9/11 Report Cites Many Warnings About Hijackings...Bush admin withheld report until AFTER the election!!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/polit...1108011600&oref=login&partner=homepage
WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 - In the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission.

But aviation officials were "lulled into a false sense of security," and "intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures," the commission report concluded.

The report discloses that the Federal Aviation Administration, despite being focused on risks of hijackings overseas, warned airports in the spring of 2001 that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable."

The report takes the F.A.A. to task for failing to pursue domestic security measures that could conceivably have altered the events of Sept. 11, 2001, like toughening airport screening procedures for weapons or expanding the use of on-flight air marshals. The report, completed last August, said officials appeared more concerned with reducing airline congestion, lessening delays, and easing airlines' financial woes than deterring a terrorist attack.

The Bush administration has blocked the public release of the full, classified version of the report for more than five months, officials said, much to the frustration of former commission members who say it provides a critical understanding of the failures of the civil aviation system. The administration provided both the classified report and a declassified, 120-page version to the National Archives two weeks ago and, even with heavy redactions in some areas, the declassified version provides the firmest evidence to date about the warnings that aviation officials received concerning the threat of an attack on airliners and the failure to take steps to deter it.

Among other things, the report says that leaders of the F.A.A. received 52 intelligence reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda from April to Sept. 10, 2001. That represented half of all the intelligence summaries in that time.

Five of the intelligence reports specifically mentioned Al Qaeda's training or capability to conduct hijackings, the report said. Two mentioned suicide operations, although not connected to aviation, the report said.


A spokeswoman for the F.A.A., the agency that bears the brunt of the commission's criticism, said Wednesday that the agency was well aware of the threat posed by terrorists before Sept. 11 and took substantive steps to counter it, including the expanded use of explosives detection units.

"We had a lot of information about threats," said the spokeswoman, Laura J. Brown. "But we didn't have specific information about means or methods that would have enabled us to tailor any countermeasures."

She added: "After 9/11, the F.A..A. and the entire aviation community took bold steps to improve aviation security, such as fortifying cockpit doors on 6,000 airplanes, and those steps took hundreds of millions of dollars to implement."

The report, like previous commission documents, finds no evidence that the government had specific warning of a domestic attack and says that the aviation industry considered the hijacking threat to be more worrisome overseas.

"The fact that the civil aviation system seems to have been lulled into a false sense of security is striking not only because of what happened on 9/11 but also in light of the intelligence assessments, including those conducted by the F.A.A.'s own security branch, that raised alarms about the growing terrorist threat to civil aviation throughout the 1990's and into the new century," the report said.

In its previous findings, including a final report last July that became a best-selling book, the 9/11 commission detailed the harrowing events aboard the four hijacked flights that crashed on Sept. 11 and the communications problems between civil aviation and military officials that hampered the response. But the new report goes further in revealing the scope and depth of intelligence collected by federal aviation officials about the threat of a terrorist attack.

The F.A.A. "had indeed considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon," and in 2001 it distributed a CD-ROM presentation to airlines and airports that cited the possibility of a suicide hijacking, the report said. Previous commission documents have quoted the CD's reassurance that "fortunately, we have no indication that any group is currently thinking in that direction."

Aviation officials amassed so much information about the growing threat posed by terrorists that they conducted classified briefings in mid-2001 for security officials at 19 of the nation's busiest airports to warn of the threat posed in particular by Mr. bin Laden, the report said.

Still, the 9/11 commission concluded that aviation officials did not direct adequate resources or attention to the problem.


"Throughout 2001, the senior leadership of the F.A.A. was focused on congestion and delays within the system and the ever-present issue of safety, but they were not as focused on security," the report said.

The F.A.A. did not see a need to increase the air marshal ranks because hijackings were seen as an overseas threat, and one aviation official told the commission said that airlines did not want to give up revenues by providing free seats to marshals.

The F.A.A. also made no concerted effort to expand their list of terror suspects, which included a dozen names on Sept. 11, the report said. The former head of the F.A.A.'s civil aviation security branch said he was not aware of the government's main watch list, called Tipoff, which included the names of two hijackers who were living in the San Diego area, the report said.

Nor was there evidence that a senior F.A.A. working group on security had ever met in 2001 to discuss "the high threat period that summer," the report said.

