Someone knew...

Squiggy

Squiggy

ThunderDick
Bremer Faulted Bush Before Terror Attacks
3 hours ago

WASHINGTON - L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, said in a speech six months before the Sept. 11 attacks that the Bush administration was "paying no attention" to terrorism.

"What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this,'" Bremer said at a McCormick Tribune Foundation conference on terrorism on Feb. 26, 2001.

Bremer spoke at the conference shortly after he chaired the National Commission on Terrorism, a bipartisan body formed by the Clinton administration to examine U.S. counterterrorism policies.

The remarks drew attention on the same day Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney appeared before the Sept. 11 commission to explain the precautions they took to prevent a terrorist attack after taking office in January 2001.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan did not comment on the Bremer remarks directly.

But he said, "The actions we took prior to Sept. 11 demonstrate that we took the terrorist threat seriously. The first major foreign policy directive was a comprehensive, aggressive strategy to eliminate al-Qaida."

The foundation is a charitable organization founded by Robert McCormick, former editor and publisher of The Chicago Tribune.

At the speech, delivered in Wheaton, Ill., Bremer, whose diplomatic jobs included a stint as ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism, said a war against terrorism would be unending.

"If you call it a war, you suggest there's a victory," he said. "I would argue there is no final victory in the war against terrorism any more than there is in the so-called war against crime."

AP
 
Squiggy said:
Bremer Faulted Bush Before Terror Attacks
3 hours ago

WASHINGTON - L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, said in a speech six months before the Sept. 11 attacks that the Bush administration was "paying no attention" to terrorism.

"What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this,'" Bremer said at a McCormick Tribune Foundation conference on terrorism on Feb. 26, 2001.

Bremer spoke at the conference shortly after he chaired the National Commission on Terrorism, a bipartisan body formed by the Clinton administration to examine U.S. counterterrorism policies.

The remarks drew attention on the same day Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney appeared before the Sept. 11 commission to explain the precautions they took to prevent a terrorist attack after taking office in January 2001.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan did not comment on the Bremer remarks directly.

But he said, "The actions we took prior to Sept. 11 demonstrate that we took the terrorist threat seriously. The first major foreign policy directive was a comprehensive, aggressive strategy to eliminate al-Qaida."

The foundation is a charitable organization founded by Robert McCormick, former editor and publisher of The Chicago Tribune.

At the speech, delivered in Wheaton, Ill., Bremer, whose diplomatic jobs included a stint as ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism, said a war against terrorism would be unending.

"If you call it a war, you suggest there's a victory," he said. "I would argue there is no final victory in the war against terrorism any more than there is in the so-called war against crime."

AP
Click to expand...

Opinions before the fact are future facts, or proven to be hot air...Bremer was proven correct. What's the big deal?
 
He's right. There wasn't enough attention paid. Mostly because nobody in America believed it could happen here. That is not a (R) phenomena.
 
Well, shit, Squiggy. Maybe we should all go out and get a copy of Nostradamus's latest. Or maybe Madame Whosits could read some tea leaves for us. :rolleyes:
 
:confused: I didn't make a "big deal" out of it. I thought it interesting that he had been so accurate with his statement.

Hardly a scenerio where he was playing Nostradamus. He had just chaired the National Commission on Terrorism and was, therefore, quite qualified to make an assessment.

And the reason "nobody in America believed it could happen here" was because we all trusted that the government was doing its job. We were wrong. :shrug:
 
Squiggy said:
:confused: I didn't make a "big deal" out of it. I thought it interesting that he had been so accurate with his statement.

Hardly a scenerio where he was playing Nostradamus. He had just chaired the National Commission on Terrorism and was, therefore, quite qualified to make an assessment.
Click to expand...

Perhaps your intentions were just to lay down what was said. I just think that statement, for all it's accuracy, was, at the time, nothing more than guesswork. :shrug:

Squiggy said:
And the reason "nobody in America believed it could happen here" was because we all trusted that the government was doing its job. We were wrong. :shrug:
Click to expand...



As for this assessment, I think that every administration since Nixon in 1972 has been slack on terrorism. We ignored it during the Munich Olympics of 1972, and it's snowballed since then. Don't just blame one, Squiggy, which is what you seem to be doing. Blame them all.
 
While I agree that terrorism is by, nature, difficult to protect against, I can't be as dismissive as you for the parties charged with the task. If this man was paid to chair a national commission on terrorism, there was reason for such a commission. I have to accept that he had just recently been privey to the most current information on the subject and realized the gravity of the situation. THAT made what he said a qualified statement as opposed to a "lucky guess". Given the rise in activity over that summer, I can't accept the "had we known..." position embraced by this administration. They had much more evidence of a pending terrorist attack on American soil than they had on WMDs in Iraq. And it was much more credible. And they failed to act.

We knew, for example, that the indication was that the attack would likely involve hijacked planes flown into buildings...but no alert or warning or measures were offered in attempt to prevent it. Not so much as a "heads up".

I'm amazed that anything that the press says which puts Bush in a bad light is scoffed at as commie control of the media. But all of the pro-Bush stuff published by special interest publications is accepted as gospel truth. :rolleyes:
 
I've know for several years that it could happen here, ....
because it's been happening here for years, and years.
Just not on the scale of 911, and that wouldn't have been as bad
as it was had the towers not fallen.
It's a wonder to me why they didn't fall in the first attack.
 
That's kind of the way I feel about it, cat. If you thought before 9-11 that it couldn't happen here, you're a fool. If you think it can't happen again, you're more of a fool. You simply cannot take preventive measures against every possible occurance. Maybe the administration could have done more to prevent it, maybe not. I find it much more worrisome that they proceeded to ignore the terrorist threat in favor of the Iraq deal. I just am not sure that their agenda is in our best interest as a nation.
 
Unfortunately, I forget the guys name, he's either a current or relatively short-time former government player. He has access to power knowledge. He see's much & has studied more.

The assesment of this gentleman, in 2003 or 2004 is that, as bad as terrorism is, our biggest concern is not radical muslims groups but the overlooked & almost forgotten former Soviet base, Russia. They still have nukes poinnted at us. There are multiple false alarms, on both saides, daily. We spents hundreds of millions(if not more) to upkeep our system. They spend a buck fifty. A year.

Are we supposed to drop everything & focus on Russia?

This is what advisors & secretarys & cabinet officials look at all day. They present their assessment to the brass. How much time, money & effort to we put into stopping a Russian attack/accident? If it isn't most, if the scenario happens, the questions will start all over again.
 
Squiggy said:
While I agree that terrorism is by, nature, difficult to protect against, I can't be as dismissive as you for the parties charged with the task. If this man was paid to chair a national commission on terrorism, there was reason for such a commission. I have to accept that he had just recently been privey to the most current information on the subject and realized the gravity of the situation. THAT made what he said a qualified statement as opposed to a "lucky guess". Given the rise in activity over that summer, I can't accept the "had we known..." position embraced by this administration. They had much more evidence of a pending terrorist attack on American soil than they had on WMDs in Iraq. And it was much more credible. And they failed to act.

We knew, for example, that the indication was that the attack would likely involve hijacked planes flown into buildings...but no alert or warning or measures were offered in attempt to prevent it. Not so much as a "heads up".

I'm amazed that anything that the press says which puts Bush in a bad light is scoffed at as commie control of the media. But all of the pro-Bush stuff published by special interest publications is accepted as gospel truth. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Then, perhaps, HE should be held accountable for his lack of forcefulness on the issue. :nuts2: Your continued attempts to place blame on this administration for decisions of all administrations since 1972 are extremely thin on consistency. Even if the CIA knew the exact plans of the terrorists, including which airlines, which times, and every name on the list of hijackers, the government couldn't do squat. Why? Because the previous 6 administrations made it illegal for the CIA to pass that information to the FBI, and the CIA is forbidden from operating inside the US. This is fact. Now that this has come out, you should be outraged, not just at this administration, but at every administration since Nixon. If you're not, then you're nothing more than a sheep, feeding on the propaganda campaign of the mass media's leftist viewpoint. :shrug:
 
Gato said:
Then, perhaps, HE should be held accountable for his lack of forcefulness on the issue.
Click to expand...

While I admit that even he would be preferred over the current exec, that statement is so absurd that I'll just let it shine in its own glory...

Your continued attempts to place blame on this administration for decisions of all administrations since 1972 are extremely thin on consistency.
Click to expand...

Ditto my first response...

Even if the CIA knew the exact plans of the terrorists, including which airlines, which times, and every name on the list of hijackers, the government couldn't do squat. Why? Because the previous 6 administrations made it illegal for the CIA to pass that information to the FBI, and the CIA is forbidden from operating inside the US. This is fact.
Click to expand...

No...Its NOT fact...And I can't believe you declared it as such. Just because they have to go through channels does not mean that its illegal for the CIA to provide information to the FBI when they please... and vice versa. They do it all the time and it can be accomplished in a heartbeat. They do get protective of their information at times for what is nothing more than a pecker contest over who gets the credits. But that was not the problem here...

The FACT is that its illegal for the CIA to conduct operations inside the country. If their operation requires internal support, they are REQUIRED to hand it off to an intelligence agency that IS allowed to operate internally. It is extremely important to the national security that these limitations remain in place. Much like the seperation of powers involved with the government itself.

The FACTS are that both the FBI and CIA provided their information to the NSC and the President constantly...and in alarming fashion. The administration had the information and failed to act. THAT is indesputable...

Now that this has come out, you should be outraged, not just at this administration, but at every administration since Nixon. If you're not, then you're nothing more than a sheep, feeding on the propaganda campaign of the mass media's leftist viewpoint.
Click to expand...


Hell...I've been outraged at just about every administration since Kennedy. But now that THIS has come out, perhaps you should be outraged at THIS administration for its failures.

Since you have no problem accepting the obvious right wing propaganda that Gonz posts, I think we know who the sheep are in this mix...:shrug:
 
Squiggy said:
While I admit that even he would be preferred over the current exec, that statement is so absurd that I'll just let it shine in its own glory...



Ditto my first response...



No...Its NOT fact...And I can't believe you declared it as such. Just because they have to go through channels does not mean that its illegal for the CIA to provide information to the FBI when they please... and vice versa. They do it all the time and it can be accomplished in a heartbeat. They do get protective of their information at times for what is nothing more than a pecker contest over who gets the credits. But that was not the problem here...

The FACT is that its illegal for the CIA to conduct operations inside the country. If their operation requires internal support, they are REQUIRED to hand it off to an intelligence agency that IS allowed to operate internally. It is extremely important to the national security that these limitations remain in place. Much like the seperation of powers involved with the government itself.

The FACTS are that both the FBI and CIA provided their information to the NSC and the President constantly...and in alarming fashion. The administration had the information and failed to act. THAT is indesputable...




Hell...I've been outraged at just about every administration since Kennedy. But now that THIS has come out, perhaps you should be outraged at THIS administration for its failures.

Since you have no problem accepting the obvious right wing propaganda that Gonz posts, I think we know who the sheep are in this mix...:shrug:
Click to expand...

1. The first sentence was supposed to be used as humor. ;)

2. The CIA and the FBI knew little or nothing about 9/11 until after it happened. I'm talking rumors and innuendos. Nothing concrete that they could move with. If they would've, youd be first in line screaming about the 'rights of the accused terrorists'. Don't deny it. We know who the sheep are. ;) The CIA and the FBI did not share information and still do not share information. The 9/11 committee has exposed that truth, and you claim that I'm the one who's following someone elses viewpoints?

3. As usual, you find some way to put all the blame of the past 30 years upon the present administration...It would be funny if it weren't so predictable, Squiggy. Please find another line. This one is getting boring. :grinyes:

4. Check out what I put in bold...your words, mind you, and show me where that info came from, and when it was put forward, and you'll see the gaps in your own arguments. ;)
 
Squiggy said:
PDB 6 August 2001


Look it up...
Click to expand...


Gee, Squiggy. One month to find out who and what? That's not much time, and you know it. Th government, for all it's bluff and bluster, couldn't stop the 9/11 if they had 6 months. You're building my case for me. :grinyes: Keep going.

(I already looked over some of the de-classified PDB's)
 
Squiggy said:
One month is plenty of time to issue a warning or at least a "heads up". We got NOTHING.
Click to expand...

:rofl4:

You know as well as I do that a beauracracy is slower than a snail on depressants. They didn't give warning because they didn't know how. ;) How many foals can a gelding sire? :D
 
Apparently, it was far too deep for Dubya and Rice even though "any secondary school student could have written" it. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top