<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>I could be convinced that closed hearings may be necessary. But that was just one element of my bitch, and I could buy it more easily if they hadn't also:
1) waited for this story to be leaked rather than bringing it up themselves,
2) denied knowing as much as they really knew,
3) politically attacked those calling for an investigation,
4) issued "warnings" about hearings, and
5) called on Republicans to go on the political offensive re: hearings.
In the context of their other actions, calling for closed hearings just seems part of a pattern of political damage control, rather than a genuine concern about national security. The Bush admin. seems to honestly believe that their actions should not be subject to debate in our political system. That's worth a bitch or two.
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>Spaceman_Spiff,
I find your statements shallow and vacuous.</strong><hr></blockquote>Whoa there. I find the spaceman's posts to be anything but shallow and vacuous.
He thinks my questions aren't valid ( unreasonable ) because he disagrees with the way I think. For me that's shallow and vacuous. Just let them handle it. Someone who just doesn't want to look at the facts or only look at the facts in a way so the president comes out smelling like a rose.
His attitude is all focused on the intel not the leader of our country. This is just naive. Everything should be looked at.
Maybe there isn't anything the president could of done. If so something is seriously wrong with our system to handle anything.
The fact that there were these reports ( some long before the event ) doesn't tend to point in that direction.
Just blindly trusting in the govenment is shallow. He really didn't offer any arguments other than I shouldn't question the president ( vacuous ). His attitude is that the president shouldn't be bothered with reports about a major threat. Reports that might have a bearing on how to counteract this threat.
So was Bush just not on top of things or did he turn his head the other way. Or do reports about a major threat in the middle east just never make their way to the president ( I have a really hard time believing this one ). These reports were not about an obscure sitituation.
Hey, I'm just like you and don't know what happened. But, I'm bothered by the facts of the situation. We will probably never know the whole truth.
About the report slipping to the bottom of the pile, other people found it easy enough and as I've stated it wasn't like they weren't worried about bin Laden already.
I could be convinced that closed hearings may be necessary. But that was just one element of my bitch, and I could buy it more easily if they hadn't also:
1) waited for this story to be leaked rather than bringing it up themselves...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Outside of the Phoenix memo I haven?t seen anything that I didn?t already know. What was leaked?
[quote]<strong>... politically attacked those calling for an investigation...</strong><hr></blockquote>
And they weren?t already being attacked? Is it okay for Dems to attack Republicans and not vice versa?
[quote]<strong>... issued "warnings" about hearings...</strong><hr></blockquote>
There?s a real danger to be considered.
[quote]<strong>... called on Republicans to go on the political offensive...</strong><hr></blockquote>
The best defense is a good offense. If the other guys weren?t already on the offensive there would have been no need for a defense. But I don?t like the politics swirling around this debate either.
[quote]<strong>... In the context of their other actions, calling for closed hearings just seems part of a pattern of political damage control, rather than a genuine concern about national security.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The admin didn?t need to wait for hearings to make changes. Mueller was only on the job 8 days when 9/11 happened. From what I?ve heard he?s been making his mark on the bureau. You don?t really think that hearings are the only way to enhance our national security, do you?
[quote]<strong>... The Bush admin. seems to honestly believe that their actions should not be subject to debate in our political system.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]"Never did we imagine what would take place on Sept. 11," said Ari Fleischer last week, "where people used those airplanes as missiles and as weapons."
Actually, as is becoming increasingly clear, many people did imagine it. Forget about government reports. Tom Clancy closed his 1994 best seller, "Debt of Honor," with an enraged pilot loading an airliner with fuel and crashing it into the U.S. Capitol during a joint session of Congress, killing most members as well as the president of the United States.
But even if George W. Bush had read his Clancy and taken heed of his intelligence reports, he would not have been able to prevent Sept. 11. For that, this country needed something else, something we have always shied away from: a domestic intelligence agency, a CIA that spies on Americans.
There is a scandal about the events leading to Sept. 11, but it does not involve the Bush White House - or, for that matter, the Clinton White House. It's a few blocks over, at the FBI. How could the bureau, given all the bits of information it had received, not have aggressively investigated the suicide bombers? Why did it not connect the pieces of information into an incriminating whole?
It's simple. No one at the FBI had the job of strategic analysis - i.e., of connecting the dots. And even if someone had made the connections, what could the agency have done? The answer, in hindsight, is clear: tap phones, raid computers and track bank accounts. (In this case, following the money would have been the real tipoff, since Zacarias Moussaoui was being funded by the same source as the other terrorists.) But the FBI needed court approval to do most of this, and it had scant evidence to make its case. And peeping into bank accounts wasn't easy; the American system is not set up to investigate people at whim.
