Cheney allowed 9/11 to happen?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

KAMAZON

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2001
1,300
0
76
www.alirazeghi.com
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
As I posted in the other thread, you sure seem to have an affinity for 'Dick'...got any 'dick links' yet to support your hard-thought hypothesis?

You can keep your 'dirty dick links' to yourself, we dont need profanity here. I don['t care if you don't know that Dick Cheney was the head of National Security before Sept. 11th, and all i said is on the public record. If you find something WRONG with what I said, you are welcome to let me know, but you wont.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: KAMAZON

If you find something WRONG with what I said, you are welcome to let me know, but you wont.

I have been; you only hear what you want to hear...show me that any of the Republicans you listed support your "Dick" hypothesis...is that not clear enough for you?
 

Shuxclams

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
9,286
15
81


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Justice Department (news - web sites) under Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) failed in 2001 to treat counterterrorism as a top priority, the commission on the Sept. 11 attacks said on Tuesday, in its latest report detailing security breakdowns throughout the government

The commission staff statement was issued before the start of two days of hearings on the failure of the FBI (news - web sites) and other agencies to prevent the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington that killed around 3,000 people.

It focused on a May 10 Justice Department document that set out priorities for that year. The top priorities cited were reducing gun violence and combating drug trafficking. It made no mention of counterterrorism.

When Dale Watson, the head of the counterterrorism division, saw the report, he "almost fell out of his chair," the report said.

"The FBI's new counterterrorism strategy was not a focus of the Justice Department in 2001," it added.

Then-acting FBI Director Thomas Pickard said he appealed to Ashcroft for more money for counterterrorism but on Sept 10, 2001, one day before the hijacked airliner attacks, Ashcroft rejected the appeal.


Former FBI Director Louis Freeh, testifying before the commission, said the bureau's counterterrorism operations were severely underfunded and understaffed in the years leading up to the attacks.

"In the budget years 2000, 2001, 2002, we asked for 1,895 people -- agents, linguists, analysts. We got a total of 76 people during that period," Freeh said.

"That's not to criticize the U.S. Congress. It's not to criticize the Department of Justice (news - web sites). It is to focus on the fact that that was not a national priority."

Freeh, questioned by Democratic commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste, later said intelligence services were aware of the danger that a terrorist might use a hijacked plane as a weapon.

He acknowledged steps were taken to protect the White House as well as special events, such as the 2000 Olympic Games (news - web sites) and meetings of world leaders, against such a threat, but nothing was done to protect the country at large.

'WELL-KNOWN THREAT'

Ben-Veniste asked: "So it was well known in the intelligence community that this was a potential threat?"

Freeh responded: "It was part of the planning for those events, that is correct."

The commission was to hear later from Ashcroft, and his Democratic predecessor, Janet Reno (news - web sites).

The staff report also focused on FBI failures to detect the 9/11 plot, amid new revelations contained in a presidential briefing that the bureau had some 70 separate investigations related to Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda network underway a month before the attacks.

The newly declassified Aug. 6, 2001, briefing said the FBI had detected suspicious activity "consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks."



The report found the FBI was hampered by a culture resistant to change, inadequate resources and legal barriers.

Despite significant resources devoted to investigations of major terrorist attacks that resulted in several prosecutions, FBI attempts to prevent such attacks failed to make changes across the bureau, it said.

"On September 11, 2001, the FBI was limited in several areas critical to an effective, preventive counterterrorism strategy," the report said, citing limited intelligence collection and analysis capabilities, limited information sharing, insufficient training, an overly complex legal regime and inadequate resources.

Although the FBI's counterterrorism budget tripled during the mid-1990s, its counterterrorism spending stayed fairly constant between fiscal years 1998 and 2001, it added.

On Sept. 11, 2001, only about 1,300 agents, or 6 percent of the FBI's total personnel, worked on counterterrorism.

"Former FBI officials told us that prior to 9/11, there was not sufficient national commitment or political will to dedicate the necessary resources to counterterrorism," the report said.


I am sure it was just and oversight...... He wasnt doing what Dr. Rice and G.W. Bush had instructed him to do... Or maybe he was too busy putting clothes on statues and tracking down harmful "pornographic images"... thus keeping the world a safer place.









SHUX
 

KAMAZON

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2001
1,300
0
76
www.alirazeghi.com
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: KAMAZON

If you find something WRONG with what I said, you are welcome to let me know, but you wont.

I have been; you only hear what you want to hear...show me that any of the Republicans you listed support your "Dick" hypothesis...is that not clear enough for you?

Loud and clear response just like in my very first reply to you:
some of the influencial Republicans of the top of my head are James Baker the III, Brent Scowcroft, the weapons inspector that was RIGHT on the WMD claim, Scott Ritter (who also voted for bush), and others in the Congress and Senate, as well as republican voters. Also, the first people to oppose the Iraq War Doctrine were the Armed Millitary, some of whom are also republicans. yes, Dick Cheney has deffinately hurt Bushes chances of Re-election from withen his own party, without a doubt. Face it, the Iraq war was pushed and pushed by Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney suckered our stupid President and the weak congress by the lies he published from Saddam trying to purchase 'yellow cake' urainium after he was told there was none, told the president we will be greeted as 'liberators' with open arms, that this will be a 'cakewalk', and that the reconstruction will pay for itself, and so on. His old company Halliburton has shed horrible light on the admin. If you cannot admit the problems this has caused Bush then you're the one that's brainwashed.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: KAMAZON
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: KAMAZON

If you find something WRONG with what I said, you are welcome to let me know, but you wont.

I have been; you only hear what you want to hear...show me that any of the Republicans you listed support your "Dick" hypothesis...is that not clear enough for you?

Loud and clear response just like in my very first reply to you:
some of the influencial Republicans of the top of my head are James Baker the III, Brent Scowcroft, the weapons inspector that was RIGHT on the WMD claim, Scott Ritter (who also voted for bush), and others in the Congress and Senate

Just because you typed it doesn't make it so, sir....do your little google search and show me a single article where any of those Republicans "fully agree that "Dirty Dick" Cheney has largely destroyed and split the Republican Party which is destroying Bushes re-election chances."
 

KAMAZON

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2001
1,300
0
76
www.alirazeghi.com
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: KAMAZON
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: KAMAZON

If you find something WRONG with what I said, you are welcome to let me know, but you wont.

I have been; you only hear what you want to hear...show me that any of the Republicans you listed support your "Dick" hypothesis...is that not clear enough for you?

Loud and clear response just like in my very first reply to you:
some of the influencial Republicans of the top of my head are James Baker the III, Brent Scowcroft, the weapons inspector that was RIGHT on the WMD claim, Scott Ritter (who also voted for bush), and others in the Congress and Senate

Just because you typed it doesn't make it so, sir....do your little google search and show me a single article where any of those Republicans "fully agree that "Dirty Dick" Cheney has largely destroyed and split the Republican Party which is destroying Bushes re-election chances."

Face it, the Iraq war was pushed and pushed by Dick Cheney since 1991, it wasn't Bush, but Cheney. According to Republican O'Niell, from Day 1 Bush was askign 'why should we attack Saddam, give me 1 reason'. Dick Cheney suckered our stupid President and the weak congress by the lies he published from Saddam trying to purchase 'yellow cake' urainium after he was told there was none, told the president we will be greeted as 'liberators' with open arms, that this will be a 'cakewalk', and that the reconstruction will pay for itself, and so on. His old company Halliburton has shed horrible light on the admin. If you cannot admit the problems this has caused Bush then you're the one that's brainwashed or a Democrat! LOL.

This war is an albatross around Bushes neck, and will cost his re-election dearly. All these top republicans know it, and when they go against Cheneys 1991 war policy that was shoved in our stupid presidents face, they all know it was Cheney. It's on the historical record and why Bush 41 didn't go for it.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
..from the other thread where you made your affinity for 'dick' known:

Originally posted by: KAMAZON

You can ignore those 2 links and focus on the people I mentioned. Ignoring the meat of the discussion and focusing on 2 non important links

How about you stop posting "non important links" and post something that substantiates your claims, kid.

 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: KAMAZON

obviously... blatantly .... deffinately
Words such as 'obviously', 'blatantly' and the like are usually employed by either the sophist or propagandist appealing for belief. Quite frankly, KAMAZON, I don't believe a damn word you mouth.
 

rufruf44

Platinum Member
May 8, 2001
2,002
0
0
Every once in a blue moon, the troll known as KAMAZON reappears to spew garbage and promote the ideology of his criminal hero Laroche. After several round of ridicules, he'll dissapears again waiting for the next round of garbage spewing :p
 

KAMAZON

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2001
1,300
0
76
www.alirazeghi.com
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: KAMAZON

obviously... blatantly .... deffinately
Words such as 'obviously', 'blatantly' and the like are usually employed by either the sophist or propagandist appealing for belief. Quite frankly, KAMAZON, I don't believe a damn word you mouth.

If you guys don't think the Iraq War quagmire has cost Bush quite a bit of his re-election chances then you guys are in serious need of a mental checkup. Face it, it was Dirty Dick Cheney who lied repeatedly to get this war started. The only thing he didn't lie about was that Saddam was a bad guy (which didn't stop Rumsfeld from delivering banned weapons to him in the 1980s). It's all on the public record and I really don't care if you believe me or not. If the Democrats make a point of the failture of the Iraq war, Bush and Cheney better make more friends in Diebold electronic voting.