If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US"? Yeah, turns out that was about the least alarming of the series of PDB's Bush ignored before 9/11   (dailykos.com) divider line 350
    More: Followup, George Bush, Osama bin Laden, United States, George Tenet, imminent threat, Health Care, International, Chechnya, Bush administration  
•       •       •

3969 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Sep 2012 at 6:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



350 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-11 09:33:51 AM

hinten: vygramul: Look, I'm not the type to sit around defending Bush - Lord knows there's plenty of reasons not to. But the administration did not want to get hit, would love to have done things differently, and there are an unbelievable number of warnings almost every day.

Yes, on top of that, my favorite excuse: "Nobody could have thought of something as crazy as flying planes into buildings."
No, thousands and thousands of professionals who have no other job than to protect this country, gather intelligence, come up with all kinds of crazy scenarios, and warn the right people, could have never thought of this. Everyone is a professional with deep knowledge on every subject and the so called "experts" no nothing that you couldn't do better.


Well, that's really just a silly statement that no one could have thought of it. I mean, I guess what he was trying to say was that he would have been personally incredulous. But having been an analyst for the Navy, we thought of a host of ways we could be attacked, some of which were probably more effective in terrifying the entire nation than attacking a vulnerability only a dozen cities have, some of which were deadlier, some of which we thought warranted some study. Some which were just bizarre. So odds are, someone had not only thought of it, but had explicitly written it up, probably even noticed immediately the attack went off an hour too early.
 
2012-09-11 09:34:32 AM

Skleenar: sprawl15: People were still incredibly pissed about Bush v Gore and it wouldn't have been totally unreasonable to see Bush suddenly putting locks on cockpit doors and increasing airport security as simply trying to prop up a boogeyman.

That's a kind of bizarre contra-factual scenario.


No shiat. People are assholes.
 
2012-09-11 09:35:31 AM

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: If you are concerned about hijacked airplanes, and more to the point hijacked airplanes being used as weapons, there was a simple , low cost. obvious fix. Put farking locks on the cockpit doors. One simple regulation was all that was required to act on that scenario.

The country was on a Clinton contact high and the average American is a crybaby who whines about anything they can. I mean, the problem was that they didn't even bother putting the pieces together to realize there was a problem, but if we assume they figured that out then people would have just cried 'fearmonger'. People were still incredibly pissed about Bush v Gore and it wouldn't have been totally unreasonable to see Bush suddenly putting locks on cockpit doors and increasing airport security as simply trying to prop up a boogeyman.

The Bush administration's ultimate point of failure was laziness and a dismissive attitude - nobody actually put in enough work at the higher levels to recognize an imminent threat despite the evidence being all around them.


Ohh, so it was Bill Clinton and the lieberal lamestream media's fault that Bush didn't act. Got it.
 
2012-09-11 09:36:23 AM

KiplingKat872: Hell, Hollywood writers came up with that scenario in The Lone Gunman TV show.


Worse than that for the Bush Administration (and Condi Rice in particular) is that she had been in security talks with her European counterparts just a couple of months before 9/11 where they laid out such a scenario and told her that they had been warned that terrorist were planning such an attack on the G10 meeting in Rome. Then after events she acted like such a tactic had never even crossed anyone's mind and there was no reason to plan for such a potentiality. This AFTER she had been told and sat in on meetings where security experts did plan for the exact same event.

BTW, on to this notion that "CLINTON forced security agencies not to share information with each other" - this was not true either. (Just more "noise" to try and cover their own incompetency.) Their never was such a law or rule in place when it came to foreign terrorism. These various laws, most of which were signed by Pres Ford, required on a limited basis that information gathered from things like wiretaps, etc., which were obtained for purposes of "national security" could not be shared with the FBI or other LE agencies, if it uncovered wrong doing by US Nationals and was completely unrelated to the underlying reasons why the surveillance was being conducted in the first place.

