Bush given plans for war against al-quaida on Sept. 9

datalink7

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
16,765
6
81
And your point is...?

There are plans on the shelf to deal with a full scale nuclear war with russia. There are plans to deal with many different possible disasters that might strike this country. I see the ""The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans off the shelf" as a good sign. The administration was doing its job looking for possible enimies and coming up with plans to deal with them if that was neccesary.
 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
I find this highly reassuring. After 8 years of the previous presidents treating terrorism as a criminal issue and not military the new leader was preparing to do what needed to be done. The right things where being planned, it's horrible that they couldn't been enacted in time to prevent the US attacks.
Bill
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
I'v been reading something like this on bbc for a while (as in a few articles spanning over a year), basicly the Bush administration was pissed at the Taliban for not allowing them to build an oil Pipeline through Afghanistan, some us gov representative threatened militery actions against them if they did not comply. And guess what happened last week, the new afghan regime signed the pipeline deal :p
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans ?off the shelf,? Miklaszewski said.



Convenient!
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Czar, my Icelandic anti-American friend.

Your theory conveniently ignores al-quida bombing the U.S. embassies and the USS Cole. It also ignores the intelligence you so adroitly brought up in the other thread where US intelligence agencies were aware of the possibility of threats from that organization. With all of that is it really necessary to come up with some oil pipe line deal to believe that those were the reasons that plans had been prepared to deal with the al-quida organzation?

 

ToBeMe

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2000
5,711
0
0
LOL! Bottom line is, the Dems are damned worried about the Fall elections and know they have to come up with something to swing the penduluim their way. They are digging at everything, but, as was said by someone in a CNN interview earlier today, they better be carefull it does not come back to bite them because the public is firmly behind Bush and his response to 9/11 and at least so far, polls show they are not buying this "He knew" campaign............

As far as this "plan of action" which was devised prior to 9/11, as someone mentioned, plans are devised for nearly every country which can/could be considered a "threat" to the U.S. and a little more digging will almost assuredly show that there have been MANY plans dating back to the "Clinton Era" which targeted Osama, al Qaueda, and The Taliban...................;)
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Czar, my Icelandic anti-American friend.

Your theory conveniently ignores al-quida bombing the U.S. embassies and the USS Cole. It also ignores the intelligence you so adroitly brought up in the other thread where US intelligence agencies were aware of the possibility of threats from that organization. With all of that is it really necessary to come up with some oil pipe line deal to believe that those were the reasons that plans had been prepared to deal with the al-quida organzation?
The attack on USS cole was most likely also part of the reason. I never said the oil pipeline was the only reason, just that it was "a" reason. But the threat of a militery attack by the US on the Taliban came from one of the meeting the US and a few other European governments with the Taliban.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
So Bush took the Al-Qaeda threat seriously enough to draft a war plan, but not seriously enough to alert the traveling public of a hijacking threat. That makes a lot of sense.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Makes sense to me. Of course you also are leaving out that security agencies were put on a higher alert.

Just what would have happened if the government had put out an alert? Do you think it would have really changed anyones plans or averted what happened?

Try to stay in the real world.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 9, 1999
50,422
8
81
So Bush took the Al-Qaeda threat seriously enough to draft a war plan, but not seriously enough to alert the traveling public of a hijacking threat. That makes a lot of sense.
Not defending President Shrub, but it wasn't exactly policy to announce the possibility of terrorist threats whenever they came up before 9/11.
 

ToBeMe

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2000
5,711
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
So Bush took the Al-Qaeda threat seriously enough to draft a war plan, but not seriously enough to alert the traveling public of a hijacking threat. That makes a lot of sense.
OK............let's go back a bit............there was a warning about al Quaeda & bin Laden first in Feb. of '01, then one in May & June, one in Aug.. They were all basicly the same and very vague. The "threat" to hijack airliners had been around since the '90's from al Quaeda, in fact, in '98 there was a global alert issued about bin Laden and al Quaeda................about a month after we had the oppertunity to nab him...........but decided not to.......:( As stated above, there were most likely MANY plans to attack al Qaueda & bin Laden since the 90's...........the one mentioned here was merely the latest because of several "alerts" already that year and it was also the first devised by the "Bush Team".................
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: etech
Makes sense to me. Of course you also are leaving out that security agencies were put on a higher alert.

Just what would have happened if the government had put out an alert? Do you think it would have really changed anyones plans or averted what happened?

Try to stay in the real world.
Nice to see Bush apologists squirming. Your guy was caught sleeping at the switch. Not only that, but your buddy Bush let the FBI and CIA take heat for 7 months as if they haven't told him anything, knowing full well that they have provided him with info that he himself failed to act on. This guy is the ultimate hypocrite.
 

ToBeMe

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2000
5,711
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: etech
Makes sense to me. Of course you also are leaving out that security agencies were put on a higher alert.

Just what would have happened if the government had put out an alert? Do you think it would have really changed anyones plans or averted what happened?

Try to stay in the real world.
Nice to see Bush apologists squirming. Your guy was caught sleeping at the switch. Not only that, but your buddy Bush let the FBI and CIA take heat for 7 months as if they haven't told him anything, knowing full well that they have provided him with info that he himself failed to act on. This guy is the ultimate hypocrite.
LOL! "Squirming"................I think we'll see whom is "squirming" shortly...........very few are buyiung this crock according to polls even on the news channels. As for "letting them take the heat", as was mentioned earlier today, each of the alerts was mentioned in the White House daily Press Breifing on the day they occurred and they were televised..................thing is, up until 9/11, nobody ever listened or took them seriously...........:(

 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Just what would have happened if the government had put out an alert? Do you think it would have really changed anyones plans or averted what happened?

Try to stay in the real world.


So why has the gov't put out warnings since then if they wont change anything?

 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,425
2
0
Originally posted by: Lucky
Just what would have happened if the government had put out an alert? Do you think it would have really changed anyones plans or averted what happened?

Try to stay in the real world.


So why has the gov't put out warnings since then if they wont change anything?

Well, if you weren't so busy rolling your eyes you might realize things are just a tiny bit different now. Ever hear the expression, "Wake up and smell the coffee."? Four passenger planes hijacked and crashed upon U.S. civilian and government targets make for one hell of an expresso.

 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
This guy is the ultimate hypocrite.
And you are the ultimate fuckin moron. Who has he blamed, anybody? No. While you donned your blue dress and were waiting in line for your turn in the oval office our intelligence agencies were allowed to decompose into uselessness. Something that was started by Bush Sr. after the gulf and cold wars were over and exasperated by clinton. The funny thing is that if they had put out some kind of general alert people would have ignored it or whined like little bitches about what a pain all the security was.
 

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,849
234
106
If an alert was issued do you think the airlines would have shut down, or even tightened security? Hell even after the 911 attacks it took an act of congress to get the greedy bastages to get a grip. And they still to this day arent doing enough to check background on thier employees. It would have been like so many other warnings ignored so many times in the past. It took 911 to wake up some peeps, who are already starting to nod off again.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
This guy is the ultimate hypocrite.
And you are the ultimate fuckin moron. Who has he blamed anybody? No. While you donned your blue dress and were waiting in line for your turn in the oval office our intelligence agencies were allowed to decompose into uselessness. Something that was started by Bush Sr. after the gulf and cold wars were over and exasperated by clinton. The funny thing is that if they had put out some kind of general alert people would have ignored it or whined like little bitches about what a pain all the security was.
Bush didn't blame anybody, but he let the pundits do it for months before setting the facts straight. Just like he did with accusations that Clinton trashed the white house on the way out. Wait 3 months and then say, oh, well that's not true.
The guy is a shameless hypocrite.
Bush dropped the ball and 9/11 happenned. Until you rightwingers accept it, there will be no changes. The same people who dropped the ball are still in the white house in their exact same positions. 3000 people dead, and not a single staff member fired for this humongous failure to protect the US citizenry.
Also, why are we treating Saudi Arabia with kid gloves. If the 15 Soviet citizens did in the 80s what these Saudi citizens did on 9/11, we would have nuclear war in under 1 hour. The Saudis are openly sponsoring Wahabbi extremists, and covertly sponsoring terrorism. And they are off limits? Why? We need to have a change of regime in Saudi Arabia first of all. Because of their business links, the Saudis are allowed to continue with impunity what they have been doing.
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,511
46
91
The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans ?off the shelf,? Miklaszewski said.



Convenient!
Convenient? Not really, at least not in the way you're meaning. At any given times there are war plans sitting on a shelf waiting to go. They are based on current threats, and potential future threats. During the Cold War the plans would have been plans of how to react to a Russian attack - an invasion of Western Europe, a nuclear attack, an attack on the Middle Eastern oil fields, etc. I'd bet there were probably also contingency plans for attacking Cuba, China, etc.

What do you think all those generals at the Pentagon do from 8-5? Play golf?
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,425
2
0
The most ironic thing, and probably the saddest, is that several of the peeps posting in these threads complaining that Bush knew an attack was imminent but did nothing, are the same peeps that were posting several months ago that Bush was wrong to attack the Al Qaeda in Afganistan because there wasn't sufficient evidence pointing to Bin Hidin's involvement in the 11 Sept. attack.

Let me see if I have this correct: Vague warnings should be acted upon in the strongest measures, while an outright attack should be responded to with equivocation. Definately sound advise coming from pansies.
 

ToBeMe

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2000
5,711
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
This guy is the ultimate hypocrite.
And you are the ultimate fuckin moron. Who has he blamed anybody? No. While you donned your blue dress and were waiting in line for your turn in the oval office our intelligence agencies were allowed to decompose into uselessness. Something that was started by Bush Sr. after the gulf and cold wars were over and exasperated by clinton. The funny thing is that if they had put out some kind of general alert people would have ignored it or whined like little bitches about what a pain all the security was.
Bush didn't blame anybody, but he let the pundits do it for months before setting the facts straight. Just like he did with accusations that Clinton trashed the white house on the way out. Wait 3 months and then say, oh, well that's not true.
The guy is a shameless hypocrite.
Bush dropped the ball and 9/11 happenned. Until you rightwingers accept it, there will be no changes. The same people who dropped the ball are still in the white house in their exact same positions. 3000 people dead, and not a single staff member fired for this humongous failure to protect the US citizenry.
Also, why are we treating Saudi Arabia with kid gloves. If the 15 Soviet citizens did in the 80s what these Saudi citizens did on 9/11, we would have nuclear war in under 1 hour. The Saudis are openly sponsoring Wahabbi extremists, and covertly sponsoring terrorism. And they are off limits? Why? We need to have a change of regime in Saudi Arabia first of all. Because of their business links, the Saudis are allowed to continue with impunity what they have been doing.
So..........Bush is the hippocrite??????



  • Reuters 17/05/02--
    Citing a Sept. 13 Agence France-Presse report, Reed Irvine noted that Philippine Police Chief Superintendent Avelino Razon had uncovered the plot to "plant bombs in U.S. airliners and hijack others to crash them into buildings like the CIA headquarters."

    "Razon said [the plot] was found on the computer of Ramzi Yousef, the organizer of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center," Irvine reported. "He had fled to Pakistan, but his laptop was found in the apartment he shared with his accomplice, Abdul Hakim Murad. Razon said both were agents of Osama bin Laden."

    A later Agence France-Press report noted:

    "Among targets mentioned [in Yousef's computer files] was the World Trade Center in New York ... CIA offices in Virginia and the Sears Tower in Chicago."

    Picking up where Irvine left off, the Washington Post quoted a Filipino investigator who said that as he watched the attack on the World Trade Center on television, he exclaimed in horror, "It's Bojinka. We told the Clinton everything about Bojinka. Why didn't he pay attention?"

    Razon told the Philippine Daily Inquirer that after the the Philippine intelligence report was compiled in 1995, it was passed on to the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Joint Task Force on Terrorism and finally to the President.

    But, he complained, "It was not given credibility by Clinton. Otherwise, it could have prevented the destruction of the World Trade Center."

    The Clinton FBI was in full possession of all the frightening facts on Bojinka, but did nothing. Instead, as Reed Irvine revealed, the bureau assured Congress that everything was under control.

    "In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee on terrorism in February 1998, 'Bojinka' - which means 'big bang' - was described by Dale L. Watson, chief of the International Terrorism Operations Section of the FBI, only as a plot to blow up 'numerous U.S. air carriers.'

    "He said that the FBI had identified 'a significant and growing organizational presence' of foreign terrorists in the United States. He swore the bureau had them under control."

    The Clinton FBI counterintelligence chief told the Senate that as a result of the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, the FBI had developed an 'enhanced capability' to track terrorist activities.

    Is it known that U.S. intelligence possessed this much information on al-Qaeda plans to slam planes into U.S. buildings.

    Actually, if you believe the account of his former CIA Director James Woolsey, said Clinton never bothered to meet with him during his stint as the nation's intelligence chief.

    What about other administration officials, like Attorney General Janet Reno, who certainly knew about Bojinka?

    There Clinton may also have an alibi.

    During all of 1998 - the same year FBI counterintelligence briefed Congress on the al-Qaeda hijack plot - Clinton met with his Cabinet exactly twice: once in January to lie to them about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and again in August to come clean about the affair.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Bush dropped the ball and 9/11 happenned. Until you rightwingers accept it, there will be no changes. The same people who dropped the ball are still in the white house in their exact same positions. 3000 people dead, and not a single staff member fired for this humongous failure to protect the US citizenry.
How the fvck did they drop the ball. What single bit of evidence did they have that said "planes will be flown into the WTC and Pentagon"? Produce that evidence and you may have a point. The Bush Sr and Clinton admins are as much to blame for this as anyone. Read some history for christs sake. You sound like the GW bashing ignorant moron that you are. Get a clue.
Also, why are we treating Saudi Arabia with kid gloves. If the 15 Soviet citizens did in the 80s what these Saudi citizens did on 9/11, we would have nuclear war in under 1 hour.
The difference, moron, is that they weren't acting on the behalf or under the sponsorship of the Saudi goverement. They were AlQueda sponsored or something by the Taliban. The Taliban is now gone isn't it. That soviet comparison is as stupid as everything else you post. Why don't you quit looking for a reason to rip GW and try looking at what really happened and everything that contributed to it. This tragedy was not caught in time because of at least 3 administrations and several goverment agencies, not just GW. Take off your blinders.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY