LOL, hilarious alternate history

[Illuminatus Primus]

I thought they were directly endorsed and supported by Tripoli.

[Edi]

How can non-governmental entities commit acts of war?

Weren't the Barbary Pirates a non-governmental entity (granted, one that received protection from a government)?

The world is not the same as it was 200 years ago or even a hundred years ago, so the situation is not analoguous.

Edi

[Patrick Degan]

That's why you start calling your intelligence agencies and defence people together when you get something titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.". I really cannot believe you are this thick.

If Rice is to be believed, the August 6 PDB was the result of Bush asking questions about the subject.

Unfortunately, the evidence makes it more than clear that Rice is not to be believed.

Anyway, contrary to what your link asserts:
National Security Advisor Rice gives an inaccurate description of the memo, claiming it is only one and a half pages long (other accounts state it is 11 and a half pages instead of the usual two or three). [Newsweek 5/27/02; New York Times 5/15/02; Die Zeit 10/1/02] She falsely claims “it was an analytic report that talked about [bin Laden]'s methods of operation, talked about what he had done historically, in 1997, in 1998. … I want to reiterate, it was not a warning. There was no specific time, place, or method mentioned.” [White House 5/16/02]


The entire memo was barely over 1 page long.

PDF of the PDB

Jeezus you are dense! At least five seperate reports regarding the PDB have stated that only two pages were declassified.

That's the entire memo. Rice's description was mostly accurate as it is a 'historic' document except for the final 3 sentences which indicate that there are 'patterns of suspicious activity' and that the FBI and CIA are running investigations.

I say it again: you are fucking dense.

Contrary to the characterization of the PDB as a 'smoking gun', I don't see anything damning in it, and other than the fact that the Bushies are totally paranoid about releasing any information about anything, I don't see why they sat on it this long.

Of course you don't see anything incriminating. Nine and a half pages are still classified and in any case it seems you're determined not to see anything you don't want to see.

The President was told of the 'patterns of suspicious activity'. He was also told that the FBI and CIA were investigating. The fact that bin Laden was determined to strike the US certainly wasn't news. The title of the PDB is somewhat sensationalistic, but the contents aren't nearly so. It certainly didn't predict 9/11.

But eight months worth of intel over and above the PDB certainly should have been enough for Bush to get off his fucking ass. Funny how you keep ignoring that.

And your point misses the point. It isn't the "lucky break" that's the crux of the matter but the wherewithal to know, when you get something like it or, for example, a report titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.", that you GET OFF YOUR LAZY ASS AND START DOING YOUR FUCKING JOB. That's when you start coordinating your agencies' efforts and make precautionary preparations.

And what in the report justifies it? Ignoring the sensationalist title, what in that report justified going into a crisis mode? Everything can't be a crisis and taking that report at face value would indicate that the FBI and CIA were on the job.

I say this a third time: you are fucking dense. I've already outlined four times why Bush should have gotten off his lazy ass to do his goddamn job. There were certainly more than two pages to that PDB, despite your lame-ass denials to the contrary, and even had there been only two pages, any document titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." should have been enough of a motivator to action in and of itself. Why is this so damn difficult for you to grasp?

If the President was aware of all the warnings and indicators your link mentions, then I'd agree with you. However, there are no indications that he was aware of any of it other than the G8 threat and the PDB.

YOU ARE FUCKING DENSE! There has already been one threat from Al-Qaeda requiring extra security, detailed Russian and British intel warnings, and a report titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." which anyone with half a brain would figure out requires some serious attention be paid just from the goddamn title. I have asked this before and I will ask it yet again and for as long as it takes to get a straight answer: what makes it utterly impossible for George W. Bush to assemble a counter-terror EXCOMM to start coordinating investigation and action?

I'm not saying that the government is totally innocent, but that the failures were at a level below that of the Oval Office. Shit, if the FBI is practically being insubordinate today in refusing to cooperate and coordinate with the CIA, why would they have done so then even if the President had ordered it. Bureaucratic foot dragging isn't exactly a new problem.

