<strong>Hmm... James Woods did in fact report his observations. And guess what, the FBI ignored it. If it wasn't for the work of the airline trainer in Eagan MN, Mousaoui wouldn't have been caught. It was an airline trainer in Phoenix that saw something strange was going on when prospective pilots pay for their training with large sums of cash and have poor understanding of basic airline procedures that got the local FBI office to investigate.
The problem with the current airline security procedures is that they are brainless devoid of common sense. We know that it isn't making us more secure, and I think that makes people frustrated. If it works, I think people would be very patient with it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well now you're arguing a somewhat different point - that we should be doing some aspect of our security differently. If you want to debate what does and doesn't work at airports, we can go that route in a different thread -- I know four airline pilots who have shared their thoughts on the matter with me at different times -- but what I'm suggesting to you is that
A) The average Joe (or Jane) isn't likely to look at these things in context and discern which security measures work and which ones don't. That would require one to seek out information beyond what the press offers, and to think it through - we can all agree most Americans don't do this. They just take everything the media gives them at face value - especially if they feel it vindicates their whining habit.
You should be aware by now that in this society, people don't like to be made to wait - for anything. Not for grocery checkout, not for movie tickets, for airline tickets or whatever else you have in mind. Hence the notion that people would be less offended or stop complaining if the security was better, is naive IMO. You could have the greatest and most efficient security measures on earth, but if you force the average American to get somewhere 20 minutes later than they had planned, they'll bitch up a storm. It's the "I'm a victim, hear me roar" theory, and it's utterly pervasive (and infectious sadly).
C) It's still early in the game and people seem oblivious to this fact. Competely overhauling airline security -- personnel wise, technology wise and organization wise -- is going to take a long time and unfortunately some trial and error. Hopefully the errors won't cause more lives but rather more inconvenience (locked down terminals, etc.). That's just the way it is, and your general sentiment is basically the same one that leads to people's misguided complaints. They think that because we're a rich nation with enormous state and federal resources of all kinds, that we can instantly make the shortcomings in our security go away.
This is going to take YEARS to get right, based not only on the vague nature of the threat but on the nature of our open society and the SIZE of our society. This is the easiest country in the world to hide in, regardless of whatever NSA conspiracy theories people like to bang around about Big Brother, wire-tapping and the like.
We have a rough go ahead of us, and so if people are of the mindset that "hey, they've had 8-12 months to fix the problem and the perfect solution hasn't been implemented yet - therefore I am justified in my whining and complaining" they're in for a rude awakening.
<strong>As for whether or not there should be an investigation, Cheney himself has said there should be one. His only caveat is that it should be done by the House and Senate Intelligence committees. What's the bitch?</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, but only after this became news because a memo was leaked. And then, at a political fund raiser, he warns "Democrats" (as if only Dems are calling for an investigation) to "be careful" with the investigation, while the White House apparently tells Congressional Republicans to go on the offensive and Lott makes a similar "warning" speech. And he only wants a closed meeting of the intelligence committees, so it won't be public.
They're politicizing it in order to accuse Dems of being unpatriotic. That's my bitch. It's their MO - charge those who disagree (e.g., with the way they handled tribunals) as "aiding terrorists," as Ashcroft said. Of course, the opposite is true. It's more patriotic to be a loyal opposition. But Bush is so focused on politics that he just can't take legitimate criticism, and so he uses 9/11 to attack his political opponents.
<strong>And he only wants a closed meeting of the intelligence committees, so it won't be public.
They're politicizing it in order to accuse Dems of being unpatriotic. That's my bitch. It's their MO - charge those who disagree (e.g., with the way they handled tribunals) as "aiding terrorists," as Ashcroft said. Of course, the opposite is true. It's more patriotic to be a loyal opposition. But Bush is so focused on politics that he just can't take legitimate criticism, and so he uses 9/11 to attack his political opponents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It shouldn't be public. There is a lot of sensitive info which shouldn't get out. Politicizing this stuff IS "aiding terrorists" in the sense that it distracts the agencies from doing their work.
You have been infering that we shouldn't raise these questions all along by your refusal to acknowlege my questions and attacking my delivery.
