Letter to Kerry

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
As for the delayed reaction immediately after the attacks, I do not take that as ineffectiveness on the part of W. I think after the first plane hit, "they," like many, were unsure of what was happening or whether the initial plane strike was an accident. I also think the delay of getting the Pres. out of the school and into AF-1 was calculated and planned because "they" did not know where to go, the Pres. was secure where he was, etc. I mean Wash. D.C. went into an emergency situation so there is not reason to believe W and his team were not in one as well. I truly believe they did not know where to go and did not want to act until they had more knowledge. But, many see it only as W sat in a classroom and read stories to children while thousands died. I think it is more complex than that. In any event, I think W's policies after 9/11 and to this day are far worse than anything he did then.

Oh. My. God.

Let's dissect this:

You're the president. Seconds before you are about to read a storybook to some kiddies at school, you are told that a plane has hit the WTC. However, you decide that you are still going to read to the children. A little while later, as you are reading to the dolls, one of your staffers whispers into your ear that another plane has hit the second tower of the WTC. However, you decide to continue reading. Twenty minutes later, you politely excuse yourself and leave.

Meanwhile, many, many miles and miles away, your father is having breakfast with the bin laden family on a luxury aircraft.

Not long after, the American people are told that Osama bin Laden is responsible for the attack that killed 3,000 innocent Americans.

Meanwhile, you think to yourself "Gee, I wonder if they took some good shots of me reading to those brats. I hope I looked presidential enough when the second attack was whispered into my ear."

[strandinthewind]

Spin and you know it

Again, does anyone here know what the plan was? If not, then go ahead and chastise W and his crew all you want. But, do not assert that him staying right there in a secure location until a second secure location could be determined was not the plan, when none of us know that for sure. I mean, it could have taken that long for the SS to recheck the secureness of the path from the school to AF-1. Moreover, they probably had to recheck AF-1 for a bomb, etc. But to say W was just meandering along for a photo op. while 1,000 were dying is gross speculation, esp. when everyone in Wash. D.C. was acting under a security plan.

Bush I was laready on the aircraft and in the air with the BL's when the WTC were struck?

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Spin and you know it

The last sentence, maybe. The rest? Not at all.

The fact is, they never had a plan because they weren't prepared and they ignored valuable intel that told of attacks.

And if they did have a plan, by golly, they never once disclosed to the American people what it was. Surely they could do so now, it has been almost three years since the attack.

And the argument that they didn't know what kind of plane, if it was an accident, blah blah blah, doesn't hold water. it isn't everyday (or ever) that a PLANE hits the WTC. And when it does, you don't read stories to kiddies. And then, when a second plane hits, you don't continue to do so for TWENTY MORE MINUTES!

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I mean, it could have taken that long for the SS to recheck the secureness of the path from the school to AF-1.

Hmm... SS, hey? Interesting slip, there, buddy.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Hmm... SS, hey? Interesting slip, there, buddy.

You know enough of my darker than most sense of humor by now than to think that was a slip

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by estranged4life
on the US Govt./9-11 I found while searching around the web for the alleged connection of Jose Padilla to the OKC bombing (Which is interesting considering the State trial of Terry Nichols is rumored to pointing to a wider conspiracy with Padilla as a possible major player...And some of the newly discovered FBI files may prove there was indeed a larger conspiracy)

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...3835%2C00.html

This is a great article Brian. Thanks for posting it.

[jwd]

Hey Brian(estranged4life)

Nice article, thanks for posting. An excerpt from that:

"This was, after all, a White House plan, which means it was resented from the moment of conception. "When you look at the Pentagon and the cia," says a former senior Clinton aide, "it's not their plan. The military will never accept the White House staff doing military planning." Terrorism, officials from the State Department suggested, needed to be put in the broader context of American policy in South Asia. The rollback plan was becoming the victim of a classic Washington power play between those with "functional" responsibilities-like terrorism-and those with "regional" ones-like relations with India and Pakistan. The State Department's South Asia bureau, according to a participant in the meetings, argued that a fistful of other issues-Kashmir, nuclear proliferation, Musharraf's dictatorship-were just as pressing as terrorism. By now, Clarke's famously short fuse was giving off sparks. A participant at one of the meetings paraphrases Clarke's attitude this way: "These people are trying to kill us. I could give a f___ if Musharraf was democratically elected. What I do care about is Pakistan's support for the Taliban and turning a blind eye to this terrorist cancer growing in their neighbor's backyard."

It was Bush who broke the deadlock. Each morning the CIA gives the Chief Executive a top-secret Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) on pressing issues of national security. One day in early spring, Tenet briefed Bush on the hunt for Abu Zubaydah, al-Qaeda's head of international operations, who was suspected of having been involved in the planning of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. After the PDB, Bush told Rice that the approach to al-Qaeda was too scattershot. He was tired of "swatting at flies" and asked for a comprehensive plan for attacking terrorism. According to an official, Rice came back to the nsc and said, "The President wants a plan to eliminate al-Qaeda." Clarke reminded her that he already had one.

But having a plan isn't the same as executing it. Clarke's paper now had to go through three more stages: the Deputies' Committee, made up of the No. 2s to the main national-security officials; the Principals' Committee, which included Cheney, Rice, Tenet, Powell and Rumsfeld; and finally, the President. Only when Bush had signed off would the plan become what the Bush team called a national-security presidential directive.

On April 30, nearly six weeks after the Administration started holding deputies' meetings, Clarke presented a new plan to them. In addition to Hadley, who chaired the hour-long meeting, the gathering included Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby; Richard Armitage, the barrel-chested Deputy Secretary of State; Paul Wolfowitz, the scholarly hawk from the Pentagon; and John McLaughlin from the cia. Armitage was enthusiastic about Clarke's plan, according to a senior official. But the CIA was gun-shy. Tenet was a Clinton holdover and thus vulnerable if anything went wrong. His agency was unwilling to take risks; it wanted "top cover" from the White House. The deputies, says a senior official, decided to have "three parallel reviews-one on al-Qaeda, one on the Pakistani political situation and the third on Indo-Pakistani relations." The issues, the deputies thought, were interrelated. "They wanted to view them holistically," says the senior official, "and not until they'd had three separate meetings on each of these were they able to hold a fourth integrating them all."

END ARTICLE


Indicative of some of the channels a "plan" has to go through before being executed. Clearly some of the delay can be blamed on the transition from the Clinton administration to Bush's. Bush was ready to take action against al-Qaeda(eliminate them), albeit too late, given what happened on 9/11. If only Clinton had the balls to take real action against this "imminent threat", 9/11 and others would never have happened.


Joe

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Do I really need to? The "letter" speaks for itself.

He twists the words of John Kerry, takes the statement out of context, and totally trashes Kerry to suit his needs.

For cripes sake, it was a complete misuse of Kerry's words. And it's despicable.

As opposed to the "twisting of (insert any conservative here)'s words, taking their statements out of context, and totally trashing (insert any conservative here) to suit their needs" kind of crap that goes on this board????

Why do liberals get so bent out of shape when a conservative disagrees with them? Just curious....

Rob

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
No. You're the one that came in here with the bull**** charges. If you've got time to sit there and find this ****, then you've got time to look up the truth. Do your own dirty work. You can start here: www.johkerry.com Thanks.

Rob

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
There is no progressive thought or discussion intended to come out of this thread. It's meant to start a flame war. It should be locked.

Isn't that what usually happens when someone disagrees with a liberal?

Rob

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Who was in charge during the greatest security failure in the history of the United States?

Uh...FDR! Or Bill Clinton for not doing something about Bin Laden after WTC '93!

Rob

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
Uh...FDR! Or Bill Clinton for not doing something about Bin Laden after WTC '93!

Rob

It's just like a conservative to compare Pearl Harbor and 9/11. To say that the Pearl Harbor attack was a bigger security failure than 9/11 is an utter joke and you know it. As for Bill Clinton, "when all else fails, blame Bubba." You sound like the mouthpiece of the White House and you don't even seem to realize it. Say all you want about Clinton, but his family members didn't do business and socialize with the Bin Laden's.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
As opposed to the "twisting of (insert any conservative here)'s words, taking their statements out of context, and totally trashing (insert any conservative here) to suit their needs" kind of crap that goes on this board????

Why do liberals get so bent out of shape when a conservative disagrees with them? Just curious....

Rob

We don't have to twist Coultergeist's words or Shrub's words or Hannity's words or O'Reilly's words; their words speak for themselves.

The fact is that you posted an inflammatory piece of smut about John Kerry that just didn't have any basis in fact.

As for the question about why liberals get so bent out of shape when a Repug disagrees, gimme a break. The same thing happens when liberals disagree with Repubs, but in that instance, the Repugs call us "traitors" and "treasonists."

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention


It's just like a conservative to compare Pearl Harbor and 9/11. To say that the Pearl Harbor attack was a bigger security failure than 9/11 is an utter joke and you know it. As for Bill Clinton, "when all else fails, blame Bubba." You sound like the mouthpiece of the White House and you don't even seem to realize it. Say all you want about Clinton, but his family members didn't do business and socialize with the Bin Laden's.

With all due respect, I think Rob as just posting that letter for discussion and not asserting it as fact. I have seen all of us do that with different articles, etc.

Also, no one can prove that OBL is the same as his family. Other than the rumors that they see each, they are estranged. Also, Billy C.'s administration and his donors certainly did business with the Saudi's and many made money and keep making money off of them. W's family is not alone in that boat.

Also, FDR via the US sold scrap metal to Japan and refused to ask to deply what it was for.

Also, I do not see how anyone can argue against the argument that Clinton lobbed a few missles over to the Middle East, but refused to deal with OBL or the Saudis and tht inaction contributed to 9/11. Yet, people somehow think that persecuting Clinton gives W credibility. I am not one of those people

In the end, I think finger pointing at this point is irrelevant as long as someone takes action to correct the perception of the US' by the Middle East. Unfortunately, taking action means in the end going to war with the Saudis and, therefore, the Middle East. Is any one really for that? I really do not see any way around this because the people in the Midle East HATE the West because of our centuries of abusing them and their leaders' centuries of keeping them uneducated and in fear of religion.

So, I think that W's plan o establishing a Democracy in Iraq is at least something even though I do not support or blieve in the way he got to this point. If anyone has any bettr suggestion, I am all ears because up until now no administration has done a anything significant to better our relationship. In fact, the US' blind support for and creation of Israel was a leap in the wrong direction IMO. Note: I am not saying the Jewish people should nt have their own state. I am just saying the US is not responsible for fighting their battles for 60 years and then letting them dictate to us how the cow chews the grass.

[jwd]

GOOOOOOOOO ROB!

strandinthewind:

Yet, people somehow think that persecuting Clinton gives W credibility.

Well that wasn't my intention. I think W's credible enough without pointing to Slick Willy's f*** ups. Reviewing Clinton's record just helps one understand how we got to where we did with weak or no response to one terrorist attack after another, ultimately leading to 9/11.


Joe