coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Apr 15 2004, 09:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Apr 15 2004, 09:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> True enough, but see my first two sentences. Perhaps the days of imperialism aren't over per say, I think that they just changed face. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You seem to be saying we should be imperialist because imperialism isn't actually dead.
What *I'm* saying is we have no right to force our laws, beliefs, morals, or culture on another people. It's easy to say "we know what's best" when we're the strongest nation in the world... you want to turn the tables? What if the #1 superpower in the world was a muslim country that decided our bass-ackward country desperately needed to see the light?
Is it possible to be imperialistic in this day and age? Sure. <i>We're doing it.</i>
If you think we are in the right in invading Iraq, regardless of the lack of connection to 9/11 or any kind of immediate threat, I need only quote our darling president:
<i>"It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us. "</i>
"Bring 'em on," right Mr. Bush? Those Iraqis sure do love our troops and welcome them everywhere they go.
<i> "I don't think our troops should be used for what's called nation-building."
"I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not."
"But I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious." </i>
The exit strategy in Iraq is so clearly obvious, I mean... anyone who can't see how easy and obvious it is must be stupid.
<i> "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be. We can help.'"
"I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country, say, 'We do it this way, so should you.'"
"I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, 'We do it this way, so should you.'" </i>
This one was so important to Bushy that he said it three times in a matter of minutes. All quotes came from the Wake Forest debate held on October 12, 2000. All of this is so entirely laughable. I guess we're now the ugly American, right?
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Apr 16 2004, 12:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Apr 16 2004, 12:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ok here we go,
The 2 hours of Dr. Rice's testimony that you saw and the censored documentes were for the public. If you bothered to watch any of the testimony you would know this. Dr. Rice had given hours of testimony going over more than what she said in the public one. We only saw the public one because, dare I say it, some of the commisioners were playing politics and demanded rice testify in public. All of the commisioners have the clearance to see the classified documents. The black marks are on the PDB because they had to put them there for public purposes. The only thing that you have right is the deadline. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> appologies. I live in the UK, so information I have on this is based laregly from internet radio shows rather then actually watching the testimony.
1) The commissioners have clearance to see that particular PDB (this clearance was granted 24 hours before the public rice testimony). They cannot have unedited copies of the PDB, the clearance was only to view the matierial. so my point about the documents being withheld (there are many many more) still stands.
2) I should be more specific I guess. The Replacement to which I was refering was Max Cleland, an outspoken member of the panel, ousted on a technicallity, and replaced with a more favourable voice.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1) The commissioners have clearance to see that particular PDB (this clearance was granted 24 hours before the public rice testimony). They cannot have unedited copies of the PDB, the clearance was only to view the matierial. so my point about the documents being withheld (there are many many more) still stands. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The comitee members were privey to an unedited copy of the PDB, and other information they needed. There are other comitees, of which they're a part of, that grant them access to such documents. Again, the black lines were put on the PDB so it could be released to the public.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I live in the UK, so information I have on this is based laregly from internet radio shows rather then actually watching the testimony.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've grown to mistrust the media; not due to any bias(well ok its part of the reason), but rather sloppy reporting. I often find them leaving out key facts(that should be in the story) that most people wouldn't know unless they watch multiple news sources.
I meant to point out that they were unable to keep the document, edited or not. unnless they have photographic memories, just viewing a docment severly limits the benefits of seeing it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I meant to point out that they were unable to keep the document, edited or not. unnless they have photographic memories, just viewing a docment severly limits the benefits of seeing it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Obviously they would not want to give anyone copies of a classified document. That is why they are classified. If they do not posses the mental compacity to intake the important documents for quesioning the next day, than they should not be there. I would think that they would be able to have the classified documents at hand for the private hearings that they have had.
what if *gasp* the government classified the docments needlessly to cover their own ****. simply saying they are classified, thus no one may see them, is like saying the govenment should be allowed to hide anyy information it choses simply because it can. it is an inquiry to look at the govenments handling of the events, the government are denying reasonable access to thousands of documents.
there is an obvious differance between viewing a document once, and having a copy of it for referance.
<!--QuoteBegin-Melatonin+Apr 16 2004, 10:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Apr 16 2004, 10:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> what if *gasp* the government classified the docments needlessly to cover their own ****. simply saying they are classified, thus no one may see them, is like saying the govenment should be allowed to hide anyy information it choses simply because it can. it is an inquiry to look at the govenments handling of the events, the government are denying reasonable access to thousands of documents.
there is an obvious differance between viewing a document once, and having a copy of it for referance. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes well this has been happening, probably since the invention of "the State" as we all know, love, and dread it. Having an executive branch, king, military ruler who classifies personal actions as state secrets is certainly nothing new. We can easily point to any number of rulers, and to any number of instantces (both trivial and important) where Those in Charge, decided that such information shouldn't be passed around to the common public. This is a typical abuse of power but, it is still an abuse none the less. Sadly the usual methods that were created to help limit or prevent such obvious abuses have been routinely circumvented or simply ignored, more so by the current US admimistration, then others in recent history. To claim its the worse ever, or significantly different from before is wrong but, it still is an issue that needs attention. I for one think that the methods and standard operating procedures for this administration, have been to keep secret far more then usual, from day one. There is a reason of course. How can you be held accountable for things if no one knows what they are? The secrecy and the propaganda campaign executed by the current adminstration has been quite remarkable. Its managed to convince the majority of the population of the US that Saddam Hussein was a threat. Simply no one else in the world thought that. Iran, Saudi Arabia, even Kuwait all though Saddam was a evil person but, not any of them thought he was a significant threat or feared him. Kuwait, a country with a fraction of Iraq's population was spending far, far more on military expenditures then Iraq. Yet the US population were convinced, through propaganda campaign (lets be honest about calling it what it is) that he posed an immedate threat to the US and that the US needed to invade him to sieze his large stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Though I am wandering away from the point of secrets, its important to view propaganda and secrets together. Both are the ends to the means of what the real goal of the powerful is. Namely to convince people to do what they want you to do. I could go on for quite a while but, I would stumble into so many different areas I would completely go off what little is left of the topic thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sadly the usual methods that were created to help limit or prevent such obvious abuses have been routinely circumvented or simply ignored, more so by the current US admimistration, then others in recent history<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Care to elaborate on this? Or should I take this as pure speculation?
