[quote=“fred smith”]This is why no one takes you people seriously. One person has lost their rights under the Patriot Act this Padilla character who is at the very least very dodgy and we are comparing this with Hitler? Give me a f***ing break.
Yes, there could have been “concrete” info on crashing airliners into buildings but which ones and where and how could the security have been stepped up? By profiling Muslim males. That would have been a pretty good start but lookee lookee. This one best way to have screened this people was unacceptable because it was like Hitler’s actions in 1930 Germany? Can you people smell what you are shoveling. Also, this was not the only information that Rice was getting, there were credible threats against ports, bio attacks, dirty bombs, hijackings, assassinations, blowing up buidings, bridges, etc. So with 1,000 threats being presented, she should be blamed for letting one get through especially since most people recognize that a pretty damned effective way to have stopped them was to sit back and profile going gee nuns? doctors? Arab males aged 20 to 35? Which one do you think we should spend more time looking at? But in reality, what would have happened had this taken place prior to 911. Read your own idiotic postings and be surprised that given the level of stupidity and mindlessness evident that we were not attacked even more![/quote]
Smoke kinda thick, is it Fred? Maybe it’s all those baked alaskas. It certainly couldn’t be the bombs falling on YOUR head.
Your well-groomed little yellow head…
Lunatic. Pure unadulterated lunatic.
No wonder the world has come to all this with apologists like you.
Well if people like me are really like Hitler, why should we listen to you at all? We can just have you arrested under the Patriot Act. Hasn’t happened though has it? That’s because we are so civilized but don’t get us mad. Don’t mess with us and you will remain safe. We are after the OTHERS now.
Baked Alaska? Heavens! Where in the world would one buy one of those these days? Seriously curious. Finally, my hair is tousled today. Bit windy what with all the hot air coming from this site. Have a great weekend. Better hope I don’t run into you. freddie
Fred, we’ve all lost our rights under the Patriot Act. That is why it is so widely reviled. My rights are not intact unless Jose Padilla’s rights are intact. This belief is basic to the functioning of democratic society.
Further, the article above outlined numerous violations of civil rights and just plain good sense. You did not address those.
Fred, the intel plainly indentified that aircraft would be used to crash into buildings. The Administration did nothing, in spite of the many things that could have been done. That is a basic point that has eluded you. It is not that the Administration took objectionable measures, or ineffective ones, or effective ones that unfortunately miscarried. The issue is that it did nothing at all despite having solid warnings.
Sorry you lost me on that. I have not read that there was specific mention of which planes would be hijacked and flown against which targets. Do you have info on this?
You are the President. You have the following information: terrorists from the Middle East are planning to hijack aircraft from US airports and fly them into important targets.
You can
(a) do nothing
or
(b) do something
Most rational people would choose (b). The Administration chose (a). That’s the key point. No information about date and location is necessary to tighten security at US airports and on US air routes, to run drills coordinating information from the FAA with the USAF so that hijacked aircraft can be brought down before they cause serious harm. Similarly, no information about time and place is necessary for the President to increase domestic fighter aircraft capability. Dozens of useful measures are available, but the Bush Administration did not pursue any of them.
Again, most rational people would choose (b). The Administration, on the other hand, decided to pursure a war with Iraq.
Hahaha I thought you meant that you had specific information. This of course would go along with all of the other terrorist threats aimed at targets abroad, ports, buildings (without airplanes) etc. Right… I got you now. Besides, the one best way to deal with these terrorists is to profile young Arab males and Muslim males but as you have so righteously pointed out that would be wrong so… color me surprised and color yourself obtuse.
Hahaha I thought you meant that you had specific information. This of course would go along with all of the other terrorist threats aimed at targets abroad, ports, buildings (without airplanes) etc. Right… I got you now. Besides, the one best way to deal with these terrorists is to profile young Arab males and Muslim males but as you have so righteously pointed out that would be wrong so… color me surprised and color yourself obtuse.[/quote]
I see. So you, also, would choose (a) – Do nothing.
No we are the ones that are acting now. In case you haven’t noticed the world has changed quite a bit since 911. Remember Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. All out of commission with very good behavior from many other regimes. We are fighting a war and you and others of your ilk are arguing about what exactly? I for one certainly do not know. We shall do our utmost, however, to prevent one thing: letting people like you who should not be allowed around sharp objects from running anything.
Let’s see how these hearings proceed? Has it been proved that the administration had a concrete threat? No. Until it has and you can post that here, spank away but on your own body parts if you don’t mind. I am a Republican. We are anti-fun. Didn’t you know?
Let’s see how these hearings proceed? Has it been proved that the administration had a concrete threat? No. Until it has and you can post that here, spank away but on your own body parts if you don’t mind. I am a Republican. We are anti-fun. Didn’t you know?[/quote]
Yes I know. Most people with the urgent, unfulfilled need for power and control are pretty humorless.
i’m sure if bush had ordered tightened security with more passenger screenings BEFORE 9/11 you two would be howling at how bush was trampling on our civil rights. and i’ll bet he would have been balmed for manufacturing a crisis situation to take attention off of his controversial election.
give up the coulda woulda shoulda’s. yes, you guys have great hindsight. good for you. you know EXACTLY what should have been done…3 years after the fact.
even clarke admits that had his ideal anti-terrorist policies been put in place we still couldn’t have prevented 9/11.
i’d be interested to see some links to support your position that the fbi and cia had substantial evidence pre-9/11 that there was a coordinated plan to crash airliners into buildings in the us. funny how you haven’t posted the info yet. fred asked for it at the beginning of page 2.
What was that argument about Iraq not being an immediate (i.e. concrete) threat but Bush had to act? What about your support for pre-emptive measures that should prevent possible wrong-doings based on worst-case scenarios?
Why does it not apply here, in a situation that would not have caused the death of thousand of innocents Iraqis, in fact it may (or may not, who is to say?) even have prevented 911 and may have saved the lifes of thousands of Americans (those that died in the WTC)?
Just wondering (and not being outraged of course).
First, I doubt very much that the president’s vacations are similar to the vacations some of us take… where many of us leave for vacation and don’t check in with the office until we return. Hell, even I can’t go on vacation without my firm or some of the other entities that I do work for calling me and e-mailing me work. I’m fairly certain that Bush was not completely out of touch while on vacation.
Secondly… yes, there are always threats of terror being received or uncovered by the US government. But unless the same are credible and specific, what would you have the authorities do? I mean, on the one hand Bushwackers moan and groan about the “heavy-handed” policies of the Patriot Act, enacted after 911, and on the other hand these same people complain that not enough was done prior to 911. To me, that simply doesn’t make any sense at all.
I think its unfair to criticize the Bush administration for failure to prevent the 911 attacks based on unspecific terror alerts.[/quote]
Well, I remember that vacation because it was the first opportunity, good opportunity, for Rove to define Bush as the Anti-Clinton president.
It was great to see Condelezza Rice under the blow torch at the 9/11 commission hearings, but I couldn’t help thinking all these questions were typical journalistic questions that should have been asked and answered neons ago.
What is it with the US media? They are so chicken shit, when it comes to asking hard ball questions of authority.
They were! The WashPost reported on the intelligence failures back in 2002, and dozens of lower level intel types have pointed out problems, all of which were publicized. And the Indy media was hard at work exposing all this. It’s not like it hasn’t been out there.
