DICK...Cheney - Page 4

**Shek** · 02-01-2007, 23:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedlover1994

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.

I'm not looking for other articles. Show me where in the article you posted that supports your claim that "It has been proved that information was given to the president with time to spare about 9/11."

Lay out a coherent, logical claim that supports your assertion. Out of curiosity, how do you explain that the 9/11 Commission finds directly to the contrary of your assertion?

jjacobs43 · 02-02-2007, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shek

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.

The Presidential Daily Briefing from August '01 clearly talks about them hijacking planes. No it doesn't get more specific than that...it usually won't be more specific. They didn't have any more specifics in '99 either. But while the Clinton administration took the necessary measures, the Bush administration blew it off. They still might not have prevented it, but the hubris of this administration turned a maybe into a 100% probability by not doing a damn thing.

Presdential Daily Brieifing On bin Laden, August 6, 2001

smilingassassin · 02-02-2007, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zenimal;337484[B

Of course it's true. US is focused on Iraq and nobody gives a crap about Afghanistan or Bin Laden in administration anymore.[/b]

So your saying the 2,200 Canadian troops along with Australian, British, German, French and oh....I'm forgeting another nation...its coming to me now....oh yes....the American troops are there for holidays?

**Parihaka** · 02-02-2007, 03:52 AM

Bloody mutter mutter nobody ever remembers New Zealand, been there all along we has, combat and reconstruction, mutter mutter bloody mutter.

T_igger_cs_30 · 02-02-2007, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shek

I'm not looking for other articles. Show me where in the article you posted that supports your claim that "It has been proved that information was given to the president with time to spare about 9/11."

Lay out a coherent, logical claim that supports your assertion. Out of curiosity, how do you explain that the 9/11 Commission finds directly to the contrary of your assertion?

Shek, seems to be a common theme for US presidents, was not President Roosevelt accused of the same, supposedly was forewarned by the British in advance of Pearl Harbour back in '41?..........conspiracy theory's really do take up time dont they.......can anyone truly believe a President would sacrifice so many of his own people just to commit to war.......when the knowledge of such an impending attack is enough to go.

T_igger_cs_30 · 02-02-2007, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Bloody mutter mutter nobody ever remembers New Zealand, been there all along we has, combat and reconstruction, mutter mutter bloody mutter.

We do Parihaka we do

smilingassassin · 02-02-2007, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Bloody mutter mutter nobody ever remembers New Zealand, been there all along we has, combat and reconstruction, mutter mutter bloody mutter.

...and New Zealand!!!

I'm sure I'm forgeting someone else and that will bite me in the ass too!

**Shek** · 02-02-2007, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjacobs43

The Presidential Daily Briefing from August '01 clearly talks about them hijacking planes.

The PDB doesn't talk about hijacking "planes." It speaks of hijacking an "aircraft" as in singular. The report was uncorroborated and was three years old, and it defintely doesn't point to a plane being used as a missile, but rather as leverage for the release of the Blind Sheik. A plane that no longer exist doesn't provide much leverage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjacobs43

No it doesn't get more specific than that...it usually won't be more specific. They didn't have any more specifics in '99 either.

Wrong. You keep bringing up a fallacious analogy. The millenium period contained specific threats within the US tied to a specific small time period. Any specifics from the summer '01 threats pointed to an attack abroad, and vigilance was taken towards the most likely targets (i.e. the G8 summit). The voluminous chatter had ended by the time the above PDB was given.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjacobs43

But while the Clinton administration took the necessary measures, the Bush administration blew it off.

What measures did the Clinton administration take towards the '98 report of potential hijackings? Did the Bush 43 administration countermand these measures?

Please don't bring up your fallacious millenium analogy again. The CT effort was stepped up because there was an obvious need to surge due to the millenium and the other specifics I already quoted from the 911 Commission Report. There were no specifics to surge against - the same intel report mentioned in the PDB that you hang your argument on didn't spur the Clinton Administration into a permanent state of high alert.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjacobs43

They still might not have prevented it, but the hubris of this administration turned a maybe into a 100% probability by not doing a damn thing.

So, your claim is now that the administration issued no warnings, didn't do a "damn thing"? Sorry, but the failings were structural and not temporal. It is possible that leadership could have potentially overcome these structural failures, but the opportunities to overcome them were quite far down the food chain, making it quite hard to argue a counterfactual.

**Shek** · 02-03-2007, 14:41 PM

Speedlover,

Still waiting for you to back up your claim that "President Bush knew and chose not to act" using the source you cited. A simple cut and paste job of the "proof" is all that is necessary.

BTW, what do you make of endnote 130 to Chapter 5 in the 911 Commission Report (this is just one example of a debunking of some of the innuendo in your "source")?

In fact, have you read the entire 911 Commission Report? A simple yes or no is sufficient here.

Bluesman · 02-03-2007, 17:27 PM

He's TOAST, shek. Mind you, he'll never admit it and climb down publicly. But, yeah...you PWN3D that n00b.

speedlover1994 · 02-04-2007, 09:28 AM

Quote One: Proving we knew planes would be used as bombs:

Quote:

The veracity of the Pentagon’s “radical thinking” was confirmed in 1994 when there occurred three attempted attacks on buildings using airplanes. The first, in April of that year, involved a Federal Express flight engineer facing dismissal.

Having boarded a DC-10 as a passenger, he invaded the cockpit, planning to crash the plane into a company building in Memphis. Fortunately, he was overpowered by the crew.

Quote Two: Providing the information of targets and method.

Quote:

They found details of the plan in a computer seized in an apartment used by three men who were part of Bin Laden’s al‑Qaeda network. It provided for 11 planes to be exploded simultaneously by bombs placed on board, but also in an alternative form for several planes flying to the United States to be hijacked and flown into civilian targets. Among targets mentioned was the World Trade Center in New York, which was destroyed in the September 11 terror attacks in the United States that killed thousands.

Quote Three: Providing the who and the what.

Quote:

he World Tribune similarly reports, citing an intelligence source involved in the Philippine operation, that: “The hijacked aircraft were to be crashed into structures in the United States, including the World Trade Center, the White House, Pentagon, the Transamerica tower in San Francisco and the Sears Tower in Chicago.”[10] Paul Monk, Senior Fellow at the Australian Thinking Skills Institute and a Professor at the Australian Defense University, cites “confidential sources” in Manila and Washington detailing that: “Project Bojinka was an AQ [Al-Qaeda] plan to hijack eleven airliners simultaneously, exploding many of them at various places over the Pacific, but flying at least two of them into major federal government buildings in the United States. The flights to be hijacked were specified. They were all United Airlines, Northwest Airlines and Delta flights…

Quote Four: A vague when.

Quote:

The plan has been masterminded by one Ramzi Yousef, who was arrested in Islamabad in the wake of Murad’s interrogation. Both Murad and Yousef were extradited to the United States, tried and convicted for complicity in the 1993 attack on the WTC. The date of Yousef’s conviction was 11 September 1996. From that point, given the fascination terrorists have with anniversaries, 11 September should surely have become a watch date

So, we now know everything except for the year in great detail, but wouldn't this be enough evidence to step up airport security?

**Shek** · 02-04-2007, 11:30 AM

Speedlover,

None of your citations support your earlier thesis that "President Bush knew and chose not to act." Looks like your first attempt at providing a source to do so is a failure.

Now, let's fisk the citations you provided.

Your third and forth citations claim only 11 aircraft involved with stateside targets. Details like the basic storyline aren't important, are they? Next, to crash into stateside targets would require hijackings along with pilots. If AQ and its affiliates had 12 pilots on standby, then why did it take another 7 years to execute a mission with only 4 pilots? For that matter, who were the pilots, or any other details to corroborate the fiction portrayed by your source? Next, since the operatives weren't even going to be on the flights past the necessary Asian stop to plant the liquid explosives on the life vests, who was going to hijack the planes. Silly little details.

Quote:

WashingtonPost.com: Recent Crashes Caused by Bombings

Yousef is already known for his alleged role as the principal buyer of materials used in the 1994 bombing of the World Trade Center. Less well-known are the details of his alleged plot to join the other two men in blowing up a dozen U.S. jumbo jetliners carrying 4,000 people in January 1995, a plan code-named "Bojinga."

"This is . . . the best thing. I enjoy it," Murad admitted to a Pakistani interrogator last year when asked why he wanted to kill so many Americans, according to a transcript read in court on Thursday. He went on to explain that "the United States is the first country in this world making trouble for . . . Muslims and for our people." He said that is why he was prepared to help put 12 bombs on U.S. aircraft that would blow up over the ocean in a two-day reign of terror meant to provoke an end to U.S. support for Israel.

The impressive workings of the bombs these men were making for that purpose are spelled out in Murad's confession and in documents retrieved from the hard drive of a portable computer allegedly owned by Yousef, which he inadvertently left behind in a Manila apartment where police showed up to investigate a fire caused by the mixture of some of the chemicals. Murad made clear that their intent in designing the devices was to ensure they could be readily slipped past airport screening devices and assembled in the washrooms of the planes once the flights were underway.

At the heart of each device was a timer built by rewiring a commonly available Casio digital watch, which could be connected to a stabilized form of liquid nitroglycerin stored in a bottle ostensibly filled with contact lens solution. The stabilizer for the nitroglycerin looked like cotton, and Murad told interrogators that "nobody can think that it's . . . explosive."

Murad said that even if the liquid nitroglycerin is put "in the X-ray, you will never" detect it, which several U.S. airplane security experts say is true. Even newer screening devices that can see through clothes would have difficulty ferreting out such a substance, according to these experts.

Once the liquid was assembled with two small, 9-volt batteries and a detonating material that the men planned to conceal in their shoes, the bombs were to be hidden under aircraft seats. When the planes landed at the next stop, the men were to disembark. The planes would "never reach their [next] destinations" because the bombs were to detonate when the watch alarms went off, according to assistant U.S. attorney Michael J. Garcia. Thousands of passengers would have died, Garcia said.

One advantage of the scheme from the terrorists' perspective was that none of them would have had to get a U.S. visa. They would only have to fly on U.S. airliners making an intermediate stop at a foreign city before leaving for the United States.

For practice, the men allegedly detonated one of their bombs underneath a seat in a Manila movie theater on Dec. 1, 1994. Ten days later, Yousef allegedly planted another in the life jacket pouch beneath a seat occupied by a Japanese businessman on a Philippines Airlines flight out of Manila en route to Tokyo. Yousef got off the plane at the resort town of Cebu; the bomb detonated on the second leg of the flight, killing the businessman and injuring 10 others but causing only minor structural damage to the aircraft.

The fourth citation (and some of the third) contain information provided by a Mr. Monk, who is cited as an "expert." Unfortunately, he doesn't seem too interested in details, either. See, the conviction date of Yousef was September 11. It was 5 September. Silly little details - if they don't fit your agenda or story, just make 'em up!

Besides, it takes too long to type in "Yousef conviction date 1996" into Google to turn up a Wikipedia citation (third hit on page 1), and then type in "Yousef conviction date September 5 1996" and look at the first hit on page 1:

Quote:

CNN - Plane terror suspects convicted on all counts - Sept. 5, 1996

September 5, 1996
Web posted at: 11:45 p.m. EDT
NEW YORK (CNN) -- The three defendants stood impassively as a federal jury foreman in New York announced guilty verdicts to each charge of an elaborate plot to destroy 12 U.S. airliners in Asia last year.

Experts don't need to do this because they're "experts," right?

The first citation warrants some merit. However, your primary reference refers to a non-passenger flight and instead to a plane flying boxes where a disgruntled employee wanted to destroy FedEx. Go Brown!

So, the bureaucratic response is to fix security regarding non-passenger flights. Additionally, it is clear that this scenario didn't excite the bureaucracy, since the president's primary counterterrorism agency cell, the Counter-Terrorism Center at the CIA didn't even analyze a suicide hijacking (see post #43 above). So, I agree that there wasn't enough done, starting with the Clinton administration and following into the Bush administration; however, this in no way supports your assertion that "President Bush knew and chose not to act."

texasjohn · 02-04-2007, 13:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

...and New Zealand!!!

I'm sure I'm forgeting someone else and that will bite me in the ass too!

Ah yes! And India has been fighting the terrorist types since 1989 also!

Our very own Ray has had plenty of experience with it!!

Ray · 02-04-2007, 13:03 PM

And nobody cared then!

speedlover1994 · 02-04-2007, 13:45 PM

OK Shek, you win, I give up. I'm down for the count, battered and bruised.

02-03-2007, 17:27 PM	#55 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,353 Country:	He's TOAST, shek. Mind you, he'll never admit it and climb down publicly. But, yeah...you PWN3D that n00b. __________________ "The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory." - George Orwell

02-04-2007, 13:03 PM	#59 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 25,850 Country:	And nobody cared then! __________________ "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination." I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. HAKUNA MATATA

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

02-02-2007, 03:52 AM	#49 (permalink)
Parihaka Moderator Join Date: 11-10-04 Location: Te Ika a Maui Posts: 9,336 Country:	Bloody mutter mutter nobody ever remembers New Zealand, been there all along we has, combat and reconstruction, mutter mutter bloody mutter.

02-03-2007, 14:41 PM	#54 (permalink)
Shek Moderator Join Date: 02-23-05 Location: Krblachistan Posts: 7,532 Country:	Speedlover, Still waiting for you to back up your claim that "President Bush knew and chose not to act" using the source you cited. A simple cut and paste job of the "proof" is all that is necessary. BTW, what do you make of endnote 130 to Chapter 5 in the 911 Commission Report (this is just one example of a debunking of some of the innuendo in your "source")? In fact, have you read the entire 911 Commission Report? A simple yes or no is sufficient here.

02-04-2007, 13:45 PM	#60 (permalink)
speedlover1994 Patron Join Date: 01-23-07 Posts: 184	OK Shek, you win, I give up. I'm down for the count, battered and bruised.

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