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Apr 16 2004, 12:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Apr 16 2004, 12:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sadly the usual methods that were created to help limit or prevent such obvious abuses have been routinely circumvented or simply ignored, more so by the current US admimistration, then others in recent history<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Care to elaborate on this? Or should I take this as pure speculation?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course examples are handy, it requires a minimum of effort to find, it requires a large amount of effort to ignore them. We can point to sporatic presidential press conferences. These are things which are usually carefully crafted and planned out affairs, have turned into creatures of near extinction. Press conferences, as I'm sure you know, are attempts by government officials to portray their goals, ideas, and etc to the press. Occasionally, these officals allow the press to ask questions directly of them, and at times the press takes advantage to ask questions that actual pertain to what is relavant, rather then what the offical or office-holder would like to put forth. This current president has had the lowest number of press conferences since they first really started as an institution. Prehaps not an active or overt act of secrecy, but a de facto one. Again, you can't be held accountable for things people don't know about. For an earlier instance of secrecy coupled with selective propoganda we can simply look to the Bush/Cheney 2000 campaign, where press members that <a href='http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/knowmed.html' target='_blank'>weren't freindly</a> to the campaing were denied access to the candidates. Remember secrecy is not just saying nothing, secrecy is also not saying everything. To this we ceratinly can not claim that any person or politican is blameless of not saying everything they know or think. However, stacking the deck, as it were to such an extent is at least disengenious and at worse abusing the idea of a fair and open press. A further example can be the Energy Task Force, lead by the vice president. While obiviously, the task force released information as to its findings is not a subject of secrecy but, its methods and members are. Though <a href='http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030829.html' target='_blank'>good guesses</a> as to its members ands methods have been made, they are still offically state secrets. This is just a brief series of examples off the top of my head and a few minutes with access to google. Again is not confined solely to the Bush administration nor the US polticians at all. We can easily find examples of 'police' force <a href='http://www.cato.org/events/011106bf.html' target='_blank'>acts</a> that are withheld from the populace. The question is really of one of oversight as you tried to point out by selectively quoting me. Who are the people that can have oversight for things such as the energy task force, the reasons to invade Iraq, or <a href='http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/25/news/economy/greenspan/' target='_blank'>emmense</a> national budget problems. Well the answer simply is the american public, who are incidently the direct targets of a active campaign to hide secrets and misdirection attentions. You'll note that Al-Qaeda does not care at all what US government officials knew or didn't know prior to 9.11. I suppose one could make an argument that you can't release what they did know to prevent terrorists from knowing what they know and how they learn it. However that arguement falls flat when you realize that the government collects data on terorists <a href='http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html' target='_blank'>completely differently</a>today then it used to. The only people that don't know are the public. Again I could continue on but, I believe I put forth what I was driving at. I don't claim that any president or administration is blameless for hiding facts or denying information. This does not mean that this is an acceptable practice nor a one we should allow to continue. Surely if this is a democracy, we require truthful information to make a sound judgement on the decisions before us. Whether this information is deined to the public through underhand methods, disengenious deeds, unintential ommission, or simple incomeptency, it should addressed and corrected. Otherwise there is no point to having dicussions or votes, they then meaningless debates about imaginary points. All the while the real descions are made by people who aren't accountable.
I was being selective in commenting you, because you choose to point out that on administration is worse than the others. And the fact that Bush was not friendl with reporters he didn't like is not evidence, its called human nature; I don't like that guy, so I wont grant him interviews. I'm pretty sure that clinton(I only use clinton because it is recent) didnt grant any interviews to the weekly standard, and you dont see him on Fox news. Does this mean clinton was subversive, no. There is no lack of news conferences; he just had one today, and another one a couple days ago. He just does not have a lot of prime time appearances. The energy councel is a good point, and we could discuss that in another thread. Every administration is secretive, i honestly think you cannot say one is more secretive than another.
As for do I belive if the Bush administration knew, and while on if the Clinton adminstration knew. I do not believe that either adminstration could have imagined that places would have been flown into the Towers. I also believe had they know, they would have had done anything to stop it. There has been a wall seperating our intelligence agencies for years. The Clinton administration(not Clinton him self) messed up by re-emphasizing the importance of the CIA and FBI not sharing information. The blame, however, does not fall on any administration. Blaming any adminstration is like blaming some one for not getting out of the way when some on decides to fly off the road onto the side walk and kills them. The fault lies in the lap of the terrorist.
On a side note, the hearings are becoming way to political. They should have waited til after the election, to keep things less political
<!--QuoteBegin-Eviscerator+Apr 16 2004, 12:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Apr 16 2004, 12:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This one was so important to Bushy that he said it three times in a matter of minutes. All quotes came from the Wake Forest debate held on October 12, 2000. All of this is so entirely laughable. I guess we're now the ugly American, right? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Key thing is the date, after 9/11 bush had to take a tough stance. After the worse attack on American soil since maybe the War if 1812, people didn't want a president who was going to take a passive stance and let the world tell him what to do. I'm quite sure if 9/11 hadn't happened he would have followed his quotes.
People who don't like Bush tend to try and forget the effects of 9/11 on the economy and the world and just blame it all on Bush.
