:beatup:

What about the French, Egyptian, Israeli, and Russian intelligence agencies' repeated, urgently stressed, and often very specific warnings to the U.S. throughout the summer of 2001? What about the Minneapolis FBI office having an eerily accurate idea of what was going on and therefore doing the intelligence profession's - equivalent of yelling at the top of their lungs about it to anyone in Washington that would listen, only to be met with silence, red-tape, and/or what seem like fairly precisely-aimed communication errors? What about a New York City mosque warning its patrons to stay out of lower Manhattan on 9/11, along with many other often very specific warnings circulating through the U.S. Arab community? What about the dramatic and unprecedented short sells / put options on United Airlines, American Airlines, and major WTC-tenant companies' stock in the days leading up to 9/11, along with numerous other instances of insider trading related to airlines, oil, and WTC tenants that quite clearly demonstrate foreknowledge of the attack was fairly widespread in the international fincance community? What about a number of Pentagon officials suddenly cancelling planned 9/11 airplane trips just the night before?

I'm a big believer in government incompetence too, but the ineptitude necessary to drop the ball given all of that evidence seems nearly impossible.

Even if we're assuming that all of that is true, reliable information (something which I admit I'm slightly skeptical of...no offense), you have to take into account that it took months to put all that together even with the added advantage of knowing that it all led up to an attack. Its a lot easier to work backwards from something like 9/11 and see things that might have helped in predicting it than it is to take all those things and predict the future with them. If there was one or two people or agencies who had all that info before 9/11, then maybe they could have read the tea leaves and figured out enough specifics of the plan to take effective actions. But all this information wasn't collected in such a way that it could be put together in time to prevent an attack. It was all a bunch of random puzzle pieces that really don't seem to be connected at all when you look at them individually (ie. without the whole huge terrorist attack handily putting them all in perspective) in the hands of a large number of different groups and agencies who were less than forthcoming in comparing their notes. I really don't think its at all mind boggling that all this information didn't get put together to paint an early picture of things.

I hope you're right. And if you are, that means I need to be like twice as libertarian as I already am...

I'm going to make a concession here in my neverending struggle to disagree with every and any statement Corganist makes, up to and including the color of the sky, and say that the failure to connect the dots pre-9/11, come up with a clear picture of the danger in which we were, and employ appropriate countermeasures does not necessarily betoken a specifically flawed administration, but rather a system of intelligence and response incapable of handling certain scenarios. It certainly indicates a need for improvement. I'm often given to wonder if something like the 9/11 attacks had to happen in order to outline the system's shortcomings.








It's sort of like when you buy, oh, I don't know, tile grout for instance, and there's a warning on the side reading, "NOT FOR USE INTERNALLY." You have to imagine that wasn't a pre-emptive measure on the part of Angry Bob's Miracle Tile Grout, LLC. Somewhere, years ago, some well-meaning citizen must've had an inspired moment.

some people just cant resist the urge for caulk in their mouths

i dont know some of those specific things he mentioned but youre really making no sense right now. you really are equivocating like a whore with this puzzle analogy and its just a lot cruder than usual. some of the stuff he mentioned has pretty much nothing to do with the governments knowledge or lack of knowledge of the attacks, but rather are just bits evidence that knowledge of the attacks did exist (that there were a pattern of events that lead to no other reasonable conclusion) and that such knowledge existing wasnt this completely implausible notion. and assuming its true, some, for instance, highly specific and urgent warnings of an attack isnt just a "piece of the puzzle" anymore, it basically is the puzzle. what do your intelligence agencies do then? you should ask yourself that. what amount of evidence would have to exist, for whatever imminent wrongdoing, for your government to then automatically bear responsibility for not stopping it? goverrnments arent omnipotent and nobody should expect them to be, but they should be, and, believe it or not, often are, competent -- if not in anything else, than in the providing of security for their citizens. theyve stopped terrorist attacks before and have fought 45 years of cold war with a superpower that was arguably better at the underground spy game than they were, so when they do demonstrate something that can be blown off as simply being tremendously incompetent, it just rings hollow. incompetence is an answer that only works to a point, is what im saying. past that point it just becomes very suspicious. its like a heavyweight champ going down in the first round on some wafty slap from you or something. its just not believable

One more thought, just to relate this 9/11 tangent back to the original point of the thread...doesn't it seem to anybody else that the ideas offered by Bush to hasten war (painting the plane, assassinating Saddam, etc.) are kinda pedestrian and uncreative for a guy who had supposedly already pulled off planning 9/11? Seems like a big step down to me. If anything, I'd think that the memos show that Bush is really not the kind of evil Lex Luthor type who could orchestrate or allow a 9/11.

You know, I actually don't think that's in question. Cheney seems more of the "Criminal Mastermind" type. Bush's role seems more that of the "Vindictive, Self-Obsessed Pawn." Seriously, though, I think even most of the hardcore conspirogeeks feel it was a team effort. Bush is just the mascot, so of course he gets the rotten tomato.




That said, I think he's a very, very bad President.

let me brand this particular bit of recurring nonsense the "bush fallacy" so that i can just easily refer to it from now on, because i have no reason to believe that it will go away

its this idea people like you point out: "how is bush both this evil mastermind and this bumbling moron?"

answer: he is personally as bumbling a moron as any leader of any nation shouldnt be, but is surrounded by some pretty intelligent people. thats why when bush does something that is exclusively of his own efforts -- answers questions from the press (i mean the unscripted ones, by the way) or has some personal remarks recorded -- he comes off like the moron he is, but when "bush" does something else -- like craft an election campaign that is widely lauded, or disparaged, as being brilliantly crafty and underhanded -- its due his handlers. theres basically just a semantic distinction to make between "bush" the person and "bush" the administration. honestly, when i refer to this "bush", half the time im talking about rumsfeld/cheney and the tightly knit neoconservative cabal they represent. bush isnt not a part of that, but he certainly is a mastermind of nothing

let me just clarify and say that im not saying that the government is as effectual as a heavyweight champ or that the terrorists were as ineffectual as you, i was just trying to bring up an example of someone suspiciously underperforming

Who was that head of the relevant intelligence department, who said that as soon as the Bush admin came into power not one of them arranged a meeting with him for something like 12 months, and he was left to wander around on his own and try to make suggestions about these dangers?

Richard A. Clarke

I enjoyed his book immensely.