I think this is overblown, but here's the story:

Hijack Warning

What's interesting about all of these reports about Middle Easterners/Arabs in flight schools is that to follow up on them would have required in no uncertain terms racial and/or ethnic profiling - i.e. Middle Easterners would have been suspects simply because they are Middle Eastern. Would such an investigation be allowed in this day and age? How much hell would Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton have raised?

I've always thought how nice it would have been if people had been more suspicious on the morning of Sept. 11. What if a pilot of one of the doomed jets had looked into the first class cabin, seen five Arab men, gotten nervous and refused to fly the plane, offering instead for the airline to accomodate the men individually on different flights? It would have been almost explicitly racist, yet it would have potentially saved hundreds or thousands of lives. Would that have been good or bad?

Well, Jesse Jackson's whole career is based on staying in public view so his motives should always be questioned even with the good he's done...

I do think the response to these warnings was insufficient (obviously) and that the profiling issue probably had nothing to do with it. We've suffered under the national illusion for too long that we were safe on our own ground; that all those nasty little wars and battles happen over there. On 9/11 we woke up.
And since the Twin Towers have been attacked before by such Middle Easterner/Arab terrorists, than it would be foolish not to keep a hawkeye on flight school students of dubious motives. I mean, come on.

But, when you read about all of the plans and policies that Bush and Co. have implemented in the last year, it does make you wonder if he would have had such success with his agenda if it weren't for the monstrous 9/11 diversion (if it can be called that in any rational sense)...

I don't think Bush would had any luck with his agenda, if not for 9/11. Lets face it, most of the country and Washington and Oregon specifically are almost in a depression, of which little to nothing has been done, still. There are lots of hurting people out here in the Pacific Northwest.

Hmmm...well, let's think about it this way. What if a pilot of one of the doomed jets had looked into the first class cabin, seen five gay men, gotten nervous and refused to fly the plane, offering instead for the airline to accomodate the men individually on different flights?

What's the difference? Unless you subscribe to the vicious stereotype that everyone of Arab descent is inherently violent and prone to terrorism. I have no doubt that every day in this country groups of Arab-American men board flights and take first-class seats with nothing more on their minds than the meeting they have to go to at their destination.

You can't make day-to-day life miserable and untenable for a whole group of people merely because someone's racist fear comes true once in a while (cf. gays being stigmatized because of one case like John Wayne Gacy). If you want to catch foreign terrorists, you have to do it by legitimate means, by monitoring immigration papers, conducting checks at borders, maintaining an intelligence operation or whatever, not by raising generic alarms.

[quote]Originally posted by Stephen:
Hmmm...well, let's think about it this way. What if a pilot of one of the doomed jets had looked into the first class cabin, seen five gay men, gotten nervous and refused to fly the plane, offering instead for the airline to accomodate the men individually on different flights?

---

Well, assuming the plane in question was not subsequently flown into the Pentagon or WTC, I think this would have been an unusual but ultimately beneficial turn of events. But if you don't think Middle Easterners are more prone to terrorism than gay men, you're . . . hmmm, how to say this without getting personal? ("Out of your F#&$ing mind" seems harsh) . . . you're missing the big picture, I think.

Look, if you see two Amish women and two Middle Eastern men, who do you believe - talking gut instinct here - will be more prone to violence? Just wondering.

The story changes daily... now it's MAY that Incurious George and his cronies were informed of the threat.

If there were any Dems with balls, this would spell I-M-P-E-A-C-H... This abomination is the very definition of failing to "preserve, protect and defend." Not high crimes and misdemeanors? Tough. Payback for Oralgate.

Administration knew of hijack threat in May (Washington Post)

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
If there were any Dems with balls, this would spell I-M-P-E-A-C-H... This abomination is the very definition of failing to "preserve, protect and defend." Not high crimes and misdemeanors? Tough. Payback for Oralgate.

---

You're being ridiculous. You can't impeach someone due to incompetence.

I don't have any doubt if a *thorough* investigation was made, crimes sufficient for impeachment would emerge. But no one in D.C. wants to find them, anymore than they want the US to be part of the International Criminal Court. We'd have to institute work holidays for the hanging of presidents.

More than the incompetence or criminality of any one person, this whole situation proves that you can't trust the government to do anything right.

Anyway - if the federal government had been focused on its primary responsiblity of national security rather than piddling state issues like education, our resources might have been focused enough to figure out what was going on around the world.

And . . . why didn't we know about the Cole bombing? Why didn't we know about the African embassy bombings? The Khobar Towers? The WTC in 1993? Was our then-Prez too busy getting debriefed by the interns to be briefed on these issues? And what did we do as retaliation for these attacks? Nothing, besides bombing some stupid aspirin factory, and that was more to divert press attention away from impeachment than to realiate.

But never mind: I'm sure some of our more rabid Bush-haters can find ways to pin the blame for these intelligence failures on W as well.

Overall, this country is way too focused on partisan wars and non-events like Clinton/Lewinsky. Our own civil war, especially during the Clinton years, is partially to blame for our intelligence failures. Both sides spend way too much time fighting and campaigning, and raising money to fight and campaign some more. We weaken ourselves from within leaving room for outside attack. United we stand, dudes, and so on...

We've got to have campaigns, and campaigns cost money. Unless you want forced taxpayer funding of all campaigns (Now you, too, can pay for Tom Delay's reelection bid!) and government controlled political speech, which, judging from our government's handling of key intelligence matters, would probably be in greek.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
And . . . why didn't we know about the Cole bombing? Why didn't we know about the African embassy bombings? The Khobar Towers? The WTC in 1993? Was our then-Prez too busy getting debriefed by the interns to be briefed on these issues? And what did we do as retaliation for these attacks? Nothing, besides bombing some stupid aspirin factory, and that was more to divert press attention away from impeachment than to realiate.
But never mind: I'm sure some of our more rabid Bush-haters can find ways to pin the blame for these intelligence failures on W as well.

---

Good point - if you want to go after Bush then go after Clinton for the lack of response to the original WTC bombing & the USS. Cole etc. What was his intelligence staff doing ? You can't have it both ways .

simply put, we are being suicidally stupid by continuing to humiliate and body searching little old ladies from Florida at our airports. that is sooo bloody DUMB!!!!!

now look at the problem that Bush would have had: if we are STILL not looking at middle-eastern men AFTER all that has happened, does anyone in their right mind think that somehow Bush would have risked sounding like a racist (and no doubt amplified by the left-wingers) by WARNING people about middle-eastern men before 9-11???

the people in this country are so absurd with their thought police and political correctness. that is why stuff like this is bound to happen again. indeed, we are beyond suicidally stupid.

as soon as a blue-hair from Sweden highjacks a plane and flies it into a building resulting in the loss of thousands of lives, THEN I would say it would be reasonable to search little old ladies and ditch the racial profiling. but, alas, this country is too politically correct, even if it costs lives! are we all insane or what???!!!

[ May 16, 2002: Message edited by: AZWildcat ]

Have you forgotten that white guys planned the Oklahoma City bombing?

Besides, it's not that uncommon for very unlikely-looking people to be used as mules to transport drugs. Who says an old person can't be a fanatic?

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
The story changes daily... now it's MAY that Incurious George and his cronies were informed of the threat.

If there were any Dems with balls, this would spell I-M-P-E-A-C-H... This abomination is the very definition of failing to "preserve, protect and defend." Not high crimes and misdemeanors? Tough. Payback for Oralgate.

---

C'mon. You're way too smart to make that argument. It's not like George W was told that 19 or 20 Arabs, with passports from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, would hijack four (or more) commercial jetliners, bound on transcontinental flights, and fly them into American landmarks, immediately before the autumnal equinox.

The President was told that Al-Qaeda was planning airplane hijackings. Period. No date. No method. Until 9-11, we all thought hijackings meant flying the plane to Cuba and demanding ransom. What did you think Bush should've done with that extremely vague information? Expel all Arab nationals? Seal the Canadian border indefinitely? That's how the 19 Al-Qaeda terrorists (I'm not Reuters, I'm not afraid to use that word) got into the US. Suspend all transcontinental flights and allow cross-country transport only on those motorized Project Ginger scooters?

Maybe we can impeach FDR posthumously for allowing Pearl Harbor to have happened.

I know you hate George W. Bush ... our nation's 43rd President and legitimate winner of the 2000 presidential election (since the Democratic Party's election fraud in New Mexico and Wisconsin was insufficient to tip the electoral college Gore's direction) ... but be rational about it. You're not Terry McAuliffe or Paul Begala.