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Apr 16 2004, 02:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Apr 16 2004, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was being selective in commenting you, because you choose to point out that on administration is worse than the others. And the fact that Bush was not friendl with reporters he didn't like is not evidence, its called human nature; I don't like that guy, so I wont grant him interviews. I'm pretty sure that clinton(I only use clinton because it is recent) didnt grant any interviews to the weekly standard, and you dont see him on Fox news. Does this mean clinton was subversive, no. There is no lack of news conferences; he just had one today, and another one a couple days ago. He just does not have a lot of prime time appearances. The energy councel is a good point, and we could discuss that in another thread. Every administration is secretive, i honestly think you cannot say one is more secretive than another.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Firstly, let me simply point out <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8891-2003Jan31?language=printer' target='_blank'>this article</a>. Whether you agree diasgree with the reporter is unimportant the number are useful though as a guide to the frequency of press conferences. Having a press conference the other day is really a matter of circumstance rather then proof of a new leaf being turned over, or a change in procedure. Secondly, you are wrong about Clinton, or any other president in that position. It is subversive. Also bear in mind it simply is not denying interviews to people that rub you the wrong way, this is not speaking at all to people that you don't agree with or people that don't agree with you. Presidents in particular have a very different set of rules and guide-lines they should follow that differ from ordinary citizens. Quite obviously so, the president is answerable to the entire population of the United States. It is his duty and that of his administration to be as honest and forthcoming as they possiblly can even to their own detriment. What is required is a level of objective political morality that american has an amazing dirth of. A good example of what I mean is <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3632871.stm' target='_blank'>here</a>. Here Ernst Welteke resigned over something that no one in the US would even bother reporting on. I am trying to point out that presidents have to be held to the highest standard their is. Not speaking to reporters beacuse they ask embarrasing or hard questions is a mark of underhanded policies, idelogic insincerity, or just questionable planning. Regardless, the public should know and should be allowed to ask, which quite often we don't or aren't. As to secrecy, there are many who will make <a href='http://villagenews.weblogger.com/stories/storyReader$7006' target='_blank'>the claim</a> that <a href='http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/opinion/6238758.htm' target='_blank'>Bush's is</a> the <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743255453/002-2703002-9934461?v=glance' target='_blank'>most secretive</a> in <a href='http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/politics/3993298.htm' target='_blank'>histroy</a>. Prehaps they are exaggerating, prehaps not, its not really important if it is the most secretive. The problem that is that is is very secretive at all. It is very hard to find anyone abrest of the actualites that the Bush administration is very secretive, therein lies the rub.
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Apr 16 2004, 02:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Apr 16 2004, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for do I belive if the Bush administration knew, and while on if the Clinton adminstration knew. I do not believe that either adminstration could have imagined that places would have been flown into the Towers. I also believe had they know, they would have had done anything to stop it. There has been a wall seperating our intelligence agencies for years. The Clinton administration(not Clinton him self) messed up by re-emphasizing the importance of the CIA and FBI not sharing information. The blame, however, does not fall on any administration. Blaming any adminstration is like blaming some one for not getting out of the way when some on decides to fly off the road onto the side walk and kills them. The fault lies in the lap of the terrorist.
On a side note, the hearings are becoming way to political. They should have waited til after the election, to keep things less political<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I am willing to cut the Bush administration a break and say quite truthfully that 9/11 caught them unawares. However that doesn't really excuse very much. Like others have mentioned not a single person has lost their job, or resigned beacuse of 9/11 and govermental or personal failures. Not even a single reprimand. The only apologies (public ones) have come only from the head of the FBI (taking a lot heat at the moment) and the former US Terrorist Czar, Clarke. I do think however that the Clinton and Bush adminstrations (prior to 9/11) approached terror. If you spend time to listen to say Clarke, he gives the indication that Clinton was interested in terrorism and doing things about it, even if they were only partially successful or partially implemented. You don't hear anything like that about Bush prior to 9/11, he has other things he cares about a lot more and really didn't want to deal with it much at all. That is <a href='http://www.thememoryhole.org/terror/tyler-terror.htm' target='_blank'>wasn't a priority</a> or something that should be <a href='http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2002/02/12/edit12.htm' target='_blank'>worried about</a> is a legimate point. However some humility, prehaps even an apology from the one person who is ultimately responsible for every action his administration takes or doesn't is not an unreasonable thing. As for Clinton intentionally preventing the CIA or FBI from sharing information, I have yet to find a release or article prior to 9/11 that would point this out. I find claims from the current and past administrations on the matter but, those are obviously partisan and suspect. However if you have any information (ie briefs, memos, or statements) that clearly show Clinton trying to prevent or even suggest the CIA and FBI from sharing information, please share it. I personally see the Clinton era of counter-terrorism as a C effort at best but the pre 9/11 efforts as a D-. At least they kept on some old hands in terrorism, even if they didn't listen to them.
No matter what sources you bring up, they are all exposed to the monday-mourning-quarterback syndrome.
Therefore, I find any statement to place to blame on anyone completely rediculous. It was a 10 year long plot against the US that we had hints of coming, but no one really heeded.
Big deal. I'm sure we ignore hundreds of threats every day. It's not physically possible to take every treat with complete seriousness. If we did, then all terrorists would have to do is cry wolf and just waste monumental time and resources.
Bad stuff is gonna happen regardless of what you do, if not from bad planning than from probability. You can't possible be perfect in every situation, right?
Withholding crucial information that really has nothing to do with current national security?
What's worse, an oppressive government like Saddam's or one that runs on manipulation and lies like Bush's? If Americans don't have the facts, they can't be trusted to vote.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for Clinton intentionally preventing the CIA or FBI from sharing information, I have yet to find a release or article prior to 9/11 that would point this out. I find claims from the current and past administrations on the matter but, those are obviously partisan and suspect. However if you have any information (ie briefs, memos, or statements) that clearly show Clinton trying to prevent or even suggest the CIA and FBI from sharing information, please share it. I personally see the Clinton era of counter-terrorism as a C effort at best but the pre 9/11 efforts as a D-. At least they kept on some old hands in terrorism, even if they didn't listen to them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
IT wasn't clinton, rather the deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, I was speaking of. When in office she issued a memo that helped buffer the "wall" between intelligence agency. There is a big hoopla going on around this and politics as usual, people are pushing here to resign. Just do a quick google search and you'll see. Im off to the bar now, just i bit of information for you. And I never said it was intentional, she was simple reinforcing a wall that was already there, the agencies were just kind of ignoring it at the time.
<a href='http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document_1995_gorelick_memo.pdf' target='_blank'>Here</a> is the memo by Jamie Gorelick that Handman was referring to. I don't wish to personally enter into this debate, just provide the memo which is an interesting read. Thus, I will just leave the link to the memo and go.
I think that anybody thinking that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened and purposelly didn't do anything about it is retarded. What kind of man would allow something like this to happen. I am conservative as you can get and I would never put something like this on Clinton (whom I loath and despise). I know you want to get Bush out of office and all, but damn people, he is conservative not Satan.
<!--QuoteBegin-IceBaron+Apr 18 2004, 01:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (IceBaron @ Apr 18 2004, 01:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think that anybody thinking that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened and purposelly didn't do anything about it is retarded. What kind of man would allow something like this to happen. I am conservative as you can get and I would never put something like this on Clinton (whom I loath and despise). I know you want to get Bush out of office and all, but damn people, he is conservative not Satan. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> A very careless man. To me, all signs point to the thinking "Clinton Administration is too obsessive with terrorism".
