Read the commission reports...Interesting
Reports
Printable View
Read the commission reports...Interesting
Reports
Anyone got a source that isnt a Government site?
The same security that stops them connecting to me, also stops me connecting to them.... and I aint turning it off at the mo ;)
:ph34r:
How bad do you want to know?
For the whole, ugly story, this is the way to go, Rat:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/039...3966779-7964158
A lousy $8 plus shipping to answer all your questions.
Ironically, it doesn't blame Bush more than it does Clinton; what do you make of that? :huh:
i don'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's sad that it took something like this to wake up to reality.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@23 July 2004 - 14:13
Ironically, it doesn't blame Bush more than it does Clinton; what do you make of that? :huh:
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.
I'm sure Bush garnered retroactive blame for Iran's enabling role due to his "Axis of Evil" comment a while back; future commissions will no doubt confirm this.
Along that same line, I found this related story:
ANGERED BY SNUBBING, LIBYA, CHINA
SYRIA FORM AXIS OF JUST AS EVIL
Cuba, Sudan, Serbia Form Axis of Somewhat Evil; Other Nations Start Own Clubs
Beijing— Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be way eviler than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of his State of the Union address.
Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are Just as Evil... in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils... best at being evil... we're the best."
Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil.
"They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
"An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So you can only have three. And a secret handshake. Ours is wicked cool."
THE AXIS PANDEMIC
International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered.
Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the Axis of Somewhat Evil, forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the Axis of Occasionally Evil, while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable.
With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics; Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts About America, while Spain, Scotland, and New Zealand established the Axis of Countries That Sometimes Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick.
"That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.
While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axes, although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in "Guay," accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.
Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately, world leaders said that's only because no one asked them.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: @ J2
I thought so, too. :DQuote:
Originally posted by vidcc@23 July 2004 - 21:39
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: @ J2
Well done, there! ;)Quote:
i don'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's sad that it took something like this to wake up to reality.Quote:
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't blame Bush more than it does Clinton; what do you make of that? :huh:
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'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??
If any president is to blame, it'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]Quote:
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'>Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc@23 July 2004 - 16:35
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Quote:
@23 July 2004 - 14:13
Ironically, it doesn't blame Bush more than it does Clinton; what do you make of that? :huh:
i don'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'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.
Ah, new friends everywhere!
Watch out, Libs... :lol:
If any president is to blame, it'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]Quote:
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'>Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc@23 July 2004 - 16:35
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Quote:
@23 July 2004 - 14:13
Ironically, it doesn't blame Bush more than it does Clinton; what do you make of that? :huh:
i don'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'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.
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.Quote:
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?
Isn'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'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.
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's been all downhill since.
Quote:
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'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's been all downhill since.[/quote]
What?!
Relevance? :huh:
Al Qaeda's actions (the '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? :huh: :huh:
Do you mean to say that, had none of the above happened, we'd still be in Afghanistan/Iraq? :huh: :huh: :huh:
I have to say, I am horribly, terribly, almost irretrievably confused by your statement, Clocker. :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:
Please forgive my gratuitous overuse of the :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: smilie, but hey: I'm confused.
Mental confusion is an early symptom of your newly acquired herpes*.
It seems that the release of the commission'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's not nearly as important as what happens now.
* As is excessive smiley usage.
So sad.
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'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'll never get to the bottom of Jamie Gorelick'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's called the EDIT button. ;)
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.Quote:
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?
I don't hold Bush responsible for what happened on Sept. 11th.
What's happened since is another matter.
I don'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.
My mistake, then, to have assumed you were linking 9/11 and also Bush's reaction to a common causative, which (I also assumed) was terrorism.
I think. :huh:
Huh?
With commentary like that, you could hide dyslexia forever, no? :PQuote:
Originally posted by Sprocket@28 July 2004 - 17:31
Huh?