OT : White House remarks doesnt jibe with me

[Mickalino]

I've always been a Bush supporter, but something about these latest revelations smells kind of fishy to me. The administration is admitting that they had some prior knowledge that bin Laden was planning a hijacking around 9-11, based on knowledge of Middle Eastern Men getting U.S. flight training and other intelligence bits, but that they were helpless in preventing it because, in their words "Yea we had knowledge about hijacking plans, but we had no idea they were going to use the planes as missiles and slam them into the Trade Center. How were we to know of such an unconventional hijacking ?"

Hello ?!?! What does it matter what the hijackers were planning to do, AFTER they took over the plane ? If you KNOW they're going to try to hijack a plane, then work on PREVENTING the friggin hijacking itself, and it wont matter what they plan on doing after the hijacking, because they'll never get the chance. DUH !! No-one is asking you to predict the "suicide missile" plan, and place a shield around the WTC. Just nip it at the bud, and prevent the hijacking with a stinkin security plan.

National Security Adviser Ms Rice, says "You would have risked shutting down the American civil aviation system with such generalized information. You would have to think five, six, seven times about that, very, very hard." Well, who says you have to shut down the entire aviation system, as they had to do right after 9/11 ? Don't you think proper security and beefed up security could have possibly prevented the hijacking without completely"shutting down the system" as she says ? I can tell you from first-hand experience, that there was no change in security right before 9-11, because I boarded a plane from a major airport with ease, just a few days before 9-11....the same relative ease that I experienced during my previous and periodic travels. But coming back was another story. I was stranded at my destination for 5 days due to the attack. And the difference between my security encounter days before 9-11, and days after 9-11, was like night and day, a 180 degree difference. Point being, if they had prior knowledge of a threat, as they openly admit, they sure didnt do much with it.

Here's another strange distortion of facts. After the hijacking, everyone was pressing for 'stronger ****pit doors' to protect the pilots. Well, if these people actually KNEW how the hijackers got into the ****pit, they'd understand that stronger ****pit doors would NOT have done squat to prevent the hijacking. Why ? Because the hijackers didnt break into, or force their way into the ****pit. They waltzed in there with the friggin keys !! Here's how...

I've never seen this side of the story told in the news or anywhere, so here it is : A former co-worker of mine, who was working for AA at the time, took a phone call at the AA reservation office he worked at. This man later on had to go into psycho-therapy to help him deal with what he was about to encounter on the phone. On the other end of the line was a hysterical AA flight attendant, who out of desperation called the 800 number for her employer on her cell phone from the airplane. She described in horror, the events that took place. The hijackers were sitting in first class, when several of them stood up and sprayed everyone in first class with pepper spray or mace. This disabled and blinded everyone, so they would be free to slay the flight attendants and obtain their keys. From previous scouting attempts, they knew who had the keys to the ****pit. They proceeded to slit the flight attendant's throats with their box-cutters, retrieved the keys and proceeded into the ****pit with ease. Once in the ****pit, they gave each one of the pilots the same execution, that they handed the flight attendants. After that, they simply put their US-given flight training to work, while the rest of the ***-heads protected them by threatening to blow up the plane with a (fake) bomb, if any of the surviving passengers revolted. Meanwhile, one surviving flight attendant hid and crouched in the back of the plane on her cell-phone, trying to gain consolence from the AA employee on the other end of the line. The two of them were oblivious to the fact that the plane was rapidly headed for the WTC. As he tried every imaginable way to keep her calm, and the plane came a few hundred yards from the WTC, suddenly the phone went silent.

[indyskinsfan]

Quite a detailed opinion Mick.

I too like Bush a bit more than I ever expected ( I don't say this under duress by repression ).

I really don't see that much of a difference with the public's need to know specifics, as much as it needed to be within our government, at least. It was the sharing of information, in general with their very own tenacles of the government that the problems could fester. Intelligence is not so readily available, but at least keep your ship afloat. Let your own, with the power to do something, know something.