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
No one (rational) is claiming that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and decided to let it happen (though that is a conspiracy theory).
My argument and that of others in this thread is that the Bush administration made a LONG series of pretty egregious mistakes, putting off actions and pooh-pooh'ing plentiful warnings, ultimately resulting in their failure to prevent the attack.
Please forgive me for not posting over the weekend. We have had a breif period of sublimely good weather here and it would have been a shame to let it go by unenjoyed. Now, back to the meandering topic. Please forgive then length I am trying to cover everything I can in one post.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Apr 16 2004, 03:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Apr 16 2004, 03:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No matter what sources you bring up, they are all exposed to the monday-morning-quarterback syndrome.
Therefore, I find any statement to place to blame on anyone completely rediculous. It was a 10 year long plot against the US that we had hints of coming, but no one really heeded.
Big deal. I'm sure we ignore hundreds of threats every day. It's not physically possible to take every treat with complete seriousness. If we did, then all terrorists would have to do is cry wolf and just waste monumental time and resources.
Bad stuff is gonna happen regardless of what you do, if not from bad planning than from probability. You can't possible be perfect in every situation, right? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Quite true points, though I think you mistake why I like to cite references for my thoughts. I am certainly not an expert on international terrorism nor prevention therefore I use these references I cited above as a way to guide my thinking. I made an effort to select references that are considered 'middle of the road' and politically unbiased to help reduce the level of obfuscation by either 'side'. But I digress. You are quite correct in saying that we can not predict the future not be prepared for every unforeseen event. However the point some are trying to put forward is that there are fundamental things that could have been done to put off such events longer (not an unreasonable goal) or to possibly prevent them outright. I suppose the equivilant metaphor would be a automobile driver, eventually the driver will get into an accident, the time and place are unknown but, the seatbelt should have been secured. I think that is the fundamental point to be made. The Clinton administration, for all its failings, did in fact make an effort to place the metaphorical seatbelt on while the Bush administration did not. The accident is clearly not entirely their fault but, the possiblity that less injury could have happened seems to point to them. Truthfully it is easy for us to second guess both admisinstrations and point out what they should have done in hindsight, there are(were) things that should have been done to help. After all major attacks <a href='http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/inside/attacks.html' target='_blank'>were overted</a> in the past with minimal government effort prehaps an additional bare minimum effort would have been enough to save 1000 lives. I think that would have definetly been worth the effort. Of course even minimal efforts <a href='http://www.adl.org/learn/jttf/wtcb_jttf.asp' target='_blank'>don't always work</a>. Let me just say Handman and Arcadius, thank you for the link I am reading and digesting it now. It seems after reading the entire memo that Deputy Attonery General Jamie Gorelick's aim was to seperate the Dept of Justice's and the FBI's scope of investigation so that they would not overlap. The aim being the prevent both parties from investigating the same people or things and either compromising the assest or wasting time and and effort on things previously investigated. Additionally the memo has a built in method for preventing information from being released to a criminal case that would lead to a mis-trial and thus letting the suspect get off. That is the importat part that I think Handman and Arcadius would like pointed out, the intenional with-holding of information to prevent mis-trials and illegal information gathering. Though I must confess given the time and additudes at that time, I don't think that memo was out of place. I would think that memo currently would not be out of place either, assuming of course that the idea of 'unreasonable search and seizure' still means anything. But discussions about civil liberties and potential police states is a thread for another topic. Let it be said though that the point about the Clinton admisitration not doing everything possible and possible being counter-productive is heard. However I wasn't really disgreeing with that particular point both administrations are culpable as far as I am concerned. <!--QuoteBegin-IceBaron+Apr 18 2004, 01:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (IceBaron @ Apr 18 2004, 01:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think that anybody thinking that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened and purposelly didn't do anything about it is retarded. What kind of man would allow something like this to happen. I am conservative as you can get and I would never put something like this on Clinton (whom I loath and despise). I know you want to get Bush out of office and all, but damn people, he is conservative not Satan.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with the other posts that have already gone over this. It is not at all that we think that president Bush intentionally and knowingly took steps that facilitated the 9/11 attacks. It is the point that he simply mostly anything that had to do with terrorism. The difference being (referring to the driving accident metaphor again) of not paying attention at all to the road and intentionally aiming for the tree on the side of road. Bush quite obviously didn't aim for the tree but, nether was he paying much attention to the road at all. I think there are some that believe that at I have some particular goal of removing president Bush from the white house or that conservatives in general are evil. This is well... wrong. I have no particular concern if senator Kerry or if president Bush happen to be the next president. Some incremtal policy changes may take place but, the end result of the presidency will be roughly the same. My real issue is the fairly lax level of responsiblity that the executive branch of the government enjoys. This is not exclusive to the executive branch but, its best illistrated by it. I for one am of the opinioin that those in Power should have to answer for everything that happens in their stewardship and that their ultimatle responsibility lay with the Public. Prehaps this is bit glib and a bit naive but, it is important to remember that not a single american citizen has voted directly for their president since the 18th century. For me this debate is not a matter of liberal vs. conservatisim, or Clinton vs. Bush. It is a further point in the debate of those in Power vs. those they Rule and who should really be in charge.
<!--QuoteBegin-coil+Apr 14 2004, 10:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Apr 14 2004, 10:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not sure where Ann Coulter got her facts, but the two chapters on her in Franken's book leave her credibility fairly suspect. To paraphrase Franken, her most recent book is full of vicious invective bolstered by the shoddiest research this side of the Hitler Diaries. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually if you've read any of her books everything is documented and sourced incessantly. Franken is just smearing at this point. He's less of a pundit and more of a comic than anything. I taken you haven't read her book, so I'll just forward you her rebuttal, which has currently been unresponded to: <a href='http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20031009.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoul...c20031009.shtml</a>
Bush quadrupled CIA spending as well as legalized CIA and FBI barriers that prevented some sharing of information. Remember 9/11 happened scarcely 10 months since Bush took office. And ever SINCE then there hasn't been any terrorist attacks on Americans, outside of Iraq of course. That all said neither of them are completly blameless, but neither are 'to blame' either. The 9/11 comission is a political footfield at this point, complete with buck passing and finger pointing. A shame really for something so serious.
