U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-11-2012, 12:53 PM
 
4,743 posts, read 3,729,898 times
Reputation: 2481

Advertisements

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/op...ings.html?_r=0


On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

[MOD CUT/COPYRIGHT] .


Okay, i spent time verifying that there is NOT another post like this here. This isn't a duplicate. . but its a pretty important piece published by NYT on September 10, 2012.

Last edited by Ibginnie; 09-11-2012 at 04:48 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-11-2012, 02:34 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,582 posts, read 8,281,864 times
Reputation: 4158
This deafness?
Quote:
Osama bin Laden: missed opportunities - NBCNightlyNews | NBC News

The CIA had pictures. Why wasn’t the al-Qaida leader captured or killed?

NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.
Before this storm?



The 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks is an excellent time to raise this subject.

Bravo, ChrisFromChicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2012, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
6,480 posts, read 6,199,899 times
Reputation: 6959
Noticeably absent from the NYT's "20/20 hindsight analysis" on 9/11 (see http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html) is any mention of the name "Clinton."

In fact, the terrorists who led the 9/11 attack settled into American suburbs under Clinton's watch, while the Clintonistas were too busy rejecting FBI reports because of "ethnic sensitivity." One such report was from an Agent who wanted to open a case file on a group of Islamists who requested flight training -- more specifically learning to take off in a large jet...but not land. Her request was denied.

Our forces had bin Laden, literally, dead in their sights twice in 1998 and 1999, but CLINTON REFUSED to green light the specops. According to the CIA case officer who was MOST directly involved with the hunt, he confirms Clinton had more than EIGHT times to kill bin Laden. Click on the video link below for more.



Michael Scheuer on "Inside 9/11" - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2012, 02:44 PM
 
21,483 posts, read 13,687,529 times
Reputation: 5948
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/op...ings.html?_r=0


On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

MOD CUT/COPYRIGHT] [/i]

Okay, i spent time verifying that there is NOT another post like this here. This isn't a duplicate. . but its a pretty important piece published by NYT on September 10, 2012.



HMMMMM, I wonder why the NYT would publish this right before the election? Could it be they are in the tank for a Democrat to win?????? You can call it Obama Times if you want.

Last edited by Ibginnie; 09-11-2012 at 04:50 PM.. Reason: edited quted post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2012, 03:08 PM
 
4,743 posts, read 3,729,898 times
Reputation: 2481
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144 View Post
[/b]


HMMMMM, I wonder why the NYT would publish this right before the election? Could it be they are in the tank for a Democrat to win?????? You can call it Obama Times if you want.

[MOD CUT/off topic] .I think the article sourced has plenty of evidence that

1) the Administration were told of the threat
2) the Administration IGNORED the threat thanks to their Rose Colored Iraq glasses

Sheer incompetence and not malice. I think the travesty here is more of the details haven't been released.


This is a pretty good reason to make sure a administration like George W doesn't ever return.

Last edited by Ibginnie; 09-11-2012 at 04:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2012, 04:46 PM
 
21,483 posts, read 13,687,529 times
Reputation: 5948
We have had 2 or 3 attempted attacks while Obama was in office. Only by happenstance did they fail. The people around the terrorist stopped him, not the government. Will our luck hold out forever---probably not. Somehow I don't think you will blame Obama if it happens while he is still in office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2012, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,856 posts, read 6,912,066 times
Reputation: 2951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli View Post
Noticeably absent from the NYT's "20/20 hindsight analysis" on 9/11 (see http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html) is any mention of the name "Clinton."

In fact, the terrorists who led the 9/11 attack settled into American suburbs under Clinton's watch, while the Clintonistas were too busy rejecting FBI reports because of "ethnic sensitivity." One such report was from an Agent who wanted to open a case file on a group of Islamists who requested flight training -- more specifically learning to take off in a large jet...but not land. Her request was denied.

Our forces had bin Laden, literally, dead in their sights twice in 1998 and 1999, but CLINTON REFUSED to green light the specops. According to the CIA case officer who was MOST directly involved with the hunt, he confirms Clinton had more than EIGHT times to kill bin Laden. Click on the video link below for more.



Michael Scheuer on "Inside 9/11" - YouTube

Mr. Scheuer was (as he was in the late 90's) more sure of himself than the facts from his POV. So, let's expand the picture to Mr. Scheuer.