Jane F. Garvey, the F.A.A. administrator at the time, told the commission "that she was aware of the heightened threat during the summer of 2001," the report said. But several other senior agency officials "were basically unaware of the threat," as were senior airline operations officials and veteran pilots, the report said.

The classified version of the commission report quotes extensively from circulars prepared by the F.A.A. about the threat of terrorism, but many of those references have been blacked out in the declassified version, officials said.

Several former commissioners and staff members said they were upset and disappointed by the administration's refusal to release the full report publicly.

"Our intention was to make as much information available to the public as soon as possible," said Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Sept. 11 commission member.
Looks like the FAA f'ed up badly, the Bush admin knew it but kept it covered up until AFTER the election.

This administration isn't Republican. Hell, they're not even American!!! :| :|

PNAC needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to get their agenda rolling.

Then their wish came true. Just like magic. Hmmm.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
it's not so much that this info may or may not have been the intel that stopped the attacks it's that it was purposely held to help with Bush's reellection. this is the kind of secretive BS that makes me very leary of this admin. I'm predicting now there will be a lot thigns released once Bush is out that will make people realize how sh!tty of a president he was.

How? Nobody had enough intel to do much of anything with. If you can point me to information that said even sept 11th then Ill give you a cookie.

From reading this article the only thing in the classified files are detailed information on how the FAA worked. Whoopie do!
We already know they failed to protect the public. What else can you possibly dig up?

How's this?

Newark Airport got warnings before 9/11

A new Kean commission report surfaces

Friday, February 11, 2005
BY ROBERT COHEN
STAR-LEDGER WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- In the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, officials at Newark and two other airports used by 19 suicide hijackers were warned in top-secret briefings about the threat to aviation posed by terrorist Osama bin Laden, according to a newly released staff document from the 9/11 commission.

But the staff report said the intelligence information did not lead to an upgrade in security or improved passenger screening at the airports. The staff found, as the full commission did in its final report July report, that the Federal Aviation Administration was more focused in 2001 on reducing airline delays.

The previously undisclosed commission document reveals that the FAA's intelligence office conducted classified briefings about the terrorist threat for security officials at Newark Liberty International Airport on March 14, 2001, at Dulles International on March 22 and at Boston's Logan Airport on May 15. Officials at 16 other major airports also were briefed during the same time period.

"The briefing highlighted the threat posed by terrorists in general and bin Laden in particular, including his threats against aviation," the report said. "The renewed interest in hijacking by terrorist groups was also covered."

While the commission staff said the FAA had no specific intelligence indicating bin Laden, al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliates or any other terrorist group was plotting to hijack a commercial airliner and use it as a weapon, it disclosed the agency considered the possibility.


"In the spring of 2001, FAA intelligence distributed an unclassified CD-ROM presentation to air carriers and airports, including Logan, Newark and Dulles," said the report. "The presentation cited the possibility that terrorists might conduct suicide hijackings but stated: 'Fortunately, we have no indication that any group is currently thinking in that direction.'"

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency received information from the intelligence community that it passed onto airlines and airports. But, she said, "We had no specific information before 9/11 about terrorist means or methods directed at aviation in the U.S. that would have indicated specific countermeasures."

A spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates Newark Liberty, said the airport security officials were given only "general information" in the classified briefing about the terrorist threat.

"That information was not specific to hijacking of domestic airlines," said Port Authority spokesman Steve Coleman.


Release of the commission staff report had been blocked for months by the Bush administration, which this week declassified a portion of the document and sent it to the National Archives, where it became publicly available yesterday.

The bipartisan national commission, headed by former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist hijackings of four commercial airliners that resulted in a little more than 3,000 deaths when the planes crashed into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and in the western Pennsylvania countryside.

Two planes took off from Boston, one from Newark and one from Dulles.

The commission found bin Laden responsible for the attacks and faulted the government for having failed to recognize the gravity and scope of the terror threat. It issued its final report in July and went out of business in August.

Kean said yesterday the details in the staff report were used by the commission to reach its final conclusions.

He said the FAA had terrorist intelligence information and relayed some of it to the airports and airlines, but none of it translated into more air marshals, tighter passenger screening, more intense scrutiny of baggage or a ban on taking small knives aboard planes.

"There hadn't been a hijacking for so long that they were debating overcrowding and on-time flights during the summer of 2001. That is what we were worried about, not safety," Kean said. "This was part of the complacency that was true throughout the government. They didn't pay attention to the warnings."

