The ongoing story of how the Bush administration sacrificed American and global security to Al Qaeda in order to invade Iraq marches on.
Current and former military and intelligence officials said that the war in Iraq consistently diverted resources and high-level attention from the tribal areas. When American military and intelligence officials requested additional Predator drones to survey the tribal areas, they were told no drones were available because they had been sent to Iraq.
The Bush administration let Al Qaeda grow and fester inside Pakistan, refused to do anything lest they offend Musharraf, and then diverted the resources needed to bring the hammer down on Al Qaeda in order for Bush to exorcise his daddy’s demons by invading and occupying Iraq.
Heck of a job.
Yeah, this is a totally good reason for why we should elect more Republicans: not enough of us are dead yet, apparently.
Related
Republicans Are Soft On Terror
Ben Smith Of The Politico Attacks Obama For Being Soft On Terror, But He’s Tougher Than Bush
Lesson For Mississippi Republicans
And I’m quite certain a Democratic administration would have launched unilateral operations into Pakistan, right? Sure.
Yeah, Scratch, that’s the only option. Ever hear of diplomacy, force as last resort, intelligent multi-lateral action? (”Action” doesn’t just mean acting like you’re compensating for tiny genitalia, btw.) A Democratic administration would have acted like patriotic Americans and dealt with things like adults.
Uh, Scratch, a friendly reminder:
“Bin Laden Determined to Attack in U.S.”
Now watch this drive.
Hi Mike…
Notice that the crux of Oliver’s reference was this: When American military and intelligence officials requested additional Predator drones to survey the tribal areas, they were told no drones were available because they had been sent to Iraq.
That doesn’t sound like diplomacy that they are complaining about.
Ed…you should also include the subtitle of that report, “Also, water still wet.”
THe point that Scratch and his Iraq boner-brethren miss is that the Iraq invasion changed public opinion in Pakistan away from US efforts and fighting terrorism. Prior to their Iraq bonerfest, Pakistan was working with the US against Taliban and AL Qaeda. The billion or so dollars we paid Pakistan to fight Al Qaeda and Taliban actually got us something. Now Pakistan just pockets the money because it is politically dangerous for the Musharraf government to do anything with the military to support US efforts.
“Norv Turner Determined to win Super Bowl”…
And I’m quite certain a Democratic administration would have launched unilateral operations into Pakistan, right? Sure.
Yes, just like the CIA mission into Pakistan that the Bush Administration used just a few months ago. Did you forget that so soon?
“George Bush Determined to Keep Head Up Ass”
“Brush Determined to Consume Entire Presidential Ranch”
Aah, the real difference there, Michael, is that Bush is determined to do something about that.
Duros…
At the risk of sounding like a dumbass (generous softball for my left-leaning friends at O-Dub,) can you elaborate on your 10:23 comment?
“And I’m quite certain a Democratic administration would have launched unilateral operations into Pakistan, right? Sure.”
Because that’s where Bin Ladden was. Remember him? Obviously not. But he was the mastermind behind 9/11, the reason why the American government can look through your medical records. He’s still free because when the forces in Afghanistan came close to capturing him, they didn’t have the resources needed to complete the job.
How you turn this around and use it to attack the Democrats is beyond me. You are too stupid for human comprehension.
SaveFarris: “‘Norv Turner Determined to win Super Bowl’…”
And this, this is also too stupid to comprehend.
What point are you trying to make?
Hi C.S.
I’ll help you out with a couple of the more complicated points being made in this thread.
For starters, it is highly amusing to see Democrats seizing on the generalized overview brief featuring the descriptive title, “Bin Laden determined to attack in U.S.” Given that Bin Laden had, in 1996, issued a Fatwa calling for attacks against Americans around the world, the statement is not revelatory in any way. Similar to other obvious statements such as, “Water still wet,” or, “Norv Turner determined to win Super Bowl.”
