So Al Gore isn't standing in 2004...

[miles]

70/30

The first "source" you listed is about as reliable as Mad Magazine.

Since you went to so much trouble filtering through all that stuff, why don't you just c&p the parts that say Rice is responsible.

That should keep you busy for some time. Like I said, they don't exist.

You're boring me.

 

[70/30]

I was joking on the first one dipshit. You are a loser---I should declare you the troll you are and cease communication. But since you are so pathetically wrong and you evidently can't understand my previous comprehensive post. She's inept, she was repeatedly given the warnings of the probability of an Al Qaeda hijacking----she didn't advise any action similar to what the Clinton Administration inacted to prevent 12/31/1999 terror attacks. Inept.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/16/rice.sept11/index.html

Here is the rationalisation for the failure in her words

WASHINGTON (CNN) ---I'm going to give you a chronology of the events that occurred during the spring and summer of 2001, but I want to start with a little definitional work. When we talk about threats, they come in many varieties. Very often we have uncorroborated information. Sometimes we have corroborated but very general information. But I can tell you that it is almost never the case that we have information that is specific as to time, place or method of attack.

In the period starting in December 2000, the intelligence community started reporting increase in traffic concerning terrorist activities. In the April-May time frame, there was specific threat reporting about al Qaeda attacks against U.S. targets or interests that might be in the works.

Now, there was a clear concern that something was up, that something was coming, but it was principally focused overseas. The areas of most concern were the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula and Europe.

In the June time frame, arrests for the millennium plot -- there was testimony by the participants in the millennium plot that Abu Zubaydah had said that there might be interest in attacking the United States. And this comes out of testimony that was there as a result of the millennium plot.

And then on June 26, there was a threat spike. And as a result, again focusing overseas, the State Department issued a worldwide caution. Again, that was June 26, and you probably remember that caution.

Now, the Federal Aviation Administration was also concerned of threats to U.S. citizens, such as airline hijackings, and therefore issued an information circular ... to private carriers from law enforcement saying that we have a concern.

At the end of June, there was a status of threat and action meeting [of] what we call the Counterterrorism Security Group. It is a group that is interagency, that meets under the direction of an National Security Council special assistant, Dick Clarke, at that time. There was a meeting and Dick Clarke reported to me that steps were being taken by the CSG.

On July 2, as a result of some of that work, the FBI released a message saying that there are threats to be worried about overseas but ... while we cannot foresee attacks domestically, we cannot rule them out. This is an inlet. And again, an inlet goes out to law enforcement from the FBI.

On July 2, the FAA issued another [communication] saying that, Ressam -- again associated with the millennium plot -- said that there was an intention of using explosives in an airport terminal. This was a very specific [communication].

On July 5, the threat reporting had become sufficiently robust, though, not, again, very specific, but sufficiently robust. There was a lot of chatter in the system. That in his morning meeting, the president asked me to go back and to see what was being done about all of the chatter that was there. On July 18, also, the FBI issued another inlet on the millennium plot conviction, reiterating its July 2 message, saying "We're concerned about threats as a result of the millennium plot conviction."

At the end of July, the FAA issued another [communication] which said, "There's no specific target, no credible info of attack to U.S. civil aviation interests, but terror groups are known to be planning and training for hijackings, and we ask you therefore to use caution."

Throughout July and August, several times a week, there were meetings of the CSG reviewing the information at hand. There was no specific new information that came in, in that period of time -- after the end of July and sort of in August -- leading up to September.

But the agencies were still at a heightened state of alert, particularly overseas. I think, the military actually had dropped its state of alert. But everybody was still on a heightened state of alert.

On August 1, the FBI issued another inlet on the upcoming third East Africa bombing anniversary and, again, reiterated the message that had been in the July 2 inlet.

Now, on August 6, the president received a presidential daily briefing. [This] was not a warning briefing, but an analytic report.

This ... report ... did not have warning information in it of the kind that said, "They are talking about an attack against so forth or so on." It was an analytic report that talked about [Osama bin Laden's] methods of operation, talked about what he had done historically, in 1997, in 1998.

It mentioned hijacking, but hijacking in the traditional sense and, in a sense, said that the most important and most likely thing was that they would take over an airliner, holding passengers and demand the release of one of their operatives. And the blind sheik [Omar Abdel Rahman, serving a life sentence for ordering a foiled plot to bomb New York landmarks] was mentioned by name -- even though he's not an operative of al Qaeda -- but as somebody who might be bargained in this way.

I want to reiterate: It was not a warning. There was no specific time, place or method mentioned. What you have seen in the run-up that I've talked about is that the FAA was reacting to the same kind of generalized information about a potential hijacking as a method that al Qaeda might employ, but no specific information saying that they were planning such an attack at a particular time.

There is one other FAA [communication] in this period issued on August 16, where the FAA issued a [communication] on disguised weapons. They were concerned about some reports that the terrorists had made breakthroughs in cell phones, key chains and pens as weapons.

There are a number of other [communications] that were also issued. We don't think they were germane to this, but I'm sure you can get the full record of all of the [communications] that were released from transportation.

I want to reiterate that during this time the overwhelming bulk of the evidence was that this was an attack that was likely to take place overseas. The State Department, the Defense Department were on very high states of alert. The embassies have very clear protocols on how to button up. So does the military. That was done,

But at home, while there was much less reporting or chatter about something at home, people were thinking about the U.S. And the FBI was involved in a number of investigations of potential al Qaeda personnel operating in the United States.

 

[70/30]

Loser fucking troll.

 

[miles]

Now 70W40, don't get your Superman underpants in a wad. You might wet your pants again.

Great job on the cut and paste. Nice and neat, and you stayed inside the lines, too.

Well, you certailnly provided the sources. Of what, I don't know.
You left out the part where Condi recruited the pilots who crashed into the WTC.

Your next assignment is to c&p the Congressional Record.

 

[miles]

Loser fucking troll.

And that's Mr. Loser Troll to you, Cha-Cha.

 

[Guest]

 

[70/30]

I said she's the most inept official in American history. I stand by that claim. GWB is the most inept president for picking the most inept NSA. If he wants to be a CEO, deal with the consequences of what your subordinates allow.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: DECLARATON OF A TROLL

 

[Guest]

Last political post of the night...

 

[70/30]

Just to reiterate...you force me to C&P cuz you refuse to believe anything

And the desired coverup Fleischer supposedly says doesn't exist, doubtful considering the Republicans appointed nerfballs and Reagan coverup masters---

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/05/wh051702.html
Q Are you denying that the administration -- are you saying the administration did not try to delay any investigation?

MR. FLEISCHER: The administration made it clear to the Congress that we supported an investigation so long as it was done in a responsible way by people who had the expertise to know how to handle it. The administration made clear to the Congress that we are a nation at war, and that the key participants from the Central Intelligence Agency, from the FBI, and from the military have vital ongoing missions to protect our country, and we wanted to make certain that those who are doing the investigation were expert enough and cognizant of the fact of the current war-fighting duties of the personnel involved, so that this did not become a fishing expedition or another endless waste of taxpayer money in an open-ended congressional investigation. And we worked --

Q And you did try to delay it?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, we work together to get a satisfactory result.

Q Ari, in fact, Senator Daschle did say yesterday that on several occasions, on more than two occasions, that the Vice President asked him to delay or block any congressional investigation. He said on one occasion that the President asked him to do that, at a breakfast meeting. Are you now saying that they weren't asking to block an investigation, they were just specifying what kinds of investigation they wanted? And if so, how many times did they make that request?

MR. FLEISCHER: What I made clear is that there were discussions with Congress about the need to make certain, particularly in the early stages of the war, that the people who were engaged -- 100-percent attention needed to be on fighting the war -- that their efforts would not be distracted at that point, at that moment in an investigation that could take them away from their immediate duties. We made it clear that we support an investigation so long as it's done by the responsible people and done in the manner that would be -- allow for the experts to have access to the information.

 

[Texan]

60/40, you're getting funnier and funnier.

The Republican Party of Texas is having a mini-convention in January. Do you want to go, as my guest?

Somebody slap me. I'm being mean again.

 

[teddybear4play]

I was joking on the first one dipshit. You are a loser---I should declare you the troll you are and cease communication. But since you are so pathetically wrong and you evidently can't understand my previous comprehensive post. She's inept, she was repeatedly given the warnings of the probability of an Al Qaeda hijacking----she didn't advise any action similar to what the Clinton Administration inacted to prevent 12/31/1999 terror attacks. Inept.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/16/rice.sept11/index.html

Here is the rationalisation for the failure in her words

WASHINGTON (CNN) ---I'm going to give you a chronology of the events that occurred during the spring and summer of 2001, but I want to start with a little definitional work. When we talk about threats, they come in many varieties. Very often we have uncorroborated information. Sometimes we have corroborated but very general information. But I can tell you that it is almost never the case that we have information that is specific as to time, place or method of attack.

[snip]

Your C&P evidence doesn't match your conclusions. The only thing I gleaned from the C&P was that somehow, this sneaky fellow was involved:

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Events/1469/DickClark_Ausse_545814_400.jpg

TB4p

 

[70/30]

It matches it perfectly. They knew something was going to happen. They didn't properly warn the American public. They didn't do anything remotely similar to what worked for Clinton's Administration on 12/31/99.

My question is---why? Ineptitude or Intention? GWB and DC actively lobbying Daschle to cease the pressure for a commission, makes me happy there will be a commission. It'll have to be spurred on by the Democratic representation but there is nothing new in that. Our pressure is the only reason the commission exists---despite WTC being the most deadly single event in American history.

 

[Gil_Favor]

It matches it perfectly. They knew something was going to happen. They didn't properly warn the American public. They didn't do anything remotely similar to what worked for Clinton's Administration on 12/31/99.

My question is---why? Ineptitude or Intention? GWB and DC actively lobbying Daschle to cease the pressure for a commission, makes me happy there will be a commission. It'll have to be spurred on by the Democratic representation but there is nothing new in that. Our pressure is the only reason the commission exists---despite WTC being the most deadly single event in American history.

Hi WD40 im new here, well not really. i used to be "unregistered" but now im Gil_Favor. anyway, i have read many of your posts, and i have come to the conclusion that you are quite the idiot.

 

[p_p_man]

From today's Guardian...

"Vietnam vet Kerry leads Democratic race

Gore's departure leaves way open for alternative-energy campaigner

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday December 17, 2002
The Guardian

Al Gore's sudden departure from the US presidential race on Sunday has given the initiative in the Democratic nomination contest to John Kerry, a Massachusetts senator who has taken the politically risky step of saying America should wean itself from its addiction to oil."

Everything is speculation at the moment but we're all watching with extreme interest over here...

Anyone would do as long as he can get rid of Bush...

ppman

 

[Gil_Favor]

Re: From today's Guardian...

"Vietnam vet Kerry leads Democratic race

Gore's departure leaves way open for alternative-energy campaigner

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday December 17, 2002
The Guardian

Al Gore's sudden departure from the US presidential race on Sunday has given the initiative in the Democratic nomination contest to John Kerry, a Massachusetts senator who has taken the politically risky step of saying America should wean itself from its addiction to oil."

Everything is speculation at the moment but we're all watching with extreme interest over here...

Anyone would do as long as he can get rid of Bush...

ppman

John Kerry = douche bag.

 

[teddybear4play]

I like this guy.

TB4p

 

[70/30]

He/she is just the typical Republican. GWB's cracks are going to be Great Alaska Earthquake worthy when the commission reveals the truth. 40th anniversary is March 27th, 2004.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: From today's Guardian...

John Kerry = douche bag.

Why don't you like him?

ppman

 

[Don K Dyck]

Re: Just to reiterate...you force me to C&P cuz you refuse to believe anything

And the desired coverup Fleischer supposedly says doesn't exist, doubtful considering the Republicans appointed nerfballs and Reagan coverup masters---

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/05/wh051702.html
Q Are you denying that the administration -- are you saying the administration did not try to delay any investigation?

MR. FLEISCHER: The administration made it clear to the Congress that we supported an investigation so long as it was done in a responsible way by people who had the expertise to know how to handle it. The administration made clear to the Congress that we are a nation at war, and that the key participants from the Central Intelligence Agency, from the FBI, and from the military have vital ongoing missions to protect our country, and we wanted to make certain that those who are doing the investigation were expert enough and cognizant of the fact of the current war-fighting duties of the personnel involved, so that this did not become a fishing expedition or another endless waste of taxpayer money in an open-ended congressional investigation. And we worked --

Q And you did try to delay it?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, we work together to get a satisfactory result.

Q Ari, in fact, Senator Daschle did say yesterday that on several occasions, on more than two occasions, that the Vice President asked him to delay or block any congressional investigation. He said on one occasion that the President asked him to do that, at a breakfast meeting. Are you now saying that they weren't asking to block an investigation, they were just specifying what kinds of investigation they wanted? And if so, how many times did they make that request?

MR. FLEISCHER: What I made clear is that there were discussions with Congress about the need to make certain, particularly in the early stages of the war, that the people who were engaged -- 100-percent attention needed to be on fighting the war -- that their efforts would not be distracted at that point, at that moment in an investigation that could take them away from their immediate duties. We made it clear that we support an investigation so long as it's done by the responsible people and done in the manner that would be -- allow for the experts to have access to the information.

Great post, 70/30 . . . the question is "Did Dubyah Shrub know that 9/11 was going to happen BEFORE the event, or did the minions withhold that information from him"?

 

[SINthysist]

Gillespie (sp?) was worse.

70/30 is a misleading choice.

110/-10 is closer to the truth.

 

[Don K Dyck]

Meanwhile, Back at the Square . . .

Gillespie (sp?) was worse.

70/30 is a misleading choice.

110/-10 is closer to the truth.

So SIN, from your position on the grassy knoll . . . where did you run to after the shots were fired?

 

[Don K Dyck]

"Unregistered" preferred . . . and ignored

Hi WD40 im new here, well not really. i used to be "unregistered" but now im Gil_Favor. anyway, i have read many of your posts, and i have come to the conclusion that you are quite the idiot.

Hi Gil Favor, An interesting post . . . have you considered lurking rather than demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge and bad manners? . . . oh, you're a Republican Party supporter? . . . sorry, silly me . . . and here I thought you were an informed person wanting to discuss the possibilities of keeping world peace despite to best intentions of the present U$ Presidential incumbent and his puppetmasters . . . lol

 

[teddybear4play]

Re: "Unregistered" preferred . . . and ignored

Hi Gil Favor, An interesting post . . . have you considered lurking rather than demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge and bad manners? . . . oh, you're a Republican Party supporter? . . . sorry, silly me . . . and here I thought you were an informed person wanting to discuss the possibilities of keeping world peace despite to best intentions of the present U$ Presidential incumbent and his puppetmasters . . . lol

Ah, nothing like a nice shot of arrogance in the afternoon.

TB4p

 

[miles]

Everyone has different opinions, but some people are fucking crackpots.