Democrat Suggests Administration Involvement In 9-11 Attack

[SpencerH]

So we have intel that suggests that the scum are planning a hijacking. Great. Without a when and where what are we supposed to do, shut down the airports? Its like saying there's gonna be a train wreck that will kill many people. Its too vague to take action against.

[Ming]

And what were they supposed to do... ground every plane in America... Threats are received all the time... they had NOTHING specific to work with. If the US government were to ground all planes every time a threat was made... get real.

[TCO]

Hey, Moses. It's hindsight. I know one of the guys in the Pentagon who was a casualty. Reservist from Great Lakes RESCEN. And several guys who helped fight the fires in the Pentagon and do the evacuation.

If I felt that they had been betrayed, I would let you know...

[Panag]

Originally posted by SpencerH
So we have intel that suggests that the scum are planning a hijacking. Great. Without a when and where what are we supposed to do, shut down the airports? Its like saying there's gonna be a train wreck that will kill many people. Its too vague to take action against.

hi ,

you can use a security system like in Israel , they dont have problems with hijacking , ......the only problem is that it shall cost money and the regular john in the street shall have to wait a bit longer before going aboard , ......but the biggest problem to start with is to do something in the support , if people say , its 5 o clock , i go home , and the general rings at 1701 , the most people say ; na , we aint payed for that , ..........

what we should do is unite , invest in new equipment , implement some rules , and most important , work as a team , not like a group of chicken's , that run in every direction , ......

have a nice day

[chequita guevara]

Mad Monk, Ramzi Yousef is a member of al-Qaeda. The fact that this guy was behind the bombing of the World Trade Center in '93, had plans to use hijacked planes as weapons, was only barely stopped from bombing four American planes crossing the Pacific should have sent warning lights to the Clinton Administration, and by extension the Bush Administration.

It isn't that the Bush Administration was unable to deal with an incidental pice of information. It has repeatedly dropped the ball. It ordered all investigation of the Saudis stopped. It was warned that suspcious persons were taking flying lessons. It was warned that a major hijacking by al-Qaeda was in the works. It had prior info that al-Qaeda had plans to use hijacked planes as missiles. Someone, somehwere, should have put two and two together.

In no way do I believe that the Bush Administration knew this was going to happen and let it. What I see is gross negligence on the part of two Administrations (three if we go back to Bush I's Admin with the CIA slipping all sorts of hinky Saudis into the US).

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

you can use a security system like in Israel , they dont have problems with hijacking , ......the only problem is that it shall cost money and the regular john in the street shall have to wait a bit longer before going aboard , ......but the biggest problem to start with is to do something in the support , if people say , its 5 o clock , i go home , and the general rings at 1701 , the most people say ; na , we aint payed for that , ..........

what we should do is unite , invest in new equipment , implement some rules , and most important , work as a team , not like a group of chicken's , that run in every direction , ......

have a nice day

The same argument could be used for Israel. There may not be hijackings with EL AL but obviously there is no such thing as perfect security.

I dont believe that the security problem here has been one of money or time. Its a question of perception, most americans didnt truly accept that any threat existed. In that context, high tech and low tech security costs are misplaced. Now that they do recognize the threat (at least for a while) attitudes toward "real" security (not the "lip service" crap we have now) will hopefully change.

[Panag]

Originally posted by SpencerH


The same argument could be used for Israel. There may not be hijackings with EL AL but obviously there is no such thing as perfect security.

I dont believe that the security problem here has been one of money or time. Its a question of perception, most americans didnt truly accept that any threat existed. In that context, high tech and low tech security costs are misplaced. Now that they do recognize the threat (at least for a while) attitudes toward "real" security (not the "lip service" crap we have now) will hopefully change.

hi ,

well if you dont believe it , come to brussels , one of the two "capitol's" of the EU , pffffffffffffffffffffff , and 95 % of the world is like that , it only takes simple things ; example , more comp's , better ones , the firewall's are almost never upgraded , the same for the virus / trojan solutions , ........gps/gprs/gsm , pffffff , outdated , most people working in the office's buy the newest stuff out of there own pocket , .... ,...............

and then intel , well , we have a saying , to classify horizontally or vertically , .................... , .....get the pic , .............

there should be a change on the leadership , most people when they are on their post's only work to stay on their post , they are not working for what they are hired , ............

a control system , better then the senate sub comité , ........

who is checking the auditors , ...........

more audits , ...........

have a nice day

[faded glory]

THe only Ironic piece is driving the conspiracy theorists nuts.....The war plan on how to go after Al-Queda/afghanistan was sitting on the presidents desk 2 days before 9/11. Wierd coincidence...he had ordered it up during the summer when there where about a dozen terror threats put out in the mideast area against USA from al-queda.


But hey, ive seen stranger things

[MosesPresley]

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=60

The bin Laden Warning: Why Did Bush Keep It a Secret?
05/16/2002 @ 12:52am
By the way, we, uh, forgot to mention, that in August of 2001, while the President was taking a long vacation at his ranch in Crawford, the CIA told him that, uh, Osama bin Laden might be planning to hijack an airliner as part of some, who-knows-what terrorist action against the United States.

That is, in essence, how the Bush White House confirmed the CBS News report that broke this story Wednesday night. The White House was quick to say the CIA intelligence did not refer to anything as diabolical as a quadruple-hijacking that transformed airliners into weapons of mass destruction. That's probably true. But this latest news follows recent reports that an FBI agent in Phoenix in July 2001 had written a classified memo noting a "strong connection" between a group of Middle Eastern aviation students he was investigating and bin Laden's al Qaeda, and that one of the FBI agents trying to figure out the intentions of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was arrested at a flight school in August 2001, had speculated he might be planning to fly an airliner into the World Trade Center.

Before conspiracy theorists run away with this latest revelation, it is important to note its true significance.

First, the news raises an obvious question, is there anything else the White House is not telling us? Bush and his lieutenants kept word of the CIA briefing secret for eight months. Why did they not disclose this earlier? In January and February, The Washington Post published an eight-part series by Bob Woodward and Dan Balz on how the President and his aides responded to the September 11 attacks. The articles--a mostly positive account--were largely drawn from interviews with Bush and senior officials. Funny, none of them mentioned that a month before the attacks, the CIA had told the President, via the daily briefing it prepares for him, there was reason to worry about a bin Laden action. It is a good bet that at one point on that awful day the President or the other aides who generally have access to the CIA's daily briefing--Vice President **** Cheney, CIA director George Tenet, national security adviser Condoleeza Rice, and chief of staff Andrew Card--recalled that warning.

The Post series did report, "Through much of the summer, Tenet had grown increasingly troubled by the prospect of a major terrorist attack against the United States. There was too much chatter in the intelligence system and repeated reports of threats were costing him sleep....Everywhere he went, the message was the same: Something big is coming. But for all his fears, intelligence officials could never pinpoint when or where an attack might hit." But in this administration-provided account, there was no sign the CIA had informed Bush it was on the lookout for a bin Laden hijacking. Presumably, none of Woodward and Balz's insider-sources felt that was worth sharing.

Once again, the Bush crowd has demonstrated its fondness for secrecy. And for spinning. When Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer, facing a combative press corps, was asked why the adminstration had not revealed that Bush received this warning, he reminded the reporters the real issue was that "the fault lies with Osama bin Laden and the terrorists." Later in the day, Rice, up against the White House reporters, repeatedly depicted the CIA briefing as an unexceptional act during which Bush was merely told that bin Laden could be interested in hijacking. It's common sense that a terrorist might be considering a hijacking, she added. But CIA daily briefings are supposed to include noteworthy material for the President, not obvious, generalized information. Let's hope the CIA is not wasting the President's time by reminding him terrorists sometimes hijack airplanes.

Certainly, there was an understandable reason for the White House to be mum until now. If the public had learned of the briefing, questions would be asked. Which brings us to the other significance of this disclosure: it provides Congress an additional--and well-defined--avenue for its investigation of the national security community's performance prior to September 11.

Belatedly, Congress in February moved to have the intelligence committees of the House and Senate conduct a joint investigation into what went wrong before the attacks. (The decision came after the Bush White House earlier asked Congress not to pursue this topic quickly.) In doing so, Congress eschewed the suggestion made by Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman that a blue-ribbon panel outside Congress conduct the investigation. Instead, the mission was handed to committees that have traditionally maintained cozy relations with the intelligence services. And the probe has gotten off to a slow and bumpy start. The first lead investigator, Britt Snider, quit the post, after getting into an internal tussle for not alerting the committees he had hired someone under investigation for failing a CIA lie-detector exam. (Snider, a former CIA inspector general, may not have been the right fellow for the job, since he is a longtime friend and colleague of Tenet, and Senator Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate intelligence committee, has had Tenet in the crosshairs since September 11.) Then news leaked that the Justice Department and the CIA were not fully cooperating with the investigation.

Assuming the inquiry gets on track, the committee investigators should thoroughly examine that August intelligence briefing. They ought to be able to trace it backward and determine what went into this report. What was the sourcing? How did the CIA gather this information? How did it follow up? Did it make a serious effort to learn more about this hijacking plot? If so, what was done? If not, why not? This is an important trail for the investigators to follow, inch by inch. Perhaps the CIA did everything it could and, still, was unable to unearth a clear tip-off. But maybe opportunities were missed. The public deserves to know.

Second-guessing is easy, but it is tragic that the Phoenix FBI report (suspects in a terrorist investigation linked to al Qaeda are attending flight school), the mysterious Moussaoui case (a suspicious fellow, enrolled in a flight school, is up to something, maybe crashing an airliner into the World Trade Towers), and the CIA warning (bin Laden is planning a terrorist action) were never placed side-by-side on the same desk. Had they been, that might not have spelled out what was coming. But it could have made other information seem more relevant or helped the CIA and FBI locate additional pieces of this secret puzzle. The inability of the intelligence community to coordinate its information streams--not even within the FBI was the Phoenix report passed to the office investigating Moussaoui--is troubling. Is there a point to spending $30 billion-plus dollars a year for a sweeping intelligence system--and Congress is in the process of approving a multibillion dollar boost--if that system cannot discern and efficiently handle the nuggets it does manage to obtain?


Thanks to "The Nation" for this link.

http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/viewtr.cfm?uc_full_date=20020516&uc_comic=tr&uc_daction=X

[TCO]

Actually I remember hearing some stuff, shortly after the attacks, that said that there had been some intel of threat assesment. None of it specific enough to be acted on. As was this stuff.

Do you really think the administration should release CIA memos?

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by MosesPresley


I was stationed in Mare Island in '81 for my C school, cryptography. When were you there?

The first time I was US Navy on a Ship (USS Navarro APA-215) off loading Ammo in June of 1964 prior to our overhaul at pier 36 in SF. Did not know that in Aug of 65 I would start to work there. July 31, 64 when to Napa for the first time to see a girl that I knew from Modesto and met my future wife that same day. When I was discharge she said go to Mare Island and get a Job, so I did and 30 years later I retired because of closure. In July 81 I transfer from Shop 11 Test to Code 180 Training.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by GP
Actually I remember hearing some stuff, shortly after the attacks, that said that there had been some intel of threat assesment. None of it specific enough to be acted on. As was this stuff.

Do you really think the administration should release CIA memos?

A big No.
Well maybe to me and a few other.
During the Cuba Missile deal I was in Security division at NTC in San Diego. They took all of us to a gun range to teach us to shoot. I cannot remember if they said it was because of Cuba or that we may have to arm you in case something is going on while standing your watch. They just don't talk to everone most of the time. In the US Gov. it is "need to know" and if they belived you do not need to know they will not tell you. As I understand it most Sub crews do not know were they are day to day in the world.

[Panag]

Originally posted by GP
Actually I remember hearing some stuff, shortly after the attacks, that said that there had been some intel of threat assesment. None of it specific enough to be acted on. As was this stuff.

Do you really think the administration should release CIA memos?

hi ,

to the senate , yes , and as long as i does not bring in risk the lives of the operatives , sure , ................

have a nice day

[SpencerH]

The problem for the intelligence community is that government members have too often revealed intel to the public that they should not have.

[Panag]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The problem for the intelligence community is that government members have too often revealed intel to the public that they should not have.

hi ,

true , but there should be a tight control by the senate , ...

and their should be the creation of a second body aswell , a mix of senate and military , better and bigger then now , because now you have to take an appointment for in 2004 , ........

Spencer , us or uk , ....??? the avatar would suggest uk

have a nice day