It has virtually ZERO application to the 9/11 situation and the part that Clinton supposedly played was likewise ZERO. There was a legal memo prepared by the Justice Dept, under Clinton, giving advice to the various Federal Law Enforcement agencies so they would not violate the law concerning restrictions on over reaching surveillance upon US Citizens. However, that memo was merely a restatement and updating of a near identical memo which came from the Bush (1) administration. It accurately reflected what the law was, it didn't change the law in way.

BTW, those restrictions wouldn't likely have been in place if it wasn't for the Nixon administration using all kinds of illegal surveillance tactics against US Citizens in order to silence their political criticism of him. The blowback from Watergate resulted in the "Church Commission" (Led by Sen Frank Church Idaho) which authored many laws to prevent such future abuses. And as mentioned above, these various acts and laws restricting the powers of the CIA and other agencies to engage in domestic spying were supported and signed into law by Pres. Ford.
 
2012-09-11 09:37:13 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Ohh, so it was Bill Clinton and the lieberal lamestream media's fault that Bush didn't act. Got it.


If that's what you got out of what I said, you're a farking idiot.
 
2012-09-11 09:39:09 AM

2wolves: vygramul: Look, I'm not the type to sit around defending Bush - Lord knows there's plenty of reasons not to. But the administration did not want to get hit, would love to have done things differently, and there are an unbelievable number of warnings almost every day.

Not that make it into the PDB. Really.


The problem is, in part, the illusion of American infallibility. That illusion exists on both sides, mind you. We couldn't POSSIBLY have accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy - we're America! We couldn't POSSIBLY be hit with an attack that ACTUALLY succeeds - we're America! We should have put more assets on the problem, but Bush probably interpreted the report not as a suggestion for more attention, but proof we were "on top of it".
 
2012-09-11 09:39:37 AM
Kinda funny. I'm watching the replay of the 9/11/01 "Today" show. They just mentioned they talked to the NSA and were told they had no indication of an attack of this nature.
 
2012-09-11 09:42:06 AM

cman: Unsurprising at all.

If there is one thing in Government that is always a constant it is the complete incompetence of federal employees and elected officials.


"The government can't do anything right! Let us demonstrate."
 
2012-09-11 09:44:34 AM

Darth_Lukecash: In light of this new information, I will never vote for George W. Bush for President, again. .

Historians can look over past events, but in the end they cannot change it. The best they can hope for is their biased light illuminates what they want to see, leaving uncomfortable truths in the dark shadows.

We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.


It depends. Would other Presidents belong to an organization that said they needed a Pearl Harbor-like event to implement their plans, or have a National Security Adviser who was more concerned about a Russian threat than terrorists?
 
2012-09-11 09:46:36 AM

Skleenar: deadcrickets: . Much like how Pearl Harbor is now knowntheorized hypothesized, by some, to have been allowed to happen in order to bring the United States into war.


Some suggest that maybe Churchill knew but was tired of waiting while his countrymen died every day. In theory, we'll find out in 2016.
 
2012-09-11 09:49:10 AM

sprawl15: Skleenar: sprawl15: People were still incredibly pissed about Bush v Gore and it wouldn't have been totally unreasonable to see Bush suddenly putting locks on cockpit doors and increasing airport security as simply trying to prop up a boogeyman.

That's a kind of bizarre contra-factual scenario.

No shiat. People are assholes.


The sad thing is how easily they exploited our complacency. When we're hit again (and it's likely to be "when"), it'll be somewhere else we're complacent.
 
2012-09-11 09:50:32 AM
Look forward to President Romney assembling the all star Bush team again.
 
2012-09-11 09:56:47 AM

serial_crusher: the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that "a group presently in the United States" was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be "imminent," although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

Well, if they knew where the terrorists were, they should have gone and stopped them. I mean, the United States is pretty small right? Probably would have taken an afternoon or two to find them.