It is not simply a matter of a bad organization. The FBI is a law-enforcement agency, not an intelligence outfit. For it to begin a massive operation, a crime needs to have been committed...<hr></blockquote>
<strong>... He really didn't offer any arguments other than I shouldn't question the president ( vacuous )...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Question all you want. But implying that he committed treason, which is what you have done, isn't reasonable.
[quote]<strong>His attitude is that the president shouldn't be bothered with reports about a major threat. Reports that might have a bearing on how to counteract this threat..</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, that's not what I wrote. I said he shouldn't be reading every field agent's report. Get your facts straight.
You are making excuses only for the people you don't want to challenge.
Nice article. I don't agree with it but, nice. If Bush had read the report how does this guy know he couldn't have done anything to prevent it? They certainly had several minutes warning that something was up with those planes.
You mean anytime in history someone could have just flown a plane into the Pentigon? Come on.
Considering the magnitude of this situation that's pretty hard to swallow.
" Did he turn his head " is a valid question. One of many. For every situation there are a number possiblities. The president turning his head isn't impossible. It's just one question. In this situation all the questions that can be thought of need to be asked.
Besides turning his head doesn't always imply " treason " it might simply mean he was not up to handling the situation. Oh dear, you won't like that one ether will you?
<strong>Outside of the Phoenix memo I haven?t seen anything that I didn?t already know. What was leaked?</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm referring to the initial leak that there was a briefing about al-qaeda hijacking plots. Why did that have to get out in the way it did? Why did Bush for months fight against any inquiries, and only now after it sneaks out that they knew more than we thought, are they agreeing to hearings? Again, it just seems he was trying to hide for political cover, but was caught.
[quote]And they weren?t already being attacked? Is it okay for Dems to attack Republicans and not vice versa?<hr></blockquote>It wasn't just Dems who were calling for investigations into what the administration knew. When there is a failure on your watch, you're going to be criticized. Does the buck stop there or not? Oversight is part of Congress's JOB. [quote]There?s a real danger to be considered.<hr></blockquote>The only dangers they seem to be focused on are the 2002 and 2004 elections. The warnings Cheney, Fleischer, and Lott (even Laura got into the act) gave that I'm talking about were political, not national security-oriented. They specifically singled out Democrats, even though both Dems and Repubs were calling for investigations. If they had merely said "we want the hearings behind closed doors to protect intelligence assets," that would be one thing. But they went much further then that. [quote]It depends on who you are debating with. Cynthia McKinney was one of the first to raise this ?issue?. Not surprising that the admin wasn?t interested in treating her like a sane person.<hr></blockquote>Right, and they essentially ignored her. Now, when Daschle, Shelby et al. ask similar questions about what was known and what could have been done, they go on the offensive. So when nutjobs raise questions, they dismiss, and when serious people raise questions, they attack. [quote]The admin didn?t need to wait for hearings to make changes. Mueller was only on the job 8 days when 9/11 happened. From what I?ve heard he?s been making his mark on the bureau. You don?t really think that hearings are the only way to enhance our national security, do you?<hr></blockquote>No, but they are one way, not mutually exclusive with other ways. And again it's Congress's job to oversee the administration. I think back to FDR's very public calls for investigation after Pearl Harbor. That is what Bush should have done, rather than try to hide. Bush apparently saw 9/11 as a political opportunity that shouldn't be spoiled by serious questions.
By the way, I was thinking about this idea that Bush couldn't have done anything because the information was too vague, etc. etc.
Well, there is a precedent. The Clinton FBI and CIA stopped the Millennium bombing plot, which was on at least as large of a scale as 9/11, with virtually the exact same information. They had vague warnings, went on high-alert, caught one guy coming in from Canada, and foiled the plot. The Bush admin also had vague warnings, also caught one guy (Moussaui), but the difference was that they failed to foil the plot. So it's just wrong to say "nothing could have been done."
... By the way, I was thinking about this idea that Bush couldn't have done anything because the information was too vague, etc. etc.
Well, there is a precedent. The Clinton FBI and CIA stopped the Millennium bombing plot, which was on at least as large of a scale as 9/11, with virtually the exact same information. They had vague warnings, went on high-alert, caught one guy coming in from Canada, and foiled the plot. The Bush admin also had vague warnings, also caught one guy (Moussaui), but the difference was that they failed to foil the plot. So it's just wrong to say "nothing could have been done."</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Clinton FBI? I suppose he did appoint Louis Freeh but they weren't exactly best buddies, were they? And your example doesn't really point the way to the more that could have been done.
edit: Just noticed that I have 846 posts. If I don't watch it, I'll soon be in the 1000 post club too. Not that I'm not really way over that already.
My guess ( and it's only a guess ) is that if you knew all the dirty dealings involving government leaders throughout history, your world view would be shaken off it's foundations
My guess ( and it's only a guess ) is that if you knew all the dirty dealings involving government leaders throughout history, your world view would be shaken off it's foundations</strong><hr></blockquote>
You said it I didn't. If you bother to look there are many examples of what I'm talking about. Well documented also. The most damning is of course Watergate. You seem to think that was a small thing. Well it was just one group trying to take away the american public's right to choose their leader. Oh, but I forgot you don't think talking about rights is a big deal. It's just ranting.
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.<hr></blockquote>
Perhaps none that have obvious physical manifestations but I am sure there are thousands of federal and task force types who burn the midnight oil on a regular basis and who have done so since before September.
I can't be sure but it seems to me the government is trying to avoid the process of putting new measures in place all the time, and then constantly revising them to address every new threat they get. Then of course, having to deal with the news media's ridiculous insinuations that somehow, a different group of professionals would have done / would do a better job.
I think they are very likely building in new security measures in various places (airports, power plants, etc.) but they are doing it piecemeal and they are doing it as quietly as they can. Remember, in this war our news media is the enemy / the torrorist's biggest ally. The more you share your plans, the more full of holes they will inevitably become. Personally I think the media outght to be forced to observe some kind of [partial/context-sensitive] gag order that prevents them from discussing all the things the government is planning, how they could be circumvented, what's coming next, etc. [I wouldn't want it in place indefinitely], but for now it would be a good idea until the government can get its act together - at least in theory.
[quote]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?<hr></blockquote>
Technically, nothing of this kind ever has to happen - anywhere. I am loathe to admit it, but Time magazine actually produced a nice sidebar in this week's issue from an anonymous FBI field agent. Gives needed perspective that the television media glances over, because you know, context usually kills an exciting story full of innuendo.
Anyway, the point of the piece is that the FBI, CIA, NSA and other security organizations get dozens of potentially credible threats every single day. And field officers recommend that higher-ups look into those threats - every single day. And that the VAST majority of them, very possible scenarios though they may be, never pan out.
So for example, if Smithsonian was rammed by a plane tomorrow, somewhere in one of our massive stockpiles of potential leads, lies a document that could be easily misconstrued as saying "SEE! We knew all about this potential threat to the Smithsonian and did nothing about it. Someone is negligent...." - we'll call it a Frangela for short. In my mind, this is exactly what is happening. The media is playing armchair QB and unfairly manipulating public opinion against a group of people who most likely handled whatever information they had in a proceduraly appropriate (say that real fast 3x) way. Sure someone probably burried it unintentionally when they shouldn't have, but that's what happens in bureaucracies. It's unavoidable.
Another point made was, if the government in August suddenly went around the country, rounding up Arab flight students, can you IMAGINE the PC bullcrap that would surely follow from the media, ACLU and others? They would've eaten the government alive. So then what's more important - that we don't give the appearance of racial profiling, or, that we look bad if we have to - and round up all the bastards that fit the profile of someone flying into a building? I choose the latter, but most people do not because they are paranoid [the government will somehow take over their lives] if we let them do their job.
[That is another example] of sacrifices Americans will not make because they are so utterly manipulated by the media and all the PC culture they pick up from work and elsewhere. What would happen today? What if there was evidence that a few dozen Moroccans had entered the country on work visas and may be planning to blow up buses. Are we going to scream bloody murder when the FBI starts rounding up Moroccan bus drivers on work visas? I sure as hell wouldn't, but [that's just me].
Goes back to the whole question of an enormous, very open society. How do you: measure all the potentially legitimate threats, reign in the worst of them, not trample on the average citizens' rights in the process, and then and not get sledge-hammered by the media and sleezebag politicians who will jump on any bandwagon that gets them re-elected in the fall?
A TALL order by any measure, I think you'll agree.
i know spliffy... it's a cluster **** in here... you and i are talking motives and overarching motivations of oil grubbers and everybody else is talking about shutting down every airport in the nation on a hunch. i like our's better.
i mean we, or rather unocal, would prefer the puppet government we've already installed over taliban/shari'a cahootings... the russians don't care, hence the saudi participations in the novipipe consortium, they just want it done and done yesterday....
not much clearer... but getting there...
blowing away chaff from the forecastle of the SS Condi,
There's the "what is the root cause of us even being on Arab radar screens and what are we going to do to keep these rat bastards out of our hair from now on?" thread.
and the "well, we're floating down shit creek, but the waterfall is a ways off - what are we going to use for a paddle?" thread.
<strong>You said it I didn't. If you bother to look there are many examples of what I'm talking about. Well documented also. The most damning is of course Watergate. You seem to think that was a small thing...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't say that either. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!
<strong>i know spliffy... it's a cluster **** in here... you and i are talking motives and overarching motivations of oil grubbers and everybody else is talking about shutting down every airport in the nation on a hunch. i like our's better.
i mean we, or rather unocal, would prefer the puppet government we've already installed over taliban/shari'a cahootings... the russians don't care, hence the saudi participations in the novipipe consortium, they just want it done and done yesterday....
not much clearer... but getting there...
blowing away chaff from the forecastle of the SS Condi,
cuss</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanx, at least I now know what you meant. I agree with the part about us wanting a regime change in Afghanistan. BTW, Condi Rice's last government gig was as a Russian specialist.. If she was approaching this from a Russian perspective (not that I'm saying she is) well, she wouldn't care either.
Perhaps none that have obvious physical manifestations but I am sure there are thousands of federal and task force types who burn the midnight oil on a regular basis and who have done so since before September.</strong>
On an individual basis, I'm sure. But from a regulatory, organizational and structural standpoint. I don't think so. As long as the agencies view themselves as rival fiefdoms, as opposed friendly fiefdoms, there are going to be some big holes in the system.
For example, the media says one of the things GWB is doing is having CIA and FBI representives sit in during the presidential security briefings. That's not an improvement. There needs to be much more information sharing at a much lower level.
<strong>I can't be sure but it seems to me the government is trying to avoid the process of putting new measures in place all the time, and then constantly revising them to address every new threat they get.</strong>
It doesn't matter if there are new measures. They can get rid of all the measures and replace it with a few for all I care. The only ruler they should be using is whether the measures work or not. And for a lot of them, they do not and simply inconvenience the public.
The only airline measures that make any sense are reinforced cockpit and air marshalls. I'd like to see a change in the response to a hijacking itself from cooperation to no cooperation. Further down the line, a total cockpit redesign where the cockpit is inaccessible from the passenger cabin.
<strong>Remember, in this war our news media is the enemy / the torrorist's biggest ally. The more you share your plans, the more full of holes they will inevitably become.</strong>
No. I don't think so. The more you share your plans, the more holes you can plug. The media as envisioned by the Constitution protects the people from a corrupt government. It's a bad day when that becomes the opposite. Though I would agree that the profession has been compromised by the need to make money. There are at least some good ones left.
Also, there is nothing the media can do that alters the responsibilities of government officials. They still have the responsibility of gathering, analyzing and disseminating terrorism information no matter how much scrutiny they fall under.
<strong>Personally I think the media outght to be forced to observe some kind of [partial/context-sensitive] gag order that prevents them from discussing all the things the government is planning, how they could be circumvented, what's coming next, etc. [I wouldn't want it in place indefinitely], but for now it would be a good idea until the government can get its act together - at least in theory.</strong>
I'm for open government. Open and public Sept 11 investigation done by independents. 90% of the classified information in the government doesn't need to be classified. And they should discuss how things can be circumvented because that'll lead those things to be fixed.
<strong>Anyway, the point of the piece is that the FBI, CIA, NSA and other security organizations get dozens of potentially credible threats every single day. And field officers recommend that higher-ups look into those threats - every single day. And that the VAST majority of them, very possible scenarios though they may be, never pan out.</strong>
Yes, they have a difficult job. It's also their job. If they can stop a well funded group of people from committing a massive act terror, then they are broken. The Sept 11 terrorists weren't even that professional to begin with. It's a given that it'll be impossible to stop a loner from doing something, but when it involves money and more than 1 or 2 people, the amount of info available should be enough. And it was for the Sept 11 attacks.
<strong>Another point made was, if the government in August suddenly went around the country, rounding up Arab flight students, can you IMAGINE the PC bullcrap that would surely follow from the media, ACLU and others?</strong>
The gov't doesn't have to do anything illegal. They just need to break one link in a chain of events. That could have kept track of said flight students, increasing airline security, performing deeper background checks, etc. They don't have to arrest anyone without reason. They just need to do their job of investigating.
<strong>Goes back to the whole question of an enormous, very open society. How do you: measure all the potentially legitimate threats, reign in the worst of them, not trample on the average citizens' rights in the process, and then and not get sledge-hammered by the media and sleezebag politicians who will jump on any bandwagon that gets them re-elected in the fall?</strong>
The point of my argument is that you can have both ways. It requires the law enforcement and security agencies to be on the ball. The media is irrelevant to their jobs. Politicians are however a problem since they control the money and the policy. But isn't that up to us? They can be voted out.
<strong>... the russians don't care, hence the saudi participations in the novipipe consortium, they just want it done and done yesterday....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Returning to this matter again. I'm sure the Russians are anxious to get it done but they have concerns about radical Islam too. I'm not convinced that they don't feel some ambivalence about dealing with the Saudis. Perhaps they see this as a way to buy some peace? And from the Saudi end, sure this can be a profitable investment but again, what about the Saudi's market power? Whoever does this project, it still will erode the Saudi's position. Perhaps they see this as inevitable and are just trying to manage their risk?
I'm still a big skeptic. The trans-Afghan route may be cheaper but Turkey is far more politically stable. It's a cost-benefit thing. You may pay more but you get fewer headaches.
