What should we do about bin Laden?

TerryRC wrote:
Why do you a problem with the term liberal. It clearly describes many of your posted points of views!!!

Like what, Aaron?

I'm against hate crime laws, universal health care, affirmative action, and am not keen on the UN, social security and the public school system (as it exists now).

I am for the unrestricted bearing of arms by non-felons, privatization of the space industry and the death penalty.

What is "liberal" about any of those things?

I don't care that you call me a liberal. If I was one, I'm sure I would be proud of it. What I care about is that you refer to me incorrectly and use that as an argument ender - "You don't understand because you are a liberal."

It is poor and unethical debating, on your part.

I think you would rather be righteous than right.

Thirty years ago the likes of Aaron would have called you a communist. Simple people use the few words they recognize in the broadest application they can fathom.

ziggy wrote:
Bush is not a failure as a tow truck driver. He is a failure as president- more specifically as Commander-in-Chief.

Somehow I don't think history will judge him as you do.

Well Aaron I guess the trick is to create hard times and then bill yourself as the President who had to lead us thru hard times.

shermangeneral wrote:Well Aaron I guess the trick is to create hard times and then bill yourself as the President who had to lead us thru hard times.

So you're saying GWB was behind the attack on the world trade towers Sherm!!!

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:
Bush is not a failure as a tow truck driver. He is a failure as president- more specifically as Commander-in-Chief.

Somehow I don't think history will judge him as you do.

I think that history will judge George W. Bush about the same at his has Lyndon Johnson. And after 40 years and counting, how does "history" judge him?

Well I am not privy to any more info than you are, Aaron.

But based on what I have been able to glean, I would come down on the side of benign neglect and incompetence. I cannot believe there was active involvement.

But in hindsight I am pretty well convinced there was gross negligence.

I agree with Jesse Ventura that a full and impartial inquiry should be made.

But I disagree with your implied premise that our current hard times were created solely (or even mostly) by the twin towers fiasco.

IMO the Iraq occupation had/has a lot more to do with the economic and international credibility problems than the twin towers attack did.

(Please recall that the Iraqi invasion/occupation was totally unrelated to the terrorist attacks of 9-11)

Gross negligence by who. GWB was in the office for less then 8 months when the attacks occurred. Clinton had 8 years, the first TT attack and the USS Cole.

Aaron here is a partial list of documented eye-brow raising warnings and reports, etc received by the Bush admin in the months leading up to the 9-11 attacks....

"...February 7, 2001: CIA Director Tenet warned Congress in open testimony that “the threat from terrorism is real, it is immediate, and it is evolving.” He said bin Laden and his global network remained “the most immediate and serious threat” to US interests. “Since 1998 bin Laden has declared that all US citizens are legitimate targets,” he said, adding that bin Laden “is capable of planning multiple attacks with little or no warning.” [Associated Press, 2/7/01; Sunday Herald, 9/23/01]

In June of 2001, German intelligence warned the CIA, Britain’s intelligence agency, and Israel’s Mossad that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols which stand out.” A later article quoted unnamed German intelligence sources, stating that the information was coming from Echelon surveillance technology, and that British intelligence had access to the same warnings. However, there were other informational sources, including specific information and hints given to, but not reported by, Western and Near Eastern news media six months before 9/11. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01; Washington Post, 9/14/01; Fox News, 5/17/02]

June 28, 2001: George Tenet wrote an intelligence summary to Condeleezza Rice stating: “It is highly likely that a significant al-Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks” [Washington Post, 2/17/02]. This warning was shared with “senior Bush administration officials” in early July. [9/11 Congressional Inquiry, 9/18/02]

July 5, 2001: Richard Clark gave a direct warning to the FAA, to increase their security measures. The FAA refused to take such action. [New Yorker, 1/14/02; ]http://www.cooperativeresearch.org].

