Shetline's detailed post earlier reflects my feelings pretty well. I definitely wasn't "anti-Bush" in the months immediately following 9/11. I too had given him every benefit of the doubt and even went so far to compliment him on one or two things regarding their response.
My position today is largely a result of the evidence that has come forth in the meantime, which suggests Bush and his team knew a lot more than they let on prior to 9/11, and that there was absolutley no urgent reason to invade Iraq. And most importantly, that instead of being honest with us about something so tragic, they painted themselves the heroic defenders who had been caught unaware and are now fighting Al Qaeda's every move.
It's all bullshit quite clearly, although I am somewhat less worried about Bush getting re-elected after this week's events. Iraq is going to be his own undoing, not because insiders will admit they knew there was no imminent threat from Iraq, but because instead of a more stable Iraq with a new government, they will have more riots and anti-American uprisings, more terrorist bombings and more American soldiers killed each week. We've done nothing but create a power vacuum in the regoin least needing one.
Yes, we have succeeded in doing something there that no one has been able to do for many years: bring shiites and sunnis together against a common cause...killing Americans. Yes, I feel safer already.
By the way, now we know why Condi responed "you have had unprecedented access to such documents" when repeatedly being asked "will you support making the August 6 briefing public?" I would have dodged the question too, had known what she knew. Oh wait. No I wouldn't; I'd be honest when testifying to the American public, even if it meant my ass.
Quote:
From the NYT
President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday.
The warning came in a secret briefing that Mr. Bush received at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 6, 2001. A report by a joint Congressional committee last year alluded to a "closely held intelligence report" that month about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda, and the official confirmed an account by The Associated Press on Friday saying that the report was in fact part of the president's briefing in Crawford.
The disclosure appears to contradict the White House's repeated assertions that the briefing the president received about the Qaeda threat was "historical" in nature and that the White House had little reason to suspect a Qaeda attack within American borders.
Members of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks have [REPEATEDLY] * asked the White House to make the Aug. 6 briefing memorandum public. The A.P. account of it was attributed to "several people who have seen the memo." The White House has said that nothing in it pointed specifically to the kind of attacks that actually took place a month later.
I'm sure Bush supporters will try to blame this on Clinton. However most of this report seems to talk about things that happened after Clinton and the months leading up to 911.
I'm sure Bush supporters will try to blame this on Clinton. However most of this report seems to talk about things that happened after Clinton and the months leading up to 911.
Condi called it a 'historical' document, even though it discussed ongoing operations. Nice.
Remember all those people demand Clarke be brought up on unsubstantiated purgery charges? I wonder what y'all say about this:
What Condi told the comission about the memo:
Quote:
"There will be attacks in the near future. Troubling, yes. But they don't tell us when, they don't tell us where, they don't tell us who and they don't tell us how. .... There was nothing in this memo that suggested that an attack was coming to New York or Washington D.C. There was nothing in this memo as to time, place, how, where, this was not a threat report."
What the August 6 memo says:
Quote:
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Ladin supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.
I don't know, call me silly but when she said nothing in the memo stated the posibility of an attack on NY, or DC when in fact the memo did speculate about an attack on NY seems a little loose with the truth...
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
Note that this language suggests that they know that the hijackings are "attacks".
Shouldn't all involved have already known that the CIA was specifically targeted for an attack using an airplane? That was public knowledge already.
I contend that had they not meant to imply that hijackings were in fact "attacks" they would have phrased it this way:
(Fictitious quote)
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
"or other types" in the original clearly suggests that the hijackings themselves are/are part of attacks.
But this is inconsistent with their typical assessment of "mere" hijackings - that they claim to never have thought of hijackings as a form of attack, only that they were less severe kinds of situations. Almost mere annoyances.
In 1993 [note: the year of the "first" World Trade Center bombing. -JQ], a $150,000 study was commissioned by the Pentagon to investigate the possibility of an airplane being used to bomb national landmarks.
A draft document of this was circulated throughout the Pentagon, the Justice Department, and to FEMA. In 1994, a disgruntled FedEx employee invaded the cockpit of a DC10 with plans to crash it into a company building. Again, in 1994, a lone pilot crashed a small plane into a tree on the White House grounds. Again, in 1994, an Air France flight was hijacked by members of the Armed Islamic Group with the intent to crash the plane into the Eiffel Tower. In January, 1995, Philippine authorities investigating Abdul Murad, an Islamic terrorist, unearthed Project Bojinka (ph). Project Bojinka's (ph) primary objective was to blow up 11 airliners over the Pacific. In the alternative, several planes were to be hijacked and flown into civilian targets in the United States. Among the targets mentioned were CIA headquarters, the World Trade Center, the Sears Tower, and the White House.
(...)
It stated, quote, "Suicide bombers belonging to al Qaeda's martyrdom battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House." Again, that was in September, 1999. This laundry list of historical indicators, in no way exhaustive, illustrates that long before September 11th, the American intelligence community had a significant amount of information about specific terrorist threats to commercial airline travel in America, including the possibility that a plane would be used as a weapon.
A report from the Philippines to the United States on January 20, 1995 stated, "What the subject has in his mind is that he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then he will hijack [the] said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters
I guess I don't understand Rice's claims of naiveté on the part of the administration or the Government in general. (Not playing the blame game but not wanting to let this aspect go unexplained).
At that point in time, with an admittedly known spike in chatter regarding hijackings, how could they take a chance and ignore the possibility that hijackings were precursors to slamming the planes into targets. It was already a known desired goal/tactic. WTC was a known (and previously attacked) target.
I know it's easy to second guess, but how on earth would any of use deal with a threat spike? Would any of us be satisfied to have just a few fighters at Otis AFB in Massachusetts? Wouldn't we all at least have one single fighter at NYC and Washington airports? Or even a few AA emplacements (even mobile ones) nearby?
Remember all those people demand Clarke be brought up on unsubstantiated purgery charges? I wonder what y'all say about this:
What Condi told the comission about the memo:
What the August 6 memo says:
I don't know, call me silly but when she said nothing in the memo stated the posibility of an attack on NY, or DC when in fact the memo did speculate about an attack on NY seems a little loose with the truth...
[Sarcasm] Well Faust, I tend to agree with Rice and the Bushies on this one. The historical memo lacked the exact date of the hijackings, the names of the airlines, the flight numbers, the purpose of the hijackings, and the names of the hijackers. Duh![/Sarcasm]
[Sarcasm] Well Faust, I tend to agree with Rice and the Bushies on this one. The historical memo lacked the exact date of the hijackings, the names of the airlines, the flight numbers, the purpose of the hijackings, and the names of the hijackers. Duh![/Sarcasm]
You know I find it kind of ironic now. Right after 911 I raised the possibility of " Did Bush look the other way? " on this forum.
I was passed off by almost everybody as a conspiracy nut.
However I didn't say Bush planned it. I just found it odd that someone could run an airliner into the military headquarters for America without being detected miles away and taken out.
Also I pointed out that Bush's agenda seem to benifit from this situation.
I guess the angst of the situation made it too difficult to contemplate.
It gets better... this appears to be new info from Gary Hart, from the CNN article above..
Quote:
Former Democratic Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado, who was co-chairman of an earlier bipartisan commission that studied national security, said Sunday that he met with Rice five days before the September 11 attacks because he was concerned that the Bush administration was not moving on his panel's call for action against al Qaeda.
The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, created by Clinton in 1998 with congressional approval, released its final report in January 2001 and predicted "Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers."
"What this administration has done ... is to say that until someone tells us that 19 men are going to hijack four airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon at 9 a.m. on September 11, we are not accountable," Hart said on CNN's "In the Money."
However I didn't say Bush planned it. I just found it odd that someone could run an airliner into the military headquarters for America without being detected miles away and taken out.
Also I pointed out that Bush's agenda seem to benifit from this situation.
I guess the angst of the situation made it too difficult to contemplate.
The Pentagon has always been in the flight path of National Airport. So it's not unusual for planes fly by it every 10 minutes. So you're still a conspiracy nut. You're anti-Bush hatred clouds your mind.
The Pentagon has always been in the flight path of National Airport. So it's not unusual for planes fly by it every 10 minutes. So you're still a conspiracy nut. You're anti-Bush hatred clouds your mind.
Please Scott in light of the things coming out now that's pretty vacuous.
By the way how long did they know there was something wrong with this flight?
I wouldn't have anything against Bush if I didn't have good reason.
You're trying to claim that The White House had fore knowledge of 9-11 and "looked the other way" because it served its interest. You're a kook. Put your tinfoil hat on before posting here.
You're trying to claim that The White House had fore knowledge of 9-11 and "looked the other way" because it served its interest. You're a kook. Put your tinfoil hat on before posting here.
Save the rightous indignation for someone else.
What I said is what other's have suggested which is that Bush seems to have ignored the intel for whatever reason. That includes incompetence.
Nice try. You insinuated that the Pentagon attack was allowed to happen because it should have been caught.
In your estimation this could only happen via intervention by Bush because ....
Don't try to get off with the Deanesque "Other people are saying that but not me".
Give it a rest and put some ice water under that collar. I'm not the only one thinking this whole thing was perculiar. I'm not drawing any definite conclusions. I'm just asking how could this have happened? The fact that the intel was pretty specific about this scenerio causes more than myself to raise an eyebrow.
Comments
My position today is largely a result of the evidence that has come forth in the meantime, which suggests Bush and his team knew a lot more than they let on prior to 9/11, and that there was absolutley no urgent reason to invade Iraq. And most importantly, that instead of being honest with us about something so tragic, they painted themselves the heroic defenders who had been caught unaware and are now fighting Al Qaeda's every move.
It's all bullshit quite clearly, although I am somewhat less worried about Bush getting re-elected after this week's events. Iraq is going to be his own undoing, not because insiders will admit they knew there was no imminent threat from Iraq, but because instead of a more stable Iraq with a new government, they will have more riots and anti-American uprisings, more terrorist bombings and more American soldiers killed each week. We've done nothing but create a power vacuum in the regoin least needing one.
Yes, we have succeeded in doing something there that no one has been able to do for many years: bring shiites and sunnis together against a common cause...killing Americans. Yes, I feel safer already.
By the way, now we know why Condi responed "you have had unprecedented access to such documents" when repeatedly being asked "will you support making the August 6 briefing public?" I would have dodged the question too, had known what she knew. Oh wait. No I wouldn't; I'd be honest when testifying to the American public, even if it meant my ass.
From the NYT
President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday.
The warning came in a secret briefing that Mr. Bush received at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 6, 2001. A report by a joint Congressional committee last year alluded to a "closely held intelligence report" that month about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda, and the official confirmed an account by The Associated Press on Friday saying that the report was in fact part of the president's briefing in Crawford.
The disclosure appears to contradict the White House's repeated assertions that the briefing the president received about the Qaeda threat was "historical" in nature and that the White House had little reason to suspect a Qaeda attack within American borders.
Members of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks have [REPEATEDLY] * asked the White House to make the Aug. 6 briefing memorandum public. The A.P. account of it was attributed to "several people who have seen the memo." The White House has said that nothing in it pointed specifically to the kind of attacks that actually took place a month later.
* insertion mine.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...nation-big-pix
Which party is lying?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ing/index.html
I'm sure Bush supporters will try to blame this on Clinton. However most of this report seems to talk about things that happened after Clinton and the months leading up to 911.
Originally posted by jimmac
Oh, oh!
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ing/index.html
I'm sure Bush supporters will try to blame this on Clinton. However most of this report seems to talk about things that happened after Clinton and the months leading up to 911.
Condi called it a 'historical' document, even though it discussed ongoing operations. Nice.
What Condi told the comission about the memo:
"There will be attacks in the near future. Troubling, yes. But they don't tell us when, they don't tell us where, they don't tell us who and they don't tell us how. .... There was nothing in this memo that suggested that an attack was coming to New York or Washington D.C. There was nothing in this memo as to time, place, how, where, this was not a threat report."
What the August 6 memo says:
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Ladin supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.
I don't know, call me silly but when she said nothing in the memo stated the posibility of an attack on NY, or DC when in fact the memo did speculate about an attack on NY seems a little loose with the truth...
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
Note that this language suggests that they know that the hijackings are "attacks".
Shouldn't all involved have already known that the CIA was specifically targeted for an attack using an airplane? That was public knowledge already.
I contend that had they not meant to imply that hijackings were in fact "attacks" they would have phrased it this way:
(Fictitious quote)
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
"or other types" in the original clearly suggests that the hijackings themselves are/are part of attacks.
But this is inconsistent with their typical assessment of "mere" hijackings - that they claim to never have thought of hijackings as a form of attack, only that they were less severe kinds of situations. Almost mere annoyances.
Yet:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/18/se.02.html
In 1993 [note: the year of the "first" World Trade Center bombing. -JQ], a $150,000 study was commissioned by the Pentagon to investigate the possibility of an airplane being used to bomb national landmarks.
A draft document of this was circulated throughout the Pentagon, the Justice Department, and to FEMA. In 1994, a disgruntled FedEx employee invaded the cockpit of a DC10 with plans to crash it into a company building. Again, in 1994, a lone pilot crashed a small plane into a tree on the White House grounds. Again, in 1994, an Air France flight was hijacked by members of the Armed Islamic Group with the intent to crash the plane into the Eiffel Tower. In January, 1995, Philippine authorities investigating Abdul Murad, an Islamic terrorist, unearthed Project Bojinka (ph). Project Bojinka's (ph) primary objective was to blow up 11 airliners over the Pacific. In the alternative, several planes were to be hijacked and flown into civilian targets in the United States. Among the targets mentioned were CIA headquarters, the World Trade Center, the Sears Tower, and the White House.
(...)
It stated, quote, "Suicide bombers belonging to al Qaeda's martyrdom battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House." Again, that was in September, 1999. This laundry list of historical indicators, in no way exhaustive, illustrates that long before September 11th, the American intelligence community had a significant amount of information about specific terrorist threats to commercial airline travel in America, including the possibility that a plane would be used as a weapon.
"Project Bojinka"
A report from the Philippines to the United States on January 20, 1995 stated, "What the subject has in his mind is that he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then he will hijack [the] said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters
I guess I don't understand Rice's claims of naiveté on the part of the administration or the Government in general. (Not playing the blame game but not wanting to let this aspect go unexplained).
At that point in time, with an admittedly known spike in chatter regarding hijackings, how could they take a chance and ignore the possibility that hijackings were precursors to slamming the planes into targets. It was already a known desired goal/tactic. WTC was a known (and previously attacked) target.
I know it's easy to second guess, but how on earth would any of use deal with a threat spike? Would any of us be satisfied to have just a few fighters at Otis AFB in Massachusetts? Wouldn't we all at least have one single fighter at NYC and Washington airports? Or even a few AA emplacements (even mobile ones) nearby?
Oh well. Better luck next time.
Originally posted by Dale Sorel
Declassified PDB: http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf
Dale, are you replying to me? I can't tell. Too vague.
(I did read the PDF btw. If that's not what you meant, no offense)
Originally posted by faust9
Remember all those people demand Clarke be brought up on unsubstantiated purgery charges? I wonder what y'all say about this:
What Condi told the comission about the memo:
What the August 6 memo says:
I don't know, call me silly but when she said nothing in the memo stated the posibility of an attack on NY, or DC when in fact the memo did speculate about an attack on NY seems a little loose with the truth...
[Sarcasm] Well Faust, I tend to agree with Rice and the Bushies on this one. The historical memo lacked the exact date of the hijackings, the names of the airlines, the flight numbers, the purpose of the hijackings, and the names of the hijackers. Duh![/Sarcasm]
Originally posted by Gilsch
[Sarcasm] Well Faust, I tend to agree with Rice and the Bushies on this one. The historical memo lacked the exact date of the hijackings, the names of the airlines, the flight numbers, the purpose of the hijackings, and the names of the hijackers. Duh![/Sarcasm]
LMFAO!!!
How could I be SOOOOOOOOO stupid?
You know I find it kind of ironic now. Right after 911 I raised the possibility of " Did Bush look the other way? " on this forum.
I was passed off by almost everybody as a conspiracy nut.
However I didn't say Bush planned it. I just found it odd that someone could run an airliner into the military headquarters for America without being detected miles away and taken out.
Also I pointed out that Bush's agenda seem to benifit from this situation.
I guess the angst of the situation made it too difficult to contemplate.
Originally posted by jimmac
[B]http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ion/index.html
It gets better... this appears to be new info from Gary Hart, from the CNN article above..
Former Democratic Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado, who was co-chairman of an earlier bipartisan commission that studied national security, said Sunday that he met with Rice five days before the September 11 attacks because he was concerned that the Bush administration was not moving on his panel's call for action against al Qaeda.
The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, created by Clinton in 1998 with congressional approval, released its final report in January 2001 and predicted "Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers."
"What this administration has done ... is to say that until someone tells us that 19 men are going to hijack four airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon at 9 a.m. on September 11, we are not accountable," Hart said on CNN's "In the Money."
Originally posted by jimmac
...
However I didn't say Bush planned it. I just found it odd that someone could run an airliner into the military headquarters for America without being detected miles away and taken out.
Also I pointed out that Bush's agenda seem to benifit from this situation.
I guess the angst of the situation made it too difficult to contemplate.
The Pentagon has always been in the flight path of National Airport. So it's not unusual for planes fly by it every 10 minutes. So you're still a conspiracy nut. You're anti-Bush hatred clouds your mind.
Originally posted by Scott
The Pentagon has always been in the flight path of National Airport. So it's not unusual for planes fly by it every 10 minutes. So you're still a conspiracy nut. You're anti-Bush hatred clouds your mind.
Please Scott in light of the things coming out now that's pretty vacuous.
By the way how long did they know there was something wrong with this flight?
I wouldn't have anything against Bush if I didn't have good reason.
Originally posted by Scott
You're trying to claim that The White House had fore knowledge of 9-11 and "looked the other way" because it served its interest. You're a kook. Put your tinfoil hat on before posting here.
Save the rightous indignation for someone else.
What I said is what other's have suggested which is that Bush seems to have ignored the intel for whatever reason. That includes incompetence.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/0....ap/index.html
Originally posted by jimmac
Save the rightous indignation for someone else.
What I said is what other's have suggested which is that Bush seems to have ignored the intel for whatever reason. That includes incompetence.
Nice try. You insinuated that the Pentagon attack was allowed to happen because it should have been caught.
Originally posted by jimmac
I just found it odd that someone could run an airliner into the military headquarters for America without being detected miles away and taken out.
In your estimation this could only happen via intervention by Bush because ....
Originally posted by jimmac
Also I pointed out that Bush's agenda seem to benifit from this situation.
Don't try to get off with the Deanesque "Other people are saying that but not me".
Originally posted by Scott
Nice try. You insinuated that the Pentagon attack was allowed to happen because it should have been caught.
In your estimation this could only happen via intervention by Bush because ....
Don't try to get off with the Deanesque "Other people are saying that but not me".
Give it a rest and put some ice water under that collar. I'm not the only one thinking this whole thing was perculiar. I'm not drawing any definite conclusions. I'm just asking how could this have happened? The fact that the intel was pretty specific about this scenerio causes more than myself to raise an eyebrow.