Kean also complained that the Justice Department took five months to make the staff report public, and unnecessarily kept some of the information classified.

"There is nothing in the report which adversely affects national security, but some of the things redacted might prove embarrassing to the FAA," Kean said.


The staff report said the FAA's security branch prepared 105 daily intelligence summaries for the agency's leaders between April 1, 2001, and Sept. 10, 2001, with almost half mentioning bin Laden, al Qaeda or both. The report said most of the reports dealt with an overseas threat.

Of the 52 summaries mentioning bin Laden or al Qaeda, the report said, five cited hijacking as a capability that al Qaeda was training for or possessed, and two mentioned suicide operations but not related to aviation. Another summary mentioned air defense measures being taken in Genoa, Italy, for the G-8 summit to protect from a possible air attack by terrorists.

Tim Roemer, a 9/11 commissioner and former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said, "The FAA deserves to be raked over the coals for ignoring the warnings and being more concerned about reducing air traffic congestion than dealing with possible terrorist attacks."

But the FAA's Brown insisted that the agency was moving at the time to strengthen security. She said the FAA lacked information about specific threats.

Liars. They had all the information they needed to address the very real threat of hijackings.

I have a real problem with people who were given specific information about hijackings AT THE VERY AIRPORTS WHERE THE 9/11 HIJACKINGS OCCURED now claiming there wasn't a specific threat. THEY WERE MORE CONCERNED WITH FLIGHT DELAYS THAN TOP SECRET BRIEFINGS ON HIJACKINGS.

What did they need? Someone to hold their hands? Give them the exact flight numbers? Tiimes? Destinations? Pictures of the 19 hijackers?

And yet no heads have rolled. It's Bushworld. No accountability.

Maybe he'll give them medals instead. :roll:

Those medals Bush gives out to his administration lackies who failed so miserably on 9/11 and in Iraq are nothing more than the historical equivalent of plastic surgery.

PS Ashcroft and other Bush administration officials stopped using commercial airliners for travel about six weeks before 9/11. I guess they knew what to make of the warnings, huh?

Ashcroft Flying High


 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: BBond
Liars. They had all the information they needed to address the very real threat of hijackings.
Laff. Even when you show them the detailed facts, if those facts don't mesh with their partisan fantasies they'll stick their fingers in their eyes, kick and scream, and yell "Liar, liar pants on fire."

Morons.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Genx87
it's not so much that this info may or may not have been the intel that stopped the attacks it's that it was purposely held to help with Bush's reellection. this is the kind of secretive BS that makes me very leary of this admin. I'm predicting now there will be a lot thigns released once Bush is out that will make people realize how sh!tty of a president he was.

How? Nobody had enough intel to do much of anything with. If you can point me to information that said even sept 11th then Ill give you a cookie.

From reading this article the only thing in the classified files are detailed information on how the FAA worked. Whoopie do!
We already know they failed to protect the public. What else can you possibly dig up?

How's this?

Newark Airport got warnings before 9/11

A new Kean commission report surfaces

Friday, February 11, 2005
BY ROBERT COHEN
STAR-LEDGER WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- In the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, officials at Newark and two other airports used by 19 suicide hijackers were warned in top-secret briefings about the threat to aviation posed by terrorist Osama bin Laden, according to a newly released staff document from the 9/11 commission.

But the staff report said the intelligence information did not lead to an upgrade in security or improved passenger screening at the airports. The staff found, as the full commission did in its final report July report, that the Federal Aviation Administration was more focused in 2001 on reducing airline delays.

The previously undisclosed commission document reveals that the FAA's intelligence office conducted classified briefings about the terrorist threat for security officials at Newark Liberty International Airport on March 14, 2001, at Dulles International on March 22 and at Boston's Logan Airport on May 15. Officials at 16 other major airports also were briefed during the same time period.

"The briefing highlighted the threat posed by terrorists in general and bin Laden in particular, including his threats against aviation," the report said. "The renewed interest in hijacking by terrorist groups was also covered."

While the commission staff said the FAA had no specific intelligence indicating bin Laden, al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliates or any other terrorist group was plotting to hijack a commercial airliner and use it as a weapon, it disclosed the agency considered the possibility.


"In the spring of 2001, FAA intelligence distributed an unclassified CD-ROM presentation to air carriers and airports, including Logan, Newark and Dulles," said the report. "The presentation cited the possibility that terrorists might conduct suicide hijackings but stated: 'Fortunately, we have no indication that any group is currently thinking in that direction.'"

