PDA

View Full Version : 911 could have been prevented



truthmatters
09-19-2007, 09:33 AM
http://tinyurl.com/24nsod


Look who says so?


U.S. Spy Chief: 9/11 'Could Have Been Prevented'
Director of National Intelligence Says U.S. Didn't Connect Available Information
(AP Photo) By JASON RYAN and THERESA COOK
Sept. 18, 2007
Font Size


McConnell, explaining that the intelligence community was, at the time, very focused on foreign threats, said the community allowed itself "to be separated from anything that was potentially domestic," and that domestic threats were "not something we [were] supposed to be concerned with."

"Yeah, that translates to negligence," charged committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich.

"Or interpretation of the law — of how the culture had evolved," McConnell countered.

Given the vast resources of the intelligence community, along with the FBI's and CIA's knowledge that al Qaeda had an interest in flight training, and had sent 9/11 hijackers Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi and terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui to undertake such training in the United States, McConnell said, "For whatever reason, we didn't connect the dots."

jimnyc
09-19-2007, 09:35 AM
Yes, had Clinton taken in Bin Laden when he was offered him on a silver platter, 9/11 might have never taken place.

truthmatters
09-19-2007, 09:37 AM
911 happened 8 months into Bush's watch.

You cant blame any admin but his.

jimnyc
09-19-2007, 09:39 AM
911 happened 8 months into Bush's watch.

You cant blame any admin but his.

That's absurd... had BillyBob taken in Bin Laden when he was offered to him it would never had made it to this administration.

Furthermore, what you're posting is old news. It was announced a few years back that the sharing of intelligence between agencies was an issue. Someone regurgitating old news doesn't impress me.

Nukeman
09-19-2007, 09:42 AM
911 happened 8 months into Bush's watch.

You cant blame any admin but his.And how long do yo think it took for all those guys to get through the flight school in Vero beach FL. Ohh thats right right after Bush took office the went and learned to fly 747's. It takes time to learn how to fly a plane that large. Its not like a single engine cessna.

The biggest reason this happend was due to the fact that Bill Clinton stripped the CIA of 60-70% of its human intel around the world. Do just a little research before you throw out that "its all Bush's fault" line of shit.....

God woman get a f***ing life and find something else to occupy your time, this facination with Bush is very unhealthy....

JohnDoe
09-19-2007, 09:57 AM
And how long do yo think it took for all those guys to get through the flight school in Vero beach FL. Ohh thats right right after Bush took office the went and learned to fly 747's. It takes time to learn how to fly a plane that large. Its not like a single engine cessna.

The biggest reason this happend was due to the fact that Bill Clinton stripped the CIA of 60-70% of its human intel around the world. Do just a little research before you throw out that "its all Bush's fault" line of shit.....

God woman get a f***ing life and find something else to occupy your time, this facination with Bush is very unhealthy....

Your last comment nullifies anything legitimate that you had to say Nuke...imo.... :(

now getting to what you said:


The biggest reason this happend was due to the fact that Bill Clinton stripped the CIA of 60-70% of its human intel around the world. Do just a little research before you throw out that "its all Bush's fault" line of shit..... :link:

Please supply a legitimate link for what you are saying here Nuke, that Clinton cut CIA 60%-70%...and that those cuts affected the CIA involvement with the middle east.... cuts on guatamale and Cuba etc, don't really affect the CIA's involvement with the Middle East, I don't believe?

I know they cut hiring FELONS as people that worked for them in intelligence, perhaps this hurt us with 911?

jd

hjmick
09-19-2007, 10:05 AM
911 happened 8 months into Bush's watch.

You cant blame any admin but his.

Oh come on TM. Eight months? Really? You think these guys planned the events of 9-11, entered the country, got training to fly and launched the attacks all in eight months? What those guys did took at least a couple of years of planning, they were in the country off and on for years. Many of them were attending flight schools around the country as far back as the mid to late 1990s.

To attempt to lay the blame for the failure prevent that 9-11 attacks on any one administration is intellectually dishonest. There is enough blame to point fingers at at least two, possibly three. No need for the partisan bullshit.

The real truth is, the only people to blame, the only people responsible, are the terrorists and the terrorists alone.

truthmatters
09-19-2007, 10:19 AM
Oh come on TM. Eight months? Really? You think these guys planned the events of 9-11, entered the country, got training to fly and launched the attacks all in eight months? What those guys did took at least a couple of years of planning, they were in the country off and on for years. Many of them were attending flight schools around the country as far back as the mid to late 1990s.

To attempt to lay the blame for the failure prevent that 9-11 attacks on any one administration is intellectually dishonest. There is enough blame to point fingers at at least two, possibly three. No need for the partisan bullshit.

The real truth is, the only people to blame, the only people responsible, are the terrorists and the terrorists alone.

