Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > BBC: White House Releases Memo from 6 August 2001

BBC: White House Releases Memo from 6 August 2001 (Page 2)
Thread Tools
netgear
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2004, 02:50 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
Wouldn't responding to the points made present a better picture of your arguments than bad grammar and the defensive posture of an 8 year old trying to out shout critical voices?
No, I just don't see how any terrorist attack can be stopped short of one of the participants making some kind of colossal mistake in execution or preparation. Look at the original WTC bombing and OKC bombings. We didn't know about those either prior to the attacks but the terrorists made rather amusing and massive mistakes afterwards that made capture much easier.

Good police, detective, and intelligence work is 1% information and 99% pure luck.
     
mr. natural
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: god's stray animal farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2004, 04:12 PM
 
Posted by zigzag:

? How much confidence can we have in a guy who will only talk to the 9/11 Commission with Dick Cheney in the room? Does it mean they work well as a team, or does it suggest that the President isn't sufficiently engaged?
It suggests to me that not only does Bush lack the confidence to talk about any of this without Dick sitting next to him to keep him from falling into a ditch, he lacks balls.

As someone who wrote a letter to the Boston Globe said:

"Could anyone conceive of Dwight D. Eisenhower agreeing to publicly explain why he nationalized troops in Arkansas to prevent segregationists from defying federal orders, but only if Richard Nixon were there to bolster him?

"Or could any of us picture John Kennedy promising to detail his action's during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but only if he could do it with Lyndon Johnson's support?Or could we envision George H.W. Bush spelling out his goals and limits in the Gulf War only on the condition that Dan Quayle assits him? I don't think so.

"In times of great national crisis, these true leaders could speak for themselves, and had the courage of their convictions. The operative word here being 'courage.' Alas, Bush does not, in this respect, emulate his predecessors. He has agreed to testify before the 9/11 commission only on the condition that it be in secret, and then only if his vice president, Dick Cheney, csan be there to mentor him.

"It's ironic that the man who said America must have the courage to go it alone when necessary won't do so himself."

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
     
slow moe
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2004, 04:52 PM
 
Originally posted by mr. natural:
It suggests to me that not only does Bush lack the confidence to talk about any of this without Dick sitting next to him to keep him from falling into a ditch, he lacks balls.

As someone who wrote a letter to the Boston Globe said:

"Could anyone conceive of Dwight D. Eisenhower agreeing to publicly explain why he nationalized troops in Arkansas to prevent segregationists from defying federal orders, but only if Richard Nixon were there to bolster him?

"Or could any of us picture John Kennedy promising to detail his action's during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but only if he could do it with Lyndon Johnson's support?Or could we envision George H.W. Bush spelling out his goals and limits in the Gulf War only on the condition that Dan Quayle assits him? I don't think so.

"In times of great national crisis, these true leaders could speak for themselves, and had the courage of their convictions. The operative word here being 'courage.' Alas, Bush does not, in this respect, emulate his predecessors. He has agreed to testify before the 9/11 commission only on the condition that it be in secret, and then only if his vice president, Dick Cheney, csan be there to mentor him.

"It's ironic that the man who said America must have the courage to go it alone when necessary won't do so himself."
Blah blah blah. This is just a rehashing of the same old stuff the Left was saying about him during the 2000 campaign.
Lysdexics have more fnu.
     
danielsh
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2004, 05:58 PM
 
Can you shrug it off so easily? The leader of the free world (well, that's his title, at any rate) has consistently demonstrated that he cannot, or will not, make decisions on his own. This frightens me for two reasons: first, if this is not just a show, then it seems that President Bush is a complete moron who will never take the initiative to do anything unless Rovey and Cheney tell him to. But on the other hand, if this is not a show, then it means that President Bush has a terribly frightening degree of 'plausible deniability' with which to evade responsibility for his mistakes and outright crimes.

This memo clearly shows that Bush should have been doing something. Instead, he focused on Iraq. I move to add the number of innocent civilians who died on Sept. 11 to the count of war casualties. Because if President Bush hadn't been so committed to avenging Daddy... well, things might have turned out differently.
"Greater than the tread of mighty armies is an idea whose time has come."
--Victor Hugo
     
Libin8tor
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2004, 06:18 PM
 
Originally posted by danielsh:


This memo clearly shows that Bush should have been doing something. Instead, he focused on Iraq. I move to add the number of innocent civilians who died on Sept. 11 to the count of war casualties. Because if President Bush hadn't been so committed to avenging Daddy... well, things might have turned out differently.
This is you in another thread:

"A friend of mine Photoshopped an image of the guy dancing with George W. Bush... and grabbing his ass. I'm working on getting it released to the public.

What will be nearly as effective, by my estimation, is the classic right-wing tactic known as "push polling." It's twisted and smart: The push pollers pose as an impartial polling organization, but ask questions that have no basis in truth. According to Al Franken, one neocon used it to beat John McCain for some spot, asking the question, "If you were aware that John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child, would you be more or less likely to vote for him?" Eventually, word got out that John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child (he hadn't) and all the nutty conservatives decided not to vote for him. The poll maintains a veneer of legitimacy, and the rumor mill spreads the lie and makes it truth."
When you graduate from High School, dont' go to college, you seem to know-it-all. Just go get a job in a Democratic campaign.

The memo shows nothing.

Read this: (You should blame Dick Clarke and Clinton)

"Skeleton in Clarke's closet
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Thursday, March 25, 2004

Former counterterrorism official and now tell-all author Richard Clarke was at it again yesterday, scorching Bush administration officials in testimony before the national Sept. 11 commission.

_____We'd like to know how Clarke squares his contention that he was the only one in the Bush administration truly committed to thwarting terrorism before the Sept. 11 attacks with this: It was Clarke who personally authorized the evacuation by private plane of dozens of Saudi citizens, including many members of Osama bin Laden's own family, in the days immediately following Sept. 11.

_____Clarke's role was revealed in an October 2003 Vanity Fair article. ``Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, leave the country,'' Clarke told Vanity Fair. ``My role was to say that it can't happen unless the FBI approves it. . . And they came back and said yes, it was fine with them. So we said `Fine, let it happen.' ''

_____Vanity Fair uncovered that the FBI never fully investigated the passengers on those privately chartered flights (one of which flew out of Logan International Airport after scooping up a dozen or so bin Laden relatives.) But Clarke protested to Vanity Fair that policing the FBI was not in his job description.

_____Isn't that convenient?

_____The same sanctimonious Clarke who now claims National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice didn't even know what al-Qaeda was, could have stopped the bin Laden airlift singlehandedly.

_____Why didn't he appeal to Rice, or even President Bush [related, bio] himself in one of those one-on-ones in the Situation Room, to block the flights? Surely it would have been helpful to determine - without a shred of doubt - that those passengers knew nothing about the Sept. 11 plot or the modus operandi of their notorious relative.

_____By all accounts, Clarke made hundreds of decisions in the days after Sept. 11, many clear-headed and right.

_____Approving those special flights seems like a wrong one, but it was a judgment call made in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history.

_____Perhaps it was the best decision he could make under the circumstances. It's too bad Clarke cuts no one in the Bush administration the same slack he so easily cuts himself.
"

Clarke / Clinton didn't do enough, if anything to protect the USA, and their inadequate policies carried over to Bush's Administration until he could have his people confirmed and changes made. It was too late by then, with all the road blocks put up by Democrats during this long and arduous process.

When you actually think about it, then you will come to the concluson that Bush, no matter how much you hate him, or wish to liken him to a monkey etc., could not have prevented 9/11.
Jesus Saves
     
danielsh
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2004, 06:47 PM
 
Congratulations on finding that quotation. I've always thought that ad hominem attacks are the foundation of any well-thought-out argument.

As to your attacks on Clarke's character (which, by the way, have absolutely nothing to do with the memo the rest of us are discussing), they seem to be based on the assumption that I would excuse his decision to evacuate members of the bin Laden family without questioning them first. I don't. Has Clarke made bad decisions? Probably. Did any of them result in the death of somewhere around 3,000 Americans? Not to my knowledge.

As to the actions of Clinton officials, I submit to you that when as Clinton was leaving office, warnings about terrorist attacks---more specifically, terrorist attacks mounted by Osama bin Laden---were becoming more and more common. So he ordered a group of his officials to brief the incoming President about the problem. Bush and his staff delayed the briefing until late August while cutting the budget for counter-terror operations. Perhaps Clinton should have taken more action (I presume that he's not blameless in this), but I don't have enough information to assess his performance. There's plenty available to get a reading on Bush's, however.
"Greater than the tread of mighty armies is an idea whose time has come."
--Victor Hugo
     
mr. natural
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: god's stray animal farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2004, 07:23 PM
 
When right-wing bimbos have nothing better to say they pull a Clinton; as in: It's all Clinton's fault.



You know, if Clinton were running for office this might make sense, but he isn't, while Bush et al are, and Bush was our President as of 1/21/01 (i.e., 7 months before 9/11), so you'll have to forgive me if I keep wanting to hold his feet to the fire of public scrutiny. A service which is the one and only true patriotic thing to do -- they are after all our public servants, and not our masters.

But I guess Libin8tor, or nam_pog, or perhaps even his little brother, was out sniffing glue the day they were teaching political science in high school. That might explain the stupidity inherent in them.

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2004, 08:05 PM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
It's true that you can't point to any specific intelligence that was directly before Bush or Rice that pointed to an attack on 9/11. In that sense, they're not responsible. But that doesn't necessarily mean they were doing their jobs effectively.

Similarly, no one doubts that if Bush had had specific prior knowledge of an attack, he would have moved heaven and earth to prevent it. But that's not really the question - the question is whether sufficient attention was being paid.

As vmpaul and BRussell suggest, it all seems to come down to the "shaking the trees" issue - knowing what they did know, did they direct sufficient attention to making sure the information that was out there was being shared? Did they give the matter sufficient urgency? Clarke testified that even if the plan he submitted in January 2001 had been implemented, it wouldn't have prevented 9/11. But he was only referring to that particular plan - there were other things that he felt should have been done, particularly the weekly "shaking the trees" meetings that Sandy Berger conducted but that Condi Rice appears to have abandoned. This and other decisions appear to have had the cumulative effect of, as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff put it, putting the matter on the back burner.

Everyone will come to different conclusions as to whether this amounted to negligence or whether it was just a normal and reasonable variation in focus and management style. Obviously, people who don't like Bush are going to lean one way, and people who like Bush will lean the other. But it's legitimate to pose this and related questions. Is Bush's management style adequate? How much confidence can we have in a guy who will only talk to the 9/11 Commission with Dick Cheney in the room? Does it mean they work well as a team, or does it suggest that the President isn't sufficiently engaged?
vmpaul, BRussell, theolein and yourself said it much better than I did. I don't think we can, or should, hold Bush responsible for these attacks even though they were "on his watch". But I DO think we can, and should, hold him responsible for choosing what foreign policy matters deserved the highest priority within his administration.

As more information comes out about the discussions of August 2001 it seems to me that Iraq was *the* foreign policy issue with the greatest urgency within the Bush administration. And until we see a PDB entitled "Hussein Determined to Attack Inside the US" Bush needs to be held accountable for appearing so single-mindedly focused on Iraq to the detriment of other major issues.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, EspaƱa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2004, 08:08 PM
 
Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
vmpaul, BRussell, theolein and yourself said it much better than I did. I don't think we can, or should, hold Bush responsible for these attacks even though they were "on his watch". But I DO think we can, and should, hold him responsible for choosing what foreign policy matters deserved the highest priority within his administration.

As more information comes out about the discussions of August 2001 it seems to me that Iraq was *the* foreign policy issue with the greatest urgency within the Bush administration. And until we see a PDB entitled "Hussein Determined to Attack Inside the US" Bush needs to be held accountable for appearing so single-mindedly focused on Iraq to the detriment of other major issues.
Word up!
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
vmpaul
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: always on the sunny side
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2004, 08:49 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Whether or not the Commission as a whole is bipartisan doesn't dilute the partisan interests of its members, 50% of whom are Democrats (and the other 50% Republican). So it is still 100% partisan, and 50% of that partisan interest is basically anti-Bush. Given that this is an election year, that is bound to influence things negatively. That's not parseing sentences, it's political reality.

The Commission was approved by the president in that he signed the legislation and didn't veto it. But it is still Congress' baby. I haven't checked the votes, but my guess would be that there probably would have been enough votes to overrule a presidential veto. So Bush's support is probably a little forced.

Because it is a legislative body, it answers to Congress, not the Executive. There is nothing wrong with that, but it does change the dynamic. I point that out because there is a popular misconception that bodies aren't Congressional unless there are members of Congress directly involved. You are correct that this is not the case here, but it is still a Congressional body, and it answers to Congress, and only to Congress. That means institutionally, this is Congress investigating the Bush Administration, which inevitably makes things a little adversarial, and critical on the part of Congress, and defensive, on the part of the Administration. So on top of the partisan interests of 50% of the Commission, you have an institutional interest of 100% of the Commission.
Again, I'll restate my original point. To characterize this Commission as a solely Democratic partisan attack is misleading and wrong. That's my point. I haven't heard all the public testimony but I've heard enough to hear tough questions being asked by both Republicans and Democrats. You can call the questions by Democrats as partisan if you want. How are we to characterize the pointed questions asked by Republicans? It's not non-partisan. Or somehow is it still the Democrats fault that the Republicans are demanding answers as well? Each one of us will determine what we think the tone of this Commission has been. IMO, I've heard enough to believe that they've been fair and tough in finding answers to these critical questions. I would expect the same no matter what the political makeup of the Administration currently in power.

Forced or not, this Commission was approved by the President. As was, IIRC, the extension it recently received. Everything else is just theoretical. Again, the fact that he approved and appointed the head of the Commission takes the wind out of the argument that it's just a Democratic attack.

We just disagree on the last point. The fact that the Commission is made up of non-elected representatives of both parties, I think, makes it a totally different animal then one made up by members of Congress. It gives them an independence much like the Special Prosecutors that have been appointed by the President. There's bound to be less pandering to constituents then some pol angling for re-election.
The only thing that I am reasonably sure of is that anybody who's got an ideology has stopped thinking. - Arthur Miller
     
vmpaul
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: always on the sunny side
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2004, 08:52 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Did you read my post, or just knee jerk? You said you wanted Bush to meet with his CIA Director. I pointed out that Bush met with him, daily. I mention Clarke only because you did, and because the consequence of Bush meeting with Tenet meant that Clarke was shunted aside in favor of meeting with the principal.

As for the FBI, of course it is under the supervision of the president via the Attorney General, as well as having oversight from a number of Congressional committees. But in practice, the daily business of its operations, and especially its investigations, are supervised by itself. That's why it has a Director. But unfortunately, the Director in the critical period was a chair warmer. I think that may be important because the tendency is for chair warmers not to make radical changes.
Me knee-jerk? :me scratches head:

I question whether you read my post because you're answering questions I didn't raise. I'm not discussing bureaucratic flow charts or office politics.

Ultimately, it is the President who sets the agenda for agencies under his wing. The buck stops there. Especially if it involves issues of national security. Given the substance and volume of recently released documents, statements made by members of the Administration (current and former), and comments from the President himself admitting that there wasn't a sense of urgency regarding terrorism I think it's fair to question, why not? As zigzag said, it all comes down to whether they 'shook the trees' enough. If you're going to brag about being tough on terrorism then expect to be challenged on that when there's a failure.

Again, I don't blame Bush (or Clinton) for not stopping the events of 9/11. No objective citizen will. Al-Queada and Bin Laden are responsible for those actions. That can't be repeated enough. But did we do all that we could in response to the threats? Did we respond timely to the data coming in and from warnings from the previous Administration? I don't think so.

I've said this before in other threads. I think it's one of the drawbacks of our political system. The change of government every 4 or 8 years inevitably results in a loss of a cohesive and consistent foreign policy. An effective foreign policy needs to stretch further than our political calendar.
The only thing that I am reasonably sure of is that anybody who's got an ideology has stopped thinking. - Arthur Miller
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2004, 09:09 PM
 
I saw the prez say this today on Fox News:
And you might recall the hijacking that was referred to in the PDB. It was not a hijacking of an airplane to fly into a building, it was hijacking of airplanes in order to free somebody that was being held as a prisoner in the United States.
What I'd like to know is how it matters that they were going to hijack a plane in order to free somebody vs. hijacking to fly it into a building. He says it like "see, it was TOTALLY different than what we heard it would be so there's no way we could have stopped it." You can't appreciate it in text because you don't get to see that ****-eatin Alfred E. Newman grin when he says it.
     
mo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Columbia, MO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2004, 09:09 PM
 
Originally posted by nam_pog:
My stupid brother is playing the game. I caught him messing around with my computer the other day and was wondering what the heck he was doing. Just caught him posting in here. Someone is getting a beating later on.
This whole multiple-username thing and posting to agree with yourself is really sad.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2004, 09:14 PM
 
Originally posted by vmpaul:
Ultimately, it is the President who sets the agenda for agencies under his wing. The buck stops there. Especially if it involves issues of national security. Given the substance and volume of recently released documents, statements made by members of the Administration (current and former), and comments from the President himself admitting that there wasn't a sense of urgency regarding terrorism I think it's fair to question, why not? As zigzag said, it all comes down to whether they 'shook the trees' enough. If you're going to brag about being tough on terrorism then expect to be challenged on that when there's a failure.
Two issues here. First, in theory it's perfectly true that the buck stops with the President. However, that can have the quality of an aphorism. If we want to figure out what really happened, then it is important to probe benieth the aphorisms and ask what actually happened according to how things actually work, not how they theoretically work. In theory, the president directly supervises everything that happens in the Executive branch. But in practice, that obviously isn't the case.