Everytime you miss the communication, with any large groups that have a need to know, you also increase risks, because each agency may have had pieces of the puzzles.

As the White House spokepersons said, they didn't have the pieces, but even if they did, it is mainly the agencies and their notifications "properly" to the targeted groups immediately. I doubt that anything could have been done so swiftly with what they had, but it's a judgement call in hindsight.

Why is it coming out right now? Then there was the leak factor AFTER 911 that was appalling! Each time an agency was given information to covet, so the effort against terrorism would be better, someone would get movie money, so to speak or just the dumb urge to open their maggot trap. Yes Dick Chaney said the right thing, not to be bossy or ****y, but as a fair warning of the level of intelligence we are dealing with and how they operate. We shouldn't be so naiive and take so much for granted. It's not paranoia and yes we should be careful in Congress with not being too challenging, and be more considerate.

We shouldn't complain about this at all, because we talk too much as a nation as it is. Hell our news reporters spend days on end with KNOWN terrorists and murderers of people, to let us know what we already know. MFing terrorist should be dead!

[Tommy-the-Greek]

Mick, I have a feeling that this will be younger bush's "read my lips no new taxes". His father was a one term wonder. He had such a high approval rating and then lost the election. His son will follow in the old man's footsteps.

The one thing that makes me sick to my stomach is the thought of Hillary running and winning the election. And don't get me wrong, I don't care if we have a woman president. It doesn't matter to me if she is a Rep. or Dem. I just can't stand Hillary.

And I have a sneaky suspicion that she will either run herself or be a vice pres candidate. Pretty scary SHi^ if you ask me.

[indyskinsfan]

Yeah, I had that gut check too, tommy-the-greek!

I think she'll either team with Evan Bayh, Senator from Indiana, who's quickly becoming a Dem favorite and is a good communicator with the GOP overall or Gore will go at it again with Hillary on his side.

Bayh may sit this one out and deal a bit more with foreign relations, the economy and subcommittees. Then he'll be more polished. Hillary should just step aside in NY and spend more time on the planks - walking them. :laugh:

[rtandler]

We know that sometime in the next month a bank is going to get robbed and a teller or security guard or cop is going to get killed in the process. Yet we won't increase bank security beyond what it is now because we made a trade off between security and convenience all the time.

[Brave]

A couple of thoughts:

Strengthening ****pit doors could have meant a physical barrier which might not be defeated by having a key. If pilots decide they need to isolate themselves to maintain control the plane they should be able to do so.

I have read with interest the facts emerging this week about the intelligence pre-9/11. Even posted about it in the Tailgate. I am, however, taking a wait-and-see attitude before blasting the administration for non-action. Intelligence comes daily and you can't disperse an army of agents on every tip. Furthermore, action should probably have come from the various agencies that were, in fact, passed on this information beforehand.

Hindsight tells us that 9/11 was far beyond what most of us would have dreamed could happen. We now know security was (and probably still is) unable to prevent such a concerted, planned attack. BEFORE 9/11, however, the term "hijacking" conjured up images of planes sitting on tarmacs, negotiations and endings with relatively few casualties, and those as often as not of the culprits rather than victims. Other than Israel, whose citizens live in a virtual police state daily, I doubt many other countries would have made drastic changes to airport/airline security based on such a vague tip. NOW we know what hijacking can mean and I imagine there aren't many who wouldn't.

[Larry]

As to the concept of "How could we say we hadn't thought about using an aircraft as a missle? Tom Clancey wrote a book about it 10 years ago!": I have a counter-point, also from Clancey.

In "Patriot Games", Jack Ryan is trying to figure out which particular (Irish) terrorist group conducted a particular operation. His boss drops by his office, where he's pouring over rhone-book-sized piles of information about various terrorist groups, and explains that the really frustrating thing about this information is: When we finally do answer a question, if we go back through the data, we always discover that the clues we needed had been on our desks for years.

This whole exercise is similar to the investigation after an airplane crash (or the Challenger explosion). No matter which part it was that failed (and it almost always torns out to be a combination or chain of failures), if you dig far enough, you'll find one agent (or cop, or engineer, etc.) who said something that could be interpreted as "I told you so". It's guaranteed that you'll find something.

I can't judge Bush on the basis of what he did before 9/11. (I think it is fair to judge what he did afterwards, and I'm not that impressed with his reactions, either short- or long-term). But these "did he know in advance" things are simply publicity stunts.

(On a side note: I haven't heard a single Democrat making a big deal about these "shocking new revelations". All I've heard are Republicans expressing outrage over the very idea of attacks which, as far as I can tell, haven't happened yet).

[Terry]

My guess is that the economy will bring down Bush, if it's gonna happen, not any post 9/11 revelations.

It's not clear that the economy will be anything more than mildly meandering from it's present course for the nexr coupla years, yet the budget surplus is already gone and deficits are starting to mount.

A government in debt squeezes the money supply and helps keep interest rates higher.

The tax cuts haven't been noticable in the wallets of most people (and won't be), and it will be easy for the Dems to portray the tax cuts for the rich as a handout for those who don't need it.

The connections between Enron and the Bush administration will get more play if the economy sours. Now we read that Enron WAS manipulating the California energy crisis of a year ago, yet Cheney was Enron's boy, and the biggest player in his drafting the administration's energy policy.

The Dems aren't too bright, they likely won't find a way to pull back Bush's 'populist' curtain and reveal the corporate shill behind it. So it'll be close. But sometimes the American people take the measure of a man, even a successful military leader, and reject him for domestic reasons, ala Bush pere.

[The Sisko]

Like you did Mick, I flew both shortly before and after 9-11. However, I would beg to differ on your assessment of the security situation AFTER 9-11.

I flew out of Dulles on both flights - yes, the very same one that was used in one of the hijackings. After the hijackings, I expected that security would be pretty tight and that I'd be hassled because of my name. I found exactly the opposite. The procedure was 99% the same as it was before the events of 9-11. The only differences were that I had to show my ticket to some 90 year old lady in order to get into the security x-ray check where some folks who probably wouldn't have been qualified to flip a burger (Wacky Ralph you might want to think of it as a taco instead) at Mickey D's sleepily pretended to look at my x-rayed carry ons. The only other difference was that there were a lot of US Marshalls carrying MP-5's and/or dogs walking around looking pissed, but none of those measures would have stopped 9-11 from happening all over again.

What I would prefer was what I encountered at my layover at De Gaulle airport in France. I was questioned (as was everyone else)as to where I was going by an armed gendarme (as were all the security folks) who went through my bags thoroughly after they were x-rayed. Later, I was randomly stopped before boarding and my bag was again searched.

This system isn't perfect, but I felt a lot better about it than what I encountered here in the US. And no, I don't sleep any easier now that the gub-ment is in charge of airport security. Just think about that model of efficiency and innovation called the Post Office if you're wondering what I mean.

My wife had an idea that I think would work and just might make travelling a bit easier. The airlines shouldn't allow passengers to take luggage or carryons at all. Instead, Fedex or UPS could ship all luggage a day or two before your trip so that it's waiting for you at your destination. Sounds crazy, but the more I think about it, it just could work.

[Brave]

I flew about a month and a half after 9/11 and found security to be pretty tight (comparitively). I was searched at one baggage check and at each gate as was my bag and briefcase. There were fatigue-clad, rifle-totling national guardsmen throughout the airport in Raleigh. An effort was being made.

However, none of this would have stopped 9/11. Nothing happened until the planes were in the air. Big, obvious weapons weren't used. It was a group of people carrying out a planned attack against unsuspecting victims. That's a pretty big advantage and makes the revolt on Flight 93 all the more amazing IMHO.

Yusef, flying without some type of carry-on or baggage would be tough to accept. If I need to take a computer with me that would mean I couldn't use it the evening before OR until I arrived at my destination. That wouldn't work for a lot of business travellers, or at least it would change the face of business travel (back to the road on all but the longest trips).

[SkinsThug]

I'm sure our intelligence community receives info on threats, scares, plots and plans from muslim groups all the time, and they have to sort out which of them may be valid. Not an easy task.

I want to see what the memo's actually say, and how much specific info they contain about 9/11. I'm no fan of Bush, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

But if those memos contained some decent info on the attacks and he did nothing, there will be a @#$%storm that's for sure.

Too early to tell -- I want to wait and see what's what.

[Cskin]

Let's not forget the reports of "pre-planning" by members of the govt. and emergency agencies.

- The head of FEMA of New York remarked on national T.V. (Larry King) that they had all personnel in place and ready on SEPT. 10th., the night before the attack.

- Bush's brother Jeb signed what amounted to a martial law declaration in FL. the day before the attack.

- Gov. Davis of California was advised not to fly on the Sept. 11th. by officials of the federal govt.

I believe the Govt. knew of the pending attack, only in generalities and didn't have enough specific information to prevent it. And I do believe they had no idea that the planes would be used as guided missiles. Hijackings - Yes, flying them into buildings - NO.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Cskin

Let's not forget the reports of "pre-planning" by members of the govt. and emergency agencies.

- The head of FEMA of New York remarked on national T.V. (Larry King) that they had all personnel in place and ready on SEPT. 10th., the night before the attack.

- Bush's brother Jeb signed what amounted to a martial law declaration in FL. the day before the attack.

- Gov. Davis of California was advised not to fly on the Sept. 11th. by officials of the federal govt.

I believe the Govt. knew of the pending attack, only in generalities and didn't have enough specific information to prevent it. And I do believe they had no idea that the planes would be used as guided missiles. Hijackings - Yes, flying them into buildings - NO.

Cskin, can you document your sources for your three assertions? (FEMA, Jeb Bush, Davis) Your allegations are quite inflammatory and are much more serious than the recent disclosures about the August Bush briefing. I'd like to know how credible the allegations are.

[fansince62]

geez.....when is Oliver Stone going to post?.......have any of you ever worked in the itelligence arena? do you understand how the decision process works? the quality of information that is received? the risk analysis that is conducted? my recommendtaion is that you sit back and let this one play out. there is a lot of political maneuvering going on right now that is frankly rather discouraging - grandstanding as it were.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by fansince62

geez.....when is Oliver Stone going to post?.......have any of you ever worked in the itelligence arena? do you understand how the decision process works? the quality of information that is received? the risk analysis that is conducted? my recommendtaion is that you sit back and let this one play out. there is a lot of political maneuvering going on right now that is frankly rather discouraging - grandstanding as it were.

Finally, someone with a brain!!!! :thumbsup:

[Darth Tater]

This part of the 'spiricy makes no sense at this time. The plot hatched by Mr Nixon after he lost to Kennedy to make sure the Bush father-son presidency came about already missed when George H only made one term (of course, the Brotherhood may have believed that he was to tainted by Reagan to deserve a second term and Clinton proved useful) now why would they sabatoge the son? Although Gore did seem more their type. Did Hillary sell-out?

[Mickalino]

So we're only going to try to prevent terrorist attacks that are conventional, and known to have happened before ? Has anyone figured out that terrorists are innovative, and will go to any length to do what they want ? We need to think of what a terrorist could do, before they do it. Not just try to prevent what they've done before. You have to think like the enemy. If the enemy knows you're beefed up in one area, obviously he's not going to attack that, he's going to go after your weakness. Example : I doubt the next terrorist attacks on the U.S are going to involve a hijacked airliner. Because, we're expecting that, and placing most of our energy preventing that. They will find some other chink in our armor, which isn't so hard to find, in our apathetic society. Seems we're always one step behind them

[Skins24]

So we're only going to try to prevent terrorist attacks that are conventional, and known to have happened before ?

Eh?

Who said that?

They are constantly thinking of new ways to try to prevent all terrorist attacks, conventional or otherwise.

[NavyDave]

This is trifling.

