DICK...Cheney - Page 3

SnowLeopard · 02-01-2007, 11:18 AM

Whether or not someone's family should be off limits is debatable; I do find it interesting, however, that Cheney is part of a non gay administration but does not enforce against that in his family.

But these, one's family, personal vs professional life, are rather philosphical points.

Ie, the old thing of "Professionally, I will prosecute you but personally, I agree with you." I cannot agree with such a stand because if my personal feelings contradict my profession, then I should not be in that profession in the first place.

Should one's family be off limits? In a perfect world, we might say yes but then again consider those who have been dropped from security work because a member of their family "comes from the wrong side of the (iron curtain) tracks". Is it really rational that they be excluded from security work? Some would say yes. After all, better safe than sorry.

Of course, here we aren't talking about someone who might be a security risk but we are talking about someone in a security position. If they support an offical policy of one thing but a personal policy of another, what's to say they might be in similar conflict in another issue?

It's all hypothetical, of course, ........... but we have denied people positions before for similar situations.

Finally, it's not out of line questioning if he's been in a governmental position before where such questions were asked of the opposing side ...... and he didn't stand up to stay, no, that's wrong, family is seperate. If that has been done, if he has stood on the side that has done it to the other side, well, what one does in the past has a way of coming around.
-------------------------------------------------
("I will not have any man as part of my staff who cheats on his wife. If he lies to his wife, how do I know he will not lie to me?"--Army General, (wtte))

Grim · 02-01-2007, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedlover1994

It has been proved that information was given to the president with time to spare about 9/11.

Please show me your source on this. I would like to see evidence that the President was given warning on 9/11 with time to spare.

Dreadnought · 02-01-2007, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grim

Please show me your source on this. I would like to see evidence that the President was given warning on 9/11 with time to spare.

Yes I would be quite interested in this "proof" myself.

speedlover1994 · 02-01-2007, 17:29 PM

Did Bush Know? :: Warning Signs of 9-11 and Intelligence Failures :: (by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed) - Media Monitors Network

Would have posted the article itseff but it's too long. Hopefully that satisfies your curiosity, if not, I will find more articles on it.

gunnut · 02-01-2007, 17:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedlover1994

Did Bush Know? :: Warning Signs of 9-11 and Intelligence Failures :: (by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed) - Media Monitors Network

Would have posted the article itseff but it's too long. Hopefully that satisfies your curiosity, if not, I will find more articles on it.

This means nothing. It just said there were various scenarios explored by the intelligence community on how a terror network could attack us. It never said specificly on when and where an attempt will be made and by whom.

Bush acted on one of the scenarios and the world is still mad at him for doing that.

How about Clinton? He had 8 years in the office during which we were attcked 4 times. WTC in 93, Khobar in 95, Kenya/Tanzania in 98, and Cole in 2000. Where was he to "connect the dots?"

Bush takes office and 8 months later 9-11 happens and this guy wants to know if Bush knew anything?

jjacobs43 · 02-01-2007, 17:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedlover1994

Would have posted the article itseff but it's too long. Hopefully that satisfies your curiosity, if not, I will find more articles on it.

Like you are saying, this article is backed up by many other sources. Especially in light of the inside accounts from Richard Clarke himself and things that have come to light in various commissions. The bottom line is that this administration blew off anybody who took the threats from Al Qaeda seriously. Rice summed it up herself when she said that they "didn't want to be swatting at flies". They were convinced that they needed to take a more military view instead of a policing view that included tracking the terrorists. I'm pretty confident in saying that if Gore was our president, 9/11 would not have happened because he would have let the Richard Clarkes continue what they had been doing. They, obviously, were onto what was going on.

speedlover1994 · 02-01-2007, 19:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

This means nothing. It just said there were various scenarios explored by the intelligence community on how a terror network could attack us. It never said specificly on when and where an attempt will be made and by whom.

Bush acted on one of the scenarios and the world is still mad at him for doing that.

How about Clinton? He had 8 years in the office during which we were attcked 4 times. WTC in 93, Khobar in 95, Kenya/Tanzania in 98, and Cole in 2000. Where was he to "connect the dots?"

Bush takes office and 8 months later 9-11 happens and this guy wants to know if Bush knew anything?

Excuse me for being rude to a veteran member but...WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! That article just explained how both the FBI and the CIA lied about not thinking of public aviation terror attacks. It talks about how they had a good hunch that Osama Bin Laden and Al-Quaeda wanted to fly planes into the WTC's and the white house. I know, you're going to say "a hunch isn't enough", But with something this serious they follow every shread of possibility.

If I walked up to a bunch of CIA people and said a second grader is going to kill the president they would take me seriously, this applies to planes the the WTC.

Chose to believe what you want but there is 160000 words of good evidence in that article. Do what you wish

**Shek** · 02-01-2007, 20:13 PM

Here's your claim:

Quote:

It has been proved that information was given to the president with time to spare about 9/11.

Please cite the specific reference from your posted link that backs up your claim. As far as the posted link, it's poor scholarly work, with improper citations.

**Shek** · 02-01-2007, 20:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjacobs43

Like you are saying, this article is backed up by many other sources. Especially in light of the inside accounts from Richard Clarke himself and things that have come to light in various commissions. The bottom line is that this administration blew off anybody who took the threats from Al Qaeda seriously. Rice summed it up herself when she said that they "didn't want to be swatting at flies". They were convinced that they needed to take a more military view instead of a policing view that included tracking the terrorists. I'm pretty confident in saying that if Gore was our president, 9/11 would not have happened because he would have let the Richard Clarkes continue what they had been doing. They, obviously, were onto what was going on.

So, what specific policy of Richard Clarke was reversed that then allowed 9/11 to happen.

As far as Gore-Clinton policies that did prevent the 9/11 plot from being broken open, the Gorelick wall comes to mind instantaneously.

jjacobs43 · 02-01-2007, 20:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shek

So, what specific policy of Richard Clarke was reversed that then allowed 9/11 to happen.

As far as Gore-Clinton policies that did prevent the 9/11 plot from being broken open, the Gorelick wall comes to mind instantaneously.

I'm sure you can name plenty of things that the Clinton adminstration could have done better. But, at least, there was some kind of focus on stopping events from happening instead of using the "let's think big and not swat at flies" theory. It has been awhile since I read Clarks book but he talks about how frustrated he got because nobody would take the threats seriously in the Bush administration. He was bascially run out of the Whitehouse after years of service (even before the Clinton administration).

Here's Clark in an excerpt from a Slate article I just found. He's comparing how things operated in '99 when they had information that there were plans to set off a bomb at LAX on New Years, versus, '01 when there were reports of a plan to fly planes into the world trade center.

Quote:

In December '99, every day or every other day, the head of the FBI or the head of the CIA, the attorney general, had to go to the White House and sit in the meeting and report on all of the things that they personally had done to stop the al-Qaida attack. So they were going back every night to their departments and shaking the trees personally, finding out all of the information. If that had happened in July of 2001, we might have found out in the White House, the attorney general might have found out that there were al-Qaida operatives in the United States. FBI at lower levels knew. Never told me. Never told the highest levels in the FBI.*

Bush's catastrophic allergy to Clinton. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

speedlover1994 · 02-01-2007, 20:52 PM

I'm glad someone agrees!

Good finds.

**Shek** · 02-01-2007, 21:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjacobs43

versus, '01 when there were reports of a plan to fly planes into the world trade center.

BS. This is where your argument fully falls apart. There were no specific timings, events, or methods of attack. In fact, any remotely specific threats pointed to outside the US.

**Shek** · 02-01-2007, 22:42 PM

A few excerpts from the 911 Commission Report. These excerpts show that

1) there was no specific threat to action on, especially of a plot that involved flying jetliners into the WTC
2) the article you posted fronted a series of red herrings about the Bush vs. Clinton approach (not to mention the fact that Clarke had no specifics about 911 operatives or the operation)
3) that Clark's policy actions would not have prevented 9/11
4) that the Millenium exception was based on very specific threats during a very specific time period after highly public and open arrests of AQ operatives, a situation that didn't exist in July/Sep 01 - however, the 911 report does specifically talk about the heightened government response to the potential summer attacks based on the chatter, chatter that went silent in August 01

pages 262-3

Quote:

