Netphoria Message Board - Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says

Netphoria Message Board (http://forums.netphoria.org/index.php)

- General Chat Archive (http://forums.netphoria.org/forumdisplay.php?f=19)

- - Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says (http://forums.netphoria.org/showthread.php?t=116710)

Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says

another coup by the times. theyve really been earning their reputation these past few months. and no its not the downing street memo, its way better than that

the whole memo amounts to a lot of things, but namely just a really interesting, revealing look into bush-blairs' inner world during the immediate pre-invasion period. theres some great new hard information, but it also just helps shade in some things and give understanding. and it helps put to rest any faith anyone could still possibly have been maintaining in the sincerity of bush's ridiculous rhetoric about the war. i really recommend you read this if youre into this shit

and check out the bold parts for laughs. some of it is pretty cartoonishly sleazy and machiavellian. weve all really been way too generous with them. we give them too much credit, really. theyre just little children through and through

Quote:

Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says
By DON VAN NATTA Jr.

LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.

Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush's extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government's plan.

Consistent Remarks

Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain's Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information. But one of them said, "In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process."

On Sunday, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president's public comments were consistent with his private remarks made to Mr. Blair. "While the use of force was a last option, we recognized that it might be necessary and were planning accordingly," Mr. Jones said.

"The public record at the time, including numerous statements by the President, makes clear that the administration was continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution into 2003," he said. "Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, but he chose continued defiance, even after being given one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. Our public and private comments are fully consistent."

The January 2003 memo is the latest in a series of secret memos produced by top aides to Mr. Blair that summarize private discussions between the president and the prime minister. Another group of British memos, including the so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.

The latest memo is striking in its characterization of frank, almost casual, conversation by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair about the most serious subjects. At one point, the leaders swapped ideas for a postwar Iraqi government. "As for the future government of Iraq, people would find it very odd if we handed it over to another dictator," the prime minister is quoted as saying.

"Bush agreed," Mr. Manning wrote. This exchange, like most of the quotations in this article, have not been previously reported.

Mr. Bush was accompanied at the meeting by Condoleezza Rice, who was then the national security adviser; Dan Fried, a senior aide to Ms. Rice; and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff. Along with Mr. Manning, Mr. Blair was joined by two other senior aides: Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, and Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide and the author of the Downing Street memo.

By late January 2003, United Nations inspectors had spent six weeks in Iraq hunting for weapons under the auspices of Security Council Resolution 1441, which authorized "serious consequences" if Iraq voluntarily failed to disarm. Led by Hans Blix, the inspectors had reported little cooperation from Mr. Hussein, and no success finding any unconventional weapons.

At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war.

Discussing Provocation

Without much elaboration, the memo also says the president raised three possible ways of provoking a confrontation. Since they were first reported last month, neither the White House nor the British government has discussed them.

"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

It also described the president as saying, "The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D," referring to weapons of mass destruction.

A brief clause in the memo refers to a third possibility, mentioned by Mr. Bush, a proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein. The memo does not indicate how Mr. Blair responded to the idea.

Mr. Sands first reported the proposals in his book, although he did not use any direct quotations from the memo. He is a professor of international law at University College of London and the founding member of the Matrix law office in London, where the prime minister's wife, Cherie Blair, is a partner.

Mr. Jones, the National Security Council spokesman, declined to discuss the proposals, saying, "We are not going to get into discussing private discussions of the two leaders."

At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as "an insurance policy against the unexpected."

The memo said Mr. Blair told Mr. Bush, "If anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning the oil wells, killing children or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq, a second resolution would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs."

Running Out of Time

Mr. Bush agreed that the two countries should attempt to get a second resolution, but he added that time was running out. "The U.S. would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would twist arms and even threaten," Mr. Bush was paraphrased in the memo as saying.

The document added, "But he had to say that if we ultimately failed, military action would follow anyway."

The leaders agreed that three weeks remained to obtain a second United Nations Security Council resolution before military commanders would need to begin preparing for an invasion.

Summarizing statements by the president, the memo says: "The air campaign would probably last four days, during which some 1,500 targets would be hit. Great care would be taken to avoid hitting innocent civilians. Bush thought the impact of the air onslaught would ensure the early collapse of Saddam's regime. Given this military timetable, we needed to go for a second resolution as soon as possible. This probably meant after Blix's next report to the Security Council in mid-February."

