"historical" memo released - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

HarmlessRabbit · 04-12-2004, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
And then, of course, make the leap from "hijacking planes" and "watching federal buildings" to crashing them into the WTC, the Pentagon, and perhaps the White House or Capitol Hill. Yep, that's all he had to do.

Have you read Hart-Rudman?
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01013102.htm

Again, that memo contained enough alarming info that Bush could have done something. Instead, he did nothing. Onetime2 specifically asked what could have been done, then criticized my suggestions as being hindsight.

I think Skettios sums things up nicely.

Quote:

The question is: 'Did a document entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside U.S.' give Condi Rice and the Bush administration any warning that there would be an attack, and if so what did they do about it?

The answer is: Yes, It did. It said they were watching federal buildings in New York, and no, they did nothing about it.

To say that there was no "actionable" intelligence is just a dodge to help explain why the administration took no action.

smooth · 04-12-2004, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
To say that there was no "actionable" intelligence is just a dodge to help explain why the administration took no action.

I think that was Rice verbatim.

elfstar · 04-12-2004, 05:16 PM

There's no way around it. The memo is pretty damning for the Bush administration. But I think people are missing the point. The issue at hand isn't whether there was actionable intelligence or whether the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented (I believe Richard Clarke admitted that they couldn't be prevented). I think what it really boils down to is a matter of trust. Can we trust Bush and company to continue leading our country?

I think the answer is a clear "no". They have consistently either withheld information or blatantly lied to cover their own asses. Case in point: from the beginning the company line has been that their was never any evidence of a domestic threat, and that every indication suggested that only overseas interests would be targeted. But the PDB obviously contradicts this assertion.

They knew their lie would be revealed if they released the PDB. That's why they withheld it so long, and only released it when they had no choice. Even then they conveniently released it on a Saturday night, when they knew nobody would be paying attention.

There's an article in "The Nation" which is fairly insightful (and I think pretty fair, even though it's a very left-wing magazine):

<a href="http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1370">http://www.thenation.com/capitalgame...bid=3&pid=1370</a>

^Ice_Bat^ · 04-12-2004, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tecoyah
While I do appreciate the "right on man", and partial understanding of the post, you pretty much just became the first person in this thread to do as I had anticipated, Blame Clinton.

My point was not to pat the current administration on the back, but to criticize the lack of accountability they have shown. It would be extremely refreshing to hear from someone who supports Bush, but is willing to accept that Major mistakes were made in the last three years.
The Clinton administration did at least pay attention to the intellegence they had gathered, and acted to prevent a few terrorist actions, they were far from perfect but put in an effort.
The issues addressed here have little to do with Clinton however, and are focused(as they should be) on the failings of our current administration.
I dont care much for Clinton, Bush, Kerry, or any number of career politicians as they are pretty much sleeping in the same perverbial bed. I am though, very concerned by the complete lack of responsibility this administration is showing, and the blind worship of the Bush follower. There may be plenty of blame to go around, but at least accept your share of it while you dish it out to others.

Well I'm not a yellow dog Republican, blindly following Bush. I accept that he has his faults... everyone does. And I'll also admit that he's not the perfect president that we could all hope for. All I'm saying is that the events that took place on 9/11 were a shared responsibility through numerous administrations over the last 20 years. I heard some figures on the radio this morning about how much money was spent on intelligence, on FBI agents, on the military... etc. Each year the figure had been astonishing low, and security has been a complete atrocity in my opinion.

One great thing I can say about Bush is the dramatic efforts he has made to increase homeland security since the unfortunate events that took place on 9/11. This is an excerpt from a term paper I wrote about him concerning these matters...

"After the unexpected and catastrophic events which occurred on the morning of September 11, 2001, Bush began one of the most dramatic campaigns to increase homeland security and build intelligence throughout the world. Our government has been sharing information between the different branches of intelligence, something which was not seen in previous times. Bush’s most recent plan for a Terrorist Threat Integration Center is the next phase to improve upon the United States’ counterterrorism effort.

Before September 11, it was hinted that Bin Laden might be trying to make such an attempt, but the reports lacked specifics and were therefore not fully investigated. In an executive summary of a 149 page report that was prepared during the Clinton administration and available on the Library of Congress Web site, the authors wrote: "Al Qaeda's expected retaliation for the U.S. cruise missile attack against al Qaeda's training facilities in Afghanistan on August 20, 1998, could take several forms of terrorist attack in the nation's capital. Al Qaeda could detonate a Chechen-type building-buster bomb at a federal building. Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda'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 (CIA), or the White House. Ramzi Yousef had planned to do this against the CIA headquarters." On August 6, 2001, Bush also received a similar summary from the CIA, which stated that there was a possibility of a plot organized by Osama bin Laden to highjack jet aircraft.

Bush would make it a top priority to prevent future terrorist attacks against the United States immediately subsequent to the attacks. Before the attacks, terrorism was viewed as strictly a police matter. The F.B.I. has since prevented a number of terrorist plots on U.S. soil, by rounding up suspected Al Qaeda members, and has established 66 different Joint Terrorism Task Forces across America, with an increased level of participation from federal, state, and local agencies. The size of the Counterterrorist Center has doubled, the number of personnel engaged in counterterrorism analysis has quadrupled, measures have been taken to prevent the flow of money to such terrorist organizations. Other measures have been taken to increase airport security, and a threat assessment alert system has been established to let the citizens become more aware when an attack could be eminent, thereby adding an important element to deter future attacks."

Anyway, I do agree that in the long run, this is going to be a very difficult issue to overcome in this next election. As you can see, that report does mention hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings... did not mention specifics, however, and that's going to be the thing that is going to save Bush if anything.

smooth · 04-12-2004, 11:55 PM

The thing that concerns me the most is that people are supportive of our police officers and other law enforcement agents standing around public streets with assault rifles.

Did anyone see footage of the parade this weekend?

The need for better detection aside, we are witnessing one of the most dramatic coalescence of police power in the history of our nation. This is one of the reasons some of us point to the unrealistic proposition that an armed populace would resist government encroachment of their civil rights--the people are actually demanding it now.

Well I'll be damned, the NRA agrees with me!

Quote:

Four years later, some gun owners have grown so disenchanted with President Bush that they may cast a protest vote for a third-party candidate, stay away from the polls, or even back the likely Democratic nominee, gun-control advocate John F. Kerry.

Surprisingly, the issues that have most alienated many gun groups from the Bush administration have little to do with firearms, but rather with the Patriot Act and other homeland security measures instituted after Sept. 11. Opposition to such laws has aligned gun-rights activists with unlikely partners, such as liberal Democrats and the ACLU.

The Bush administration has come down on the side of gun-rights groups on several issues, perhaps most notably in opposing efforts to hold firearm manufacturers liable for damages caused by their products. But it also has repeatedly disappointed gun activists on other issues, from refusing to allow airline pilots to arm themselves to quietly supporting the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

"People who have a strong interest in gun rights tend to be libertarian in their thinking," Lund said. "They tend to be skeptical of the government."

"Too many are too timid to ask what these outrages are supposed to achieve. Too many are too polite to say that our Bill of Rights is too sacred to give up for homeland security or for anything else," he said.

This year state and regional gun groups are openly attacking not only Bush, but other Republicans they view as turncoats.

The Oregon Firearms Federation, for example, has grown increasingly hostile toward Republican Sen. Gordon Smith, who joined Bush in backing the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban. In direct mail and e-mail campaigns, the group has accused Smith of voting against gun rights 80% of the time and using Bush as "cover" for his backing of the ban.

Though proponents of gun control frequently characterize the NRA as a radical far-right organization, many state and regional groups view it as too moderate, and accuse the NRA of acquiescing on fundamental tenets of the movement in the interest of political expediency.