<!--QuoteBegin-killswitch1968+Apr 20 2004, 02:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (killswitch1968 @ Apr 20 2004, 02:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-coil+Apr 14 2004, 10:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Apr 14 2004, 10:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not sure where Ann Coulter got her facts, but the two chapters on her in Franken's book leave her credibility fairly suspect. To paraphrase Franken, her most recent book is full of vicious invective bolstered by the shoddiest research this side of the Hitler Diaries. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually if you've read any of her books everything is documented and sourced incessantly. Franken is just smearing at this point. He's less of a pundit and more of a comic than anything. I taken you haven't read her book, so I'll just forward you her rebuttal, which has currently been unresponded to: <a href='http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20031009.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoul...c20031009.shtml</a>
Bush quadrupled CIA spending as well as legalized CIA and FBI barriers that prevented some sharing of information. Remember 9/11 happened scarcely 10 months since Bush took office. And ever SINCE then there hasn't been any terrorist attacks on Americans, outside of Iraq of course. That all said neither of them are completly blameless, but neither are 'to blame' either. The 9/11 comission is a political footfield at this point, complete with buck passing and finger pointing. A shame really for something so serious. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm trying hard not to attack the character but rather the issues here. But seriously, I wish you would stop bringing Ann Coulter up. She's just a pathetic excuse for a source. She's as bad as Michael Moore.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually if you've read any of her books everything is documented and sourced incessantly. Franken is just smearing at this point. He's less of a pundit and more of a comic than anything. I taken you haven't read her book, so I'll just forward you her rebuttal, which has currently been unresponded to<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, there was a response at alfrankenweb.com which handled things nicely.
It doesn't matter that everything is 'documented and sourced incessently'-- that's part of the problem. She does it in an intentionally dishonest fashion, and more than enough people have taken her to task over.
My favorite part of her 'rebuttal' is that she knocks Franken because he criticizes her for incorrectly claiming that Newsweek's Evan Thomas's father was a Socialist party candidate-- without correctly mentioning that his <i>grandfather</i> <b>was</b>. However, he <b>does</b> mention it. In an endnote-- which then says, 'See how hard this was to find?'
So Ann Coulter accidentally proves his point-- that you can obfuscate things <i>really easily</i> using endnotes.
At any rate, if Franken isn't your cup of tea, try <a href='http://www.google.com/custom?q=coulter&cof=AH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3Ac32a032061318778%3B&domains=dailyhowler.com&sitesearch=dailyhowler.com' target='_blank'>the Daily Howler</a> (liberal) or <a href='http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=coulter&sp-a=sp100115c6' target='_blank'>Spinsanity</a> (non-partisan, equal offenders).
Comments
You seem to be saying we should be imperialist because imperialism isn't actually dead.
What *I'm* saying is we have no right to force our laws, beliefs, morals, or culture on another people. It's easy to say "we know what's best" when we're the strongest nation in the world... you want to turn the tables? What if the #1 superpower in the world was a muslim country that decided our bass-ackward country desperately needed to see the light?
Is it possible to be imperialistic in this day and age? Sure. <i>We're doing it.</i>
Is it right?
<i>"It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us. "</i>
"Bring 'em on," right Mr. Bush? Those Iraqis sure do love our troops and welcome them everywhere they go.
<i>
"I don't think our troops should be used for what's called nation-building."
"I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not."
"But I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious."
</i>
The exit strategy in Iraq is so clearly obvious, I mean... anyone who can't see how easy and obvious it is must be stupid.
<i>
"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be. We can help.'"
"I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country, say, 'We do it this way, so should you.'"
"I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, 'We do it this way, so should you.'"
</i>
This one was so important to Bushy that he said it three times in a matter of minutes. All quotes came from the Wake Forest debate held on October 12, 2000. All of this is so entirely laughable. I guess we're now the ugly American, right?
The 2 hours of Dr. Rice's testimony that you saw and the censored documentes were for the public. If you bothered to watch any of the testimony you would know this. Dr. Rice had given hours of testimony going over more than what she said in the public one. We only saw the public one because, dare I say it, some of the commisioners were playing politics and demanded rice testify in public. All of the commisioners have the clearance to see the classified documents. The black marks are on the PDB because they had to put them there for public purposes. The only thing that you have right is the deadline. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
appologies.
I live in the UK, so information I have on this is based laregly from internet radio shows rather then actually watching the testimony.
1) The commissioners have clearance to see that particular PDB (this clearance was granted 24 hours before the public rice testimony). They cannot have unedited copies of the PDB, the clearance was only to view the matierial.
so my point about the documents being withheld (there are many many more) still stands.
2) I should be more specific I guess. The Replacement to which I was refering was Max Cleland, an outspoken member of the panel, ousted on a technicallity, and replaced with a more favourable voice.
so my point about the documents being withheld (there are many many more) still stands.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The comitee members were privey to an unedited copy of the PDB, and other information they needed. There are other comitees, of which they're a part of, that grant them access to such documents. Again, the black lines were put on the PDB so it could be released to the public.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I live in the UK, so information I have on this is based laregly from internet radio shows rather then actually watching the testimony.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've grown to mistrust the media; not due to any bias(well ok its part of the reason), but rather sloppy reporting. I often find them leaving out key facts(that should be in the story) that most people wouldn't know unless they watch multiple news sources.
unnless they have photographic memories, just viewing a docment severly limits the benefits of seeing it.
unnless they have photographic memories, just viewing a docment severly limits the benefits of seeing it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Obviously they would not want to give anyone copies of a classified document. That is why they are classified. If they do not posses the mental compacity to intake the important documents for quesioning the next day, than they should not be there. I would think that they would be able to have the classified documents at hand for the private hearings that they have had.
simply saying they are classified, thus no one may see them, is like saying the govenment should be allowed to hide anyy information it choses simply because it can.
it is an inquiry to look at the govenments handling of the events, the government are denying reasonable access to thousands of documents.
there is an obvious differance between viewing a document once, and having a copy of it for referance.
simply saying they are classified, thus no one may see them, is like saying the govenment should be allowed to hide anyy information it choses simply because it can.
it is an inquiry to look at the govenments handling of the events, the government are denying reasonable access to thousands of documents.
