0
   

What could Bush have done to prevent 9/11 ?

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 02:13 pm
The problem here is much like the one in Iraq. The fundamentalists get all the air time because the moderates refuse to speak up and put them down. That only leaves the other side with a negative view of ALL the opponents.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 02:15 pm
Just a little article for all you 'He should have done somethings' out there

In a parallel universe called 'what if.'[/u]
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004

NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's highest office came as little surprise following almost four years of remonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre attack on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.

Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it now seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that Saudi Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an attack on the United States.

Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10 bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and, in all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King Live," said the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal likely would bring charges of genocide against Bush.

Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of 19 foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and seizure.

Kerry's campaign mantra - "You go to war because you have to, not because you want to" - clearly resonated with Americans as they tried to make sense of Bush's Sept. 10 attack on Afghanistan. Neither the president, nor national security adviser Condoleezza Rice convincingly defended their actions during the recent "9-10 Commission" hearings, which Congress ordered in response to public outcry.

The commission's purpose was to try to determine what compelled the president to launch a war against Afghanistan. What kind of intelligence suggested that such an act was justified?

The main target of the attack was bin Laden, friend to Afghanistan's brutal Taliban regime, as well as al-Qaida training camps in that war-ravaged nation. Al-Qaida, an international terrorist network, has been blamed for numerous attacks on U.S. interests, including the USS Cole bombing, which killed 17 sailors.

Even though Bush's military campaign was successful in ending the oppressive Taliban regime, bin Laden apparently escaped and al-Qaida continues to flourish.

Some intelligence sources speculate that bin Laden's operatives may be trying to secure weapons of mass destruction from Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Even though Saddam continues to send money to the families of Palestinian terrorists and is believed to have programs for developing WMD, Kerry says he is committed to containing Saddam through continued sanctions and the U.N. oil-for-food program.

In any case, experts say that intelligence about Saddam's WMD program is just as speculative as was the intelligence that prompted Bush to attack Afghanistan. The man credited with sounding the alarm on bin Laden and al-Qaida was Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism expert who has served four presidents, including Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton.

In a Jan. 25 memo to Rice, for instance, Clarke urged immediate attention to several items of national security interest: the Northern Alliance, covert aid, a significant new '02 budget authority to help fight al-Qaida and a response to the USS Cole.

At Rice's and Clarke's urging, Bush called a meeting of principals and, after "connecting the dots," decided to wage war against Afghanistan. What did the dots say? Not much, in retrospect. Apparently, the president decided to bomb a benign country on the basis of "chatter" that hinted at "something big."

With no other details on the "big," and weaving together random bits of information from a variety of questionable sources, Bush and company decided that 19 fundamentalist Muslim fanatics would fly airplanes into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon on 9-11.

Under questioning by the "9-10 Commission," Clarke denied that his memo was anything more than a historical overview with a "set of ideas and a paper, mostly." The bipartisan commission concluded, therefore, that Bush's "dot-connecting" had destroyed American credibility and subjected the United States to increasing hostility in the Arab-Muslim world.

Last week, Saddam Hussein and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat joined French and German leaders in condemning Bush and urging the American voters to cast their ballots for regime change in America. President Kerry was the clear response to that call.

In a flourish of irony and the spirit of bon vivant for which the new president is widely known, Kerry gave his acceptance speech from Windows on the World, the elegant restaurant atop the World Trade Center's Tower One.

Link
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 02:22 pm
It's a bit more than that McG.

In one thread Foxfyre posted apocryphal urban legends and they were debunked. so she claimed Snopes "never" sources their information. This, of course, is false. Snopes always sources their texts and I provided the source.

Foxfyre then tried to use the ambiguity of the media, asking if she could post other articles to counter Snopes. I welcomed her to do so at which point she just dropped it.

Next she started claiming that I call the US military "muderers". I had not made this claim, pistoff did.

So she apologized and then repeated it, now it wasn't that I called them murderers in that thread but she claims that I "continuously" call them murderers.

I told her that this was a lie. As I have not done so and she'd not be able to find this.

So what does she do? She tells me to "rant on" and then leaves.

See, when she gets caught in a falsehood or when outmatched in the dicussion she beggs off using incivility and partisanship as the excuse.


  • In that thread she posted a falsehood.
  • It was debunked.
  • She claimed she never posted it.
  • I posted a quote of her posting it.
  • She claimed that snopes "never" sources their info.
  • I showed her said source and told her that snopes always sources.
  • She said the sourced references were just media and that she could use media.
  • I invited her to do so. And told her I'd debunk them when she brought them.
  • She gave up that line and decided to make up stories about me. She attributed the "murder" quote of pistoff to me.
  • I told her it wasn't me and showed her pistoff's quote.
  • She apologized and then repeated and increased the lie, saying that I now "continuously" call the US military "murderers".
  • I told her that this was a lie and told her she would not find one instance of this, much less "continual" instances.
  • So she tells me to "rant on" and leaves.



It's a pattern, when debunked flee under the pretext of partisan incivility being off-putting. It's transparent because she doesn't bother to react to being debunked factually and glosses over any sound intellectual arguments.

I don't think this is a case of them being drowned out, it's just another debate ploy to avoid having to back up her positions.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 02:29 pm
Craven,

I called somebody a 12-year-old? I don't remember that. I remember asking somebody to tell me he was. Smile

It does get a little wearying being stalked and continually insulted, but I'll take your counsel to heart and try harder to ignore the childish insults and focus more on the issues.

I've said before and I'll say again though, that those who can debate intelligently without making insulting remarks about the opposing view and/or the other person are pretty darn rare. Can we agree at least on that?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 02:33 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Craven,

I called somebody a 12-year-old? I don't remember that. I remember asking somebody to tell me he was. Smile


I never said you called anyone that. I said you implied it. When you say "Please tell me you are a 12 year old" you are implying the level of maturity you find their intellect to be. That was just an ad hominem (though mild).

Quote:
It does get a little wearying being stalked and continually insulted, but I'll take your counsel to heart and try harder to ignore the childish insults and focus more on the issues.


I think you handle it well, but I wish you'd not ignore the sound posts with the excuse of the unsound ones.

Quote:
I've said before and I'll say again though, that those who can debate intelligently without making insulting remarks about the opposing view and/or the other person are pretty darn rare. Can we agree at least on that?


"Rare" and "insult" are subjective and we'll differ on at least one. I suspect you felt "insulted" when I demonstrated that nearly every single thing you'd said to me was a falsehood in the thread I reference above.

So what do you do? You made claims about me, and when they are shown to be false you walked off, not bothering to retract your falsehood.

My point isn't about the comparitive rarity of such arguments, my point is that you don't seem to seek them at all. When confronted with them you run, and use their alleged scarcity as an excuse.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 02:47 pm
Well Craven, given your opinion of my shortcomings and dismal opinion of my debate style, I will apologize now if I have said anything untrue about you. And otherwise, we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 02:53 pm
It doesn't sound it right now but I have few qualms with your style Foxfyre and I do appreciate your participation here quite often.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 03:28 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Sofia wrote:
Thinking of Craven's previous comment, I must say it is nearly impossible to get a Bush Basher to cop to the logistical fact--

--that if you hate the Patriot Act--you would have hated any security measures posed by Bush pre-911 multiplied by a million.

They saw the towers fall--and still decry the PA. Yet, they accuse Bush of not doing enough...

The way I see it-- you can't have it both ways, legitimately.

This illegitimate complaining is (or seems to be) Foxfyre's focus. And I agree.


Sofia,

I'm no fan of Bush. But I don't think he can be held responsible for preventing 9/11. You won't find me in that chorus (though I admit that for the other reasons I dislike his presidency I do hope that the chorus erodes some of his political capital).

And there have been plenty of liberals here who have the same position. Many of us aren't into the pin 9/11 on Bush game.


Craven--I always give you the benefit of the doubt for approaching political issues with your mind more open than most. My mention of you in the above quote was only that your post brought something to mind. For clarification, the content was not intended to refer to, or address you. I have gotten sloppy with my speech. Apology for the inconvenience.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 03:31 pm
Being the arrogant soul that I am I didn't think you were talkin' about me. Well that and that I've not bashed Bush once here that I remember and I don't care much about the Patriot Act.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 04:15 pm
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 04:29 pm
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 04:38 pm
I think the war in Iraq and the 9/11 situation have been totally successful in keeping everyones eye off the fact that within our borders we are in the shitter.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 04:40 pm
I do not mean this as finger pointing or an indictment of the Clinton administration's handling of the Cole bombing at all. It is illustrative, however, of the problems of taking preventative measures against an attack when you don't know where or when or specifically how it will happen.


The USS Cole was attacked on October 12, 2000 despite that:

Quote:
On September 22nd, Osama bin Laden and members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad went on Qatar TV -- it was probably a tape, not a live shot -- but there was a tape played of Osama bin Laden and Egyptian Islamic Jihad officials making pretty specific threats against American forces, and specifically threatening attacks on ships. Now, there are some within the administration who said they were unaware of these bin Laden threats. Did the Pentagon, did CENTCOM, did the U.S. Navy, did the Cole, get any kind of threat assessment or warning as to the threats being made Osama bin Laden and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad?


This is a fascinating chronology of events related to the Cole, the investigations and activities in the wake of that. The link:

http://thomasgalvin.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_thomasgalvin_archive.html
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 05:40 pm
Facts
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Eric A. Smith
Hot Damn! Design
81-03-3959-5371
[email protected]

9-11 Widow Files rico Lawsuit

public signatures sought to support Investigation

PHILADELPHIA, Jan 6 -- Ellen Mariani, whose husband died in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks when UAL 175 was flown into the World Trade Center, has filed suit in a US District Court alleging Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and other co-defendents had sufficient warning to stop the terrorist attacks but failed to either warn or protect the public.

According to a recent CBS News, the Republican 9-11 Commission Chairman agrees:

9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable

(CBS News -- December 18, 2003) For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11

attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston....

Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml

Mariani's suit also charges the Bush Administration with burying evidence of its failure and refusing to release vital information.

Philadelphia Attorney Philip J. Berg, who filed the suit on Mariani's behalf, says the Administration must be held accountable. Berg launched the suit on November 26, and has since put up a website explaining the details of Mariani vs Bush, et al. The Bush Administration is currently trying to have the charges dismissed in court.


Public support is critical, says Berg, who has posted an online petition. "We need at least a million signatures for them to take it seriously." He added that mounting a class action is also being considered. Concerned citizens are urged to read and sign the petition here:

http://www.911forthetruth.com

Notice: You are asked and encouraged to freely distribute, publish and/or otherwise disseminate this release as widely as possible.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 07:04 pm
Um Pistoff, I checked out some of the 'sources' from the two links posted. They all are dated well before the Condoleeza Rice testimony. I'm not positive but I think you're dealing with an urban legend here.

It is true there are a small number of families questioning the administrations role in 9/11. And I think if we do a really close look, they mostly or all are associated with a group funded by Mrs. John Kerry's foundation.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 01:03 pm
Re: More Warnings
Wow.

OK, even in light of all the below I can still easily see the point that American officials could really have had little clue about which planes would be hijacked by whom on what date ... and thus most probably couldn't have prevented it from happening.

... but it should at least put an end to the string of posts claiming that the only threat Bush can possibly have been expected to prepare for was one abroad, "since thats all we had warnings about" ... seen that argument crop up quite a bit here, after Rice's testimony ...

pistoff wrote:
The Taliban warned:
"Weeks before the terrorist attacks on 11 September, the United States and the United Nations ignored warnings from a secret Taliban emissary that Osama bin Laden was planning a huge attack on American soil."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=331115

The Germans warned:
"According to an article in one of the major daily newspapers in Germany, published just after the destruction of the World Trade Center, the German intelligence service BND told both US and Israeli intelligence agencies in June that Middle East terrorists were 'planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture.'

"The newspaper cited unnamed German intelligence sources, who said that the information came through Echelon, the US-controlled system of 120 satellites which monitors all worldwide electronic communications. Echelon is operated jointly by the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand, although its existence is not officially admitted."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/sept-j16.shtml

The Egyptians warned:
"Egyptian intelligence warned American officials about a week before Sept. 11 that Osama bin Laden's network was in the advance stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, President Hosni Mubarak said in an interview on Sunday."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/04/national/04WARN.html

The Russians warned:
According to Russian press reports, Russian intelligence notified the CIA during the summer that 25 terrorist pilots had been specifically training for suicide missions. In an interview September 15 with MSNBC, Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed that he had ordered Russian intelligence in August to warn the US government "in the strongest possible terms" of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/sept-j16.shtml

The French warned:
"A key point in unraveling why the FBI failed to follow up leads on Al Qaeda terrorism now centers on the Bureau's contemptuously brushing aside warnings from French intelligence a few days before 9-11."
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0222/ridgeway2.php

The British warned:
"Britain gave President Bush a categorical warning to expect multiple airline hijackings by the al-Qaeda network a month before the September 11 attacks which killed nearly 3000 people and triggered the international war against terrorism."
http://www.sundayherald.com/24822

The Israelis warned:
The London Telegraph: "Israeli intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent."
http://tinyurl.com/28rrh

The Moroccans warned:
"A Moroccan secret agent, Hassan Dabou, had penetrated al Qaeda for two years, breaking cover the summer of 2001 to warn of 'spectacular' attacks in New York in the summer or autumn of 2001. Secret service chiefs are said to have taken seriously the tip from one of its veteran informants and immediately passed on the details to Washington."
Times of London, June 12, 2002

Arab intelligence agencies warned:
"When the hubbub about what the White House did or didn't know before Sept. 11 dies down, Congressional or other investigators should consider the specific warnings that friendly Arab intelligence services sent to Washington in the summer of 2001."
http://www.iht.com/articles/58269.html

Finally, The 800 pager:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2022 at 03:43:16