hehe.....Wookie, you were doing really good until you threw the partisan part in there. Not the right phrase.

------------------
Remember kiddies, you must to be completely devoid of any confidence whatsoever. Otherwise you're an egomaniac.

Seems to me that he deflects criticism on the previous administration (which, if you're going to try to place culpability on anyone, had far more opportunities to prevent the circumstances that led to 9/11) while heavilly criticizing the current administration for its failures. That seems partisan to me.

And I don't understand what Tracer meant.

Look, I don't have any personal problem with Fox. He's perfectly able to speak his mind. I just don't like, what I perceive as, the unopenmindedness (no hyphons, hehehe). I'm a conservative but I do try to add areas of agreement when it comes to criticizing "my guy". I would just like to see him, and some others, offer some similar type opinions to show where we might have some common views.

edit - Oh, and I was really bumbling around in that Rumsfeld thread because I was transitioning back from my sarcasm. That was rough!

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

[This message has been edited by Wookie06 (edited April 09, 2004).]

I would like people to seriously consider what they are saying when they insist on using Pearl Harbor as an example for 9/11.

It is known that we had forewarning that an attack may have come. We issued an ultimatum stating that we wanted them out of China (for reasons you may speculate), November 26. An ultimatum... Given the Japanese propensity for flat out denial of things of that nature, i.e. their leaving the League of Nations when it tried to impose sanctions on them for their invasion of Manchuria, its not hard to realise they would fight rather than relinquish their hold. It's also not surprising that they would decide to attack Hawaii considering that they had already started taking over land in the eastern Pacific. Knowing that they were imperialistic, had already taken over land (that's what they were doing in China remember), and we issued a flat out statement (get out of China or else), you'd think we would have been prepared.
Granted, we thought they were going to attack the Phillipines, but we did underestimate their use of their aircraft-carriers and navy.

We had plenty of forewarning of intentions in that region, which is something people have been trying to cover up.

There, gleen what you will from that, take what comparisons you will, and please, remember, the force is with you, always...

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p397_Greaves.html - more info than you really need.

------------------
Daddy, why doesn't this magnet pick up this floppy disk?

Where in her testimony did she address that?



Appeal to ignorance fallacy. Arguing that "well, the government did *something*, but they didn't tell us about it" is absurd. Even if they did do something that was out of our knowledge, it was useless because it did not alert people to potential danger.



I'd like to see how it was watered down, and how Clinton was responsible for that.



That's a borderline black-white fallacy, between doing nothing, and going overboard. Don't BS me.



WTC '93 ring a bell?



I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the mounting evidence that terrorists were casing potential targets in the US, known terrorists who had enrolled in flight schools (at one point looking into purchasing a crop duster), a flight instructor who was screaming that one of his students only wanted to learn how to fly, and not take off or land, an aircraft; not to mentiont the G8 summit Bush attended that year that was bolstered by increased anti-aircraft defenses when word got out terrorists were seeking to use an airliner as a missile to hit the summit.

Don't forget that the Clinton administration stopped the millennium bomb plot dead in its tracks with far less lead time on warning.



What are you saying? That we knew the attack was coming? I'm interested in knowing how the attack on the minisub did not reach Pearl in time, but the detection of the first wave of attack craft was passed off as a flight of B-17s from the west coast.



That's just it. We had no information that the Japanese were working to perfect refueling their ships at sea, which allowed them to reach Hawaii with such a strike force. It made more sense that they would strike our forces in the Philippines.

And you know what? They did.


-Fox

Any reasonable person already knew of the potential danger. The previous actions of terrorists was warning enough of a potential danger. Unfortunately, there was no warning of the specific acts that were going to be committed [edit] although it appears Senator John Kerry was very specifically warned of the possibility of terrorists making it through security checkpoints at Logan Intl with weapons with the potential to commit 9-11 type attacks. Prophetic. Too bad all he did was forward the warning to the Department of Transportation.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20808.htm

[2nd Edit] - Firefox, I meant to ask how it was that the Clinton administration stopped the Millenium Bomb Plot. If I'm not mistaken, and I could be, wasn't that where a customs agent stopped a guy on the Canadian border and found bomb timers? I'm just unaware of what the Clinton administration actually did other than just be the current administration. I have no problem with an administration taking credit or responsibility for what occurs during their reign but I think a certain ammount of "context" should be applied.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...


