NationStates Jolt Archive

*gets curiouser and curiouser

The single best refutation of Bush Administration assertions that no
one could have known about an al-Qaeda attack by crashed airplane is
Bush's attendance at the G8 summit in Genoa in July 2001,
[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092701genoa.story]
where the Italian government installed surface-to-air missiles at
strategic locations around the city to protect Bush and the other
leaders from just such an al Qaeda attack. This caution was based on
information received by American and other intelligence agencies.
Weeks later, in early August in Crawford, Bush received a report from
George Tenet on the al Qaeda threat. I wonder what it said.
posted at 12:38 AM permanent link http://www.xymphora.blogspot.com/


What Bush Knew In July, 2001

May 16, 2002

by Jim Pittman

You've heard that Bush was informed in the summer of 2001 that it was
possible that al Qaeda was going to hijack an airplane. Already you
can hear the media whores saying "but there was no way to imagine
they would be suicide bombers."

What follows is the proof of what His Nibs knew in July of 2001:

"Missiles to protect summit leaders"
July 11, 2001

[The Guardian] Italy has installed a missile defence system at
Genoa's airport to deter airborne attacks during next week's G8
summit,...A land-based battery of rockets with a range of nine miles
and an altitude of 5,000 feet has been positioned in the latest
security measure against perceived threats from terrorists and
protesters. ... Unidentified planes, helicopters and balloons risk
being shot down should they drift too close to the heads of
state ...Colonel Alberto Battaglini, of the ministry of defence, said
the precaution was not excessive. "The measure, which was planned by
the previous government, may seem open to criticism, but in reality
it is merely to act as a deterrent against any aerial incursion
during the summit. "They are little missiles ... which only have a
deterrent function to discourage any aerial-led attack and they do
not present any danger to the residents of the city," he said....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalisation/story/0,7369,519925,00.html

"Genoa's Bizarre Fortress Summit"
July 23, 2001

...And the CIA station chief in Italy warned the Italian secret
services that al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden's terrorist group, might be
planning a suicide attack on the summit. Italy took security
precautions seriously and placed Spada surface-to-air missiles at
strategic locations around Genoa in the event of a terrorist air
attack....
http://www.jrnyquist.com/july23/gordon_frisch.htm

[CNN on security for Genoa G8]
July 20, 2001

Surface-to-air missiles, fighter jets and naval ships form part of
the security operation, which is also responsible for defending the
summit from attacks by terrorists.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/20/genoa.protests/

"Genoa is mapped out like a battle field"
May 15

...The city's airport, where most leaders will arrive, will be closed
and air traffic limited. Strategic factories and plants will get
special security protection. U.S.A. President George W. Bush is
clearly the biggest nightmare for Italian security officials. They
are not so much worried by the demonstrators as by the possibility of
a terrorist attack aimed at the president....
http://www.genoa-g8.it/eng/attualita/primo_piano/primo_piano_4.html

"The G8 summit in Genoa"
July 20, 2001

...What is security like for G8? Horrendous. There are upwards of
16,000 troops and police on duty ... There are missile batteries at
the airport to counter any terrorist threat....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,524209,00.html

[From the G8 Information Centre website]
June, 2001

...Another projected theme will be the fight against terrorism -
which is becoming all the more relevant with the alleged reports of a
terrorist attack on the Genoa Summit this July. It has occupied a
large part of the G7 Summit agenda in the past, aircraft hijacking
being the first non-economic issue discussed at a G7 meeting in Bonn
1978. Mr. Bianco indicated that there is a widespread concern
regarding regionalist and nationalist types of terrorism, in
particular if linked to Islamic fundamentalism.
http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/g7/evaluations/2001genoa/objectives/crimes.h
tml

There is more that a more diligent, and not-tired, researcher can
find. I remember seeing TV programs at the time that specifically
talked about the fear of a plane crashing into the G8, and I believe
it was an Egyptian tip that such a thing was planned, but I can't
find it right now. I just used Google [G8 Genoa security terror].
Good luck and thanks for all the hard work.

PLEASE DISSEMINATE WIDELY

* * *

Goodness, I think the Iraqi Information Minister has come out of hiding. Your posts are laughable and as usual, you cannot support your views with facts.

what are you talken about--I got LINKS

Links that do not show Bush knew, as your title states. This isn't college class where you get credit for a bibliography. The links have to support your claim, which they do not.

*sighs* You know what, not like I believe any of this, but if your point is that Bush is so bad, I'd like to ask you to name one thing Kerry will do to help the War on Terror.

Go to the UN? The UN spent 12 years failing miserably at solving this problem.

Anything else?

The point is that Bush is doing far more than any Democrat will ever do to stop terrorists. Period. (And more than the UN, while I'm at it.) That's why they try this, because they don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to national security. So unless they can make the other guy look bad on it, they've got no chance. Truth is, whether or not they succeed, they still don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to protecting this nation, or the world for that matter.

*sighs* You know what, not like I believe any of this, but if your point is that Bush is so bad, I'd like to ask you to name one thing Kerry will do to help the War on Terror.

Go to the UN? The UN spent 12 years failing miserably at solving this problem.

Anything else?

The point is that Bush is doing far more than any Democrat will ever do to stop terrorists. Period. (And more than the UN, while I'm at it.) That's why they try this, because they don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to national security. So unless they can make the other guy look bad on it, they've got no chance. Truth is, whether or not they succeed, they still don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to protecting this nation, or the world for that matter.

all Bush is really doing is INCREASING terrorism and recruiting for al queda

*sighs* You know what, not like I believe any of this, but if your point is that Bush is so bad, I'd like to ask you to name one thing Kerry will do to help the War on Terror.

Go to the UN? The UN spent 12 years failing miserably at solving this problem.

Anything else?

The point is that Bush is doing far more than any Democrat will ever do to stop terrorists. Period. (And more than the UN, while I'm at it.) That's why they try this, because they don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to national security. So unless they can make the other guy look bad on it, they've got no chance. Truth is, whether or not they succeed, they still don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to protecting this nation, or the world for that matter.

all Bush is really doing is INCREASING terrorism and recruiting for al queda

If you think that, you have another thing coming. Librals hate Bush because he stands up for what is right, and doesn't listen to their whining. Kerry will go to a useless United Nations and wait while al Quida attacks our country. Actually, he probably wouldn't be able to decide, and would change his mind.

Goodness, I think the Iraqi Information Minister has come out of hiding. Your posts are laughable and as usual, you cannot support your views with facts.

Ummm - those ARE links to credible news sources about the security arrangements in Genoa regarding specific defences against a possible ariel terrorist threat.

And those missiles were indeed put in place a after a warning from Egypt (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/26/MN199667.DTL)


But just this week Condi said "gosh no - we never conceived that terrorists would use planes as weapons..."


Really? You think that the Prez flew into an airport circled with SAMs, but people like Rice and Tenet weren't involved in vetting his personal security going to such an event?

You really buy that?

*sighs* You know what, not like I believe any of this, but if your point is that Bush is so bad, I'd like to ask you to name one thing Kerry will do to help the War on Terror.

Go to the UN? The UN spent 12 years failing miserably at solving this problem.

Anything else?

The point is that Bush is doing far more than any Democrat will ever do to stop terrorists. Period. (And more than the UN, while I'm at it.) That's why they try this, because they don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to national security. So unless they can make the other guy look bad on it, they've got no chance. Truth is, whether or not they succeed, they still don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to protecting this nation, or the world for that matter.

all Bush is really doing is INCREASING terrorism and recruiting for al queda

If you think that, you have another thing coming. Librals hate Bush because he stands up for what is right, and doesn't listen to their whining. Kerry will go to a useless United Nations and wait while al Quida attacks our country. Actually, he probably wouldn't be able to decide, and would change his mind.

Kerry will restore americas credableness in the world--Bush has made america a lightening rod for terrorists. God will destroy america under Bushs arrogance

Goodness, I think the Iraqi Information Minister has come out of hiding. Your posts are laughable and as usual, you cannot support your views with facts.

Ummm - those ARE links to credible news sources about the security arrangements in Genoa regarding specific defences against a possible ariel terrorist threat.

And those missiles were indeed put in place a after a warning from Egypt (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/26/MN199667.DTL)


But just this week Condi said "gosh no - we never conceived that terrorists would use planes as weapons..."


Really? You think that the Prez flew into an airport circled with SAMs, but people like Rice and Tenet weren't involved in vetting his personal security going to such an event?

You really buy that?

As I said in an earlier post, the links need to support what is being said in the subject title. Again, this is not a school class where you get partial credit for the attempt. Either the links support the position or do not. In this case they do not. Opinions in a debate are irrelevant if you cannot support them.

Goodness, I think the Iraqi Information Minister has come out of hiding. Your posts are laughable and as usual, you cannot support your views with facts.

Ummm - those ARE links to credible news sources about the security arrangements in Genoa regarding specific defences against a possible ariel terrorist threat.

And those missiles were indeed put in place a after a warning from Egypt (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/26/MN199667.DTL)


But just this week Condi said "gosh no - we never conceived that terrorists would use planes as weapons..."


Really? You think that the Prez flew into an airport circled with SAMs, but people like Rice and Tenet weren't involved in vetting his personal security going to such an event?

You really buy that?

As I said in an earlier post, the links need to support what is being said in the subject title. Again, this is not a school class where you get partial credit for the attempt. Either the links support the position or do not. In this case they do not. Opinions in a debate are irrelevant if you cannot support them.

So - you're saying that the Prez (arguably the biggest target on the planet) is not briefed on security arrangements before travelling abroad?

That a formal military aviator doesn't notice SAM batteries along the runway when he lands - and if he does that he doesn't ask about them.

And that the specific threat from an ally regarding a direct threat to his life is never brought to his attention during his daily briefings?

