NYT BOMBSHELL: 'SIGNIFICANTLY MORE 9/11 NEGLIGENCE THAN HAS BEEN DISCLOSED'

[DaShi]

Who to believe. I do agree they believed the wrong group.

This has been the general problem with conservative foreign analysis. It's so weighted by confirmation bias that no reasonable doubt can get through. So you end up with threads like Zevico's followed by the usual nodding heads. It also makes them easily influenced by foreign agents who know how to tell them what they want to hear.

[regexcellent]

The timing of the article is suspicious, when considered alongside the source. NYT has been a mouthpiece for Obama since the 2008 campaign Democratic primaries. If some new revelation about 9/11 really came out, would they wait until 9/11 to publish it? No, they would not. This is a time when people are thinking about 9/11. The purpose of this article is to suggest that the Republicans are bad at national security and the Democrats are good at it.

[The Mad Monk]

While I wouldn't go as far as to call the NYT Obama's mouthpiece, I agree with your comments about the timing and flavor of the article.

[DaShi]

The timing of the article is suspicious, when considered alongside the source. NYT has been a mouthpiece for Obama since the 2008 campaign Democratic primaries. If some new revelation about 9/11 really came out, would they wait until 9/11 to publish it? No, they would not. This is a time when people are thinking about 9/11. The purpose of this article is to suggest that the Republicans are bad at national security and the Democrats are good at it.

True, the overwhelming results of reality have already demonstrated that. Why should the NYTimes even bother mentioning it?

[DaShi]

While I wouldn't go as far as to call the NYT Obama's mouthpiece, I agree with your comments about the timing and flavor of the article.

That's because you're irrational, paranoid, and unintelligent.

[Aeson]

Well we know that now. Of course they believed the wrong group. They got the wrong answer. But was it wrong at the time to choose that group? Not necessarily. We really can't know that.

Even back then anyone informed should have known that Al Qaeda wasn't just a smoke screen for Saddam.

[rah]

I'll like to know what 'neocon leaders at the Pentagon' actually means. Were they administration people or military people?

I think the important thing is that the President gets input from lots of different people, all of whom believe they are right and the others are wrong. We weren't sitting in the room so we don't know what arguments were offered or what supposed "facts" were used. Those noecon leaders might have been quite persuasive. I wonder if his daddy's role with the CIA made them a more or less reliable source in his opinion.

Why do I keep thinking of those scenes from Dr. Strangelove?

[Dinner]

The purpose of this article is to suggest that the Republicans are bad at national security and the Democrats are good at it.

The purpose the article seems to be figuring out exactly what really did happen in the run up to 9/11 including numerous facts which the Bush administration spent most of a decade trying to hide. That Republicans are bad at national security is just an obvious truth but as the actual record shows it is never the less the truth.

[Dinner]

I think the important thing is that the President gets input from lots of different people, all of whom believe they are right and the others are wrong.

In this case it would literally be everyone other than Cheney's office saying there was a clear and present danger, that the attack was imminent, and that it would involve Saudi flight students currently studying in south Florida. Hell, they even said they'd hijack an airliner and ram it into buildings in NYC and DC. That was ALL of the intelligence people saying that and ONLY Cheney and his cronies were claiming it was all a smoke screen designed to distract us from attacking Iraq.

Yes, that's pretty god damned damning.

[rah]

As I said, competing groups claiming they're right and the others are wrong. Unless you were sitting there you can't know exactly what was said. Or if your use of ALL and ONLY is accurate.
Not everything is so black and white. My goal isn't to defend Bush, but to point out that the article isn't necessarily that damning. Everyone here seems to have their own interpretation of the article which seems no different than a president listening to a wide diverse group of opinions and making a decision. The decision can be seen as wrong in hindsight, but that doesn't necessarily mean he should be blamed for 9/11. It just means he believed the wrong people.

[Jaguar]

In this case it would literally be everyone other than Cheney's office saying there was a clear and present danger, that the attack was imminent, and that it would involve Saudi flight students currently studying in south Florida. Hell, they even said they'd hijack an airliner and ram it into buildings in NYC and DC. That was ALL of the intelligence people saying that and ONLY Cheney and his cronies were claiming it was all a smoke screen designed to distract us from attacking Iraq.

Yes, that's pretty god damned damning.

Try doing this again with citations.

[Jaguar]

Seriously, I am ready and willing to be convinced of everything you say, and I'm sure it's completely founded in fact, because you're a Democrat, and reality has a well-known liberal bias. All I need is a little bit of help finding where you got your information from. Particularly, the following.

(1) "It would literally be everyone other than Cheney's office saying there was a clear and present danger, that the attack was imminent, and that it would involve Saudi flight students currently studying in south Florida."

(2) "Hell, they [literally everyone other than Cheney's office] even said they'd [presumably the flight students currently studying in South Florida] hijack an airliner and ram it into buildings in NYC and DC."

(3) "That was ALL of the intelligence people saying that and ONLY Cheney and his cronies were claiming it was all a smoke screen designed to distract us from attacking Iraq."

Just please point me to the places in the text where you found these things to be true. I am ever so earnest.

[Jaguar]

Please help me. I remain confused, because my limited conservative brain is unable to find where you discovered this information. I know we're not as good at reasoning as you are, which is why I issue this earnest plea for help. As a leftist, you almost certainly have a higher IQ than I do, and the generous spirit to help me out. I have heard that conservatives struggle with factual accuracy, so I want to become better informed like you are. I humbly beseech you to show me the sources of that knowledge I quoted, so that I can understand how you know so much and I know so little.

The world is a confusing place for a conservative like me, with my limited intellectual means, but I have faith that my confusion will be resolved when you give me a thorough explanation of how you know the things you wrote above, and can write about the facts so confidently.

[Dinner]

Try doing this again with citations.

The author has been all over the news so you can watch any of those or if you prefer just read the OP.

[Jaguar]

I did read the OP. I read it in full! And yet, my powers of reading comprehension fail to elicit the same facts as you do. Please tell me, for example, where "everyone other than Cheney's office" said the attack "would involve Saudi flight students currently studying in south Florida."

I read in the article that "the dots were not connected" with respect to these flight students, and saw no mention of intelligence officials who knew they were involved with Bin Laden's plan of attack.

I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for why you interpreted the article so differently from what actually appears in the text. I'm just struggling to understand it, perhaps because of my aforementioned feeble conservative brain.

Once again, I ask you to help me understand the the evidence that led you to say those three things I quoted above.