there is an obvious differance between viewing a document once, and having a copy of it for referance. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes well this has been happening, probably since the invention of "the State" as we all know, love, and dread it. Having an executive branch, king, military ruler who classifies personal actions as state secrets is certainly nothing new. We can easily point to any number of rulers, and to any number of instantces (both trivial and important) where Those in Charge, decided that such information shouldn't be passed around to the common public. This is a typical abuse of power but, it is still an abuse none the less. Sadly the usual methods that were created to help limit or prevent such obvious abuses have been routinely circumvented or simply ignored, more so by the current US admimistration, then others in recent history. To claim its the worse ever, or significantly different from before is wrong but, it still is an issue that needs attention. I for one think that the methods and standard operating procedures for this administration, have been to keep secret far more then usual, from day one. There is a reason of course. How can you be held accountable for things if no one knows what they are? The secrecy and the propaganda campaign executed by the current adminstration has been quite remarkable. Its managed to convince the majority of the population of the US that Saddam Hussein was a threat. Simply no one else in the world thought that. Iran, Saudi Arabia, even Kuwait all though Saddam was a evil person but, not any of them thought he was a significant threat or feared him. Kuwait, a country with a fraction of Iraq's population was spending far, far more on military expenditures then Iraq. Yet the US population were convinced, through propaganda campaign (lets be honest about calling it what it is) that he posed an immedate threat to the US and that the US needed to invade him to sieze his large stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Though I am wandering away from the point of secrets, its important to view propaganda and secrets together. Both are the ends to the means of what the real goal of the powerful is. Namely to convince people to do what they want you to do.
I could go on for quite a while but, I would stumble into so many different areas I would completely go off what little is left of the topic thread.
Care to elaborate on this? Or should I take this as pure speculation?
Care to elaborate on this? Or should I take this as pure speculation?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course examples are handy, it requires a minimum of effort to find, it requires a large amount of effort to ignore them. We can point to sporatic presidential press conferences. These are things which are usually carefully crafted and planned out affairs, have turned into creatures of near extinction. Press conferences, as I'm sure you know, are attempts by government officials to portray their goals, ideas, and etc to the press. Occasionally, these officals allow the press to ask questions directly of them, and at times the press takes advantage to ask questions that actual pertain to what is relavant, rather then what the offical or office-holder would like to put forth. This current president has had the lowest number of press conferences since they first really started as an institution. Prehaps not an active or overt act of secrecy, but a de facto one. Again, you can't be held accountable for things people don't know about.
For an earlier instance of secrecy coupled with selective propoganda we can simply look to the Bush/Cheney 2000 campaign, where press members that <a href='http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/knowmed.html' target='_blank'>weren't freindly</a> to the campaing were denied access to the candidates. Remember secrecy is not just saying nothing, secrecy is also not saying everything. To this we ceratinly can not claim that any person or politican is blameless of not saying everything they know or think. However, stacking the deck, as it were to such an extent is at least disengenious and at worse abusing the idea of a fair and open press.
A further example can be the Energy Task Force, lead by the vice president. While obiviously, the task force released information as to its findings is not a subject of secrecy but, its methods and members are. Though <a href='http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030829.html' target='_blank'>good guesses</a> as to its members ands methods have been made, they are still offically state secrets.
This is just a brief series of examples off the top of my head and a few minutes with access to google. Again is not confined solely to the Bush administration nor the US polticians at all. We can easily find examples of 'police' force <a href='http://www.cato.org/events/011106bf.html' target='_blank'>acts</a> that are withheld from the populace. The question is really of one of oversight as you tried to point out by selectively quoting me. Who are the people that can have oversight for things such as the energy task force, the reasons to invade Iraq, or <a href='http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/25/news/economy/greenspan/' target='_blank'>emmense</a> national budget problems. Well the answer simply is the american public, who are incidently the direct targets of a active campaign to hide secrets and misdirection attentions. You'll note that Al-Qaeda does not care at all what US government officials knew or didn't know prior to 9.11. I suppose one could make an argument that you can't release what they did know to prevent terrorists from knowing what they know and how they learn it. However that arguement falls flat when you realize that the government collects data on terorists <a href='http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html' target='_blank'>completely differently</a>today then it used to. The only people that don't know are the public.
Again I could continue on but, I believe I put forth what I was driving at. I don't claim that any president or administration is blameless for hiding facts or denying information. This does not mean that this is an acceptable practice nor a one we should allow to continue. Surely if this is a democracy, we require truthful information to make a sound judgement on the decisions before us. Whether this information is deined to the public through underhand methods, disengenious deeds, unintential ommission, or simple incomeptency, it should addressed and corrected. Otherwise there is no point to having dicussions or votes, they then meaningless debates about imaginary points. All the while the real descions are made by people who aren't accountable.
As for do I belive if the Bush administration knew, and while on if the Clinton adminstration knew. I do not believe that either adminstration could have imagined that places would have been flown into the Towers. I also believe had they know, they would have had done anything to stop it. There has been a wall seperating our intelligence agencies for years. The Clinton administration(not Clinton him self) messed up by re-emphasizing the importance of the CIA and FBI not sharing information. The blame, however, does not fall on any administration. Blaming any adminstration is like blaming some one for not getting out of the way when some on decides to fly off the road onto the side walk and kills them. The fault lies in the lap of the terrorist.
On a side note, the hearings are becoming way to political. They should have waited til after the election, to keep things less political
Key thing is the date, after 9/11 bush had to take a tough stance. After the worse attack on American soil since maybe the War if 1812, people didn't want a president who was going to take a passive stance and let the world tell him what to do. I'm quite sure if 9/11 hadn't happened he would have followed his quotes.
People who don't like Bush tend to try and forget the effects of 9/11 on the economy and the world and just blame it all on Bush.
Firstly, let me simply point out <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8891-2003Jan31?language=printer' target='_blank'>this article</a>. Whether you agree diasgree with the reporter is unimportant the number are useful though as a guide to the frequency of press conferences. Having a press conference the other day is really a matter of circumstance rather then proof of a new leaf being turned over, or a change in procedure.
