Officials ignored warning signs, 9/11 panel says

[Sabastian]

Regarding the rest of your post, there was a very good "Tim Russert" show last Saturday in which Thomas Friedman of the NYTimes was guest. The gist of his argument was this. We're killing terrorists, but not faster than they are being bred, in part because of our policies in the middle east. A leaked Rumsfeld memo stated this assessment as well.

I'm trying to find the transcript now. It was pretty brilliant imo regarding our strategies in the middle east, and how we're not only fighting a terrorist war, but a culture war as you stated. However, it's not necessarily the culture of "destroying islam" as some might take it, but propping up Islam and giving those who live in those countries another way of doing things.

Sorry about that. I have not been looking into the investigation too closely but I wouldn't be too surprised to see democrats looking for cracks to take advantage of in a partisan manner. I never said however that this ought to be a war on Islam rather more precisely a war on Islamic fundamentalism.

A war of culture then it really makes little difference on what the policy of any administration might be. There is no doubt in my mind that this whole matter is culturally based. Years ago when I was in University I learned of these fundamentalist I realized that there was going to be a confrontation I knew at that point that it was simply a matter of time. 9/11 accelerated the process and it was George Bush Jr's unlucky inheritance. I don't believe that it would have been different if a democrat was in the oval office.

 

[John Reynolds]

I never said however that this ought to be a war on Islam rather more precisely a war on Islamic fundamentalism.

I agree. Taking your eye off the ball to go after a secular leader with no ties to fundamentalist terrorists is what boils my blood.

 

[Sxotty]

It is partisan finger pointing and the aim is to demonize the current administration into admitting that they were aware of the impending terrorist act and imply that possibly they are responsible for the event that 9/11 was.

You are wrong, they demonized clinton for quite awhile. You must understand when something bad happens people want someone to blame, and they don't think it is good enough to blame those who did it, they want to blame those that allowed it to occur.

edit:

That supergun thing actually was kind of real, but it was useless so... that is like saying he had a super fly swatter and we should all cower in fear or else he might swat us, or maybe a SUPER WET NOODLE, oh the pain the PAIN...

 

[Vince]

I agree. Taking your eye off the ball to go after a secular leader with no ties to fundamentalist terrorists is what boils my blood.

Before I comment, are you actually talking about Saddam in this context? Was this a joke?

That supergun thing actually was kind of real, but it was useless so... that is like saying he had a super fly swatter and we should all cower in fear or else he might swat us, or maybe a SUPER WET NOODLE, oh the pain the PAIN...

I agree it was useless, but for different reasons. It's [the 1K mm weapon] a fixed emplacement due to the nature and size of the weapon; it was just too large to be rail-mounted as the German's did. This alone makes it a strategic target which would be taken-out in the opening hours of any conflict with the United States or the Israeli's. What's scary about it is that Saddam would invest billions, upon billions, of dollars to build a system that could reach to the Med with CBN capabilities, that's inferior in everyway to an IRBM system, and which you just know will have an American or Israeli nuclear tipped ALCM with it's name on it if it was ever used for WMD projection. The man was a psychopath and an obvious threat to stability and national security.

 

[epicstruggle]

Ive seen a few clarke interviews, and everytime someone asks him about how much blame he should take. He starts out saying some, within seconds transitioning into attacking bush and his admin. He was the one who was responsible for keeping an eye on terrorist and protecting the country. I just didnt realize it was a blind eye.

later,
epic

Condi Rice said he did a great job.

And not all whistleblowers are bad. Or is it just the ones that criticize your political leanings?

I know its hard sometimes, but please read comments a few times before you comment on them.
You obviously missed the part where I said he failed at his job, which was to keep terrorism at bay. Did he succed? Obviously not, as for years there were people training/planning attacks of spectacular nature here on this soil and in foreign lands.