June-July 2001: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and national security aides were given briefs with headlines such as “Bin Laden Threats Are Real” and “Bin Laden Planning High Profile Attacks.” The exact contents of these briefings remain classified, but according to the 9/11 Commission, they consistently predicted upcoming attacks that would occur “on a catastrophic level, indicating that they would cause the world to be in turmoil, consisting of possible multiple—but not necessarily simultaneous—attacks.” CIA Director Tenet later recalled that by late July, he felt that President Bush and other officials grasped the urgency of what they were being told. [9/11 Commission Report, 4/13/04 (B)] But Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin, later stated that he felt a great tension, peaking within these months, between the Bush administration’s apparent misunderstanding of terrorism issues and his sense of great urgency. McLaughlin and others were frustrated when inexperienced Bush officials questioned the validity of certain intelligence findings. Two unnamed, veteran Counter Terrorism Center officers deeply involved in bin Laden issues, were so worried about an impending disaster, that they considered resigning and going public with their concerns. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (C)] Dale Watson, head of counter terrorism at the FBI, wished he had “500 analysts looking at Osama bin Laden threat information instead of two.” [9/11 Commission Report, 4/13/04 (B)]

July 5, 2001: At issue is a July 5, 2001 meeting between Ashcroft and acting FBI Director Tom Pickard. That month, the threat of an al-Qaida attack was so high; the White House summoned the FBI and domestic agencies and warned them to be on alert. Yet, Pickard testified to the 9/11 commission that when he tried to brief Ashcroft just a week later, on July 12, about the terror threat inside the United States, he got the “brush-off. “[MSNBC, 6/22/04]

July 10, 2001: A Phoenix FBI agent sent a memorandum warning of Middle Eastern men taking flight lessons. He suspected bin Laden’s followers and recommended a national program to check visas of suspicious flight-school students. The memo was sent to two FBI counter-terrorism offices, but no action was taken. [9/11 Congressional Inquiry, 7/24/03] Vice President Cheney said in May 2002, that he was opposed to releasing this memo to congressional leaders or to the media and public. [CNN, 5/20/02]

July 16, 2001: British spy agencies sent a report to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other top officials warning that al-Qaeda was in “the final stages” of preparing a terrorist attack in the West. The prediction was “based on intelligence gleaned not just from [British intelligence] but also from US agencies, including the CIA and the National Security Agency”. The report stated that there was “an acute awareness” that an attack was “a very serious threat.” [Times of London, 6/14/02]

In July of 2001: President Bush took the unusual step of sleeping on board an aircraft carrier off the coast of Italy after receiving a warning from the Egyptian government that the summit of world leaders in the city of Genoa would be targeted by al Qaeda. [New York Times, 9/26/01] The Italians meanwhile highly publicized their heightened security measures of increased police presence, antiaircraft batteries, and flying fighter jets. Apparently the press coverage of defenses caused al-Qaeda to cancel the attack. [BBC, 7/18/01, CNN, 7/18/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01]

On July 26, 2001: Attorney General Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airlines due to a threat assessment. [CBS, 7/26/01] The report of this warning was omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report [Griffin 5/22/05].

Late July 2001: CBS reported, “Just days after [Mohamed] Atta return[s] to the U.S. from Spain, Egyptian intelligence in Cairo says it received a report from one of its operatives in Afghanistan that 20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas.” Egypt passed on the message to the CIA but never received a request for further information. [CBS News, 10/9/02]

Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil was given information regarding a large attack on targets inside America, from the leader of the rebel Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), Tahir Yildash. Muttawakil relayed this information to the U.S. consul general, yet wasn’t taken seriously. One source blamed this on the administration’s “warning fatigue.” [Independent, 9/7/02; Reuters, 9/7/02]

Aug 6, 2001: President Bush received a classified intelligence briefing at his Crawford, Texas ranch, warning that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. The memo was titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”. The entire memo focused on the possibility of terrorist attacks inside the US and specifically mentioned the World Trade Center. Yet Bush later stated that the briefing “said nothing about an attack on America.” [Newsweek, 5/27/02; New York Times, 5/15/02, Washington Post, 4/11/04, White House, 4/11/04, Intelligence Briefing, 8/6/01] .