Those would be the briefings where he now claims that he had made terrorism a high priority item? But you think a direct threat on him by Osama that was requiring extraordinary security for a trip to a summit wouldn't make the cut?

The title says that he knew that terrorist would use planes. The knowledge of that plan affecting his security has been established by the articles. Your only possible counterclaim is that he is not briefed on his personal security before going abroad, and that he was not being briefed on terrorism threats. But he IS claiming that he was indeed being briefed on them.

So - I think it is fair to say that he must have known about the threat in July of 2001. Either that, or he is lying now about making terrorism a priority in 2001. It really can't go both ways can it?

-Z-

Kerry will restore americas credableness in the world--Bush has made america a lightening rod for terrorists. God will destroy america under Bushs arrogance

Red Arrow, I'm not sure whether that was sarcastic or serious, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that it was serious.

I beg to differ. Bush simply asked the UN to fulfill their own resolution. Three countries that were members of the security council caused it to be blocked. It is now known that these three countries had many compnaies still trading with Iraq, despite sanctions. France even traded missiles to him.

Bush did not destroy America's credibility; he discovered the credibility of nations who are so hesitant to act against terrorists. By the way, America never was liked much in liberal Europe anyway. There wasn't much credibility to destroy.

Kerry will bring in those three nations which have already exploited Iraq to their advantage, and then tried to cover it up. These nations were not willing to go in from the start, and now have no right to claim they should be involved now that the actual invasion is over. All that will accomplish is to encourage them to let others fight their battles and then pick up and exploit the pieces left.

Kerry will also end the fight to stop terrorism. Unless someone fights, no one will. Right now, America is about the only one who is really fighting. Yeah, a few small nations have joined in, but they aren't capable of providing all that much support. If we give up now, that will be the ultimate invite to terrorists to attack. The only goal of terrorists is to kill and destroy and cause panic. They won't listen to reason. The entire basis of their goals is unreasonable. The only thing they'll listen to is someone who stands up and says, "No more. We will stop you because we must." Bush and the people who stand behind him are the only ones saying that right now.

Goodness, I think the Iraqi Information Minister has come out of hiding. Your posts are laughable and as usual, you cannot support your views with facts.

Ummm - those ARE links to credible news sources about the security arrangements in Genoa regarding specific defences against a possible ariel terrorist threat.

And those missiles were indeed put in place a after a warning from Egypt (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/26/MN199667.DTL)


But just this week Condi said "gosh no - we never conceived that terrorists would use planes as weapons..."


Really? You think that the Prez flew into an airport circled with SAMs, but people like Rice and Tenet weren't involved in vetting his personal security going to such an event?

You really buy that?

As I said in an earlier post, the links need to support what is being said in the subject title. Again, this is not a school class where you get partial credit for the attempt. Either the links support the position or do not. In this case they do not. Opinions in a debate are irrelevant if you cannot support them.

So - you're saying that the Prez (arguably the biggest target on the planet) is not briefed on security arrangements before travelling abroad?

That a formal military aviator doesn't notice SAM batteries along the runway when he lands - and if he does that he doesn't ask about them.

And that the specific threat from an ally regarding a direct threat to his life is never brought to his attention during his daily briefings?

Those would be the briefings where he now claims that he had made terrorism a high priority item? But you think a direct threat on him by Osama that was requiring extraordinary security for a trip to a summit wouldn't make the cut?

The title says that he knew that terrorist would use planes. The knowledge of that plan affecting his security has been established by the articles. Your only possible counterclaim is that he is not briefed on his personal security before going abroad, and that he was not being briefed on terrorism threats. But he IS claiming that he was indeed being briefed on them.

So - I think it is fair to say that he must have known about the threat in July of 2001. Either that, or he is lying now about making terrorism a priority in 2001. It really can't go both ways can it?

-Z-

Ah, I think you have me in this debate. You are correct, Bush would have been briefed of a possible threat by air at the G8 summit. Since the title of the post is only Bush knew in July/01 of a threat by air and not Bush knew in July/01 of a threat by air to the WTC, the links support his knowledge of a threat at the G8 and the title.

Well played, I yield on this point.

Not bad... it does look credible.

Kerry will restore americas credableness in the world--Bush has made america a lightening rod for terrorists. God will destroy america under Bushs arrogance

Red Arrow, I'm not sure whether that was sarcastic or serious, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that it was serious.

I beg to differ. Bush simply asked the UN to fulfill their own resolution. Three countries that were members of the security council caused it to be blocked. It is now known that these three countries had many compnaies still trading with Iraq, despite sanctions. France even traded missiles to him.

Bush did not destroy America's credibility; he discovered the credibility of nations who are so hesitant to act against terrorists. By the way, America never was liked much in liberal Europe anyway. There wasn't much credibility to destroy.

Kerry will bring in those three nations which have already exploited Iraq to their advantage, and then tried to cover it up. These nations were not willing to go in from the start, and now have no right to claim they should be involved now that the actual invasion is over. All that will accomplish is to encourage them to let others fight their battles and then pick up and exploit the pieces left.

Kerry will also end the fight to stop terrorism. Unless someone fights, no one will. Right now, America is about the only one who is really fighting. Yeah, a few small nations have joined in, but they aren't capable of providing all that much support. If we give up now, that will be the ultimate invite to terrorists to attack. The only goal of terrorists is to kill and destroy and cause panic. They won't listen to reason. The entire basis of their goals is unreasonable. The only thing they'll listen to is someone who stands up and says, "No more. We will stop you because we must." Bush and the people who stand behind him are the only ones saying that right now.

Amen. Enough said.

Credibility (of leftist sources) or not, for an American citizen to claim that the president, no matter what party he is from, would ignore terror threats and allow thousands of his people die, is horrible. To accuse the President of something such as that is disgraceful. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you don't like the way that things are in American, pack your bags, and move to Canada. Otherwise, have some respect for the office or the presidency.

If you don't like the way that things are in American, pack your bags, and move to Canada. Otherwise, have some respect for the office or the presidency.


I really hate this argument, if you dont like the way things are run in america get out? why have democracy then? The president should always be questioned. If you dont like something you should complain, otherwise, its a dictatorship. Respecting an office to the point that you dont question the holder is complacency. Complacency bready apathy. Apathy kills democracy. Democracy is built on bitching.

That said, Bush has to sift through millions of bits of information, deciding what is important and what isnt. I dont envy him, im sure there were thousands of credible threats he also had to consider. If he took all threats into account and did everything in his power to stop them, all airports, seaports and roads would be closed forever. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. You cant complain about the patriot act or losing all your freedoms and also expect the president, whoever he is, to totally do away with terrorism and react to every threat with all his power. there will always be terrorism, and if somebody wants to blow up something bad enough, itll happen eventually. No country, no matter how many measures they have in place and how devoted to it they are, can ever stop terrorism. Just look at Israel. Sorry, but thats the way it is.

Its clear that Bush knew that Al-Qeada were planning on using planes as missles.'
hell..even the Clinton administration knew about that....it was certainly passed on to him.
But..they problem lay in Bush's unwillingness to do ANYTHING that Clinton did.
Its silly but absolutely true.

Bush KNEW about Al-Qeada's plan...
I doubt he knew WHEN..or WHERE.....

He MIGHT have, if he had followed up on Clintons work...but he refused.
He was focused on Iraq since his first day in office.
9/11, was an unfortunate distraction to him, albiet one that gave him the exscuse he needed to invade Iraq.

Red Arrow, I'm not sure whether that was sarcastic or serious, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that it was serious.

I beg to differ. Bush simply asked the UN to fulfill their own resolution. Three countries that were members of the security council caused it to be blocked. It is now known that these three countries had many compnaies still trading with Iraq, despite sanctions. France even traded missiles to him.

Bush did not destroy America's credibility; he discovered the credibility of nations who are so hesitant to act against terrorists. By the way, America never was liked much in liberal Europe anyway. There wasn't much credibility to destroy.

is that why germany was so cooperative in finding cells related to al queda? is that why the french were instrumental in stopping terrorist plots to blow up other targets dring the millenium? after sept 11 NATO's cooperitive security was enacted for the first time EVER. there was a huge coalition to go into afghanistan, you remember afghanistan, right? they were commited to helping us catch terrorists, dont think europe likes terrorism, they just dont buy phony links between saddam and al queda.

Kerry will bring in those three nations which have already exploited Iraq to their advantage, and then tried to cover it up. These nations were not willing to go in from the start, and now have no right to claim they should be involved now that the actual invasion is over. All that will accomplish is to encourage them to let others fight their battles and then pick up and exploit the pieces left.

wait, back the train up here... wasnt the US doing the world a favor? werent they just doing the UN's job for them? werent they really acting altruistically? what happened to altruism when the spoils came? oh, and this is a serious question, doesnt Bush want the UN's help keeping the peace?

Kerry will also end the fight to stop terrorism. Unless someone fights, no one will. Right now, America is about the only one who is really fighting. Yeah, a few small nations have joined in, but they aren't capable of providing all that much support. If we give up now, that will be the ultimate invite to terrorists to attack. The only goal of terrorists is to kill and destroy and cause panic. They won't listen to reason. The entire basis of their goals is unreasonable. The only thing they'll listen to is someone who stands up and says, "No more. We will stop you because we must." Bush and the people who stand behind him are the only ones saying that right now.

the war in Iraq is NOT A WAR ON TERROR! it might make us all feel better knowing we can bomb anybody we want, but there were no wmds, osama and hussein HATE each other. there are at least two dozen cruel and oppresive dictatorships, why dont we go after, say, columbia and liberate the country from drug lords...or china...or...pakistan?

oh, and we cant stop? what does that mean? syria is next? pakistan is next? the war on terrorism cant be won by bombing third world countries. nukes and stealth bombers dont matter. the terrorists are a few thousand people hiding in the mountains of chechnyia, they are 8 people living in apartments in hoboken new jersey, they are two dozen people living in housing projects in madrid. there isnt any place TO bomb. bombing is just making us feel like were doing something, but doesnt really accomplish anything. we are lying to ourselves, we have no clue how to fight terrorists. im pretty sure pissing a lot of middle easterners and blowing billions of dollars is a step in the wrong direction though.