Mr. Blair was described as responding that both countries would make clear that a second resolution amounted to "Saddam's final opportunity." The memo described Mr. Blair as saying: "We had been very patient. Now we should be saying that the crisis must be resolved in weeks, not months."

It reported: "Bush agreed. He commented that he was not itching to go to war, but we could not allow Saddam to go on playing with us. At some point, probably when we had passed the second resolutions — assuming we did — we should warn Saddam that he had a week to leave. We should notify the media too. We would then have a clear field if Saddam refused to go."

Mr. Bush devoted much of the meeting to outlining the military strategy. The president, the memo says, said the planned air campaign "would destroy Saddam's command and control quickly." It also said that he expected Iraq's army to "fold very quickly." He also is reported as telling the prime minister that the Republican Guard would be "decimated by the bombing."

Despite his optimism, Mr. Bush said he was aware that "there were uncertainties and risks," the memo says, and it goes on, "As far as destroying the oil wells were concerned, the U.S. was well equipped to repair them quickly, although this would be easier in the south of Iraq than in the north."

The two men briefly discussed plans for a post-Hussein Iraqi government. "The prime minister asked about aftermath planning," the memo says. "Condi Rice said that a great deal of work was now in hand.

Referring to the Defense Department, it said: "A planning cell in D.O.D. was looking at all aspects and would deploy to Iraq to direct operations as soon as the military action was over. Bush said that a great deal of detailed planning had been done on supplying the Iraqi people with food and medicine."

Planning for After the War

The leaders then looked beyond the war, imagining the transition from Mr. Hussein's rule to a new government. Immediately after the war, a military occupation would be put in place for an unknown period of time, the president was described as saying. He spoke of the "dilemma of managing the transition to the civil administration," the memo says.

The document concludes with Mr. Manning still holding out a last-minute hope of inspectors finding weapons in Iraq, or even Mr. Hussein voluntarily leaving Iraq. But Mr. Manning wrote that he was concerned this could not be accomplished by Mr. Bush's timeline for war.

"This makes the timing very tight," he wrote. "We therefore need to stay closely alongside Blix, do all we can to help the inspectors make a significant find, and work hard on the other members of the Security Council to accept the noncooperation case so that we can secure the minimum nine votes when we need them, probably the end of February."

At a White House news conference following the closed-door session, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair said "the crisis" had to be resolved in a timely manner. "Saddam Hussein is not disarming," the president told reporters. "He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that's why I have constantly said — and the prime minister has constantly said — this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months."

Despite intense lobbying by the United States and Britain, a second United Nations resolution was not obtained. The American-led military coalition invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, nine days after the target date set by the president on that late January day at the White House.

Anyone who has read the PNAC already knows they had this planned out years ago.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

I think most of us knew it had been planned out years ago, this just adds more actual evidence to the pile.

It's weird, this is almost exactly like the Civilization games - you have these leaders of nations who interact with each other on a personal level, and consider everything in those terms. It's not about the US and Britain and Iraq as nations of people, it's about Bush and Blair getting together and saying 'hell, that Saddam guy's pissing me off - let's get him'.

Actually this pretty much directly addresses something people always seem to try refute about the war - that people were intentionally misled about WMD. After the whole thing turned out to be a farce people tried to downplay the... well I don't think propaganda's too strong a word really, but there it is, stuff like 'we could bring in a defector to talk publicly about WMD' and 'let's notify the media and tell them Saddam Hussein is not disarming'

yeah exactly, just adds more evidence to the pile. i was really expecting all kinds of people to come in and say "bush was set on war? yeah no shit moron" or something. this just serves to better underpin those claims. and provide other information on a range of topics

yeah i totally agree and i dont think you realize just how right you are on that. one of the scariest revelations i came to when i was reading all about WWII was not only how much the fate of nations are put into the hand of these really vain, flawed individuals (look no further than ribbentrop, my god) but how much truly petty things and personal relationships dictated the course of events. i read the diaries of italy's foreign minister during mussolini's time and i can tell you that pretty much everything was like this. like some diplomat would give some tiny slight, real or perceived, to another diplomat, and that would be enough to shut down the talks between the nations for a few hours or a day or two. i made that example up but i might as well not have. and not much has changed. look at the talks with north korea for a good example. theyre an oddity but both sides are really putting petty bullshit ahead of serious issues. i really did think we advanced past that kind of stuff. i still do overall, but this makes me kind of question that. the article itself mentioned this nicely at one point:

Quote:

