Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF fails to protect his people, Congressional hearings on the way

RyanH

New member
Ladies and Gentlemen--

Congressional hearings are finally on the way, and the Bush Administration critics were correct afterall---the President did know about the attacks prior to September 11.

In short, the Commander in Chief failed to protect his people and will be accountable to the electorate as well as Congress for his colossal failure. Also, isn't an apology in order from the distinguished Congresswoman from Georgia---Cynthia McKinney--the Congresswoman scorned just months ago for bringing the truth into the light? Moreover, for those of you who claim President Clinton failed to protect the American people--you ain't seen nothing yet as the current President's failure to act unfolds..

This quote sums it all up:
“How in the world could somebody have read this document and not had lights, firecrackers, rockets go off in their head that this is something that is really important?”
Sen. Bob Graham

and now the following from CBS news:

(CBS) Members of Congress are raising questions as to whether the Bush administration should have reacted better to warnings in August that Osama bin Laden's followers might hijack a jet.

The White House revealed Wednesday night that President Bush was briefed on U.S. intelligence in August, while at his Crawford, Texas, ranch, that bin Laden's network might hijack U.S. passenger planes.

CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin first disclosed the fact that the White House had received the bin Laden warning.

On Thursday, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said all possible action was taken given what was known.

"All appropriate action was taken based on the threat information that we had," Fleischer said. “The president did not - not - receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers. This was a new type of attack that was not foreseen.”

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, said the disclosures in the memos marked an important discovery in Congress' investigation into why the FBI, CIA and other U.S. agencies failed to learn of and prevent the Sept. 11 plot.

“How in the world could somebody have read this document and not had lights, firecrackers, rockets go off in their head that this is something that is really important?” Graham said of the Phoenix FBI memo.

House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., said Congress needs to find out - in hearings open to the public - what Bush and other officials knew, when they knew it and what they did with the information, in order to prevent future terrorist attacks.

"The way to do better is to understand what happened in the past," Gephardt said. "Was there a failure of intelligence? Did the right officials not act on the intelligence in the proper way? These are things we need to find out."

After the information was presented to Mr. Bush, the administration put domestic agencies on alert in the summer, just months before the Sept. 11 attacks, Fleischer said. That alert was not announced publicly but Fleischer said it may have prompted the hijackers to change their tactics.

Members of Congress pointed to three pre-Sept. 11 warning signs: the U.S. intelligence Bush received, the fact that an FBI agent had written a memo urging FBI headquarters to investigate Middle Eastern men enrolled in American flight schools, and the arrest in Minnesota of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was believed to be training for a suicide hijacking.

Moussaoui has emerged as the lone defendant charged in the aftermath of the attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. He is charged with conspiring with bin Laden and the 19 suicide hijackers to attack Americans.

FBI Director Robert Mueller repeatedly has said he wished the FBI had acted more aggressively in addressing the Arizona and Minnesota leads but said nothing the FBI possessed before Sept. 11 pointed to the multiple-airliner hijacking plot.

The disclosure came amid questions about whether U.S. authorities failed to recognize and respond to warnings about possible terrorist attacks before the hijackings of the four passenger planes on Sept. 11.

“We've got terrorists connected to al Qaeda out in Arizona engaging in flight training, we've got Moussaoui arrested and being interrogated in Minnesota, we've got the president being briefed while he was on vacation in Texas about the possibility of these airplanes being hijacked. I mean, was anything done about any of those things?” said Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.

Edwards called on the administration to help Congress investigate what happened, saying there has been some tension from the White House over starting a probe.

Mr. Bush made no immediate comment on the situation. He attended a National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast in Washington and said prayer has helped Americans of faith to get through the last eight months.

“The last eight months have showed the world the American character is incredibly strong and confident. Yet, prayer reminds us that a great people must be humble before God, searching for wisdom - constantly searching for wisdom from the Almighty,” he said.
 
Ryan, the senate intelligence committee had **THE SAME** information as bush did, maybe not at the same time, but they still had **THE SAME** information. The information provided only stated that there was a possibility of hijacking commercial airliners (like what had happened in the past) and that was it. there was no time frame given of when it might happen, nor was it ever indicated that they would be used for missiles. the information given was basically like this:

RyanH, you are going to die. when? i dont know. how? who knows? will it be tommorow? or 50 years from now? all i know, is that you are going to die. (and no, i am not threatning you in anyway, just making an example here)

that is the type of information that was given. there were no specifics and bush did do what was right. he put law enforcement on quiet alert. if the president was to go on tv and give the american people warnings every time there might be a threat against america, there would be *HUGE* public panic. he did his job. and if the senate intelligence committe knew about this for so long, where have they been with this information for the past 8 months? if you want to point fingers and blame bush for a bunch of non-specific threats which america recieves on a daily basis, i can do the same with clinton. none of this would have been a problem if he took the government of Sudan up on their offer to deliver osama bin laden to the united states government, but declined because he didnt want to trouble himself.
 
RyanH said:
"All appropriate action was taken based on the threat information that we had," Fleischer said. “The president did not - not - receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers. This was a new type of attack that was not foreseen.”

Please read your own article before posting foolishness. Also, please post links to your criticism of former President Clinton for the eleven or twelve times he failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

-Warik
 
RyanH said:
Members of Congress pointed to three pre-Sept. 11 warning signs: the U.S. intelligence Bush received, the fact that an FBI agent had written a memo urging FBI headquarters to investigate Middle Eastern men enrolled in American flight schools, and the arrest in Minnesota of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was believed to be training for a suicide hijacking.

**NONE** of the people listed on the FBI memo pertaining to middle eastern men at flight schools had *ANY* involvement to osama or the 19 hijackers at all! and the only reason they caught moussaoui was because of a memo from the flight school officials. they said he was suspicious cause the man had no pilot license and was enquiring about NYC flight patterns and demanded to learn how to fly a jet in a couple of week
 
p0ink said:
Ryan, the senate intelligence committee had **THE SAME** information as bush did, maybe not at the same time, but they still had **THE SAME** information. The information provided only stated that there was a possibility of hijacking commercial airliners (like what had happened in the past) and that was it. there was no time frame given of when it might happen, nor was it ever indicated that they would be used for missiles. the information given was basically like this:

RyanH, you are going to die. when? i dont know. how? who knows? will it be tommorow? or 50 years from now? all i know, is that you are going to die. (and no, i am not threatning you in anyway, just making an example here)

that is the type of information that was given. there were no specifics and bush did do what was right. he put law enforcement on quiet alert. if the president was to go on tv and give the american people warnings every time there might be a threat against america, there would be *HUGE* public panic. he did his job. and if the senate intelligence committe knew about this for so long, where have they been with this information for the past 8 months? if you want to point fingers and blame bush for a bunch of non-specific threats which america recieves on a daily basis, i can do the same with clinton. none of this would have been a problem if he took the government of Sudan up on their offer to deliver osama bin laden to the united states government, but declined because he didnt want to trouble himself.

Haven't you ever heard....."The Buck Stops Here."

The President is called the Commander in chief for a reason....the President was not only warned that the attacks would be from Mr. Bin Laden, the President was also warned that the threat would come from an airplane hijacking.

Didn't you condemn President Clinton "for not doing enough prior to 9-11?"
 
let me put this in bold to make sure you dont miss it.

WHY DIDNT THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTE GIVE THIS INFORMATION THEY HAD, FOR 8 MONTHS, TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?!

what about possible future attacks? shouldnt they have warned the american public like they are criticizing bush for not doing?!
 
RyanH said:
the President did know about the attacks prior to September 11.

No he didn't. That would mean he would have to be psychic. There were many threats made by the terrorist organizations. The article states precautions were taken.

RyanH said:
In short, the Commander in Chief failed to protect his people

Yes, you're right...Commander in Chief CLINTON had knowledge of the EXACT location of Bin Laden following the Embassy attacks. He did NOTHING. This all could have been prevented by Clinton.

Too bad for you and your usual debate tactics that the worst terrorist attack on American Soil DID NOT involve a single firearm.
 
RyanH said:


Haven't you ever heard....."The Buck Stops Here."

The President is called the Commander in chief for a reason....the President was not only warned that the attacks would be from Mr. Bin Laden, the President was also warned that the threat would come from an airplane hijacking.

Didn't you condemn President Clinton "for not doing enough prior to 9-11?"

do you really think the president should come on tv and announce every possible threat to america? do you really think that will be in our best interest? it would bring american society to a screeching halt.

and yes, none of this would have happened if clinton fucking did his job and took up the offer from the people of sudan.
 
if he knew, why would he have people like rumsfeld in the pentagon offices and the rest of his staff in the whitehouse? do you think he would risk losing his entire staff?
 
Re: Re: COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF fails to protect his people, Congressional hearings on the way

Warik said:


Please read your own article before posting foolishness. Also, please post links to your criticism of former President Clinton for the eleven or twelve times he failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

-Warik

you're only reiterating the spin from the White House. The facts show that President Bush did have credible information that there would be terrorists attacks. What did he do with these warnings? We need to get to the facts, and that's where Congress will assist the American people in doing.

As for President Clinton's so called failure to protect the American people---why stop there? Wasn't the U.S. embassy in Beirut bombed in 1983, killing 17 Americans? Wasn't the 1983 bombing of the Marine compound in Beirut, under President Reagan's watch, killing 240 Americans? Remember, the 1986 Berlin disco bombing? Or what about the 1988 sabotage of Pan Am Fliight 104 (I think is the number) which killed almost 300 people?

The Reagan Administration did not respond to any of those attacks at all except for small attacks against Libya?

Under President Clinton spending on counter-terrorims more than double and the 1993 World Trade Center bombers were caught? Can President Bush say the same thing? Hardly.
 
Just once I would like to see RyanH post something besides 'Republicans are evil' threads. Just once! If someone could provide a link to a thread by him(?) that does not involve politics, I would really appreciate it.
 
p0ink said:
let me put this in bold to make sure you dont miss it.

WHY DIDNT THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTE GIVE THIS INFORMATION THEY HAD, FOR 8 MONTHS, TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?!

what about possible future attacks? shouldnt they have warned the american public like they are criticizing bush for not doing?!

Do you recall when control of the Senate was turned over to the Democrats?
 
Re: Re: Re: COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF fails to protect his people, Congressional hearings on the way

RyanH said:


you're only reiterating the spin from the White House. The facts show that President Bush did have credible information that there would be terrorists attacks. What did he do with these warnings? We need to get to the facts, and that's where Congress will assist the American people in doing.

congress already had the same fucking memos and information the president recieved. i dont recall them doing anything about it. i dont remember them bringing up extra law enforcement. where were they? here come all the democrats on tv acting all dumfounded, saying they had no idea, when in fact, they had *THE SAME* memos and information the president had.
 
RyanH one more thing:

suppose for a moment that you were President, what would you do to stop the attacks?

Also, if you were President Clinton, what would you have done to stop Osama when you had the chance? Keep in mind that true prevention would be via military operation with neutralization of targets (i.e. dead, out to lunch permanently, 86'd). According to liberal tenets, wouldn't that be a violation of his civil rights if we took military action to stop such an attack by going to the source?

I think it was Tom Clancy who put it poignantly best:

"While everyone else is trying to build bridges between real problems, liberals are more interested in building monuments."

Chillingly accurate, wouldn't you say?
 
Re: Re: COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF fails to protect his people, Congressional hearings on the way

BackDoc said:


No he didn't. That would mean he would have to be psychic. There were many threats made by the terrorist organizations. The article states precautions were taken.



Yes, you're right...Commander in Chief CLINTON had knowledge of the EXACT location of Bin Laden following the Embassy attacks. He did NOTHING. This all could have been prevented by Clinton.

Too bad for you and your usual debate tactics that the worst terrorist attack on American Soil DID NOT involve a single firearm.

the cumulative number of deaths from terrorists attacks under Reagan's watch was at least over a thousand; the cumulative number, thus far, from terrorist attacks under Bush's current watch is well into the thousands as well.

What did President Bush do in the 9 months after he was elected and before the 9-11 attacks to prevent terrorism? Cut trees at his ranch in Crawford, Texas? Barbecue?
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF fails to protect his people, Congressional hearings on the way

Warik said:


Please read your own article before posting foolishness. Also, please post links to your criticism of former President Clinton for the eleven or twelve times he failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

-Warik


To be fair, pretty much everyone is responsible for Bin Ladin, not just the democrats (or republicans). Under Reagan, Bin Ladin was taught to be a terrorist, and Bush Sr., Clinton & Bush jr. never took the actions necessary to remove him.
 
BackDoc said:
RyanH one more thing:

suppose for a moment that you were President, what would you do to stop the attacks?

Also, if you were President Clinton, what would you have done to stop Osama when you had the chance? Keep in mind that true prevention would be via military operation with neutralization of targets (i.e. dead, out to lunch permanently, 86'd). According to liberal tenets, wouldn't that be a violation of his civil rights if we took military action to stop such an attack by going to the source?

I think it was Tom Clancy who put it poignantly best:

"While everyone else is trying to build bridges between real problems, liberals are more interested in building monuments."

Chillingly accurate, wouldn't you say?

Let's talk about President Clinton's respectable actions to prevent terrorism:

--spending on counter-terrorism doubled under his watch.
--the 1993 World Trade Center bombers were caught
--one of the largest counter-terrorism actions in history prevented millennium attacks.
---After teh attacks in 1998 on the embassies in Africa, President Clinton authorized missile strikes against Bin Laden.

What did President Bush do prior to September 11? Please enlighten us.

Finally, I don't recall liberals ever discouraging the pursuit of terrorism so long as it is done with our constitutional rights in check.
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF fails to protect his people, Congressional hearings on the way

RyanH said:
What did President Bush do in the 9 months after he was elected and before the 9-11, to prevent terrorism? Cut trees at his ranch in Crawford, Texas? Barbecue?

Don't know. But I think we all know what Clinton was doing (and with whom) when he had time to contemplate taking action against Osama and the Embassy bombings.
 
I think Nordrstom has actually said it best----everyone bears some of the blame. My point is that putting the blame on President Clinton's shoulders is not only unfair it's just simply wrong--the Republicans are just as culpable.
 
RyanH said:


Let's talk about President Clinton's respectable actions to prevent terrorism:

--spending on counter-terrorism doubled under his watch.
--the 1993 World Trade Center bombers were caught
--one of the largest counter-terrorism actions in history prevented millennimum attacks.
---After teh attacks in 1998 on the embassies in Africa, President Clinton authorized missile strikes against Bin Laden.

And let me guess, it all fell apart in just a few months under Bush's Presidency!?

If Clinton did SO MUCH for terrorism prevention why did it still happen so close to his being in office?
 
bigmean said:
Just once I would like to see RyanH post something besides 'Republicans are evil' threads. Just once! If someone could provide a link to a thread by him(?) that does not involve politics, I would really appreciate it.

o.k. why don't we talk about something else that won't have quite the significance that politics has on our lives? maybe your tan? your favorite band? LOL.
 
RyanH said:
I think Nordrstom has actually said it best----everyone bears some of the blame. My point is that putting the blame on President Clinton's shoulders is not only unfair it's just simply wrong--the Republicans are just as culpable.


A very far cry from your opening post.
 
Ryan, before you further escalate the dialogue with your heavily slanted viewpoint - take a moment to consider your statement.

RyanH
Let's talk about President Clinton's respectable actions to prevent terrorism:

--spending on counter-terrorism doubled under his watch.

so what you are saying, in effect, is: throw enough money at a problem and you might stop it a little/try and correct it after the fact. Also, would it not further give you "ammo" if Bush DOUBLED what Clinton spent to fight terrorism? More taxes? More government spending (but not on your Democratic programs).

I would think that this would just further infuriate you and the rest of the Democratic Party on the subject of Bush jr.
 
BackDoc said:



A very far cry from your opening post.

not at all....I think the President should be investigated and have his actions scrutinized by the American people as well as Congress, in the same way that President Clinton had his actions scrutinized for 8 years (and even to this day).
 
RyanH said:


not at all....I think the President should be investigated and have his actions scrutinized by the American people as well as Congress, in the same way that President Clinton had his actions scrutinized for 8 years (and even to this day).

Then you should have changed the topic heading to CommanderS in Chief (plural) rather than singling out one solitary president solely on the basis of being a Republican. Oh don't worry all the scrutinizing in the world will take place. That you support an investigation is a matter of feeling and party alignment. However, stating that something could have been done by 1 president shortly after taking office (on the heels of the work done by opposite partisan Commander-In-Chief) is ludicrous when the EXACT same thing could have taken place under former administration.

Your first post did NOT reflect equal blame.
 
RyanH said:


o.k. why don't we talk about something else that won't have quite the significance that politics has on our lives? maybe your tan? your favorite band? LOL.

My tan is coming along nicely, I haven't had much time lately to get out in the sun. You know how it is, sunny all week and then rain on the weekends. But it's coming along, slowly but surely. I guess if I had to pick a favorite band, it would be Jane's Addiction, but I don't really want to discuss them. But if it would distract you from posting threads that seem to be meant to get a rise out of the masses I would be glad to discuss them. No disrespect intended, I just think there are better things to do than argue over politics, because it dosen't get anyone anywhere. By the way, how's your tan?:)
 
BackDoc said:


Then you should have changed the topic heading to CommanderS in Chief (plural) rather than singling out one solitary president solely on the basis of being a Republican. Oh don't worry all the scrutinizing in the world will take place. That you support an investigation is a matter of feeling and party alignment. However, stating that something could have been done by 1 president shortly after taking office (on the heels of the work done by opposite partisan Commander-In-Chief) is ludicrous when the EXACT same thing could have taken place under former administration.

Your first post did NOT reflect equal blame.

I've never attributed all the blame to one person, I've only highlighted and emphasized the blame for the most current attacks...Bush is the one that had the warning, not Clinton.

However, on a general level for all terrorism---most everyone in Washington shares some blame.
 
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
 
how was bush supposed to know about the attacks when the own hijackers did not? don't you recall from one of the osama videos him stating that most of the own hijackers did not even know the full extent of their mission. they didnt even know they were going to die in the first place.
 
Congressional hearings are finally on the way, and the Bush Administration critics were correct afterall---the President did know about the attacks prior to September 11

I hope this doesn´t turn into another witch hunt like it did with Clinton.
 
RyanH said:
I've never attributed all the blame to one person, I've only highlighted and emphasized the blame for the most current attacks...Bush is the one that had the warning, not Clinton.

However, on a general level for all terrorism---most everyone in Washington shares some blame.

This is a thinly veiled disguise. That you hold no specific individual or party responsible for the 'general level for all terrorism' is not the same as holding one member responsible solely on the basis that he is a member of the other party. You say you don't blame one person, but who's reference is in the subject heading?

What makes me sick and sad is the feeling that some radical liberals would rather have what happened at WTC WITH a culpable member of another party to weather the storm of blame than to not have had the occurrence at all. Whether this is true or not, or whether I believe that is almost immaterial. It is simply an observation based on what I have seen. This is supported by the fact that general state of terrorism is somehow an "everyone in Washington is to blame" situation yet one situation (or series of situations) should fall on the shoulders of one man of another party. This is also supported by the bringing up of the former President's close scrutiny in a manner that suggests retaliation.
 
Milhouse said:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
 
The Bush administration's hands are tied in this matter. If Congress does dive deeply into this, and everything is made public, then we will have mass hysteria on our hands. I'm sure that the government is presented with threats EVERY DAY. These might range from weapons of mass destruction, to suicide bombings, to anthrax, to chemical warfare. The government must sift through these and determine which ones pose an ACTUAL threat, and which ones to give credibility to.

If we force the Bush administration to tell us what they know, we might hear things that we will never wish we had. Americans would simply hole up in their homes if they were privy to all the threats that the government receives and the FBI warns of.
 
let me start out by saying, democrats are fucking hypocrites.

democrats bitch and moan that bush didnt do anything to protect it's people, when in fact bush did. in july, 2001, there was a warning that osama bin laden was prepared to wage attacks on american military forces in the middle east very soon, so bush put the military in the middle east on the highest state of alert. skip forward a few weeks to sept 7th. there was very credible evidence that the embassy in japan was going to hit with a terrorist attack, and they too were put on the highest alert. but i dont recall clinton doing anything in 1998 when CIA agents went to time magazine to tell them an attack on washington dc and nyc were going to happen.

you guys bitch and moan saying bush should have said this or done that and warned the american public about an attack that no one know how/what/where/when it would happen. you say the american people need to know such things, but when tom ridge makes warnings to the public, the democrats get up on their soapbox and piss and moan about how they bush administration is only scaring the general public.

you people say we should have followed up on the warnings from the fbi memo's but can you imagine if we did. what would the democrats be saying if we rounded up all of the middle eastern men in flight schools? there would be public outcry and people calling bush a racist and a bigot. you people made the country so god damn pc, that even when people's lives are at risk, it is still wrong to do something about it. when you go to airports, you cant have arab men and women being searched, because they would be racist, so instead we have old ladies having their bags searched and having her shoes tested for explosives. give me a fucking break.

maybe if you people werent so god damn hypocrital and full of shit, your arguments would have more weight.
 
Re: Re: COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF fails to protect his people, Congressional hearings on the

p0ink said:


**NONE** of the people listed on the FBI memo pertaining to middle eastern men at flight schools had *ANY* involvement to osama or the 19 hijackers at all! and the only reason they caught moussaoui was because of a memo from the flight school officials. they said he was suspicious cause the man had no pilot license and was enquiring about NYC flight patterns and demanded to learn how to fly a jet in a couple of week

Mabey. But did the report completed by the FBI regional feild agent identify by name every single 'suspicious' middle eastern man enrolled in flight classes in Arizona , or do you think the report named a few suspicious persons and negleted to identify other persons? We can never be sure.

Either way, if the FBI had gotten off its ass and investigated reports several suspicous middle eastern men were enrolled in flight schools in Arizona, they may have discovered Hani Hanjour was one of them......

"(CBS) Months before Hani Hanjour is believed to have flown an American Airlines jet into the Pentagon, managers at an Arizona flight school reported him at least five times to the FAA, reports CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml



Its called following leads. And your government and law enforcement agencies failed miserably at it.

Senator: U.S. didn't connect 'dots' before 9/11
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/inv.fbi.terror/index.html
 
Last edited:
I dont see how any blame could be placed on him for the direct attacks, however if he knew something was up, he definately should have beefed security and warned us. In that light, he's at major fault.
 
buddy, im not saying they intelligence angency isnt responsible at all, i am simply stating that these democrats crying conspiracy and blaming it on bush are full of shit.
 
let me get this straight. Some of the bombers didnt know what their mission was until they were at the airport the day of the bombing. YET, you think the president could have stopped it???

The only way to have stopped these attacks (of which there was no date known) was to gather up all the arabs in the US and lock them up because none of the suicude bombers were on any wanted list". Is that what you were suggesting Ryanh? That isnt very liberal of you. Sounds like you have some racism in ya.

Finally, it pisses me off when americans try to blame either clinton or bush for this tragedy!! It was no ones fault but the men (most saudi me, our "great allies') who planned and carried out the attacks.
 
primetime21 said:
let me get this straight. Some of the bombers didnt know what their mission was until they were at the airport the day of the bombing. YET, you think the president could have stopped it???

The only way to have stopped these attacks (of which there was no date known) was to gather up all the arabs in the US and lock them up because none of the suicude bombers were on any wanted list". Is that what you were suggesting Ryanh? That isnt very liberal of you. Sounds like you have some racism in ya.

Finally, it pisses me off when americans try to blame either clinton or bush for this tragedy!! It was no ones fault but the men (most saudi me, our "great allies') who planned and carried out the attacks.

Exactly. Word is that many of the hijakers did not even know they were going to die until they saw the WTC approaching them at 400 miles an hour.

I thought that RyanH had hit rock bottom the day he suggested that Ms. Yates not be severly punished for drowning her four children, even though proof was shown that she had been thinking about it for months in advance.

Now he says it is our republican government, namely Bush, who is at fault for 9/11 coming to be.

RyanH, to come up with the horseshit that you do, it is obvious you are very creative, so lets do some roll playing here. Pretend you are our Commander in Chief, and you get a memo from your advisors stating that maybe sometime in the future, Bin Laden may attack the United States, and that maybe airplanes might be involved. You, however, have no idea how or even if airplanes will be involved, you have no suspects, and pretty much no proof. What would you do?
 
The Almighty said:




RyanH, to come up with the horseshit that you do, it is obvious you are very creative, so lets do some roll playing here. Pretend you are our Commander in Chief, and you get a memo from your advisors stating that maybe sometime in the future, Bin Laden may attack the United States, and that maybe airplanes might be involved. You, however, have no idea how or even if airplanes will be involved, you have no suspects, and pretty much no proof. What would you do?

Well, first of all, I certainly wouldn't attempt to cover-up my INACTION for months as the Bush Administration has done. The same Republicans who chastised Congresswoman McKinney for alleging that Bush received warning of impending attacks are now the same Republicans who possibly had knowledge that Congresswoman McKinney was indeed telling the truth----Bush did receive warning of a serious terrorist threat prior to 9-11.

Second--I would have certainly taken extreme actions such as the Clinton Administration did during the Milleninum attacks by beefing up security, particularly at airports. Afterall, the FBI currently doesn't have a problem informing the American people of terrorist threats. Somehow, however, under the Bush Administration the people were kept in the dark. Compare that to the notice the American people were given under President Clinton during the milleninum.

Bush's cover-up of his failure to act is perhaps worse than the failure itself.
 
Last edited:
RyanH said:


Well, first of all, I certainly wouldn't attempt to cover-up my INACTION for months as the Bush Administration has done. The same Republicans who chastised Congresswoman McKinney for alleging that Bush received warning of impending attacks are now the same Republicans who possibly had knowledge that Congresswoman McKinney was indeed telling the truth----Bush did receive warning of a serious terrorist threat prior to 9-11.

Second--I would have certainly taken extreme actions such as the Clinton Administration did during the Milleninum attacks by beefing up security, particularly at airports. Afterall, the FBI currently doesn't have a problem informing the American people of terrorist threats. Somehow, however, under the Bush Administration the people were kept in the dark. Compare that to the notice the American people were given under President Clinton during the milleninum.

Bush's cover-up of his failure to act is perhaps worse than the failure itself.






Why don't you stick you finger up your ass and tell me how it smells....Good day
 
RyanH said:


Well, first of all, I certainly wouldn't attempt to cover-up my INACTION for months as the Bush Administration has done. The same Republicans who chastised Congresswoman McKinney for alleging that Bush received warning of impending attacks are now the same Republicans who possibly had knowledge that Congresswoman McKinney was indeed telling the truth----Bush did receive warning of a serious terrorist threat prior to 9-11.

Second--I would have certainly taken extreme actions such as the Clinton Administration did during the Milleninum attacks by beefing up security, particularly at airports. Afterall, the FBI currently doesn't have a problem informing the American people of terrorist threats. Somehow, however, under the Bush Administration the people were kept in the dark. Compare that to the notice the American people were given under President Clinton during the milleninum.

Bush's cover-up of his failure to act is perhaps worse than the failure itself.






Okie Dokie, and how effective do you think that these increased security measures at airports would have proven themselves to be? Honestly, before 9/11 did anybody even think twice about box cutters or explosives being hidden inside a persons nikes?

While we are on the roll playing scenario, if you were again our president and word came round that an abnormally large amount of arabs were attending flight schools all over the united states, how would you deal with that? Obviously, since you are a bleeding-heart liberal, targeting only arabian citizens would be way out of line, so I would like to hear your ideas of what to do.
 
not at all....I think the President should be investigated and have his actions scrutinized by the American people as well as Congress, in the same way that President Clinton had his actions scrutinized for 8 years (and even to this day).


I agree with this. Seeing as how there is a continous conflict of interest between current (Thomas White), and former officials who own, and "work" for companies whose bottom line is adjusted by government decisions. YES, scrutinize ALL of the administrations actions. and BAN presidential appointments relating to these matters. UNCONDITIONALLY!



If we force the Bush administration to tell us what they know, we might hear things that we will never wish we had. Americans would simply hole up in their homes if they were privy to all the threats that the government receives and the FBI warns of.


I sincerely hope that the American public wakes up, and demands accountability, and answers for ALL administration's actions.

If any of you don't believe our government is corrupt, and in need of reform, your lack of education is sad. You're very uninformed.

For those of you who know that things aren't right, but choose to point the finger at other's corruptness, instead of being honorable enough to admit your own HYPOCRISY, and deplorable behavior of your party, your lack of intelligence is sad.


This country needs to hear things that might account for some of this ingrained corrupted behavior some of you keep voting into office. Members using the word commie/facist, as though it was true.
Not even seeing the idiotic logic you employ EVERY time you use it.


I wonder how long does it take to build up a belief that you're representing a decent, mature person?













