Bold Admission

[Zam-Zam]

Yes, terrorist organizations are always seeding target areas with sleepers, and at early stages when those sleepers aren't doing much, that can be very hard to catch. Sometimes, as with the Millennium Attacks, they're detected before they can carry out their plans. Other times, as when we have an inept president setting modern records for vacation time, even when the cells ramp up their efforts ahead of the attack date, we still don't manage to detect them until it's too late.

Under Obama: 8 Islamic Terror Attacks That Could Have Been Prevented

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/why-does-obama-keep-missing-red-flags-before-islamic-terror-attacks/

Food for thought.

 

[trapdoor]

Yes, terrorist organizations are always seeding target areas with sleepers, and at early stages when those sleepers aren't doing much, that can be very hard to catch. Sometimes, as with the Millennium Attacks, they're detected before they can carry out their plans. Other times, as when we have an inept president setting modern records for vacation time, even when the cells ramp up their efforts ahead of the attack date, we still don't manage to detect them until it's too late.

The point is, for all the harsh words you've piled on Bush, that attack was already in place and waiting for a "go order" when Bush took office. It was organized on Clinton's watch.

 

[middleview]

There's a difference any time there's an organization involved. I honestly think that McVeigh/Nichols/their militia buddies left enough tracks that they could have been caught, but they were doing a better-than-average job of flying under the radar. They were one expired license plate from getting away with it entirely.

Trump wasn't even an issue for those 19 hijackers -- Al Qaeda, a known organization, spent two years organizing that attack, putting essentially sleeper agents in place and hiring the flight training, etc. That was all under the allegedly competent leadership of Bill Clinton.

Actually the hijackers only entered the US after June or July of 2000. I don't know where you get two years of any activity in the US. Planning would have been a close held operation within the few at the top of Al Qaeda. How many people do you think would have needed to know? I'm guessing 5 or 6 tops. Remember that by June of 2001 Richard Clarke claims to have been running around like a guy with his hair on fire trying to tell people that an attack was imminent....then there was that pesky PDB in August of 2001, which that genius at counter terrorist intelligence chose to ignore while he was on vacation...for a whole month.

 

[middleview]

Under Obama: 8 Islamic Terror Attacks That Could Have Been Prevented

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/why-does-obama-keep-missing-red-flags-before-islamic-terror-attacks/

Food for thought.

Then there is the one on September 11, 2001 that killed about 3,000 people that could have been prevented....right?

 

[Zam-Zam]

Then there is the one on September 11, 2001 that killed about 3,000 people that could have been prevented....right?

I'm sure one could argue almost any attack could have been prevented, including the one on December 7th, 1941.

We could blame the President at the time, or blame someone else, or give everyone a pass. To me, none of that really matters.

What cannot be argued, however, is that these attacks occurred - Some on Bush's watch, some on Obama's watch, some on Trump's watch, etc. If we're going to blame those in charge, let's be consistent about it and not cherry-pick.

 

[Montecresto]

I'm sure one could argue almost any attack could have been prevented, including the one on December 7th, 1941.

That was the most preventable of all.

 

[trapdoor]

Actually the hijackers only entered the US after June or July of 2000. I don't know where you get two years of any activity in the US. Planning would have been a close held operation within the few at the top of Al Qaeda. How many people do you think would have needed to know? I'm guessing 5 or 6 tops. Remember that by June of 2001 Richard Clarke claims to have been running around like a guy with his hair on fire trying to tell people that an attack was imminent....then there was that pesky PDB in August of 2001, which that genius at counter terrorist intelligence chose to ignore while he was on vacation...for a whole month.

I know when they entered, but I understood there 18-months/two years of "chatter" out of the safe house in Germany. I know that one of their satellite phones came from a store in Columbia, Mo., and was purchased in that time frame (a buddy of mine is a broadcaster in that area and covered that aspect of the story).

I've always thought two of the "regular attacks" on Bush lack merit. Others, including the fact that he could have made communications between the FBI and CIA a requirement from day one, are completely legitimate. The two that lack merit are the "he froze while reading to the students," and "he ignored the PDB." The president gets a daily briefing about various threats literally every day. If he attempted to go after every threat, he'd be a paranoid. The president, any president, is going to ignore MOST of the threats in the PDB.

And think about the criticism if Bush HAD moved on the 19 people in the U.S. and involved with the 9/11 attack. Remember, the attack is now averted, so there's no actual act to point to: I can hear Te Nahisi Coates, et al., on the warpath from day one, saying that these arrests were merely on conspiracy charges and showed the racism and anti-Muslim stance of the Bush administration.

 

[trapdoor]

I'm sure one could argue almost any attack could have been prevented, including the one on December 7th, 1941.

We could blame the President at the time, or blame someone else, or give everyone a pass. To me, none of that really matters.

What cannot be argued, however, is that these attacks occurred - Some on Bush's watch, some on Obama's watch, some on Trump's watch, etc. If we're going to blame those in charge, let's be consistent about it and not cherry-pick.

Well, there's some evidence (I don't buy it, but there's evidence) that Churchill knew about Pearl Harbor and intentionally didn't tell Roosevelt so that America would come into the war. So at least in theory it could have been prevented.

 

[Dawg]

Then there is the one on September 11, 2001 that killed about 3,000 people that could have been prevented....right?

Yes, if Bill would have paid same attention to terrorist as he did Interns........

 

[middleview]

I'm sure one could argue almost any attack could have been prevented, including the one on December 7th, 1941.

We could blame the President at the time, or blame someone else, or give everyone a pass. To me, none of that really matters.

What cannot be argued, however, is that these attacks occurred - Some on Bush's watch, some on Obama's watch, some on Trump's watch, etc. If we're going to blame those in charge, let's be consistent about it and not cherry-pick.

I read the InvestorsDaily article you linked to. I have one question...they continually say something should have been done...but what? You cannot arrest someone on the basis of a blog entry, even if it did come to the attention of the FBI. It appears to me that none of the people who later engaged in murder were guilty of any crime for which they could have been arrested. Do you think we have adequate personnel to place everyone under surveillance if we suspect they have been "radicalized"? Did you know that people suspected of terrorism and placed on the "no fly list" can still pass a background check and buy guns? You can thank the NRA for that.

 

[Dawg]

I know when they entered, but I understood there 18-months/two years of "chatter" out of the safe house in Germany. I know that one of their satellite phones came from a store in Columbia, Mo., and was purchased in that time frame (a buddy of mine is a broadcaster in that area and covered that aspect of the story).

I've always thought two of the "regular attacks" on Bush lack merit. Others, including the fact that he could have made communications between the FBI and CIA a requirement from day one, are completely legitimate. The two that lack merit are the "he froze while reading to the students," and "he ignored the PDB." The president gets a daily briefing about various threats literally every day. If he attempted to go after every threat, he'd be a paranoid. The president, any president, is going to ignore MOST of the threats in the PDB.

And think about the criticism if Bush HAD moved on the 19 people in the U.S. and involved with the 9/11 attack. Remember, the attack is now averted, so there's no actual act to point to: I can hear Te Nahisi Coates, et al., on the warpath from day one, saying that these arrests were merely on conspiracy charges and showed the racism and anti-Muslim stance of the Bush administration.

If Bush had acted, MV and libs would have said Bush was profiling and racist.

 

[Dawg]

I read the InvestorsDaily article you linked to. I have one question...they continually say something should have been done...but what? You cannot arrest someone on the basis of a blog entry, even if it did come to the attention of the FBI. It appears to me that none of the people who later engaged in murder were guilty of any crime for which they could have been arrested. Do you think we have adequate personnel to place everyone under surveillance if we suspect they have been "radicalized"? Did you know that people suspected of terrorism and placed on the "no fly list" can still pass a background check and buy guns? You can thank the NRA for that.

but they can Raid the office of the POTUS Lawyer for money paid to a porn whore..........

 

[Montecresto]

Well, there's some evidence (I don't buy it, but there's evidence) that Churchill knew about Pearl Harbor and intentionally didn't tell Roosevelt so that America would come into the war. So at least in theory it could have been prevented.

Real time diaries are real evidence, read Secretary Of War Stimson’s diaries that document the plot between Churchill and Roosevelt for 18 months. There was no need to trick Roosevelt.

 

[trapdoor]

Real time diaries are real evidence, read Secretary Of War Stimson’s diaries that document the plot between Churchill and Roosevelt for 18 months. There was no need to trick Roosevelt.

I'd like to see those. I'm unaware of any evidence that solid. I read a book based on one of the U.S. Navy attache's evidence, but it acknowledged that it wasn't proof

 

[Arkady]

The point is, for all the harsh words you've piled on Bush, that attack was already in place and waiting for a "go order" when Bush took office. It was organized on Clinton's watch.

It was on Bush's watch that the attack was put in effect, with tickets purchased and assets put in motion. If we'd had a competent president, would that have been detected in time? It's impossible to know. Maybe he could have done all the specific things I mentioned, and it still wouldn't have mattered. Or maybe one of them would have made the difference and thousands of lives would be saved. We can't rewind and try again, so at this point it's just speculation.

 

[middleview]

Well, there's some evidence (I don't buy it, but there's evidence) that Churchill knew about Pearl Harbor and intentionally didn't tell Roosevelt so that America would come into the war. So at least in theory it could have been prevented.

I've seen no credible evidence that anyone knew that Pearl Harbor was a target. What was suspected was that the Japanese were about to make a major offensive somewhere. Some suspected an attack on the Philippines...few expected such a daring cross Pacific attack, if anyone. Given activity at the Japanese embassy and the increasing tension between the US and Japan, in hindsight, it would have been the smart thing to do to order an all forces alert. Sadly, even the warnings issued to the Pacific command resulted in fairly idiotic reactions. The army air force bunched planes together to make them easier to guard against sabotage....making them easier targets from the air. There was no aerial reconnaissance in operation. If there had been PBYs in the air they'd have spotted the incoming attack in advance. If there had been a line of subs west of the islands it would have been a disaster for the Japanese. The Pacific command chose to do none of those things....that is more military incompetence than a conspiracy by Churchill or Roosevelt.

Just as an exercise in "what if"....imagine if you could go back in time with just what you know. There was a movie in which a US aircraft carrier from the 70s was transported back in time and one of the officers on board was accidentally left behind on December 7th, 1941. He met the ship when it actually came back to it's own time and entered port...by then he was a very rich guy.

 

[trapdoor]

I read the InvestorsDaily article you linked to. I have one question...they continually say something should have been done...but what? You cannot arrest someone on the basis of a blog entry, even if it did come to the attention of the FBI. It appears to me that none of the people who later engaged in murder were guilty of any crime for which they could have been arrested. Do you think we have adequate personnel to place everyone under surveillance if we suspect they have been "radicalized"? Did you know that people suspected of terrorism and placed on the "no fly list" can still pass a background check and buy guns? You can thank the NRA for that.

I'm going to speak to the NRA concern you expressed. Here are questions I, as an NRA member, want answered before I'd accept the watch list amounting to a ban on firearms purchases.

1) How does one get put on the watch list?
2) If you don't belong there, how can you get your name removed?

Right now, there is no answer to either question. The NRA's objection is wholly rational -- the watch list is an executive tool. If it is used to deny U.S. citizens their rights, without due process, then all that it would take is an executive order saying "everyone in Montana is now on the watch list" -- and those citizens can't buy guns, and have no means to have their name removed from the list. I admit I'm employing hyperbole here, but the fact remains that the watch list is a black box, and one can be put on it for no discernible reason, and there's no method for being removed from it. It's a star chamber.

 

[trapdoor]

It was on Bush's watch that the attack was put in effect, with tickets purchased and assets put in motion. If we'd had a competent president, would that have been detected in time? It's impossible to know. Maybe he could have done all the specific things I mentioned, and it still wouldn't have mattered. Or maybe one of them would have made the difference and thousands of lives would be saved. We can't rewind and try again, so at this point it's just speculation.

Or maybe it could have been got based on the chatter, long before tickets were purchased.

 

[middleview]

The point is, for all the harsh words you've piled on Bush, that attack was already in place and waiting for a "go order" when Bush took office. It was organized on Clinton's watch.

It was organized in Afghanistan. One hijacker came to the US in mid 2000 and tried to buy a crop duster. The plans were not fully formed even then. Look at when these guys went to flight school...Early 2001. The attackers were not hanging around from 2000 to 911 waiting for the order to go. They entered the US at the end of 2000 up until well into 2001.

Richard Clarke was requesting a meeting of the Principals, but he'd been demoted from reporting to the president to a position reporting to Condoleeza Rice. Bush took all of August off on vacation...and got a PDB warning that an attack was imminent...but you still want to blame Clinton. Unreal.

 

[middleview]

I'm going to speak to the NRA concern you expressed. Here are questions I, as an NRA member, want answered before I'd accept the watch list amounting to a ban on firearms purchases.

1) How does one get put on the watch list?
2) If you don't belong there, how can you get your name removed?

Right now, there is no answer to either question. The NRA's objection is wholly rational -- the watch list is an executive tool. If it is used to deny U.S. citizens their rights, without due process, then all that it would take is an executive order saying "everyone in Montana is now on the watch list" -- and those citizens can't buy guns, and have no means to have their name removed from the list. I admit I'm employing hyperbole here, but the fact remains that the watch list is a black box, and one can be put on it for no discernible reason, and there's no method for being removed from it. It's a star chamber.

My point was that the Investor's Daily article blames Obama for not having done something. What? Unless someone breaks a law there is little that can be done...our own laws protect them, unless there is fairly substantial evidence of some illegal activity. Look at the hue and cry over a fisa warrant on Carter Page and there certainly was evidence that he was acting as an agent of Russian government interests.

Read the article he linked. See if you can spot something that the FBI could have used to take someone into custody.