NationStates Jolt Archive

U.S. Attempts to Gag FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds
In Washington, the Bush administration will appear in court today in an attempt to block FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds from testifying in a lawsuit filed by relatives and survivors of Sept. 11. Edmonds was hired after Sept. 11 by the FBI to translate pre-9/11 intelligence gathered by the agency. She has publicly said on Democracy Now and other media outlets that the U.S. had considerable evidence that Al Qaida was planning to strike the US with airplanes. The Justice Department is expected to cite laws regarding state secrets in order to gag the Turkish-American translator. The Bush administration claims her evidence "would cause serious damage to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States".

Ah, TRA, nice to see the forerunner of liberal thinking is still on the job. Keep up the good work. You make your political group shine.

Believing you would be like believing Fox News!

Ah, TRA, nice to see the forerunner of liberal thinking is still on the job. Keep up the good work. You make your political group shine.

Right the US perposly allowed an attack in which thousands of its citizens died. Really. Aren't there websites where you can make this ill founded consipirisy theorys? What they are saying is than the US administration commted mass murder of its own civillans. Dream on.

Right the US perposly allowed an attack in which thousands of its citizens died. Really. Aren't there websites where you can make this ill founded consipirisy theorys? What they are saying is than the US administration commted mass murder of its own civillans. Dream on.

Right the US perposly allowed an attack in which thousands of its citizens died. Really. Aren't there websites where you can make this ill founded consipirisy theorys? What they are saying is than the US administration commted mass murder of its own civillans. Dream on.

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_crime&Number=1397278

Okay, I hate Bush and his administration as much as the next guy, but even I can't let this one go by. Allowing something to happen and having a vauge warning about it are two entirely different things. As much as I'd like to, no one, including Siebel Edmonds, has been able to offer anything substantive to show that Bush knew the exact route of the attack and actually made a decision to let it happen. Do I think he didn't take terrorisim threats seriously? Sure, that much is obvious. Do I think he and his administration made the decision to let over 3,000 people die for political motives? Not even I can pin that one on his black, black heart.

Believing you would be like believing Fox News!
What has Fox News said that is false?

Believing you would be like believing Fox News!
What has Fox News said that is false?

Well, for starters, they led the false charge, claiming the Clinton administration had vandalised the White House and Air Force One before turning them over to the Bush administration:

http://www.fair.org/activism/white-house-vandalism.html

Believing you would be like believing Fox News!

LMAO!

:shock:

Right the US perposly allowed an attack in which thousands of its citizens died. Really. Aren't there websites where you can make this ill founded consipirisy theorys? What they are saying is than the US administration commted mass murder of its own civillans. Dream on.

well hes currently murdering hundreds of american soldiers with an unjust war in Iraq and he needed an excuse desperately to start this war which he was planning even before he stole the 2000 election--so why wouldnt he have allowed 911 to happen? It fit perfectly into his scheam

Okay, I hate Bush and his administration as much as the next guy, but even I can't let this one go by. Allowing something to happen and having a vauge warning about it are two entirely different things. As much as I'd like to, no one, including Siebel Edmonds, has been able to offer anything substantive to show that Bush knew the exact route of the attack and actually made a decision to let it happen. Do I think he didn't take terrorisim threats seriously? Sure, that much is obvious. Do I think he and his administration made the decision to let over 3,000 people die for political motives? Not even I can pin that one on his black, black heart.

the warnings werent vauge and Bush ACTIVELY ignored them (which further proves he WAS warned) and even DURING the attack he STILL did nothing but use schoolkids as human shields refusing to leave that classroom--when he finally DID act on 911 it was to rescue the Bin Laden family while americans lie dying in the rubble of the WTC

Believing you would be like believing Fox News!
What has Fox News said that is false?

a much better question would be what havent they said thats false

U.S. Attempts to Gag FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds
In Washington, the Bush administration will appear in court today in an attempt to block FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds from testifying in a lawsuit filed by relatives and survivors of Sept. 11. Edmonds was hired after Sept. 11 by the FBI to translate pre-9/11 intelligence gathered by the agency. She has publicly said on Democracy Now and other media outlets that the U.S. had considerable evidence that Al Qaida was planning to strike the US with airplanes. The Justice Department is expected to cite laws regarding state secrets in order to gag the Turkish-American translator. The Bush administration claims her evidence "would cause serious damage to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States".

Red, ya just gotta do more dispassionate research. Terrorism did not just come into existence since January 20, 2000. The roots of 9-11 predate Bush. The fact is there was no solid intelligence anaylsis. The causes are much more mundane and more evenly spread across the political spectrum than idealogues would like to admit. It had a lot to do with inattention, incompetence and a false sense of security after the fall of the the old USSR.

Plain old, mundane mediocracy - which in it's own way is much scarier.

:shock:

the warnings werent vauge and Bush ACTIVELY ignored them (which further proves he WAS warned) and even DURING the attack he STILL did nothing but use schoolkids as human shields refusing to leave that classroom--when he finally DID act on 911 it was to rescue the Bin Laden family while americans lie dying in the rubble of the WTC

Yes, the warnings WERE vauge and I challenge you to provide proof otherwise. Should they have been taken more seriously? Sure. Should Ashcroft not have slashed spending on anti-terrorisim research and programs? Sure. Can you show me that Bush ACTIVELY ignored them? Not likely. The amount of intelligence that comes through channels every day is staggering. Couple that with a lack of language professionals to translate (and translate correctly) and it takes a long time to even get a picture of the threat. Then, credence has to be determined and threat levels for particular instances have to be assessed. Should we have been in a better position to respond to potential attacks. Yes, but that's hindsight at this point.

Did this administration drop the ball? Yes. Did they sit back and allow it to happen? Doubtful.

God, how did I wind up defending Bush?

U.S. Attempts to Gag FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds
In Washington, the Bush administration will appear in court today in an attempt to block FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds from testifying in a lawsuit filed by relatives and survivors of Sept. 11. Edmonds was hired after Sept. 11 by the FBI to translate pre-9/11 intelligence gathered by the agency. She has publicly said on Democracy Now and other media outlets that the U.S. had considerable evidence that Al Qaida was planning to strike the US with airplanes. The Justice Department is expected to cite laws regarding state secrets in order to gag the Turkish-American translator. The Bush administration claims her evidence "would cause serious damage to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States".

Red, ya just gotta do more dispassionate research. Terrorism did not just come into existence since January 20, 2000. The roots of 9-11 predate Bush. The fact is there was no solid intelligence anaylsis. The causes are much more mundane and more evenly spread across the political spectrum than idealogues would like to admit. It had a lot to do with inattention, incompetence and a false sense of security after the fall of the the old USSR.

Plain old, mundane mediocracy - which in it's own way is much scarier.

:shock:

prior Presidents werent desperately searching for reasons to wage a special interest war in Iraq--so I think Bushs negligence was more deliberate

the warnings werent vauge and Bush ACTIVELY ignored them (which further proves he WAS warned) and even DURING the attack he STILL did nothing but use schoolkids as human shields refusing to leave that classroom--when he finally DID act on 911 it was to rescue the Bin Laden family while americans lie dying in the rubble of the WTC

Yes, the warnings WERE vauge and I challenge you to provide proof otherwise. Should they have been taken more seriously? Sure. Should Ashcroft not have slashed spending on anti-terrorisim research and programs? Sure. Can you show me that Bush ACTIVELY ignored them? Not likely. The amount of intelligence that comes through channels every day is staggering. Couple that with a lack of language professionals to translate (and translate correctly) and it takes a long time to even get a picture of the threat. Then, credence has to be determined and threat levels for particular instances have to be assessed. Should we have been in a better position to respond to potential attacks. Yes, but that's hindsight at this point.

Did this administration drop the ball? Yes. Did they sit back and allow it to happen? Doubtful.

God, how did I wind up defending Bush?

what your saying is very scarey then--all these other countrys knew about the date 911 specifically and FBI agents were begging their superiors to heed their warnings and Bush was the only world leader in existence to remain clueless? I guess it could be true that his handlers coulda kept him in the dark

what your saying is very scarey then--all these other countrys knew about the date 911 specifically and FBI agents were begging their superiors to heed their warnings and Bush was the only world leader in existence to remain clueless? I guess it could be true that his handlers coulda kept him in the dark

What in God's name are you blathering on about? What countries "knew about the date 9/11 specifically?" As for who begged who to do what, I've heard a lot of supposition and second guessing, but seen absolutely no evidence to support the idea that this was anything other than a terrible oversight that probably couldn't have been prevented. I have seen NO creditable information stating that not only was Bush aware of the specific threat, but that with malice of forethought, he then knowingly allowed the scenario to play out, sacrificing over 3,000 lives, all for a political gain. Again, you've offered no sources, just wild accusations.

Dude, I understand your fervor, I really do. But stuff like this doesn't help the cause. It draws attention away from the creditable blunders this administration has made and it's disrespectful to the family and friends who lost people in the 9/11 tragedy (a group I am unfortunately a member of). Save your vigor for issues that can be substantiated (there are a lot of them) and stop making these unfounded charges based on some opinion piece you read on some liberal website. That's how we will get Bush out of office, not by claiming because the man isn't precognative he shouldn't be President.

the warnings werent vauge and Bush ACTIVELY ignored them (which further proves he WAS warned) and even DURING the attack he STILL did nothing but use schoolkids as human shields refusing to leave that classroom--when he finally DID act on 911 it was to rescue the Bin Laden family while americans lie dying in the rubble of the WTC

Yes, the warnings WERE vauge and I challenge you to provide proof otherwise. Should they have been taken more seriously? Sure. Should Ashcroft not have slashed spending on anti-terrorisim research and programs? Sure. Can you show me that Bush ACTIVELY ignored them? Not likely. The amount of intelligence that comes through channels every day is staggering. Couple that with a lack of language professionals to translate (and translate correctly) and it takes a long time to even get a picture of the threat. Then, credence has to be determined and threat levels for particular instances have to be assessed. Should we have been in a better position to respond to potential attacks. Yes, but that's hindsight at this point.

Did this administration drop the ball? Yes. Did they sit back and allow it to happen? Doubtful.

God, how did I wind up defending Bush?

You are not so much defending Bush as opening the door to intellectual honesty. Clinton did more to set the stage in his eight years than Bush, et al did in the eight months prior to 9-11. Clinton slashed military and intelligence funding and had his mind on Eastern Europe - not a small issue during his terms.

That being said, you hit the nail on the head when you say, "that's hindsight at this point." Indeed, the now apparent lack of focus was due in part the overconfidence inspired by the fall of the USSR as well as the egotistically foolish distraction of making thier presidency's great mark on history by establishing a durable Mid-East Peace Accord. All the while the Palestinians have been merely employing their own carrot and stick approach to the USA to rein in Israel - but the carrot is only an illusion.

At the risk of sounding like some of the wild eyed monolithically focused, ill informed posters here I see the Mid-East issue as one and one alone. The fundalmentalists want to take over the world and establish Islamic states and do away with the West entirely.

The New York Times ran an interesting article Monday on the increasing forthrightness of this view being expoused in mosques and more private setting throughout Europe. You can find it here (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/26/international/europe/26EURO.html?th)

With regard to the available intelligence: if you look at a president's time and focus it is like a firefighter facing brush fire. You know there are pockets of danger all about - so you assign your limited available assets on the biggest threats first and hope to get around to the lesser pockets later.

At this point we all are focused on terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. but what issues are currently simmering on some back burner that we are not paying much mind to? What will be the next 20-20 hindsight issue that we can talk about post facto. Should Kerry win in November will we hang Kerry by his thumbs when he appears to drops the ball?

:shock:

Right the US perposly allowed an attack in which thousands of its citizens died. Really. Aren't there websites where you can make this ill founded consipirisy theorys? What they are saying is than the US administration commted mass murder of its own civillans. Dream on.

well hes currently murdering hundreds of american soldiers with an unjust war in Iraq and he needed an excuse desperately to start this war which he was planning even before he stole the 2000 election--so why wouldnt he have allowed 911 to happen? It fit perfectly into his scheam


more liberal bull****
u have been brainwashed.

We freed the people from a madman,and are rebuilding the country. asfor the WMDs, they went to Syria I suspect.

Right the US perposly allowed an attack in which thousands of its citizens died. Really. Aren't there websites where you can make this ill founded consipirisy theorys? What they are saying is than the US administration commted mass murder of its own civillans. Dream on.

well hes currently murdering hundreds of american soldiers with an unjust war in Iraq and he needed an excuse desperately to start this war which he was planning even before he stole the 2000 election--so why wouldnt he have allowed 911 to happen? It fit perfectly into his scheam


more liberal bull****
u have been brainwashed.

We freed the people from a madman,and are rebuilding the country. asfor the WMDs, they went to Syria I suspect.


it's you who's been brainwashed

US services (CIA, FBI, NSA...) had enough informations that they could knew this attack can happens. They did not linked all these informations. Who is guilt for that i dont know. Maybe they intentionally left this services not to be cooperative and so not link facts about attack.
That's very likely because US government need an excuse for military presence in the world. Before it was a communism now it is a terrorism. That attack come at a right time for Bush's administration so they could attack Iraq although it had nothing with WTC attacks.

Right the US perposly allowed an attack in which thousands of its citizens died. Really. Aren't there websites where you can make this ill founded consipirisy theorys? What they are saying is than the US administration commted mass murder of its own civillans. Dream on.

well hes currently murdering hundreds of american soldiers with an unjust war in Iraq and he needed an excuse desperately to start this war which he was planning even before he stole the 2000 election--so why wouldnt he have allowed 911 to happen? It fit perfectly into his scheam


more liberal bull****
u have been brainwashed.

We freed the people from a madman,and are rebuilding the country. asfor the WMDs, they went to Syria I suspect.

All this black and white, it's nonsense. Liberal bullshit, conservative propaganda. People need to take both and puthtem together. Find out what's in the middle and there's the reality.

It seems the 9/11 was in part allowed to happen due to a total lack of cohesion between the relevant authorities like CIA, FBI et al. If all the information everyone had on the issue were put together then maybe it was preventable. That's not a deliberate attempt to overlook a specific threat, it's incompetence, which is unfortunately something that happens in every country between large government authorities.

As for the Iraq war, again it's not black and white. Removing a madman maybe, but remember who put him there and sponsored him. Weapons went to Syria? A country that was opposed to the regime in Iraq totally? A country which tried on more than one occasion to get rid of Saddam?

what your saying is very scarey then--all these other countrys knew about the date 911 specifically and FBI agents were begging their superiors to heed their warnings and Bush was the only world leader in existence to remain clueless? I guess it could be true that his handlers coulda kept him in the dark

What in God's name are you blathering on about? What countries "knew about the date 9/11 specifically?" As for who begged who to do what, I've heard a lot of supposition and second guessing, but seen absolutely no evidence to support the idea that this was anything other than a terrible oversight that probably couldn't have been prevented. I have seen NO creditable information stating that not only was Bush aware of the specific threat, but that with malice of forethought, he then knowingly allowed the scenario to play out, sacrificing over 3,000 lives, all for a political gain. Again, you've offered no sources, just wild accusations.

Dude, I understand your fervor, I really do. But stuff like this doesn't help the cause. It draws attention away from the creditable blunders this administration has made and it's disrespectful to the family and friends who lost people in the 9/11 tragedy (a group I am unfortunately a member of). Save your vigor for issues that can be substantiated (there are a lot of them) and stop making these unfounded charges based on some opinion piece you read on some liberal website. That's how we will get Bush out of office, not by claiming because the man isn't precognative he shouldn't be President.

DP

what your saying is very scarey then--all these other countrys knew about the date 911 specifically and FBI agents were begging their superiors to heed their warnings and Bush was the only world leader in existence to remain clueless? I guess it could be true that his handlers coulda kept him in the dark

What in God's name are you blathering on about? What countries "knew about the date 9/11 specifically?" As for who begged who to do what, I've heard a lot of supposition and second guessing, but seen absolutely no evidence to support the idea that this was anything other than a terrible oversight that probably couldn't have been prevented. I have seen NO creditable information stating that not only was Bush aware of the specific threat, but that with malice of forethought, he then knowingly allowed the scenario to play out, sacrificing over 3,000 lives, all for a political gain. Again, you've offered no sources, just wild accusations.

Dude, I understand your fervor, I really do. But stuff like this doesn't help the cause. It draws attention away from the creditable blunders this administration has made and it's disrespectful to the family and friends who lost people in the 9/11 tragedy (a group I am unfortunately a member of). Save your vigor for issues that can be substantiated (there are a lot of them) and stop making these unfounded charges based on some opinion piece you read on some liberal website. That's how we will get Bush out of office, not by claiming because the man isn't precognative he shouldn't be President.

my sister died in the WTC :evil: :evil: :evil:

Well, I'm truly sorry to hear that. I only lost friends that day, not family members, so I can understand a part of what you're going through and I'll say again I do blame the Bush administration for it. I blame them because they were too full of pride to take Clinton's warnings about terrorisim seriously. I blame them because they were too busy planning their invasion of Iraq to monitor what was going on in the world around them. I blame them because, to this day, Osama bin Laden has not been brought to justice, even though Bush himself said that was his top priority.

But even after all this loss, it still doesn't give you the right to make these wild claims that not only did Bush know 9/11 was about to happen, but that he sat back and did nothing to stop it. He's guilty on many counts: pride, ignorance, broken promises. He is not, however, guilty of this and unless you can find conclusive proof that he is, posting inflammitory rhetoric like this makes it harder to nail him on the things he has done and weakens the believability of honest arguments that have a factual basis.

what your saying is very scarey then--all these other countrys knew about the date 911 specifically and FBI agents were begging their superiors to heed their warnings and Bush was the only world leader in existence to remain clueless? I guess it could be true that his handlers coulda kept him in the dark

What in God's name are you blathering on about? What countries "knew about the date 9/11 specifically?" As for who begged who to do what, I've heard a lot of supposition and second guessing, but seen absolutely no evidence to support the idea that this was anything other than a terrible oversight that probably couldn't have been prevented. I have seen NO creditable information stating that not only was Bush aware of the specific threat, but that with malice of forethought, he then knowingly allowed the scenario to play out, sacrificing over 3,000 lives, all for a political gain. Again, you've offered no sources, just wild accusations.

Dude, I understand your fervor, I really do. But stuff like this doesn't help the cause. It draws attention away from the creditable blunders this administration has made and it's disrespectful to the family and friends who lost people in the 9/11 tragedy (a group I am unfortunately a member of). Save your vigor for issues that can be substantiated (there are a lot of them) and stop making these unfounded charges based on some opinion piece you read on some liberal website. That's how we will get Bush out of office, not by claiming because the man isn't precognative he shouldn't be President.

my sister died in the WTC :evil: :evil: :evil:

Well, I'm truly sorry to hear that. I only lost friends that day, not family members, so I can understand a part of what you're going through and I'll say again I do blame the Bush administration for it. I blame them because they were too full of pride to take Clinton's warnings about terrorisim seriously. I blame them because they were too busy planning their invasion of Iraq to monitor what was going on in the world around them. I blame them because, to this day, Osama bin Laden has not been brought to justice, even though Bush himself said that was his top priority.

But even after all this loss, it still doesn't give you the right to make these wild claims that not only did Bush know 9/11 was about to happen, but that he sat back and did nothing to stop it. He's guilty on many counts: pride, ignorance, broken promises. He is not, however, guilty of this and unless you can find conclusive proof that he is, posting inflammitory rhetoric like this makes it harder to nail him on the things he has done and weakens the believability of honest arguments that have a factual basis.

It may be worth pointing out, in this context, that ex-Pakistan Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik stated he was told by the U.S. in July of 2001 that military action would take place against Afghanistan by October of that year[0]. This claim appears to be substantiated by reports as far back as June 2001 that the U.S. was soliciting assistance from a number of nations for future military action in Afghanistan[1].

Tarazania.
_________________
[0] BBC News -- 2001/9/18 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm)

[1] India Reacts -- 2001/6/26 (http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10&ctg=policy)

Believing you would be like believing Fox News!

*nods head*

I do not like lefties like TRA. But he already knew that.

Oh what the hell...

Hail Satan!

Right the US perposly allowed an attack in which thousands of its citizens died. Really. Aren't there websites where you can make this ill founded consipirisy theorys? What they are saying is than the US administration commted mass murder of its own civillans. Dream on.

well hes currently murdering hundreds of american soldiers with an unjust war in Iraq and he needed an excuse desperately to start this war which he was planning even before he stole the 2000 election--so why wouldnt he have allowed 911 to happen? It fit perfectly into his scheam


more liberal bull****
u have been brainwashed.

We freed the people from a madman,and are rebuilding the country. asfor the WMDs, they went to Syria I suspect.

All this black and white, it's nonsense. Liberal bullshit, conservative propaganda. People need to take both and puthtem together. Find out what's in the middle and there's the reality.

It seems the 9/11 was in part allowed to happen due to a total lack of cohesion between the relevant authorities like CIA, FBI et al. If all the information everyone had on the issue were put together then maybe it was preventable. That's not a deliberate attempt to overlook a specific threat, it's incompetence, which is unfortunately something that happens in every country between large government authorities.

As for the Iraq war, again it's not black and white. Removing a madman maybe, but remember who put him there and sponsored him. Weapons went to Syria? A country that was opposed to the regime in Iraq totally? A country which tried on more than one occasion to get rid of Saddam?You might have added, A country that had a backdoor deal with Saddam to import Iraqi oil beyond the embargo limits at below market rates. They may or may not have hated him but they hate Israel and the west even more. They were making beaucoup bucks buying oil from him on the q/t. If they could work that deal then why not take some WMD's on the side?

:shock:

CUT OUT
my sister died in the WTC :evil: :evil: :evil:

TRA, you have been so full of it, and have displayed such a predilection to say whatever you think will win you your point, that your credibility is as comatose as can be without actually being dead.

I have to say I do not believe your claim to have lost your sister at the WTC. In fact I wonder if you even have a sister. If I am right then you are a despicable being who is either too young or too mentally ill to realize the depths of your own depravity.

:shock:

CUT OUT
my sister died in the WTC :evil: :evil: :evil:

TRA, you have been so full of it, and have displayed such a predilection to say whatever you think will win you your point, that your credibility is as comatose as can be without actually being dead.

I have to say I do not believe your claim to have lost your sister at the WTC. In fact I wonder if you even have a sister. If I am right then you are a despicable being who is either too young or too mentally ill to realize the depths of your own depravity.

:shock:

I dont care what you say about me but if you mention my sister again I WILL rip your throat out

CUT OUT
my sister died in the WTC :evil: :evil: :evil:

TRA, you have been so full of it, and have displayed such a predilection to say whatever you think will win you your point, that your credibility is as comatose as can be without actually being dead.

I have to say I do not believe your claim to have lost your sister at the WTC. In fact I wonder if you even have a sister. If I am right then you are a despicable being who is either too young or too mentally ill to realize the depths of your own depravity.

:shock:

I dont care what you say about me but if you mention my sister again I WILL rip your throat out

Whatever. I was talking about your lack of credibility. I didn't say a thing about your purported sister. You are apparently incapable of noting the difference or choose to deflect the point with a "Don't talk about my mama or else!" style offence.

Either way I stand by my comments.
:shock:

It may be worth pointing out, in this context, that ex-Pakistan Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik stated he was told by the U.S. in July of 2001 that military action would take place against Afghanistan by October of that year[0]. This claim appears to be substantiated by reports as far back as June 2001 that the U.S. was soliciting assistance from a number of nations for future military action in Afghanistan[1].

Tarazania.
_________________
[0] BBC News -- 2001/9/18 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm)

[1] India Reacts -- 2001/6/26 (http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10&ctg=policy)

Looking at a time line would help understand why such plans may have been in place before 9-11.


June 25, 1996 - U.S. military's Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia bombed.
August 7, 1998 - The United States' embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar al Salaam, Tanzania bombed.
October 12, 2000 - USS Cole in Port of Yemen bombed.
January 20, 2001 - G.W. Bush takes oath of office
July 2001 - Mr. Niaz Naik allegedly hears of US plan to attack Afghanistan if OBL not surrendered.
September 11, 2001 - New York and Washington, D.C. attacked.
October 7, 2001 - Afghanistan War begins

:shock:

There's one problem with all of this. First of all, TRA. Dude, I'm going to appeal to you between two intellectuals. NO ONE WOULD SACRIFICE THEIR OWN INNOCENTS. You don't do that, because then you get caught. Common sense (and as much as people claim bush stupidity, the man still has common sense) dictates that if you sacrifice 3000 innocents, you're going to get burned.

Now, as for this story. Hmm...I see, and we would have had this intelligence translated before 9/11, right? That's why we had to hire someone to translate it afterwards, isn't it? Because it was already translated? Obviously, the government was lacking in translators. Why? Because Clinton and Bush had been nerfing the inteligence agency up until 9/11. She loses credibility in saying that we knew in advance when we had to hire her to translate something that, if it hadt been translated beforehand, wouldn't have necessitated her hiring.

There is no reason to assume that anyone on this forum personally knows anyone else they're talking about, and thus cannot assume they know intentions and otherwise, of people of political influence of great degeree like Bush or Clinton or people of a lesser (at this forum) degree of political influence (like myself and anyone else involved in this forum).
The sensible thing to do here is not assume that the person making the claim to be A LIBERAL or CONSERVATIVE or any other cowardly preschool dereogatory namecalling. THe sensible thing to do would be to investigate it. The more passionate a person would feel about this subject, the less likely they are to be complacent and ignorant and blindly accepting of whatever media sensationalist blitz guano would be used to paint the situation. Cases like this would require investigation and not rhetoric. That's why very few people seem to use the terms "in my opinion" to qualify their stance in here. Links are good, when they work. Historical reference is very good. Religious frame of reference and agenda is not particularly good since it has to do with motivation of value and not motivation of equity.

There is no reason to assume that anyone on this forum personally knows anyone else they're talking about, and thus cannot assume they know intentions and otherwise, of people of political influence of great degeree like Bush or Clinton or people of a lesser (at this forum) degree of political influence (like myself and anyone else involved in this forum).
The sensible thing to do here is not assume that the person making the claim to be A LIBERAL or CONSERVATIVE or any other cowardly preschool dereogatory namecalling. THe sensible thing to do would be to investigate it. The more passionate a person would feel about this subject, the less likely they are to be complacent and ignorant and blindly accepting of whatever media sensationalist blitz guano would be used to paint the situation. Cases like this would require investigation and not rhetoric. That's why very few people seem to use the terms "in my opinion" to qualify their stance in here. Links are good, when they work. Historical reference is very good. Religious frame of reference and agenda is not particularly good since it has to do with motivation of value and not motivation of equity.

There's one problem with all of this. First of all, TRA. Dude, I'm going to appeal to you between two intellectuals. NO ONE WOULD SACRIFICE THEIR OWN INNOCENTS. You don't do that, because then you get caught. Common sense (and as much as people claim bush stupidity, the man still has common sense) dictates that if you sacrifice 3000 innocents, you're going to get burned.

Now, as for this story. Hmm...I see, and we would have had this intelligence translated before 9/11, right? That's why we had to hire someone to translate it afterwards, isn't it? Because it was already translated? Obviously, the government was lacking in translators. Why? Because Clinton and Bush had been nerfing the inteligence agency up until 9/11. She loses credibility in saying that we knew in advance when we had to hire her to translate something that, if it hadt been translated beforehand, wouldn't have necessitated her hiring.

A well reasoned argument and perhaps even an accurate anaylsis. It does pay however to keep in mind the byzantine machinations of both the intelligence community and the politicos. Weighing it all out I believe some ass covering is going on but it probably is more a result of incompetance and legal constraints tying the hands of both domestically and abroad.

:shock:

There's one problem with all of this. First of all, TRA. Dude, I'm going to appeal to you between two intellectuals. NO ONE WOULD SACRIFICE THEIR OWN INNOCENTS. You don't do that, because then you get caught. Common sense (and as much as people claim bush stupidity, the man still has common sense) dictates that if you sacrifice 3000 innocents, you're going to get burned.

Now, as for this story. Hmm...I see, and we would have had this intelligence translated before 9/11, right? That's why we had to hire someone to translate it afterwards, isn't it? Because it was already translated? Obviously, the government was lacking in translators. Why? Because Clinton and Bush had been nerfing the inteligence agency up until 9/11. She loses credibility in saying that we knew in advance when we had to hire her to translate something that, if it hadt been translated beforehand, wouldn't have necessitated her hiring.

A well reasoned argument and perhaps even an accurate anaylsis. It does pay however to keep in mind the byzantine machinations of both the intelligence community and the politicos. Weighing it all out I believe some ass covering is going on but it probably is more a result of incompetance and legal constraints tying the hands of both domestically and abroad.

:shock: