P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 13-04-04, 11:04 PM   #1
Ramona_A_Stone
Formal Ball Proof
 
Ramona_A_Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,948
Lightbulb Shine On You Crazy Diamond

Dear George,


I didn't really want to mention this, but, OK, this lands on your desk on August 6, 2001.



Quote:

Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a XXX service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told XXX service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in XXX, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.

Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a XXX service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.
...and you say, in your own words,

"The memo was no indication of a terrorist threat."
--to the press pool, April 11, 2004, Fort Hood, Texas

...of course you keep stammering to make sure you qualify yourself so it can't be construed as an outright lie, wrinkling your brow in that cute of-course-I'm-more-enlightened-than-you-I'm-the-fucking-president way you have, and go on to say:

"There was not a time and place of an attack. It said Osama bin Laden had designs on America. Well, I knew that. What I wanted to know was, is there anything specifically going to take place in America that we needed to react to."

...and he dives, executing a difficult triple-gainer and barely making a splash, scoring a row of 10s...


...you didn't really say that there was no indication of a terrorist threat and that you knew bin Laden was a terrorist threat in the same breath. No. It only seems that way to those who cannot see the emperor's new clothes. You simply reminded us that your priorities are beyond the scope of mere mortal comprehension, and that those silly little things that flutter across your desk are as trifling as the newspapers you also never read.

Now beyond the spectacle of your Zen Mastery, I don't see that you necessarily had anything to apologize for anyway, we can all see the document is "vague" ...because it's not clairvoyant. We can't blame you for not acting when there's nothing actionable, like a date or a flight number.

But you could have chosen to say "Yes, the document indicated a possible terrorist threat but it was hard to know what to do about the information." No one would've thought twice about it. Hell, we all know in August you were already drawing up battle plans for war with Iraq, you had a lot on your plate.

But no, better to glisten even if it's with pure slime. Slippery George the Golden Weasel, the man who knew better by not knowing at all.

Intelligence failure indeed... I don't care if it was written in orange Crayon in four inch high letters on a brown paper sack, it indicated a possible terrorist threat.

"The memo was no indication of a terrorist threat."



What is your tongue connected to? Why would you even bother to say that? It'd be truly laughable except that it makes me more suspicious of you than I ever wanted to be. You're supposed to be all about our security per your very own unbelievably redundant droning, but you just keep making me more and more paranoid with all this ultrasophisticated reverse psychology shit. It concerns me that someone close to you can't impress upon you that it might be in your best interest to shut the hell up, or at least get your meds adjusted before they let you speak.


Yet I was truly willing to let this go, I wasn't even going to mention it. But then, a day later, in the photo-op for Mubarak visiting your ranch, you say:

"There was nothing there that said, you know, 'There's an imminent attack.'"
--Press conference, April 12, 2004, Crawford, Texas

...and I mean this is after you slept.

Let's review.

Quote:
...reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S.
...would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber
..."bring the fighting to America."
...told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington
...was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike
...serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.
...conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport
...helped facilitate the operation
...was planning his own U.S. attack
...attacks against the U.S. Embassies
...Al Qaeda...maintains a support structure that could aid attacks
...bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks
...wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft
...preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks
...planning attacks with explosives


Then, your big Prime Time Press Conference. By now you've obviously had time to chisel this crude gem into pure brilliance:

"...the briefing contained 'nothing new' in terms of disclosing that Osama bin Laden hoped to attack the United States."
--April 13, 2004, Washington

...nothing new. Breathtaking.

This indicates that in your peculiar brand of ominiscience, you not only already knew all about an imminent terrorist threat, but you also didn't know there was one... Apparently this is achieved by knowing it so well that you cease to know it, which is both like really really knowing it and not knowing it all at the same time...

Gotta hand it to you, you did a superb job of making the memo itself seem completely irrelevant there...



Just between me and you though, next time you're campaigning for the trust and support of the American people through a critical period, you might want to toy with the idea that we have a collective grasp of reality. It's not even a question of "would you buy a used car from this man" when you can clearly see the guy is trying to sell you half a stuffed goat.

And dude, you've got to stop with the whole sarcastic sneering thing. You're getting a little better, but you've really gotta keep practicing those eyebrow relaxation techniques and try to shake it completely. I know you think it's all Charleton Heston but it really just comes off The Grinch Who Stole Christmas.

Love,
Ramona
Ramona_A_Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-04-04, 02:08 AM   #2
daddydirt
even the losers
 
daddydirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,090
Default

as long as we're still playing the blame game, we should at least have some fun with it. feel free to choose your own personal favorite.

let's blame Clinton!

Clinton-Clinton bo binton
bo nanna fanna fo finton
fee fi mo minton.........Clinton.

of course, if you get tired of playing, perhaps the following article from Time magazine 05/27/2002 might interest you. or not.

...an Agent Speaks Out Against the Blame Game

Quote:
Everyone is caught up in the blame game. But nobody talks much about the fact that the now-famous Phoenix FBI memo, which warned last July that terrorists might be studying in American flight schools, is hardly unusual. The memo raised the possibility of attacks similar to what occurred. But reams of other, equally plausible memos--written before and after 9/11--are in the files as well. A constant stream of theories and proposals comes from FBI field offices to the bureau's headquarters in Washington. We agents see things we think are worth a closer look. We recommend opening a case. We recommend a wiretap, an undercover operation or around-the-clock surveillance. But all proposals need to be reviewed for legality, practicality and the potential of public backlash.

If the Holland Tunnel in New York City imploded from a terrorist attack tomorrow, you could then find official memos about the vulnerability of that tunnel. Convicted terrorists are in prison now for conspiring to take it out. But that doesn't mean we should close it down or round up the Muslims who drive through it every day.

The Phoenix memo's main proposal--a nationwide sweep of flight schools in search of al-Qaeda terrorists--now appears to be solid and rational. But if I had been a unit chief at FBI headquarters reading it last summer, my first thought would have been that such a sweep would lead to a massive hue and cry over "profiling" of Muslims. I would have been disinclined to push the memo upstairs. To justify such a sweep would have required far more than knowing that bin Laden was possibly trying to hijack a plane.

Politicians and the media are talking about a failure to connect the dots, and the FBI and CIA can do more to share information with each other and local police. (Since 9/11, the bureau has been sharing raw reports just so it is not accused of holding anything back.) But I have not seen any pre-9/11 dots that could have been connected, at least with the FBI operating under current laws and guidelines. If we want to throw away most of the requirements for due process, then there is a lot more the FBI and police could do. But does the country want to go there?


I don't think so. The public expects FBI agents to use instinct to surgically extract terrorists from society--and to do it without inconveniencing the public or infringing on innocent lives. Americans have unrealistic expectations about what law enforcement can do in a society in which personal freedom is deemed more important than public safety. Americans say they will give anything to be safe from terrorists. They don't really mean it. They would rather live in a free society than be completely safe. That means some dots won't ever be connected.
The agent, a veteran of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, asked to remain anonymous.
daddydirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-04-04, 10:14 AM   #3
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

god ramona yer so unfair!. sure bush knew somebody wanted to attack washington, and sure bush knew somebody wanted to attack new york city, and sure bush knew that that somebody was osama bin laden, but bush didn't know the day. at least he says he didn't. meanwhile, on a bucolic ranch in texas, far far away from either of those awful places, our man had important ranch type matters to attend to immediately, not in the distant foggy future like five weeks from then. i heard wood needed chopping and horses needed watering and a million other things needed doing that only a god fearing rancher can accomplish. so give the guy a break. ok, i mean a load of people got squashed when those buildiings came down and ok maybe he could have prevented it if he really paid attention but come on, how many horses thrived on his ranch during the 5 week period between august 6th and september 11th? it was really hot, remember? they could've all gotten sick but they didn't! nobody ever talks about that do they? no. and you wanna know why? because people are really mean, that's why.

- js.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-04-04, 10:29 AM   #4
Fantom
Down like a clown Charlie Br.. Down like a clown Charlie Br..
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: West Aussie
Posts: 779
Default

It's just semantics....Bush was dumb in his (their?) choice of words....but a democrat focus on 911 is a trap they should not fall into. Regardless of how badly Bush fucks up basic sentence structures, most reasonable folk will accept that shit like 911 is usually impossible to predict. There is plenty of other stuff to bring him down, but 911 will always work in his favor, they should leave it alone.
Fantom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-04-04, 10:38 AM   #5
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Fantom
It's just semantics....Bush was dumb in his (their?) choice of words....but a democrat focus on 911 is a trap they should not fall into. Regardless of how badly Bush fucks up basic sentence structures, most reasonable folk will accept that shit like 911 is usually impossible to predict. There is plenty of other stuff to bring him down, but 911 will always work in his favor, they should leave it alone.
agreed - the blame game is a non-issue, imo. there is plenty of culpability for intelligence failures in both the current and previous administrations.

that being said, Bush could have scored some points last night by accepting responsibility for this catastrophic event, by virtue of the fact that it happened on his watch. i recall Reagan accepting responsibility for the terrorist bombing deaths of 241 Marines in Beruit in the 80's, and he looked good doing it.

it's the stand-up thing to do
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-04-04, 01:45 PM   #6
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

Reagan didn't do a damn thing except look good. He didn't retaliate against the attackers and in fact he withdrew the troops and let things get worse.

