War against terror

[Jinef 2]

*chuckles away*

Instead of spending money on the slime which is clearly pointless give it to the good ol' SAR folks, come on. You are more likely going to need to be rescued than be killed in a terrorist attack I would think. Not by a large margin however.

There is really no point in worrying about all this chaps, if you are going to get eaten by a shark then whatever, it helps if you don't stick yourself in water but then people never listen. To avoid terrorism becoming effective you have to stop chatting about it, it is there and has been there for thousands of years. Put up countermeasures and hope they work, but you have to realise the terrorists have the upper hand in almost all situations, as they have suprise and the stupidity of the masses working for them.

Oh... Always look on the bright side of life ...*whistles* .. always look on the bright side of life *whistles* .........

Smile, it's a Friday!

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]How many other warnings of equivalent validity did they get at the same time?

Not that much.

And you know this because you were disguised as a paper weight on Tenet's desk perhaps?

Quote[/b] ]

I repeat these were no mumbo-jumbo warnings but all high level warnings.

Do you think foreign intel contacts the CIA or TBA for every fart ?  They don´t . They did because of imminent danger ahead.

We get lots of news items of Israel sending out warnings. For whatever reason, the events thankfully do not occur.

Quote[/b] ]It´s unbelievable how blind you walk on. FS ísm at it´s best.

As you wish.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]We received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes

That´s a lie, plain and simple. Read my sources and you´ll see.

Run to the senate and tell them! Call up Reuters and AP. Spill the beans. See Rice run. The press is on your side!

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles

Same lie again  

YOu may want to check protocols on "Zacharias Moussaoui" and "Mohammed Atta". Both were on the FBI surveilance list but noone interfered when Atta got his 100.000 dollar check from pakistan. Nobody reacted when they attended flight schools.

No one. Including the FBI agents at the lowest levels monitoring them. So what do you want from the higher ups in Washington.

Note this guy was in the US since 1989. A major intelligence failure, plain and simple.

Quote[/b] ]I can go on with that for ages.

That's part of the problem.

Quote[/b] ]

I can lay open the Atta case, I can push your noses into that until it bleeds.

/avon dons hockey mask

Quote[/b] ]FBI and CIA and TBA knew there was something big on the way. They knew it would happen in late august or early september.

Some others have known that also if you check the airline papers at stock market. Some people made good business with selling the papers before 9/11 and placing loss bets.

Namely United Airlines and American Airlines. The high bets on a loss of both bapers made some people really rich. No other airlines where involved in that "deal". And even today noone knows who was behind the trades and how they could know that  something will happen to both airlines.

More conspiracy whacko theories.

Quote[/b] ]

PROMIS, the watchguard software FBI and CIA uses to surveilance stock markets for extrodenary developements indicating some terrorist act ahead does monitor such transaction to specifically warn industry or trade organizations of unusual developements. PROMIS alarm went off at 7th of september as all that unusual bets on both airlines were placed.

You guessed it. Noone reacted.

It´s not that the TBA had no intel, warnings, monitoring tools or sufficient personel to handle that.

It was the unwillingness to do it.

All I see is a multi-billion dollar security setup being totally worthless. Lessons must be learned and faster than what's (not) being done.

For nostalgia's sake, before the news got adulterated with agenda gibberish, here's a CNN article from September 18, 2001:

Quote[/b] ]Report cites warnings before 9/11

Thursday, September 19, 2002 Posted: 10:48 AM EDT (1448 GMT)

RELATED

Read the text of the intelligence report (PDF) 1.38MB >>>>>>>READ PAGE 30.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. intelligence officials had several warnings that terrorists might attack the United States on its home soil -- even using airplanes as weapons -- well before the September 11, 2001 attacks, two congressional committees said in a report released Wednesday.

In 1998, U.S. intelligence had information that a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosives-laden airplane into the World Trade Center, according to a joint inquiry of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

However, the Federal Aviation Administration found the plot "highly unlikely given the state of that foreign country's aviation program," and believed a flight originating outside the United States would be detected before it reached its target inside the country, the report said.

"The FBI's New York office took no action on the information," it said.