As for Bush "bragging," I think it is quite clear that his record on terrorism essentially began on 9/11/2001, and that record is pretty strong -- certainly stronger than his predecessors of either party. It seems to me that the tendency has become to try to undermine that record by changing the subject to what happened in the 233 days preceding 9/11/2001. That is before terrorism became this defining issue. That seems a little transparent to me.

Again, I don't blame Bush (or Clinton) for not stopping the events of 9/11. No objective citizen will. Al-Queada and Bin Laden are responsible for those actions. That can't be repeated enough. But did we do all that we could in response to the threats? Did we respond timely to the data coming in and from warnings from the previous Administration? I don't think so.
There is a difference between looking back to learn from past mistakes, and affixing blame. Maybe you don't have any intention of doing the latter, but it is clear that many do. As long as that is the case, there will never be a meaningful investigation. That is why it was a mistake to hold this investigation in an election year.

I've said this before in other threads. I think it's one of the drawbacks of our political system. The change of government every 4 or 8 years inevitably results in a loss of a cohesive and consistent foreign policy. An effective foreign policy needs to stretch further than our political calendar.
There used to be a feeling that politics stopped at the water's edge. That died some time ago.
     
mo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Columbia, MO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2004, 09:20 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


There used to be a feeling that politics stopped at the water's edge. That died some time ago.
Arthur Vandenberg? Henry Cabot Lodge? John Adams? How far back should we go? Actually, didn't there used to be a largely imaginary feeling that politics stopped at the water's edge?
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2004, 09:45 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
As for Bush "bragging," I think it is quite clear that his record on terrorism essentially began on 9/11/2001, and that record is pretty strong -- certainly stronger than his predecessors of either party. It seems to me that the tendency has become to try to undermine that record by changing the subject to what happened in the 233 days preceding 9/11/2001. That is before terrorism became this defining issue. That seems a little transparent to me.
It is clear that his record on terrorism began on 9/11 - maybe it should have started a little earlier. But it's pretty hard to argue that Bush has been so much better than any of his predecessors when his predecessors all came before 9/11. And plenty of us have been debating his actions post-9/11, too. Maybe you've even noticed some of that debate? I'd say there's a pretty good argument that going into Iraq the way we did not only detracted from counter-terrorism, but in fact was a great thing for terrorists and Islamists. Remember that bin Laden's purpose was to get us to attack a muslim country so that his movement became more powerful. In that respect, Bush has done exactly what the terrorists wanted.
     
coolmacdude
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2004, 10:00 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
Bush and Rice are these people's bosses, not the other way around. Bush and Rice give the order to the CIA and FBI and the rest of them.
There are areas of the CIA that not even the President can touch.

But that is a completely different discussion.
2.16 Ghz Core 2 Macbook, 3GB Ram, 120 GB
     
jbartone
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2004, 10:49 PM
 
Sounds like enough reason to beef up airport security
     
vmpaul
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: always on the sunny side
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2004, 11:55 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


As for Bush "bragging," I think it is quite clear that his record on terrorism essentially began on 9/11/2001, and that record is pretty strong -- certainly stronger than his predecessors of either party. It seems to me that the tendency has become to try to undermine that record by changing the subject to what happened in the 233 days preceding 9/11/2001. That is before terrorism became this defining issue. That seems a little transparent to me.
I think he only began paying attention after 9/11. That, it seems, is the debate.

Honestly, before this commission, I don't think many thought the problems went much deeper than our agencies simply not communicating. Sure, there are long-term, complicated foreign policy decisions that could be reviewed but there are too many variables to easily pin those down to definable causes. It is fairly amazing the amount of information coming out on this. Especially when you consider that we, the public, have heard only a fraction of what the Commission has behind closed doors.

Maybe in the end we'll have to chalk it up to human nature. The arrogance (not to be too pejorative) of an incoming administration in their regard for the out-going team. Similar to how it's impossible to tell a teenager anything. Who's to say Clinton wasn't the same with Bush 41. Or every other administration before that.
The only thing that I am reasonably sure of is that anybody who's got an ideology has stopped thinking. - Arthur Miller
     
netgear
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 12:01 AM
 
Until someone proves that the current administration had a piece of substantial evidence giving the exact date and time and method of these attacks all I see is a bunch of armchair quarterback politics.

If we're going to point fingers after the fact at Bush then why didn't Clinton stop the 1993 WTC bombings? They occurred about the same time into his first administration as did 9-11. Was he too focused on raising our taxes to worry about terrorism?
     
Libin8tor
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 12:27 AM
 
"'Retaliation'

After missile strikes against his base in Afghanistan in 1998 by then US President Bill Clinton, Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate, according to the memo.

It says the millennium plot in 1999 - when a man crossing from Canada was arrested in Washington in possession of powerful explosives - may have been Bin Laden's first serious attempt to carry out an attack on the US.

At the time of the memo, the FBI was conducting 70 Bin Laden-related investigations throughout the country, it added.

The document also indicates that Bin Laden was meticulous in planning his operations, as demonstrated by his surveillance of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which al-Qaeda attacked in 1998.

Democratic members on the 9/11 commission have demanded to know why the document was not seen as a warning of the attacks that took place just over a month later when planes crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The Bush administration "didn't know that 9/11 was going to happen," said Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the commission, "but I think the author of this memo was alerting the president to the possibility that the strike that we were all anticipating in the summer of 2001 might well occur within the United States."

The commission is set to ask further probing questions in the coming week when several senior figures, including Attorney General John Ashcroft, CIA director George Tenet and former FBI head Louis Freeh, testify. "
Jesus Saves
     
slow moe
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 12:37 AM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
I'd say there's a pretty good argument that going into Iraq the way we did not only detracted from counter-terrorism, but in fact was a great thing for terrorists and Islamists. Remember that bin Laden's purpose was to get us to attack a muslim country so that his movement became more powerful. In that respect, Bush has done exactly what the terrorists wanted.
What difference does it really make. They already hated us when they flew a buncha planes into those buildings. How could they possibly get anymore mad than that.

Besides, the vast majority of the money donated to these Islamic nutballs, that would have ordinarily been used to attack us here at home, now HAS to be used to fund their ops in Iraq instead. Sadr is a perfect example.

It was a smart tactical move. We haven't been attacked since 9/11, the terrorist are force to spend 90% of their precious energy and fight in that region (which has been a dump for the last 50 years to begin with), the Democrats look like idiots over it (John Kerry: "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it." What a moroon.), the press *cough* bias-press has gone absolutely ****ing apeshit over it, and have finally exposed their true selves to the American public, the President's overall approval rating has not been significantly damaged, oh, and hey, if democracy works out there, then great, Iran and Syria will have someone real close to keep them company for a little while, sorry you don't see it that way.

"Yeah, but what if it fails?" It can't fail, no free country on earth can afford to let it fail. That's the other genius of it.

"What about oil? I thought it was all about Iraq's oil." Good question, but from a business stand point, if it was all about oil, it would have been far easier and cheapier to leave Saddam in power and deal with him directly for oil, like France.

This is **** you won't hear in school tomorrow, so if you have anymore questions for the professor, ask now.
Lysdexics have more fnu.
     
Libin8tor
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 12:40 AM
 
Originally posted by slow moe:
What difference does it really make. They already hated us when they flew a buncha planes into those buildings. How could they possibly get anymore mad than that.

Besides, the vast majority of the money donated to these Islamic nutballs, that would have ordinarily been used to attack us here at home, now HAS to be used to fund their ops in Iraq instead. Sadr is a perfect example.

It was a smart tactical move. We haven't been attacked since 9/11, the terrorist are force to spend 90% of their precious energy and fight in that region (which has been a dump for the last 50 years to begin with), the Democrats look like idiots over it (John Kerry: "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it." What a moroon.), the press *cough* bias-press has gone absolutely ****ing apeshit over it, and have finally exposed their true selves to the American public, the President's overall approval rating has not been significantly damaged, oh, and hey, if democracy works out there, then great, Iran and Syria will have someone real close to keep them company for a little while, sorry you don't see it that way.

"Yeah, but what if it fails?" It can't fail, no free country on earth can afford to let it fail. That's the other genius of it.

"What about oil? I thought it was all about Iraq's oil." Good question, but from a business stand point, if it was all about oil, it would have been far easier and cheapier to leave Saddam in power and deal with him directly for oil, like France.

This is **** you won't hear in school tomorrow, so if you have anymore questions for the professor, ask now.
You Rock!
Jesus Saves
     
mr. natural
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: god's stray animal farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 01:42 AM
 
Posted by SimeyTheLimey:

As for Bush "bragging," I think it is quite clear that his record on terrorism essentially began on 9/11/2001, and that record is pretty strong -- certainly stronger than his predecessors of either party. It seems to me that the tendency has become to try to undermine that record by changing the subject to what happened in the 233 days preceding 9/11/2001. That is before terrorism became this defining issue. That seems a little transparent to me.
What a hoot! If the standard is what anyone has done since 9/11, then of course Bush wins, because, as you note, that is when terrorism precisely became the defining issue.

Duh. Go figure.

If anything is "transparent" here it is this utterly lame post of yours.

Had Bush wanted it, he could of accepted the need for and pressed for a fact finding 9/11 commission a long time ago. Whose fault is that? The fact remains that we are finding out a lot of things about 9/11, both before and after, which reflect poorly on a lot of people, some of whom are no longer in power. That Bush and his crew happen to be in the spotlight now is his fate, and there is no point bemoaning it. What really matters is how he deals with it.

I don't think it helps that he has shown piss poor judgment, borne of an insular arrogance inherent in this administration, which assumes he can win re-election by touting his accomplishments since 9/11 while doing nothing to openly and forthrightly address the questions of who, what, why, and when leading up to it. All the foot dragging and diversionary tactics with the commission and their work is his own damn fault.

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
     
mr. natural
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: god's stray animal farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 01:50 AM
 
Posted by BRussell:

What I'd like to know is how it matters that they were going to hijack a plane in order to free somebody vs. hijacking to fly it into a building. He says it like "see, it was TOTALLY different than what we heard it would be so there's no way we could have stopped it." You can't appreciate it in text because you don't get to see that ****-eatin Alfred E. Newman grin when he says it.
You mean like this:


"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 06:03 AM
 
Originally posted by mr. natural:
What a hoot! If the standard is what anyone has done since 9/11, then of course Bush wins, because, as you note, that is when terrorism precisely became the defining issue.

Duh. Go figure.

If anything is "transparent" here it is this utterly lame post of yours.
Ignoring your ad hominem, the fact that Bush's record on terrorism really began on 9/11/2001 rather than 1/20/2001 really ought not to be an impediment to an intelligent debate on the issues in this election. All that happens is the opposition has to say what it would do differently in the future. Unfortunatley, the Democrats seem incapable of formulating that kind of a campaign.

That's a shame because until Kerry starts to do that, he's not going to be a viable candidate on what is probably the most important issue.
     
Ayelbourne
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Scandinavia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 06:29 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Ignoring your ad hominem, the fact that Bush's record on terrorism really began on 9/11/2001 rather than 1/20/2001 really ought not to be an impediment to an intelligent debate on the issues in this election. All that happens is the opposition has to say what it would do differently in the future. Unfortunatley, the Democrats seem incapable of formulating that kind of a campaign.
With all due respect, Simey, I think that's hogwash. The President's record on all matters of the presidency begins when he takes the oath of office. Was not President Bush receiving summarised intelligence reports on terrorism and terrorist activities prior to September, 2001 (whether or not "dots" could have been "connected" in regards to the attacks on the 11th)?

Partisan politics aside, I don't see how one can seriously argue this.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 06:51 AM
 
Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
With all due respect, Simey, I think that's hogwash. The President's record on all matters of the presidency begins when he takes the oath of office. Was not President Bush receiving summarised intelligence reports on terrorism and terrorist activities prior to September, 2001 (whether or not "dots" could have been "connected" in regards to the attacks on the 11th)?

Partisan politics aside, I don't see how one can seriously argue this.
To be clear, we weren't talking about his record in general. We were talking on his record of being particularly tough on terrorism. Prior to 9/11, I don't think that anyone could claim that Bush was particularly tough on terrorism. I think his pre-9/11 record is about the same as Clinton's, which, of course, it would be, because it was basically Clinton's policy that all of the agencies had maintained abd inherited. All Bush could point to there was a tweak here, and a tweak there, none of which reached the public's attention at the time.

Post 9/11, the Administration has clearly made the war on terror it's top priority, and the thing that the public most regards Bush as being associated with, and measured by. But they have in mind, the reaction to 9/11 and his record from that date to the present.

It seems to me, however, that the Democrats do not want to discuss Bush's entire record on terrorism. What they want to do is limit his record to one small window. All they want to talk about is the period of 233 days since Bush's inauguration to 9/11. Mainly, I think this is an attempt to neutralize what is, in fact, a strong record that resonates with the public by subtly trying to blame 9/11 on him. That can be seen in opinions like this. The idea is either to lodge blame, or to cause Bush's terrorism record not to be discussed at all.

Personally, I doubt that this will work. Partisans aside, most people intuituitively understand that hindsight isn't the standard to measure anyone by. They also understand that the only things that might have prevented 9/11 are things that the country would not have accepted without 9/11. For example, the kind of post-9/11 airport screening we have now would not have been accepted pre-9/11. It's barely tolerated now. Prior to 9/11, also, a major issue was racial profiling. The government could not have implemented anything that smacked of that and no memo to the president would have been seized upon as providing a reason.

Secondly, I don't think it wil work because at some point, Kerry has to articulate a forward-looking policy, and this he has failed to do. The more the Democrats focus on events of 3 years ago, before the world changed, the more apparent it is that they haven't quite accommodated themselves to the fact that the world has changed. That's why they are desperate to change the subject to any other issue. Before Kerry will be electable, he has to say what he will do, not just point the finger of blame at what the incumbent did and then change the subject.
     
Ayelbourne
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Scandinavia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 07:19 AM
 
I understand all your points and agree with nearly all of them. However, it's my opinion that President Bush's record on terrorism includes his entire time in office. I don't think it should be limited to merely the first 233 days, nor should it be limited to be being counted strictly from the point that he (and most Americans) got sucker-punched. There's no doubt that he made terrorism his top priority (for a while, at least) after he was "hit over the head" with it, but I think Americans are absolutely justified in wanting to go back and look at facts and events to evaluate how he was handling the threat of terrorism before it became painfully and tragically obvious to everyone that action was needed.

Could the attacks on the 11th have been prevented? That may very well prove undeterminable, because there is no way to remove hindsight from the equation. But, as the President is so recently fond of reminding us, it is his job to anticipate threats to the U.S., and he is as subject to job and performance review as the rest of us are. Especially if he is going to cloak himself in September 11th and his response to it for re-election purposes.
     
Ayelbourne
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Scandinavia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 07:22 AM
 
And, for the record, I still find racial profiling extremely distasteful.
     
netgear
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 11:05 AM
 
Easy enough to say considering how white Scandinavia is, isn't it?
     
Ayelbourne
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Scandinavia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 11:47 AM
 
Originally posted by netgear:
Easy enough to say considering how white Scandinavia is, isn't it?
I'm not sure I understand your meaning...
     
vmpaul
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: always on the sunny side
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 12:40 PM
 
Originally posted by netgear:
Until someone proves that the current administration had a piece of substantial evidence giving the exact date and time and method of these attacks all I see is a bunch of armchair quarterback politics.
Jeez, I don't seem to remember seeing the 'exact date and time and method' of those attacks coming from Iraq. Did you? Anyone? Anyone?

What a ridiculous position.
The only thing that I am reasonably sure of is that anybody who's got an ideology has stopped thinking. - Arthur Miller
     
Libin8tor
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 12:43 PM
 
Vmpaul: How about from anywhere? at what time? with what method? anyone? anyone?

Gosh, I hope I don't get banned for saying this because it makes a liberal look in the mirror.

"What a rediculous position".
How does it feel to know your (Kerry) candidate is so two-faced and such a scumbag that he won't even come close to winning the presidency? It's gotta make you really angry, because it shows in all the liberal-generated hate-filled ad hominem and personal attackes in these forums.

Let it out. I feel your pain.
Jesus Saves
     
netgear
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 12:45 PM
 
Originally posted by vmpaul:
Jeez, I don't seem to remember seeing the 'exact date and time and method' of those attacks coming from Iraq. Did you? Anyone? Anyone?

What a ridiculous position.
What does that have to do with anything?
     
netgear
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 12:53 PM
 
Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
I'm not sure I understand your meaning...
Given the Scandinavian word for immigrant "innvandrer" which means "dark skinned" I think it's humorous how much racism persists in even the most socially-welfare-conscious places on Earth.
     
vmpaul
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: always on the sunny side
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 01:06 PM
 
Originally posted by netgear:
What does that have to do with anything?
If preemptive action was good enough to invade Iraq, a report from the CIA titled' Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US' seems to be a worthwhile signal to increase your security awareness, don't you think?

To assume you carry no blame because you didn't have a note specifying exact time and date is ridiculous.
The only thing that I am reasonably sure of is that anybody who's got an ideology has stopped thinking. - Arthur Miller
     
netgear
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 01:12 PM
 
Originally posted by vmpaul:
If preemptive action was good enough to invade Iraq, a report from the CIA titled' Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US' seems to be a worthwhile signal to increase your security awareness, don't you think?

To assume you carry no blame because you didn't have a note specifying exact time and date is ridiculous.
'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US'

So do we attack the US then if all we know is that he's going to attack somewhere here?

How in the world do you expect anyone to know the precise date, time, and method of attack when it's not known??????????
     
Ayelbourne
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Scandinavia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 01:12 PM
 
Originally posted by netgear:
Given the Scandinavian word for immigrant "innvandrer" which means "dark skinned" I think it's humorous how much racism persists in even the most socially-welfare-conscious places on Earth.
Wow, I don't know where you are getting that one from. The Swedish word "invandrare" means immigrant, and it literally translates as "one who moves (into the country)". "Utvandrar" are emigrants.

Yes, we have racism here. About 10-12% of the population holds racist attitudes. Moderaterna (the Moderate party) basically blew their chances in the last election when some of their members revealed racist views on hidden camera. We don't find racism humorous.

Why do I smell straw burning?




(edited for spelling)
( Last edited by Ayelbourne; Apr 12, 2004 at 01:24 PM. )
     
vmpaul
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: always on the sunny side
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 01:14 PM
 
Originally posted by netgear:
'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US'

So do we attack the US then if all we know is that he's going to attack somewhere here?

How in the world do you expect anyone to know the precise date, time, and method of attack when it's not known??????????
Huh? Attack the US? What are you talking about?
The only thing that I am reasonably sure of is that anybody who's got an ideology has stopped thinking. - Arthur Miller
     
angaq0k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 01:19 PM
 
Originally posted by Libin8tor:
Vmpaul: How about from anywhere? at what time? with what method? anyone? anyone?

Gosh, I hope I don't get banned for saying this because it makes a liberal look in the mirror.

"What a rediculous position".
How does it feel to know your (Kerry) candidate is so two-faced and such a scumbag that he won't even come close to winning the presidency? It's gotta make you really angry, because it shows in all the liberal-generated hate-filled ad hominem and personal attackes in these forums.

Let it out. I feel your pain.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4709863/

ļæ½ Poll: Kerry Opens Up a Lead Over Bush
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
netgear
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 01:26 PM
 
Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Wow, I don't know where you are getting that one from. The Swedish word "invandrare" means immigrant, and it literally translates as "one who moves (into the country)". "Utvandrar" are emigrants.

Yes, we have racism here. About 10-12% of the population holds racist attitudes. Moderaterna (the Moderate party) basically blew their chances in the last election when some of their members revealed rascist views on hidden camera. We don't find racism humorous.

Why do I smell straw burning?
I was merely reading a report on comparing the social welfare states in Scandinavia to more progressively social countries in the EU and despite the overall "richness" of Scandinavia versus some poorer EU countries the minorities actually tend to fare better and become more autonomous in poorer countries than in Scandinavia. I just found the link between "immigrant" and it's real meaning to be fascinating. The report showed that even in Sweden the racist parties can get as high as 20% of the seats. I dunno, that just seems rather frightening and sort of hypocritical when Europeans make comment on the racial problems we have here.
     
netgear
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 01:28 PM
 
Originally posted by vmpaul:
Huh? Attack the US? What are you talking about?
If the argument goes that we attacked Iraq pre-emptively to prevent possible future terrorist attacks/funding/whatever then how do you stop an attack in the US in the future for which the government has no date, no time, no precise location?

I mean, great, we knew it might happen in the US, possibly Washington, possibly NYC. Great, that really narrows it down, doesn't it?
     
Ayelbourne
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Scandinavia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 01:40 PM
 
Originally posted by netgear:
I was merely reading a report on comparing the social welfare states in Scandinavia to more progressively social countries in the EU and despite the overall "richness" of Scandinavia versus some poorer EU countries the minorities actually tend to fare better and become more autonomous in poorer countries than in Scandinavia. I just found the link between "immigrant" and it's real meaning to be fascinating. The report showed that even in Sweden the racist parties can get as high as 20% of the seats. I dunno, that just seems rather frightening and sort of hypocritical when Europeans make comment on the racial problems we have here.
Well, I would say that's a discussion for another thread. Simey's point was that he doubted racial profiling (in airports, I am assuming) would have been accepted before September 11th (as a possible method of being able to apprehend the terrorists before the attacks), and I was pointing out that some people continue to find it unacceptable or questionable. As someone who has occasion to visit the U.S. to see relatives via the use of international airlines, and therefore is theoretically subject to such procedures, I think I am entitled to have an opinion on this matter.

I was making a larger point that I believe President Bush's entire term in office must be considered his "record on terrorism", not merely the segment when he was being demonstrably proactive about it.
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 02:00 PM
 
Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3616005.stm

The following is the full text of the intelligence briefing of 6 August 2001, prepared for President George W Bush, concerning the al-Qaeda threat to the United States.

It was declassified on 10 April.

Three sections were edited, the White House said, to "protect the names of foreign governments that provided information to CIA".
You mean that they released it AGAIN? After all, Bob Woodward was talking about it, and the title, in May of 2002. Sounds like a case of old news.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 02:28 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
To be clear, we weren't talking about his record in general. We were talking on his record of being particularly tough on terrorism. Prior to 9/11, I don't think that anyone could claim that Bush was particularly tough on terrorism. I think his pre-9/11 record is about the same as Clinton's, which, of course, it would be, because it was basically Clinton's policy that all of the agencies had maintained abd inherited. All Bush could point to there was a tweak here, and a tweak there, none of which reached the public's attention at the time.

Post 9/11, the Administration has clearly made the war on terror it's top priority, and the thing that the public most regards Bush as being associated with, and measured by. But they have in mind, the reaction to 9/11 and his record from that date to the present.

It seems to me, however, that the Democrats do not want to discuss Bush's entire record on terrorism. What they want to do is limit his record to one small window. All they want to talk about is the period of 233 days since Bush's inauguration to 9/11. Mainly, I think this is an attempt to neutralize what is, in fact, a strong record that resonates with the public by subtly trying to blame 9/11 on him. That can be seen in opinions like this. The idea is either to lodge blame, or to cause Bush's terrorism record not to be discussed at all.

