Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 130
  1. #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    Read the 9/11 Report. Chapter 8. Starting around January 2001. The wall, along with other errors prevented the FBI from learning about Mihdhar, one of the hijackers, until after he arrived in the country. He was known by the CIA.
    I believe the wall you are talking about was internal. I believe it separated criminal from intelligence agents. The information did get communicated from the CIA to the FBI. Your quote also says "along with other errors." Removing this wall would not have prevented this. What you want to do, is damn the rights of U.S. citizens when you don't know what the true cost is.
    The wall that separated intelligence from criminal also separated the CIA and FBI. The Report describes multiple missed chances for the information to have been passed to the FBI (pp. 266-272). They describe in detail how your example of two people with the same goal casually sharing information did not happen because of the wall.

    According to the Commission, Tenet testified that the information was shared, but he was wrong. (p.267)

    By "other errors," I meant instances of overly-strict interpretation of the wall. It's all about the wall.

    The 9/11 Commission Report p.272:
    Many FBI witnesses have suggested that even if Mihdhar had been found, there was nothing the agents could have done except follow him onto the planes. We believe this is incorrect. Both Hazmi and Mihdhar could have been held for immigration violations or as material witnesses in the Cole bombing case. Investigation or interrogation of them, and investigation of their travel and financial activities, could have yielded evidence of connections to other participants in the 9/11 plot. The simple fact of their detention could have derailed the plan. In any case, the opportunity did not arise.

    You're changing the meaning. That is a different question, so of course you would get a different answer. I've tried very hard to stay away from Bush bashing on this board. So I won't do that now. But on the flip-side, you hear the same rhetoric from conservatives. And the way they attacked John Kerry's record was inexcusable. The hatred and mistrust is swinging both ways. I'm simply pointing out that you are fanning the fire.
    If there was a survey conducted of Americans asking who they trust more, Bush or bin Laden, do you really think Bush would get 100%? Or even over 80%?

    And I agree there's mistrust both ways, but I've never seen the level of hatred and anger that I see on the left today. Perhaps it was this way during the Vietnam War...

    The left and right behave differently too. I remember Ed Koch on the Daily Show maybe a year or two ago... He's a Democrat, and he said something positive about Bush, getting loud boos from the audience. And he asked, "Why do only Liberals boo?"
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    If there was a survey conducted of Americans asking who they trust more, Bush or bin Laden, do you really think Bush would get 100%? Or even over 80%?
    lmao
  3. #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    The wall that separated intelligence from criminal also separated the CIA and FBI. The Report describes multiple missed chances for the information to have been passed to the FBI (pp. 266-272). They describe in detail how your example of two people with the same goal casually sharing information did not happen because of the wall.

    According to the Commission, Tenet testified that the information was shared, but he was wrong. (p.267)

    By "other errors," I meant instances of overly-strict interpretation of the wall. It's all about the wall.
    The CIA did call the FBI, the FBI knew. That is in the report.

    If there was a survey conducted of Americans asking who they trust more, Bush or bin Laden, do you really think Bush would get 100%? Or even over 80%?
    First ask if 100% of the people would take such a ridiculous question seriously?


    And I agree there's mistrust both ways, but I've never seen the level of hatred and anger that I see on the left today. Perhaps it was this way during the Vietnam War...

    The left and right behave differently too. I remember Ed Koch on the Daily Show maybe a year or two ago... He's a Democrat, and he said something positive about Bush, getting loud boos from the audience. And he asked, "Why do only Liberals boo?"
    I've been saying the same thing since Clinton was first elected. It seemed like conservatives thought it was their birth right to run the whitehouse. And so the endless investigations that brought nothing but a waste of taxpayer dollars. And do you really think Bill Clinton deserved blame for Vince Foster's suicide. I now see conservatives saying the most personal and mean things about Hillary. I don't even think I've heard criticism based on her stand on issues?

    Liberals boo because it's all they have left. Why did Bush institute the "Zone of free speech?" Basically to take away the rights of citizens to protest, or to be heard. In many cities, protesters were only allowed to demonstrate in stadiums as far as 3 miles from where Bush was speaking. So don't worry, slowly, people are loosing their right to boo.
    Last edited by gaffa; 05/24/2006 at 10:08 PM.
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    The CIA did call the FBI, the FBI knew. That is in the report.
    The CIA called the FBI about the weather? The FBI knew Bush's first name? And what did the Report have to say about that?

    If you're going to pretend to contradict me, please actually say something.

    I don't think you've read the report. Here's the relevant chapter:
    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec8.pdf

    As I said before, pages 266 to 272 detail how specific critical information from the CIA was not shared with the FBI although they were working together and talking about many things.

    If there was a survey conducted of Americans asking who they trust more, Bush or bin Laden, do you really think Bush would get 100%? Or even over 80%?
    First ask if 100% of the people would take such a ridiculous question seriously?
    Many liberals would take the question seriously. That's the problem. The way you phrased your statement indicates to me that you know this.

    Why did Bush institute the "Zone of free speech?"
    Do you believe the Constitution gives you the right to disrupt any speech and shout down any speaker?
  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    The CIA called the FBI about the weather? The FBI knew Bush's first name? And what did the Report have to say about that?
    You originally stated that the "wall" prevented them from finding out about Mihdhar. I said they knew about him. Here's a quote from your bible.

    "During the summer of 2001 "John," following a good instinct but not as part of any formal assignment, asked "Mary," an FBI analyst detailed to the CIA's Bin Ladin unit, to review all the Kuala Lumpur materials one more time. She had been at the New York meeting with "Jane" and "Dave" but had not looked into the issues yet herself. "John" asked her to do the research in her free time.

    "Mary" began her work on July 24.That day, she found the cable reporting that Mihdhar had a visa to the United States. A week later, she found the cable reporting that Mihdhar's visa application-what was later discovered to be his first application-listed New York as his destination. On August 21, she located the March 2000 cable that "noted with interest" that Hazmi had flown to Los Angeles in January 2000. She immediately grasped the significance of this information."

    Yes this was late, yes things weren't handled correctly. My point was simply that this "wall" is not to blame for everything. And if you really believe it, what have you done about it? I'm not trying to contradict you.


    Many liberals would take the question seriously. That's the problem. The way you phrased your statement indicates to me that you know this.
    I don't know this. And neither do you. Stop acting like your opinion is fact.
    Try to be open to other possibilities. Why do you even bother to post?


    Do you believe the Constitution gives you the right to disrupt any speech and shout down any speaker?
    It does when I'm on public property. People were also removed because of t-shirts they wore, or signs they carried, while those with supportive signs were allowed to stay.
    Last edited by gaffa; 05/25/2006 at 08:02 AM.
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    You originally stated that the "wall" prevented them from finding out about Mihdhar. I said they knew about him. Here's a quote from your bible.
    No. Here's what I said:
    "There was another case documented by the 9/11 Commission where the "wall" between the FBI and CIA prevented the plot from being discovered. That wall was also designed to protect our freedoms."
    Now that you've read the chapter, you know this is true.

    Then I said this:
    "Read the 9/11 Report. Chapter 8. Starting around January 2001. The wall, along with other errors prevented the FBI from learning about Mihdhar, one of the hijackers, until after he arrived in the country. He was known by the CIA."
    The Report, and your excerpt from it, supports this.


    Yes this was late, yes things weren't handled correctly. My point was simply that this "wall" is not to blame for everything. And if you really believe it, what have you done about it? I'm not trying to contradict you.
    This was your original point:
    "I've not seen any facts that show that without these walls, 9/11 would have been prevented."

    My original point was that there's a real risk when you tie the hands of law enforcement and intelligence gathering.

    Many liberals would take the question seriously. That's the problem. The way you phrased your statement indicates to me that you know this.
    I don't know this. And neither do you. Stop acting like your opinion is fact.
    I know this based on what many liberals have said. I'm taking the claims of liberals seriously. Do you believe that every single liberal is lying about or exaggerating his own feelings when he says extremely horrible things about Bush?


    Do you believe the Constitution gives you the right to disrupt any speech and shout down any speaker?
    It does when I'm on public property. People were also removed because of t-shirts they wore, or signs they carried, while those with supportive signs were allowed to stay.
    Banning t-shirts is excessive. I think the idea is to pre-empt disruptive actions.

    As for the right to shout down other speakers, I think that's an awful trend for this country, and I hope Congress or the Supreme Court puts an end to it.


    Sorry for the hijacking; we've gotten way OT.
  7. #107  
    I know this based on what many liberals have said. I'm taking the claims of liberals seriously. Do you believe that every single liberal is lying about or exaggerating his own feelings when he says extremely horrible things about Bush?
    I think that if you took everything seriously, you'd be more concerned, and would realize that liberals have many points. My impression from your postings is that you find no validity to anything labeled as liberal.

    You're right, we're OT. I think this thread has run it's course. What I've learned from it is, people have a genuine concern that those chosen to protect and help us are being hindered by current laws, public opinion, and criticism. I understand the concern, and have the the same concerns.

    Others believe that they are loosing their freedoms and rights. They are worried that people are overstepping the boundaries without cause or recourse. I understand those beliefs and share them.

    My perspective is that things don't have to be either-or, right-wrong, liberal or conservative. There is always a third option. Unfortunately I've no reason to believe that third option is being explored. If it is, someone or something is stamping it out. Because of this, we will have radical swaying. Maybe that's just the way our system works. Maybe things naturally sway with administrations.

    It's a shame that basically we have a two-party system. It's a shame that we use words like hate, and believe it. I will remember that those around me and the things that I hear, are simply people I know, and people who are loud. They are nothing more than eggs in a cake. They are a key ingredient, but they represent only a small part of something good.

    Any good leader embraces accountability. It doesn't matter if they're a director of a department, president, or an anaylyst. Without accountability we stop being a democracy. When it comes to the government, that accountability goes to the people and the constitution. I feel that there is no accountability when it comes to my private information. I can't find assurance that using my private inofrmation is justified. That is my concern with the use of phone records.
    Last edited by gaffa; 05/25/2006 at 11:06 AM.
  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    My perspective is that things don't have to be either-or, right-wrong, liberal or conservative. There is always a third option. Unfortunately I've no reason to believe that third option is being explored. If it is, someone or something is stamping it out. Because of this, we will have radical swaying. Maybe that's just the way our system works. Maybe things naturally sway with administrations
    you've hit it right on the head - there is no room for independent opinion or intelligent discourse - the only thing that matters nowadays is "either you're with us or against us" kind of mind-set.
    Just because I despise the fundamentalist and autocratic mind-set of the repugnicans does not mean that i support the muddle-headed thinking of the damncats. It would be nice to have a choice beyond the incompetent and the inchoate..... but for now that's just a dream
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  9. #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    you've hit it right on the head - there is no room for independent opinion or intelligent discourse - the only thing that matters nowadays is "either you're with us or against us" kind of mind-set.
    Just because I despise the fundamentalist and autocratic mind-set of the repugnicans does not mean that i support the muddle-headed thinking of the damncats. It would be nice to have a choice beyond the incompetent and the inchoate..... but for now that's just a dream
    There it is again. Do you really think "repugnant" is a word you'd use to describe me?
  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    There it is again. Do you really think "repugnant" is a word you'd use to describe me?
    I have several friends and colleagues who claim affiliation with either party - but when I talk to them on their respective party issues it turns out that they do not take the extreme views spouted by those parties - in many cases they disagree with almost 50% of the party issues. In short - they're moderates. But there are a handful of folks who defend every plank in their party platform, no matter how extreme or stupid it is, and automatically lash out at anyone who disagrees with their extreme point of view. I find such people repugnant or moronic or both.
    I don't know you or where you fall in that spectrum - but in general I find that most folks here in the OT forums seem to be glued to the extreme ends of the spectrum.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  11. #111  
    I'm so liberal, I want to pay more in taxes!!!
  12. #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    I'm so liberal, I want to pay more in taxes!!!
    you're welcome to pay my taxes anytime!
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  13. #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    There it is again. Do you really think "repugnant" is a word you'd use to describe me?
    lol

    hmm, still thinking ... What were those views you have about AIDS victims again?
  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    lol

    hmm, still thinking ... What were those views you have about AIDS victims again?
    You tell me if you think you know well enough to pass judgement. Be careful, Blaze.
  15. #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    I have several friends and colleagues who claim affiliation with either party - but when I talk to them on their respective party issues it turns out that they do not take the extreme views spouted by those parties - in many cases they disagree with almost 50% of the party issues. In short - they're moderates. But there are a handful of folks who defend every plank in their party platform, no matter how extreme or stupid it is, and automatically lash out at anyone who disagrees with their extreme point of view. I find such people repugnant or moronic or both.
    I don't know you or where you fall in that spectrum - but in general I find that most folks here in the OT forums seem to be glued to the extreme ends of the spectrum.
    That's odd because I don't find that to be true for most of my fellow Conservatives here. I've heard much criticism of this administration and this Congress. At any rate, do you have a scale? I mean, does adherence to 90% of party policies make someone repugnant? 95%?

    The point is that "repugnant" strikes me as a very personal attack. And, as such, is very difficult to defend when the only thing known about a person is his/her party affiliation. It also strikes me that such labels add nothing to the debate about policies. I don't mean to go on about it but so many people--on all sides of the spectrum--use these labels as blanket condemnations of a specific group. When I see them the only thing I can tell about the person who uses them is that he is unlikely to be interested in understanding the other side's point of view.
  16. #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    That's odd because I don't find that to be true for most of my fellow Conservatives here. I've heard much criticism of this administration and this Congress.
    And yet it's my guess that they'll still vote the party line?
  17. #117  
    No more comments about AIDS victims?
  18. #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    And yet it's my guess that they'll still vote the party line?
    I wouldn't guess that. But, if they do, I wouldn't take it as lock-step agreement with Republican policies. Like it or not, there are only two viable parties in this country. And that translates to the ballot box. Unfortunately, there's usually only the Republican answer or the Democrat answer. And in more cases than we'd like to admit, our votes go to what we believe to be the lesser of evils. One can either opt-out and look for the party with which they agree more completely (if, indeed, one exists) or they can stay and try to change their party for the better. But if people opt-out en masse from a party then power shifts to the opposition party. So, even though we disagree with some of the policies of our party, there is good reason to stay in the party.
  19. #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    No more comments about AIDS victims?
    What comments have I made about AIDS victims, Blaze? Step up and answer the question or shut up. You have no idea what you're talking about.
  20. #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    What comments have I made about AIDS victims, Blaze? Step up and answer the question or shut up. You have no idea what you're talking about.
    Whoa, theeeeres the hoovs we all know. lol
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions