Y2HH

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:31 AM) The CIA had to try to dissuade them of the notion that OBL was running false-flag operations for Saddam. There is no other way to describe that but incompetence. As Balta pointed out and highlighted pretty well, even Clinton wasn't convinced they were much of a threat...if they had been, more would have been done by his administration versus just "handing it off" to Bush and letting him take it when he had the time.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:28 AM) The biggest problem with this statement is that these steps wouldn't have been necessary to break up the 9/11 plot. According to the 9/11 commission report, the CIA and FBI had enough pieces to put the puzzle together, but there was no one putting the focus on Al Qaeda, "Shaking the trees" I believe was the term, to try to force someone to realize what was about to unfold. OTOH...You're completely right about one thing. Even the USS Cole attack was not nearly big enough to force the US into the kind of posture it was going to take to deal with Al Qaeda as a threat. We saw that when Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles at Bin Laden, no one took it seriously despite the 100's of people already killed at the embassies. So then the question becomes...if the 9/11 plot was rounded up, which it could have been by the intelligence agencies...where do things go from there? And that is...one very messy question, because you could have still taken boxcutters, cigarette lighters, etc., on to planes, and Al Qaeda would have continued training and strengthening in Afghanistan where they had their safe haven. I think your assessments can be met with a bit more of an agreement. I think this went back further than GW, and it's merely convient to blame him and his administration for it for some people...because, like I said, it fits their agenda to do so.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:27 AM) But they still made decisions. Before they even entered office, they made decisions. That's the point. If you're going to go with that defense, that it wasn't enough time to make sound, solid decisions, then that makes their obsession with Iraq all the worse. This is just another layer on the many, many layers of his failure. How did "they" make decisions before entering office without a cabinet? That makes ZERO sense. You're just making s*** up now. His administration wasn't even intact before he was in office.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:26 AM) So what changes did the previous administration make, if it was so obvious? None at all, because it was so obvious. But this doesn't fit his agenda. I don't disagree with him that GW was a failure, just as I think Obama is a failure...but I think he's being unfair in his judgement of a president taking office and then this happening almost immediately after. That's why I said it's weak minded critique in hindsight. It's easy to do...which is why he's doing it. He knows it's unfair, but doesn't care...but it fits his world view.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:25 AM) The Bush Admin's incompetence was a critical part, not the only part. As I've said, it may not have been possible for a group who wasn't staggeringly incompetent to connect the dots and prevent the attack, but their decisions guaranteed that it wouldn't happen. And again, I think you're being unfair considering the timeline.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:22 AM) Dealing with global recessions and deciding whether or not to take threats from AQ seriously are not exactly the same category. There is nothing that prevented Bush & Co from giving credibility to those threats instead of dismissing them out-of-hand. Aside from their incompetence. But they are in the same category because it's part of the job description.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:21 AM) Do you honestly think their obsession with Iraq was justifiable? Why can't incompetence like that be judged immediately? What reason do we have to believe that they would have changed their focus if the attack had been 9/11/02 instead? No, I don't think their obsession with Iraq is justifiable. I don't think we should be there now, even...anywhere in that region. That said, I also think it's unfair to say GW had enough time in office to go through the loads of information they had and what was given to them by the previous administration AND make sound decisions based on that. I think it was just too much too soon. And I repeat, GW, IMO, was a failure. But I'm not basing that on a whole 8 months of time like you are.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:18 AM) To slightly switch topics... You're right here. With the number of positions turning over, 8 months isn't all that much time. This is why one of the 9/11 commission's recommendations was that the government needed to expedite the handover, in particular by reducing the number of positions in the Executive branch subject to Senate confirmation, so that people can actually get to work on January 21 rather than waiting until April/May when the Senate finally gets around to confirming the assistant to the undersecretary of whatever. This part of their recommendations...was ignored by Congress. Careful, SS is going to attack you with his anti GW Agenda. It couldn't have been Congresses fault...it was all GW's!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:18 AM) Why can't we judge his policy decisions from day 1? It didn't take him 8 months to acclimate and decide that regime change in Iraq was #1 priority in foreign policy. That excuse doesn't fly. It took Obama more than 2 years to do anything. So...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:17 AM) That's what I'm saying? Link please. This wasn't a tactical decision. It was a strategic one. He was able to make the huge strategic decision to ignore Clinton's outgoing team and focus on Iraq on Day 1. Holy non sequitor, Batman! Global economic collapses aren't the same thing as whether or not to lend credibility to any threat evaluations that don't involve Saddam and WMD's. As is yours. 1) I said it's apparently what your saying...as if he had nothing else to do that 8 months BUT concentrate on reports from a previous administration. 2) This may or may not be accurate, and to what degree. Again, it was just 8 months of time. 3) You once again show your agenda. Thanks. You make this easy.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:14 AM) I've said that? I'll ask for a quote. What I've said is that they were incompetent and hyper-focused on Iraq. What the article I posted said is that the CIA couldn't believe their hyper-focus and went to lengths to try to dissuade them of it. I've explicitly said that it still may not have been possible to connect all of the dots but their incompetence guaranteed that they would not. How is that not legitimate criticism? Do you think their focus on Iraq was justifiable? Their crazy scenarios? I don't believe 8 months into a term is a long enough time to blame or legitimately critique a sitting president. They've barely gotten started. Like I said, you won't give Bush 8 months to TAKE blame. But you've given Obama 4 years to GIVE blame. You have an agenda, whether you see that or not. It's pretty damn clear.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:12 AM) What on earth am I being dishonest about? I did not ever say or imply that he was in office for 5 years before 9/11. I said he and his administration were incompetent. They were. His record over 8 years bears that out. This most recent revelation, about their bizarre scenarios to jettison their cognitive dissonance, only adds one more layer to many that are already there. I'll ask again, is there any possible criticism of Bush pre-9/11 that you would feel is legitimate? Or is it entirely off-limits? Should terrorists and state enemies plan their attacks for every President's first year since apparently that's a free pass year? I think judging a new president on 8 months in office is weak, whether it be about Obama or Bush, or anyone else. 8 months isn't a long time to acclimate for a job of that magnitude. Overall, I think Bush was a failure...that's based on both his full 4 and 8 year tenure... But 8 months...weak.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:10 AM) And yet four years isn't enough to take responsibility for an economy... Awesome. I JUST posted that as you did, without seeing this. Like I said, it shows his biased agenda. And I maintain, it's weak.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:09 AM) A grand total of 8 months of ignoring reports and warning signs and pissing off the intelligence community with stupid s*** like saying OBL cooperated with Saddam in false-flag operations. Amazingly negligence because they were hyper-focused on their policy goals and couldn't fit anything else into their world view. It seems weak-minded to dismiss any and all criticism of Bush pre-9/11. Right, because in that 8 months, he had NOTHING else to do but sift through those reports. Because apparently that's what you're saying. You won't give Bush 8 months to settle into office and make huge tactical decisions like this... But you want everyone to give Obama more than 4 years in order to make a dent in the economy. Like I said. You're agenda is pretty f***ing clear.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:06 AM) A WHOLE 8 months they ignored AQ and focused on Iraq because they were a bunch of incompetents. Enough said. Is there any possible criticism of Bush pre-9/11 that isn't "weak-minded?" When you come up with some, I'll let you know. But what you have right now is weak minded. You're saying that in 8 months, with everything that job entails, from domestic to international, that he had the time to make perfect decisions on some threats that may or may not have been true? Give me a break.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:06 AM) A WHOLE 8 months they ignored AQ and focused on Iraq because they were a bunch of incompetents. Enough said. Is there any possible criticism of Bush pre-9/11 that isn't "weak-minded?" Wow, 8 months! For a new president, it takes about a year to even settle into the job, let alone sift through wads of information like this. You're being purposefully dishonest in order to further your anti-Bush agenda...that's pretty damn apparent. And it's still weak minded. You're smarter than this/better than this IMO.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:05 AM) Where is the fabrication or stretching of truth? They were briefed on the seriousness of AQ by Clinton's outgoing team. They ignored it and focused on Iraq. Could they have reasonably connected the dots? Maybe. But they sure as hell weren't going to be able to if they were conjuring up such bizarre scenarios as Bin Laden running false-flag operations for Saddam. That didn't make a damn bit of sense pre- or post-9/11, and it appears that many in the CIA were exasperated that they were being so ridiculous. Is there any possible criticism of Bush for his pre-9/11 policies that would not be weak-minded? Because he was in office a grand total of 8 months before 9/11 hit. That's why.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:01 AM) You haven't given any reasons, just claimed that it is so. What is weak-minded about reviewing the CIA memos and talking to inside sources? What is weak-minded about reviewing the information released from within the administration that indicated their policy priorities? It seems to me that you're essentially saying that it's impossible to criticize what they did pre-9/11. It's weak minded because you make it sound like GW was in office for 5 years, concentrating on Iraq, and ignoring AQ...when that's simply not true. As a matter of fact, it's a complete and totally dishonest twisting of reality. He was in office a WHOLE 8 months before 9/11. Enough said.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:00 AM) Right, but the story that's come out in the years since 9/11 is that his administration basically ignored those threats despite Clinton's team's warnings. They focused on Iraq and their PNAC project instead. How is criticizing Bush's foreign policy and intelligence blunders even remotely like birtherism? How is their obsession with Iraq that blinded them to anything else not an "actual" issue? What is more important than how their administration viewed foreign policy and intelligence about domestic threats? I edited my post. Re-read.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 08:51 AM) He works in intelligence, yes. GW and his administration deserves every shot possible over this. With the National Security Archives releases a year or so ago and now this latest article that quotes several still-classified memos, it's abundantly clear that his administration was focused on Iraq from the day they took office. They could not conceive of other types of threats and saw regime change in Iraq as their main foreign policy goal even before 9/11. This isn't about their terrible half-truths and lies to drum up support for invading Iraq in 2003 but their entire mindset. The CIA had to write memos that specifically addressed the bizarre idea that Bin Laden was running a false-flag operation against the US to distract them from Saddam. Those memos were, apparently, ignored. That's how narrow Bush's (and Rumsfeld et al.) view was. It's not monday-morning QB'ing to look back and see what their pre-9/11 memos said. It's not looking at the 8/6/01 memo in complete exclusion from everything else and saying "they should have known!" It's looking at the pattern; it's seeing the memos that indicate Colin Powell was aware that regime change in Iraq was a priority three days into the administration; it's seeing new memos and insiders coming forward to express the same sentiments, that they were singularly focused on Iraq; it's seeing the information that shows their first thoughts after 9/11 were "invade Iraq." How Bush ever got a positive reputation when it came to foreign policy and counter-terrorism will always be baffling. I disagree, and for the reasons I've already stated. This is entirely weak minded reasoning in hindsight. IE, it's easy to blame them now, but this happened so early on into his administration, it's as if you're pretending they ignored threats from AQ for YEARS because they were focused on Iraq...it's just twisting reality to suit your agenda. GW was hardly in office when 9/11 hit...you make it sound the exact opposite. It's fabrication and stretching of truth, and like I said, weak.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 08:46 AM) Admittedly haven't read this whole debate but I'd imagine there are quite a few threats daily but only a certain few elevate all the way up to the executive branch. I'd imagine this is one of those cases. I'm sure, but threats of terrorism from that group have been ongoing for years prior and even after the attack. I'm not one to defend GW Bush, because there is PLENTY to knock him for, but this is just reaching as far as I'm concerned. It's like knocking Obama about a birth certificate when there are ACTUAL issues you can take him to task on. It's weak minded, IMO. Edit: It's worse than that, because it's armchair quarterbacking IN hindsight.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 08:28 AM) Not in my experience. I know a few professional teachers, and frankly, they work more hours than I do, all things considered. At least during the school year. And I certainly didn't see much laziness from the teachers I had growing up, especially in high school. I've known and know a few teachers too and found the exact opposite, even during the school year.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 08:16 AM) Fyi lostfan works directly in this field. saying that they get a bunch of threats doesn't address the single-mindedness of that administration, though. They literally couldn't conceive of al q type terrorism as a serious threat, only on Saddam and his fictional wmd's. Bin laden did not fit into their world view. What field is that, counter terrorism? Wouldn't this be a mix of FBI and NSA, amongst 50 other government bureaucratic groups that collect/compile and sift through such information? I'm sure it's not just few guys in an administration. I think you guys are way simplifying the complexity of what happened in order to take a shot at GW...and I find it weak.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 08:19 AM) Same I use Google for a few things, namely: Chrome (not on iOS, however, I use Safari) Gmail (I have my own domain that runs email for my family on gmail servers since it's free, my email address is @.com, which is pretty cool) iGoogle (which is going away next year) YouTube Search

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 12, 2012 -> 07:59 PM) No sir, not really. Not at that level and not anything that developed and finished. I've read and heard otherwise. I heard they get threats all the time. They had no way of knowing how developed/finished it was, either...until after the fact.