Such groups are nearly as irked by the NRA for its support of Bush — "squishy" though it may be, in the words of one official — as with Bush himself.

Although they traditionally back Republicans, several state and regional gun-rights groups — driven especially by opposition to the Patriot Act and other post-Sept. 11 measures — have grown so disillusioned by the Bush administration that they are openly discussing the potential benefits of voting for Kerry.

A Democrat in the White House to face down a Republican-controlled Congress might, the argument goes, be the best way to halt what they view as a raid on civil liberties.

"Had the Clinton administration proposed the Patriot Act, which is a real scary thing for gun owners, the Republican-controlled Congress would have been apoplectic," said Starrett of the Oregon Firearms Federation.

"The Republicans aren't the saviors of gun owners. Sometimes we're better off when those two gangs are divided," he said.

--http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-gunpolitics13apr13,1,2467557.story?coll=la-home-headlines

almostaugust · 04-13-2004, 12:42 AM

I think people are getting sick and tired of all types of politicians not admitting blame on ANY ISSUES EVER. EVER. They always seem to defer the blame of to someone else. There is certain honour in acknowledging short-comings.

onetime2 · 04-13-2004, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by almostaugust
I think people are getting sick and tired of all types of politicians not admitting blame on ANY ISSUES EVER. EVER. They always seem to defer the blame of to someone else. There is certain honour in acknowledging short-comings.

Unfortunately people are not getting sick of it. It's apparently what people live for. It's all about getting elected. Wanna win the Presidency? Claim the current President is responsible for not protecting Americans while at the same time admit that it's totally unlikely that anything done would have prevented it. That way you can't be blamed when it comes to light that the information was available not just to the President but members of Congress, the press, think tanks, FBI, CIA, NSA, past Presidents, etc, etc, etc.

Lebell · 04-13-2004, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
The thing that concerns me the most is that people are supportive of our police officers and other law enforcement agents standing around public streets with assault rifles.

Did anyone see footage of the parade this weekend?

The need for better detection aside, we are witnessing one of the most dramatic coalescence of police power in the history of our nation. This is one of the reasons some of us point to the unrealistic proposition that an armed populace would resist government encroachment of their civil rights--the people are actually demanding it now.

Well I'll be damned, the NRA agrees with me!

--http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-gunpolitics13apr13,1,2467557.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Great topic for a new post!

04-13-2004, 12:42 AM	#46 (permalink)
almostaugust Junkie Location: Oz	I think people are getting sick and tired of all types of politicians not admitting blame on ANY ISSUES EVER. EVER. They always seem to defer the blame of to someone else. There is certain honour in acknowledging short-comings. __________________ 'And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe Maybe this year will be better than the last I can't remember all the times I tried to tell my myself To hold on to these moments as they pass'

04-12-2004, 05:16 PM	#43 (permalink)
elfstar Upright	There's no way around it. The memo is pretty damning for the Bush administration. But I think people are missing the point. The issue at hand isn't whether there was actionable intelligence or whether the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented (I believe Richard Clarke admitted that they couldn't be prevented). I think what it really boils down to is a matter of trust. Can we trust Bush and company to continue leading our country? I think the answer is a clear "no". They have consistently either withheld information or blatantly lied to cover their own asses. Case in point: from the beginning the company line has been that their was never any evidence of a domestic threat, and that every indication suggested that only overseas interests would be targeted. But the PDB obviously contradicts this assertion. They knew their lie would be revealed if they released the PDB. That's why they withheld it so long, and only released it when they had no choice. Even then they conveniently released it on a Saturday night, when they knew nobody would be paying attention. There's an article in "The Nation" which is fairly insightful (and I think pretty fair, even though it's a very left-wing magazine): <a href="http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1370">http://www.thenation.com/capitalgame...bid=3&pid=1370</a>