Early August 2001: Britain gave the US another warning about an al-Qaeda attack. The previous British warning on July 16, 2001, was vague as to method, but this warning specified multiple airplane hijackings. This warning was said to have reached President Bush. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02]

August, 2001: Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the US that suicide pilots were training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence also later stated, “We had clearly warned them” on several occasions, but they “did not pay the necessary attention.” [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01]

Late Summer, 2001: Jordanian intelligence (the GID) made a communications intercept and relayed it to Washington. The message stated that a major attack, code-named “The Big Wedding,” had been planned inside the US and that aircraft would be used. “When it became clear that the information was embarrassing to Bush administration officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings before September 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their earlier confirmations.” [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02; Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02]

On September 10, 2001, a group of top Pentagon officials received an urgent warning which prompted them to cancel their flight plans for the following morning. [Newsweek, 9/17/01] The 9/11 Commission Report omitted this report. [Griffin, 5/22/05]

Given all the pre-warnings and information available before 9/11 it seems unconscionable that on May 16, 2002, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice could still claim to the press: “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.” She added that “even in retrospect” there was “nothing” to suggest that. [White House, 5/16/02] On June 7, 2002, President Bush stated, “Based on everything I’ve seen, I do not believe anyone could have prevented the horror of September the 11th.” [Sydney Morning Herald, 6/8/02]

With so many warnings, it is difficult to explain inaction as mere incompetence. The existence of all of these warnings suggests, at least, that people within the US government knew the attacks were coming and deliberately allowed them to happen. This evidence would, however, be consistent with an even more frightening scenario— that the attacks were orchestrated by, or with the help of, people within our government. ...."

With respect to the summary paragraph immediately above, I have to part ways with them. I believe they underestimate the level of incompetence of the administration.

And I could go to some left wing rag paper and find a list that is just as long or longer about Clinton but I don't subscribe to the One Citizen style of debate.

One thing is fact. GWB was on the job 8 months. Clinton had 8 years thus his failures were greater then those of Bush, at least in my opinion.

Well Aaron it appears you are just doing a kneejerk reaction.

Had you gone to the source listed you would see the earlier events under the Clinton administration.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org

I said I was just posting the warnings received after Bush took over since that was in response to your previous post that he was new to the job and had not received the warnings and not accountable.

Your response is predictable. Blame Clinton.

But facts do not sustain your argument.

Perhaps that level of incompetence does not concern you.

Maybe you are blinded by love, I dont know.

But like the Gipper hisownself said, facts are stubborn things.

There were numerous documented warnings that were either ignored or discounted.

But loving eyes will never see.

You're right Sherm. Facts are stubborn things and I posted one. You're right. Loving eyes never see. Why didn't Clinton do something about this? It certainly wasn't becasue he refused to use deadly military force is it!!!

Here another fact. GWB is the President not because he was the best man for the job. He's President becasue he was the best man for the job that RAN. Had democrats nominated someone, anyone, worthwhile (something they haven't done since at least 1960) GWB wouldn't have been President in 2001 nor would he be President right now. You have no one to blame but yourselves and your slide into socialism for the current adminstration.

I drove for 10 years so I know how it works. You're by yourself for 8 to 10 hours at a stetch with no one to talk to or nothing to do other then drive and listen to the radio. Music radio plays the same songs over and over so in time, drivers switch to talk radio. You can't whine, bitch and moan to customers so all you've got is the CB and that only makes things worse. Maybe you should turn off the garbage you listen to and switch to sports or somthing Sherm. Or at the very mininum devote time to both sides of the coin. For every hour of Oberman you listen too, give Rush and hour. It might even you out some.

Well I am glad to know you know a little about the real world.

Did you do otr or a milk run?

I do switch around some to get the rightwing wacko perspective.

But if I have my druthers I will never listen to Rush again.

shermangeneral wrote:Well I am glad to know you know a little about the real world.

Did you do otr or a milk run?

I do switch around some to get the rightwing wacko perspective.

But if I have my druthers I will never listen to Rush again.

I drove in the Army, in both the US and Germany, OTR for 5 years, local for 2 years and a milk run for 2 years. Since then, I've managed trucks which means I manage drivers. I know ALL about drivers. They don't make sob towels or baby bottles big enough.

I enjoy listening to Rush. I agree with some of what he says, disagree with some and think he's a blooming idiot on most of what he says.

Well I dont think you have heard me whimper that much.

shermangeneral wrote:Well I dont think you have heard me whimper that much.

Sherm, I've seen you type "loving eyes" and every time you do, I see another truck driver complaining, whining, bitching, moaning or whimpering about something thats wrong. I don't have to hear it, I know the tone. Just about every truckdriver I've ever met did it at one time or another, including me. That's what makes me so good at managing drivers.

There is plenty of blame to share for 9-11 for both Clinton and Bush.

I have a little something to say about truckers. Back in my early twenties I did a stint as a traffic clerk for a factory that made printed tape. I thought that job was great, because of the truckers. They were interesting and fun and always very courteous and respectful.

I left only because I was offered a position at a hospital for about the same money with far better bennies and lots of opportunities to advance. Truckers never whined, whimpered, or moaned to me, but I had a number of accountants, managers, and executivies behave that way over at the hospital.

Stephanie wrote:There is plenty of blame to share for 9-11 for both Clinton and Bush.

I have a little something to say about truckers. Back in my early twenties I did a stint as a traffic clerk for a factory that made printed tape. I thought that job was great, because of the truckers. They were interesting and fun and always very courteous and respectful.

I left only because I was offered a position at a hospital for about the same money with far better bennies and lots of opportunities to advance. Truckers never whined, whimpered, or moaned to me, but I had a number of accountants, managers, and executivies behave that way over at the hospital.

So you were a traffic clerk in a factory and you now know more about a profession that I've spent over 20 years in and been around all of my life.

Really???

Nope.......I don't know anything about trucking. I do know the truckers I dealt with were wonderful people who were a pleasure to deal with!

Some are Stephanie. My dad drove for 40 of his 58 years (with 4 years in the Navy) and took a great joy in doing so. And for the most part, the truckers I dealt with and deal with are good guys. And yes, they bitch, gripe, moan, complain and whine constantly at work.

But you're not getting the big picture. All you seeing is a few minutes of the day, the time it takes to sign or deliver some paper work he's met by a lovely (you said hubby called you a babe when you were younger) young woman so he reacted accordingly.

Now look at what you DON'T see. Those same 'pleasurable' people are in a truck driving as much as 10 to 14 hours a day dealing the 'idiot's that drive cars, sleeping in a bed that's smaller then most closets, showering every couple of days, eating stale truck stop food, away from their wife and kids for days or weeks at a time (and when they are home the last thing they want to do is drive somewhere) listening to the same music from town to town (I'm convinced that radio stations play the same song list east to west spaced about an hour apart) with no one to talk to but other unseen truckers. Many of them will resort to listening to talk radio (have you listened to talk radio) and it only makes their dispositions worse. When they do interact with someone else (you in the traffic clerks office) they have to be nice, they can't complain about the idiot that loaded them or the dumbass they followed for 20 miles with his blinker on or the wreck that left them setting for an hour or the fact that they missed Billy's school play again or this or that or anything else they have to complain about because you're the customer and if it gets back to the terminal manager that they were complaining at a customers, they very well could be out a job. They definitely can't take all that pent up frustration home or they won't have a home to go to, so where do you think the vent???

Terminals and places of work. Hence my view on truckers.

I've been in this business for 20+ years and while there are a ton of great guys driving trucks, that doesn't change the fact that collectively, you will not find a bigger bunch of cry babies and complainers in the world. Simple truth.

Well you sure make it sound like they have plenty to bitch about. Perhaps you should take that into consideration rather than turning around and bitching about them yourself.

Sounds like you have it pretty darn good in comparison.

Stephanie wrote:Well you sure make it sound like they have plenty to bitch about. Perhaps you should take that into consideration rather than turning around and bitching about them yourself.

Sounds like you have it pretty darn good in comparison.

If I didn't take it into 'consideration' I would fire drivers left and right. As it is, I let them vent, wait until they get it out of their system, and then, if there is a real problem, I get to the bottom of it. I've only fired one, and that was because he went off on a customer and used racial terms, and the only ones that have quit did so because their position was seasonal and they wanted full time work.

I'm very, very good at what I do which is why I have it 'pretty darn good'.

So you were a traffic clerk in a factory and you now know more about a profession that I've spent over 20 years in and been around all of my life.

Really???

We are all aware, Aaron, that you know more about every subject than any of us - GIS, history, truck driving, why we are in Iraq, teaching... the list is endless.

Fold up the board, Steph. No point in anymore debating.

TerryRC wrote:So you were a traffic clerk in a factory and you now know more about a profession that I've spent over 20 years in and been around all of my life.

Really???

We are all aware, Aaron, that you know more about every subject than any of us - GIS, history, truck driving, why we are in Iraq, teaching... the list is endless.

Fold up the board, Steph. No point in anymore debating.

Really TC. So where are all of my GW post? Where have I ever commented about the bee problem other then to ask a question? What do I comment on other then national security and the constitution?

The reason for you're sissyfied statemenst are two-fold. One, I bust on state employees (I don't call them workers because let's face it, they don't) and two, I called you on your BS Garmin thing, and I'm certainly not tech savy.

I find it ironic that in the last 15 minutes you've accused Sam of getting personal because his arguments are weak when in reality what you provided was a self description.

The list of what I know more of then you may be long but it's certainly not endless and I've never claimed it was. Nice try though Lib.

The reason for you're sissyfied statemenst are two-fold. One, I bust on state employees (I don't call them workers because let's face it, they don't) and two, I called you on your BS Garmin thing, and I'm certainly not tech savy.

You cited a page to Garmin's CLAIMS. That defuses nothing. My equipment works exactly as I have stated. If you aren't too much of a pussy, come to my office and I'll prove it. Hell, I'll even come to you and prove it - if you aren't too scared...

You are a pompous blowhard. You can't KNOW where this country would have headed with another president yet you speculate as if you had facts.

You lie about people when you run out of argument. I am no more a liberal than you are a fascist, yet you keep addressing me as a "liberal" because you think that defuses my arguments.

I'm starting to think that what you know is minimal, thus the bluster - to cover your ignorance.

TerryRC wrote:The reason for you're sissyfied statemenst are two-fold. One, I bust on state employees (I don't call them workers because let's face it, they don't) and two, I called you on your BS Garmin thing, and I'm certainly not tech savy.

You cited a page to Garmin's CLAIMS. That defuses nothing. My equipment works exactly as I have stated. If you aren't too much of a pussy, come to my office and I'll prove it. Hell, I'll even come to you and prove it - if you aren't too scared...

You are a pompous blowhard. You can't KNOW where this country would have headed with another president yet you speculate as if you had facts.

You lie about people when you run out of argument. I am no more a liberal than you are a fascist, yet you keep addressing me as a "liberal" because you think that defuses my arguments.

I'm starting to think that what you know is minimal, thus the bluster - to cover your ignorance.

I'm in the middle of of 12 hour work days but you tell me where and when you want to show me your Garmin and I'm there Lib but it still doesn't change the facts of what Garmin says their equipment does. If yours is outdated, it's outdated and that doesn't change the facts that there is equipment out there that will do what my non-tech savy butt said it would do. I'll even buy you lunch (I can expense it) since you receive a states salary.

And for record, I AM NOT POMPOUS.