Actually FBI Agentslike Coleen Rowley were hot on the trail and were throwing up warnings, but they were systematically squelched by the NeoCons in FBIHQ.
So, yes, there were warnings and people were screaming and jumping up and down about an immanent attack using aircraft but the NeoCons didn't want to hear it.
Either because they wanted to start an attack on Iraq or because they didn't want any of their Saudi friends on the Visa Express to get investigated.

The failure of the NeoCons to protect the country from attack on 9-11 was due to either incompetence, stupidity or treason.
 
2012-09-11 10:01:11 AM
DUBYA: I think...

CHENEY: Shut the fark up, George. OK Mr. security advisor, tell me how this impacts the energy industry.

ADVISOR: I...I...this is a warning about an imminent...

CHENEY: Tell me how this impacts the energy industry.

ADVISOR: I...

CHENEY: Tell me how this is tied to Saddam.

ADVISOR: Mr. Vice President, as I explained, this is a clear warning of an imminent threat from...

CHENEY: You see? Nothing. They've got nothing. Get the fark out of here and don't come back until you can give me something on Saddam.

ADVISOR: I feel that I should...

CHENEY: I will shoot you in your motherfarking face. Get. Out.
 
2012-09-11 10:04:01 AM
We know statistically, that every couple of seconds, a child is abused, a woman is raped, and a person is murdered in this country.

But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.
 
2012-09-11 10:05:21 AM

More_Like_A_Stain: Headso: All these warnings are old news, it's just a guy selling a book, heard him on NPR today... here's an old list of warnings, most with cites...

And yet here we are, eleven years to the day after the disaster, and people still don't want to accept that there was any way possible to foresee the event.


Do you have any idea what the list looks like when you add in all the warnings for things that never happened?

Every agency has its disgruntled "crackpot" who's convinced that some group somewhere is going to attack us with bees, or parachute bombers...or Nickelback. 99% of them retire with their predictions unfulfilled.
 
2012-09-11 10:06:50 AM

Giltric: But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.

January 25, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice Al-Qaeda Cells Are Inside US and Are 'Major Threat'

May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City

Summer 2001: Bin Laden Speech Mentions 20 Martyrs in Upcoming Attack; Other Hints of Attack Spread Widely [9/11 Commission, 6/16/2004]

June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 9/11/2001; Washington Post, 9/14/2001; Fox News, 5/17/2002]

June 4, 2001: Illegal Afghans Overheard Discussing New York City Hijacking Attack [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

June 13, 2001: Bin Laden Wants to Assassinate Bush with an Explosives-Filled Airplane [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US

July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

July 8, 2001: Prominent Prisoner Publicly Warns of Al-Qaeda Intent to Export Violence to US Soil

July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West [London Times, 6/14/2002]

Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US [Forward, 5/31/2002]

Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US [Independent, 9/7/2002; Reuters, 9/7/2002]

Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly [CBS News, 10/9/2002]

August 2001: Moroccan Informant Warns US of Large Scale, Imminent Attack in New York [Agence France-Presse, 11/22/2001; International Herald Tribune, 5/21/2002; London Times, 6/12/2002]

August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

August 2001: Persian Gulf Informant Gives Ex-CIA Agent Information About 'Spectacular Terrorist Operation' [Baer, 2002, pp. 55-58; Financial Times, 1/12/2002]

Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 5/19/2002]

August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US [Daily Telegraph, 9/16/2001; Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named [Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 10/1/2002]

August 24, 2001: Foreign Intelligence Reminds US of Al-Qaeda Plot to Attack within US

August 29, 2001: Cayman Islands Letter Warns of 'Major Terrorist Act Against US via an Airline or Airlines' [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001; MSNBC, 9/23/2001]

August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns Al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late August 2001: French Warning to US Echoes Earlier Israeli Warning [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack [Sunday Mail, 9/16/2001]

September 7, 2001: French Give 'Very Specific Information' about Possible Attack on US Soil [Le Figaro (Paris), 10/31/2001]


And there were so MANY of them. How could he ever have known with so many vague and very specific warnings?
 
