The Bush administration should have checked the flight schools, or the FBI should've checked the flight schools? I thought that was more of a job for United States intelligence. I can't imagine them needing the president's permission to do something like that. What the hell would the president know about terrorists attending flight schools anyway? That was simply a complete oversight by US Intelligence. I think even if Bush would have warned about an attack, nobody would have taken it seriously until something happened. I know I wouldn't have been going crazy if the president came out and said a plane might be hijacked. The ONLY thing that was going to open people's eyes was an actual tragedy to occur. Remember, after 9/11, on a couple of occasions they would come out and say they have warning that another terrorist attack is planned sometime in the next few days. Did this really make you do anything different? And of course...nothing happened. And that was post 9/11 when people were ten times more cautious. I even read a few articles where people criticized Bush for those warnings, saying he was just scaring the American people with unfounded information. I don't know. Maybe Bush should have come out and say something just to cover his ass in case something did happen. But if you think it would have actually prevented anything you're kidding yourself. You really think millions of dollars would have been put into increased security soley for the reason that they have word that a plane <b>might</b> be high-jacked? Or do you really think that the security workers at airports would have really taken a newfound pride in their work and be more thorough when doing their job? The only thing that was going to bring about changes like that was an actual event occurring. And I'm sorry to say, but even now after all the changes have been made, its still not going to prevent a determined terrorist from doing something again. I've been to the airport a couple of times since 9/11, and believe me, the security isn't all that intense.
I would like to know if the FBI has checked all truck driver training schools, because a terrorist can learn how to drive a truck and hijack a truck filled with explosives or dangerous chemicals and be destructive w/ that as well. For that matter, I would like to suggest that anyone that offers a service to another person, and needs training to perform that service be checked out as a terrorist, because I for one, would hate to have my cable wired to pick up Terrorist TV, or worse yet, what if my TV repairman sets up my TV to explode, or a McDonalds cook poisons the food...CHECK EVERYONE...THERE ARE THREATS EVERYWHERE!!!
Now, it turns political: <i>In Budapest, Hungary, first Laura Bush defended her husband. "I know my husband. And all Americans know how he has acted in Afghanistan and in the war with terror. I think really, we need to put this in perspective and I think it's sad to prey upon the emotions of people as if there were something we could have done to stop" the Sept. 11 suicide hijackings, she said in an interview Friday.</i> ...... <i>Turning the tables, Fleischer noted Friday that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told a TV interviewer in July that panel staff members had informed her of a "major probability" of a terrorist attack. "And that raises the question," Fleischer said, "what did the Democrats in Congress know. And why weren't they talking to each other?"</i> ...... <i>But the administration argued there was no information about a specific threat, and Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) cautioned Democrats to tread lightly as congressional panels investigate whether the government missed warning signs. "They need to be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions that were made by some today that the White House had advance information that would have prevented the tragic attacks of 9-11," Cheney said Thursday night. "Such commentary is thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war."</i> ...... Blah, blah, freakin' blah. First, you don't just ignore these revelations becauuse it is "unworthy of national leaders in a time of war." That's very convenient and particularly disturbing when you consider this isn't a monarchy. You also shouldn't be quoting Laura Bush. Would conservatives take the word of Hillary Clinton on anything? Doubtful. And we don't need Democrats running around screaming conspiracy at every turn as a way to get some more seats in Congress any more than we need Republicans waving the big bad flag of terrorism to accomplish the same feat. This is pathetic behavior for our national leaders given the circumstances but I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this point.
I'm not saying that Bush knew exactly what was going to happen. I dont like the man or his policies , but I dont think he is evil. I do think they should've done more with the information they were given. Would it have prevented the attack , I dont know, but it may have. Bush is the leader of this country and should oversee all of the agencies and know what is going on at all times.
Hey, I don't like Bush either, but what you're asking of him is impossible. The federal government is a vast collection of agencies and bureaus. NO ONE could possibly oversee all of them and know what is going on at all times. That's what he has cabinet members and political appointees for -- to help him stay informed. It's easy to say in hindsight he should have seen it coming. But at this point I just don't see compelling evidence that leads me to believe he made an error in judgement.
Im not asking for him to oversee every specific detail , but he should know of any threat or possible terrorists in this country. But I do think there was some mistakes made . I think the government (republican or democrat) needs to be more open about situations like this, there was no secret operation underway to not let this information be known.
Well if we knew about the operation, it wouldn't be secret... I just found out I have a blown head gasket. That's why I'm being a little poopstick!
I'm not a big fan of Bush either...though I still consider him the lessor of the two available evils. And although I'll never be considered liberal, you won't typically hear me crying about the "liberal media." Hey....you're either gonna have the media on your side or big business' money. I'll take the cash anytime. That being said, I had to point this out because it's so blatently ridiculous. This is the top news story from the front page of Yahoo! this afternoon: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0020517/ap_on_go_pr_wh/attacks_1999_warning_6 In it, this AP writer points out that a warning was given to the Executive Branch exactly two years prior to the 9/11 attacks, and then goes on to point out, "The report contrasts with Bush administration officials' assertions that none in government had imagined an attack like Sept. 11 before that time." Of course, the writer fails to remind the ignorant masses that the "Executive Branch" is the presidency and that exactly two years before the 9/11 attacks the presidency was Bill Clinton and Co. Man.....these people are really reaching. c*m stains on a blue dress has infinitely more meat to the story then this crap.
This part, though, makes sense: Former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council when the report was written, said U.S. intelligence long has known a suicide hijacker was a possible threat. "If you ask anybody could terrorists convert a plane into a missile, nobody would have ruled that out," he said. He called the 1999 report part of a broader effort by his council to identify for U.S. intelligence the full range of attack options for terrorists and U.S. enemies. "It became such a rich threat environment that it was almost too much for Congress and the administration to absorb," he said. "They couldn't prioritize what was the most significant threat." Gannon, who served both Democratic and Republican presidents, said Americans need to make a distinction between knowing the type of vulnerabilities terrorist could exploit and knowing the attacks were imminent. He said criticism that President Bush's August briefing should have alerted the administration to the attacks was "egregiously unfair. The president wasn't given actionable intelligence," he said. The President (regardless of who he is) cannot win. If he alerts the American public to any threat, no matter how vague, he'll be attacked for unnecessarily scaring the public (since there would be several alerts issued each day), and eventually people would stop listening to the sheer number of alerts. It's just not possible to be on constant alert. Eventually people will stop listening to the boy who cried wolf. (Not to mention that if people were subjected to the increased security without having the event to change people's minds about the need for security, we'd likely see considerable complaining about the increased security itself. How many times did we see stories about people complaining about airline delays. We had Congressional hearings on airline delays. Could we really have expected the airline industry, which was in charge of airport security prior to Sept. 11th if you recall, to be as vigilent day in and day out in the face of public pressure to make getting on to planes faster and easier prior to there being a massive event such as Sept. 11th briefly changing their priorities?) That's one the problems with human nature. We often want things both ways. We want 100% security and safety while also wanting 100% ease and convenience. When we don't get one, we complain. When we don't get the other, we complain. (And I am just as bad about this as anyone else. I complained when the airport security confiscated my son's water gun, complained when the Love Field security took my son aside and wanted to check his backpack for explosives or other contraband -- it was a random check, they were testing the sniffer thingy and picked out a bag ewvery once in a while to check -- because it seemed stupid to suspect a 10 year-old of carrying explosives, and I complained every time the plane is late. Had there never been a Sept. 11th attack, I doubt my positions on these things would've changed even with a vague report from the White House telling me a plane might be hijacked at some vague point in the future).
that was a joke right? Im saying there was no secret operation (clearly , there wasnt) so they should have made the threat public.
that was a joke right? Im saying there was no secret operation (clearly , there wasnt) so they should have made the threat public. What exactly would making it public do for you? OK, we may be attacked somewhere, sometime in the next 100 years. Don't know how or who or when. Just be prepared. Does this help you any? Or, the more likely public warning: Somewhere, someday, some terrorists may want to hijack an American plane. Be prepared. Does this help you any? What would you do differently?
mrpaige made a great point I was thinking about last night. when the government was issuing warnings like crazy in the wake of 9/11, people were saying, "Why are you telling me this??? What can I do about it??? You're just scaring everyone!!!" Now, some 8 months after the event, we hear that the administration knew simply that mideast terrorists were interested in hijacking American planes (like that's some kind of big newsflash)...and now there's complaining that we weren't warned??!! huh??? i've said it before...i'll say it again...he's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't.... And again....why is this all being laid at the feet of the administration...we have something called a Senate Intelligence Committee which has access to this information as well....if it is so obvious that the Bush administration should have revealed this information before 9/11, why is it not equally obvious that the committee should have too??? You can draw your own answers to that question....I know how I'd answer it.
