Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
893 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So here is my take now that both "sides' have testified... random thoughts...

1. I have no love for the Bush administration, but I think it is LUDICROUS to think that they purposely dropped the ball on OBL etc.

2. Condi vs. Clarke basically came down to he-said/she-said. The were both talking about the same events, and just had different takes on them. Who to believe? Probably both.. to some extent. Clarke is hawking a book, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily lying. Condi is surely covering her (and Shrub's) butts to some extent, but that doesn't necessarily mean she's lying either.

3. The whole 9/11 commission has been good in that it has forced our gov't to reveal how poorly our intelligence community works together. It has been bad in the sense that it has really taken on a "witch hunt" vibe and that is devisive for everyone.

4. The ball was dropped... period. But I don't think it was "Bush's fault." Hindsite makes interpreting all that data easy... but before it happened, no one could have predicted the events.

5. The CIA and FBI are probably more to blame then anyone. Working with separate agendas, not sharing info for the betterment of the country ... appalling. This needs fixing.

That's how I'm feeling about the whole thing right now. {shrug}
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,541 Posts
I still wanted to see answers to my questions. It will never happen. I have a two question series that will shed light on the true nature of the failure:

1) You stated that the Hart/Rudman findings which called for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security was not an appropriate course of action prior to 9-11, yet you also say that all that could be done was being done to combat domestic terrorism.

2) If all that could be done was being done and Hart/Rudman's reccomendations were inappropriate, why were those same reccomendations followed after the events of 9-11. Why were they deemed appropriate after when they were not prior? This implies that the DHS is an inappropriate means of combating domestic terrorism or it implies that you did not do all that could be done to prevent said terrorism. Pick one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,172 Posts
Sporin said:
The CIA and FBI are probably more to blame then anyone. Working with separate agendas, not sharing info for the betterment of the country ... appalling. This needs fixing.
This is the result of our traditional defense thinking -- our gov't and military are set up to wage war against other nations and their armies. Since other nations and armies have reasonably fixed *locations* it makes sense to divide the intelligence community into local (FBI) and foreign (CIA). Terrorism has changed the rules. With no fixed location for their operations and no significant physical infrastructure, the local/foreign dividing line between the FBI and the CIA is no longer relevant, and is actually an obstacle to intelligence gathering.

They don't need to share... they need to become the same organization.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,172 Posts
I thought it was disgustingly cute how Bob Kerrey kept commenting on the war in Iraq when that had nothing to do with the actual act of 9/11 or events prior....weasely politics at its finest there! Way to get a cheap dig in. :roll: :thumbdow:

...and I wouldn't believe Clarke as far as I could throw him. Actually, I'm so disgusted with him that I could actually chuck his sorry ass a good 50 feet! :poke:

Dismiss this whole thing as nothing more but someone trying to find a scapegoat...nothing more. All members of elected government offices, Dems, and Reps, during BOTH of the last two Presidential administrations are at fault collectively, as Democrat Dianne Feinstein said. I still think it was nearly impossible to prevent what happened on 9/11, humans aren't mind readers for christ's sake.

It's like this....Richard Clarke....a well-known alarmist (IMO), actually making that call is like a Seismologist actually being correct on the date of an earthquake... you make enough daily claims and guesses and you'll be right one day just by sheer chance! :weirdo: Then you can say, "See, told ya so!" :crazy:

-Harry
 

·
1st Gear
Joined
·
17,568 Posts
You know what I think about this whole thing?

Could've....should've....would've but didn't.....if they knew they would've done something....I would hope.

If there is doubts that they knew and didnt do nothing....then its maybe because.....maybe they planned it....not Bin Laden. But I dont want to think that....I really dont....

They proved it to us when they found the passport of one of the hijackers in 9/11 rubble.....where there was hardly any bodyparts :( :( :(

Its all done and over with...you cant turn the clock...lets do something to prevent the next attack....not sit on our asses pointing fingers....and spending millions while at it :roll: :roll: :roll:

Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,378 Posts
SDPassatT said:
...and I wouldn't believe Clarke as far as I could throw him. Actually, I'm so disgusted with him that I could actually chuck his sorry ass a good 50 feet! :poke:

It's like this....Richard Clarke....a well-known alarmist (IMO), actually making that call is like a Seismologist actually being correct on the date of an earthquake... you make enough daily claims and guesses and you'll be right one day just by sheer chance! :weirdo: Then you can say, "See, told ya so!" :crazy:

-Harry
Dude...back this up...can you?

How can you call him ALARMIST when his job was to sound the alarm...he sounded the alarm...and Bush and Rice ignored him! :crazy: What we got as a result was 9/11!

As far as his trustworthiness...EVEN CONDI RICE AGREED in her testimony that CLARKE was among the MOST respected, trusted expert on terrorism!

Funny...when you don't like the implications to Bush...you just change history! :weirdo:
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top