Nice attempt at backpeddling by the way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not backpedaling. I haven't refused to acknowledge what I consider to be reasonable questions. I don't consider your questions to be reasonable at all. In my very first post to this thread I wrote, "Maybe they (the FBI and CIA) should have been able to figure out what was in the wind. I think that?s something that can be argued with some conviction. That?s what they get paid to do after all..." Later I wrote, "They did screw up. Changes do need to be made. I have no problem with this..." And when THT wrote, "If Sept. 11 wasn't a case for the FBI, CIA and NSA to be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up, then I don't know what is.." I didn't argue with him at all. You can infer whatever you want - I don't care - but that still doesn't mean you know what you are talking about.
Clearly there are serious questions here that need to be answered. I wonder if any of those serious questions will be asked by you?
<strong>And he only wants a closed meeting of the intelligence committees, so it won't be public.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's exactly right. You are so focused on the politics that you have failed to consider that our intelligence people may have legitimate needs that would not be at all served by open hearings. What if sources are exposed and subsequently killed as a result of the open hearings you want? There are members of both parties on those committees and the Senate one is controled by the Democrats. Again, what's your bitch?
Well now you're arguing a somewhat different point - that we should be doing some aspect of our security differently.</strong>
You're the one that took that tact of Americans not willing to do the things to have real security:
"My point is that people are unwilling to deal with the general inconvenience of a truly secure nation. They don't want to wait the extra 35 minutes every time they go to the airport, they feel offended when people search their handbags at a ball game, they don't make an effort to report unusual things they may see during their daily routine"
I was only highlighting that Americans were making the effort to report unusual things they may see during their daily routine. In most of the cases, it was the work of the people in there daily routine that alerted the FBI. The information was there for our intelligence agencies to figure out what was about to go down. And that info was brought about by normal citizens.
And I've traveled 5 times since September, one of them overseas. I haven't seen anyone complaining. I do get the sense that people are frustrated because the security measures are inane. There doesn't seem to be any measure of intelligence in these measures. I've only gotten frustrated once (it wasn't even me that was flying), and that was because the airline didn't have a flight crew of a 2 hour delayed flight ready to go when the airplane was. This was a weather delay, not a security one.
<strong>A) The average Joe (or Jane) isn't likely to look at these things in context and discern which security measures work and which ones don't. ...
You should be aware by now that in this society, people don't like to be made to wait - for anything. ...
C) It's still early in the game and people seem oblivious to this fact. ...</strong>
All fine points. I think point A and B aren't giving people enough <a href="http://msnbc.com/news/754588.asp"; target="_blank">credit</a>, especially when people's lives are at stake. I aslo view this as ancillary to the question of the competency of our security agencies.
<strong>This is going to take YEARS to get right, based not only on the vague nature of the threat but on the nature of our open society and the SIZE of our society.</strong>
I have no qualms with this. It will take time. But more than half a year is more than enough time to get a start, and as far as I can tell, there hasn't even been a start.
<strong>We have a rough go ahead of us, and so if people are of the mindset that "hey, they've had 8-12 months to fix the problem and the perfect solution hasn't been implemented yet - therefore I am justified in my whining and complaining" they're in for a rude awakening.</strong>
It only gets worse as we get to know more of what happened: <a href="http://msnbc.com/news/753689.asp?0dm=C23LN"; target="_blank">What Went Wrong</a> The inside story of the missed signals and intelligence failures that raise a chilling question: did September 11 have to happen?.
Clinton knew as well from my understanding. i'm not a big fan of Bush but i think he's getting unfairly criticised. i think the US government in general been asleep at the wheel for far too long
Listen to yourself! You think questions like : and I quote myself
" How did they get that far "?
" Why didn't they do something "?
How is it Bush the president of the United States didn't see all the reports on what was considered ( even before he took office ) the number one terrorist threat in the middle east? Why are those questions unreasonable?
Why is it people like you who claim to be supporters of the U.S. and the freedoms it stands for are always the first to want to violate those freedoms by shutting someone up?
I think differently than you. I think leaders should be questioned all the time. To make sure they are doing their job. They are only human after all. Any employer would do no less. And guess who he's suspose to serve.........you and me. In effect we are his employer. The people are who the president is answerable to.
So just because I think differently than you, I hear things like my questions aren't reasonable. Geez get real.
Oh and about the investigation. They could investigate and reveal their findings without revealing any names or putting anyone at peril. That's just hogwash. You have seen too many spy movies.
Besides I don't think the problem lies with the intelligence community. It sounds like they already new something was up and did their job.
The only thing to have done once the planes were in the air was to have tried to force them down. We can be pretty sure that wouldn't have worked. The only other alternative would have been to shoot them down.
It would take a lot of courage to shoot down a planeload of innocent passengers but, what's the alternative? If you let them go on they are dead anyway and so are thousands of other people.
Out of this whole affair I'm impressed by one item.......that the passengers of that one plane knew what to do, that there was no other choice, and they didn't waste time wondering about it. Now that's courage.
Don't have time to post more right now. This'll do for now.
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>
Why is it people like you who claim to be supporters of the U.S. and the freedoms it stands for are always the first to want to violate those freedoms by shutting someone up?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not shutting you up. Grow up.
[quote]<strong>Oh and about the investigation. They could investigate and reveal their findings without revealing any names or putting anyone at peril...</strong><hr></blockquote>
are you saying that because Unocal is part of the consortium that they wouldn't go south too?
cuss
p.s. if they don't... the saudi's will.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know if Unocal is part of the consortium or not. All I'm saying is that there are other ideas about how to get the oil and gas to market and people have been moving forward with those ideas for some time now. And why would the Saudis want a trans-Afghan pipeline or any pipeline? Central Asian oil represents a big threat to their market power.
ask them, they're(saudis)in on the russian consortium already. if they or any other oil company can build another and much shorter pipeline that circumvents the need to truck, ship and generally lift and carry oil down a crazy route like the one they're currently building, they will. for a buncha reasons, more is better, being primary and it's safer if they control/install the government of same-said pathway... and again, look at the map spliffman.
you'll see,
cuss
p.s. the asian market is the key... ol' dood up yonder was right. shipping the old route just became silly again.
ask them, they're(saudis)in on the russian consortium already. if they or any other oil company can build another and much shorter pipeline that circumvents the need to truck, ship and generally lift and carry oil down a crazy route like the one they're currently building, they will. for a buncha reasons, more is better, being primary and it's safer if they control/install the government of same-said pathway... and again, look at the map spliffman.
you'll see,
cuss
p.s. the asian market is the key... ol' dood up yonder was right. shipping the old route just became silly again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The coming months will show. Besides, it looks like another Kuwait to me. So much similarities between the two.
Back to the topic, ...
Well, I think CIA and FBI counter intelligence should probably think of moving their training centers to Israel where they know that not only motorcycles can be turned into mobile bombs, but also civilian airplanes are turned into rockets.
So much for the billions of dollars and CIA undisclosed spending!
ask them, they're(saudis)in on the russian consortium already. if they or any other oil company can build another and much shorter pipeline that circumvents the need to truck, ship and generally lift and carry oil down a crazy route like the one they're currently building, they will. for a buncha reasons, more is better, being primary and it's safer if they control/install the government of same-said pathway... and again, look at the map spliffman.
you'll see,
cuss
p.s. the asian market is the key... ol' dood up yonder was right. shipping the old route just became silly again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know what the map looks like. Clearly I misunderstood your earlier question about the stripping of shari?a power. What did you mean by that? If building a trans-Afghan pipeline is something the Saudis actually want how does our intervention strip them of power?
Listen to yourself! You think questions like : and I quote myself
" How did they get that far "?
" Why didn't they do something "?
How is it Bush the president of the United States didn't see all the reports on what was considered ( even before he took office ) the number one terrorist threat in the middle east? Why are those questions unreasonable?
Why is it people like you who claim to be supporters of the U.S. and the freedoms it stands for are always the first to want to violate those freedoms by shutting someone up?
I think differently than you. I think leaders should be questioned all the time. To make sure they are doing their job. They are only human after all. Any employer would do no less. And guess who he's suspose to serve.........you and me. In effect we are his employer. The people are who the president is answerable to.
So just because I think differently than you, I hear things like my questions aren't reasonable. Geez get real. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I notice you didn't repeat the question you entered this thread asking, "Did he turn his head and look the other way?" Are you backtracking now?
If the stakes weren't so high it wouldn't matter. I'd be happy to let you have at it. Run around in circles wondering if Bush committed treason. Problem is, that kind of garbage gets in the way of dealing with the real problems. If the goal is to deal effectively with a very real threat, wasting time on that kind of nonsense isn't very useful. Ultimately, Bush is responsible for not doing more to prevent 9/11 from happening. So is Clinton. But even saying this isn't saying anything. The President shouldn't be reading every field agent's report on every possible terrorist attack. That's why we employ intelligence experts. Even if he did immerse himself at that level, it's doubtful he'd have more than a general understanding of where things stood. And a report from 1999 easily slips to the bottom of the pile anyway.