As for the brief itself, I challenge you to read and identify here in this thread any information that could have been acted upon in any concrete way to prevent the 9/11 attacks. In the unlikely event that you can cite such information, another interesting exercise would be to the describe the preventive actions and explain why George Bush would not have been criticized and vilified for taking these actions either before or after 9/11. After all, to hear Democrats go on, you would think that this report and this report alone were the sole indications of threat, and that all other indications have been lies made up by Bush to accomplish some indeterminate political objective (usually having something to do with “distracting” us from something or other.)
This leads me to the other point that you claimed to not comprehend. It is also highly amusing to hear Democrats imply that, had they been in charge, they would have taken decisive and unilateral action in Pakistan to catch Bin Laden. The fact is that Democrats want to have it both ways. Any action taken to weaken Al Qaeda, including catching Bin Laden, is worthy of ridicule, contempt, and suspicion, while, had the Democrats been in power, they would have used unspecified techniques to catch him tout de suite…presumably without collecting information or crossing any borders.
“Bin Laden determined to attack in U.S.” Given that Bin Laden had, in 1996, issued a Fatwa calling for attacks against Americans around the world, the statement is not revelatory in any way.
Boy, there’s something striking about the title of that PDB, but I can’t seem to put my finger on it.
Hi Quaker, nice to hear from you.
The second Fatwa, issued in 1998 as a follow-on to the first, said, The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies–civilians and military–is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it…
One can either conclude from this that the U.S. homeland is safe from attack, or that the U.S. is at risk of attack. What would your conclusion be?
Scratchy:”can you elaborate on your 10:23 comment?”
Glad to help out.
Surely you remember attacking Obama about advocating a “balls-out, full-on invasion of a sovereign nation”, don’t you? Seems like only yesterday.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5163402
http://english.people.com.cn/200601/18/eng20060118_236362.html
Here’s the money shot.
http://blogs.trb.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/02/mccain_on_pakistan_huh.html
I can’t believe you forgot about this already. Comment’s in moderation. Please stand by.
Unilateral Strike Called a Model For U.S. Operations in Pakistan
Just so you don’t think I’m being partisan.
Thanks for the response, Duros.
Surely you remember attacking Obama about advocating a “balls-out, full-on invasion of a sovereign nation”, don’t you?
Huh? I don’t remember making any such attack. I have certainly been known to forget things that I said, so I’d appreciate a link if I did in fact make such an attack.
To be clear, I support unilateral, covert action in Pakistan or any other nation if we have a high probability of catching or killing Bin Laden. I am less enthusiastic about a unilateral invasion of a non-belligerent country, but may be on board if we had a very high chance of catching or killing him.
I do not believe that a typical Democratic president would take these types of actions, in light of the relentless criticism of any action taken to weaken Al Qaeda.
Huh? I don’t remember making any such attack.
It may not have been you. If not, I apologize for casting aspersions. I think it was one of the Jays.
I do not believe that a typical Democratic president would take these types of actions, in light of the relentless criticism of any action taken to weaken Al Qaeda
It is and has always been Obama’s position. If we know where they are, we go get ‘em. He was widely criticized for those remarks last winter.
Huh, look at that.
Aw, crap.
Never mind.
“One can either conclude from this that the U.S. homeland is safe from attack, or that the U.S. is at risk of attack. What would your conclusion be?”
My conclusion would be, “OK, you covered your ass.” And then I would continue NOT having any meetings of the anti-terrorism apparatus put in place by my sorry-ass, intern-groping, blowjob-getting predecessor because, well, you know, it’s time to restore dignity to the Oval Office or something.
Then I’d play me some golf.
Scratch: “For starters, it is highly amusing to see Democrats seizing on the generalized overview brief featuring the descriptive title, ‘Bin Laden determined to attack in U.S.’”
Oh good god.
The United States had specific information about possible attacks. The Clinton administration told the incoming Bush administration that Bin Laden was the number on security threat to the United States. Bush and Co. did nothing to even prepare for such attack.
“As for the brief itself, I challenge you to read and identify here in this thread any information that could have been acted upon in any concrete way to prevent the 9/11 attacks.”
You realize that brief is classified, and the Bush administration refuses to declassify it. If there’s nothing actionable in that brief, as you imply, then there’s nothing to prevent its release.
