CIA sitting on 9/11 Report

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@Oct 23 2004, 01:46 AM
Flame on, can I ask you something. Why does Bush get blaimed for 9/11. He was in office for aprox. 8 months correct? In those 8 months in office, you are stating that he could have prevented the terrorist attacks in some manner. If anyone should be looked at with a harsh eye it should be Bill Clinton, and not Bush.

People also protested against Reagan and well his policies resulted in the cold war, so I don't think the quality of a president should be judged on this alone.

Accusations of what?

He can't speak. Honestly he is a good public speaker, and I think his occasional Bushisms are made into something they are not.

He loses debates? So? I don't see your point here.

Hasn't found Osama. Do you want to know why. He is likely dead, and if you consider that the only way to achieve victory in the war on terror then I think you need to look at the bigger picture.

Drunk driver? Well you know what, sure it is a really bad thing, but look at the time in which it happened, it was socially acceptable to drink and drive. That isn't a lie. I bet the majority of people in the age range of 40-60 have driven after having more than a couple to many drinks, and if not a majority then quite a high number.

Secretly wants a draft? That comment doesn't even dignify a responce.

p*ssed off allies, sure but you know what, that is life, and they will still continue to work together in order to help each countries respective economies.

Poor economy, dude the economy was going into a recession when he became president. Then 9/11 threw a huge wrench in things also.

Outsourced jobs? Which would happen more if Kerry becomes president and follows through on his pledge to raise the min. wage. Really this isn't something you can blame bush for

Church running the state? Loves automatic weapons?

MMf what the hell? First off if one president has formed a taskforce that is working on a problem and while they're doing that, the problem doesn't arrise. Then the next guy comes in and sets aside all the information the first guy got and refuses to asknowledge the advice of his own admin that he's kept on and then after 8 months, 8! Boom. I know who I'll blame you may not but then that's cause you put party above all else obviously.
All the rest, if you can forgive that that's fine. I'd pick someone new. The economy was not in recession when Bush came in. It takes 2 financial quarters of loss to have a recession, both occured after he went into office. Except the tourism industry of course, due to all that losers holidays!
Kerry lose more jobs? Wrong again, that's one of his main campaign plans to stop that through increasing incentives to keep them here, and plugging loop holes that Bush implemented or didn't stop.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 23 2004, 03:30 AM

I'm just pointing out that there is two ways to look at this.

Clinton was president for 8 years and a "9/11" never happened under his watch. Nobody here can say that it wasn't because of dilligence. We have no idea how many times terror attacks were averted during the Clinton days.

I don't disagree.

But that statement had to be challenged. It's just wrong on so many levels.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 23 2004, 12:32 AM
What does anything you posted have to do with this topic?

Well, I'm assuming the report is something bad if the accusation is that it's being sat on. So what I'm saying is that it's justs one more case on Bush's list that you're fine with. Which amazes me.
Oh and it's quite hypocritical that people argue that "we need to know what Kerry said 30 years ago" but not some current damning report.
I italicized the references to the word "report" so you could see how it links to....a thread on...wait for it.....a reeeeporrrrrt. Shocking.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Flame On@Oct 23 2004, 03:33 AM

MMf what the hell? First off if one president has formed a taskforce that is working on a problem and while they're doing that, the problem doesn't arrise. Then the next guy comes in and sets aside all the information the first guy got and refuses to asknowledge the advice of his own admin that he's kept on and then after 8 months, 8! Boom. I know who I'll blame you may not but then that's cause you put party above all else obviously.
All the rest, if you can forgive that that's fine. I'd pick someone new. The economy was not in recession when Bush came in. It takes 2 financial quarters of loss to have a recession, both occured after he went into office. Except the tourism industry of course, due to all that losers holidays!
Kerry lose more jobs? Wrong again, that's one of his main campaign plans to stop that through increasing incentives to keep them here, and plugging loop holes that Bush implemented or didn't stop.

That post is so chock full of crap somebody is going to have to call roto-rooter to get things moving again in this forum

The problem didn't arise while Clinton's taskforce was at work? Al-Qaeda attacked American interests ad nauseum during the Clinton administration. George Tenet is a holdover from the Clinton administration, yet you claim that the Bush admin just tossed aside anything the previous admin had done?