Considering people in his admin tried to get him to pay attention to OBL and AQ and were shouted down I do think he dropped the ball.

Why do you people refuse to believe ANY person who comes out of this admin and tells you the truth.

Read Richard Clarkes Book

Read Paul O'Neils book

jimnyc
09-19-2007, 10:21 AM
Considering people in his admin tried to get him to pay attention to OBL and AQ and were shouted down I do think he dropped the ball.

And yet you refuse to acknowledge Clinton dropped the golden ball when he turned down the offer to have OBL turned over. I guess they weren't paying attention as much as you think!

hjmick
09-19-2007, 10:31 AM
Considering people in his admin tried to get him to pay attention to OBL and AQ and were shouted down I do think he dropped the ball.

Are you not paying attention? I'm not saying that the Bush administration didn't drop the ball. What I am saying is that so did the administration before him. Would you be on Clinton this hard if the attacks had happened in December 2000 rather than September 2001? I doubt it, hell, you'd probably be blaming it on the fact that Bush had been elected (LOL). To blame either administration is foolish, the blame for what happened lies with the terrorists alone.


Why do you people refuse to believe ANY person who comes out of this admin and tells you the truth.

Read Richard Clarkes Book

Read Paul O'Neils book

I'm not refusing to believe anyone, I am refusing to blame Bush and Clinton for what happened that Tuesday morning.

truthmatters
09-19-2007, 10:45 AM
Are you not paying attention? I'm not saying that the Bush administration didn't drop the ball. What I am saying is that so did the administration before him. Would you be on Clinton this hard if the attacks had happened in December 2000 rather than September 2001? I doubt it, hell, you'd probably be blaming it on the fact that Bush had been elected (LOL). To blame either administration is foolish, the blame for what happened lies with the terrorists alone.



I'm not refusing to believe anyone, I am refusing to blame Bush and Clinton for what happened that Tuesday morning.


I blame who is responsible and Bush was responsible for protecting us that year and REFUSED to.

Ask the top counter terrorism official of the nation at the time, Richard Clarke who is the ONLY person to this Date who admitted failure to keep us safe that day.

To Bush its ALWAYS someone elses fault no matter what happens.

jimnyc
09-19-2007, 10:46 AM
TM, why do you hate to acknowledge that Clinton allowed OBL to go free?

Why do you ignore questions that hurt your agenda?

manu1959
09-19-2007, 10:47 AM
That's absurd... had BillyBob taken in Bin Laden when he was offered to him it would never had made it to this administration.

Furthermore, what you're posting is old news. It was announced a few years back that the sharing of intelligence between agencies was an issue. Someone regurgitating old news doesn't impress me.

guess who's idea it was ............ to prevent the sharing of info....

manu1959
09-19-2007, 10:50 AM
Considering people in his admin tried to get him to pay attention to OBL and AQ and were shouted down I do think he dropped the ball.

Why do you people refuse to believe ANY person who comes out of this admin and tells you the truth.

Read Richard Clarkes Book

Read Paul O'Neils book

richard clarke....ya he was a fucking genius....

wtc I
somalia
nigerian embassies
the uss cole

shit was blowing up left and right while he was in charge.....

stephanie
09-19-2007, 11:08 AM
Richard Clarke....ya he was a fucking genius....

wtc I
Somalia
Nigerian embassies
the USS Cole

shit was blowing up left and right while he was in charge.....

No kidding..

And Janet Reno was blowing up her own citizens...:poke:

JackDaniels
09-19-2007, 11:19 AM
I think what the big government party (Republicans) and the bigger government party (Democrats) need to understand is that Presidents going back to Nixon need to accept blame for what happened on 9/11.

Educate yourselves.

http://images.bestwebbuys.com/muze/books/95/9780805075595.jpg

hjmick
09-19-2007, 11:21 AM
I think what the big government party (Republicans) and the bigger government party (Democrats) need to understand is that Presidents going back to Nixon need to accept blame for what happened on 9/11.

Educate yourselves.

http://images.bestwebbuys.com/muze/books/95/9780805075595.jpg

THANK YOU!

This what I've been trying to say, among other things.

If I could rep you I would but it tells me I need to spread some around first.

JackDaniels
09-19-2007, 11:26 AM
THANK YOU!

This what I've been trying to say, among other things.

If I could rep you I would but it tells me I need to spread some around first.

Exactly. It's not like the idea of blowback is far out. In fact, our own CIA invented the term, and the 9/11 Commission report goes into detail regarding the fact that U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East contributes to the anti-American sentiment.

JohnDoe
09-19-2007, 11:47 AM
And yet you refuse to acknowledge Clinton dropped the golden ball when he turned down the offer to have OBL turned over. I guess they weren't paying attention as much as you think!


:link: please

it is my understanding that Clinton did not have the authority to take Bin Laden in...at the time that this happened.