Comments
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>I could be convinced that closed hearings may be necessary. But that was just one element of my bitch, and I could buy it more easily if they hadn't also:
1) waited for this story to be leaked rather than bringing it up themselves,
2) denied knowing as much as they really knew,
3) politically attacked those calling for an investigation,
4) issued "warnings" about hearings, and
5) called on Republicans to go on the political offensive re: hearings.
In the context of their other actions, calling for closed hearings just seems part of a pattern of political damage control, rather than a genuine concern about national security. The Bush admin. seems to honestly believe that their actions should not be subject to debate in our political system. That's worth a bitch or two.
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>Spaceman_Spiff,
I find your statements shallow and vacuous.</strong><hr></blockquote>Whoa there. I find the spaceman's posts to be anything but shallow and vacuous.
His attitude is all focused on the intel not the leader of our country. This is just naive. Everything should be looked at.
Maybe there isn't anything the president could of done. If so something is seriously wrong with our system to handle anything.
The fact that there were these reports ( some long before the event ) doesn't tend to point in that direction.
Just blindly trusting in the govenment is shallow. He really didn't offer any arguments other than I shouldn't question the president ( vacuous ). His attitude is that the president shouldn't be bothered with reports about a major threat. Reports that might have a bearing on how to counteract this threat.
So was Bush just not on top of things or did he turn his head the other way. Or do reports about a major threat in the middle east just never make their way to the president ( I have a really hard time believing this one ). These reports were not about an obscure sitituation.
Hey, I'm just like you and don't know what happened. But, I'm bothered by the facts of the situation. We will probably never know the whole truth.
About the report slipping to the bottom of the pile, other people found it easy enough and as I've stated it wasn't like they weren't worried about bin Laden already.
By the way,talking about our freedoms is ranting?
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
I could be convinced that closed hearings may be necessary. But that was just one element of my bitch, and I could buy it more easily if they hadn't also:
1) waited for this story to be leaked rather than bringing it up themselves...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Outside of the Phoenix memo I haven?t seen anything that I didn?t already know. What was leaked?
[quote]<strong>... politically attacked those calling for an investigation...</strong><hr></blockquote>
And they weren?t already being attacked? Is it okay for Dems to attack Republicans and not vice versa?
[quote]<strong>... issued "warnings" about hearings...</strong><hr></blockquote>
There?s a real danger to be considered.
[quote]<strong>... called on Republicans to go on the political offensive...</strong><hr></blockquote>
The best defense is a good offense. If the other guys weren?t already on the offensive there would have been no need for a defense. But I don?t like the politics swirling around this debate either.
[quote]<strong>... In the context of their other actions, calling for closed hearings just seems part of a pattern of political damage control, rather than a genuine concern about national security.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The admin didn?t need to wait for hearings to make changes. Mueller was only on the job 8 days when 9/11 happened. From what I?ve heard he?s been making his mark on the bureau. You don?t really think that hearings are the only way to enhance our national security, do you?
[quote]<strong>... The Bush admin. seems to honestly believe that their actions should not be subject to debate in our political system.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It depends on who you are debating with. Cynthia McKinney was one of the first to raise this ?<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34565-2002Apr11?language=printer"; target="_blank">issue</a>?. Not surprising that the admin wasn?t interested in treating her like a sane person.
Not to completely change the subject. Here?s an interesting article from today?s Washington post
washingtonpost.com
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47971-2002May20.html"; target="_blank">Spying at Home</a>
By Fareed Zakaria
Tuesday, May 21, 2002; Page A17
[quote]"Never did we imagine what would take place on Sept. 11," said Ari Fleischer last week, "where people used those airplanes as missiles and as weapons."
Actually, as is becoming increasingly clear, many people did imagine it. Forget about government reports. Tom Clancy closed his 1994 best seller, "Debt of Honor," with an enraged pilot loading an airliner with fuel and crashing it into the U.S. Capitol during a joint session of Congress, killing most members as well as the president of the United States.
But even if George W. Bush had read his Clancy and taken heed of his intelligence reports, he would not have been able to prevent Sept. 11. For that, this country needed something else, something we have always shied away from: a domestic intelligence agency, a CIA that spies on Americans.
There is a scandal about the events leading to Sept. 11, but it does not involve the Bush White House - or, for that matter, the Clinton White House. It's a few blocks over, at the FBI. How could the bureau, given all the bits of information it had received, not have aggressively investigated the suicide bombers? Why did it not connect the pieces of information into an incriminating whole?
It's simple. No one at the FBI had the job of strategic analysis - i.e., of connecting the dots. And even if someone had made the connections, what could the agency have done? The answer, in hindsight, is clear: tap phones, raid computers and track bank accounts. (In this case, following the money would have been the real tipoff, since Zacarias Moussaoui was being funded by the same source as the other terrorists.) But the FBI needed court approval to do most of this, and it had scant evidence to make its case. And peeping into bank accounts wasn't easy; the American system is not set up to investigate people at whim.