It means nothing to me that Rice said he did or did not do a good job. She might be using a different scale than i am. All I want to know is why didnt he do his job of protecting this country. If the country was going down the wrong path, why didnt he come out earlier and in public that we were going in the wrong direction. Was he concentrating on other forms of terrorisms and not on conventional ones?? All fair questions in my opinion.

later,
epic

 

[Ty]

I know its hard sometimes, but please read comments a few times before you comment on them.
You obviously missed the part where I said he failed at his job, which was to keep terrorism at bay. Did he succed? Obviously not, as for years there were people training/planning attacks of spectacular nature here on this soil and in foreign lands.

Of course I read your highly politicized comments. It wasn't solely his job to prevent terrorism. According to him, he was supposed to raise flags and help prevent attacks. But here you are blaming him for everything. Please be a little more realistic.

It means nothing to me that Rice said he did or did not do a good job.

Naturally. You obviously would know more than she. My bad.

She might be using a different scale than i am. All I want to know is why didnt he do his job of protecting this country. If the country was going down the wrong path, why didnt he come out earlier and in public that we were going in the wrong direction. Was he concentrating on other forms of terrorisms and not on conventional ones?? All fair questions in my opinion.

IF he had prior evidence of 9-11 and the adminstration was failing to act, I'm sure he or anyone else would have tried to go public. Going public against your boss (you know, the PRESIDENT of the USA?) sure is real easy, ain't it? Lets say you do and 9-11 is averted (maybe because the hijackers decide to lay low because of public scrutiny). Now what? You cried wolf because nothing happened?

And again, it wasn't solely his job to prevent terrorism.

I know its difficult for you to distance yourself from blindly following your King and Queen but sheesh do you ever have your head up the Elephant's rear end.

And just so you know, I'm going to vote Bush because I don't trust Kerry worth a damn but even I'm not blind enough to think his crap don't stink.

 

[epicstruggle]

He apparently didnt raise the flags high enough for anyone to see.

Let us analyze his term as terrorism czar (source pbs.org):
1990: WTC and Empire state building pictures and bomb manuals found during an investigation of assisanation of rabbi Meir Kahane
1992: OBL organizes resistance fighters in somalia
1992-96: OBL reaches to other terrorist groups to form links. Tries to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons.
1992: adem, yemen bombing. First(?) AQ bombing targeting americans
1993: WTC bombing
1993: AQ members interested in pilot training
1993: "Black Hawk Down", somalia fighters trained by OBL/AQ
1993: Nairoby embassy bombing planning
1994: Algerian hijackers take over air france plane. France storms plane and crisis averted. Later learnt that hijackers planned to use plane to destroy eiffel tower or blow up part of paris

Do you want me to continue??? Do you see an escalation of activity? Can you see that maybe more should have been done. You might see a partisan attack. I see a man who should have done his job and didnt. He is next to testify on the 9/11 comission. Lets see what he says.

later,
epic

 

[Fred]

AFAICS this council is going after Clinton's so called lapses more than anyone else.

And I reiterate my position, its silly hindsight. The Clinton administration did actually strike Afghanistan targets. As I recall, many people were upset that he supposedly hit a civilian factory, at least that was the peaceniks spiel.

Those same types of people protested Israels killing of the Hamas leader today in NYC. Slogans were up, praising that guy as some sort of Martyr.

I felt like throwing rocks. One wonders how you can sing the praises of a man who was responsible for the genocide of women and children. Criticize Israel all you want, I have no problem with that. But to praise a terrorist group? Totally disgusting!

 

[Citrous]

What Vince was saying is more along the point I was trying to make. No one thinks to look for nuke raining-superguns because they are such a 'mad scientist' idea. I am fully aware of the fact that one navy seal squad could dispatch the entire project with ease, but what other things are out there that no one would think to look for? That is the scary question we should look into answering.

 

[Lezmaka]

I assume his book is not free. Do the proceeds of his book go to charity or to himself? I'm just wondering if he were partially motivated by money by coming out with all this now, as a book rather than a report or something similar. I find it hurts his credibility if he was partially motivated by making money.

 

[Natoma]

Regarding the rest of your post, there was a very good "Tim Russert" show last Saturday in which Thomas Friedman of the NYTimes was guest. The gist of his argument was this. We're killing terrorists, but not faster than they are being bred, in part because of our policies in the middle east. A leaked Rumsfeld memo stated this assessment as well.

