Cia Holds Tenet Negligent On 9/11

[LoungeMachine]

CIA Investigation Holds Tenet Negligent on 9/11 Attacks

An internal investigation by the CIA has found that top level agency officials were negligent for "failing to allocate adequate resources to combating terrorism before the Sept. 11 attacks," the New York Times is reporting.

According to the Times, "Among those most sharply criticized in the report, the officials said, are George J. Tenet, the former intelligence chief, and James L. Pavitt, the former deputy director of operations. Both Mr. Tenet and Mr. Pavitt stepped down from their posts last summer." Last month President Bush awarded a Medal of Freedom to Tenet and "It is not clear whether either the agency or the White House has the appetite to reprimand Mr. Tenet, Mr. Pavitt or others."

Tenet and Pavitt need not worry because this is an administration where there are no consequences for gross negligence.

[LoungeMachine]

Gross negligence is REWARDED [ see Rice ] in the Shrub's Administration

[Jesus Christ]

Verily as it was back in the day when the Romans would release thieves and murderers while crucifying those who hath committed no crime.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ
Verily as it was back in the day when the Romans would release thieves and murderers while crucifying those who hath committed no crime.

And we all know what became of Rome, My Lord.

[Nickdfresh]

Tenet also repeatedly dragged his feet when authorized to kill Bin Laden by the Clinton Administration.

[Pontius Pilate]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Tenet also repeatedly dragged his feet when authorized to kill Bin Laden by the Clinton Administration.

That's interesting considering that the fact that Clinton aborted attempts to kill or capture Bin Laden. 3000 Americans are dead because he refused to accept Bin Laden when Sudan offered him to us. “What, we have nothing to charge him with” was the Clinton retort. When the CIA located him several times, he nixed captured/kill operations because he wouldn’t commit to a plan that didn’t promise zero collateral damage. What military operation doesn’t involve collateral damage? Thanks to your boy Clinton, 3000 people perished. But, that’s OK, at least we didn’t kill a few hairy women and few goats in Afghanistan.

[Pontius Pilate]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ
Verily as it was back in the day when the Romans would release thieves and murderers while crucifying those who hath committed no crime.

I believe in allowing the people decided who to spare and execute. Lord, you created free will. Once the people decide, it is out of my hands.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Pontius Pilate
That's interesting considering that the fact that Clinton aborted attempts to kill or capture Bin Laden. 3000 Americans are dead because he refused to accept Bin Laden when Sudan offered him to us. What, we have nothing to charge him with” was the Clinton retort. When the CIA located him several times, he nixed captured/kill operations because he wouldn’t commit to a plan that didn’t promise zero collateral damage. What military operation doesn’t involve collateral damage?


A load of bullshit! I already disposed of that partisan, blame-Clinton myth. Actually it was a three way deal sending him back to Saudi Arabia for trial (didn't want him) and they really had little to go on for a trial anyway (in the US). I guess apologists like you dredge this shit up as a means to absolve thy sheppard BUSHEEP. Clinton authorized the killing of Bin Laden three times and three times Tenet either dragged his feet until too late or countermanded the order. Read "Imperial Hubris" by 'Anonymous.' He'll tell ya' all about it. By the way, how many cabinet level meetings did Bush hold on terrorism? Answer--NONE! At least Clinton cared a little bit.




Thanks to your boy Clinton, 3000 people perished. But, that’s OK, at least we didn’t kill a few hairy women and few goats in Afghanistan.

Wrong again! Firstly, he's not my boy BUSHEEP. In fact the cruise missile strikes around 96' in the Sudan killed dozens, even a hundred or more al-Qaida family members. In fact, some speculate that Bin Laden was so enraged, that's when he began with the 9/11 planning reasoning that the gloves were off so to speak. But hey, don't let facts or logic preclude you from blaming the guy who was president for nine months and gave a shit about terrorism or Bin Laden. I am not saying Clinton is blamless, but Bush & especially Tenet clearly deserve the lions share.:rolleyes:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Tenet also repeatedly dragged his feet when authorized to kill Bin Laden by the Clinton Administration.

That's a great way to try to deflect the bullets for your boy Clinton, but its not true. Clinton didn't do SHIT about bin Laden except GET AWAY.

FACT!!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
That's a great way to try to deflect the bullets for your boy Clinton, but its not true. Clinton didn't do SHIT about bin Laden except GET AWAY.

FACT!!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I don't feel like kicking my 9/11 thread up now that you never read, but the facts are clearly against you on this one.;)

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I don't feel like kicking my 9/11 thread up now that you never read, but the facts are clearly against you on this one.;)


Let me guess......Liberal sources? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Let me guess......Liberal sources? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

From authentic news and literary sources (i.e. "open source or white intelligence"). Judge for yourself. Awe fuck it, I'll bump it now!

[Nickdfresh]

This was lifted from the 'Liberal' 9/11 Commission Report:




The US permanently stations two submarines in the Indian Ocean, ready to hit al-Qaeda with cruise missiles on short notice. Six to ten hours advance warning is now needed to review the decision, program the cruise missiles and have them reach their target. On at least three occasions, spies in Afghanistan report bin Laden's location with information suggesting he would remain there for some time. Each time, Clinton approves the strike. Each time, CIA Director Tenet says the information is not reliable enough and the attack cannot go forward. [Washington Post 12/19/01; New York Times 12/30/01] At some point in 2000 the submarines are withdrawn, apparently because the Navy wanted to use them for other purposes. So when the unmanned Predator spy plane flies over Afghanistan and identifies bin Laden (see August-October 2000), there is no way to capitalize on that opportunity. [Against All Enemies, by Richard Clarke, 3/04, pp. 220-221] The Bush Administration fails to resume the submarine patrol (see January 27, 2001). Lacking any way to attack bin Laden, military plans to strike at him are no longer updated after March 2001. [9/11 Commission Report 3/24/04)


I believfe there are at least THREE more instances like this. Clinton is not blameless, but out of a lineup of Bush, Tenet, & himself, Bill has the least to answer for!

[ODShowtime]

and that's a fact BIOTCH

I don't even give a shit about Clinton (nor does anyone with any sense at this point) but it's funny to see you people eat up some nice words.

Nick, I'd vote for ya again if I could.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
This was lifted from the 'Liberal' 9/11 Commission Report:



I believfe there...

FUCKING TYPOS!

[Pontius Pilate]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
A load of bullshit! I already disposed of that partisan, blame-Clinton myth. Actually it was a three way deal sending him back to Saudi Arabia for trial (didn't want him) and they really had little to go on for a trial anyway (in the US).

That's interesting since Monsour Ijaz, who negotiated the deal, has said that the deal was to give him DIRECTLY TO AMERICA. Why would Clinton say "I have nothing to charge him with" if he was going to Saudi Arabia? Who gives a wiff about trying a terrorist? The problem with liberals, like yourself, is the fact that you see terrorism as a law enforcement issue. A bullet in his head in the desert would have sufficed. But, Clinton and the rest of the libs can't be so barbaric. God forbid, the liberal elites exit the fantasy land of intellectual protocol and theoretical what ifs and enter the blood and iron reality that governs our world.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Pontius Pilate
Why would Clinton say "I have nothing to charge him with" if he was going to Saudi Arabia? Who gives a wiff about trying a terrorist? The problem with liberals, like yourself, is the fact that you see terrorism as a law enforcement issue. A bullet in his head in the desert would have sufficed. But, Clinton and the rest of the libs can't be so barbaric...

What part about firing cruise-missiles at Bin Laden did you not understand?

[BigBadBrian]

originally posted by NickdFresh
The US permanently stations two submarines in the Indian Ocean, ready to hit al-Qaeda with cruise missiles on short notice. Six to ten hours advance warning is now needed to review the decision, program the cruise missiles and have them reach their target. On at least three occasions, spies in Afghanistan report bin Laden's location with information suggesting he would remain there for some time. Each time, Clinton approves the strike. Each time, CIA Director Tenet says the information is not reliable enough and the attack cannot go forward. [Washington Post 12/19/01; New York Times 12/30/01] At some point in 2000 the submarines are withdrawn, apparently because the Navy wanted to use them for other purposes. So when the unmanned Predator spy plane flies over Afghanistan and identifies bin Laden (see August-October 2000), there is no way to capitalize on that opportunity. [Against All Enemies, by Richard Clarke, 3/04, pp. 220-221] The Bush Administration fails to resume the submarine patrol (see January 27, 2001). Lacking any way to attack bin Laden, military plans to strike at him are no longer updated after March 2001. [9/11 Commission Report 3/24/04)

Trying to hit an individual target hundreds of miles of away with cruise missiles is assinine. You use Tomahawks to take out large, hardened targets or groups of people. At least Tenet was smart enough to realize that.

Dickie Clarke was not. It's like trying to hunt jackrabbits with a howitzer. That "target" is simply just not going to sit still long enough for you to get a good shot. Are we forgetting that Clinton could've ordered the Navy to stand down with their other commitments and pursue the bin Laden opportunity instead? Huh? Are we forgetting that Clinton et al. tried to nail bin Laded at Khost in Afghanistan in August of 1998 but missed?

I read Clarke's book. Part's are interesting, but ultimately, he's a shrill for Clinton just trying to cover his own stupid ass.

[Pontius Pilate]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
What part about firing cruise-missiles at Bin Laden did you not understand?

Wag the dog.

Mr. Fresh, is firing missiles at aspirin factories your version of fighting terror? What did President Clinton expect to thwart? The proliferation of Weapons of Medicinal Destruction?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian I read Clarke's book. Part's are interesting, but ultimately, he's a shrill for Clinton just trying to cover his own stupid ass.

Now was that a typo, or do you really think that's what a "shrill" is?

shill Audio pronunciation of "shill" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (shl) Slang
n.

One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.

I think it's the latter. dumbass.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Pontius Pilate
Wag the dog.

Mr. Fresh, is firing missiles at aspirin factories your version of fighting terror? What did President Clinton expect to thwart? The proliferation of Weapons of Medicinal Destruction?

No. I think a president sitting on his ass in the Oval Office ignoring the problem IS!;) (when he wasn't busy on vacation ignoring the problem!)

Firing them at training camps is. He did in fact attempt to kill Bin Laden several times.

How many times did Bush send out forces against Bin Laden prior to 9/11? At all? NO!

You guys are completely obsessed with Clinton! And don't use "wag the Dog" double-speak with me when you guys supported an invasion based on fictitious WMD's and a so-called 'War of Liberation' mentality that is utterly hypocritical. Can we get past the "it's all Clinton's fault 'cause I voted for Bush" crap?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Now was that a typo, or do you really think that's what a "shrill" is?

shill Audio pronunciation of "shill" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (shl) Slang
n.

One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.

I think it's the latter. dumbass.

Thanks. Since you've stooped to making fun of others typos (I guess that's all you've got to do) I'll let you proof all my correspondence. It pays $0.10 an hour. Are those terms acceptable? Let me know.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Thanks. Since you've stooped to making fun of others typos (I guess that's all you've got to do) I'll let you proof all my correspondence. It pays $0.10 an hour. Are those terms acceptable? Let me know.

No, I'm just chipping away at the pathetic ego show you put on.

You've got nothing to say. The more I think about it, I've maybe seen 3 or 4 decent paragraphs from you ever. For you to judge anyone is laughable.

And that wasn't a typo. R is pretty far away from s and h. You just thought a shrill was someone who advocates for another. because you're not that smart.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
No, I'm just chipping away at the pathetic ego show you put on.

You've got nothing to say. The more I think about it, I've maybe seen 3 or 4 decent paragraphs from you ever. For you to judge anyone is laughable.

And that wasn't a typo. R is pretty far away from s and h. You just thought a shrill was someone who advocates for another. because you're not that smart.

Ha Ha Ha! DEMON CUNT loves ODShowtime!

I wouldn't add OD to my ignore list.

[ODShowtime]

watch out or we'll be accused of fellating one another.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
watch out or we'll be accused of fellating one another.

I know. Right-wingers always like to accuse the left of what they themselves are doing!

In BBB's case he's fellating himself!

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
I know. Right-wingers always like to accuse the left of what they themselves are doing!

They just can't accept that other people are presenting them with credible information about how fucked up our gov't is. So they revert to bashing and changing the subject. You'll notice not one of them had the nuts to reply to my Ken Blackwell rant. They'll come back and say they didn't see it, or they don't have precious time to waste addressing my stupid issues. In reality they are terrified because the reality you and I have been living in for some time is knockin' on their door. And it ain't pretty. Or they just don't comprehend the issues at hand. either or.

yes, they want one party. yes they want fascism. Us lefties or libs, or people with common sense, whatever you call us, yes we have been rockin' this place lately. And that's why they bitch that things have gone downhill. Because the other side is being heard.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
I know. Right-wingers always like to accuse the left of what they themselves are doing!

In BBB's case he's fellating himself!

Do you ever read what you write?

Seriously?

Then you wonder why people never respond to you. :gulp:

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Do you ever read what you write?

Seriously?

Then you wonder why people never respond to you.

Do you ever read what you write?

Should I count this as a response to what I wrote?

Seriously!

Poor confused BigBland!

[ODShowtime]

that's pretty in depth for him, actually