2012-09-11 10:07:42 AM

Cataholic: More_Like_A_Stain: Headso: All these warnings are old news, it's just a guy selling a book, heard him on NPR today... here's an old list of warnings, most with cites...

And yet here we are, eleven years to the day after the disaster, and people still don't want to accept that there was any way possible to foresee the event.

Do you have any idea what the list looks like when you add in all the warnings for things that never happened?

Every agency has its disgruntled "crackpot" who's convinced that some group somewhere is going to attack us with bees, or parachute bombers...or Nickelback. 99% of them retire with their predictions unfulfilled.


Are you saying the Bush Administration received reports of the imminent Nickelback invasion and did nothing?
 
2012-09-11 10:07:47 AM

Giltric: We know statistically, that every couple of seconds, a child is abused, a woman is raped, and a person is murdered in this country.

But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.


Well Bush was givne specific information that they would try to hijack planes and crash them into skyscrapers. Now if only there were central locations whereby airplanes arrived and departed...

Damn oh well
 
2012-09-11 10:07:50 AM

Kibbler: DUBYA: I think...

CHENEY: Shut the fark up, George. OK Mr. security advisor, tell me how this impacts the energy industry.

ADVISOR: I...I...this is a warning about an imminent...

CHENEY: Tell me how this impacts the energy industry.

ADVISOR: I...

CHENEY: Tell me how this is tied to Saddam.

ADVISOR: Mr. Vice President, as I explained, this is a clear warning of an imminent threat from...

CHENEY: You see? Nothing. They've got nothing. Get the fark out of here and don't come back until you can give me something on Saddam.

ADVISOR: I feel that I should...

CHENEY: I will shoot you in your motherfarking face. Get. Out.


This is easily more likely than the vast majority of conspiracy theories regarding this whole thing. America, fark yeah, just find us an excuse we can use, we're the farking Green Lantern, and then it turns out the terrorists have painted the world-ending device yellow (obscure?)
 
2012-09-11 10:07:51 AM

chaotey: serial_crusher: the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that "a group presently in the United States" was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be "imminent," although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

Well, if they knew where the terrorists were, they should have gone and stopped them. I mean, the United States is pretty small right? Probably would have taken an afternoon or two to find them.

Actually FBI Agentslike Coleen Rowley were hot on the trail and were throwing up warnings, but they were systematically squelched by the NeoCons in FBIHQ.
So, yes, there were warnings and people were screaming and jumping up and down about an immanent attack using aircraft but the NeoCons didn't want to hear it.
Either because they wanted to start an attack on Iraq or because they didn't want any of their Saudi friends on the Visa Express to get investigated.

The failure of the NeoCons to protect the country from attack on 9-11 was due to either incompetence, stupidity or treason.


Actually FBI agents like John Oneill were hot on the trail but the Clinton state department felt he was stepping on too many toes in Yemen and they recalled him from his investigation.

Clinton also gutted the CIA's budget and wanted to focus more on electronic intercepts of communications instead of working humint assets.
 
2012-09-11 10:08:35 AM

Cataholic: Every agency has its disgruntled "crackpot" who's convinced that some group somewhere is going to attack us with bees, or parachute bombers...or Nickelback. 99% of them retire with their predictions unfulfilled.


And that's exactly the kind of person that wouldn't ever be re-assigned from an intelligence role. Because liberals, and furthermore.
 
2012-09-11 10:08:51 AM

Giltric: We know statistically, that every couple of seconds, a child is abused, a woman is raped, and a person is murdered in this country.

But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.


As oppposed to the very specific, credible, and later-confirmed reports about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And Saddam's ties to 9/11. And his nearly-successful effort to build an atomic bomb.

All totally proven later on. We avoided total destruction by that much.

As opposed to the vague, inconsequential warnings Bush received about al Qaeda, which never panned out as an actual threat anyway.

And as opposed to the daily kabuki theater in the nation's airports to try to prevent another attack by making people take off their shoes, because we have totally credible, pinpointed reports that someone is about to use a shoe bomb on a particular flight at a particular time.