[This message has been edited by Wookie06 (edited April 12, 2004).]

you should try reading the actual PDB

the reason i say this is because the briefing is in fact a historical documentation of what bin Laden had been saying since 1997. the title, when viewed in the light of the document, is not really urgent at all, but rather a summary of long term goals for bin Laden.

[This message has been edited by oSiRiS (edited April 12, 2004).]

you know, it's usually best not to cause a panic and also to remain secretive about any sensitive intelligence or lack thereof.

I never mentioned the bill being watered down by Clinton, you just tried to pass it off as a great acheivement by him when it is just crap. The bill had a bunch of stuff that was already being implemented(so nothing new was happening) and any new procedures were weakened or thrown out(I can't remember by which party). Off With Their Heads by Dick Morris. Good book.

EXACTLY! There was no middle ground because there wasn't a specific threat(city, building, etc). The only way to have defended against a rumor of bombing that was going to be happening in the US at some time within the next few months was to take ridiculously drastic measures.

yeah and that worked real well

------------------
There is no point to life if you don't have a sense of humor.

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited April 12, 2004).]

Yeah, no kidding. If anything, the memo exonerates the administration by detailing just what they did know. A Clinton PDB from 1996 was far more specific and we don't hear much about that. Just Google "Clinton 1996 PDB". The top result (when I did it) links to a NewsMax (conservative news organization) article that even has a downloadable MP3 where both Bill and Hillary discuss ex-President Clinton's choice not to accept bin Laden from Sudan.

Now, I don't intend to blame anyone except the terrorists for 9/11. It just seems that alot of things about Bush are being misrepresented in our media while significant information from the Clinton years is being glossed over.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

Well, I've done some more research on this issue. I could ask for sources (that's what someone else would do) but instead I'll provide my own.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001901197_ressam12m.html

Seems, that I was right and the Millenium Bomb Plot was foiled by an alert customs agent. I can only assume that Firefox based his post on Richard Clark's, which are being proving to be, misleading writings.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

Richard Clarke has been essentially discredited about everything. His book has come under immense scrutiny by senior officials in several departments as well as those directly involved with the arrest of the bomber - turns out he is factually inaccurate about a lot. At one point, he says that Clinton raised the tranportation people to a higher alert - turns out that's not true. Sevel customs agents and transportation officials have come foward saying that they were under no high alert, and had recieved no word on any plots.

The 9-11 Commission has said they intend to "reexamine" Clarke's testimony in light of "multiple inconsistencies". Clarke was hardly a smoking gun. He was just a hyped liar.

[EDIT - DISCLAIMER: I can't find my sources. It was either linked on Drudge or mentioned by Neil Boortz, but I can't for the life of me find them. So, take it with a grain of salt.]

[This message has been edited by Charoziak (edited April 13, 2004).]

Charoziak, sources.

Well, poo. See my edit.

------------------
Frightening the very small and very old since 1952.

I doubted your statement but not because it seems like it would be unfounded. More so because I find it unlikely that the comission would challenge its star witness.

I'm assuming Ictus is asking about sources for the comission recalling him and not about sources discrediting Clark's statements of which there are innumerable to cite.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

Ha. That was fun. I'm going to try again.

Wookie, sources.

No, no - I never said they were going to recall him. I just saw a blurb somewhere, right after Condi went, that said in light of numerous inconsistencies, they were going to take another look at his testimony.

It was that, with the examples cited in other posts, that led me to say he had been discredited.

I'm still looking for that blurb though, dangit.

------------------
Frightening the very small and very old since 1952.

Then you shouldn't have a problem with citing them.



Will do.



Key word here is "alert". Would he have been alert if the White House had not issued that security alert?



You mean like information provided in this report?



You missed the point *and* tried to twist it your way. It shows that you're wrong when you said they couldn't believe terrorists could strike the homeland.



Again, you're twisting the argument to support your end. See my above link.



Source?



I did. I even listened to a recitation of it over the radio. That still doesn't validate their claims of ignorance in light of the above link.