But a president who receives a report titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." and reacts to it by going fishing is.

As far as warnings go, the FAA was issuing them, but there were so many issued that the airlines weren't paying attention any more.

What kind of excuse it that?

On a personal note: I don't like Bush and I don't like defending him, but I don't see much of anything he personally could have done, knowing what he is alleged to have known at the time, to prevent 9/11. If it can later be proven that he knew of all the warnings and did nothing, then I'll blame him. As it is, the failures were at levels far below the Oval Office.

Translation: "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA LA..."

[Patrick Degan]

How can non-governmental entities commit acts of war?

Weren't the Barbary Pirates a non-governmental entity (granted, one that received protection from a government)?

I thought they were directly endorsed and supported by Tripoli.

The Barbary States were the principalities of Morocco, Algeirs, and Tripoli stretching along the North African coast from Gibraltar to Egypt. Nominally under the soverignty of the Ottoman Empire, the sultanates pursued their own policy objectives and operated as independent entities, paying due tribute to Constantinople. Their war against Christian Europe had degenerated over the course of three centuries to simple piracy waged as the means to extract tribute to ensure the safe passage of Europe's commercial sea trade.

The sultans employed their own state navies as well as corsairs commissioned under Letters of Marque —essentially a license from the government issuing it to engage in privateering. We ourselves employed privateering during the American Revolution as well as in the Quasi War with France (1798-1800) and the War of 1812. If you read Section 1 of the Constitution, one of Congress' powers is to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Privateers operating under such letters were authourised to engage in commerce warfare against all shipping of an enemy power and to claim prize values for all captures at sea. International law today prohibits privateering but two hundred years ago it was common practise and recognised as legitimate under the usages of war as constituted then.

The Europeans generally paid tribute because either they did not have sufficent naval force to protect their shipping or because they were too engaged against military rivals to be able to bring force to bear to end the piracy. The British paid tribute and turned a blind eye to the Barbary piracy because it was to their advantage on two fronts: it helped restrict the commercial shipping of their rivals and it also helped tie down naval forces of their enemies, and for them it was far cheaper to pay tribute than engage in war.

For the United States, it was actually cheaper to engage in war rather than pay tribute. The first real dent put into Barbary activities was when Commodore Edward Preble's Mediterranean Squadron acted aggressively against Tripoli in 1804 and later when a land invasion of U.S. Marines led by William Eaton helped set up Hamad Karamanli, brother of the Bashaw, Yusef, on a rival throne at Derna and the Tripolitans sued for peace the next year. Barbary attacks on U.S. shipping ended for good when Stephen Decatur led a far more powerful Mediterranean Squadron in 1815 and negotiated peace at the cannon's mouth with all three Barbary principalities.

[Patrick Degan]

Oh, and BTW:

excerpt:

English translation of an article from DieZeit

Deadly Mistakes

U.S. Investigators Knew About Planned Terror Attacks, Let the Suspects Get Away. More Clues That CIA and FBI Could Have Prevented the Attack on America

by Oliver Schröm
Die Zeit [German newsweekly]
October 1, 2002

...
Crawford, Aug. 6, 2001. U.S. president George W. Bush is on vacation. He wants to spend the whole month at his ranch in Texas. Every morning, however, he still receives his Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, wherein the CIA informs the president about the country's security situation. On this morning, the report is straight from the CIA director. His PDB runs 11 and one-half printed pages, instead of the usual two to three, and carries the title, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Therein the CIA chief explains that al Qaeda has decided to carry out attacks within the United States, and that presumably members of the terrorist organization have been in the country for some time. It is unclear whether the CIA director informed the president about the statements of arrested al Qaeda members. According to their confessions, the terrorist organization for some time has been thinking about hijacking planes and using them as missiles.

© Copyright 2002

Linky

[Glocksman]

Jeezus you are dense! At least five seperate reports regarding the PDB have stated that only two pages were declassified.

So the BBC is wrong?

It was released in its entirety, with only the identity of foreign intelligence agencies that provided information to the US removed.

Both CNN and the NY Times also state that that was the entire document was declassifed.

The White House says the only information not released was the names of 3 foreign governments that provided information.

Q: Why has information been redacted from the PDB?

The copy of the PDB that has been released is a copy of the PDB prepared for the President, except that three redactions have been made to protect the names of foreign governments that provided information to CIA.

Now just who is dense?

Nine and a half pages are still classified and in any case it seems you're determined not to see anything you don't want to see.

I guess the Beeb is in on the Bush conspiracy to hide the existence of the other nine and a half pages, eh? Or is it the World Jewish Conspiracy™ at work again?

But eight months worth of intel over and above the PDB certainly should have been enough for Bush to get off his fucking ass. Funny how you keep ignoring that.

And I'll keep asking you this. Did he fucking know all of the intelligence you say justifies it? If you can't prove he did, then you have no case for incompetence.

I've already outlined four times why Bush should have gotten off his lazy ass to do his goddamn job. There were certainly more than two pages to that PDB, despite your lame-ass denials to the contrary,

Yeah, I just relied on the rabid right wing BBC for the information that it was only a page and a half. I guess 2 year old news reports speculating that it was 11 and a half pages are more accurate.

Something else to consider, wouldn't the Commissioners who have seen the entire document be screaming bloody murder if Bush only released a page and a half and then claimed to be releasing the entire document? I think they would. Kerrey and Ben Veniste would be on CNN right now denouncing Bush.

Unless you have recent articles from a reliable source (Indymedia isn't a reliable source) on the PDB's length, I call bullshit.

and even had there been only two pages, any document titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." should have been enough of a motivator to action in and of itself. Why is this so damn difficult for you to grasp?

He did take action. He asked questions, the PDB was written as a result, and in it he was told that the FBI and CIA are investigating. How hard is that to grasp?

I have asked this before and I will ask it yet again and for as long as it takes to get a straight answer: what makes it utterly impossible for George W. Bush to assemble a counter-terror EXCOMM to start coordinating investigation and action?

It obviously wasn't impossible for him to do so. However the PDB didn't state any evidence that made appear it was necessary. If you were the President and you asked questions about the possibility of attacks based on some of the reports you've been hearing and were told that the FBI (70 field investigations) and CIA are investigating and that some of the more sensational threat reports couldn't be backed up, would your reaction be to immediately convene a crisis cabinet?

If you say 'yes', I say 'bullshit'.

That PDB leaves one with the impression that the FBI already had a handle on the issue with their 70 investigations. Of course they didn't, but that's hindsight.

But a president who receives a report titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." and reacts to it by going fishing is.

Quit focussing on the goddamn title and start focussing on the contents. Ever heard the old saying 'Don't judge a book by its cover?'

Translation: "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA LA..."

You haven't proven a goddamned thing in regards to what Bush knew and when he knew it. Simply listing all of the pre-9/11 intelligence on the AQ threat doesn't prove that Bush knew it.

You think he's responsible, prove that he is.

Quote:
As far as warnings go, the FAA was issuing them, but there were so many issued that the airlines weren't paying attention any more.


What kind of excuse it that?

It's no excuse, but it does contradict your statements about no precautionary measures being taken.

Oh, and BTW:

Quoting another inaccurate two year old article doesn't back up your false contention that the document was 11 pages long.

It was the length Rice said it was. Even Ben-Veniste and Kerrey didn't contradict her on that. The PDB was only 1 and a half pages long. Accept it.

[Glocksman]

Unless you have recent articles from a reliable source (Indymedia isn't a reliable source) on the PDB's length, I call bullshit.

Indymedia was used merely as an example of an unreliable news source. I'm not saying that Indymedia was your source for claiming it was 11 and a half pages long.

[phongn]

snip

Thanks!

[Patrick Degan]

OK, Glocksie, since you're sooooo determined to take the White House's word on the PDB, here's a simple question you should be able to answer. If the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why are the page numbers blacked out? Take a good look at the .pdf copy which is downloadable from CNN and you'll see that the page numbers are blacked out. If the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why are the page numbers blacked out?

Surely it shouldn't be a secret that the pages are numbered "1 of 2" and "2 of 2".

Let's see if you have at least enough mental resources to work that one out.

If the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why are the page numbers blacked out?

[MKSheppard]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Apr14.html

Al Qaeda Unchecked for Years, Panel Says
Tenet Concedes CIA Made Mistakes

By Walter Pincus and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 15, 2004; Page A01

U.S. intelligence services failed to recognize the emergence of the al Qaeda terrorist network until more than a decade after it was founded in 1988, playing down a tide of reports that documented the danger posed by the group, according to findings released yesterday by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The CIA's Counterterrorist Center never developed a plan to deal with the possibility that terrorists might use airplanes as weapons despite growing evidence during the 1990s that terrorist groups had attempted or were planning such plots, the commission's staff also found.

CIA Director George J. Tenet acknowledged yesterday that he did not brief President Bush, FBI leaders or Cabinet members after he was informed in late August 2001 of the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, who would later be charged as a conspirator in the terror attacks. The briefing for Tenet was titled "Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly."

"We made mistakes," Tenet told the panel yesterday, referring to the general failure to detect the terror plot that left 3,000 people dead. "We all understood bin Laden's intent to strike the homeland but were unable to translate this knowledge into an effective defense of the country."

Tenet also said it would take five more years to "have the kind of clandestine service our country needs."

The findings by the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, were the second time in as many days that the commission's investigators have unveiled a sweeping condemnation of the U.S. intelligence community, this time focused on the CIA. The same investigators released a report Tuesday that the panel's chairman had described as "an indictment of the FBI."

The staff found that major collection and analysis activities targeting al Qaeda were delayed even after a defector from the terrorist organization began providing details about the network in 1996.

CIA had learned that Osama bin Laden was linked to the 1992 attacks on U.S. military personnel in Yemen and the 1993 downing of a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter in Somalia, the report said. The agency also received reports in 1997 that al Qaeda operatives were surveilling institutions in the United States as a precursor to a likely attack.

But still, the U.S. intelligence community "did not describe this organization, at least in documents we have seen, until 1999," according to the report.

During his testimony yesterday, however, Tenet disputed the claim that the CIA wasn't aware of al Qaeda and bin Laden until that late date. Tenet said the report's finding wrongly assumed that "people weren't getting this kind of data. That's just not true."

In one of its more stinging case studies, the staff report noted that Tenet learned on Aug. 23 or 24, 2001, about the arrest in Minnesota a week earlier of Moussaoui, a suspected jihadist who was attempting to learn how to fly jetliners.

Tenet said he did not tell President Bush, who was vacationing in Texas, or FBI management about the development. Nor did he mention the case at a Sept. 4 White House Cabinet meeting, where approval was given for a new presidential directive on terrorism.

Tenet said he assumed "that this was something that would be laid down in front of" the White House Counterterrorism Security Group. In fact, the Moussaoui information remained in the FBI's international terrorism division. Thomas J. Pickard, acting FBI director until a week before the attacks, has testified that he did not learn of it until the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001.

Tenet testified that the case first came to his attention because the FBI agent was looking for any intelligence the CIA had about Moussaoui to get a court order to open his computer.

In a separate report released yesterday, the panel's investigators were critical of the FBI's attempts at reform since the Sept. 11 attacks. Although the bureau "is a stronger counterterrorism agency than it was before 9/11," the report said, it remains plagued by chronic computer problems, erratic training, shortages of linguists and intelligence analysts, and widespread confusion among agents over its counterterrorism mission.

In one example, "we heard from many analysts who complain that they are able to do little actual analysis because they continue to be assigned menial tasks, including covering the phones at the reception desk and emptying the office trash bins," the report said.

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III said in testimony that "we've got to put our house in order, and I think we are putting our house in order."

"Change cannot be done overnight," he added. "Transitions take time. . . . I think we're on the right path."

Mueller urged the commission not to endorse the creation of a domestic intelligence service that would take over counterterrorism responsibilities from the FBI. The panel is seriously debating the idea of an agency akin to Britain's MI5; the prospect of an overhaul of the nation's intelligence apparatus gained further prominence this week when President Bush said he was considering it.

"I do believe that creating a separate agency to collect intelligence in the United States would be a grave mistake," Mueller said. "Splitting the law enforcement and the intelligence functions would leave both agencies fighting the war on terrorism with one hand tied behind their backs."

The idea has prompted widespread criticism from law enforcement officials. Former FBI director Louis J. Freeh on Tuesday likened the idea to the creation of a "secret police," and the 9,000-member FBI Agents Association said such an agency would "put blinders on agents in the field and tie their hands behind their backs in the fight against terrorism."

Although members of the 10-member bipartisan commission showered praise on Mueller and Tenet for their efforts at reform, the remarks were overshadowed by the sweeping criticisms found in yesterday's staff reports.

"I came to this job with less knowledge of the intelligence community than anybody else at this table," said Chairman Thomas H. Kean, who served as a Republican governor of New Jersey. "What I've learned has not reassured me. It's frightened me a bit, frankly."

The commission staff also confirmed an early clue to a Sept. 11 hijacker, reporting that in 1999, the German government provided the U.S. government with a telephone number and first name: "Marwan." The CIA pursued the lead but little was discovered. The individual would eventually be identified as Marwan Al-Shehhi, who piloted United Airlines Flight 175 into the World Trade Center and used the same telephone number given to the CIA before the hijackings.

Commissioner Bob Kerrey (D), who served on the intelligence committee as a senator from Nebraska, said he did not know in 1996 that bin Laden's operatives might have been involved in downing the Black Hawk in Somalia.

"Did you ever have a conversation with President Clinton" about the incident in order to "ramp this guy up to the top of the list?" Kerrey asked Tenet, adding that the evidence "would have galvanized the U.S. against bin Laden."

Tenet said he would have to check on what he told Clinton.

Tenet said the CIA's inability to penetrate the al Qaeda network has led to a long- term rebuilding of its human intelligence program, which was in "disarray" after the loss of 20 percent of its personnel in the 1990s. By 2001, he said, there were 25 sources inside Afghanistan who were nonproductive on the Sept. 11 plot but useful for the U.S.-led invasion.

Kean questioned why it would take five years to rebuild the CIA's clandestine service. Tenet said it takes time to create "access and cover" so that U.S. agents can take root in the rough societies where terrorist sources can be developed.

[Patrick Degan]

Jeezus you are dense! At least five seperate reports regarding the PDB have stated that only two pages were declassified.

So the BBC is wrong?

No, but the question remains: if the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why are the page numbers blacked out?

It was released in its entirety, with only the identity of foreign intelligence agencies that provided information to the US removed.

In that case, if the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why are the page numbers blacked out?

Both CNN and the NY Times also state that that was the entire document was declassifed.

Then surely you should be able to answer the following question: if the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why are the page numbers blacked out?

The White House says the only information not released was the names of 3 foreign governments that provided information.

OK, so then, if the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why are the page numbers blacked out?

Q: Why has information been redacted from the PDB?

The copy of the PDB that has been released is a copy of the PDB prepared for the President, except that three redactions have been made to protect the names of foreign governments that provided information to CIA.

And yet the question remains: if the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why are the page numbers blacked out?

Now just who is dense?

Then answer a simple question: if the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why are the page numbers blacked out?

Nine and a half pages are still classified and in any case it seems you're determined not to see anything you don't want to see.

I guess the Beeb is in on the Bush conspiracy to hide the existence of the other nine and a half pages, eh? Or is it the World Jewish Conspiracy™ at work again?

No, it merely leaves one simple question unanswered: if the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why are the page numbers blacked out?

But eight months worth of intel over and above the PDB certainly should have been enough for Bush to get off his fucking ass. Funny how you keep ignoring that.

And I'll keep asking you this. Did he fucking know all of the intelligence you say justifies it? If you can't prove he did, then you have no case for incompetence.

It doesn't matter if he knew all the intelligence that justified it at the moment he got the PDB, you goddamn imbecile. HE SHOULD HAVE STARTED THE BALL ROLLING UPON RECEIPT OF ANY ITEM TITLED "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S." And the fact that he continues to retain all the people you say let down Bush with their incompetence makes him either complacent or complicit in their incompetence.

I've already outlined four times why Bush should have gotten off his lazy ass to do his goddamn job. There were certainly more than two pages to that PDB, despite your lame-ass denials to the contrary,

Yeah, I just relied on the rabid right wing BBC for the information that it was only a page and a half. I guess 2 year old news reports speculating that it was 11 and a half pages are more accurate.

So then it should be easy for you to answer one simple question: if the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why are the page numbers blacked out?

Something else to consider, wouldn't the Commissioners who have seen the entire document be screaming bloody murder if Bush only released a page and a half and then claimed to be releasing the entire document? I think they would. Kerrey and Ben Veniste would be on CNN right now denouncing Bush.

Not if they got as little information as the rest of the public did. And it still leaves one little question unanswered: if the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why are the page numbers blacked out?

Unless you have recent articles from a reliable source (Indymedia isn't a reliable source) on the PDB's length, I call bullshit.

Then have a look at the bottom of each sheet on the .pdf and ask yourself a simple question: if the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why are the page numbers blacked out?

and even had there been only two pages, any document titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." should have been enough of a motivator to action in and of itself. Why is this so damn difficult for you to grasp?

He did take action. He asked questions, the PDB was written as a result, and in it he was told that the FBI and CIA are investigating. How hard is that to grasp?

No, numbskull, he took NO action upon receipt of the PDB. His fishing holiday started the same day.

I have asked this before and I will ask it yet again and for as long as it takes to get a straight answer: what makes it utterly impossible for George W. Bush to assemble a counter-terror EXCOMM to start coordinating investigation and action?

It obviously wasn't impossible for him to do so. However the PDB didn't state any evidence that made appear it was necessary. If you were the President and you asked questions about the possibility of attacks based on some of the reports you've been hearing and were told that the FBI (70 field investigations) and CIA are investigating and that some of the more sensational threat reports couldn't be backed up, would your reaction be to immediately convene a crisis cabinet?

No, of course not. The mere fact that so much verbage in the document regarding Al-Qaeda plans is rendered in active voice and the present tense isn't enough to put two and two together and start a far more focussed effort to uncover all intel related to the possible threat. Certainly not enough to interrupt one's fishing holiday.

If you say 'yes', I say 'bullshit'.

You'll say "bullshit" no matter what, but that's no surprise at this point given how deeply in denial you are.

That PDB leaves one with the impression that the FBI already had a handle on the issue with their 70 investigations. Of course they didn't, but that's hindsight.

And yet for some strange reason, other administrations weren't so content to simply leave things "in hand" when a possible threat was visible over the horizon.

But a president who receives a report titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." and reacts to it by going fishing is.

Quit focussing on the goddamn title and start focussing on the contents. Ever heard the old saying 'Don't judge a book by its cover?'

The contents even in just the two pages given to the media are enough to start taking a more active hand in coordinating the investigation —especially after it had been necessary for Bush to have increased security against a possible Al-Qaeda attack at the G8 summit only the previous month. As it is, however, any president with half a brain in his head should have known enough that any report titled "Bin Laden determiend to strike in U.S." warranted serious attention.

Translation: "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA LA..."

You haven't proven a goddamned thing in regards to what Bush knew and when he knew it. Simply listing all of the pre-9/11 intelligence on the AQ threat doesn't prove that Bush knew it.

Denial does not a rebuttal make.

As far as warnings go, the FAA was issuing them, but there were so many issued that the airlines weren't paying attention any more.

What kind of excuse it that?

It's no excuse, but it does contradict your statements about no precautionary measures being taken.

In a word, bullshit. Merely issuing warnings is not taking precautionary measures by any stretch of the imagination.

Quoting another inaccurate two year old article doesn't back up your false contention that the document was 11 pages long.

Again, denial does not a rebuttal make. But since you're so confident in the White House version of events, then just answer one simple question for us: if the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why are the page numbers blacked out?

It was the length Rice said it was. Even Ben-Veniste and Kerrey didn't contradict her on that. The PDB was only 1 and a half pages long. Accept it.

Just as soon as you answer one simple little question: if the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why are the page numbers blacked out?

[KrauserKrauser]

What the hell when are you going to get it through your skull that the President gets threat briefings all the time. Not every single one can be considered a crisis and fully acted upon based on titles of articles and vague information.

Don't you understand that the US is constantly recieving threats and warnings and possible situations and responding to all of them with the same amount of voracity is simply not possible? I know you probably want the world to be some sort of utopian area where the President knows everything that everyone knows and being an omnipotent individual will always no what to do.

The August 6 PDB is listing of the history of Osama and his desire to harm the US. It was titled "Bin Laden determined to Strike US" just as I am sure many are "Sadaam determined to develop and use WMD" or "Kim Jong determined to develop and use WMD." Hey how about "Someone or something may or may not go wrong, kill someone, hurt something, destroy something, or be somewhere sometime in the future." With the knowledge we had now, yes we could prevent 9-11 but pre-9-11 sorry the chips just didn''t line up.

[Patrick Degan]

Yes, thank you for your meaningless regurgitation of the party line.

[Glocksman]

Just as soon as you answer one simple little question: if the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why are the page numbers blacked out?

I don't know why, but I *do* know that several news organizations say it's the entire document. Members of the 9/11 panel who have seen the original document and called for its declassification haven't been heard from saying that it's not the document they saw.

Don't you think at least one of the Commissioners would speak out if Bush claimed to have released the entire document but left nine pages classified?

In the absence of any proof other than 2 year old news reports about a document none of the reporters ever saw, you don't have a case

Are Kerrey, Ben-Veniste, Roemer, Gorelick, and Hamilton all closet Bush supporters who are keeping silent about the fraud? :rolleyes:
Or is the Illuminati Conspiracy™ paying them for their silence?

[Glocksman]

Denial does not a rebuttal make

No, but your absence of any proof that Bush knew about these warnings means you have no case for me to rebut.

[Patrick Degan]

Just as soon as you answer one simple little question: if the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why are the page numbers blacked out?

I don't know why, but I *do* know that several news organizations say it's the entire document. Members of the 9/11 panel who have seen the original document and called for its declassification haven't been heard from saying that it's not the document they saw.

Don't you think at least one of the Commissioners would speak out if Bush claimed to have released the entire document but left nine pages classified?

In the absence of any proof other than 2 year old news reports about a document none of the reporters ever saw, you don't have a case

Are Kerrey, Ben-Veniste, Roemer, Gorelick, and Hamilton all closet Bush supporters who are keeping silent about the fraud? :rolleyes:
Or is the Illuminati Conspiracy™ paying them for their silence?

Which is no fucking answer at all to the question at hand.

[Howedar]

Arguments from ignorance are not your friend, Patrick. Furthermore the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that there is anything sinister behind the page-blacking-out.

[Glocksman]

But it beats the shit out of a conspiracy theory that'd make a LaRouchite blush.

The only explanation I can think of is that the 'bin-Laden determined' pages were part of a larger comprehensive briefing paper on intelligence efforts. and the 'missing' pages dealt with other issues than terrorism.

Other than that wild ass guess, I don't know why.

Anyway, to accept that the document isn't complete, we have to believe that all 10 Commission members and the staff that have seen the entire document are keeping their silence.

Personally, I don't think the Democrat members would let a lie of this magnitude slide and would rightfully hammer Bush into the ground for it.

[Patrick Degan]

Arguments from ignorance are not your friend, Patrick. Furthermore the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that there is anything sinister behind the page-blacking-out.

An observation which casts doubt upon the actual length of the PDB is not an Appeal to Ignorance, and it still leaves the question as to why something as supposedly innocous as page numbers had to be redacted.

[Patrick Degan]

But it beats the shit out of a conspiracy theory that'd make a LaRouchite blush.

And exactly what "conspiracy theory" would that be, Glocksie? Where did I state any sort of theory as to why the page numbers were blacked out, or why the intel wasn't acted upon, or why Bush simply carried on his vacation? Go ahead and quote the conspiracy theory you see me as having advanced on this thread, shitwit.

The only explanation I can think of is that the 'bin-Laden determined' pages were part of a larger comprehensive briefing paper on intelligence efforts. and the 'missing' pages dealt with other issues than terrorism.

Riiiight... a paper titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." is naturally going to be cluttered with all sorts of material having absolutely nothing to do with the subject of Bin Laden attacking targets inside the U.S.

Anyway, to accept that the document isn't complete, we have to believe that all 10 Commission members and the staff that have seen the entire document are keeping their silence.

Then why was it seen fit to black out something as innocous as page numbers?

Personally, I don't think the Democrat members would let a lie of this magnitude slide and would rightfully hammer Bush into the ground for it.

And this is based on...?

[MKSheppard]

Yes, thank you for your meaningless regurgitation of the party line.

Did you even read that article I posted showing that the CIA was asleep
at the switch majorly, and that Tenet didn't even brief bush at all on
maoussi?

[Glocksman]

And exactly what "conspiracy theory" would that be, Glocksie? Where did I state any sort of theory as to why the page numbers were blacked out, or why the intel wasn't acted upon, or why Bush simply carried on his vacation? Go ahead and quote the conspiracy theory you see me as having advanced on this thread, shitwit.

Lets see.

Then surely you should be able to answer the following question: if the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why are the page numbers blacked out?

You're not only accusing the White House of lying about the length of the document, you're also implying that anyone else (such as the Democratic 9/11 Commissioners) who has seen the original document is in on the lie by not exposing the fraud.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.


Only a genuine goddamn moron or total partisan jackass would continue to believe 2 year old news reports about the length of a classifed document that the reporters have never seen in preference to all of the news reports, Rice's questioning and Ben-Veniste's and Kerrey's acquiesence to her statement about the length of the document in question.

Riiiight... a paper titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." is naturally going to be cluttered with all sorts of material having absolutely nothing to do with the subject of Bin Laden attacking targets inside the U.S.

And since when did you become an expert on CIA's Presidential briefing practices?

I said it was a wild ass guess, not Gospel.

And again, you're focussing on the goddamned title and ignoring the goddamed contents of that memo.

Then why was it seen fit to black out something as innocous as page numbers?

How the fuck should I know?

What I do know is that people who are in a position to know haven't said a fucking word about the document not being complete. If you think the Democrat 9/11 commissioners would let Bush get by with passing off an incomplete PDB after calling for its' declassificaton, you've been inhaling too much paint thinner.

[Glocksman]

Quote:
Personally, I don't think the Democrat members would let a lie of this magnitude slide and would rightfully hammer Bush into the ground for it.


And this is based on...?

The simple fact that they are Democrats who can be presumed to have a vested political interest in exposing a lie by Bush of this magnitude on this sensitive a subject.

Are you saying they would let him slide?

[KrauserKrauser]

Maybe those other pages were concerning the alien landings, the JFK assasination or the real location of Elvis. Maybe the memo was part of a larger intelligence package for the day. Simply restating the fact that you don't trust the administration and think the letter was longer, ignoring the fact that known Bush denouncers saw the original memo and are not calling Bush out on it.

Hey maybe it's about a wierd metal ring they found in Egypt with lots of wierd symbols they can't understand. Luckily there is this archeologist that doesn't get much respect, Daniel Jackson, and he might be able to help out.

[Edi]

According to the latest issue of Time, the summary of the Aug. 6th PDB was 1 and 1/4 pages long, and the administration claims the whole memo was just two pages. If the summary was that long, they are just flat out lying about it.

Edi