NationStates Jolt Archive

and Bush may be in deep doo-doo. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040410/ap_on_go_pr_wh/sept__11_bush_memo)

According to early reports on the now famous August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB), the PDB was not, as National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice suggested, merely a historical document.

The so-called presidential daily briefing, or PDB, delivered to Bush on Aug. 6, 2001 — a month before the Sept. 11 attacks — said there were various reports that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) had wanted to strike inside the United States as early as 1997 and continuing into the spring of 2001, the sources told The Associated Press.

The same month as that briefing of Bush, U.S. intelligence officials received two uncorroborated reports suggesting terrorists might use airplanes, including one that suggested al-Qaida operatives were considering flying a plane into a U.S. embassy, current and former government officials said.

Now it should be noted that the sources were speaking on condition of anonymity because the information hasn't been declassified yet, but I don't know that that should diminish their credibility any. After all, when the document is declassified, we'll be able to tell if they're lying or not, so there's no real gain for them to lie about anything in it.

Now, more on this document.
The document also included FBI (news - web sites) analytical judgments that some al-Qaida activities were consistent with preparation for airline hijackings or other types of attacks, some members of the commission looking into the Sept. 11 attacks said earlier this week.

The second-to-last bullet told the president that there were numerous — at least 70 — terror-related investigations under way by the FBI in 2001 involving matters or people on U.S. soil, the sources said.

And the final bullet told the president of a recent intelligence report indicating al-Qaida operatives were trying to get inside the United States to carry out an attack with explosives, the sources said. There was no specifics about the timing or target, the sources said.
Now for all the Bush apologists out there, please realize one major point. No one here or anywhere in the opposition is suggesting that Bush had specific knowledge of the attack and told our armed forces and law enforcement people to stand down and let it happen. The point to all this is that, right after the 9-11 attacks, and at every opportunity since then, the Bush administration has tried to give the impression, and has in fact stated directly, that they had no idea any of this was even potentially going to happen. This document goes a long way toward proving that the Bush administration wasn't focused on what the preceding administration told them would be the single greatest security challenge they would face.

And they've not even had the common decency to apologize.

As I've said elsewhere, even if we did have suspiscions of another Osama attack as of August 01, what could we have done? Seriously! Even if we, say, knew they were going to use airplanes. What do you think Bush should have done? Gone on TV and tell everyone to stay off the planes and away from buildings for the next few months? Put soldiers on every civillian flight? Put AAA emplacements on every major building in america? Shoot down any passenger flight that goes off course?

Come on man, you know how we all reacted to the patriot act AFTER 9/11... how do you think we'd react to a similar anti-terrorist act BEFORE 9/11?

If you look at the memo from the president's eyes, how many terrorist threats do you think he gets in a day? Let alone ambiguous ones like "Al Qaeda is in america, they plan to attack."

There is nothing we could have done to stop 9/11.

We MIGHT have been able to narrow down Osama's attack plan if the CIA and FBI (Foreign and Domestic intelligence agencies) would share information more freely. Condy KNEW that the lack of interaction between the CIA and FBI would be the loophole to guarantee an Al-Quaeda attack. She told us that much in august of '00!

Condy basically said the only thing they could have done... send in a couple armed predators (which had not yet finished development) into afghanistan and find osama before he goes into hiding. But that wouldn't really have prevented the attacks.

Based on the information given, there was nothing we could do. Do you disagree?

Actually, I do disagree. Mostly what I disagree with is the lack of emphasis that this was given. Had the President or the NSA gotten after the heads of the FBI and the CIA in the months before, 9-11 still may not have been prevented, but at least they would have been doing something. Rice has said that there were all these investigations going on and all this work was happening, and yet the 9-11 Commission has found absolutely no evidence that she's telling the truth on that.

Look back to the Millenium attacks that were foiled. Part of the reason they were foiled was because the President was hammering the heads of all the intelligence agencies to look at whatever they had, and as a result, at the top levels at the very least, they were sharing information. If the FBI and CIA weren't sharing information in 2001, whose fault is that? Shouldn't the NSA and the President be bitching them around and getting them to work together, if there are threat assessments being delivered? Come on, man. What will it take?

Condy said, back during the 00 campaign, that getting the FBI, Police, CIA, and NSA to work together would be an important thing to get fixed during their four years. Something like this is not easily fixed. A lot of problems existed between those intelligence agencies. 9/11 happened 9 months after taking office. If we had more than 1 month notice of a serious threat of OBL, we might have been able to do more. But that was by far not the case.

When 9/11 happened, it was a major kick in the face/pants/shin. It made everyone realize they screwed up, and needed to get working together sooner. Shortly after, they took steps to make sure the intelligence agencies shared information with each other.

Condoleezza Rice realized they screwed up, and made that clear at the 9/11 commission testimony thursday. She had a major "I told you so" look about her.

Getting the intelligence angencies to work together is not easy, and they did not realize they had a short timeframe... I mean, when in government is anything ever immediately drastically changed? Never, unless in the shadow of tragedy/crisis.

And yet, in the past, when it was necessary, those agencies managed to work together. I don't deny that the problem is systemic, partially because we're rightfully scared about having an internal security and spying system, which is why there's a division between FBI and CIA. But the evidence is mounting day by day that the current administration gave less than the necessary attention to the threat that al-Qaeda posed.

It's more than just this briefing. Look at the whole picture. When the Bush administration assumed the office, they focused on missile defense, on Iraq, on North Korea, on everything except what the Clinton White House told them they would need to focus on most of all. Ashcroft not only denied FBI requests for increases in the counter terrorism budget--he asked for reductions in those sections so he could go after drugs and porn. Now say what you will about the negative effect of those things on our society, but I'd say that terrorism is slightly higher on the list than either of them.

And to top it all off, now we're involved in a war that had absolutely nothing to do with any of this crap, and our military is hopelessly extended as a result. All actions have consequences, and so do all non-actions. And I'm still waiting for their apology for all of this.

Well, frankly, that's the reason the people who voted for him, well, voted for him! They wanted a guy who could clean up after Clinton's mistakes!

You have to admit, no one in America really considered terrorism a big ol' threat before 9/11. The only attack anyone ever even DARED on american soil was the garage bombing of the WTC, and that was back in the early 90's! So when the Bush administration receives a memo, among hundreds of similar memos, that Al Qaeda has terrorists in America and plans to attack soon, there are many problems that arise! The prime being that we don't have enough credible or accurate information to mount a defense. And the second obvious problem is that the Presidency is always trying to keep the american people from entering a total-fear chaos state. Imagine how much it would hurt the economy if suddenly people were afraid to fly, or go into big buildings, or ... hey, wait a minute, that's what it was like as soon as fear brought itself into the american lives!

In retrospect, everything is 20/20, and of course, knowing what we know now, we probably COULD have gone back and put guys with stinger missiles on the rooftops of every tall building and give fighter escort to all international flights... but that still wouldn't change too much.

Clinton's mistakes? What fantasy world are you living in?

First off, the first WTC bombing took place on Feb. 26, 1993. What's that? A month after Clinton took office? And yet he took full responsibility for it, and got his people to get after those who had done the deed and they're all rotting in jail right now as a result. He took action against al-Qaeda more than once, even when doing so meant that people on the Republican side were going to accuse him of doing it for political gain, or worse, because he was hoping to take away attention from a political assassination attempt by people in that party. And because of that, he was basically hamstrung and couldn't take the further action against al-Qaeda because you people were hammering him over a freaking blowjob. And you have the nerve to talk about Clinton's mistakes?

I didn't say Clinton did nothing against terrorism. But he certainly didn't help us much. He GAVE N. Korea the nuclear tech without any sort of anything in return, nothing more than a promise to not use the weapons against the US. And then, of course, he was supposedly offered Osama himself as a POW on 2 or 3 occasions, and refused to accept him. I don't know any more than anyone else about the latter point, but that is what is being investigated by the 9/11 commission behind closed doors.

Just checking: you DO know that the Bush Administration is not the only group being questioned by the 9/11 commission, right? Clinton's cabinet has been testifying almost as much.

Just keep things in perspective.

Yes, I certainly do know. The Newshour with Jim Lehrer spent over half its show yesterday dealing with not only the Rice testimony, but with the testimony that President Clinton gave to the commission afterwards--4+ hours worth of testimony that even the Republican chairman described as completely honest and open.

Certainly the Clinton administration will come in for some criticism--Richard Clarke has criticized them in his book--but the difference is that the Clinton administration has been open about what they tried to do, where they succeeded and where they failed. The Bush administration has been typically arrogant, and has failed to make even the slightest concession that they might have been less aware than they should have been. They're like a bunch of three year olds who constantly complain that whatever happened, it's not their fault.

Keep in mind this: I AM keeping a careful eye on the testimonies given by the Bush administration. So far, i can come up with an explanation for everything I've heard, and you've heard that explanation here. but if something blatantly fails to line up, or the 9/11 commission finds them guilty or something, I'm not going to shift the blame. I'm watching for them to slip up :)

Then one of three things are happening. You're either not listening carefully, you're listening but basing your judgments on faulty information that you received previously, or you're willfully blind.

Regardless, I'm done for tonight. It's almost 4 in the morning and I've been at this too long as it is.

Nah, i just happen to think differently than you. not everyone takes input "a" and determines output "b." It's called critical thinking, and well all do it in different ways.

Now it should be noted that the sources were speaking on condition of anonymity because the information hasn't been declassified yet, but I don't know that that should diminish their credibility any.

Hm. Wouldn't desseminating the details of classified documents be illegal?

it most certainly would be, O glorious one

Now it should be noted that the sources were speaking on condition of anonymity because the information hasn't been declassified yet, but I don't know that that should diminish their credibility any.

Hm. Wouldn't desseminating the details of classified documents be illegal?It is--that doesn't stop it from happening all the time. After all, the Pentagon papers were decidedly classified, and yet those were disseminated widely.

Honestly, I think that part of the reason these were leaked was because someone, somewhere, suspected that the President's office would try to redact this to make Rice's testimony look better, so they forced the White House's hand. And according to every report I've read on this so far, there's nothing being cited or quoted that would harm national security, but plenty that would harm Bush's election chances.

Now it should be noted that the sources were speaking on condition of anonymity because the information hasn't been declassified yet, but I don't know that that should diminish their credibility any.

Hm. Wouldn't desseminating the details of classified documents be illegal?

Well, silly things like the law didn't stop Novak from outing the CIA agent wife of the Ambassador either did it?

Still wondering who got him to do that....

According to leaks so far, the memo mentions nothing about Sept. 11 style attacks. It predicts that al-Qaeda would pull off old fashioned terror attacks, like hijacking planes, but forcing them to land, and making the government free prisoners. That type of stuff is easy to take care of. Get a few negotiators to calm them down, then get a SWAT team to the airport. But no one could even dream of Sept. 11 like attacks.

But no one could even dream of Sept. 11 like attacks.I get so tired of hearing this line, because it's so patently false. Plenty of people did dream of exactly that, both in the real world and in the world of fiction. It was a major plot device in a Tom Clancy novel for one--a terrorist pilot crash dives his plane into the Capitol building on the night of the State of the Union address.

But more importantly, at the 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa, anti-aircraft batteries were installed around the meeting place because intelligence agencies had heard rumors that terrorists might hijack a commerical airliner and crash it into the meeting site. In case you forget, Bush was at that summit. So don't give me this "no one could dream of it" crap anymore. People dreamed of it and indeed planned for it prior to 9-11-2001.

But no one could even dream of Sept. 11 like attacks.I get so tired of hearing this line, because it's so patently false. Plenty of people did dream of exactly that, both in the real world and in the world of fiction. It was a major plot device in a Tom Clancy novel for one--a terrorist pilot crash dives his plane into the Capitol building on the night of the State of the Union address.

But more importantly, at the 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa, anti-aircraft batteries were installed around the meeting place because intelligence agencies had heard rumors that terrorists might hijack a commerical airliner and crash it into the meeting site. In case you forget, Bush was at that summit. So don't give me this "no one could dream of it" crap anymore. People dreamed of it and indeed planned for it prior to 9-11-2001.
Not commercial jets. Most New York skyscrapers and important buildings can withstand the crash of even a 737. But a jumbo-jet? No. Besides, few terrorists have ever tried to hijack them in the past. Too risky.

Now you're just grasping at straws, Purly. Aren't intelligence types supposed to think about what enemies might do instead of what they've already done?

But more importantly, you're ignoring the main point. There had been specific precautions taken to protect the president from an attack using a commercial airliner as a weapon. And yet you continue to insist that no one could have dreamed of 9/11 type attacks. You are venturing perilously close to rolled-eyes smiley territory here.

By the way, an article that links all this together is available here (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,718264,00.html) from the newspaper The Guardian.

According to leaks so far, the memo mentions nothing about Sept. 11 style attacks. It predicts that al-Qaeda would pull off old fashioned terror attacks, like hijacking planes, but forcing them to land, and making the government free prisoners. That type of stuff is easy to take care of. Get a few negotiators to calm them down, then get a SWAT team to the airport. But no one could even dream of Sept. 11 like attacks.

Even arguing that is true, the memo also aparently says that there over 70 ongoing FBI investigations into Al Qaeda. Did Condi or Bush ask for any followup for details?

As to what they were planning to do with the aircraft - are you also suggesting that alarm bells should not have been going off to look for the hijackers even if they didn't expect the "aircraft as missile" scenario?

Do traditional hijackings not deserve a bit of effort to be thwarted anymore?

And after the Fatwa, the Cole, the Embassy bombings, and the described worry about bombs - do you not think that the safety of american passengers should have mattered enough to put in a little effort regarding a threat by people who clearly operated under the premise that the only good american was a dead one?

I'm NOT saying that 9-11 as it happened should have been predicted. But it sounds like the threats that WERE received were handled in a very cavalier manner. If they had been pursued, would that memo from the FBI agent about the arabs in flight school have come to light? who knows?

But as GW said to Bob Woodward at the time, he didn't consider it a pressing concern.

If he had, maybe they might have lucked out even not knowing the specifics. After all, a couple of the guys HAD been noticed by various law enforcement groups.

In other words - I still feel that they did not treat the threat with any sense of urgency.

-Z-

Now you're just grasping at straws, Purly. Aren't intelligence types supposed to think about what enemies might do instead of what they've already done?

But more importantly, you're ignoring the main point. There had been specific precautions taken to protect the president from an attack using a commercial airliner as a weapon. And yet you continue to insist that no one could have dreamed of 9/11 type attacks. You are venturing perilously close to rolled-eyes smiley territory here.

By the way, an article that links all this together is available here (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,718264,00.html) from the newspaper The Guardian.
Well, what did you want them to do? Placing an anti-aircraft battery in the middle of a well guarded complex, like that in Genoa, was easy, because it affected very few people. However, ordering greater security at airports and random strip searches would've been an extremely unpopular idea before 9/11. The left decries that the government failed to protect us from 9/11. Yet it also decries the very measures that would help prevent another 9/11: the Patriot Act, greater airport security, greater immigration controls, etc. I was a little young to know much about security when 9/11 happened, but now I know that it was insufficient. Yet the same people who wanted greater security before 9/11 thinks there's too much security after 9/11. That sounds hypocritical to me.

What did I want them to do? I wanted them to do their jobs--shake the trees like they did with the Millenium plot. A certain amount of any of this is luck, but you can make some of your own luck by busting your ass, and by all accounts, the people at the top weren't busting theirs, not on this issue. They were preoccupied with Iraq and with a missile defense that does not currently and perhaps never will work (although that's not stopping them from deploying the goddamn thing) and they left terrorism on the back burner. They cared so little about it, in fact, that on a list made by Ashcroft detailing his priorities, it was lumped in a catch-all category at the end behind porn and drug use. Ashcroft cared so little about it that he not only refused to expand the counterterrorism budget like the FBI wished, he suggested cuts. What did I expect? I expected these people to do their goddamn jobs--is that too much to ask?

And for anyone who's interested, you can see a pdf scan of the Presidential Daily Briefing here. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf) It's only slightly redacted, and while there's nothing truly earth-shattering (Bin Laden is going to hit us on September 11 and we need to stop him) in it, it certainly is more than just a historical document like Condi Rice claimed.

I don't like Bush, but more for what he's done and failed to do after 9/11, not before.

I doubt any other chief executive would have acted differently, prior to 9/11, based purely on these memos.

Otherwise we'd be in condition red all the time, because there are always those with capacity and intent who swear to destroy us.

Were it just this memo, Collaboration, I would tend to agree with you, but it's the entirety of their actions, or rather, their lack of actions. As I've mentioned several times, they were warned by the outgoing Clinton administration that this was going to be a problem. They obviously knew there was a hijacking/plane crashing threat in Genoa in June of 2001 because they mentioned it as a possibility when they installed anti-aircraft batteries around the meeting place. And yet, by all accounts, there wasn't even anyone on alert or being told to be extra watchful. There were investigations, but the people at the top weren't actively looking for any information.

I really think this is a case where they had their own concerns and terrorism wasn't one of them, and if they would just admit to that, then my criticism would turn to other parts of their administration, but as long as they continue to try to claim that they were doing all they could and that they're the people who are strong on national defense, I'm going to continue to hammer them on it.

What did I want them to do? I wanted them to do their jobs--shake the trees like they did with the Millenium plot. A certain amount of any of this is luck, but you can make some of your own luck by busting your ass, and by all accounts, the people at the top weren't busting theirs, not on this issue. They were preoccupied with Iraq and with a missile defense that does not currently and perhaps never will work (although that's not stopping them from deploying the goddamn thing) and they left terrorism on the back burner. They cared so little about it, in fact, that on a list made by Ashcroft detailing his priorities, it was lumped in a catch-all category at the end behind porn and drug use. Ashcroft cared so little about it that he not only refused to expand the counterterrorism budget like the FBI wished, he suggested cuts. What did I expect? I expected these people to do their goddamn jobs--is that too much to ask?
The millenium plot was just pure luck. The guy was caught, and naturally, the plot unraveled. But their wasn't much to it. Besides, it seemed like a much more grandiose attack would happen new year's of 2000 than about a year later.
And what does doing their job consist of? Counterterrorism is a tricky business. Law enforcement needs to be right 100% of the time, while the terrorists need to be right just once for something to work. They can't be tracked down like regular fugitives, because too often they slip off to their third world nation bases, and come back to the US a few monthes later, when law enforcement is really disinterested in them. It would require the security that's in place today, but I'm telling you, the American public wouldn't have appreciated it. Budget cuts for counterterrorism were almost warranted by this situation, because without the expanded powers found today, there is little they can do, even if their budget was a trillion dollars a year.
P.S: The missile shield is scheduled to be fully operational by 2006. However, it can be used in emergencies as early as this summer.

Let me be the first to say this, since I'm sure people are thinking it. Even if they could not of stopped 9/11, this certainly would suggest that they sure lied to the American public about what they knew. At least that's my take on it.

If you look at the memo from the president's eyes, how many terrorist threats do you think he gets in a day? Let alone ambiguous ones like "Al Qaeda is in america, they plan to attack."
How many would he get in a day---5, 10, 20?

How many terrorists are out there plotting against the US?

The millenium plot was just pure luck. The guy was caught, and naturally, the plot unraveled. But their wasn't much to it. Besides, it seemed like a much more grandiose attack would happen new year's of 2000 than about a year later.
Some of it was luck, and some luck you make--the fact that the President at the time had made it a top priority certainly made the capture of Ressam set off some alarm bells among the top intelligence brass.
And what does doing their job consist of? Counterterrorism is a tricky business. Law enforcement needs to be right 100% of the time, while the terrorists need to be right just once for something to work. They can't be tracked down like regular fugitives, because too often they slip off to their third world nation bases, and come back to the US a few monthes later, when law enforcement is really disinterested in them. It would require the security that's in place today, but I'm telling you, the American public wouldn't have appreciated it. Budget cuts for counterterrorism were almost warranted by this situation, because without the expanded powers found today, there is little they can do, even if their budget was a trillion dollars a year.You're continuing to miss my point--I'm not suggesting that the people in the Bush administration should be held to account for not stopping the 9-11 attacks--they should be held to account for downplaying the threat and then subsequently acting as though they were fully in control. You can't have it both ways. The current evidence suggests that they were looking at the wrong threats--fine, I could accept that if they would only admit it. People make mistakes. It's their continued arrogant stance that they were doing everything they could that irritates the crap out of me.
P.S: The missile shield is scheduled to be fully operational by 2006. However, it can be used in emergencies as early as this summer.If you truly believe that, Purly, you're more naive than I've given you credit for. The system has never had a single complete success. It's never had a partial success, unless you consider the fact that the anti-missile missiles they're firing have actually made it off the launch pad to be a success. In tests that have made the task as simple as it can possibly be made--where the inbound missile is broadcasting its position, the killer missiles have yet to make contact consistently. And forget it if the inbound is actually trying to deceive the killer missiles. It's a joke--a very expensive joke--of a system.

Let's clear up the air a bit, here.

Many of you on the Left and a handful of Sept. 11 widows are outraged that President Bush didn't act on the August 6, 2001 briefing he got from the CIA.

"Everything is in [the briefing memo] but the date 9/11," complained Lori Van Auken whose husband died in the Twin Towers, in comments to the New York Daily News. "You have the who, what, where, why and how. The only thing you don't have is the when." Let's take it one by one:

- Actually, as far as the "who" goes, none of the hijackers' names appear in the Bush CIA briefing memo.

- And the "what"? Nowhere does the memo warn that hijackers would use airplanes as kamikaze missiles.

- "Where?" The memo mentions "federal buildings in New York." But Bush could have closed every one of them (and there are plenty of them in New York), but the World Trade Center, which is not a federal building, would have still been packed with 50,000 workers on the morning of 9/11.

- How about the "why" cited by Mrs. Van Auken? The CIA briefing says that "after US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Ladin (sic) told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington." But those attacks were launched by Bill Clinton, not Bush.

- And the "how?" The memo makes no mention of hijackers overtaking U.S. flight crews with small knives.

Of course, if President Bush had treated the Aug. 6 PDB as actionable intelligence, there are indeed several measures he could have taken that would have guaranteed that a Sept. 11-style attack on America would have never happened.

- Because the CIA memo mentions only bin Laden by name (though misspelled,) Bush would have had to round-up any and all of his potential followers inside the U.S., i.e., every Muslim in America, and throw them into internment camps - just like FDR did with Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor.

- Since reporters and even a bored teenager have been able to sneak any number of weapons past airport screeners even with post-9/11 security measures in place, President Bush would have had to close all America's airports to completely eliminate the possibility of hijackings.

- In order to protect against another Millennium plot bombing attack - which the memo explicitly refers to, and which was prevented by happenstance, not by any superior intelligence work - Bush would have had to order that all shopping malls, schools, museums, movie theaters, train stations, large office buildings and other potential high value targets be closed till further notice.

- Because Millennium-plot bomber Ahmed Ressam tried to sneak across the Canadian border, Bush would have had to seal both the Canadian and Mexican border until the war on terrorism was won.

- In order to assure the elimination of the bin Laden threat, Bush would have had to launch a pre-emptive invasion of Afghanistan, to hunt for ole' Osama. If the master terrorist ran to Pakistan, then the U.S. would need to invade that country as well.

Had Bush taken the above steps, the economy would have been in shambles (having added to the damage of the tech boom of the 2000-2001 recession,) the airline industry destroyed far beyond the damage that 9/11 did to it, most of the nation unemployed, the U.S. at war and six million Muslims - 99.9999% (I might be missing a few 9's there for lack of space) of them innocent - would be behind bars, held without any charges (4th Amendment?)

But the Sept. 11 attacks would have been prevented - at least for the few months that it would have taken Congress to impeach and remove Bush from office for massive abuses of power. And Congress would have been right to take such an action.

So, it's a case of "damned if you do, and damned if you don't." No matter what, Bush loses, courtesy of a bearded guy in a cave.

Hey Panhandlia--it's generally considered good form to credit people when you rip them off. (http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/11/151412.shtml) It took me a few minutes, but I found your source. Maybe one day you will feel intellectually strong enough to present your ideaas as your own, instead of ripping off someone else. I mean, come on--even the Red Arrow lists his sources. Are you really more pathetic than he is?

Nah, i just happen to think differently than you. not everyone takes input "a" and determines output "b." It's called critical thinking, and well all do it in different ways.

Actually, critical thinking is looking at things from many different angles and considering all angles with an open mind. What you're doing is rationalizing, which is taking new information and thinking of ways to assimilate it into your current viewpoint. Needless to say, the two are quite different, especially in that the latter is a defense mechanism against the former.

The millenium plot was just pure luck. The guy was caught, and naturally, the plot unraveled. But their wasn't much to it. Besides, it seemed like a much more grandiose attack would happen new year's of 2000 than about a year later.
Some of it was luck, and some luck you make--the fact that the President at the time had made it a top priority certainly made the capture of Ressam set off some alarm bells among the top intelligence brass.
And what does doing their job consist of? Counterterrorism is a tricky business. Law enforcement needs to be right 100% of the time, while the terrorists need to be right just once for something to work. They can't be tracked down like regular fugitives, because too often they slip off to their third world nation bases, and come back to the US a few monthes later, when law enforcement is really disinterested in them. It would require the security that's in place today, but I'm telling you, the American public wouldn't have appreciated it. Budget cuts for counterterrorism were almost warranted by this situation, because without the expanded powers found today, there is little they can do, even if their budget was a trillion dollars a year.You're continuing to miss my point--I'm not suggesting that the people in the Bush administration should be held to account for not stopping the 9-11 attacks--they should be held to account for downplaying the threat and then subsequently acting as though they were fully in control. You can't have it both ways. The current evidence suggests that they were looking at the wrong threats--fine, I could accept that if they would only admit it. People make mistakes. It's their continued arrogant stance that they were doing everything they could that irritates the crap out of me.
P.S: The missile shield is scheduled to be fully operational by 2006. However, it can be used in emergencies as early as this summer.If you truly believe that, Purly, you're more naive than I've given you credit for. The system has never had a single complete success. It's never had a partial success, unless you consider the fact that the anti-missile missiles they're firing have actually made it off the launch pad to be a success. In tests that have made the task as simple as it can possibly be made--where the inbound missile is broadcasting its position, the killer missiles have yet to make contact consistently. And forget it if the inbound is actually trying to deceive the killer missiles. It's a joke--a very expensive joke--of a system.
First off, Clinton downplayed the threat as much as Bush did. That's where the precedense was from, where this macho attitude you point to comes from. Terrorism wasn't a big deal to Bush because it wasn't to Clinton. If he cared about terrorism, then a.) he'd send far more troops to Somolia, and b.) he'd personally testify to Congress for greater airport and port security, while doing everything in his power to do it. Also, he had at least three chances to kill bin Laden. Do it? No. They were afraid civilians would be around. Legitamite concern, but he's more or less responsible to the American people's safty, now is he? That attitude passed onto Bush.
As for the missile shield, I'm not naive. I believe it may work. In some tests, it has succeeded.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/nmd-test.htm

Hey Panhandlia--it's generally considered good form to credit people when you rip them off. (http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/11/151412.shtml) It took me a few minutes, but I found your source. Maybe one day you will feel intellectually strong enough to present your ideaas as your own, instead of ripping off someone else. I mean, come on--even the Red Arrow lists his sources. Are you really more pathetic than he is?

I have made it a policy not to credit (nor generally use) the patently right-wing sources, like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Neal Boortz, Michael Savage, WorldNetDaily.com or NewsMax.com, due to the fact that folks like you will immediately discount them without reading. However, it bears to be said, I was emailed this article today, and the email did not have a reference to the original article (this weekend I have been too busy to cruise NewsMax et al.)

Having said that, I congratulate you for doing your research, (even though it amazes me to see that you spent any time looking at NewsMax)and I do thank you for clarifying the source, which, again, was nowhere in the email I got it from. All I did was elaborate some on the original I received. So, if it makes you feel all superior, go ahead, you have earned that right, though I do resent the comparison to Red Arrow.

I do notice though, that you have not even attempted to argue any of the propositions on the article.

Hey Panhandlia--it's generally considered good form to credit people when you rip them off. (http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/11/151412.shtml) It took me a few minutes, but I found your source. Maybe one day you will feel intellectually strong enough to present your ideaas as your own, instead of ripping off someone else. I mean, come on--even the Red Arrow lists his sources. Are you really more pathetic than he is?

I have generally made it a personal policy not to use or credit the patently right-wing sources, like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Neal Boortz, Michael Savage, WorldNetDaily.com or NewsMax.com, due to the fact that folks like you will immediately discount them without reading. Kind of the same thing I do when I see someone quote MoveOn, or other lefty sources. However, it bears to be said, I was emailed this article today, and the email did not have a reference to the original article (this weekend I have been too busy to cruise NewsMax et al.)

Having said that, I congratulate you for doing your research, (even though it amazes me to see that you spent any time looking at NewsMax)and I do thank you for clarifying the source, which, again, was nowhere in the email I got it from. All I did was elaborate on the email I received. So, if it makes you feel superior, go ahead, you have earned that right, though I do resent the comparison to Red Arrow.

I do notice though, that you have not even attempted to argue any of the propositions on the article.