Able Danger warned of attack on USS Cole

[aircooled]

It's called "debate" not changing the subject.

 

[BBond]

"Able Danger" Bwahaha.

Sounds like something they made up. Like in Wag the Dog.

"The men of the 303!"

What a crock. Suddenly there was a Pentagon double-top-secret group that knew everything that was going to happen but no one would listen.

Yeah, right.

:roll:

 

[caddlad]

So......the OP really believes that the Commander in Chief knows, or approves of ,where and when every tincan docks?

Ignorance scale gets pegged on that one.

The blame Clinton crap must be wearing a lil thin for you guys.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: aircooled
It's called "debate" not changing the subject.

Actually, it's called changing the subject.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: caddlad
So......the OP really believes that the Commander in Chief knows, or approves of where and when every tincan docks?

Ignorance scale gets pegged on that one.

Of course. The Clinton apologists are still out in full force 5 years after the guy leaves office, and they've all become "Bush Bashers" while trying to label everyone else "apologists". The irony...

Aircooled: You did change the subject, so don't deny it.

As well, Condi has already said the documents contained no new threat information. I've heard a few call her a liar but where's the evidence to prove that?

The fact is that had Clinton taken the information and advice of Able Danger, 9/11 might well have been thwarted beforehand. Apologize all you wish, but don't ignore the facts.

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
Topic Title: Able Danger warned of attack on USS Cole
Topic Summary: Clinton seems to have ignored it

What else did Clinton know about this disaster? The MSM who bashed condi rice for that memo seem to be ignoring the 8 years prior to the Bush administration.

Good, at least he didn't start a false War over lies about non-existent WMD and the wrong man responsible for 9-11.

So IF Clinton had the intelligence that there was a very high risk to the 325 crew member USS Cole, you wish he would have done nothing about it?

I wish you could say that to the family's of the 17 that died. And I wish I could be there to see what happens to you.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BBond
"Able Danger" Bwahaha.

Sounds like something they made up. Like in Wag the Dog.

Got any evidence? Proof? Or just another wild Bondo conspiracy theory?

Able Danger was quite real and the fact that you're trying to marginalize it (or, even more, deny its very existence) shows just how ridiculous you are.

 

[aircooled]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: aircooled
It's called "debate" not changing the subject.

Actually, it's called changing the subject.

Then you have failed debate 101

 

[aircooled]

Originally posted by: Pabster


Aircooled: You did change the subject, so don't deny it.

I just threw an equal or greater than in there, you can call it changing the subject all you want. This is political debate. You throw something in, I counter it with something equal or greater than. Damn is this kindergarten?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: aircooled
I just threw an equal or greater than in there, you can call it changing the subject all you want. This is political debate. You throw something in, I counter it with something equal or greater than. Damn is this kindergarten?

The way some act, it sure makes you wonder.

Do you care to respond to the other half of my post now?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: BBond
"Able Danger" Bwahaha.

Sounds like something they made up. Like in Wag the Dog.

Got any evidence? Proof? Or just another wild Bondo conspiracy theory?

Able Danger was quite real and the fact that you're trying to marginalize it (or, even more, deny its very existence) shows just how ridiculous you are.

Why didn't we hear ANYTHING about "Able Danger" until Bush needed another cop out?

It's all BS. But how would you know? You swallow all the BS Bush can make whole.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BBond
Why didn't we hear ANYTHING about "Able Danger" until Bush needed another cop out?

It's all BS. But how would you know? You swallow all the BS Bush can make whole.

You've called it phony and BS twice now, but still haven't provided a drop of evidence or proof to support your ridiculous claims.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: BBond
Why didn't we hear ANYTHING about "Able Danger" until Bush needed another cop out?

It's all BS. But how would you know? You swallow all the BS Bush can make whole.

You've called it phony and BS twice now, but still haven't provided a drop of evidence or proof to support your ridiculous claims.

Why don't you prove "Able Danger" existed prior to their sudden appearance on the scene?

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Pabster
All Americans should read up and be informed on Able Danger. It's a fascinating group of undercovers who identified Mohammed Atta almost 2 years before 9/11. Evidence was ordered destroyed. Here is the Wiki entry

The project and the few (who were members of Able Danger) that have spoken out about it certainly lead one to believe that Clinton knew more than he claims.

Facinating wikipedia entry Pabster. I really was intrigued to read the counterpoints:

Timing

Kevin Drum writing for the Washington Monthly notes that reports of the precise date at which the information was allegedly passed to the FBI vary considerably. It is most unlikely that Able Danger would have identified a terrorist called "Mohamed Atta" before May 2000. Since 9/11, of course, we have retrieved every scrap of information ever known about Mohamed Atta, so we know what information would have been available to the Able Danger data mining operation. And what we know is that Mohamed Atta sent his first email to friends in the U.S. in March 2000 and received his first U.S. visa on May 18, 2000. Moreover, that was the first time he had ever gone by the name "Mohamed Atta." His full name is "Mohamed Mohamed el-Amir Awad el-Sayed Atta," and prior to 2000 he went by "Mohamed el-Amir."

I was also intrigued to learn that of the two 9/11 commission members that continue to claim they never recieved any Able Danger information, one was a Democrat (Tim Roemer), but the OTHER was Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, a Republican through and through - John F. Lehman. So do we continue to claim this is all Clinton's issue? Or was there really any Able Danger data?

Future Shock

 

[BBond]

So we're all supposed to believe that this top secret group existed in the Pentagon and that they knew about 9/11 and the USS Cole and who knows what else but no one would listen to them and no one even knew they existed until now.

Bullsh!t.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: BBond
Why didn't we hear ANYTHING about "Able Danger" until Bush needed another cop out?

It's all BS. But how would you know? You swallow all the BS Bush can make whole.

You've called it phony and BS twice now, but still haven't provided a drop of evidence or proof to support your ridiculous claims.

Why don't you prove "Able Danger" existed prior to their sudden appearance on the scene?

Take a look at their documentation from 2000 and prior.

I was also intrigued to learn that of the two 9/11 commission members that continue to claim they never recieved any Able Danger information, one was a Democrat (Tim Roemer), but the OTHER was Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, a Republican through and through - John F. Lehman. So do we continue to claim this is all Clinton's issue? Or was there really any Able Danger data?

They've changed their mind about whether they received it or not several times.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Future Shock
I was also intrigued to learn that of the two 9/11 commission members that continue to claim they never recieved any Able Danger information, one was a Democrat (Tim Roemer), but the OTHER was Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, a Republican through and through - John F. Lehman. So do we continue to claim this is all Clinton's issue? Or was there really any Able Danger data?

Here's some links for your perusal.

Here

Here

Here

Here (A Washington Monthly Article)

Here are a bunch of Able-Danger links from a variety of news sources.

What's most interesting is that even the most extreme left-wing liberal media venues don't deny the existence of Able Danger, only the timing of the release of certain details and the motives behind it.

 

[Engineer]

When the Bush administration is close to trouble and ratings are falling, here comes zendari with the ole let's bash and blame Clinton defense.

Impeach him.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BBond
So we're all supposed to believe that this top secret group existed in the Pentagon and that they knew about 9/11 and the USS Cole and who knows what else but no one would listen to them and no one even knew they existed until now.

Bullsh!t.

I've provided links and data where people can go to at least read up on Able Danger. They can make up their mind from there.

You, OTOH, have provided nothing. No links. No evidence.

 

[tommywishbone]

OK, Clinton is a greasey sex-crazed weasel, whose personnal problems blinded him to the pending danger in Yemen.... that's a given. Would a Dum-Dum supporter please admit that Bush is a feeble minded doofus, whose lust for Iraqi oil blinded him to the danger in Iraq? Thank you.

 

[Todd33]

It was created as a result of a directive in early October 1999

Able Danger was setup a few months before Clinton left office. Unless I missed something, this all read like internal problems, how was the White involved? The whole cover up recently was done by the current Pentigon, does Clinton control that too? Smells like right wing smear, if all else fails attack Clinton?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Able Danger was setup a few months before Clinton left office. Unless I missed something, this all read like internal problems, how was the White involved? The whole cover up recently was done by the current Pentigon, does Clinton control that too? Smells like right wing smear, if all else fails attack Clinton?

Besides the "cover-up", criticial intelligence was overlooked, ignored, and destroyed. Have you actually read up on Able Danger before dismissing it as "right wing smear"?

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Todd33
Able Danger was setup a few months before Clinton left office. Unless I missed something, this all read like internal problems, how was the White involved? The whole cover up recently was done by the current Pentigon, does Clinton control that too? Smells like right wing smear, if all else fails attack Clinton?

Besides the "cover-up", criticial intelligence was overlooked, ignored, and destroyed. Have you actually read up on Able Danger before dismissing it as "right wing smear"?

Yes I read it, I see nothing about the White House or Clinton.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Todd33
Able Danger was setup a few months before Clinton left office. Unless I missed something, this all read like internal problems, how was the White involved? The whole cover up recently was done by the current Pentigon, does Clinton control that too? Smells like right wing smear, if all else fails attack Clinton?

Besides the "cover-up", criticial intelligence was overlooked, ignored, and destroyed. Have you actually read up on Able Danger before dismissing it as "right wing smear"?

The 9/11 Commission had the bullsh!t Bush's minions concocted from "Able Danger" and they IGNORED IT BECAUSE IT WAS CONTRARY TO ALL OTHER EVIDENCE.

In other words, "Able Danger" is right wing CYA bullsh!t.

 

[Tom]

Clinton has talked several times about missed opportunities during his administration, and has taken responsibility for that.

But the failures of intelligence and mistakes in policy go much further back, every adminstration since WW2 has made errors in the Middle East.