"Agent: Tip not enough to halt 9-11"___Bush did not ignore warnings!

[KinkyKat]

"Agent: Tip not enough to halt 9-11"

WASHINGTON ? An FBI agent whose July memo voiced concerns about Arab students at U.S. flight schools told senators Tuesday that even if the bureau had followed up on his recommendations, the Sept. 11 attacks would not have been prevented.

Read full story: http://www.dallasnews.com/latestnews/stories/052202dnnatwarning.ccd7b.html

There is mounting evidence that the Bush White House issued appropriate and timely warnings and alerts whenever intelligence information presented to them warranted it.

Once again, crazed drooling liberals and Democrats out to get Bush at any cost -- including damage to the Country -- have stepped in it and shamed themselves.

This Civil War the Democrats have declared against the White House is helping no one, and only hurting the efforts to protect ourselves.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: Democrats put -- and kept -- Gary Condit on the House Intelligence Committee. Don't you feel safer now?

 

[His_kitty]

It's ridicules to think that anyone, other than the terrorists themselves, could have prevented what happened. I think those that are, should stop blaming the President for their actions.

 

[dreamer]

Every day terrorists threaten the US. So should we close all our airports, seal the borders, evecuate all the major cities every day?

No way.

hmm...who am I arguing with? We all agree...hehe

 

[iwmggw]

in agreement

what's the common denominator to the postings on this thread ? (at least, so far)...................COMMON SENSE. evidently....none of the "chicken littles" have discovered us yet.

 

[KinkyKat]

Every day terrorists threaten the US. So should we close all our airports, seal the borders, evecuate all the major cities every day?

No way.

hmm...who am I arguing with? We all agree...hehe

Good point !!

IMHO, we should do much more to seal our borders, and take a closer look at everyone coming into this country for ANY reason.

But, we can't even keep drugs out, and it seems unrealistic to think we'll be able to catch ALL the terrorists Hell bent on doing evil and harm to us.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Septembergate
Monicagate
Iran-contra
Watergate


It ain't nothing but politics. The slightest whiff of scandal and all of the sudden the rampaging majority in whichever side of Congress is taking up the shield of justice against the President.

It's all about da votes.

Dems do it.
Reps do it.
Libertarians constantly do it.

Just another blip in hokey politico hell.

 

[xMorganx]

whats sad is now the democrats want a senete inquiry on all this. It is just politics. I mean if we can all remember pre 9-11 hijacking would of ment taking over a plane, landing it, making demands then a big ole rescue. pre 9-11 we encouraged forign nationals especally those from poverty stricken countries to go attend trade schools and tech schools here, so they could go back and improve their country.So i totally agree the world we were in then wouldn't have noticed the signs. But flip that to today and we could see the ovbous in the signs since we have expearenced it.So i think a senate inquiry into this is Bullshit. It is petty washington politics and a waste of time and $$




and that is my 2 cents

 

[KinkyKat]

Septembergate
Monicagate
Iran-contra
Watergate


It ain't nothing but politics. The slightest whiff of scandal and all of the sudden the rampaging majority in whichever side of Congress is taking up the shield of justice against the President.

It's all about da votes.

Dems do it.
Reps do it.
Libertarians constantly do it.

Just another blip in hokey politico hell.

Yep !! I agree both sides are guilty as sin of petty politics whenever they think they can create an advantage.

My problem is with Democrats and their almost traditional bent toward not following the policy that "during war, criticism stops at the water's edge".

 

[KinkyKat]

So i think a senate inquiry into this is Bullshit. It is petty washington politics and a waste of time and $$




and that is my 2 cents

I couldn't agree more.

btw...I love your AV.

 

[TWB]

"Agent: Tip not enough to halt 9-11"

WASHINGTON ? An FBI agent whose July memo voiced concerns about Arab students at U.S. flight schools told senators Tuesday that even if the bureau had followed up on his recommendations, the Sept. 11 attacks would not have been prevented.

Read full story: http://www.dallasnews.com/latestnews/stories/052202dnnatwarning.ccd7b.html

There is mounting evidence that the Bush White House issued appropriate and timely warnings and alerts whenever intelligence information presented to them warranted it.

Once again, crazed drooling liberals and Democrats out to get Bush at any cost -- including damage to the Country -- have stepped in it and shamed themselves.

This Civil War the Democrats have declared against the White House is helping no one, and only hurting the efforts to protect ourselves.

Even conservative knucklehead Bill O'Reilly says that the Bush administration fucked up by not getting the word out about the threats.

His thoughts: Maybe if the word was out some Airport guards or sales agents might have thought twice about these guys buying one way tickets and carrying pen knives. They might have interfered enough to stop them if they were on a more heightened alert.

 

[TWB]

Our government is supposed to look into this stuff to make sure it doesn't happen again. Why the hell shouldn't the senate, like it did after pearl harbor, look into all aspects of this? Don't you think the FBI and CIA and US intellegence operations need to be as good as they can be?

How is study a waste?



I think your priorities are skewed.

 

[TWB]

Yep !! I agree both sides are guilty as sin of petty politics whenever they think they can create an advantage.

My problem is with Democrats and their almost traditional bent toward not following the policy that "during war, criticism stops at the water's edge".

Oh, yeah, and the Republicans really supported Clinton's bombing of Afghan/Taliban targets.

 

[SINthysist]

If Libertarians do it, then thier attempts to date have been somewhat lame...

 

[KillerMuffin]

The reason the Senate shouldn't do it is because they're not in charge of the Executive Branch. Please reference the Constitution if you have questions.

Bush needs to do it just like Clinton needed to overhaul the IRS like he did.

Sometimes inquiries are needed to keep it in the public eye. However, the problem is that these inquiries are usually nothing more than infighting over power and they have nothing to do with improving the government and the bureaucracies that work for them.

This is a prime example of it. I'd be more receptive to Daschale's witch hunt if it weren't an election year, Bush didn't have an extremely high approval rating, and the Democrats weren't terrified of losing majority power in the Senate.

Color me jaded if you will, but the only reason the Democrats are doing this so publicly and with so much criticism is to sway the voters in November. They've got the majority in the Senate by one seat. One-third of those seats are up for grabs.

The same shit happened over Clinton's Whitewater business.

Do the math.

 

[desert spike]

my two cents:

The investigation should be done to identify what agencies knew and communicated amoung the various federal and state agencies. The purpose should be to improve communications between agencies and officials within one agency. Generally, interagency communication and communication between regional and national agency levels is where breakdowns occur and that when we the public get cluster fucked.




If it turns into a political witch, they aught to shoot all the politicians taking that tact.

 

[RawHumor]

Here's the thing. The Democrats know that nothing could have been done to prevent he attacks. They know Bush didn't screw up. They just want to plant the seed in voters' minds that "Ooh, maybe he can't handle the job or maybe he even didn't stop it deliberately because he's an evil evil man!"

They'll keep tossing darts until one finally sticks, if one ever does.

 

[SINthysist]

They don't have the slightest concern with anything sticking...

 

[KinkyKat]

Oh, yeah, and the Republicans really supported Clinton's bombing of Afghan/Taliban targets.

I wasn't aware that President Clinton ever bombed, or even wanted to bomb, Afghanistan and the Taliban.

Bombing in most of Afghanistan would do little good unless followed-up by ground troops, and Clinton (who loathed the mililtary) was too politically risk averse to ever commit the necessary ground troops to do the job.

So, in that respect, there wasn't much for Republicans to support......although many of them thought we SHOULD take the war to the Taliban's home turf.

 

[TWB]

The reason the Senate shouldn't do it is because they're not in charge of the Executive Branch. Please reference the Constitution if you have questions.

Actually, while the senate is not "in charge of" the executive branch, the constitution clearly enables the legislative branch to create legislation. IN order to do so, the Senate and the legislative branch must (and are empowered to) conduct inquiries, hold hearings, etc. It is a major part of the legislative process. Frankly, if the legislative branch could not do that, we would all have alot more to complain about with regard to our laws.

I agree that there is a political component to what the Senate Democratic leadership does, as there is with the house Republican leadership. Bushie is no stranger to such politicalization either.

Originally posted by KinkyKat

I wasn't aware that President Clinton ever bombed, or even wanted to bomb, Afghanistan and the Taliban.

Bombing in most of Afghanistan would do little good unless followed-up by ground troops, and Clinton (who loathed the mililtary) was too politically risk averse to ever commit the necessary ground troops to do the job.

So, in that respect, there wasn't much for Republicans to support......although many of them thought we SHOULD take the war to the Taliban's home turf.

He did, and many Republicans said it was due to his being involved with Monica, as opposed to him targeting Osama Bin Laden. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that Clinton Loathed the military. I presume that is pure speculation on your part. As to ground troops, it appears that Bush was similarly risk averse and did not commit ground troops until Osama got away. And he had pretty strong backing from the voters at home at the time.

I think it is more complicated than you and Rush Limbaugh try to make it.

 

[KinkyKat]

He did, and many Republicans said it was due to his being involved with Monica, as opposed to him targeting Osama Bin Laden. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that Clinton Loathed the military. I presume that is pure speculation on your part. As to ground troops, it appears that Bush was similarly risk averse and did not commit ground troops until Osama got away. And he had pretty strong backing from the voters at home at the time.

I think you're talking about the "surgical" air strikes against the empty tent encampment and the Sudanese aspirin factory. To my knowledge, Clinton never planned "bombing" of Afghanistan as part of military campaign to subue the Taliban.

I don't know many intelligent people who do NOT believe Clinton ordered these strikes as a "wag the dog" attempt to get Monica off the front page.

Clinton's loathing of the military is legendary, and actually goes back to his college days when he fled the country to avoid the draft, and then demonstrated on foreign soil against American men and women fighting in Viet Nam.

Bush and other allies DID commit ground troops to follow-up the bombing of Afghanistan in a timely manner. He has been lauded by Democrats and Republicans alike for his handling of that conflict....which is ongoing.

I don't think you could at all say Bush was risk averse where commiting troops to Afghanistan is concerned.

btw...I agree it's probably not as simple as some people would make it. This is the most complicated war we've ever been in, and will likely be one our children are still fighting years from now.

 

[KinkyKat]

Clinton Loathes Military

For reference purposes:

December 7, 1992 -- U.S. military and naval veterans and millions of other Americans pause to reflect on the meaning of "Pearl Harbor Day" and the sacrifices made by America's veterans. Many also wonder openly about the sacrifices made by William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, who has just been elected President of the United States. Clinton evaded military service and wrote that he "loathes the military".

http://vikingphoenix.com/news/stn/1997/pirn9787.htm

 

[Ishmael]

Richard Durbin, Dem. Sen. from IL leading the democratic delegation from the hearings said pretty much the same thing. Kinda pulling the carpet even further out from under Daschle's and Gephardt's feet.

Look's like the dem. leadership stuck their dick in the fan again.

Ishmael

 

[Laurel]

Regardless of whether you are a Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, Commie, Nazi, or Whig, I don't see how you can possibly be against an investigation by an independent body.

In fact, the only people who I've seen in the media arguing against any investigation into 9-11 are the same ones who supported massive investigations into Bill Clinton's sex life.

The motives of anyone who would support investigations into one President's sex life and not support an independent investigation into one of the biggest tragedies in the history of this country are more than suspect - they are obviously corrupt.

The American people deserve to know the truth, regardless of which politicians on either side of the aisle go down in flames for it. I don't care if Bill Clinton goes to jail AND George W. Bush gets impeached and thrown in jail with him. We have a right to know what happened.

 

[Ishmael]

Regardless of whether you are a Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, Commie, Nazi, or Whig, I don't see how you can possibly be against an investigation by an independent body.

In fact, the only people who I've seen in the media arguing against any investigation into 9-11 are the same ones who supported massive investigations into Bill Clinton's sex life.

The motives of anyone who would support investigations into one President's sex life and not support an independent investigation into one of the biggest tragedies in the history of this country are more than suspect - they are obviously corrupt.

The American people deserve to know the truth, regardless of which politicians on either side of the aisle go down in flames for it. I don't care if Bill Clinton goes to jail AND George W. Bush gets impeached and thrown in jail with him. We have a right to know what happened.

Laurel, read my post on the bipartison committee that already exists. Please.

If we were to wait for an "independent" body to be vetted for the security material that has to be disclosed, we won't have any investigation for years. By then it will be far to late and we'll have been attacked again and again. Needlessly.

An independent invetigative body in this case is shear lunacy and will never occur. Daschle and Gephardt know that and are just making political hay out of nothing. Their own party members are turning against them on this. Doesn't that say anything?

Ishmael

 

[Laurel]

This is not a complex issue, and a majority of Americans support an independent investigation. It amazes me that some people continue to fall for these stories and excuses being pushed by totally partisan media figures.

Neither Bush nor Clinton should be afraid of an independent investigation. If they are, then that's all the more reason to have one.

The same people who are saying an independent investigation would take too long are, once again, the ones who had no problem with 8 years of investigations into a previous President's sex life.

This is not rocket science. There is no valid argument - NONE - against an independent investigation.

The only ones arguing against it are those who are afraid of what it would expose about either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush - maybe both.

The more I hear people arguing, spinning, and excuse-making against one, the more convinced I become that it is absolutely crucial we have one. Some people doth protest too much. Why?