9/11 caused the recession.

What the hell is "loser holidays"?

You are a piece of work.

I'm voting for Kerry though....since Bush has "the church running the state"..........

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Flame On+Oct 23 2004, 03:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame On @ Oct 23 2004, 03:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Oct 23 2004, 12:32 AM
What does anything you posted have to do with this topic?

Well, I'm assuming the report is something bad if the accusation is that it's being sat on. So what I'm saying is that it's justs one more case on Bush's list that you're fine with. Which amazes me.
Oh and it's quite hypocritical that people argue that "we need to know what Kerry said 30 years ago" but not some current damning report.
I italicized the references to the word "report" so you could see how it links to....a thread on...wait for it.....a reeeeporrrrrt. Shocking. [/b][/quote]
I've never said anything about needing to know what Kerry said 30 years ago. But while we're bringing up hypocritical things...you've been saying we needed to know about what Bush did 30 years ago. What the hell is the difference?

Now back on topic....you ASSUME.....I gave you 3 reasons above why it's illogical to make that assumption. Can you refute them or do you just choose to ignore them? Your assumption makes no sense. Get it?

So it's not a 'case on Bush's list' that I'm fine with except in your warped view.

[Flame On]

That post is so chock full of crap somebody is going to have to call roto-rooter to get things moving again in this forum

The problem didn't arise while Clinton's taskforce was at work? Al-Qaeda attacked American interests ad nauseum during the Clinton administration. George Tenet is a holdover from the Clinton administration, yet you claim that the Bush admin just tossed aside anything the previous admin had done?

9/11 caused the recession.

What the hell is "loser holidays"?

You are a piece of work.

I'm voting for Kerry though....since Bush has "the church running the state"..........

Again I'll explain something for you DIS. George Bush, I think he's a loser. He was off on lots of holidays. Perhaps my grammar was a bit off, but the crux was "due to all the holidays that loser had". Loser being Bush.
But I thank you for helping me refute Mean Mr. Mustards' claim that Bush inherited the recession. You said it was due to 9/11 he said he got it when he came....can't you guys stop flip flopping between your beliefs?
You're a piece of work too DIS while I'm at it.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 22 2004, 12:15 AM
Oooooh...another conspiracy theory.....

that doesn't make sense.

Why?

1. If Bush has last word on CIA issues (which he does) why would the CIA have a report pointing fingers at the Bush administration?

2. If people inside the CIA had a report that pointed fingers at the Bush administration but were being told to keep a lid on it (see point 1 for how this is unlikely) but felt it needed to get out now....why wouldn't it be leaked?

3. As 'Roos mentioned, why would the report even be known about if it pointed fingers at the Bush administration since Bush has the final word on CIA issues?

1. they still have a role to do, and report their findings to Bush but still have to serve the US people surely. Otherwise by your standard of Bush control, he could order them to announce they've caught Osama and won the war on terror, they'd have to obey their master wouldn't they?
2. Why wouldn't it be leaked, hmmm. Guess you got me what a solid arguement of unkowns you've put forth. I don't know, perhaps it's not finished quite yet, there are thousands of reasons a report might not be leaked. Perhaps their scared for their jobs with their overlord above them.
3.Maybe that's the leak. Maybe we're seeing the leak, knowing the curious people will dig it out, or shout for it to be released. (fits for point 2 too).
Anyway. Lets talk hypothetically here. You assume with me for a while. Pretend it's true. What would your reaction to that news be? That a, Bush has a damning report against their admin, that b, it's trying to be sat on.
Imagine. Would you still vote for him and no mentioning Kerry now....
PS I concede your American interest terror points under Bill, but still better than on your home turf though.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 23 2004, 03:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 23 2004, 03:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Oh and it's quite hypocritical that people argue that "we need to know what Kerry said 30 years ago" but not some current damning report.

I've never said anything about needing to know what Kerry said 30 years ago. But while we're bringing up hypocritical things...you've been saying we needed to know about what Bush did 30 years ago. What the hell is the difference?[/b][/quote]
Find one single post where I've asked what Bush did 30 years ago. Hell he was probably not even in politics then, why'd I want to know that? Find one.
Oh you'll also notice in my post I said people argue that, not specifically you. So if you didn't say it then I'm not talking about you then am I.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by Flame On@Oct 23 2004, 03:52 AM

Again I'll explain something for you DIS. George Bush, I think he's a loser. He was off on lots of holidays. Perhaps my grammar was a bit off, but the crux was "due to all the holidays that loser had". Loser being Bush.
But I thank you for helping me refute Mean Mr. Mustards' claim that Bush inherited the recession. You said it was due to 9/11 he said he got it when he came....can't you guys stop flip flopping between your beliefs?
You're a piece of work too DIS while I'm at it.

Actually ifyou look at the recession (boom/bust cycle) you will realize that Bush took over a nation that was going into a recession. However at the same time 9/11 resulted in the recession becoming much more severe than it would have been if there is no 9/11.

You good old Micheal Moore stats count time spent at Camp David as vacation time. Which isn't the case as I am sure we all know.

Plus the 8 months and he screws things up thing. Don't you realize that the cowards entered the US years before on Clintons watch, organized on Clintons watch, trained on Clintons watch, and ultimently committed the act on Bush's watch. Sorry but everything was in place when Bush took power. The plan didn't come together in 8 months, and from the sounds of it that is what your arguement is based on.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@Oct 23 2004, 05:07 AM
Plus the 8 months and he screws things up thing. Don't you realize that the cowards entered the US years before on Clintons watch, organized on Clintons watch, trained on Clintons watch, and ultimently committed the act on Bush's watch. Sorry but everything was in place when Bush took power. The plan didn't come together in 8 months, and from the sounds of it that is what your arguement is based on.

Sure, and given their age, they likely had their politics and minds formed during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years. So there. Not to mention the group that did the attack were helped by Reagan directly.

Come on, let's see how far we can pass the buck to make Bush look good.

It's anybody but Bush's fault.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Clinton deserves a large portion of the blaim here. Your an idiot if you can't see that it is rightin front of you and you seem to be willfully ignorant. You don't deny that the immigration, the training, the organization, and the drawing up of the plans happened during the Clinton years, and yet you blaim Bush for the attacks. Sorry but I don't see any logic behind that statement. Is it really passing the buck when I say what the 9-11 Commission stated? Could Bush have done something, well I am sure that he could have, but come on, to blaim him for the attacks occuring is just being nieve when most everything occured during the Clinton years, something you didn't disargee with. You don't have a leg to stand on with this one so don't bother.

[FlamesAddiction]

It's a stupid argument.

If I take a job as a body guard for someone who is already well hated, I am still ultimately responsible for them if something happens 8 months after I take the job. Bush is no different. Zero "9/11" type attacks happened during Clinton's run, and he inherited the same type of problems from Reagan and Bush Sr. that Bush Jr. inherited.

I'm not saying Clinton couldn't have done things better, but he was a lot better than Bush.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 23 2004, 02:43 AM
It's a stupid argument.

If I take a job as a body guard for someone who is already well hated, I am still ultimately responsible for them if something happens 8 months after I take the job. Bush is no different. Zero "9/11" type attacks happened during Clinton's run, and he inherited the same type of problems from Reagan and Bush Sr. that Bush Jr. inherited.

I'm not saying Clinton couldn't have done things better, but he was a lot better than Bush.

Not true at all.

No, we didnt see airplanes flying into buildings during Clintons years, but they did try and blow the WTC up with a truck bomb in 1993...and were hoping it would tumble sideways taking down the tower next to it.

Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania directed straight at US embassies in 98. USS Cole a target of suicide bombers in October 2000.

ALL took place under Clintons watch.

To blame Bush for 9/11 is absolutely ridiculous. This stuff was happening for years before and no one single President should be blamed for it. Its radical extremists hellbent on destroying America and its way of life that are to blame.

I love revisionist history.

