Westbrook36 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=URI:urn:newsml:reuters.com:20060209:MTFH59403_2006-02-09_17-18-19_N09237244:1 Now, he could just be throwing this out in an attempt to take some heat off himself, but if this is actually true (and I believe it is) then you gotta give him credit. It's nice to see that we are at least somewhat able to pick up these kinds of details and stop them. I'm sure this has happened plenty of times (with Bush and other presidents), but we never really hear much about it. I remember Clinton talking about something a long time ago, but other than that I don't really have much of a memory of any other thwarted attempts being publicized. WASHINGTON, Feb 9 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday disclosed new details of a thwarted al Qaeda plot to use shoe bombs to hijack a plane and fly it into a Los Angeles building, as he sought to justify his tactics in Washington's war on terrorism.With critics questioning the legality of his authorization of a domestic spying program, Bush used newly declassified details of a previously disclosed plot to show that the threat of terrorism has not abated. Bush said that in early 2002 the United States and its allies thwarted a plot to use bombs hidden in shoes to breach the ****pit door of an airplane and fly it into the the tallest building in Los Angeles. But he named the wrong building. "We believe the intended target was Liberty Tower in Los Angeles, California," Bush said. White House aides later said he meant Library Tower. Library Tower is now known as US Bank Tower, but locally it is still mostly called by the former name because of its proximity to the city's central library. At 1,017 feet (310 metres) tall, it is the tallest building in the United States west of the Mississippi River. Last October, the Bush administration had disclosed the plot to attack targets on the West Coast using hijacked planes, saying this was among 10 disrupted al Qaeda plots. Bush said on Thursday that in October 2001, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the operational mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks that year, had set in motion a plot for another attack inside the United States using shoe bombs to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the U.S. West Coast. "Rather than use Arab hijackers as he had on September 11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed sought out young men from Southeast Asia whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion," Bush said. More in link.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I think that it is a true story, and I also think he is throwing it out now to defect criticism of the wiretapping, which is understandable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 This is excellent news! Hopefully everybody realizes that this has nothing to do with wiretapping, i.e. this does not show that wiretapping was legal or helpful in any way shape or form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 This is a fact, not a story. And there are several more facts that are being kept secret in the interests of Nat Sec.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 This is excellent news! Hopefully everybody realizes that this has nothing to do with wiretapping, i.e. this does not show that wiretapping was legal or helpful in any way shape or form. Now, what happens if this plan was thwarted DUE to wiretapping? And how do you KNOW it has nothing to do with wiretapping.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 9, 2006 Author Share Posted February 9, 2006 Hopefully everybody realizes that this has nothing to do with wiretapping, i.e. this does not show that wiretapping was legal or helpful in any way shape or form. You liberals are funny people. You always pick the wrong issues to hang your hat on...ie, issues that the majority of Americans support the other side! How many times do you have to hear that a majority of Americans support wiretaps of phone calls with known terrorists in order to keep America safe? Then you find out about the good the Administration is doing, and without any evidence to support you, say that wiretapping had nothing to do with finding out about these suspected hijacking plots. Why? Why do you automatically have to cling to your partisan talking points when good news is given to you? This is a serious question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Now, what happens if this plan was thwarted DUE to wiretapping? If wiretapping was illigal than it makes no difference. And how do you KNOW it has nothing to do with wiretapping.... If wiretapping was illigal than it makes no difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 This is excellent news! Hopefully everybody realizes that this has nothing to do with wiretapping, i.e. this does not show that wiretapping was legal or helpful in any way shape or form. Right it has nothing to do with wiretapping specifically. What it does have something to do with is the overall strategy the administration is using to combat terrorism and threats against the homeland. Hopefully everybody realizes that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Well shux, I wonder if electronic tapping of suspected terrorists could help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborneskins Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Now, he could just be throwing this out in an attempt to take some heat off himself, but if this is actually true (and I believe it is) then you gotta give him credit. C'mon man, you as a military guy should know that not all things are reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 9, 2006 Author Share Posted February 9, 2006 If wiretapping was illigal than it makes no difference.If wiretapping was illigal than it makes no difference. Ah, you crazy liberals. You'd rather keep arguing a losing side of a point then celebrate all the saved lives from a terrorist attack that was found out because of an agressive government! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 If wiretapping was illigal than it makes no difference.If wiretapping was illigal than it makes no difference. So let me get this straight. Should we determine that the President was wrong in wiretapping these specific people (assuming wiretapping foiled plot, not saying it did), you would prefer that the attack be successful and kill Americans to protect the privacy of a treasonous citizen assisting terrorists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Too bad the administration couldn't thwart the 9/11 terrorist plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 You liberals are funny people. You always pick the wrong issues to hang your hat on...ie, issues that the majority of Americans support the other side! How many times do you have to hear that a majority of Americans support wiretaps of phone calls with known terrorists in order to keep America safe?Then you find out about the good the Administration is doing, and without any evidence to support you, say that wiretapping had nothing to do with finding out about these suspected hijacking plots. Why? Why do you automatically have to cling to your partisan talking points when good news is given to you? This is a serious question. 1) I am not a liberal 2) I support wiretaps of phone calls with known terrorists 3) I question these news because it implies that "wiretapping is good because it works." I agree with that statement (see item #2). I simply feel that the law needs to be followed, even if breaking it means we can kill every single terrorist in the world. (i.e. we need to change the law, not break it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 So let me get this straight. Should we determine that the President was wrong in wiretapping these specific people (assuming wiretapping foiled plot, not saying it did), you would prefer that the attack be successful and kill Americans to protect the privacy of a treasonous citizen assisting terrorists? I want the President to follow the law when hunting for terorrists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 9, 2006 Author Share Posted February 9, 2006 Too bad the administration couldn't thwart the 9/11 terrorist plot. You liberals are so entertaining! That comment made me spit out my coffee with laughter! Let's minimize current accomplishments by rehashing events from 4 years ago! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Too bad the administration couldn't thwart the 9/11 terrorist plot. You're right. It is a shame our government was asleep at the wheel while terrorists built training camps overseas, honed their skills by attacking our warships and blowing up our embassies, and then came here to learn how to fly planes. Of course all of this took place between January and September of '01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Ah, you crazy liberals. You'd rather keep arguing a losing side of a point then celebrate all the saved lives from a terrorist attack that was found out because of an agressive government! :laugh: Stop calling me liberal. If you keep calling me liberal I'll engage in namecalling as well. You have been warned. I want to celebrate foiled terrorist attacks. I also want to know that President follows the freakin' LAW, is that so hard to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isifhan Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 "Bush said that in early 2002 the United States and its allies thwarted a plot to use bombs hidden in shoes to breach the ****pit door of an airplane and fly it into the the tallest building in Los Angeles. But he named the wrong building. "We believe the intended target was Liberty Tower in Los Angeles, California," Hehe, good to see some things never change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Skin Fan Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Well, if Bush & Co. said it happened it has to be true, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 You liberals are so entertaining! That comment made me spit out my coffee with laughter!Let's minimize current accomplishments by rehashing events from 4 years ago! :laugh: So you are NOT glad that they didn't stop the 9/11 attacks? You know that's what you're saying here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 of course we have stopped probably 30-40 attempts of one kind of another. you think the rest of the world has been exploding- and we have gotten off scot free just because Bin-Laden has a warm and fuzzy feeling about the President? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 9, 2006 Author Share Posted February 9, 2006 So you are NOT glad that they didn't stop the 9/11 attacks? You know that's what you're saying here. That's not what I'm saying at all. Reading comprehension is the key! I was laughing at how pitiful Bush-haters and Liberals are. When hearing good news about stopping terrorists, a Liberal cannot allow him or herself to be truely happy and thankful for the administration's efforts so they have to play the "Yeah but!" game of changing the subject. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 of course we have stopped probably 30-40 attempts of one kind of another.you think the rest of the world has been exploding- and we have gotten off scot free just because Bin-Laden has a warm and fuzzy feeling about the President? It is really very cool that we are able to prevent terrorism from hitting home. Now let's make sure no laws have been broken. If no laws have been broken - excellent! Let's keep doing what we have been doing. If laws have been broken - let's punish the guilty, see if anti-terrorism forces need to expand their arsenal of tools, and pass appropriate laws to give them those tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborneskins Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 2) I support wiretaps of phone calls with known terrorists What about unknown terrorists? Must we wait until they complete thier mission to make them "known" ? I personally have no problem with them wire tapping. Hell, if they were listening to me, I would have no problem, but why would anyone want to listen to me talking about what I am getting my wife for Valentines day, or where I am going after work. It is not like everyone in the US is being tapped, only a very small percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.