Are you saying he did, and neglected this?

jd

retiredman
09-19-2007, 11:57 AM
Yes, had Clinton taken in Bin Laden when he was offered him on a silver platter, 9/11 might have never taken place.

did Rush tell you to say that?

I would love it if just once, someone from the right who tosses out this "Clinton should have taken him when he had the chance" claim would actually show us what we KNEW about Osama bin Laden in the spring of 1996, that would have allowed the United States to take custody of a foreign national on foreign soil.

stephanie
09-19-2007, 12:07 PM
did Rush tell you to say that?

I would love it if just once, someone from the right who tosses out this "Clinton should have taken him when he had the chance" claim would actually show us what we KNEW about Osama bin Laden in the spring of 1996, that would have allowed the United States to take custody of a foreign national on foreign soil.

It would of taken a President with Balls..:poke:

retiredman
09-19-2007, 12:11 PM
It would of taken a President with Balls..:poke:

so I guess you know of no evidence that we had, in the spring of 1996, that would have even remotely justified our taking Osama into custody?

Why didn't you just say so?

stephanie
09-19-2007, 12:14 PM
so I guess you know of no evidence that we had, in the spring of 1996, that would have even remotely justified our taking Osama into custody?

Why didn't you just say so?

Well let me see...

I suppose suspecting Bin Laden was behind the WTC bombing on Clinton's watch, wasn't enough??

What would of been enough for these people...Maybe a 9/11?

Nukeman
09-19-2007, 12:15 PM
Here's some information on a timeline of 911



1998: Indonesia Gives US Warning of 9/11 Attack? Hendropriyono, the Indonesian chief of intelligence, will later claim that, “[we] had intelligence predicting the September 11 attacks three years before it happened but nobody believed us.” He says Indonesian intelligence agents identify bin Laden as the leader of the group plotting the attack and that the US disregards the warning, but otherwise offers no additional details. The Associated Press notes, “Indonesia’s intelligence services are not renowned for their accuracy.” [Associated Press, 7/9/2003]
Entity Tags: Hendropriyono, Osama bin Laden
Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline
Category Tags: Warning Signs, Foreign Intelligence Warnings

1999: British Intelligence Warns Al-Qaeda Plans to Use Aircraft, Possibly as Flying Bombs MI6, the British intelligence agency, gives a secret report to liaison staff at the US embassy in London. The reports states that al-Qaeda has plans to use “commercial aircraft” in “unconventional ways,” “possibly as flying bombs.” [Sunday Times (London), 6/9/2002]
Entity Tags: UK Secret Intelligence Service, Al-Qaeda
Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline
Category Tags: Warning Signs, Foreign Intelligence Warnings, Key Warnings

March 1999: Germany Provides CIA Hijacker’s Name and Telephone Number German intelligence gives the CIA the first name of hijacker Marwan Alshehhi and his telephone number in the United Arab Emirates. The Germans learned the information from surveillance of suspected Islamic militants. They tell the CIA that Alshehhi has been in contact with suspected al-Qaeda members Mohammed Haydar Zammar and Mamoun Darkazanli. He is described as a United Arab Emirates student who has spent some time studying in Germany. [US Congress, 7/24/2003 ; Deutsche Presse-Agentur (Hamburg), 8/13/2003; New York Times, 2/24/2004] The Germans consider this information “particularly valuable” and ask the CIA to track Alshehhi, but the CIA never responds until after the 9/11 attacks. The CIA decides at the time that this “Marwan” is probably an associate of bin Laden but never track him down. It is not clear why the CIA fails to act, or if they learn his last name before 9/11. [New York Times, 2/24/2004] The Germans monitor other calls between Alshehhi and Zammar, but it isn’t clear if the CIA is also told of these or not (see September 21, 1999).
Entity Tags: Mamoun Darkazanli, Marwan Alshehhi, Germany, Al-Qaeda, Mohammed Haydar Zammar, Central Intelligence Agency, Osama bin Laden
Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline
Category Tags: Al-Qaeda in Germany, Marwan Alshehhi, Warning Signs, Foreign Intelligence Warnings, Mamoun Darkazanli, Key Warnings, Key Hijacker Events

August 12, 2000: Italian Intelligence Wiretap of Al-Qaeda Cell Reveals Massive Aircraft-based Strike Italian intelligence successfully wiretap the al-Qaeda cell in Milan, Italy from late 1999 until the summer of 2001. [Boston Globe, 8/4/2002] In a wiretapped conversation from this day, suspected Yemeni Abdulsalam Ali Abdulrahman tells wanted Egyptian Mahmoud Es Sayed about a massive strike against the enemies of Islam involving aircraft and the sky, a blow that “will be written about in all the newspapers of the world. This will be one of those strikes that will never be forgotten.… This is a terrifying thing. This is a thing that will spread from south to north, from east to west: The person who came up with this program is a madman from a madhouse, a madman but a genius.” In another conversation, Abdulrahman tells Es Sayed: “I’m studying airplanes. I hope, God willing, that I can bring you a window or a piece of an airplane the next time we see each other.” The comment is followed by laughter. Beginning in October 2000, FBI experts will help Italian police analyze the intercepts and warnings. Neither Italy nor the FBI will understand their meaning until after 9/11, but apparently, the Italians will understand enough to give the US an attack warning in March 2001 (see March 2001). [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/2002; Guardian, 5/30/2002; Washington Post, 5/31/2002] The Milan cell “is believed to have created a cottage industry in supplying false passports and other bogus documents.” [Boston Globe, 8/4/2002]
Entity Tags: Abdulsalam Ali Abdulrahman, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mahmoud Es Sayed, Al-Qaeda
Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline
Category Tags: Warning Signs, Foreign Intelligence Warnings

January 24, 2001: Italians Hear of Brothers Going to US for ‘Very, Very Secret’ Plan, Other Clues On this day, Italian intelligence hears an interesting wiretapped conversation eerily similar to the one from August 12, 2000 (see August 12, 2000). This one occurs between al-Qaeda operatives Mahmoud Es Sayed and Ben Soltane Adel, two members of al-Qaeda’s Milan cell. Adel asks, in reference to fake documents, “Will these work for the brothers who are going to the United States?” Sayed responds angrily, saying “don’t ever say those words again, not even joking!… If it’s necessary… whatever place we may be, come up and talk in my ear, because these are very important things. You must know… that this plan is very, very secret, as if you were protecting the security of the state.” This will be only one of many clues found from the Italian wiretaps and passed on to US intelligence in March 2001 (see March 2001). However, they apparently will not be properly understood until after 9/11. Adel is later arrested and convicted of belonging to a terrorist cell, and Es Sayed will flee to Afghanistan in July 2001. [Guardian, 5/30/2002]
Entity Tags: Al-Qaeda, Mahmoud Es Sayed, Ben Soltane Adel
Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline
Category Tags: Warning Signs, Foreign Intelligence Warnings, Remote Surveillance

retiredman
09-19-2007, 12:18 PM
Well let me see...

I suppose suspecting Bin Laden was behind the WTC bombing on Clinton's watch, wasn't enough??

What would of been enough for these people...Maybe a 9/11?

well...let ME see...if you could show where we held those suspicions prior to May of 96, that would be real nice.

retiredman
09-19-2007, 12:19 PM
Nice stuff, Nukeman...but irrelevant to the question at hand.

Ruby
09-19-2007, 12:19 PM
I think what the big government party (Republicans) and the bigger government party (Democrats) need to understand is that Presidents going back to Nixon need to accept blame for what happened on 9/11.

Educate yourselves.

http://images.bestwebbuys.com/muze/books/95/9780805075595.jpg


I also agree! Many people have a tendency to get very upset here when your point penetrates fully.

darin
09-19-2007, 12:23 PM
It's okay Nukeman - when MFM sees information which makes his arguments or points seem weak, he dismisses it.

retiredman
09-19-2007, 12:24 PM
Well let me see...

I suppose suspecting Bin Laden was behind the WTC bombing on Clinton's watch, wasn't enough??

What would of been enough for these people...Maybe a 9/11?

clearly, by the way, it took 9/11 to get Bush's attention regarding OBL....HIS administration STOPPED the CIA sponsored predator overflights of Afghanistan in the spring of 2001 which were designed to try and find OBL. Terrorism was so "last century" for Dubya and his gang...it was so "Clintonesque" Star Wars! That was the ticket. That was the subject of the speech that Condi was scheduled to give on 9/11. Ooops.

Porn! That was the focus of the justice department. $51M removed from the DoJ anti-terrorism budget the day before 9/11.

Al Qaeda? Osama? "determined to strike within our borders"? Who gives a shit? When is my tee time?

Ruby
09-19-2007, 12:25 PM
Exactly. It's not like the idea of blowback is far out. In fact, our own CIA invented the term, and the 9/11 Commission report goes into detail regarding the fact that U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East contributes to the anti-American sentiment.

The problem is that so many americans arent very aware of US activities in the middle east and they CHOOSE this, when confronted with the ugly facts there is a lot of "finger-in-ears" while humming very loudly that occurs.

retiredman
09-19-2007, 12:26 PM
It's okay Nukeman - when MFM sees information which makes his arguments or points seem weak, he dismisses it.

you really DO have a reading disability don't you? My only point was that we did not have anything on OBL by the spring of 96 that would have allowed us to take him into custody in a foreign land. Nukeman's stuff is all from '98 or later.

Maybe it isn't reading...maybe you have a problem, perhaps with arithmetic? 96 is less than 98. see?