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency received information from the intelligence community that it passed onto airlines and airports. But, she said, "We had no specific information before 9/11 about terrorist means or methods directed at aviation in the U.S. that would have indicated specific countermeasures."

A spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates Newark Liberty, said the airport security officials were given only "general information" in the classified briefing about the terrorist threat.

"That information was not specific to hijacking of domestic airlines," said Port Authority spokesman Steve Coleman.


Release of the commission staff report had been blocked for months by the Bush administration, which this week declassified a portion of the document and sent it to the National Archives, where it became publicly available yesterday.

The bipartisan national commission, headed by former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist hijackings of four commercial airliners that resulted in a little more than 3,000 deaths when the planes crashed into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and in the western Pennsylvania countryside.

Two planes took off from Boston, one from Newark and one from Dulles.

The commission found bin Laden responsible for the attacks and faulted the government for having failed to recognize the gravity and scope of the terror threat. It issued its final report in July and went out of business in August.

Kean said yesterday the details in the staff report were used by the commission to reach its final conclusions.

He said the FAA had terrorist intelligence information and relayed some of it to the airports and airlines, but none of it translated into more air marshals, tighter passenger screening, more intense scrutiny of baggage or a ban on taking small knives aboard planes.

"There hadn't been a hijacking for so long that they were debating overcrowding and on-time flights during the summer of 2001. That is what we were worried about, not safety," Kean said. "This was part of the complacency that was true throughout the government. They didn't pay attention to the warnings."

Kean also complained that the Justice Department took five months to make the staff report public, and unnecessarily kept some of the information classified.

"There is nothing in the report which adversely affects national security, but some of the things redacted might prove embarrassing to the FAA," Kean said.


The staff report said the FAA's security branch prepared 105 daily intelligence summaries for the agency's leaders between April 1, 2001, and Sept. 10, 2001, with almost half mentioning bin Laden, al Qaeda or both. The report said most of the reports dealt with an overseas threat.

Of the 52 summaries mentioning bin Laden or al Qaeda, the report said, five cited hijacking as a capability that al Qaeda was training for or possessed, and two mentioned suicide operations but not related to aviation. Another summary mentioned air defense measures being taken in Genoa, Italy, for the G-8 summit to protect from a possible air attack by terrorists.

Tim Roemer, a 9/11 commissioner and former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said, "The FAA deserves to be raked over the coals for ignoring the warnings and being more concerned about reducing air traffic congestion than dealing with possible terrorist attacks."

But the FAA's Brown insisted that the agency was moving at the time to strengthen security. She said the FAA lacked information about specific threats.

Liars. They had all the information they needed to address the very real threat of hijackings.

I have a real problem with people who were given specific information about hijackings AT THE VERY AIRPORTS WHERE THE 9/11 HIJACKINGS OCCURED now claiming there wasn't a specific threat. THEY WERE MORE CONCERNED WITH FLIGHT DELAYS THAN TOP SECRET BRIEFINGS ON HIJACKINGS.

What did they need? Someone to hold their hands? Give them the exact flight numbers? Tiimes? Destinations? Pictures of the 19 hijackers?

And yet no heads have rolled. It's Bushworld. No accountability.

Maybe he'll give them medals instead. :roll:

Those medals Bush gives out to his administration lackies who failed so miserably on 9/11 and in Iraq are nothing more than the historical equivalent of plastic surgery.

PS Ashcroft and other Bush administration officials stopped using commercial airliners for travel about six weeks before 9/11. I guess they knew what to make of the warnings, huh?

Ashcroft Flying High



Tim Roemer, a 9/11 commissioner and former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said, "The FAA deserves to be raked over the coals for ignoring the warnings and being more concerned about reducing air traffic congestion than dealing with possible terrorist attacks."
There's the crux of it right there!

And Ashcroft was a supreme asshat for being the coward he is while the rest of America was kept in the dark.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur



Tim Roemer, a 9/11 commissioner and former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said, "The FAA deserves to be raked over the coals for ignoring the warnings and being more concerned about reducing air traffic congestion than dealing with possible terrorist attacks."
There's the crux of it right there!

And Ashcroft was a supreme asshat for being the coward he is while the rest of America was kept in the dark.