Personally, I doubt that this will work. Partisans aside, most people intuituitively understand that hindsight isn't the standard to measure anyone by. They also understand that the only things that might have prevented 9/11 are things that the country would not have accepted without 9/11. For example, the kind of post-9/11 airport screening we have now would not have been accepted pre-9/11. It's barely tolerated now. Prior to 9/11, also, a major issue was racial profiling. The government could not have implemented anything that smacked of that and no memo to the president would have been seized upon as providing a reason.

Secondly, I don't think it wil work because at some point, Kerry has to articulate a forward-looking policy, and this he has failed to do. The more the Democrats focus on events of 3 years ago, before the world changed, the more apparent it is that they haven't quite accommodated themselves to the fact that the world has changed. That's why they are desperate to change the subject to any other issue. Before Kerry will be electable, he has to say what he will do, not just point the finger of blame at what the incumbent did and then change the subject.
Like aylebourne, I agree mostly but would add the following:

a) I disagree that the Bush Administration's policies and practices mirrored those of Clinton's. In the agencies and on paper, perhaps, but I think it's been pretty clearly demonstrated that at the top level, the focus changed. Everyone will draw their own conclusions as to whether this was a normal and reasonable variation/transition or whether it showed poor judgment. I think it was some of each, although I'm still not sure to what degree. I don't condemn anyone for it, but it goes into the equation of deciding whether I think these people can do a proper job.

b) I agree that what happens in the future is more important than what happened in the past, and I think that, as you say, most people are sensible enough to understand that. But I still want to know what happened in the past in order to make a complete evaluation as to how a given candidate might act in the future. Again, it all goes into the equation.

c) The partisanship runs both ways. Just as some would use the information to advance their own political interests, others would like to paper it over in order to protect and advance theirs. IMO the latter is no more legitimate than the former even though it might be couched in patriotic terms. It seems that some people consider any criticism of the administration to be unacceptable. Since we will always have partisanship, the real question, it seems to me, is how open we want our society to be. I lean towards openness, with reasonable limitations. Therefore I think it's legitimate to openly inquire into what happened before 9/11. I say put it out there, debate it, and let people draw their own conclusions. That's what the democratic process is basically about. The fact that some people will use it in a partisan manner, or even draw irrational conclusions, is the price we pay for living in an open society.

d) You seem to agree that there's a legitimate interest in conducting an inquiry, but that it shouldn't be done in an election year. Seems reasonable - I recognize the dangers of politicizing the issue - but would it protect the national interest, or just the incumbent? I'm not sure why we shouldn't put the information out there in time for people to make a judgment on election day. Is it for us to tell people "You shouldn't vote on that basis"? Should the incumbent be allowed to control the scope of that debate until after the election?

e) I don't doubt that terrorism has been a top priority since 9/11, but there's honest disagreement as to whether it's been handled in a prudent manner. Again, the administration's approach to things both before and after 9/11 all goes into the equation - I don't think they're completely unrelated.

f) I agree that Kerry needs to state his intentions (actually, I accused him of being overly vague before but I think he has since made some more specific statements), but at the risk of sounding snarky, I think the President needs to do the same. Platitudes about fighting terrorism and establishing democracy do not a foreign policy make - I'd prefer to think that he has a workable plan, but no one is quite sure what it is. I remember asking before the invasion: what exactly is the post-war plan? Who do we expect to control Iraq, and how do we get there? It seems that we're still not sure.
     
netgear
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 03:16 PM
 
Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Well, I would say that's a discussion for another thread. Simey's point was that he doubted racial profiling (in airports, I am assuming) would have been accepted before September 11th (as a possible method of being able to apprehend the terrorists before the attacks), and I was pointing out that some people continue to find it unacceptable or questionable. As someone who has occasion to visit the U.S. to see relatives via the use of international airlines, and therefore is theoretically subject to such procedures, I think I am entitled to have an opinion on this matter.

I was making a larger point that I believe President Bush's entire term in office must be considered his "record on terrorism", not merely the segment when he was being demonstrably proactive about it.
I think the possibility of profiling is only going to get higher and perhaps now even become an intergral part of airport security. Unfortunately when the vast majority of terrorists who want to harm the U.S. are brown or dark skinned then the public here is going to naturally expect more scruitiny of them no matter whether it's wrong or right.

Also I'm sure every President since the 1970s has thought about terrorism. I doubt it was on the back burner. Not catching terrorists in time =| low regard for terrorism. I would just suggest that not every plot can be foiled no matter how many mind probes you sink into people.
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 06:27 PM
 
If it is not possible to stop a terrorist attack unless you have a date, a time, a location, and the phone number of everyone involved, then what is the point of the Department of Homeland Security?

And if you find racial stereotyping (sorry: 'profiling') acceptable in some cases, why isn't it in others (e.g. 'most murders in DC are committed by people with dark skins, we should be allowed to roust anyone with a dark skin')? Or are you one of those that think that it is always acceptable?

And tell us again how racial stereotyping would have helped catch McVeigh before the event.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, EspaƱa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 08:46 PM
 
Originally posted by netgear:
Given the Scandinavian word for immigrant "innvandrer" which means "dark skinned" I think it's humorous how much racism persists in even the most socially-welfare-conscious places on Earth.
innvandrer is made of the two words inn + vandrer.

inn = in

vandrer = traveler

Maybe you were thinking of 'svartskalle'
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
netgear
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2004, 08:49 PM
 
Aren't all "right wing anti-government" groups white by nature? That's the impression I get from the news media.

The news media gives me the impression that the only real criminals are black, and, that the only terrorists in this world are Muslim.

Since I don't believe the news for the most part I don't believe any of the above. But your average couch potato is going to.

Terrorist attacks will only be averted if and only if those committing the act make some serious flaw in execution. So far Al-Quida has been very successful. bin Laden knows the rules of execution very well and unless we infiltrate the organization I'm afraid there will be more attacks regardless whether the DHS exists or whether we chose to attack Iraq or not.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:11 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,