Nukeman
09-19-2007, 12:28 PM
Nice stuff, Nukeman...but irrelevant to the question at hand.The point is this was over a number of watches.. A number of agencies had information, a number of presedencies had the opportunity to "DO" something. To place sole blame on Bush is just rediculous, but that is the liberal mantra isn't it?? Blame Bush ummmmm ummmm....Blame Bush ummmmm ummmm... It is very tiresome at best and just plain sad.

You can say that the conservatives do the same about Billy boy but it is usualy in retaliation to these types of baseless accusations..

-Cp
09-19-2007, 12:29 PM
:link: please

it is my understanding that Clinton did not have the authority to take Bin Laden in...at the time that this happened.

Are you saying he did, and neglected this?

jd


http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

Nukeman
09-19-2007, 12:29 PM
you really DO have a reading disability don't you? My only point was that we did not have anything on OBL by the spring of 96 that would have allowed us to take him into custody in a foreign land. Nukeman's stuff is all from '98 or later.

Maybe it isn't reading...maybe you have a problem, perhaps with arithmetic? 96 is less than 98. see?No we didn't have OBL but we had the freaking terrorist that worked for him and did this terrible thing..

retiredman
09-19-2007, 12:32 PM
No we didn't have OBL but we had the freaking terrorist that worked for him and did this terrible thing..

I am suggesting that, in May of 1996, we did not know of Osama's connection to anyone who had done anything to America or American interests. We started to connect those dots later that summer and fall...but he had left the Sudan for Afghanistan in May.

If you have some hard evidence that contradicts that assertion, I would be happy to examine it.

JackDaniels
09-19-2007, 12:32 PM
I also agree! Many people have a tendency to get very upset here when your point penetrates fully.

Exactly. The problem is that partisans on either side want to blame the other; they do not understand foreign policy, because if they did, they'd know blowback really isn't up for debate.

There would never have been a 9/11 if we didn't intervene for decades and keep troops there. That's not up for debate. That's what educated people know; the CIA knew it in the 1990's and never did anything about it, and the 9/11 Commission knew it.

I'll solve it for you: it's not just the Republicans fault. It's not just the Democrats fault. It's both of your fault.

retiredman
09-19-2007, 12:38 PM
well said, Jack!

jimnyc
09-19-2007, 12:38 PM
:link: please

it is my understanding that Clinton did not have the authority to take Bin Laden in...at the time that this happened.

Are you saying he did, and neglected this?

jd

And there are MANY more similar articles on the net.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

And how about Clinton lying to the 9/11 Commission?


During his private interview with the 9/11 Commission on Thursday, ex-President Bill Clinton denied that he told a New York business group in 2002 that he turned down an offer from Sudan for Osama bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., according to 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey.Funny thing is, the event he denied making the statements at were recorded!

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/9/165600.shtml

Direct recording:
http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/4525/Clinton_knew_bin_Laden_was_a_threat_to_the_U_S

As for what Clinton had knowledge of back in 1996:

http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/4525/Clinton_knew_bin_Laden_was_a_threat_to_the_U_S

retiredman
09-19-2007, 12:45 PM
from you last, apparently germane link:

"Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released two declassified “Top Secret” State Department documents that warned Clinton administration officials of the activities and influence of Osama bin Laden following his alleged “expulsion” from Sudan in May 1996."

so...when Clinton was offered OBL on a silver platter, he couldn't have done anything.

my point.

jimnyc
09-19-2007, 01:56 PM
from you last, apparently germane link:

"Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released two declassified “Top Secret” State Department documents that warned Clinton administration officials of the activities and influence of Osama bin Laden following his alleged “expulsion” from Sudan in May 1996."

so...when Clinton was offered OBL on a silver platter, he couldn't have done anything.

my point.

Are you saying the US didn't suspect Bin Laden of having links to those involved in the WTC bombings in 1993? Or bombings in Riyadh in 1995?

Why did the US then pressure Sudan to expel him? I believe that very same year the US indicted Bin Laden for training those involved in the 1993 attack in Somalia that killed 18 of our soldiers.

retiredman
09-19-2007, 02:14 PM
Are you saying the US didn't suspect Bin Laden of having links to those involved in the WTC bombings in 1993? Or bombings in Riyadh in 1995?

Why did the US then pressure Sudan to expel him? I believe that very same year the US indicted Bin Laden for training those involved in the 1993 attack in Somalia that killed 18 of our soldiers.

I am quite unambiguously suggesting that I do nt believe that the United States had any evidence on Osama bin Laden in May of 1996 that would have allowed us to take custody of a foreign national on foreign soil and incarcerate him. period. I don't care whether the Sudan offerred him up...I don't care if the State Department thought he was a nefarious character....I am saying that we had no rationale for detaining or incarcerating him in May of 1996.

Ruby
09-19-2007, 02:18 PM
Exactly. The problem is that partisans on either side want to blame the other; they do not understand foreign policy, because if they did, they'd know blowback really isn't up for debate.