[Flame On]

MMF in your previous post you said he had a recession, then you say it was going into one. Your floundering & scrambling to try and save your point and then you call me an idiot .
Further how the hell do you know when the terrorists came and started their plans? I could get a plain ticket to any country and get flight lessons within 8 months, but where do you get your inside info and PROOF that it was all done under Clinton? You don't.
You good old Micheal Moore stats count time spent at Camp David as vacation time. Which isn't the case as I am sure we all know. I am able to work out this clumsy wording and decipher the; poorly executed intent even though you say I'm the idiot. I don't have where I got that from but I've heard independently of Moore (cop out argument to throw him out there by the way) about the amount of Bush's vacations, I think I read it in an article. But like I said can't find it now, but wasn't Moore. I think a number of 44% was attributed which was the highest of any Pres. at the time of reading it. Here's some related links:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2098861/ http://www.sugarpoet.com/2004/06/summer-va...test-for-w.html (not the one I read, but these are similar)
No, we didnt see airplanes flying into buildings during Clintons years, but they did try and blow the WTC up with a truck bomb in 1993...and were hoping it would tumble sideways taking down the tower next to it.
Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania directed straight at US embassies in 98. USS Cole a target of suicide bombers in October 2000.
ALL took place under Clintons watch.
To blame Bush for 9/11 is absolutely ridiculous. This stuff was happening for years before and no one single President should be blamed for it. Its radical extremists hellbent on destroying America and its way of life that are to blame.
I love revisionist history.
So transplant you hate revisionist history yet within the same post you look back at Clinton's term, blame him for attacks and excuse Bush (the current) pres of any blame. Who's the one being revisionist?

[transplant99]

So transplant you hate revisionist history yet within the same post you look back at Clinton's term, blame him for attacks and excuse Bush (the current) pres of any blame. Who's the one being revisionist?

Ummm....you need to really slow down and READ what I said.

I, not once, blamed Clinton for anything...never.

Flames Addiction said...

Zero "9/11" type attacks happened during Clinton's run

I refuted THAT statement by pointing out the attacks that DID happen during the Clinton years.

How is that revising history??

And i pointedly made the statement that "no one single President should be blamed for it."

WHat part of that translates in your mind to.. you look back at Clinton's term, blame him for attacks and excuse Bush


So whatever you are trying to say is complete and utter garbage. But I guess there is no reason to let FACTS get in the way of a bad argument huh?

Wow.

[HelloHockeyFans]

Sounds like a movie.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Flame on, can I ask you something. Why does Bush get blaimed for 9/11. He was in office for aprox. 8 months correct? In those 8 months in office, you are stating that he could have prevented the terrorist attacks in some manner. If anyone should be looked at with a harsh eye it should be Bill Clinton, and not Bush.
He can't speak. Honestly he is a good public speaker, and I think his occasional Bushisms are made into something they are not.

Bush gets blamed, deservedly so, for ignoring multiple agencies telling him of the attack. He had intel and had senior people telling he and his administration that the risk was high, the form of attack and the potential targets. He had names and places where the agencies knew the individuals were training. Fact of the matter was that Bush did not believe in the terrorist threat when he went into office. Not many in the Bush administration did. They believed it was only a nuisance that would go away if ignored. Inaction was the plan so the intel and briefings were ignored.

The fact that there was intel was Clinton's doing. He set up all the anti and counter terrorism branches in the agencies to define and track threats. This was a weakness during the Reagan and Bush41 administrations and Clinton did a pretty good job dealing with the unknown. He was not perfect and missed an opportunity himself to take out bin Laden (refusal of the military to use experimental technology killed the concept) but he at least acknowledged the threat and did something about it.

He can't speak. Honestly he is a good public speaker, and I think his occasional Bushisms are made into something they are not.

Bus IS a terrible speaker. He is completely lost without a teleprompter. You know what one of those is? Something that telles you what to say. Bush is charismatic and an animated speaker, but he is not a good public speaker. He id defintiely not a statesman like speaker. He's a used car salesman type of speaker. He knows his script, but is lost once you get him distracted.

He loses debates? So? I don't see your point here.

You're kidding, right? The guy can't debate and that's not a showstopper? That's what politics is all about. You make points through debate. Bush is brutal and can't think on his feet. Kerry killed him all Bush did was stand there and scowl. He is not a smart man and does not interact well with people that know the subject matter better than him (pretty well everyone in the free world).

Hasn't found Osama. Do you want to know why. He is likely dead, and if you consider that the only way to achieve victory in the war on terror then I think you need to look at the bigger picture.

bin Laden is dead? Wow! You mean all those videos and recordings he made were from beyond the grave??? Damn, the Islamists PROVED there is life after death!

Drunk driver? Well you know what, sure it is a really bad thing, but look at the time in which it happened, it was socially acceptable to drink and drive. That isn't a lie. I bet the majority of people in the age range of 40-60 have driven after having more than a couple to many drinks, and if not a majority then quite a high number.

Bullsh*t! It has NEVER been acceptable to drink and drive. Just because people did it does not make it acceptable. The fact that you say that in defense of Bush pretty well destroys any argument you try and muster.

Secretly wants a draft? That comment doesn't even dignify a responce.

And why not? Because you don't have one. You can read all the things that Bush and Company WANT to do, and know that the military is a big part of it, and look at the present military and know it isn't the strength he wants it at. How else is he going to build it up to where he wants/needs it?

p*ssed off allies, sure but you know what, that is life, and they will still continue to work together in order to help each countries respective economies.

That's life? You are a total idiot if you believe that crap. All you have to do is look at what Bush is doing to Canada. How are those soft wood exports? How about the beef exports? Yeah, Bush is really doing a lot to help out the economies of those who called him on his lies.

Poor economy, dude the economy was going into a recession when he became president. Then 9/11 threw a huge wrench in things also.

Outsourced jobs? Which would happen more if Kerry becomes president and follows through on his pledge to raise the min. wage. Really this isn't something you can blame bush for

I don't think Bush can be blamed for the recession, but he takes it full bore on the off-shoring of jobs and the under-employment issue going on in the United States. Bush's tax cut systems to corporations has not penalized countries for sending jobs to other nations, in fact they encourage them. It is Bush's responsibility for the legislation, no one else. He is accountable, accept it.

And you're really going to have to explain how Kerry's sponsorship of raising minimum wage will increase off-shoring of jobs? Sounds to me like you're talking out of your ass. The jobs being offshored are expensive hi-tech jobs or support positions where technical expertise is a requirement but can be had in developing nations for half the cost. Minimum wage jobs like working at Seven Eleven or what ever, have no relation to off-shoring. The fact that you try and link the two shows you have no grasp of the issue.

Church running the state? Loves automatic weapons?

Both exagerations, but the statements do have some merit. He is allowing more and more religion to come into play within government. Its not at the point of a theocracy, but there are some things that should raise some eyebrowns and have the constitutional lawyers waiting in the wings. The weapons thing is in support of the assault weapons ban that lapsed under Bush's presidency. He had a chance to extend it, but failed to do so. Does say he that he loves automatic weapons, but it says that he isn't in favor of removing the weapons that can be modified easily.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 23 2004, 03:30 AM
I'm just pointing out that there is two ways to look at this.

Clinton was president for 8 years and a "9/11" never happened under his watch. Nobody here can say that it wasn't because of dilligence. We have no idea how many times terror attacks were averted during the Clinton days.

To be fair (and balanced), this is not true. Clinton had his own little 9/11 on his watch. He had the'93 WTC bombing take place on his watch, in a very similar situation to Bush, right after taking office. The thing that worked in his favor was that the bomb used was not properly situated otherwise Yosef may have brought the towers down then. Clinton gets credit for doing things right and tracking the scumbags down who did it and bringing them to justice. He didn't invade two countries, one of which was innocent, and stir up a honets nest while doing so. He did it quietly and efficiently and yielded a lot of intelligence that warned of numerous future attacks. He made sure that the Islamist cause stayed on the fringe and did not generate massive recruiting campaigns. Those are the differences that I have seen.

[transplant99]

Who knows how valid this story really is.

Its niether proven nor disproven what this report contains...and the author of the story in question would lead me to believe that he simply wants the report to contain bad things about the administration as much as he thinks it does.

Robert Scheer is a bit of a questionable "journalist" as he has represented the extreme left wing for 30 years or more. He was a backer of the Black Panther party and a supporter of Eldridge Cleaver...a guy that wrote a book espousing the virtuosity of "killing the whites".

The guy is a bit of a loon.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

I think its funny that this "report" caused this thread. I would think that the report exists (it is the CIAs job to provide this) and that it is being supressed for obvious reasons, those being the election and what it could do to the election. I don't think Bush has much to do with that myself. I think if anyone is supressing it it would be the new CIA Director. I just thought it would be interesting to share that the CIA supposedly has a report that points fingers and names names and that it may come available after the election. I would love to read that right now though!