But hey! Rant away about how I'm violating your freedoms if it makes you feel better. I suppose there's no harm in that.
Comments
It's true politicians always use current events to their advantage.
On both sides.
<strong>
this idiocy of calling people fools because they want to know . . . </strong><hr></blockquote>
Who did that?
<strong>Hmm... James Woods did in fact report his observations. And guess what, the FBI ignored it. If it wasn't for the work of the airline trainer in Eagan MN, Mousaoui wouldn't have been caught. It was an airline trainer in Phoenix that saw something strange was going on when prospective pilots pay for their training with large sums of cash and have poor understanding of basic airline procedures that got the local FBI office to investigate.
The problem with the current airline security procedures is that they are brainless devoid of common sense. We know that it isn't making us more secure, and I think that makes people frustrated. If it works, I think people would be very patient with it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well now you're arguing a somewhat different point - that we should be doing some aspect of our security differently. If you want to debate what does and doesn't work at airports, we can go that route in a different thread -- I know four airline pilots who have shared their thoughts on the matter with me at different times -- but what I'm suggesting to you is that
A) The average Joe (or Jane) isn't likely to look at these things in context and discern which security measures work and which ones don't. That would require one to seek out information beyond what the press offers, and to think it through - we can all agree most Americans don't do this. They just take everything the media gives them at face value - especially if they feel it vindicates their whining habit.
C) It's still early in the game and people seem oblivious to this fact. Competely overhauling airline security -- personnel wise, technology wise and organization wise -- is going to take a long time and unfortunately some trial and error. Hopefully the errors won't cause more lives but rather more inconvenience (locked down terminals, etc.). That's just the way it is, and your general sentiment is basically the same one that leads to people's misguided complaints. They think that because we're a rich nation with enormous state and federal resources of all kinds, that we can instantly make the shortcomings in our security go away.
This is going to take YEARS to get right, based not only on the vague nature of the threat but on the nature of our open society and the SIZE of our society. This is the easiest country in the world to hide in, regardless of whatever NSA conspiracy theories people like to bang around about Big Brother, wire-tapping and the like.
We have a rough go ahead of us, and so if people are of the mindset that "hey, they've had 8-12 months to fix the problem and the perfect solution hasn't been implemented yet - therefore I am justified in my whining and complaining" they're in for a rude awakening.
[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
<strong>As for whether or not there should be an investigation, Cheney himself has said there should be one. His only caveat is that it should be done by the House and Senate Intelligence committees. What's the bitch?</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, but only after this became news because a memo was leaked. And then, at a political fund raiser, he warns "Democrats" (as if only Dems are calling for an investigation) to "be careful" with the investigation, while the White House apparently tells Congressional Republicans to go on the offensive and Lott makes a similar "warning" speech. And he only wants a closed meeting of the intelligence committees, so it won't be public.
They're politicizing it in order to accuse Dems of being unpatriotic. That's my bitch. It's their MO - charge those who disagree (e.g., with the way they handled tribunals) as "aiding terrorists," as Ashcroft said. Of course, the opposite is true. It's more patriotic to be a loyal opposition. But Bush is so focused on politics that he just can't take legitimate criticism, and so he uses 9/11 to attack his political opponents.
[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
You have been infering that we shouldn't raise these questions all along by your refusal to acknowlege my questions and attacking my delivery.
Nice attempt at backpeddling by the way.
<strong>And he only wants a closed meeting of the intelligence committees, so it won't be public.
They're politicizing it in order to accuse Dems of being unpatriotic. That's my bitch. It's their MO - charge those who disagree (e.g., with the way they handled tribunals) as "aiding terrorists," as Ashcroft said. Of course, the opposite is true. It's more patriotic to be a loyal opposition. But Bush is so focused on politics that he just can't take legitimate criticism, and so he uses 9/11 to attack his political opponents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It shouldn't be public. There is a lot of sensitive info which shouldn't get out. Politicizing this stuff IS "aiding terrorists" in the sense that it distracts the agencies from doing their work.
<strong>Spaceman_Spiff,
You have been infering that we shouldn't raise these questions all along by your refusal to acknowlege my questions and attacking my delivery.
Nice attempt at backpeddling by the way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not backpedaling. I haven't refused to acknowledge what I consider to be reasonable questions. I don't consider your questions to be reasonable at all. In my very first post to this thread I wrote, "Maybe they (the FBI and CIA) should have been able to figure out what was in the wind. I think that?s something that can be argued with some conviction. That?s what they get paid to do after all..." Later I wrote, "They did screw up. Changes do need to be made. I have no problem with this..." And when THT wrote, "If Sept. 11 wasn't a case for the FBI, CIA and NSA to be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up, then I don't know what is.." I didn't argue with him at all. You can infer whatever you want - I don't care - but that still doesn't mean you know what you are talking about.