Another alert came just a month before the attacks, the report said, when the CIA sent a message to the FAA warning of a possible hijacking "or an act of sabotage against a commercial airliner." The information was linked to a group of Pakistanis based in South America.

That warning did not mention using an airliner as a weapon and, the report said, "there was apparently little, if any, effort by intelligence community analysts to produce any strategic assessments of terrorists using aircraft as weapons."

Sen. Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the goal of Wednesday's hearing was "not to point a finger or pin blame" but to correct "systemic problems (that) might have prevented our government from detecting and disrupting al Qaeda's plot."

Nothing found is a "smoking gun," Graham said. "But collectively I think there was enough there that we should have done a better job of seeing what was coming and hopefully, with luck, stopping it."

Graham told CNN "It wouldn't have taken a lot of luck. It would have taken someone who could have asked and gotten answers to the right follow-up questions and then put it together."

The report, which looked at more than a dozen federal intelligence agencies, suggests the United States had more information that might have helped to prevent the terror attacks than the government has previously said.

As early as 1994 the government received information that international terrorists "had seriously considered the use of airplanes as a means of carrying out terrorist attacks," the report says.

In July 2001, the report says, a briefing prepared for senior government officials warned of "a significant terrorist attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties ... (it) will occur with little or no warning."

The joint committee's report discusses information federal intelligence agencies gathered about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

It said that in 1998, officials received reports concerning a "bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, areas." Officials received reports that al Qaeda was trying to establish an operative cell in the United States and that bin Laden was attempting to recruit a group of five to seven young men from the United States to travel to the Middle East for training in conjunction with his plans to strike U.S. domestic targets.

The intelligence reports "generally did not contain specific information as to where, when, and how a terrorist attack might occur," the committee said, and they represented only "a small percentage of the threat information that the Intelligence Community obtained during this period, most of which pointed to the possibility of attacks against U.S. interests overseas."

Nonetheless, the report said, "the totality of the information in this body of reporting clearly reiterated a consistent and critically important theme: Osama bin Laden's intent to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States."

In fact in December 1998, the report says, the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told his deputies, "We must now enter a new phase in our effort against bin Laden. ... We are at war."

"Relatively few of the FBI agents interviewed by the joint inquiry staff seem to have been aware of Tenet's declaration," the report said.

The report says that in July and August 2001, intelligence reporting "began to decrease" -- even though the al Qaeda threat was growing.

On September 10, 2001, some 35 to 40 personnel were assigned to a unit created by the director of central intelligence with the specific task of tracking bin Laden. Fewer than 20 people were part of a similar unit at the FBI. The report raises "questions about the adequacy of these resources with respect to the magnitude of the threat."

The report also suggests intelligence officials did not focus enough attention on a critical al Qaeda operative, unnamed in the report, whom officials had known about since 1995 "but did not recognize his growing importance" to the organization or to Osama bin Laden.

The report says the director of central intelligence has refused to declassify two pieces of information: precisely what the White House knew and information about a key al Qaeda operative involved in the attacks.

Government sources told CNN that operative is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, whom they describe as one of the masterminds of the September 11 attacks. He was indicted by the United States for plotting to bomb U.S. airliners in 1995. Officials believe he also plotted to have airplanes hijacked and flown into U.S. buildings.

Listed as one of the government's 22 most wanted terrorists, Mohammed is in hiding. U.S. officials believe he was in Pakistan when last heard from.

Stephen Push, who lost his wife in the World Trade Center, told lawmakers at the hearing, "Our loved ones paid the ultimate price for the worst American intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor."

Push said the U.S. intelligence bureaucracy must be thoroughly restructured. "If it isn't," he said, "the next attack may involve weapons of mass destruction -- and the death toll may be in the tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands."

[Balschoiw 0]

As you said yourself the FBI and CIA made critical "faults" although I go a step further and say that you really have to ignore all the things that happened short prior 9/11 to act like they did. It´s not about not-knowing, but about knowingly ignoring the facts.

Quote[/b] ]More conspiracy whacko theories.

No that´s no theories. It´s simple fact.

Quote[/b] ]We get lots of news items of Israel sending out warnings. For whatever reason, the events thankfully do not occur.