I'm trying to find the transcript now. It was pretty brilliant imo regarding our strategies in the middle east, and how we're not only fighting a terrorist war, but a culture war as you stated. However, it's not necessarily the culture of "destroying islam" as some might take it, but propping up Islam and giving those who live in those countries another way of doing things.

Sorry about that. I have not been looking into the investigation too closely but I wouldn't be too surprised to see democrats looking for cracks to take advantage of in a partisan manner. I never said however that this ought to be a war on Islam rather more precisely a war on Islamic fundamentalism.

A war of culture then it really makes little difference on what the policy of any administration might be. There is no doubt in my mind that this whole matter is culturally based. Years ago when I was in University I learned of these fundamentalist I realized that there was going to be a confrontation I knew at that point that it was simply a matter of time. 9/11 accelerated the process and it was George Bush Jr's unlucky inheritance. I don't believe that it would have been different if a democrat was in the oval office.

Sorry Sabastian, I haven't been able to find the transcript. If anyone wants to help in this regard, Thomas Friedman was on "Tim Russert" on CNBC this past Saturday discussing terrorism.

No you misunderstand. I wasn't saying that you were calling it a war against Islam. There are people here and elsewhere that would misinterpret your statements to mean "We've got to destroy Islam." Some would take it to that effect. I really wish I could find that transcript. Friedman made a lot of sense regarding our decades long policies in the middle east and ways in which we already have a template to get them changed, i.e. India.

 

[Druga Runda]

A democrat would not (I certainly hope) attack Iraq with no reason, try to bully the whole world into accepting this as a right action and alienate 50% of usual US allies in the process... so yes 9-11 was unfortunate as a product of long years of US foreign policy mismanagement, but the reaction on it could have been much much better.

 

[Sabastian]

A democrat would (I certainly hope) attack Iraq with no reason, try to bully the whole world into accepting this as a right action and alienate 50% of usual US allies in the process... so yes 9-11 was unfortunate as a product of long years of US foreign policy mismanagement, but the reaction on it could have been much much better.

The suggestion that there was no good rational to removing Saddam from power in Iraq is preposterous. He most certainly was a menacing character with regards to US security. How much and how eminent that threat was the point of contention. Removing Saddam was the correct thing to do. Shit, if I had a dollar for each and every one of the people I have talked to about the situation that concluded 10 years ago that the US should have removed Saddam. There were a lot of them supposed "allies" that were on the take using the UN pork barreling Oil for food scam to profit. It was not altruism why there were so many opposing the move. Never mind all the fanatical fundamentalist that also opposed the military action in Iraq. Funny though you would think that they approved of the removal of Saddam. Of course the families of suicide bombers receiving money from Saddam(IIRC the equivelent of 30 thousand US dollars.) for sacrificing their children to the cause of blowing themselves up to murder Israeli people opposed the idea. 9/11 was one event in a long chain of terrorist attacks all of which were perpetuated by radical Islamic fundamentalist whom believe that the US is the head of a snake. (the western culture) An extension of that analogy would be to say that the body is comprised of other western states. Again it won't matter if a democrat is elected or not the whole matter terrorism is rooted in Islamic Fundamentalism and there will be more attacks on Americans and ridiculous calls for them to convert to Islam.

 

[Ty]

He apparently didnt raise the flags high enough for anyone to see.

Once again you should read a bit before commenting.

As I said before, it's not his job to see that his plans are carried out. He can only warn and suggest. His whole complaint is that no one listened to him or that they had preconceived notions as to where the danger actually was.

Do you want me to continue??? Do you see an escalation of activity? Can you see that maybe more should have been done.

Yes more should have been done. That is his whole point. That those with the power (both in the Clinton and Bush administrations) didn't. Comprende?

You might see a partisan attack. I see a man who should have done his job and didnt.

According to him, he did do his job. I admit he could be lying or exaggerating (I wasn't a witness) but then again, just as he could have impure motives for doing so, so could the others that he's put on the defensive. WRT to being partisan. What would you have said if he only criticized Clinton?

 

[Vince]

I agree. Taking your eye off the ball to go after a secular leader with no ties to fundamentalist terrorists is what boils my blood.

Before I comment, are you actually talking about Saddam in this context? Was this a joke?

Ok, well, since you have yet to respond to me (yet you could respond to others) I'll just assume said "Secular Leader" was, in fact, Saddam Hussain. In which case, as you well know, something which "boils my blood" is people who make statements without knowing what what the heck they're talking about. So, since I'm not going to accuse you of this, I'll provide a case and await your responce:

Who and what actions do you consider "Fundimentalist terrorism"?

• Is Abu Zarqawi's Ansar al-Islam one of them?
  
  Would the Abu Nidal Organization be one?
  
  Is the PAS, led by Abu Abbas "fundimentalist"? Or is taking over a cruiseship, shooting a Jewish American in a wheelchair and throwing him overboard not hardcore enough? Nah, he can have support from Iraq - the PAS isn't "fundimentalist"
  
  What about the Mujahedeen-e Khalq Organization?
  
  Or the Kurdistan Workers' Party?
  
  Or what about Saddam's $25,000 payment's to the families of suicide bombers who strape Semtex and ballbearings to themselves and walk onto crowded busses not "Fundimentalist for you John?
  
  And lets not forget the constant actions of the IIS, from the attempted assasination of George Bush Sr to their relationship with Al-Qaeda and (just for fun pondering) *possibly* going back other events such as the WTC in '93

So what about it John? Care to explain yourself and WTF you're thinking?

 

[akira888]

Or the Kurdistan Workers' Party?

If you think Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan (PKK) is in any way Islamist you have been sold a rotten bill of goods by a filthy apologist for the ultra-repressive Kemalist state apparatus. The PKK was officially atheist through much of its existence and its only goal was to liberate Kurdistan, which is inarguably A Good Thing (tm). If that failed, they wanted the Kurds in Turkish (mis-)ruled Kurdistan to have some rights, like not being sent to prison (Turkish prison no less, seen Midnight Express?) for 15 years, and that's not a typo, for the horrendous and indefensible crime of speaking their own indigenous language in public. Google up "Leyla Zana" for more information.

I know of three Christians who are ex-PKK, including one who was in the upper echelons who knew their leader Abdullah Ocalan (Apo) personally, helping plan the final liberation of Anatolia's remaining indigenous people from the humiliation of invader rule.

The failure of the PKK to rid Kurdistan of the Turk is the greatest tragedy of the last 25 years of the 20th century outside of, possibly, the Rwandan and Cambodian Holocausts.

www.kurdistan.org
www.ozgurpolitika.org (Free Politics)

 

[zidane1strife]

Well, I've not read most of the stuff in this thread yet, but I'd like to ask something out, and I believe it is more appropiate to place my question here than to start a new topic...

I read this while surfing the web:

the CIA payed RENT on some of the hijackers' apartments

Now, is there any truth to this? Has this been posted before?

 

[Sabastian]

Well, I've not read most of the stuff in this thread yet, but I'd like to ask something out, and I believe it is more appropiate to place my question here than to start a new topic...

I read this while surfing the web:

the CIA payed RENT on some of the hijackers' apartments

Now, is there any truth to this? Has this been posted before?

lol, it is total bullshit AFAIK.

 

[RussSchultz]

Well, I've not read most of the stuff in this thread yet, but I'd like to ask something out, and I believe it is more appropiate to place my question here than to start a new topic...

I read this while surfing the web:

the CIA payed RENT on some of the hijackers' apartments

Now, is there any truth to this? Has this been posted before?

If I'm not mistaken, I believe there was a CIA/FBI informant who rented out an apartment to some of the hijackers. Or something like that.

But to suggest that the hijackers were on the CIA pay roll and therefor the CIA was complicit is the epitome of tinfoil hattedness. Not that you're suggesting that, of course.

 

[zidane1strife]

But to suggest that the hijackers were on the CIA pay roll and therefor the CIA was complicit is the epitome of tinfoil hattedness. Not that you're suggesting that, of course.

No, of course. What I mean is that if they rented them an apartment, they probably were being watched... and if so it would be quite incompetent not to notice what they intended to do.