Maybe Bush will give Ashcroft the Medal of Freedom. :roll:

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: BBond
Liars. They had all the information they needed to address the very real threat of hijackings.
Laff. Even when you show them the detailed facts, if those facts don't mesh with their partisan fantasies they'll stick their fingers in their eyes, kick and scream, and yell "Liar, liar pants on fire."

Morons.
No kidding. But they won the election, so what can we do? They don't answer to us. They think they're on a mission from God. And don't even get me started about their idiot worshippers who mindlessly rally behind everything the Bush administration does and parrot their propaganda points. There's no getting through to them at all.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: BBond
Liars. They had all the information they needed to address the very real threat of hijackings.
Laff. Even when you show them the detailed facts, if those facts don't mesh with their partisan fantasies they'll stick their fingers in their eyes, kick and scream, and yell "Liar, liar pants on fire."

Morons.
No kidding. But they won the election, so what can we do? They don't answer to us. They think they're on a mission from God. And don't even get me started about their idiot worshippers who mindlessly rally behind everything the Bush administration does and parrot their propaganda points. There's no getting through to them at all.

Maybe Bush is paying them off too.

 

DZip

Senior member
Apr 11, 2000
375
0
0
Do you really trust The New York Times? Everything they write about anything bad that has happened since Nov 2000 claims that our President is responsible. When the truth is made public by some other media, they refuse to make corrections to the original headlines.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: BBond
Liars. They had all the information they needed to address the very real threat of hijackings.
Laff. Even when you show them the detailed facts, if those facts don't mesh with their partisan fantasies they'll stick their fingers in their eyes, kick and scream, and yell "Liar, liar pants on fire."

Morons.
No kidding. But they won the election, so what can we do? They don't answer to us. They think they're on a mission from God. And don't even get me started about their idiot worshippers who mindlessly rally behind everything the Bush administration does and parrot their propaganda points. There's no getting through to them at all.
Sorry. I stand on the fence watching both sides. The alarmism, paranoia, fearmongering, false accusations, molehill re-enginering, and refusal to recognize facts that are presented directly in the face of the vocal left makes the remainder of the left look like complete idiots. Unless the sane people on the left distance themselves from their fellow unhinged rhetoric boxes, they will continue to be lumped in with them and will look just as ignorant as those they refuse to distance themselves from.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
It seems odd that the administration would delay this info from going public until now as it mostly serves to make the FAA look bad. Unless I'm missing some thing . . .
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
4,448
3,882
136
To me this seems like the same people who are alright with the fact that the war with Iraq and the WMD claims which was based on really poor intel. But now with several warnings which there was nothing done about it at all is alright.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
No kidding. But they won the election, so what can we do? They don't answer to us. They think they're on a mission from God. And don't even get me started about their idiot worshippers who mindlessly rally behind everything the Bush administration does and parrot their propaganda points. There's no getting through to them at all.
Should we start referring to them as "Jake and Elwood?" :laugh:
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It seems odd that the administration would delay this info from going public until now as it mostly serves to make the FAA look bad. Unless I'm missing some thing . . .

The information the Bush administration delayed from the 9/11 Commission report makes more than the FAA look bad. Consider this newly released information in light of the testimony of one Richard Clarke, for example.

And to think there is more info from the 9/11 Commission report they are still hiding from us. What new surprises are there?

What effect would the complete 9/11 Commission report have had on the election if the Bush administration hadn't censored it?

 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: BBond
Liars. They had all the information they needed to address the very real threat of hijackings.
Laff. Even when you show them the detailed facts, if those facts don't mesh with their partisan fantasies they'll stick their fingers in their eyes, kick and scream, and yell "Liar, liar pants on fire."

Morons.
No kidding. But they won the election, so what can we do? They don't answer to us. They think they're on a mission from God. And don't even get me started about their idiot worshippers who mindlessly rally behind everything the Bush administration does and parrot their propaganda points. There's no getting through to them at all.

Maybe Bush is paying them off too.


What do you think the tax cuts and Faith Based spending were for?
 