The latest memo is striking in its characterization of frank, almost casual, conversation by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair about the most serious subjects. At one point, the leaders swapped ideas for a postwar Iraqi government. "As for the future government of Iraq, people would find it very odd if we handed it over to another dictator," the prime minister is quoted as saying.

obviously bush and blair dont write the detailed plans of action for these things but this is the level, and this is the way, in which policy is dictated. thats fucked

yes that why i loved this memo. it just, once and for all, unmasked that stuff as the brazen bullshit everyone knew it to be

Yeah, and to think the Gulf of Tonkin incident was actually a lie, leading to Vietnam.
Shit like this makes me believe 9/11 was planned out. How many fucking warnings does it take for someone to take a terrorist attack seriously? They had it all arranged. Period.

CONDI received all of these documents along with the famous August 6th one, and she ignored them all! The titles are scary enough, and get really intense in June/July, but what do you imagine the content of these documents revealed to her!? Still think this is mere incompetence?

They warned about Osama and/or Al Qaeda attacks and are found in Notes to Chapter 8, pp. 533-534, "The System Was Blinking Red". They ******* memos, emails, reports and briefings from National Security Council, CIA, SEIB and FBI beginning January 2001:

NSC Memo-1/25/01: Clarke to Rice "Al Qaeda Review" attaching Dec 2000 NSC Memo "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadists Networks of al Qida:Status and Prospects"
CIA SEIB-2/6/01: "Sunni Terrorist Threat Growing"
NSC Email-3/23/01: Clarke to Rice "Briefing on Pennsylvania Avenue"
NSC Email-3/30/01: Clark to Rice/Hadley, "Terrorism Update"
CIA Cable-3/30/01: "Intelligence Community Terrorist Threat Advisory"
NSC Email-4/10/01: Clarke to Rice "Terrorist Threat Warning"
FBI Electronic Communication-4/13/01: "Heightened Threat Advisory"
NSC Email-4/19/01: Cressey to Rice/Hadley "Threat Update"
CIA SEIB-4/20/01: "Bin Ladin Planning Multiple Operations"
NSC Memo-Apr 2001: Clarke to Hadley "Briefing Notes for Al Qaeda Meeting"
CIA SEIB-5/3/01: "Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack"
FBI Report-5/7/01: "Daily UBL/Radical Fundamentalist Threat Update", ITOS Threat Update Webpage
CIA SEIB-5/23/01: "Terrorist Groups Said Cooperating on US Hostage Plot"
NSC Email-5/24/01: Clark to Rice/Hadley "A Day in the Life of Terrorism Intelligence"
CIA SEIB-5/26/01: "Bin Ladin Network's Plans Advancing"
NSC Email-5/29/01: Clark to Rice/Hadley "Stopping Abu Zubaydah's Attacks"

Summer Threat Reporting and Actions:
NSC Memo-6/20/01: "Clarke/Cressey agenda for June 22 CSG Meeting"
NSC Memo-6/22/01: Clark to SCG re 6/22 meeting
CIA Cable-6/22/01: "Threat UBL Attack Against US Interests, Next 24-48 Hours" (U.S. Ambassadors were briefed)
FBI Report-6/22/01: "Daily UBL/Radical Fundamentalist Threat Update, ITOS Threat Update Webpage
FAA Circular-6/22/01: "Possible Terrorist Threat Against American Citizens"
CIA Cable-6/23/01: "Possible Threat of Imminent Attack from Sunni Extremists"
CIA SEIB-6/23/01: "Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent"
NSC Email-6/25/01: "Terrorism Threat Update"
NSC Email-6/25/01: Clarke to Rice/Hadley, "Possiblity of an Al Qaeda Attack"
CIA SEIB-6/25/01: "Bin Ladin & Associates Making Near-Term Threats", "a severe blow against US & Israeli interests during next 2 weeks"
CIA Cable-6/26/01: "Request additonal info on KSM" (Khalid Sheik Mohammed)
NSC Email-6/28/01: Clark to Rice/Hadley, "Possibility of an Al Qaeda Attack"
CIA Cable-6/29/01: "Continued Threat/Potential Attack by UBL"
CIA SEIB-6/30/01: "Bin Ladin Threats Are Real"
CIA SEIB-6/30/01: "Bin Ladin Planning High Profile Attacks"
NSC Email-6/30/01: Clark to Rice/others "Terrorist Alert"
CIA SEIB-7/02/01: "Planning for BL Attacks Continues, Despite Delays"
FBI Report-7/02/01: "National Threat Warning System-Potential Anti-US Terrorist Attacks
NSC Memo-7/03/01: "Current US Terrorism Alert"
CIA Materials 7/3/01: "DCI Update Terrorist Threat Review"
CIA Memo-7/05/01: "CTC Briefing for the Attorney General on the Usama Bin Ladin Terrorist Threat"
NSC Email-7/06/01: Clarke to Rice/Hadley "Threat Updates"
CIA Cable-7/11/01: "Followup Source on KSM"
CIA SEIB-7/13/01: "Bin Ladin Plans Delayed But Not Abandoned"
FBI Report-7/20/01: "Daily UBL/Radical Fundamentalist Threat Update, ITOS Threat Update Webpage
NSC Memo-7/23/01: Cressey to CSG, Threat SVTS
CIA SEIB-7/25/01: "One Bin Ladin Operation Delayed, Others Ongoing"
NSC Email-7/26/01: Clarke to Rice Hadley
FAA Info Circ 7/31/01 "Continued Middle Eastern Threats to Civil Aviation"
CIA Cable-8/3/01: "Threat of Impending Al Qaeda Attack to Continue Indefinitely"
CIA SEIB-8/7/01: "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US"
FAA Info Circ 8/16/01: "Disguised Weapons"
------------------------
Now, imagine you are Condi and you have just attended the G8 Summit with the President in July, where Italian officials took threats seriously enough to close the airspace over Genoa and positioned anti-aircraft guns at the city's airport. They had received warnings of an attack against the U.S. President using an airliner, possibly by Osama bin Ladin.

So you return to Washington to find all these warnings/documents crossing your desk daily, INCLUDING the August 6th PDB. What would you do? Nothing if it's arranged.

To starla, can you give me a link/source to where you found those memos? i'm not questioning you, I just want to look at some other stuff from there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleeper

The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March

did reading that give pause to anyone else? I just had to sit there for a second picturing Bush and Blair looking at a calendar and going "hmm well on the 8th I have a hair appointment, and the 9th is poker night...how about the tenth? does that work for you?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by To Starla

Nothing says "I'm an idiot" better than buying into these fucking 9/11 conspiracies. I'm sorry, but what you're suggesting is totally, completely, and utterly preposterous...and frankly I'm a little tired of having to read ridiculous crap like this all the time. Yes, the government has screwed up multiple times over the past 4-5 years, but that should be scary enough in itself without having to elevate their mishaps into evil. If I really thought that it was plausible that the US government orchestrated 9/11, or even just merely stepped aside and allowed it to happen, then that would be great. That'd mean that despite all appearances, the government is in control and can make things happen or not happen at their will. In all honesty that's a lot rosier view than my own, which is that the government has been exposed over the past couple years to be fallible and barely competent at getting anything done without tripping over its own shoelaces.

What, do tell, do you think could have been done if these memos (which I'm sure are just a tiny fraction of the memos that passed through Rice's office, Al Qaeda wasn't the only thing her office dealt with) were taken "seriously"? I'm curious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

frankly I'm a little tired of having to read ridiculous crap like this all the time

You have to? Really? Do you browse Netphoria for the government?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

let me just ask you: do you not have any room in your view on this for that possibility? that there was some kind of foul play? or that the official take of things are less than true? because, preposterous or not, that kind of attitude is never right.

its really easy to look at it superficially and deduce that its ludicrous (which it definitely is on paper (allowing an attack on your own country! skepticism is absolutely warranted and is absolutely the right starting point, dont get me wrong)), then compound that with a hate for liberals and shut yourself off to any questions. fact is, there are no shortage of historical precedent for things like this, so, while it is absurd, its sadly not as totally unconscionable as we'd all hope was the case. gulf of tonkin is one (dont give me this shit about hwo it was an accidental flub) and, even mentioned in this one article right here, the option of deliberately trying to down one of their own planes to provide a casus belli was at one point on the table. obviously both of these majorly differ in scale and severity from 9/11, but they share some pretty fundamental similarities in nature, if not just intent

jsut to be clear, im not positively claiming that he did it, allowed it, or just otherwise was some kind of accessory to the act, because there is basically just reason for suspicion at this point (varying degrees of), but you are definitely wrong in ruling anything out. if you are.

