911 Commission Reports

[sampson]

Originally posted by vidcc+23 July 2004 - 16:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 23 July 2004 - 16:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@23 July 2004 - 14:13
Ironically, it doesn&#39;t blame Bush more than it does Clinton; what do you make of that?

i don&#39;t think that anyone ever thought that Bush or Clinton was to blame but they should both accept responsibility for their short sightedness. Bush takes a lot of the brunt because it happened on his watch. The USA was outwitted because of its own arrogance and it&#39;s sad that it took something like this to wake up to reality.


I am actually waiting for someone to make something of the Iran section. The report concludes that Iran probably had no idea of the events that were to take place but it was raised that they allowed the 9/11 gang "unfettered passage" through the country.
I feel somehow that this is unfair to raise (given the facts that i have at present) and that it will stir up accusations. Remember that the USA allowed these men unresticted travel within the US right upto the moment of impact. [/b][/quote]
If any president is to blame, it&#39;s Clinton. Bush was only in office for what, five months (estimation) before 9/11? Those terrorist were plotting attacks for six years. Who do you think had a better opportunity the catch them??

[j2k4]

Originally posted by sampson+25 July 2004 - 22:02--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sampson @ 25 July 2004 - 22:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by vidcc@23 July 2004 - 16:35
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4

@23 July 2004 - 14:13
Ironically, it doesn&#39;t blame Bush more than it does Clinton; what do you make of that?

i don&#39;t think that anyone ever thought that Bush or Clinton was to blame but they should both accept responsibility for their short sightedness. Bush takes a lot of the brunt because it happened on his watch. The USA was outwitted because of its own arrogance and it&#39;s sad that it took something like this to wake up to reality.


I am actually waiting for someone to make something of the Iran section. The report concludes that Iran probably had no idea of the events that were to take place but it was raised that they allowed the 9/11 gang "unfettered passage" through the country.
I feel somehow that this is unfair to raise (given the facts that i have at present) and that it will stir up accusations. Remember that the USA allowed these men unresticted travel within the US right upto the moment of impact.

If any president is to blame, it&#39;s Clinton. Bush was only in office for what, five months (estimation) before 9/11? Those terrorist were plotting attacks for six years. Who do you think had a better opportunity the catch them?? [/b][/quote]
Ah, new friends everywhere&#33;

Watch out, Libs...

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by sampson+26 July 2004 - 03:02--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sampson @ 26 July 2004 - 03:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by vidcc@23 July 2004 - 16:35
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4

@23 July 2004 - 14:13
Ironically, it doesn&#39;t blame Bush more than it does Clinton; what do you make of that?

i don&#39;t think that anyone ever thought that Bush or Clinton was to blame but they should both accept responsibility for their short sightedness. Bush takes a lot of the brunt because it happened on his watch. The USA was outwitted because of its own arrogance and it&#39;s sad that it took something like this to wake up to reality.


I am actually waiting for someone to make something of the Iran section. The report concludes that Iran probably had no idea of the events that were to take place but it was raised that they allowed the 9/11 gang "unfettered passage" through the country.
I feel somehow that this is unfair to raise (given the facts that i have at present) and that it will stir up accusations. Remember that the USA allowed these men unresticted travel within the US right upto the moment of impact.

If any president is to blame, it&#39;s Clinton. Bush was only in office for what, five months (estimation) before 9/11? Those terrorist were plotting attacks for six years. Who do you think had a better opportunity the catch them?? [/b][/quote]
True.

However that reply doesnt address the fact that the last thing the Clinton Administration told Bush was that Terrorism would be his biggest Issue.

The 1st thing Bush did was cut the funding to the anti-terrorist agencies..

Didnt the head of the FBI resign before 911, because his investigations into the Bin Laden family were being hampered by the Whitehouse?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@27 July 2004 - 21:15
True.

However that reply doesnt address the fact that the last thing the Clinton Administration told Bush was that Terrorism would be his biggest Issue.

The 1st thing Bush did was cut the funding to the anti-terrorist agencies..

Didnt the head of the FBI resign before 911, because his investigations into the Bin Laden family were being hampered by the Whitehouse?

Or maybe that had nothing to do with anything. Hmmmm.

Isn&#39;t "terrorism" a rather broad concept, like cancer. Lots of different types and different ways in which they act. Had Clinton told him that the Bin Laden family would be his biggest issue, then there may be some substance there.

Let&#39;s deal with real evidence, not just post conspiracy theories.




Oh, please fuck anti-spam up the ass. Perhaps it blocks my posts because I am impeding the forums investigation into the Bin Laden Family. Hmmm.

[clocker]

I think that the events that precipitated, and the tragedy itself are of less relevance than the Bush administrations reaction/ response to 9/11.
As terrible as that day was, it&#39;s been all downhill since.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+27 July 2004 - 20:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 27 July 2004 - 20:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I think that the events that precipitated, and the tragedy itself are of less relevance than the Bush administrations reaction/ response to 9/11.
As terrible as that day was, it&#39;s been all downhill since. [/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-clocker@27 July 2004 - 20:55
I think that the events that precipitated, and the tragedy itself are of less relevance than the Bush administrations reaction/ response to 9/11.
As terrible as that day was, it&#39;s been all downhill since.[/quote]
What?&#33;

Relevance?

Al Qaeda&#39;s actions (the &#39;93 bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the Embassy bombings, the U.S.S. Cole, and 9/11, etc.) and their reasons for doing what they do have no relevance to Afghanistan/Iraq?

Do you mean to say that, had none of the above happened, we&#39;d still be in Afghanistan/Iraq?

I have to say, I am horribly, terribly, almost irretrievably confused by your statement, Clocker.

Please forgive my gratuitous overuse of the smilie, but hey: I&#39;m confused.

[clocker]

Mental confusion is an early symptom of your newly acquired herpes*.

It seems that the release of the commission&#39;s report has lead to a spate of finger-pointing and blame assignment- not surprisingly, pretty much down party lines.
While this may be of historical interest, to me it&#39;s not nearly as important as what happens now.



* As is excessive smiley usage.
So sad.

[j2k4]

Then what?

Is it a waste of time to attempt to ascertain intelligence failings and the like or better/easier to assume Bush was at fault because it more aptly serves the anti-Bush agenda?

I&#39;m not a fan of the Commission; it has been an exercise in partisanship for media consumption, though the report (as archival material) lacks the rhetoric of the actual hearings; for example, we&#39;ll never get to the bottom of Jamie Gorelick&#39;s status as an impeder of intelligence prior to her tenure on the commission, but to plumb that matter would require another commission, so....

BTW-I have discovered a cure for herpes.

It&#39;s called the EDIT button.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@27 July 2004 - 20:46
Then what?

Is it a waste of time to attempt to ascertain intelligence failings and the like or better/easier to assume Bush was at fault because it more aptly serves the anti-Bush agenda?

No it is not a waste of time to ascertain why it happened as long as that knowledge is used to try to prevent such a thing from happening again.
I don&#39;t hold Bush responsible for what happened on Sept. 11th.

What&#39;s happened since is another matter.

I don&#39;t need to subscribe to or promulgate any murky conspiracy theories that prove Bush was responsible for 9/11.
The actions for which he is indisputably responsible are enough to feed my anti-Bush agenda.

[j2k4]

My mistake, then, to have assumed you were linking 9/11 and also Bush&#39;s reaction to a common causative, which (I also assumed) was terrorism.



















I think.