There are differences between regular intel updates and level 1 warnings. You don´t have much of them over the year. Now if different countries with independant intellegance agencies warn you on a level 1 scenario would you go on on a regular base ? Doubted. Noone does that, except the TBA, who did it.

Quote[/b] ]Run to the senate and tell them! Call up Reuters and AP. Spill the beans. See Rice run. The press is on your side!

I don´t need to. Congress and senate members do know about that. If I´m not too lazy I will post links.

I still love the reaction of the White house on the claims that they didn´t research the 9/11 case in a professional manner. As you remember the case was closed after 4 months only without any significant results. The White House said:

The president has to focus on the war on terror. There is no need for an indeep investigation of 9/11 as all has been revealed.

Aha. Today we see that this was not true.

Quote[/b] ]As you wish.

I don´t wish, I only read your posts and they leave no option other than that.

Quote[/b] ]Including the FBI agents at the lowest levels monitoring them.

Lowest level ? Where did you get that from ?

Quote[/b] ]That's part of the problem.

If you have a problem with it, ok. I don´t care.

I can post whatever I want. You try to slap it back. You don´t even feel to make counterarguments or provide sources. You just say: "No" for the sake of "No".

I had expected some more mature attitude but well, by now I know your debating attitude from other threads and that is why I´m not surprised about your not-debating here.

[ozanzac 0]

*chuckles away*

Instead of spending money on the slime which is clearly pointless give it to the good ol' SAR folks, come on. You are more likely going to need to be rescued than be killed in a terrorist attack I would think. Not by a large margin however.

There is really no point in worrying about all this chaps, if you are going to get eaten by a shark then whatever, it helps if you don't stick yourself in water but then people never listen. To avoid terrorism becoming effective you have to stop chatting about it, it is there and has been there for thousands of years. Put up countermeasures and hope they work, but you have to realise the terrorists have the upper hand in almost all situations, as they have suprise and the stupidity of the masses working for them.

Oh... Always look on the bright side of life ...*whistles* .. always look on the bright side of life *whistles* .........

  Smile, it's a Friday!

Jinef, I like your style!

[theavonlady 2]

Cutting through the sleaze again, here's plain straight old news:

Quote[/b] ]White House: U.S. unaware of Egypt terror warning

June 4, 2002 Posted: 1:50 PM EDT (1750 GMT)

From Kelly Wallace

CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House cast doubt Tuesday on a report of a warning from Egyptian intelligence the week before September 11 that al Qaeda was in the advance stages of carrying out a major attack against an American target.

"There is nothing I've been made aware of," said Ari Fleischer, White House press secretary.

Fleischer responded to an article in Tuesday's New York Times in which Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said his intelligence officials warned the United States about an al Qaeda plot shortly before the terrorist attacks.

"I have nothing that confirms anything in the week prior to September 11," Fleischer said, adding that the United States and Egypt exchanged intelligence information in early 2001.

In the Times interview, Mubarak said his agents had no indication what the target would be or the scope of the attack.

Fleischer said both countries shared intelligence in early 2001 about a possible attack against the United States or Egypt.

"And we understand information from Egypt focused primarily on threats other than hijacking and threats outside the U.S.," he added.

Fleischer would not confirm a USA Today article saying that U.S. agents infiltrated al Qaeda and picked up intercepts as late as September 10.

The White House spokesman said he would not comment on U.S. intelligence matters. USA Today reported that American agents picked up an intercept with al Qaeda members saying, "Tomorrow will be a great day for us."

During a Tuesday tour of the National Security Agency in Fort Meade, Maryland, President Bush acknowledged communication breakdowns between the CIA and FBI before September 11 but added no evidence suggested the government could have prevented the attacks.

Bush also said Congress should conduct one focused investigation -- not several reviews -- so that law enforcement and intelligence officials are not distracted from their work.

"What I am concerned about is tying up valuable assets and time and possibly jeopardizing sources of intelligence," the president said.

Bush also delivered a message to Congress when asked if he is concerned about finger-pointing between the FBI and CIA.

The president said he believed the finger-pointing was from "level 3 staffers trying to protect their hides -- I don't think that's a concern. That's just Washington, D.C."