Most of the intelligence community recognized in the summer of 2001 that the number and severity of threat reports were unprecedented. Many officials told us that they knew something terrible was planned, and they were desperate to stop it. Despite their large number, the threats received contained few specifics regarding time, place, method, or target. Most suggested that attacks were planned against targets overseas; others indicated threats against unspecified “U.S. interests.” We cannot say for certain whether these reports, as dramatic as they were, related to the 9/11 attacks.

page 347

Quote:

1. The CTC did not analyze how an aircraft, hijacked or explosives-laden, might be used as a weapon. It did not perform this kind of analysis from the enemy’s perspective (“red team” analysis), even though suicide terrorism had become a principal tactic of Middle Eastern terrorists. If it had done so, we believe such an analysis would soon have spotlighted a critical constraint for the terrorists—finding a suicide operative able to fly large jet aircraft.They had never done so before 9/11.

2. The CTC did not develop a set of telltale indicators for this method of attack. For example, one such indicator might be the discovery of possible terrorists pursuing flight training to fly large jet aircraft, or seeking to buy advanced flight simulators.

3. The CTC did not propose, and the intelligence community collection
management process did not set, requirements to monitor such telltale indicators.Therefore the warning system was not looking for information such as the July 2001 FBI report of potential terrorist interest in various kinds of aircraft training in Arizona, or the August 2001 arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui because of his suspicious behavior in a Minnesota flight school. In late August, the Moussaoui arrest was briefed to the DCI and other top CIA officials under the heading “Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly.”24 Because the system was not tuned to comprehend the potential significance of this information,the news had no effect on warning.

4. Neither the intelligence community nor aviation security experts analyzed systemic defenses within an aircraft or against terrorist-controlled aircraft, suicidal or otherwise. The many threat reports mentioning aircraft were passed to the FAA.While that agency continued to react to specific, credible threats, it did not try to perform the broader warning functions we describe here. No one in the government was taking on that role for domestic vulnerabilities.
Richard Clarke told us that he was concerned about the danger posed by aircraft in the context of protecting the Atlanta Olympics of 1996,theWhite House complex,and the 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa.
But he attributed his awareness more to Tom Clancy novels than to warnings from the intelligence community. He did not, or could not, press the government to work on the systemic issues of how to strengthen the layered security defenses to protect aircraft against hijackings or put the adequacy of air defenses against suicide hijackers
on the national policy agenda.

page 348

Quote:

The existing mechanisms for handling terrorist acts had been trial and punishment for acts committed by individuals; sanction, reprisal, deterrence, or war for acts by hostile governments.The actions of al Qaeda fit neither category.Its crimes were on a scale approaching acts of war,but they were committed by a loose,far-flung,nebulous conspiracy with no territories or citizens or assets that could be readily threatened, overwhelmed, or destroyed.

***

Perhaps the most incisive of the advisors on terrorism to the new administration was the holdover Richard Clarke.Yet he admits that his policy advice, even if it had been accepted immediately and turned into action, would not have prevented 9/11.27

pages 351-2

Quote:

The high price of keeping counterterrorism policy within the restricted circle of the Counterterrorism Security Group and the highest-level principals was nowhere more apparent than in the military establishment.After the August 1998 missile strike, other members of the JCS let the press know their unhappiness that, in conformity with the Goldwater-Nichols reforms, Shelton had been the only member of the JCS to be consulted.Although follow-on military options were briefed more widely, the vice director of operations on the Joint Staff commented to us that intelligence and planning documents relating to al Qaeda arrived in a ziplock red package and that many flag and general officers never had the clearances to see its contents.33

At no point before 9/11 was the Department of Defense fully engaged in the mission of countering al Qaeda, though this was perhaps the most dangerous
foreign enemy then threatening the United States.The Clinton administration
effectively relied on the CIA to take the lead in preparing long-term offensive plans against an enemy sanctuary.The Bush administration adopted this approach, although its emerging new strategy envisioned some yet unde-
fined further role for the military in addressing the problem.

pages 359-360

Quote:

After the millennium alert, the government relaxed. Counterterrorism went back to being a secret preserve for segments of the FBI, the Counterterrorist Center, and the Counterterrorism Security Group. But the experience showed that the government was capable of mobilizing itself for an alert against terrorism.While one factor was the preexistence of widespread concern about Y2K,another,at least equally important,was simply shared information. Everyone knew not only of an abstract threat but of at least one terrorist who had been arrested in the United States.Terrorism had a face—that of Ahmed Ressam—and Americans from Vermont to southern California went on the watch for his like.

In the summer of 2001, DCI Tenet, the Counterterrorist Center, and the Counterterrorism Security Group did their utmost to sound a loud alarm, its basis being intelligence indicating that al Qaeda planned something big. But the millennium phenomenon was not repeated.FBI field offices apparently saw no abnormal terrorist activity, and headquarters was not shaking them up.

Between May 2001 and September 11, there was very little in newspapers
or on television to heighten anyone’s concern about terrorism.Front-page stories touching on the subject dealt with the windup of trials dealing with the East Africa embassy bombings and Ressam.All this reportage looked backward, describing problems satisfactorily resolved.Back-page notices told of tightened security at embassies and military installations abroad and government cautions against travel to the Arabian Peninsula.All the rest was secret.

**Shek** · 02-01-2007, 22:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedlover1994

I'm glad someone agrees!

Good finds.

He obviously don't agree based on evidence, since it still hasn't been provided by either of you. Show where President Bush knew and chose not to act.

speedlover1994 · 02-01-2007, 22:54 PM

I have, if you take the time to read that article closely.

I'll find some more articles tomorrow, but I'm too lazy now.

02-01-2007, 17:29 PM	#34 (permalink)
speedlover1994 Patron Join Date: 01-23-07 Posts: 184	Did Bush Know? :: Warning Signs of 9-11 and Intelligence Failures :: (by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed) - Media Monitors Network Would have posted the article itseff but it's too long. Hopefully that satisfies your curiosity, if not, I will find more articles on it. __________________ "you have enemies, good. That means you stood up for something, sometime in your life"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Cheney warns on China, North Korea	xrough	International Defense Topics	3	02-23-2007 15:03 PM
Cheney in a Box	lulldapull	Political Discussions	27	11-18-2006 01:41 AM
Cheney endorses simulated drowning	Ray	Political Discussions	109	11-04-2006 01:06 AM
Dick Cheney former KGB spy?	JG73	World Affairs Board Pub	1	04-01-2006 09:19 AM
Man Shot by Cheney Has Heart Irregularity	troung	Political Discussions	6	02-21-2006 08:58 AM

02-01-2007, 11:18 AM	#31 (permalink)
SnowLeopard *Military Professional* Join Date: 07-18-06 Location: Texas Posts: 723	Whether or not someone's family should be off limits is debatable; I do find it interesting, however, that Cheney is part of a non gay administration but does not enforce against that in his family. But these, one's family, personal vs professional life, are rather philosphical points. Ie, the old thing of "Professionally, I will prosecute you but personally, I agree with you." I cannot agree with such a stand because if my personal feelings contradict my profession, then I should not be in that profession in the first place. Should one's family be off limits? In a perfect world, we might say yes but then again consider those who have been dropped from security work because a member of their family "comes from the wrong side of the (iron curtain) tracks". Is it really rational that they be excluded from security work? Some would say yes. After all, better safe than sorry. Of course, here we aren't talking about someone who might be a security risk but we are talking about someone in a security position. If they support an offical policy of one thing but a personal policy of another, what's to say they might be in similar conflict in another issue? It's all hypothetical, of course, ........... but we have denied people positions before for similar situations. Finally, it's not out of line questioning if he's been in a governmental position before where such questions were asked of the opposing side ...... and he didn't stand up to stay, no, that's wrong, family is seperate. If that has been done, if he has stood on the side that has done it to the other side, well, what one does in the past has a way of coming around. ------------------------------------------------- ("I will not have any man as part of my staff who cheats on his wife. If he lies to his wife, how do I know he will not lie to me?"--Army General, (wtte))

02-01-2007, 20:52 PM	#41 (permalink)
speedlover1994 Patron Join Date: 01-23-07 Posts: 184	I'm glad someone agrees! Good finds.

02-01-2007, 22:54 PM	#45 (permalink)
speedlover1994 Patron Join Date: 01-23-07 Posts: 184	I have, if you take the time to read that article closely. I'll find some more articles tomorrow, but I'm too lazy now.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)