:rolleyes:
 
The Almighty said:


RyanH, to come up with the horseshit that you do, it is obvious you are very creative, so lets do some roll playing here. Pretend you are our Commander in Chief, and you get a memo from your advisors stating that maybe sometime in the future, Bin Laden may attack the United States, and that maybe airplanes might be involved. You, however, have no idea how or even if airplanes will be involved, you have no suspects, and pretty much no proof. What would you do?

This is a good example of how uninformed many people are of the numerous crediable warnings the US Government recevied prior to sept 11th, suggesting a massive terrorist attack using hijacked civilian aircraft was being plannned by US Al Queda operatives.


ARTICLES INDICATING CIA FOREWARING OF IMMINENT TERRORIST ATTACKS AGAINST US DOMESTIC TARGETS RELAYED FROM ALLIED INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES

1) "By David Wastell in Washington and Philip Jacobson in Jerusalem
(Filed: 16/09/2001)
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/wcia16.xml
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.
The attacks on the World Trade Centre's twin towers and the Pentagon were humiliating blows to the intelligence services, which failed to foresee them, and to the defence forces of the most powerful nation in the world, which failed to deflect them.
The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation."


2) Mossad warned CIA of attacks - report
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/09/17/News/News.34954.html

"By Douglas Davis
LONDON (September 17) - Mossad officials traveled to Washington last month to warn the CIA and the FBI that a cell of up to 200 terrorists was planning a major operation, according to a report in the Sunday Telegraph here yesterday. "


3) Germany - On September 14, the German newspaper
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reported that "U.S. and
Israeli intelligence agencies received warning signals at least
three months ago that Middle eastern terrorists were planning
to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important
symbols of American and Israeli culture."

According to a report filed by the Post-Newsweek information service,
"The FAZ, quoting unnamed German Intelligence sources, said that
the Echelon spy network was being used to collect information
about the terrorist threats, and that U.K. intelligence services
apparently also had advance warning. The FAZ, one of Germany's
most respected dailies, said that even as far back as six months
ago, western and near-east press services were receiving
information that such attacks were being  planned. "Within
the American intelligence community, the warnings were taken
seriously and surveillance intensified"

NOTE: Echelon is a highly secret technical intelligence gathering
system used to monitor worldwide communications and coordinated
in the U.S. by the National Security Agency. Participating countries,
who eavesdrop on the citizens of the other member countries -- to
avoid civil restrictions preventing governments from spying on their
own citizens -- then pool and share their information. Participating
countries include the U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Great
Britain and Germany. The eavesdropping covers both telephone
and email communications.

4) June 2001 - German intelligence, the BND, warns the CIA and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists are "planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." [Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, September 14, 2001.]


5) Summer 2001 - Russian intelligence notifies the CIA that 25
terrorist pilots have been specifically training for suicide missions.
This is reported in the Russian press and news stories are translated
for FTW by a retired CIA officer.

6) 14. August 2001 - Russian President Vladimir Putin orders
Russian intelligence to warn the U.S. government "in the strongest
possible terms" of imminent attacks on airports and government
buildings. [Source: MS-NBC interview with Putin, September 15.]
 
Last edited:
That post, buddy, just proves what I was saying. Nowhere in there is there any specific information about when and where this event was going to take place. So, I ask again, what could Bush have done to prevent this?
 
The Almighty said:
That post, buddy, just proves what I was saying. Nowhere in there is there any specific information about when and where this event was going to take place. So, I ask again, what could Bush have done to prevent this?

actually, no it doesnt. I suggest you read the articles again.


When?

Isreali, and Russian Intelligence agencies made it a point in August to inform the CIA IMMINENT terrorist attacks were being planned against US domestic landmarks using hijacked US civilian aircraft.


Where?

Domestic US.


The Bush Administration did not require the exact time and place the terrorist attacks were expected to be carried out in order to foil the sept 11th plot.

Had the Bush Administration informed the FBI's Counter Terrorism Unit to step up federal investigations into 'suspicous' US resident aliens, of middle eastern decent, who exhibited an interest in flight lessons and also exhibited a possible aflliation with Osama Bin Laden or Al Queda, the central recommendations in a report filed by FBI feild agents stationed in Phenioex Arizona, suggesting swift and immediate federal investigation into all nonresident US aliens of middle eastern decent enrolled in national flight schools, would have been expeditously carried out.

"Two months before the hijackings, FBI agents in Phoenix reported their suspicions about Arab students at a Phoenix flight school, and directly referred to the possibility of a connection to bin Laden......

In the memo from the Phoenix FBI office to headquarters, the agents recommended an urgent nationwide review of flight schools "for any information that supports Phoenix's suspicions" of a terrorist connection. The memo reportedly cited bin Laden by name."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/warningmemo020516.html


In addition, if the White House had chosen to inform the FBI numerous crediable threats existed against US commercial avaition carriers by middle eastern terrorist groups, possibly intending the target of US landmarks with hijacked aircraft, detailed investigations wouldve been intiated into *several* suspected 9/11 conspirators identified by the FBI and CIA prior to sept 11th, revealing such a plot was indeed in the works.......


ARTICLES INDICATING FBI FOREKNOWLEDGE US RESIDENT ALIENS ASSOCIATED WITH OSAMA BIN LADEN ENROLLED IN FLIGHT SCHOOL POSSIBLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF HIJACKING US CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT

1) 1) U.S. warned in 1995 of plot to hijack planes, attack
buildings
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/18/inv.hijacking.philippines/index.html

"September 18, 2001 Posted: 1:54 PM EDT (1754 GMT)
By Maria Ressa
CNN Correspondent

MANILA, Philippines (CNN) -- The FBI was warned six years ago of a terrorist plot to hijack commercial planes and slam them into the Pentagon, the CIA headquarters and other buildings, Philippine investigators told CNN.

Philippine authorities learned of the plot after a small fire in a Manila apartment, which turned out to be the hideout of Ramzi Yousef, who was later convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Yousef escaped at the time, but agents caught his right-hand man, Abdul Hakim Murad, who told them a chilling tale.

"Murad narrated to us about a plan by the Ramzi cell in the continental U.S. to hijack a commercial plane and ram it into the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and also the Pentagon," said Rodolfo Mendoza, a Philippine intelligence investigator.

Philippine investigators also found evidence targeting commercial towers in San Francisco, Chicago and New York City.

They said they passed that information on to the FBI in 1995, but it's not clear what was done with it.

.......(Murad) was principally recruited by Yousef's group and *bin Laden's* group to undertake a suicide mission," said Avelino Razon, superintendent for the Philippine National Police.

Yousef was eventually caught in Pakistan and brought to New York for trial. He was sentenced to life in prison. Murad is also serving a life sentence."

2) FBI Knew Terrorists Were Using Flight Schools
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A10840-2001Sep22&notFound=true

"Federal authorities have been aware for years that suspected terrorists with ties to Osama bin Laden were receiving flight training at schools in the United States and abroad, according to interviews and court testimony."

3) Eagan flight trainer wouldn't let unease about Moussaoui rest
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1576/913687.html

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- When a Twin Cities flight instructor phoned the FBI last August to alert the agency that a terrorist might be taking lessons to fly a jumbo jet, he did it in a dramatic way:

"Do you realize how serious this is?" the instructor asked an FBI agent. "This man wants training on a 747. A 747 fully loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon!"

4) Hijack Plot Suspicions Raised With FBI in Aug.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A49567-2002Jan1

"Washington Post
January 2, 2002:
An FBI agent and a Minnesota flight school official discussed the possibility that alleged terrorist conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui was part of a hijacking plot before the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington, according to a letter obtained by The Washington Post.”  

5) Clues Mounted Before Sept. 11
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020516/ap_on_go_pr_wh/attacks_connecting_dots_1

Thu May 16, 4:43 PM ET
By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer
"Also last August, the CIA told the Immigration and Naturalization Service to add two men — eventual hijackers — to its watch list, to prohibit them from entering the country. The INS told the CIA it believed the men were already in the United States, information then relayed to the FBI."



.....which makes one wonder why Dick Cheney asked Senate majority leader Tom Daschle not to intiate any congressional investigation into the apparent 'intelligence failure' which precipitated the sept 11th attacks:

"Daschle said that Vice President Dick Cheney had "requested on several occasions that we not have an inquiry" into what intelligence the administration had before the hijackings and how they acted on it."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/warningmemo020516.html
 
Last edited:
buddy28 said:




When?

Isreali, and Russian Intelligence agencies made it a point in August to inform the CIA IMMINENT terrorist attacks were being planned against US domestic landmarks using hijacked US civilian aircraft.


Where?

Domestic US.



You know you are right....cant get more specific than that.:rolleyes:
 
The Almighty said:


You know you are right....cant get more specific than that.:rolleyes:

Do i really need to repeat myself?


The Bush Administration did not require the exact time and place the terrorist attacks were expected to be carried out in order to foil the sept 11th plot.

Had the Bush Administration informed the FBI's Counter Terrorism Unit to step up federal investigations into 'suspicous' US resident aliens, of middle eastern decent, who exhibited an interest in flight lessons and also exhibited a possible aflliation with Osama Bin Laden or Al Queda, the central recommendations in a report filed by FBI feild agents stationed in Phenioex Arizona, suggesting swift and immediate federal investigation into all nonresident US aliens of middle eastern decent enrolled in national flight schools, would have been expeditously carried out.

ect. ect. ect.


its elementry man. If you cant comprehend the prudent action by the Bush adminisration was to step up FBI investigations into middle eastern men, who expressed a 'suspicous' interest in flight classes, then this conversation is not even worth having.
 
And the same question arises again: If Bush jr. knew of the hijackings, should/could he have shut down all the major airports in the USA for an unspecified amount of time? From when to when? And what would stop the terrorists from waiting till the ban was lifted and THEN acting?


Suddenly, it seems, no answer is as simple and easy as you once thought.


And might we look a bit back in history?

It seems there was a sneak attack planned against the USA, fully acknowledged, but allowed to happen.

The attack: Pearl Harbor.
The president: FDR.
His party: Democrat.


Are you elevating Bush jr. to one of the greater presidents this country has ever known? And isn't it funny how neither appears to be onthe side of the angels?
 
buddy28 said:


Do i really need to repeat myself?


The Bush Administration did not require the exact time and place the terrorist attacks were expected to be carried out in order to foil the sept 11th plot.

Had the Bush Administration informed the FBI's Counter Terrorism Unit to step up federal investigations into 'suspicous' US resident aliens, of middle eastern decent, who exhibited an interest in flight lessons and also exhibited a possible aflliation with Osama Bin Laden or Al Queda, the central recommendations in a report filed by FBI feild agents stationed in Phenioex Arizona, suggesting swift and immediate federal investigation into all nonresident US aliens of middle eastern decent enrolled in national flight schools, would have been expeditously carried out.

ect. ect. ect.


its elementry man. If you cant comprehend the prudent action by the Bush adminisration was to step up FBI investigations into middle eastern men, who expressed a 'suspicous' interest in flight classes, then this conversation is not even worth having.

the fbi already had all of this information. where do you think the bush administration heard about all of this?? what about the senate intelligence committee? they had the same fucking information as well. all this is, is another political witchhunt..
 
p0ink said:


the fbi already had all of this information. where do you think the bush administration heard about all of this?? what about the senate intelligence committee? they had the same fucking information as well. all this is, is another political witchhunt..

Enough said.
 
p0ink said:


the fbi already had all of this information. where do you think the bush administration heard about all of this?? what about the senate intelligence committee? they had the same fucking information as well. all this is, is another political witchhunt..

no they didnt.

You guys need to read your news stories alittle more attentivily.


The intelligence breifing presented to George Bush on August the 6th 2001, contained a warning prompted by intelligence information collected by the CIA.


The congressional investigative committee into the alledged sept 11th intelligence failure is trying to determine why the Executive Branch of the Government failed to adequately inform the FBI to alert their national counter terrrorism unit to be on the lookout for suspicous middle eastern men who expressed interest in flight lessons.

IF the intelligence briefing presented to President Bush on August 6th, 2001 contained information from both the CIA and FBI, some of which has already become public (see above), the Bush Administration is even more guilty of failing to ensure Federal investigations into suspicous middle eastern men who expressed interest in flight lessons were being expeditously carried out. (which they wernt. The whole phenoix report was ignored by the National Counter Terrorism Unit, and so were warnings about Zaccarious Mossouii)


"And the same question arises again: If Bush jr. knew of the hijackings, should/could he have shut down all the major airports in the USA for an unspecified amount of time? "

This is just smokescreen.

The Bush Administration did not require the exact time and place the terrorist attacks were expected to be carried out in order to foil the sept 11th plot.

Had the Bush Administration informed the FBI's Counter Terrorism Unit to step up federal investigations into 'suspicous' US resident aliens, of middle eastern decent, who exhibited an interest in flight lessons and also exhibited a possible aflliation with Osama Bin Laden or Al Queda, the central recommendations in a report filed by FBI feild agents stationed in Phenioex Arizona, suggesting swift and immediate federal investigation into all nonresident US aliens of middle eastern decent enrolled in national flight schools, would have been expeditously carried out.

ect. ect. ect.


its elementry man. If you cant comprehend the prudent action by the Bush adminisration was to step up FBI investigations into middle eastern men, who expressed a 'suspicous' interest in flight classes, then this conversation is not even worth having.
 
Last edited:
uh-oh spaghetti o's

looks like more and more threats were being uncovered during the clinton administration.
 
From reports I have heard thus far it appears other groups such as the Senate Intelligence committee knew about a general terrorism risk based on non-specific threats received. The reason this is perhaps closest to the truth is because the largely liberal media is reporting it so. If it were any worse or if what was said above was true then they would have reported it to the nth degree. Such a discussion is NOT elementary when it is completely speculative. Anyone who says they KNOW one thing to be the case in regards to what Bush or other committees actually knew must keep in mind that they are relying on news releases just like the rest of us.

one word regarding the whole situation....damn

The real smokescreen is that democrats are looking for ANY reason they can to limit a non-democrat to just one term. They are also looking to retaliate for the way Clinton was investigated. Given the president's approval ratings they are struggling to find just about anything they can to balance out the power in the greater odds of electing another democrat.

While I believe in a thorough inquiry for this process, I agree with Rush that it must NOT hinder the war on terrorism or the search for Osama.

Rush brought up another good point: Sudan agreed to turn Osama over to the U.S. during the Clinton administration...why did they not agree??? A known terrorist against U.S. foreign interests not taken into custody? THAT is worthy of a conspiracy theory or two.
 
you guys make me laugh.

I dont support either the democratic party, or the republican party. Im Canadian.

Corruption is corruption and its prevelant in both the republican and democratic party. Y? Because corruption is a human phenomenon. Both American parties are composed of humans, therefore, its likely both parties will engage in various levels of corruption.
 
Political disclaimer; I am not affiliated with ANY political party of the USA, so do not make unintelligent, ignorant, attempts to align me with either of them.



It is the fault of ALL administrations of recent history 20+years to let this terrorism get out of hand. As I mentioned we have not caught NONE of the first perps, and when the Marines were killed in Beirut, we tucked tail and went home. As for as prevention goes, had we applied deadly force then, maybe, just maybe the threat of retaliation would have prevented more recent attacks. If this does not enter your logic, then your head is up your own ass.


When clinton was in office, I picked apart his presidency, like I have the others, and I noticed one thing, repubs were so determined to find dirt, they created huge LIES. As if he needed help.

And buddy28, you're right, each party is corrupt, and each party seeks to destroy people in the other party, so no matter who is in office, the other party's mission is to make life miserable for the other. repubs seem surprised that dems are playing dirty......WHY? IT'S THE SAME GAME YOU PLAY........instead of working for the American people, you're retaliating.......and you want people to believe, (the sheep people will), that you're reflective of family values, and you have a Christian outlook, yada, yada.......blah, blah, blah.........


And for those who keep insisting that the Senate had the same report, you're full of it. The White House issued the report-minus the points of contention. NO ONE had the same report as the White House.

Here's another thing,

NOBODY can blame Bush for knowing, or possessing the report.........but his reasonings are suspect.

Rice made a comment that is full of rhetoric, (to a skeptic like myself anyway)
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would slam an airplane into the World Trade Center."
She's right, as far as the general public goes, not for intelligence personnel, who have received multiple warnings in recent months.......from the French in 2001, and the Phillipine police,

and since no one could have grasped the concept of suicide hijackings, there was enough information, warnings to warrant
a stepup of countermeasures.

She also said, that would have meant shutting down the civil aviation system. Well, better safe, than sorry huh?

Each administration has ignored acts of terrorism overseas for 20 years......well before Clinton was in office, yet people here act as though it just started while he was in office.

Maybe, some of you need to do some research. There are a couple of members on this board who were there, or in the military when the first terrorism-related death occurred.......bigguns, myself, and one other person.

You don't let somebody kick you in the leg repeatedly, then after no/weak response they hit you in the mouth, with a straight right.

No, you kill my people ANYWHERE, I WILL KILL YOU, AND EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU REPRESENT.......that's the kind of message WE (USA) needed to send 20 years ago. MAYBE 241 Marines wouldn't have died, the Cole wouldn't have been bombed, the first WTC incident wouldn't have happened.

Unfortunately, we didn't. We chose to retreat, train, arm, teach future terrorists, tricks.

If you don't think there is something wrong with that, you never will get it. :rolleyes:
 
The Almighty said:
That post, buddy, just proves what I was saying. Nowhere in there is there any specific information about when and where this event was going to take place. So, I ask again, what could Bush have done to prevent this?

come on man, are the terrorists supposed to tell our anti terrorist people exactly what their plans were? no way!! They had more than enough clues to know that something was going to go down. And there are anti-terrorist professionals that get paid to prevent stuff like 9-11 from happening, and they didnt' do their job.
 
BackDoc said:
From reports I have heard thus far it appears other groups such as the Senate Intelligence committee knew about a general terrorism risk based on non-specific threats received.


not exactly.

Both National Security Advisor to the President, Condelezza Rice, and Sen. Richard Shelby -R, who serves on senate intelligence committee state that other Intelligence committee members recieved the same classified report as the President.

"....he [Sen. Richard Shelby] said the top members of the House and Senate intelligence committees -- himself; Graham; Florida GOP Rep. Porter Goss, the House Intelligence Committee chairman; and California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House panel's ranking Democrat -- received the same classified information as the president.

Rice also told Senate Democrats in a meeting Thursday that some of them were privy to the same information. "
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/16/bush.sept.11/index.html


But Grahm D-Florida and Rep. Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia, both Intelligence Committee members, are quoted in that same article as having recieved a censored version of the Intelligence report given to Bush on August 6th, 2001 which *did* *not* suggest Al Queda may be ploting to hijack commercial airliners, or claimed they never received the classified intelligence report at all.

"Graham told reporters he and his colleagues were given a less detailed briefing than the one given to the president, and said he was never given information about potential hijackings.

And some members of the intelligence committees complained that they had not been informed at all.

"That information should have been given to us, and it wasn't," said Rep. Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia, a member of the House Intelligence Committee."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/16/bush.sept.11/index.html
 
The Nature Boy said:


come on man, are the terrorists supposed to tell our anti terrorist people exactly what their plans were? no way!! They had more than enough clues to know that something was going to go down. And there are anti-terrorist professionals that get paid to prevent stuff like 9-11 from happening, and they didnt' do their job.

oh yea. A massive investigation is necessary.

