What George Tenet is saying...

[Koolblue13]

Well are you worried now that Iran might attack the U.S.? How about syria? Or how about their subsidiaries attacking the U.S. with their weapons? How about Iraq and Iran both with a nuclear arsenal by 2009? Does that scare you? I bet its half as scary as just Iran isnt it..... Fact is that 9/11 showed us that in order to be effective and combat terrorism and fanatical regimes around the world that we have to be proactive. That includes taking down regimes like Iraq where WMD"S were believed to be held and in production. Whether sadaam and al qaeda were connected is irrelevant all that is relevant is whether they pose a threat to us AND our allies. And the answer to that question is yes they do. Iraq now would be just as legitament of a threat as Iran is now had saddam still been in power. Or do you think he would just sit idly by while his neighbors built nukes and done nothing:rolleyes:

No,I am not afraid of Iran attacking the continental US. Just as I was never worried about Iraq. This war was planned long before 9/11 and was used to get people on board. We knew 9/11 would happen, the international community knew it would happen and it was allowed so we could get a military into the middle east.

The terrorists were not from Syria, Iran or Iraq. They are Saudis. Why would Saudis want Americans dead? If we want to stop terrorism, occupying forign nations and killing over 100k people can not possibly be the way to do it. Maybe we need to figure out the real reasons we are so hated before we try unsucsessfully to occupy another country and kill even more forign civillions.

[EersSkins05]

Well are you worried now that Iran might attack the U.S.? How about syria? Or how about their subsidiaries attacking the U.S. with their weapons? How about Iraq and Iran both with a nuclear arsenal by 2009? Does that scare you? I bet its half as scary as just Iran isnt it..... Fact is that 9/11 showed us that in order to be effective and combat terrorism and fanatical regimes around the world that we have to be proactive. That includes taking down regimes like Iraq where WMD"S were believed to be held and in production. Whether sadaam and al qaeda were connected is irrelevant all that is relevant is whether they pose a threat to us AND our allies. And the answer to that question is yes they do. Iraq now would be just as legitament of a threat as Iran is now had saddam still been in power. Or do you think he would just sit idly by while his neighbors built nukes and done nothing:rolleyes:

No,I am not afraid of Iran attacking the continental US. Just as I was never worried about Iraq. This war was planned long before 9/11 and was used to get people on board. We knew 9/11 would happen, the international community knew it would happen and it was allowed so we could get a military into the middle east.

The terrorists were not from Syria, Iran or Iraq. They are Saudis. Why would Saudis want Americans dead? If we want to stop terrorism, occupying forign nations and killing over 100k people can not possibly be the way to do it. Maybe we need to figure out the real reasons we are so hated before we try unsucsessfully to occupy another country and kill even more forign civillions.

Completely correct, Koolblue.

Here's a list of things we need out of the Middle East RIGHT NOW.

1) A check on Iran and Hesbollah

2) An end to sectarian violence in Iraq

3) Someone who would not aid Al Queda or OBL

Guess who already had all of that in check?

(Hint- He's the guy we basically put into power to accomplish those goals, as well as to join us in case a fight broke out between us and our then-enemy USSR.)

[EersSkins05]

BTW- I thought Tenet came off about as well as he could have.

He basically admitted to making mistakes, but was not a part of the policy that drove the decision to go to Iraq in the first place.

[Koolblue13]

I'm no Miss Cleo, but I bet we can figure out who we will be at war with in the next ten years. I mean, if history ever repeats itself.

[pez]

I'm no Miss Cleo, but I bet we can figure out who we will be at war with in the next ten years. I mean, if history ever repeats itself.

Well if Jeb ever gets into office, we will probably attack Iraq again... even if for no reason :doh:

[Larry]

I find it impossible to believe that the Head of CIA thinks that we are about to be hit with the worst terrorist attack in history, but doesnt tell the President about it. Instead, he claims he told the NSA (Rice) and then washed his hands of the responsibility.

If that is the protocal of our Govt (as Tenet is claiming), then we're more f@#ked than even I thought.

The guy met with Bush EVERY MORNING and never told him?

Either it's bullsh!t, or something worse.

Im sure the 4 mill he got as an advance helps with the guilt he must feel though.

Allow me to point out that, at least according to the e-mails that have come out about the US Attorney firings, the way things worked was:

• (I assume that) orders came down to do some cleaning.
  
• Gonzales, Myers, and others get together, and spend time preparing a list of who to get rid of, and how to do it, and how to spin the blowback.
  
• Then somebody says "OK, looks like a plan. Now, who tells Bush?"
  
• There there's a three-week period where there don't seem to be any e-mails.
  
• Then the plan's been approved.
  

-----

A second example: When the "Ossama determined to attack within the US" briefing came out, I remember the first White House reaction I saw on the leak came from Condie Rice (then NSA). She's walking across the White House lawn, and a reporter asks her about knowing in advance about 9/11.

She claims the White House had no advance warning. (And keeps walking.)

The reporter asks a follow-up question (inaudible). (I assume the follow up was "But the subject of the meeting was . . . ")

Her immediate response is "There's no proof that the President read that material."

Now, what that tells me is:

1) When she made her first answer, that there was no advance knowledge, she knew it was untrue, and she knew that the reporter knew it was untrue.

2) When the White House heard that the information had leaked, their reaction was to go through the paper trail and make certain that the President could still deny knowledge (and not get caught).

Their reaction wasn't "gee, how could we have prevented 9/11", it was "gee, can we keep the evidence from implicating the President?"

-----

Not trying to hijack this thread into a US Attorney and/or a 9/11 one. Just pointing out that it looks, (to this guy in the cheap seats) like the Bush Administration has a lot of policies in place that seem to be designed mainly to give the President the ability to play dumb and not get caught.

[Kilmer17]

Then why wouldnt Tenet say so now? He's already throwing the Admin under the bus, why claim he never told the President about the plot?

[zoony]

Then why wouldnt Tenet say so now? He's already throwing the Admin under the bus, why claim he never told the President about the plot?

Because he's telling the truth?

.....

[pez]

Then why wouldnt Tenet say so now? He's already throwing the Admin under the bus, why claim he never told the President about the plot?

Couple of black sedans parked outside his house? :laugh:

[More Complete]

(3) Bush and Cheney came into office seeking a reason to invade Iraq. That's before 9/11 even occured.

Link? Quote? This is a very serious claim. I've read/seen his many interviews lately and didn't see this. :whoknows:

[Midnight Judges]

Link? Quote? This is a very serious claim. I've read/seen his many interviews lately and didn't see this. :whoknows:

Surely you've see the 1998 letter signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Armitage saying we need to invade Iraq.

[More Complete]

Surely you've see the 1998 letter signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Armitage saying we need to invade Iraq.

1998? Surely you remember this as the year Clinton ordered strikes on Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Again, to say that "Bush and Cheney came into office 'seeking a reason to invade' Iraq" is pretty serious. You may assume this was the case, but I've seen no proof, from Tenet or otherwise.

[81artmonk]

He's a Big Whiney punk who wants to sell books. He's a coward and lowlife.

[Duckus]

1998? Surely you remember this as the year Clinton ordered strikes on Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Again, to say that "Bush and Cheney came into office 'seeking a reason to invade' Iraq" is pretty serious. You may assume this was the case, but I've seen no proof, from Tenet or otherwise.

So – what we know is that:

1) NeoCons were asking for the removal of Sadam from power in 1998:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

“In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.”

2) Bush filled his administrations with NeoCons who wrote this letter above. The AIM OFAMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY according to the letter SHOULD be to remove Sadam. So the people who believed that, wrote that, and signed the letter were in charge of American Foreign Policy.

3) On September 12, 2001 an Administration official tells Tenet that “Iraq will pay for this” when no connection between Iraq and September 11th was know then (and still not known now).

Please - how is this not clear.....

[Duckus]

He's a Big Whiney punk who wants to sell books. He's a coward and lowlife.

Though I don’t even like the man as a person he was a US Civil Servant who spent his entire life working FOR AMERICA trying to make America safe and protected. He probably saved more American lives than we will ever know – because when the CIA does something right we never know – all we know is when they F-up like on September 11th.

He served for America. Have dedicated his life to serve his country – that is a lot more than 99.5 % of the people on this board, including me.

[Kilmer17]

Because he's telling the truth?

.....

That's my fear.

BEcause if our Govt system is so flawed that the Director of the CIA talks to the Pres every day, and cant bring up what he believes to be the most dangerous terror plot of all time, then everything else going on is small potatoEs.

[Koolblue13]

That's my fear.

BEcause if our Govt system is so flawed that the Director of the CIA talks to the Pres every day, and cant bring up what he believes to be the most dangerous terror plot of all time, then everything else going on is small potatoEs.

I gotta believe thats a little nieve.

[Kilmer17]

I gotta believe thats a little nieve.

Explain.

[RabidFan]

Didn't Clarke state he tried to brief Condi several times about AL Q being the biggest threat and she wouldn't hear of it...then the memo about planes...still dismissed.

[Koolblue13]

Explain.

Well, it's not like Tenet is the first to say people in the Admin knew. He might be the biggest to admit it, but this is old news. Admin wants war + Admin knew 9/11 was coming = America is on board.

Everything short of Bush coming out and saying " we let 9/11 happen because we wanted to go to war in Iraq " seems to be coming to light and people still seem to be putting thier heads in the sand.

[Kilmer17]

Well, it's not like Tenet is the first to say people in the Admin knew. He might be the biggest to admit it, but this is old news. Admin wants war + Admin knew 9/11 was coming = America is on board.

Everything short of Bush coming out and saying " we let 9/11 happen because we wanted to go to war in Iraq " seems to be coming to light and people still seem to be putting thier heads in the sand.

You must have misunderstood my point.

I am trying to figure out why Tenet wouldnt tell the President directly about the threat. He meets (met) with him EVERY DAY. So it begs the question, if Tenet REALLY thought it was that dangerous, why didnt he tell Bush himself?

I think everyone in this administration as well as previous ones, knew that Al Queda was planning a major attack. It was the specifics that they lacked, and frankly, none of them had the stones to do what would have been necessary to stop it in the pre 9/11 world.

[EersSkins05]

1998? Surely you remember this as the year Clinton ordered strikes on Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Again, to say that "Bush and Cheney came into office 'seeking a reason to invade' Iraq" is pretty serious. You may assume this was the case, but I've seen no proof, from Tenet or otherwise.

Didn't Clarke state he tried to brief Condi several times about AL Q being the biggest threat and she wouldn't hear of it...then the memo about planes...still dismissed.

Yeah. Clarke also (and remember that he's the non-partisan "terrorism czar" in the White House when 9/11 happens) said that the impetus to blame Iraq for 9/11 came within hours of being attacked, and that the plans for that attack were shockingly well-organized.

Don't have a link for this- just remember it from interviews.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, Bob Woodward reported approximately the same.

[Koolblue13]

You must have misunderstood my point.

I am trying to figure out why Tenet wouldnt tell the President directly about the threat. He meets (met) with him EVERY DAY. So it begs the question, if Tenet REALLY thought it was that dangerous, why didnt he tell Bush himself?

I think everyone in this administration as well as previous ones, knew that Al Queda was planning a major attack. It was the specifics that they lacked, and frankly, none of them had the stones to do what would have been necessary to stop it in the pre 9/11 world.

They signed a bill shortly before 9/11 that if a plane was high jacked, it would be shot down. Only Rumsfield could give the order and he couldn't be reached that morning. I was just saying I think it's nieve to think Bush or Chenney didn't know, that they were never told. We were running drills on 9/11 that were specific to planes hitting buildings, so we knew it was coming. I rember an interview on the daily show with a left over from the Clinton days, he was saying everyday before he was let go, he would put paperwork on the presidents desk that said 9/11 was emenent. I wish I could rember his name. He was saying they knew, but were only concerned with Iraq.

Seems like if they were so bent on going to war with Iraq and knew 9/11 was coming, why try and stop it. Why launch a 100million dollar advertising campagn within days of the most horrific event in ourcountry in our lifetime. Regardless of if you think the gov't had any involvment in 9/11 or not. It's becoming increasingly obvious that they might have let it happen.

[PeterMP]

Yeah. Clarke also (and remember that he's the non-partisan "terrorism czar" in the White House when 9/11 happens) said that the impetus to blame Iraq for 9/11 came within hours of being attacked, and that the plans for that attack were shockingly well-organized.

Don't have a link for this- just remember it from interviews.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, Bob Woodward reported approximately the same.

Of course there were good plans to invade Iraq. They were the most recently fought war, we still had a major military presence in Saudia Arabia to counter act them, and they had repeatedly been in violation of various UN resolutions. If 9-11 had been caused by Iraq and there hadn't been good plans for an invasion, people would have criticized the Pentagon.

[Kilmer17]

We cant hold people we knoe to be terrorists NOW without the left led by the ACLU screaming bloody murder.

Can you imagine what would have happened if we had started arresting and interogating muslims BEFORE 9/11?

Or what would have happened if we had started bombing and invading Afghanistan?

Im certain that everyone in both the Clinton and Bush administration knew that something was coming.

At issue is what should they have done about it?