Clearly there are serious questions here that need to be answered. I wonder if any of those serious questions will be asked by you?
<strong>And he only wants a closed meeting of the intelligence committees, so it won't be public.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's exactly right. You are so focused on the politics that you have failed to consider that our intelligence people may have legitimate needs that would not be at all served by open hearings. What if sources are exposed and subsequently killed as a result of the open hearings you want? There are members of both parties on those committees and the Senate one is controled by the Democrats. Again, what's your bitch?
Well now you're arguing a somewhat different point - that we should be doing some aspect of our security differently.</strong>
You're the one that took that tact of Americans not willing to do the things to have real security:
"My point is that people are unwilling to deal with the general inconvenience of a truly secure nation. They don't want to wait the extra 35 minutes every time they go to the airport, they feel offended when people search their handbags at a ball game, they don't make an effort to report unusual things they may see during their daily routine"
I was only highlighting that Americans were making the effort to report unusual things they may see during their daily routine. In most of the cases, it was the work of the people in there daily routine that alerted the FBI. The information was there for our intelligence agencies to figure out what was about to go down. And that info was brought about by normal citizens.
And I've traveled 5 times since September, one of them overseas. I haven't seen anyone complaining. I do get the sense that people are frustrated because the security measures are inane. There doesn't seem to be any measure of intelligence in these measures. I've only gotten frustrated once (it wasn't even me that was flying), and that was because the airline didn't have a flight crew of a 2 hour delayed flight ready to go when the airplane was. This was a weather delay, not a security one.
<strong>A) The average Joe (or Jane) isn't likely to look at these things in context and discern which security measures work and which ones don't. ...
C) It's still early in the game and people seem oblivious to this fact. ...</strong>
All fine points. I think point A and B aren't giving people enough <a href="http://msnbc.com/news/754588.asp"; target="_blank">credit</a>, especially when people's lives are at stake. I aslo view this as ancillary to the question of the competency of our security agencies.
<strong>This is going to take YEARS to get right, based not only on the vague nature of the threat but on the nature of our open society and the SIZE of our society.</strong>
I have no qualms with this. It will take time. But more than half a year is more than enough time to get a start, and as far as I can tell, there hasn't even been a start.
<strong>We have a rough go ahead of us, and so if people are of the mindset that "hey, they've had 8-12 months to fix the problem and the perfect solution hasn't been implemented yet - therefore I am justified in my whining and complaining" they're in for a rude awakening.</strong>
It only gets worse as we get to know more of what happened: <a href="http://msnbc.com/news/753689.asp?0dm=C23LN"; target="_blank">What Went Wrong</a> The inside story of the missed signals and intelligence failures that raise a chilling question: did September 11 have to happen?.
[edit: URL stuff]
[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
I find your statements shallow and vacuous.
Listen to yourself! You think questions like : and I quote myself
" How did they get that far "?
" Why didn't they do something "?
How is it Bush the president of the United States didn't see all the reports on what was considered ( even before he took office ) the number one terrorist threat in the middle east? Why are those questions unreasonable?
Why is it people like you who claim to be supporters of the U.S. and the freedoms it stands for are always the first to want to violate those freedoms by shutting someone up?
I think differently than you. I think leaders should be questioned all the time. To make sure they are doing their job. They are only human after all. Any employer would do no less. And guess who he's suspose to serve.........you and me. In effect we are his employer. The people are who the president is answerable to.
So just because I think differently than you, I hear things like my questions aren't reasonable. Geez get real.
[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Besides I don't think the problem lies with the intelligence community. It sounds like they already new something was up and did their job.
The only thing to have done once the planes were in the air was to have tried to force them down. We can be pretty sure that wouldn't have worked. The only other alternative would have been to shoot them down.
It would take a lot of courage to shoot down a planeload of innocent passengers but, what's the alternative? If you let them go on they are dead anyway and so are thousands of other people.
Out of this whole affair I'm impressed by one item.......that the passengers of that one plane knew what to do, that there was no other choice, and they didn't waste time wondering about it. Now that's courage.
[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
are you saying that because Unocal is part of the consortium that they wouldn't go south too?
cuss
p.s. if they don't... the saudi's will.
