Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 60 of 60
  1.    #41  
    Thanks BARYE, my mistake.

    The PDB Talked about Al Quaida planning to hijack planes. It was the Moussaoui interviewer trying (and failing) to get the attention of the President about Al Quiada using planes as bombs.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Thanks BARYE, my mistake.

    The PDB Talked about Al Quaida planning to hijack planes. It was the Moussaoui interviewer trying (and failing) to get the attention of the President about Al Quiada using planes as bombs.
    its astonishing that those stunning revelations that came from the Moussaoui "trial" were not more widely discussed -- or why they did not provoke greater outrage.

    If people thought that Moussaoui deserved the death penalty for not telling the FBI that he was a terrorist -- what penalty was appropriate for those who were told that Moussaoui was a terrorist -- and did NOTHING ????

    (2 FBI agents and 2 flight schools strenuously reported that suspicious arabs were only learning to fly airliners, not land them).
    Last edited by BARYE; 05/15/2006 at 02:53 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    your own rigorous research did not, it seems, include reading the sworn testimony of the FBI agent who investigated Moussaoui -- and who sent more than 70 messages that warned his supervisors of the probability of terrorists intending to hijack a plane and use it as a weapon.
    LOL! The screw-ups at the FBI and the investigation of Moussaoui were detailed thoroughly by the 9/11 Commission years ago. In other words, it ain't news.

    Trying to pin the blame for the FBI obstruction on Bush is new. Even the Democratic leaders don't try to do that. The agent and the 9/11 Commission place the fault on an FBI supervisor and the general FBI bureaucracy.


    Only certifiable paranoids could have anticipated 9/11 ...
    You have a habit of arguing against a strawman. You make up an opposing viewpoint and argue against it. Does that make you feel better when you can win an argument against yourself?


    His warnings ... were briefed to the White House.
    If by "White House" you mean "someone in the executive branch of the federal government," then sure. If you mean Bush, then No. Not by common interpretation of the word "briefed."


    Now you and I may realize why its perfectly understandable why those memos -- and the ambiguously titled ones like: “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States" -- did not raise an alarm in junior.
    You don't even pretend to have a clue.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Thanks BARYE, my mistake.

    The PDB Talked about Al Quaida planning to hijack planes. It was the Moussaoui interviewer trying (and failing) to get the attention of the President about Al Quiada using planes as bombs.
    Again, wrong.

    1. The agent wasn't trying to get the attention of the President.

    2. He wasn't asserting anything about using planes as bombs. That was a hypothetical scenario. He didn't pretend to know what al Qaeda was planning.

    You're so desperate to tie Bush into some conspiracy of negligence.

    Bush has given you plenty of real mistakes to work with. Why do feel you have to keep making things up?
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    its astonishing that those stunning revelations that came from the Moussaoui "trial" were not more widely discussed -- or why they did not provoke greater outrage.
    It only seems that way because you're four years behind the news cycle.

    There was plenty of outrage across this country when the rest of us heard about this in 2002. This was the top news story for months after an FBI attorney wrote a 13-page letter to FBI Director Mueller about the FBI's fumbling of the Moussaoui case. They held Congressional Hearings over this. And this problem contributed to the case for reorganizing US intelligence operations under a newly-created Director of National Intelligence.


    See my previous comment about having a clue...
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by JackNaylorPE
    Not that I care for ether of the two but I do clearly recall repubs blasting Clinton when he was launching missles after Osama claiming he was just trying to divert attention from Lewinsky. I know my memory is not faulty cause just read it again in 9/11 Commission Report. And as for the recession....what happens to a company's stock when word gets out that the CEO who turned things around announces he is leaving ?

    They are both liars....Clinton lied to his wife, and Bush lied to the country.
    I think it affects the American People more when you lie to us, versus just your wife, and ten of thousands of people didn't die for oil when Clinton was President, but if ignorant people keep forgetting that. Then I guess you’re just not an American. Well at least that's how I look at it.
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by ikg2004
    I think it affects the American People more when you lie to us, versus just your wife, and ten of thousands of people didn't die for oil when Clinton was President, but if ignorant people keep forgetting that. Then I guess you’re just not an American. Well at least that's how I look at it.
    Maybe thousands of people did not die for oil when Clinton was president. Of course hundreds of thousands died at the hands of terrorist and/or ruthless dictators during that time frame. Our military became a joke to those who funded terrorist because there was no decisive action by the Commander in Chief. Terrorist were able to gain a stonger foothold throughout the world. Tell the families of the victims of terrorist attacks during the Clinton years how they are ignorant and not really an American.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  8.    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Again, wrong.

    1. The agent wasn't trying to get the attention of the President.

    2. He wasn't asserting anything about using planes as bombs. That was a hypothetical scenario. He didn't pretend to know what al Qaeda was planning.

    You're so desperate to tie Bush into some conspiracy of negligence.

    Bush has given you plenty of real mistakes to work with. Why do feel you have to keep making things up?
    Wow are you ever an arrogant extremist. Lol.

    I guess my fault again, I thought
    ...more than 70 messages that warned his supervisors of the probability of terrorists intending to hijack a plane and use it as a weapon.
    meant that he was saying Al Quaida might hijack a plane and use it as a weapon. My bad.
  9.    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    ...Of course hundreds of thousands died at the hands of terrorist and/or ruthless dictators during that time frame.
    You are saying there are LESS acts of terrorism now under Bush? Based on what?
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Our military became a joke to those who funded terrorist
    You're saying that the United States and the Military have a higher world opinion now? Huh?
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    because there was no decisive action by the Commander in Chief.
    You mean apart from bombing Osama multiple times? Cardio, didn't we talk about this before, and you were unaware that Clinton had bombed Al Quaida camps. I thought we already filled you in.
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Terrorist were able to gain a stonger foothold throughout the world.
    What? Again.. you're saying a stronger foothold than they have now?
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Tell the families of the victims of terrorist attacks during the Clinton years how they are ignorant and not really an American.
    What? ... Cardio, there were not MORE terrorist attacks during Clinton's term.
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Maybe thousands of people did not die for oil when Clinton was president. Of course hundreds of thousands died at the hands of terrorist and/or ruthless dictators during that time frame. Our military became a joke to those who funded terrorist because there was no decisive action by the Commander in Chief. Terrorist were able to gain a stonger foothold throughout the world. Tell the families of the victims of terrorist attacks during the Clinton years how they are ignorant and not really an American.
    until 9/11, which terrorist attack killed more americans than any other ??

    Who was president, and what did he do to punish the perpetrators ??
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Again, wrong.

    1. The agent wasn't trying to get the attention of the President.

    2. He wasn't asserting anything about using planes as bombs. That was a hypothetical scenario. He didn't pretend to know what al Qaeda was planning.

    You're so desperate to tie Bush into some conspiracy of negligence.

    Bush has given you plenty of real mistakes to work with. Why do feel you have to keep making things up?
    Wow are you ever an arrogant extremist. Lol.

    I guess my fault again, I thought
    ...more than 70 messages that warned his supervisors of the probability of terrorists intending to hijack a plane and use it as a weapon.
    meant that he was saying Al Quaida might hijack a plane and use it as a weapon. My bad.
    You're too funny. I gotta save this thread because it's hilarious.

    You're citing Barye as your source!!

    His source, the Seattle Times, says that the agent "warned his supervisors more than 70 times that Moussaoui was a terrorist and spelled out his suspicions that the al-Qaida operative was plotting to hijack an airplane."

    Barye just made up the part about using a plane as a weapon!

    Yes, your bad.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    until 9/11, which terrorist attack killed more americans than any other ??

    Who was president, and what did he do to punish the perpetrators ??
    since neither cardio or any else was able to solve this, here's the right answer:

    Ron Raygun was Prez when Iranian affiliated (trained, financed, supplied) terrorists blew up the Marine barrack in Lebanon killing 241 marines.

    How did he teach those savages a lesson so that they would NEVER think of attacking americans again ???

    What did the bold tough ronnie, the silver screen cowboy do after these terrorist outrages ???

    Nuthin.

    Actually that's not entirely accurate. What ronnie raygun, that poseur of rectitude and toughness did was trade arms to Iran -- for hostages -- which thereupon got new hostages to replace the ones it had bartered away.

    Brilliant !!

    April 18,1983 Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility
    .
    Oct. 23, 1983 Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.

    Dec. 12, 1983 Kuwait City, Kuwait Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

    The terror campaign against the U.S. military presence in Lebanon achieved its objective. On March 31, 1984, President Reagan ordered the U.S. Marines to return home. France and Italy also withdrew their forces, and the multinational peacekeeping effort was formally abandoned.

    But the attacks on the United States did not stop after the Marines evacuated Beirut. Islamic Jihad targeted dozens of Western officials and civilians for kidnapping and murder. TWA Flight 847 was hijacked while en route from Athens to Rome and rerouted to Beirut. American and British professors from the American University of Beirut were kidnapped. Journalists, including Terry Anderson, head of the Associated Press's Beirut bureau, were taken hostage. These tactics proved effective in driving out foreign civilians, who began leaving Lebanon in 1984.

    Although Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the kidnappings, the United States continued to suspect that Hezbollah, with support from Iran, was behind them. Those suspicions were intensified when Hezbollah published its official manifesto in 1985...

    ....The Reagan administration seemed paralyzed in the aftermath of these events. U.S. intelligence agents could not pinpoint a suitable target for military retaliation for the bombings because it was too difficult to sort out which Shiite factions should be held responsible. The only effective way to stop the kidnappings, it seemed, was to go to the source of terrorism: Iran. But an attack on Iran was considered extremely dangerous -- many advisors feared that such an assault would initiate a full-scale war.

    So the Reagan administration decided on another approach, that of secretly trying to improve relations with Iran. But the effort led to diplomatic back-channels that resulted in the Iran-Contra affair: In return for Iran's help in arranging the release of some of the hostages in Lebanon, the Reagan administration offered to sell a cache of weapons to the Iranian regime, which at the time was engaged in a protracted and bloody war with Iraq. Proceeds from these arms sales were then used to fund anti-Communist guerrilla forces in Nicaragua. News of the arms deals resulted in a political debacle for Reagan, but that wasn't the only outcome. The Iran-Contra affair also underscored the point that the United States would have to contend with Iran in order to restrain Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.
    Last edited by BARYE; 05/15/2006 at 10:54 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  13.    #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    You're too funny. I gotta save this thread because it's hilarious.

    You're citing Barye as your source!!

    His source, the Seattle Times, says that the agent "warned his supervisors more than 70 times that Moussaoui was a terrorist and spelled out his suspicions that the al-Qaida operative was plotting to hijack an airplane."

    Barye just made up the part about using a plane as a weapon!

    Yes, your bad.
    I read it in 2003, I have already said I don't recall where.
    Quote Originally Posted by La Times
    CIA warned of use of planes as missiles in 1999
    By Eric Lichtblau and Greg Miller
    Los Angeles Times


    WASHINGTON — An analysis commissioned by the CIA two years before the Sept. 11 attacks warned that Osama bin Laden loyalists might crash a plane into the Pentagon or the White House, raising fresh doubts Friday about the Bush administration's insistence that it had no way of predicting the hijackings....
  14. #54  
    Another perfect example of why Clinton is just as responsible as Bush is for 9/11....you cannot criticize one without the other. Clinton knew about this 2 years ahead of 9/11, what did he do? Did he increase security at flying schools? Did he increase security at airports? Neither did Bush. Clinton had 1 to 1 1/2 yrs to act and Bush had 9 months. Both failed.
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I read it in 2003, I have already said I don't recall where.
    Yes, the scenario was around. The FBI agent talked about the scenario hypothetically. His boss talked about the scenario hypothetically. But the agent wasn't warning anyone that al Qaeda was planning to use planes as missiles. That's what you said, and that was wrong. The agent was just trying to investigate Moussaoui as a potential hijacker. He wasn't aware of al Qaeda's plans.


    As for the broader point, which we haven't talked about directly, there was a statement made shortly after the attack, I think by Rice, that no one could have imagined terrorists flying planes into the WTC. That was completely wrong. In addition to the CIA analysis, the FBI agent's boss mentioned the WTC scenario once in a phone conversation ("lucky guess," he called it). And the head of security of Morgan Stanley, who worked and died at the WTC, also once mentioned the WTC scenario in an interview in the late 90s.
  16. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    You are saying there are LESS acts of terrorism now under Bush? Based on what?You're saying that the United States and the Military have a higher world opinion now? Huh?You mean apart from bombing Osama multiple times? Cardio, didn't we talk about this before, and you were unaware that Clinton had bombed Al Quaida camps. I thought we already filled you in.What? Again.. you're saying a stronger foothold than they have now? What? ... Cardio, there were not MORE terrorist attacks during Clinton's term.
    Wow, your head is deep in the sand. Slowly put the national enquirer down, turn off Comedy Network News and step away from the kool-aid. Now, stop chanting the same thing you hear from those on the extreme end of the spectrum.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Another perfect example of why Clinton is just as responsible as Bush is for 9/11....you cannot criticize one without the other. Clinton knew about this 2 years ahead of 9/11, what did he do? Did he increase security at flying schools? Did he increase security at airports? Neither did Bush. Clinton had 1 to 1 1/2 yrs to act and Bush had 9 months. Both failed.
    Like you, I'm not a party loyalist; Bush has made more than his share of mistakes. But I can't blame Bush for 9/11, just as I can't blame the CEO of Wal-Mart if there's a string of robberies at a bunch of stores less than 8 months after he takes office.

    First, the President has to rely on the thousands of people in the various intelligence organizations to indentify the threats and connect the dots. If an FBI supervisor refuses to allow an investigation of a terrorist, or if a bureaucrat issues a directive to be stricter than the law requires in preventing information from being shared between agencies, it's out of the President's control.

    Increase security at airports? I don't think the public would have accepted this, under Clinton or Bush, before 9/11. At flight schools? That's the obscure sort of judgement that needs to rise up from the intelligence organizations. Hijackings in the past didn't require learning how to fly, and if terrorists want to learn, they don't necessarily have to come to the US.

    Second, defense is a losing game. Just as it's rare for a pitcher to pitch a perfect game, you have to expect that terrorists, if they're actively trying, will succeed some of the time. We've been very fortunate the last 4 1/2 years. I'd be surprised if there were no terrorist attack in the US before Bush leaves office.

    The reason I partially blame Clinton is that a President is responsible for the long-term consequences of his own decisions. Clinton made some strategic decisions on how to deal with al Qaeda, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, and those decisions led to 9/11. I say "partially" because I realize many others probably would have made the same mistakes.

    I will give Bush the blame, or credit, for the consequences of his strategic decisions regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.

    That's not to say a President shouldn't be held accountable for short-term problems. Though a lot of people share blame for the poor decision-making during Katrina, the fact that things were still chaotic after a few days showed there was a lack of leadership. Bush should have been down there with an overwhelming show of force.
  18. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    since neither cardio or any else was able to solve this, here's the right answer:

    Ron Raygun was Prez when Iranian affiliated (trained, financed, supplied) terrorists blew up the Marine barrack in Lebanon killing 241 marines.

    How did he teach those savages a lesson so that they would NEVER think of attacking americans again ???

    What did the bold tough ronnie, the silver screen cowboy do after these terrorist outrages ???

    Nuthin.

    Actually that's not entirely accurate. What ronnie raygun, that poseur of rectitude and toughness did was trade arms to Iran -- for hostages -- which thereupon got new hostages to replace the ones it had bartered away.

    Brilliant !!

    April 18,1983 Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility
    .
    Oct. 23, 1983 Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.

    Dec. 12, 1983 Kuwait City, Kuwait Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

    The terror campaign against the U.S. military presence in Lebanon achieved its objective. On March 31, 1984, President Reagan ordered the U.S. Marines to return home. France and Italy also withdrew their forces, and the multinational peacekeeping effort was formally abandoned.

    But the attacks on the United States did not stop after the Marines evacuated Beirut. Islamic Jihad targeted dozens of Western officials and civilians for kidnapping and murder. TWA Flight 847 was hijacked while en route from Athens to Rome and rerouted to Beirut. American and British professors from the American University of Beirut were kidnapped. Journalists, including Terry Anderson, head of the Associated Press's Beirut bureau, were taken hostage. These tactics proved effective in driving out foreign civilians, who began leaving Lebanon in 1984.

    Although Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the kidnappings, the United States continued to suspect that Hezbollah, with support from Iran, was behind them. Those suspicions were intensified when Hezbollah published its official manifesto in 1985...

    ....The Reagan administration seemed paralyzed in the aftermath of these events. U.S. intelligence agents could not pinpoint a suitable target for military retaliation for the bombings because it was too difficult to sort out which Shiite factions should be held responsible. The only effective way to stop the kidnappings, it seemed, was to go to the source of terrorism: Iran. But an attack on Iran was considered extremely dangerous -- many advisors feared that such an assault would initiate a full-scale war.

    So the Reagan administration decided on another approach, that of secretly trying to improve relations with Iran. But the effort led to diplomatic back-channels that resulted in the Iran-Contra affair: In return for Iran's help in arranging the release of some of the hostages in Lebanon, the Reagan administration offered to sell a cache of weapons to the Iranian regime, which at the time was engaged in a protracted and bloody war with Iraq. Proceeds from these arms sales were then used to fund anti-Communist guerrilla forces in Nicaragua. News of the arms deals resulted in a political debacle for Reagan, but that wasn't the only outcome. The Iran-Contra affair also underscored the point that the United States would have to contend with Iran in order to restrain Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.
    Wow, you know that sounds an awful lot like what I hear so many screaming for us to do today in Iraq. It did not work then, it did not work for Clinton, it won't work today.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  19. #59  
    I'd like to add another comment about the difference between a hypothetical scenario and a plan. There are thousands of possible terrorist scenarios. We can't possibly defend against every single one.

    Richard Reid tried to blow up a plane with explosives in his sneaker, so then the security procedure was changed all over the country requiring people to take off their shoes. Would it have made sense to inspect people's shoes before the Reid incident, since we knew it was theoretically possible to smuggle explosives in the bottom of a shoe? No! Consider that it's also possible to put explosives in lipstick, a box of candy, toys, a can of shaving cream, etc. We can't possibly inspect every gram of personal belongings carried by passengers. We watch for things we know have been tried or are being planned.

    The plane-as-missile scenario was one of countless things al Qaeda might have done. It's silly to look back and say that just because someone imagined it, we ought to have been prepared for it. The list of scenarios we don't defend adequately against today is very long. And it will always be long. That's the reason for going on the offense.
  20.    #60  
    And hopefully our next president will be able to find enough troups not otherwise tied up in Iraq to be able to "go on the offense" against Al Quaida.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions