9/11 INCOMPETENCE! CIA Fucked Up!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
How about blaming the guys that actually crashed into the tower, Satan?

Good point.

They were Saudis

Why didnt we invade and topple THAT regime?????

They had a helluva lot more to do with it than Iraq [ which had NOTHING to do with it]

I wonder why we haven't invaded Saudi Arabia....hmmmmmmm

[Warham]

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. He was born in the United States.

A terrorist's place of birth does not necessarily imply anything about the government of said country.

I don't remember Saudi Arabia murdering hundreds of thousands of their citizens and throwing them in mass graves, or gassing their own people, or giving terrorists a $25,000 bonus if they destroy a home in a rival country. Or trying to create various kinds of chemical or biological weapons.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I can't believe you would think that an administration that had been in office for 8 months would shoulder most of the blame.

Clinton to blame for intelligence failures

Jonah Goldberg (archive)

Goldberg is a sycophanting little hack!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/10/911commission.faa.ap/index.html

9/11 commission: FAA had al Qaeda warnings
Report's post-election release date questioned
Thursday, February 10, 2005 Posted: 10:51 PM EST (0351 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months prior to September 11, 2001, about al Qaeda and its desire to attack airlines, according to a previously undisclosed report by the commission that investigated the terror attacks.

The report by the 9/11 commission detailed 52 such warnings given to FAA leaders from April to September 10, 2001, about the radical Islamic terrorist group and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

The commission report, written last August, said five security warnings mentioned al Qaeda's training for hijackings and two reports concerned suicide operations not connected to aviation. However, none of the warnings pinpointed what would happen on September 11.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown on Thursday said the agency received intelligence from other agencies, which it passed on to airlines and airports.

But, she said, "We had no specific information about means or methods that would have enabled us to tailor any countermeasures."

Brown also said the FAA was in the process of tightening security at the time of the attacks.

"We were spending $100 million a year to deploy explosive detection equipment at the airports," she said. The agency was also close to issuing a regulation that would have set higher standards for screeners and, for the first time, give it direct control over the screening work force.

Questions about timing
Al Felzenberg, former spokesman for the 9/11 commission, which went out of business last summer, said the government had not completed a review of the 120-page report for declassification purposes until recently.

Carol Ashley of Rockville Centre, New York, whose daughter died in the attacks, said the report should have been released sooner.

"I'm just appalled that this was withheld for five months. That contributes to the idea that the government knew something and didn't act, it contributes to the conspiracy theories out there. We need to rebut those with the actual facts, but we need the facts to do that," she said.

California Rep. Henry Waxman, ranking Democrat on the Government Reform Committee, asked for a hearing on whether the Bush administration played politics with the report's release. The letter, also signed by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, said the committee should probe whether the report was delayed until after the November elections and the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state.

The unclassified version, first reported by The New York Times, was made available by the National Archives Thursday.

Specific findings
According to the report:


Aviation officials were "lulled into a false sense of security" and "intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures."


Of the FAA's 105 daily intelligence summaries between April 1, 2001 and September 10, 2001, 52 mentioned bin Laden, al Qaeda, or both, "mostly in regard to overseas threats."


The FAA did not expand the use of in-flight air marshals or tighten airport screening for weapons. It said FAA officials were more concerned with reducing airline congestion, lessening delays and easing air carriers' financial problems than thwarting a terrorist attack.


A proposed rule to improve passenger screening and other security measures ordered by Congress in 1996 had been held up by the Office of Management and Budget and was still not in effect when the attacks occurred, according to the FAA.

Information in this report was available to members of the 9/11 commission when they issued their public report last summer. That report itself contained criticisms of FAA operations.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[academic punk]

Warham -

I'm just curious. If you had stock in a company, and it was going well, at a good price, you're happy with your return and dividend, etc.

Then suddenly, you open your mail to find that the company has gone bankrupt. Your investment is down the toilet.

You look into it a little bit, and you find out that a new CEO had been in charge for the past NINE months (not including the two months of preparation beforehand). Now you hear that there were rumblings of a hostile takeover for years beforehand, but it never happened. Fact is, this massive failure occurs on the new guys watch.

Do you still say that it's the fault of the previous guy???

[Warham]

Goldberg took shots at Bush in that article. He's not pro-Bush in that piece at all. That's why I posted it.

[Warham]

Originally posted by academic punk
Warham -

I'm just curious. If you had stock in a company, and it was going well, at a good price, you're happy with your return and dividend, etc.

Then suddenly, you open your mail to find that the company has gone bankrupt. Your investment is down the toilet.

You look into it a little bit, and you find out that a new CEO had been in charge for the past NINE months (not including the two months of preparation beforehand). Now you hear that there were rumblings of a hostile takeover for years beforehand, but it never happened. Fact is, this massive failure occurs on the new guys watch.

Do you still say that it's the fault of the previous guy???

I'd blame my stockbroker.

[BigBadBrian]

Re: 9/11 INCOMPETENCE! CIA Fucked Up!

Originally posted by Nickdfresh


WASHINGTON — A chilling new detail of U.S. intelligence failures emerged Thursday, when the Justice Department disclosed that about 20 months before the Sept. 11 attacks, a CIA official had blocked a memo intended to alert the FBI that two known Al Qaeda operatives had entered the country.

The two men were among the 19 hijackers who crashed airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.

If the FBI had received the official communique from the CIA's special Osama bin Laden unit when it was ready for transmittal in January 2000.

January of 2000...

Who was in office?

Enough said.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Good point.

They were Saudis

Why didnt we invade and topple THAT regime?????

They had a helluva lot more to do with it than Iraq [ which had NOTHING to do with it]

I wonder why we haven't invaded Saudi Arabia....hmmmmmmm

They have our weapons...

http://www.global-defence.com/1997/Saudi.html

And a high number of angry, unemployed young males willing to 'martyr' themselves.

[Nickdfresh]

Re: Re: 9/11 INCOMPETENCE! CIA Fucked Up!

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
January of 2000...

Who was in office?

Enough said.

I'm not the one that spun this article that way...

I never said this particular instance was BUSH's or CLINTON's fault.

But....

The report by the 9/11 commission detailed 52 such warnings given to FAA leaders from April to September 10, 2001, about the radical Islamic terrorist group and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

[Warham]

Re: Re: 9/11 INCOMPETENCE! CIA Fucked Up!

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
January of 2000...

Who was in office?

Enough said.

Don't tamper with the liberals' intentions of blaming this all on Bush, Brian!

Shame on trying to expose the truth!

[Nickdfresh]

Re: Re: Re: 9/11 INCOMPETENCE! CIA Fucked Up!

Originally posted by Warham
Don't tamper with the liberals' intentions of blaming this all on Bush, Brian!

Shame on trying to expose the truth!

Kindly show how this "LIBERAL" blamed BUSH previous to you politicizing this thread.

And why do you claim that CLINTON was "under the table with MONICA" while failing to acknowledge that BUSH took more vacations than any previous President?

[Warham]

No, all I have to do is google the words: Bush, 9/11, and blame to get a number of liberal blogs that are seething with rage over Bush's total failure at security, yet giving Bill Clinton a footnote in the whole saga.

As for vacations:

'No recent president loved vacation more than Ronald Reagan. The history books may say he spent eight years in the White House, but they are wrong. In fact, he spent nearly one full year of his tenure on vacation - 335 days, to be exact, totaling more than 11 months.'

Reagan is regarded as one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century.

'Of recent presidents, Jimmy Carter spend the least time on vacation. He took only 79 days off during four years in office, which averages less than three weeks a year.'

Shows that the amount of time you spend on vacations doesn't really mean a hill of beans when it comes to how well you do the job, eh?

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
No, all I have to do is google the words: Bush, 9/11, and blame to get a number of liberal blogs that are seething with rage over Bush's total failure at security, yet giving Bill Clinton a footnote in the whole saga.

As for vacations:

'No recent president loved vacation more than Ronald Reagan. The history books may say he spent eight years in the White House, but they are wrong. In fact, he spent nearly one full year of his tenure on vacation - 335 days, to be exact, totaling more than 11 months.'

Reagan is regarded as one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century.

'Of recent presidents, Jimmy Carter spend the least time on vacation. He took only 79 days off during four years in office, which averages less than three weeks a year.'

Shows that the amount of time you spend on vacations doesn't really mean a hill of beans when it comes to how well you do the job, eh?

This is actually a damn good comeback...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
No, all I have to do is google the words: Bush, 9/11, and blame to get a number of liberal blogs that are seething with rage over Bush's total failure at security, yet giving Bill Clinton a footnote in the whole saga.

As for vacations:

'No recent president loved vacation more than Ronald Reagan. The history books may say he spent eight years in the White House, but they are wrong. In fact, he spent nearly one full year of his tenure on vacation - 335 days, to be exact, totaling more than 11 months.'

Reagan is regarded as one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century.

'Of recent presidents, Jimmy Carter spend the least time on vacation. He took only 79 days off during four years in office, which averages less than three weeks a year.'

Shows that the amount of time you spend on vacations doesn't really mean a hill of beans when it comes to how well you do the job, eh?

And KENNEDY received a lot of blowjobs, and still checkmated the SOVIETS during the CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS....

But you keep spinning the CLINTON under the desk myth when the constant harrassment from subversive right-wing elements (i.e. KEN STARR and the WHITEWATER myths) trying to overturn democracy was the real distraction!

[Warham]

About Ken Starr, Nick...

'First, Ken Starr did not suddenly start this investigation on his own. He didn't just get bored with Whitewater (which yielded over a dozen indictments, incidentally) and decide "Hey! Let me see if I can investigate who the President had sex with. That would be cool." Ken Starr is a duly constituted investigator, appointed by Janet Reno to investigate this particular case of possible perjury and obstruction of justice by President Clinton. He was chosen to investigate White Water, and then, Janet Reno also appointed him to investigate this case. What is he supposed to say, "No, Ms. Reno. I can't investigate this. I investigated Whitewater, so I can't do this too"?

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/aug3098.html

It's funny how 'harrassments' usually have something to do with mistakes you've made in the past, people you've worked with, deals that are shady...

http://www.gargaro.com/clintonconvicts.html