MoFunk

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2000
4,058
0
0
Everything is clearer after an event happens, we all know that. We all know that there were threats of terrorists attacks in the US, we also know that terrorists were not opposed to hijacking planes. But what should they have done? PROFILING? Oh heavens no! That woud be bad. If I remember correctly I think that they did have a few of the guys stopped and could not hold them because that would have been bad. So now we search little old ladies for bombs before bording and airplane.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Everything is clearer after an event happens, we all know that. We all know that there were threats of terrorists attacks in the US, we also know that terrorists were not opposed to hijacking planes. But what should they have done? PROFILING? Oh heavens no! That woud be bad. If I remember correctly I think that they did have a few of the guys stopped and could not hold them because that would have been bad. So now we search little old ladies for bombs before bording and airplane.

Your reply has nothing to do with the airports who had been briefed repeatedly on possible hijackings ignoring the information entirely as they concentrated on reducing delays.

What was their goal? To get the hijackers to their destination on time?

Stop excusing the now obvious, blatant criminal incompetence of this administration.

Why do you think they hid this until after the election? Even they know how damaging this is to them. Unbelievable as it may seem, they can still depend on some Americans to excuse even this.



 

MoFunk

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2000
4,058
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Everything is clearer after an event happens, we all know that. We all know that there were threats of terrorists attacks in the US, we also know that terrorists were not opposed to hijacking planes. But what should they have done? PROFILING? Oh heavens no! That woud be bad. If I remember correctly I think that they did have a few of the guys stopped and could not hold them because that would have been bad. So now we search little old ladies for bombs before bording and airplane.

Your reply has nothing to do with the airports who had been briefed repeatedly on possible hijackings ignoring the information entirely as they concentrated on reducing delays.

What was their goal? To get the hijackers to their destination on time?

Stop excusing the now obvious, blatant criminal incompetence of this administration.

Why do you think they hid this until after the election? Even they know how damaging this is to them. Unbelievable as it may seem, they can still depend on some Americans to excuse even this.

Your reply has nothing to do with the airports who had been briefed repeatedly on possible hijackings ignoring the information entirely
Much like the terrorist attacks against the USA were ignored thoughout the 8 years of Clinton

What was their goal? To get the hijackers to their destination on time?
So these suspected terrororists, were all what, middle eastern men in the 18-25 year age groups. Picture if you will that these men, with one way tickets, were stopped and detained. Maybe 9/11 would not have happened, but there would have been a huge lawsuit by the ACLU and all airlines would be afraid to even look at someone of middle eastern decent and 9/11 would have happened another day.

Stop excusing the now obvious, blatant criminal incompetence of this administration
sKerry, is that you?
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Even if you support Bush, I don't see how you can't feel like you were lied to somewhere along the lines. This crap is piling up beyond denial.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Everything is clearer after an event happens, we all know that. We all know that there were threats of terrorists attacks in the US, we also know that terrorists were not opposed to hijacking planes. But what should they have done? PROFILING? Oh heavens no! That woud be bad. If I remember correctly I think that they did have a few of the guys stopped and could not hold them because that would have been bad. So now we search little old ladies for bombs before bording and airplane.

Your reply has nothing to do with the airports who had been briefed repeatedly on possible hijackings ignoring the information entirely as they concentrated on reducing delays.

What was their goal? To get the hijackers to their destination on time?

Stop excusing the now obvious, blatant criminal incompetence of this administration.

Why do you think they hid this until after the election? Even they know how damaging this is to them. Unbelievable as it may seem, they can still depend on some Americans to excuse even this.

Your reply has nothing to do with the airports who had been briefed repeatedly on possible hijackings ignoring the information entirely
Much like the terrorist attacks against the USA were ignored thoughout the 8 years of Clinton
Hunh? Come again? Nothing was ignored. Your ridiculous statement has been disproven up here many, many times.
 

MoFunk

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2000
4,058
0
0
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Even if you support Bush, I don't see how you can't feel like you were lied to somewhere along the lines. This crap is piling up beyond denial.


Because I am not stupid and I am not a total "Bush supporter". I know that their are always lies, they are politicians. If you think there has been or ever will be an administration that does not lie then you have issues. Fact is that most poeple in here today that pump their fist that Bush lied and he is evil and if it wasnt for him 9-11 would not have happened, never gave a crap before 9-11. As long as terrorism happened somewhere else, all was good. Fact is that the signs have been there and were growing and no one seemed to care. We have very "liberal" immigration laws that allowed these guys to stay and train here. We have a very liberl ACLU that makes it known that if you "Profile" your going to be sued. So what would you have done?
 

MoFunk

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2000
4,058
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Everything is clearer after an event happens, we all know that. We all know that there were threats of terrorists attacks in the US, we also know that terrorists were not opposed to hijacking planes. But what should they have done? PROFILING? Oh heavens no! That woud be bad. If I remember correctly I think that they did have a few of the guys stopped and could not hold them because that would have been bad. So now we search little old ladies for bombs before bording and airplane.

Your reply has nothing to do with the airports who had been briefed repeatedly on possible hijackings ignoring the information entirely as they concentrated on reducing delays.

What was their goal? To get the hijackers to their destination on time?

Stop excusing the now obvious, blatant criminal incompetence of this administration.

Why do you think they hid this until after the election? Even they know how damaging this is to them. Unbelievable as it may seem, they can still depend on some Americans to excuse even this.

Your reply has nothing to do with the airports who had been briefed repeatedly on possible hijackings ignoring the information entirely
Much like the terrorist attacks against the USA were ignored thoughout the 8 years of Clinton
Hunh? Come again? Nothing was ignored. Your ridiculous statement has been disproven up here many, many times.


Nothing was ignored? My ridiclulous statement has been disproven many time? OK, so who then was truly responsible for Khobar Towers?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Everything is clearer after an event happens, we all know that. We all know that there were threats of terrorists attacks in the US, we also know that terrorists were not opposed to hijacking planes. But what should they have done? PROFILING? Oh heavens no! That woud be bad. If I remember correctly I think that they did have a few of the guys stopped and could not hold them because that would have been bad. So now we search little old ladies for bombs before bording and airplane.

Your reply has nothing to do with the airports who had been briefed repeatedly on possible hijackings ignoring the information entirely as they concentrated on reducing delays.

What was their goal? To get the hijackers to their destination on time?

Stop excusing the now obvious, blatant criminal incompetence of this administration.

Why do you think they hid this until after the election? Even they know how damaging this is to them. Unbelievable as it may seem, they can still depend on some Americans to excuse even this.
Your reply has nothing to do with the airports who had been briefed repeatedly on possible hijackings ignoring the information entirely
Much like the terrorist attacks against the USA were ignored thoughout the 8 years of Clinton
Hunh? Come again? Nothing was ignored. Your ridiculous statement has been disproven up here many, many times.
Nothing was ignored? My ridiclulous statement has been disproven many time? OK, so who then was truly responsible for Khobar Towers?
Right, nothing was ignored. Yes, it's been disproven. Hezbollah with support from Iran.

Go search the threads (incl. archived) up here and you'll see you're rhetoric is baseless.
 

MoFunk

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2000
4,058
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Everything is clearer after an event happens, we all know that. We all know that there were threats of terrorists attacks in the US, we also know that terrorists were not opposed to hijacking planes. But what should they have done? PROFILING? Oh heavens no! That woud be bad. If I remember correctly I think that they did have a few of the guys stopped and could not hold them because that would have been bad. So now we search little old ladies for bombs before bording and airplane.

Your reply has nothing to do with the airports who had been briefed repeatedly on possible hijackings ignoring the information entirely as they concentrated on reducing delays.

What was their goal? To get the hijackers to their destination on time?

Stop excusing the now obvious, blatant criminal incompetence of this administration.

Why do you think they hid this until after the election? Even they know how damaging this is to them. Unbelievable as it may seem, they can still depend on some Americans to excuse even this.
Your reply has nothing to do with the airports who had been briefed repeatedly on possible hijackings ignoring the information entirely
Much like the terrorist attacks against the USA were ignored thoughout the 8 years of Clinton
Hunh? Come again? Nothing was ignored. Your ridiculous statement has been disproven up here many, many times.
Nothing was ignored? My ridiclulous statement has been disproven many time? OK, so who then was truly responsible for Khobar Towers?
Right, nothing was ignored. Yes, it's been disproven. Hezbollah with support from Iran.

Go search the threads (incl. archived) up here and you'll see you're rhetoric is baseless.


Good boy, now we know that hizbollah carried out the attack, Iran funded and ordered the attack, so what was done?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Go read the threads. I'm not doing your homework for you.

But, you're hand-picking one case and ignoring everything else is duly noted.
 

MoFunk

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2000
4,058
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Go read the threads. I'm not doing your homework for you.

But, you're hand-picking one case and ignoring everything else is duly noted.


You dont have to do my homework for me, I know what went on. I am also not hand picking. I am very involved with other cases like the embassy bombings.

No worries, you are duly noted yourself.