Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Dec 18, 2003.
My 2 cent reply: Hindsight is 20/20.
i just want to make sure i understand --
the head of the commission, a republican, appointed by bush, who has access to information we do not, says that 9/11 not only _could_ have been prevented but _should_ have been.
what is motivating this man? does he have it out for bush? doubtful, since he's GOP and bush-appointed.
perhaps he's motivated by the truth.
please, Lethal and Gymnut, tell me why i should dismiss his claims. do you know something i don't?
I'm not saying you should dismiss his claims. I'm saying that hindsight is 20/20. The "clues" are infinitely more obvious when you are trying to deconstruct an even than when you are trying to predict one. Nothing in the article screams, "gross incompetence." This guy just sounds like he's doing some Monday morning quaterbacking.
Anything is "preventable" once you see how it happens. WWII was preventable. JFK's assasination was preventable. Me slipping on an icey sidewalk and landing on my @ss was preventable.
The sheer number of threats and amount of info, both valid and not, that intelligence agencies have to sift thru is staggering. It's only a matter before something happens. Nothing is perfect. If someone, or a group of people, really want to commit an act of terrorism, and they have the ways and the means, they will. Just like if someone really wants to hack into a computer or rob a bank or kill the presidentl. Nothing is 100% safe. But for every 9/11 or OKC bombing how many acts or terror are prevented each year? I'd take an uneducated guess and say that US intelligence agencies "win/loss" ratio is extremely favorable.
If you want point to a singular "cause" of the failings that led to 9/11, IMO, it was the downsizing of the US intelligence agencies and the discontinued use of informants/human intelligence under the Clinton administration.
Wow. Bush can do anything and it's OK with you.
The thing is when a president is presented with information, as he was on Aug. 6th, he is supposed to come up with a plan to deal with that information, which he did not. Nor was there any real post-war Iraq plan. (Actually a year of post-war planniing was thrown out, including a list of places to protect from looting. It was thrown out because, for political reasons, they did not want people to know they had a plan.)
George Tenet, appointed by Clinton, warned the president that terrorists might hijack a plane to use as a missile. Appointees by the Clinton administration repeatedly tried to clue the Bush administration in on how bad Al Qeada was becoming and were ignored or thought of as being "obsessed" with Al Qeada. They could barely get a meeting.
No, nothing is 100% safe. But what if they had a plan in place. Maybe the second tower would still be standing, at least.
To flippanly remark that "hindsight is 20/20" ignores accountability, apologises for lack of planning and diminishes the lives of the many people who died that day. Will this president ever be held accountable for anything? Are the bribes of temporary tax cuts and debt passed on to future generations blinding us to real evasions of responsibility?
Wow. Nice irrelevent comments in there. No wonder most threads in here go done in flames. It's also nice to know that you hold one person accountable for everything that happeneds. Makes a lot of sense.
I don't see me defending Bush (care to point out where I was?) and I don't see how my saying "hindsigh is 20/20" is flippant or ignores accoutability. If you notice my comments were refering to the topic at hand (a strange approach to a discussion I know). I wasn't talking about tax cuts, or debt, or anything else. So please refrain from taking my comments out of context and applying them globaly in an attempt to portray me as something you hate so you can pat yourself on the back for laying into another Bush loving idiot.
Like I was saying, hindsight is 20/20. And, in hindsight, we see the warnings, and memo's, and trends that all led up to 9/11. And people are saying all those things should have been giant red flags. But at the time those warnings, and memo's and trends didn't look any more or less valid than the all the other hundreds of warnings, memo's, and trends that come across the desks of our intelligence agencies each day. I'm sure policies have changed, and more weight will be given to certian "red flags" than they were in the past. But the intelligence agencies will always be playing catch-up and then hope to cut the suspects/terrorits/enemy off at the pass. It's just the nature of the beast. Now that doesn't excuse gross incompetence, but in everything I've read I don't see an evidence of gross incompetence in this situation. It just looked like over worked and under staffed agencies felt other possible threats had more crediblity and therefore were a higher priority.
Many people were aware that there was a possiblity of planes being used as missles to crash into buildings. So what? Most people are aware that guns fire bullets and can be used to kill people. But both statements are so vague they are nearly useless. How many planes exist in the world and how many US/US-realted things could they be crashed into? Having a theory on the "how" doesn't help if you don't also have the "when" and the "where." The "who" is useful as well.
And, if you want to play "what if", how about, what if the Clinton administration captured Bin Laden when he was basically offered up on a silver plater?
Sorry Lethal, while I agree with you up till the end, there was no offer to hand bin Laden to the Americans on any kind of platter, silver or otherwise. That is a myth propogated by the right to discredit Clinton and by extension, all liberals. Search the forums, that facrication has been discredited time and again.
How many times do I have to post this??? Clinton was not offered bin Laden, contrary to the lies that conservative columnists might try to sell you. Here is a post that details the ways Clinton fought bin Laden during his tenure as President:
If you actually research the incident you are referring to, you would see that the offer was suspect at best and the offer was never to turn bin Laden over to the US. This is simply a lie propogated by the right.
Now that we are post Sept 11, what can we do to prevent another one?
People like to hear plans and how they will be carried out. Complaining about present plans will not be enough.
Other than bringing in the UN, I have not heard a single plan different than the one being carried out.
In fact most of congress voted for the homeland department and gave Bush the authority to carry out his plan regarding Iraq and future millitary actions.
Lets hear another plan. One that increases taxes (to increase the number of jobs here), decreases the millitary(since it is our millitary that makes us look like a bully), and starts to negotiate with terrorist and persuade them to leave us alone(because their demands are fairly reasonable convert to Islam or die)?
And before that you said:
I'm not picking on you in particular, but you do seem to be hurling boomerangs. Careful there fella, you might hurt yourself.
apparently they did not, unless you think Bush planned it this way. Even I do not think that is true.
There were a lot of warnings. Clinton people told Bush people Al Qeada was up to no good. Tenent told Bush about the airline hijacking possibility. Nothing was done.
What's done is done.
It already happened anyway.
I guess I am silly to expect more than that, except I do expect more than that.
Cutting taxes and increasing military spending while invading soveriegn nations doesn't seem to make us better off. Four years ago this country was in much better shape.
Not only have we kicked the hornet's nest, we've scared our allies away as well.
So you want to raise taxes while the economy is coming out of a recession, cut our military while we are at war, and negotiate with Bin Ladin to turn himself in?
I have shown that cutting taxes has helped kick start the economy. Increased millitary spending will assist us in defending our selfs. Without it we might be suffering the same fate as the Russians in Afghanistan. Bin Ladin and his group is not asking for negotiations but that we convert. If you want to become a Muslim go head.
We have not scared any ally. In fact they are asking us for contracts in Iraq and are now willing to forgive the debt they incurred to keep a dictator in power the last 12 years. Actully Russia is owed money from about 20 years ago since most of their military is from Russia.
Most Americans like the tax cuts and are better off. They like this president because they believe he will defend this country. We are more educated than ever (over 50% have college education)and own our own homes (over 64%) as well. This country is going up not down.
Lol, you can't call repealing tax cuts that haven't taken effect yet "raising" taxes, unless of course you also want to call cutting taxes without a corresponding spending cut a spending increase.
Well I know that Bush cut my taxes and the Democrats want to ensure they will go up when they take over. I don't know if I can make it any more simple than that.
By the way you forgot to write how you would justify cutting millitary spending and starting face to face talks to Bin Ladin. If that is not part of your plan than just say so.
I know that gw & co. are in the process of burying this country under a mountain of debt. gw has one goal in mind, to be re-elected and destroy this country's tradition of democratic welfare. The Democrats have consistently been more fiscally prudent than the Republicans could ever dream of. The Democrats are not interested in increasing taxes but ensuring that this country will remain economically viable for the rest of the century. Taxes are only one measure of the economic power of a country, more important is how indebted a country is and we top the list because of fiscally imprudent measures including the 1 trillion dollar tax cut implemented by gw. This country is going down according to this Report by the CBO.
What's the point in a tax cut if the federal government is going to be bankrupt in a few years?
That depends on how much you make. At least most of the Democrats do not want to repeal all of the tax cuts; they only want to target the top few percent.
The military budget could be cut in many ways and make our country safer. It does not help our security one bit to over pay Halliburton for services that should never have been contracted out in the first place. We could eliminate the crazy plans of the National Missile Defense program and spend the tens of billions of dollars on upgraded security where the real threat is - at our ports and points of entry. Spend half of that on the Coast Guard and we would be much safer. Should we go on about the billions wasted in programs that hurt our defense capacity instead of making it stronger? It is ironic that Republicans have railed against Democrats for years about "throwing money" at problems, and yet when it comes to the Defense Department the GOP hasn't met a pork barrel project it doesn't like.
The Federal government never goes bankrupt so long as they spend borrowed money. What happens eventually is some combination of: (1) the credit markets are suffocated leading to high interest rates and economic stagnation, (2) inflation is touched off, leading to high interest rates and economic stagnation, and (3) a monetary crisis ensues, leading to disinvestment, inflation and economic stagnation. Welcome to the new Republican vision for the United States.
Wasn't aware of that. Thanx for correcting me.
I'm not being a hypocrit. I said "Clinton administration" and not just "Clinton" for a reason.
If you tell me Clinton's people told Bush that on Sept 11th 2001 4 passenger airliners would be hijacked and used as missles against targets in NY and DC, or if you tell me that Clinton's people told Bush the names of all the hijackers and said, "we are confident these guys are going to attempt to hijack airlines in the near future" that would be one thing. But you are not. You are telling me that Clinton's people came to Bush and said "Al Qeada is up to no good. They might hijack a plane and ram it into a building." That, by itself, is pretty useless info. No who, when, where and a vague how. Please tell me, from that information, how you would divine 9/11. You would probably turn to your intel guys and say,"look into this." But guess what, your intel guys are swamped. They've been downsized to the point of counter productivity. They do not have the man power nor the resources anymore to get the job down. And this warning came to Bush barely a month before the attacks. In a field measured in years Bush, as it turns out, had a month to uncover a very well planned, very thought out plot that was years in the making.
i'm certain it's somewhere in between.
i'm willing to bet that, should all the info known become public, you'd come to a different conclusion.
that's just a gut feeling.
I'm sure it was too, but was it enough? Obviously there were many "unknowns" otherwise the hijackers would have been picked up already. And, given the "unknowns" was, what turned out to be a month, enough time to fill in all the blanks?
given that information I would expect some sort of plan, or the beginnings of a plan.
Something like a homeland security dept., which , in fact, was proposed before 9/11 and nixed by John Ashcroft. I don't think that is too much to ask.
You blame Clinton for everything but here is a situation where Bush was pretty much told what was going to happen, people propose a method of planning for such situations and Bush does nothing. There is a severe lack of foresight in this administration but I'll stick to this one example.
He was busy setting a new world record for Presidential vacation time.
that's nothing i can answer from a "yes, because of X, Y, Z" perspective.
it's my read on Kean's statement. when the bush-appointed head of the commission says it could have been prevented, that's code for "wow, someone REALLY ****ed up."