/up is down, black is white, truth is lies
 
2012-09-11 10:09:01 AM

Skleenar: Giltric: But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.

January 25, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice Al-Qaeda Cells Are Inside US and Are 'Major Threat'

May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City

Summer 2001: Bin Laden Speech Mentions 20 Martyrs in Upcoming Attack; Other Hints of Attack Spread Widely [9/11 Commission, 6/16/2004]

June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 9/11/2001; Washington Post, 9/14/2001; Fox News, 5/17/2002]

June 4, 2001: Illegal Afghans Overheard Discussing New York City Hijacking Attack [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

June 13, 2001: Bin Laden Wants to Assassinate Bush with an Explosives-Filled Airplane [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US

July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

July 8, 2001: Prominent Prisoner Publicly Warns of Al-Qaeda Intent to Export Violence to US Soil

July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West [London Times, 6/14/2002]

Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US [Forward, 5/31/2002]

Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US [Independent, 9/7/2002; Reuters, 9/7/2002]

Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly [CBS News, 10/9/2002]

August 2001: Moroccan Informant Warns US of Large Scale, Imminent Attack in New York [Agence France-Presse, 11/22/2001; International Herald Tribune, 5/21/2002; London Times, 6/12/2002]

August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

August 2001: Persia ...


Point out the specifics and post them in your next word salad. I;m not reading through all that drivel....give the cliff notes.
 
2012-09-11 10:10:49 AM

Pochas: Well Bush was givne specific information that they would try to hijack planes and crash them into skyscrapers.


Which specific information are you talking about?
 
2012-09-11 10:10:53 AM

Pochas: Giltric: We know statistically, that every couple of seconds, a child is abused, a woman is raped, and a person is murdered in this country.

But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.

Well Bush was givne specific information that they would try to hijack planes and crash them into skyscrapers. Now if only there were central locations whereby airplanes arrived and departed...

Damn oh well


Only 50k airports in the world....what do you suggest....profiling?
 
2012-09-11 10:12:00 AM

Giltric: But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.


Not as useless as the Bush Administration, which could have actually, you know, mobilized resources to pinpoint the operation instead of demoting the counterterrorism security advisor.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-11 10:12:39 AM

Giltric: I;m not reading through all that drivel....give the cliff notes.


I believe that was the Bush Administration's response to all of those reports too.
 
2012-09-11 10:13:15 AM

Giltric: Point out the specifics and post them in your next word salad. I;m not reading through all that drivel....give the cliff notes.


You sound so...so...what's the word I'm looking for...so...Presidential.
 
2012-09-11 10:14:14 AM

keylock71: I think it would have happened regardless of who was in the White House... But this does reinforce that the Bush Administration had a hard-on for Iraq pretty much from the beginning and the attacks on 9/11/01 gave them the excuse they needed to plunge us headlong into that expensive debacle.

...And sadly, the GOP is still chocker blocked with these ideological neoconservative assholes.


Bush aside, why did the other neocons have such a hard-on for Iraq?
 
2012-09-11 10:14:31 AM

Giltric: Pochas: Giltric: We know statistically, that every couple of seconds, a child is abused, a woman is raped, and a person is murdered in this country.

But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.

Well Bush was givne specific information that they would try to hijack planes and crash them into skyscrapers. Now if only there were central locations whereby airplanes arrived and departed...

Damn oh well

Only 50k airports in the world....what do you suggest....profiling?


Yeah you're right obviously it is impossible to secure airports. That's why planes crashing into skyscrapers is a daily occurrence these days...
 
2012-09-11 10:14:44 AM

More_Like_A_Stain: Giltric: Point out the specifics and post them in your next word salad. I;m not reading through all that drivel....give the cliff notes.

You sound so...so...what's the word I'm looking for...so...Presidential.


read his post in W's voice... and then do a "heh heh heh" at the end... although I don't picture W using the word "drivel"
 
2012-09-11 10:15:23 AM

TheBigJerk: keylock71: I think it would have happened regardless of who was in the White House... But this does reinforce that the Bush Administration had a hard-on for Iraq pretty much from the beginning and the attacks on 9/11/01 gave them the excuse they needed to plunge us headlong into that expensive debacle.

...And sadly, the GOP is still chocker blocked with these ideological neoconservative assholes.

Bush aside, why did the other neocons have such a hard-on for Iraq?


Black gold, Texas tea. Oil that is.
 
2012-09-11 10:15:59 AM

Kibbler: Giltric: We know statistically, that every couple of seconds, a child is abused, a woman is raped, and a person is murdered in this country.

But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.

As oppposed to the very specific, credible, and later-confirmed reports about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And Saddam's ties to 9/11. And his nearly-successful effort to build an atomic bomb.

All totally proven later on. We avoided total destruction by that much.

As opposed to the vague, inconsequential warnings Bush received about al Qaeda, which never panned out as an actual threat anyway.

And as opposed to the daily kabuki theater in the nation's airports to try to prevent another attack by making people take off their shoes, because we have totally credible, pinpointed reports that someone is about to use a shoe bomb on a particular flight at a particular time.

/up is down, black is white, truth is lies


Google "Wikileaks confirms WMDs in Iraq."
 
2012-09-11 10:16:20 AM

sprawl15: Pochas: Well Bush was givne specific information that they would try to hijack planes and crash them into skyscrapers.

Which specific information are you talking about?


Not sure about that, but there were reports that a plane would fly a suicide mission into the Geneva G7 (8?) conference. So they installed anti-aircraft missiles. It put the lie to Condoleeza Rice's idiocy that nobody could have predicted a terrorist flying a plane into a building.
 
2012-09-11 10:21:35 AM

Giltric: Kibbler: Giltric: We know statistically, that every couple of seconds, a child is abused, a woman is raped, and a person is murdered in this country.

But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.

As oppposed to the very specific, credible, and later-confirmed reports about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And Saddam's ties to 9/11. And his nearly-successful effort to build an atomic bomb.

All totally proven later on. We avoided total destruction by that much.

As opposed to the vague, inconsequential warnings Bush received about al Qaeda, which never panned out as an actual threat anyway.

And as opposed to the daily kabuki theater in the nation's airports to try to prevent another attack by making people take off their shoes, because we have totally credible, pinpointed reports that someone is about to use a shoe bomb on a particular flight at a particular time.

/up is down, black is white, truth is lies

Google "Wikileaks confirms WMDs in Iraq."


mimg.ugo.com
 
2012-09-11 10:22:27 AM

Giltric: Google "Wikileaks confirms WMDs in Iraq."


Holy shiat, you totally pwned this thread with your brilliantly concise suggestion. What were we ever thinking? Thank God Bush invaded Iraq.
 
2012-09-11 10:26:34 AM

Pochas: Yeah you're right obviously it is impossible to secure airports. That's why planes crashing into skyscrapers is a daily occurrence these days...


The TSA has a stunning 0% success rate. Including training.
 
2012-09-11 10:27:58 AM

Giltric: Google "Wikileaks confirms WMDs in Iraq."


Put on your eyeshades, put in your earplugs. You know where to put the cork.
 
2012-09-11 10:28:11 AM

Giltric: Google "Wikileaks confirms WMDs in Iraq."


ZOMG anime-forums.com!

BTW, the issue was with supposedly secret WMD program, not that stuff that was locked down by the UN programs and being destroyed. You know, the UN programs that had to bail out when someone decided they were going to start bombing again.
 
2012-09-11 10:28:36 AM

More_Like_A_Stain: Headso: All these warnings are old news, it's just a guy selling a book, heard him on NPR today... here's an old list of warnings, most with cites...

And yet here we are, eleven years to the day after the disaster, and people still don't want to accept that there was any way possible to foresee the event.


Besides all the other intelligence warning, there is one thing which I feel the significance of has been underrated. It is certainly no smoking gun, but without trying to get all troofer and derp-y, one clear and definite warning of what was to come should have been the assassination of the Afghan Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud by the Taliban on 9-9-2001.

Here is a short interview clip with Vladimir Putin where he discusses a phone call he had with Bush on 10-10-2001 regarding this assassination and what it may have presaged. Putin claims he told Bush that he was worried, and that "something "big" was about to happen. They (The Taliban) are planning something".

interview w/. Putin at the end

Of course, we would have to take Pooty's word that this call actually happened, but seeing as this documentary aired on both the BBC and National Geographic, and no one in the Bush camp has ever issued a denial, I will choose to believe it. Bush certainly would have known about the fate of Massoud, in any event.


Note: If anyone is interested in the full documentary. it's called "Iran and the West" and it's not all about 9/11, but it's quite interesting on it's own. You can watch it online: Link
 
2012-09-11 10:29:01 AM

Cataholic: Every agency has its disgruntled "crackpot" who's convinced that some group somewhere is going to attack us with bees, or parachute bombers...or Nickelback. 99% of them retire with their predictions unfulfilled.


You know, I'm not done with this:

So I imagine the image you have in your mind is something like this:

White House Beekeeper: Mr. Bush, don't go near that hive, those bees may sting you

Bush: Heh heh heh. Now you listen here, Bee-Kay, that's what you said that time I was on that navy boat, err, ship, and got stung by their hive...and that's what you said about those hives in those African embassies, where I got stung bad. Well, there's on old saying in Texas, or maybe Tennessee, that goes "Sting me once, shame on me, sting me twice, er, sting me twice, er, won't get stung again.

Now watch this drive.
 
2012-09-11 10:29:09 AM

Pochas: Yeah you're right obviously it is impossible to secure airports. That's why planes crashing into skyscrapers is a daily occurrence these days


Airports seemed pretty secure for decades before 9/11.

What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?
 
2012-09-11 10:30:13 AM

Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?


Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.
 
2012-09-11 10:30:21 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Giltric: Google "Wikileaks confirms WMDs in Iraq."

ZOMG anime-forums.com!

BTW, the issue was with supposedly secret WMD program, not that stuff that was locked down by the UN programs and being destroyed. You know, the UN programs that had to bail out when someone decided they were going to start bombing again.


the UN program with the personnel recieving bribes from Iraq?...well aside from Ritter....they were giving him young children to do with as he pleased.
 
2012-09-11 10:30:31 AM

cc_rider: Here is a short interview clip with Vladimir Putin where he discusses a phone call he had with Bush on 10-10-2001 regarding this assassination and what it may have presaged. Putin claims he told Bush that he was worried, and that "something "big" was about to happen. They (The Taliban) are planning something".


He probably knew about 9/11 by watching the news a month before the call.
 
2012-09-11 10:30:56 AM
Dammit. I meant to type that Putin called Bush on 9-10-2001. The day before, you know...
 
2012-09-11 10:33:18 AM

Giltric: Airports seemed pretty secure for decades before 9/11.


Airports weren't a problem on 9/11. Airplanes were.

Philip Francis Queeg: Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.


This.
 
2012-09-11 10:33:19 AM

Giltric: Vlad_the_Inaner: Giltric: Google "Wikileaks confirms WMDs in Iraq."

ZOMG anime-forums.com!

BTW, the issue was with supposedly secret WMD program, not that stuff that was locked down by the UN programs and being destroyed. You know, the UN programs that had to bail out when someone decided they were going to start bombing again.

the UN program with the personnel recieving bribes from Iraq?...well aside from Ritter....they were giving him young children to do with as he pleased.


Tell us, why did Bush lie after the war and say there were no WMDs? Why does he continue to lie about it?
 
2012-09-11 10:33:56 AM

Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?


They could have even warned people about the possibility of an attack... people wouldn't have just let those guys take over the cockpit.
 
Displayed 50 of 350 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report