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.
The point again; He was ignorant, clueless of the terror plot and arrests taking place in London. One would think the top US official in charge of intelligence would know about such an event.
You have to stop making stuff up. He was unaware of the arrests. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing (obviously) else.
What I can tell you for a FACT is that, as a person who has been in the military for over 21 years..when something went wrong that I knew my bosses boss would have to answer for....Guess what...us cronies told them...(them)you know the guys in charge...because us cronies would not have to answer, but they/them (the bosses) will......is that so hard to understand? It must be...
And as someone who not only was in the military for (only) nine years, but is a West Point Graduate and served on the staff of the 18th ABN Corps G2, there is stuff that "the boss" needs to know right away and there is stuff (most stuff) that can keep until the daily briefing.
Arrests in a plot in a different country that had no implications for American security can keep.
What you have described here is not a substantive failing on the part of "the boss." What you are asserting here is that his underlings failed him because they allowed him to "look bad."
I guess the primary difference between me and the folks on this board who are playing the "outrage card" is that I don't find personal embarrassment to be particularly important in the context of protecting us from terrorism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
Really? Well, someone as educated as you must be able to do a search on dictionary.com for the word "incident."
A worthless exercise since it is nothing more than a red herring designed to defend the already debunked absurdity that these arrests were an "incident" equal to the 9/11 attacks.
Context, chuck. Context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
See my first response....those guys WORKING the issue are not the people who will have to answer....the BOSS will, the big guy, the man, and not those cronies....SO WHY would they not tell him?
Who said they weren't going to tell him? They simply had not told him yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
How would this look....Bush goes on a TV show being interviewed...the host says well what about the twin tower incident? and Bush goes...what? So you say....it does not matter, OTHER people were taking care of it? How naive of you...
And there again you resort to the identical stupidity.
A. 3,000 people die in a terrorist attack on American soil involving the hijack of jetliners, the destruction of a major American architectural and business icon, and an attack on the Pentagon.
B. A dozen people get arrested in a foreign country for plotting an attack that did not take place, in which no lives were lost, and which had no direct implications for American security.
That you attempt to analogize those two "incidents" speaks only to a very, very profound lack of critical judgment.
Then maybe they should re-look at it.....they were just made fools of. Don;t care if you like it or not, what happened should never have happened....
I mean really....President Bush was notified of the 9/11 attacks while he was in a class room full of children....not very long after it happened, nobody waited....
I guess we should have waited to tell him right? Because he was at the top right?
What should never have happened?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Maybe you should argue about it with the players involved, since THEY seem to think that yes, he should have been briefed and known about a MAJOR terrorist operation that was disrupted and the subsequent arrests.
See, even the WH admits he WAS indeed clueless..and he shouldn't have been.
Who is THEY?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Janet has commented on this.
She said those that needed to know about it knew.
So obviously this guy didn't need to know.
Maybe he's just a nice figure head for the agency ?
Security is on a need to know basis.
And the Top Intel Official doesn't need to know..got it ?
You have to stop making stuff up. He was unaware of the arrests. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing (obviously) else.
He was unaware of the plot and arrests. He said as much himself. Sorry if you disagree with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times; don't exaggerate.
No one's doing that, although you are trying to spin the complete embarrassment by obama's top intelligence official. See, you can try and spin it all you want, but the proof is in the reaction from the administration and the admission that NO, he wasn't briefed and YES he should have been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
I am perfectly comfortable with your envy and apparent sense of inferiority. It's a common thing. I'm well used to it.
Haven't you heard that old saying? Never believe someone bragging on the internet they were this or that.....it is seldom if ever true.
The Boss not knowing......why is it so hard for people to understand that...the Boss needs to be informed....he (the boss, just in case we want to play more games of who "they" and "he" is) will decide if it is relevant or not his cronies do not decide that....in this case guess what....it sure would have been relevant to know...don't you think.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Who is THEY?
His cronies....you know the people who should have informed him....
He was unaware of the plot and arrests. He said as much himself. Sorry if you disagree with him.
This is, of course, a lie. He has never said he was unaware of the plot or the investigation. He only said he was unaware of the arrests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
See, you can try and spin it all you want, but the proof is in the reaction from the administration and the admission that NO, he wasn't briefed and YES he should have been.
We all know he wasn't briefed at the time of the interview. We all also know that he would have been briefed eventually. As already mentioned (and ignored by the whiners) some things deserve to get briefed immediately and some can wait.
This one, rather obviously, could wait.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Haven't you heard that old saying? Never believe someone bragging on the internet they were this or that.....it is seldom if ever true.
And like most "old sayings" on the Internet, that one is about as useful as t*ts on a bull.
The Boss not knowing......why is it so hard for people to understand that...the Boss needs to be informed....he (the boss, just in case we want to play more games of who "they" and "he" is) will decide if it is relevant or not his cronies do not decide that....in this case guess what....it sure would have been relevant to know...don't you think.......
Nonsense. There is a reason we have staffs, and there is a reason we delegate authority to them. Because "the Boss" has better things to do than micromanaging work better performed by others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
His cronies....you know the people who should have informed him....
You do not seem to have read Katiana's question. Because if you did, that answer is both false and idiotic.
Nonsense. There is a reason we have staffs, and there is a reason we delegate authority to them. Because "the Boss" has better things to do than micromanaging work better performed by others.
Not when it comes to this....
So answer this, Napalitano and Brennan both knew about this but could not tell him quickly?
The staff knew, but the boss did not? Hummmmm makes me wonder why you got out at 9 years? Either passed over for Major numerous times, or just plain quit....and yes this is revelant, this is his thinking, the boss should not know....therefore, while in the Army...he (you Historian, just so we don't play games again over he, they, or him) had the same way of thinking...which is why he is no longer in the Army....
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
You do not seem to have read Katiana's question. Because if you did, that answer is both false and idiotic.
I agree, I did not read the quote. Happy, I agree with you...
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.
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.