Secondly, you are wrong about Clinton, or any other president in that position. It is subversive. Also bear in mind it simply is not denying interviews to people that rub you the wrong way, this is not speaking at all to people that you don't agree with or people that don't agree with you. Presidents in particular have a very different set of rules and guide-lines they should follow that differ from ordinary citizens. Quite obviously so, the president is answerable to the entire population of the United States. It is his duty and that of his administration to be as honest and forthcoming as they possiblly can even to their own detriment. What is required is a level of objective political morality that american has an amazing dirth of. A good example of what I mean is <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3632871.stm' target='_blank'>here</a>. Here Ernst Welteke resigned over something that no one in the US would even bother reporting on. I am trying to point out that presidents have to be held to the highest standard their is. Not speaking to reporters beacuse they ask embarrasing or hard questions is a mark of underhanded policies, idelogic insincerity, or just questionable planning. Regardless, the public should know and should be allowed to ask, which quite often we don't or aren't.
As to secrecy, there are many who will make <a href='http://villagenews.weblogger.com/stories/storyReader$7006' target='_blank'>the claim</a> that <a href='http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/opinion/6238758.htm' target='_blank'>Bush's is</a> the <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743255453/002-2703002-9934461?v=glance' target='_blank'>most secretive</a> in <a href='http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/politics/3993298.htm' target='_blank'>histroy</a>. Prehaps they are exaggerating, prehaps not, its not really important if it is the most secretive. The problem that is that is is very secretive at all. It is very hard to find anyone abrest of the actualites that the Bush administration is very secretive, therein lies the rub.
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Apr 16 2004, 02:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Apr 16 2004, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for do I belive if the Bush administration knew, and while on if the Clinton adminstration knew. I do not believe that either adminstration could have imagined that places would have been flown into the Towers. I also believe had they know, they would have had done anything to stop it. There has been a wall seperating our intelligence agencies for years. The Clinton administration(not Clinton him self) messed up by re-emphasizing the importance of the CIA and FBI not sharing information. The blame, however, does not fall on any administration. Blaming any adminstration is like blaming some one for not getting out of the way when some on decides to fly off the road onto the side walk and kills them. The fault lies in the lap of the terrorist.
On a side note, the hearings are becoming way to political. They should have waited til after the election, to keep things less political<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am willing to cut the Bush administration a break and say quite truthfully that 9/11 caught them unawares. However that doesn't really excuse very much. Like others have mentioned not a single person has lost their job, or resigned beacuse of 9/11 and govermental or personal failures. Not even a single reprimand. The only apologies (public ones) have come only from the head of the FBI (taking a lot heat at the moment) and the former US Terrorist Czar, Clarke. I do think however that the Clinton and Bush adminstrations (prior to 9/11) approached terror. If you spend time to listen to say Clarke, he gives the indication that Clinton was interested in terrorism and doing things about it, even if they were only partially successful or partially implemented. You don't hear anything like that about Bush prior to 9/11, he has other things he cares about a lot more and really didn't want to deal with it much at all. That is <a href='http://www.thememoryhole.org/terror/tyler-terror.htm' target='_blank'>wasn't a priority</a> or something that should be <a href='http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2002/02/12/edit12.htm' target='_blank'>worried about</a> is a legimate point. However some humility, prehaps even an apology from the one person who is ultimately responsible for every action his administration takes or doesn't is not an unreasonable thing. As for Clinton intentionally preventing the CIA or FBI from sharing information, I have yet to find a release or article prior to 9/11 that would point this out. I find claims from the current and past administrations on the matter but, those are obviously partisan and suspect. However if you have any information (ie briefs, memos, or statements) that clearly show Clinton trying to prevent or even suggest the CIA and FBI from sharing information, please share it. I personally see the Clinton era of counter-terrorism as a C effort at best but the pre 9/11 efforts as a D-. At least they kept on some old hands in terrorism, even if they didn't listen to them.
Therefore, I find any statement to place to blame on anyone completely rediculous. It was a 10 year long plot against the US that we had hints of coming, but no one really heeded.
Big deal. I'm sure we ignore hundreds of threats every day. It's not physically possible to take every treat with complete seriousness. If we did, then all terrorists would have to do is cry wolf and just waste monumental time and resources.
Bad stuff is gonna happen regardless of what you do, if not from bad planning than from probability. You can't possible be perfect in every situation, right?
What's worse, an oppressive government like Saddam's or one that runs on manipulation and lies like Bush's? If Americans don't have the facts, they can't be trusted to vote.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
IT wasn't clinton, rather the deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, I was speaking of. When in office she issued a memo that helped buffer the "wall" between intelligence agency. There is a big hoopla going on around this and politics as usual, people are pushing here to resign. Just do a quick google search and you'll see. Im off to the bar now, just i bit of information for you. And I never said it was intentional, she was simple reinforcing a wall that was already there, the agencies were just kind of ignoring it at the time.
I know you want to get Bush out of office and all, but damn people, he is conservative not Satan.
I know you want to get Bush out of office and all, but damn people, he is conservative not Satan. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A very careless man.
To me, all signs point to the thinking "Clinton Administration is too obsessive with terrorism".
My argument and that of others in this thread is that the Bush administration made a LONG series of pretty egregious mistakes, putting off actions and pooh-pooh'ing plentiful warnings, ultimately resulting in their failure to prevent the attack.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Apr 16 2004, 03:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Apr 16 2004, 03:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No matter what sources you bring up, they are all exposed to the monday-morning-quarterback syndrome.
Therefore, I find any statement to place to blame on anyone completely rediculous. It was a 10 year long plot against the US that we had hints of coming, but no one really heeded.
Big deal. I'm sure we ignore hundreds of threats every day. It's not physically possible to take every treat with complete seriousness. If we did, then all terrorists would have to do is cry wolf and just waste monumental time and resources.
Bad stuff is gonna happen regardless of what you do, if not from bad planning than from probability. You can't possible be perfect in every situation, right? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite true points, though I think you mistake why I like to cite references for my thoughts. I am certainly not an expert on international terrorism nor prevention therefore I use these references I cited above as a way to guide my thinking. I made an effort to select references that are considered 'middle of the road' and politically unbiased to help reduce the level of obfuscation by either 'side'. But I digress. You are quite correct in saying that we can not predict the future not be prepared for every unforeseen event. However the point some are trying to put forward is that there are fundamental things that could have been done to put off such events longer (not an unreasonable goal) or to possibly prevent them outright. I suppose the equivilant metaphor would be a automobile driver, eventually the driver will get into an accident, the time and place are unknown but, the seatbelt should have been secured. I think that is the fundamental point to be made. The Clinton administration, for all its failings, did in fact make an effort to place the metaphorical seatbelt on while the Bush administration did not. The accident is clearly not entirely their fault but, the possiblity that less injury could have happened seems to point to them. Truthfully it is easy for us to second guess both admisinstrations and point out what they should have done in hindsight, there are(were) things that should have been done to help. After all major attacks <a href='http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/inside/attacks.html' target='_blank'>were overted</a> in the past with minimal government effort prehaps an additional bare minimum effort would have been enough to save 1000 lives. I think that would have definetly been worth the effort. Of course even minimal efforts <a href='http://www.adl.org/learn/jttf/wtcb_jttf.asp' target='_blank'>don't always work</a>.
Let me just say Handman and Arcadius, thank you for the link I am reading and digesting it now. It seems after reading the entire memo that Deputy Attonery General Jamie Gorelick's aim was to seperate the Dept of Justice's and the FBI's scope of investigation so that they would not overlap. The aim being the prevent both parties from investigating the same people or things and either compromising the assest or wasting time and and effort on things previously investigated. Additionally the memo has a built in method for preventing information from being released to a criminal case that would lead to a mis-trial and thus letting the suspect get off. That is the importat part that I think Handman and Arcadius would like pointed out, the intenional with-holding of information to prevent mis-trials and illegal information gathering. Though I must confess given the time and additudes at that time, I don't think that memo was out of place. I would think that memo currently would not be out of place either, assuming of course that the idea of 'unreasonable search and seizure' still means anything. But discussions about civil liberties and potential police states is a thread for another topic. Let it be said though that the point about the Clinton admisitration not doing everything possible and possible being counter-productive is heard. However I wasn't really disgreeing with that particular point both administrations are culpable as far as I am concerned.
<!--QuoteBegin-IceBaron+Apr 18 2004, 01:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (IceBaron @ Apr 18 2004, 01:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think that anybody thinking that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened and purposelly didn't do anything about it is retarded. What kind of man would allow something like this to happen. I am conservative as you can get and I would never put something like this on Clinton (whom I loath and despise).
I know you want to get Bush out of office and all, but damn people, he is conservative not Satan.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with the other posts that have already gone over this. It is not at all that we think that president Bush intentionally and knowingly took steps that facilitated the 9/11 attacks. It is the point that he simply mostly anything that had to do with terrorism. The difference being (referring to the driving accident metaphor again) of not paying attention at all to the road and intentionally aiming for the tree on the side of road. Bush quite obviously didn't aim for the tree but, nether was he paying much attention to the road at all.
I think there are some that believe that at I have some particular goal of removing president Bush from the white house or that conservatives in general are evil. This is well... wrong. I have no particular concern if senator Kerry or if president Bush happen to be the next president. Some incremtal policy changes may take place but, the end result of the presidency will be roughly the same. My real issue is the fairly lax level of responsiblity that the executive branch of the government enjoys. This is not exclusive to the executive branch but, its best illistrated by it. I for one am of the opinioin that those in Power should have to answer for everything that happens in their stewardship and that their ultimatle responsibility lay with the Public. Prehaps this is bit glib and a bit naive but, it is important to remember that not a single american citizen has voted directly for their president since the 18th century. For me this debate is not a matter of liberal vs. conservatisim, or Clinton vs. Bush. It is a further point in the debate of those in Power vs. those they Rule and who should really be in charge.
Actually if you've read any of her books everything is documented and sourced incessantly. Franken is just smearing at this point. He's less of a pundit and more of a comic than anything. I taken you haven't read her book, so I'll just forward you her rebuttal, which has currently been unresponded to:
<a href='http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20031009.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoul...c20031009.shtml</a>
Bush quadrupled CIA spending as well as legalized CIA and FBI barriers that prevented some sharing of information. Remember 9/11 happened scarcely 10 months since Bush took office. And ever SINCE then there hasn't been any terrorist attacks on Americans, outside of Iraq of course.
That all said neither of them are completly blameless, but neither are 'to blame' either. The 9/11 comission is a political footfield at this point, complete with buck passing and finger pointing. A shame really for something so serious.
Actually if you've read any of her books everything is documented and sourced incessantly. Franken is just smearing at this point. He's less of a pundit and more of a comic than anything. I taken you haven't read her book, so I'll just forward you her rebuttal, which has currently been unresponded to:
<a href='http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20031009.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoul...c20031009.shtml</a>
Bush quadrupled CIA spending as well as legalized CIA and FBI barriers that prevented some sharing of information. Remember 9/11 happened scarcely 10 months since Bush took office. And ever SINCE then there hasn't been any terrorist attacks on Americans, outside of Iraq of course.
That all said neither of them are completly blameless, but neither are 'to blame' either. The 9/11 comission is a political footfield at this point, complete with buck passing and finger pointing. A shame really for something so serious. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm trying hard not to attack the character but rather the issues here.
But seriously, I wish you would stop bringing Ann Coulter up. She's just a pathetic excuse for a source. She's as bad as Michael Moore.
Actually, there was a response at alfrankenweb.com which handled things nicely.
It doesn't matter that everything is 'documented and sourced incessently'-- that's part of the problem. She does it in an intentionally dishonest fashion, and more than enough people have taken her to task over.
<a href='http://alfrankenweb.com/smear.html#coulter' target='_blank'>First off:</a>
My favorite part of her 'rebuttal' is that she knocks Franken because he criticizes her for incorrectly claiming that Newsweek's Evan Thomas's father was a Socialist party candidate-- without correctly mentioning that his <i>grandfather</i> <b>was</b>. However, he <b>does</b> mention it. In an endnote-- which then says, 'See how hard this was to find?'
So Ann Coulter accidentally proves his point-- that you can obfuscate things <i>really easily</i> using endnotes.
At any rate, if Franken isn't your cup of tea, try <a href='http://www.google.com/custom?q=coulter&cof=AH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3Ac32a032061318778%3B&domains=dailyhowler.com&sitesearch=dailyhowler.com' target='_blank'>the Daily Howler</a> (liberal) or <a href='http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=coulter&sp-a=sp100115c6' target='_blank'>Spinsanity</a> (non-partisan, equal offenders).
Enjoy.