There would never have been a 9/11 if we didn't intervene for decades and keep troops there. That's not up for debate. That's what educated people know; the CIA knew it in the 1990's and never did anything about it, and the 9/11 Commission knew it.

I'll solve it for you: it's not just the Republicans fault. It's not just the Democrats fault. It's both of your fault.

100% agree!

The problem is that partisan fighting is EASIER than spending time getting really informed. People are really dedicated to this "high-school team rivalry" stuff, maybe even addicted.

stephanie
09-19-2007, 02:23 PM
I am quite unambiguously suggesting that I do nt believe that the United States had any evidence on Osama bin Laden in May of 1996 that would have allowed us to take custody of a foreign national on foreign soil and incarcerate him. period. I don't care whether the Sudan offerred him up...I don't care if the State Department thought he was a nefarious character....I am saying that we had no rationale for detaining or incarcerating him in May of 1996.

And I am saying...........WE DID...:cheers2:

stephanie
09-19-2007, 02:29 PM
100% agree!

The problem is that partisan fighting is EASIER than spending time getting really informed. People are really dedicated to this "high-school team rivalry" stuff, maybe even addicted.

:rolleyes:

retiredman
09-19-2007, 02:31 PM
And I am saying...........WE DID...:cheers2:


:link:

that is all I ask. some reasonably non-partisan source which shows we had - prior to may '96 - incriminating evidence that OBL had done anything to americans or american interests that would warrant us taking custody of him on foreign soil and holding him.

jimnyc
09-19-2007, 02:34 PM
I am quite unambiguously suggesting that I do nt believe that the United States had any evidence on Osama bin Laden in May of 1996 that would have allowed us to take custody of a foreign national on foreign soil and incarcerate him. period. I don't care whether the Sudan offerred him up...I don't care if the State Department thought he was a nefarious character....I am saying that we had no rationale for detaining or incarcerating him in May of 1996.

I would think being a suspect in the involvement in several terrorist attacks should have been sufficient. Funny though, the article I referenced stated that the Clinton administration's silence was "deafening" when offered "the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas."

Odd that they wouldn't be interested in terror networks.

stephanie
09-19-2007, 02:37 PM
:link:

that is all I ask. some reasonably non-partisan source which shows we had - prior to may '96 - incriminating evidence that OBL had done anything to Americans or American interests that would warrant us taking custody of him on foreign soil and holding him.

Why do I need a link...you didn't have one when you DECLARED we didn't have any reason to take Bin Laden when Sudan offered him to Clinton...:p

jimnyc
09-19-2007, 02:47 PM
:link:

that is all I ask. some reasonably non-partisan source which shows we had - prior to may '96 - incriminating evidence that OBL had done anything to americans or american interests that would warrant us taking custody of him on foreign soil and holding him.

Thus far:


As early as 1994, United States intelligence officials were receiving worrisome reports about Osama bin Laden, according to FRONTLINE's interview with former CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/johnson.html). Then in early 1995, Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, was captured in Pakistan and was linked to Osama bin Laden.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/bombings/warnings.html


Bin Laden's implication in the 1993 downing of two U.S. Blackhawk helicopters in Somalia and the subsequent firefight that resulted in the deaths of 18 Rangers began Washington's targeting of bin Laden and his organization.

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/rogues-pr.cfm


Beginning in 1993, bin Laden channeled tens of millions of dollars a year through Islamic banks and charities to terrorist organizations, militant groups and extremist political movements based in Egypt, Algeria, Yemen, Sudan, Lebanon, and the Philippines, as well as providing support for the shadowy and stateless group known as Islamic Jihad, U.S. officials say. He has also claimed to support Islamic movements in Bosnia, Kashmir, Tajikistan, Chechnya and Somalia.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/082198attack-binladen.html

retiredman
09-19-2007, 09:13 PM
I really have no desire to appear contrary, but really...all I see from all of those links is our discovery that OBL might have been "associated" with Ramzi Yousef. In the pre-9/11 world, does mere association create enough legal justification to take custody of a foreign national on foreign soil? I understand and share the feeling that it would have been marvelous for America to somehow have been able to see into the future and nab OBL before he was able to perpetrate that terrible attack on us, but realistically, did we really have the oppoprtunity to do so?

For example, if you had an "association" with a man who had later been shown to have perpetrated a terrorist act on Germany, let's say... would you feel that it would be appropriate for you to be taken into custody in Ireland, for example, and whisked away and held by Germans in Germany because of that unproven and uncorrelated "association"?

I am not, for one minute, suggesting that the world would not have been a better place if BIll Clinton's administration had not taken OBL into custody and held him until Hell froze over.... I am only saying that, in the pre-9/11 world,...in the pre-Khobar Towers world... in the pre-African embassy bombing world... in the pre-USS Cole world, there was not enough meat there to justify taking OBL into custody, regardless of how nice it would have appeared to the future.

BoogyMan
09-19-2007, 09:17 PM
I really have no desire to appear contrary, but really...all I see from all of those links is our discovery that OBL might have been "associated" with Ramzi Yousef. In the pre-9/11 world, does mere association create enough legal justification to take custody of a foreign national on foreign soil? I understand and share the feeling that it would have been marvelous for America to somehow have been able to see into the future and nab OBL before he was able to perpetrate that terrible attack on us, but realistically, did we really have the oppoprtunity to do so?

For example, if you had an "association" with a man who had later been shown to have perpetrated a terrorist act on Germany, let's say... would you feel that it would be appropriate for you to be taken into custody in Ireland, for example, and whisked away and held by Germans in Germany because of that unproven and uncorrelated "association"?

I am not, for one minute, suggesting that the world would not have been a better place if BIll Clinton's administration had not taken OBL into custody and held him until Hell froze over.... I am only saying that, in the pre-9/11 world,...in the pre-Khobar Towers world... in the pre-African embassy bombing world... in the pre-USS Cole world, there was not enough meat there to justify taking OBL into custody, regardless of how nice it would have appeared to the future.

This from the guy who claims a pedophile found working for the Justice Department makes the Administration look bad. Don't you just relish the hypocrisy of the position this guy unashamedly takes? Association will tar the Bush administration, but Bin Laden gets a pass?

Egads....

Gunny
09-19-2007, 09:18 PM
http://tinyurl.com/24nsod


Look who says so?


U.S. Spy Chief: 9/11 'Could Have Been Prevented'
Director of National Intelligence Says U.S. Didn't Connect Available Information
(AP Photo) By JASON RYAN and THERESA COOK
Sept. 18, 2007
Font Size


McConnell, explaining that the intelligence community was, at the time, very focused on foreign threats, said the community allowed itself "to be separated from anything that was potentially domestic," and that domestic threats were "not something we [were] supposed to be concerned with."

"Yeah, that translates to negligence," charged committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich.

"Or interpretation of the law — of how the culture had evolved," McConnell countered.

Given the vast resources of the intelligence community, along with the FBI's and CIA's knowledge that al Qaeda had an interest in flight training, and had sent 9/11 hijackers Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi and terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui to undertake such training in the United States, McConnell said, "For whatever reason, we didn't connect the dots."

More of your screwball nonsense. Can't you ever give intelligent folks a break?

retiredman
09-19-2007, 09:26 PM
This from the guy who claims a pedophile found working for the Justice Department makes the Administration look bad. Don't you just relish the hypocrisy of the position this guy unashamedly takes? Association will tar the Bush administration, but Bin Laden gets a pass?

Egads....

the difference between 9/11 and sordid sexual political faux pas obviously escapes you. We really have no common ground for discussion, therefor

BoogyMan
09-19-2007, 09:34 PM
the difference between 9/11 and sordid sexual political faux pas obviously escapes you. We really have no common ground for discussion, therefor

Yet you cannot deny that you are hypocritical with your willingness to try and tar the Bush administration with something well outside of its ability to know about and are willing to give Bin Laden a pass. YOU were the one who hypocritically used the concept of association and YOU are the one who should be big enough to either step up and explain it or ditch the concept when you realize the abject partisan nature of such a position.

stephanie
09-19-2007, 10:15 PM
Yet you cannot deny that you are hypocritical with your willingness to try and tar the Bush administration with something well outside of its ability to know about and are willing to give Bin Laden a pass. YOU were the one who hypocritically used the concept of association and YOU are the one who should be big enough to either step up and explain it or ditch the concept when you realize the abject partisan nature of such a position.


He's not hypocritical at all...in his own little world..
But...
He's been taken behind the wood shed and whipped.......bad...

And he knows it.:laugh2:

manu1959
09-19-2007, 10:49 PM
http://tinyurl.com/24nsod
Look who says so?
U.S. Spy Chief: 9/11 'Could Have Been Prevented'
Director of National Intelligence Says U.S. Didn't Connect Available Information
(AP Photo) By JASON RYAN and THERESA COOK
Sept. 18, 2007
Font Size
McConnell, explaining that the intelligence community was, at the time, very focused on foreign threats, said the community allowed itself "to be separated from anything that was potentially domestic," and that domestic threats were "not something we [were] supposed to be concerned with."
"Yeah, that translates to negligence," charged committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich.
"Or interpretation of the law — of how the culture had evolved," McConnell countered.
Given the vast resources of the intelligence community, along with the FBI's and CIA's knowledge that al Qaeda had an interest in flight training, and had sent 9/11 hijackers Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi and terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui to undertake such training in the United States, McConnell said, "For whatever reason, we didn't connect the dots."


ok....how could it have been stopped...........

stephanie
09-19-2007, 10:56 PM
ok....how could it have been stopped...........


I guess...........they mean to say the............ way the First time the World Trade Center WAS BOMBED....
How that was stopped.
Under.Billy Boy Clinton...Our Savior of all terrorist attact...

retiredman
09-20-2007, 06:44 AM
Yet you cannot deny that you are hypocritical with your willingness to try and tar the Bush administration with something well outside of its ability to know about and are willing to give Bin Laden a pass. YOU were the one who hypocritically used the concept of association and YOU are the one who should be big enough to either step up and explain it or ditch the concept when you realize the abject partisan nature of such a position.


Please explain how I am willing to give bin Laden a pass. I point out that in the pre-9/11 world, no one paid enough attention to bin Laden. Clinton perhaps did not pursue him as aggressively as he might have... Bush certainly stopped the predator overflights that were designed to track him and that might very well have found him that summer.... but hindsight is 20/20. The fact of the matter is: we didn't have enough evidence of any crimes committed by OBL prior to 5/96 to take him into custody.

And I have never denied for a moment that I am partisan. I disagree with the use of the word "abject" as a modifier to it, however. I find nothing utterly hopeless, miserable, humiliating, wretched, contemptible, despicable or shamelessly servile about my partisanship. I believe in the ideals of my party and will do all I can that is legal to advance them. Referring to that as "abject" is inaccurate, but I guess my experiences here over the past week or so has shown me that accuracy in language is certainly not all that important here, so I probably should not make much more of a fuss about it.

jimnyc
09-20-2007, 06:54 AM
I can agree with those who stated that various administrations faltered, and that the intelligence agencies were left under-funded and poorly communicated with one another. Much too little was done for a VERY long time and no ONE person in particular is to blame - other than OBL himself for what happened on 9/11.

I point out the problems of prior administrations because I get tired of those who want to lay the entire blame on Bush and his administration. But I'm man enough to admit that our government as a whole over a vast amount of time could have done more.

retiredman
09-20-2007, 07:25 AM
precisely. and, as I said, hindsight is 20/20. Perhaps SOMEONE back in the 90's was imagining that islamic terrorists would hijack aircraft and turn them into guided missiles, but the vast majority of the whole world was operating under the assumption that airline hijackings, for the most part, had few to no casualties associated with them. They were primarily publicity stunts undertaken by arab nationalists to bring the spotlight onto their demands for Israel to do this or that. Gun battles might ensue, but body counts were always minimal. Nothing horrific. The failure to envision 9/11 type terror was universal and, while profoundly regrettable, not necessarily negligent.

jimnyc
09-20-2007, 07:29 AM
We are in agreement then MFM! Have a brewskie on me! :beer:

retiredman
09-20-2007, 07:37 AM
Thanks! make it two!:beer:

BoogyMan
09-20-2007, 07:38 AM
Please explain how I am willing to give bin Laden a pass. I point out that in the pre-9/11 world, no one paid enough attention to bin Laden. Clinton perhaps did not pursue him as aggressively as he might have... Bush certainly stopped the predator overflights that were designed to track him and that might very well have found him that summer.... but hindsight is 20/20. The fact of the matter is: we didn't have enough evidence of any crimes committed by OBL prior to 5/96 to take him into custody.

And I have never denied for a moment that I am partisan. I disagree with the use of the word "abject" as a modifier to it, however. I find nothing utterly hopeless, miserable, humiliating, wretched, contemptible, despicable or shamelessly servile about my partisanship. I believe in the ideals of my party and will do all I can that is legal to advance them. Referring to that as "abject" is inaccurate, but I guess my experiences here over the past week or so has shown me that accuracy in language is certainly not all that important here, so I probably should not make much more of a fuss about it.

Ah but your own words on this forum hoist you up on your own petard, manfrommaine. See your commentary in the post at: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=126524&postcount=49.

You pish-toshed the idea that Bin Laden was anything more than "associated" with Ramzi Yousef during the Clinton years and grasped desperately and without efficacy for some kind of excuse for Clinton having done nothing in this regard.

I choose my terms quite carefully manfrommaine and the use of abject as a modifier paints you in the light of your own commentary and ideology.

retiredman
09-20-2007, 07:41 AM
Ah but your own words on this forum hoist you up on your own petard, manfrommaine. See your commentary in the post at: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=126524&postcount=49.

You pish-toshed the idea that Bin Laden was anything more than "associated" with Ramzi Yousef during the Clinton years and grasped desperately and without efficacy for some kind of excuse for Clinton having done nothing in this regard.

I choose my terms quite carefully manfrommaine and the use of abject as a modifier paints you in the light of your own commentary and ideology.

I see no contradiction at all in the post you link to. and regarding your use of the word "abject" to describe me, we'll just have to agree to disagree.