If they say that members of Osama Bi Laden's terrorist group made threats to hijack planes and not in a way to cause mass hysteria but just so people can be vigilant , that might have helped alot. When Osama's group makes a threat , its not like John Whitaker in idaho making a threat, they've done damage before.
sure dc rock; I'm sure you....like most Americans.....were all experts on who Osama Bin Laden was prior to 9/11.
All joking and sarcasm aside, I agree that the administration is in a catch 22. If you put the country on alert and nothing happens, there will be criticism. If you don't put the country on alert and something happens, there will be criticism. If you put the country on alert, and something happens anyway, they didn't do enough to prevent it. If you put the country on alert and it is prevented, there will be an outcry that the government overreacted in the way it was handled. It's a no win situation.
The president and his staff arent most americans, and I dont know how smart you are but I knew who Osama Bin Laden was prior to sept. 11, dont question my intelligence or other americans if you dont really know who they are.
How would people have been more vigilent without resorting mass hysteria that would've made any difference? It either would've been eventually ignored when nothing happened in the ensuing months or people would've panicked and stopped flying, etc. Not to mention that I will note again that we've gotten hundreds of reports of potential threats from groups that have caused damage in the past. Should we expect a new, vague report every day so people who can't do anything with the information (again, what would you have done differently if last April the White House told you that OBL's group might somewhere, sometime hijack some planes in the US?) can either spend their days worrying about the vague threats or getting to the point where the warnings don't mean anything anymore and they stop listening (like I do when they trot out the tornado warnings)? Here's another question. What are you doing differently to be more vigilent to prevent a Nuclear attack by Osama bin Laden at some vague point in the future? We've known since the early '90s that Al Queda has tried to get uranium from various sources. If there is a terrorist attack at some point in the vague future using uranium, is the Congress to blame for not stopping it since the Congress was briefed on bin Laden's attepts at getting uranium (including a public hearing in February of 2001 where CIA director George Tenet explained that Osama bin Laden was one of the biggest threats against US security). And here's a question related to that. The information about bin Laden's attempts to get nuclear weapons has been made public by the government. The threat is there and has been made public. Is that enough of a warning, or should the Congress come out every few weeks and repeat these warnings just so no one forgets? Why aren't you mad at the Clinton Administration for not telling you in 1995 about the specific threat out of the Phillipines about a terrorist flying an airplane into the CIA headquarters? That threat was just as specific and made by someone who had trained and became licensed to fly commercial airlines through US training. The irony is that if there had been a big deal in 1995, a warning in 2001 likely wouldn't have caused anyone to pay any more attention to anything since nothing ever happened in 1995. I guarantee you, there are enough vague threats that tie credible terrorist groups to potential plots to allow the White House to make a new announcement about a new vague threat every single day. It's easy to pick the one instance where the threat came true and Monday Morning Quarterback about what should've been done (especially when you don't even have all the information about what did or did not happen in regard to the threat and any number of other things), but you're asking the impossible. I half suspect to see the thread complain that Bush should hop into Dr. Brown's DeLorean and warn us all now that he has the benefit of hindsight.
Theres a big difference between being vigilant and being hysterical . I dont work in a power plant, so i cant help them in anyway . i have to leave for the night, so save anything you have for me until tomorrow please. but come to think of it, there isnt really anything to discuss , I believe that the government should be more open on terrorist issues period, democrat or republican in the white house.
The real solution here would be for the government to give us warnings everytime it receives semi-credible terrorist threats, but to add: "And we REALLY mean it! We're not screwing around! Be vigilant! Watch out for terrorists! REALLY watch for them! But, don't let this warning interfere with your daily activities. Go about your normal business." But they should only add that part of it when the threatened action is going to actually take place. Which they won't know for sure until after it happens, most likely. Huh. DCrock, you're going to have to enlighten us on this one.