Credibility (of leftist sources) or not, for an American citizen to claim that the president, no matter what party he is from, would ignore terror threats and allow thousands of his people die, is horrible. To accuse the President of something such as that is disgraceful. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you don't like the way that things are in American, pack your bags, and move to Canada. Otherwise, have some respect for the office or the presidency.

Your suggestion that we should ignore the possibilities of the evidence presented, or that we should shirk our constitutional and moral right and duty to criticize the failings of our government, is the most horrible and disgusting thing I have yet heard on this board. You should be ashamed of yourself, suggesting that we should just play good little puppets and ignore the very real and very deadly failings of this (or any) administration.

And in case you didn't notice, all of these articles date from prior to September 11th. What, you think that the horrible leftists lied about things they had no way of anticipating would end up seriously damaging this administration's credibility? Either you're an idiot, or you haven't bothered exercising the faculties that God gave you. I'm thinking both.

*sighs* You know what, not like I believe any of this, but if your point is that Bush is so bad, I'd like to ask you to name one thing Kerry will do to help the War on Terror.

Go to the UN? The UN spent 12 years failing miserably at solving this problem.

Anything else?

The point is that Bush is doing far more than any Democrat will ever do to stop terrorists. Period. (And more than the UN, while I'm at it.) That's why they try this, because they don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to national security. So unless they can make the other guy look bad on it, they've got no chance. Truth is, whether or not they succeed, they still don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to protecting this nation, or the world for that matter.

all Bush is really doing is INCREASING terrorism and recruiting for al queda

You are so ignorant and closed minded, only acting on emotion. Chill and open your eyes.

*sighs* You know what, not like I believe any of this, but if your point is that Bush is so bad, I'd like to ask you to name one thing Kerry will do to help the War on Terror.

Go to the UN? The UN spent 12 years failing miserably at solving this problem.

Anything else?

The point is that Bush is doing far more than any Democrat will ever do to stop terrorists. Period. (And more than the UN, while I'm at it.) That's why they try this, because they don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to national security. So unless they can make the other guy look bad on it, they've got no chance. Truth is, whether or not they succeed, they still don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to protecting this nation, or the world for that matter.

all Bush is really doing is INCREASING terrorism and recruiting for al queda

You are so ignorant and closed minded, only acting on emotion. Chill and open your eyes.

No actually ..hes dead on...

Al-Qeada had no operatives in Iraq BEFORE our invasion....
Now, however......they do...

The Bush administration has even admitted this.

Credibility (of leftist sources) or not, for an American citizen to claim that the president, no matter what party he is from, would ignore terror threats and allow thousands of his people die, is horrible. To accuse the President of something such as that is disgraceful. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you don't like the way that things are in American, pack your bags, and move to Canada. Otherwise, have some respect for the office or the presidency.

Your suggestion that we should ignore the possibilities of the evidence presented, or that we should shirk our constitutional and moral right and duty to criticize the failings of our government, is the most horrible and disgusting thing I have yet heard on this board. You should be ashamed of yourself, suggesting that we should just play good little puppets and ignore the very real and very deadly failings of this (or any) administration.

And in case you didn't notice, all of these articles date from prior to September 11th. What, you think that the horrible leftists lied about things they had no way of anticipating would end up seriously damaging this administration's credibility? Either you're an idiot, or you haven't bothered exercising the faculties that God gave you. I'm thinking both.

So you honestly believe that a predisent would ignore a threat, and allow something he knew about, to happen? Why would he do that? For kicks and giggles? The fact is, Clinton did jack against al Quida. There were many many opportunities to take out Bin Laden. Lobbing a few cruise missles into the desert once is not being tough on terror.

As states earlier, the president wades through pages and pages of security alerts every day. IF he did know about a plan to use airplanes early, he probably also knew about a hundred other plans, too.

If the president HAD known and HAD taken pre-emptive action, what would you say about that? Would it garner the same reaction which invading Iraq (which is part of the war on terror; if we went for gas, why is it so expensive?) pre-epmtivly, to prevent future attacks, created? I would think so. I don't say that you have no right to question the government. That is one of the best attributes of democracy. The ability to openly, without fear, question the practices of the government. That being said, the lack of respect for the office of president that has been present for the past 2 years IS shameful. It is one thing to critize, criticising is good. It's another thing to lack all respect.

Lastly, while the above articles are all apearing credible, let's look at the sources. One is a BLOG, and the others are from news sources (and two links don't work). Do some research and find a .gov site, a government document, an interview with a government official quote about THIS ISSUE, not the summit. Protecting leaders at a summit and knowing that terrorists are going to use planes to crash into buildings in the US are two different things. Goodnes, if we used all foreign terror events as precursers to American events, we should all be killing each other like they do EVERY DAY in Isreal. We don't do that, though. We have to weed through credible evidence that relates to us. Suggesting that, because AA missles (which shoot down other missles, not just planes) were placed outside a foreign summit, that we should know that Al Quida is attaching September 11, in the morning, is rediculous.

These links talk about possible "airborn attacks", which does not at all point at the specific tactic of using hijacked passenger planes as missiles. "Airborn attack" is an extremely vague description that can range from sniper shooting out of a balloon basket to stealing a stealth bomber to blow the city into pieces with tactical nukes (or at least launching a couple of air-to-surface missiles).
It proves just about nothing.

These links talk about possible "airborn attacks", which does not at all point at the specific tactic of using hijacked passenger planes as missiles. "Airborn attack" is an extremely vague description that can range from sniper shooting out of a balloon basket to stealing a stealth bomber to blow the city into pieces with tactical nukes (or at least launching a couple of air-to-surface missiles).
It proves just about nothing.


Well, according to Condi's testimony on this so far (http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/8288232.htm):

"She corrected (herself) in our private interview by saying, `I could not anticipate that they would try to use an airplane as a missile,' but acknowledging that the intelligence community could anticipate it," Ben-Veniste said.

"No reports of the use of airplanes as weapons were briefed or presented to Dr. Rice prior to May 2002," said her spokesman Sean McCormack.

But the threat that caused the installation of SAMs for the g-8 summit was VERY specific (http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/8288232.htm)

In an interview on French television on Monday, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt spoke in specific terms about the threat, saying that "on June 13 of this year, we learned of a communique from bin Laden saying he wanted to assassinate George W. Bush and other G8 heads of state during their summit in Italy."

Separately, Mubarak told the French newspaper Le Figaro that Egyptian intelligence services had told the United States about the threat, and that the warning included a reference to "an airplane stuffed with explosives."

Several days before Mubarak's interview, in an appearance on Italian television, Gianfranco Fini, the Italian deputy prime minister, discussed parallels between the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, and warnings his government had received before the Genoa meeting in July. "That is why we closed the airspace above Genoa and installed anti-aircraft missiles," Fini said.

There you have it. A specific threat to use aircraft as weapons. A specific threat that targeted GW. A specific threat that led to changes in security at the summit.

If Condi had made her claim that she couldn't anticipate using a plane as a missile under oath - I bet she could be impeached for purjury.

Because there is no way in hell a specific assassination threat to the President of the United States that caused an upgrade to military security at an event he was attending didn't get to the attention of his security team, or come up in those daily briefings. No way in hell. Unless she wants to claim gross incopmpetence as her defence.

-Z-

These links talk about possible "airborn attacks", which does not at all point at the specific tactic of using hijacked passenger planes as missiles. "Airborn attack" is an extremely vague description that can range from sniper shooting out of a balloon basket to stealing a stealth bomber to blow the city into pieces with tactical nukes (or at least launching a couple of air-to-surface missiles).
It proves just about nothing.


Well, according to Condi's testimony on this so far (http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/8288232.htm):

"She corrected (herself) in our private interview by saying, `I could not anticipate that they would try to use an airplane as a missile,' but acknowledging that the intelligence community could anticipate it," Ben-Veniste said.

"No reports of the use of airplanes as weapons were briefed or presented to Dr. Rice prior to May 2002," said her spokesman Sean McCormack.

But the threat that caused the installation of SAMs for the g-8 summit was VERY specific (http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/8288232.htm)

In an interview on French television on Monday, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt spoke in specific terms about the threat, saying that "on June 13 of this year, we learned of a communique from bin Laden saying he wanted to assassinate George W. Bush and other G8 heads of state during their summit in Italy."

Separately, Mubarak told the French newspaper Le Figaro that Egyptian intelligence services had told the United States about the threat, and that the warning included a reference to "an airplane stuffed with explosives."

Several days before Mubarak's interview, in an appearance on Italian television, Gianfranco Fini, the Italian deputy prime minister, discussed parallels between the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, and warnings his government had received before the Genoa meeting in July. "That is why we closed the airspace above Genoa and installed anti-aircraft missiles," Fini said.

There you have it. A specific threat to use aircraft as weapons. A specific threat that targeted GW. A specific threat that led to changes in security at the summit.

If Condi had made her claim that she couldn't anticipate using a plane as a missile under oath - I bet she could be impeached for purjury.

Because there is no way in hell a specific assassination threat to the President of the United States that caused an upgrade to military security at an event he was attending didn't get to the attention of his security team, or come up in those daily briefings. No way in hell. Unless she wants to claim gross incopmpetence as her defence.

-Z-

Ok, as soon as you can get some evidence besides the summit, you'll have some credibility. However, the threat was at the summit, not here, not on September. You're going to milk this sumut for all it's worth, and frankly, it isn't worth much.

Ok, as soon as you can get some evidence besides the summit, you'll have some credibility. However, the threat was at the summit, not here, not on September. You're going to milk this sumut for all it's worth, and frankly, it isn't worth much.

Sooooooooooooo.... because the CIA received a credible threat on the use of planes as weapons... you think it became something not worth discussion because of where the threat was targetted?

Condi has said repeatedly that she never conceived of such a possibility. 'A plane used as a weapon? Gosh! Why on earth would we think of that.' Like it was so out of the blue in every regard.

Which is odd considering we all remember Kamikaze attacks from WWII, and given that Tom Clancey used the premise of an airliner used as a weapon in one of his books prior to 9-11.

Iam NOT stating in any way that Condi thought there was a credible, imminent threat to the US via aircraft suicide attacks prior to 911. Obviously there is no proof of that. But that isn't what Condi is saying either. She is saying that she received no briefings AT ALL on the use of aircraft as weapons. She hasn't qualified her statements to read "no briefings on using aircraft as weapons in the US". She is making a blanket statement on the subject.

And her wide-eyed innocence that she never even conceived of the concept in any way is simply not credible if she is doing her job.

It was a threat. It was a directed threat towards her boss. It was taken seriously enough to install missile batteries at the summit. It must have been included in briefings prior to the summit.

Therefore - when she says ""No reports of the use of airplanes as weapons were briefed or presented to Dr. Rice prior to May 2002," I simply point out that that statement does not restrict such briefings to those related to attacks on US soil, and point out that surely briefings on the Summit must have occurred.

And I might even go so far as to wonder how come after the summit people didn't look at the intel received and say "OK - that info was wrong... was it wrong becuase they have no intent to attack at all using aircraft? Or was it wrong as to the target?"

If nobody even considered that question - then they are indeed incompetent.


-Z-

Iam NOT stating in any way that Condi thought there was a credible, imminent threat to the US via aircraft suicide attacks prior to 911. Obviously there is no proof of that.

That sums it all up right there. There was no credible, imminent threat. We can discuss the innocence of Dr. Rice (how about some respect) as much as you wish, but your above statement just answered your post and defeated your argument.

There are threats on world leaders everywhere they go, to consider them all is impossible. We had Morris Dees, famous civil rights lawyer, speak at the convocation at my college this year. His speaking appearance generated a bomb threat.

Whenever there is someone of prominance somewhere, there will likely be threats. The fact that there was a threat at the summit does not require the world to go on alert for airplane attacks and shut down airports, airspace, and everything else that would require the irradication of terrorists from planes. To do such would be a logistical and social nightmare.

I was listening to Democracy Now this morning and being interviewed was a woman who was employed by the FBI as a translator (I can't remember her name, but I'm sure you will be hearing a lot about her soon), spoke out about how the Bush administrations claims that they had no credible knowledge of any threats of terrorists using airplanes against the U.S. was an "Outrageous Lie" as she had translated SEVERAL CREDIBLE sources about terrorists doing just that. She couldn't say more really because she has a gag order placed on her.

She also said that at the time the Bush administration was saying that there weren't enough translators working to go thru all the intellligence they had, was also a lie and that her department was asked to slow down on the translations so that the work could pile up so they could show that they didn't have enough help.

I was listening to Democracy Now this morning and being interviewed was a woman who was employed by the FBI as a translator (I can't remember her name, but I'm sure you will be hearing a lot about her soon), spoke out about how the Bush administrations claims that they had no credible knowledge of any threats of terrorists using airplanes against the U.S. was an "Outrageous Lie" as she had translated SEVERAL CREDIBLE sources about terrorists doing just that. She couldn't say more really because she has a gag order placed on her.

She also said that at the time the Bush administration was saying that there weren't enough translators working to go thru all the intellligence they had, was also a lie and that her department was asked to slow down on the translations so that the work could pile up so they could show that they didn't have enough help.

Don't believe everything you hear from disgruntled employees.

That sums it all up right there. There was no credible, imminent threat. We can discuss the innocence of Dr. Rice (how about some respect) as much as you wish, but your above statement just answered your post and defeated your argument.



Invalidates my argument? Not at all. You are just missing the point of my argument. My point is not that she had prior knowledge of 9-11. I am not a conspiracy buff. My point is that she is lying.

Which is to say that my point is entirely about the innocence of Dr. Rice. It is you that is attempting to change it into a conspiracy theory.

Let me try and spell it out again - perhaps in better sequence.

Condoleezza Rice has been stating in no uncertain terms for the past week or two in interviews that the possibility of using aircraft as missiles was never presented to her. AT ALL.

Not that it wasn't presented as a threat to domestic targets in general.

Not that she never was briefed on it regarding the WTC.

She is stating that she never received ANY briefings on the possibility - PERIOD.

None. Nada. Zip. Bupkus.

An arial attack was an idea that just never got considered. DAmn! Who the hell would think of that?!


To refresh your memory on this from above:

"She corrected (herself) in our private interview by saying, `I could not anticipate that they would try to use an airplane as a missile,' but acknowledging that the intelligence community could anticipate it," Ben-Veniste said.

"No reports of the use of airplanes as weapons were briefed or presented to Dr. Rice prior to May 2002," said her spokesman Sean McCormack.


So - are we clear on where the starting point of my premis is?



Now, my refutation of that assertion by Ms Rice is fairly easy.

This is rather at odds with the congressional report released last year which (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-23-report-info_x.htm):

"Beginning in 1998 and continuing into the summer of 2001, the intelligence community received a modest, but relatively steady, stream of intelligence reporting that indicated the possibility of terrorist attacks within the United States," the report states.

It notes there was repeated information dating to 1994 that Osama bin Laden's network would like to use aircraft as weapons to carry out the attacks, and the targets ranged from embassies to airports.

"Nonetheless, testimony and interviews confirm that it was the general view of the intelligence community ... that the threatened bin Laden attacks would most likely occur against U.S. interests overseas,"



So - there was evidence of planes as missiles. lots of it. They just didn't think it would happen in the US. However also note that this was just "the general view". It does not say that it was the unanimous view. If you keep hearing about a threat, but not the target - even if you think it is probably directed at an overseas target do you think that in the absence of firm evidence that it might just cross your mind that it could also happen domestically? Just for a second? Even if you then dismiss it?


Anyway, this clearly puts her statement on a lack of any briefings on the subject into a poor light.

But it isn't prof as to her personal knowledge. And then after a bit more searching you discover that in one of her press briefings she clearly states that she WAS made aware of the G-8 threat. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html) Oddly enough, while she is happy to be very specific about other threats, she refuses to be specific on that one.

Gee - wonder why.

When a reporter attempts to question her about the fact that this threat did indeed include a briefing on a plane being used as a missile, she cuts him off and moves on without answering the question. But she doesn't deny it.

"Q: On the G-8 plot -- could you just say something more about the G-8 plot? Wasn't that an airplane filled with explosives? Wasn't that plane --

DR. RICE: There were many different potential methods described concerning the G-8. Many. The most troubling was not a specific method with a specific place, but specific targets, like the President."


she then moves on to a diferent question.

That to me says that she WAS aware of the plane-as-missile threat in the summer of 2001. She just doesn't want to talk about it. And when somebody is being evasive - that says something to me.

However in the same briefing she states "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile."


Yes Condi - people could and did predict that they would use aircraft as missiles. And you were told about it.

So - to get back to the original premise, the statement "No reports of the use of airplanes as weapons were briefed or presented to Dr. Rice" is clearly a falsehood.




Is that straightforward enough for you?


But hey - why should we be suprised at her lying about what intel she has received. After all, Last July, during the president's trip to Africa, it was Rice who told reporters that Bush's State of the Union message never would have included the later-debunked claim that Iraq was shopping for uranium in Africa "if we had known what we know now." She hinted at the time that CIA Director George Tenet was to blame for the lapse.

But Stephen Hadley, Rice's deputy, later disclosed that two CIA memos and a phone call from Tenet had persuaded him to take a similar passage about Iraq and uranium out of a presidential speech three months before the State of the Union address.

What are the odds that her assistant changes Presidential speeches without explaining to her why he has to take out key talking points?


-Z-

Credibility (of leftist sources) or not, for an American citizen to claim that the president, no matter what party he is from, would ignore terror threats and allow thousands of his people die, is horrible. To accuse the President of something such as that is disgraceful. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you don't like the way that things are in American, pack your bags, and move to Canada. Otherwise, have some respect for the office or the presidency.

Your suggestion that we should ignore the possibilities of the evidence presented, or that we should shirk our constitutional and moral right and duty to criticize the failings of our government, is the most horrible and disgusting thing I have yet heard on this board. You should be ashamed of yourself, suggesting that we should just play good little puppets and ignore the very real and very deadly failings of this (or any) administration.

And in case you didn't notice, all of these articles date from prior to September 11th. What, you think that the horrible leftists lied about things they had no way of anticipating would end up seriously damaging this administration's credibility? Either you're an idiot, or you haven't bothered exercising the faculties that God gave you. I'm thinking both.

So you honestly believe that a predisent would ignore a threat, and allow something he knew about, to happen? Why would he do that? For kicks and giggles? The fact is, Clinton did jack against al Quida. There were many many opportunities to take out Bin Laden. Lobbing a few cruise missles into the desert once is not being tough on terror.

Why would he do that? Because he's incompetent. Because he didn't think. Because he didn't bother listening to his anti-terrorism advisors. Hell, maybe- just maybe- given that his political connections stood and still stand to make a considerable windfall from the cross-Afghanistan oil pipeline, he figured, "What the hell... more campaign contributions, my kids get a bigger trust fund." It's a possibility. Ignoring these possibilities- which can be very quickly deduced from the facts and have considerable evidence to support them- because it's "disrespectful" to the office of the President is shameful.

And, in case you haven't been paying attention to the 9/11 Commission hearings, Clinton actually did a hell of a lot for the war against terror. Hell, the Homeland Security Department was actually a Clinton-era plan. Does the term "Gore Commission" stir up any memories? In 1996, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13015 in the wake of the TWA Flight 800 debacle, forming a commission to improve airline safety and security. The Commission took a near-immediate detour to address terrorism, and ended up devoting a significant portion of its final report explicitly to anti-terror security measures.

Despite the best legislative efforts of President Clinton and Democrats in Congress, Republicans consistently blocked and voted down all legislation stemming from the Gore Commission. Gore Commission recommendations were only finally implemented after 9/11.

The real tragedy is that Clinton tried, but the "national security" party shot down his efforts.

As states earlier, the president wades through pages and pages of security alerts every day. IF he did know about a plan to use airplanes early, he probably also knew about a hundred other plans, too.

I would point out that the threat of airliners as flying bombs wasn't just one security alert- it was a major issue that had received attention from the previous administration in the aforementioned Gore report, and was cited as an explicit and serious threat against the President's life.

I would also point out that it doesn't actually work that way; the President's advisors summarize the information for him. Hence why we're focusing on Condi Rice- it's quite possible it wasn't directly Bush's fault, but rather Ms. Rice's for being an idiot.

If the president HAD known and HAD taken pre-emptive action, what would you say about that? Would it garner the same reaction which invading Iraq (which is part of the war on terror; if we went for gas, why is it so expensive?) pre-epmtivly, to prevent future attacks, created? I would think so.

Actually, I would have been in support of the action. I still wouldn't have liked Bush- he's done so much to fark up domestic issues I can't begin to articulate how much I loathe his policies- but I would have supported strengthening national security against airliner attacks.

By the way, it has nothing to do with making gas less expensive for the average American- it has everything to do with giving the petrochemical extraction and refining industries a huge kick in the pants. Refineries and distributors, as well as the reconstruction contract recipient Halliburton, have been making a killing since the post-9/11 gasoline price spikes. It is no secret that these companies have been some of the biggest financial boosters for President Bush, and it is also no secret that his administration has more connections to large American oil companies than any since the Teapot Dome scandal.

I don't say that you have no right to question the government. That is one of the best attributes of democracy. The ability to openly, without fear, question the practices of the government. That being said, the lack of respect for the office of president that has been present for the past 2 years IS shameful. It is one thing to critize, criticising is good. It's another thing to lack all respect.

I respect the office of the President, even as I fear it. The President has a tremendous amount of power, and it is absolutely vital in this age of the imperial presidency to watch the White House's actions microscopically closely. That aside, I think you're confusing lack of respect for the office with lack of respect for the man that occupies the office. President Bush has not comported himself with dignity, nor has he adequately fulfilled his Constitutional responsibilities. I fail to see why I should respect him when he has proven himself over and over to be utterly unworthy of that respect.

Lastly, while the above articles are all apearing credible, let's look at the sources. One is a BLOG, and the others are from news sources (and two links don't work).

Google cache is your friend. And quite honestly, I fail to see how multiple news sources are insufficient data from which to support an argument.

Do some research and find a .gov site, a government document, an interview with a government official quote about THIS ISSUE, not the summit.

If there have been any, we won't see it for fifty years or more. National security briefings are classified material.

Protecting leaders at a summit and knowing that terrorists are going to use planes to crash into buildings in the US are two different things. Goodnes, if we used all foreign terror events as precursers to American events, we should all be killing each other like they do EVERY DAY in Isreal. We don't do that, though.

If it can happen overseas, it can happen here. And I think you're confusing the threat with the response. Israel has taken the stupidest of all responses to the problem of international terrorism- bulldozing houses and killing babies is going to stir up trouble no matter where you go. We do not have to respond the same way as Israel to a common threat- we just need to respond.

We have to weed through credible evidence that relates to us. Suggesting that, because AA missles (which shoot down other missles, not just planes) were placed outside a foreign summit, that we should know that Al Quida is attaching September 11, in the morning, is rediculous.

That one summit, even removed from its context, would be reason to beef up American airline security. In context with the frequent warnings received by the American intelligence community and the White House itself, there is plenty of information to suggest, "Hey, everyone, we've got a pretty damned serious problem here. We've been sitting on our asses about terrorism since we got into this office, maybe it's time to dust off the material the Clintons left us and deal with this problem." Instead, they ostracized their main anti-terror director, ignored the White House advisors that Clinton ordered to stay on in order to facilititate the transition between one administration's anti-terror programs another the next's, and ignored the frequent reports from foreign intelligence services telling us that there was a problem.

By the way, people familiar with Al Qaeda (which there were some in the FBI intelligence community) know that September 11th was a pretty significant date. That was the anniversary of the day Ariel Sharon, a top-ranking Israeli military commander, encouraged enraged Christian Phalangist militias to slaughter thousands of Palestinian civilians in the refugee camps of Shabra and Shatilla. I'm presenting that information for edification, not suggesting that anyone should have predicted that that date would be the day the attacks would happen.

I was listening to Democracy Now this morning and being interviewed was a woman who was employed by the FBI as a translator (I can't remember her name, but I'm sure you will be hearing a lot about her soon), spoke out about how the Bush administrations claims that they had no credible knowledge of any threats of terrorists using airplanes against the U.S. was an "Outrageous Lie" as she had translated SEVERAL CREDIBLE sources about terrorists doing just that. She couldn't say more really because she has a gag order placed on her.

She also said that at the time the Bush administration was saying that there weren't enough translators working to go thru all the intellligence they had, was also a lie and that her department was asked to slow down on the translations so that the work could pile up so they could show that they didn't have enough help.

Don't believe everything you hear from disgruntled employees.

I think I'll agree with you here. With no proof, her allegations, while interesting, aren't worth considering for now. If evidence comes forward to support her claims, then it will be fodder for the 9/11 commission- well, it would be, if the White House hadn't eviscerated it. :evil:

Credibility (of leftist sources) or not, for an American citizen to claim that the president, no matter what party he is from, would ignore terror threats and allow thousands of his people die, is horrible. To accuse the President of something such as that is disgraceful. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you don't like the way that things are in American, pack your bags, and move to Canada. Otherwise, have some respect for the office or the presidency.

isn't part of freedom of speech the freedom to express opposing viewpoints?

is that why germany was so cooperative in finding cells related to al queda? is that why the french were instrumental in stopping terrorist plots to blow up other targets dring the millenium? after sept 11 NATO's cooperitive security was enacted for the first time EVER. there was a huge coalition to go into afghanistan, you remember afghanistan, right? they were commited to helping us catch terrorists, dont think europe likes terrorism, they just dont buy phony links between saddam and al queda.

My friend, that is not my point. My point is that they turned around when it came time for Saddam to be defeated because they didn't want to get caught "with their hands in the cookie jar." There is no phony link between Al Queda and Saddam. The link is there, and it even if it wasn't cooperation, it was there. The link is simply this: these two forces hated America and would do just about anything to get us out of their way.

wait, back the train up here... wasnt the US doing the world a favor? werent they just doing the UN's job for them? werent they really acting altruistically? what happened to altruism when the spoils came? oh, and this is a serious question, doesnt Bush want the UN's help keeping the peace?

I don't think Iraq needs the UN. The UN can certainly do no more to help Iraq than America is now doing, and more than likely, America is getting it done a lot faster for the Iraqis.

What happened to altruism? Nothing happened to it. It's still there. It always was. Saddam was a threat to the entire world, including those in Europe who had dealings with him as well as his own people. Everyone is better off with him gone.

And what spoils are you talking about? You mean the deaths of our soldiers? Or maybe you mean the massive amounts of money America is putting into trying to stablize Iraq. Or maybe you're talking about the nothing we're getting out of this.

the war in Iraq is NOT A WAR ON TERROR!

And that is where your base falls. Saddam most certainly was a terrorist. Anybody who kills his political enemies is a terrorist. Anybody who invades a neighboring country with no cause but greed is a terrorist (and I'm tempted to dare some of you into claiming that about Bush). Anybody who uses chemical weapons on his own people is a terrorist.

it might make us all feel better knowing we can bomb anybody we want, but there were no wmds,

That is also where you are wrong, as I have pointed out. True that there were no WMDs completed and ready for use, but his development programs marched steadily on.

osama and hussein HATE each other.

They hated America more.

there are at least two dozen cruel and oppresive dictatorships, why dont we go after, say, columbia and liberate the country from drug lords...or china...or...pakistan?

I wish we would work to change these places, but unfortunately, we have a government to rebuild. These nations also do not so openly defy the UN.

oh, and we cant stop? what does that mean? syria is next? pakistan is next?

If they refuse to end terrorism, yes. These nations have not been given the chances Iraq has, nor have they attacked our soils like Afganistan. Now is their chance. Diplomacy is worth trying until it fails.

the war on terrorism cant be won by bombing third world countries. nukes and stealth bombers dont matter. the terrorists are a few thousand people hiding in the mountains of chechnyia, they are 8 people living in apartments in hoboken new jersey, they are two dozen people living in housing projects in madrid. there isnt any place TO bomb. bombing is just making us feel like were doing something, but doesnt really accomplish anything. we are lying to ourselves, we have no clue how to fight terrorists. im pretty sure pissing a lot of middle easterners and blowing billions of dollars is a step in the wrong direction though.

We aren't just blowing up everything, Freedomstien. We are systematically pulling up small roots of terrorism, one bit at a time, with minimal damage, actually. And each root leads to larger roots, and eventualy we will find the trunk.

My friend, you are lying to yourself the lie of the past. The lie you are telling yourself is that we can police terrorism like any other everyday crime. Fact is that we can't. Trying to do that has failed for years now. These terrorists are at war with us. They want to beat war with us, even if we don't admit that to ourselves. If they persist in war, they will recieve war.

God will destroy america under Bushs arrogance

I have to go back to this, because never really addressed it. Tell me something, Red Arrow, did God not will that Israel defend itself from the nations that warred against it in the days of the Old Testament? did God wish for them to stand down and let themselves be defeated? No, He did not. He wished for them to prosper and grow, and to do so, they had to defend themselves. God did not destroy them for defending their home. Nay, He aided them.

Bush is a much more devout Christian than I've ever seen in office, at least that I can remember. (I realize that is quite a limit because I'm only 18, but the point stands.) In him, I see a heart that wishes only to aid the troubled and protect us. He wishes no ill on our foe and would rather not fight them but make peace with them. They won't mkae peace, though. There are three stages to God's judgement. First comes grace, the chance to willing turn from evil. The second is mercy, the chance to let yourself be turned from evil. The final is justice, the defeat of the evil. We have tried grace. We have tried mercy. Justice is the only option these evils leave us with, Red Arrow.

Bush knew something would happen; it was bound to happen sooner or later.

My friend, that is not my point. My point is that they turned around when it came time for Saddam to be defeated because they didn't want to get caught "with their hands in the cookie jar." There is no phony link between Al Queda and Saddam. The link is there, and it even if it wasn't cooperation, it was there. The link is simply this: these two forces hated America and would do just about anything to get us out of their way.

if everybody that hated america was in cahoots, wed have to take over more than half the world to fight the war on terrorism. they didnt want to get there hands caught in a quagmire. saddam is secular, osama is fundamentalist. they are, to their roots opposed. and the second you present me evidence that saddam worked for al queda is the second ill make out with bush and rumsfeld.


I don't think Iraq needs the UN. The UN can certainly do no more to help Iraq than America is now doing, and more than likely, America is getting it done a lot faster for the Iraqis.

What happened to altruism? Nothing happened to it. It's still there. It always was. Saddam was a threat to the entire world, including those in Europe who had dealings with him as well as his own people. Everyone is better off with him gone.

And what spoils are you talking about? You mean the deaths of our soldiers? Or maybe you mean the massive amounts of money America is putting into trying to stablize Iraq. Or maybe you're talking about the nothing we're getting out of this.


what is america doing? forcing a government on a people that erent ready for it? democracy requires things like civic pride and nationalism, and a feeling of patriotism, of independence. america aint doing any of that. im sorry, but some countries just erent ready to be democratic.

how was saddam a threat to europe? he didnt have wmds, he didnt have a big army, hell, he didnt have medicine. he was just saying shit we didnt like, lets be honest. if its a threat to freedom you are looking for, what about the saudis? or west african dictators? or the north koreans? there were more immediate threats. and, if every country that was anti west was taken on, well, i shudder to think.
the war in Iraq is NOT A WAR ON TERROR!

And that is where your base falls. Saddam most certainly was a terrorist. Anybody who kills his political enemies is a terrorist. Anybody who invades a neighboring country with no cause but greed is a terrorist (and I'm tempted to dare some of you into claiming that about Bush). Anybody who uses chemical weapons on his own people is a terrorist.

where was the war on terror during allende? what happened with the contras? will the us going include russia in the war on terror for its treatment of chechnya? the us has been sponsering terrorist organizations for years, we should declare war on ourselves! or, um, can we say vietnam. ruthless tactics arent the same as the war on terror, and if we expand the definition to include your criteria, we are going to be in a war forever, or until the us crumbles.

it might make us all feel better knowing we can bomb anybody we want, but there were no wmds,

That is also where you are wrong, as I have pointed out. True that there were no WMDs completed and ready for use, but his development programs marched steadily on.

proof please!

osama and hussein HATE each other.

They hated America more.


so ummmm, timothy mcveigh was in cahoots with them too? or chirac? maybe the whole world is against us. to the bomb shelter bat man, weve got a third world war to start
there are at least two dozen cruel and oppresive dictatorships, why dont we go after, say, columbia and liberate the country from drug lords...or china...or...pakistan?

I wish we would work to change these places, but unfortunately, we have a government to rebuild. These nations also do not so openly defy the UN.

oh, and we cant stop? what does that mean? syria is next? pakistan is next?

If they refuse to end terrorism, yes. These nations have not been given the chances Iraq has, nor have they attacked our soils like Afganistan. Now is their chance. Diplomacy is worth trying until it fails.

the war on terrorism cant be won by bombing third world countries. nukes and stealth bombers dont matter. the terrorists are a few thousand people hiding in the mountains of chechnyia, they are 8 people living in apartments in hoboken new jersey, they are two dozen people living in housing projects in madrid. there isnt any place TO bomb. bombing is just making us feel like were doing something, but doesnt really accomplish anything. we are lying to ourselves, we have no clue how to fight terrorists. im pretty sure pissing a lot of middle easterners and blowing billions of dollars is a step in the wrong direction though.

We aren't just blowing up everything, Freedomstien. We are systematically pulling up small roots of terrorism, one bit at a time, with minimal damage, actually. And each root leads to larger roots, and eventualy we will find the trunk.

My friend, you are lying to yourself the lie of the past. The lie you are telling yourself is that we can police terrorism like any other everyday crime. Fact is that we can't. Trying to do that has failed for years now. These terrorists are at war with us. They want to beat war with us, even if we don't admit that to ourselves. If they persist in war, they will recieve war.

you are lying to yourself, we cant fight this like a conventional war. ask iraq and afghanistan if we are blowing everything up. we cant go into every country and tell them to cooperate or we will blow them up. guess what? some countries wont like us. some countries will hate us. they wont recognize our jurisdiction over everything. and yeah, there might be terrorists living there. my point is there are terrorists operating out of every nation. some countries will cooperate, some wont, but declaring war on all their home nations wont accomplish anything. who the hell does the us think it is, thinking a few thousand of its citizens are more important than the sovereignty of all nations? and why does the us get to decide what defies the un? there is a security council for a reason, and its so some cry baby super power cant hold it hostage.

is that why germany was so cooperative in finding cells related to al queda? is that why the french were instrumental in stopping terrorist plots to blow up other targets dring the millenium? after sept 11 NATO's cooperitive security was enacted for the first time EVER. there was a huge coalition to go into afghanistan, you remember afghanistan, right? they were commited to helping us catch terrorists, dont think europe likes terrorism, they just dont buy phony links between saddam and al queda.

My friend, that is not my point. My point is that they turned around when it came time for Saddam to be defeated because they didn't want to get caught "with their hands in the cookie jar." There is no phony link between Al Queda and Saddam. The link is there, and it even if it wasn't cooperation, it was there. The link is simply this: these two forces hated America and would do just about anything to get us out of their way.

So, basically, hating America is a good reason to invade now? So who's next, Malaysia? Germany? France?

I would also point out that Saddam had made no aggressive motions toward the U.S. since the 1998 bombings. Apparently, no, he wasn't willing to do "just about anything."

wait, back the train up here... wasnt the US doing the world a favor? werent they just doing the UN's job for them? werent they really acting altruistically? what happened to altruism when the spoils came? oh, and this is a serious question, doesnt Bush want the UN's help keeping the peace?

I don't think Iraq needs the UN. The UN can certainly do no more to help Iraq than America is now doing, and more than likely, America is getting it done a lot faster for the Iraqis.

More money, more security (there were no troops in the area in which four American civilians were brutally slaughtered yesterday; U.N. peacekeepers would have been a big help there), international credence, less inflammation of hatred. Does Iraq need the U.N.? No, but it would get the job done faster if they were involved.

What happened to altruism? Nothing happened to it. It's still there. It always was. Saddam was a threat to the entire world, including those in Europe who had dealings with him as well as his own people. Everyone is better off with him gone.

In which case we should have invaded on the pretext that getting rid of Saddam was beneficial to the world, not some made up s*** about utterly nonexistent WMDs. The war was sold as a selfish war, and when it became clear that the reasons for invading were complete and utter bupkis, only then was the "Iraqis are better off" card played.

And what spoils are you talking about? You mean the deaths of our soldiers? Or maybe you mean the massive amounts of money America is putting into trying to stablize Iraq. Or maybe you're talking about the nothing we're getting out of this.

We as a people are getting nothing. Our corporate entities, however, are making a killing. With the Iraqi war oil spikes, American petrochemical companies were able to turn the higher prices into greater profits. Halliburton has made billions off of Iraq and will continue to do so for years to come. Bush's political friends have gotten sweet deals with the reconstruction contracts, and some of the money is flowing right back into his reelection campaign. Bush profits, we don't.

the war in Iraq is NOT A WAR ON TERROR!

And that is where your base falls. Saddam most certainly was a terrorist. Anybody who kills his political enemies is a terrorist. Anybody who invades a neighboring country with no cause but greed is a terrorist (and I'm tempted to dare some of you into claiming that about Bush). Anybody who uses chemical weapons on his own people is a terrorist.

In which case our closest allies are terrorists. The governments of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan violently repress dissidents. The government of Pakistan routinely shoots into peaceful protests. The Georgian government is guilty of that sin. So is Saudi Arabia.

I would also point out that, if we were just narrowly focusing on terrorism itself, Saddam Hussein was even more rabidly anti-fundamentalist than the current administration. Al Qaeda was persona non grata in Iraq, mostly due to the fact that they were fighting for the separatist Kurds in the north. Did you know that the only chemical weapons yet found in Iraq were numerous containers of ricin in Kurdish territory? Didn't think so.

it might make us all feel better knowing we can bomb anybody we want, but there were no wmds,

That is also where you are wrong, as I have pointed out. True that there were no WMDs completed and ready for use, but his development programs marched steadily on.

Which is where you're wrong. According to the best information coming out of Iraq (administration spin doesn't count), Iraq's WMD programs were halted in the period between 1995-1996, when Saddam finally realized that WMDs were a huge liability for him.

Even if Saddam was trying to develop WMDs, which there is still no evidence of, that doesn't change the fact that we invaded on the basis that Saddam definitely had WMDs and was able to use them. That was the justification sold to the American people, despite warnings from liberal groups and the intelligence community itself to the effect that the information in question was being overhyped.

osama and hussein HATE each other.

They hated America more.

Until we invaded, they had no reason to work together- remember, Osama was helping the Kurds. It was only after the invasion that Al Qaeda was finally able to reenter Iraq. In effect, we forced Saddam to make a deal with a djinn to try to preserve himself from Shaitan. It didn't work, but that's how captured Baathists have described the post-invasion cooperation.

there are at least two dozen cruel and oppresive dictatorships, why dont we go after, say, columbia and liberate the country from drug lords...or china...or...pakistan?

I wish we would work to change these places, but unfortunately, we have a government to rebuild. These nations also do not so openly defy the UN.

How about North Korea? Because we're occupied in Iraq, Kim Jong-Il has been able to wrangle concessions out of us we might otherwise not have granted. And quite honestly, trying to get out of it by saying "we have a government to rebuild" doesn't cut it. We're discussing what should have been done, not what we can do now that we have gone down the wrong path.

oh, and we cant stop? what does that mean? syria is next? pakistan is next?

If they refuse to end terrorism, yes. These nations have not been given the chances Iraq has, nor have they attacked our soils like Afganistan. Now is their chance. Diplomacy is worth trying until it fails.

Saddam fully cooperated in the final weeks of the ultimatum. It was only then that Bush said "That's not enough; he has to leave the country." Iraq finally came throught, but it wasn't enough for us. Diplomacy worked- until Bush got involved.

Afghanistan didn't attack us; hell, the Taliban were begging us to take Al Qaeda off their hands in the months leading up to 9/11 (they wouldn't hand Al Qaeda members over to us directly; to do so would be equivalent to a Christian spitting on the cross of Jesus, it's that much of an offense to their religious tenets). Saudi Arabia did. The hijackers were majority Saudi, trained by Saudis, and funded by Saudi oil money. And in case you've forgotten, Bush gave Pakistan a full and complete "pardon" for their transfer of nuclear technology to rogue states around the world. They continue to sponsor terrorists in Kashmir, yet Gen. Musharraf is roundly praised as a "stalwart friend of the United States."

the war on terrorism cant be won by bombing third world countries. nukes and stealth bombers dont matter. the terrorists are a few thousand people hiding in the mountains of chechnyia, they are 8 people living in apartments in hoboken new jersey, they are two dozen people living in housing projects in madrid. there isnt any place TO bomb. bombing is just making us feel like were doing something, but doesnt really accomplish anything. we are lying to ourselves, we have no clue how to fight terrorists. im pretty sure pissing a lot of middle easterners and blowing billions of dollars is a step in the wrong direction though.

We aren't just blowing up everything, Freedomstien. We are systematically pulling up small roots of terrorism, one bit at a time, with minimal damage, actually. And each root leads to larger roots, and eventualy we will find the trunk.

We aren't blowing up everything, but we are blowing things up unnecessarily. Because of our attack on Iraq, terrorist numbers have swelled, and the madrassas have found a compelling rallying cry to brainwash millions of Muslim children into becoming terrorists themselves. We have only weakened our efforts in the war on terrorism, not helped them.

My friend, you are lying to yourself the lie of the past. The lie you are telling yourself is that we can police terrorism like any other everyday crime. Fact is that we can't. Trying to do that has failed for years now. These terrorists are at war with us. They want to beat war with us, even if we don't admit that to ourselves. If they persist in war, they will recieve war.

And you're lying to yourself when you tell yourself that we can fight the war on terrorism like any other war. When the only WMDs we have found have been in the hands of allies and in downtown Houston, when our invasions cause the ranks of Al Qaeda to swell, when we prop up brutal regimes so as to add a number to our "coalition of the willing," when we praise dictators and fund brutal regimes, we only increase the danger to ourselves.

You're also putting words in the poster's mouth. He never said terrorism should be policed like any other crimes. He simply intuited, quite correctly, that the way we are prosecuting this war on terrorism is entirely counterproductive.

if everybody that hated america was in cahoots, wed have to take over more than half the world to fight the war on terrorism. they didnt want to get there hands caught in a quagmire. saddam is secular, osama is fundamentalist. they are, to their roots opposed. and the second you present me evidence that saddam worked for al queda is the second ill make out with bush and rumsfeld.

I never said they worked together. I simply stated a basic similarity that shows who they are. Who they are and what they stand for is what linked them.

what is america doing? forcing a government on a people that aren't ready for it? democracy requires things like civic pride and nationalism, and a feeling of patriotism, of independence. america aint doing any of that. im sorry, but some countries just aren't ready to be democratic.

Please, just for the future so you know, you made a mispelling. I corrected it for you.

What America is doing is setting up something to keep the country from going into anarchy. That government is a republic because they've worked time and time again. Republics don't just require those things, they inspire them. Iraq has been oppressed far too long, and I'm eager to see what they will do in the free air of democratic rule.

how was saddam a threat to europe? he didnt have wmds, he didnt have a big army, hell, he didnt have medicine. he was just saying shit we didnt like, lets be honest. if its a threat to freedom you are looking for, what about the saudis?

Let me first remind you that the Saudis never invaded Kuwait. Second, a man who's willing to kill as readily as Saddam is a threat to the world, period. That fact is undeniable.

or west african dictators? or the north koreans? there were more immediate threats. and, if every country that was anti west was taken on, well, i shudder to think.

You honestly believe Saddam was not anti-west?

where was the war on terror during allende? what happened with the contras? will the us going include russia in the war on terror for its treatment of chechnya? the us has been sponsering terrorist organizations for years, we should declare war on ourselves! or, um, can we say vietnam. ruthless tactics arent the same as the war on terror, and if we expand the definition to include your criteria, we are going to be in a war forever, or until the us crumbles.

We may well be in a war forever. This problem has been ignored far too long, I agree. That's no excuse to keep on ignoring it.

If you want to talk Vietnam, remember that NV was invading SV. I have yet to find the reason why they did so, but our stance was that communism was a danger, and looking at the state of communist nations, I'd say we were right. Personally, I'd like to learn more about 'Nam,though.

proof please!

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

God will destroy america under Bushs arrogance

I have to go back to this, because never really addressed it. Tell me something, Red Arrow, did God not will that Israel defend itself from the nations that warred against it in the days of the Old Testament? did God wish for them to stand down and let themselves be defeated? No, He did not. He wished for them to prosper and grow, and to do so, they had to defend themselves. God did not destroy them for defending their home. Nay, He aided them.

And then, when the New Covenant came, he explicitly forbade defending yourself. "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Jesus denied the right to violence to all of his disciples. If Bush were Jewish, it would be a different story.

Bush is a much more devout Christian than I've ever seen in office, at least that I can remember. (I realize that is quite a limit because I'm only 18, but the point stands.) In him, I see a heart that wishes only to aid the troubled and protect us. He wishes no ill on our foe and would rather not fight them but make peace with them.

First: Saying that you're a Christian and being a Christian are two separate things.
Second: If Bush wanted to help the troubled, he wouldn't continue to eviscerate welfare programs. If Bush wanted to help the troubled, he wouldn't continue to protect polluting industries like the one in my hometown, Bessemer, Pennsylvania, which cause cancer, lung disease, and early deaths. If he truly wished no ill on our foe, he would not have said (and I directly quote the President), "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out." He would also not invite people to attack America with jingoism like "Bring it on."
Third: Bush isn't a Christian. No Christian would do what he did to Carla Faye Tucker. "Christian" Bush gave an interview to noted conservative Tucker Carlson in Talk Magazine, in which he mocked the death row inmate's pleas for her life and clemency. “With pursed lips in mock desperation, [Bush said] ‘Please don’t kill me.'" In the same interview, he used the f-word repeatedly and generally made it quite clear that he would not behave as a gentleman.

A Christian does not mock those whose lives hang in the balance. It's wrong on so many levels, and President Bush, to this day, still has not seen fit to apologize for his unChristian behavior. Carla Faye Tucker was not perfect, and by the laws of Texas she deserved to die. But as a sister in Christ, she did not deserve the mocking and derision.

They won't mkae peace, though. There are three stages to God's judgement. First comes grace, the chance to willing turn from evil. The second is mercy, the chance to let yourself be turned from evil. The final is justice, the defeat of the evil. We have tried grace. We have tried mercy. Justice is the only option these evils leave us with, Red Arrow.

We really didn't try mercy. Saddam gave in to all of the U.S. demands except the demand that he resign from his post. A "merciful" President would have admitted that, yes, Saddam was now in compliance. A just President would have scrapped all of the WMD bull and just admitted we were taking Saddam out because he was evil- that is, of course, assuming that he was not simply padding the pockets of his criminal friends.

No, Bush is no Christian. He can talk the talk, but I have not yet seen any instance in which he has walked the Christian walk.

if everybody that hated america was in cahoots, wed have to take over more than half the world to fight the war on terrorism. they didnt want to get there hands caught in a quagmire. saddam is secular, osama is fundamentalist. they are, to their roots opposed. and the second you present me evidence that saddam worked for al queda is the second ill make out with bush and rumsfeld.

I never said they worked together. I simply stated a basic similarity that shows who they are. Who they are and what they stand for is what linked them.

The vital question is: Does that justify treating them as if they were allies?

what is america doing? forcing a government on a people that aren't ready for it? democracy requires things like civic pride and nationalism, and a feeling of patriotism, of independence. america aint doing any of that. im sorry, but some countries just aren't ready to be democratic.

Please, just for the future so you know, you made a mispelling. I corrected it for you.

You realize that you're coming off as an arrogant, elitist bastard, right? Just so you know for the future.

how was saddam a threat to europe? he didnt have wmds, he didnt have a big army, hell, he didnt have medicine. he was just saying shit we didnt like, lets be honest. if its a threat to freedom you are looking for, what about the saudis?

Let me first remind you that the Saudis never invaded Kuwait. Second, a man who's willing to kill as readily as Saddam is a threat to the world, period. That fact is undeniable.

They didn't, but they sponsor madrassas, which teach men to abuse women and to kill Americans, and they outright sponsor terrorists, such as Al Qaeda. In the war on terror, they are the bigger threat. Second, if a man as willing to kill as readily as Saddam was is a threat to the world, then we should be dealing with North Korea, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan immediately, and Pakistan should come not far behind.

or west african dictators? or the north koreans? there were more immediate threats. and, if every country that was anti west was taken on, well, i shudder to think.

You honestly believe Saddam was not anti-west?

Actually, he wasn't really anti-West. He saw himself as a western ruler. He was definitely anti-American- after we baited and switched him during the Gulf War we forever earned his enmity- but he strove to embrace secular ideals and import the best of Western civilization. He was a despot and deserved to be kicked out, but he was not anti-Western.

proof please!

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

And since then Kay has revised his statements. After his resignation, he has since admitted that Iraq had no WMD programs, though he qualifies that by saying that there were "dual use" programs that could have been converted. Which, really, is a weak qualification.

if everybody that hated america was in cahoots, wed have to take over more than half the world to fight the war on terrorism. they didnt want to get there hands caught in a quagmire. saddam is secular, osama is fundamentalist. they are, to their roots opposed. and the second you present me evidence that saddam worked for al queda is the second ill make out with bush and rumsfeld.

I never said they worked together. I simply stated a basic similarity that shows who they are. Who they are and what they stand for is what linked them.

if they werent working together, why did bush include this on his war on terror? didnt he say he was doing this to stop another sept 11? im confused, why did we go into this war again?

what is america doing? forcing a government on a people that aren't ready for it? democracy requires things like civic pride and nationalism, and a feeling of patriotism, of independence. america aint doing any of that. im sorry, but some countries just aren't ready to be democratic.

Please, just for the future so you know, you made a mispelling. I corrected it for you.

What America is doing is setting up something to keep the country from going into anarchy. That government is a republic because they've worked time and time again. Republics don't just require those things, they inspire them. Iraq has been oppressed far too long, and I'm eager to see what they will do in the free air of democratic rule.


how states form, a quick history lesson:

we are going to take france as an example, but really, it works in every successful nation-state

stage 1: there are many ethnicities, the brettons, the normans, the franks and gauls and celts. they identify with their local groups. eventually, a king brings them all together through conquest.

stage 2: king institutes a feeling of nationalism. slowly a bretton or a norman starts considering itself as a frenchman and not a bretton or a celt.

stage 3: the state congeals, different factions repect each other, and see the good of their country as more important than petty differences

stage 4: the people start seeing the king as repressive and demand equal representation. they have a revolution from the inside. because they started a republic, and because they get to decide what they want, a strong democracy is born.

so basically, democracy comes from within. it requires unity and it requires, at the very least, educated, capable leaders who prove themselves to their people. yeah, it takes a while to happen. delayed gratification sucks. sorry.
how was saddam a threat to europe? he didnt have wmds, he didnt have a big army, hell, he didnt have medicine. he was just saying shit we didnt like, lets be honest. if its a threat to freedom you are looking for, what about the saudis?

Let me first remind you that the Saudis never invaded Kuwait. Second, a man who's willing to kill as readily as Saddam is a threat to the world, period. That fact is undeniable.

let me remind you that we stopped him from invading kuwait TEN YEARS AGO. he hasnt invaded another country since. we would have been totally justified 10 yrs ago in removing saddam, but we missed that boat. and georgians, russians, chinese and contras have all shown their willingness to kill. with so many threats, its a wonder we are still breathing.

or west african dictators? or the north koreans? there were more immediate threats. and, if every country that was anti west was taken on, well, i shudder to think.

You honestly believe Saddam was not anti-west?

never said that, i just think that being anti-west shouldnt be a capital crime

where was the war on terror during allende? what happened with the contras? will the us going include russia in the war on terror for its treatment of chechnya? the us has been sponsering terrorist organizations for years, we should declare war on ourselves! or, um, can we say vietnam. ruthless tactics arent the same as the war on terror, and if we expand the definition to include your criteria, we are going to be in a war forever, or until the us crumbles.

We may well be in a war forever. This problem has been ignored far too long, I agree. That's no excuse to keep on ignoring it.


people need to rule themselves. we cant reinvent every country in our own image. if they dont directly attack us, theres little we can do. preemtive wars are unethical.

If you want to talk Vietnam, remember that NV was invading SV. I have yet to find the reason why they did so, but our stance was that communism was a danger, and looking at the state of communist nations, I'd say we were right. Personally, I'd like to learn more about 'Nam,though.


another history lesson.

a young man approached woodrow wilson and said that if he really believed in the whole one nation, one state ideal, vietnam should be free too. wilson said vietnam couldnt rule itself, it needed france to protect it and stop it from becoming an anarchy. the young man was ho chi min. for the next 30 years, he kept asking the us and the ussr for help in throwing off his colonial opressors. realizing he wasnt getting anywhere, he startted a grass roots revolution against france, a war that would eventually be known as the indo china war. france withdraws, the us comes in, props up a dictator and tries to repress a revolution. they are successful in the south, but not in the north. from their seat in the north, the revolutionaries try to liberate their southern countrymen. the south is torn, they dont neccissarily want to be communist, though there is a lot of sympathy. at the same time, they dont want to live under a country with a dictator either. this is what i pieced together from watching cnn and reading some scattered web sites, but i think this is the general jist, if somebody wants to help me out, id be indebted. anyways, its not as black and white as NV was the agressor. oh, and the war against communism was a rational behind a lot of the countries worst deeds. look up the acadamy of the americas some time.

Red Arrow, you realize that the government recieves literally thousands of tips every month about possible terrorist attacks. Until there's more proof that Bush deliberately chose to ignore blatant warning signs, you can't really criticize him for ignoring this tip more than you can criticize him for ignoring thousands of other tips on potential terrorist attacks. The government simply does not have the resources to go after every single possible threat. They have to eliminate threats they see as immaterial, and unfortunately, the tips about the September 11th attacks were seen as unrealistic.

Clinton knew in the 90s of the Al Qaida threat and did nothing except bomb an asprin factory and some tents because Monica was on the Hill. There was a book called "Unrestricted Warfare" that details an attack on the US with planes hitting the Twin Towers released in the '90s. So back off the "It's Bush's fault" since at least 3/4 of the planning was done during the Clinton administration. God I hate stupid people that know nothing about what's going on and listen to Al Franken like he's god!

Clinton knew in the 90s of the Al Qaida threat and did nothing except bomb an asprin factory and some tents because Monica was on the Hill. There was a book called "Unrestricted Warfare" that details an attack on the US with planes hitting the Twin Towers released in the '90s. So back off the "It's Bush's fault" since at least 3/4 of the planning was done during the Clinton administration. God I hate stupid people that know nothing about what's going on and listen to Al Franken like he's god!

God I hate stupid people that know nothing about what's going on and listen to Bill O'Reilly like he's god!

You realize that Republicans were around in the 90s, right? They could have done something about the Al Qaeda threat too, but they were too concerned with who was sucking Clinton's dick to worry about that.

Clinton knew in the 90s of the Al Qaida threat and did nothing except bomb an asprin factory and some tents because Monica was on the Hill. There was a book called "Unrestricted Warfare" that details an attack on the US with planes hitting the Twin Towers released in the '90s. So back off the "It's Bush's fault" since at least 3/4 of the planning was done during the Clinton administration. God I hate stupid people that know nothing about what's going on and listen to Al Franken like he's god!

And I hate stupid people who go off on Clinton not doing anything about terror when nothing could be further from the truth. Clinton modernized the armed forces, strengthened international coalitions, and put into place most of the anti-terror apparatus you don't hear a lot about because it's mostly top secret. Carnivore, Echelon: Clinton. Gore Commission, which recommended the safety protocols Republicans refused to make law until after 9/11: Clinton. Stationing American naval and cruise missile resources near Afghanistan so Osama could be assassinated if we got a solid tip: Clinton.

And yes, most of the planning was done during the Clinton administration. Vengeance for the U.S.S. Cole (which Bush put on hold), the prototype of the Homeland Security Department, a proto-Patriot Act later modified with some of Ashcroft's wet dreams: all planned under Clinton. Republican leadership routinely criticized Clinton for being "obsessed with terror." I say better obsessed than not considering it at all, which is what we got from the Bush administration until 9/11.

Clinton knew in the 90s of the Al Qaida threat and did nothing except bomb an asprin factory and some tents because Monica was on the Hill.

and you know, back in the 80's, regan funded osama and saddam.

There was a book called "Unrestricted Warfare" that details an attack on the US with planes hitting the Twin Towers released in the '90s.

and there was this movie called independance day that has aliens blowing up the white house... should the government respond to that threat too? So back off the "It's Bush's fault" since at least 3/4 of the planning was done during the Clinton administration.

so back off on this "it is any one mans fault", since the root of the situation is the way the US handled the cold war in third world countries.