[ May 16, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

My favorite consipiracy theorist, Alex Jones, has been saying this for months.

http://www.infowars.com

Unfortunately, 98% of what he says is nonsense.

[ May 16, 2002: Message edited by: twin58 ]

I don't think any single individual is to blame for the lack of response. I think the country and its politicians and even the FBI and the CIA were simply unprepared for such a hellish plan. I do think some sort of precautionary measures could have been taken since they were literally warned that hijackings were likely. Nothing was done whatsoever. Better safe than sorry, right?

I absolutely agree about the political correctness issue; sometimes it's just out of control. Criminal and certainly terrorist profiling in general makes sense but that doesn't have to include abuse or a trampling of anyone's rights.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Anyway - if the federal government had been focused on its primary responsiblity of national security rather than piddling state issues like education, our resources might have been focused enough to figure out what was going on around the world.

---

Education is a piddling issue??? Absurd. And many states can't be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to education.

[quote] And . . . why didn't we know about the Cole bombing? Why didn't we know about the African embassy bombings? The Khobar Towers? The WTC in 1993?

---

Why didn't we know about the Americans taken hostage in the Middle East in the 80's and how they were released in exchange for arms, whereupon more hostages would be taken? Oh wait, we DID know...WE were the ones giving them arms.

The one interesting thing about this situation is that all of the Republicans who are now saying that with these reports being so general how could Bush and his advisors have determined that an attack like 9/11 be the result have been saying for the last eight months that Clinton and his administration dropped the ball and this was the cause of the attack.
This sort of turns the table on the question of having our cake and eating it to.
Even if you think Clinton and his staff was the biggest group of idiots ever to occupy the White House (and I know some of you do) Bush and his advisors started getting security briefings in December 2000. Since they are hundreds of times smarter than the Clinton folks, where was the Rose Garden Speech in lets say July 2001 telling us Clinton and his advisors were idiots and we need to completely revamp our security policy.
Just asking.

[quote]Originally posted by milmill:
Even if you think Clinton and his staff was the biggest group of idiots ever to occupy the White House (and I know some of you do) Bush and his advisors started getting security briefings in December 2000. Since they are hundreds of times smarter than the Clinton folks, where was the Rose Garden Speech in lets say July 2001 telling us Clinton and his advisors were idiots and we need to completely revamp our security policy.
Just asking.

---

Since your tone sounds rather matter-of-fact and since I don't see any smileys in your post, I have to think you were serious. But come on, were you really serious?!?! Don't you think it might have been rather impolitic to blame Clinton for a worldwide terrorist threat that had hitherto shown its ugly head only in remote isolated incidents? Geez, Bush has gotten enough backlash from his "Axis of Evil" comment. Had he wailed about some nefarious, vaguely defined, deeply hidden, worldwide network of terrorism, and then blamed it all on Clinton, he woulda been laughed out of town.

Oh, we're all such experts on foreign policy, aren't we? Given that the vast majority of relevant information is classified, how can citizens be so critical of how Clinton or Bush handle(d) foreign affairs? Yes, dissent is a crucial element of a functional democracy, but only if that dissent is well-informed.

It's not often that a conservative Republican comes to the defense of Bill Clinton, but I will do so now. President Clinton claims that he did the best he could to find Osama and his Al Qaeda cronies and bring them to justice. Perhaps he bungled the efforts. Or perhaps he did the best he or anyone else could have given the circumstances. Since we'll never know all the important details, I have to give him the benefit of a doubt.

But for those who choose not to give our elected leaders the benefit of a doubt (certainly your right), how can you attack Bush's handling of the terrorist threat without attacking Clinton in the same breath? Gee, could it be that Clinton was the social liberal and defender of the Great Gay Cause while Bush associates with those evil Republicans, the Christian Right, et al?

Although I for one think it "truly right and just" to come down on the sanctimonious Bushistas over the cover up of Briefing Gate, the QUALITY and RELEVANCE of the intelligence that is being gathered and disseminated to our leaders is a much more serious issue, and one that does not give itself to easy blame-fixing.

Looking from the post-Vietnam era, I see two very disturbing. parallel trends that, in concert, make for inferior intelligence.

The first is the move from "hands-on" intelligence and counter-intelligence to an almost total reliance on electronic eavesdropping. We've all heard about the NSA systems that essentially monitor all communications in and out of the US, looking for word associations like, say "bomb" and "allah".

Fine, but that should be a supplement to covert information gathering. I read that there are only three people in all of the various intelligence services (FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA etc) that speak some of the Afgani dialects fluently. Why do you think it's been so hard to flush out Osama - one factor is a total lack of a "mole" or inside person. When they are being so strict with his movements and visibility, the only way to get a fix on an Osama is by an undercover agent. I don't know this, but it wouldn't surprise me to know that those three native speakers are middle-aged desk jockeys in Langley .....

The second factor is the ever-increasing politicization of the intelligence forces, combined with the "fifedons" and "turf wars" of the established status quo.

Look at what happened to good old Tom Ridge, when last October or November he floated a proposal to break down the unnecessary bureaucratuc walls that were hindering a coordinated intelligence response: the heads of the various inteligence agencies essentially told Ridge to go to hell (and W showed whose side he was on through his inaction).

So it's not hard to see how, in this rotted atmosphere, the efforts of the hard-working field agents can be compromised by higherups more concerned by promotions and budget increases than with the REAL vital security interests of this country, no matter what individual is sitting in the Oval Office.

If this country doesn't learn this lesson from what happened last September, it's only a matter of time before it's deja vu all over again.....

William1865: What I meant (I thought this was clear) was that you can't say that any group--Arabs, gays, the Amish--is more (or less) likely to commit terrorist acts than anyone else if your only basis is a few dozen men out of several hundred million. It's a statistically insignificant sample. It's like saying that gays are more prone to pedophilia on the basis of a few well publicized instances.

So I think your pilot would be both racist and stupid. Of course, plenty of people are, and are perfectly willing to believe that all Arabs are swarthy apes who spend their lives shouting Praise Allah and plotting ways to kill Americans. During World War II Americans thought all Japanese were vicious heartless kamikaze killers, so we rounded them up into camps. Of course nobody thinks that anymore.

As for Bush--I voted for Nader (naturally, you're saying) but, unless there was very strong reason to believe that making the threat public would forestall an attack, I think it's ridiculous to criticize this administration for not announcing it to the world last summer. What good would that have done? Bringing the airline industry to a complete halt and creating mass panic on the basis of some vague threat?

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

Lets see: 1993 WTC bombing, 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Dharan Saudi Arabia, 1998 Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole...all the work of OBL and under Clinton's watch (for a span of EIGHT long years). Next, you have Clinton being offered OBL's head on a stick in no less than TWO proven and an additional unproven occasion (for proof, do a search on the New Republic's website, a Democrat magazine). And one of those times, Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger admits on "Hardball" some months ago that the Sudanese had OBL in a cage but the Clinton Admin didn't want the headache.

In short, Clinton did nothing. Then you have a new administration that in EIGHT short months after inauguration is supposed to drop its entire domestic agenda (tax cuts, education) and denote its entire time trying to find OBL and concentrate on a general "threat" of highjackings with no specific targets. Threats that happen all the time (look how many "warnings" the government has put out just since 9-11). Hmmm, what's wrong with this picture?

For anyone who is currently ravaging Bush right now, ask yourself, what the hell would YOU have done? Based on a general threat that the govenment (like senator kyl pointed out tonight) gets all the time, would you ground the airlines? for how long? then what if nothing happened? would you keep them grounded indefinitely, thereby ruining the economy???

This is all absurd. Bush? I didn't vote for the guy, but give him a break. Hindsight is always 20/20. All you out there with such great hindsight must have made great money betting on that horse that just won the Kentucky Derby. If we as Democrats continue down this path, the path will lead to rejection by the American people and into irrelevance...and rightly so.

In time, we'll all learn what was known, and what an appropriate response to that knowledge might have been.

I'd like to harken back to an earlier thread (looked, but couldn't find it) in which Representative Cynthia McKinney, (D-GA) was ripped to shreds for suggesting that the dubya white house had actionable knowledge before September 11. She suggested we look deeper into who knew what and when.

As I said, the posts were unkind in the least, and unnecessary in the extreme, as she was pilloried in absentia (I'm guessing she doesn't read outsports, but maybe!). I assume that now the authors of some of the more affrontive posts will be offering up their mea culpas....

[quote]Originally posted by Bryan:
Both sides spend way too much time fighting and campaigning, and raising money to fight and campaign some more. We weaken ourselves from within leaving room for outside attack.

---

I totally disagree -- partisanship and disagreements make the U.S. strong -- it's built into our system (checks and balances), and the founding fathers like Hamilton and Madison intended for there to be partisan competition.

I love politics -- but realize alot of it is crap and grandstanding. Today, for example, the GOP is accusing the Dems of politicizing 9/11 by calling for hearings / investigations into "what did Pres. Bush know, and when did he know." This the day after the GOP started raising funds by selling Bush 9/11 photos!

[quote]Originally posted by thersis:
In time, we'll all learn what was known, and what an appropriate response to that knowledge might have been.

I'd like to harken back to an earlier thread (looked, but couldn't find it) in which Representative Cynthia McKinney, (D-GA) was ripped to shreds for suggesting that the dubya white house had actionable knowledge before September 11. She suggested we look deeper into who knew what and when.

As I said, the posts were unkind in the least, and unnecessary in the extreme, as she was pilloried in absentia (I'm guessing she doesn't read outsports, but maybe!). I assume that now the authors of some of the more affrontive posts will be offering up their mea culpas....

---

No mea culpa here. If I could I would sharpen my affrontiveness, if there is such a thing. Cynthia McKinney said President Bush knew about the September 11 hijackings. Here is here allegation:

"We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"

Again, she is accusing Bush of knowing about the specific events of Sept. 11 - including a specific attack on New York (interesting that this anti-defense leftist doesn't seem to care about the innoncent people in the Pentagon who were murdered, but then in her view they probably got what they had coming to them). No current news reports support this allegation.

Of course, this is a classic conspiracy theory in that it cannot conceivably be disproven - it's impossible to know beyond any doubt what President Bush "knew" - and, in fact, the less evidence there is to support the theory, the more true it must be, since really great conspiracies are the ones that are most effectively covered up. That's why conspiracy theories are for idiots - they don't require terribly deep thought. (This goes for Clinton Era conspiracy theories as well, i.e. (not to open a can of worms) Bill and Hillary did not kill Vince Foster.)

If you check any decent paper's chart of the various intelligence agencies' warnings and memos over last spring/ summer, the inescapable conclusion is that THEY STILL DO NOT SHARE INFORMATION out of jealousy. being dissed by each other at Georgetown parties, who-da-fuk knows why... at the risk of your life and mine. Which is why I have nothing but contempt for that community (along with their assorted violations of American and international law throughout history).

What else is the White House not telling us? (David Corn, The Nation)

You're right, it IS hard to know just what to believe sometimes ....

Like THIS, for instance.....

[quote]Originally posted by Wurm:
You're right, it IS hard to know just what to believe sometimes ....

Like THIS, for instance.....

---

These are the same guys, I believe, who claim the Pentagon wasn't actually hit by that American Airlines jet. Very reliable guys. This reminds me of the Cheers episode in which Cliff Clavin thinks his new neighbor is really Adolph Hitler.

How much time and money was spent trying to prosecute President Clinton while in office? How much of a distraction to both the Dem's and the Republicans was this? The GOP needed to know the details of Clinton's sex life yet the Dem's aren't supposed to investigate what the GOP knew about the hijacking possibilities? Yeah, right. Again, our bitter, constant infighting weakens and distracts us. OBL and his cohorts were probably surprised at just how easy it was to attack us.

Except that the connections to the Taliban have been reported in other mainstream media. The meeting with the Taliban in Houston, for instance, took place at The Woodlands (a big commercial/residental development in the north Houston suburbs) - the US State Departmanet has indeed verified that such a meetng took place.

One thing I've learned over the years is not to make blanket judgments on sources of information. And I mean that both ways - one source can deliver valuable, accurate information one time, and off-the-wall, fuzzy-logic-based speculation at other times. One example might be Pierre Salinger - you wouldn't discount the entire body of his work because he made a stupid assumption of the TWA 800 story.

Forbes Magazine article - confirming meeting in Houston

Check this out if you're looking for something to do next weekend


Pentagon Crash Site (not the Frenchy boys site)

[quote]Originally posted by thersis:
I'd like to harken back to an earlier thread (looked, but couldn't find it) in which Representative Cynthia McKinney, (D-GA) was ripped to shreds for suggesting that the dubya white house had actionable knowledge before September 11. She suggested we look deeper into who knew what and when.

---

http://www.outsports.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ul...f=8&t=000577&p=

"Let's Blame Bush!!!!!" by William1865. Contains link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...1¬Found=true

Many more links are here:

http://www.infowars.com/resources.html#McKinney

[quote]Originally posted by Wurm:
You're right, it IS hard to know just what to believe sometimes ....

Like THIS, for instance.....

---

The pipeline news was discussed here about a month ago. Try this link:

http://www.myafghan.com/news2.asp?id=-6235...search=pipeline

[quote]Originally posted by AZWildcat:
For anyone who is currently ravaging Bush right now, ask yourself, what the hell would YOU have done?

---

Fallacious argument. While it is true that Bush is no more competent to be president than I am, I wasn't trying to be elected for the position.

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: twin58 ]

[quote]Originally posted by twin58:


Fallacious argument. While it is true that Bush is no more competent to be president than I am, I wasn't trying to be elected for the position.

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: twin58 ]

---

Bush wasn't trying to be elected, he had been elected in 2000 and was actually Commander-in-Chief at the time this "warning" was issued. Are you suggesting that none of us can write to our Senators or Representatives and say, "I think you should vote this way or that way on this or that issue"? I mean, we're not in Congress, they are. Who are we to conjecture what should and should not be done?

Did you support President Bush's tax cuts? No? Well what would you have done? Raised taxes? Given tax breaks to differnet groups of people? Can you not answer this question because you're not actually the President? Of course you can, if you have even a basic idea of how you think the world should operate. So should we have a world in which commercial aviation grinds to a halt everytime somebody suggests that terrorist might think about hijacking a plane? That's really what's at issue here.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
So should we have a world in which commercial aviation grinds to a halt everytime somebody suggests that terrorist might think about hijacking a plane?

---

Not a complete shutdown, but careful, measured behind the scene responses that could have paid significant benefits pre-Sept 11. The biggest reason such a cooperative mechanism doesn't really exist is the total non-cooperative attitude of the Air Transport Association, a lobbying group that fights ANY sort of meaningful security improvements tooth and nail, and that greases the skids of its Congressional lackeys with millions in contributions, and yes to both parties - the ATA doesn't care what whore it gets into bed with.

The other point is that we shouldn't need W himself to get involved in the minutae of aviation security. An unbiased team, free of political influence and concerned for the true security safety of the travelling public, could get the job done without needing to disturb W's breakfast briefing.....

Edited to add:

The current Issue of Conde Nast Traveller has a great article on airport security, including a teriffic breakdown on the bag checking at Heathrow. It also talks about why the US is so behind - unfortunately CNT didn't put that particular article on their website. I'd highly recommend spending the five bucks .....

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: Wurm ]

But even with the most stringent security measures - short of no carry-on luggage or all-nude flights (an idea for the Outsports convention, perhaps, but not for commercial aviation) - terrorists could still smuggle weapons onto planes. Even with today's heightened security, breaches still occur.

I've always thought the supposed lapse in airline security was overrated, anyway. If these guys had smuggled guns or explosives onboard aircraft, that would have been a security failure. But there's a reason they used innocuous items like box cutters - because a security apparatus was in place to detect deadlier weapons.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
But even with the most stringent security measures - short of no carry-on luggage or all-nude flights (an idea for the Outsports convention, perhaps, but not for commercial aviation) - terrorists could still smuggle weapons onto planes. Even with today's heightened security, breaches still occur.

I've always thought the supposed lapse in airline security was overrated, anyway. If these guys had smuggled guns or explosives onboard aircraft, that would have been a security failure. But there's a reason they used innocuous items like box cutters - because a security apparatus was in place to detect deadlier weapons.

---

First William1865, the monster's name was "Adolf Hitler," not "Adolph."

Second, the lapses in airline security are numerous and still have not been fixed. In today's TIMES, a woman noted that on her flight back to the U.S. on September 10, 2001, she demonstrably noted the lax security to airport personnel, who did not respond. I have seen packages that could contain anything (plutonium, anthrax, sarin, who knows!) dragged onto planes, and I've thought, don't the airport or airline security people CARE what's being transported? More often than not, they seem far more blithe than most passengers. I mean, it's not as if we haven't had hijackings and airline bombings before. In all the brouhaha about the lack of detailed intelligence, I have yet to hear one Republican say, "If we had just tightened airline security, the plane-bombs would not have been an issue because we would have stopped the hijackings that made them possible." They won't say this, because they would rather blame Clinton (or Canada or anyone) rather than shoulder any responsibility. It's really pathetic. And WHERE IS OSAMA? WHO SENT THE ANTHRAX? Why can't the CIA and FBI figure this out? Why can't they get any info out of Moussaoui? They're getting billions of OUR tax dollars, so I think we deserve better answers.

Really, this was a massive failure of intelligence, no matter what anyone says. I don't blame the Bush White House, but at the same time, I wonder why it too SO LONG for them to admit, as Congresswoman McKinney and others have pointed out, that they received this information. My personal feeling is that Bush, Cheney, etc. were so fixated on placating Enron and the energy lobby, and pushing through their agenda, that they did not press the intelligence agencies to follow up more on some of these issues. The Rudman-Hart commission of early 2001 made many suggestions about terrorism and airline security, but they were utterly ignored, by the White House *and* the intelligence services. Both the heads of the CIA and FBI ought to have been fired a LONG time ago, and Bush should really and seriously clean house. Then he should work on really doing something about the economy rather than relying on Wall St.'s cheerleading act to fool people into believing those disastrous tax cuts are going to do any good. We've gone through this before with another Bush, and it's a failed strategy. Edwards in 2004!

Fourth, it is ridiculous for you to brandish Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's names with regard to the racial or ethnic profiling involved in the current war on terrorism. First, only 19% of Muslims worldwide are ARAB. Second, over 50% of American Muslims are Black, Black African or African-American. NONE of the hijackers fit the second category, yet African-Americans and Latinos continue to be the most heavily profiled groups in the country. (No African-American or Black person or Latino has EVER slaughtered as many people as Timothy McVeigh or any number of people throughout American history, but that's another story). Third, ARABs are not a RACE, but a mixture of ethnicities and racial groups, like Latinos. The majority of the hijackers came from a few countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, etc.). It is perfectly legitimate to develop profiles for potential hijackers and terrorists by looking at country of origin, patterns of association, etc. MOST American-born Arabs, however, are not terrorists. I mean, should Secretary of Energy Spencer ABRAHAM, an Arab-American, or former senator George MITCHELL, who is 1/2 Arab-American, or Marlo THOMAS, who is part Arab-American, be profiled??? Sharpton's protests against racial profiling are legitimate and have focused on domestic police and peace officer lapses, such as Amadou Diallo and Patrick Dorismond....

[ May 18, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

From my perspective Bush needs to stop worrying about what the Democrats are saying in general, and Hillary Clinton in specific. Didn't his party waste enough time and taxpayers money with all of their investigations of both her and President Clinton???? They were attacked from the minute President Clinton took office, till the minute he left office!!. Whats the matter George, can't take a little bit of heat??? Suddenly I think President Bush is politcally vulnerable right now.

What is becoming clear is that prior to 9/11, various agencies were aware of vague, fragmentary warnings of something maybe happening and didn't share what they knew with others outside their own particular agency (often not sharing with those within the branch, either.) Fine and dandy, 9/11 happened and (as we have been told over & over) "the world has changed forever." What I find troubling is that information received since 9/11 by all these agencies is STILL not being coordinated; in his morning meetings Bush himself has to tell CIA to talk to FBI.

And, exactly why has this administration been unwilling to cooperate with hearings, which Reps and Dems have been calling for since 9/11?

Can't help but have the feeling we're in for a prolonged drip, drip, drip of information, with legal wrangling (possibly heading to Supreme Court), and lots of references to "the lessons of Watergate, including it's not the misdeed that gets you in trouble, it's the coverup...or the perception of a coverup."

~Adam

Bush knew! Daschle knew! Gephardt knew!

There is information that the Democratic Congressional leadership (that would be Daschle and Gephardt, although neither has especially shown much leadership lately) received similar intelligence briefings to those given the president. That means they too had some of the same 9-11 puzzle pieces that President Bush had in advance. Yet they too failed to warn the public.

If this is all about candor and levelling with the American people, why aren't Daschle and Gephardt acknowledging the information/intelligence that they had pre-9-11 before they go on their partisan attacks against President Bush? Just wondering.

I may be wrong and ask for correction, but I believe a major point of contention is that the August '01 breifings were NOT shared with the Democrat Congressional leadership - nor, apparently, were they shared with Trent Lott or Dick Armey (Daschle and Gephart's Repub equavalents).

More importantly, they weren't shared with the Chairs and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees (Bob Graham and Rihard Shelby in the Seante, I don;t know the House chair/ranking dem off memory). I mention this because (and again I may be wrong) the Congressional leadership briefings are not on a regular schedule, and only go into (classified) detail on very sensitive issues when the WH feels it is warranted. Stated another way, the briefings that the Intelligence Committee heads get as a matter of course are more frequent and detailed.

As Sen. Shelby (R-Ala) himself said on Friday " "There was a lot of information. I believe, and others believe, if it had been acted on properly, we may have had a different situation on September 11."

The Democrats have to proceed carefully if they're to convince the American people that the nation was not served well by IntelliGate and by the ensuing cover-up. First, as CitT infers, Daschle is no expert on Intelligence matters - he need to step back and let more senior, foreign policy knowledgeable Sens lead the investigation - and Shelby and the Repubs have to be given a major role. They must not forget the lesson of why the people didn't back Clinton's removal from office - that no matter what the technical violations might have been, they would not stand for what degenerated into a mean-spirited personal vendetta.

So sweep away the inconsequental (if factual) dross (like, say, analyzing how focused the Executive Department's leadership was during W's almost-monthlong vacation just seven months into his term), and focus more on why, if the outgoing Administration's Intelligence performance was seen as bad, why couldn't corporate tax rebates for Enron and IBM wait until a a "hit the ground running on Day 1" revamp of the country's intelligence infrastructure wa completed?


Edited to remove duplicate sentence

[ May 18, 2002: Message edited by: Wurm ]

[quote]There is information that the Democratic Congressional leadership (that would be Daschle and Gephardt, although neither has especially shown much leadership lately) received similar intelligence briefings to those given the president. That means they too had some of the same 9-11 puzzle pieces that President Bush had in advance. Yet they too failed to warn the public.

If this is all about candor and levelling with the American people, why aren't Daschle and Gephardt acknowledging the information/intelligence that they had pre-9-11 before they go on their partisan attacks against President Bush? Just wondering.

---

I don't think members of the Congress have the power to order the heads of the FBI, CIA, etc. to cooperate with each other and come up with ways to fight terrorism. The president just might, however.

And we have agencies that are supposed to warn the public of possible terrorist threats. Members of Congress don't run those agencies. But members of the President's Cabinet just might.

I'm sure that if I'm wrong about these matters one of you non-partisan geniuses will enlighten me.

[ May 18, 2002: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
There is information that the Democratic Congressional leadership ... received similar intelligence briefings to those given the president. That means they too had some of the same 9-11 puzzle pieces that President Bush had in advance. ....

---

Show me the link. Thanks.

[quote]Originally posted by twin58:
Show me the link. Thanks.

---

Source: Arizona Senator Jon Kyl quoted on Fox News.

Couldn't find the transcripts posted on the FoxNews site yet. I'll check again Monday.

CitT, I think this was the one you were looking for - someone on an aviation board linked it .....

KYL: Yes the Intelligence Committee gets essentially the same information that the president does in his daily briefings, and this was not specific information. And I think it would be very misleading, Bill, to suggest that it was anything that anybody, let alone the president, felt needed to be acted upon. As a matter of fact...

*Partial* Transcript of 5/16/02 Show

The cover story of the new Newsweek (5/27 cover date) relates that Bush's morning briefing was a CIA-ONLY briefing (which if Kyl is correct is all the Intelligence committee would have gotten).

The REALLY inportant info (Arizona and Minnesota field investigations) would have been provided via a separate FBI channel. So it is still not known if that was shared with the Committee et al .....

After 9/11, FBI reports are now incorporated into the Prexy's morning briefing (hindsight being 20/20)....

Edited for clarity.....

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: Wurm ]

[quote]Originally posted by twin58:
Show me the link. Thanks.

---

I resurrect this thread simply to provide another link in response to the question asked by twin58:Senator Bob Graham admits that Dem leadership had same intelligence info as President Bush

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]