but i can see why you get so angry at these accusations, though. i can see how its perceived by you (i think): kids, who dont really understand anything and have already started off with the conclusion that bush is "evil" for whatever dubious reasons, just connect silly or superficial dots, or let, as i said, some legitimate incredulity turn into unshakable conviction, and fashion this unrealistic tale of hollywood thriller-esque intrigue and backroom evilness. but the point is that these kind of characters, while they exist, shouldnt dominate your view on the thing and shouldnt fuel all kinds of (what appears to be) obstinacy on your part. i can see why i does, but it shouldnt. its just the attitude of "oh, come on, its preposterous!" is a dangerous one i think

[quote=Junebug]To starla, can you give me a link/source to where you found those memos? i'm not questioning you, I just want to look at some other stuff from there.
[quote]

It's in the 9/11 commission report...and I *think* these warnings are on this site.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/...atI102003.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

They aren't conspiracies. 9/11 is still under investigation.

Remember, alot of people thought the Gulf Of Tonkin incident was real for many years too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

What, do tell, do you think could have been done if these memos (which I'm sure are just a tiny fraction of the memos that passed through Rice's office, Al Qaeda wasn't the only thing her office dealt with) were taken "seriously"? I'm curious.

It's not a matter of what could have been done. It's what should have been done.
With all of these memos about planes being hijacked, wouldn't it be logical to start implementing tighter security measures at airports? It's logical but it wasn't done because either it was planned or they knew it was coming and just let it happen. Open your eyes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleeper

let me just ask you: do you have any room in your view on this for that possibility? that there was some kind of foul play? or that the official take of things are less than true? because, preposterous or not, that kind of attitude is never right.

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that there's still a lot about 9/11 that remains unknown. I think there's lots of light still to be shed on whether or not the warning signs could have been seen prior to that day, as well as the sequence of events that unfolded after the hijackings took place (for example, the fate of United 93). I definitely don't consider myself to be unreceptive to the idea that there is some amount of chicanery going on. But saying that 9/11 was "arranged" by the government, "period," is not something to throw out lightly, and we haven't even come close to the point where such accusations can be levied in good faith IMO.

I just get real tired of people clouding the legitimate questions surrounding the events of that day by raising half-brained ideas along the lines of: the WTC was demolished with explosives, a 767 didn't hit the Pentagon, no plane crashed in Pennsylvania, Bush set it up, etc. Any one of these ideas take you almost to the outer bounds of reason to support, and most are easily debunked with a little common sense...but yet they're still very pervasive and people stretch reason quite readily to accomodate these ideas. I think thats a disservice to those of us who seek legitmate truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by To Starla

They aren't conspiracies. 9/11 is still under investigation.

Remember, alot of people thought the Gulf Of Tonkin incident was real for many years too.

They are conspiracy theories. Like I said above, there are all sorts of things continued investigation of 9/11 can bring about...but I highly doubt that exposing it as a Bush administration plot is gonna be one of them.

Quote:

So you say the only two options are either that they knew 9/11 was coming or they planned it and you're telling me to open my eyes? C'mon. As much as we can say now that in hindsight better airport security might have prevented 9/11, we can also say that tighter airport security is not a popular idea even when people have the risks broadcast all over their TV screens. Do you really think people would have stood for taking off their shoes and turning over their nail clippers back before 9/11? People don't even want to do that much now.

Well heck, we may have intentionally let the terrists have their way on 9/11, but it's just part of the US plan. You know, let them think they're winning and then strike them off guard. The final blow will come in the year 2010 when the US ends terrorism forever with a decisive single battle. In Australia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

LOL - You think they did nothing because the bush administration was worried that people didn't want to stand in line at the airports and be subjected to tighter security checks? That's asinine.
When a leader tells their people, "Look, we have these terrorists threatening to fly our planes into buildings....... we need to do xyz to secure our airspace.... DEAL with it......." people should either deal with it or go greyhound. Despite the irritation of the american people, it may have saved lives. A leader is supposed to protect the people..... something to ponder there.

As for the "conspiracies" I am referring to, I'm not referring to the wtc 7 or pentagon "no plane" crash ideals. It puts things into perspective after reading the PNAC a few times. These people wanted this shit to happen, and yeah, either they let it happen or they set it up. IF CIA and FBI agents have time to drive by and take my picture when I'm protesting, I'm quite sure they had the time to follow these men who were in flight training schools learning how to fly planes into our own buildings long before it happened. And they were.....if they hadn't been watching them, how in the hell would they know just who to find the day 9/11 happened? They made arrests at different apartments/houses on people they had been watching. Interesting isn't it?

To Starla, 9/11 was planned and executed by aliens from the planet Zothor. See, you can't PROVE, it wasn't, so therefore my theory is about as valid as yours.

Plus Zothor has WMD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

I just get real tired of people clouding the legitimate questions

LIKE HELL YOU DO

Quote:

Originally Posted by To Starla

LOL - You think they did nothing because the bush administration was worried that people didn't want to stand in line at the airports and be subjected to tighter security checks? That's asinine.

Um...hello. You're saying the US government planned 9/11. Asinine went out the window early in the thread.

Quote:

When a leader tells their people, "Look, we have these terrorists threatening to fly our planes into buildings....... we need to do xyz to secure our airspace.... DEAL with it......." people should either deal with it or go greyhound. Despite the irritation of the american people, it may have saved lives. A leader is supposed to protect the people..... something to ponder there.

And what happens after those lives are saved? People like you would be bitching about how our civil liberties were taken away for nothing. If we had arrested and shipped out all the terrorists prior to 9/11 people would be singing about racial profiling of muslims. Again, people can barely "deal with" what needs to be done to prevent terrorism even today, when we've already seen the dangers. People drag their feet on security measures all the time. And these things would have been doubly unpopular before 9/11, so its way simplistic to say that preventing 9/11 was just a matter of locking down the airport. You're talking about taking drastic actions based on vague threats and rumors.

Quote:

As for the "conspiracies" I am referring to, I'm not referring to the wtc 7 or pentagon "no plane" crash ideals. It puts things into perspective after reading the PNAC a few times. These people wanted this shit to happen, and yeah, either they let it happen or they set it up. IF CIA and FBI agents have time to drive by and take my picture when I'm protesting, I'm quite sure they had the time to follow these men who were in flight training schools learning how to fly planes into our own buildings long before it happened.

Let's not jump over the most obvious scenario here: that the government just missed all the cues because the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. The FBI and the CIA wasted their time with photographing protesters instead of terrorists. Everytime you say "They wanted 9/11 to happen" you dig the hole a little deeper, because you haven't offered a thing to support that other than the fact that it happened. You just sound like a kook.

Quote:

And they were.....if they hadn't been watching them, how in the hell would they know just who to find the day 9/11 happened? They made arrests at different apartments/houses on people they had been watching. Interesting isn't it?

Not especially. By that time, we all know that the people they should have been watching had just crashed a bunch of planes. (And they knew who to find to talk about those guys because their names were in the flight logs.) I'm sure the government had other people they were watching for terror activities, and once 9/11 happened they decided it was time to stop watching and start talking to them to try and get some leads. But that's not indicative of any foreknowledge of the 9/11 plot. Its not like any of the people the government snatched up on 9/11 have been found to have anything to do with it. I'm sure the government has people they're watching right now, but if some unrelated group pulls off a terror attack, you can't really say the government should have known about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

To Starla, 9/11 was planned and executed by aliens from the planet Zothor. See, you can't PROVE, it wasn't, so therefore my theory is about as valid as yours.

Plus Zothor has WMD.

Anything is possible. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

Um...hello. You're saying the US government planned 9/11. Asinine went out the window early in the thread.

To you, it is asinine. Of course the thought that our own government would plan or allow a terrorist attack to happen on us is insane, but I still feel it's a very valid argument and one worth investigating. Especially given the fact that Bush himself has tried to obstruct the investigation into 9/11. Could it be because he wants to cover his ass about something?

How the Bush administration sought to obstruct and discredit the 9/11 investigation
9/11 Commission Primer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

I have flown pre and post 9/11. Pre 9/11 I still had to go through security checks minus having my carry on opened and searched. As leftist as I am, *I* would have no issue with having my things searched *IF* our leader had announced in the summer of 2001 that we had numerous threats of terrorist attacks involving our airspace. I can only speculate on how people would react to tighter security measures in a pre 9/11 world. If there were evidence to produce such threats given to us, *maybe* some americans would understand why these checks had to be in place.
We gave up our civil liberties every day before 9/11 anyway. Anytime you submit to walking in a federal building, ie: the dmv through a metal detector, you are giving up the right to search and seizure on your person. Anytime you attend a concert and pass through a security search, you are giving up your civil liberties freely. Same with any airport. You and I both can only speculate on how people would react. I don't believe muslims would have been shipped out of the country. Remember, the bin laden family was in the states on the day 9/11 happened? lol As for homeland security, you don't have to tell me how shitty it is. My husband works for a major port and there's no way in hell this country is prepared for another attack of any kind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

I never said they weren't watching the terrorists, they were. They knew the hijackers were undergoing flight training and were watching them the entire time.
They were making arrests on people that afternoon after the planes hit the towers. I think the only person who has dug a hole here is our leader. Ya know, the person who keeps on lying and lying? If I'm a kook because I don't allow the government to spoon feed me bullshit and accept it like you do, so be it :)

i can't believe to starla has a kid. this just trips me out for some reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by To Starla

Could it be that he wanted to keep a lid on the way US intelligence is handled? Once again, you're skipping over the simple explanations and jumping with both feet into tinfoil hat territory. There are all sorts of non-sinister reasons Bush might have wanted a different sort of investigation than the one we got. And I think that time has shown that the 9/11 Commission probably was not the best way to go about investigating things, considering the fact that so many questions remain open and so many problems remain untouched.

Quote:

Except again for the fact that there really was no evidence of the threats other than chatter and rumors. The government can tell people about the vague threats they get all they want to, but I still don't think you can tell me in good faith that people will take account of it. If watching 3000 people die on national television in hijacked airliners isn't enough to get folks seriously behind the idea of airport security, then how in the world can you expect vague threats to do it?

Quote:

We gave up our civil liberties every day before 9/11 anyway. Anytime you submit to walking in a federal building, ie: the dmv through a metal detector, you are giving up the right to search and seizure on your person. Anytime you attend a concert and pass through a security search, you are giving up your civil liberties freely. Same with any airport. You and I both can only speculate on how people would react.

We can see how people react now. I think its safe to say that they wouldn't have had a better reaction to increased airport security pre-911 than they do now.

Quote:

I don't believe muslims would have been shipped out of the country. Remember, the bin laden family was in the states on the day 9/11 happened?

So if the 9/11 plot was exposed, and they rounded up these 19 Saudi and Egyptian guys (who hadn't done anything at this point) and threw them in a cell somewhere you don't think people would have complained? I don't see what the Bin Laden family has to do with any of this. They weren't involved in 9/11 as far as anyone knows. I'm talking about the 19 hijackers here. I'm not saying nothing could have been done, but I don't think people would have been nearly as in favor of doing something back then as they claim they are now. I can easily see these guys being played up as victims of government paranoia who had their rights violated. These poor young Muslim men who wanted nothing more than to learn to be airline pilots...blah blah blah.

Quote:

As for homeland security, you don't have to tell me how shitty it is. My husband works for a major port and there's no way in hell this country is prepared for another attack of any kind.

But yet we could have been prepared in the summer of 2001 if only the Bush adminstration had reacted, right? So which one is it? Is the government able to will itself into preparedness over the course of a few months, or is it destined to be "shitty" despite the fact that we've had a major terrorist attack on US soil and the constant threat of another looming?

Quote:

I'd like to see some proof of the first claim. I took a quick look around and couldn't find anything that suggested what you're claiming about the terrorists actually being watched while in flight school. The FBI had some inkling that Al Qaeda might be using US flight schools to train operatives, but as far as I'm aware that's about as far as things got. I haven't seen any reliable information that really suggests that the government knew that there were terrorists taking flight lessons and knew exactly who they were and where they were. All I've found suggests that there were only a couple of the terrorists that the US even suspected to be terrorists pre-911, and by the time they started looking for them it was too late. But I'm open to more information, preferably from a neutral source if at all possible.

As for the whole thing about them arresting people on 9/11, I still find nothing at all unusual about that. Once the hijackings occurred, I'm sure the order was put out to "round up the usual suspects" so to speak. There were all sorts of investigations underway pre-911 concerning Al Qaeda. It only makes sense that they would start arresting people identified in some of those investigations if they thought they could get leads from them before they could run off. Add that to the fact that it didn't take long to figure out who the hijackers were, and it only makes sense that the investigations into their movement and activities didn't take long to get underway.

Quote:

If I'm a kook because I don't allow the government to spoon feed me bullshit and accept it like you do, so be it :)

Sometimes, there are worse people to be spoonfed by than the government. I think you're a shining example of that. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by To Starla

Anything is possible. :)

Um, not really...

I agree, the conspiracy theories are just that, theories, but the MO of this administration, ie. the usual result from the assumption of misdeeds committed by them, is that these misdeeds more often than not turn out to be true! Bush is quoted as saying "no one could have known the result of Hurrican Katrina on New Orleans" when in retrospect it is found that they did have staff meetings concerning just that and predicted during those staff meetings what would happen to a tee and still were not prepared! They sure as fuck know a whole hell of a lot more than they lead on ANYTIME something goes wrong.

Anyway, how did this thread deviate from the British memos to 911? These memos clearly prove another example of how the Bush Administration constantly claims stupidity when in actuallity they were quite enlightened! I mean, come on!
How many times do you have to have the wool pulled over your eyes before you are officially blind?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Junebug

i can't believe to starla has a kid. this just trips me out for some reason.

How does that relate to the subject matter in this thread in particular? You may insult me in any fashion you please, but in discussing politics or anything else, you need not stoop that low to bring my child into it as a means to insult me personally. If you can't discuss the topic at hand without resorting to that kind of shit, then don't bother at all.

saddam tried to kill georges dad!

I can't believe Corganist has a kid...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

Could it be that he wanted to keep a lid on the way US intelligence is handled? Once again, you're skipping over the simple explanations and jumping with both feet into tinfoil hat territory.

And I don't buy into that. If you want to, go ahead. He should have taken the proper channels regarding all of the threats and the intelligence that the CIA provided to him and used it to protect our airspace. He didn't, and people have a right to know why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

Are you serious? The CIA's intelligence that they provided to the president regarding the threat of attacks was just "chatter"? I guess it wasn't afterall, now that we are minus two towers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

We can see how people react now. I think its safe to say that they wouldn't have had a better reaction to increased airport security pre-911 than they do now.?

It's been over four years since those attacks. People are finally bitching about the long waits. People become jaded or apathetic eventually. The terror threat level could go up in the red today and I bet people would still fly. They have been conditioned to be afraid and/or are no longer afraid because ....at least over half of this country thinks Bush is a liar anyway. You also need to read again where I said the reaction to tighter security methods at airports in a pre 9/11 state is merely speculation. We can't know how they would react, but people were damned willing to give up more of their freedoms IE: the Patriot Act after 9/11.
As an example: People in SF voted for a hand gun ban and it passed because they actually think that a law like this is going to cut down on crime. Giving up the right to bear arms is one of the biggest mistakes anyone could make, but it was done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

I don't see what the Bin Laden family has to do with any of this. They weren't involved in 9/11 as far as anyone knows.

I seriously do not know how to respond to that. ::shaking head:: And I don't even have the time to post sources regarding that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

You don't think they should have at the very least TRIED? To at least take some kind of action in informing the FAA to upstep their security measures? You realise the FAA were never even informed about possible terrorist attacks using our planes, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

I'm curious as to what sources you have been reading for the past four years. I think this is a pretty unbiased resource if you have the time to actually read through it's entirety. Complete 911 Timeline
Don't worry, it lacks those conspiracy theories that bother you. lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by To Starla

holy crap woman, calm down. it has nothing to do with the subject matter in this thread. am i obligated to stay on topic or something? all I said was i can't believe you had a kid. i can't believe my good friend has a kid either. it means nothing. chill out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by To Starla

Are you serious? The CIA's intelligence that they provided to the president regarding the threat of attacks was just "chatter"? I guess it wasn't afterall, now that we are minus two towers.

If all the warnings the President got were as detailed as the infamous August 6 PDB, then yes, it was just chatter and rumors. As far as I can tell, there were no specifics on whether or not the information they were getting signaled that there was an attack coming overseas, in the US, using truck bombs, using planes, or even if there'd be an attack at all. The info generally just said there might be an attack coming somewhere, sometime. Yes, a lot of that chatter involved planes but again, I don't see how you think people back in those days would have stood for invasive searches on those grounds. "Take off your shoes sir, we hear there might be a terrorist attack in some unknown location, at some unknown time, in some unknown manner." People know enough to take that seriously now, but in summer of 01? No way.

Quote:

What I'm reading there comes a lot closer to my understanding of things than it does to yours. I think the info is pretty good (I haven't read all of it, but I think I've read most of the parts about the hijackers' activities pre 9/11) but I'm still not seeing anything that says that the US government were watching the 9/11 terrrorists while they were in flight school, which is what you're claiming. Maybe I'm just missing it, so if you can point that out that'd be great. Personally, I have my doubts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleeper

"bush was set on war? yeah no shit moron"

:beatup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

Except again for the fact that there really was no evidence of the threats other than chatter and rumors.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariner

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

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