Disturbing news

[Tom]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4428430/

NBC bews reported last night that the pentagon had three more or less sure thing plans and windows of opportunity to take out this guy before the invasion of Iraq. All three were turned down by the white house for fear that an attack would compromise the attempts (at the time) of forming a coilition to help us take out Sadamm. This guy is thought to be responsible for over 700 deaths in Iraq.
Why would the White House not take out a terrorist of this level of risk?

I have been tingk a lot lately and I do like where I am being led by my own conclusions:

1. Bush SR was ridiculed for raising taxes.
2. Bush SR ws called a wimp for not finishing the job with Sadamm the first time.

Bush Jr,s two mian goals - both accomplished with serious reprecusions to us all were to:

1. Cut taxes.
2. Take out Sadaam.
And he failed to take out a known, dangerous terrorist to do #2.

What do I conclude?

I fully support an impeachment and possibly a trial for treason.
I have had enough.
Libs....here is your chance - put up a legitimate candidate, one that will focus on SS and the war on terror and you can have my vote. And probably a few million others as well.

[JustRalph]

Tom

A few points. I saw the report you speak of.

1. sometimes when you know where a terrorist is, you can gain a bunch of knowledge from following him around. You don't gain that knowledge when you just take him out. I am sure following this guy around for a year or so was a fruitful intelligence gathering tool. We do not know and we will never know whether it helped us catch fifty more just like him.

2. You are accusing the Bush Admin. of not looking into the crystal ball and realizing that this guy would be a leader of an insurgence group over a year down the road, in an atmosphere or situation that was not even developing yet. The same thing was said of Clinton when he didn't put his hands on Bin Laden when offered. I fault Clinton for not doing it, after the original attack on the Trade center (1993) but not before. He was supposedly offered Bin Laden both before and after the trade center bombing. The offer before 1993 would have required a crystal ball. After, the future should have been much more clear.

3. You are buying into NBC's reasons on why the terrorist wasn't taken out. Try this one. The Left howls now because "Iraq was not a threat to Americans" Firing missiles on this wingnut would have brought the same howls from France and Germany etc. And then the left would have chimed in with their usual chorus.

Tom, don't buy into a piece that NBC cooked up without enough facts about the operation etc. Remember, we usually know much less than needed to assess the situation reliably. In Intel cases it will always be that way. Remember Pres. Bush told us that in the early days after 9-11. You are jumping to conclusions on this one. Just like the producers of that story want you to.

[raybo]

I have thought from the git-go that Papa Bush was calling the shots in George W's administration. Bush Sr. is a very powerful man with wide-ranging contacts, especially in the intelligence arena. I have been convinced all along that the supposed reasons for going to war with Iraq after 9/11 were contrived by the Bush' cronies. And, I have a sneaky suspicion that WMO's had nothing to do with it. The only WMO that I think has any bearing on the situation is spelled "O-I-L" and uses an alias named "money and power". I am a Texan but I'm embarrassed when "Bush" and "Texas" are used in the same sentence.

[Tom]

JR,
Maybe yes, maybe no.
With what is at stake I think it time to lay the cards out and see who has what in the hole. I do no trust Bush one iota.
There is just too much evidence against him.
Time to avail ourselves of the fairest justice system ever devised by man. Time to trust the system, not the man.
Sadly.

[raybo]

HERE-HERE!
Well put.

[ljb]

Tom said
"Why would the White House not take out a terrorist of this level of risk?"
The same reason they ignored the warnings prior to 9/11, little interest in something with small possibility of profit for Haliburton and little political gain.
note: Prior to 9/11 the whitehouse was all wrapped up in their star wars program, this of course makes mucho bucks for Haliburton and other large corps that control whitehouse.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by ljb
Tom said
"Why would the White House not take out a terrorist of this level of risk?"
The same reason they ignored the warnings prior to 9/11, little interest in something with small possibility of profit for Haliburton and little political gain.
note: Prior to 9/11 the whitehouse was all wrapped up in their star wars program, this of course makes mucho bucks for Haliburton and other large corps that control whitehouse.

Just what warnings are you speaking about? From everything reported so far, Your so called warnings never made it above an FBI field office. How about that big time warning your buddy Bill Clinton ignored from the Saudi's when they offered Bin Laden after the first attack on the trade center? Or maybe the fact that Janet Reno and her ilk were too busy pushing dirt to cover up Waco and the fallout from the wholesale persecution of Randy Weaver and the murder of his wife and child.

To use your reasoning, I would have to assume that Bill Clinton was too busy offering sweet deals to the Loral Corp See this link (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14497)
instead of chasing down terrorists etc. They all have their Corp buddies.........it is not a Republican monopoly on Corp cash. So far I haven't heard that Bush gave Missile Technology to China and accepted Millions from Communists. I don't see Halliburton handing over high end Technology that allows China to extend their missile range over 5-10k miles. Between the two, I will take Halliburton anytime. China's missiles could not reach the United States prior to the Loral Deal. Now they can launch directly onto our soil. I would say that is a big difference than over charging for gas. If you are going to quote this Halliburton crap, just make sure you don't forget about Loral and Buddhist monks etc.

[Tom]

Dereck......roll the file in cake flour first and it will not stick when she pulss it out. It's ag ood thing.

:rolleyes:

[JustRalph]

Roll Martha in the flour............you know the rest Derek

[doophus]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Roll Martha in the flour............you know the rest Derek
Would we then have Martha white flour? <G>

[ljb]

A reply to this thread.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ljb
Tom said
"Why would the White House not take out a terrorist of this level of risk?"
The same reason they ignored the warnings prior to 9/11, little interest in something with small possibility of profit for Haliburton and little political gain.
note: Prior to 9/11 the whitehouse was all wrapped up in their star wars program, this of course makes mucho bucks for Haliburton and other large corps that control whitehouse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Question from JR
Just what warnings are you speaking about? From everything reported so far, Your so called warnings never made it above an FBI field office.
Here are some of the warnings:
Clinton’s national security advisor Sandy Berger arranged ten briefings for his successor, Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley. Berger made a special point of attending the briefing on terrorism. He told Dr. Rice, “I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.
Rice originally denied having this meeting, but later admitted it did take place.
During this debriefing Rice listened to counter terrorism bulldog Richard Clarke, who laid out the whole anti-al Qaeda plan. Rice was so impressed with Clarke that she immediately asked him to stay on as head of counter terrorism.
In early February, Clarke repeated the briefing for Vice President Dick Cheney. But the administration had an entirely different set of obsessions. Missile defense, for example.
On February 15, 2001, a commission led by former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman issued its third and final report on national security. The report warned that “mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern” and said that America was woefully unprepared for a “catastrophic” domestic terrorist attack and urged the creation of a new federal agency: “A National Homeland Security Agency with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security” .
The Hart-Rudman Commission had studied every aspect of national security over a period of years and had come to a unanimous conclusion: “This commission believes that the security of the American homeland from the threats of the new century should be the primary national security mission of the U.S. government.”
The report generated a great deal of media attention and even a bill in congress to establish a National Homeland Security Agency. But the white house thought otherwise and implemented an antiterrorism task force led by Vice President Cheney. Bush announced the task force on May 8, 2001 and said that he himself would “periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.” Bush never chaired such a meeting, though. Probably because Cheney’s task force never actually met.
Richard Clarke was still going strong and developed a plan to put boots on the ground in Afghanistan and kill Osama bin Laden. This plan was presented the deputies of the major national security principals: Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis Libby; the State Departments Richard Armitage; DOD’s Paul Wolfowitz; and the CIA’s John McLaughlin on April 30. This group was so excited they decided to have 4 more meetings. Sure scheduling these meetings would take months and delay any actual action in taking out Osama, but, according to a senior white house official, the deputies wanted to review the `issues “holistically.”
On July 10,2001 nearly five months after the Hart-Rudman report, Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams sent a memo to headquarters regarding concerns over some Middle Eastern students at an Arizona flight school. Al Qadea operatives, Williams suggested, might be trying to infiltrate the U.S. civil aviation system.

CIA Director George Tenet was now showing concern with the reports he was getting and in mid-July told Rice there was going to be a major attack.
July 16, 2001 the Deputies held there final meeting and approved Clarke’s plan. Next it would move to a committee composed of Cheney, Rice, Tenet, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Rumsfeld. Once this committee approved the plan it would move to the Presidents desk. This meeting was postponed until Sept. 4 as most of the players would be “recharging” their batteries during August.

On August 6, Tenet delivered a report to President Bush entitled. “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”

In August 2001, Thomas J. Pickard, acting FBI director received a report detailing the counter terrorism programs in the FBI. Alarmed by the report and the mounting terrorist threat, Pickard met with Attorney General John Ashcroft to request 58 million from the justice department to beef up the FBI’s counter terrorism force. On September 10, 2001 he received an official letter from Ashcroft, turning him down flat!

[Tom]

Do have any facts to back any of this up, or like WMD are they not currently available for viewing?

[Secretariat]

LJB,

Wow....I knew some of this stuff, particulary the Rice stuff, but not all of that. Speaks volumes.

Great post.

[delayjf]

ljb

Aren't you forgetting something??? Our intelligence didn't fall apart over night. Were was the Clinton Administration while this treat was building. Or are you asserting that all this started once Bush got in office?

[Secretariat]

DJ,

Think you're missing the points LB raises in the article.

"Clinton’s national security advisor Sandy Berger arranged ten briefings for his successor, Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley. Berger made a special point of attending the briefing on terrorism. He told Dr. Rice, “I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.
Rice originally denied having this meeting, but later admitted it did take place."

The point is the intelligence and the warnings were there as Sandy Berger tried to tell Rice, the Bush administration just chose to ignore them until it was too late.

[ljb]

Tom said
"Do have any facts to back any of this up, or like WMD are they not currently available for viewing?
Tom, These are the facts. They are public record. Most of them can be obtained from government documents, some from public publications "Time" magazine was one source. If you care to pursue any statement further, do a google or lexis-nexus search.

Again I repeat,
the Bush administration was more interested in their star wars program during this time frame and chose to ignore these incidents.
Dj,
I can go into detail on the Clinton's handling of these problems but for the fact that, Clinton is not running for President.

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Tom said
"Do have any facts to back any of this up, or like WMD are they not currently available for viewing?
Tom, These are the facts. They are public record. Most of them can be obtained from government documents, some from public publications "Time" magazine was one source. If you care to pursue any statement further, do a google or lexis-nexus search.



Thanks Ljb....I dind't think so. :D

[ljb]

No problem Tom,
You wouldn't be doing your Lefty impersonation now would you?