It is not simply a matter of a bad organization. The FBI is a law-enforcement agency, not an intelligence outfit. For it to begin a massive operation, a crime needs to have been committed...<hr></blockquote>
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>... He really didn't offer any arguments other than I shouldn't question the president ( vacuous )...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Question all you want. But implying that he committed treason, which is what you have done, isn't reasonable.
[quote]<strong>His attitude is that the president shouldn't be bothered with reports about a major threat. Reports that might have a bearing on how to counteract this threat..</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, that's not what I wrote. I said he shouldn't be reading every field agent's report. Get your facts straight.
Nice article. I don't agree with it but, nice. If Bush had read the report how does this guy know he couldn't have done anything to prevent it? They certainly had several minutes warning that something was up with those planes.
You mean anytime in history someone could have just flown a plane into the Pentigon? Come on.
Considering the magnitude of this situation that's pretty hard to swallow.
" Did he turn his head " is a valid question. One of many. For every situation there are a number possiblities. The president turning his head isn't impossible. It's just one question. In this situation all the questions that can be thought of need to be asked.
Besides turning his head doesn't always imply " treason " it might simply mean he was not up to handling the situation. Oh dear, you won't like that one ether will you?
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>You are making excuses only for the people you don't want to challenge...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. That's all it could possibly be. You got yourself a nice, little, hermetically-sealed world-view there, pal.
<strong>Outside of the Phoenix memo I haven?t seen anything that I didn?t already know. What was leaked?</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm referring to the initial leak that there was a briefing about al-qaeda hijacking plots. Why did that have to get out in the way it did? Why did Bush for months fight against any inquiries, and only now after it sneaks out that they knew more than we thought, are they agreeing to hearings? Again, it just seems he was trying to hide for political cover, but was caught.
[quote]And they weren?t already being attacked? Is it okay for Dems to attack Republicans and not vice versa?<hr></blockquote>It wasn't just Dems who were calling for investigations into what the administration knew. When there is a failure on your watch, you're going to be criticized. Does the buck stop there or not? Oversight is part of Congress's JOB. [quote]There?s a real danger to be considered.<hr></blockquote>The only dangers they seem to be focused on are the 2002 and 2004 elections. The warnings Cheney, Fleischer, and Lott (even Laura got into the act) gave that I'm talking about were political, not national security-oriented. They specifically singled out Democrats, even though both Dems and Repubs were calling for investigations. If they had merely said "we want the hearings behind closed doors to protect intelligence assets," that would be one thing. But they went much further then that. [quote]It depends on who you are debating with. Cynthia McKinney was one of the first to raise this ?issue?. Not surprising that the admin wasn?t interested in treating her like a sane person.<hr></blockquote>Right, and they essentially ignored her. Now, when Daschle, Shelby et al. ask similar questions about what was known and what could have been done, they go on the offensive. So when nutjobs raise questions, they dismiss, and when serious people raise questions, they attack. [quote]The admin didn?t need to wait for hearings to make changes. Mueller was only on the job 8 days when 9/11 happened. From what I?ve heard he?s been making his mark on the bureau. You don?t really think that hearings are the only way to enhance our national security, do you?<hr></blockquote>No, but they are one way, not mutually exclusive with other ways. And again it's Congress's job to oversee the administration. I think back to FDR's very public calls for investigation after Pearl Harbor. That is what Bush should have done, rather than try to hide. Bush apparently saw 9/11 as a political opportunity that shouldn't be spoiled by serious questions.
By the way, I was thinking about this idea that Bush couldn't have done anything because the information was too vague, etc. etc.
Well, there is a precedent. The Clinton FBI and CIA stopped the Millennium bombing plot, which was on at least as large of a scale as 9/11, with virtually the exact same information. They had vague warnings, went on high-alert, caught one guy coming in from Canada, and foiled the plot. The Bush admin also had vague warnings, also caught one guy (Moussaui), but the difference was that they failed to foil the plot. So it's just wrong to say "nothing could have been done."
<strong>
... By the way, I was thinking about this idea that Bush couldn't have done anything because the information was too vague, etc. etc.
Well, there is a precedent. The Clinton FBI and CIA stopped the Millennium bombing plot, which was on at least as large of a scale as 9/11, with virtually the exact same information. They had vague warnings, went on high-alert, caught one guy coming in from Canada, and foiled the plot. The Bush admin also had vague warnings, also caught one guy (Moussaui), but the difference was that they failed to foil the plot. So it's just wrong to say "nothing could have been done."</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Clinton FBI? I suppose he did appoint Louis Freeh but they weren't exactly best buddies, were they? And your example doesn't really point the way to the more that could have been done.
edit: Just noticed that I have 846 posts. If I don't watch it, I'll soon be in the 1000 post club too. Not that I'm not really way over that already.
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
Are you sure you aren't talking about yourself?
My guess ( and it's only a guess ) is that if you knew all the dirty dealings involving government leaders throughout history, your world view would be shaken off it's foundations
<strong>
My guess ( and it's only a guess ) is that if you knew all the dirty dealings involving government leaders throughout history, your world view would be shaken off it's foundations</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I'm so naive.
Don't worry jimmac, The Truth is Out There.
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
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.<hr></blockquote>
Perhaps none that have obvious physical manifestations but I am sure there are thousands of federal and task force types who burn the midnight oil on a regular basis and who have done so since before September.
I can't be sure but it seems to me the government is trying to avoid the process of putting new measures in place all the time, and then constantly revising them to address every new threat they get. Then of course, having to deal with the news media's ridiculous insinuations that somehow, a different group of professionals would have done / would do a better job.
I think they are very likely building in new security measures in various places (airports, power plants, etc.) but they are doing it piecemeal and they are doing it as quietly as they can. Remember, in this war our news media is the enemy / the torrorist's biggest ally. The more you share your plans, the more full of holes they will inevitably become. Personally I think the media outght to be forced to observe some kind of [partial/context-sensitive] gag order that prevents them from discussing all the things the government is planning, how they could be circumvented, what's coming next, etc. [I wouldn't want it in place indefinitely], but for now it would be a good idea until the government can get its act together - at least in theory.
[quote]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?<hr></blockquote>
Technically, nothing of this kind ever has to happen - anywhere. I am loathe to admit it, but Time magazine actually produced a nice sidebar in this week's issue from an anonymous FBI field agent. Gives needed perspective that the television media glances over, because you know, context usually kills an exciting story full of innuendo.
Anyway, the point of the piece is that the FBI, CIA, NSA and other security organizations get dozens of potentially credible threats every single day. And field officers recommend that higher-ups look into those threats - every single day. And that the VAST majority of them, very possible scenarios though they may be, never pan out.
So for example, if Smithsonian was rammed by a plane tomorrow, somewhere in one of our massive stockpiles of potential leads, lies a document that could be easily misconstrued as saying "SEE! We knew all about this potential threat to the Smithsonian and did nothing about it. Someone is negligent...." - we'll call it a Frangela for short. In my mind, this is exactly what is happening. The media is playing armchair QB and unfairly manipulating public opinion against a group of people who most likely handled whatever information they had in a proceduraly appropriate (say that real fast 3x) way. Sure someone probably burried it unintentionally when they shouldn't have, but that's what happens in bureaucracies. It's unavoidable.
Another point made was, if the government in August suddenly went around the country, rounding up Arab flight students, can you IMAGINE the PC bullcrap that would surely follow from the media, ACLU and others? They would've eaten the government alive. So then what's more important - that we don't give the appearance of racial profiling, or, that we look bad if we have to - and round up all the bastards that fit the profile of someone flying into a building? I choose the latter, but most people do not because they are paranoid [the government will somehow take over their lives] if we let them do their job.
[That is another example] of sacrifices Americans will not make because they are so utterly manipulated by the media and all the PC culture they pick up from work and elsewhere. What would happen today? What if there was evidence that a few dozen Moroccans had entered the country on work visas and may be planning to blow up buses. Are we going to scream bloody murder when the FBI starts rounding up Moroccan bus drivers on work visas? I sure as hell wouldn't, but [that's just me].
Goes back to the whole question of an enormous, very open society. How do you: measure all the potentially legitimate threats, reign in the worst of them, not trample on the average citizens' rights in the process, and then and not get sledge-hammered by the media and sleezebag politicians who will jump on any bandwagon that gets them re-elected in the fall?
A TALL order by any measure, I think you'll agree.
[Edited for typos, grammar, etc.]
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
i mean we, or rather unocal, would prefer the puppet government we've already installed over taliban/shari'a cahootings... the russians don't care, hence the saudi participations in the novipipe consortium, they just want it done and done yesterday....
not much clearer... but getting there...
blowing away chaff from the forecastle of the SS Condi,
cuss
There's the "what is the root cause of us even being on Arab radar screens and what are we going to do to keep these rat bastards out of our hair from now on?" thread.
and the "well, we're floating down shit creek, but the waterfall is a ways off - what are we going to use for a paddle?" thread.
<strong>You said it I didn't. If you bother to look there are many examples of what I'm talking about. Well documented also. The most damning is of course Watergate. You seem to think that was a small thing...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't say that either. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!
<strong>i know spliffy... it's a cluster **** in here... you and i are talking motives and overarching motivations of oil grubbers and everybody else is talking about shutting down every airport in the nation on a hunch. i like our's better.
i mean we, or rather unocal, would prefer the puppet government we've already installed over taliban/shari'a cahootings... the russians don't care, hence the saudi participations in the novipipe consortium, they just want it done and done yesterday....
not much clearer... but getting there...
blowing away chaff from the forecastle of the SS Condi,
cuss</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanx, at least I now know what you meant. I agree with the part about us wanting a regime change in Afghanistan. BTW, Condi Rice's last government gig was as a Russian specialist.. If she was approaching this from a Russian perspective (not that I'm saying she is) well, she wouldn't care either.
<strong>Cuss: I think there are two distinct threads. </strong><hr></blockquote>
And I'm smack in the middle of both of them. Too much damn work.
Perhaps none that have obvious physical manifestations but I am sure there are thousands of federal and task force types who burn the midnight oil on a regular basis and who have done so since before September.</strong>
On an individual basis, I'm sure. But from a regulatory, organizational and structural standpoint. I don't think so. As long as the agencies view themselves as rival fiefdoms, as opposed friendly fiefdoms, there are going to be some big holes in the system.
For example, the media says one of the things GWB is doing is having CIA and FBI representives sit in during the presidential security briefings. That's not an improvement. There needs to be much more information sharing at a much lower level.
<strong>I can't be sure but it seems to me the government is trying to avoid the process of putting new measures in place all the time, and then constantly revising them to address every new threat they get.</strong>
It doesn't matter if there are new measures. They can get rid of all the measures and replace it with a few for all I care. The only ruler they should be using is whether the measures work or not. And for a lot of them, they do not and simply inconvenience the public.
The only airline measures that make any sense are reinforced cockpit and air marshalls. I'd like to see a change in the response to a hijacking itself from cooperation to no cooperation. Further down the line, a total cockpit redesign where the cockpit is inaccessible from the passenger cabin.
<strong>Remember, in this war our news media is the enemy / the torrorist's biggest ally. The more you share your plans, the more full of holes they will inevitably become.</strong>
No. I don't think so. The more you share your plans, the more holes you can plug. The media as envisioned by the Constitution protects the people from a corrupt government. It's a bad day when that becomes the opposite. Though I would agree that the profession has been compromised by the need to make money. There are at least some good ones left.
Also, there is nothing the media can do that alters the responsibilities of government officials. They still have the responsibility of gathering, analyzing and disseminating terrorism information no matter how much scrutiny they fall under.
<strong>Personally I think the media outght to be forced to observe some kind of [partial/context-sensitive] gag order that prevents them from discussing all the things the government is planning, how they could be circumvented, what's coming next, etc. [I wouldn't want it in place indefinitely], but for now it would be a good idea until the government can get its act together - at least in theory.</strong>
I'm for open government. Open and public Sept 11 investigation done by independents. 90% of the classified information in the government doesn't need to be classified. And they should discuss how things can be circumvented because that'll lead those things to be fixed.
<strong>Anyway, the point of the piece is that the FBI, CIA, NSA and other security organizations get dozens of potentially credible threats every single day. And field officers recommend that higher-ups look into those threats - every single day. And that the VAST majority of them, very possible scenarios though they may be, never pan out.</strong>
Yes, they have a difficult job. It's also their job. If they can stop a well funded group of people from committing a massive act terror, then they are broken. The Sept 11 terrorists weren't even that professional to begin with. It's a given that it'll be impossible to stop a loner from doing something, but when it involves money and more than 1 or 2 people, the amount of info available should be enough. And it was for the Sept 11 attacks.
<strong>Another point made was, if the government in August suddenly went around the country, rounding up Arab flight students, can you IMAGINE the PC bullcrap that would surely follow from the media, ACLU and others?</strong>
The gov't doesn't have to do anything illegal. They just need to break one link in a chain of events. That could have kept track of said flight students, increasing airline security, performing deeper background checks, etc. They don't have to arrest anyone without reason. They just need to do their job of investigating.
<strong>Goes back to the whole question of an enormous, very open society. How do you: measure all the potentially legitimate threats, reign in the worst of them, not trample on the average citizens' rights in the process, and then and not get sledge-hammered by the media and sleezebag politicians who will jump on any bandwagon that gets them re-elected in the fall?</strong>
The point of my argument is that you can have both ways. It requires the law enforcement and security agencies to be on the ball. The media is irrelevant to their jobs. Politicians are however a problem since they control the money and the policy. But isn't that up to us? They can be voted out.
<strong>... the russians don't care, hence the saudi participations in the novipipe consortium, they just want it done and done yesterday....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Returning to this matter again. I'm sure the Russians are anxious to get it done but they have concerns about radical Islam too. I'm not convinced that they don't feel some ambivalence about dealing with the Saudis. Perhaps they see this as a way to buy some peace? And from the Saudi end, sure this can be a profitable investment but again, what about the Saudi's market power? Whoever does this project, it still will erode the Saudi's position. Perhaps they see this as inevitable and are just trying to manage their risk?
I'm still a big skeptic. The trans-Afghan route may be cheaper but Turkey is far more politically stable. It's a cost-benefit thing. You may pay more but you get fewer headaches.
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>