WE had daily, stacks of info with threats and there was no way to go after all of them.

Plus the Patriot act which allows all agencies to talk and share info wasnt in effect on 9-11.

Funny how the Clinton Admin blew off the Sudanese offer to take Bin Laden back in 96-97.

So if I am to believe liberal democrats and haytas of bush, Dubba Ya purposely allowed people to die and the country and economy to take a major hit.

WTF!!

This snake in grass running the Senate hasnt done Jack Sh!t except snivel, b1tch, say he is concrned about this or that and of course obstruct.

Has he allowed one confirmation or passed bills that would help the country?

No. all I see is ay attempt they can find to bring the guy down.

I dont hear better solutions just this is bad that is bad.

There is not one liberal I'd feel comfortable running the show in this circumstance especially since Sen Nunn is gone.

[NavyDave]

CNN reports that there was a hijacking scheme back in 1995 the source was two terrorists caught in Manilla phillipines.

Ramsee Yusef (sp) was one

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by NavyDave

This is trifling.

WE had daily, stacks of info with threats and there was no way to go after all of them.

Plus the Patriot act which allows all agencies to talk and share info wasnt in effect on 9-11.

Funny how the Clinton Admin blew off the Sudanese offer to take Bin Laden back in 96-97.

So if I am to believe liberal democrats and haytas of bush, Dubba Ya purposely allowed people to die and the country and economy to take a major hit.

WTF!!

This snake in grass running the Senate hasnt done Jack Sh!t except snivel, b1tch, say he is concrned about this or that and of course obstruct.

Has he allowed one confirmation or passed bills that would help the country?

No. all I see is ay attempt they can find to bring the guy down.

I dont hear better solutions just this is bad that is bad.

There is not one liberal I'd feel comfortable running the show in this circumstance especially since Sen Nunn is gone.

How much you wana bet this all goes away VERY quickly after the Democrats see the polls about this matter. 70% think this is an attack against Bush and that was on CNN!!

Personally, I hope they keep on going because they will def lose the Senate after this crap.

[Brave]

Fox is reporting right now that the National Intelligence Council (NIC - attached to the CIA) issued a report in 1999 ... a full 2 years before the attacks ... stating it was possible that bin Laden's operatives might try to hijack airliners and fly them into the Pentagon, CIA Headquarters and/or the White House.

[Mad Mike]

Sorry, but I think that anyone who beleives that Bush would knowingly not act on a clear threat is WAY off base (to put it kindly).

If any blame is to be placed on a president it should be on Clinton, who for years reacted to terroism and Al Quada with a weak hand.

Remember Somalia? Clinton placed US troops under UN control who in turn named Ismat Kattani, an Iraqi as it's envoy to Somalia (brilliant move). Then after US troops were ambushed while hunting for Aidid and dead US soldiers were dragged through the streets of Mogaishu, Clinton offers him a place in the peace talks. For what, good behavior? Then what did we do? We tucked out tail between our legs and ran.

What was Clinton's response to an assaination atempt on former president Bush or the Cole bombing? A couple of cruise missles. No extended effort. just a weak tit for tat (if that). Is it any wonder that UBL thought we were weak enough to attack without fear of reprisal?

Clinton had YEARS to put the peices together and identify the threat.

Anyone foolish enough to blaim the current president Bush for 9/11 should have their right to vote revoked on the grounds of stupidity.

And just for background so you don't think I am talking out of my @ss. I did a lot of research into Somalia for an award winning feature story I wrote for my college newspaper about a student I interveiwed who was there.

[The Evil Genius]

I dont know whats funnier here...the fact that you guys are blaming the Executive office for lack of action, whoever the party affiliation..or the fact that you actually believe that the Executive Branch has any power in our current form of government.

True power lies in the administrative state - it has for 30 years or so.

And it will continue to be there due to the lack of time that "elected" officials have to deal with the issues confronting them.

[SkinsThug]

You know what -- I bet Clinton is Osama Bin Laden! Damn, why didn't I think of that sooner.