“another interesting exercise would be to the describe the preventive actions and explain why George Bush would not have been criticized and vilified for taking these actions either before or after 9/11.”
Prove it.
“After all, to hear Democrats go on, you would think that this report and this report alone…”
Another lie.
“The fact is that Democrats want to have it both ways. Any action taken to weaken Al Qaeda, including catching Bin Laden, is worthy of ridicule, contempt, and suspicion…”
Any yet another baseless claim.
“while, had the Democrats been in power, they would have used unspecified techniques to catch him tout de suite…presumably without collecting information or crossing any borders.”
And more lies.
You’re entire argument seems to be based on delusions about your opponents.
When the expert say, ‘Torture doesn’t work.’ You hear, ‘We shouldn’t collect any intelligence.’ This is fucking retarded. If you can’t get beyond this mentality, then there’s no point in talking to you.
OK Scratch, try to explain this one away:
March 13, 2002
Q But don’t you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
Yup, Bin Laden’s on the loose, and Bush doesn’t care. So much for “Dead or Alive”.
You realize that brief is classified, and the Bush administration refuses to declassify it.
Let me give you a hand there C.S.:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf
Note the date of April 2004, when the brief was declassified by the Bush Administration.
The United States had specific information about possible attacks.
Really? Please tell me about this specific information.
Zython…
Sorry, didn’t see your post until just now.
I think this quote by Bush is a bit of bravado, to show how “impotent” Bin Laden has become. He has been driven under ground, and many of his key people have been captured or killed. So Bush says that he is not that concerned about him any more, to deny him the hero status of an operational commander in hiding. My own position is that the desire to kill or capture Bin Laden is 90% retribution and 10% prevention, and Bush’s quote is in line with that, though I wouldn’t have chosen those words myself. The search has and will continue in spite of this sentiment.
Scratch: “Note the date of April 2004, when the brief was declassified by the Bush Administration.”
You got me there. Must have been thinking about something else.
Me: “The United States had specific information about possible attacks.”
Scracth: “Really? Please tell me about this specific information.”
The use of airplanes as weapons was a known strategy. This was known about before 9/11, yet no steps were taken to change security.
And now your turn. I asked for evidence, give it or admit you were lying.
C.S…
The use of airplanes as weapons was a known strategy. This was known about before 9/11, yet no steps were taken to change security.
There were and are plenty of “known strategies” from which a terrorist may choose. Poison gas in the subway us also a known strategy. So is a team of suicide bombers. Should Bush, in the first 8 months of his presidency, gone down the list of all possible modes of terrorist attack and taken steps to prevent them? If Bush had said, in February of 2001, “My fellow Americans, due to information I have received, I have chosen to ban small blades and tools on aircraft; to compel airlines to spend a couple thousand dollars per aircraft to reinforce cockpit doors; to prohibit a line of passengers in the forward lavatory of aircraft; to mandate that all passengers remain seated during the first and last 30 minutes of all flights into and out of Washington, D.C., can you honestly tell me that Americans in general and the American left in particular would have supported that? They can’t even accept warnings and precautions today, after being attacked by an enemy that still exists!
By the way C.S., as near as I can tell you are asking me to “prove” my statements of opinion. I think the behavior of the left bears out my general premise that Bush would have faced resistance and criticism for any precaution taken before or after 9/11, but these are still simply statements of opinion.
So faced with all those horrible possibilities George Bush went on vacation instead.
can you honestly tell me that Americans in general and the American left in particular would have supported that?
I would have supported that position then a hell of a lot easier than having to walk through an airport barefoot toady. Cockpit doors should have been secured 20 years ago.
Do you think a bunch of guys wanting to learn how to fly 767’s and not be interested in landing them would have been a clue?
Just askin’.
I would have supported that position then a hell of a lot easier than having to walk through an airport barefoot toady.
Hey, who are you calling toady? Anyway, I don’t think your statement makes any sense. You would have supported a bunch of precautions before 9/11, but feel it’s an imposition to take of your shoes now? So, you would have taken them off before 9/11, but not now? Or do you mean, because the 9/11 attacks are over, you shouldn’t have to take them off? It’s sounds to me like you don’t think the threat is real today, so I’m curious why you would have believed the threat was real on 9/10/2001.
Oh, and Duros, I think the bit about wanting to learn to fly but not land is an unfounded legend. Do you have credible information about such statements? Moussaoui did arouse suspicions for other reasons…but of course he was arrested and convicted.
“By the way C.S., as near as I can tell you are asking me to ‘prove’ my statements of opinion.”
They are not opinions, they are accusations. What do you base these accusations on?
By the way, without evidence, logic, etc., opinions are invalid and can be safely ignored. So regardless of semantics, I’m still looking for evidence form you.
“It’s sounds to me like you don’t think the threat is real today…”
Why do you think that way?
Disagreeing on the best way to deal with a threat is not the same as thinking a threat doesn’t exist.
“…so I’m curious why you would have believed the threat was real on 9/10/2001.”
“Tomorrow is zero hour” would have to be considered a huge clue.
There was plenty of evidence to suggest something was up, however, no one in charge gave a fuck about anti-terrorism and nothing was done to examine the evidence.
If I was president and I was presented with a memo about anyone determined to attack the United States, I would want to be involved. I would set up a meeting with experts who could brief me on the man, what he wants, how dangerous is he, is he a credible threat, etc. George W. Bush did none of this.
Republicans Stupid on Terror
ed, it wasn’t “Now watch this drive.”
Our Leader’s response to the memo was more substantive, showing his leadership, the depths of his resolve, something like “All right. You’ve covered your ass now.”
It boils down to: name anything Bush did to combat terrorism prior to 9-11. Ashcroft changed priorities of the DOJ and FBI to combat prostitution. National Security adviser Rice was busy refighting the cold war with national missile defense. Dick Cheney was put in charge of the anti-terrorism task force but he was more concerned with helping the energy companies rape America so he didn’t do anything other than throw out the various terrorism studies etc because they had Clinton’s name on them. Bush was on vacation or fighting hard to get a salad bar. Rumsfeld was busy reforming the army into something that couldn’t scramble a fighter plane for over an hour while the country was under attack.
And, midder, one thing still hasn’t changed: the Army still couldn’t scramble a fighter plane, almost seven YEARS after that attack.
The Air Force can, the Navy can, and even the Marines can, but the Army can’t.
The Army DOESN’T HAVE any fighters!!!
(Nitpicking, I know, but I couldn’t resist.)
J.
That is just typical of the conservative rah rah Bush Iraq bonerfest supporters. Nice job JaytTea. Blame the military. THose guys join up to serve the country or get money for college or something, get sent half away around the world, get put in a stressful violent occupation, risk injury and death all for JayTea to bash them. For whatever reason, JayTea wants to question their commitment, professionalism, and manhood by declaring that:
“The Army DOESN’T HAVE any fighters!!!”
Bash someone else.
(Nitpicking, I know, but I couldn’t resist.)
m
Midder, it’s a simple fact: the Army has no fighters. In fact, apart from a couple of experimental cargo planes, the Army has NO fixed-wing assets. All they have is helicopters.
The Air Force has scads of fighters and fighter/bombers.
The Navy and Marines have phased out most of their fighters, but does still have the F/A-18 Hornet fighter/bomber and the AV-8 Harrier fighter/bomber/ground attack jumpjet.
It’s not a surefire indicator, but there is a strong correlation between a person’s ignorance of things military and their level of respect for the military. Those who do appreciate the Armed Forces tend to, on average, know a bit more about them, and tend to not make such statements as “the Army couldn’t scramble fighter planes.”
J.
“It’s not a surefire indicator, but there is a strong correlation between a person’s ignorance of things military and their level of respect for the military.”
I think you just made that up.
JayTea, just stop denigrating the army. I for one think the army is full of brave fighters.
Hey, who are you calling toady? Anyway, I don’t think your statement makes any sense. You would have supported a bunch of precautions before 9/11, but feel it’s an imposition to take of your shoes now? So, you would have taken them off before 9/11, but not now? Or do you mean, because the 9/11 attacks are over, you shouldn’t have to take them off? It’s sounds to me like you don’t think the threat is real today, so I’m curious why you would have believed the threat was real on 9/10/2001.
Sorry, Scratchy, that s/b “today.”
Yes, I would have supported precautions before 9/11.
Think about it. Cockpit doors would have been bolted and secure and inaccessible to the hijackers, their plot would have failed. They would have been arrested and brought to justice. Richard Reid’s “shoe bomb” plot would have been uncovered.
And I wouldn’t have to walk through the airport in my bare feet. I could probably bring a friggin’ Slurpee on board, too.
Oh, and the WTC would still be standing.
Think about it. Cockpit doors would have been bolted and secure and inaccessible to the hijackers, their plot would have failed.
Congratulations…you were able to identify the proper precautions AFTER THE FACT. Weigh that with all the criticism of any precaution taken today, BEFORE THE FACT. For instance,
I could probably bring a friggin’ Slurpee on board, too.
That’s a precaution that has nothing to do with 9/11. That is based on plans to get explosives onboard aircraft in the form of liquids that, when mixed together, form an explosive solution. Can you explain to me why this simple precaution against a real threat is criticized and joked about, while a bunch of expensive and sweeping preventive measures taken before 9/11 would somehow have been met with enthusiastic compliance?
And I wouldn’t have to walk through the airport in my bare feet.
Right…because the threat has magically disappeared.
“Tomorrow is zero hour” would have to be considered a huge clue.
Sure it would…if you’re in a tv show. Do you have any idea how many “story arcs” are followed by our intelligence people every single day, and, more to the point, in the 18 months prior to 9/11? This statement is meaningless without SPECIFIC knowledge of the events to occur.
Let me give you a real world example of what specific means. I can tell you for absolute certain that there will be at least one fatal accident within my metropolitan area tomorrow. In other words, “tomorrow is zero hour.” Now, please tell me how I can prevent this accident.
“Rumsfeld was busy reforming the army into something that couldn’t scramble a fighter plane for over an hour while the country was under attack.”
Actually midderpidge, disregarding your ignorance of the Key West Agreement, it didn’t take an hour for a jet to be launched to intercept the hi-jacked flights. Flight 11 was declared hijacked by the FAA in Boston at 8:20am. They notified NEADS, NORAD’s north east branch, at 8:37am. NEADS has two F-15s launched from Otis AFB in Mass at 8:46 to intercept Flight 11. So from the time the military was notifed to the time they launched a fighter was less than 10 minutes.
Also, I’m curious how a transformation of the Army from a heavy force designed to counter threats from the Soviets through the Fulda Gap has anything to do with communications between NORAD and the FAA.
Right…because the threat has magically disappeared.
No, the threat hasn’t magically disappeared, but the focus of the threats might be a little more comprehensive.
Congratulations…you were able to identify the proper precautions AFTER THE FACT. Weigh that with all the criticism of any precaution taken today, BEFORE THE FACT. For instance,
so you don’t think a simple precautionary measure such as securing cockpit doors is necessary? Whether a threat exists or not, it’s still a pretty good idea.
My problem with your example is that now we are faced with the knee-jerk reaction to a very specific threat. At the same time, we may be ignoring new threats.
from the time the military was notifed to the time they launched a fighter was less than 10 minutes.
Didn’t I read somewhere that they flew out to sea, in the wrong direction?
Let me give you a real world example of what specific means. I can tell you for absolute certain that there will be at least one fatal accident within my metropolitan area tomorrow. In other words, “tomorrow is zero hour.” Now, please tell me how I can prevent this accident.
Any fool knows you invade Iraq.
CSS: “Tomorrow is zero hour” would have to be considered a huge clue.
Except that it wasn’t translated from teh Raabic until 9/12. Hard to make use of clues that you don’t have yet.
CSS: If I was president and I was presented with a memo about anyone determined to attack the United States, I would want to be involved. I would set up a meeting with experts who could brief me on the man, what he wants, how dangerous is he, is he a credible threat, etc. George W. Bush did none of this.
If you were president you’d have 27 other important things you had to deal with and any particular day. You’d have staff who are supposed to help you determine the relative import of those things and make sure something can’t-be-ignored critical is presented as such.
Lord knows I have no respect for Bush and believe the man to be utterly incompetent at his job. But I find it very hard to believe it was as simple as he was presented with a memo full of dire warnings and said “Let’s just ignore that.”
The “if I were president I would have done exactly all the things that it is now obvious should have been done in hindsight” argument isn’t up to your usual standards, C.
Nope, Iran. Thanks for playing.
Jay TEa: Those who do appreciate the Armed Forces tend to, on average, know a bit more about them, and tend to not make such statements as “the Army couldn’t scramble fighter planes.”
Actually, what he said was “the army”. Lower case “a”. Which I took as a generic for “military” and not a reference to a particular branch of the service.
(Nitpicking, I know, but I couldn’t resist.)
OK, midder, let’s call it a draw.
You said the Army didn’t scramble “fighter planes.”
I gently mocked you, pointing out that the Army doesn’t have any “fighter planes” (shortening it to “fighters,” the standard term) — and, for that matter, hasn’t had any since the Army Air Force went independent and became the Air Force.
You took “fighters” and changed the interpretation from “aircraft” to “individuals who fight.”
We’ve both had our pedantic little jollies. (I think mine was better, but I’m sure you disagree.) What say we drop it?
J.
Duros, you don’t think that securing cockpit doors against an intruder is a response to a specific threat? I can think of many ways to bring down an airliner without entering the cockpit. Or, more to the point, I can think of many ways to inflict pain and terror without involving an aircraft at all. What you have designed is a countermeasure to a 9/11-style attack. Which has been quite easy and sensible since 9/12.
What is your solution to the next major attack? I’d like to get it in writing now so we can compare notes after the fact.
If you want broad, non-knee-jerk solutions, I would focus on catching the people and disrupting the organizations that would do us harm. Unfortunately, that requires, you know, watching and listening, so we’re out of luck there since apparently the only acceptable watching and listening is the kind that involves already knowing what will be seen and heard.
But I find it very hard to believe it was as simple as he was presented with a memo full of dire warnings and said “Let’s just ignore that.”
I believe his actual words were, “OK, you’ve covered your ass now.”
Then he played golf.
Which one of these is different?
#1-Marine barracks bombed in Beruit. Hundreds of soldiers die. Orders from Ronnie Raygun: Run away! waaa!!!
#2-WTC bombed. Clinton gets the perps behind bars for life.
#3-USS Cole bombed late 2000. Clinton determines who did the attack & where they are. Gives info to Shrub. Shrub ignores info. Bombers are still free.
#4-Both WTCs brought down by planes. Thousands die. Shrub lets his Saudi friends (the ones that financed the attack) fly home. 7 years later & Shrub doesn’t care about the leader of the attack.
The rethugs love terrorists.
No draw. Admit it. I out-snarked you. I made a mistake and typed army instead of military. You snarked me, but good. I snarked your snark, tagged it with your own snark-stamp and you missed it and tried to explain your snark as if I didn’t get it. Then I had to make my snark-back so painfully and easily clear a ten year old could get it for you to understand it. I will now pull a Dugger: Victory is mine!!!
midderpidge while you might have won the snark war, you’re factually wrong in the source of your snark. It took less than 10 minutes for the USAF to scramble two F-15s from Otis AFB to intercept Flight 11. The FAA in Boston declared Flight 11 a likely hi-jacking at 8:20am. They notified NORAD/NEADS at 8:37am and the fighters launched at 8:46am.
Damnit, didn’t realize I couldn’t edit the post and have to double post. Also, the Army’s Transformation would have had nothing to do with the efficiency of the USAF to accomplish their mission.
CSS: “Tomorrow is zero hour” would have to be considered a huge clue.
Sean D. Martin: “Except that it wasn’t translated from teh Raabic until 9/12. Hard to make use of clues that you don’t have yet.”
And why is that? Why wasn’t it translated? Oh right, because the Bush administration didn’t give enough resources to counter-terrorism. Hell, after that happened they fired numerous translators because they were gay. Yet they want to torture people to get intelligence.
“If you were president you’d have 27 other important things you had to deal with and any particular day.”
Bullshit. Fucking bullshit. Al Qaeda successfully attack the United States a number of times. Yet Bush did NOTHING to prevent another attack. We know he was warned by outgoing members of the Clinton administration, but he ignored these warnings.
Reality-based Dave:
You’re absolutely right on Reagan and the Lebanon bombing, and I’ve said so on numerous occasions. I put it almost as significant in setting a precedent that the US would accept Islamist terrorism as Carter’s utter capitulation on the Iranian hostage crisis.
But you’re dead wrong on the first WTC bombing. SOME of them were locked up, but several of the leaders got clean away — one of them even found sanctuary in Iraq, of all places. And those that we did lock up? One of them got his lawyer ot cover for him while he continued to run terrorists in Egypt.
Al Qaeda also pulled off the African embassy bombings and the Khobar Towers bomb as well as the Cole attack, and Clinton didn’t see it as enough of a priority to do much.
J.
Midder, “army” is NOT considered an acceptable synonym for “military” — just ask any airman, sailor, or Marine. On the other hand, “fighter plane,” “fighter jet,” and “fighter” are all considered synonyms. You were overly specific and excluded the one branch that doesn’t possess fighter aircraft.
It was a damned good exploitation on your part, but my error was the opposite of yours: you were overly precise, while I was vague enough that you could exploit an alternative definition.
Good grief, I can’t believe I’m putting this much analysis into such a silly quip…
J.
“Oh right, because the Bush administration didn’t give enough resources to counter-terrorism. Hell, after that happened they fired numerous translators because they were gay.”
CSS, since the civilian government can’t fire someone because they’re gay, it’s against EO/EEO, you’re probably referring to the military discharging linguists who were found to be gay. Unfortunatly, you’re wrong about the number.
As of 2007 the grand total of Arab/Persian linguists who were discharged under DADT since 1995 is: 58. And that number is high because they include people who were discharged prior to completing their language training. Every so often you’ll see a claim about 300 linguists being discharged, and that is likely the source of your confusion CSS. However, that is going back over a decade and it rolls up every person discharged with a language identifier. Unless I misunderstood something about 9-11 I don’t see how a Polish or Russian or Korean linguist would have been much help in translating Arabic.
Name something that Bush did prior to 9-11 to fight terrorism. Good luck.
CSS: “Tomorrow is zero hour” would have to be considered a huge clue.
Sean D. Martin: “Except that it wasn’t translated from teh Raabic until 9/12. Hard to make use of clues that you don’t have yet.”
CSS: And why is that? Why wasn’t it translated? Oh right, because the Bush administration didn’t give enough resources to counter-terrorism.
The transmission was intercepted on 9/10. It wasn’t translated until two days later. I’m not sure what the number of intercepts are and how long it normally takes them to get translated. Two days seems not unreasonable to me given the level of traffic I expect is intercepted. But I don’t know for sure. And unless you can prove two days is unnecessarily slow, unless you can prove that more translators would have brought that particular message to folks’ attention the day it was sent then you can’t make the argument you are making.
In any event, even knowing something is going to happen tomorrow, absent a lot of other analyzed information knowing it goes down tomorrow doesn’t help much in knowing what “it” is.
“Name something that Bush did prior to 9-11 to fight terrorism. Good luck.”
Does “Continue to treat it as a law enforcement issue like every previous American administration.” count as an answer?
SDM: And unless you can prove two days is unnecessarily slow, unless you can prove that more translators would have brought that particular message to folks’ attention the day it was sent then you can’t make the argument you are making.
Yeah. Thought so.
CSS. Quick to demand others provide proof or admit they can’t. Slow to do either himself.