Food for Thought!

[Devious]

That's definitely not true. I think you're confusing Dick Cheney with the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a committee that puts out foreign policy reports. Before Bush was elected, PNAC, which had a number of future administration members (but not Cheney if I remember right), put out a report on what they considered should be foreign policy initiatives. In that report, they said that transformation of America's armed forces would occur gradually, in the absence of a Pearl Harbor type event.

actually this is true. i'll have to do some research to find the quote and the context, but i've seen this stated many times in many different places that Cheney did indeed say those exact words. if and when i find it, i'll post it.

as for everything else, look. i'm not saying that they can prevent every attack, and i understand that it is next to impossible to do so. but when the administration had as much evidence as they did on the possible method of attack, and they just sit on it, that says a lot about them. many times after 9/11, the government has issued warnings about specific targets to the people, even if the attack isn't imminent (whether or not those were legitimate threats or bogus ones cooked up by government to scare the people into voting republican is irrelevant) why was no warning given to the people before 9/11 that there was a possibility that these guys could strike? oh, and no attack since then has been imminent. most Al-Qaeda "threats" since then have made no specific mention of any imminent plan to strike the US, just that they are planning to do so again sometime in the future. Bin Laden said in August 2001 that an "attack of unprecented proportions" would be carried out within a matter of weeks. so he even gave them a specific time frame as to when it would occur. it wasn't a vague threat as most since then have been.

Could they have prevented 9/11? probably not, in fact i would bet that they wouldn't have been able to stop it. but it sure would have been nice if they did more than what they did, which was nothing at all. and as for measures that could prevent a future attack like 9/11, how about actually tightening security at the airports, instead of just saying that they have. i have read so many reports of tests that have been conducted at airports where such things as guns and bomb making equipment were able to pass through security checkpoints without a problem. that would be a good place to start, although i seriously doubt that they would try the same type of attack again. i just think some kind of action should have been carried out in some effort to prevent it from happening

edit: ok i was mistaken about who made the quote, but Dick Cheney was indeed a member, and a founding member at that, of the Project Of THe New American Century http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-pilger.html

i must add that the fact that all these people being part of a group that makes statements like this (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby, etc) are now or were, during that period, part of the Bush administration, only adds to my belief that the administration thought it was in their best interests to allow an attack to happen.

note: i do not follow a lot of the beliefs held by the author of this article, it was only used for a reference to show that Cheney was indeed allied with this organization

 

[Kareem]

Actually NORAD wasnt set up pre 9/11 to intercept hijacked planes, NORADS primary function was too intercept Russian missles or the threat of a Russian attack, all day today they've been playing documentaries on the history channel about 9/11 and the fighter pilots who were finally airborne to intercept flight 11 (which they didnt know at the time had already hit the wtc) were told nothing of intercepting hijacked planes, they according to them were told they were intercpeting a Russian attack, which is why they headed out over the Atlantic Ocean.

The failure to intercept any of the hijacked planes was not soley NORAD's but the FAA's as well as they were not very co operative intially (sp) part of the blame also goes to the Bush administration for sitting on their duff when the first plane hit. Bush's excuse was stupid an reckless "I didnt want to alarm the children" yeah good one genious lets not alarm the kids in Florida while people in Manhattan, NY are dying.

Had it been my call, fuck reading a book to some elementary kids the minute I was told one plane smacked into the one of the wtc buildings, I woulda rushed out put the military on high alert an ordered fighters to immediately begin armed patrols over Manhattan an D.C. better safe then sorry, and sorry is what the admin is for doing what they did. The threat was there an it was known it was also a specific threat, the report that was delievered to Bush while he was at his ranch in August which he failed to read, stated Bin Laden determined to attack from within the u.s. in the report mentioned hijacked planes being used as missles an targets being, the wtc, whitehouse, fbi building an so forth.

 

[Morris]

Bin Laden said in August 2001 that an "attack of unprecented proportions" would be carried out within a matter of weeks.

in August which he failed to read, stated Bin Laden determined to attack from within the u.s. in the report mentioned hijacked planes being used as missles an targets being, the wtc, whitehouse, fbi building an so forth.

Bin Laden said no such thing. The report said no such thing. What happened was that Bush received a report titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" in August, 2001. If you'd like to see a transcript of the report Bush saw, go to http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/ It says future terrorist attacks may be hijackings, and that federal buildings in NYC were being surveyed.

Seeing as how suicide plane hijackers flying planes into buildings had never happened before, if you could have predicted 9/11 from reading that, please pick my Powerball numbers too.

i must add that the fact that all these people being part of a group that makes statements like this (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby, etc) are now or were, during that period, part of the Bush administration, only adds to my belief that the administration thought it was in their best interests to allow an attack to happen.

I actually think it's proof that the members of PNAC (like I mentioned and you affirmed, many of them are now administration members) weren't interested in allowing an attack to happen. If you read the PNAC document, it talks about military intervention or another form of intervention in Iraq regardless of a terrorism pretext. And the PNAC document was published a few years before 9/11.

but when the administration had as much evidence as they did on the possible method of attack, and they just sit on it, that says a lot about them.

I can't figure out how you are arguing that the administration did nothing. First of all, the only input high ranking administration officials did was push papers: Condi Rice reported findings from the CIA and FBI to Bush a few months before 9/11 that Bin Laden was "determined to strike" in the United States. The intelligence community had been doing plenty of work on Al Qaeda since the 90s and had identified some of the hijackers as Al Qaeda members before 9/11. The 9/11 Commission points out just how crossed up the CIA and FBI got, to the point that intelligence wasn't even being shared properly.

Even if Bush or Cheney wanted 9/11 to happen, which is quite ridiculous, I can't even forsee a way in which one of them could alter the intelligence systems that were the ones doing the work to combat terrorism.

There are literally hundreds of different methods of attacks that a terrorist group could pull off. Even if we knew the method, we can't predict the target. You could predict the target and not know the method. You could know the target and the method and not know when.

 

[Devious]

Bin Laden said no such thing. The report said no such thing. What happened was that Bush received a report titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" in August, 2001. If you'd like to see a transcript of the report Bush saw, go to http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/ It says future terrorist attacks may be hijackings, and that federal buildings in NYC were being surveyed.

Seeing as how suicide plane hijackers flying planes into buildings had never happened before, if you could have predicted 9/11 from reading that, please pick my Powerball numbers too.



I actually think it's proof that the members of PNAC (like I mentioned and you affirmed, many of them are now administration members) weren't interested in allowing an attack to happen. If you read the PNAC document, it talks about military intervention or another form of intervention in Iraq regardless of a terrorism pretext. And the PNAC document was published a few years before 9/11.



I can't figure out how you are arguing that the administration did nothing. First of all, the only input high ranking administration officials did was push papers: Condi Rice reported findings from the CIA and FBI to Bush a few months before 9/11 that Bin Laden was "determined to strike" in the United States. The intelligence community had been doing plenty of work on Al Qaeda since the 90s and had identified some of the hijackers as Al Qaeda members before 9/11. The 9/11 Commission points out just how crossed up the CIA and FBI got, to the point that intelligence wasn't even being shared properly.

Even if Bush or Cheney wanted 9/11 to happen, which is quite ridiculous, I can't even forsee a way in which one of them could alter the intelligence systems that were the ones doing the work to combat terrorism.

There are literally hundreds of different methods of attacks that a terrorist group could pull off. Even if we knew the method, we can't predict the target. You could predict the target and not know the method. You could know the target and the method and not know when.

well if you're going to refute my claims maybe you should know what you're talking about. he said it in an interview conducted August 25, 2001, that was re-aired shortly after 9/11. he also said it in the Arabic press. read this article and see this paragraph:
Did Arafat actually say that? Remember, unlike the U.S. and Israel, the Palestinian Authority is not a democracy. There is no freedom of the press. The press can only carry the message that the government wishes for them to carry. How can he say something like that? Simple. Arafat has long viewed the American people as fools; fools who will only pay attention to what he says in English; fools who will never take the time and energy to translate what it is he says in Arabic to his people. And he has been right. For some reason or other, we never consider what is published in the Arabic press. That is why Osama bin Laden, three weeks ago, announced in the Arabic press that there was going to be an attack of unprecedented proportions on America, and we were either unaware of it or did not take it seriously. http://www.te.urj.net/sept17_2_02.htm

i know all about that report and what was in it, that is not what i was referring to. Bin Laden did indeed say that. i saw and heard it myself. try looking it up on google, you can see for yourself. and considering that Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, and there is plenty of evidence to support that, why is it so "ridiculous" that Bush and Cheney would follow that same plan? if it was unprecedented then maybe it would be harder for me to believe, but there are things like this all through American history. anyone remember how the US got full support to go into Vietnam? Gulf Of Tonkin ring a bell? like i said, i could be wrong, but it is what i believe happened. kind of like how you believe that Israel was just in everything they did in the recent events of the Israel/Hezbollah battle. but i'm not going to get into that with you. i think there is enough evidence for me to believe this. if you choose not to, then good for you.

 

[Morris]

Bin Laden did indeed say that. i saw and heard it myself. try looking it up on google, you can see for yourself.

I have looked for this on Google and cannot find it. If you can find something, please post it so I can see it. I have tried hard to find something about this and cannot.

and considering that Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, and there is plenty of evidence to support that, why is it so "ridiculous" that Bush and Cheney would follow that same plan?

Feel free to cite the Pearl Harbor evidence so I can refute it. The conspiracy that Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbor to happen is rather obvious hogwash. Why would the United States set its navy back by 7 months and let the Phillipines be taken? To drum up public support? Are you trying to tell me that knowing a surprise attack was coming and using that intelligence to fight it off successfully wouldn't have created the support necessary to declare war?

 

[Devious]

wow, you didn't even read my post did you? i posted an article specifically stating that Bin Laden said it in the Arabic press. did you not see that? and if you googled it, you didn't look very hard, cuz i googled it and found the article and others indicating that the interview happened and that he did say it.

i may have been incorrect that Roosevelt let Pearl Harbor happen, as there is no direct proof that he himself directly knew, but there is plenty of proof that people in the administration, including military officials, knew that the attack was coming.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm read this and please refute it for me. anyway, i've said what i believe and why i believe it, that's all that my intentions were. i'm probably not going to change anyone's mind about it, and no one's going to change mine, so there is no point going around in circles forever about it.

 

[Morris]

wow, you didn't even read my post did you? i posted an article specifically stating that Bin Laden said it in the Arabic press. did you not see that? and if you googled it, you didn't look very hard, cuz i googled it and found the article and others indicating that the interview happened and that he did say it.

I saw your link. It was a sermon. If I could see the Arabic press statement, or even a MEMRI translation of Bin Laden's words, that would be suitable. And let me know your search terms, because this is all I could find:

In an interview with the London-based newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi, bin Laden boasts that he is planning an “unprecedented” strike against the US. Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of the newspaper, will say, “Personally, we received information that he planned very, very big attacks against American interests. We received several warnings like this. We did not take it so seriously, preferring to see what would happen before reporting it.” [Independent, 9/17/2001; ABC News, 9/12/2001] Atwan’s comment implies the warning is not published before 9/11. But Senator Diane Feinstein (D) will say shortly after 9/11, “Bin Laden’s people had made statements three weeks ago carried in the Arab press in Great Britain that they were preparing to carry out unprecedented attacks in the US.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/14/2001]

Bin Laden clearly gave no timetable. Which isn't surprising, because it would make no sense. In otherwords, it was as vague a threat as the typical Al Qaeda threats.

i may have been incorrect that Roosevelt let Pearl Harbor happen, as there is no direct proof that he himself directly knew, but there is plenty of proof that people in the administration, including military officials, knew that the attack was coming.

The United States had cracked Japan's code via Operation Magic. We knew that Japan was planning to break off diplomatic connections. Military planners hypothesized that it might be possible Japan would try to attack American targets, but they didn't figure Pearl Harbor because it was so far away. Most figured the Phillipines, which is exactly what Japan did after Pearl Harbor.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm read this and please refute it for me.

There's not really much to refute here. It simply takes the 8 point memo out of context. The 8 Point Memo was not to instigate war: if anything, the Japanese were already instigating it with their Pacific imperialism. The 8 Point Memo dealt with placing economic strains on Japan, such as oil embargoes, if they continued aggression.

Like I said, we had cracked Japan's code and knew they were going to break off contacts. Of course, Japan wasn't stupid enough to say that they were going to attack the United States on the morning of December 7th. The Japanese didn't even tell their ambassador that: they had him schedule a meeting on the afternoon of December 7th whereupon he was to drop off papers initiating the breaking off of diplomatic contacts.

And of course, the Japanese navy began to observe radio silence days before launching the attack. Nobody knew where the Japanese fleet was moving.