I'd rather have some response instead of slick talking.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-04-04, 03:58 PM   #7
AweShucks
Just Looking Around
 
AweShucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Right here!!!
Posts: 341
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by theknife

that being said, Bush could have scored some points last night by accepting responsibility for this catastrophic event, by virtue of the fact that it happened on his watch. i recall Reagan accepting responsibility for the terrorist bombing deaths of 241 Marines in Beruit in the 80's, and he looked good doing it.

it's the stand-up thing to do

Almost never will a Government or government figure accept responsibility for either 9/11 or any other attack or disaster regardless of the scope or reasoning for it happening. It would open the government up to huge Lawsuits by every tom, dick, and harry. The Government has and always will be virtually immune to lawsuits unless there is a scapegoat.
__________________
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson
AweShucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-04-04, 06:36 PM   #8
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

Unreal

Panel Says Bush Saw Repeated Warnings

Reports Preceded August 2001 Memo
Dana Priest

By the time a CIA briefer gave President Bush the Aug. 6, 2001, President's Daily Brief headlined "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," the president had seen a stream of alarming reports on al Qaeda's intentions. So had Vice President Cheney and Bush's top national security team, according to newly declassified information released yesterday by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In April and May 2001, for example, the intelligence community headlined some of those reports "Bin Laden planning multiple operations," "Bin Laden network's plans advancing" and "Bin Laden threats are real."

"Reports similar to these were made available to President Bush in the morning meetings with [Director of Central Intelligence George J.] Tenet," the commission staff said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Apr13.html
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-04-04, 07:11 PM   #9
AweShucks
Just Looking Around
 
AweShucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Right here!!!
Posts: 341
Default

Why is it I have to register to read one sided news stories all the time

Without registering I will comment:

This issue is like beating a dead horse No one administration is at fault and if any holds the main blame I would say it is the Clinton Admin. Clinton saw just as many signs if not more and suffered more attacks by terrorists and did less. Not to mention his lowered budget for intelligence gathering.

If Bush would have acted on vague sporadic intelligence for example: tightening airport security, and investigating immigrants etc. people would of screamed about invasion of privacy and civil rights violations.

Plain and simple sometimes the things we cherrish the most bite back and haunt us.

Everyone was at fault it's just life
__________________
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson
AweShucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-04, 12:44 PM   #10
Ramona_A_Stone
Formal Ball Proof
 
Ramona_A_Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,948
Default HUH?

There's not one single solitary scrap of an intent to blame anyone for any event in the known world in my above post. I even rather implicitly suggested that I do not blame George for a failure to act on this document. The fact that you could read it and think, "oh, Ramona's blaming George for 911," seems completely absurd to me.

But I realize it's not absurd in your minds if it enables you to completely sidestep the actual point, a point which would be much harder for you to excuse if you weren't so like George and could actually admit the point existed.

The man said that the memo did not indicate a terrorist threat.

That's not semantics. That's not poor sentence structure. It's a contradiction of evidence which, if we were in a court of law, could be called perjury. It's a contradiction of evidence which, if we were in the funny papers--and it seems sometimes we are--would get Dennis The Menace sentenced to sit in the corner to think about what he'd done.

Of course poor Dennis didn't realize he had chocolate on his face when he denied getting into the cookie jar, but if he watched video playback of his denial and still insisted on denying it, his mother might consider reform school or drug therapy instead of a simple time out.

Agreeing with George, as I do, that the blame for any given terrorist act can really only be assigned to the people that perpetrated it, I have to ask who is "playing the Blame Game" here?

I'm not sure of the rules, but I'd assume the Blame Game would entail something like standing around in a circle and tossing the Blame Ball around and trying not to be the one holding it when the Blame Bell rings. I'd imagine the people who are really good at the game would be those skilled at one or more of a few different conceivable methods of play, involving either somehow getting their opponents to hold the ball most often or successfully deflecting the ball from themselves most often. Perhaps simply refusing to catch the ball or getting control of the bell might be options too.

I'd guess someone who would bring up the Clinton administration (under which this document was produced) in a thread about catching George Bush having a blatant prime-time Dennis The Menace moment might be playing the Blame Game far more skillfully than I ever could.

Still, carry on. I'm not one to bicker about holding to a topic. We can't control that the points we mean to make often remind people of something entirely different.
Attached Images
 
Ramona_A_Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-04, 03:56 PM   #11
Fantom
Down like a clown Charlie Br.. Down like a clown Charlie Br..
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: West Aussie
Posts: 779
Default Re: HUH?

Quote:
Originally posted by Ramona_A_Stone
There's not one single solitary scrap of an intent to blame anyone for any event in the known world in my above post. I even rather implicitly suggested that I do not blame George for a failure to act on this document. The fact that you could read it and think, "oh, Ramona's blaming George for 911," seems completely absurd to me.
Since much of your post was directed at my comments, I though I'd make it clear that I didn't think you were blaming George for 911. The fact that you could read my post and think that seems completely absurd to me Perhaps it wasn't directed at me but since we're on the subject of semantics I though I'd at least try to be clear on that

That was one thing I did say about the point you're making...that it's just semantics. And I really think this post has everything to do with semantics.

se·man·tics: The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form.

The operative words are "indication" and "threat" and their interpretation. George says there was no new information. He already knew that stuff in the memo. If he already knew, how could the memo possibly be the indicator of a threat? It wasn't. It didn't indicate anything to old George. Not if he already knew that stuff.

It is clear that the memo warned of a terrorist threat. Yet George says "The memo was no indication of a terrorist threat". I can accept that, particularly with his qualification and use of the word 'indication'. It's not a great choice of words and it could be clearer, but his intended meaning is clear enough. And when intended meaning is clear enough, the rest is just semantics.
Fantom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-04, 10:17 PM   #12
Ramona_A_Stone
Formal Ball Proof
 
Ramona_A_Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,948
Default

The Blame Game part was largely a response to daddydirt of course. To Fantom, lol, I'm quite aware of the definition of semantics, thanks.

I suppose I'll concede your point that the word "indication" is one that would be suitable to use in the event that one wanted to be totally unclear about what one was saying while skewing one's language to look superficially as if one was either totally stupid or trying, vainly, to lie one's ass off.

You say the memo "warned" but that it's acceptable that George says it "didn't indicate" a terrorist threat. Now, "terrorist threat" is a species of event, not a specific event. So can you come up with another example of how a thing can warn of a species of event without indicating that species of event?

If he thinks that saying the memo was insignificant is somehow more reassuring than the alternative, I have to question how he would interpret all future intelligence. Is he essentially telling us that he didn't put much stock in American intelligence agencies? That would be concerning because as we all know, intelligence is lost on an audience without the quotient to comprehend it. Perhaps he feels these little scraps of paper are the equivalent of National Enquirer headlines--and for all I know perhaps they are mixed in with warnings about batboys and double-headed alien babies... still, it seems he might concede that in retrospect, this one turned out to have a striking likeness to subsequent events.

Whatever the case, it leaves me with very little confidence in the man's discernment--not that he failed to discern the gravity of the warning then--but that he still fails to acknowledge that it should have had any gravity now.

Yes, hindsight is 20/20, and anyone would concede that...

...except, apparently, George, whose semantic approach seems in denial of that very aphorism.

I agree that this all may seem superficial and trivial too, but once you start giving someone this kind of semantic license what's next? Political Dadaism?


Actually, that would be refreshing at this point, at least we wouldn't have to sit around and wonder what the fuckers mean by their intentionally incomprehensible ululation....
Ramona_A_Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-04-04, 03:21 AM   #13
Fantom
Down like a clown Charlie Br.. Down like a clown Charlie Br..
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: West Aussie
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Ramona_A_Stone
To Fantom, lol, I'm quite aware of the definition of semantics, thanks
I surmised as much given your predelection to sesquipedalianism, the definition was purely illustrative
Fantom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-04-04, 03:50 AM   #14
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
GrinYes

i have been overtaken by an expulsion of air from the lungs resulting in sounds ranging from an explosive guffaw to a muffled titter and usually accompanied by movements of the mouth or facial muscles and a lighting up of the eyes ...
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-04-04, 06:27 AM   #15
daddydirt
even the losers
 
daddydirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,090
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Ramona_A_Stone
The Blame Game part was largely a response to daddydirt of course.
.....We can't control that the points we mean to make often remind people of something entirely different.
sorry...my bad. it was late and i was fooling around.(just some antics)
daddydirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-04, 07:19 PM   #16
Nicobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,522
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by multi
i have been overtaken by an expulsion of air from the lungs resulting in sounds ranging from an explosive guffaw to a muffled titter and usually accompanied by movements of the mouth or facial muscles and a lighting up of the eyes ...

passin' gas ?
__________________
May your tote always stay tight and your edge eversharp :wink:
Nicobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-04, 08:11 PM   #17
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)