car rental place in the next few months.
2) I might crash something into the Mall of America in the next few months.
So what do you do with that information? Close down the Mall of America for an indefinite period of time?
Come on, guys! Do you really think information that simple is good enough to go on?
It seems to me that's bascially all the government had.
It was enough to get Moussaui, wasn't it? Plus, don't you think that the government had the OBLIGATION to tell the people who ran the WTC about the possible threat? Not even that was done.
Completely bungled.
<strong>What is so whacked out about that? In the minds of military planners, collateral damage of 3000 killed is a relatively small price to pay for....[fill in the blank]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolute, complete, total, utter, undeniable bullshit. People who say this have no desire, of ever getting to know who runs this country or making a real difference. I don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Green or Whig. It's just oh-so easy to assume that this is some kind of conspiracy because you're not bright or talented enough to do anything for others. But it's so easy to point fingers, implicate, pontificate and generally criticize others for a responsibility you have no real ability to actually handle. It's so easy from behind your little desk.
Try to get to know these apparently horrible killing machines sometime. Have you ever really known anyone of any rank in the military? You might be surprised who ends up on top. Do you even know any politicians? Have you ever had lunch with these government agency workers? Have you ever witnessed any of these agencies at work? Even the worst ones you could pull out wouldn't be OK with this massacre of Americans. Time to learn a little bit about these people. They're a lot more like you than you might think.
Can they be greedy? Yes. Crooked? Yes. Selfish? Yes. Pompous? Yes. Jingoist? Yes. Cannibals? No. Really. I've met some of our nation's worst in Washington and none of them, politicians or military would even consider that kind of shit. Never. Honest. Stop fabricating this "us" vs. "them" dichotomy between the government and you. It's a sign of your own weakness to blame people who make an earnest attempt to do what's right, especially in these extreme situations. If you think it's so wrong, go to Washington and do something about it. It's just so safe from where you are, just ask Noam Chomsky.
It sounds like these people seriously ****ed up. But to assume it was meant to fall through the cracks shows a fundamental ignorance of our government's biggest weakness. It's not the people who are the problem, it's the interaction among them that's at fault. Face it, sometimes there's no vast conspiracy, just incompetence. Shit happens. Really bad shit.
So determined were they to prevent the emergence of such embarrassing facts that when the Democrats took control of the Senate, Vice President Dick Cheney tried to intimidate Majority Leader Tom Daschle from undertaking a serious investigation of the Sept. 11 catastrophe. Both Newsweek and the Washington Post reported last January that Cheney called Daschle to warn against the investigation.
<hr></blockquote>
Ok this kind of stuff really pisses me off,it's time to throw these liars and crooks out of office.Stop the Bush occupation! Overthrow the corrupt government!