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>
Why is it people like you who claim to be supporters of the U.S. and the freedoms it stands for are always the first to want to violate those freedoms by shutting someone up?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not shutting you up. Grow up.
[quote]<strong>Oh and about the investigation. They could investigate and reveal their findings without revealing any names or putting anyone at peril...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes they could by having CLOSED hearings.
<strong>spliffy...
are you saying that because Unocal is part of the consortium that they wouldn't go south too?
cuss
p.s. if they don't... the saudi's will.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know if Unocal is part of the consortium or not. All I'm saying is that there are other ideas about how to get the oil and gas to market and people have been moving forward with those ideas for some time now. And why would the Saudis want a trans-Afghan pipeline or any pipeline? Central Asian oil represents a big threat to their market power.
[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
ask them, they're(saudis)in on the russian consortium already. if they or any other oil company can build another and much shorter pipeline that circumvents the need to truck, ship and generally lift and carry oil down a crazy route like the one they're currently building, they will. for a buncha reasons, more is better, being primary and it's safer if they control/install the government of same-said pathway... and again, look at the map spliffman.
you'll see,
cuss
p.s. the asian market is the key... ol' dood up yonder was right. shipping the old route just became silly again.
<strong>well pard,
ask them, they're(saudis)in on the russian consortium already. if they or any other oil company can build another and much shorter pipeline that circumvents the need to truck, ship and generally lift and carry oil down a crazy route like the one they're currently building, they will. for a buncha reasons, more is better, being primary and it's safer if they control/install the government of same-said pathway... and again, look at the map spliffman.
you'll see,
cuss
p.s. the asian market is the key... ol' dood up yonder was right. shipping the old route just became silly again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The coming months will show. Besides, it looks like another Kuwait to me. So much similarities between the two.
Back to the topic, ...
Well, I think CIA and FBI counter intelligence should probably think of moving their training centers to Israel where they know that not only motorcycles can be turned into mobile bombs, but also civilian airplanes are turned into rockets.
So much for the billions of dollars and CIA undisclosed spending!
<strong>well pard,
ask them, they're(saudis)in on the russian consortium already. if they or any other oil company can build another and much shorter pipeline that circumvents the need to truck, ship and generally lift and carry oil down a crazy route like the one they're currently building, they will. for a buncha reasons, more is better, being primary and it's safer if they control/install the government of same-said pathway... and again, look at the map spliffman.
you'll see,
cuss
p.s. the asian market is the key... ol' dood up yonder was right. shipping the old route just became silly again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know what the map looks like. Clearly I misunderstood your earlier question about the stripping of shari?a power. What did you mean by that? If building a trans-Afghan pipeline is something the Saudis actually want how does our intervention strip them of power?
<strong>Spaceman_Spiff,
I find your statements shallow and vacuous.
Listen to yourself! You think questions like : and I quote myself
" How did they get that far "?
" Why didn't they do something "?
How is it Bush the president of the United States didn't see all the reports on what was considered ( even before he took office ) the number one terrorist threat in the middle east? Why are those questions unreasonable?
Why is it people like you who claim to be supporters of the U.S. and the freedoms it stands for are always the first to want to violate those freedoms by shutting someone up?
I think differently than you. I think leaders should be questioned all the time. To make sure they are doing their job. They are only human after all. Any employer would do no less. And guess who he's suspose to serve.........you and me. In effect we are his employer. The people are who the president is answerable to.
So just because I think differently than you, I hear things like my questions aren't reasonable. Geez get real. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I notice you didn't repeat the question you entered this thread asking, "Did he turn his head and look the other way?" Are you backtracking now?
If the stakes weren't so high it wouldn't matter. I'd be happy to let you have at it. Run around in circles wondering if Bush committed treason. Problem is, that kind of garbage gets in the way of dealing with the real problems. If the goal is to deal effectively with a very real threat, wasting time on that kind of nonsense isn't very useful. Ultimately, Bush is responsible for not doing more to prevent 9/11 from happening. So is Clinton. But even saying this isn't saying anything. The President shouldn't be reading every field agent's report on every possible terrorist attack. That's why we employ intelligence experts. Even if he did immerse himself at that level, it's doubtful he'd have more than a general understanding of where things stood. And a report from 1999 easily slips to the bottom of the pile anyway.
But hey! Rant away about how I'm violating your freedoms if it makes you feel better. I suppose there's no harm in that.
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>