The Path to 9/11 | Vanity Fair

Quote:
One day after the embassy bombings, at a principals’ meeting at the White House (attended by agency heads and other top officials), Tenet reported that bin Laden and other terrorist leaders would gather at a jihadist training camp near the town of Khost, Afghanistan. Clarke turned to Tenet and asked, “You thinking what I’m thinking?” Tenet nodded. The principals quickly reached a decision to attack the camp, and the military was ordered to prepare a top-secret plan.
On August 20, 79 Tomahawk cruise missiles, fired from navy ships in the Arabian Sea, pounded the training camp near Khost, and al Shifa, a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, which the C.I.A. had suspected was being used by bin Laden to produce VX, a deadly nerve gas. Some 20 to 30 people were killed, but bin Laden and other terrorist leaders were not among them.
Quote:
In August and September, Clarke wanted to follow up with a plan which included more missile attacks, but the Small Group of principals (Berger, Shelton, and Defense Secretary William Cohen, among others) were not persuaded that they would be effective or that there was a promising target.
Quote:
In mid-December, the Small Group met to discuss intelligence that bin Laden was planning to bomb the American Embassies in Qatar and Ethiopia. It considered sending a Special Ops team into Afghanistan to snatch him or one of his top deputies, but this idea didn’t generate much enthusiasm from an administration eager to avoid another “Black Hawk Down”—the 1993 fiasco in which 18 army rangers were killed in Somalia on a mission to capture two lieutenants of a renegade warlord.
Quote:
Before the end of the year, the C.I.A. had received reports that bin Laden would be at a particular house in Kandahar. An urgent teleconference of senior officials was arranged to discuss a new missile attack. But the principals again expressed concerns over the intelligence, and possible collateral damage, and decided against the strike.
Quote:
In February of 1999, Alec Station believed it had reliable evidence that bin Laden was spending much of his time at camps near Kandahar, far enough from the city that civilian casualties would not be an issue. At one of the camps an aircraft from the United Arab Emirates was spotted. (The U.A.E. visitors had come to the desert camp to hunt with falcons.) Through intelligence from the local tribesmen, it was determined that bin Laden would be in the larger camp on February 11, and a military strike was prepared but never launched. It was once more determined that the intelligence was unreliable, and the principals worried about killing an Emirati prince. By February 12, bin Laden was gone.
Quote:
Yet another opportunity arose in May of 1999, when Alec Station received information that bin Laden would be in and around Kandahar for five days. The reporting appeared solid and detailed, the missiles were in place, and everything seemed like a go. “This was in our strike zone,” said a senior military officer. “It was a fat pitch, a home run.” But earlier that month, outdated intelligence had caused the United States to mistakenly bomb the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. It appears that Tenet’s assessment that the intelligence had only a 50/50 chance of being accurate helped kill the operation.
Quote:
Scheuer became more and more furious each time there was a failure to act on the intelligence supplied by his unit. “[We had] consistently good information in terms of targeting Osama bin Laden,” he says. In a September 2004 letter to Congress, Scheuer wrote that Alec Station had given the government about 10 chances to capture or kill the terrorist leader.
But Clarke disputes such claims: “You said Mike Scheuer was saying there was a lot of intelligence. There wasn’t. They never penetrated al-Qaeda.”
And as for Mr. Scheuer...

Quote:
...“Mike Scheuer, when he was running Alec Station, wasn’t a great manager. I think he got very emotionally involved in the topic and expected everybody to just drop everything and give him everything he wanted right away. And he got very frustrated by the internal C.I.A. bureaucracy denying him things, and thought that they were responding to the White House, which was the exact opposite. There are skill sets that you need to get the bureaucracy to do things when you’re a mid-level manager. He didn’t have any. He would just sort of pout and rant.… He came off as a madman.
And Mr. Scheuer's charges that Clinton declined to hit UBL/Al-Quida?

Quote:
But Clarke says it was not a lack of political will or a reluctance to act on the part of the White House or N.S.C. that was responsible for killing the operations Scheuer was so eager for. It was Tenet and his top men, Clarke implies, who stopped them. “Anytime anybody [at C.I.A.] ever brought a proposal to do anything to the White House, we approved it,” he says. “Lack of political will would suggest that they brought proposals, that they were ready to do things, and that we said, Nah, don’t do it. We never rejected. C.I.A. would reject them in-house because in some cases the information was wrong or they thought it was too risky, or whatever.”
I feel not only sorry for Mr. Scheuer, but sad for America that he didn't have the complete skill set to be heard sounding the alarm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2012, 10:06 AM
 
4,743 posts, read 3,729,898 times
Reputation: 2481
Quote:
Originally Posted by txgolfer130 View Post
Mr. Scheuer was (as he was in the late 90's) more sure of himself than the facts from his POV. So, let's expand the picture to Mr. Scheuer.

The Path to 9/11 | Vanity Fair








And as for Mr. Scheuer...



And Mr. Scheuer's charges that Clinton declined to hit UBL/Al-Quida?



I feel not only sorry for Mr. Scheuer, but sad for America that he didn't have the complete skill set to be heard sounding the alarm.

yeah, but your evidence/facts point to a lot of an issue with why Clinton didn't take care of it. The evidence seemed to change/get more focused the spring of 2001 up to the fact that people were encoruaged to find new jobs "so this coming attack didn't fall on them"


Yes, maybe it was unfocused but going into the spring of 2001 I think the lens became more focus. . .the evidence clearer

Which was the point of this post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2012, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,498,448 times
Reputation: 27565
Clinton, Bush, Obama. Finger pointing is not going to change history.
As we can see this happened to both parties.

And hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20 so playing what-if after the fact does nothing to change what is TODAY.
And none of us know the details. We only know what information we have been given and we don't know that we have it all.

I was just reading this morning that there are so many threats made daily that it would be like crying wolf if we took each and every one seriously. The freeing of the state owned press in these countries allow the radicals to go on TV there and incite the people.

With so many threats on a daily basis how can anyone pick the one that counts ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2012, 10:16 AM
 
1,642 posts, read 1,356,136 times
Reputation: 706
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/op...ings.html?_r=0


On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

[MOD CUT/COPYRIGHT] .

Okay, i spent time verifying that there is NOT another post like this here. This isn't a duplicate. . but its a pretty important piece published by NYT on September 10, 2012.

Bill Clinton had THREE chance to kill Bin Laden and did't even try. He wanted to "bring him to justice". He is also culpible for doing nothing after the US Cole was attacked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top