But he added, "I am concerned about distractions from this perspective: I want the Congress to investigate, but I want a committee to investigate, not multiple committees to investigate. ... I don't want to tie up our team when we are trying to fight this war on terror."

Bush's remarks came as House and Senate intelligence committees opened a joint hearing into what the government knew about the risk of a terrorist strike before September 11 and how that intelligence was shared among agencies

Critics suggest the White House is wary of several investigations and public hearings because it fears the evidence will show multiple examples of intelligence and communication failures.

[Balschoiw 0]

Ok that´s egypt. Now you have left germany, Israel and Russia. You really want to tell me that 1+1+1+1 is so hard to get. The complete picture at that time is what counts. And the complete picture DID indicate that there would be a major attack on the USA in late august or early september, including planes and US symbols.

Take this add the FBI results of AQ personel in the USA who attended to flight schools and language courses, mix it up with the very unusual stock trade from 6th to 9th of september and tell me you are not able to see a conclusion.

There are other things like the US intellegance services monitoring almost any electronic traffic from bin Laden and such prior 9/11 but I don´t want to overstress you.

Fleischers conclusion is funny by the way. Did you expect him tell different ?

Quote[/b] ]"And we understand information from Egypt focused primarily on threats other than hijacking and threats outside the U.S.," he added.

Fleischer was really trustworthy the same as the TBA is thrustworthy. Maybe that´s why he is no longer

Mr. Pressman.

Hell you don´t really want to list Ari Fleischer as a witness , do you ?

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Instead of spending money on the slime which is clearly pointless give it to the good ol' SAR folks, come on. You are more likely going to need to be rescued than be killed in a terrorist attack I would think. Not by a large margin however.

There is really no point in worrying about all this chaps, if you are going to get eaten by a shark then whatever, it helps if you don't stick yourself in water but then people never listen. To avoid terrorism becoming effective you have to stop chatting about it, it is there and has been there for thousands of years. Put up countermeasures and hope they work, but you have to realise the terrorists have the upper hand in almost all situations, as they have suprise and the stupidity of the masses working for them.

To some point i have to agree with you.

The ammount of people that die trough terrorist attacks in the world is neglible if you compare it to ammount of people that dies in a car accident or by starvation for ex ,yet many country's pump hughe sums in security ,America on top.The amount of cash that the U.S.A has thrown in antitterrorism since 9/11 (taking into account two wars of wich one a hughely expensive one ,security and other measure) could have brought a number of 3rd world coutry's up to Western level in development. (given political stabiety)

But a terrorist organization can grow ,it can recruit more member's if not dealt with ,Al-quaida already trained tentoussands of terrorists when they could do everything they wanted in Afhanistan.If not contained the threat will grow and could become very dangerous.

Iraq however was a financial and political blunder for the west ,and undoubtably a source for more terrorism if not taken care of well.It's important that now the Americans are there that eventually a stable democracy can be established ,for the sake of the Western immage in the Middle-East.However bringing stabilety and a democratic goverment to Iraq will be hard and most of all very costly ,and i doubt that the Bush will invest much in peace building ,they are more inclined to put money in guns than in peace.Afhanistan is already a failure in democracy building ,if Iraq descents in a civil war the whole middle East will blame the West.

[theavonlady 2]

Hell you don´t really want to list Ari Fleischer as a witness , do you ?

No more or less than Mr. Clarke.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]No more or less than Mr. Clarke.

Your opinion but maybe Mr. Clarke has a bit more of knowledge and experience than Fleischer had, don´t you think ?

How can you compare those 2 ? Both had a totally different place in the administration. While Fleischer only was spokesman who told the press what he was told to tell them, Clarke had an insight view on all that things.

And what about the the other things ?

You don´t feel tempted to answer them - again ?

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]No more or less than Mr. Clarke.

Your opinion but maybe Mr. Clarke has a bit more of knowledge and experience than Fleischer had, don´t you think ?

Even Time Magazine, no friend of TBA, thinks Clarke stinks:

Quote[/b] ]Richard Clarke, at War With Himself

Viewpoint: On TV, the former counterterrorism official takes a much harder line against Bush than in his book. That undermines a serious conversation about 9/11

By ROMESH RATNESAR

Thursday, Mar. 25, 2004

Since his appearance on 60 Minutes last Sunday, Richard Clarke has faced a barrage of attacks from Bush Administration officials over his claims that the White House ignored the threat posed by al-Qaeda before Sept. 11 because of its obsession with Iraq. Dick Cheney told Rush Limbaugh that Clarke “wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuffâ€; Condoleezza Rice said Monday that "Dick Clarke just does not know what he's talking about"; and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, in that same 60 Minutes broadcast said that the White House has found "no evidence" that conversations Clarke claims to have had with President Bush even occurred. Clarke has responded to his critics with a dollop of wistful regret, followed by an adamant refusal to back down. "It pains me to have Condoleezza Rice and the others mad at me," he told Good Morning America. "But I think the American people needed to know the facts, and they weren't out. And now they are."

Are they? The accounts of high-level conversations and meetings given by Clarke in various television appearances, beginning with the 60 Minutes interview, differ in significant respects from the recollections of a former top counterterrorism official who participated in the same conversations and meetings: Richard Clarke. In several cases, the version of events provided by Clarke this week include details and embellishments that do not appear in his new book, Against All Enemies. While the discrepancies do not, on their own, discredit Clarke's larger arguments, they do raise questions about whether Clarke's eagerness to publicize his story and rip the Bush Administration have clouded his memory of the facts.

Perhaps Clarke's most explosive charge is that on Sept. 12, President Bush instructed him to look into the possibility that Iraq had a hand in the hijackings. Here's how Clarke recounted the meeting on 60 Minutes: "The President dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this'.....the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said, 'Iraq did this.'" After Clarke protested that "there's no connection," Bush came back to him and said "Iraq, Saddam — find out if there's a connection." Clarke says Bush made the point "in a very intimidating way." The next day, interviewed on PBS' The NewsHour, Clarke sexed up the story even more. "What happened was the President, with his finger in my face, saying, 'Iraq, a memo on Iraq and al-Qaeda, a memo on Iraq and the attacks.' Very vigorous, very intimidating." Several interviewers pushed Clarke on this point, asking whether it was all that surprising that the President would want him to investigate all possible perpetrators of the attacks. Clarke responded, "It would have been irresponsible for the president not to come to me and say, Dick, I don't want you to assume it was al-Qaeda. I'd like you to look at every possibility to see if maybe it was al-Qaeda with somebody else, in a very calm way, with all possibilities open. That's not what happened."

How does this square with the account of the same meeting provided in Clarke's book? In that version, Clarke finds the President wandering alone in the Situation Room on Sept. 12, "looking like he wanted something to do." Clarke writes that Bush "grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room" — an impetuous move, perhaps, but hardly the image that Clarke depicted on television, of the President dragging in unwitting staffers by their shirt-collars. The Bush in these pages sounds more ruminative than intimidating: "I know you have a lot to do and all, but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way." When Clarke responds by saying that "al-Qaeda did this," Bush says, "I know, I know, but see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred....." Again Clarke protests, after which Bush says "testily," "Look into Iraq, Saddam."

Nowhere do we see the President pointing fingers at or even sounding particularly "vigorous" toward Clarke and his deputies. Despite Clarke's contention that Bush wanted proof of Iraqi involvement at any cost, it's just as possible that Bush wanted Clark to find disculpatory evidence in order to discredit the idea peddled by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that Baghdad had a hand in 9/11. In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush rejected Wolfowitz's attempts to make Iraq the first front in the war on terror. And if the President of the United States spoke "testily " 24 hours after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, well, can you blame him?

Clarke's liberties with the text don't stop there. On 60 Minutes he said that after submitting to the White House a joint-agency report discounting the possibility of Iraqi complicity in 9/11, the memo "got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer.'" The actual response from Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, shown later in the program, read "Please update and resubmit." On 60 Minutes, Clarke went further, saying that Bush's deputies never showed the President the joint-agency review, because "I don't think he sees memos that he wouldn't like the answer." This is pure, reckless speculation. Contrast that with the more straightforward account in Against All Enemies: after his team found no evidence of Iraqi involvement, Clarke writes that "a memorandum to that effect was sent up to the President, and there was never any indication that it reached him."

In a few other instances, Clarke's televised comments seem designed to disparage the President and his aides at all cost, omitting any of the inconvenient details — some of which appear in the pages of his book — that might suggest the White House took al-Qaeda seriously before Sept. 11. Bush, Clarke says, "never thought [al-Qaeda] was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his national security advisor to hold a cabinet-level meeting on the subject." This has been a constant refrain in Clarke's public statements — that Bush's failure to call a "Principal's Meeting" of his cabinet to discuss terrorism until the week before Sept. 11 showed a lack of interest in al-Qaeda. While it is technically true that the White House did not hold a Cabinet-level meeting on al-Qaeda until Sept. 4, the charge is still misleading, since Bush, as early as April 2001, had instructed Rice to draft a strategy for rolling back al-Qaeda and killing bin Laden, saying he was tired of "swatting flies" —, a line Clarke does include in his book. Rice's response was to task a committee of deputies to study the U.S.'s options for rolling back the Taliban; the group ultimately concluded that the U.S. should increase its support to the Northern Alliance and pressure on Pakistan to cooperate in a campaign to remove the Taliban. It was essentially the same plan Clarke had drafted during the Clinton Administration. As his book details, the plan was scuttled by intransigence at the CIA and the Pentagon, neither of which Clinton wanted to confront head-on.

While Clarke claims that he is "an independent" not driven by partisan motives, it's hard not to read some passages in his book as anything but shrill broadsides. In his descriptions of Bush aides, he discerns their true ideological beliefs not in their words but in their body language: "As I briefed Rice on al-Qaeda, her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before." When the cabinet met to discuss al-Qaeda on Sept. 4, Rumsfeld "looked distracted throughout the session." As for the President, Clarke doesn't even try to read Bush's body language; he just makes the encounters up. "I have a disturbing image of him sitting by a warm White House fireplace drawing a dozen red Xs on the faces of the former al-Qaeda corporate board.....while the new clones of al-Qaeda....are recruiting thousands whose names we will never know, whose faces will never be on President Bush's little charts, not until it is again too late." Clarke conjured up this chilling scene again on 60 Minutes. Only in this version he also manages to read Bush's mind, and "he's thinking that he's got most of them and therefore he's taken care of the problem." The only things missing are the black winged chair and white cat.

Leaving aside the fact that Bush never fails to insist that the terror threat is as great today as it was on 9/11, these passages reveal the polemical, partisan mean-spiritedness that lies at the heart of Clarke's book, and to an even greater degree, his television appearances flacking it. That's a shame, since many of his contentions — about the years of political and intelligence missteps that led to 9/11, the failure of two Administrations to destroy al-Qaeda and the potentially disastrous consequences of the U.S. invasion of Iraq — deserve a wide and serious airing. From now on, the country would be best served if Clarke lets the facts speak for themselves.

Quote[/b] ]Clarke had an insight view on all that things.

Agreed. Now, with that clear logic in mind, go back and read Clarke's very own words from the 2002 transcript.

And what about the the other things ?

You don´t feel tempted to answer them - again ?

Charmed. I'm limited for time. I've had much less time recently for chit chat that I had in the past.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I've had much less time recently for chit chat that I had in the past.

Yes I noticed that. It only makes it a bit hard to argue with you as you only throw in short comments that are not really suitable for comprehensive debating.

It feels like talking to a wall sometimes. Take your time Avon and try to debate as you used to do. That´s more fun than the simple "no" option

Get yourself some help !

[noundo 0]

...

It´s not about Al Quaida. It´s about the unique attack. TBA has been warned a lot. They didn´t react. They failed to protect US people. That´s it.

...

Hmmm, Assuming that all you say is true, what do you think the US government should have done, based upon what you think that they knew?

In other words how could TBA have reacted that would have prevented 9/11?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Assuming that all you say is true

It is true.

As you can read I posted sources for all of my claims.

Quote[/b] ]In other words how could TBA have reacted that would have prevented 9/11?

That´s a difficult question to answer but given all the info the TBA had at that time they could have prevented Atta and other participants in the attacks to reenter the USA.

Also given the evidence CIA and FBI had at that time they would have been able to put some of the terrorists to court or at least to jail for further investigation.

Controls at airports could have been pushed as they failed miserably.

Also if you have supected terrorist guys attending flight courses under the eye of the FBI and you get terror warnings on planned terrorist attacks that deal especially with planes it doesn´t take much to arrest some of them for further investigation.

It´s not that the terrorists were not known to US authorities.

Us authorities failed to react in a proper way given all the evidence and intel they had at that time.

Tightened air security, especially above governmental and buildings of public interest would have been a must after all.

It wasn´t only the WTC but also the Pentagon. Read it from my lips, the PENTAGON that got attacked. The Pentagon until then was supposed to be the best protected building in the USA besides the White House and others.

The delay that happened until the government reacted to the first flight that crashed into the WTC and measures taken was extremely big. The planes didn´t "beam" to WTC. Flight coordinators reported assumed hijacked planes to the FBI immedeatly. FBI failed to react in an appropriate way.

Once the birds were hijacked and inair there were not much options open. Shooting them down would have been an option.

But the process should have started earlier of course. It didn´t have to come that far. FBI and TBA missed several chances to prevent the attack.  

You know other countries were/able to intercept terrorists and cross their plans. That happened a lot in the last years as intel got better and international cooperation on such issues has been tightened. It´s not like a terrorist attack cannot be prevented.

The TBA had very much info on the 9/11 attacks. They just failed to draw the right conclusion (not that they needed more info than they already got).

With proper controls at airports the 9/11 attack would not have happened.

With terrorists imprisoned and properly controlled 9/11 would not have happened.

With alerted Air Force 9/11 would have not happened.

With fast reaction on the first plane that hit the WTC

the towers most probably still would stand today.

The Pentagon has SAM sites. Why haven´t they been used?

Of course it all gets a bit hard if the president panically is taken in the air and is so panicing that he cannot give the right advice and order at the right time.

A lot of chances (or I better say an incredible high amount of warnings and results from the FBI and CIA work have not been respected the right way) have been missed to prevent the attacks.

That´s the only conclusion I can state.

Now to something completely different:

[shinRaiden 0]

Speaking of lies, here's a link to the report I mentioned earlier.

Yahoo news - potential Clarke hearing

Also, former gov. Thompson said "Mr Clarke, here is your book, and here is what you told the press in 2002. Which is true?" Mr. Clarke (PBH) said "I think that's misleading". Again, is there any reason to get all worked up about perjured testimony here, what he says doesn't affect anyone else, does it?

[walker 0]

Hi All

Kerry tells Republican smear campaigners to put up or shut up

Quote[/b] ]His likely Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), cautiously entered the debate yesterday, telling CBS's "MarketWatch" he has "read a couple of chapters" of Clarke's book. "I think he raises very, very serious questions," Kerry said. "My challenge to the Bush administration would be, if he's not believable and they have reason to show it, then prosecute him for perjury, because he is under oath."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28227-2004Mar26.html

Republicans have entered in to a smear campaign of unprecidented ferocity against the witness testomony of Richard Clarke that says TBA failed the US electorate with 9/11.

Richard Clarke will be able to sue and subpoena witnesess and doccuments if any Republicans if such a case was brought.

Condoleezza Rice still will not take the stand to give sworn testimony to the public 9/11 Commision. Condoleezza Rice is though willing to give unsworn statements to the press and TV this may force the 9/11 Commision to Subpeona her to apear before them to clear up the inconsitancies between her public statements and Richard Clarke's Sworn Statements.

Sworn Statements are evidence. Public statements from some one like Condoleezza Rice who has been recorded to have made 29 misleading statements, many before the house, are somewhat suspect.

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Condoleezza Rice still will not take the stand to give sworn testimony to the public 9/11 Commision. Condoleezza Rice is though willing to give unsworn statements to the press and TV this may force the 9/11 Commision to Subpeona her to apear before them to clear up the inconsitancies between her public statements and Richard Clarke's Sworn Statements.

She gave unsworn testimony to the 9/11 Commission for four hours already. She wants to give more unsworn testimony to the 9/11 Commission to clear up those inconsitancies.

[joltan 0]

Why can't she testify under oath?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why can't she testify under oath?

The big mystery.

[shinRaiden 0]

She is testifiying under oath. She's testifying to the commission, not to the cameras or media.

[joltan 0]

She is testifiying under oath. She's testifying to the commission, not to the cameras or media.

"She gave unsworn testimony to the 9/11 Commission for four hours already. She wants to give more unsworn testimony to the 9/11 Commission to clear up those inconsitancies."

It may be the fact that English is only my second foreign language, but doesn't 'unsworn testimony' mean the same as 'not under oath'? I doubt national security would go down the crapper if she would answer some questions in public - on the contrary, it would actually strengthen TBA if she showed that they don't fear some questions. But it seems she's too frightened (not from the comission, but from the possible public reaction).

[walker 0]

Hi all

Quote[/b] ]The Senate Democratic leader, Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, called on the White House to cease "character attacks" on Richard Clarke, the former senior Bush aide who disparaged Bush's handling of the al-Qaida threat in a new book and in his testimony before the commission

If they think he lied on the stand they should prosecute him but I dont think they will because that would meen they would have to tell the truth under Oath.

Put up or Shut up TBA

Quote[/b] ]In announcing late Thursday that Rice would go before the panel again but only in private and not under oath, the White House acted on a day when some Republicans said that President Bush was being undercut by the perception that a senior White House official would not cooperate with the commission.

My use of bold

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/8281930.htm

So we are suposed to believe the remarks of a serial teller of  misleading statements (29 recorded) who dare not go on the stand to give sworn testimony over that of someone who has gone on the stand to give sworn testimony.

Err?

No people are not that stupid.

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

The one person most involved with the US Security failures that took place before 9/11 still refuses to take the stand under oath.

Aprarently Condoleezza Rice is happier making unsworn TV statements that have

Quote[/b] ] ....infuriated some members of the panel,( of the 9/11 commision) who wonder why she has time for CNN but not for them. On Thursday they questioned again whether she should be subpoenaed to testify if she does not appear in public to answer questions about the Bush administration's handling of Al Qaeda before the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004....=GOOGLE

The plain fact is if the TBA and its lakeys keep questioning the veracity of sworn witness statements.

The only Solution therefor is to subpoena Condoleezza Rice and all relevant doccuments and witnesess.

TBA hoped the Richard Clark testimony didnt have legs. In your dreams TBA.

The truth about 9/11 must come out.

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

Case Proven

George Bush Jnr. did have the conversation with Richard Clarke where he told him to go after Iraq for 9/11 despite all the evidence showing it was Al Qaida.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/home/main100.shtml

Click on Absentminded White House to see the video.

It seems to be White House policy to lie or maybe it is just like they say it is and just forget loads of things.

Hmm?

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

It seems that Walker is trying to pin 9/11 only as TBA fault which is not.

Bob Kerrey (member on 9/11 commission) was mad that Fox News showed to the public that Clarke interview from 2002. Why did he get mad?

The top Republican in the Senate is trying to declassify Clarke's testimony to the House-Senate intelligence committee from 2002 (he was under oath then). Wonder why..

I just found the mystery!

Let me clarify about this Rice thing to help people out , White House is not allowing Rice to testify in public under oath (from Washington Post). She wants to (from administration officials) but she cannot because White House will not. She wants to kick butt. Only reason White House is not allowing her to testify is that it will violate longstanding precedent against incumbent national security advisers testifying before a legislative body (9/11 commission was created by congress).

It does not require a brain that Clinton and the Bush administrations, as well as the CIA and the FBI, failed to effectively deal with Al Qaeda.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4614818/

Newsweek poll hmmm...

Quote[/b] ]Fifty percent suspect Clarke has some personal or political agenda, while another 25 percent don’t know what to make of his accusations.

Quote[/b] ]By a margin of 61 percent to 34 percent, Americans feel that, overall, the Bush administration has taken the terror threat seriously. The numbers are the reverse for Bush’s predecessor: 65 percent are critical of how seriously they believe the Clinton administration took the threat.

Quote[/b] ]Overall, 17 percent of Americans said that the Clarke testimony has made them feel less favorable towards the president and nearly half (44 percent) of them feel that he should testify in public.