Scary to think Cheney was trying to sweep this 'little incident' under the rug.


"Daschle said that Vice President Dick Cheney had "requested on several occasions that we not have an inquiry" into what intelligence the administration had before the hijackings and how they acted on it."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/warningmemo020516.html
 
p0ink said:
gympoppa, i thought you served in a branch of the united states military?? :confused:

I did.......Navy. I was on a carrier, near Libya when the first terrorist attack happened.....(damn do I feel old now)

intelligence........believe it or not.:rolleyes:
 
buddy28 said:




Scary to think Cheney was trying to sweep this 'little incident' under the rug.


"Daschle said that Vice President Dick Cheney had "requested on several occasions that we not have an inquiry" into what intelligence the administration had before the hijackings and how they acted on it."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/warningmemo020516.html

Actually this is par for the course of this administration, and all others.......hide the questionable stuff from the public.

I hope that out of this, we reform our fed government. Is anybody else tired of the corrupt, partisan, bullshit games?

The whole system needs to be trashed, and honesty, and integrity needs to be the cornerstones of future administrations.
Not saying that the public needs to know all things, but the covert missions we take part in, and violent, murderous regimes we support, and train, need to be stopped.

That is the real reason we are hated....our dirty deeds.

Not our lifestyle. Envy? Yes, it is the first cousin of anger.
 
This shit is fucking pathetic.

CIA, FBI had thousands of possiblities as to al-queda attacks
People bitch now about unnecessary security measures, like the bridges in CA, and this is after 9/11. If Bush had shut down the airports on 9/10, the nation would have been irrate, and noone would believe his actions were necesary. The war plan on his desk didnt have any urgent time frame associated with it. Implementing the plan would have been a huge, military, economic, and political action, and Bush would not have scanned it over in a day and stamped OK on it.

Hindsight is 20/20, and not one fucking person ever said anything about a hijacker using a commercial plane in a suicide attack. Every hijacked plane, prior to 9/11, ever, in history, had landed safely. That is why what happened never crossed anyones mind. It was unimaginable, prior to 9/11.

And fuck anyone who says Bush should have admitted prior knowledge on, or shortly after Sept 11. On 9/11 the nation was economically and emotionally fucked. I dont care if the hijackers called GW on the way to the airport and told him, his #1 priority on 9/11 was the well being and mentality of the American people. I dont give a fuck if what he said was true, as long as it helped calm the country down.

Its easy to think rationally now, but dont forget how fucked the nation was and the myriad of rumors flying everywhere.

There is no one person, or group, that is responsible for the attack on 9/11. Neither president, Clinton or Bush, would have ever let that shit happed to the American people for their own political gain. Every congressman or elected official has to juggle what they feel is the right and safe thing to do, with what the people will view as the right thing to do, in order to stay in office. The CIA, FBI, and NSA are all fucking incredible at what they do and they do it because they want to make America safe. They could easily have prevented all hijackings if it were not for the stupid fuckin citizens that bitch and whine if they have to wait in line at the checkout for 30 min. Look at airline security in Israel. We could easily do that, but americans are not that patient.

Before 9/11, nobody imagined a hijacker killing himself and passengers. Our self-preservation instinct was so deeply ingraved in us, the suicide attack never even crossed our mind.
Nobody was ready for, not Clinton, not Bush, not the CIA, not the FBI, not the NSA.

We got fucked because it was an unconventional attack that nobody was prepared for.

We need to quit the finger pointing bullshit, work together, and realize what else we are not prepared for, fast.
 
Immortal Juicer said:

Hindsight is 20/20, and not one fucking person ever said anything about a hijacker using a commercial plane in a suicide attack. Every hijacked plane, prior to 9/11, ever, in history, had landed safely. That is why what happened never crossed anyones mind. It was unimaginable, prior to 9/11.


You should change your name to Condelleza Rice. She made the same erroneous assumption suicide hijackings had never been considered by the US Federal Government prior to sept 11th, just like you:


1999 Report Warned of Suicide Hijack
Fri May 17,12:57 PM ET
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0020517/ap_on_go_pr_wh/attacks_1999_warning_2
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal report warned the executive branch that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon (news - web sites) or other government building.

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) (CIA (news - web sites)), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.

The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," described the suicide hijacking as one of several possible retribution attacks al-Qaida might seek for the 1998 U.S. airstrike against bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan (news - web sites).

The report noted that an al-Qaida-linked terrorist first arrested in the Philippines in 1995 and later convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing had suggested such a suicide jetliner mission.

"Ramzi Yousef had planned to do this against the CIA headquarters," author Rex Hudson wrote in a report prepared for the National Intelligence Council and shared with other federal agencies.

The intelligence council is attached to the CIA and is made up of a dozen senior intelligence officers who assist the U.S. intelligence community in analysis of threats and priorities.

The report contrasts with Bush administration officials' assertions that none in government had imagined an attack like Sept. 11 before that time.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) said Thursday.

The report was written by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress (news - web sites) that provides research for various federal agencies under contracts.

The report was based solely on open-source information that the federal researchers gathered about the likely threats of terrorists, according to Robert L. Worden, the division's chief he federal research division...."

*************************************************
 
Last edited:
buddy28 said:



You should change your name to Condelleza Rice. She made the same erroneous assumption suicide hijackings had never been considered by the US Federal Government prior to sept 11th, just like you:




It had been considered, but only by a special committee formed for the sole purpose of brainstorming terrorist ideas. They came up with hundreds of other possibilities as well. It is a damn hard job for the CIA and FBI to identify which one of the numerous deadly possibilities was the most probable to occur and then implement strategy to defend against it.

Now for example, has the US deployed hundreds of chemical weapon agent specialists and scientists across the US to prepare for the all of the possible chemical attacks? Anthrax, smallpox, sarin gas, ebola, or any of the other possibilities? What about a nuclear dirty bomb smuggled into the country, or a contamination of any of the nations cities drinking water reserves? Are we ready for a suicide bomber to run into a church this Sunday, in any chuch across the country? What if a chemical agent is released in an international airport and spread thoroughout the world in a few days? Is every airport in the US ready for it? What about all the incoming flights from other countries?

There are literally endless possibilities for terrorist attacks. The CIA and FBI has to decide which ones are the most threatening, and how much of a response is justifyable by the american people? What happens if we get a immediate credible threat that al-queda was going to contaminate one or more cities water supply within the next 2 days. How many resources do you allocate to prevent the threat from happening? What if it doesnt? You are just out a shitload of money and time. Worse, what if you do, and a chemical weapon is released in a major city, or more?

Any of those attacks are possible. If it happens tomorrow, I'm not going to blame someone and say that it is plain as day they were going to do it, all you had to do was connect the dots.

We did connect the dots. And when we did we saw the 9/11 attacks, as well as the many, many, many possible attacks that were just as possible, and just as deadly.

You cant cover your entire body. Cover high, and you are open low, cover low and you are open high. No matter how hard you try, you are always going to have a vulenrability. We need to do what we are doing, cover our eyes and balls, and implement that plan and kick the shit out of them. Thats the only way to be 100% invulnerable to their attack, kill them.

We cant block and cover our way to victory.
 
We knew about potential use of a plane as a missile:

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/security/airline2.html


What warnings were missed?
In 1994, hijackers linked to the Armed Islamic Group, an Algerian Islamist group with some ties to al-Qaeda, seized an Air France flight in Algiers and ordered it flown to Marseilles. The hijackers then said they wanted to fly to Paris but demanded that the plane be loaded with 27 tons of fuel—three times the amount required for the Paris flight. Freed hostages later told authorities that the hijackers, who were killed by French troops, planned to detonate the plane over Paris or crash it into the Eiffel Tower.
 
Another thing...

if you think Bush and his advisers didnt "connect the dots," when it was painfully obvious - then you list in order the top 5 or 10 specific terrorist attack attempts. List what the attack will be, where it will be, when it will be and the probability you believe it will occur.

For example, if President Bush and his advisers were not so fucking blind, they would have known on Sept 10th the next attack would be:

-terrorist suicide plane hijacking
-major capitalism symbol (WTC, ESB, etc..)
-within the next month
-~35% chance attempt will take place

Now try to narrow the scenario down from the millions of flights every day, every day from now to when the threat is over, the symbol they will try to hit (why the WTC instead any of the hundreds of sporting events or universitite, or NASA, or White House) Why this Tuesday and not during the weekend at a sporting event, or Sunday at one of nations most populated churces? Killing Christians seems much more likely than them wanting to kill bankers.

Had Bush dedicated every second from the time he recieved the report on the 9th to stopping the next attack, he couldnt. Brainstorming, analyzing and evaluating terrorist threat is not an easy process. I dont care how smart you are, you are not going to be staring at a pile of evidence and suddenly realize:

"Holy shit, they are going to hijack and airline, not with a gun...a boxcutter! yeah, a boxcutter and....make dem.. no, not demands....sui...suicide! suicide attack. They are going to use the plane as a missle in a suicide attack. And hit the...WTC, the WTC, again, the WTC again...and the pentagon!...And they are going to do it........Dec., no. Oc, no. September? September....

HOLY SHIT ITS PLAIN AS DAY!! AL-QUEDA IS GOING TO HIJACK 4 PLANES USING BOXCUTTERS AND FLY THE PLANES INTO THE WTC AND THE PENTAGON....THIS TUESDAY!!

-damn, I cant believe I didnt notice that sooner.


If its so easy, step up to the plate, look into your crystal ball and tell us what so obvious to you. What is going to be the next attack. And please try to be as specific as possible.

RyanH, buddy, make a prediction. :D
 
strongchick said:
We knew about potential use of a plane as a missile:

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/security/airline2.html


What warnings were missed?
In 1994, hijackers linked to the Armed Islamic Group, an Algerian Islamist group with some ties to al-Qaeda, seized an Air France flight in Algiers and ordered it flown to Marseilles. The hijackers then said they wanted to fly to Paris but demanded that the plane be loaded with 27 tons of fuel—three times the amount required for the Paris flight. Freed hostages later told authorities that the hijackers, who were killed by French troops, planned to detonate the plane over Paris or crash it into the Eiffel Tower.

hahaha, cut and paste queen is back.
 
strongchick said:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

http://www.newsday.com/news/nytwa96-gore906.story

Clinton and Gore made significant proposals that would enact measures to counteract terrorism that were ignored or ballyhooed by the Republican party.

That's ok. Clinton getting his dick sucked was way more important than the 3000 lives sacrificed.


You are right. Most americans are lazy, tv watching idiots that think the presidents dick and who is sucking it is a danger worthy of national attention. These same idiots think the middle east hates us "because we are free", and also believe the superficial security measures at airports make airlines safer. The only time they turned to CNN from the Jerry Springer Show, was to hear the President of the US say "penis," "vagina," and "oral sex."

Because that shit is important.:rolleyes:
 
strongchick said:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

http://www.newsday.com/news/nytwa96-gore906.story

Clinton and Gore made significant proposals that would enact measures to counteract terrorism that were ignored or ballyhooed by the Republican party.

That's ok. Clinton getting his dick sucked was way more important than the 3000 lives sacrificed.


hahaha, why dont you read up some more and see that clinton also had ties to the bin ladens and had ample opporntunity to get bin laden even after three terrorist attacks against this nation and his declared jihad in 98'. clinton didnt give a shit about bin laden and he festered into what we have now. its qiute possible that clinton obstructed an active investigation into abdullah bin laden in 96 which may have led to some of the actual terrorist. its hard to counter your arguement, especially when theres nonthing there and you use the classic approach towards clintons lazziare faire approach to bin laden, blame it on the pubs for worrying about his dick suck.

ive said it before, whats ironic is clinton getting his dick sucked seem more important to him than 3000 peoples lives. maybe if he had stopped chasing fat ass splittail around the whitehouse and actually did his job in regards to bin laden and al qaeda we wouldnt be discussing this. ultimately he takes blame also.
 
ps654.jpg
 
spongebob said:
:rolleyes: i should have known better.

You try to bait me by rehashing old arguments instead of addressing directly the fact that Clinton and Gore as recently as 1999 tried to warn and do something about terrorism.

It isn't success in getting Osama that is as important as recognizing the problem and removing the arrogance that prevents us from adequately protecting ourselves.

And Bush should've just come clean before he was forced to.

Your argument doesn't deserve a thoughtful answer. We knew. We understood the potential threat. But we rejected preventive measures in favor of other priorities based on Republican maneuvering.
 
RyanH's gay ass said:

not at all....I think the President should be investigated and have his actions scrutinized by the American people as well as Congress, in the same way that President Clinton had his actions scrutinized for 8 years (and even to this day).

Shut the fuck up. For real.
Sometimes I sit here and see shit RyanH posts and it makes me wonder. Wonder "How did such a homo get so much karma?" Did he fuck the system? Kiss ass for months before pulling a queer 180? Etc.

When 90% of your posts are about how you love being a left-wing, liberal, lame-ass Democrat homo and why its not cool to be anything else, it detracts from your arguments.

Face it, a lot of America is starting to realize that the Republican way of thinking is simply better. Thats why we have a majority Republican House and until recently, Senate as well. And a Republican Prez. Quit hatin'.

The bottom line is Bush basically had this information: "Hey GB, theres some Arabians taking flight classes, that could cause some shit someday". That doesnt mean he knew about the 9-11 attacks in advance b/c we would have stopped it for sure if there was prior knowledge. Terrorist threats and plans are thwarted EVERY day by anti-terrorist units worldwide. If they had even the slightest warning about 9-11 attack plans and what was about to happen, it'd have been stopped for sure.

The Democrats are trying to do everything they can to try to bring down Bush's insanely high approval rating and the general population shift away from the Democrat party
 
Its a fucking shame that anyone would fail to see the danger america faces and try to blame any person, group, or political party for what happened. Instead of making accusations, we need to work together to find out HOW and WHY 9/11 happened, and how we can prevent it from happening again.

9/11 exposed a vulnerability in our entire nation and its defense.

Its Clintons fault
its Bush's fault
its the CIA's faule
its the FBI's fault
its the Democrats fault
its the Republicans fault
its every citizens fault

We chose to inplement a government in which the President is determined not by experience, qualification, expertise, education, or any other quality intrinsic to the position, but by popularity.

Political elections are nothing more than a fucking popularity contest and consequently, many people act like junior high students.

Why is that suprising?

Damn its good to see that the whole "united we stand" feeling after 9/11 is over and we are back to taking sides and arguing with each other over trivial bullshit.
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
strongchick said:

Fucking unbelievable.

The US President must be politically conscious of all decisions because in order to accomplish anything in office, first he must be in office. Then he must deal with the fact that stupid shit like this cartoon, posted by any anonymous pussy in the country with access to a computer, is actually a factor in him staying in office. Some fucker makes a joke out of 3,000 people dying and blames the President of the US, someone who has done more today to make the country safer than strongchick will ever do in her entire life.

The only reason you can make such ignorant, destructive, and bullshit accusations from behind a keyboard without getting the living shit kicked out of you is because of your right to freedom of speech and expression. If you dont like the way things are here, try talking shit about Hussein in Iraq and see how many rights you actually have. You have the priviledge to sit here anonymously, like a pussy, talk shit about anyone you want to, and never have to fight or back any statement up because of the 1st ammendment.

Some of the best soldiers in our country have given their lives, and thousands are fighting in the middle east, to guarantee every citizen their Consitiutional rights, even if they chose to use them to attack the govt and system that protects them.

That is why the US is so great.
 
good, there is some more ignorance here. welcome back strongchick. argue all you want, but face it, there is nothing to stick to this man at all. i will be surprised if all of this talk continues past tuesday...because there is nothing that the man did wrong, and even the latest gallop poll says so.

i cant wait till election day when republicans control the house, the senate, and the whitehouse.
 
plus i notice A LOT of the very valid points i bring up are just ignored, and instead we go back to this, "WELL BUSH KNEW ALL ABOUT IT POINK, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE NO FACTS WHATSOEVER TO PROVE IT. BUT HEY, IM A DEMOCRAT, WE DONT NEED TRUTH AND FACTS, WE NEED LIES< DISINFORMATION, AND HYPOCRISY."
 
From the NYT:

WASHINGTON, May 17 — The F.B.I. had been aware for several years that Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network were training pilots in the United States and elsewhere around the world, according to court records and interviews at flight schools and with federal law enforcement officials.

The F.B.I. knew by 1996 of a specific threat that terrorists in Al Qaeda, Mr. bin Laden's network, might use a plane in a suicide attack against the headquarters of the C.I.A. or another large federal building in the Washington area, the law enforcement officials acknowledged
But the officials said the Federal Bureau of Investigation had discounted the possibility of a suicide attack using planes, partly because it had largely failed to draw together evidence gathered piecemeal over the years that Al Qaeda pilots were training here.

Last week, the F.B.I. acknowledged the existence of a memorandum written last summer in which an agent in its Phoenix office urged his superiors to investigate Middle Eastern men who had enrolled at American flight schools and who might be connected to Mr. bin Laden.

However, the Phoenix memorandum was not the first warning that terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda had interest in learning to fly. In his 1996 confession, a Pakistani terrorist, Abdul Hakim Murad, said that he planned to use the training he received at flight schools in the United States to fly a plane into C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va., or another federal building.

Mr. Murad, who was captured in the Philippines in 1995 and convicted in New York on charges of conspiring to blow up 12 American jumbo jets over the Pacific simultaneously, received flight training at schools in New York, North Carolina, California and Texas.

Information from Mr. Murad's confession formed a basis for an analysis prepared for United States intelligence agencies in 1999. The analysis warned that bin Laden terrorists could hijack a jet and fly it into government buildings like the Pentagon.

Additionally, a flight school in Oklahoma that provided training last year to Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 attacks, had been under scrutiny by the F.B.I. in 1998 after the discovery that another former student had been linked to the bombing that year of two American embassies in East Africa, attacks attributed to Al Qaeda. The school, the Airman Flight School in Norman, has cooperated with the F.B.I.

Congressional investigators say they are only now compiling a detailed chronology of what was known about potential terrorists receiving flight training here as Congress evaluates whether the F.B.I. and other law enforcement agencies failed to recognize signs that might have allowed the government to prevent the September attacks. At least six of the Sept. 11 hijackers received flight training in the United States.

The Phoenix memorandum, along with the disclosure this week that President Bush was warned in August of the possibility that Al Qaeda might be planning hijackings, have been seized on by lawmakers as evidence that the government missed signals of the coming attacks.

Spokesmen for F.B.I. headquarters in Washington, as well as for its field offices in New York and Oklahoma City, which investigated individual flight schools over the years, had no comment on the issue.

Lewis Schiliro, who retired two years ago as the bureau's assistant director in charge of its New York office, said in an interview that his agents had tried to follow up on information about the flight schools whenever possible. But he said that while the F.B.I. worried that Al Qaeda might hijack commercial planes, "never once did we really focus on the use of a plane as a weapon" and that it would have been "very difficult to connect the dots."

The F.B.I. did not alert other federal agencies about many of the results of its flight school investigations. The Phoenix memorandum, in fact, was sent to the Central Intelligence Agency only in recent weeks. The bureau's failure to alert other agencies is expected to be a focus of Congressional investigations into intelligence failures before Sept. 11.

Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, a prominent critic of the F.B.I. and a senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement today that "it's clear the intelligence community had information about terrorist threats and hijacking years before the F.B.I. agent in Phoenix sent his warning memo — that makes it even more indefensible that the F.B.I. failed to deal with the Phoenix memo last summer."

Law enforcement officials acknowledged that the F.B.I. never ordered a comprehensive investigation of flight schools before Sept. 11, even as individual F.B.I. offices were gathering compelling evidence about links between students trained at the schools and Al Qaeda.

In response to the uproar after the disclosure of the August warning to Mr. Bush, White House officials insisted that they had no serious evidence last summer that Al Qaeda was considering a suicide hijacking.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center," Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, said on Thursday.

But since at least the mid-1990's, law enforcement officials have known that some terrorist organizations were considering suicide attacks using commercial jets.

In 1994, French investigators have said, a group of Algerian hijackers seized a Paris-bound Air France flight and planned to crash it into the Eiffel Tower or blow it up over Paris. The plot was foiled when French commandoes stormed the plane.

In 1995, Mr. Murad, the Pakistani pilot tied to Mr. bin Laden, was captured, and under interrogation by Philippines intelligence officers working with the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., American law enforcement officials said, he confessed on video to his role in the plot to bomb airliners over the Pacific.

The American officials said he also acknowledged he had planned to fly a plane packed with explosives into the C.I.A. headquarters or another federal building. Details of the plan had been shared with F.B.I. headquarters by the middle of 1996.

Mr. Murad's plot was noted in a 1999 federal report suggesting that Al Qaeda might hijack an airliner with the intention of crashing it into the Pentagon or another government building. The intelligence report, which was prepared for the National Intelligence Council, was widely shared within the government and has long been available to the public over the Internet.

As a result of Mr. Murad's arrest, law enforcement officials said, F.B.I. agents visited flight schools in upstate New York and North Carolina to gather records on his training.

If there was discussion of a broader investigation of flight schools, they said, it was probably scuttled by the July 1996 explosion of a T.W.A. jumbo jet off Long Island, which forced many of the F.B.I.'s most experienced counterterrorism specialists off their regular duties. Terrorism was suspected at first, but government safety experts later blamed mechanical problems.

F.B.I. agents renewed their investigation of flight schools in earnest in 1998, after the bombings of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The bureau uncovered evidence then that a man tied to Mr. bin Laden, Ihab Ali Nawawi, working as a cabdriver in Orlando, Fla., had received training at the Norman flight school. Mr. Nawawi remains in federal custody even now, although he has not been charged with conspiring in the embassy bombing.

Brenda K. Keene, the flight school's admissions director, said in an interview that Mr. Nawawi received training in the early 1990's and that the records of his enrollment had been routinely destroyed long before an F.B.I. agent visited the school in 1998 to ask to see them. Still, Ms. Keene said, the school could provide assistance to the bureau since an instructor remembered Mr. Nawawi as a student.

She said that the bureau refused to tell the school why they were investigating Mr. Nawawi, and F.B.I. officials were equally tight-lipped when they returned to the school last August — three years later — looking for information on another student, Mr. Moussaoui.

Other Qaeda pilots figured in the embassy bombing trial. In open court, the Justice Department offered detailed testimony from Qaeda pilots about how they were recruited to fly for the network.

A key prosecution witness, Essam al Ridi, an Egyptian-born pilot, testified that he had bought a plane in Arizona at Mr. bin Laden's request and flown it to Sudan, where Al Qaeda maintained a terrorist base. Another witness, L'Houssaine Kherchtou, a former Qaeda member from Morocco, said he was sent to flight school in Kenya at Mr. bin Laden's request in the mid-1990's and later served as his personal pilot.

Mr. Kherchtou testified that Al Qaeda had wanted him to learn how to fly both private planes and crop-dusting equipment — apparently, his testimony suggested, for legitimate agricultural reasons at a Sudanese farm that doubled as one of Mr. bin Laden's terrorist bases. "They wanted to have somebody who already has a license and can fly crop-dusting," he recalled.

After Sept. 11, investigators discovered that Al Qaeda had plotted to use crop-dusting planes to disburse chemical or biological weapons.

While there was no suggestion in the trial that Al Qaeda was training or recruiting pilots for suicide hijackings, a review of thousands of pages of the trial transcript shows that Mr. bin Laden was personally involved in efforts to train pilots and obtain planes for use by his network.
 
musclebrains said:


Whatever, the fuckups warrant an inquiry no matter how you view Bush's role in the debacle.

oh I totally agree, but somehow, as much as I dislike dubya, I dont think the blame lies on him. he's not responsible for anti-terrorism, he's responsible for taking naps.
 
I love this, also from a NYT piece about Bush going on the offensive:

"The White House marshaled a host of resources, including Laura Bush, in its political offensive. Mrs. Bush was in Budapest this morning but issued a two-paragraph statement, an unusual action for a first lady who has largely stayed out of politics. "I think it is very sad that people would play upon the victims' families' emotions, or all Americans' emotions," Mrs. Bush said, adding that "I know my husband, and all Americans know how he has acted in Afghanistan and in the war with terror.""

here's something for Dubya to hide behind:

oh-s1-2.jpg
 
The Nature Boy said:


oh I totally agree, but somehow, as much as I dislike dubya, I dont think the blame lies on him. he's not responsible for anti-terrorism, he's responsible for taking naps.


Well, after the eight years of dogged and unsuccessful pursuit of Bill Clinton, it's pretty predictable that Dubya and his party are going to suffer the same kind of political harassment. Politics is a game and who can blame Dubya's enemies for playing hardball. And this is a bit bigger than perjury over a blow job or Whitewater, any way.
 
I don't think he can be blamed for what happened. after all, he said in Feb 2001, that terrorism was on the back burner.

some precautions should have been made, I blame the intelligence agencies, fbi.

and I do not understand why the repubs are shocked that dems are attacking bush......it's the same thing they did, and each other has done to the other for Years!

Repubs, and Dems, both dirtbag, corrupt parties, which do not give a damn about the welfare of the majority of the country.

p0ink, the polls also say bush should have released the information before now. HE LIED, saying there was no warnings......and there clearly were. Whether he or anybody knew how, somethings should have been on alert.

Bottom line, our incompetent agencies failed to take seriously warnings from other nations, their own agents, and even do a check of any kind.

Bush is (as he says) ultimately responsible for his administration's actions. So, in politics, he should know that shit flows uphill, as well as downhill.

To further another point, already the White House is pinpointing programs, items sponsored by Dems who spoke out about this particular incident, with the intent to continue this ridiculous, immature, game of retaliation.



:mad:

If this shit isn't embarassing to ALL AMERICANS, then you're horribly ignorant, or just plain dumb. World leaders?

What a joke.........only in money, economy. Not in anything of value.....
 
musclebrains said:



Well, after the eight years of dogged and unsuccessful pursuit of Bill Clinton, it's pretty predictable that Dubya and his party are going to suffer the same kind of political harassment. Politics is a game and who can blame Dubya's enemies for playing hardball. And this is a bit bigger than perjury over a blow job or Whitewater, any way.

no I agree, the repubs cast the first stone during the clinton administration with all the mud slinging. the whole 9-11 thing has protected dubya for a while now, but that shield is wearing off.

but back to my point, clinton and dubya don't totally call the shots on these anti-terrorist matters. if they did, then they'd be guilty of micromanagement.
 
The Nature Boy said:


no I agree, the repubs cast the first stone during the clinton administration with all the mud slinging. the whole 9-11 thing has protected dubya for a while now, but that shield is wearing off.

but back to my point, clinton and dubya don't totally call the shots on these anti-terrorist matters. if they did, then they'd be guilty of micromanagement.


Agreed but it ought to be self-evident that if you're going to have an investigation of the administrative branch of the government, you don't exempt certain figures from inquiry. That's exactly what was argued in the Watergate affair and I won't be at all surprised to see Bush pull a Presidential immunity argument.
 
gymnpoppa said:

some precautions should have been made, I blame the intelligence agencies, fbi.


Look back on the allied intelligence warnings received by the CIA i posted in this thread. Alot of them were relayed to the CIA in late august.....after the August 6th Intelligence briefing Bush recieved.

Is it possible President Bush receieved only one warning about a possible Al Queda attack from the CIA in August -- the August 6th CIA Intelligence report?

If so, then why did the CIA fail to include explicit allied intelligence warnings which further confirmed the CIA's earlier suspicions AL Queda was planning to hijack commercial aircraft, in daily intelligence breifings prepared for Bush after August 6th 2001?

Assuming the CIA negleted to warn Bush after August 6th 2001, more warnings had been received by Russian, German, and Isreali Intelligence agencies, all which confirmed earlier suspicions middle eastern terrorists were planning to hijack US commercial airliners, then George Tenet is guilty of gross negligence.

Assuming President Bush did recieve CIA Intelligence reports after August 6th 2001,which further confirmed earlier suspicions Al Queda was planning to hijack civilian aircraft, well, then Bush is to blame for not moblizing the FBI's counter terrorism unit to direct investigations into possible individuals which exhibit a suspicious interest in aviation procedures and regulations. Any such order from the President wouldve led to a huge "Ah HA!" from the FBI's counter terrorism unit, which had been collecting significants amounts of evidence all year suggesting such a plot was indeed being planned. The FBI even arrested the alledged 20th hijacker in late august - Zaccrias Moussoui!!


I think were going to find out either Bush is guilty of more then we beleive he is. Or George Tenet is guilty of withholding information. Either that, or the allied intelligence warnings I posted were fabricated by German, Russian,and Isreali Governments to make the US look bad.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom