that is remembered.  And the Bush people tried to hide it!

-- Modified on 4/8/2004 7:09:46 AM

-- Modified on 4/8/2004 10:09:02 PM

Former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey has it right this morning...

First, she pointed out that the intelligence problems go back SEVERAL years. She didn't try and blame any ONE adminisitration, she blamed ALL administrations. Her basic point, and I have to agree with this, is that the US was never prepared to believe that something like 9/11 would happen. It had never happened before, and there was no real method/mechanism in place to look at the whole picture.

Her second point, which again is a fundamental and true point, is that the US has traditionally been a reactive response, not pre-emptive. If you think about it, she's got a good point. Our total LE effort is traditionally geared towards apprehension and prosecution AFTER THE CRIME HAS OCCURRED.

Prevention has never really been a strong preference because of our "respect" for civil liberties. Look at the complaining about efforts to stop prostitution. Like it or not, the this so-called "hobby" is illegal. Yet, as a community, we bitch and whine whenever LE tries to prevent the "crime" from occurring. Outlaw guns and eliminate them, you redcue the number of crimes involving guns and probably reduce the level of violent crime. But, we scream about our "right to bear arms". LE tries to "profile" criminals, again the issue of rights prevents a tool from being effectively used.

So, now we're faced with the real prospects for terrorist activity in our own land. Do we continue to be more reactive instead of proactive? If you support the idea of the "global" community, are you willing to subjugate our national sovereignty?

be really honest, yeah, Bush should have recognized the threat-then again, so should Clinton. And Bush Sr., and Reagan, and Carter, etc. Why didn't we realize that Islamic fundamentalism was gonna bite us in the ass back when the Shah was deposed? Go back to the founding of Israel.

The attack on Iraq, regardless of the outcome, is not truly going to change the minds of terrorists. As a society, going back to Korea, we've sent the message that the US does not have the willingness to be aggressive. 9/11 was inevitable, as is the next major terrorist attack.

It's going to take a nuclear bomb going off in Disneyland or Disneyworld before the nation really decides to get serious about fighting terrorism.

In fact, she almost went out of her way to state that Bush could be excused from dealing with Clarke's warnings, because the warnings were actually to her and other of Bush's underlings, rather than Bush himself.  Wonderfully twisted logic.

And she did not refute Clarke main charge, i.e. that Bush was and continues to be focused on Iraq at the expense of all else.  She merely tried to justify it by saying that others, such as Bob Kerrey ALSO considered Saddam to be a threat.  The problem is, BUSH is the one responsible for our security, not Bob Kerrey.

And, I am afraid that if Bush is re-elected, and continues to give the likes of Al Qaida more recruiting messages and more and more displaced and suicidal volunteers, we WILL see that nuke in Disneyland, or more likely, Las Vegas, Washington, or N.Y., sooner, rather than later

Half the damn committee tried to cinduct a freakin' trial. I thought this was supposed to be gathering information, not raking people over the coals.

Didn't Clarke admit that his warnings wouldn't have prevented 9/11?

How long were they IN the US, training and preparing, before they hijacked the planes.

Oh yeah, for you civil rights types, EXACTLY HOW were they supposed to prevent the hijackers from comitting the crimes? Don't give me any of your BullShit vague generalities, and don't point fingers.

YOU are one of the people here that point out how stupid you think Bush is, so apply your SUPERIOR intellect and explain how, WITHOUT VIOLATING ANYONE'S CIVIL RIGHTS, 9/11 could have been prevented?

Al Qaida and the other nutcases don't need any recruiting inducements, that's just more of your BS rationalization because of your HATRED of Bush.

You're trying to fly helicopters.

If you are tired, go to sleep.  My claim was NOT that Bush should have prevented 9/11.  I am not looking backward, I am looking forward.  My claim is that his Iraq policy will be COMPLETELY to blame for the NEXT major catastrophic Terrorist attack on U.S. Soil.

You and your band of Bush apologists cannot even focus on the issue.  We were lied to, and led on a misadventure in Iraq that is an UNMITIGATED DISASTER.  So far, it has gotten 630 Brave Americans killed, along with tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.  But that will be the tip of the Iceberg when Al Qaida uses their tens of thousands of new recruits to execute their next attack on us, on our soil.

but your post on the "good points" was a good read...

as I'm tired of the rhetoric from a few posters who are becoming offensive.

To be honest, I have concerns about some of the domestic policies of this adminsitration, I see them pandering to voters and falling back on problems.

I'm also a realist/pragmaticist (sp). I would prefer a third, legitimate alternative candidate. I've lived through enough failed Democratic persidencies to realize that Kerry is blowing smoke at everyone, and his adminsitration will fail.

I don't subscribe to the fallacy that the president owes a detailed explanation to the American public for everything he does, as soon as he does it. I think going into Iraq might not have been the wisest thing to do, but I also agree that some good has arisen. Hussien was evil, he was another Hitler. As the remaining superpower, we have an obligation to rid the world of Hussiens. I also know that there are others that need to be taken down, but you don't spread your forces too thin. We've been too restrained in managing Iraq, in the interests of world opinion and the pacifist liberals. I don't think nuking them back into the stone age is the answer, but a stronger show of force is required.

We have failed to retaliate in the past when attacked and we now need to demonstrate a significantly greater amount of force than would be preferred. Personally, I feel we need to accept that the middle east will never have peace and tell Israel that we'll supply them with logistics, but they're on their own as far as how they use the supplies.

There comes a time when you can no longer reason with your enemies and you must use force to back up your points. We have passed that point. I support a strong National soveriegnty, the hell with the UN and Europe.

This nation was founded by settlers who were unhyappy with the status quo in Europe (the Pilgrims, remember why they left England?) and were seeking a new, independent life. The American spirit has been one of fierce independence mixed with compassion. I'd say it was more like leave us alone and we'll help you as much as we can. But piss us off and we'll kick your ass. Sadly, I see that latter part fading away to more of the we must be sensitive to others. Let's just roll over and contiune to allow others to piss all over us.

What happened to the "Don't tread on me" spirit in America?

Then tell me - why did John Ashcroft stop flying commercial and switch to only charter aircraft?

JULY 2001 – ASHCROFT STOPS FLYING COMMERCIAL BECAUSE OF “THREAT ASSESSMENT”: Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airlines and instead began "traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines" because of "what the Justice Department called a 'threat assessment.'" That "threat assessment" has never been made public. [Source: CBS, 7/26/01]

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.

A senior official at the CIA said he was unaware of specific threats against any Cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself, in a speech in California, seemed unsure of the nature of the threat.

You just stated that, "As the remaining superpower, we have an obligation to rid the world of Husseins. "  That is definitely a debatable point, but if it is true then it seems to me that we need the world's input on which Husseins to remove and when to remove them.  The reason the administration gave for invading Iraq last year was that Iraq was such a threat that we could not wait any longer.  I believe Cameroon suggested waiting another 30-45 days for the inspectors, but the administration rejected this proposal out of hand.  Perhaps if they had accepted this proposal, enough members of the Security Council would have been placated enough to vote with the US, thus making the situation now much easier for us.  In addition, it would have given more time for the 4th Division to move into position after Turkey refused to allow them to move through Turkey.  
I guess what I am trying to say is that I just cannot see any justification for Bush's rush to invade Iraq when waiting a month or two would have put the troops in a much better position for the long haul.

Just procedure huh ? baloney ...

I don't buy it, but ok maybe,
but then explain this ...
see link
If you need me to explain it,
let me know.

Basically this state order signed by
Jeb Bush, put Florida under Marshall law
2 days before the 9/11 attack, is that
procedure too ? or did the Bush people
know something more ? you tell me ....

PLEASE, no tell me ...

It makes me really want to know what the threat was. Why is it a secret?

Who knows.

I'm surprised he hasn't had tighter security.

But it didn't exactly make your point. It stated there was a threat of some kind. It could have been a bomb threat just as easily.

The point was that Congresswoman quoted out of context. Additionally, the article reinforced one of the problems that Dr. Rice admitted to, the lack of communication. (Note that the CIA reported they knew nothing about any threat.)

I think 9/11 was a colossal intelligence/communication failure and the outcome of this silly attempt by both sides to pin blame on the other SHOULD be a series of recomendations for improving and streamlining intelligence anlysis. The "blame" for 9/11 rests on Bin Laden-not Bush, not Clinton, not Republicans, and not Democrats-just Bin Laden.

Are you nutz? This guy is the reincarnation of Oliver Cromwell. He had a statue's tits covered up because he thought breasts were indecent, even in art. While terrorists are figuring new and entertaining ways to kill us, he's ploting and arresting Tommy Chong for making bongs and selling them on the internet. And when he's told about a threat to airline security, like maybe it's not safe to fly because of possible hijackings and shit, this guy changes his travel patterns but doesn't think it important enough to warn the sheeple out there.

Yeah, he's a peach.

Here is another example. I saw it on the gen'l board no too long ago but can't find the thread now.

Too bad you don't have the cajones to post under your regualr TER handle, but I wonder how many schizo posters are on this board trying to enhance the apparent numbers of righteous liberals.

You "might" (and it's only might) have an interesting point.

But it's obvious from your post that YOU don't understand the order, because when you read through all the Whereas's and the different sections a couple points disagree with your "analysis".

According to one of the Whereas in there: "WHEREAS, the Governor may order the Florida National Guard to provide extraordinary support to law enforcement upon request and such a request has been received from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to assist FDLE in performing port security training and inspections. "

On the surface, this seems legit, but the question still remains why FDLE felt the need for more assistance. I wonder if a news search for that period would show anything happening in Florida at that time.

But, and this is where you have a valid point, in section 2 and section 3 "Based on the potential massive damage to life and property that may result from an act of terrorism at a Florida port, the necessity to protect life and property from such acts of terrorism," I am also curious about the potential for terrorism remark.

Where you completely blew it was in intimating this as a declaration of martial law. This was a national guard callup.

Get your information straight

Because I am sure as hell not going to stop posting my honestly felt beliefs on the subject, simply because YOU find them offensive.  And, BTW, just because you don't agree with my opinions, doesn't make them irrational or wrong.  It so happens that some of the most qualified experts in the field, such as Richard Clarke, have almost the identical set of opinions on the subject of the danger that the unwise Iraq invasion has subjected us to, with respect to the re-vitalization of Al Qaida.

I personally find the naivete of anyone who takes the claims of the Bush adminsitration regarding Iraq at face value to be offensive, but I don't begrudge your rights to those opinions.  In fact, I welcome your posting these opinions, because it speaks volumes as to your inability to determine when you are being lied to by your leadership.

And, BTW, while the President doesn't owe the American Public a detailed and accurate explanation for EVERYTHING he does, he sure as hell DOES owe us EXACTLY that when it comes to starting a war in which he is getting many hundreds of our brave sons and daughters killed and thousands maimed, in addition to tarnishing our nation's international prestige, and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis, a good portion of whom are innocent civilians.  And, BTW, if you don't believe my numbers, I'd suggest that you are simply uninformed on the subject.  The information is WIDELY available from numerous sources.  But you'll have to find it yourself, as I'm not your damn librarian, and I have no idea which sources YOU PERSONALLY would find credible.  BTW, perhaps one source you'd believe is Bill O'Reilly, who yesterday was quoted in the New York Times stating that he no longer believes the Administration's claim that the vast majority of Iraqis actually want us there.

Oh, and your comparison of Saddam Hussein to Hitler is unfounded on one specific point:  That is, Hitler invaded NUMEROUS of his neighboring nations, and it was ONLY when he invaded nations with whom we were treaty bound, and were ASKED by those nations to intervene, AND WE were invaded by Hitler's ally did we as a nation get involved in that conflict.  We are not the world's police force, and even if we were, we would owe it to the world to respect THEIR views of when to get involved in protecting them.  And as for protecting ourselves, we have pretty well proven that Saddam was NEVER a threat to US.  I.e. no Weapons of Mass Destruction, and even if there WERE WMD at one time, there sure as hell was NEVER a program to establish a Delivery mechanism to use any WMD as an OFFENSIVE threat to US.  The fact is, Bush had an agenda to overthrow Saddam, and 9/11 never had anything to do with that agenda.  It was some combination of personal vendetta and supporting the oil interests that got him elected.  Which might even be justifiable, had Bush had the integrity to sell such a mission to the U.S. populace honestly.  But he didn't.  His administration cooked up a bogus case about WMD that might represent an imminent threat to us, and in particular, a NUCLEAR threat that Bush already had intelligence to the effect that it didn't really exist.  So, in essence, he sold this war on the basis of a lie, and a totally trumped up, unsupportable connection to 9/11, to play on the legitimate concerns of the public about additional terror attacks.  And it was not only a lie, it was actually completely COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to the stated mission of making US safer on domestic soil.   Osama Bin Laden probably thanks Bush 6 times a day facing Mecca that Bush invaded Iraq.  Because that Iraq invasion is probably the only reason Bin Laden is still alive today, and it is CERTAINLY the main reason that Al Qaida is still capable of inflicting terror on free nations of the world today.

And if my stating that offends you, that's too damn bad.

"So, now we're faced with the real prospects for terrorist activity in our own land. Do we continue to be more reactive instead of proactive?"

About two months after 9/11 I was working as a cabby at the time and one night at 2am I picked up 4 guys who were as drunk as I've ever seen anyone and they were scared sober...they all worked at the local U-Haul and it seems that day they had been interrogated by the FBI because a whole bunch of their trucks were stolen all at once and all from the same company location

Their trucks get stolen all the time but not like this and not all from one place all on one day...thus the visit from the FBI

We talked and they were frightened for what those trucks might be used for but at the time they had no answers and that was almost worse...just plain not knowing where and when those trucks would show up again and what they would be loaded with

Flash forward two weeks...I pick up an older man who needed to go to the airport in another town fairly far away(a 2 1/2 hour ride)...we got to talking about this and that and he mentioned(without my telling him the U-Haul story) that his son is a State Trooper and just a few days before he made a stop(with backup) of one of those trucks...being driven by men(in his words) of Mideastern descent...that's pretty much all the info he had though when I told him my part of the story he said it made some things make sense as far as the way his son had acted(he just kept saying his son had acted "strange")

I have no idea what that means either but I can guess

I'm inclined to believe that while I(like lots of people) like to talk about how inept our government is sometimes...sometimes they are on the ball...why?  Because despite this normally would be news(the stolen trucks and their recovery)...there was not the slightest story in any of the local papers about any of this

It takes a good reason for a newspaper not to publish something about these two stories and I can't see it happening unless someone somewhere invoked national security and kept it out of print

Believe me...I've gone through the whole thing in my head many times...could those U-Haul guys been lying to me?  Doubtful since those four guys were dropped off at three different addresses and the story stayed the same right to the last guy

There was NO story about those missing trucks in the paper...as a cabby we often have long periods of downtime and I would read the paper front to back everyday and I never saw any story remotely connected to U-Haul that would explain what happened nor later when I heard about the recovery of one of the trucks was there anything in the paper then either(believe me...I looked too)

The man I took to the airport had no reason to make up his part of the story especially since we were talking about the police in connection with me(once in a while getting pulled over for speeding)...we wondered if his son had ever caught me then we got to talking about odds stops cops have to make and then his story came out

So what's my point?

Just that maybe we feel we wait until something bad happens before the government does something because many times(and we can never know just how many) if they do stop whatever bad thing from happening we never get to hear about it

This all happened in Mid-America(far from either coast)...who knows how many other places other similar things may have ALMOST happened but for the governments diligence?

In academic circles, they tell you that you need to be carefull of your sources. Especially with the Internet and the ease with which people can slap out a website.

This little thing called "peer review". There have been a coupel recent instances of respectable news organizations red-faced over reporters either making up facts or deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

You, SD-DUD, have offered nothing to substantiate your assertions, we have nothing to judge your credibility on-except "the nonsenical ravings of the lunatic mind" (gotta love Mel Brooks). You want to express your opinions, fine. There's an old saying about opinions and yours are beginning to reek.

I assert that you have no factual basis for anything you assert, you are listening to the liberal sound bites and programs like the O'Franken factor. Since you're too lazy to post links to ANY information source, I will follow your advice and ignore your posts, since you have the reasoning power of a six year old.

As far as the Hussein comaprison to Hitler, it was closer than you relaize. However, it's obvious to me that you worship the ground Saddam walked on, and I gather you are enjoying the recent developments in Iraq so you and your liberal buddies can clap your hands in glee and plot how to distort and further misrepresent facts to advance your socialist agenda.

You need to get a better understanding of history dud, Hitler committed horrible atrocities-as did Hussein. Hussein was at war with Iran and he did invade Kuwait. And we were not invaded, we were atatcked (note, the Japanese did not occcupy Hawaii, which was not a state at that time).

Bottom line, it is too damn bad you're an offensive twit.

oops. the DB is being leaked and directly contradicts what Rice said under oath.  

She apparently committed perjury.

TET

JBIRDCA;
    You lament insults and flames by those who you do not agree with, but you obviously have resorted to insults instead of adherence to clear facts and logic.  You referred to SDSTUD as "SD DUD" in your last post, was this not an insult for you to clearly distort his codename in a way as to imply that he is stupid?  If you are going to lament insults then you must not be a practicing party to them.

Typical Conservative Republican spin ... Change the Subject when you can’t defend your position.

Come on please don’t try to change the subject, by assuming I’m hiding or insinuate that I’m some schizoid. Many in TER chat know who I am, and further I’ve never posted anything but my reviews under my TER login name. Not that I feel I need to defend myself to you, but I go by “L.A. Kings Fan” in chat and for 95% of my posts to the boards. Unless you’re willing to give out your real name, address, and phone number, I don’t see how your Alias makes you any different or better than mine ? ? ?

OK, next, that you say I “might”, tells me I DO have a point that should be looked into further. I'm not saying it's a smoking gun, just should be looked into further, but I know it won’t. The Media gave up on this story when anyone that dared question the Bush administration was deemed a traitor and detractor to the good of the country, ala "The Dixie Chicks". NO I don’t listen to them; I hate country music, just making a point that even you can understand.

Second, don’t downplay it by saying it’s only a National Guard call up. It might not be Martial Law, but its still turning basic control over to the military. Oh, and if you downplay the National Guard, and say they're not the military ... then downplay GW Bush for serving in the National Gaurd to avoid the military, you can't have it BOTH ways. Anyways, it’s about as close as you can get isn’t it? Further, NO there were no other reasons for Jeb Bush to sign this document, i.e. no hurricane or civil war or some such, do your own news search for that period, since I know you won’t believe mine. That debate was mulled over, but since it was a Democratic web site, I figured you wouldn’t care about the results and try to dismiss it anyways, so I didn’t bother with a link for you.
But it doesn’t make the fact that Executive Order 01-262 signed by Jeb Bush on September 7, 2001, any less questionable.

Where my point is VERY valid, is as you mentioned  "… the potential MASSIVE DAMAGE to LIFE and PROPERTY that may result from an ACT of TERRORISM …”. This is not a normal inclusion in a more routine National Guard call up. Also, Florida was the first STATE to declare a "State of Emergency" on 9/11 and did so before New York State or the Federal leaders in Washington did, yet there were no "terrorist" incidents in Florida.

My information is straight, and I’m still waiting for an honest ANSWER. Not name-calling, not well that word could mean this and not that, just a simple answer to WHY did he sign this AT that time. Yes GW BUSH was in town but is calling up the National Guard and insinuating there may be terrorist action normal for that ? ? ? Honest question, is that normal ? I don't know ?

But Try this as a working hypothesis:  

1. The Administration knew there was a credible threat from the Bin Laden group or others in August 2001. (We know this to be true because of the State Department Travel Warnings, and now the PDB).

2. We knew that the President and possibly other national symbols were "at risk." The key to this may lie in what was security like at Reagan National the day of the attack.

3. President vacations in Crawford and has a bizarre in and out travel schedule while there (short notice).

4. President lets slip to his brother that an attack may come. There might be a legitimate fear of a Cole-like attack... i.e. Bin Laden's last MO. Hence the inclusion of the Port Authority.
Jeb Bush signs order to the guards.

5. 9/11 happens.

Richard Clark will be working for ABC News. Imagine that. I'd say that Clarke moved just in time, as his credibility is facing new challenges in light of Dr. Rice's testimony.

From the Seattle Times:

"Disputing Clarke's claim, Rice testified customs agents "weren't actually on alert."

At least one of the agents who helped apprehend Ressam sides with Rice's version of events.

Moreover, others involved in the Ressam case say Clarke's book contains factual errors and wrongly implies national-security officials knew of Ressam's plan to set a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport long before they actually did."

So who has committed perjury?

RLTW

Get real.  There is WAY too much hatred and heat for people to actually see the light.  Clarke admits that the political will to do what would have been needed to actually stop 9/11 was not there, and 9/11 would still have happened.  And Condoleeza is too busy propping up her boss and rearing down Clarke to actually do anything but obfuscate (without actual perjury) in front of the commission.  The problem was and is that Bush has always had a hard-on for Hussein and Iraq, and it has biased his actions both pre and post 9/11.  How much this has been to the detriment of our nation is still way to early to say, and only history will give us true perspective.  

But if the Bush Administration would get off their unreasonable claims of their own infallibility with respect to national defense and terrorism, perhaps we could actually derive some informed and thoughtful policies to help us fight this problem in the future.

sdstud said "it was ONLY when [Hitler] invaded nations with whom we were treaty bound, and were ASKED by those nations to intervene, AND WE were invaded by Hitler's ally did we as a nation get involved in that conflict."

Where do I begin?  We had not treaties with any European nation requiring action in when Hitler invaded them.  We were begged by some to become involved, but did not until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and then declared war on Germany ONLY after Germany declared war on us (which was a mistake on Hitler's part; nothing in the Tri-Partite Pact required his declaration under the then-current circumstances).  BTW, Japan (Hitler's ally) did not invade sovereign American territory to start the war; it made a sneak attack on American military installations on 12/7/41.  Japan didn't invade any American territory until it seized two Aleutian islands (Attu and Kiska) in March 1942, three months after Pearl Harbor, and coincident with the Midway attack.

sdstud said "We are not the world's police force."

Where was he was Europe was failing in its duties to protect Muslims in the former Yugoslavia?  Save your outrage for Clinton's military adventures.  Maybe we're not.  But we sure as Hell should protect America's vital national interests.

sdstud said "we would owe it to the world to respect THEIR views of when to get involved in protecting them."

Like Hell!  I don't give a rat's ass about "the world's views" when it comes to America's vital national interests.  There is one defining motivation for American foreign policy, and that's protecting America's vital national interests.  And unless sdstud has turned in his car for a bicycle, and freezes in the Winter (not likely, in San Diego, I'll grant you), then I don't want to read any more complaints about oil.  Oil is one of America's vital national interests.  If you don't realize that, go build a cabin in some Third World backwater and stop enjoying the benefits of living in a nation to which it is.

sdstud said "we have pretty well proven that Saddam was NEVER a threat to US.  I.e. no Weapons of Mass Destruction, and even if there WERE WMD at one time, there sure as hell was NEVER a program to establish a Delivery mechanism to use any WMD as an OFFENSIVE threat to US."

So he wasn't a threat to America's territorial integrity.  Big, fat, hairy deal.  No one ever argued that he was.  However, he did, at one time, have WMD's (a point sdstud seems to grudgingly concede, though he still tries to hedge, nonsensically, given Saddam's use of them).  He possessed or was developing/acquiring delivery systems which permitted him to attack Saudi Arabia and Israel (remember the Scuds?).  Moreover, he was leader of a rogue nation.  That's the point of preemption: to remove a gathering threat before it becomes imminent.  By sdstud's logic, the United States would never have dealt with Hitler.

sdstud said "The fact is, Bush had an agenda to overthrow Saddam"

'Fact is, this is partially correct.  Bush did have such an agenda.  So did Clinton.  In fact, it was official American policy since 1998.

sdstud said "9/11 never had anything to do with that agenda."

Actually, it did.  9/11 had something to do with that agenda because this President resolved that this nation would not wait until a gathering threat became an imminent threat before acting.  I know you lefties don't have the stomach for actually protecting America, probably because you don't really like America very much.  But the virulence of your hatred for Bush and anyone who defends him reveals not a reasonable dispute over the efficacy of policy, but a visceral hatred of all that he stands for, including the protection of America and her vital national interests.

-- Modified on 4/26/2004 8:11:46 PM