-Fox

Considering that it was a she and that she actually suspected him of drug traficking I would say that that would have little to do with an allegedly issued White House Security alert. Now if you have any sources that contradict that, feel free to post them.

I'll get you some sources discrediting Clark's recitations a little later. Too many and not enough time right now.

And I would like to comment again about this PDB. I'm not going to argue that opportunities were missed. The very fact that this information was presented in a PDB is reassurance enough to me that the administration was interested in the issue. GW basically had a ticking timebomb the moment he came into office. I believe that had he known the immediacy of the threat things would have been different.


------------------
Have you forgotten ...

Despite that, she was still alert, no?



I'm still adding salt to my glass of water.



It's too late to move back the goalposts, Wookie. You've already said the administration argued it didn't receive specific warnings.


-Fox

1) She's a border inspector. She's paid to be alert. I'm not the one trying to pass that off as anyone's success except hers.

2) I'm not moving back any "goalposts". I don't see the PDB as hurting the administration seeing how it was only a summation of information. I don't recall saying anything about what the administration argued. I'm sure you can quote me on that. Be that as it may, I still believe opportunities were missed but I don't blame that on the administration, per se. Afterall, there was little the administration itself could have actually done to stop the event from happening.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

And a new security alert would grab a person's attention, no?



Yes you are. First you said the threat was too vague. Now that you've been proven wrong, you're trying to say that wasn't the case at all.


-Fox



[This message has been edited by Firefox (edited April 14, 2004).]

A person being alret on the job does not mean there was a general security aleart issued to the border patrol, Fox. The jump you are making is huge and you're doing exactly what you have accued others of doing in this debate

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

A leap in logic? Hardly. The White House put out a security alert in light of intelligence reports that there were plans for terror attacks around the turn of the Millennium. The argument I'm getting at is at least they put out an alert.


-Fox

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/inside/cron.html

If Border Patrol was on a heightened alert, they failed. The Customs agent thought he was carrying drugs. I guess terrorist activites weren't at the top of the lsit.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Why don't you reference this alleged "new security alert?



Where are you getting this stuff? When did I say the threat was to vague? When have I been proven wrong? I submitted that there were missed opportunities. There were and many measures have been instituted since 9/11 to correct many of the problems that led to 9/11 being allowed to occur.

What is this business of "at least they issued an alert" as if to imply that the Bush administration didn't issue any. I already answered your request about alerts in this thread. Maybe you missed it.

Regarding Richard Clark being discreditted, a few examples contradictory information would be the following:

Now, I'm sure you would agree that he has been critical of the Presidents handling of the War on Terror but in his own words he has praised the President here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html and here: http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/21719.htm .

Also, here: http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2004/911commissionLetter.pdf , you will see a letter written to the chairs of the 9/11 comission about Richard Clark, the man who apologized to the 9/11 families, apparent apathy towards the issue of terrorism in congressional hearings prior to 9/11.

Now, Clark implies in his book that, in a conversation with Dr. Rice, she looked as if she had never heard of Al Qaeda but in October of 2000, before the election, she said the following in a radio interview when asked about the threat of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden:


And, finally, in reference to his "Millenium Bomb Plot" statements I will once again refer you to: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001901197_ressam12m.html

I hope this is enough for now.


------------------
Have you forgotten ...


[This message has been edited by Wookie06 (edited April 14, 2004).]

That first part is really, really, funny coming from you. But yes, I get your point.

I wouldn't call slapping you on the back of the head and telling you to stop looking at things in black and white twisting something. Knowing many terrorists have dreams of attacking America + not knowing when the attack is going to happen + not knowing how it is going to happen + not knowing where it is going to happen = not having a specific target. The information was way too vague to act on it. btw, what was the point of that link? That's the same as someone saying Romulus caused the recent bombings in Spain(i.e. there is a very long link that is irrational to take it as a whole). And there is no way I'm reading all 1382 entries and I know(or at least hope) you haven't because I don't think anyone with a life would take the time to read all that.
I already told you. "Off With Their Heads"

For drugs, not terrorists. And the border patrol is very strict when it comes to drugs. They literally rip cars apart if they suspect someone of bringing drugs in to sell.

Please continue FireFox, humor me.

------------------
There is no point to life if you don't have a sense of humor.

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited April 14, 2004).]